Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
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
Phyling Guy
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.
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.
Still at least they are starting on the basis of a success......the LongRanger.
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 ?
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.
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.
nigelh says of the 506:
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.
When you look at the spec and performance it is the biggest bargain around ....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Resting in shade
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
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 ?!!
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 ?!!
Compromises
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...
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...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot
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?"
(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, new aircraft sales to parapublic operators are going to be hard to come by.
I/C
"Just a pilot"
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...
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...
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 )
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").
"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").
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?
Only two questions at the front of my mind: will they actually build it and can they really get close to $1mil price?
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 ......
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 ......
