Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
Oh Nigel, if you could refrain from the ad hominem attacks for just a moment, maybe we could discuss the 505 objectively?
It's true that I thought Bell would never produce the 505, especially when they gave the finger to the Lafayette, Louisiana City Council, abandoned the plant there and moved production to Canada. I guess I was wrong about that. Oh well, nobody is right 100% of the time. I still think that, like other star-crossed aircraft that either failed or were stillborn (e.g. Beech Starship, Cessna 162, the Piperjet, the Eclipse 500, etc. etc.), Bell will cancel 505 production and move on, much like they did with the 206LT. Oh, and the 427. And the 230. And the 609.
And let's not forget the 214ST! Iran wanted 350 of those babies. Bell eventually built under 100 of them.
The fact that the 505 does not yet have endplates on the horizontal stab is moot. It *will* get them, trust me on that. Seriously.
And I don't know about any "rave reviews" of the 505's speed. The claims of a 125 knot cruise are far from "proven." So far, no pilot report I've read states that anybody cruises the thing that fast. The most comprehensive pilot report (by Philip Greenspun) notes that the vibration became "dramatically worse" above 110 knots. Dramatically worse, eh? Poetic license, Mr. Greenspun?
Greenspun then referenced a review of the 505 that was written by Guy Maher and published VERTICAL Magazine. Maher says:
So far, NOBODY has published any realistic "torque vs. airspeed chart vs. fuel burn" figures. I mean, how hard could that be? All they talk about is how rough it gets above 110 knots. So...sure...it may fly up at 125 knots, but at what comfort level and what fuel burn? Heck, a 206B-III on low skids will do "nearly" 110 knots (admittedly at MCP). I've flown some that would actually do 120-125 mph with a light load.
(I knew a Bolkow pilot at PHI who swore...*SWORE* that his ship would do an "honest" 125 knots all day when EVERY OTHER BOLKOW in PHi's fleet only did 120. And yeah, I flew a ton of them. Turns out that "his" 105 - which I eventually flew too - didn't get from Point A to Point B any quicker than any other 105. The GPS doesn't lie. "His" ship just had an inaccurate ASI. But pilots are optimists, eh?)
Even Bell admits that their "LIVE" transmission mount ain't doing the job, and so they're adding a FRAM damper to the cabin. Now there's a big engineering "oopsie!" for you. (My question is if the engineers really thought they could push the L-4 rotor system to 130 knots and keep it smooth without the Nodamatic trans mount? That's just crazy. They must've been smoking some real primo LSD when they came up with that bit of fantasy.)
So Nigel, unwad those panties! Maybe someday we'll have an objective pilot-report on the 505 which will have some hard numbers. Greenspun's was pretty good but he left out the fuel burn and cruise speed figures. Other than those *two* pilot-reports (and maybe one other story that it was written by a non-pilot), all we get are breathless reports which are full of unrestrained fangirl giggling over the dual FADEC.
By the way, Nige...since you seem so close to this project and are so deeply and personally invested in it...has Bell been able to remove or extend the hilarious 500-landing life-limit on the landing gear?
It's true that I thought Bell would never produce the 505, especially when they gave the finger to the Lafayette, Louisiana City Council, abandoned the plant there and moved production to Canada. I guess I was wrong about that. Oh well, nobody is right 100% of the time. I still think that, like other star-crossed aircraft that either failed or were stillborn (e.g. Beech Starship, Cessna 162, the Piperjet, the Eclipse 500, etc. etc.), Bell will cancel 505 production and move on, much like they did with the 206LT. Oh, and the 427. And the 230. And the 609.
And let's not forget the 214ST! Iran wanted 350 of those babies. Bell eventually built under 100 of them.
The fact that the 505 does not yet have endplates on the horizontal stab is moot. It *will* get them, trust me on that. Seriously.
And I don't know about any "rave reviews" of the 505's speed. The claims of a 125 knot cruise are far from "proven." So far, no pilot report I've read states that anybody cruises the thing that fast. The most comprehensive pilot report (by Philip Greenspun) notes that the vibration became "dramatically worse" above 110 knots. Dramatically worse, eh? Poetic license, Mr. Greenspun?
Greenspun then referenced a review of the 505 that was written by Guy Maher and published VERTICAL Magazine. Maher says:
What I also noticed was as the speed increased from 110 to 120 knots, so did a two-per-revolution vibration. Knowing how smooth the 206L-4 rotor system could be, I was somewhat surprised.
