Bell 505 Jet Ranger X

[Aesir]

Bell announces a new single engine helicopter at Paris airshow with Arrius engine.

http://bellhelicopter.com/en_US/News/PressReleases/NewsRelease/NewsRelease.html?ReleaseID=1830175

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z171/Icepicture/newBell_zps1b955afa.jpg

BELL HELICOPTER TO RE-ENTER THE SHORT LIGHT SINGLE MARKET
6/17/2013 6:38:00 AM
Paris, France - June 17, 2013 - Today at the 2013 Paris Air Show, Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. company (NYSE: TXT), announced its return to the short light single (SLS) engine helicopter market with a new product designed to specifications based on the input of a customer advisory council. Bell Helicopter's new, five-seat entry-level aircraft is expected to complete its first flight in 2014 with certification to follow as quickly as possible.

"Bell Helicopter is no stranger to the short light single market. We developed it nearly 50 years ago with the introduction of the Bell 206 JetRanger and are proud to have produced nearly 7,400 Bell 206 series aircraft since 1967 with over 4,400 remaining in service today," said John Garrison, president and CEO of Bell Helicopter. "However, we needed to create a new, modernized aircraft to meet requirements of five-seat utility, training, private, and law enforcement operators."

Bell Helicopter's new short light single engine helicopter will feature a high visibility, fully flat cabin floor with five forward-facing seats. It is designed to meet performance targets recommended by the customer advisory council, including a speed of 125 knots (232 km), a range of 360 to 420 nautical miles (667 km) and a useful load of 1,500 pounds (608 kg).

"The SLS class is both extremely competitive and price sensitive, so we collaborated with customers to incorporate their mission needs in a high performance, high value helicopter at a very competitive price," Garrison added.

The new aircraft will be powered by the Turbomeca Arrius 2R engine, which will offer the benchmark for performance and power in the 450-550 shp class, while improving safety and lowering pilot workload with Full Authority Dual-Channel Engine Control (FADEC). It will also meet IATA Stage 4 noise targets.

Additional safety enhancing design features will reduce pilot workload, improve situational awareness and deliver superior auto rotation capabilities. The combination of capabilities, performance characteristics and value will be backed by Bell Helicopter's industry-leading service and support. The new helicopter is expected to achieve first flight in 2014. Bell Helicopter will continue to release key information about the product and suppliers throughout its development.

[Bravo73]

The JetBanger lives again!

Although, looking at that render, it looks like it will be more a "Bell 120".

[Anthony Supplebottom]

There seems no end to the manufacturers cultivation of aircraft category jargon - the "Short Light Single" (SLS) market !! :confused:

Are they really going to use the same running gear (as per the image) - wow, that really is breathing life back into the old Jetbox!

[PhlyingGuy]

Looks awesome!

[EN48]

Appears to be a two blade semi-rigid (teetering) rotor. How modern is that? And a French engine? Have heard that every part for these costs $50,000. That's the bad news. The good news is that even if you have the $50,000, you cant get the part! :E

[Harry the Hun]

What exactly is a "Short Light Single"? Or was it meant to be a "Short Legged Single"?
When there is a "Short Light Single" is there also a "Long Light Single" or a "Short Heavy Single"?
I am confused by this "Rubbish Business Talk".

[Um... lifting...]

You lot ought to be ashamed.

There's some revolutionary technology holding on those blades... called the TT strap...;)

Quite clearly this is an improvement.

Seating goes from 5 to …5.
Useful load goes from 1487 to 1500 pounds.
Range increases from 374nm to 360-420nm.
Speed increases from 120 knots to 125 knots.
Engine is changing from a derated 450 shp engine to a 450 shp engine.
I suspect the price has higher performance numbers.

[EN48]

There's some revolutionary technology holding on those blades... called the TT
strap

I guess the technical breakthrough here is that the TT strap life goes from 24 months to 36 months. Not bad progress for a 50 year development period! :D



I suspect the price has higher performance numbers.


Havent heard any official or unofficial price info yet but my SWAG is $1.99 million.

[PhlyingGuy]

Long light single is probably ec130 / 407 sized helicopters.

[PhlyingGuy]

You lot ought to be ashamed.

There's some revolutionary technology holding on those blades... called the TT strap...

Quite clearly this is an improvement.

Seating goes from 5 to …5.
Useful load goes from 1487 to 1500 pounds.
Range increases from 374nm to 360-420nm.
Speed increases from 120 knots to 125 knots.
Engine is changing from a derated 450 shp engine to a 450 shp engine.
I suspect the price has higher performance numbers.


And a fully flat floor and a dual channel FADEC... Robbie has nothing on this if it meets the specs.

[EN48]

Robbie has nothing on this if it meets the specs.


My guess is that Robbie will have something like a million dollar price advantage. :ok:

[marianoberna]

Marianoberna likes this.

[Ian Corrigible]

and a dual channel FADEC
It'll be interesting to see if it really is a dual-channel FADEC (unlike all other Arrius models). The terminology used in the announcement ("Full Authority Dual-Channel Engine Control") is a mash-up, since the FADEC acronym is more commonly used to describe a Full Authority Digital Engine Control

Havent heard any official or unofficial price info yet but my SWAG is $1.99 million
During Heli-Expo John Garrison hinted at a sub-$1 Mil price (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-robinsons-light-single-success-prompts-bell-reaction-383122).

I/C

[FLY 7]

During Heli-Expo John Garrison hinted at a sub-$1 Mil price (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-robinsons-light-single-success-prompts-bell-reaction-383122).


I can't believe that, but it would be fantastic if true

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Long light single is probably ec130 / 407 sized helicopters.

Then which helicopters fit into the Short Heavy Single category? Perhaps the Bell 205 because that accommodates 15, is longer than the Bell/EC120 (above) but is also a bit "fat" when you look at it from the front. So it is both long and fat and heavy! Would that make it a Fat Heavy Single or a Long Heavy Single? And the single-engine Huey Cobra, what is that - a Slim Light Single or Long Heavy Single?

"Rubbish Business Talk"

Agreed. :ok:

Robbie has nothing on this if it meets the specs.

The quicker people forget about Robinsons the better.

During Heli-Expo John Garrison hinted at a sub-$1 Mil price.

I can't believe that, but it would be fantastic if true

To be honest, market-wise it wouldn't be worth doing unless it was under 1m. Should be possible if they are using the old 206 running gear.

However, in case they have any problems, Bell's financial safety net is that the TT straps are going to be replaced every 500 hrs or every 12 months, whichever comes first! :E

[helihub]

I wonder how the bean counters view this new aircraft, given the obvious comparison is the EC120? Since the R66 arrived, the EC120 production rate has dropped to about 10/year, while Robinson produced 191 R66s in 2012. Not forgetting the 480, of course. I am not a supporter of any particular manufacturer or model, but purchase price and operating cost are key, and Bell are going to need some magic numbers to make a dent in this market now (plus a few years to get it certified). Perhaps the plan is to produce it in China or Mexico or Poland etc to make it more competitive?

The silver stripe over the nose in the computer-generated images makes it look sad :sad:

Just as a comparison, here's the 4-blade 5-seat "JRX" proposal from a few years ago....

http://www.246.ne.jp/~heli-ss/bell-jrx.jpg

[misterbonkers]

Think I'll just repaint the B206 and give it a new interior...! Bank manager will prefer that one and passengers will be none the wiser!

Oh and a new reg G-OSLS!

[EN48]

During Heli-Expo John Garrison hinted at a sub-$1 Mil price (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-robinsons-light-single-success-prompts-bell-reaction-383122).

IIRC, near the end of B206 production, new, reasonably well equipped 206's were going for around $1.7 - $1.8 million. Hard to see how Bell can take a million dollars out of the price and make money. Maybe they don't intend this acft to be profitable.

[misterbonkers]

Sub $1million would be a winner.

Fly smart fly Bell. Buy smart, buy Bell.

[nomorehelosforme]

Is there just the one picture of this new machine, surely not?

[Ian Corrigible]

One more:

http://www.aviationtoday.com/Assets/Image/rotor%20and%20wing%20library/Bell_SLS_graphic_Paris_Air_Show_2013.jpg

I/C

[nomorehelosforme]

Great paint job and scenery really helps! Are there facts, figures etc available?

And maybe some static pictures?

[McGowan]

I have always been a huge fan of the Bell product. Pity I don't fly them any more.
Looking at this one my first impression was "I wouldn't like to have to replace that big arsed windscreen". And the next thing was "I wouldn't want the Turbomecca engine, just hope that Soloy will have an after market Lycoming or RR"
And the "sub $1m price", not in my life time.

[Arm out the window]

Mmmmm .... shiny!

Is that meant to imply it's a composite structure or just a nice polishing job?

Having said that I like Bells too, so good luck to them.

[AdamFrisch]

CGI render makes it look like a cheap homebuilt. Next time maybe employ professionals?

[Vertical Freedom]

B206Iii MTOW with heavy high-skids 1519.5kg hmmmm so thats drop of almost 20kgs TOW :ok:

[chopper2004]

Just landed last night at CDG , and today I ll pop into the Bell chalet and have a look see and find out more.

See if they have a press kit or so.....otherwise come Anaheim next Feb, either the mockup or the real McCoy will be on display.

Cheers

[Arrrj]

Looks great.

If latest technology will allow you to put 5 people in it, fill it up and OGE hover at 30 C, I will buy one !

I am glad Bell are re-entering the market, the 66 needs competition.

Arrrj

PS - would love a 429...they are cool !

[Grenville Fortescue]

You've got to love Bell's bend-over politics in selecting the Turbomeca powerplant in a same-sex effort to satisfy elements of their competitors market. However, I am more than a little sure that this gesture will prove to be a pain in their widely-parted derriere! Why throw away the decades of performance, reliability and moderate operating cost of the Allison/RR product? For me that's one mark down.

The design looks like a poor Chinese copy of a Colibri. That's another mark down.

The rotorhead appears to retain the same autogyro-style teetering arrangement which in practice is a sloppy, slow-to-respond, limited performance system with dangerous susceptibility in low and negative-G manoeuvers. That's another mark down.

Needless to say, I won't be buying one.

[SASless]

Finally....a slicked up Jet Ranger! Oh....Surprise!

I bet the Pilot Seat still sucks out loud, the Pilot Door will not stay open by itself, and the Seat will not adjust.:=

My old Dodge Diesel Pickup Truck does better any Bell!

[cattletruck]

I'm a big fan of a lot of the Bell products, but this thing seems to be a bit too cryptic for me, even the price tag is too good to be true.

[PhlyingGuy]

I'm a big fan of a lot of the Bell products, but this thing seems to be a bit too cryptic for me, even the price tag is too good to be true.

What's so cryptic about it?

[SansAnhedral]

Seems to me that if you could currently buy a 206A with a flat floor for under $1 million, thats a pretty stinking good deal and Frank wouldnt have a stranglehood over the market with the R66.

With respect to complaints about the teetering rotorhead....not sure whats expected when its clear that main objective on this model is ultra low cost and good reliability.

[chopper2004]

@Arrj

Speaking of the 429, I had a look see at Air Zermatts new 429 on display here :)

You'd love it :)

But forgot to ask for more info on the new ship!

[EN48]

Why throw away the decades of performance, reliability and moderate operating
cost of the Allison/RR product?


What are they thinking?! Everyone on the planet knows how to fix (and get parts for) the RR 250 - well most everyone. :confused: Perhaps trying to discipline RR. Like others above, I believe that this will eventually bite them.

[FLY 7]

Speaking of the 429, I had a look see at Air Zermatts new 429 on display here
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

They finally got it? Does this replace the EC135?

WRT the new Bell, it is promising if they have identified that this end of the private/commercial/utility market is potentially so big that it justifies a new product to compete against the R66/EC120/EN480B.

Suppose the rotorhead is cost saving, but also surprised it doesn't have an RR 250 or 300 engine.

[krypton_john]

When I saw this, I thought it was an out of season April Fool's joke.

They've taken the worst of the B206 (teetering head) and the worst of the EC120 (TM). The best thing I can see about it is no broom closet. However that also probably brings the crashworthiness down from mil to EC levels.

Why not just create a civilianised OH58D and call it a B406?

Or just drop the price on the B407.

[rotorrookie]

why did they not just buy the Marenco helicopter project, it is at least up to date... Characteristics - marenco (http://marenco-swisshelicopter.ch/characteristic-page/)

[Grenville Fortescue]

why did they not just buy the Marenco

Because the development costs would preclude Bell from offering the Short Light Single (God, what a name) in the sub-1-mil bracket they are currently aiming for.

Me on the other hand, I agree with you 100%. I would go for something like the Marenco with the view to creating an ultra-economic modern aircraft to run head-to-head with the Colibri. If I were Bell I would then package this with a low fixed rate of interest payment plan so that you only have to front 50% of the purchase price.

[belly tank]

Agree with Grenville, turbomeca product in a Bell:confused:

I love Bell products but they need a short light 429 style single, bit like JRX,MAPL concept they released 10 years ago or so.

Isn't that why operators buy Bell, to get away from Turbomeca:ugh:, this new product had me excited somewhat then I read the paragraph that mentioned Arrius:=

[SansAnhedral]

I dont think the EC120 market was part of the expected compeition since its roughly twice the anticipated cost.

