DK:
Forgive me Savoia ... perhaps the old memory cells are fading, but I'd bet a dollar to ten cents that the version I flew at Henderson, had a full-length servicing platform directly adjacent to the engine compartment. You pic shows the platform to be smaller and in a lower location. But brain cells being what they are ..... DRK
Dennis, the hinged work platforms (actually just access doors for the electrics, oil tanks and various under-engine bits) were only about 14" wide throughout the life of the machine. You're probably remembering standing right on the engine deck (which you could do), which indeed ran from the back of the cabin all the way back to the tail boom attach points.
People might assume that the 1100 flew like a 206, but they do not. Hiller and Bell had very different philosophies on control and stability. Many 1100's came through with a very crude, analog SAS which worked okay up to a point, I guess, although it was no autopilot.
All 1100s have a rudimentary force-trim system on the cyclic that makes that control quite stiff. There is no cyclic friction adjustment.
The problem is that with no forward tilt to the mast, at cruise speed of 120 mph the aircraft assumes a very nose-down attitude. This does terrible things to the stability and it is quite squirrely at that speed (compared to a 206 which drones along nicely at 120 mph). If you back off the power and cruise around at 90 or 100 mph it's really nice - but who wants to fly that slow? (Answer: The designers who obviously only saw the helicopter as a low-speed aircraft.) Then again, a 206 is rock solid, hands-off fun at 100 mph too.
With dual hydraulic systems and no possibility of shutting both off simultaneously, there was no anticipated need to practice hydraulics-off situations in the 1100. Because of this, the 1100 has a tiny little, short-coupled cyclic. Bells always have really long cyclics to give the pilot leverage to fly the thing with the power steering out.
Not only that, but the 1100 had a very tall transmission that was quite rigidly mounted to the airframe, unlike the "loosey-goosey" way the (relatively) low-profile 206 trans mounts to the top deck. 206 trans moves around a *LOT* more than an 1100 trans, and this translates into comparatively sloppy controls in the 206. (And I've got about 8,000 hours in 206's so I'm qualified to have that opinion.)
Thus, the 1100 has a more "sporty" feel than a 206 (if any semi-rigid, underslung rotor can be called that). I've had Hughes 500 pilots comment on how "sensitive" the 1100 is, especially in roll.
Eh- every helicopter is different and takes some getting used to. It's just strange that the 1100 and 206 do fly so differently given how close they are in configuration. The differences in the philosophies of the design teams are striking.
Finally- When Stan Hiller thought he'd won the LOH contract, he sold the California-based helicopter company to Fairchild Industries, an airplane manufacturer on the east coast. Not good.
As we all know, Howard Hughes wanted that contract more. And got it. Fairchild was severely disillusioned at the loss (and Stan was already gone). Industry-wide, nobody really saw a market for a civilian five-seat light turbine helicopter in 1966 (except for a few forward-thinkers at Bell).
So Fairchild never really got behind the 1100 as a civilian ship - they weren't really a helicopter company in the first place! They built 254 of them between 1967 and 1972, ironically calling it quits just as the market segment was exploding. Bell had already redesigned the fugly OH-4 into the 206, had a better-funded marketing department, and were better positioned to take advantage of the way the world was moving.
The rest is history.
In the ensuing years, efforts to revive the 1100 have not been successful.