Bell 505 Jet Ranger X
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Holland
Age: 36
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have canceled the LOI of the 505 due to other specs than promised.
Endurance 3,5+ hour, not possible with 318 litre fuel and a burn rate of 125 litre an hour.
No weight and balance calculations available, we think forward cg issues.
We fly the 505 and it start very easy no much vibrations but no 125kt cruise speed at mtow.
For the money (2017 price 1.2M) not that big difference over the r66 of ec120.
Endurance 3,5+ hour, not possible with 318 litre fuel and a burn rate of 125 litre an hour.
No weight and balance calculations available, we think forward cg issues.
We fly the 505 and it start very easy no much vibrations but no 125kt cruise speed at mtow.
For the money (2017 price 1.2M) not that big difference over the r66 of ec120.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the money (2017 price 1.2M) not that big difference over the r66 of ec120.
No weight and balance calculations available, we think forward cg issues
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
407
Our old one was more or less around 125 kts. The GXP we operate now is faster than hell, easily good for 130-135 KIAS. Both with low skids and no ugly fairings.👍
I notice FH is nowhere to be seen . He guaranteed this would not be certified . Would not even be built . Would not do 125 knots . Would be uncomfortable, with huge vibration and needing end plates due to the attitude .
I would have more respect for him if he just put his hands up and said " I was wrong on almost every point "!!
Anyway I hear from people that have flown it that it is a great machine and for private owners the package will provide comfort that whatever happens their costs stay the same !!!! Can't wait for mine !!!
I would have more respect for him if he just put his hands up and said " I was wrong on almost every point "!!
Anyway I hear from people that have flown it that it is a great machine and for private owners the package will provide comfort that whatever happens their costs stay the same !!!! Can't wait for mine !!!
VIP compressor kit gives some horses, the G1000 does tend to nanny speed a bit though - apologies for the thread drift.
I notice FH is nowhere to be seen . He guaranteed this would not be certified . Would not even be built . Would not do 125 knots . Would be uncomfortable, with huge vibration and needing end plates due to the attitude .
I would have more respect for him if he just put his hands up and said " I was wrong on almost every point "!!
Anyway I hear from people that have flown it that it is a great machine and for private owners the package will provide comfort that whatever happens their costs stay the same !!!! Can't wait for mine !!!
I would have more respect for him if he just put his hands up and said " I was wrong on almost every point "!!
Anyway I hear from people that have flown it that it is a great machine and for private owners the package will provide comfort that whatever happens their costs stay the same !!!! Can't wait for mine !!!
But it seems that in your blind, irrational zeal to love all things 505 you are putting the cart waaaaaaay before the horse, mate. I've checked and then checked again, but it seems that the Bell 505 has not yet achieved FAA certification in the U.S. And also as far as I can see, no 505's have yet been registered by the FAA, not even in the "Experimental" category. Hmm. Is Bell *not* going for FAA certification of this model?
Every time I see a profile view of the 505, I am deeply disturbed by how far the mast is behind the cabin. Yes, it troubles me emotionally. This does not bode well for the c.g., something Pilot Netherlands, who’s flown it, mentioned. You see, it’s difficult to strike the right balance between being in c.g. with an empty cabin and a light pilot and *also* be in c.g. with a full cabin. And trust me, this will not be something that Bell can “easily” solve (as Soave Pilot erroneously guessed) because the laws of physics and aerodynamics are just that: LAWS, not mere suggestions and Bell cannot change these laws. So we shall see.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, Nigel, but a light pilot in a lightly loaded 206L will find himself on the forward cyclic stop in cruise. I know this, as I used to be a light pilot once upon a time, and I used to fly light LongRangers…with the cyclic on the forward stop at 106 knots in cruise at the most-aft fuel c.g. Some pilots would carry lead bars to add to the cockpit seat weight to keep things in c.g. I just ate a lot of junk food and handily solved that particular problem.
You're also probably too young to remember when the 206L first appeared. It did not have the ubiquitous winglets on the end of the horizontal stabilizer that we've come to know and love. But at cruise speed, which was only slightly higher than that of a 206B, there was an uncomfortable "waggle," a strange yaw/roll coupling. So Bell added the winglets, finlets, endplates or whatever you want to call them. And that solved the problem but slowed the ship down since they were set at an angle of attack *opposite* than that of the vertical fin.
The 505 has the same tail boom and vertical fin as the 206. Mark my words...(hold a hand up with your index finger extended) MARK MY WORDS! The 505 will sprout winglets.
