Originally Posted by
Nige321
I did the diagram again, but scaled accurately using both manufacturers data. I wasn't far out the first time.
A quick calculation shows that the side area in front and behind the mast is proportionaly similar for both. The AS has mre side are infront but a bigger boom to match. There really isn't much in it...
All this was worked out on the 505 during design. Bell puts a ton of effort into stability and ease of flight after emergencies like hydraulic failure, engine failure or control failure... (that's kind of Bell's thing in design). Failures like this almost never happen, but in Bell's test program, they spent time working out basic aircraft stability to make the aircraft easy to fly across the full CG range after any emergency. It's just the way they do it. from the info I have, the aircraft is cruising at MCP at 126-128 at max gross weight during the warmer seasons... 5-10kts lower in the summer. the fuel flow numbers from Netherlands is wrong on capacity and fuel flow... if you want to hover on station in the 50-60kts range, you will go over 4 hrs easy. If distance is what you want, and can comfortably go 325nm at 6K feet on a standard day at MGW... speed is simple on the 505... they pushed MCP torque up from 75% on L4 to 90% on the same TOP... that's 20% more torque than the L4 at MCP... should be good for more thrust at whatever angle the "disk is tilted".... looking forward to seeing FH1100 performing more self humiliation.