Brantly or something else?

[N2285U]

OK - I have owned two Brantlys and a couple of experimentals. My second Brantly was a pretty nice machine. I flew it about 100 hours with no real problems other than needing a new clutch which was expected.

Here is what I do not like about the Brantly:

1. It is too loud for the people on the ground. It really needs a muffler or at least longer pipes.
2. The seats are not comfortable and the cabin is small.
3. The low slung blades are cumbersome to walk around.
4. I am not convinced we have seen the last of the tail rotor problems.
5. I do not think the dampner attach points on the blades are engineered well. Both my Brantlys had oblong wear in the blade attach point holes that caused problems.
6. Anything in the engine area is hard to reach. Cleaning the oil screen is a nightmare.
7. It is somewhat underpowered on hot days. 2-180 lb people and full fuel on a 90 degree day was barely doable.
8. They have sold virtually no new ships in the past 10 years and now the parts are going to China.
9. They are nearly impossible to insure with hull coverage.


What I do like about the Brantly:

1. It is relatively fast at 90 MPH+ cruise speed and is somewhat fuel efficient.
2. It is smooth when balanced properly and handles like a sports car.
3. It is very easy to fly.

I'm thinking about a Bell 47 instead. From people I have talked to that have owned them sware by them. Virtually no maintenance problems between annuals when flown for pleasure less than 100 hours per year and very easy to work on with that open engine and simple teetering two blade rotor system. I see them flying all the time with 3 (albeit small) people in them on hot days with plently of power for takeoff. They are substantially quieter and defintely have more rotor inertia. Insurance also is available - even to unlicensed pilots to earn their rating. The only disadvantages I see is a slower cruise speed of 10 knots, slower handling, and higher fuel flow of 3-4 GPH. The 47 seems to win in every other category. Tell me why I should buy the Brantly over a nice 47?

Thanks!

[Ron Spiker]

Good points on both the likes and dislikes. I agree with most of them. I do find the seats pretty comfortable though, and have on many occasions flown 5-6+ hours a day in a Brantly and not been overly sore.

I got my commercial in the Bell 47 quite a few years ago, so I'm a bit partial to the old girl. The only drawback with the 47 is high maintenance and operating costs, from what I understand.

[seneca2e]

N2285U,
Are you talking about the straight G model with the Franklin or ? Of course the Lycoming is going to burn more fuel and be twice as expensive to overhaul should the need arise. The tail rotor blades are really hard to come by these days and expensive( a conversion to 206 style blades is nearly cost prohibitive on this price helicopter). If you're talking wood rotor blades they're prone to develop bounce and cost 12 to 14 thousand to overhaul periodically. The metal blade ones are too expensive to even think about owning for most frugal flyers. The cabin weight is placarded to 500 pounds total I believe in the D1 and G models if that matters. And finally there's no real forum I've found for the 47 like this one. If someone knows of one please enlighten us.

I

[J-nut]

1. It is too loud for the people on the ground. It really needs a muffler or at least longer pipes.

Agreed, it is noisy and ear splitting. Ron had a couple piccolo tubes installed on his a while back. It really cut the bark down to Hughes 300 levels. I was impressed. Don't know if he kept them on after the overhaul.

2. The seats are not comfortable and the cabin is small.

I, like Ron, find the seats quite comfortable. No complaints there. The cabin is fine to me. It's no 47 or Hiller but it's better than an R22 IMHO.

3. The low slung blades are cumbersome to walk around.

Yep, minor annoyance. Ask me again after mine gets flying.

4. I am not convinced we have seen the last of the tail rotor problems.

Hard to say. It's a system that seems to do ok as long as proper maintenance is done. Brantly's are or were cheap and there seem to be a lot that weren't maintained to the highest standards That will bite you with any helicopter. The 47 is no different. There aren't that many mechanics who have experience maintaining either of them anymore and they do have their peculiarities. I have a friend who almost died because some 47 "expert" screwed up a routine inspection in the M/R transmission.

5. I do not think the dampner attach points on the blades are engineered well. Both my Brantlys had oblong wear in the blade attach point holes that caused problems.

