View Full Version : Rating: R44 v B206 Jetranger?
27th Nov 2000, 23:20
Faced with the decision of wanting to complete a conversion on to the R44 or the Jet Ranger, what would people choose with a view to employment commercially at a later date? What are the opinions of those who have either rating (or both) and work commercially?
28th Nov 2000, 00:11
JET RANGER JET RANGER JET RANGER!!!
Definately the JET RANGER!!!!
good luck to ya ;)
ps: JET RANGER
If you're definitely going to fly for a company with a R44, then save the bucks, but if you can squeeze even a few hours, do the jettie.
Are you in Europe or N America?
28th Nov 2000, 02:42
Are you getting the rating in order to get your ATPL issued from a military ticket?
If you are aiming at a pure commercial post (i.e no instruction) you are limited to non seasonal work (pipeline and powerline) and the Jetranger is the only choice.
If you are heading for Police / Air ambulance then at least you will have had experience on Allison engines - Twin squirrels and BO 105 are the older generation aircraft used and both use Allison powerplants.
28th Nov 2000, 04:43
As stated above JET RANGER! There is no question as you will require Turbine time to advance any further. Not to mention, depending where you are located, the 206 is generally accepted as the "work Horse of the Light industry.
Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
28th Nov 2000, 05:13
I dare say that Lu will agree ...
28th Nov 2000, 06:58
Go with the Jetranger, the safest single engine aircraft in the world.
28th Nov 2000, 08:04
Does the Hughes 500 get a look-in? I'm currently keeping up 3 type ratings:
Hughes 269 (which I trained in)
Hughes 369 (Allison turbine machine)
B206B JetRanger and LongRanger
Is the H500 one useful?
28th Nov 2000, 14:51
500D/E is definately useful for L/L jobs. I think it may cost a wee bit more for the training.
Remember, the ultimate goal is to advance.
PS The bottom line is "Skids are for Kids!"
28th Nov 2000, 16:53
Everybody, let's not forget that it depends a lot on how many hours he has plus in which market or area of this world somebody is flying. In the North American Market (or let's say U.S., because Canada is a bit more relaxed) the money wasted on Jet Ranger time is probably better spent on something else, like an instrument rating etc.
Let's face it, if you are a low time commercial pilot, your chances of getting straight into turbines are fairly limited. Many companies in the US however are implementing R44 and are quite happy to let you fly them- so, that's kind of the stepping stone into turbines for later on.
Don't worry about spending money on the Jet Ranger because it has an Allison 250 Engine.
Contrary to what others have to say here, it won't help you at all to get into Twin Squirrels or Bolkows, etc just because ot is the same engine. Trust me, I know.
Though, I have to agree, an Allison is an Allison.
29th Nov 2000, 02:13
Thanks very much everyone, that's all useful info. One of the factors that I had considered was that the R44 is cheaper to run than the Jet Ranger (OK you also lose one pax and a bit of luggage space aswell in the R44). This has led more commercial companies to turn to the R44 as a substitute to the Jet Ranger. I wonder if Jet Ranger time abroad (I am in the UK)is as expensive as R44 time here? Any thoughts anyone?
29th Nov 2000, 16:34
Send me an e mail with your address I can give you a very competitive quote on Hughes 500 time, remember a good D cruises at 135 kt bit quicker than 206 or 44 and therefore much cheaper per mile covered !
3rd Dec 2000, 06:14
If you have the luxury of money, do the Jet Ranger. In fact if your really have the luxury do it at a factory school. Its a duble whammy which makes you more attractive.
Robinsons fill a certain need in todays world, but you dont have to be part of it.
Sort of like that date you had once and want to forget............Somebody mentioned 500s, which brings up another good point in todays market if you want a job. Look into Eurocopter (factory school), it seems everyone is going that way and MD 500s are soon destined to be in the Museums(Mcdonnell and Douglas died years ago and the company keeps getting sold to benefit parachuting Execs). Good Aircraft, dont get me wrong, just bad marketing above the Sales staff.
7th Dec 2000, 11:12
Jet Ranger as wisely stated above...Turbine time... If you can afford it fly to Los Angeles stay in a backpackers and fly the 206b for $110/hr flying newscrews at Van Nuys a/d in the San Fernando valley.Good luck
8th Dec 2000, 00:31
Ask anyone 'what's a JetRanger, they'll know. What's an R44? - who knows?
8th Dec 2000, 00:51
I don't think you will find too many customers with 100 lb loads to sling!
Need I say more?
Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
PS. Pistons are for Poofdas and Skids are for Kids!
[This message has been edited by offshoreigor (edited 07 December 2000).]
9th Dec 2000, 05:41
Frankenstein says "Got to start somewhere Igor" ... An R44 is a piston engined Robinson 2 blade semi rigid, bloody awful Helicopter, which is only in the air because its cheep like the budgie.
9th Dec 2000, 20:51
Guys,guys,(or should I say Gals) the R 44 is an alternative to the 206 if you don't need the 5th seat.But unlike the turbines you can't hurt it too much because the drivetrain can handle the full engine power.And it will sling more than 100#.Aerial Recon outside of Edmonton (that be Canada) has operated them for @<hidden> 7 years now doing God knows what. But if you have the $$$ to waste go ahead,
11th Dec 2000, 08:17
Are we talking about Helicopters or Kiddie cars?
You can't be serious about a Robbie of any model being a serious contender to anything other than a VW Beetle can you?
Come on people, let's get serious. Have you heard of any 150K per year Robbie drivers? Yes it's a great trainer, but and that's a BIG BUT! They are not a serious Commercial Helicopter so PLEASE STOP THE INFATUATION WITH A STUDENTS TOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif
11th Dec 2000, 19:31
Actually I do not know any body that makes 150K. But there are more and more operators out there that make good $ with an R44 and don't have the cost associated with the turbines. It's pretty simple R44= $300K @<hidden> $400?hr: 206=900K @<hidden> 600/hr. who's going to make more with less?
Lu: SN #24 in R22 POH adresses low RPM and subsequent fuselage contacts.
13th Dec 2000, 01:54
Go for a eurocopter ec120 instead of jetranger!!
jetranger will be dead in a few years and the 44 and 120 will rule all!!
unless u get the ranger free then u might look at it for a laugh
ps 44 and 120 are loads quicker.
13th Dec 2000, 23:07
I have to disagree Igor, if it gets the job done effectively and economically then is a 'real' working helicopter. Any design that expands the roles we can fill in this profession and allow more industries to use and pay for our talents the better.
I'd personally recommend our questioner to go for a turbine endorsement rather than another piston to expand his knowledge base, and to research the area he plans to look for work in. The machine that is used there primarily is the one to pursue.
And on the other point, if you have knowledge of a $150K per year helo job, I'd love to hear about it. From my experience we'd all have to go work for an airline to experience wagwes like that, but maybe I haven't been out and about enough yet...
20th Dec 2002, 19:38
Posted from a previous thread.
Spoke with Q who got a chance to fly the R44 II and he gave it a very good going over.In his opinion the Robinson helicopter has "come of age".The additional power is noticable close to the ground as well as at high altitude.He tried everything to make the engine falter or cut out but without success,pulling max power then down to idle repeatedly.He succeded in the past in doing this in the non-injected models.He flew it with the guy who did the C of A the other day who was also very impressed which is something as Robinson's didn't figure highly in his estimation until this.The distinction has blurred even further between it and it's turbine cousins.Given that seemingly the 44 has proven to be more reliable than the 206 and so much cheaper to buy/maintain I'm left wondering what's the point except for the extra seat (which is unusable with full fuel),the sound and a little extra cargo room!...opinions anybody?
20th Dec 2002, 20:37
Uhhh... who says the R-44 is more reliable than B-206???:confused:
Although I am in favour of the Robinson helicopter, if given the choice I would always prefer the B-206 over the R-44 even if it costs a bit more to run.
21st Dec 2002, 12:57
Well I was dragged up on the Robbo and think both the 22 and 44 are great fun, but....
Having flown the 206 too the Robbo just not in the same league, the sound of a turbine winding up is unmatchable!
Sorry but the 206 is just a 'sexier' machine! ;)
21st Dec 2002, 14:52
I would rather have the autorotation characteristics of the JetRanger than the R44. I would also rather have the beefier airframe for its crash worthiness. And...you just can't beat the turbine for the reliability.
21st Dec 2002, 16:14
If you can afford it, Jetranger very time. A true classic.
One of the most successful and popular helicopters ever built.
It just feels right.
21st Dec 2002, 20:51
As an R44 pilot, I have my pros and cons. For me, it doesnt really matter having the sound of the turbine spooling up. Key or starter button I could care less. The 44 is an exceptional machine, high VNE, extremely nice aircraft to fly. My problems is that it is not a good corporate aircraft, only three seats avail. and barely any luggage room, tough to pull off an OGE with 4 men and tanks topped off on a 100 degree day.
