I dont think the EC120 market was part of the expected compeition since its roughly twice the anticipated cost.

I would bet Bell probably looked at the Marenco or the KC518 as a license built option or something like that, but if they are seriously trying to stay under $1 million, those arent even close to being feasable.

This. Frank's machine is as simple as it can get and he sells a boatload of them for a reason.

The Jetbanger was quite an innovative design in its time (introduced about 40 years ago). Other than the alleged price, this machine hasn't moved the bar any further in its category.

If Bell engineers can achieve the $1m price tag I reckon they will have tremendous success with it, but that waits to be seen. As someone else mentioned previously, it would have been better to work on dropping the price of a 407.

Ahahahahahahahaha:D Another "innovative" Bell special!

Well, we all know it costs absolutely nothing to incorporate "innovative" advanced technology into an an ultra low cost mass-produced helicopter. Bell management must be a bunch of muppets to leave out all that free innovation in this platform.

Or rather, we have just experienced more of tottigol's compulsive Bell-bashing.

Just calling a spade a spade Sans.

IHMO, we've seen in the last 16 months, unveiled three new products which depending on how some see it as, admittedly old hat(s) reinvented.

525 Relentless

V280 Valor

And now this

Gotta give BHT some credit in doing something that doesn't based on a Huey or Jetranger airframe.

There have been the odd operator that has gone all Bell and replaced their mixed fleet including Eurocopter products.

Cheers from Paris

Well, I say anything new is good for competition and choice! Good luck to 'em.

Just read the specs. Given that they are almost identical to the outgoing B3, one can only assume it's a teaser ?

Who wants to buy a machine that is not an improvement on the old model ? And certainly no competition for the R66.

I reckon in a year or two, Bell will release the real specs, and they will be (must be) impressive and competitive.

Otherwise they have lost the plot.

Arrrj

Someone who wants to buy one for half the price, perhaps?

I swear, its like its completely lost on people here that the primary driver entering this particular market is cost.

If I had the funds, I would love to cross shop something from a large OEM (with good parts and customer support) like Bell versus one of Frank's machines or one of the numerous vapor-ware shops.

C'mon, the 525 Relentless and V280 Valor are 'old hats reinvented?'

I'm wondering what a helicopter would need to look like, for some here to consider it 'new'?

If 525 and Valour survive with all their innovations then yes, Bell will have made great advances but this new single really does look like a slightly vamped up 206, sorry.

You've got to think that Bell has anticipated operator concern over the selection of a Turbomeca donk over one from Allison or Pratts. Given that the SLS will be going head-to-head with the R66, I wouldn't be surprised if Bell were to adopt a similar harmonized major service interval approach, i.e. with the airframe and engine both undergoing heavy checks at 3,000 hours.

Another possibility is that Bell will use some kind of Power-By-The-Hour or Guaranteed Availability maintenance plan, to minimize concerns over TM's support. (This would also allow Bell and TM to maximize 'authorized' (vs. third party) MRO revenue.)

From a technical perspective, the Arrius 2 -- like the PW200 -- offers a number of advantages over the A250, in terms of TBO, SFC and design simplicity.

I/C

I haven't figured out what is wrong with keeping a base model, as a base model. Yes it's cheap, so that means two blades, it has a flat floor, good I guess, if its got similar internals to the JR and is 120kt cruise and cheaper then that has to be good.

No it won't compete with a 350 but there is the 407 for that, and no not everyone thinks that club seating is bad, have you ever been in a stretched limo?

As for EC lovers saying Bell can't innovate, when was the last new innovative design from EC? Following the most common product lines they go back 50 or so years with minor tinkering along the way...

Gazelle... 350... 350...350... God how many times can they reinvent the 350? 350B3... 350+ no better call it a EC130B4. 350- no EC120 :confused:

105...117A1,a2....B2...145. T2,P2?

