Bell Proposing ‘Purpose-Built’ 505 Jet Ranger For U.S. Army Training | Aviation Week Network
The airframer will respond to an upcoming request for proposals (RFP) from industry–expected as early as April.
aviationweek.com
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Bell 505 Discussion
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
aviationweek.com
I wonder if they’ll consider the Thrasher?Bell Proposing ‘Purpose-Built’ 505 Jet Ranger For U.S. Army Training | Aviation Week Network
The airframer will respond to an upcoming request for proposals (RFP) from industry–expected as early as April.
Why not? The Navy has had zero problems with it so far... By the way, that's sarcasm in case it doesn't translate well.
Last edited:
Can we move this to another thread? I was a 505 instructor for Bell so I definitely have thoughts about it, but it's not really COPT-R related.Bell Proposing ‘Purpose-Built’ 505 Jet Ranger For U.S. Army Training | Aviation Week Network
The airframer will respond to an upcoming request for proposals (RFP) from industry–expected as early as April.
If I remember correctly, the 505 has a 206L4 rotor system- a high inertia, very forgiving rotor system. Would be curious to know how many organizations are using it as a trainer.
I believe it is the foundation of the USAF primary helicopter training system (sans T-6).
Off the top of my head, RoK, Jordan, Bahrain, U.S. Air Force (via CAE), Iraq. There are several others but those are just the ones I trained while I was at Bell. The 505 is a fantastic aircraft to throw at the ground. Imagine the head of an L4 on something that weighs as much as a B3. I've done things in a 505 that I was 100% positive were impossible just three years ago. That being said, it wouldn't be my first choice for an ab initio trainer. It's a bit too forgiving. Between the G1000, the head, and the Arrius 2R engine, it's very easy to get lazy and complacent in a 505. Also, the throttle has two positions - fly and idle, no manual fuel control - and you have a total of 7 switches in the cockpit and no CBs so doing simulated EPs, other than engine failures or the dreaded boost off approach, is very impractical. Even boost off isn't even an issue since the aircraft is stable enough that you can easily pull into a hover and perform a vertical landing without it.
Last edited:
I believe the new 407’s FADEC is the same, no ability for manual control? Seems to be the way the industry is going.
Google said top speed on the 505 is still only 125 k, I assume that is simply the rotor design?
This is a philosophical point that I'd argue is unsettled. There's a spectrum of modernity in any type of system, and the question of how modern is too modern to train in is difficult to answer.
For example, does my 16-yo need to learn how to drive with?
- no SATNAV
- no power windows
- no anti-lock brakes
- a manual transmission
- a carburetor
- a hand-start engine
- wood wheels
I don't think my H-57 time helped much at all in tackling H-60 EPs, other than learning to memorize CMIs - which could be done in a T-34/T-6 too. The H-60 has as close to a FADEC in the PCLs+EDECUs without actually being a FADEC. What's the training value in a twist grip?
I do still think full autos are important, but admittedly I don't have a fully objective or scientific backing for that opinion.
The 407 GXi has a similar FADEC to the 505, but it still allows for a small degree of manual fuel control in the event of a complete FADEC failure. To be honest, now that I've flown it for a few hundred hours, I actually don't mind the lack of manual fuel control. With a dual-FADEC system, I think the odds of experiencing an actual FADEC failure are a lot smaller than the odds of smoking an engine while doing manual-control training.
Top speed at sea level is 135KIAS. Yeah, two-bladed systems are pretty much always going to be a bit slower, though Vne in a 407 is only 140 so it's not by much.
Side note - if you ever want to wake yourself up in the morning, enter an auto at 130KIAS.
I'm not sure if you're asking a rhetorical question or not. It would be the equivalent of practicing a low-side or high-side in the -60. The mechanics of moving a throttle to some intermediate setting in order to control Np.
That said, the difference would be like FlyNavy03 mentioned, there's a higher chance of over-speeding the engine when landing with a FADEC vs the -60 which manages Ng (and does it independently with two engines) for you even when you're out of FLY and/or in LOCKOUT.
I didn't realize it was that low. The -135 is 145 with the O2 tanks installed, but the only way you're doing that is downhill.
That was in the Legacy 407. I'm actually not sure if the GX or GXi have a different Vne. That being said, I flew several legacy birds at PHI that were absolutely capable of breaking Vne in straight and level flight if you weren't paying attention. And that was with a loaded EMS bird with the engine still well within its continuous operating limits.
Not rhetorical. How much positive knowledge is transferred from a twist grip aircraft to a dual-PCL Sikorsky? It seems to me it's only a mental model of how torque can couple into yaw attitude and ECU malfunctions can lead to the need for manual throttle control.
The muscle memory of twisting the throttle while manipulating collective is entirely different than moving PCLs, and there's the whole single-piloted vs. dual-pilot difference.
Tell me you've never flown with a FADEC without telling me you've never flown with a FADEC. I'm mostly just giving you a hard time.
I see where you're coming from, but I think your argument is kind of flawed. You're right, there are very few EPs that translate directly from at TH-57 to a -60. Just like there are very few EPs that translate from a T-6 to a 737. However, the point of primary helicopter training is not to make you into a H-60 pilot, it's to give you an understanding of the fundamentals of the systems. For instance, you do OEI training in the 60. What's the difference between that and AEO? You're power limited.
In a binary throttle aircraft like a 505 you can't introduce any kind of power-limited scenario like you can with a twist grip. Sure you can say, "Simulated you only have 60% torque" but it's not nearly as effective as when the student can see the rotor start to droop and feel the other forces acting against them as they make changes to the aircraft. What you're suggesting is kind of like reading books on how to play basketball. It's one thing to understand the concept from a theoretical standpoint, but quite another to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes. It's not the muscle memory we're developing. It's the hands-on experience - as opposed to just the knowledge - of how those systems interact.
Again, I get it (though you kind of took it to a ridiculous extreme), but I think this is more comparable to teaching your kid to drive in something that has all the driver-assist features. If you're teaching a 16 year old to drive, would you have them engage the adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist every time they got on the freeway from day one? Or would you leave it off and let them learn how to judge following distances and what the car in front of them is doing for themselves? I know which one I went with. Sure, I teach my kids how to use our robot overlords, but they need to learn how to function without them first so that they know what to do if they're ever in a situation where the system doesn't work as advertised.
I don't mind having a modern helicopter trainer, and it certainly doesn't need to be all analog like the TH-57, but I think it's still important that we be able to introduce concepts in flight - like manual engine control - that may someday save their lives.
Here we are 100% in agreement. I always tell people that if your engine(s) fail, you're going to shoot either the best or last auto of your life. I would hate for that to also be their first auto.
Lifting logs didn’t kill bin Laden but the people who did trained that way. Lots of value in building capacity and resilience in aircraft that are more challenging to fly due to their mere simplicity.
I’m very thankful I grew up in the steam gauge T-34/57 pipeline. It hasn’t impeded my ability to fly glass in the fleet, but the partial panel harassment package in HTs was life-saving when EGIs/glass melted down at night at sea.
Everyone loves full autos, but nobody has died in a Navy H-60 for their lack of ability to shoot a full auto, afaik. We do, otoh, routinely ball up aircraft due to a lack of understanding of power limits.
Do you still have the TH-67 auto syllabus? I thought that was the most challenging flying in all of TPS.
Last edited: