Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
longbox 250 orders says you are not alone
Looks more like 300 now.
Reignwood Aviation places order for 50 Bell 505s | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry
Sooooo...I'm a Bell-bashing Bell-hater, eh? Hmm. Let's just see. Private *and* Commercial ratings in the Bell 47. Started flying commercially in 1982...in 206's. Thirty-two years and 11,000-hours later, I'm still at it (but semi-retired, thankfully). Nearly 7,000 of those hours are in 206's of all kinds, from 206A's with boosted pedals to L-4's.
And yet I'm a Bell-hater.
You know, I'm tempted to say something really insulting about people who'd make such assumptions or put words in my mouth, but I'd probably just get this identity banned and have to start yet another one. So I won't. But I'm thinking it, baby!
Oh and by the way, *ALL* of my flight time is in helicopters that don't have autopilots or stabilization of any kind...or SIC's to "share" the flying for that matter...you know, helicopters that require the *single* pilot to have his hands on the controls 100% of the time. I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's. Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright? And I don't hate Bell.
The 505 reminds me a lot of the FH1100. I know that Bell is going to have some...well..."issues" with the 505 before it reaches production. One of those issues is trying to produce the thing for "around" a million dollars, which I think is impossible if they use U.S. labor. Wait until that workforce in Louisiana threatens to unionize. Bell will move that plant up to...hmm...Canada, perhaps? faster than you can say, "Merde!"
Having said that, the video of the first flight was impressive. Hey, an L-4 with new skin flies. Wow! Imagine that! But I did see some things in the video that were a little disturbing. For instance, that 25 pounds of ballast stuck on the end of that loooooong tailboom. Twenty-five pounds?! Does that flight test article even have defog blowers yet? Carpeting? What happens when people put a real interior with decent seats and more radios up front? Holy kamolee! Bell better make the tail rotor gearbox cowling out of lead.
I'm still not convinced they'll be able to push that airframe up to "125+" knots. I mean, they're kidding, right? An engine failure at that speed, at that torque, at most-forward-c.g., would be...interesting. Plus, I don't think that little horizontal stabilizer has enough oomph to pull the tail down far enough to keep the cabin level at 125 knots. (And by the way, that horizontal is mounted in a bad place. Hey Bell, isn't the inflow to the tail rotor bad enough on a 206? Now you have to go and put *another* airfoil back there to block the wind in certain azimuths? Sheesh! And it doesn't even look like they used Van Horn t/r blades - damn!)
It's a weird little helicopter with enormous compromises. And I keep saying this, but it'll be interesting to see how it evolves as it moves toward full production.
Cessna presold a bunch of Skycatchers too. The model 162 was announced in August of 2007. By November of 2008 Cessna had received 1,000 orders for a plane that was supposed to come in at "around" $100,000 (it didn't). One-thousand orders - for a plane that didn't even hit production until the end of 2009.
Now, just because Cessna had problems with the Skycatcher, does that mean that Bell will have the same problems with the 505? Of course not. I'm just saying that "number of orders" means very little.
And yet I'm a Bell-hater.
You know, I'm tempted to say something really insulting about people who'd make such assumptions or put words in my mouth, but I'd probably just get this identity banned and have to start yet another one. So I won't. But I'm thinking it, baby!
Oh and by the way, *ALL* of my flight time is in helicopters that don't have autopilots or stabilization of any kind...or SIC's to "share" the flying for that matter...you know, helicopters that require the *single* pilot to have his hands on the controls 100% of the time. I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's. Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright? And I don't hate Bell.
The 505 reminds me a lot of the FH1100. I know that Bell is going to have some...well..."issues" with the 505 before it reaches production. One of those issues is trying to produce the thing for "around" a million dollars, which I think is impossible if they use U.S. labor. Wait until that workforce in Louisiana threatens to unionize. Bell will move that plant up to...hmm...Canada, perhaps? faster than you can say, "Merde!"
Having said that, the video of the first flight was impressive. Hey, an L-4 with new skin flies. Wow! Imagine that! But I did see some things in the video that were a little disturbing. For instance, that 25 pounds of ballast stuck on the end of that loooooong tailboom. Twenty-five pounds?! Does that flight test article even have defog blowers yet? Carpeting? What happens when people put a real interior with decent seats and more radios up front? Holy kamolee! Bell better make the tail rotor gearbox cowling out of lead.