(I knew a Bolkow pilot at PHI who swore...*SWORE* that his ship would do an "honest" 125 knots all day when EVERY OTHER BOLKOW in PHi's fleet only did 120. And yeah, I flew a ton of them. Turns out that "his" 105 - which I eventually flew too - didn't get from Point A to Point B any quicker than any other 105. The GPS doesn't lie. "His" ship just had an inaccurate ASI. But pilots are optimists, eh?)
Even Bell admits that their "LIVE" transmission mount ain't doing the job, and so they're adding a FRAM damper to the cabin. Now there's a big engineering "oopsie!" for you. (My question is if the engineers really thought they could push the L-4 rotor system to 130 knots and keep it smooth without the Nodamatic trans mount? That's just crazy. They must've been smoking some real primo LSD when they came up with that bit of fantasy.)
So Nigel, unwad those panties! Maybe someday we'll have an objective pilot-report on the 505 which will have some hard numbers. Greenspun's was pretty good but he left out the fuel burn and cruise speed figures. Other than those *two* pilot-reports (and maybe one other story that it was written by a non-pilot), all we get are breathless reports which are full of unrestrained fangirl giggling over the dual FADEC.
By the way, Nige...since you seem so close to this project and are so deeply and personally invested in it...has Bell been able to remove or extend the hilarious 500-landing life-limit on the landing gear?
I wrote:
chopper2004 replied:
Yes, I'm sure you're right, chopper. What was I thinking!
Oh. Maybe this.
I wonder how those Japanese Coast Guard guys like flying around in a single-engine helicopter without floats? Baaaaah, modern turbine engines never quit! Right? Bell better come out with some popout floats for that thing quick!
Think you find they may be replacing the Bell 206 in the training role for their pilots not deployed on ships/cutters.
cheers
cheers
Oh. Maybe this.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 59
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems like the 505 has the same range as the 407, maybe a little better. Nobody seems to complain about that. I really don't want to fly a helicopter with more than a two and a half hour range, TBH.
Ok FH1100 ..... you are a determined old bugger aren’t you !!!!
A friend is taking delivery of his in a couple of weeks and I will fly it and get you all the figures ... I will photograph the panel for you to see the speed as well !!
I personally don’t care if it sprouts end plates ( I think they look good so would be quite happy ) ....what bothers me is that you are going to make yourself ill with all your anti Bell venom !!! Just chill ... none of it really matters to you as I am sure you will not be buying one ..are you ?
The new owner has opted against the Frahms vibration kit as he said his was silky smooth right up to around 125 Knots so didn’t feel it worth the money . As for the skid gear I am afraid I haven’t heard anything about that . Maybe there is an inspection to be done but no big deal .... it’s ALL under warranty for 1,000 hours / 3 years !!
A friend is taking delivery of his in a couple of weeks and I will fly it and get you all the figures ... I will photograph the panel for you to see the speed as well !!
I personally don’t care if it sprouts end plates ( I think they look good so would be quite happy ) ....what bothers me is that you are going to make yourself ill with all your anti Bell venom !!! Just chill ... none of it really matters to you as I am sure you will not be buying one ..are you ?
The new owner has opted against the Frahms vibration kit as he said his was silky smooth right up to around 125 Knots so didn’t feel it worth the money . As for the skid gear I am afraid I haven’t heard anything about that . Maybe there is an inspection to be done but no big deal .... it’s ALL under warranty for 1,000 hours / 3 years !!
Nigelh:
Oh Nigel...simple, caring Nigel. Please do not concern yourself with my health for it is quite good. I do not have any anti-Bell venom in my blood; I've flown Bell products all my life and am quite fond of them! ...Most of them. ...Not this particular turkey called the 505 though, which seems to be trying for the "Not Ready For Prime Time" award.
You wrote of your friend:
People often are so impressed and overwhelmed upon flying a new aircraft for the first time that their senses are fooled. It's not until we spend some time with a new bird that we become objective about their qualities and traits. Your friend/new owner may indeed have felt that it was "silky smooth" but unfortunately that is not what other, more experienced pilots have reported.
