Oh, I plan to! Just making sure I at least understand the landscape somewhat before jumping in.

I know I wouldn't fly it enough to justify the capital sink, so I'm working a deal to lease it to a small flight school (which will likely help with the insurance issue as well). So, the hour limits on the components become a bigger issue when we're flying her 100-200 hours a year.

Robert

The TT-strap situation has gotten better. The latest straps are good for 48 months or 1200 hours. That's still pretty short for someone like me, but it's a lot better than the initial calendar limit of 24 months.

The TT-strap situation has gotten better. The latest straps are good for 48 months or 1200 hours. That's still pretty short for someone like me, but it's a lot better than the initial calendar limit of 24 months.

Originally the TT-straps were on-condition. There were a couple of accidents in the early 70s that lead to the 1200hr life-limit. The calendar life limit was added in the 80s after a hand full of failures on Bell 212s.

steel-wound. this was really interesting.

Straps have gotten better... Now 48 months instead of 36.

--paul

Robert, I have had helicopters off and on for the last 20 years. I always wanted a 206, just a cool looking helicopter. I just did not want to deal with all the component times along with my other planes, work and family. Bought R44. Not nearly as cool looking but mine is all black so that helps. Also with the helicopter at first it’s all just flying to cool spots to land etc. But you really need a purpose for it after that wears off or you will get the 2 year burn out on it. I have a use for mine so it gets me flying it a lot more but I’m still only about 30-50 hours a year and that’s with a need for it.

Good luck in your search and I do still pinch my self while flying thinking how lucky I am to have a personal jet pack.

steel-wound. this was really interesting.

If I’m not mistaken, the calendar limit was meant to worst-case aircraft that spend a lot of time in highly corrosive environments like the gulf (of America) coast.

At least that’s what they told us at Rucker. Instead of muddying things up with “where has it been” they just said “worst possible scenario: everyone do this”

Which I guess is pretty much how any of these limits happen…

As to the AC: the ones I flew in IERW had it and it was good (enough). We weren’t allowed to fly doors-off, but that may have been good enough if it was an option.

If I made better career or investment choices I’d love a 206. It was more fun than the UH-60 (to me, anyway).

I think almost all heli mfrs use TT straps in the rotor head. The exception would be the Airbus A-Star/Twinstar, but that is still a flexible composite contruction without a thrust bearing that allows for pitch change.

I'm not sure which other modern helicopters do not use TT straps. Any other examples?

Lots. The Robbies use a stack of matched angular contact bearings (Think big wheel bearings precision ground to be the exact same height). The Schweizers are the same I think. The MD500/600 use a big flex pack. (Think a stack of stainless steel wafers.) A number of bigger helicopters use flex beams. The old Enstroms used a lamiflex bearing (I think the Rotorways still do) which was a stack of alternating copper and rubber washers. Enstroms now use TT straps though.