I'm still not convinced they'll be able to push that airframe up to "125+" knots. I mean, they're kidding, right? An engine failure at that speed, at that torque, at most-forward-c.g., would be...interesting. Plus, I don't think that little horizontal stabilizer has enough oomph to pull the tail down far enough to keep the cabin level at 125 knots. (And by the way, that horizontal is mounted in a bad place. Hey Bell, isn't the inflow to the tail rotor bad enough on a 206? Now you have to go and put *another* airfoil back there to block the wind in certain azimuths? Sheesh! And it doesn't even look like they used Van Horn t/r blades - damn!)
It's a weird little helicopter with enormous compromises. And I keep saying this, but it'll be interesting to see how it evolves as it moves toward full production.
Cessna presold a bunch of Skycatchers too. The model 162 was announced in August of 2007. By November of 2008 Cessna had received 1,000 orders for a plane that was supposed to come in at "around" $100,000 (it didn't). One-thousand orders - for a plane that didn't even hit production until the end of 2009.
Now, just because Cessna had problems with the Skycatcher, does that mean that Bell will have the same problems with the 505? Of course not. I'm just saying that "number of orders" means very little.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a guy who has to pay for my own flying, I am optimistic and open minded.
It is a 100k more than an R66 for 500SHP versus 300SHP and it does not have to be completely rebuilt every 12 years.
So as long as it ends up being certified and delivered in reasonable numbers, the competition should bring down the used prices of EC120's and 500's which just makes flying more affordable for all of us.
It is a 100k more than an R66 for 500SHP versus 300SHP and it does not have to be completely rebuilt every 12 years.
So as long as it ends up being certified and delivered in reasonable numbers, the competition should bring down the used prices of EC120's and 500's which just makes flying more affordable for all of us.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diet.
But, the turbomeca engine in the 505 will need to be re-built every 15 years
at a cost of a lot MORE than a complete R66 engine and airframe overhaul.
PLUS 10 year fcu overhauls at 30k euros etc. that comes with turbomeca.
But, the turbomeca engine in the 505 will need to be re-built every 15 years
at a cost of a lot MORE than a complete R66 engine and airframe overhaul.
PLUS 10 year fcu overhauls at 30k euros etc. that comes with turbomeca.
One thing I've been kind of curious about is all the hype over this "dual-FADEC" thing. Everything Bell puts out about the 505 mentions the dual-FADEC as one of the advantages, often claiming that it "reduces pilot workload." And so I'm moved to wonder...
How?
How exactly does FADEC "reduce pilot workload" in the course of a flight? Now, admittedly I've never flown a 407, so I can't speak to this issue. But I cannot imagine that flying a 407 with FADEC is any less complicated or tiring or fatiguing (or different) than a 206L-4.
Yes, yes, the start sequence is automatic, but it still requires the pilot to monitor the procedings and do something! if it doesn't all go according to plan. But I never thought that starting an L-4 was all that much of a chore. And if your one-and-only FADEC fails in flight your workload is not reduced, for sure! So I guess there's good reason to put *two* of them onboard, eh? "It's so good that we decided to give you *two* of them...you know...just in case..."
So. Somebody help a brutha out here. Just how does having a FADEC controlled engine reduce pilot workload in a helicopter?
How?
How exactly does FADEC "reduce pilot workload" in the course of a flight? Now, admittedly I've never flown a 407, so I can't speak to this issue. But I cannot imagine that flying a 407 with FADEC is any less complicated or tiring or fatiguing (or different) than a 206L-4.
Yes, yes, the start sequence is automatic, but it still requires the pilot to monitor the procedings and do something! if it doesn't all go according to plan. But I never thought that starting an L-4 was all that much of a chore. And if your one-and-only FADEC fails in flight your workload is not reduced, for sure! So I guess there's good reason to put *two* of them onboard, eh? "It's so good that we decided to give you *two* of them...you know...just in case..."
