Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
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.
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.
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 !!!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Oxford
Age: 56
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pricing and Power by the Hour
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.
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.
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?
Even the R66 has this. Or being a European engine will it only be 30 seconds?
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!
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!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Head in the sky
Age: 70
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
109
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).
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).
Thanks for the video Sans.
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!
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!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kent
Age: 55
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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? 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: East of the sun, west of the moon, straight on till morning
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uggghh
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.
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...
Nose looks like someone parked it on the ramp in Vegas and the glass got too hot and slumped.
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...
Last edited by fling-wing_1; 7th Nov 2014 at 02:09.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uggghh
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..."
"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..."
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kent
Age: 55
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
The 505 keep in context, a five place turbine helicopter, glass cockpit, Bell warranty for 1m USD!
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!
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
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!
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
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.