I'm not sure what your experience level is, Nigel, but those of us who have some time flying two-blade, underslung rotors around know...KNOW!...that they get rough as the airspeed increases. And not just two-blades! Hell, an experienced pilot/friend of mine flew in an EC120 and was definitely *not* impressed with the ride-quality at 110 knots in cruise (not to mention the fuel burn!). Bell didn't change the laws of physics with the 505. I believe that your new owner-friend will regret not getting the new, additional damper. It is pure fantasy to think that people are going to be zooming around at 125 knots in their 505, drag-racing 407's.
You're kidding me, right? Are you saying that you're *not* aware of the life-limit on the landing gear of 500-LANDINGS?? I thought everyone knew about this! 500 *landings* and then you have to change the gear. Each hovering-auto counts for 25 landings. It's not "no big deal." It's a huge deal.
The only other aircraft that I know of with a restriction like that is the AT-802 Air Tractor spray plane. The landing gear has a 3,000 landing limit before it has to be replaced. That's kind of crazy, but at least 3,000 landings is better than 500.
It will be interesting to see how the 505 works out in the field as flight-time on the fleet increases. I suspect that many 505 owners are going to face-palm themselves and go, "Shoulda bought an R-66!"
We shall see...
....what bothers me is that you are going to make yourself ill with all your anti Bell venom !!! Just chill ...
You wrote of your friend:
The new owner has opted against the Frahms vibration kit as he said his was silky smooth right up to around 125 Knots so didn’t feel it worth the money.
I'm not sure what your experience level is, Nigel, but those of us who have some time flying two-blade, underslung rotors around know...KNOW!...that they get rough as the airspeed increases. And not just two-blades! Hell, an experienced pilot/friend of mine flew in an EC120 and was definitely *not* impressed with the ride-quality at 110 knots in cruise (not to mention the fuel burn!). Bell didn't change the laws of physics with the 505. I believe that your new owner-friend will regret not getting the new, additional damper. It is pure fantasy to think that people are going to be zooming around at 125 knots in their 505, drag-racing 407's.
As for the skid gear I am afraid I haven’t heard anything about that . Maybe there is an inspection to be done but no big deal .... it’s ALL under warranty for 1,000 hours / 3 years !!
The only other aircraft that I know of with a restriction like that is the AT-802 Air Tractor spray plane. The landing gear has a 3,000 landing limit before it has to be replaced. That's kind of crazy, but at least 3,000 landings is better than 500.
It will be interesting to see how the 505 works out in the field as flight-time on the fleet increases. I suspect that many 505 owners are going to face-palm themselves and go, "Shoulda bought an R-66!"
We shall see...
500 Landings? Is this a true number?
I used to do an job on 206/206L called inertial nav survey when we did a landing every 3-4 minutes for 10 hours a day including hot refueling so call it 12 landings an hour or 120 landings a day. ( one start per day ) LOL Then there were the guys doing gravity survey in the desert using 500C and D who did a landing every 2 minutes. Flew a lot of inertial nav survey but one project we logged 110hrs in 10 days. This would be a problem keeping up with gear changes in the 505.
I used to do an job on 206/206L called inertial nav survey when we did a landing every 3-4 minutes for 10 hours a day including hot refueling so call it 12 landings an hour or 120 landings a day. ( one start per day ) LOL Then there were the guys doing gravity survey in the desert using 500C and D who did a landing every 2 minutes. Flew a lot of inertial nav survey but one project we logged 110hrs in 10 days. This would be a problem keeping up with gear changes in the 505.
Don’t worry our old codger FH hasn’t actually flown it himself either and is an expert !! He is saying that people will “ wish” they had bought an R66 .......🙈🙈🙈. Well , not the ones who have mast bumped in the cruise due to low weight I would guess .
Anyway , each to his own .... either our own geriatric expert FH1100 is correct or Bell are . Take your choice ...!!!
Anyway , each to his own .... either our own geriatric expert FH1100 is correct or Bell are . Take your choice ...!!!
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty much rules out its use as an Ag machine if true. Those spray boys would need two gear changes per 100 hrs. Or is this new longer gear I hear of a fix? Rumour has it someone is building spray gear for their 505 , I have to wonder why.
Apparently, the drop tests under FAR Part 27 that manufacturers have to comply with for US FAA certification now are more rigorous than back in the "good old days" when the 206/407 was certified.