I would bet Bell probably looked at the Marenco or the KC518 as a license built option or something like that, but if they are seriously trying to stay under $1 million, those arent even close to being feasable.

[PhlyingGuy]

SansAnhedral: Seems to me that if you could currently buy a 206A with a flat floor for under $1 million, thats a pretty stinking good deal and Frank wouldnt have a stranglehood over the market with the R66.

This. Frank's machine is as simple as it can get and he sells a boatload of them for a reason.

[cattletruck]

The Jetbanger was quite an innovative design in its time (introduced about 40 years ago). Other than the alleged price, this machine hasn't moved the bar any further in its category.

If Bell engineers can achieve the $1m price tag I reckon they will have tremendous success with it, but that waits to be seen. As someone else mentioned previously, it would have been better to work on dropping the price of a 407.

[tottigol]

Ahahahahahahahaha:D Another "innovative" Bell special!

[SansAnhedral]

Well, we all know it costs absolutely nothing to incorporate "innovative" advanced technology into an an ultra low cost mass-produced helicopter. Bell management must be a bunch of muppets to leave out all that free innovation in this platform.

Or rather, we have just experienced more of tottigol's compulsive Bell-bashing.

[tottigol]

Just calling a spade a spade Sans.

[chopper2004]

IHMO, we've seen in the last 16 months, unveiled three new products which depending on how some see it as, admittedly old hat(s) reinvented.

525 Relentless

V280 Valor

And now this

Gotta give BHT some credit in doing something that doesn't based on a Huey or Jetranger airframe.

There have been the odd operator that has gone all Bell and replaced their mixed fleet including Eurocopter products.

Cheers from Paris

[Tickle]

Well, I say anything new is good for competition and choice! Good luck to 'em.

[Arrrj]

Just read the specs. Given that they are almost identical to the outgoing B3, one can only assume it's a teaser ?

Who wants to buy a machine that is not an improvement on the old model ? And certainly no competition for the R66.

I reckon in a year or two, Bell will release the real specs, and they will be (must be) impressive and competitive.

Otherwise they have lost the plot.

Arrrj

[SansAnhedral]

Who wants to buy a machine that is not an improvement on the old model ?

Someone who wants to buy one for half the price, perhaps?

I swear, its like its completely lost on people here that the primary driver entering this particular market is cost.

If I had the funds, I would love to cross shop something from a large OEM (with good parts and customer support) like Bell versus one of Frank's machines or one of the numerous vapor-ware shops.

[Matari]

C'mon, the 525 Relentless and V280 Valor are 'old hats reinvented?'

I'm wondering what a helicopter would need to look like, for some here to consider it 'new'?

[Corax]

If 525 and Valour survive with all their innovations then yes, Bell will have made great advances but this new single really does look like a slightly vamped up 206, sorry.

[Ian Corrigible]

You've got to think that Bell has anticipated operator concern over the selection of a Turbomeca donk over one from Allison or Pratts. Given that the SLS will be going head-to-head with the R66, I wouldn't be surprised if Bell were to adopt a similar harmonized major service interval approach, i.e. with the airframe and engine both undergoing heavy checks at 3,000 hours.

Another possibility is that Bell will use some kind of Power-By-The-Hour or Guaranteed Availability maintenance plan, to minimize concerns over TM's support. (This would also allow Bell and TM to maximize 'authorized' (vs. third party) MRO revenue.)

From a technical perspective, the Arrius 2 -- like the PW200 -- offers a number of advantages over the A250, in terms of TBO, SFC and design simplicity.

I/C

[SuperF]

I haven't figured out what is wrong with keeping a base model, as a base model. Yes it's cheap, so that means two blades, it has a flat floor, good I guess, if its got similar internals to the JR and is 120kt cruise and cheaper then that has to be good.

No it won't compete with a 350 but there is the 407 for that, and no not everyone thinks that club seating is bad, have you ever been in a stretched limo?

As for EC lovers saying Bell can't innovate, when was the last new innovative design from EC? Following the most common product lines they go back 50 or so years with minor tinkering along the way...

Gazelle... 350... 350...350... God how many times can they reinvent the 350? 350B3... 350+ no better call it a EC130B4. 350- no EC120 :confused:

105...117A1,a2....B2...145. T2,P2?

Want a smaller twin 355, wow what was that a 350? Lets trick all those people and call it a 135, they will never figure it out. :oh:

So even EC have figured out that you simply make slow incremental changes to a successful design, now if only the could sort out parts supply....:ugh:

[noooby]

SuperF, the 135 is in no way related to the 350. Do a Google search for the Bo-108 and you'll see what the 135 started out as.

All OEM's regurgitate old designs/parts into new helicopters. If you look on the 412 you'll still find a couple of parts with 47 part numbers and plenty with 204/205/212. Agusta does the same, the Engine Control Levers in the 139 come from the 109 and the rotor head is an upscaled 5 blade version of the 109 head.

Personally, I wish Bell all the best. Everyone seems to want more of this and more of that, but there is still a place for a basic 5 seat turbine that plods along at a modest pace and is cheap to buy and operate. Just ask Robinson.

[Grenville Fortescue]

The more I see of the Short Light Single, the more I think it resembles a rat.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/1014104_652030741491572_1429390190_n.jpg

[SuperF]

Hi noooby, not saying that there is anything wrong with using proven technology. Just trying to turn the equation around on a couple of Bell Knockers that say every new model that bell bring out is a 50yr old design.

I'm happy flying my old, brand new JR, that we brought in 1978, still does the same job now as it did then. 5 onboard, full of fuel, away you go.

Or flying the Old Huey's that we run. Proven technology, still capable of doing the same job day in day out, as what they were designed to do 50 years ago!

As for the new JR, get rid of the plastic, get rid of that engine, and it might go...

[PhlyingGuy]

Bell Reveals more on ?short light single? | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2013-08-03/bell-reveals-more-short-light-single)

Price...
Watts said Bell is pursuing design strategies that will keep the cost of the SLS down, including simple construction and adapting proven drivetrain elements of its existing 206L4 LongRanger into the new helicopter.

Meeting the target price for a new light single will be critical to the SLS’s success, Watts said. “It is clear you can see who the market leader is. All of the manufacturers in this segment save Robinson delivered 40 aircraft last year. The biggest differentiator Robinson has is price, and designing to a competitive price is the most important factor here for our team.”

L-4 Dynamics
“We are trying to use as many common parts as possible to reduce costs and our time to market. Those are based on the [206]L4 dynamics. It is a proven drive system and we are using it to try and drive down costs. As we get volumes up, this will benefit customers who are flying LongRangers today. There is a cost benefit there for us. We are improving what the customers want to see changed on the design and we are working closely with our customer advisory council, which has provided input along the way. But we can use the aspects of the gearboxes and the blades that make sense and give you a proven technology and a robust design for excellent autorotation. When we get to market we will know that this product can be quickly used by operators without a lot of unknowns around the drivetrain,” Watts said.

[heli1]

Nothing new here that wasn't said at the Paris Air show I'm afraid. It's a JetRanger in a new cloak from Primark rather than M&S :confused:

[500e]

New New New WHY?
What most people Co. want is reliable machine at a good price with sensibly priced parts that reach TBO &after sales service.
Why is evolution so bad as long as it makes the product better ?
A lot of new products have so many problems, water ingress on the electronics, gear boxes, composite problems, astronomical cost of the glass cockpit repairs, & spare prices that cannot bear ANY relation to production cost to name but a few. Warranty :{:{

[sagedm]

Actually, the key new information here is that the SLS will use the 206L4 gearbox rather than the 206B3 gearbox. This will allow for future performance improvements.

Hopefully, it will also include the high altitude tail rotor and VanHorn composite blades!

[PANews]

We can but hope that this time Bell read the rule book before they finalise the design.......

Not reading the rule book lost them the 427 [fuel in the cabin and a few other goodies]..... seem to have stalled the 429 and that is without mention of other All American errors like the MD900 [mended with the 902] and the R66 [not mended].

[krypton_john]

From the image there appears to be an open cabin with no broom closet. That's a major structural change.

[Savoia]

PAN: Not forgetting other Bell 'greats' such as the 214ST and the 206LT TwinRanger and in the MDH camp, the 'astonishing' MD600.

KJ: Not sure how much 'structure' will be carried over from the original 206 series. Very little I suspect. Can't imagine them using the 'bath tub' or any of the for'ard structure at all in fact. If, as Sagedm suggests, they will use the L4 transmission for future power upgrades, then they will need a suitably 'beefy' tailboom so, they may use a modified (ie. shorter) version of the L4's strengthened boom. That's about the only structural component I can see them carrying across but, detailed information (as yet), remains scarce.

[PhlyingGuy]

Textron Inc. : Bell Helicopter to Equip New Short Light Single Aircraft with Garmin G1000H Integrated Avionics System | 4-Traders (http://www.4-traders.com/TEXTRON-INC-14698/news/Textron-Inc--Bell-Helicopter-to-Equip-New-Short-Light-Single-Aircraft-with-Garmin-G1000H-Integrate-17291249/)

Nice!

[riff_raff]

Since this SLS model is intended for high production numbers, I don't see how utilizing existing hardware (like heritage gearbox designs) will reduce costs long term. I agree that adopting a single modern turboshaft engine is a good idea. But it would also be a smart move to design a dedicated drivetrain using the latest technology for this model.

Unfortunately, it seems that the bean-counters at Bell have decided that it is not worth the time and effort to design and qualify a new drivetrain for this product.

[PhlyingGuy]

The bean counters at Robinson seem to know what they're doing with the R66 vs. the engineers at EC on the EC120 if you look at sales totals.

[SansAnhedral]

But it would also be a smart move to design a dedicated drivetrain using the latest technology for this model.

I believe that is precisely the trap they are trying to avoid. Using proven, off-the-shelf, low-cost components will allow them to come in under the price target and help keep NRE expenditures down.

I dont think this is a new modern 206 replacement; it's a dedicated Robbie fighter.

[Tango and Cash]

After what it termed a highly competitive, multi-state site-selection process, Bell Helicopters announced today that it has chosen Lafayette as the location for a plant that will assemble its new line of SLS helicopters, the contemporary version of Bell's industry-standard JetRanger. Bell will invest $11.4 million in equipment and tooling, according to a statement from LED. The plant will create 115 new direct jobs at an average annual salary of $55,000 each, plus benefits. LED estimates the project will mean another 136 additional permanent, indirect jobs.

Full article: News alert: Bell to build helicopter assembly plant in Lafayette (http://www.businessreport.com/article/20131210/BUSINESSREPORT0117/131219963)

[riff_raff]

"Bell to build helicopter assembly plant in Lafayette"

The title of that article is a bit misleading. Louisiana taxpayers are actually the ones building the plant. Bell will simply be making use of it. The state is contributing 3 times as much financial support to the facility as Bell is. The SLS will likely be a very successful product for Bell, and the Lafayette plant should remain in operation for a long time. But the state is spending $34M to add 251 jobs ($135K per job), which does not seem like an efficient use of taxpayer money. On the other hand, this a great deal for Bell and TXT shareholders.

[40 year helo guy]

Is the demise of Bell's Mirabel operation?

[PhlyingGuy]

HeliExpo 2014: Bell SLS Preview - YouTube

Who's going?

[Freewheel]

Fascinated by why bell have chosen to use the L4 rotor system when a fully developed and mature 4 blade system is available.

Noise reduction alone will improve the appeal of the new product to potential buyers in sensitive locations.

[hillberg]

Less parts count = less cost. Off the shelf componets = less R&D cost
A K-Mart blue light special.:D

[PANews]

Two blades are also hangar friendly for an economy model ... keep it in your car port stuff.... and have great autorotational properties.

That may leave the four blade head as an option for a future GT XLS version later.

[chopper2004]

Phlying,

I'm going :)

Cheers

[ShyTorque]

"If you are a pilot...you were basically trained in a Jet Ranger"..

I lost interest after that statement.

[Rigidhead]

When you look at initial purchase price, there is an obvious and rather large
difference. If the owner does not actually make much use of the aircraft, the
Calendar O/H life still keeps it's advantage.
However, if the aircraft is going to have some sort of steady utilization, the
apparent advantage starts to disappear.
R66 O/H at 12 years or 2200 Hours? At 500 hours/year that is 250,000 (maybe
Up to 300,000) every 4 1/2 years. the re-sale value will depend less on how well
Maintained the aircraft is vs. a straight line depreciation based on time/calendar
time.(Although I realize some accountant types prefer this)
I will admit a healthy dose of prejudice toward the 120 but I think you need
To look at total life cycle cost and re-sale value rather than the overly-simple
Short term "but it costs less"
in the long run run, I believe the term is "Horses for courses" and everyone's
situation is different, but if you want to compare the two aircraft (or any two
aircraft for that matter) you need to look at all facets, including how it is built,
And what it cost to design it. again the 120 is not a bargain basement deal,
But the development and certification of crashworthy seating, structure, fuel
system, and a very intuitive industry leading (at the time of it's development)
display system, was not without cost.

Regards,

Rigidhead
(please excuse the typo's. I have not quite mastered the vagaries of our new I-Pad as of yet!)

[PhlyingGuy]

I don't disagree that the EC120 aircraft is better built, better designed, has better crashworthiness, etc than a R66. You get what you pay for. All day, everyday it beats it.