Want a smaller twin 355, wow what was that a 350? Lets trick all those people and call it a 135, they will never figure it out. :oh:

So even EC have figured out that you simply make slow incremental changes to a successful design, now if only the could sort out parts supply....:ugh:

SuperF, the 135 is in no way related to the 350. Do a Google search for the Bo-108 and you'll see what the 135 started out as.

All OEM's regurgitate old designs/parts into new helicopters. If you look on the 412 you'll still find a couple of parts with 47 part numbers and plenty with 204/205/212. Agusta does the same, the Engine Control Levers in the 139 come from the 109 and the rotor head is an upscaled 5 blade version of the 109 head.

Personally, I wish Bell all the best. Everyone seems to want more of this and more of that, but there is still a place for a basic 5 seat turbine that plods along at a modest pace and is cheap to buy and operate. Just ask Robinson.

The more I see of the Short Light Single, the more I think it resembles a rat.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...29390190_n.jpg

Hi noooby, not saying that there is anything wrong with using proven technology. Just trying to turn the equation around on a couple of Bell Knockers that say every new model that bell bring out is a 50yr old design.

I'm happy flying my old, brand new JR, that we brought in 1978, still does the same job now as it did then. 5 onboard, full of fuel, away you go.

Or flying the Old Huey's that we run. Proven technology, still capable of doing the same job day in day out, as what they were designed to do 50 years ago!

As for the new JR, get rid of the plastic, get rid of that engine, and it might go...

Bell Reveals more on ?short light single? | Aviation International News

Price...
L-4 Dynamics

Nothing new here that wasn't said at the Paris Air show I'm afraid. It's a JetRanger in a new cloak from Primark rather than M&S :confused:

New New New WHY?
What most people Co. want is reliable machine at a good price with sensibly priced parts that reach TBO &after sales service.
Why is evolution so bad as long as it makes the product better ?
A lot of new products have so many problems, water ingress on the electronics, gear boxes, composite problems, astronomical cost of the glass cockpit repairs, & spare prices that cannot bear ANY relation to production cost to name but a few. Warranty :{:{

Actually, the key new information here is that the SLS will use the 206L4 gearbox rather than the 206B3 gearbox. This will allow for future performance improvements.

Hopefully, it will also include the high altitude tail rotor and VanHorn composite blades!

We can but hope that this time Bell read the rule book before they finalise the design.......

Not reading the rule book lost them the 427 [fuel in the cabin and a few other goodies]..... seem to have stalled the 429 and that is without mention of other All American errors like the MD900 [mended with the 902] and the R66 [not mended].

From the image there appears to be an open cabin with no broom closet. That's a major structural change.

PAN: Not forgetting other Bell 'greats' such as the 214ST and the 206LT TwinRanger and in the MDH camp, the 'astonishing' MD600.

KJ: Not sure how much 'structure' will be carried over from the original 206 series. Very little I suspect. Can't imagine them using the 'bath tub' or any of the for'ard structure at all in fact. If, as Sagedm suggests, they will use the L4 transmission for future power upgrades, then they will need a suitably 'beefy' tailboom so, they may use a modified (ie. shorter) version of the L4's strengthened boom. That's about the only structural component I can see them carrying across but, detailed information (as yet), remains scarce.

Going to be equipped with G1000
 

Textron Inc. : Bell Helicopter to Equip New Short Light Single Aircraft with Garmin G1000H Integrated Avionics System | 4-Traders

Nice!

Since this SLS model is intended for high production numbers, I don't see how utilizing existing hardware (like heritage gearbox designs) will reduce costs long term. I agree that adopting a single modern turboshaft engine is a good idea. But it would also be a smart move to design a dedicated drivetrain using the latest technology for this model.

Unfortunately, it seems that the bean-counters at Bell have decided that it is not worth the time and effort to design and qualify a new drivetrain for this product.

The bean counters at Robinson seem to know what they're doing with the R66 vs. the engineers at EC on the EC120 if you look at sales totals.