So yes, the 500-*landing* life-limit on the 505 gear is a real thing. (Unless Bell has quietly fixed it by now, of course.) It's probably why Bell didn't hustle to find a tour operator here in the U.S. to put on a 505 to build time quickly. And it's not just the skids; I understand that the structure around attach points for the landing gear needs beefing-up as well. So it's not as simple as building the gear crosstubes out of thicker material or whatever. The solution will be complex. (And did you notice that the #1 505 Fanboy Nigelh didn't deny or even comment on the landing gear issue at all? He merely resorted to his childish name-calling. And I thought we were getting on so well...)
I suppose the "SLS" (short light single) that Bell originally envisioned was supposed to be a much lighter helicopter. I mean, a replacement for a 206B shouldn't weigh as much as a 206L...should it? But that's what happened. Bell went with the L-model drivetrain (main trans, main rotor, tailboom and tail rotor), which are admittedly "a bit" heavier than their B-model counterparts. Then of course Bell opted for the Arrius engine, which is heavier than a comparable RR-250. Bell also said sayonara to the composites in the cabin/fuselage and went back to...well, basically the same way they built the 47J-model all those years ago: a tube frame with a sheet metal cover. "Clean sheet of paper," my ass.
So instead of a 3200 pound helicopter we now have a 3800 pound helicopter. A 3800-pound, five-seat single.
Now, you know...I mean, you KNOW that Bell is working feverishly to come up with a solution to this gear debacle. Otherwise this ship is dead in the water. No commercial operator will touch it if they have to replace the landing gear every 500 *LANDINGS*. (Lengthening the skid tubes is a separate issue not related to the weak landing gear. There were some balance issues on the ground, evidently.) The 505 fanboys don't like to talk about the landing gear issue. They keep that on the deep down-low. For obvious reasons, I mean, come on.
And now look, I don't enjoy being critical of things. Although I may come off as a grumpy old man, I don't actually like being critical for the sake of being critical. I just like to be objective. And I think that the compromises Bell made to rush this turkey into production are just silly. It's like they're saying, "Aw, screw the customers! As long as it has 'BELL' stenciled on the side, people will eat it up! We'll put dual-FADECs and a Garmin 1000 in the thing and them dumb pilots will be so impressed that they'll overlook what an overall crappy design it is. Hopefully they won't even ask how much it'll cost to replace one of those huge windscreens if they accidentally crack one and it's a non-warranty item."
Really Bob, crappy design? Yeah, really. How's about how they buried the fuel gauge and hid it in one little corner of the MFD where you really have to look for it and it's not obvious at a glance like it is on...ohhh, JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER HELICOPTER EVER DESIGNED!
Progress!
But hey, it's got FADEC! And those are cool. But we can't practice stuck-pedal emergencies in it because of the little toggle-switch "throttle." But come on...when was the last time you heard of a stuck pedal? Get real.
So yes, the 500-*landing* life-limit on the 505 gear is a real thing. (Unless Bell has quietly fixed it by now, of course.) It's probably why Bell didn't hustle to find a tour operator here in the U.S. to put on a 505 to build time quickly. And it's not just the skids; I understand that the structure around attach points for the landing gear needs beefing-up as well. So it's not as simple as building the gear crosstubes out of thicker material or whatever. The solution will be complex. (And did you notice that the #1 505 Fanboy Nigelh didn't deny or even comment on the landing gear issue at all? He merely resorted to his childish name-calling. And I thought we were getting on so well...)
I suppose the "SLS" (short light single) that Bell originally envisioned was supposed to be a much lighter helicopter. I mean, a replacement for a 206B shouldn't weigh as much as a 206L...should it? But that's what happened. Bell went with the L-model drivetrain (main trans, main rotor, tailboom and tail rotor), which are admittedly "a bit" heavier than their B-model counterparts. Then of course Bell opted for the Arrius engine, which is heavier than a comparable RR-250. Bell also said sayonara to the composites in the cabin/fuselage and went back to...well, basically the same way they built the 47J-model all those years ago: a tube frame with a sheet metal cover. "Clean sheet of paper," my ass.
So instead of a 3200 pound helicopter we now have a 3800 pound helicopter. A 3800-pound, five-seat single.
Now, you know...I mean, you KNOW that Bell is working feverishly to come up with a solution to this gear debacle. Otherwise this ship is dead in the water. No commercial operator will touch it if they have to replace the landing gear every 500 *LANDINGS*. (Lengthening the skid tubes is a separate issue not related to the weak landing gear. There were some balance issues on the ground, evidently.) The 505 fanboys don't like to talk about the landing gear issue. They keep that on the deep down-low. For obvious reasons, I mean, come on.
