Nearly Retired Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Palmfish: Fuel cap on the wrong side? Really? :-P Yeah, really. Have you flown much where you've done a lot of hot refueling? I have. A "little thing" like having the fuel cap on the copilot side just complicates matters needlessly. Now, after getting a load of hot fuel, how is the pilot supposed to check that the fueler put the cap back on properly? And don't anybody give me grief about how "unsafe" hot refueling is. It is a fact of life in certain helicopter ops, get over it. The fuel cap location was fine where it was; why change it? That's one puzzle. And no, not a lot of "bashing" of the new design. Just objective criticism based on experience. See, if the 505 were the very *first* five-seat turbine helicopter to ever be invented, I'd probably be ooh-ing and ahh-ing over it just like so many of the Bell acolytes are. But it's not the first of its type. In fact, we have plenty of other yardsticks we can use to measure the 505. Bell's own beloved 206, for one...and the R-66 for another. And yes it's true, not a lot of specs from Bell just yet. Just three shiny models that look for all intensive purposes like real helicopters. And if they are...how come no projected weights? What's the empty weight of the thing going to be, huh? What's the max gross? They tell us that the useful load will be "1500+ pounds" but I'm skeptical of that. Then again, if you took a really, really light, 1700 pound 206B, you could say it has a useful load of 1650 pounds (3350 - 1700). But there aren't any 1700 pound B-models out there anymore...at least, none with radios and seats and paint. They say that the max speed will be "125+ knots" which is fine, but the 206 has a max speed of 130 knots. "Max Speed" is not cruise speed, after all. So Bell, what's new? A steel-tube fuselage design "borrowed" from the Bell 47 and some "space-age" aluminum sheet metal materials for the cabin? Come on, can't we do better than that? I see that Adam32 has also responded to this thread as I was typing this post. And I'm inclined to agree with him: I'm beginning to doubt that Bell will actually produce the 505 in its current form. They'll probably "rethink" their position and come to their senses. Because I think they're going to need more than 100 orders to start up production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmfish Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Palmfish: Yeah, really. Have you flown much where you've done a lot of hot refueling? I have. A "little thing" like having the fuel cap on the copilot side just complicates matters needlessly. Now, after getting a load of hot fuel, how is the pilot supposed to check that the fueler put the cap back on properly?No, we didnt do any hot refueling in the Army. Too dangerous... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 For hot fueling it's nice to see the fueler... And just look at it and the 525, can't Bell come up with something at least halfway decent? A cheapened up 206 with a stupid Eurotrash style fuselage and a rebranded 214ST... As it is, Bell won't produce the 505, at least not in Heli-Expo form.Any hot fueling I get, I do myself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pohi Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Haha, I remember the first time I saw somebody hot fuel themselves. I was amazed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I've seen a guy fly with a dog then hot fuel himself and leave the dog at the controls...lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 I've seen a guy fly with a dog then hot fuel himself and leave the dog at the controls...lolDid you take a pic ? Post it if you did. That would be funny to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 If Bell was serious about bringing a new machine to the market, at least in the medium twin range like the 525, they should commercialize the Y model Huey...and if they wanted to make a great lift machine to blow the K-Max outta the water and a bit better then a 61 or 107 then take the Y model rotables and put them on a lightened Cobra...yeah buddy!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmfish Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 If Bell was serious about bringing a new machine to the market, at least in the medium twin range like the 525, they should commercialize the Y model Huey...and if they wanted to make a great lift machine to blow the K-Max outta the water and a bit better then a 61 or 107 then take the Y model rotables and put them on a lightened Cobra...yeah buddy!!!The Cobra is a terrible idea. Not only cant you see the fuel cap from either pilot station; you cant hot fuel yourself either. :-P 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 If Bell was serious about bringing a new machine to the market, at least in the medium twin range like the 525, they should commercialize the Y model Huey...and if they wanted to make a great lift machine to blow the K-Max outta the water and a bit better then a 61 or 107 then take the Y model rotables and put them on a lightened Cobra...yeah buddy!!!The idea of counterrotating rotors is hard to beat when coming up with a high lift ratio. Almost all of the engine's output goes into lifting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearly Retired Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Palmfish:No, we didnt do any hot refueling in the Army. Too dangerous... Beg to differ. Hot refueling is *not* dangerous, as so many seem to believe. It is risky, yes, but if those risks are managed appropriately there is nothing more "dangerous" about hot refueling a turbine than cold refueling. Whenever opponents of hot refueling are asked for statistics that show it is a "dangerous" operation, they can never point to more than one or two incidents that occurred within the last twenty years. And when you look deeper into those incidents you usually find incredible stupidity among the participants. That's hardly an indictment of hot refueling. There is nothing "unsafe" or "dangerous" about hot refueling. For Bell to put the fuel cap on the "wrong" side of the 505 is just dumb. Bell may know a lot about building helicopters, but the location of the fuel filler tells me that the design team of the 505 was fairly clueless about how helicopters are operated out in the real world. Sad, really, because it makes me wonder what *other* things they got wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 Did you take a pic ? Post it if you did. That would be funny to see. I may have, I'll look. The same machine had an engine failure the next day, he landed between a row of trees and a building. Didn't hurt anything except the Lycon built engine that threw a rod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 The idea of counterrotating rotors is hard to beat when coming up with a high lift ratio. Almost all of the engine's output goes into lifting. That's very true, the K-Max is just sooooooooo slow!! The Shithooks are pretty darn quick tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikemv Posted March 6, 2014 Report Share Posted March 6, 2014 More info here: http://www.bell505.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmfish Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Palmfish: Beg to differ. Hot refueling is *not* dangerous, as so many seem to believe. It is risky, yes, but if those risks are managed appropriately there is nothing more "dangerous" about hot refueling a turbine than cold refueling. Uh, NR, the winky face means I was being facetious...lol the location of the fuel filler tells me that the design team of the 505 was fairly clueless about how helicopters are operated out in the real world. Sad, really, because it makes me wonder what *other* things they got wrong. You mean like those clueless Hughes designers did with the 500? Now there's a helicopter that nobody will buy... ;) ;) ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Quote..."There is nothing "unsafe" or "dangerous" about hot refueling. For Bell to put the fuel cap on the "wrong" side of the 505 is just dumb. Bell may know a lot about building helicopters, but the location of the fuel filler tells me that the design team of the 505 was fairly clueless about how helicopters are operated out in the real world. Sad, really, because it makes me wonder what *other* things they got wrong." If you go to self serve, and hot refuel yourself, it really won't matter what side the fuel port is on.Maybe we could get them to install a fuel cap without a fuel port on the pilot side, just to keep them happy.I am just as much concerned about double checking that the fuel cap is secure on the fuel port after fueling, so I always do. edit +quote Edited March 7, 2014 by aeroscout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearly Retired Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Palmfish: You mean like those clueless Hughes designers did with the 500? Now there's a helicopter that nobody will buy... ;) ;) ;) Seems to me that like the OH-4/206, the original OH-6/369 had the PIC on the right...which is where the fuel port is, no? Then, for the civilian version Hughes moved the PIC over to the left because they realized they had to stick five schmucks into that thing, and the back seat only had room for two schmucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmfish Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Palmfish: Seems to me that like the OH-4/206, the original OH-6/369 had the PIC on the right...which is where the fuel port is, no? Then, for the civilian version Hughes moved the PIC over to the left because they realized they had to stick five schmucks into that thing, and the back seat only had room for two schmucks. You mean for use "in the real world?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aeroscout Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Palmfish: Seems to me that like the OH-4/206, the original OH-6/369 had the PIC on the right...which is where the fuel port is, no? Then, for the civilian version Hughes moved the PIC over to the left because they realized they had to stick five schmucks into that thing, and the back seat only had room for two schmucks. 2 hunched over and squeezed in schmucks with a screaming transmission in one ear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearly Retired Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Hey Palmfish, you intentionally being an a-hole here or are you just playing at it? I'm just cranky enough tonight to not want to put up with your inane crap. We weren't talking about the H-500. But since you brought it up, yeah, Hughes pulled the same boner Bell did when they (Hughes) moved the PIC to the left side while the fuel filler remained on the right (wrong) side. But so what? What's your point? There are lots of helicopters with the fuel filler on the "wrong" side: AS-350/355 series for one. Big deal. Who cares. Does not matter. The POINT here is that Bell already had a good thing going with the pilot/fuel filler arrangement of the 206, then they DELIBERATELY moved the fuel filler to the other (wrong) side, which strikes *ME* as pretty stupid. I suggest you stay in the military. Your limited knowledge of aviation will probably serve you well there 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palmfish Posted March 8, 2014 Report Share Posted March 8, 2014 Bell did it. Hughes did it. Eurocopter did it. I'm glad we were able to come to a consensus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearly Retired Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Interesting point of view: "If everybody is doing it, it must be right!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistlerpilot Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 I for one am looking forward to this "new and improved" Jet Ranger. One comment that hasn't been brought up is disc loading. The R66 has issues with disc loading because it's so light (1350 LBS) with a bigger rotor chord than the R44. This means it's not a great helicopter lightly loaded or in high or gusty winds, and at least two fatal accidents were inflight breakups likely caused by the pilots suddenly unloading the disc. The new Jet Ranger presumably will be lighter than the original, but it has the Long Ranger L4 rotables. Tail rotor will be great, as will the nodal beam and bigger transmission. But that big 37 foot diameter main rotor on a light aircraft? Hope they get the disc loading right, at least it's a high inertia rotor, but might not be a good aircraft to fly around solo in gusty winds like the R66. I had a chance to fly the R66 16 hours this winter and have to say it's pretty impressive as long as you understand it's limitations. It's not a great entry level helicopter, not very forgiving of unloading the disc, not my first choice for winds in the mountains. But it has the performance, view and simplicity. Like NR brought up I hope Bell has a team of operational pilots guiding the engineers. Sounds like with the 500 HP Arrius and the transmission to take the power it will be a big improvement on the 317 HP transmission limited Jet Ranger. Agree fuel should be on the pilot side, but got used to the Astar so perhaps Bell think Eurocopter/Airbus was onto something there? Personally I love Long Rangers, it may not be the most powerful or fast in it's class but they are a noble helicopter. A hard act to follow, would probably buy a used Long Ranger over this new Jet Ranger X if I had the money. It will be interesting to see if Bell can compete with Robinson for the light market. Price and performance will decide and time will tell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 What are these pilots doing to unload the disk in the R66? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistlerpilot Posted March 10, 2014 Report Share Posted March 10, 2014 Hey Astro that's purely speculation on my part the NTSB hasn't ruled a definitive cause yet. However I do have lots of R44 time, and the R66 has the same quirks but magnified in my opinion. Anything that really unloads the disc or induces low rotor RPM can be really dangerous in any helicopter but especially so in the Robinson. It's the only semirigid rotor head with 3 bolts or hinges. Those coning hinges will allow more flapping when RRPM is low and less centrifugal force is holding them rigid. One tail chop, and one mast bump in the R66 so far. The other 3 fatal R66 accidents were not inflight breakups just pilots missing the edge of the sky. Be gentle on the controls and she will be gentle back to you. We all know "no low g pushovers" but that's only one way to unload the disc. Next time someone's doing a hover auto in an R44 watch the disc cone as RPM decays. Now imagine a panicky pilot doing some big avoidance at the same time. Bye bye to your tail or rotors. Light helicopter in big winds me no like. Any helicopter can tail chop if you do something extreme enough, but not all are so prone to mast bumping. Don't get me wrong I love flying the R44, kinda prefer it over a straight 206B3, but know your helicopter's idiosyncracies. The Jet Ranger statistically is the safest single engine aircraft, hope that holds true for the New and Improved Jet Ranger X! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted March 11, 2014 Report Share Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) The disc unloading issue sounds a lot like why the FH1100 got nicknamed the Killer Hiller.. Edited March 11, 2014 by adam32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.