Except for when it comes to cost. Initial (MUCH higher) and DOCs, which I think there's around a $100 difference in per hour costs last time I checked C&DD.

If I had the cash, I'd buy the EC120 as well over the R66... but the market has overwhelmingly shown that they don't want to pay that much for this sized aircraft.

[aviationunlimited2]

Well, not exactly a $1m price advantage, more like $250k. Given the specs, the R66 should face a good competitor.

But it's surprising isn't it? Why is Bell chasing Roby?

[diethelm]

I don't think Bell is chasing Robinson. I think Bell is chasing customers, of which Robinson seems to have a lot.

[aviationunlimited2]

Anyone know what Bell is planning to officially call the SLS? I've heard it will be called the Bell 505 Jetranger X. Not sure if the that "X" is roman numeral 10 or for the X factor. :D

[Tango and Cash]

My money is on JetRanger IV. :8

[PhlyingGuy]

What would you pick... ~$1M SLS with Garmin G1000 glass vs. ~$900k R66 with Aspen Avionics glass?

Bell Short Light Single Helicopter Price Pegged Near $1 Million | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/hai-convention-news/2014-02-24/bell-short-light-single-helicopter-price-pegged-near-1-million)

[SansAnhedral]

505 JetrangerX it is!

[PhlyingGuy]

Interesting... you can build your own here:

Design Your Aircraft | Bell 505 (http://www.bell505.com/design-your-aircraft/)

[Bravo73]

Design Your Aircraft | Bell 505 (http://www.bell505.com/design-your-aircraft/)

http://www.bell505.com/img/BELL505-BUILD-YOUR-OWN2.jpg

Oh dear. That just looks wrong. :sad:

[Nige321]

It's just... wrong...:bored::(:rolleyes:

[Gordy]

Here is a pic of the inside...along with specs.....

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Helo-general/IMG_3281_zps2ca50e67.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Helo-general/IMG_3283_zpsfca1b097.jpg

But I really want one of these:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Helo-general/1797609_10203227774041278_1999969250_n_zps389c8e11.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j35/helokat/Helo-general/IMG_3273_zps918942d6.jpg

[carsickpuppy]

Shortly after the unveiling Eurocopter was there to check the landing gear.

[jymil]

In the long tradition of animal nicknames for helicopters (squirrel, dolphin, puma) I hereby propose "coati" for this one.

Compare for yourself:
http://www.sn-online.de/var/storage/images/sn/foto-video/fotogalerien/die-tierbilder-der-woche/nasenbaer/10477273-1-ger-DE/nasenbaer_reference.jpg

[belly tank]

It was touted the JRX back in 2003 as part of the MAPL (modular affordable product line) design.

http://http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bell_jrx.php (http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bell_jrx.php)

[Nige321]

Well at least that looks like a Jet Ranger...

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/bell_jrx.jpg

[SuperF]

Why would they do that to the best looking helicopter out there?

You would think that the designs would look better as the years go on, not get worse!

[SansAnhedral]

I dont know....compared to an R66, its somewhat of a beauty queen.

http://s22.postimg.org/5zmaid59d/comparo.jpg

[fatmanmedia]

The 505 is a looker, when i come to buy my first heli i might skip the G2 and go with this.

Fats

[Nige321]

Better in the flesh??

http://www.flyingmag.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/enlarged_image/_images/201402/Bell-505.jpg

[Bravo73]

Better in the flesh??



Nope. :uhoh:

[nuthin]

Can the skids be extended 2-3 feet for towing in to a slope? Its worse than an AS350 as it sits.

[Lima Oscar]

:sad: so ugly :rolleyes:

[206Fan]

My god, horrible looking!

[fatmanmedia]

Well, some people think they are ugly, but they have sold 94 of them already.

fats

[SansAnhedral]

Well, some people think they are ugly, but they have sold 94 of them already.

Not suprising! Like I hinted before, probably not hard to do considering the competition.

This 505 may not be much of a looker, but the R66 looks straight up like it fell out of the ugly tree in comparison.

[HeliHenri]

.


I like the design even without the need to compare to the R66 ;)

So I don't have tast :(


.

[rotorspin]

:ugh:

what an opportunity missed! as an ex jet banger owner I always dreamt of the open cabin and good looks of the EC120 but with some extra power or less weight.

love the rear end and the new exhaust and get that view for pilots may work with this, but an hour's consultation with any hell pilot could have tweaked the front end to be one of the most beautiful and sought after aircraft in the world.

Another hell with compromise.... sticking a 429 or 109 type nose on the front (or dare I say it - some airbus beauty) would not have cost a lot of money and no extra spares - just a bit of design inspiration.... damn you bell ...

[SuperF]

do the blades turn the right way?

which side is the pilot seat?

is that little thing on the back right side of the cabin the boot? :eek:

i still think the JR is far better looking, but the JRX beats the 66, and is probably only as ugly as a 350/120/130..... maybe its my age starting to show, i like the things from the 60's!

[PhlyingGuy]

Blades - look at the pics... easy to tell.
Pilot seat is right seat... left side has clamshell doors for pax/utility loading
Boot - ? That side is only pilot door with fixed split rear.

[Gordy]

which side is the pilot seat?

Right side with no initial plans to certify for left seat PIC at this time.

[r88]

I like the new look of the Jetranger, although as many have already claimed, the skids are too short.
Forgetting the fact that it's probably unpractical with so short skids, more importantly it looks unproportional.
No worries, I have to tools of a professional (Microsoft Paint), and I made things right !

http://s21.postimg.org/skatmthcn/JRX_long_skids.jpg

[Lima Oscar]

Well, some people think they are ugly, but they have sold 94 of them already.

fats

Even if Bell sells 32000 of it, i will still find it ugly !

[SuperF]

I had to zoom in the pictures to figure it out.

Blades going the right way, that's a start.

Boot, on the HAI picture of the white one there is a little door below the maint step and light. It looked about 1 for hi by 2 feet long. I thought it might have been a boot... Tiny thing probably big enough to fit a helmet...

Pilot seat, when will they figure out that these things fly sooo much better from the left. When you are heavy, the helicopter uses less power and you can see so much more if you let the nose run around to the right a bit.

Front seat passenger don't mess with the controls, they can't reach them

And if you want to do lift work, it's sooo much easier leaning out the LHS.

[SARWannabe]

They did a good job of making that fugly then! I thought it was April 1st for a moment....

[mdovey]

Well, I think r88's version with the longer skids looks quite nice - although a shorter blunter nose might have been better.

Keep in mind, I've not yet got my PPL so this may be a naive comment. I played with the build your own helicopter tool and was surprised that a rotor brake was an optional extra!

Matthew

[FLY 7]

I think it looks quite nice - bearing in mind most helicopters are a bit compromised in the beauty department.

Agree it needs more substantial skids, but it would also benefit from a more flattering colour scheme design.

To my eyes, the G2 Cabri doesn't look quite finished - a bit too softly styled - needs tinted glass and I've also never seen one with a really stylish paint job.

[FSXPilot]

Think of it as one less thing to go wrong and have to spend money on. Plenty of helicopters without rotorbrakes.

[Hughes500]

Nearly 500hp and can only lift 1600lbs ????

[PhlyingGuy]

Like any pre certified aircraft.. Those are probably conservative figures.

[Lonewolf_50]

A friend of mine who was a Phantom pilot (F-4) pointed out to me once that helicopters don't really fly.
They are so ugly, the earth repels them.
With that in mind, perhaps the "it's ugly" as a criticism can be relegated to the dust bin where it belongs when evaluating whether or not a rotary wing aircraft will fit someone's needs.

[mattpilot]

RE: r88's Photoshop


Looks 100x's better with the long skids.

Without 'em, it"s the retarded kid at school.

[nigelh]

Well , ugly or not , it will be the best value new helicopter out there by some big margin !! Look at the avionics , the fadec engine from turbomeca giving 500hp and 3.5 hrs endurance ....
Look at the huge interior and massive luggage compartment . Then put the incredible Long Ranger head etc etc onto the package .
It should be double the price of an R66 but is scarcely £50k more I think !!
It is undoubtedly a massive loss leader and I believe will go up massively in price over the next few years .....that's why I couldn't resist it . I have ordered one !!!!

[nigelh]

Matt ...... I think you were that kid :ugh: Not a very clever comment !!

[longbox]

Congratulations Nigel, I have been involved in this project for 2 years, I am just leaving LA to return home, we have 6 for the UK ordered and over 120 signed orders at the show with more being completed which will be near to 200.

[Tickle]

Nice work, R88, it looks almost perfect now! I felt that with the longer skids it should have a slightly extended rear body, so here is my little addition:

http://www.uplink.com.au/media/Bell-505.jpg

[Aucky]

R88/Tickle - much better. Still not a looker by any means but much better proportions. Does the name suggest that this is yet another variant of the JetRanger as far as certification goes, or is it a new type? Have they learnt from the R66's mistake?

[mattpilot]

Matt ...... I think you were that kid Not a very clever comment !!

Well i suppose our sense of cleverness differes as much as our sense in what we find appealing. :8

Have fun with your soon-to-be new helicopter. My apologies if you found my comment hurtful, but no need to make it personal. Thats not gunna' make the helicopter any prettier ;-).

[PhlyingGuy]

Should be a new type cert, but a lot of the hardest part (rotor/drivetrain) are cut/paste from the L4 so that should reduce some of the complexity.

[Stinger10]

Even though it is just a mock-up at Heli Expo.

Bell HOPES to have a flying prototype by the end of the year........

[chalmondleigh]

Provided that it falls within the rules there is no good reason not to have the 505 certified as a 206 variant which is exactly what Bell did with the 407.

Quite apart from the cost and the time taken there are inherent dangers in going for a new Type Certificate as Aucky has highlighted.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/appeals/decisions/2013/BoA%20Decision%20AP_04_2013_ROBINSON.pdf

[SansAnhedral]

Even though it is just a mock-up at Heli Expo.

Bell HOPES to have a flying prototype by the end of the year........

As far as mockups go, this one is pretty complete looking...

http://s2.postimg.org/nronm2qzd/1796980_10104258024232180_1429368253_o.jpg

[Stinger10]

All those "new" parts look very similar to well-known Bell aircraft.

According to Evans (Bell) from HeliExpo ......

"Evans said the utility-configured 505 show mock-up “very closely represents the basic aircraft as it is designed today.” From looking at it, Evans said, “people may think we already have a flying aircraft constructed.:ok:

[SansAnhedral]

Whoever said the rotor system on it was new?

According to Bell the entire premise is to leverage the exact 206L setup, I would not be surprised at all to see reused (or extremely similar) parts all over the place.

[Stinger10]

So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a ........ 206. Be nice to see a true new design instead of "re-package, re-name, and re-market".

[SansAnhedral]

It would be nice, but theres no way anyone could do that for a million bucks a pop.

Certification and NRE alone would make it entirely unprofitable.

[Gemini Twin]

Sans, re. "no way anyone could"...add: especially Bell.


R88 and tickle you have the forward cross tube positioned where there is no internal structure!

[jhiles]

Surely the skids are a shorter length so that the footstep lines up with the middle of the door...? :}

[nigelh]

Not getting personal Matt .... Anyway no problem !! Yes , I agree it isn't going to make it any more pretty but I wonder if we will learn to love it . I never liked the look of the 480B ...... Then I bought one , flew it for a bunch of hours and ended up loving it !!! It is the helicopter of choice for my cocker spaniel as she could sit up front with me and curl up on the floor and look out of the floor window . She also loved the AS350 but is not keen on the 500 or the current 109 !!
As for having the L4 parts being a bad thing ...... I quite often fly an L4 over here and it is a truly great machine with I believe unrivaled reliability and safety . Of course a 4 blade head would be nice but you are not going to get that for nearly the price of a crappy old Robinson are you ??!!! ( or I imagine a lot less than an EC120 with old style avionics etc )
No doubt the next one will have the 407 kit but will be priced more to compete with the 350 . Anyway who wants to bet me I will not be able to fly my new Jet Ranger for 500 hours and then sell for a hefty profit ???!!!!!!

[turbineturkey]

pimp my chopper..

1. extended skids
2. imo better color
3. some tints

http://i.imgur.com/SjRQ2c1.jpg

[chopper2004]

Usually I am great at posting photos after the first day or so when I am at the show, sadly the business center computers were crap and I did not have the photobucket app on my iPad working / downloading / uploading that well.

Interesting to see the Police variant of the 505 (originally thought designation might be 515 as kind of mirrors SLS!) which is what caught my eye.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_7837_zps2ee5e359.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_9182_zps3481427d.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_9200_zpsd80c6879.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_0678_zps341be510.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_0680_zps9731730c.jpg

and I thought the red one was quite cute :) cheers

[as350nut]

I know I am strange, but the nose looks like a rat running along a rafter
I know the pics are of mock ups etc but it looks very rough compared to a EC120 ie panel fitting etc
Published useful weight figures are not really different to ec120 given it will need air at 26kg etc
Seats look like a ec120 knock off
The frame looks like a Robinson R44, not sure about survivability
Anyone know the price point, if its around the $1M then how do they do it the Arrius 2F engine is 600,000Euro outright, I know it is a 2R but it must be about the same, the VEMD and ICAS/MFD must be expensive.
What are the G ratings of the seats are they like the 120?

