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.