Apparently, the drop tests under FAR Part 27 that manufacturers have to comply with for US FAA certification now are more rigorous than back in the "good old days" when the 206/407 was certified.
So yes, the 500-*landing* life-limit on the 505 gear is a real thing. (Unless Bell has quietly fixed it by now, of course.) It's probably why Bell didn't hustle to find a tour operator here in the U.S. to put on a 505 to build time quickly. And it's not just the skids; I understand that the structure around attach points for the landing gear needs beefing-up as well. So it's not as simple as building the gear crosstubes out of thicker material or whatever. The solution will be complex. (And did you notice that the #1 505 Fanboy Nigelh didn't deny or even comment on the landing gear issue at all? He merely resorted to his childish name-calling. And I thought we were getting on so well...)
I suppose the "SLS" (short light single) that Bell originally envisioned was supposed to be a much lighter helicopter. I mean, a replacement for a 206B shouldn't weigh as much as a 206L...should it? But that's what happened. Bell went with the L-model drivetrain (main trans, main rotor, tailboom and tail rotor), which are admittedly "a bit" heavier than their B-model counterparts. Then of course Bell opted for the Arrius engine, which is heavier than a comparable RR-250. Bell also said sayonara to the composites in the cabin/fuselage and went back to...well, basically the same way they built the 47J-model all those years ago: a tube frame with a sheet metal cover. "Clean sheet of paper," my ass.
So instead of a 3200 pound helicopter we now have a 3800 pound helicopter. A 3800-pound, five-seat single.
Now, you know...I mean, you KNOW that Bell is working feverishly to come up with a solution to this gear debacle. Otherwise this ship is dead in the water. No commercial operator will touch it if they have to replace the landing gear every 500 *LANDINGS*. (Lengthening the skid tubes is a separate issue not related to the weak landing gear. There were some balance issues on the ground, evidently.) The 505 fanboys don't like to talk about the landing gear issue. They keep that on the deep down-low. For obvious reasons, I mean, come on.
And now look, I don't enjoy being critical of things. Although I may come off as a grumpy old man, I don't actually like being critical for the sake of being critical. I just like to be objective. And I think that the compromises Bell made to rush this turkey into production are just silly. It's like they're saying, "Aw, screw the customers! As long as it has 'BELL' stenciled on the side, people will eat it up! We'll put dual-FADECs and a Garmin 1000 in the thing and them dumb pilots will be so impressed that they'll overlook what an overall crappy design it is. Hopefully they won't even ask how much it'll cost to replace one of those huge windscreens if they accidentally crack one and it's a non-warranty item."
Really Bob, crappy design? Yeah, really. How's about how they buried the fuel gauge and hid it in one little corner of the MFD where you really have to look for it and it's not obvious at a glance like it is on...ohhh, JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER HELICOPTER EVER DESIGNED!
Progress!
But hey, it's got FADEC! And those are cool. But we can't practice stuck-pedal emergencies in it because of the little toggle-switch "throttle." But come on...when was the last time you heard of a stuck pedal? Get real.