[PhlyingGuy]

Everything I've heard it's the million dollar price point. They're supposedly crash worthy seats.... Other than that...How different do seats really need to be?

You may not like the shape, but most people don't like the price of the 120... and the shape beats the looks of a r66 and that's what it's trying to beat.

[PhlyingGuy]

Wow... that's a lot of orders in three days! Bell sold 196 helicopters at Heli-Expo 2014, including 171 JRX | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2014/03/05/bell-sold-196-helicopters-at-heli-expo-2014-including-171-jrx/)

[as350nut]

I think you are correct, if you want to flog the R66 this is it, maybe the 120 is a different market. I have just bought one. With fresh 12 years coming up on a lot of 120's and new engine at about the same money they are an alternative. I just hope someone at Eurocopter/Airbus( I hate that name) looks at revising the gross weight on the 120 so as to compete.

[heli1]

There's a big difference between real orders and letters of intent,as Bell found out with the 429, before that the 427 and before that the TwinRanger.
Still at least they are starting on the basis of a success......the LongRanger.

[nigelh]

I think this helicopter could clean up against the EC120 and R66 and I think there will be some drop in the price of these on the second hand market . Why would you buy one of these say 5 years old with 500 hrs for the same or even more than a new 505 ?? Even a 5 yr old 206 is still being put up for sale at $1.3 !! Having said that I reckon the new price will go up very quickly as soon as they have hit a certain number on sales . When you look at the spec and performance it is the biggest bargain around .... How much is a new EC120 now or even a 206 L ?

[PhlyingGuy]

According to Heli-Values, 2013 base prices are:

EC-120 = $1,911,428
206L-4 = $2,350,000

So yeah... you can buy/almost buy two of the 505s for the prices of these.

[FH1100 Pilot]

nigelh says of the 506:When you look at the spec and performance it is the biggest bargain around ....

You can claim any specs and performance when you haven't even flown a prototype. I notice that Bell isn't predicting an empty weight and hasn't said what the maximum AUW might be. The numbers they *have* published aren't that much different/better than your basic 206B, which stands to reason.

[311kph]

Yeah, no empty weight and no maximum AUW numbers...
Let's hope 505 won't have weight issues like 429 - the Fat Ranger.
Although they came up with the ''new'' 50 year old design, hope they at least used some new materials in it...

:) :*

[Hughes500]

Well I am with Nigel here, will order one when someone tells me some performance figures ! Pity Tilton cant do the same thing !

[nigelh]

Well the L4 can lift 700kg more than the Jet Ranger .
The 505 has around 500 shp ........ With modern materials and a glass cockpit I reckon the figures could end up very good !!! The L4 blades etc seem overkill for something that will lift the same as the old 206 .....so they are obviously going for a big improvement in my mind . Anyway I think it's a no brainer and I believe will be a minimum of 30% more by the time mine arrives so a good investment .
I can't see 206 B3 , R66 or EC120 holding their prices well when deliveries start , especially if the performance is there . Maybe that will force EC to improve power for the 120 ?!!

[FH1100 Pilot]

Talk about compromises! Bell was really backed into a corner with this one.

The First Directive was, "Get rid of the broom closet!" I think that's clear. Secondly, they wanted to make the cabin "bigger than a 206B." That back seat looks huge by comparison. (Happy coincidence: Lots more room up front as well.) Third Directive: "Keep it under $1million 2014 dollars." (Yeah, right.)

To get rid of the "broom closet" Bell had to put the transmission behind the cabin. Not a good idea. The brilliance of the 206B was that you really couldn't get it out of c.g. Operators of the 505 will have to be diligent in keeping it balanced - guaranteed.

But then Bell really messed up. Bell claims that the 206 fuselage is horribly expensive to build. So for the 505 they reverted back to...basically...a 47J with a turbine engine: A sheet metal cabin shell with a steel-tube centerframe. What a giant leap backward! Of course, the venerable J-model at least had a baggage compartment in the tail to help keep the c.g. in range. The 505 has no such thing; its baggage compartment is right under the mast.

It is a certainty that there will be no "stretched" 505. There is no room for growth in this design. (Plus, Bell already has a perfectly good 407 they want to sell you.)

Using the 206L-4 dynamic components is interesting. This more or less guarantees that the 505 will be heavier than a 206B. (And let's face it, from here on out everyone will be comparing the 505 to the 206B.) How much does that "500 horsepower" Arrius engine weigh? Let's say 230 pounds...50 pounds or so heavier than a C20B.

Can a 505 be faster than a 206B? Bell is claiming 125 knots for the thing, which is astonishing and...uhhhhh..."optimistic" to say the least, I think. I sure wouldn't want to have an engine failure in a two-blade system at 125 knots, no way! Especially with that Nodamatic trans mount. Not to drag up an old, controversial thread, but simply bottoming the pitch without a healthy tug on the cyclic to load the rotor will make things get "interesting" fast, as others have found out when they experienced "Nodamatic bounce" in their LongRangers. But I digress...

Then there's the bird-strike issue. I mean, all that glass! I know that a bird-strike isn't fun in any helicopter, but geez-louise the pilots of the 505 look exceptionally vulnerable.

So in the end, people are going to be looking at the 505 and comparing it to a 206B. It probably won't lift any more than a B-model...and probably won't be all that much faster (B-models on low-skids are pretty speedy - 120 - 125 mph). It probably will burn more fuel (which means it'll have to carry more). And finally (and maybe more importantly), the DOC's are undoubtedly going to be higher than a 206B's.

The first flight of the 505 isn't even penciled-in until the end of 2014?? Bell sure went to a lot of work to give us three mockups for HAI. But that's all they were: mockups - something they're hoping will work.

On another forum, someone speculated that the 505 is such an abortion that Bell ultimately might not even produce it. I pondered that thought for a while. And in a way, I wonder if he's right? The market for 5-place singles will undoutedly change between now and whevever Bell can get 505 production up and running.

Perhaps Bell will say, "You know, we really had a good thing going with that dang ol' JetRanger B. Maybe if we pooch the cabin out like we did with the 407 and let them non-union Coonasses over in Louisiana build the thing we can keep the cost down to $1million or so, whaddyathink? I mean, Christ, the tooling is paid-for a thousand times over! And that JetRanger is STILL a sexy beast, you know?"

It'll be interesting to see how the 505 develops...

[Ian Corrigible]

Perhaps Bell will say, "You know, we really had a good thing going with that dang ol' JetRanger B. Maybe if we pooch the cabin out like we did with the 407 and let them non-union Coonasses over in Louisiana build the thing we can keep the cost down to $1million or so, whaddyathink? I mean, Christ, the tooling is paid-for a thousand times over! And that JetRanger is STILL a sexy beast, you know?"
Interesting idea. Unlikely, though it is worth remembering that after the cancellation of the 417 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/214007-bell-417-a.html) in 2007, Bell was still able to transition a significant portion of the LOIs over to the 407. Bell already has new jigs in place for the 206 cabin, having recently secured a $61M contract (http://investor.textron.com/newsroom/news-releases/press-release-details/2013/Bell-Helicopter-to-Supply-Army-with-New-Metal-OH-58D-Cabins/default.aspx) to complete 12 new KW fuselages for the ASH PO. And, as already noted by HeliHub (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/517185-bell-505-jet-ranger-x.html#post7896445), Bell is reusing the same JRX branding as originally planned for a previous 'sexy JetRanger.' :E

(Talking of which, what's with this use of space-infused "Jet Ranger" name for the 505? Is JetRanger just too passé?)

Re: the 171 LOIs, it'll be interesting to find out how many of these (if any) are 'forced' sales to distributors. When the R66 was launched, Robinson very cleverly mandated that any firms wanting to become a dealer for the type had to order an aircraft, which helped to rapidly build-up the order book and hence reinforce buyer confidence in the type ("Look how fast it's selling...it must be good!").

Wouldn't put much stock in the local market for the law enforcement variant though: with 338 OH-58Ds and 184 TH-67s likely to hit the mil surplus market in the coming years (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/502798-us-army-leaning-towards-new-scout-4.html#post8264258), new aircraft sales to parapublic operators are going to be hard to come by.

I/C

[Devil 49]

I don't see the tube frame as a big issue, the AS350 is built around the 'hexahedron' now, and Robinson has made very effective use of tube frames. The Bell 47, tube frame and all, would still have a market if the economics worked. That's the clue, I don't think that long term production costings work for the 206 tubs, unless they're made with South Asian labor type prices.
The R22 was funny looking at first sight, but in the end the mathematics of it resulted in success and derivatives that are much better airframes for their markets. That's the competitor that Bell is defending against with this design. Sud Aviation, Aerospatiale, EuroCopter, Airbus, whatever they are this week, addresses a different market segment, a part of the industry that Bell surrendered decades ago.
I think Bell accurately appreciates the challenge that Robinson presents. They haven't put a wrong foot forward yet, in my opinion, while Bell has a history of failed offerings. This decontented Long Ranger might work for now if it's cheap enough. It's a thumb in the dike unless it's followed by an offering advancing the state of art faster than Frank Robinson will with his next...

[nigelh]

Having said that I don't feel that the R66 is particularly hi tech either in design or avionics !! Maybe you are right but I am betting that a modern cab wrapped around the best 2 blade and teetering head in the world , combined with the latest glass cockpit will make a pretty good aircraft !! Anyway the deposit is only $75k which will produce a multiple return if it does work ... So I see it as a no lose bet . Only time will tell and in the meantime I am quite happy with the venerable old 109 which has dropped to such low prices that it is no more expensive than most singles to run . ( thanks to loads of machines being parted out due mainly to the c20 containment rings . This is based upon about 4 years of flying the 109 and 20 years on 206,s and AS350 )

[krypton_john]

The 505 has dual channel FADEC which is a significant benefit - over both the 206 and R66.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Hmm.

"Modern cab?" Like I said, everything is a compromise. Nobody on the planet would say that the Astar has a nice, crashworthy cabin. We've all seen that flimsy cabin shell attached to the floor frame of the 350. I suspect that the 505 will employ the same technique. In other words, the structure of the 505 will all be, not in the cabin itself but in the bottom of the fuselage and that first bulkhead behind the back seats. Not good for crashworthiness. Modern? I think not. Modern-looking, perhaps (although again, I think not).

And I'm not so sure I'd call the installation of FADEC a "significant benefit" over a 206. Yes, it makes starting "easier" (although having said that, a 206B is pretty dang easy to start)...but that's about it. FADEC doesn't bring any measurable performance increases or fuel savings to an engine...and it certainly doesn't stop a pilot from overtemping the engine in flight by pulling too hard on the left-hand lever. So, "significant benefit?"....ahhhhh, I dunno... Extra cost and complexity, to be sure.

I look at this proposed 505 with the critical (if maybe a little jaundiced) eye of a guy who's been flying and operating helicopters for a long, long time. And frankly, I expected more from Bell than...this. It will be VERY interesting to see what the actual numbers are once they start flying a prototype. But, knowing what we know about the laws of physics and what things weigh, I'm skeptical that the 505 is going to be a huge improvement over a 206B...much less a "straight" 206L on low-skids (which might actually be a more fair comparison if you blocked-off those two rear-facing seats and called it a "five-seater with tons of room and lots of gas").

[krypton_john]

The benefit is not that it makes it easier to start. It is that it makes it harder to hot start. And impossible to hide any exceedences. Reduces cost of ownership and enhances resale value.

Only two questions at the front of my mind: will they actually build it and can they really get close to $1mil price?

[nigelh]

I agree about the AS350 cockpit . It is the one thing that would stop me buying another one . They are quite simply ... Flimsy !! I hope the 505 is better .
If it is like a 5 seat 206L , with glass cockpit , synthetic vision , twin fadec etc etc that is quite good enough for me !!!
Can they build it for $1m ?? I very much doubt it but even if it goes up by $3-400k then it's still very good value .
I also really like the idea of turbomeca power by the hour ......

[longbox]

Nigel are you UK based?

[nigelh]

Yes . The Times says it is the best place to live in the whole of the UK :ok:

[23 Inches]

Greetings

Did anyone get a picture of the baggage compartment...? Is it single door on one side only...?

Cheers

[23 Inches]

Chopper2004

Did you get any other photos on the 505 downloaded..?

[B407]

"Especially with that Nodamatic trans mount."


Have heard that the Nodamatic mount has been deleted from the 505 spec to reduce cost. It doesn't seem to appear in the photo of the HAI mock up shown earlier in this thread. Well equipped and with price escalators, by the time this is delivered in 2017-2018, I'd estimate about $1.5mm. Still an attractive price for the apparent capability.

[HeliHenri]

.
Some news :

Bell gives 505 JetRanger X update | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bellgives505JetRangerXupdate)

.

[nigelh]

Well I certainly hope it does cost $1.5m by the time it's delivered as I now have 2 on order and could make nearly $1m profit !.... Especially if the first ones sell at a premium !! The relative price of different helicopters does seem quite random ...... You could pay circa $650k for a late 80,s JetRanger ......which is the same , or more , than an Agusta 109 Mk11 !!! JR 120knots
A109 150knots . The 109 is now , thanks to loads of cheap spares , very little more to run than a 206 !! Mine has worked out nearly half the cost to run versus my 350BA , even my insurance is 1/3 less .