So. Somebody help a brutha out here. Just how does having a FADEC controlled engine reduce pilot workload in a helicopter?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Homer, Alaska
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the L4 and 407 as an example, FADEC reduces work load because absent abnormal situations, in the 407 the needle will appear to be painted on 100 percent, it holds rotor rpm so constant.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit, I'm beginning to like the looks of it too, and I expect this will grow when its shown in a proper delivery paint finish rather than a mock-up demonstrator finish. As a mechanic, two things strike me after looking at the first-flight video, the first is the location of the port and starboard position lights on a removable panel that makes them vulnerable to damage during maintenance. The other has me wondering how long it will be before someone uses the pitot head as a step to reach the upper corner of the windshield.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Langley, B.C. Canada
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I have been flying heavies for the last 15 years, I do have a fondness for Bell mediums. Having said that, I find Bell as a company somewhat behind the curve...they are being reactive to a market that Robinson targeted with success rather than proactive. I have not doubt Bell will sell 505's, but will they tap into the success of the R66's market share?
Come on Bell, for a company that broke into the civilian market like gangbusters in the 60's, and led the way......your at the back of the bus and missed your stop yet again!!!?!?!!
Come on Bell, for a company that broke into the civilian market like gangbusters in the 60's, and led the way......your at the back of the bus and missed your stop yet again!!!?!?!!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, I know a thing or two about helicopters, alright?
As do a few other people on here. Several on here also know a thing or two certifying a new aircraft. But since you know a thing or two:
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!
...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!
...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!
That said I believe these are the seats that will be in the 505:
http://www.zodiacaerospace.com/en/our-products/aircraft-systems/cabin-cockpit-systems/seats/crew-seats/helicopters/hydros-series
They meet the following requirements:
FAA 14 CFR Part27: Airworthiness Standards. Transport Category Aircraft
EASA CS-27 : Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Rotorcraft
ETSO/TSO-C127a : Technical Standard Order – Rotorcraft, transport airplane, and normal and utility airplane seating system,
ETSO/TSO-C114 : Technical Standard Order – Torso Restraint system
SAE AS8049 : Performance standard for seat in civil rotorcraft, transport aircraft, and general aviation aircraft
SAE AS8043 : Aircraft Torso Restraint system
DO-160G : Environmental Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment
Since you know a thing or two about helicopters which of these standards do you find insufficient? How would a heavier beefier seat better meet these requirements?
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.
How do you explain multiple variants of the AH-1 and the 214ST? Both of which have 2 blades and cruise at well above 125kts? As far as the complicated issues they exist no matter what your rotor configuration. Can you share ‘a thing or two’ as to why those issues keep a two bladed system from pushing 125 kts on a regular basis but not a 3 plus rotor system?
One thing I've been kind of curious about is all the hype over this "dual-FADEC" thing. Everything Bell puts out about the 505 mentions the dual-FADEC as one of the advantages, often claiming that it "reduces pilot workload." And so I'm moved to wonder...How?
Perhaps FADECs are thing three? While you may not see start as a big issue many owners and maintenance managers do. The simple fact that a FADEC can prevent a hot start can save an operator a lot of money. Aside from that it starts the engine at the right temperature every time increasing the life of the engine, something even the best pilot can't do consistently. Workload related?
-Nr/Np governing, typically +\- 1% with aggressive collective inputs.
- limit protection preventing inadvertent exceedances
- If limit protection is provided an override feature can be provided allowing the pilot to pull all the power he wants at the expense of the airframe
Not to mention:
-improved fuel efficiency
-improved engine response
- easier integration with digital cockpits
-easier integration of HUMS
Maybe these are meaningless to you but most of the community has moved on. When you buy a car do you ask the dealer to show you the one with the carburetor? I mean who needs fuel injection? It's just technology for the sake of technology, right?
I was intimately involved with the ill-fated attempt at returning the FH1100 to production in the early 2000's
Why am I not surprised it ended in failure?
And yet I'm a Bell-hater. You know, I'm tempted to say something really insulting about people who'd make such assumptions or put words in my mouth, but I'd probably just get this identity banned and have to start yet another one. So I won't. But I'm thinking it, baby
The webs an interesting thing. You're not a Bell hater but all you've done is bash this aircraft telling us how you know it's going to fail. Yet you said the following about the very similar R-66:
Frank says that the R66 will weigh around 1280 pounds empty vs. a MGW of 2700 pounds. *IF* he can keep the "completed" empty weight down to 1300 he'll have a useful load of 1400 pounds. That's a useful useful load…..As ugly as it is, the R66 will be a very good product - in the role that most people are going to use it. Frank will undoubtedly sell every one of them that comes off the assembly line. His loyal customers will buy them. His service centers all over the world will take care of them. Plus, it is new.
