New models from Bell.

Just got in from the Bell factory 206 Pilot course, good sources indicate
that the 427 will be getting a fenestron type tail, elastomeric main rotor,
enlarged cabin to better suite EMS work, and a new transmission called the
'pancake' transmission which has only a 'bull' gear and a bevel gear ie. no
sun/planetary type setup. Target price (if achieved) is under 2 million!
By the way What a Fine Course!!! Bell Factory School is. I encourage all to
go at some point to see the experts do it -- and to learn a few pointers
along the way such as how to survive almost anything short of a main rotor
departure. Cannot imagine a more forgiving ship than the 206.
Gaylon

From: "gaylon9"
Date: 3/19/2004 3:19 PM Pacific . Cannot imagine a more forgiving ship than
the 206.
Gaylon

MD 500

The MD500 has many virtues -- fast, economical, maneuverable, etc. -- but
it's not especially forgiving of mistakes, and especially not in situations
requiring an autorotation.

"Shaber CJ" wrote in message
...
From: "gaylon9"
Date: 3/19/2004 3:19 PM Pacific . Cannot imagine a more forgiving ship
than
the 206.
Gaylon

MD 500

But if you crash, there is no better ship then a 500.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 21:13:09 -0600, "Jim Burt"
wrote:

The MD500 has many virtues -- fast, economical, maneuverable, etc. -- but
it's not especially forgiving of mistakes, and especially not in situations
requiring an autorotation.

"Shaber CJ" wrote in message
...
From: "gaylon9"
Date: 3/19/2004 3:19 PM Pacific . Cannot imagine a more forgiving ship
than
the 206.
Gaylon

MD 500

hellothere.adelphia.net wrote in message
...
But if you crash, there is no better ship then a 500.

This is a popular legend, based partly on the A-frame behind the pilot and
partly on the ability of the rounded fuselage to roll down a hill after the
skids and rotor system get knocked off, but the key factor is the risk of
serious injury, and the RSI in the 206 is about half that of the 500. This
is in large part, of course, because the 206 is less likely to hit the
ground hard enough to kill the occupants.

This is a popular legend, based partly on the A-frame behind the pilot and
partly on the ability of the rounded fuselage to roll down a hill after the
skids and rotor system get knocked off, but the key factor is the risk of
serious injury, and the RSI in the 206 is about half that of the 500. This
is in large part, of course, because the 206 is less likely to hit the
ground hard enough to kill the occupants.


I think the gravitational constant is the same for the 206 as for the 500, 32.2
ft/s/s. There has never been a case of the transmission coming into the
cockpit of the 500. If I am going to crash please God make it a 500 I am in.

I wonder if you have autorotated either model. I have an intimate
acquaintance with the autorotational characteristics of both series. The
206 series is much more forgiving, and requires far less skill to execute a
successful autorotation. In other words, you are less likely to crash in a
forced landing ina 206 than in a Hughes/McD/Boeing 500. On the other hand,
there a few types of crashes -- by no means all -- in which the structure of
the 500 series comes in handy. Trust me, you don't want to be in either
series aircraft in that kind of crash.

"Shaber CJ" wrote in message
...
This is a popular legend, based partly on the A-frame behind the pilot
and
partly on the ability of the rounded fuselage to roll down a hill after
the
skids and rotor system get knocked off, but the key factor is the risk of
serious injury, and the RSI in the 206 is about half that of the 500.
This
is in large part, of course, because the 206 is less likely to hit the
ground hard enough to kill the occupants.


I think the gravitational constant is the same for the 206 as for the 500,
32.2
ft/s/s. There has never been a case of the transmission coming into the
cockpit of the 500. If I am going to crash please God make it a 500 I am
in.