[krypton_john]

Nigel, I was surprised to see you say that so had a look. This is the first one that came up:

1987 AGUSTA A109A MK II Turbine Helicopters For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/AGUSTA-A109A-MK-II/1987-AGUSTA-A109A-MK-II/1296559.htm)

Amazing!

But why are parts (relatively) cheap? Why would they be <edit> little more </edit> than B206 parts in particular, given running two RR250 engines?

Cheers
JohnO

[nigelh]

Of course on the engine side you have double the cost , but the C20 is so reliable that really should not be an issue . There are now so many being parted out the price of spares is v low . If you were buying one to run for a while i would say buying a second one for parts would make sense if you can find one for around £100k - £150k . Then you have a spare of everything and are still all in for around £500k !!!
Also dont forget that you will use over 20% less time per mile !!

[krypton_john]

This is fascinating. There must be some reason these capable machines are so cheap? And the one I posted was extremely low hours as well.

[nigelh]

A few years ago they were expensive to run but now most aoc work is done with Powers due to Cat t/o from Battersea etc Therefore lots more on the market and not working so much . I am not bound by these. Cat performance rules as all my flight are under private flight rules . A reasonable low hour Power will be the same price as 4 Mk 11 machines and will do pretty much the same job ( apart from higher MAUW ). The Mk11 is just as smooth and every bit as fast ..........

[PhlyingGuy]

Just found this video... probably the best (and only) walkaround of it that I've seen. The return of the Jet Ranger! | Goodwood Road and Racing (http://grrc.goodwood.com/festival-of-speed/latest/return-jet-ranger#/0)

In the other thread Arrjj was discussing the baggage bay... I finally found an image of it... they show it in the video!

They do also mention the price... $1.07M.

[PerAsperaAdAstra]

Well well, the old Jetdanger back from a few years in re-hab! Well they were reliable and much loved, is it still the 250 engine as it was? No doubt with probably better govenor technology and more fuel efficient. Very interesting to see the old teetering head is back. Why not, simple to maintain and also tough and reliable, although it does have some flight characteristics to trap the unwary, let's hope that's not forgotten. I have to admit I still get pretty wary when encountering turbulence, get very gentle with cyclic inputs. I currently instruct on a B206 B3, she gets worked hard at times, autorotations, CCT bashing etc, but runs like a sewing machine.

[longbox]

Happy to send any info via pm if anyone needs any, ;)

[Flugplatz]

I see the Achilles heel as being the link up with Turbomecca, whose product support is very much about who you know or if part of a 'hot-contract'. Not so great for the single operator who could previously easily source a 250 for the 206B. Spares have always been a Bell strong point and helped many a small operator make it through the season without ruined cashflow, caused by months on the ground.

R66 went the other way with a simplified 250 getting rid of most of the axial flow compressor.

Time will tell and I wish Bell the best of luck, however they may want to think about setting up a deal to make the Arrial in the US (or at least under their direct control!)

Flug

[Ian Corrigible]

Flug,

Possibly a typo, but the Arriel is of course already produced locally in the USA (for the Lakota program). No suggestion yet that TMUSA will build the 505's Arrius engine Stateside.

As suggested previously, Bell may insist on a PBH type engine support approach to offset operator concerns. Maybe longbox knows.

It'd be interesting to know what deal Turbomeca offered Bell on the Arrius in order to meet its price target. I hear that RR has been looking to renegotiate its cut-price RR300 deal with Robinson, and Turbomeca will probably find itself in a similar position with the 505.

I/C

[Flugplatz]

I/C

My bad... Arrius it its (knew it started with an A)

[Tickle]

Still quite an ugly machine! Kind of reminds me of the original LOH prototype the 206 stemmed from!

http://verticalmag.com/images/news/article_files/695094712078571.jpg

[PerAsperaAdAstra]

Yeah Tickle, good point, it does look a bit utility, bit of an R44ish look to the tail boom (no offence to Rubenstein drivers!). The classic 206 Jetdanger sure is a sleek looking bird, even today I reckon.

[Vertical Freedom]

No chin bubble :{ that's just plain shtupid :ugh: I spend a ton of time peering through the chin bubble, so it won't work in Nepal nor most utility ops :mad:

[Matari]

The AS-350, with no chin bubble, seems to do quite well in Nepal utility ops.

[Vertical Freedom]

Matari - the 4 I've flown in Nepal & the 5 others elsewhere; all had a chin bubble (albeit small) :eek: you must have flown one of the very first early experimental models ~ without :mad:

[Matari]

VF: Maybe it's just a question of nomenclature. The old Jetranger has "chin" bubbles at the nose and feet of the pilot. The "new" Jetranger does not, as you mentioned.

However, the AS-350 doesn't have proper chin bubbles either. It does have "cheek" bubbles, which afford visibility downward and to the side. Similarly, the new Jetranger has a wide, floor level windscreen which should afford similar visibility as the AS-350.

Just curious as to why the new Jetranger couldn't provide the same level of utility ops visibility as the venerable Squirrel.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Oh dear. If *ANYBODY* thinks that nose configuration will make it through to production they are high. Not gonna happen. (In fact, if anyone thinks that helicopter itself will make it into production they are also high.) And anyone who thinks the new 505 (if it ever is actually produced) will be used in a "utility" role is high as well. I mean, really - is anyone doing slingwork or other utility work with the R-66? Is anyone even using the 206B for utility anymore? Come on.

The mythical 505 will undoubtedly be "household strength" not Industrial Strength. It is not intended for the Utility role - Bell will happily sell you an L-4 or 407 for that.

[nigelh]

I don't think much sling work is done nowadays with 206,s . Some may be done by L4 but a lot of work now requires 1 tonne lift and for that you probably need the AS350 B3 . In any event , having sat in it I don't think it would be a problem . I am also quite certain it will be built and also will be very popular as was the old 206 !!!

[Adamfawsitt]

I placed a deposit because I thought the 505 was good value - $1.12m with decent spec including leather and A/C.

I was very attracted by the Power by the Hour option which for a fixed fee per hour (minimum applies) includes maintenance and all drivetrain component failures not caused by impact. When I place my deposit I spent some time testing scenarios and was assured that the Power by the Hour product would include replacing delaminated blades.

Cost surety for a private pilot make this helicopter highly attractive to me - I hope that Bell stick to their 2016 estimated delivery date.

[Dick Smith]

Probably covered already. Will this new model have the frustrating and fuel wasting 2 minute wind down?

Even the R66 has this. Or being a European engine will it only be 30 seconds?

[John Eacott]

Dick, I'm sure that you are aware that the Arrius 2F in the EC120B FM has a 30 second cooldown, but a Turbomeca Service Letter amended that (in 1999) to 1 minute.

So it's not the airframe manufacturer but the engine manufacturer who dictate these times: and the two minute wait at the end of a flight would have to be the longest two minutes of the trip!

[1helicopterppl]

Hi Nigel,

Curious to know about your 109A, is it US registered by chance ? Previously UK registered & originally owned by an Excavator company ? By the sound of it you have another 109A which is for spares use, also US registered ?
If I have the right person do you still have the Bell 430 ?

Pm me if you like, look forward to seeing the 505(s).

[SansAnhedral]

Rotors turning this week

sO1jUjETHdo

[FC80]

Just as pug fugly in real life then.

[SansAnhedral]

Well beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder, but I still maintain it looks better than the whole Robbie Flying Egg paradigm

[Otterotor]

Pitch links look longer than 206 series. Swashplate setting low?:confused: Thanks for the video Sans.

[krypton_john]

Apart from the skids, I think it looks ok.

I found it somewhat ironic that in an aircraft apparently bolted to the ground that the pilots were wearing helmets but the engineers weren't!

[longbox]

Otterrotor the pitch links, mast, swash plate and transmission are all from the L4, no change in length or set up. I have been involved in the 505 project from a clean piece of paper, the first ground run is a great day ahead of schedule.

[heli1]

I assume FTV1 means flight test vehicle 1 but isn't there also a GTV prototype already running?
That would account for this one being numbered 002 in the manufacturing sequence.

[Otterotor]

Thanks Longbox. I was FTE on 214ST and responsible for the 240 Hr GTV ground run (along with Mark R.). Tie-down was interesting and we used liquid nitrogen in the turbine inlets to get power up during the summer temperatures. So, with the M/R being from 206 series, I guess the tailboom is the same length and T/R is same as 206 or does anti-torque rqm't change with new turbomeca horsepower? :ok:

[fling-wing_1]

Just doesn't do it for me.

Nose looks like someone parked it on the ramp in Vegas and the glass got too hot and slumped.:yuk:

Shortened up the upper deck? Looks like fun access to be had. Safety concerns I guess. Let's see, they fixed the weak upper deck what, like 40 years later? :*

Looks like maybe still a segmented T/R driveshaft with Thomas couplings? Arrggh! Can they take a clue from the A350 and use rubber mounts or maybe the 500 with two end couplings and a friction dampener? How about multiple k-flexes? Is the engine to M/R Xmsn a K=flex or still a Bendix?

Hey kids! It's got cool avionics though!!

Surely Bell can aspire to something better than rehashing ~45 year old tech? Maybe, then again perhaps not...

I'm open to being convinced...:suspect:

[Saint Jack]

OK fling-wing_1, maybe this will help to convince you: The 505 uses the 206L4 drive drain for two principal reasons, the first is that it's a proven and mature design while the second is to keep the acquisition costs to a minimum. Therefore yes, it's still a segmented T/R driveshaft with Thomas couplings although the tailboom is new. From the video it also appears that the 505 is using the 206L4 vertical fin and it looks like the new horizontal stabilizer attaches via the vertical fin attachment hardware.


"Surely Bell can aspire to something better than rehashing ~45 year old tech? Maybe, then again perhaps not..." Of course they can - it's called the 525. But, in the crowded and competitive light turbine market, Bell has to keep the unit cost to a minimum - as I've said previously. An all-new drive train would have put cost through the roof.


And finally, please explain "...Let's see, they fixed the weak upper deck what, like 40 years later?" The first 206A/B/L I worked on was S/N 32 and I don't recall "...the weak upper deck..."

[longbox]

Great feedback Saint Jack, the L4 running gear is proven and certified reducing cost and certification time, the vertical fin is an all new deisign as is the tail boom and vertical stab. Fling Wing is mis informed, the segmented drive shaft was not on the original 206 it was a one piece so not 45 years old. Multiple kflex? That would add weight complexity and cost. The main drive shaft is a kflex he will be pleased to hear. Weak upper deck I am confused as you are,like you I operate a high number of 206/l and no reports of weak roofs.

The 505 keep in context, a five place turbine helicopter, glass cockpit, Bell warranty for 1m USD!

[krypton_john]

And the rear passengers even get a view without the broom closet - great!

[FH1100 Pilot]

What Fling_Wing 1 was referring to was the trans deck fittings which are a known "weak link" in the 206 design. Yank too hard on that thing between your legs (the CYCLIC, you perverts!) and you wonder if you're going to pull the trans mounts right off that cheesy honeycomb/composite deck. It's not the sturdiest design out there.

As for FW-1's comment about "45 year old technology"...well...let's see. The 505 reminds me of something...where have I seen this before? Big bubble windscreen, open cabin, steel-tube centerframe/transmission mount covered by sheetmetal, monocoque tailboom, trans mounted behind the cabin, drivetrain "borrowed" from another model, turbine engine sticking out the back...there's just something so familiar about it...

Oh yeah!

http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt114/n206th/BellHUL-1M_zps823e900d.jpg

The brand-new 1961 Bell HUL-1M!


So Fling_Wing 1 kind of misspoke when he said "45 year old technology." It's actually 53 year-old technology. I mean, what do we see "new" with the 505? Composite main rotor blades? Ahhhh, no, just the standard 206L-4 components. Well come on, composite airframe? Oops, nope! That was the 206 and Bell decided that was way too friggin' expensive, so they've gone *back* (to the future?) for a design that's basically...you know...a 47J. Put a fifth seat and a Garmin G-1000 in that HUL-1M and by golly, you'd have yourself a 505 ;)

[jeffg]

Where did Bell say the 505 was the latest and greatest in technology? In fact if you read the literature they advertise just the opposite with the exception of the FADEC and the G1000.
It's an entry level helicopter designed to be cheap to acquire and maintain. Keep in mind that the R-66 sold 500 samples in its first 3.5 years. That would appear to be the market Bell is going after and it would appear based on the number of R-66s and R-44s sold that it exist.
As far as the overall design it is my understanding from speaking with people both inside and outside of Bell that the 505 program has shown great deference to the customer preferences in the design process.
I challenge anyone to explain how one would integrate and certify an assortment of new technology at a price point of $1.0-1.1 million?
As far as FHs picture I suggest you look at the arrangement of the transmission, fuel tank and engine then look at an AS350 and see if it looks familiar. Last I checked the 350 wasn't exactly a slouch in sales either.
Bells biggest challenge will be to make its price point and weight delta which traditionally have been difficult for them to do.