Okay, about that mythical “125+ knot cruise.” How do we get a helicopter to go fast? You tilt the disk forward, right? Right. But if you tilt the disk forward, the fuselage wants to tilt forward too. This is why the BO-105 and the FH1100 have such an uncomfortable nose-down attitude in cruise. At 127 mph, the FH1100 assumes a 10-degree *down* nose attitude. Very uncomfortable on a long flight.
To keep a half-way level cabin attitude in fast cruise, you have both tilt the mast forward *and* aerodynamically pull the tail down. The mast in the FH1100 is vertical like the 12E and Bell 47, not tilted forward at all (it wasn't designed to go fast). Nor is the FH1100’s horizontal stabilizer cambered. The 206 has a large, cambered horizontal stabilizer to help keep a level cabin attitude in cruise. But it can only do so much, so Bell tilted the mast forward as well.
Again, Bell isn't inventing any new aerodynamic theories here. The 505's flat-plate horizontal stabilizer will, in this boy's very humble opinion, prove unacceptable for comfortable "125+ knots" flight...unless they've tilted the mast forward by about 10 degrees, which they haven’t. In fact, Bell says the mast is only tilted forward 3.5 degrees. What?! (And those straight-up rear seatbacks don’t look all that comfortable, either.)
I think we'll see average 505 cruise speeds of maybe around 110 knots, as also alluded to by Pilot Netherlands. (By the way, the Bell 505 brochure optimistically lists the long range cruise speed as 113 knots. Long-range cruise does not substantially differ from any other cruise speed in a helicopter. I just don’t see the 505 scooting along at 115-120 knots no matter how aerodynamically slick that ugly fuselage is.)
We now know the fuel capacity of the 505! And it’s not good. I'm still curious as to how Bell is going to get their advertised 3.5 hours of endurance out of 85 gallons of fuel? French engines aren't known for being miserly. I’m thinking that Arrius is going to burn 30-35 gph, giving us a no-reserve endurance of 2.8 to dry tanks. Bell’s brochure says the range is 306 miles but I don’t see how that’s possible. With reserve, say 2.3 hours, or a max range of about 275 miles *IF* you can get 120 knots GS out of the POS (hah!).
Finally, let’s talk about weight. We also now know the projected weight of the 505. Bell says the base aircraft weighs 2,210 pounds. Maybe that’ll hold for the production ships as well (hah!) But remember, that’s for the stripper version. Let’s add up some optional extras, shall we? Hmm… Let’s see, dual controls add 8.2 pounds and a rotor brake adds 13.2. Carpet and leather seats (you don’t want vinyl seats and a rubber floor mats, do you?) add 34 pounds. Air conditioning (gotta have it!) adds 72.5 more. Let’s add sliding windows for the front doors too at 1.2 pounds. A second VHF comm would be nice, and that adds 5.4 pounds. An ELT adds 4.7.
Sooooo…what’s that add up to? Let’s see, add the…carry the…and we come up with a “real” empty weight of 2,350 pounds give or take (sorry Brits, we speak American here). Max Gross is 3,680 leaving us with a real-world useful load of 1,330. Not bad, but remember you’ll be carrying more fuel around than your rusty-trusty 206B.
Oh, and the 505 is already up to US$1.2 million, did anybody catch that? “Around $1 million,” eh? Hah. It’s $1.2m and…”Oh yeah, you want a rotor brake with that? Well that’ll be another $50,000.”
I still say that Bell will find a way of delaying production of the 505 and ultimately killing the project – like they did with the 427…like Cessna did with the 162…like Beech did with the Starship…like Piper did with the Piperjet and the Piper light-sport…like Lear did with the model 80…like Beech (again!) did with the Premier... But if I’m wrong about any of the above, I will gladly publically prostrate myself in front of all of you, and sobbingly admit my failure as a human being. Hey, I’ve been wrong before!
Hallucinate all you want…hell, fantasize your life away for all I care. Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. But there are some serious aerodynamic and economic realities that Bell is facing that won’t be “easily” solved by dropping tabs of LDS in your coffee and hoping to write “Strawberry Fields.”
I was bored, so I took a side view of the 505 and AS350 and dropped one over the other. The scales might be a smidgen out, but any assertion that the 505 has its mast in the wrong place in comparison to the AS350 is wrong...
I shall now go back to sleep...
I shall now go back to sleep...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oregon, US
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with FH1100. The Astar does have forward CG issues, thats why a lot of people move the battery to the tailboom. Also, if your image is correct the tail on the Astar goes back a bit farther, which would make a big difference. It may not be a deal breaker, but it will be an issue.
ascj asks about the Enstrom. If any of you have seen the configuration for the five-seat 480 you would clearly see the c.g. issues Enstrom faced when designing the cabin for the turbine version. It's horrible for five people. You wonder why they didn't just make the cabin longer and then you go, "Oh...right, they would have if they could have."
