Nigel, I'm sure you have a lot invested in the 505...financially maybe but emotionally for certain. But I'm not sure why you have to attack me personally for my views. Have I ever said anything nasty to or about you? I find your obsession with hurting me puzzling, and probably unhealthy. Then again, you are just another brave internet warrior hiding behind a keyboard. Hey, can you even hear your mother calling you for supper from down there in that basement?
Ah but seriously, Nigel, I'm sure you're probably the best R-22 or R-44
pilot in all of Europe...maybe Russia and Asia too. But your general knowledge of helicopters is lacking.
I know this is a rumor network and all, but taking somebody's word from somebody else that the 505 cruised all the way from Canada to Kentucky at an implied constant airspeed of 135 knots is naively foolish and silly. Son, have you ever flown a two-blade, underslung 206 rotor system at 135 knots? I'd guess knot, to make a bad pun.
First of all, you know why Bell put that cambered horizontal stabilizer on the tailboom of the 206? It's to keep the tail down in cruise. Otherwise the ship would have an extremely nose-down attitude. You think that little flat-plate horizontal stab on the 505 is going to do the trick? Nope. So what must the ride have been like at 135 knots? Pretty uncomfortable, I'd guess...pretty nose-low. Passengers don't want to fly like that. Trust me, I'm a Bo-105 pilot, I know
At at paltry 120 knots, the '105 assumed a 10-12 degree nose-down cabin attitude. Why? Well because the mast was not tilted forward and always had to stay perpendicular to the tip-path plane.
Flying long distances at 120 knots in a 105 is not fun. It's squirrelly up there. But keep it down to 105-110 knots and life is much better - *and* - added bonus, your fuel consumption is lower too! (100 knots was even better but no self-respecting pilot wants to fly that slow.) I do notice that the seats in the 505 are reclined at a pretty good angle - probably to try to make up for the nose-low cabin attitude in forward flight.
And then, Nigel, if you do manage to pull the 505 tail down far enough for a decent cabin attitude at high-speed cruise, you are getting REALLY close to the flapping limits of the rotor hub. A little turbulence thrown into the mix and a jiggity pilot who likes to fly with a no-friction, wet-noodle cyclic? Hoo-man, I don't even want to think about it. Neither does Bell, I'd imagine.
Okay, so now let's talk about engine failures at high speed. You know how fast the rotor rpm is going to bleed off? It's why the LongRangers have such problems with engine failures in high-speed cruise. You've *got* to get the nose up before getting the pitch down...or the rotor rpm will go away, a high rate of descent will build up and you'll get into "Nodamatic bounce" like you wouldn't believe. Just ask PHI what they teach in LongRangers.
But wait, the 505 doesn't even have a Nodamatic transmission mount! Sooooooo....hmm, this begs the question: What is the ride quality like at 135 knots? How are they dealing with the "one-per" that invariably comes with high cruise? Again, have you, Nigel ever flown a two-blade, underslung system that fast? It gets...interesting, Nigel.
135 knots in a 505 is beyond the VNE of the 206 with...wait for it...
the same exact rotor system! It may very well *go* 135 knots (in a dive), but it's not going to cruise up there. ...Without endplates/fins on the horizontal stab? No way. No friggin' way. There's a lot of things Bell *can* do, but they cannot rewrite the laws of aerodynamics. You can expect that the tail configuration will change yet again before certification, probably to something that looks more like a 206L does now. And yes, that will slow it down. Expect a VNE of 130 knots just like now. Keep this in mind: Flying-wise, IT'S A LONGRANGER. Errr, a LongRanger without the Nodamatic trans mount.
Will Bell be able to bring the thing to market for around US$1.0 million? Sure...if you consider $1.3 or $1.4 million to be "around" $1.0 million. Frankie Robinson is probably laughing his ass off out there in California at the thought of Bell trying to compete with his R-66, price-wise. Because it's not going to happen. And the Bell fanboys like you, Nigel will say, "Well, $1.5 or $1.6 million with paint, radios, openable crew windows, a heater, a rotor brake and an interior is just fine by us!" And maybe it is.
Nigel, do you know what marketing hype is? Bell is laying it on pretty thick with this 505. And gullible people like you are just eating it up. Then there are those of us with some experience - not only in the cockpit but in this industry - who know better than to be wowed by a fancy, uncertified, experimental "flight test vehicle"...basically a mockup and some glossy brochures. We've seen it all before.
Bell ain't reinventing the wheel here. But they're trying to make you think they are.