The 206 has some room for luggage and everyone likes the turbine for reliability, but the fact is, though there are much less 44s flying around then 206s, the 44 simply has a lower engine failure rate per 100,000 hours, the O-540 has been proved exrememly reliable. Blades in the 44 and 206 are very similar, they autorotate very similar, its very easy to grease the 44 and 206 on in a full down. (the same cant be said for the 22)
With reagards to cost, turbine means big bucks. Acquistion, hourly, maintenance, parts, and overhaul are all very expensive. I believe the 44 has the 206 beat fare there.
I think the Raven II is a great helicopter for many misisons and I love flying 44s, but the 206 will always fit in some areas better, like transport, long line.
21st Dec 2002, 21:33
'...you can't beat a turbine for reliability...'
Oh, yes you can. It's a common misconception that small turbine engines are more reliable than pistons. It might have been true in the early days of Hiller 12s and Bell 47s, but today the boot's on the other foot.
I think you'll find that while pilots prefer the "sexier" whine of the turbine, owners are much more smitten with the reciprocating version.
Now the EC120, that's another league again...
22nd Dec 2002, 08:18
The tinny feel of the 44 is what loses me - the piddly doors, the single-thickness-feel of all the metalwork, inability to carry any solid or pointy object that you wouldn't like to have rammed up your fundamental orifice.
I was having a backseat ride with 2 other pilots and the salesman as part of a sales demo. The pilot next to me wanted to shift his backside in the seat, and grabbed the metal bar across the back of the front seats to do so. As he pulled on this bar, it seemed that the front seats got closer to each other and the walls and roof bowed in a bit. The bar came back far more than either of us expected.
We didn't buy one, and stayed with the 206 fleet.:eek:
22nd Dec 2002, 08:39
Perhaps a case of one being built to a price and the other one being built, at a price.
The drivers of those rear engined Skodas and 3 wheeler Reliant drivers all swear by them and don't like to hear a bad word said....
24th Dec 2002, 18:46
still the scariest scene in aviation - an R22 in bits for a rebuild, on the hangar floor.
24th Dec 2002, 20:51
Ever tried to toss a chainsaw into a R44?
I rest my case.
I call the 44 the "Daewoo" of the sky. "Daewoo" is korean for **** car. Same applies to the 44.
25th Dec 2002, 04:26
Anyone who puts chauvinism ahead of commercial considerations is probably going to go broke, but from the sounds of some of you guys, you'll go broke knowing you were right.
The R44 handles better, is faster and goes further than the 206, at around half the price. If you think it's tinny, let me tell you the punters don't differentiate - I find that most prefer the R44 because they're not caged behind a bulkhead and they get a much, much better view.
Turbine snobs are a dying breed.
25th Dec 2002, 12:21
Point is, it's a free world and given a free choice, it's got NOTHING to do with commercial considerations. If I was paying the bills, I wouldn't buy a helicopter at all, in case I finished up with a small fortune, having begun with a large one.
If you can only afford to drive a cheap car, that's what you'll enjoy driving. Same with anything.
Have a Happy Christmas and enjoy yourself flying this holiday. :)
P.S. Turbine snobs are alive and well! :p
25th Dec 2002, 16:57
hmm strange that Lu does not have an opinion on this !.
25th Dec 2002, 17:24
Boys...boys...boys! Settle down.
Are we talking about a comparison of types for training or revenue?
Training> You can't beat the Robbo cost, it is simply cheaper to fly a piston.
Performance> The 206 is a long proven work horse and is in no way threatened by the R44.
Lets not forget that everyone has to start somewhere and for some it's Turbine and others it's piston.
We all started somewhere, we all just didn't get there yet.
Cheers, :eek: OffshoreIgor :eek:
25th Dec 2002, 20:29
Quote: Performance - The 206 is a long proven work horse and is in no way threatened by the R44.
Duh? Admittedly the 206 is long past its sell-by date, but I don't get the 'in no way threatened' bit.
12th Jan 2004, 19:51
This will probably open a can of worms, which is not my intention. Here goes.
I'm after some thoughts and opinions on which machine would be better suited to a small charter/airwork operation doing a fair bit of exclusive type tourism work and filming/photography, also the other regular stuff. The toss up is bettween a new R44 or a second hand Jetranger
I'm reasonably clued up on the R44 in respect to operating costs, maintenance etc, but know little about the Jetranger.
Bellytank: if I'm not mistaken you operate one of each, is one better than the other from a bottom line perspective?