And now look, I don't enjoy being critical of things. Although I may come off as a grumpy old man, I don't actually like being critical for the sake of being critical. I just like to be objective. And I think that the compromises Bell made to rush this turkey into production are just silly. It's like they're saying, "Aw, screw the customers! As long as it has 'BELL' stenciled on the side, people will eat it up! We'll put dual-FADECs and a Garmin 1000 in the thing and them dumb pilots will be so impressed that they'll overlook what an overall crappy design it is. Hopefully they won't even ask how much it'll cost to replace one of those huge windscreens if they accidentally crack one and it's a non-warranty item."
Really Bob, crappy design? Yeah, really. How's about how they buried the fuel gauge and hid it in one little corner of the MFD where you really have to look for it and it's not obvious at a glance like it is on...ohhh, JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER HELICOPTER EVER DESIGNED!
Progress!
But hey, it's got FADEC! And those are cool. But we can't practice stuck-pedal emergencies in it because of the little toggle-switch "throttle." But come on...when was the last time you heard of a stuck pedal? Get real.
Why not? 5 hrs (=R66 with auxtank) would be just fine. Think typical mission distance 1.5 to 2 hrs. Flying around a bit a destination, and then back the same day. Now there is typically no fuel at destination. If you need to refuel, that means another 2 x 45 min or so to and from fuel station. Fuel planning and arrangements will take up your whole day.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we can't practice stuck-pedal emergencies in it because of the little toggle-switch "throttle."
Don’t worry .. I think the old boy is getting confused again !! He really is in quite a state ... and all about a helicopter he will never own and probably never fly !!!! It’s like me getting my knickers in a twist about Robinson R22,s .....I’m not that interested in their range or where the fuel gauge is as I am never going to own or fly one !!!
For the interested here I have heard
fuel burn at max speed is 230lb/hr
and capacity is 585 lb . You can do 2hr 30 min until fuel low @ 125knots
The owner has accepted his new one and it’s on its way here and he doesn’t know anything about the 500 landings which seems strange 🤔
Personally I think 2.5 hrs is fine for most people / jobs and is fairly normal for a single ( 300 nm + range ) but I will still go for the aux tank when they get it . Just like the MD500 has an aux .... but the grumpy ex Bell helicopter designer hasn’t mentioned that !
Maybe it will turn out to be a turkey and maybe it won’t but I have one on order and it will be my first ever new Helicoper after owning about a dozen geriatrics over the last 30+ years ...so I intend to enjoy it FH1100 !!!!
For the interested here I have heard
fuel burn at max speed is 230lb/hr
and capacity is 585 lb . You can do 2hr 30 min until fuel low @ 125knots
The owner has accepted his new one and it’s on its way here and he doesn’t know anything about the 500 landings which seems strange 🤔
Personally I think 2.5 hrs is fine for most people / jobs and is fairly normal for a single ( 300 nm + range ) but I will still go for the aux tank when they get it . Just like the MD500 has an aux .... but the grumpy ex Bell helicopter designer hasn’t mentioned that !
Maybe it will turn out to be a turkey and maybe it won’t but I have one on order and it will be my first ever new Helicoper after owning about a dozen geriatrics over the last 30+ years ...so I intend to enjoy it FH1100 !!!!
Spunk, it's funny that you mention the BO105. When I was doing my Bolkow transition at PHI, one of the things we practiced was stuck-pedal. Doing a stuck-right, I had - as usual - royally screwed it up. We ended up skimming along, just above the runway with the nose cocked way off to the right, no chance for pulling power and going around.
My instructor, the great Jerry Loviglio goes, "Drag a skid."
And I said something like, "WHAT???????" Me, having spent my entire career up to that point flying two-blade, teetering systems, and thinking about how we were going to get dynamic rollover and roll that 105 up into a big, German ball.
And he goes, "Watch." He takes the controls, lowers the upwind (left) skid and drags it along the ground. Sure enough the nose comes around and we slide to a stop.
"Rigid rotor," he smiled. You know that smile - the one IP's use when they show you a trick that they knew and you didn't.
Heh. I was impressed!
Try *that* in your 505.