Why the completely different tune on two very similar aircraft targeted at the same market? If not the difference in OEM? Perhaps you can see why some might think you’re biased? If you’re concerned about people putting words in your mouth how is what you implied about Longbox taking the personally any different? Might I suggest you were the first to place words?
Oh and by the way, *ALL* of my flight time is in helicopters that don't have autopilots or stabilization of any kind...or SIC's to "share" the flying for that matter...you know, helicopters that require the *single* pilot to have his hands on the controls 100% of the time.
So have a lot of pilots. So what’s your point?
For instance, that 25 pounds of ballast stuck on the end of that loooooong tailboom. Twenty-five pounds?! Does that flight test article even have defog blowers yet? Carpeting? What happens when people put a real interior with decent seats and more radios up front? Holy kamolee! Bell better make the tail rotor gearbox cowling out of lead.
Can you tell us why the 25lbs was there or are you just speculating? Do you know the weight and location of the instrumentaion package? Do you know what the target GW and CG were for the first flight? Do you know what the GW and CG tolerances were to count the data point as good? Do you know how much fuel they were using? If you can't then you really have no idea if you should be concerned or not. If your FH1100 program had made it to flight then maybe you would realize that in flight test you hang weights in some very strange locations to meet a very specific GW/CG combination and many times it's not operationally representative but needed for the engineering data. We'll count that as thing four.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that Bell is going to have some...well..."issues" with the 505 before it reaches production.
One of those issues is trying to produce the thing for "around" a million dollars, which I think is impossible if they use U.S. labor. Wait until that workforce in Louisiana threatens to unionize. Bell will move that plant up to...hmm...Canada, perhaps? faster than you can say, "Merde!"
Nice try, Jeff, but you really know very little about civilian helicopters and how they're certified. You certainly know nothing of the FH1100 (that's obvious). Instead of listing all the aircraft that you're "current" in on your profile, maybe you should spend a little more time actually learning about these crazy contraptions. Just a thought, mm'kay?
I'll address only one thing in your mouth-foaming rant: FADEC in a single-engine helicopter with respect to reducing pilot workload. Ooooh, it makes *starting* easier?? Big deal. Any competent pilot can easily start an L-4 - it doesn't take the skill of a Chuck Yeager/Aaron; it's not even that "high workload." With the Intellistart system, it's even easier and you don't need a single FADEC much less dual-FADEC.
Jeff, all of the "advantages" you listed are cost benefits for the owner/operator/maintainer, *not* the pilot. That's great, but...in most normal circumstances, FADEC makes NOT ONE LITTLE BIT of difference to the pilot.
Your automotive fuel injection analogy is silly. Just silly. Puh-leeze. Does FADEC offer better driveability (flyability?) and does it measurably reduce fuel consumption like fuel injection does? Does FADEC allow for increased TBO's? Do you get any real benefit because the N2/NR stay exactly at 100% instead of merely "within limits?" FADEC *cannot* prevent an overtorque or overtemp in flight. Just silly. Go back to high school and learn to make better analogies.
And so I ask again: What does FADEC actually *do* for the pilot in normal ops? If the advantage is that it reduces long-term maintenance cost via higher initial purchase price for the operator, then say so! If that's even true. But don't try to sell the dumb old pilots on how much easier FADEC will make their lives. You know how easily pilots are distracted by shiny, sparkly things.
I don't know about the rest of you hotdogs, but I don't spend a lot of my time (or *any* of it, actually) yanking up and down on my collective. How many of us actually do? Even the N2 in that old, creaky, antique 206B I fly stays right where it ought to stay without any extraordinary skill or monitoring on my part. And that B-model is stone-simple to start:
Push one button,
Open the throttle at 15%,
Release button above 60%,
Done.