A few other questions run along the line of:
Are good second hand Jetrangers hard to find in Australia?
What should you expect to pay for one?
Do government departments still insist on turbines for their contracts?
Is dealer/factory support any good from Bell ie can you get parts quickly, or can you be stuck for weeks aog.
etc, etc. etc.
Any thoughts or wisdom will be greatly appreciated:confused: :)
12th Jan 2004, 23:56
Although I love both, I feel the R44 has the edge for what you want to do, in spite of having one less seat.
From the viewpoint (literally) of pax, it's as good as an old saloon car without headrests! - Those in the back have a brilliant view. In the 206 they are, and can feel (in my experience) cut off from what is happening.
I assume the reduced running & mainytenance costs will make up for the missing seat, in Australia as it does elsewhere?
Also, the hydraulics now make the R44 feel like a JetRanger to fly, as I don't doubt you have experienced for yourself AND you can choose to land on water, if you're allowed to, which is "divine"!
It's easy to obtain a very smart and presentable R44, whereas a reasonably priced 206 could possibly be scruffy and smelly, which is a real turn-off.
Well - there's my tuppenceworth!
(I'm a 55 year old instructor in Snowdonia, North Wales, U.K. but my daughter is studying for her CPL(H) at Bankstown - pardon me bursting with pride!)
Paul Murphy :-)
13th Jan 2004, 00:23
From a pilot's perspective, I don't know any pilots who would go for the 44 over the 206, it's pretty simple.
Safer, more powerful, more comfortable, faster, can go to high DA's, etc. etc. (Real Helicopter)
But from an accountant's point of view it could probably be the other way around, but I am not an accountant so my choice is simple.
13th Jan 2004, 02:55
I find that the one less seat in the 44 is a slight hinderance in the fact that when I take people flying they are usually couples and they're not best pleased when you tell them that one of them can't go !
I guess you have to workout if the majority of your work will be tourists flights then the extra seat might be a big factor.
13th Jan 2004, 06:05
So how do you take two couples on a golfing weekend away? Four people don't fit into a 44, and neither do two sets of golf clubs.
Maybe a private owner could take The Big Mistake and another couple, but no golf clubs and only soft squishy bags - no formal dress, no suit bags.
Why drag this thread out of the cobwebs again?
13th Jan 2004, 06:27
It all depends on what you want to do with it.
But I can say there is at least one company here in Aus operating exclusively R44s (and I think they now have 5) operating out of Cairns and Horn Island who are making money and turning away customers (actually directing them back to Jetranger operators) because they can't service all the work being offered to them.
Their website is http://www.brazakka.com.au/
In answer to a question posed about government contracts - I think the above mentioned company has contracts with Telstra and has done power line slinging work. I think they also have done stuff with crocodile counting for whichever department does that stuff.
13th Jan 2004, 07:12
You are quite correct in saying that it depends on what your doing, we operate a couple of bases and at one location the main core of business is tourism and predominantly couples. the R44 is perfect for tourism work, such as scenic tours etc, everyone gets a window seat and and are very happy. low operating cost reliable. we have a R44 and 206 to compliments on other work we do such as corporate, firefighting, filmwork etc.
As far as punters knowing what type or if it has 100-or 10000 hrs on it they woudnt have the slightest idea.
Presentation of equipment are a paramount. you put 2 aircraft together doesnt matter what it is if ones busted arse and the other is presented clean,tidy and looked after guess which one they will hop in. ive seen it so many times.
the 206 and R44
13th Jan 2004, 07:14
Thanks all for the advice so far. Keep it coming!
Ascend Charlie: I started this thread last night and the previous one has been merged to it.
Your point about the golf is a good one as there appears to be a fair market for that sort of thing where I'm looking
Belly Tank: Roughly how many hours do your machines do a year?
13th Jan 2004, 07:15
ILL continue on from previous thread accidently pressed the submit buttom oopps.
the 206 and R44 both have their place and are suited for different applications. I find operating both types compliment each other very well.
as a pilot machine the 206 is a delight to fly, very reliable and tough as nails.
Just my two bobs worth
13th Jan 2004, 18:15
Having flown the 44 in Canada doing, among other things, fire fighting (believe it or not), it has proven to be a tough and reliable machine - I have put three huge fire fighters, piss packs and tools and gone off on Initial Attack in +35C with 3/4 tanks.
The visibility is excellent so they make a great recce platform. The seismic guys like them because their turn around times are quicker than the 206, even though the external load limit is less - instead of having to carefully monitor torque limits, you simply pull till the horn goes off and deal with it. So they are more productive in terms of volume.
