Bell 505 Jet Ranger X

[as350nut]

505

Having spent some time looking over the 505 mock up my initial view is one of disappointment as to the concept. Having been at the receiving end of Turbomeca recently I think it is a bad step to go for the Arrius engine simply on a cost basis, and the 15yr time limit will be a distinct disadvantage to new owners compared to the Allison/RR. I too think the nose profile looks like a stomped on rat's nose. I also don't agree with using old technology running gear and blades and fob it off as a cost saving exercise to help the poor old buyer. Its all about maximum profit. With all the money Bell has made over the years from its customers and having run the JR design for so long they should have brought us something truly inspiring, with a full composite light weight body and composite blades. Some examples of which are hitting the market just now.

[FH1100 Pilot]

I think the point is that this "new" 505 is neither the latest nor the greatest of anything; it's simply a rehash of old technology in a new shape, with new avionics. Golly! People (mostly guys but not always) are getting such erections from this thing that it's really puzzling. Dudes, WE'VE SEEN IT ALL BEFORE. And so far, I'm not impressed.

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!

Some of Bell's design choices, and the compromises they bring are truly puzzling. Even the 1961 HUL-1M had a baggage compartment in the tail (probably unusable, given that the engine exhaust was immediately forward of it with that configuration). If you don't understand how important it sometimes is to shift weight between the cabin and baggage compartment to keep the c.g. in range, then you probably haven't flown very much out in the "real world." But in the 505? No can do! Baggage compartment is right under the mast

I'm especially not impressed with the location of the horizontal stab. Is Bell just copying the R-product? I suspect that at some point the 505 will "magically" grow a set like the 206 has, complete with endplates.

But the choice of tha Arrius engine is what's really puzzling. It not only weighs more than a RR-250, but it uses more fuel as well. So in addition to the extra weight of the engine, you'll have to always carry more fuel to feed it than if they'd just stuck with the legendary RR-250. Strange choice. How heavy is thing thing going to be? Heavier than a 206B, that's for sure!

But it is a work-in-progress, let's admit that much. Many things will undoubtedly change between now and the first production units...*IF* indeed it ever gets produced. So far, aside from the open-floor-plan cabin, it does not show us any real improvements over the 206 it is supposedly replacing. And it's way uglier. It will *not* be faster than a 206B on low-skids. And depending on how they actually mount the transmission, it may have worse ride quality than a B-model.

We shall see...

[Saint Jack]

Like FH1100Pilot and as350nut I too was puzzled by the engine choice for the 505. I anticipate that a lot of 505 sales will be to 206B/L owners upgrading and perhaps not fully realizing the differences in the level of product support for the Turbomeca vis-à-vis the Allison/RR. Also, and this is a relatively minor point, how many 505 customers are aware that their mechanics will have to purchase additional metric tools.


I wonder which will come first, a Bell option for an Allison/RR engine or a third-party STC'd option.

[longbox]

The engine was chosen as it was the only option that comes with twin FADEC, don't recall seeing that 53 years ago, the tail boom is longer and a new design with the single stab staying, not dual with fins. The seats that are in the three mock ups vary in finish and are not the finished product, the seats on my time showing the aircraft off have been met with zero problems, they will have leather not rag and tube as per the Blackhawk. The transmission does incorporate a new design isolation mount. The speed will be higher than a standard 206, it is Long ranger running gear which has a higher speed than the JR, and bear in mind it is lugging much less weight around than when on the L4.
Most of the 250 plus orders and a mixed bag, in the UK it is mainly 120, R44 and existing 206 owners coming through and a surprising number of cancelled 66 or new owners, we also have over 25 just for the UK.
I have been involved in this product form inception and I look forward to carrying out demos throughout the uk, incidentally, the UK is the launch country for Europe.

[HeliHenri]

.
longbox

and a surprising number of cancelled 66

Maybe one of the reasons why there will be around 100 R66 produced this year compared to the nearly 200 produced last year.
.

[jeffg]

I also don't agree with using old technology running gear and blades and fob it off as a cost saving exercise to help the poor old buyer. Its all about maximum profit. With all the money Bell has made over the years from its customers and having run the JR design for so long they should have brought us something truly inspiring, with a full composite light weight body and composite blades. Some examples of which are hitting the market just now.

I think you're missing the point. Looking at the specs of this aircraft and it's price point it's pretty obvious, at least I think, that it was designed for a specific market segment. That market segment has an upper bound as to what it will or can pay. The combination of that boundry and customer expectations (performance) drove the technology which could be used on the product. The engineering, tooling, testing and certification cost alone of an all new composite body and blades would have easily caused this to cost twice as much if not more.

That said this obviously isn't the aircraft for you, or me for that matter, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for it as evidenced by the comments of Longbox. Again, I don't see where Bell is advertising this as having the latest and greatest technology. As previously mentioned, if you want that they are building the 525.
As an aside I personally have had R44/66 operators tell me that they would like to have an Airbus or Bell product but can't afford to. The 505, if delivered at it's price point, allows them entry.

[Helilog56]

Initial purchase price is only part of the equation....it will be interesting to see what operating costs come out to as Turbomeca has some very interesting maintenance requirements, and poor support....and a FADEC system has had more than its share of reliability issues over the years.

[Ian Corrigible]

Originally Posted by jeffg

Again, I don't see where Bell is advertising this as having the latest and greatest technology.

Jeff,

Just for giggles, the 505 flyer describes it as "a new five-seat aircraft focused on safety, efficiency and reliability through the use of advanced technology."

But the cost argument is well made nonetheless. Which is a shame, since the original MAPL 351 was a looker.



I/C

[jeffg]

I/C
Point taken. I guess one could argue that the synthetic vision and dual channel FADEC are 'new technologies' as many costlier and larger aircraft don't offer either or both of those yet, the current EC145 and 412EP for example. But I would agree it is a weak argument.
The MAPL 351 would have been nice but I doubt it could have been had at this price point. As I recall the MAPL line incorporated 3 or 4 MRBs and new drive trains, but I could be wrong. Maybe someday Bell will give us a 407 replacement that might meet what it appears some were hoping the 505 would be.

Helilog,

I agaree. It is incumbent on Bell to meet or at least come very close to their promise to include DOCs, performance and R&M. If they do they will probably sell a lot, if they don't they won't.
My point is that I don't see an aircraft priced at approx $1m as something to expect to be the latest and greatest in tech nor the fastest, smoothest, prettiest one at the show. But then neither are any of it's likely competitors.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Well, Ian beat me to the punch concerning how Bell is marketing the 505 as "advanced technology." So I guess I don't have to reprint their brochure here :-/ Plus, we have jeffg's concession. A brand-new 2015 206B (if there was such a thing) could be fitted with the G-1000. Big deal.

Now, if longbox actually is involved in the development of the 505 (which must be long-distance involvement if he is in the UK), then we can understand his bias and prejudice and lack of objectivity toward the new design. People involved in a project generally take it very seriously and *very* personally. But it's not the first helicopter ever designed. We've seen this over and over from manufacturers trying to drum up excitement for their "new" old designs. ...Even so, some of the things longbox says are just kind of silly, even for a marketing guy. To wit:

The engine was chosen as it was the only option that comes with twin FADEC, don't recall seeing that 53 years ago,

Fair point, but is that really a "thing?" The hydro-mechanical setup in every 206 I've ever flown was fine, especially if equipped with Intellistart. So why the "need" for dual-FADEC? How important is it, really? Seems like just so much more modernization, complication and expense, all for the sake of saying, "See how modern we are! (Oh and by the way this will add $100,000 to the cost of your helicopter, but shhhh!)" FADEC works great on fixed-wing because it allows the pilot to slam the throttle(s) forward without the risk of overtemping the engines. We've already discussed here on PPRUNE the merits/disadvantages of FADEC limiting damage to the engine by not allowing an overtemp and instead drooping the rotor. I'll take the overtemp, please! Of course, it makes starting easier too, but as I said, Intellistart does that as well, and cheaper.

