Robinson R66 (merged threads)

[thecontroller]

i have heard that robinson has now purchased the engines for the 'r66'. they cost $275,000 and the 'r66' will be a 5 seater

they will offer a turbine heli for $700,000

[007helicopter]

QUOTE FROM HELI EXPO 05

"You're all going to ask if there's an R66," Robinson said with a smile. His assumption was confirmed by the scattered chuckles among the standing-room-only crowd. "Well, not yet. We have actually spent a lot of time on some preliminary designs for an R66, which will be a five-place helicopter, and that all looks good. But we're still having a little bit of a problem deciding for sure which powerplant to use."
Robinson and his engineers have looked at a number of engines to use in a larger aircraft, including small turbines and a small diesel, but they have yet to find anything suitable. He was quick to add that even if the decision to go forward with an R66 were made today, it would be several years before the aircraft would be available. "You all had better stick with your Raven 2s a little bit longer," Robinson quipped.

[Hughesy]

R66...interesting.
Hope ole Frank gets rid of that ugly as mast, adds a few more blades on the rotorhead and does add a turbine to it.
Hughesy

[Dis-Mystery of Lift]

Hughesy
About time you became a real Pilot and got some two bladed time under your belt instead of swanning around in your E Model:ok:
Hope you are well mate:ok:
How is your dose of the :D going?

[Hughesy]

Hey Dis
Im all good man...cheers for asking.
You should have told me your momma had the :D I would have stayed away:E
Yip..sweet as up here in the Arctic....temp dropping though.
Suppose your 130 isnt a real heli then? :ok: :ok:

Hughesy

[sandy helmet]

Just been attending the factory course, and its a toss up between a turbine and diesel piston. If they can get the weight down, it will be a diesel.

[Gerhardt]

When I was at the course last month they talked about turbine, then diesel. Then said a diesel was preferred, but too heavy, and unless the weight could be brought down...

And it looks like they're sticking with the sperm-like contour.

[Heli-kiwi]

I did a course earlier in the year too and Tim Tucker was saying that Robinson was throwing a lot of money at Mercedes Benz to develop a diesel for the R66 and also Rolls Royce to see if they can develop a hybrid C20/C30 (C25??) turbine engine that has lots of power in reserve and has a longer TBO. :hmm:

[thecontroller]

looks like we have a while to wait then...

[cyclic_fondler]

I do hope they've put a bit of thought into the design and shape of it and make it easier on the eye, shorten that mast by a foot and put some decent luggage space in there.

Or will it be as unimaginative as widening the current R44 rear cabin by 20 inches and cram another seat in there.:yuk:

Can somebody from the Agusta design team please have a word in Franks ear with a few suggestions about the shape!!!!!:ok:

[thecontroller]

it will be very interesting to have a crystall ball and see where robinson is in 10 years time

choose your option

a) R66 is a cheap turbine, massive success, eurocopter sh*t themselves and lose loads of business. R66 revolutionises the industry, like the r22 did

b) R66 never gets off the ground because they cant find the right engine

c) R66 gets built but is such a pig, with awful performance that it fails miserably

d) R66 is released, is reasonably sucessful, but after a spate of crashes, is taken out of service

e) R66 released, moderately sucessfull, Bell buys Robinson, frank retires

whats everyone's bet on this one?!

[CaptDean]

R-77 it will be. Rolls turbine and 5 seats. Faster and cheaper than an EC120.

Less than a million $ for sure. Unveiled at HAI, March 2008, ready to go.

[Bat-Off]

Can someone please explain to me the advantages of a diesel engine for an aircraft the size of an B206? :confused:

I understand that Diesel is more fuel efficient, produces more torque at lower speeds due to the uniqe combustion process called "Compression Ignition" and is more durable than a regular petrol engine. But my question is why not just take the step up and go turbine?

They're smaller, and have a larger power to weight ratio than their reciprocating cousins, not to mention reliable.

Is the only reason the cost? Surely 5 POB is a good enough reason to have something you can rely on. My brief search (very brief) showed no other diesel powered helicopters?

The design, well, I think Mr. Robinson has taken his fetish for tadpoles a little too far! :}

[bladepitch]

all frank has to do

is get rid of the stupid mast ad some jet ranger skid gear and put a gazelle main rotor system on it. sweet lookin chooper then.

oh forgot! put a bloody TURBINE! in it. dont dick around with a diesel. :ugh:

[Heli-kiwi]

I'd say putting a diesel in it would be a ballsy move by Robinson considering there are hardly very many airbourne in aeroplanes now.... I reckon Robinson will release a turbine version first and spend a lot longer trying to get a reliable diesel sorted, I think they have learnt from the past and will be very reluctant to move away from an airframe design/shape that they know works............. By god those 44s are ugly! but they are nice to fly, I know I'd rather have an ugly machine that handles well than a hottie that flys like a pig.
A flat floor wouldn't go astray either.... with perhaps removable rear seats like a squirrel maybe?
:}

[Big Bucks Bernie]

Now if this new helicopter is supposedly going to be a five seater, surely it should rather be called a Robinson R55. After all, the R22 is a two seater and the R44 a four seater...

