505
 

Having spent some time looking over the 505 mock up my initial view is one of disappointment as to the concept. Having been at the receiving end of Turbomeca recently I think it is a bad step to go for the Arrius engine simply on a cost basis, and the 15yr time limit will be a distinct disadvantage to new owners compared to the Allison/RR. I too think the nose profile looks like a stomped on rat's nose. I also don't agree with using old technology running gear and blades and fob it off as a cost saving exercise to help the poor old buyer. Its all about maximum profit. With all the money Bell has made over the years from its customers and having run the JR design for so long they should have brought us something truly inspiring, with a full composite light weight body and composite blades. Some examples of which are hitting the market just now.

I think the point is that this "new" 505 is neither the latest nor the greatest of anything; it's simply a rehash of old technology in a new shape, with new avionics. Golly! People (mostly guys but not always) are getting such erections from this thing that it's really puzzling. Dudes, WE'VE SEEN IT ALL BEFORE. And so far, I'm not impressed.

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!

Some of Bell's design choices, and the compromises they bring are truly puzzling. Even the 1961 HUL-1M had a baggage compartment in the tail (probably unusable, given that the engine exhaust was immediately forward of it with that configuration). If you don't understand how important it sometimes is to shift weight between the cabin and baggage compartment to keep the c.g. in range, then you probably haven't flown very much out in the "real world." But in the 505? No can do! Baggage compartment is right under the mast :(

I'm especially not impressed with the location of the horizontal stab. Is Bell just copying the R-product? I suspect that at some point the 505 will "magically" grow a set like the 206 has, complete with endplates.

But the choice of tha Arrius engine is what's really puzzling. It not only weighs more than a RR-250, but it uses more fuel as well. So in addition to the extra weight of the engine, you'll have to always carry more fuel to feed it than if they'd just stuck with the legendary RR-250. Strange choice. How heavy is thing thing going to be? Heavier than a 206B, that's for sure!

But it is a work-in-progress, let's admit that much. Many things will undoubtedly change between now and the first production units...*IF* indeed it ever gets produced. So far, aside from the open-floor-plan cabin, it does not show us any real improvements over the 206 it is supposedly replacing. And it's way uglier. It will *not* be faster than a 206B on low-skids. And depending on how they actually mount the transmission, it may have worse ride quality than a B-model.

We shall see...

Like FH1100Pilot and as350nut I too was puzzled by the engine choice for the 505. I anticipate that a lot of 505 sales will be to 206B/L owners upgrading and perhaps not fully realizing the differences in the level of product support for the Turbomeca vis-à-vis the Allison/RR. Also, and this is a relatively minor point, how many 505 customers are aware that their mechanics will have to purchase additional metric tools.


I wonder which will come first, a Bell option for an Allison/RR engine or a third-party STC'd option.

The engine was chosen as it was the only option that comes with twin FADEC, don't recall seeing that 53 years ago, the tail boom is longer and a new design with the single stab staying, not dual with fins. The seats that are in the three mock ups vary in finish and are not the finished product, the seats on my time showing the aircraft off have been met with zero problems, they will have leather not rag and tube as per the Blackhawk. The transmission does incorporate a new design isolation mount. The speed will be higher than a standard 206, it is Long ranger running gear which has a higher speed than the JR, and bear in mind it is lugging much less weight around than when on the L4.
Most of the 250 plus orders and a mixed bag, in the UK it is mainly 120, R44 and existing 206 owners coming through and a surprising number of cancelled 66 or new owners, we also have over 25 just for the UK.
I have been involved in this product form inception and I look forward to carrying out demos throughout the uk, incidentally, the UK is the launch country for Europe.

.
longbox
Maybe one of the reasons why there will be around 100 R66 produced this year compared to the nearly 200 produced last year.
.

I think you're missing the point. Looking at the specs of this aircraft and it's price point it's pretty obvious, at least I think, that it was designed for a specific market segment. That market segment has an upper bound as to what it will or can pay. The combination of that boundry and customer expectations (performance) drove the technology which could be used on the product. The engineering, tooling, testing and certification cost alone of an all new composite body and blades would have easily caused this to cost twice as much if not more.

