PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th Jun 2013, 13:30   #41 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 539
I dont think the EC120 market was part of the expected compeition since its roughly twice the anticipated cost.

I would bet Bell probably looked at the Marenco or the KC518 as a license built option or something like that, but if they are seriously trying to stay under $1 million, those arent even close to being feasable.
SansAnhedral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2013, 14:34   #42 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Depends on the day!
Posts: 98
Quote:
SansAnhedral: Seems to me that if you could currently buy a 206A with a flat floor for under $1 million, thats a pretty stinking good deal and Frank wouldnt have a stranglehood over the market with the R66.
This. Frank's machine is as simple as it can get and he sells a boatload of them for a reason.
PhlyingGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2013, 14:52   #43 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 988
The Jetbanger was quite an innovative design in its time (introduced about 40 years ago). Other than the alleged price, this machine hasn't moved the bar any further in its category.

If Bell engineers can achieve the $1m price tag I reckon they will have tremendous success with it, but that waits to be seen. As someone else mentioned previously, it would have been better to work on dropping the price of a 407.
cattletruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2013, 15:35   #44 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 800
Ahahahahahahahaha Another "innovative" Bell special!
tottigol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2013, 17:19   #45 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 539
Well, we all know it costs absolutely nothing to incorporate "innovative" advanced technology into an an ultra low cost mass-produced helicopter. Bell management must be a bunch of muppets to leave out all that free innovation in this platform.

Or rather, we have just experienced more of tottigol's compulsive Bell-bashing.
SansAnhedral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jun 2013, 03:49   #46 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 800
Just calling a spade a spade Sans.
tottigol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jun 2013, 04:32   #47 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 1,642
IHMO, we've seen in the last 16 months, unveiled three new products which depending on how some see it as, admittedly old hat(s) reinvented.

525 Relentless

V280 Valor

And now this

Gotta give BHT some credit in doing something that doesn't based on a Huey or Jetranger airframe.

There have been the odd operator that has gone all Bell and replaced their mixed fleet including Eurocopter products.

Cheers from Paris
chopper2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jun 2013, 05:58   #48 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 136
Well, I say anything new is good for competition and choice! Good luck to 'em.

Last edited by Tickle; 20th Jun 2013 at 05:58.
Tickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jun 2013, 07:03   #49 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 179
Just read the specs. Given that they are almost identical to the outgoing B3, one can only assume it's a teaser ?

Who wants to buy a machine that is not an improvement on the old model ? And certainly no competition for the R66.

I reckon in a year or two, Bell will release the real specs, and they will be (must be) impressive and competitive.

Otherwise they have lost the plot.

Arrrj
Arrrj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jun 2013, 17:27   #50 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 539
Quote:
Who wants to buy a machine that is not an improvement on the old model ?
Someone who wants to buy one for half the price, perhaps?

I swear, its like its completely lost on people here that the primary driver entering this particular market is cost.

If I had the funds, I would love to cross shop something from a large OEM (with good parts and customer support) like Bell versus one of Frank's machines or one of the numerous vapor-ware shops.
SansAnhedral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Jun 2013, 23:50   #51 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 276
C'mon, the 525 Relentless and V280 Valor are 'old hats reinvented?'

I'm wondering what a helicopter would need to look like, for some here to consider it 'new'?
Matari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Jun 2013, 01:43   #52 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
If 525 and Valour survive with all their innovations then yes, Bell will have made great advances but this new single really does look like a slightly vamped up 206, sorry.
Corax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jul 2013, 19:02   #53 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,772
You've got to think that Bell has anticipated operator concern over the selection of a Turbomeca donk over one from Allison or Pratts. Given that the SLS will be going head-to-head with the R66, I wouldn't be surprised if Bell were to adopt a similar harmonized major service interval approach, i.e. with the airframe and engine both undergoing heavy checks at 3,000 hours.

Another possibility is that Bell will use some kind of Power-By-The-Hour or Guaranteed Availability maintenance plan, to minimize concerns over TM's support. (This would also allow Bell and TM to maximize 'authorized' (vs. third party) MRO revenue.)

From a technical perspective, the Arrius 2 -- like the PW200 -- offers a number of advantages over the A250, in terms of TBO, SFC and design simplicity.

