Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Especially with that Nodamatic trans mount."
Have heard that the Nodamatic mount has been deleted from the 505 spec to reduce cost. It doesn't seem to appear in the photo of the HAI mock up shown earlier in this thread. Well equipped and with price escalators, by the time this is delivered in 2017-2018, I'd estimate about $1.5mm. Still an attractive price for the apparent capability.
Have heard that the Nodamatic mount has been deleted from the 505 spec to reduce cost. It doesn't seem to appear in the photo of the HAI mock up shown earlier in this thread. Well equipped and with price escalators, by the time this is delivered in 2017-2018, I'd estimate about $1.5mm. Still an attractive price for the apparent capability.
Well I certainly hope it does cost $1.5m by the time it's delivered as I now have 2 on order and could make nearly $1m profit !.... Especially if the first ones sell at a premium !! The relative price of different helicopters does seem quite random ...... You could pay circa $650k for a late 80,s JetRanger ......which is the same , or more , than an Agusta 109 Mk11 !!! JR 120knots
A109 150knots . The 109 is now , thanks to loads of cheap spares , very little more to run than a 206 !! Mine has worked out nearly half the cost to run versus my 350BA , even my insurance is 1/3 less .
A109 150knots . The 109 is now , thanks to loads of cheap spares , very little more to run than a 206 !! Mine has worked out nearly half the cost to run versus my 350BA , even my insurance is 1/3 less .
Nigel, I was surprised to see you say that so had a look. This is the first one that came up:
1987 AGUSTA A109A MK II Turbine Helicopters For Sale At Controller.com
Amazing!
But why are parts (relatively) cheap? Why would they be <edit> little more </edit> than B206 parts in particular, given running two RR250 engines?
Cheers
JohnO
1987 AGUSTA A109A MK II Turbine Helicopters For Sale At Controller.com
Amazing!
But why are parts (relatively) cheap? Why would they be <edit> little more </edit> than B206 parts in particular, given running two RR250 engines?
Cheers
JohnO
Last edited by krypton_john; 22nd Jul 2014 at 01:45.
Of course on the engine side you have double the cost , but the C20 is so reliable that really should not be an issue . There are now so many being parted out the price of spares is v low . If you were buying one to run for a while i would say buying a second one for parts would make sense if you can find one for around £100k - £150k . Then you have a spare of everything and are still all in for around £500k !!!
Also dont forget that you will use over 20% less time per mile !!
Also dont forget that you will use over 20% less time per mile !!
A few years ago they were expensive to run but now most aoc work is done with Powers due to Cat t/o from Battersea etc Therefore lots more on the market and not working so much . I am not bound by these. Cat performance rules as all my flight are under private flight rules . A reasonable low hour Power will be the same price as 4 Mk 11 machines and will do pretty much the same job ( apart from higher MAUW ). The Mk11 is just as smooth and every bit as fast ..........
Just found this video... probably the best (and only) walkaround of it that I've seen. The return of the Jet Ranger! | Goodwood Road and Racing
In the other thread Arrjj was discussing the baggage bay... I finally found an image of it... they show it in the video!
They do also mention the price... $1.07M.
In the other thread Arrjj was discussing the baggage bay... I finally found an image of it... they show it in the video!
They do also mention the price... $1.07M.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: NSW Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well well, the old Jetdanger back from a few years in re-hab! Well they were reliable and much loved, is it still the 250 engine as it was? No doubt with probably better govenor technology and more fuel efficient. Very interesting to see the old teetering head is back. Why not, simple to maintain and also tough and reliable, although it does have some flight characteristics to trap the unwary, let's hope that's not forgotten. I have to admit I still get pretty wary when encountering turbulence, get very gentle with cyclic inputs. I currently instruct on a B206 B3, she gets worked hard at times, autorotations, CCT bashing etc, but runs like a sewing machine.
I see the Achilles heel as being the link up with Turbomecca, whose product support is very much about who you know or if part of a 'hot-contract'. Not so great for the single operator who could previously easily source a 250 for the 206B. Spares have always been a Bell strong point and helped many a small operator make it through the season without ruined cashflow, caused by months on the ground.
R66 went the other way with a simplified 250 getting rid of most of the axial flow compressor.
Time will tell and I wish Bell the best of luck, however they may want to think about setting up a deal to make the Arrial in the US (or at least under their direct control!)
Flug
R66 went the other way with a simplified 250 getting rid of most of the axial flow compressor.
Time will tell and I wish Bell the best of luck, however they may want to think about setting up a deal to make the Arrial in the US (or at least under their direct control!)
Flug
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Flug,
Possibly a typo, but the Arriel is of course already produced locally in the USA (for the Lakota program). No suggestion yet that TMUSA will build the 505's Arrius engine Stateside.
As suggested previously, Bell may insist on a PBH type engine support approach to offset operator concerns. Maybe longbox knows.
It'd be interesting to know what deal Turbomeca offered Bell on the Arrius in order to meet its price target. I hear that RR has been looking to renegotiate its cut-price RR300 deal with Robinson, and Turbomeca will probably find itself in a similar position with the 505.
I/C
Possibly a typo, but the Arriel is of course already produced locally in the USA (for the Lakota program). No suggestion yet that TMUSA will build the 505's Arrius engine Stateside.
As suggested previously, Bell may insist on a PBH type engine support approach to offset operator concerns. Maybe longbox knows.
It'd be interesting to know what deal Turbomeca offered Bell on the Arrius in order to meet its price target. I hear that RR has been looking to renegotiate its cut-price RR300 deal with Robinson, and Turbomeca will probably find itself in a similar position with the 505.
I/C
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: NSW Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Tickle, good point, it does look a bit utility, bit of an R44ish look to the tail boom (no offence to Rubenstein drivers!). The classic 206 Jetdanger sure is a sleek looking bird, even today I reckon.
that's just plain shtupid 
I spend a ton of time peering through the chin bubble, so it won't work in Nepal nor most utility ops 
Matari - the 4 I've flown in Nepal & the 5 others elsewhere; all had a chin bubble (albeit small) 
you must have flown one of the very first early experimental models ~ without 
you must have flown one of the very first early experimental models ~ without
Last edited by Vertical Freedom; 2nd Aug 2014 at 11:50.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VF: Maybe it's just a question of nomenclature. The old Jetranger has "chin" bubbles at the nose and feet of the pilot. The "new" Jetranger does not, as you mentioned.
However, the AS-350 doesn't have proper chin bubbles either. It does have "cheek" bubbles, which afford visibility downward and to the side. Similarly, the new Jetranger has a wide, floor level windscreen which should afford similar visibility as the AS-350.
Just curious as to why the new Jetranger couldn't provide the same level of utility ops visibility as the venerable Squirrel.
However, the AS-350 doesn't have proper chin bubbles either. It does have "cheek" bubbles, which afford visibility downward and to the side. Similarly, the new Jetranger has a wide, floor level windscreen which should afford similar visibility as the AS-350.
Just curious as to why the new Jetranger couldn't provide the same level of utility ops visibility as the venerable Squirrel.