I have to agree with "Helowriter" on the 500 being the better for the
ARH. Ask anyone in special forces. They refuse to give up their's. And
they have been offered anything they want. With the C47 and canted
tail, the 500's have all the power and then some.

And manueverbility, a 500 will do circles inside a 407. And going into
confined area's is a 500 specialty.

As far as survivability, the roll cage design of the 500 makes it the
best. Do a little research with the numbers at the NTSB site and you
will find out that if you have to crash, you want to do it in a 500.
One example was an engine failure were they did an auto to a ridge
line, then the helicopter after landing rolled down the hill. The
pilot and passenger walked away from it.

Bart, not sure what the slop limits are on the 407, but I have done
lots of 10+ degree slop landings in a 500 with no problems.


On Thu, 5 May 2005 07:22:45 -0400, "B4RT" wrote:


"Helowriter" wrote in message
I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good
one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat
helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407.

HW


I don't think so. I only have a little time in them, but the 407 is a beast
compared
to MDs Ive flown . They also seem more survivable from my limited
perspective.
The MD's auto like a brick and have such a high CG that uneven terrain
almost
ensures a roll over. OTOH We landed on a rock in Donner Pass in a 500 at
about
13,000ft once and I was super impressed with its ability to function well
that high.

Bart