That said this obviously isn't the aircraft for you, or me for that matter, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for it as evidenced by the comments of Longbox. Again, I don't see where Bell is advertising this as having the latest and greatest technology. As previously mentioned, if you want that they are building the 525.
As an aside I personally have had R44/66 operators tell me that they would like to have an Airbus or Bell product but can't afford to. The 505, if delivered at it's price point, allows them entry.

Initial purchase price is only part of the equation....it will be interesting to see what operating costs come out to as Turbomeca has some very interesting maintenance requirements, and poor support....and a FADEC system has had more than its share of reliability issues over the years.

Jeff,

Just for giggles, the 505 flyer describes it as "a new five-seat aircraft focused on safety, efficiency and reliability through the use of advanced technology."

But the cost argument is well made nonetheless. Which is a shame, since the original MAPL 351 was a looker.

http://files.activeboard.com/1097619...1A4r74eprn8%3D

I/C

I/C
Point taken. I guess one could argue that the synthetic vision and dual channel FADEC are 'new technologies' as many costlier and larger aircraft don't offer either or both of those yet, the current EC145 and 412EP for example. But I would agree it is a weak argument.
The MAPL 351 would have been nice but I doubt it could have been had at this price point. As I recall the MAPL line incorporated 3 or 4 MRBs and new drive trains, but I could be wrong. Maybe someday Bell will give us a 407 replacement that might meet what it appears some were hoping the 505 would be.

Helilog,

I agaree. It is incumbent on Bell to meet or at least come very close to their promise to include DOCs, performance and R&M. If they do they will probably sell a lot, if they don't they won't.
My point is that I don't see an aircraft priced at approx $1m as something to expect to be the latest and greatest in tech nor the fastest, smoothest, prettiest one at the show. But then neither are any of it's likely competitors.

Well, Ian beat me to the punch concerning how Bell is marketing the 505 as "advanced technology." So I guess I don't have to reprint their brochure here :-/ Plus, we have jeffg's concession. A brand-new 2015 206B (if there was such a thing) could be fitted with the G-1000. Big deal.

Now, if longbox actually is involved in the development of the 505 (which must be long-distance involvement if he is in the UK), then we can understand his bias and prejudice and lack of objectivity toward the new design. People involved in a project generally take it very seriously and *very* personally. But it's not the first helicopter ever designed. We've seen this over and over from manufacturers trying to drum up excitement for their "new" old designs. ...Even so, some of the things longbox says are just kind of silly, even for a marketing guy. To wit:
Fair point, but is that really a "thing?" The hydro-mechanical setup in every 206 I've ever flown was fine, especially if equipped with Intellistart. So why the "need" for dual-FADEC? How important is it, really? Seems like just so much more modernization, complication and expense, all for the sake of saying, "See how modern we are! (Oh and by the way this will add $100,000 to the cost of your helicopter, but shhhh!)" FADEC works great on fixed-wing because it allows the pilot to slam the throttle(s) forward without the risk of overtemping the engines. We've already discussed here on PPRUNE the merits/disadvantages of FADEC limiting damage to the engine by not allowing an overtemp and instead drooping the rotor. I'll take the overtemp, please! Of course, it makes starting easier too, but as I said, Intellistart does that as well, and cheaper.

Heh-heh. Interesting. Interesting because they have not yet even flown that thing around the pattern. So nobody can say what the final configuration is going to be. "New design" tailboom? Yeeeeaaahhhh, um, not. "New design" maybe because it does not have a big hole in it for the horizontal stabilizer spar to pass through. Not yet anyway ;)

Remember when Bell brought out the original 206L? Thought they didn't need fins on that one either. Trust me, if the 505 is faster than a 206B it *will* get fins. Unless it's not faster. Then it won't.
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!
Again, I would hope so. From the look of the initial runup the mount looks very stiff, without the usual jiggling around that a 206 does as the rotor comes up to speed. But remember, two-blade rotors produce a substantial "2-per" vibration just by their very nature. It's why the 206B and especially the 206L have such "soft" transmission mounts. Taming and controlling that "2-per" is tough. It'll be interesting to see how they do it with the 505.
Heh. Yes, the L-4 has longer blades and more power than a B-model. Will the 505 actually have the L-4 blades? That'll make for a 37' rotor diameter! Wow, that's a pretty big rotor system for a 5-seat helo (4' bigger diameter than both an EC-120 and an R-66). That's going to be one *loud* machine, just like an L-4. "Hi, neighbors!"