[as350nut]

Having spent some time looking over the 505 mock up my initial view is one of disappointment as to the concept. Having been at the receiving end of Turbomeca recently I think it is a bad step to go for the Arrius engine simply on a cost basis, and the 15yr time limit will be a distinct disadvantage to new owners compared to the Allison/RR. I too think the nose profile looks like a stomped on rat's nose. I also don't agree with using old technology running gear and blades and fob it off as a cost saving exercise to help the poor old buyer. Its all about maximum profit. With all the money Bell has made over the years from its customers and having run the JR design for so long they should have brought us something truly inspiring, with a full composite light weight body and composite blades. Some examples of which are hitting the market just now.

[FH1100 Pilot]

I think the point is that this "new" 505 is neither the latest nor the greatest of anything; it's simply a rehash of old technology in a new shape, with new avionics. Golly! People (mostly guys but not always) are getting such erections from this thing that it's really puzzling. Dudes, WE'VE SEEN IT ALL BEFORE. And so far, I'm not impressed.

Have you people *seen* the seats? Lord Almighty, I always thought the original Astar seats were cheap-looking. The 505 seats make the 350 seats seem like they came out of a Blackhawk!

Some of Bell's design choices, and the compromises they bring are truly puzzling. Even the 1961 HUL-1M had a baggage compartment in the tail (probably unusable, given that the engine exhaust was immediately forward of it with that configuration). If you don't understand how important it sometimes is to shift weight between the cabin and baggage compartment to keep the c.g. in range, then you probably haven't flown very much out in the "real world." But in the 505? No can do! Baggage compartment is right under the mast :(

I'm especially not impressed with the location of the horizontal stab. Is Bell just copying the R-product? I suspect that at some point the 505 will "magically" grow a set like the 206 has, complete with endplates.

But the choice of tha Arrius engine is what's really puzzling. It not only weighs more than a RR-250, but it uses more fuel as well. So in addition to the extra weight of the engine, you'll have to always carry more fuel to feed it than if they'd just stuck with the legendary RR-250. Strange choice. How heavy is thing thing going to be? Heavier than a 206B, that's for sure!

But it is a work-in-progress, let's admit that much. Many things will undoubtedly change between now and the first production units...*IF* indeed it ever gets produced. So far, aside from the open-floor-plan cabin, it does not show us any real improvements over the 206 it is supposedly replacing. And it's way uglier. It will *not* be faster than a 206B on low-skids. And depending on how they actually mount the transmission, it may have worse ride quality than a B-model.

We shall see...

[Saint Jack]

Like FH1100Pilot and as350nut I too was puzzled by the engine choice for the 505. I anticipate that a lot of 505 sales will be to 206B/L owners upgrading and perhaps not fully realizing the differences in the level of product support for the Turbomeca vis-à-vis the Allison/RR. Also, and this is a relatively minor point, how many 505 customers are aware that their mechanics will have to purchase additional metric tools.


I wonder which will come first, a Bell option for an Allison/RR engine or a third-party STC'd option.

[longbox]

The engine was chosen as it was the only option that comes with twin FADEC, don't recall seeing that 53 years ago, the tail boom is longer and a new design with the single stab staying, not dual with fins. The seats that are in the three mock ups vary in finish and are not the finished product, the seats on my time showing the aircraft off have been met with zero problems, they will have leather not rag and tube as per the Blackhawk. The transmission does incorporate a new design isolation mount. The speed will be higher than a standard 206, it is Long ranger running gear which has a higher speed than the JR, and bear in mind it is lugging much less weight around than when on the L4.
Most of the 250 plus orders and a mixed bag, in the UK it is mainly 120, R44 and existing 206 owners coming through and a surprising number of cancelled 66 or new owners, we also have over 25 just for the UK.
I have been involved in this product form inception and I look forward to carrying out demos throughout the uk, incidentally, the UK is the launch country for Europe.

[HeliHenri]

.
longbox
and a surprising number of cancelled 66

Maybe one of the reasons why there will be around 100 R66 produced this year compared to the nearly 200 produced last year.
.

[jeffg]

I also don't agree with using old technology running gear and blades and fob it off as a cost saving exercise to help the poor old buyer. Its all about maximum profit. With all the money Bell has made over the years from its customers and having run the JR design for so long they should have brought us something truly inspiring, with a full composite light weight body and composite blades. Some examples of which are hitting the market just now.

I think you're missing the point. Looking at the specs of this aircraft and it's price point it's pretty obvious, at least I think, that it was designed for a specific market segment. That market segment has an upper bound as to what it will or can pay. The combination of that boundry and customer expectations (performance) drove the technology which could be used on the product. The engineering, tooling, testing and certification cost alone of an all new composite body and blades would have easily caused this to cost twice as much if not more.

That said this obviously isn't the aircraft for you, or me for that matter, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for it as evidenced by the comments of Longbox. Again, I don't see where Bell is advertising this as having the latest and greatest technology. As previously mentioned, if you want that they are building the 525.
As an aside I personally have had R44/66 operators tell me that they would like to have an Airbus or Bell product but can't afford to. The 505, if delivered at it's price point, allows them entry.

[Helilog56]

Initial purchase price is only part of the equation....it will be interesting to see what operating costs come out to as Turbomeca has some very interesting maintenance requirements, and poor support....and a FADEC system has had more than its share of reliability issues over the years.

[Ian Corrigible]

Again, I don't see where Bell is advertising this as having the latest and greatest technology.
Jeff,

Just for giggles, the 505 flyer (http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/372/622/SLS%20Litho%20062013EN%20-WEB.pdf#page=2) describes it as "a new five-seat aircraft focused on safety, efficiency and reliability through the use of advanced technology."

But the cost argument is well made nonetheless. Which is a shame, since the original MAPL 351 was a looker.

http://files.activeboard.com/1097619?AWSAccessKeyId=1XXJBWHKN0QBQS6TGPG2&Expires=1416441600&Signature=eSajKbAwWttSdXAK1A4r74eprn8%3D (http://126840.activeboard.com/t47985125/bell-222-fenestron-experimental/?sort=newestFirst&page=1#comment-48255014)

I/C

[jeffg]

I/C
Point taken. I guess one could argue that the synthetic vision and dual channel FADEC are 'new technologies' as many costlier and larger aircraft don't offer either or both of those yet, the current EC145 and 412EP for example. But I would agree it is a weak argument.
The MAPL 351 would have been nice but I doubt it could have been had at this price point. As I recall the MAPL line incorporated 3 or 4 MRBs and new drive trains, but I could be wrong. Maybe someday Bell will give us a 407 replacement that might meet what it appears some were hoping the 505 would be.

Helilog,

I agaree. It is incumbent on Bell to meet or at least come very close to their promise to include DOCs, performance and R&M. If they do they will probably sell a lot, if they don't they won't.
My point is that I don't see an aircraft priced at approx $1m as something to expect to be the latest and greatest in tech nor the fastest, smoothest, prettiest one at the show. But then neither are any of it's likely competitors.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Well, Ian beat me to the punch concerning how Bell is marketing the 505 as "advanced technology." So I guess I don't have to reprint their brochure here :-/ Plus, we have jeffg's concession. A brand-new 2015 206B (if there was such a thing) could be fitted with the G-1000. Big deal.

Now, if longbox actually is involved in the development of the 505 (which must be long-distance involvement if he is in the UK), then we can understand his bias and prejudice and lack of objectivity toward the new design. People involved in a project generally take it very seriously and *very* personally. But it's not the first helicopter ever designed. We've seen this over and over from manufacturers trying to drum up excitement for their "new" old designs. ...Even so, some of the things longbox says are just kind of silly, even for a marketing guy. To wit:
The engine was chosen as it was the only option that comes with twin FADEC, don't recall seeing that 53 years ago,
Fair point, but is that really a "thing?" The hydro-mechanical setup in every 206 I've ever flown was fine, especially if equipped with Intellistart. So why the "need" for dual-FADEC? How important is it, really? Seems like just so much more modernization, complication and expense, all for the sake of saying, "See how modern we are! (Oh and by the way this will add $100,000 to the cost of your helicopter, but shhhh!)" FADEC works great on fixed-wing because it allows the pilot to slam the throttle(s) forward without the risk of overtemping the engines. We've already discussed here on PPRUNE the merits/disadvantages of FADEC limiting damage to the engine by not allowing an overtemp and instead drooping the rotor. I'll take the overtemp, please! Of course, it makes starting easier too, but as I said, Intellistart does that as well, and cheaper.

...the tail boom is longer and a new design with the single stab staying, not dual with fins.

Heh-heh. Interesting. Interesting because they have not yet even flown that thing around the pattern. So nobody can say what the final configuration is going to be. "New design" tailboom? Yeeeeaaahhhh, um, not. "New design" maybe because it does not have a big hole in it for the horizontal stabilizer spar to pass through. Not yet anyway ;)

Remember when Bell brought out the original 206L? Thought they didn't need fins on that one either. Trust me, if the 505 is faster than a 206B it *will* get fins. Unless it's not faster. Then it won't.
The seats that are in the three mock ups vary in finish and are not the finished product, the seats on my time showing the aircraft off have been met with zero problems, they will have leather not rag and tube as per the Blackhawk.
My comment on the seats was more about their look of overall lightness and cheapness. Flimsiness, if you will. They look horrible. Perhaps the production example will have beefier (read: heavier) seats. Let us hope so!
The transmission does incorporate a new design isolation mount.
Again, I would hope so. From the look of the initial runup the mount looks very stiff, without the usual jiggling around that a 206 does as the rotor comes up to speed. But remember, two-blade rotors produce a substantial "2-per" vibration just by their very nature. It's why the 206B and especially the 206L have such "soft" transmission mounts. Taming and controlling that "2-per" is tough. It'll be interesting to see how they do it with the 505.
The speed will be higher than a standard 206, it is Long ranger running gear which has a higher speed than the JR, and bear in mind it is lugging much less weight around than when on the L4.

Heh. Yes, the L-4 has longer blades and more power than a B-model. Will the 505 actually have the L-4 blades? That'll make for a 37' rotor diameter! Wow, that's a pretty big rotor system for a 5-seat helo (4' bigger diameter than both an EC-120 and an R-66). That's going to be one *loud* machine, just like an L-4. "Hi, neighbors!"

As for weight, hmm. With the claimed 3.5 hour endurance (at 31 gph), the 505 will have to hold 110 gallons of fuel - 750 pounds. Then there's the the Arrius engine weighing 200 or so *more* pounds than a RR-250. Then there's the 206L-4 drivetrain. Now add that steel-tube (i.e. non-composite) airframe/cabin. I'm thinking...just guessing here...but I think the MGW of the 505 will be up around 4,000 pounds. It'll have to be. If it's 3500 or less, I'll eat my shorts.

And oh yeah...a 206 is a pretty skinny airframe (just ask any EMS pilot!). The 505 is wider. Trust me, when/if you get the thing flying, it will *not* be any faster than a 206B on low-skids. Trust me. (And yes, I said "trust me" twice.) Depending on which press release you read, Bell is either claiming a VNE of 125 knots or a cruise speed of "125+ knots." Me, I kind of doubt you can push a 2-blade system up to 125 knots on a regular basis. There's all kinds of issues...mast tilt, fuselage angle in high speed cruise, flapping angle, engine failure at cruise speed/power...it gets complicated. A 206B on low-skids would chuff right along at 125 mph (about 110 knots). An L-model will do an easy 110kts. I'm confident that the 505 will be right in that area, not all that much faster. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
Most of the 250 plus orders and (did you mean "are?") a mixed bag, in the UK it is mainly 120, R44 and existing 206 owners coming through and a surprising number of cancelled 66 or new owners, we also have over 25 just for the UK.

250 orders, that's great, really! I have no doubt that people would clamor for such a product from Bell. But we'll see... We'll see how Bell holds the price as we get near delivery. Oh yeah...these "orders"...are they firm orders at a set price? Are they non-refundable deposits on delivery slots that can be sold? Are they deposits at all? Did money change hands? Or are these just Letters of Intent to purchase the aircraft? Kind of makes a difference.

Okay, alright, what does all this mean? Not a whole bunch, really. A *lot* can and will change between now and the day the first 505 rolls off the production line (if it ever does). But I'm always wary of the claims made about these "clean sheet of paper!" aircraft. We've seen it all before. I'm sort of immune to the hype. Such aircraft ALWAYS end up heavier and slower and more expensive than originally claimed. The same will be true of the 505. Cessna thought they would re-invent the wheel when they brought out the model 162. Oopsie! Killed that one off, quick! The PiperSport was a corporate failure. Beechcraft thought the Starship was going to be the wave of the future. It wasn't.

So with the 505, we'll see. I remain skeptical.

[longbox]

I have been involved in the 505 project as part of the customer advisory board from inception, this is held in the States and I will be in the States later this week to further go through progress made.

Yes I take your point things can be taken personally, but this is not the case with me, I am a pilot, (with a lot of hours on the 206)and many years in the industry. The 505 is going to be a great move for Bell and a fantastic helicopter for its customers.

You question the need for FADEC, all new aircraft are now fitted with FADEC, it is not only the start that you gain benefit from, what would you suggest a manual modulated start still?. If FADEC had not been fitted, surly this would have been a negative from people claiming no advancement?

The blades on the 505 are L4 blades, as is the transmission, mast, swashplate, head, tail rotor gearbox and tail rotor blades.

The orders placed so far do include deposits with PA's signed, the 505 is going to be a very popular helicopter, the orders speak for themselves, as more information can be released I will be delighted to share it with you.

