So, who you puttin' your money on?

[r22butters]

http://helimob.com/bell505jrxvsr66/

 

,...R66 in the 3rd round?

[Eric Hunt]

I will have trouble believing the umpire on this one, he can't even tell who is in the red shorts and who is in blue.

[overtorque]

Gosh that Bell helicopter looks like a good deal.

[Whistlerpilot]

Ive got 25 hours in the 66 and Im not that impressed. I started my career in the 44 and with 1500 hours know the machine a bit. The 66 has all the problems of the 44 but exaggerated. Less disk loading when light, same dangerous triple hinge rotor head which promotes excess flapping when the disk is unloaded or RPM is low. And to make it worse the turbine lag means RPM can droop before power is available. Its fun to fly, fast, agile, tons of power but not a safe or forgiving helicopter IMHO.

 

On the Bell side. I love the 206 long ranger. Its not the latest or greatest but its a noble helicopter. The 206 is the safest single engine aircraft ever produced. The new 505 looks like an armadillo but if you can forgive its ugly looks it should do exactly what its designed for. To beat the 66 and 120. Proven rotables from the longranger, proven engine from Arrius, dual fadec will be a game changer compared to the old 206 engine response. That alone puts it in a totally different situation that the 66. My present company has ordered a 505 and takes delivery mid 2018. Not stoked to go from H125 to 505 but I am looking forward to the training and learning a new airframe. My criticism of the 505 without flying it yet is weight and perhaps CG. Why so friggin heavy? Why couldnt Bell keep it under 2000 lbs?

 

Anywho look forward to more reports from pilots on the 505 as it trickles into the market. Bang for buck nothing touches the 44, and performance nothing touches the H125. The new helicopter I really want to try is the Swiss Skye. That one might be a best in class game changer.

 

Cheers, Eric

[overtorque]

My criticism of the 505 without flying it yet is weight and perhaps CG. Why so friggin heavy? Why couldnt Bell keep it under 2000 lbs?

 

Yea how did bell manage to create a helicopter that needs nearly twice the horsepower to give only 80 pounds extra of useful load over the R66?

[Nearly Retired]

Initially, Bell's new "clean sheet of paper" 505 was supposed to compete with the R-66 in many ways - one of which was price. Bell always said, "around $1 million." Well... That "around $1 million" has ballooned to "around" $1.5 million when you select the optional "extras" that are standard on the R-66. Virtually everything...and I mean EVERYTHING is optional on the 505. And some things are expensive "mandatory options" that don't even make any sense. Like the $18,600 standby flight instruments that cannot be replaced by the Garmin G-1000. Gotta have 'em!

 

Some things are just Bell's way of gouging the customer. For instance, if you want your helicopter painted, say, a dark color then you'll have to shell out *extra* money to have your landing gear skids painted something other than white. Oooooh, you want carpeting and not rubber floor mats? Well that's extra. And so on and so on.

 

Let's not forget that every optional extra you add to the 505 increases its empty weight and reduces its useful load. "Real-world" empty weights will probably be 100-200 pounds higher than the Bell brochure. As usual.

 

People go on and on about the FADEC. I'll tell ya...now I've only got around 7,000 hours in 206's, but I've never...and I mean *never* pulled the collective lever so fast that I drooped the N2 down. Sure, I admit that the mechanical governor lets the N2/NR hunt around a bit during rapid power changes, but in all of the 30+ separate, individual 206's (B's through L-4's) I've flown, the RPM never got out of limits. So it makes me ask: How fast are people planning on pulling the 505 collective that they *need* FADEC to keep the RPM under control?

 

As far as starting? Well, at least the old Bendix fuel control would allow you to shut the engine down if you had a complete loss of electrical power during the start....which apparently is a serious issue with the 505 right now. The Bendix FCU on the 206B was about as close to "fadec" as it gets: open the throttle at 15% and let it do its thing; if the temp goes over the redline just shut it off. Easy! Are we saying that helicopter pilots aren't even smart enough or quick enough to do that simple task? Sheesh.

 

Bell's fuel capacity/consumption numbers are puzzling to me. Their brochure lists the no-reserve, MGW, sea level "max range" as 360 miles. But the ship only holds 85 gallons. Bell figures that it'll burn 32 gph. That's 2.6 hours of absolute endurance. Hmm. No helicopter ever built goes fast at MGW. So let's be generous and figure that the 505 will cruise at 125 kts at 32 gph. 125 knots times 2.6 is only 325 miles - no reserve remember. So you're not going to be flying your 505 for 325 miles. You want a minimum reserve of around .5, right? So 2.0 at 125 kts (if you can get it) is 250 miles. Maybe.

 

In any event, the 505 does not hold a lot of fuel. In fact its capacity is *LESS* than the last 206B off the assembly line. With an engine, remember, that burns more fuel than a RR 250-C20B.

 

Up until now, Bell has been feeding us a whole bunch of B.S. about the 505 and its theoretical capabilities. They want so badly to have it compete with the R-66 but they're not evenly matched. The 505 is another half-step up from the R-66.

 

I wish some magazine would've sent *me* to objectively evaluate the 505. Everyone who flies the thing gets out acting like a teenage girl meeting Justin Bieber at McDonalds. But I'm not easily impressed with gee-whiz fluff like FADEC and the G-1000. I want to know about real-world loading/c.g. issues and real-world fuel burn and real-world cruise speed and real-world vibration at cruise. You know, trivial crap like that.

[Whistlerpilot]

Welcome back Bob, good to hear from ya! I agree with everything except your opinions on Fadec. The lack of Fadec and the governor/FCU lag on the R66 is concerning in conjunction with the low inertia low disc loading triple hinge rotor head. Its hard to get the ole 206 down fast because the gov just lets it overspeed. Lots of tricks to overcome this trait but the dual Fadec keeps RPM snappy so sloppy and aggressive flying is possible. Good thing no?

[Boatpix]

I don't think anyone is really cross shopping these two airframes. It's rich guy buying rich guy toy based upon emotion. It makes for good media, though.

[WolftalonID]

Bob...its slow like a 206..that I do know. However it has more power. High altitude its stable, heavier than a 66 like the 206 is so that helps in turbulence. Vibrations are similar to a 206b with L model head on it...being thats what it is. The tail dongle thingy they added helped reduce some vibrations.

 

I personally was surprised at how basic the interior is. You actually get interior installed from Robinson. Bell didnt think we wanted any...its got big windows so look outside I guess..not up. Haha

 

Simple was what they have in mind with systems, and that it is. Will have to see about that this spring when we get ours back from Bell and fly it all season. Stop by the display at Expo this year...its our ship they are demoing there.

[Azhigher]

80lbs useful load difference, ~10nm max range difference, 37% lower fuel consumption, and $221,000 difference in price?

 

I hope the Bell's performance charts are outstanding.

[Nearly Retired]

Whistler, I may have undersold the FADEC. I do agree that there are certain advantages of having FADEC - I'm not totally against progress. But I bristle when people say things like, "It reduces pilot workload," or, "It might be used to increase overhaul times of the engine." Neither of those statements has any basis in fact.

 

FADEC *may* make it easier to get the engine running - but my 407 friends say that the starting procedure is just as complicated albeit with different steps. The emergency procedures for a FADEC fail in the 407 add a level of complexity, but the 505 won't be bothered with that with two of them...hopefully. So yeah, dual FADEC may make some things "easier." Big deal.

 

It is true that you cannot quickly go from cruise torque to flat pitch in any 206 without the rotor going up and the engine going into the transient range, which is fine - for 15 seconds. This is especially true if you are descending *and* doing a decel from cruise airspeed ("go down/slow down") type of maneuver.

 

There was only *one* solitary 206B that I flew for PHI that I could do that in. I'd be cruising along at 2,000 feet or so (where it was cooler). I'd wait until the destination platform was nearly underneath the nose. Then I'd lower the collective and lower the nose. That sucker would just come screaming down steep, slowing as it did with the RPM right at 100%. I loved that ship! But it was the only one that you could get away with that. All the others would go right up to 107%.

 

And it's true, there are things you can do. I'd squeeze just a little throttle off and the RPM would come back down. You have to remember to move the throttle to the full-stop before terminating or you might be in for a nasty surprise if you're heavy. Some guys like playing with the "Inker-dinker" N2 control switch. I never did. But I used to! And then one day the linear actuator failed in the all-the-way-decrease position. Not only does that make the pitch-pull at the bottom scary, but the ship is basically grounded from that point on. Never did that again.

 

So I just set it at 100% and didn't mess with the beep trim. It was easier to squeeze off a tiny bit of throttle, or pull a little pitch to control the N2 on an approach. Trouble is, Bell politely asks you...okay, tells you not to control the N2 with the throttle unless it's a tail rotor failure.

 

So yeah, I can see where FADEC would help in certain approach scenarios. But if your fuel control and governor are performing well, you shouldn't "need" FADEC.

 

As for standard equipment, Bell has always "cheaped-out" in this area. When I flew for DHL Airways in NYC back in the 1980's, we had a 206B that had no rotor brake, no heater, no flight instruments, a single comm radio and no VOR. I never knew that the "flight instrument group" was optional and that not all 206's had them. Naive me! Just as dual controls are optional. And not just the sticks! There is a dual-control *kit* that you have to have so the sticks have some place to screw into. That's extra. And every 206 I ever saw (B and L) left the factory with that strange brown vinyl crap on the floorboards. Only the plushest (and heaviest) 206's had carpeting!