I believe that is precisely the trap they are trying to avoid. Using proven, off-the-shelf, low-cost components will allow them to come in under the price target and help keep NRE expenditures down.

I dont think this is a new modern 206 replacement; it's a dedicated Robbie fighter.

To be assembled in Lafayette, La
 

After what it termed a highly competitive, multi-state site-selection process, Bell Helicopters announced today that it has chosen Lafayette as the location for a plant that will assemble its new line of SLS helicopters, the contemporary version of Bell's industry-standard JetRanger. Bell will invest $11.4 million in equipment and tooling, according to a statement from LED. The plant will create 115 new direct jobs at an average annual salary of $55,000 each, plus benefits. LED estimates the project will mean another 136 additional permanent, indirect jobs.

Full article: News alert: Bell to build helicopter assembly plant in Lafayette

"Bell to build helicopter assembly plant in Lafayette"

The title of that article is a bit misleading. Louisiana taxpayers are actually the ones building the plant. Bell will simply be making use of it. The state is contributing 3 times as much financial support to the facility as Bell is. The SLS will likely be a very successful product for Bell, and the Lafayette plant should remain in operation for a long time. But the state is spending $34M to add 251 jobs ($135K per job), which does not seem like an efficient use of taxpayer money. On the other hand, this a great deal for Bell and TXT shareholders.

Is the demise of Bell's Mirabel operation?

launching at heli-expo?
 

Who's going?

Fascinated by why bell have chosen to use the L4 rotor system when a fully developed and mature 4 blade system is available.

Noise reduction alone will improve the appeal of the new product to potential buyers in sensitive locations.

Less parts count = less cost. Off the shelf componets = less R&D cost
A K-Mart blue light special.:D

Two blades are also hangar friendly for an economy model ... keep it in your car port stuff.... and have great autorotational properties.

That may leave the four blade head as an option for a future GT XLS version later.

Phlying,

I'm going :)

Cheers

"If you are a pilot...you were basically trained in a Jet Ranger"..

I lost interest after that statement.

Re: Flying Guy's comments on the R66 vs. EC 120
 

When you look at initial purchase price, there is an obvious and rather large
difference. If the owner does not actually make much use of the aircraft, the
Calendar O/H life still keeps it's advantage.
However, if the aircraft is going to have some sort of steady utilization, the
apparent advantage starts to disappear.
R66 O/H at 12 years or 2200 Hours? At 500 hours/year that is 250,000 (maybe
Up to 300,000) every 4 1/2 years. the re-sale value will depend less on how well
Maintained the aircraft is vs. a straight line depreciation based on time/calendar
time.(Although I realize some accountant types prefer this)
I will admit a healthy dose of prejudice toward the 120 but I think you need
To look at total life cycle cost and re-sale value rather than the overly-simple
Short term "but it costs less"
in the long run run, I believe the term is "Horses for courses" and everyone's
situation is different, but if you want to compare the two aircraft (or any two
aircraft for that matter) you need to look at all facets, including how it is built,
And what it cost to design it. again the 120 is not a bargain basement deal,
But the development and certification of crashworthy seating, structure, fuel
system, and a very intuitive industry leading (at the time of it's development)
display system, was not without cost.

Regards,

Rigidhead
(please excuse the typo's. I have not quite mastered the vagaries of our new I-Pad as of yet!)

I don't disagree that the EC120 aircraft is better built, better designed, has better crashworthiness, etc than a R66. You get what you pay for. All day, everyday it beats it.

Except for when it comes to cost. Initial (MUCH higher) and DOCs, which I think there's around a $100 difference in per hour costs last time I checked C&DD.

If I had the cash, I'd buy the EC120 as well over the R66... but the market has overwhelmingly shown that they don't want to pay that much for this sized aircraft.

SLS Vs R66
 

Well, not exactly a $1m price advantage, more like $250k. Given the specs, the R66 should face a good competitor.

But it's surprising isn't it? Why is Bell chasing Roby?