Sooooo...I'm a Bell-bashing Bell-hater, eh? Hmm. Let's just see. Private *and* Commercial ratings in the Bell 47. Started flying commercially in 1982...in 206's. Thirty-two years and 11,000-hours later, I'm still at it (but semi-retired, thankfully). Nearly 7,000 of those hours are in 206's of all kinds, from 206A's with boosted pedals to L-4's.
And yet I'm a Bell-hater.
You know, I'm tempted to say something really insulting about people who'd make such assumptions or put words in my mouth, but I'd probably just get this identity banned and have to start yet another one. So I won't. But I'm thinking it, baby!
Oh and by the way, *ALL* of my flight time is in helicopters that don't have autopilots or stabilization of any kind...or SIC's to "share" the flying for that matter...you know, helicopters that require the *single* pilot to have his hands on the controls 100% of the time. I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's. Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright? And I don't hate Bell.
The 505 reminds me a lot of the FH1100. I know that Bell is going to have some...well..."issues" with the 505 before it reaches production. One of those issues is trying to produce the thing for "around" a million dollars, which I think is impossible if they use U.S. labor. Wait until that workforce in Louisiana threatens to unionize. Bell will move that plant up to...hmm...Canada, perhaps? faster than you can say, "Merde!"
Having said that, the video of the first flight was impressive. Hey, an L-4 with new skin flies. Wow! Imagine that! But I did see some things in the video that were a little disturbing. For instance, that 25 pounds of ballast stuck on the end of that loooooong tailboom. Twenty-five pounds?! Does that flight test article even have defog blowers yet? Carpeting? What happens when people put a real interior with decent seats and more radios up front? Holy kamolee! Bell better make the tail rotor gearbox cowling out of lead.
I'm still not convinced they'll be able to push that airframe up to "125+" knots. I mean, they're kidding, right? An engine failure at that speed, at that torque, at most-forward-c.g., would be...interesting. Plus, I don't think that little horizontal stabilizer has enough oomph to pull the tail down far enough to keep the cabin level at 125 knots. (And by the way, that horizontal is mounted in a bad place. Hey Bell, isn't the inflow to the tail rotor bad enough on a 206? Now you have to go and put *another* airfoil back there to block the wind in certain azimuths? Sheesh! And it doesn't even look like they used Van Horn t/r blades - damn!)
It's a weird little helicopter with enormous compromises. And I keep saying this, but it'll be interesting to see how it evolves as it moves toward full production.
Cessna presold a bunch of Skycatchers too. The model 162 was announced in August of 2007. By November of 2008 Cessna had received 1,000 orders for a plane that was supposed to come in at "around" $100,000 (it didn't). One-thousand orders - for a plane that didn't even hit production until the end of 2009.
Now, just because Cessna had problems with the Skycatcher, does that mean that Bell will have the same problems with the 505? Of course not. I'm just saying that "number of orders" means very little.