Now admittedly, the chances of getting a stuck pedal in a 206 would be like the chances of getting a stuck-cyclic. It's all pushrods and bellcranks going back to the tail rotor, same as the main. It's aircraft that have cable-actuated t/r pitch-change mechanisms that are "more" prone to stuck-pedal situations. (And come on, I put the word "more" in quotes because let's be fair, they just don't happen all that often.)
Oh wait...does the 505 have the same tail rotor control linkage as the 206? Hmm...somehow I think not...
Nige321 - thank you for posting that chart! It's always good to have the straight scoop and not hearsay or innuendo.
I had been told that Bell was working "feverishly" on improving that 500-landing limit, and I'm happy to see that they did. It didn't take long. It's now 3,000 hours (but curiously they seem to have deleted the limitation on the number of landings). I also see that the mid fuselage/floor is also up to 3,000 hours.
My instructor, the great Jerry Loviglio goes, "Drag a skid."
And I said something like, "WHAT???????" Me, having spent my entire career up to that point flying two-blade, teetering systems, and thinking about how we were going to get dynamic rollover and roll that 105 up into a big, German ball.
And he goes, "Watch." He takes the controls, lowers the upwind (left) skid and drags it along the ground. Sure enough the nose comes around and we slide to a stop.
"Rigid rotor," he smiled. You know that smile - the one IP's use when they show you a trick that they knew and you didn't.
Heh. I was impressed!
Try *that* in your 505.
Now admittedly, the chances of getting a stuck pedal in a 206 would be like the chances of getting a stuck-cyclic. It's all pushrods and bellcranks going back to the tail rotor, same as the main. It's aircraft that have cable-actuated t/r pitch-change mechanisms that are "more" prone to stuck-pedal situations. (And come on, I put the word "more" in quotes because let's be fair, they just don't happen all that often.)
Oh wait...does the 505 have the same tail rotor control linkage as the 206? Hmm...somehow I think not...
Nige321 - thank you for posting that chart! It's always good to have the straight scoop and not hearsay or innuendo.
I had been told that Bell was working "feverishly" on improving that 500-landing limit, and I'm happy to see that they did. It didn't take long. It's now 3,000 hours (but curiously they seem to have deleted the limitation on the number of landings). I also see that the mid fuselage/floor is also up to 3,000 hours.
FH1100, I love the way that you are assuming the unsubstantiated hearsay was correct and that Bell have been beavering away to "fix" all these imaginary problems.
Others may just think you're smoking your socks and sprouting fantasy to try keep proving yourself right, when all that seems to be happening is you digging the hole deeper.
Sooner or later if you won't eat your hat you may want to consider burying it
Others may just think you're smoking your socks and sprouting fantasy to try keep proving yourself right, when all that seems to be happening is you digging the hole deeper.
Sooner or later if you won't eat your hat you may want to consider burying it
So our great ex Bell designer has got it all wrong ... yet again !!!! But he still is incapable of admitting he is wrong !!! So just for the record FH were you wrong , yet again , about the 500 landing limit ? A straight yes or no would be good .
Were you wrong about it not going into production ( which you swore it would not do ) ...
Were you wrong about the speed ?
( my friends have cruised at 128 knots but let’s just say 125 max .... you said 115 ) ...
Wrong about the end plates on horizontal stab ??
There are more of your loony rants but I am aware I am already getting boring . So over & out . Just shut the F up and eat your hat cowboy 🤠
!!!
Were you wrong about it not going into production ( which you swore it would not do ) ...
Were you wrong about the speed ?
( my friends have cruised at 128 knots but let’s just say 125 max .... you said 115 ) ...
Wrong about the end plates on horizontal stab ??
There are more of your loony rants but I am aware I am already getting boring . So over & out . Just shut the F up and eat your hat cowboy 🤠
!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well FH1100, I guess draging one skid is a different style. I prefer propper power management, trading speed for lift/power etc. It works fine for me on the H269, R22, R44, on all of the Bell products I’ve flown so far, BO105 and sometimes on those french products as well.
But back to the subject... Bell 505👍
But back to the subject... Bell 505👍
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the '500 landing' number is correct, unless Bell has managed to change it. The other major thing is that the beams that run under the floor do not have a very long life either. That requires some pretty major work to change them. I don't remember the number, but I posted it a few months ago on this thread and I can't be bothered to look it up. Not to mention the weight that has to be moved around for CG reasons, unless that has been sorted out as well.
I have connections.........
I have connections.........