 

But with the 505 they take cheapness to a new level.

 

"Oh, you're so cheap that you didn't order air conditioning, but you want sliding vent windows so your passengers don't roast? That's extra."

"You want ground-handling wheels? Those are extra."

 

"You want an external paint scheme other than all-white? Boy, THAT'S extra!"

 

"You want dual controls? Hey, what are you, deaf? Didn't this guy already talk about the duals up a couple of paragraphs? We already told you they're extra."

 

Everybody kept talking about how fast the 505 was going to be! One nitwit Bell salesman (who I won't name but would love to) even emailed and told me about how they have reduced the NR by 3% and that thing really moves along now! Yepper, Bell said the max cruise...that's maximum cruising speed was going to be, and I quote, "125+ knots." And I said bullshit. Not in a B-model with an L-model head and blades. Nope. Sure enough, contemporary pilot reports are that it's nowhere near that fast in real life. Around 110 knots is more like it, which is about what a clean (no wedge-windows), low-skid 206B would do (remember those?). Why Bell was expecting us to believe in miracles was beyond me. But people want to, and probably always will.

 

[mudkow60]

At Bell, on a 505 demo, we did a HOGE 360 degree turn, with 4 big guys in the helo. It did not even touch the transient torque. Nice machine, but no chin bubble!

[WolftalonID]

Bell in Dallas? At like 400ft msl? Sure it had no issue doing that there! Lol

[Nearly Retired]

At Bell, on a 505 demo, we did a HOGE 360 degree turn, with 4 big guys in the helo. It did not even touch the transient torque. Nice machine, but no chin bubble!

 

Only four on board? Aaaaaand what makes this noteworthy? A plain old 206B could do the same thing.

[helonorth]

I guess I would hesitate to weigh in since I have not flown either of them.

[mudkow60]

Bell in Dallas? At like 400ft msl? Sure it had no issue doing that there! Lol

HOGE's still a HOGE.... lots of big boys in that small helo. Very low vibes, as well.

[Thedude]

HOGE's still a HOGE.... lots of big boys in that small helo. Very low vibes, as well.

Not really. There’s a definite difference in power requirements to hover OGE at 400 MSL compared to 4000 MSL.

[mudkow60]

Got it... all I'm saying, is that on a summer day in Texas, 4 200+ guys got in, did a 360 pedal turn, at approx 1000 agl, and did not even touch a transient limit. Thanks for the lesson, btw.

[Wally]

A professional would use gross weight, not how many seats, and how the numbers compare in the book. Fillin' the seats with skinny chicks/kids isn't the same as Gulf of Mexico 'critters' who average 250 lbs- and some are big fellahs.

[WolftalonID]

HOGE's still a HOGE.... lots of big boys in that small helo. Very low vibes, as well.

HOGE is not even close to the same thing when done at 400 ft msl vs at altitude. Thats why we have performance charts showing the difference. Otherwise why would we care what the DA is. I see flatlander pilots super excited all the time while recalling war stories of their take off DA’s hitting 3-4000 ft. Those of us who live at those elevations feel like the gods love us on DA’s that low when in the summer our DA can easily hit 9000ft.

 

Want to see a limit hit with four big American boys in your 206? Come fly high in the summer and really have some fun. Running landings can end up being a reality on some locations.

[Whistlerpilot]

This summer flying in Nepal I took off with 3px plus bags at DA 22,700 could barely get into a one foot hover but the wind was helping. The Kalapathar pad allows a sidewise jump off to clear the tail and descent is possible to gain airspeed above the Khumbu glacier which is 300 below.

[takefootoff]

HOGE is not even close to the same thing when done at 400 ft msl vs at altitude. Thats why we have performance charts showing the difference. Otherwise why would we care what the DA is. I see flatlander pilots super excited all the time while recalling war stories of their take off DAs hitting 3-4000 ft. Those of us who live at those elevations feel like the gods love us on DAs that low when in the summer our DA can easily hit 9000ft.

 

Want to see a limit hit with four big American boys in your 206? Come fly high in the summer and really have some fun. Running landings can end up being a reality on some locations.

 

Sometimes over here in dirty jersey we do running landings just to make an entrance.

[WolftalonID]

This summer flying in Nepal I took off with 3px plus bags at DA 22,700 could barely get into a one foot hover but the wind was helping. The Kalapathar pad allows a sidewise jump off to clear the tail and descent is possible to gain airspeed above the Khumbu glacier which is 300 below.

Heck yeah..hell of a ride off the rock that way!