You know what really would make the 206 easier to start? A battery voltage gauge. You know, like the 407 with that fancy FADEC has. Because then you would KNOW when the start is going to be "iffy." FADEC won't even let the pilot attempt a start if the voltage is too low, and that's where pilots of older, non-FADEC ships get in trouble.
So I say: FADEC is complication for the sake of complication in a single-engine helicopter. Dual-FADEC is simply ridiculous, expensive overkill.
P.S. Actually, Frankie *did* hit the targets with the R-66.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, my negative comments about the 505 are with respect to its role as a replacement for the 206B. In that regard it is an epic-fail, as the kids say. As a new/improved/bigger/more powerful R-66, it's probably spot-on
I'll address only one thing in your mouth-foaming rant: FADEC in a single-engine helicopter with respect to reducing pilot workload. Ooooh, it makes *starting* easier?? Big deal. Any competent pilot can easily start an L-4 - it doesn't take the skill of a Chuck Yeager/Aaron; it's not even that "high workload." With the Intellistart system, it's even easier and you don't need a single FADEC much less dual-FADEC.
Jeff, all of the "advantages" you listed are cost benefits for the owner/operator/maintainer, *not* the pilot. That's great, but...in most normal circumstances, FADEC makes NOT ONE LITTLE BIT of difference to the pilot.
Your automotive fuel injection analogy is silly. Just silly. Puh-leeze. Does FADEC offer better driveability (flyability?) and does it measurably reduce fuel consumption like fuel injection does? Does FADEC allow for increased TBO's? Do you get any real benefit because the N2/NR stay exactly at 100% instead of merely "within limits?" FADEC *cannot* prevent an overtorque or overtemp in flight. Just silly. Go back to high school and learn to make better analogies.
And so I ask again: What does FADEC actually *do* for the pilot in normal ops? If the advantage is that it reduces long-term maintenance cost via higher initial purchase price for the operator, then say so! If that's even true. But don't try to sell the dumb old pilots on how much easier FADEC will make their lives. You know how easily pilots are distracted by shiny, sparkly things.
I don't know about the rest of you hotdogs, but I don't spend a lot of my time (or *any* of it, actually) yanking up and down on my collective. How many of us actually do? Even the N2 in that old, creaky, antique 206B I fly stays right where it ought to stay without any extraordinary skill or monitoring on my part. And that B-model is stone-simple to start:
Push one button,
Open the throttle at 15%,
Release button above 60%,
Done.
You know what really would make the 206 easier to start? A battery voltage gauge. You know, like the 407 with that fancy FADEC has. Because then you would KNOW when the start is going to be "iffy." FADEC won't even let the pilot attempt a start if the voltage is too low, and that's where pilots of older, non-FADEC ships get in trouble.
So I say: FADEC is complication for the sake of complication in a single-engine helicopter. Dual-FADEC is simply ridiculous, expensive overkill.
P.S. Actually, Frankie *did* hit the targets with the R-66.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, my negative comments about the 505 are with respect to its role as a replacement for the 206B. In that regard it is an epic-fail, as the kids say. As a new/improved/bigger/more powerful R-66, it's probably spot-on
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff, all of the "advantages" you listed are cost benefits for the owner/operator/maintainer, *not* the pilot. That's great, but...in most normal circumstances, FADEC makes NOT ONE LITTLE BIT of difference to the pilot.
I'm don't know who pays for your flying, but I pay for mine and these things you criticize are an advantage for those of us who both fly and pay the bills.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try, Jeff, but you really know very little about civilian helicopters and how they're certified
Perhaps your issue with FADECs is your rather simplistic and inappropriate take on workload?
But I cannot imagine that flying a 407 with FADEC is any less complicated or tiring or fatiguing (or different) than a 206L-4.
I see you say '...I cannot imagine...' implying that you have neither flown the 407 nor a helicopter with either a EEC or a FADEC. Should you not withhold judgement until you have? At least that's what professional pilot would do. Especially one who knew as much about certification as you. I could be wrong and will defer to you since you know more about civil cert than I do but I was always taught that as the evaluation pilot you should keep an open mind about these things and let the data tell you which decision to make. But unlike you I've spent a lot of time in both configurations, big and small, and have conducted flight test and operations in both configurations, and prefer the complicated for the sake of complication EEC/FADEC to the uncomplicated hydro-mechanical.