...the tail boom is longer and a new design with the single stab staying, not dual with fins.

Heh-heh. Interesting. Interesting because they have not yet even flown that thing around the pattern. So nobody can say what the final configuration is going to be. "New design" tailboom? Yeeeeaaahhhh, um, not. "New design" maybe because it does not have a big hole in it for the horizontal stabilizer spar to pass through. Not yet anyway

Remember when Bell brought out the original 206L? Thought they didn't need fins on that one either. Trust me, if the 505 is faster than a 206B it *will* get fins. Unless it's not faster. Then it won't.

The seats that are in the three mock ups vary in finish and are not the finished product, the seats on my time showing the aircraft off have been met with zero problems, they will have leather not rag and tube as per the Blackhawk.

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!

The transmission does incorporate a new design isolation mount.

Again, I would hope so. From the look of the initial runup the mount looks very stiff, without the usual jiggling around that a 206 does as the rotor comes up to speed. But remember, two-blade rotors produce a substantial "2-per" vibration just by their very nature. It's why the 206B and especially the 206L have such "soft" transmission mounts. Taming and controlling that "2-per" is tough. It'll be interesting to see how they do it with the 505.

The speed will be higher than a standard 206, it is Long ranger running gear which has a higher speed than the JR, and bear in mind it is lugging much less weight around than when on the L4.

Heh. Yes, the L-4 has longer blades and more power than a B-model. Will the 505 actually have the L-4 blades? That'll make for a 37' rotor diameter! Wow, that's a pretty big rotor system for a 5-seat helo (4' bigger diameter than both an EC-120 and an R-66). That's going to be one *loud* machine, just like an L-4. "Hi, neighbors!"

As for weight, hmm. With the claimed 3.5 hour endurance (at 31 gph), the 505 will have to hold 110 gallons of fuel - 750 pounds. Then there's the the Arrius engine weighing 200 or so *more* pounds than a RR-250. Then there's the 206L-4 drivetrain. Now add that steel-tube (i.e. non-composite) airframe/cabin. I'm thinking...just guessing here...but I think the MGW of the 505 will be up around 4,000 pounds. It'll have to be. If it's 3500 or less, I'll eat my shorts.

And oh yeah...a 206 is a pretty skinny airframe (just ask any EMS pilot!). The 505 is wider. Trust me, when/if you get the thing flying, it will *not* be any faster than a 206B on low-skids. Trust me. (And yes, I said "trust me" twice.) Depending on which press release you read, Bell is either claiming a VNE of 125 knots or a cruise speed of "125+ knots." 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. A 206B on low-skids would chuff right along at 125 mph (about 110 knots). An L-model will do an easy 110kts. I'm confident that the 505 will be right in that area, not all that much faster. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

Most of the 250 plus orders and (did you mean "are?") a mixed bag, in the UK it is mainly 120, R44 and existing 206 owners coming through and a surprising number of cancelled 66 or new owners, we also have over 25 just for the UK.

250 orders, that's great, really! I have no doubt that people would clamor for such a product from Bell. But we'll see... We'll see how Bell holds the price as we get near delivery. Oh yeah...these "orders"...are they firm orders at a set price? Are they non-refundable deposits on delivery slots that can be sold? Are they deposits at all? Did money change hands? Or are these just Letters of Intent to purchase the aircraft? Kind of makes a difference.

Okay, alright, what does all this mean? Not a whole bunch, really. A *lot* can and will change between now and the day the first 505 rolls off the production line (if it ever does). But I'm always wary of the claims made about these "clean sheet of paper!" aircraft. We've seen it all before. I'm sort of immune to the hype. Such aircraft ALWAYS end up heavier and slower and more expensive than originally claimed. The same will be true of the 505. Cessna thought they would re-invent the wheel when they brought out the model 162. Oopsie! Killed that one off, quick! The PiperSport was a corporate failure. Beechcraft thought the Starship was going to be the wave of the future. It wasn't.

So with the 505, we'll see. I remain skeptical.

