New models from Bell.

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.

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.

It seems as if you are making a logic jump. Yes, I too am "intimately" familiar
with the autorotational characteristics of both aircraft. If you are flying
either model you should have the same competency level in either ship.
Therefore while the 500 may be more of a challenge to learn, one must be reach
the same competency level, thus you will hit the ground the same and the 500 is
more crash worthy. Plus the whole mast bumping thing, LTE, limited sloped land
capabilities and the other limitation of the 206 ....

It seems as if you are making a logic jump. Yes, I too am "intimately"
familiar
with the autorotational characteristics of both aircraft. If you are
flying
either model you should have the same competency level in either ship.
Therefore while the 500 may be more of a challenge to learn, one must be
reach
the same competency level, thus you will hit the ground the same and the
500 is
more crash worthy. Plus the whole mast bumping thing, LTE, limited sloped
land
capabilities and the other limitation of the 206 ....

A pilot of superb skill and familiarity with the 500 has less margin to deal
with contingencies beyond his control than an equally skillful and familiar
pilot has in a 206, and is, therefore, more likely to get into one of those
crashes that you like to remind us it is better able to withstand.
Statistics tell us 500s are more likely to hurt their occupants than 206s,
even when you take into account flying beyond the envelope (aka
mast-bumping), pilot inattention (aka LTE), and the other limitations of
which you speak. Hey, I like both aircraft, and there are missions for
which I would prefer a 500 series ship, but its greater ability to withstand
the sort of crash that it is more likely to get into is not way up my list,
unless I'm flying certain kinds -- not all kinds -- of hazardous mission
profiles.