As for weight, hmm. With the claimed 3.5 hour endurance (at 31 gph), the 505 will have to hold 110 gallons of fuel - 750 pounds. Then there's the the Arrius engine weighing 200 or so *more* pounds than a RR-250. Then there's the 206L-4 drivetrain. Now add that steel-tube (i.e. non-composite) airframe/cabin. I'm thinking...just guessing here...but I think the MGW of the 505 will be up around 4,000 pounds. It'll have to be. If it's 3500 or less, I'll eat my shorts.

And oh yeah...a 206 is a pretty skinny airframe (just ask any EMS pilot!). The 505 is wider. Trust me, when/if you get the thing flying, it will *not* be any faster than a 206B on low-skids. Trust me. (And yes, I said "trust me" twice.) Depending on which press release you read, Bell is either claiming a VNE of 125 knots or a cruise speed of "125+ knots." 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. A 206B on low-skids would chuff right along at 125 mph (about 110 knots). An L-model will do an easy 110kts. I'm confident that the 505 will be right in that area, not all that much faster. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
250 orders, that's great, really! I have no doubt that people would clamor for such a product from Bell. But we'll see... We'll see how Bell holds the price as we get near delivery. Oh yeah...these "orders"...are they firm orders at a set price? Are they non-refundable deposits on delivery slots that can be sold? Are they deposits at all? Did money change hands? Or are these just Letters of Intent to purchase the aircraft? Kind of makes a difference.

Okay, alright, what does all this mean? Not a whole bunch, really. A *lot* can and will change between now and the day the first 505 rolls off the production line (if it ever does). But I'm always wary of the claims made about these "clean sheet of paper!" aircraft. We've seen it all before. I'm sort of immune to the hype. Such aircraft ALWAYS end up heavier and slower and more expensive than originally claimed. The same will be true of the 505. Cessna thought they would re-invent the wheel when they brought out the model 162. Oopsie! Killed that one off, quick! The PiperSport was a corporate failure. Beechcraft thought the Starship was going to be the wave of the future. It wasn't.

So with the 505, we'll see. I remain skeptical.

I have been involved in the 505 project as part of the customer advisory board from inception, this is held in the States and I will be in the States later this week to further go through progress made.

Yes I take your point things can be taken personally, but this is not the case with me, I am a pilot, (with a lot of hours on the 206)and many years in the industry. The 505 is going to be a great move for Bell and a fantastic helicopter for its customers.

You question the need for FADEC, all new aircraft are now fitted with FADEC, it is not only the start that you gain benefit from, what would you suggest a manual modulated start still?. If FADEC had not been fitted, surly this would have been a negative from people claiming no advancement?

The blades on the 505 are L4 blades, as is the transmission, mast, swashplate, head, tail rotor gearbox and tail rotor blades.

The orders placed so far do include deposits with PA's signed, the 505 is going to be a very popular helicopter, the orders speak for themselves, as more information can be released I will be delighted to share it with you.

So could a lot of aircraft, but they don't. Perhaps Bell should have called it 'State of the Art' as AW does for the A119 and that would alleviate some of the angst? The fact is no aircraft in this category has an integrated flight deck solution that is capable of SVS, HTAWS, TCAS/ADS-B, XM WX, and all COMM/NAV on two large format displays as baseline equipment. Neither do many more expensive airframes. We can argue the semantics of whether its advanced technology or state of art or not. The fact is at the proposed price point it's a pretty good offering of equipment.

It seems on the one hand you're arguing that there is no new technology in the 505 "It's actually 53 year-old technology" but the two areas where it is ahead of its competitor level aircraft and some in the next tier up you say big deal to or you argue for, in the case of the hydro-mechanical setup, 53 year old technology stating that the new technology more "modernization, complication and expense".

