ascj asks about the Enstrom. If any of you have seen the configuration for the five-seat 480 you would clearly see the c.g. issues Enstrom faced when designing the cabin for the turbine version. It's horrible for five people. You wonder why they didn't just make the cabin longer and then you go, "Oh...right, they would have if they could have."
The other issue is that articulated rotor systems generally have a wider c.g. range than underslung teetering systems. This is why I say the 505 will have problems. That, and years and years of experience flying LongRangers in which at least the transmission/mast was *over* the back seats, not behind them.
albatross asked about the internal vs. external MGW on the 505. And the answer is, "Yep!" The internal MGW is 3,680 pounds and the limit for external loads is 4,475 pounds with a 1,500 limit on the hook.
EDIT: Oh yeah! I forgot to add... I got to thinking about the profile view of the 505, and all that area ahead of the mast. From a yaw stability standpoint it's just...I mean...wow. I don't even want to think about trying to fly that thing with a complete loss of thrust tail rotor failure (i.e. tail rotor stops spinning). The aerodynamic forces acting on the area ahead of the mast might overpower that skinny tailboom and vertical fin.
So *WHEN* Bell adds the winglets to the horizontal stab it will improve the c.g. issues somewhat. But! The way the stab is mounted to the tailboom will undoubtedly have to be beefed up; those cheesy brackets probably won't be stout enough. More added weight along with more added drag.
This is going to be interesting!
Last edited by FH1100 Pilot; 8th Feb 2017 at 05:53.