who at bell thought the MTOW of the 429 was sufficient for a light twin especially when compared to its airbus competitors? think looks cool but it doesnt carry it weight especially in the ems world. 

Boy boomer stuff 

7500lbs everywhere else. Bell doesn't care

They tried three times to get the MGW increased with the FAA and failed all three times.

I have been flying the 429 for a couple of years! Best aircraft I have ever flown in 40 years of flying! The max weight has never been a problem but another 500 lbs. would be nice! Four axis auto pilot flies like a B737! Sweet! 

Its comical when EMS advertises an IFR 429.  You can flt IFR to about the end of the street.  Or the LE agencies loading them up with hoists, FLIR, Nightsun, etc. They can just throw the public use flag and fly it however they want.  Love to know how much fuel NYPD can carry in their configuration with all that equiment, two crew and 7,000 MGW.  But then again they dont need much fuel to fly around NYC.  Shame Bell cut corners. Could be a good aircraft.

Faster, cheaper, and more cabin space than an EC145. 429 much better and stable autopilot with 4-axis.

Bigger, faster, cheaper, and far better range than EC135.

You obviously have never actually operated it HAA and probably failed a ride or didn't get that 429 position you wanted.

power never an issue since you basically have a 500 pound buffer built in that the MedCrews can't shove more crap in.

The H145 has a bigger cabin, nearly the same cruise speed, also a 4 axis AP, and has a MGW thats 1,400lbs higher. Since its also 200lbs lighter, that means a usefull load thats 1,600lbs more. The 429 isn't even remotely competitive.

Dude about the 429 over the 145, liar liar pants on fire! 

it ain't about the joy of your piloting experience. 

it's about ability to get a job done. 

as such 429 is a fail. 

only took 14 years for mr swifty to come up with this that has never been discussed before 

of the world has certified it for 7500. the US is not the world

but it doesn't really matter why 

a thousand times. it goes like this:

the 429 sucks

the 429 cannot "fly across the street" IFR

the 429 is flown public use and they fly it at 7500

the 429 certification story and bell screwed up

repeat same thing every 6 months

it did not meet the safety standards for the level of certification needed to operate at 7500 gw. thanks for chiming in lol

Telling us that EASA  ,CAA which are way more strict the FAA have certified the B429 to operate at MAX 7500lbs and it doesn't meet the FAA safety requirements??? 🤡LOL!! 🤣

certification standards as the FAA and has not increased the weight to 7500 but other than that good post lol

Ever do an AD research on an A/C??? say a S76 any model. FAA would have (just for comparison) 25 AD's EASA & CAA would have 35+ That's a fact too.

do ADs have to do with certification. nothing, that's what but good post of a hypothetical example you then called a fact lol 

Stated EASA are the same as FAA & they are  NOT.

how are they different. but tell me about the ad thing and the EASA 7500 gross weight thing again lol

how the 429 is no good because you can't fly it at 7500 because this hasn't been talked about enough in 14 years and I'm sure there's something new to add

what a dork lol

https://aviation-regulations.com/part/29

https://aviation-regulations.com/part/27

For example, a rotorcraft certified as a Part 27 IFR Category A rotorcraft would not need to meet certain airworthiness standards in Subpart D, Design and Construction, of Part 29, including the following:
• Section 29.631, which relates to bird strikes. There is no comparable provision in Part 27. As a result, it is doubtful that the Bell 429 was designed or tested against bird strike criteria, since there are no such criteria under Part 27. The importance of these criteria is highlighted by the recent scrutiny that the NTSB and FAA have been giving to accidents related to bird strikes.
• Requirements related to doors, emergency exits, and fire extinguishers (FAR §§ 29.783, 29.809, 29.811, 29.812, 29.813, and 29.851).
Another significant example is Subpart E, Powerplant, where Part 29 has a requirement not found in Part 27 for protection against uncontained engine rotor failures (FAR § 29.903(d)(1)), and more stringent requirements in terms of endurance testing of the rotor drive system and control mechanisms (FAR §§ 29.923 and 29.927), and in terms of fire protection (FAR §§ 29.1195(b) and 29.1203).

All the people calling that guy a dope... there is your answer.

There is a difference.

Have a great night.

Nice troll. 🥱 Nothing to see here!

None of them do. When pilots and crews are on the hefty side and the quantity of equipment goes up fuel load goes down. We have numerous 135's that sit with 500-575lbs so they can actually carry a patien. IFR? Forget about it, reserve will never be met.