[jeffg]

A brand-new 2015 206B (if there was such a thing) could be fitted with the G-1000. Big deal.
So could a lot of aircraft, but they don't. Perhaps Bell should have called it 'State of the Art' as AW does for the A119 and that would alleviate some of the angst? The fact is no aircraft in this category has an integrated flight deck solution that is capable of SVS, HTAWS, TCAS/ADS-B, XM WX, and all COMM/NAV on two large format displays as baseline equipment. Neither do many more expensive airframes. We can argue the semantics of whether its advanced technology or state of art or not. The fact is at the proposed price point it's a pretty good offering of equipment.

It seems on the one hand you're arguing that there is no new technology in the 505 "It's actually 53 year-old technology" but the two areas where it is ahead of its competitor level aircraft and some in the next tier up you say big deal to or you argue for, in the case of the hydro-mechanical setup, 53 year old technology stating that the new technology more "modernization, complication and expense".

People involved in a project generally take it very seriously and *very* personally
Could it also be that you're letting what appears to be a personal dislike for Bell affect your view of the 505?

I would also suggest that just because something is wider doesn't necessarily mean it can't be faster. Drag has many sources besides width and the 206B had it's fair share. A large factor on the 206B (thus the whole series to include 407) is the angle where the nose meets the wind screen (thus the 505s elongated, and yes ugly yet streamlined nose). In fact looking at pictures of the two I would wager that the 206B has more flat plate drag then the 505 as it is now. If Bell has to add structure as you imply then I would expect the drag count to increase and that comment will change.

My question is this, for an aircraft targeted at $1M and designed to compete with an R-66 and EC120 what exactly were people expecting?

[SansAnhedral]

I see FH has his anything-Bell bashing reputation to uphold.

Surely if Bell had introduced an all composite fuselage, with soft-in-plane composite rotor and carbon blades he would have slammed them just the same for building something so expensive and out of touch with the market. The NRE and certification of a new dynamic system and blade would have probably doubled the cost alone.

I can hear it now "Why would I want to pay $3 million for a tarted up AS350? You can put a G1000 in anything! What is Bell thinking, nobody is going to buy this disaster."

[jeffg]

Surely if Bell had introduced an all composite fuselage, with soft-in-plane composite rotor and carbon blades he would have slammed them just the same for building something so expensive and out of touch with the market. The NRE and certification of a new dynamic system and blade would have probably doubled the cost alone

Take the Marenco SKYe for instance. It has a composite fuselage and new 5 bladed rotor and a lot of other innovative stuff. Looks good and looks like a good helicopter. Projected cost $3M+, only 50 orders and it's been on the drawing board since 2007.

[SansAnhedral]

Just got word through the grapevine...congrats to the Bell team on their 505 first flight :ok:

[jeffg]

I guess "if" it flies is no longer an argument that can be made.
www.heraldonline.com/2014/11/10/6514187/bell-505-jet-ranger-x-achieves.html (http://www.heraldonline.com/2014/11/10/6514187/bell-505-jet-ranger-x-achieves.html)

[longbox]

Fantastic news on the first flight of the 505! The program continues to gather pace ahead of schedule.

[helonorth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3dSKEbNs4

0p3dSKEbNs4

[HeliHenri]

.

As I said before and even if I'm the only one, I like the look of the 505 :)
.

[longbox]

250 orders says you are not alone

[PhlyingGuy]

longbox 250 orders says you are not alone



Looks more like 300 now.

Reignwood Aviation places order for 50 Bell 505s | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/29497)

[FH1100 Pilot]

Sooooo...I'm a Bell-bashing Bell-hater, eh? Hmm. Let's just see. Private *and* Commercial ratings in the Bell 47. Started flying commercially in 1982...in 206's. Thirty-two years and 11,000-hours later, I'm still at it (but semi-retired, thankfully). Nearly 7,000 of those hours are in 206's of all kinds, from 206A's with boosted pedals to L-4's.

And yet I'm a Bell-hater.

You know, I'm tempted to say something really insulting about people who'd make such assumptions or put words in my mouth, but I'd probably just get this identity banned and have to start yet another one. So I won't. But I'm thinking it, baby!

Oh and by the way, *ALL* of my flight time is in helicopters that don't have autopilots or stabilization of any kind...or SIC's to "share" the flying for that matter...you know, helicopters that require the *single* pilot to have his hands on the controls 100% of the time. I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's. Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright? And I don't hate Bell.

The 505 reminds me a lot of the FH1100. I know that Bell is going to have some...well..."issues" with the 505 before it reaches production. One of those issues is trying to produce the thing for "around" a million dollars, which I think is impossible if they use U.S. labor. Wait until that workforce in Louisiana threatens to unionize. Bell will move that plant up to...hmm...Canada, perhaps? faster than you can say, "Merde!"

Having said that, the video of the first flight was impressive. Hey, an L-4 with new skin flies. Wow! Imagine that! But I did see some things in the video that were a little disturbing. For instance, that 25 pounds of ballast stuck on the end of that loooooong tailboom. Twenty-five pounds?! Does that flight test article even have defog blowers yet? Carpeting? What happens when people put a real interior with decent seats and more radios up front? Holy kamolee! Bell better make the tail rotor gearbox cowling out of lead.

I'm still not convinced they'll be able to push that airframe up to "125+" knots. I mean, they're kidding, right? An engine failure at that speed, at that torque, at most-forward-c.g., would be...interesting. Plus, I don't think that little horizontal stabilizer has enough oomph to pull the tail down far enough to keep the cabin level at 125 knots. (And by the way, that horizontal is mounted in a bad place. Hey Bell, isn't the inflow to the tail rotor bad enough on a 206? Now you have to go and put *another* airfoil back there to block the wind in certain azimuths? Sheesh! And it doesn't even look like they used Van Horn t/r blades - damn!)

It's a weird little helicopter with enormous compromises. And I keep saying this, but it'll be interesting to see how it evolves as it moves toward full production.

Cessna presold a bunch of Skycatchers too. The model 162 was announced in August of 2007. By November of 2008 Cessna had received 1,000 orders for a plane that was supposed to come in at "around" $100,000 (it didn't). One-thousand orders - for a plane that didn't even hit production until the end of 2009.

Now, just because Cessna had problems with the Skycatcher, does that mean that Bell will have the same problems with the 505? Of course not. I'm just saying that "number of orders" means very little.

[diethelm]

As a guy who has to pay for my own flying, I am optimistic and open minded.

It is a 100k more than an R66 for 500SHP versus 300SHP and it does not have to be completely rebuilt every 12 years.

So as long as it ends up being certified and delivered in reasonable numbers, the competition should bring down the used prices of EC120's and 500's which just makes flying more affordable for all of us.

[claudia]

Diet.

But, the turbomeca engine in the 505 will need to be re-built every 15 years

at a cost of a lot MORE than a complete R66 engine and airframe overhaul.

PLUS 10 year fcu overhauls at 30k euros etc. that comes with turbomeca.

[FH1100 Pilot]

One thing I've been kind of curious about is all the hype over this "dual-FADEC" thing. Everything Bell puts out about the 505 mentions the dual-FADEC as one of the advantages, often claiming that it "reduces pilot workload." And so I'm moved to wonder...

How?

How exactly does FADEC "reduce pilot workload" in the course of a flight? Now, admittedly I've never flown a 407, so I can't speak to this issue. But I cannot imagine that flying a 407 with FADEC is any less complicated or tiring or fatiguing (or different) than a 206L-4.

Yes, yes, the start sequence is automatic, but it still requires the pilot to monitor the procedings and do something! if it doesn't all go according to plan. But I never thought that starting an L-4 was all that much of a chore. And if your one-and-only FADEC fails in flight your workload is not reduced, for sure! So I guess there's good reason to put *two* of them onboard, eh? "It's so good that we decided to give you *two* of them...you know...just in case..."

So. Somebody help a brutha out here. Just how does having a FADEC controlled engine reduce pilot workload in a helicopter?

[GeorgeMandes]

Using the L4 and 407 as an example, FADEC reduces work load because absent abnormal situations, in the 407 the needle will appear to be painted on 100 percent, it holds rotor rpm so constant.

[Saint Jack]

I must admit, I'm beginning to like the looks of it too, and I expect this will grow when its shown in a proper delivery paint finish rather than a mock-up demonstrator finish. As a mechanic, two things strike me after looking at the first-flight video, the first is the location of the port and starboard position lights on a removable panel that makes them vulnerable to damage during maintenance. The other has me wondering how long it will be before someone uses the pitot head as a step to reach the upper corner of the windshield.

[Helilog56]

Although I have been flying heavies for the last 15 years, I do have a fondness for Bell mediums. Having said that, I find Bell as a company somewhat behind the curve...they are being reactive to a market that Robinson targeted with success rather than proactive. I have not doubt Bell will sell 505's, but will they tap into the success of the R66's market share?

Come on Bell, for a company that broke into the civilian market like gangbusters in the 60's, and led the way......your at the back of the bus and missed your stop yet again!!!?!?!!

[jeffg]

Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright?
As do a few other people on here. Several on here also know a thing or two certifying a new aircraft. But since you know a thing or two:

My comment on the seats was more about their look of overall lightness and cheapness. Flimsiness, if you will. They look horrible. Perhaps the production example will have beefier (read: heavier) seats. Let us hope so!
...Have you people *seen* the seats? Lord Almighty, I always thought the original Astar seats were cheap-looking. The 505 seats make the 350 seats seem like they came out of a Blackhawk!

Interestingly I think if you look at the latest examples of the 350B3 you’ll find they upgraded their seats...to the exact same seat that will be found in the 505. Something about the heavier and beefier seats not being as good as the flimsy ones.
That said I believe these are the seats that will be in the 505:
http://www.zodiacaerospace.com/en/our-products/aircraft-systems/cabin-cockpit-systems/seats/crew-seats/helicopters/hydros-series (http://www.zodiacaerospace.com/en/our-products/aircraft-systems/cabin-cockpit-systems/seats/crew-seats/helicopters/hydros-series)
They meet the following requirements:
FAA 14 CFR Part27: Airworthiness Standards. Transport Category Aircraft
EASA CS-27 : Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Rotorcraft
ETSO/TSO-C127a : Technical Standard Order – Rotorcraft, transport airplane, and normal and utility airplane seating system,
ETSO/TSO-C114 : Technical Standard Order – Torso Restraint system
SAE AS8049 : Performance standard for seat in civil rotorcraft, transport aircraft, and general aviation aircraft
SAE AS8043 : Aircraft Torso Restraint system
DO-160G : Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment

Since you know a thing or two about helicopters which of these standards do you find insufficient? How would a heavier beefier seat better meet these requirements?

Me, I kind of doubt you can push a 2-blade system up to 125 knots on a regular basis. There's all kinds of issues...mast tilt, fuselage angle in high speed cruise, flapping angle, engine failure at cruise speed/power...it gets complicated.
How do you explain multiple variants of the AH-1 and the 214ST? Both of which have 2 blades and cruise at well above 125kts? As far as the complicated issues they exist no matter what your rotor configuration. Can you share ‘a thing or two’ as to why those issues keep a two bladed system from pushing 125 kts on a regular basis but not a 3 plus rotor system?

One thing I've been kind of curious about is all the hype over this "dual-FADEC" thing. Everything Bell puts out about the 505 mentions the dual-FADEC as one of the advantages, often claiming that it "reduces pilot workload." And so I'm moved to wonder...How?
Perhaps FADECs are thing three? While you may not see start as a big issue many owners and maintenance managers do. The simple fact that a FADEC can prevent a hot start can save an operator a lot of money. Aside from that it starts the engine at the right temperature every time increasing the life of the engine, something even the best pilot can't do consistently. Workload related?
-Nr/Np governing, typically +\- 1% with aggressive collective inputs.
- limit protection preventing inadvertent exceedances
- If limit protection is provided an override feature can be provided allowing the pilot to pull all the power he wants at the expense of the airframe
Not to mention:
-improved fuel efficiency
-improved engine response
- easier integration with digital cockpits
-easier integration of HUMS
Maybe these are meaningless to you but most of the community has moved on. When you buy a car do you ask the dealer to show you the one with the carburetor? I mean who needs fuel injection? It's just technology for the sake of technology, right?

I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's
Why am I not surprised it ended in failure?

And yet I'm a Bell-hater. You know, I'm tempted to say something really insulting about people who'd make such assumptions or put words in my mouth, but I'd probably just get this identity banned and have to start yet another one. So I won't. But I'm thinking it, baby
The webs an interesting thing. You're not a Bell hater but all you've done is bash this aircraft telling us how you know it's going to fail. Yet you said the following about the very similar R-66:

Frank says that the R66 will weigh around 1280 pounds empty vs. a MGW of 2700 pounds. *IF* he can keep the "completed" empty weight down to 1300 he'll have a useful load of 1400 pounds. That's a useful useful load…..As ugly as it is, the R66 will be a very good product - in the role that most people are going to use it. Frank will undoubtedly sell every one of them that comes off the assembly line. His loyal customers will buy them. His service centers all over the world will take care of them. Plus, it is new.
Why the completely different tune on two very similar aircraft targeted at the same market? If not the difference in OEM? Perhaps you can see why some might think you’re biased? If you’re concerned about people putting words in your mouth how is what you implied about Longbox taking the personally any different? Might I suggest you were the first to place words?