Absolutely agree. Most of the blades I've seen have oblong attach holes. It needs a bushing or spherical bearing not just a hole through the aluminum hinge block.

6. Anything in the engine area is hard to reach. Cleaning the oil screen is a nightmare.

The engine bay is not too bad. I've seen worse. Most routine maintenance items are fairly easy to access. The Oil screen is another matter. I already have plans to install an Airwolf oil filter adapter in the engine bay or above the baggage bay.

7. It is somewhat underpowered on hot days. 2-180 lb people and full fuel on a 90 degree day was barely doable.

Yep.

8. They have sold virtually no new ships in the past 10 years and now the parts are going to China.

True, but at least they are making new parts and new machines as well.

9. They are nearly impossible to insure with hull coverage.

That hasn't been my experience when calling brokers. I found hull coverage for commercial operations pretty easy and pretty affordable.

The Brantly meets my needs for what I want - a small, easy to maintain, easy to fly, economical, relatively inexpensive 2 place heli for personal, occasional flight training and light commercial ops.

I looked at a 47 as well. Some models of the 47 are more affordable than others as I'm sure you know. I've spent a bit of time over the years working on 47's too. It's not as get in and go as the Brantly in my humble opinion. I'm sure others would disagree. Now that Scott's has the Type Cert hopefully the parts situation will improve. End of the day though the 47 is too expensive, burns too much gas, is more maintenance intensive, rougher riding and slower than the Brantly. It is however a classic, gets waaay more respect on the ramp than the Brantly, is a kick to fly and makes a decent ship for commercial ops as well.

[bryancobb]

I wrote step by step instructions on how to remove and reinstall the oil screen in 5 minutes each way (without disconnecting the cyclic/collective pushrods). It's somewhere on this forum?? I made video but I haven't uploaded it to the net.

[N2285U]

Those are good pros and cons. While the 47 blades are 12-14k to rebuild, they virtually lasts forever and 12-14k is not too bad considering you will pay $30k for new brantly blades. Just about every used Brantly blade I have seen has the oblong hole that causes problems down the road. I also had blades that cracked on the inner end of the outboard blades.

The tail rotor blades are ridiculous on the 47 and the Brantly wins there for sure.

On the fuel burn - My Brantly used about 12 GPH when loaded and the 435 Lycoming uses about 16 from what I gathered from an outfit that does crop spraying, so there is another $20 per hour in favor of the Brantly.

The Lycoming engine is about $25k for a premium rebuild - not sure about the Brantly. The 47 owners I talked to said they get the full 1200 hours between overhauls in their 47 - not sure about Brantlys.

The autorotation characteristics of the 47 are better than piston helicopter ever built according to the instructors I have talked to.

The Brantly has good support from Harold Jenkins and from Gary G. The 47 has good support from Jerry Rhodes in Chicago.

The Brantly has a cheaper entry price, but I think the 47 has a wider market to sell into.

Decisions, decisions...


I think the 47 probably wins in the "usefullness" category as far as commercial operations go; although, they are probably limited in today's world.

[N2285U]

One other question about this comment:

"End of the day though the 47 is too expensive, burns too much gas, is more maintenance intensive, rougher riding and slower than the Brantly."

I agree on the purchase price, additional fuel burn, and slower, but don't know if I can agree of the maintenance intensive - could you elaborate there?

I watched a 47 G2 fly for 5 days straight straight at our local car auction probably putting on 8-10 hours per day almost non stop and then it went to another show in Michigan where it ran for another 4 days with the same schedule. I was there for the first 5 days and never saw them put a wrench on the machine. It seemed like I was always tweaking the brantly - bad bearings in the blades, oblong blade holes, tach cable breaking, oil screen hell (I saw you found an easy way to solve this), cracking blades, oleo struts hanging up, dampner problems, etc. The 47s just seem to go the distance. Don't get me wrong, I love the way the Brantly flys and maybe I will buy another, but I hated the maintenance. This comes from someone that owns a Beechcraft 58P Baron with two turbo charged engines, A/C, pressurization, retractable gear, etc. The 58P is easier to maintain than my Brantly was.

