Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright?
As do a few other people on here. Several on here also know a thing or two certifying a new aircraft. But since you know a thing or two:
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!
...Have you people *seen* the seats? Lord Almighty, I always thought the original Astar seats were cheap-looking. The 505 seats make the 350 seats seem like they came out of a Blackhawk!
Interestingly I think if you look at the latest examples of the 350B3 you’ll find they upgraded their seats...to the exact same seat that will be found in the 505. Something about the heavier and beefier seats not being as good as the flimsy ones.
That said I believe these are the seats that will be in the 505:
http://www.zodiacaerospace.com/en/our-products/aircraft-systems/cabin-cockpit-systems/seats/crew-seats/helicopters/hydros-series
They meet the following requirements:
FAA 14 CFR Part27: Airworthiness Standards. Transport Category Aircraft
EASA CS-27 : Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Rotorcraft
ETSO/TSO-C127a : Technical Standard Order – Rotorcraft, transport airplane, and normal and utility airplane seating system,
ETSO/TSO-C114 : Technical Standard Order – Torso Restraint system
SAE AS8049 : Performance standard for seat in civil rotorcraft, transport aircraft, and general aviation aircraft
SAE AS8043 : Aircraft Torso Restraint system
DO-160G : Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment
Since you know a thing or two about helicopters which of these standards do you find insufficient? How would a heavier beefier seat better meet these requirements?
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.
How do you explain multiple variants of the AH-1 and the 214ST? Both of which have 2 blades and cruise at well above 125kts? As far as the complicated issues they exist no matter what your rotor configuration. Can you share ‘a thing or two’ as to why those issues keep a two bladed system from pushing 125 kts on a regular basis but not a 3 plus rotor system?
One thing I've been kind of curious about is all the hype over this "dual-FADEC" thing. Everything Bell puts out about the 505 mentions the dual-FADEC as one of the advantages, often claiming that it "reduces pilot workload." And so I'm moved to wonder...How?
Perhaps FADECs are thing three? While you may not see start as a big issue many owners and maintenance managers do. The simple fact that a FADEC can prevent a hot start can save an operator a lot of money. Aside from that it starts the engine at the right temperature every time increasing the life of the engine, something even the best pilot can't do consistently. Workload related?
-Nr/Np governing, typically +\- 1% with aggressive collective inputs.
- limit protection preventing inadvertent exceedances
- If limit protection is provided an override feature can be provided allowing the pilot to pull all the power he wants at the expense of the airframe
Not to mention:
-improved fuel efficiency
-improved engine response
- easier integration with digital cockpits
-easier integration of HUMS
Maybe these are meaningless to you but most of the community has moved on. When you buy a car do you ask the dealer to show you the one with the carburetor? I mean who needs fuel injection? It's just technology for the sake of technology, right?
I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's
Why am I not surprised it ended in failure?
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
The webs an interesting thing. You're not a Bell hater but all you've done is bash this aircraft telling us how you know it's going to fail. Yet you said the following about the very similar R-66:
Frank says that the R66 will weigh around 1280 pounds empty vs. a MGW of 2700 pounds. *IF* he can keep the "completed" empty weight down to 1300 he'll have a useful load of 1400 pounds. That's a useful useful load…..As ugly as it is, the R66 will be a very good product - in the role that most people are going to use it. Frank will undoubtedly sell every one of them that comes off the assembly line. His loyal customers will buy them. His service centers all over the world will take care of them. Plus, it is new.
Why the completely different tune on two very similar aircraft targeted at the same market? If not the difference in OEM? Perhaps you can see why some might think you’re biased? If you’re concerned about people putting words in your mouth how is what you implied about Longbox taking the personally any different? Might I suggest you were the first to place words?
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.
So have a lot of pilots. So what’s your point?
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.
Can you tell us why the 25lbs was there or are you just speculating? Do you know the weight and location of the instrumentaion package? Do you know what the target GW and CG were for the first flight? Do you know what the GW and CG tolerances were to count the data point as good? Do you know how much fuel they were using? If you can't then you really have no idea if you should be concerned or not. If your FH1100 program had made it to flight then maybe you would realize that in flight test you hang weights in some very strange locations to meet a very specific GW/CG combination and many times it's not operationally representative but needed for the engineering data. We'll count that as thing four.