Although it may feel tinny compared to the 206 the autorotational characteristics are very similar. Granted the old Astro did not perform well at altitude, but the new IO-540 seems to have taken care of that problem.
What it boils down to is how close the apples are to the oranges, and it is function and suitability versus the cost. I think the big argument is the fact that the 44 only has 3 pax seats, yet any one who has used them for tours swears by them and it doesn't seem to affect the fact or the theory that couples like to fly together. The AStar is a 5 pax seat aircraft and is also a very popular tour machine.
Yes the 206 is reliable - but so is the 44.
The 206 is relatively cheap to operate - the 44 is cheaper.
The 206 has 4 pax seats - the 44, 3.
I think the two main advantages the 206 has over the 44 right now is cargo space, and air conditioning which might affect corporate business. There was a company in Florida that was kitting up the 44 with A/C but it meant losing two underseat spaces (as if there wasn't insufficient cargo space already.)
13th Jan 2004, 19:09
I'm with 'taint natural on this one.
If I had a (big) lotto win, I'd go for the EC120. 5 seats, good luggage space, excellent viz for the pax, quiet and nice to fly. I guess it would be more expensive than the R44, and only time will tell on the reliability issue. But I would think that a EC120 would be a far more flexible machine than either a 44 or 206.
14th Jan 2004, 05:47
Speaking from a commercial operator's point of view, it's still hard to see past the 206. If you're pleasure flying / event shuttling (which is still a staple operation of many small commercial companies) that extra seat makes a big difference.
Taking a couple away for the weekend, or dropping the newly weds at the airport? What are you going to do with the luggage in a 44? Perhaps Frank could offer a roof-rack option? The 44 has its place, as a backstop for example, for those times when you may have a couple of pax with no luggage who dont want / need to pay 206 prices, or for aerial photography. Problem is, every operator NEEDS a 206-size machine, and not many can afford to have an R44 sitting around just for those other occasions. Unless, of course, they are also a flight school and have one anyway. How many UK AOC operators have the R44 as their primary type? 'Nuff said.
The EC120 should have been (and in the future may well be) good competition for the 206. However, get it specced to any decent equipment level, and your payload really isnt up to it.
And there aren't any cheap ones around yet.
As for reliability, I don't see it as being a real issue with the 44 or 206 (I have flown over 2,000 hrs in the same 206 and I have had 1 gen fail and 1 m/r chip in 9 years). The 120 is still a bit too new to comment.
My two-pennies - the 206 will remain top dog for a while yet, but when it is finally dethroned, it will be by an aircraft like the 120, but definitely NOT by the R44
15th Jan 2004, 12:57
Given that previous threads have established you as a Raven II owner ( see http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=85620 ), what made you post this thread, then? It implies that you are unhappy with your choice after 9 months and are considering the JetRanger? And why the JetRanger over any other turbine?
15th Jan 2004, 21:04
As Brazzakka is finding out in Cairns, the R44 is limited in its operational capacity. For a couple of jobs it is absolutely the most applicable helicopter regarding price and performance etc...
What the bean counters don't factor in is the limitations for the machine.
The fact of the matter is that the B206 and EC120 can do EVERYTHING that a 44 can do plus more. The 44 is great for easy work but as soon as you start taking it out bush and trying to jam firefighters or surveyors into it, it starts to stumble. Those fairings on the skids also get a hammering from boots.... daft place for the crosstube location if you ask me.
I cannot figure out how you fit 3 firefighters + gear and equipment into a 44 and without overloading it and having them hold their packs in their laps. Which, if I recollect, is actually against the CAR's recommendations for a secure internal load.
I know why you do it, because on occaisions I did the same thing :) but it sure is uncomfortable. Nothing like having a cargo area to store that stuff.
And when you move on from the piston operator, the next guy with the turbines is going to need you to have T5 time. So the 1000hrs of robbie time is practically worthless to you.
15th Jan 2004, 22:32
I was a passenger in a 206A that came down hard after an engine failure. We all managed to walk away with no injuries thanks to bathtub which was damaged but took most of the impact. I wonder if we would have been as lucky in an R44?
The Nr Fairy
16th Jan 2004, 00:00
Depends on what you have under the seats, how much you weigh, and if the aircraft is in a roughly level attitude - the R22/R44 seats have a limit of 240lb (I'm sure I'll be corrected if it's different in the 44), the seats are energy-absorbing collapsible, and the skids bend once all other avenues of deformation are exhausted. It may have been in your accident that you were lucky not to bang your head on the inside of the frame.