[seneca2e]

I wrote step by step instructions on how to remove and reinstall the oil screen in 5 minutes each way (without disconnecting the cyclic/collective pushrods). It's somewhere on this forum?? I made video but I haven't uploaded it to the net.

Man I can vouch for this! I printed them out and layed them in the floorboard of N7WE and my helper had the oil screen out in literally 5 minutes unassisted. Had Bryan not put them on here we'd probably have assumed you had to take the control rods loose, etc. It's really no problem at all to pull the oil screen once you get the formula!

Someone actually mentioned a video someone had of pulling the engine, etc which would be a great service if that one still exists. So much easier to have a leg up when you're doing stuff rather than OJT.

[bryancobb]

Here's a little info I learned pertaining to outer blades. I saw a spar/hinge-block/tip-weight assembly, with no skin or foam. This really opened my eyes. My gut tells me that even if 100% of the skin and foam was to fly off in flight, so long as it didn't go into the tail rotor, I THINK you could get on the ground in 1 piece! It would not be fun but seeing that assembly made me feel safer.
I SEE why the skin cracks around the rivets at the root. The aluminum? hinge-block (makes the root rib and lead-lag bearing block) tapers significantly as it gets nearer the trailing edge. At the point where the AN-3 dampener bolt goes through, IIRC, there's not much "meat." As the blade "hunts" in flight, the aft half of the hinge-block is flexing toward and away from the blade tip (spanwise). The rivets that hold the skin on are moving with the hinge-block. The skin is trying o stay flat and NOT flex. This hinge-block distortion is flexing/wrinkling the skin slightly and "wallering" (southern word) out the holes in the skin around the rivets=cracks!!

Now about the AN-3 bolt hole being egged out (another southern word). The dampener clevis canot be tightened onto the blade root very tightly. The skin is sandwiched between it and the hinge-block. Don't try to do this. You'll just damage your skin and the bolt will still slip back and forth. An insert in the hole to fit he bolt is NOT he answer either. The only way to properly prevent this unwanted action is for the root of the blade to "BOTTOM OUT" inside the clevis, at a point so the AN-3 bolt will barely go in with NO CLEARANCE. That way the AN-3 bolt does not have to be tight. It acts more like a PIN. The threaded dampener screws into clevis and factory publications refer to the posibility of having to machine off some of the thread length so it all fits right. If this is done correctly, the thread length can be machined to JUST THE RIGHT LENGTH to act as a STOP for the root rib to touch.

I've seen several ships that had shims from feeler-gauge parts, inserted between the clevis and root rib, that served this same purpose. Not an approved fix but it worked.

[J-nut]

I agree with Bryan. A lot of the wallowed out holes come from improperly fitted clevises. I believe Chris covered this at the maintenance class - the need to match the angle of the inner part of the clevis to the hinge block and fitting shim stock to take up any slack between the two so the bolt slides in tightly. That way the bolt just needs to be snugged up and NOT tightly torqued. I think chamfering the edges of the clevis arms just a bit helps as well to keep from gouging the skin. I think Harold has been doing these things for years. One thing you don't want is to have the damper bolt threaded in too far and pushing on the hinge block.

All this helps to slow down the elongation but it won't stop it. When the blade lags it pushes against the clevis if it's set up right. When it leads though it's trying to pull away and since that's a steel bolt in an aluminum hole it will eventually wear. Not much you can do except send the blade back to Brantly and have them replace the hinge block and skin. I didn't mean to infer in my previous post that I think people should install a bushing. I know of people who have but there's just not enough material for that. I do think however it is a bad design and if Brantly is serious about producing these things they would be well served to redesign the hinge block and clevis to provide for some solution to cut down the wear.

As for the question about the 47. It's just from my personal experience. I used to work in a service center and we would service 47's, Hillers, TH-55's, MD, Eurocopter, Bell, etc. You name it, we did it. We also had a few outfits close by that ran 47's and Hillers doing Ag operations as did we. We all agreed that while the 47 was a great machine, we'd take a Hiller over the 47 any day of the week. The Hiller was just less maintenance and even then it wasn't exactly light work keeping them maintained. I can't remember what the issues were that we had but I'm sure Joey could fill you in. Any heli that's in pristine condition should be able to fly for quite some time without having to be downed for maintenance. 60-80 hours doesn't give much of an idea of the maintenance costs over the long haul. Most ships should be able to pull that off, even a Rotorway. I'd bet dollars to donuts if you put a mint Brantly, like Bryan's old ship, up against a mint 47 the Brantly will require less maintenance. Even the servicing is less of a pain on the Brantly.The 47 does have a lot of items that are on condition so that does help with costs and the wood blades are the way to go in my opinion unless you luck into a ship with set of metal blades.

