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.

The current issue of "Vertical", published in Canada, stated the
Bell JRX (asit is sometin=mes referred) is on hold. It appears as the
upgrade for the 430 might be headed the same way.
Tail rotor and other mods to the 407/427 have not been scrubbed as
yet.

Fred Mahone

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 11:29:48 -0400, "Goku"
wrote:

I read in some publications about that Bell must be working on a replace for the
206 discarding the two blade rotor, but are speculations.

Also some people speculates about an Updated 430, as EC made with the BK117,
with a new composite body, new engines and a new quiet tail rotor.

And more, a quiet tail rotor (as the apache's) kit, to be installed on the
407/427 models, will be offered.

Who knows more? w/o Speculations.

Bell chief executive Mike Redenbaugh says the ambitious target is achievable and
will be driven by two key initiatives: Bell's creation of an XWORX for advanced
development and its Modular Affordable Product Line (MAPL).
Full note:
http://www.flightdailynews.com/singa...ters/bell.shtm

MAPL = BELL is working on new and competitive products, when Bell sales an 206,
Eurocopter sold 3 EC-120, are numbers, the JRX was a tho blade project, the
market wants something better.
--

Goku Rules ....

"Fred Mahone" escribió en el mensaje
...
| The current issue of "Vertical", published in Canada, stated the
| Bell JRX (asit is sometin=mes referred) is on hold. It appears as the
| upgrade for the 430 might be headed the same way.
| Tail rotor and other mods to the 407/427 have not been scrubbed as
| yet.
|
| Fred Mahone
|

CONFIRMED

http://www.flightdailynews.com/singa...pters/kai.shtm

Bell's modular affordable product line (MAPL) initiative is the umbrella under
which plans for the next generation of light helicopters will be revealed.
Two helicopters - a five-seat single engine aircraft, dubbed the Model 351 and
an eight-seat twin-turbine called Model 382 - are the centrepiece of the plans.
Both feature fan-in-fin anti-torque systems.
--

Goku Rules ....