The other issue is that articulated rotor systems generally have a wider c.g. range than underslung teetering systems. This is why I say the 505 will have problems. That, and years and years of experience flying LongRangers in which at least the transmission/mast was *over* the back seats, not behind them.
albatross asked about the internal vs. external MGW on the 505. And the answer is, "Yep!" The internal MGW is 3,680 pounds and the limit for external loads is 4,475 pounds with a 1,500 limit on the hook.
EDIT: Oh yeah! I forgot to add... I got to thinking about the profile view of the 505, and all that area ahead of the mast. From a yaw stability standpoint it's just...I mean...wow. I don't even want to think about trying to fly that thing with a complete loss of thrust tail rotor failure (i.e. tail rotor stops spinning). The aerodynamic forces acting on the area ahead of the mast might overpower that skinny tailboom and vertical fin.
So *WHEN* Bell adds the winglets to the horizontal stab it will improve the c.g. issues somewhat. But! The way the stab is mounted to the tailboom will undoubtedly have to be beefed up; those cheesy brackets probably won't be stout enough. More added weight along with more added drag.
This is going to be interesting!
The other issue is that articulated rotor systems generally have a wider c.g. range than underslung teetering systems. This is why I say the 505 will have problems. That, and years and years of experience flying LongRangers in which at least the transmission/mast was *over* the back seats, not behind them.
albatross asked about the internal vs. external MGW on the 505. And the answer is, "Yep!" The internal MGW is 3,680 pounds and the limit for external loads is 4,475 pounds with a 1,500 limit on the hook.
EDIT: Oh yeah! I forgot to add... I got to thinking about the profile view of the 505, and all that area ahead of the mast. From a yaw stability standpoint it's just...I mean...wow. I don't even want to think about trying to fly that thing with a complete loss of thrust tail rotor failure (i.e. tail rotor stops spinning). The aerodynamic forces acting on the area ahead of the mast might overpower that skinny tailboom and vertical fin.
So *WHEN* Bell adds the winglets to the horizontal stab it will improve the c.g. issues somewhat. But! The way the stab is mounted to the tailboom will undoubtedly have to be beefed up; those cheesy brackets probably won't be stout enough. More added weight along with more added drag.
This is going to be interesting!
Last edited by FH1100 Pilot; 8th Feb 2017 at 05:53.
I did the diagram again, but scaled accurately using both manufacturers data. I wasn't far out the first time.
A quick calculation shows that the side area in front and behind the mast is proportionaly similar for both. The AS has mre side are infront but a bigger boom to match. There really isn't much in it...
A quick calculation shows that the side area in front and behind the mast is proportionaly similar for both. The AS has mre side are infront but a bigger boom to match. There really isn't much in it...
I did the diagram again, but scaled accurately using both manufacturers data. I wasn't far out the first time.
A quick calculation shows that the side area in front and behind the mast is proportionaly similar for both. The AS has mre side are infront but a bigger boom to match. There really isn't much in it...
A quick calculation shows that the side area in front and behind the mast is proportionaly similar for both. The AS has mre side are infront but a bigger boom to match. There really isn't much in it...
And you may get to see that, if it will really give you pleasure. But Bell's own brochure puts the fuel capacity at 85 gallons. Not sure what sort of magic Bell is conjuring up to get 3.5 hours of endurance out of a French engine.
I don't think they ever intended it to be 3.5 hrs at MGW or at MCP cruise. Nominal GW-CG and lower torque setting/speed and you get much better numbers. To get 3.5 hours of endurance you need fuel flow of around 150 pph and a short startup and takeoff way below TOP. I've seen those kinds of numbers in other light Heli's at low power settings. But who cares... 3.5 hours is too long for most bladders anyway.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've seen helicopters with C of G problems before, and they were solved by simply putting the battery on the tail boom (EC130). Maybe I'm just too naive, but how can a consolidaded manufacture, with money and brains available build a helicopter with a CG problem that cannot be fixed? C'mom, We are talking about millions of dollars at stake here.
And if we look deep into the problem, almost every light helicopter has a bit of CG problem, some when flying at max weight others when flying lightly loaded.
I agree that some advertised numbers may not be delivered, but for the price tag and category of the helicopter, it will be enough. And also an option for who is considering buying an R66.
And if we look deep into the problem, almost every light helicopter has a bit of CG problem, some when flying at max weight others when flying lightly loaded.
I agree that some advertised numbers may not be delivered, but for the price tag and category of the helicopter, it will be enough. And also an option for who is considering buying an R66.