FADEC is complication for the sake of complication in a single-engine helicopter. Dual-FADEC is simply ridiculous, expensive overkill.
P.S. Actually, Frankie *did* hit the targets with the R-66.
Last edited by jeffg; 13th Nov 2014 at 16:31.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Chinese luxury consumers: "Bell 505 better than 407GX, AW119Kx and EC130 T2 !"
In other 505-related news: Robinson R66 production down 47% in 2014
I/C
In other 505-related news: Robinson R66 production down 47% in 2014
I/C
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IC - Marketing spin. The 505 isn't in the same class as the Bell 407GX or the AW119Kx. S.E. turbines with glass cockpit is where the comparison ends really. 505 is in competition with the R-66, AS350s, Turbine Enstrom, and SW-4.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Stinger,
That's the question: if the 350 is included, then why not the 407?
As you say, obviously just marketing spin, though I'm surprised BHT would issue a PR for such a lightweight story, given that there can't be any lack of meaty news stories to tell about 505. Seems about as worthwhile as being named 'Best Helicopter!!' by one of those lingerie model-infested UHNWI rags which pop-up overnight (did I mention the lingerie models?), last for a single ad cycle (complete with pouting lingerie models), then disappear never to be heard of again (aww, where have all the lingerie models gone?
). I'm sure KiwiNedNZ will have his views on that particular topic...
I/C
That's the question: if the 350 is included, then why not the 407?
As you say, obviously just marketing spin, though I'm surprised BHT would issue a PR for such a lightweight story, given that there can't be any lack of meaty news stories to tell about 505. Seems about as worthwhile as being named 'Best Helicopter!!' by one of those lingerie model-infested UHNWI rags which pop-up overnight (did I mention the lingerie models?), last for a single ad cycle (complete with pouting lingerie models), then disappear never to be heard of again (aww, where have all the lingerie models gone?
). I'm sure KiwiNedNZ will have his views on that particular topic...I/C
k
Bell isn't the one who awarded it... So why not get a little extra publicity in a high growth market? I don't think it deserves it because it's no where close to bring certified yet.... But this wouldn't have stopped any of the other OEM's from doing the same.
Five minutes of fame is better than none.
Five minutes of fame is better than none.
FH1100 ..... Your post makes you sound like you are actually afraid of the 505 being a huge success . Why is that ? Do you have any vested interest in something that may be affected by this aircraft ? I only ask as your rant is either to do with your age or that you will be hurt by the success ....
Having bought one I fully expect it to be brilliant AND be worth a LOT more than $1m when it is in full production !!!!!!
( I have no thoughts at all that it could compete with either the 407 , 350 or 119 .....!!!!)
Having bought one I fully expect it to be brilliant AND be worth a LOT more than $1m when it is in full production !!!!!!
( I have no thoughts at all that it could compete with either the 407 , 350 or 119 .....!!!!)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
PhlyingGuy,
I'd respectfully disagree. You're right, everyone plays the game, getting whatever attention they can, but I can't see any of the other OEMs (well, maybe just the one, if she wanted some attention...) talking up such a scattergun survey, with hundreds of unrelated products ("Best Mattress," "Best High-Tech Multi-Functional Electric Shaver," "Best Coffee Experience Star Performer") selected by someone who clearly spent far too long on Alibaba one Sunday afternoon.
Anyway, the only reason I mentioned it was that it added to the disappointment of the industry buying both awards for itself, and "pay-to-play" analysts.
If it persuades someone in Beijing to buy themselves a 505 (and a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label), fair dues I guess.
I/C
I'd respectfully disagree. You're right, everyone plays the game, getting whatever attention they can, but I can't see any of the other OEMs (well, maybe just the one, if she wanted some attention...
) talking up such a scattergun survey, with hundreds of unrelated products ("Best Mattress," "Best High-Tech Multi-Functional Electric Shaver," "Best Coffee Experience Star Performer") selected by someone who clearly spent far too long on Alibaba one Sunday afternoon.Anyway, the only reason I mentioned it was that it added to the disappointment of the industry buying both awards for itself, and "pay-to-play" analysts.
If it persuades someone in Beijing to buy themselves a 505 (and a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label), fair dues I guess.
I/C