Oh and by the way, *ALL* of my flight time is in helicopters that don't have autopilots or stabilization of any kind...or SIC's to "share" the flying for that matter...you know, helicopters that require the *single* pilot to have his hands on the controls 100% of the time.
So have a lot of pilots. So what’s your point?

For instance, that 25 pounds of ballast stuck on the end of that loooooong tailboom. Twenty-five pounds?! Does that flight test article even have defog blowers yet? Carpeting? What happens when people put a real interior with decent seats and more radios up front? Holy kamolee! Bell better make the tail rotor gearbox cowling out of lead.
Can you tell us why the 25lbs was there or are you just speculating? Do you know the weight and location of the instrumentaion package? Do you know what the target GW and CG were for the first flight? Do you know what the GW and CG tolerances were to count the data point as good? Do you know how much fuel they were using? If you can't then you really have no idea if you should be concerned or not. If your FH1100 program had made it to flight then maybe you would realize that in flight test you hang weights in some very strange locations to meet a very specific GW/CG combination and many times it's not operationally representative but needed for the engineering data. We'll count that as thing four.

[jeffg]

I know that Bell is going to have some...well..."issues" with the 505 before it reaches production.
Was that supposed to be enlightening? A better piece if info might be to tell us what new type design programs HAVEN'T had "issues". In fact how many STCs can you tell us about where they haven't had "issues" that required a change?

One of those issues is trying to produce the thing for "around" a million dollars, which I think is impossible if they use U.S. labor. Wait until that workforce in Louisiana threatens to unionize. Bell will move that plant up to...hmm...Canada, perhaps? faster than you can say, "Merde!"

Is Frank not using US labor? You didn't seem to be concerned with his price structure or his labor cost. Speaking of which why the concern over the 505s CG and baggage compartment location but not so with the R-66 when they're similarly located? If you're not biased. Perhaps I missed your comments on that elsewhere?

[SansAnhedral]

FH's deleted post content was claiming his demonstrated anti-Bell bias is an "assumption"?

http://www.pprune.org/search.php?searchid=2286278

http://media.giphy.com/media/qvJLmqfuhh2ec/giphy.gif

[FH1100 Pilot]

Nice try, Jeff, but you really know very little about civilian helicopters and how they're certified. You certainly know nothing of the FH1100 (that's obvious). Instead of listing all the aircraft that you're "current" in on your profile, maybe you should spend a little more time actually learning about these crazy contraptions. Just a thought, mm'kay?

I'll address only one thing in your mouth-foaming rant: FADEC in a single-engine helicopter with respect to reducing pilot workload. Ooooh, it makes *starting* easier?? Big deal. Any competent pilot can easily start an L-4 - it doesn't take the skill of a Chuck Yeager/Aaron; it's not even that "high workload." With the Intellistart system, it's even easier and you don't need a single FADEC much less dual-FADEC.

Jeff, all of the "advantages" you listed are cost benefits for the owner/operator/maintainer, *not* the pilot. That's great, but...in most normal circumstances, FADEC makes NOT ONE LITTLE BIT of difference to the pilot.

Your automotive fuel injection analogy is silly. Just silly. Puh-leeze. Does FADEC offer better driveability (flyability?) and does it measurably reduce fuel consumption like fuel injection does? Does FADEC allow for increased TBO's? Do you get any real benefit because the N2/NR stay exactly at 100% instead of merely "within limits?" FADEC *cannot* prevent an overtorque or overtemp in flight. Just silly. Go back to high school and learn to make better analogies.

And so I ask again: What does FADEC actually *do* for the pilot in normal ops? If the advantage is that it reduces long-term maintenance cost via higher initial purchase price for the operator, then say so! If that's even true. But don't try to sell the dumb old pilots on how much easier FADEC will make their lives. You know how easily pilots are distracted by shiny, sparkly things.

I don't know about the rest of you hotdogs, but I don't spend a lot of my time (or *any* of it, actually) yanking up and down on my collective. How many of us actually do? Even the N2 in that old, creaky, antique 206B I fly stays right where it ought to stay without any extraordinary skill or monitoring on my part. And that B-model is stone-simple to start:

Push one button,
Open the throttle at 15%,
Release button above 60%,
Done.

You know what really would make the 206 easier to start? A battery voltage gauge. You know, like the 407 with that fancy FADEC has. Because then you would KNOW when the start is going to be "iffy." FADEC won't even let the pilot attempt a start if the voltage is too low, and that's where pilots of older, non-FADEC ships get in trouble.

So I say: FADEC is complication for the sake of complication in a single-engine helicopter. Dual-FADEC is simply ridiculous, expensive overkill.

P.S. Actually, Frankie *did* hit the targets with the R-66.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, my negative comments about the 505 are with respect to its role as a replacement for the 206B. In that regard it is an epic-fail, as the kids say. As a new/improved/bigger/more powerful R-66, it's probably spot-on ;)

[diethelm]

Jeff, all of the "advantages" you listed are cost benefits for the owner/operator/maintainer, *not* the pilot. That's great, but...in most normal circumstances, FADEC makes NOT ONE LITTLE BIT of difference to the pilot.

With respect to the target market for the R66 and the 505, I believe the pilot/owner/operator will, in the majority of cases, be the same person.

I'm don't know who pays for your flying, but I pay for mine and these things you criticize are an advantage for those of us who both fly and pay the bills.

[jeffg]

Nice try, Jeff, but you really know very little about civilian helicopters and how they're certified

Oh? Thanks for the info. I'll call my advisor at the FAA today and have them tear up the 50+ 8110-3s I've either approved or recommended approval on this year on 9 different types of both Part 27 and 29 made by 5 different OEMs. While I'm at it I'll have them revoke my DER status and pass it on to you since you're more qualified then I.

Perhaps your issue with FADECs is your rather simplistic and inappropriate take on workload?
But I cannot imagine that flying a 407 with FADEC is any less complicated or tiring or fatiguing (or different) than a 206L-4.
Workload has to do with spare capacity to accomplish other task. A high workload can result in being fatigued or tired but being fatigued or tired is not neccessarily an indication of high workload. That said I've flown both the 407 and the 206L-4 and yes the FADEC does decrease workload.
I see you say '...I cannot imagine...' implying that you have neither flown the 407 nor a helicopter with either a EEC or a FADEC. Should you not withhold judgement until you have? At least that's what professional pilot would do. Especially one who knew as much about certification as you. I could be wrong and will defer to you since you know more about civil cert than I do but I was always taught that as the evaluation pilot you should keep an open mind about these things and let the data tell you which decision to make. But unlike you I've spent a lot of time in both configurations, big and small, and have conducted flight test and operations in both configurations, and prefer the complicated for the sake of complication EEC/FADEC to the uncomplicated hydro-mechanical.

FADEC is complication for the sake of complication in a single-engine helicopter. Dual-FADEC is simply ridiculous, expensive overkill.

I think it's you not Bell who is sooo 53 years ago.

P.S. Actually, Frankie *did* hit the targets with the R-66.


Yes he did. But at the time of your post he hadn't completed flight test, hadn't certified and hadn't delivered his first aircraft therefore you didn't know that, did you? You took his word for it.

[Ian Corrigible]

Chinese luxury consumers: "Bell 505 better than 407GX, AW119Kx and EC130 T2 !" (http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/News/PressReleases/NewsRelease/NewsRelease.html?ReleaseID=426f0e7f-cd55-4c32-a052-68c517a5a8e6)

:hmm:

In other 505-related news: Robinson R66 production down 47% in 2014 (http://helihub.com/2015/02/06/robinson-production-drops-by-37-in-2014/)

I/C

[Stinger10]

IC - Marketing spin. The 505 isn't in the same class as the Bell 407GX or the AW119Kx. S.E. turbines with glass cockpit is where the comparison ends really. 505 is in competition with the R-66, AS350s, Turbine Enstrom, and SW-4.

[Ian Corrigible]

Stinger,

That's the question: if the 350 is included, then why not the 407?

As you say, obviously just marketing spin, though I'm surprised BHT would issue a PR for such a lightweight story, given that there can't be any lack of meaty news stories to tell about 505. Seems about as worthwhile as being named 'Best Helicopter!!' by one of those lingerie model-infested UHNWI rags which pop-up overnight (did I mention the lingerie models?), last for a single ad cycle (complete with pouting lingerie models), then disappear never to be heard of again (aww, where have all the lingerie models gone? :E). I'm sure KiwiNedNZ will have his views on that particular topic...

I/C

[PhlyingGuy]

Bell isn't the one who awarded it... So why not get a little extra publicity in a high growth market? I don't think it deserves it because it's no where close to bring certified yet.... But this wouldn't have stopped any of the other OEM's from doing the same.

Five minutes of fame is better than none.

[nigelh]

FH1100 ..... Your post makes you sound like you are actually afraid of the 505 being a huge success . Why is that ? Do you have any vested interest in something that may be affected by this aircraft ? I only ask as your rant is either to do with your age or that you will be hurt by the success ....
Having bought one I fully expect it to be brilliant AND be worth a LOT more than $1m when it is in full production !!!!!!
( I have no thoughts at all that it could compete with either the 407 , 350 or 119 .....!!!!)

[Ian Corrigible]

PhlyingGuy,

I'd respectfully disagree. You're right, everyone plays the game, getting whatever attention they can, but I can't see any of the other OEMs (well, maybe just the one, if she wanted some attention... :E) talking up such a scattergun survey, with hundreds (http://www.hurun.net/en/ArticleShow.aspx?nid=9604) of unrelated products ("Best Mattress," "Best High-Tech Multi-Functional Electric Shaver," "Best Coffee Experience Star Performer") selected by someone who clearly spent far too long on Alibaba one Sunday afternoon.

Anyway, the only reason I mentioned it was that it added to the disappointment of the industry buying both awards (http://helihub.com/2015/01/06/john-travolta-to-host-12th-annual-living-legends-of-aviation-awards) for itself, and "pay-to-play" (http://aviationweek.com/blog/alls-well-jsf-lockheed-martin-consultant) analysts.

If it persuades someone in Beijing to buy themselves a 505 (and a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label), fair dues I guess.

I/C

[HeliHenri]

Bell Helicopter's second 505 first flight :

Bell 505's second flight test vehicle achieves first flight | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bell505ssecondflighttestvehicleachievesfirstflight)

[Lonewolf_50]

It appears to be flying over a great expanse of snow (http://verticalmag.com/images/news/article_files/739580611931160.jpg).

[Otterotor]

Lonewolf,

Have you ever been to Montreal between December and April?:rolleyes:

[Lonewolf_50]

I forgot about the Bell plant in Canada, versus Forth Worth.
Thanks. *sheepish* (News story byline/locale got me looking at the news in DFW area and I didn't see recent blizzards and snow accumulation ... doh!)

[bellblade2014]

Bell provides an update on 505 Jet Ranger X development | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bellprovidesanupdateon505JetRangerXdevelopment)


https://player.vimeo.com/video/124513347

Since its announcement at the 2013 Paris Air Show, the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X has reached several milestones in its development. From achieving first flight with two flight test helicopters, to breaking ground on a new production facility for the aircraft, Bell’s short light single helicopter is well on its way to certification. Vertical caught up with David Smith, the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X program director, at Heli-Expo 2015 to get an update on the Bell 505’s development, and to review the aircraft’s accomplishments to date.

“We kicked the team off going down a very aggressive path of prototyping and developing versions of the product that we knew would be valuable for learning how to build it, [and] how not to build it,” Smith told Vertical. “We did that over the course of 20 months en route to a first flight last November . . . and subsequently we’ve flown the second aircraft in late February of this year, so we’ve got two aircraft flying in the air and we’ve reached roughly 80 hours of flight test.”

The Bell 505 Jet Ranger X will be assembled at a new facility in Lafayette, La. Construction of the 82,300-square-foot production plant began last August, and assembly operations are expected to begin in 2016.

For more information on the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X’s development, watch the video above.

[longbox]

A further update on the 505, we will have the mock up on display at Goodwood Festival of Speed this year and also at Helitech, please pm me if you need any further information.

[Ian Corrigible]

Bell says its 505 will get new type certificate (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/Bell-Says-Its-505-Will-Get-New-Type-Certificate_85212.html)
Bell Helicopter’s 505 light single will enter the market under a new type certificate, the company tells Rotor & Wing International, rather than piggybacking on the 206 JetRanger type certificate, which was first issued in 1964. The 505 will use the transmission, rotor hub and rotor blades from the 206L-4 LongRanger, it adds, but those components will be certified to the latest amendment of Federal Aviation Regulation Part 27. The L-4 was certificated in 1992.

I/C

[longbox]

I now have the 505 mock up at my facility, in readiness for Goodwood, please pm if you would like a one to one visit.

[nigelh]

Well i hear the 505 flew into Kentucky at 125kn easily :D It is fascinating to look back at the posts , especially FH1100 who i assume is now eating his hat ..as promised !! Best news is also that the PBH covers almost everything so the owner can know his costs . I am told that pretty much everything is covered by this so that i think kills the anti turbomeca argument , at least as far as high cost goes . I also hear useful load is right up there as well and range a good 3 hrs . Cant wait for mine to arrive now !!!

ps Longbox ....how about some more info just to piss off FH ??

[FLY 7]

Any news on the 'full sized' skids ;)