To some extent, while crashworthiness can be designed in, under certain circumstances the worst can happen - I remember seeing an Australian accident report where a 206 rolled after lifting which one would expect to be survivable, but because the pilot hadn't done up his shoulder straps he struck his head - fatally - on the door pillar.
16th Jan 2004, 04:17
Thanks for your insights. The machine was indeed light - instructor, student, and myself as passenger plus 40 gallons fuel. We lifted straight up off the tarmac of a small airport to about 45 feet. Then a sharp yaw and the lights and horn came on. The instructor took over and pulled collective to avoid going straight down and hitting parked aircraft. However rotor rpm decayed and we landed hard a bit lopsided to the right. I saw it coming so I bent at the waist. The impact forced the top of the skids into the bathtub but it stayed upright. We were all belted or strapped in and all weighed around 170 lbs.
16th Jan 2004, 11:17
Just wondering why the EC 120 wasnt included in this comparison? To high purchase price?
16th Jan 2004, 11:32
Spaced, Got it in one. The buget is about 600 grand aussie which wll buy a 44 with change or a decent second hand jetranger. An ec120 would be the pick of the lot but at around 900 to a mil for a low time used one, it's a bit out of the price range.
Thanks all for the input so far. Much appreciated. Curent thinking leads towards a jetranger
17th Jan 2004, 07:56
Hellimat..."will buy buy you a decent secondhand 206"
is there such a thing??
17th Jan 2004, 16:34
Be honest a 500D or E beats the 206 and 44. It looks sexy has the performance second to none, incredibly fun to fly and is more crash survivable than most. The reason it beat the 206 in the US army Loach trials.
However I might be biased here plus I don't often sit in the back !!
17th Jan 2004, 17:46
urm, hughes 500 guy missing the point -
Where do you fit your passengers and baggage on a commercial flight? and do the people in the back really enjoy the cramped conditions?
The 500 maybe be like a ferrari, but we dont see many ferraris used as taxis!
18th Jan 2004, 02:18
I started this thread in Dec 02, 3 months before purchasing obviously to weigh up the +/- of each machine and pick up the forum members valued opinions, I made my choice confidently and my conviction since purchasing the R44 II has only got stronger. I think Franks 4 seat fuel injected offspring is simply great. It took careful deliberation for me to make my decision and I did but granted it wouldn't suit everybody but it's without doubt faster, safer (check the air accident reports) quieter, cheaper to run/maintain ( though avgas is expensive) than the 206, has great autorotational characteristics and tail rotor authority, better vis, doesn't smell like Satan's old boot etc I could go on, being able to carry 3 extra passengers suits me as it's for private use but mightn't suit others, and the storage capacity is an issue, plus I do whinge when I see my avgas bills at the end of each month and if/when Frank releases his rumoured Diesel version from the cradle which will be even cheaper to run, and safer again, I'll be sure to put my name down for one!
18th Jan 2004, 02:26
Can argue the same for a jetbanger 4 people and you are then limited on fuel and baggage.
the 500 compares with a 44 both have little baggage room although I have had 4 adults a 5 year old a 1 year old 2 prams and all the baggage that goes with kids in one.
For those looking at costs what is usually forgotten is the cost per mile as oppossed to cost per hour.
My 206 cruises 105 kt
500D 135 kt
This equals nearly 30 % less cost on fuel, components, engine
I agree you don't see many in UK but try NZ. I think the question was based on a private machine.
I flew commercially the B206 before changing employers and now flying a R44 raven. Which one do I prefer? the B206 from a pilot's point of view...You can't beat the noise of the turbine start and the smell of kero....But this is just the same as which exciting female partner you prefer to have sex with I suppose!!!!!:p
Seriously, from a business point of view and tourism ops only, an R44 is great. For a utility operation, and heavy loading, the B206 is the answer. Best, as mentioned in earlier postings, have both :}
And yes, I agree a H500 is a great machine, a real joy to use in challenging mountain environment as the Kiwis have long proven:ok:
18th Jan 2004, 10:44
I will preface this by saying I don't know the foggiest thing about the Robinson other then I heard it was the best piston helicopter by far.
We have about 135 of the JetRangers flying here at Naval Air Station Whiting Field and more than that up the road at Fort Rucker. The reliability and toughness of the little JetRanger is exceptional.
18th Jan 2004, 10:46
If you don't mind me asking, who are you working for now and what happened to the Jetranger you were crosshiring from WA?