[longbox]

I have been involved in the 505 project as part of the customer advisory board from inception, this is held in the States and I will be in the States later this week to further go through progress made.

Yes I take your point things can be taken personally, but this is not the case with me, I am a pilot, (with a lot of hours on the 206)and many years in the industry. The 505 is going to be a great move for Bell and a fantastic helicopter for its customers.

You question the need for FADEC, all new aircraft are now fitted with FADEC, it is not only the start that you gain benefit from, what would you suggest a manual modulated start still?. If FADEC had not been fitted, surly this would have been a negative from people claiming no advancement?

The blades on the 505 are L4 blades, as is the transmission, mast, swashplate, head, tail rotor gearbox and tail rotor blades.

The orders placed so far do include deposits with PA's signed, the 505 is going to be a very popular helicopter, the orders speak for themselves, as more information can be released I will be delighted to share it with you.

[jeffg]

A brand-new 2015 206B (if there was such a thing) could be fitted with the G-1000. Big deal.

So could a lot of aircraft, but they don't. Perhaps Bell should have called it 'State of the Art' as AW does for the A119 and that would alleviate some of the angst? The fact is no aircraft in this category has an integrated flight deck solution that is capable of SVS, HTAWS, TCAS/ADS-B, XM WX, and all COMM/NAV on two large format displays as baseline equipment. Neither do many more expensive airframes. We can argue the semantics of whether its advanced technology or state of art or not. The fact is at the proposed price point it's a pretty good offering of equipment.

It seems on the one hand you're arguing that there is no new technology in the 505 "It's actually 53 year-old technology" but the two areas where it is ahead of its competitor level aircraft and some in the next tier up you say big deal to or you argue for, in the case of the hydro-mechanical setup, 53 year old technology stating that the new technology more "modernization, complication and expense".

People involved in a project generally take it very seriously and *very* personally

Could it also be that you're letting what appears to be a personal dislike for Bell affect your view of the 505?

I would also suggest that just because something is wider doesn't necessarily mean it can't be faster. Drag has many sources besides width and the 206B had it's fair share. A large factor on the 206B (thus the whole series to include 407) is the angle where the nose meets the wind screen (thus the 505s elongated, and yes ugly yet streamlined nose). In fact looking at pictures of the two I would wager that the 206B has more flat plate drag then the 505 as it is now. If Bell has to add structure as you imply then I would expect the drag count to increase and that comment will change.

My question is this, for an aircraft targeted at $1M and designed to compete with an R-66 and EC120 what exactly were people expecting?

[SansAnhedral]

I see FH has his anything-Bell bashing reputation to uphold.

Surely if Bell had introduced an all composite fuselage, with soft-in-plane composite rotor and carbon blades he would have slammed them just the same for building something so expensive and out of touch with the market. The NRE and certification of a new dynamic system and blade would have probably doubled the cost alone.

I can hear it now "Why would I want to pay $3 million for a tarted up AS350? You can put a G1000 in anything! What is Bell thinking, nobody is going to buy this disaster."

[jeffg]

Surely if Bell had introduced an all composite fuselage, with soft-in-plane composite rotor and carbon blades he would have slammed them just the same for building something so expensive and out of touch with the market. The NRE and certification of a new dynamic system and blade would have probably doubled the cost alone

Take the Marenco SKYe for instance. It has a composite fuselage and new 5 bladed rotor and a lot of other innovative stuff. Looks good and looks like a good helicopter. Projected cost $3M+, only 50 orders and it's been on the drawing board since 2007.

[SansAnhedral]

Just got word through the grapevine...congrats to the Bell team on their 505 first flight

[jeffg]

I guess "if" it flies is no longer an argument that can be made.
www.heraldonline.com/2014/11/10/6514187/bell-505-jet-ranger-x-achieves.html

[longbox]

Fantastic news on the first flight of the 505! The program continues to gather pace ahead of schedule.

[helonorth]

First flight video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3dSKEbNs4

[HeliHenri]

.

As I said before and even if I'm the only one, I like the look of the 505
.

[longbox]

250 orders says you are not alone