I/C
Ian Corrigible is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jul 2013, 14:16   #54 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 289
I haven't figured out what is wrong with keeping a base model, as a base model. Yes it's cheap, so that means two blades, it has a flat floor, good I guess, if its got similar internals to the JR and is 120kt cruise and cheaper then that has to be good.

No it won't compete with a 350 but there is the 407 for that, and no not everyone thinks that club seating is bad, have you ever been in a stretched limo?

As for EC lovers saying Bell can't innovate, when was the last new innovative design from EC? Following the most common product lines they go back 50 or so years with minor tinkering along the way...

Gazelle... 350... 350...350... God how many times can they reinvent the 350? 350B3... 350+ no better call it a EC130B4. 350- no EC120

105...117A1,a2....B2...145. T2,P2?

Want a smaller twin 355, wow what was that a 350? Lets trick all those people and call it a 135, they will never figure it out.

So even EC have figured out that you simply make slow incremental changes to a successful design, now if only the could sort out parts supply....
SuperF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jul 2013, 18:09   #55 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 527
SuperF, the 135 is in no way related to the 350. Do a Google search for the Bo-108 and you'll see what the 135 started out as.

All OEM's regurgitate old designs/parts into new helicopters. If you look on the 412 you'll still find a couple of parts with 47 part numbers and plenty with 204/205/212. Agusta does the same, the Engine Control Levers in the 139 come from the 109 and the rotor head is an upscaled 5 blade version of the 109 head.

Personally, I wish Bell all the best. Everyone seems to want more of this and more of that, but there is still a place for a basic 5 seat turbine that plods along at a modest pace and is cheap to buy and operate. Just ask Robinson.
noooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Jul 2013, 20:08   #56 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 61
Posts: 281
The more I see of the Short Light Single, the more I think it resembles a rat.

Grenville Fortescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Jul 2013, 01:54   #57 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 289
Hi noooby, not saying that there is anything wrong with using proven technology. Just trying to turn the equation around on a couple of Bell Knockers that say every new model that bell bring out is a 50yr old design.

I'm happy flying my old, brand new JR, that we brought in 1978, still does the same job now as it did then. 5 onboard, full of fuel, away you go.

Or flying the Old Huey's that we run. Proven technology, still capable of doing the same job day in day out, as what they were designed to do 50 years ago!

As for the new JR, get rid of the plastic, get rid of that engine, and it might go...
SuperF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Aug 2013, 16:30   #58 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Depends on the day!
Posts: 98
Bell Reveals more on ?short light single? | Aviation International News

Price...
Quote:
Watts said Bell is pursuing design strategies that will keep the cost of the SLS down, including simple construction and adapting proven drivetrain elements of its existing 206L4 LongRanger into the new helicopter.

Meeting the target price for a new light single will be critical to the SLS’s success, Watts said. “It is clear you can see who the market leader is. All of the manufacturers in this segment save Robinson delivered 40 aircraft last year. The biggest differentiator Robinson has is price, and designing to a competitive price is the most important factor here for our team.”
L-4 Dynamics
Quote:
“We are trying to use as many common parts as possible to reduce costs and our time to market. Those are based on the [206]L4 dynamics. It is a proven drive system and we are using it to try and drive down costs. As we get volumes up, this will benefit customers who are flying LongRangers today. There is a cost benefit there for us. We are improving what the customers want to see changed on the design and we are working closely with our customer advisory council, which has provided input along the way. But we can use the aspects of the gearboxes and the blades that make sense and give you a proven technology and a robust design for excellent autorotation. When we get to market we will know that this product can be quickly used by operators without a lot of unknowns around the drivetrain,” Watts said.
PhlyingGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Aug 2013, 17:59   #59 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 855
Nothing new here that wasn't said at the Paris Air show I'm afraid. It's a JetRanger in a new cloak from Primark rather than M&S

Last edited by heli1; 5th Aug 2013 at 18:01. Reason: Word missing
heli1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Aug 2013, 18:31   #60 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 945
New New New WHY?
What most people Co. want is reliable machine at a good price with sensibly priced parts that reach TBO &after sales service.
Why is evolution so bad as long as it makes the product better ?
A lot of new products have so many problems, water ingress on the electronics, gear boxes, composite problems, astronomical cost of the glass cockpit repairs, & spare prices that cannot bear ANY relation to production cost to name but a few. Warranty
500e is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
bell sls, light single

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 21:15.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1