Could it also be that you're letting what appears to be a personal dislike for Bell affect your view of the 505?

I would also suggest that just because something is wider doesn't necessarily mean it can't be faster. Drag has many sources besides width and the 206B had it's fair share. A large factor on the 206B (thus the whole series to include 407) is the angle where the nose meets the wind screen (thus the 505s elongated, and yes ugly yet streamlined nose). In fact looking at pictures of the two I would wager that the 206B has more flat plate drag then the 505 as it is now. If Bell has to add structure as you imply then I would expect the drag count to increase and that comment will change.

My question is this, for an aircraft targeted at $1M and designed to compete with an R-66 and EC120 what exactly were people expecting?

I see FH has his anything-Bell bashing reputation to uphold.

Surely if Bell had introduced an all composite fuselage, with soft-in-plane composite rotor and carbon blades he would have slammed them just the same for building something so expensive and out of touch with the market. The NRE and certification of a new dynamic system and blade would have probably doubled the cost alone.

I can hear it now "Why would I want to pay $3 million for a tarted up AS350? You can put a G1000 in anything! What is Bell thinking, nobody is going to buy this disaster."

Take the Marenco SKYe for instance. It has a composite fuselage and new 5 bladed rotor and a lot of other innovative stuff. Looks good and looks like a good helicopter. Projected cost $3M+, only 50 orders and it's been on the drawing board since 2007.

Just got word through the grapevine...congrats to the Bell team on their 505 first flight :ok:

I guess "if" it flies is no longer an argument that can be made.
www.heraldonline.com/2014/11/10/6514187/bell-505-jet-ranger-x-achieves.html

Fantastic news on the first flight of the 505! The program continues to gather pace ahead of schedule.

First flight video.
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p3dSKEbNs4

.

As I said before and even if I'm the only one, I like the look of the 505 :)
.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!!!?!?!!

Quote:

---

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:
Interestingly I think if you look at the latest examples of the 350B3 you’ll find they upgraded their seats...to the exact same seat that will be found in the 505. Something about the heavier and beefier seats not being as good as the flimsy ones.
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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Was that supposed to be enlightening? A better piece if info might be to tell us what new type design programs HAVEN'T had "issues". In fact how many STCs can you tell us about where they haven't had "issues" that required a change?

Is Frank not using US labor? You didn't seem to be concerned with his price structure or his labor cost. Speaking of which why the concern over the 505s CG and baggage compartment location but not so with the R-66 when they're similarly located? If you're not biased. Perhaps I missed your comments on that elsewhere?

FH's deleted post content was claiming his demonstrated anti-Bell bias is an "assumption"?

http://www.pprune.org/search.php?searchid=2286278

http://media.giphy.com/media/qvJLmqfuhh2ec/giphy.gif

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 ;)

With respect to the target market for the R66 and the 505, I believe the pilot/owner/operator will, in the majority of cases, be the same person.

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.

Oh? Thanks for the info. I'll call my advisor at the FAA today and have them tear up the 50+ 8110-3s I've either approved or recommended approval on this year on 9 different types of both Part 27 and 29 made by 5 different OEMs. While I'm at it I'll have them revoke my DER status and pass it on to you since you're more qualified then I.

Perhaps your issue with FADECs is your rather simplistic and inappropriate take on workload?
Workload has to do with spare capacity to accomplish other task. A high workload can result in being fatigued or tired but being fatigued or tired is not neccessarily an indication of high workload. That said I've flown both the 407 and the 206L-4 and yes the FADEC does decrease workload.
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.

I think it's you not Bell who is sooo 53 years ago.

Yes he did. But at the time of your post he hadn't completed flight test, hadn't certified and hadn't delivered his first aircraft therefore you didn't know that, did you? You took his word for it.

Chinese luxury consumers: "Bell 505 better than 407GX, AW119Kx and EC130 T2 !"

:hmm:

In other 505-related news: Robinson R66 production down 47% in 2014

I/C

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.

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? :E). 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.

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 .....!!!!)

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... :E) 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