I take more of a short term view of heli ownership (i.e. 3-5 years, 3-500 hours) so the idea of running the majority of components to life isn't a huge concern to me. I know costs of the big ticket, time life items scares a lot of folks but unless you plan to fly it hundreds of hours most people never encounter those massive costs. The big bite in the wallet then comes from the costs of routine maintenance. Also since most folks only put 2-300 hours on an aircraft before they sell it, it usually doesn't diminish the value of the aircraft that much. Unless of course you bought a ship with high times and big $$$ components coming due.

All that said, if I could find a good 47 at a comparable price to a Brantly someday, I just might buy one. A good D-1 or straight G with wood blades that is. While I think they are more expensive and work I'm not sure they are so much more as to keep me from ever buying one.

Just my $.002 and that's about all it's worth.

Crack in the blade skin.

aa005.jpg (43.62 KiB) Viewed 7080 times

Good view of the hinge block/root rib. Damper attach hole is about 4th hole from the left.

IMG_0686.JPG (35.63 KiB) Viewed 7077 times

[seneca2e]

The manual specs 2.850+_ .010 for the length of the damper assembly. It does caution to file the damper threaded rod if it protrudes into the fork after getting this length. Just to clarify you guys are talking about placing shims basicly over the flat area at the base of the clevis fork(right over the top of the filed flush damper rod). Then this wider surface area would basicly contact the root block instead of the threaded rod(if it had been left protruding after getting the 2.850 inches). Is that correct? By the way if that is correct how do you get the shims to stay in there (epoxy them?)?

Also I'd seen where some had advocated shimming between the skin and the clevis fork to prevent wear to the skin. Another owner said they had come up with a bushing fix they used abroad successfully. As to the former seems like I read somewhere this could cause problems-possibly a bounce or lateral vibration?? As to the bushing that SEEMS like a good idea on the surface of it. I know the material is thin there but a replaceable bushing that could take the wear from the bolt instead of wallowing out the blade hole seems like a winner. What am I missing on that one?

[bryancobb]

I have seen pictures of blades that have a u-shaped plate glued or bonded (on a ship abroad). Don't know how well it worked.

The shims ... every Brantly I have ever seen, except the 2 brand new ones, had shims in the clevises. No-One advocates this anywhere in writing but it just seems to be the best common sense solution to the problem we have on used blades. As to keeping them in place... Mine were kept in place by the snugness after the AN-3 bolt was put in. Each blade used a stack of 2 shims in varying thickness, depending on how wollered-out the hinge block hole was. Each shim was cut from the first 1.5 inches of a feeler gauge. The rounded end was bent upward about 10 or 15 degrees to give you a grab to get them in and out.

[bryancobb]

As to puttin a bushing in there...
1) It must be softer than the aluminum to work.
2) I would be very uncomfortable removing metal to make room for the bushing in that area. It's already on the ragged edge of weakness.
There's just no good answer here. The design of the blade root is just a bad hand of cards. We have to play the hand we are dealt. Just be glad that all the issues here are related to ride quality and not safety.

[bryancobb]

Just a side note. I had removed the snap ring on 1 of my dampers and made a length adjustment once. I THOUGHT the snap ring was seated in its' groove very well...
Went flying on a 2 hour X/C and when I landed, the snap ring was down toward the clevis and a portion of the flight was flown with that damper sliding in and out of the barrell and not even doing its' job! Didn't feel any different and I didn't know it had popped out.

[NinerMike]

This is good info for learning more on the Brantly's, thanks.
Wow, is $30k for a complete new set, both inboard & out? Are all blades, new & old prone to skin cracks, or just certain part #?