Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
The lines dont flow. to me it's that simple.
the nose slopes at an angle that the window lines dont match.
the nose sticks out too far in my opinion and doesnt have an attractive shape.
the cowls also dont flow right around the engine but i'm sure wind tunnel testing said that was the best design.
then it all just mashes together into the 1970's tail section.
it truly is a beast that Dr Jekyll stitched together.
Even though many manufacturers blend their airframes and components into something "new" all the time, I just dont feel Bell has put a point on the style. It does stand out, but for all the wrong reasons to me.
the nose slopes at an angle that the window lines dont match.
the nose sticks out too far in my opinion and doesnt have an attractive shape.
the cowls also dont flow right around the engine but i'm sure wind tunnel testing said that was the best design.
then it all just mashes together into the 1970's tail section.
it truly is a beast that Dr Jekyll stitched together.
Even though many manufacturers blend their airframes and components into something "new" all the time, I just dont feel Bell has put a point on the style. It does stand out, but for all the wrong reasons to me.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After I have now been given the oportunity to see it live and crawl around inside it for a while, I must say that looks are no longer a problem. It certainly looks much better in real life than in pictures. Spoke to a friend who has flown it a fair bit lately and the performance is very good and it meets the bush/utility demand of full fuel & full cabin without any performance issues.
I saw someone mention that the startup is easy but it would have been even better if you could leave the generator on the whole time. Apparently Bell themselves has changed their internal ops manuals to leave generator and lights on all the time as there are no issues in doing so (could be gossip but still...). Might be an official change in startup procedures shortly.
I saw someone mention that the startup is easy but it would have been even better if you could leave the generator on the whole time. Apparently Bell themselves has changed their internal ops manuals to leave generator and lights on all the time as there are no issues in doing so (could be gossip but still...). Might be an official change in startup procedures shortly.
Last edited by DonQuixote23; 4th Dec 2018 at 13:59.
or this...
Don't tell FH1100 they both have endplates of one sort or another...
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...nstrator-flies
Did you all want another 206/407 lookalike....
Think about all the product line from 80s/90s onwards....all have some resemebling to the lines of the Jet Ranger and Huey/ Albeit Twin
Huey and I have heard complaints and moaning that Bell were not evolving. Look I do admit the engineering mantra ( taught to me at uni and reinforced when doing surveys for the airline MRO) ‘If it Is Not Broke, Don’t Fix it’
Now something new in the form of 525 and 505, everyone’s complaining .some question the selection of Turbomeca Arrius to power the 505...
Anyhow 505 numbers of delivery are increasing, 525 program is back on track after the other years tragedy....
Please forgive me if I have not read through all the posts here....but apart from the looks, is there any real gripes from owners / operators ?
Also give it six months then ask the Sacramento Pd how they like it and if it woorks for them in assisting ground units in busting the bad guys. Am sure they’re legacy hand-me-down 58s worked for them.
Cheers
. it meets the bush/utility demand of full fuel & full cabin without any performance issues.
I’ve flown the 505, but not worked it. Curious why the appeal over, say, a used 407. Operating cost?
Last edited by malabo; 5th Dec 2018 at 05:19.
From what I hear it is doing everything it was promised to do !!! It is still my belief that it will go up in value / cost over the next couple of years as Bell don’t need to sell it cheap any more with full order books .
As for looks I now think it’s a cool looking helicopter...a bit quirky maybe but a beautiful cockpit with huge space , flat floor and great viz .
Some love to criticise its looks vehemently but I wonder why they care so much if they are never going to be a purchaser !!!
Annoyingly mine is still sitting in a hangar at Thruxton until I have sold my 109 ....but while it is probably appreciating in value ( partly due to the $) I’m not too concerned as I can always just sell it and carry on with my old faithful....
As for looks I now think it’s a cool looking helicopter...a bit quirky maybe but a beautiful cockpit with huge space , flat floor and great viz .
Some love to criticise its looks vehemently but I wonder why they care so much if they are never going to be a purchaser !!!
Annoyingly mine is still sitting in a hangar at Thruxton until I have sold my 109 ....but while it is probably appreciating in value ( partly due to the $) I’m not too concerned as I can always just sell it and carry on with my old faithful....
Key differences would be modern startup and dual FADEC thet even the 407 only just received recently, so used ones are still older style governing. Other big difference is crashworthiness. Far superior to baseline comparables. Finally the clean burn of the engine is a nice differentiations in a class dominated by RR engines.
Key differences would be modern startup and dual FADEC thet even the 407 only just received recently, so used ones are still older style governing. Other big difference is crashworthiness. Far superior to baseline comparables. Finally the clean burn of the engine is a nice differentiations in a class dominated by RR engines.
It isn't pure fadec as the purists would dictate but it is still fadec.
While it has a manual reversion to throttle, and you have to roll the throttle to fly, instead of flick a switch, how exactly is that old style or indeed governing? It is a very good aircraft for a light single.
It isn't pure fadec as the purists would dictate but it is still fadec.
It isn't pure fadec as the purists would dictate but it is still fadec.
I assume you are talking about the 407 old style single FADEC. The sloppiness of the governing when the primary channel reverts is dangerous. It’s already a bad day if you get there, but it’s not something you want to fly with for long. Comparatively Easy to over torque or under speed. There was a period of FADEC issues on 407GX’s during the early years with the G1000 that put a number of pilots into manual mode due to corrosion on the FADEC connectors.... wasn’t good. A dual channel is simple to do if you plan it from the beginning... harder to add later in the life of an engine.
In a previous life I did a lot of work with redundant systems... dissimilar redundancy is far more reliable with aging parts i.e. a mechanical backup to an electronic primary. When the electronics are operating you have the benefits of ease of use and efficiency, when you revert to mechanical its inefficient and difficult to use.. BUT keeps you in the air.
The issue is its a hard sell because its not a great marketing feature "if it fails... etc etc." and it cost more (upfront).
So what happens when you get corrosion with a both FADECs? If both are subject to the same conditions its possible they could fail at the same time due to a power issue etc etc.
In a previous life I did a lot of work with redundant systems... dissimilar redundancy is far more reliable with aging parts i.e. a mechanical backup to an electronic primary. When the electronics are operating you have the benefits of ease of use and efficiency, when you revert to mechanical its inefficient and difficult to use.. BUT keeps you in the air.
The issue is its a hard sell because its not a great marketing feature "if it fails... etc etc." and it cost more (upfront).
In a previous life I did a lot of work with redundant systems... dissimilar redundancy is far more reliable with aging parts i.e. a mechanical backup to an electronic primary. When the electronics are operating you have the benefits of ease of use and efficiency, when you revert to mechanical its inefficient and difficult to use.. BUT keeps you in the air.
The issue is its a hard sell because its not a great marketing feature "if it fails... etc etc." and it cost more (upfront).
Also, talking to the Bell engineers has given me an appreciation for the redundancy of the newly designed generation of aircraft. Between the Garmin avionics and the engine controls, there are so many backup pathways and indications and fallbacks that I’m convinced it is similar to the video of the Chevy old bel air vs the 2009 Chevy Malibu in the link below. New helo crash requirements are much higher than old ones... seat and fuel system designs are much better protection than old but current production helicopters (current H125, H145, and Puma designs are all older standards for example).
Video we did showing Rangitikei Helicopters in New Zealand using the 505 on ag work.
Rangitikei Helicopters Bell 505
Rangitikei Helicopters Bell 505
Max external gross weight is over 4400#’s. Empty weight minus pax seats is less than 1900 lbs. so you can get 2K#’s on the hook easily and still have most of a tank of gas.