[LIMIT NOT TARGET]

All you experts out there telling Frank what to do! He is a hell of a lot smarter than any of us, besides it is his company, let the man do as he pleases. Start your own helicopter company if you want a certain design.
I myself think that it will be a damn good machine going off his last two attempts. I also guestimate that it may be powered by the new Lycoming IO-580-B1A, until his deisel gets certifed. I am also thinking maybe a six seater, as you would not design a whole new helicopter design for only one seat.
A wider R44 design called the R88.
It all comes down to cost and weight. Turbines may make too expensive for the grass roots pilot, that is how he designs his helicopters, a cheap people mover for the masses.

[Hughesy]

Never said it was going to be a "bad machine", In fact without re reading all the posts, im sure no one else did either.
Just casually mentioned to get rid of that "ugly as mast"....among other stuff.
:hmm: :ok:

Hughesy

[whopwhop]

Yes agreed the mast isnt the best but me thinks that the life of the tail boom may and I say may be a tad less shorter (no pun intended) than what Frankie had envisioned if he was to shorten it.....but hey at least he has the brain to put a cowl around it unlike the hideous enstrom...

[LIMIT NOT TARGET]

To Hughesy,
No agression in my post at all, sorry if it came out that way, was actually trying to be funny, guess I better try harder.
I am also a MD500 man, currently flying E model also.
Cheers.

[Gerhardt]

am I the only one astonished by Mr. Selfish's ingenious humor?

[Hughesy]

To Limit.
Sorry man, Didnt take take it to seriously tho...I was joking also.
Think i will stick to my MD's though.
Cheers
Hughesy :ok:

[HeliEng]

I hear that Frank Robinson is making an announcement about the new R66 today.

Anybody have any further info or know if this is correct?

[cyclic_fondler]

There's a good article in Flight International this week about the growth of the Robinson Family.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/27/212303/family-robinson-continues-to-grow.html

The final paragraph is
"For the mid-term future Robinson is designing a turbine-powered five-seater, "but it will be three to five years, even if we do it", says Frank Robinson."

[Baldegret]

Just read the following in the weekly AOPA e-newsletter:

ROBINSON TO DESIGN FIVE-PASSENGER HELICOPTER
Robinson Helicopter Company is testing parts and will assemble a prototype in a year or two of a five-place R66 helicopter, company founder Frank Robinson said this week at the Helicopter Association International convention in Orlando, Florida. It will be powered by a Rolls-Royce turbine engine and is intended as a replacement for older Bell JetRanger aircraft nearing lifetime limits. It will look much like the present R44 four-passenger helicopter and have a dedicated baggage compartment. Robinson was coy on the cost, saying it would be less than $1 million but more than the R44's cost of $400,000. It will have a two-blade rotor that will be mounted 8 inches higher than that on the R44 in order to handle center-of-gravity issues created by the larger design.

[Ian Corrigible]

Gonna to be interesting to see how many operators really do stump-up another $300-400K for.a widebody R44 with an Allison C20. The 5th seat will be of limited value to most, and cruise speed won't change much if at all, so turbine DOCs are going to be a high price to pay for a small baggage hold for my clubs...

When'll the diesel version be available?

I/C

[cyclic_fondler]

"It will look much like the present R44 ":= and "two-blade rotor that will be mounted 8 inches higher " :=

Please tell us that that's a joke as it will look hideous.

Frank, please please ask one of the designers at Agusta to give you a hand in the shaping of the aircraft.

[Head Turner]

At this point in time it might be voted the most ugly helicopter

[Graviman]

I've often heard about how much more docile the R44 is compared to the R22. Is this just to do with having a higher inertia rotor, hence slower overall response, or is there also some difference in the control system?

This week i have been mostly considering: whether a gyro can be fitted into a teetering rotor swash plate (not sure about flapback feedback though). :E

Mart

[wind for sale]

any pics of the r66 yet????

[Hughesy]

I wonder if they can get it to sound like a Huey. Like that BO105 video. Now that would be sweet! :E

[andTompkins]

Did Frank officially announce it as the R66 or will it be the R55? I personally like our PPRUNE version of the R88! :}

[13snoopy]

Cyclic Fondler and Head Turner,
Oh, how I couldn't agree with you both more.
I own an R44 and I still think they are well..let's just say "challenged" in the looks department.
But if this new bird is gonna be a wider, blown-up version of the R44 with an even HIGHER main rotor mast, then somebody's kidding themselves in Frank's design department (OK, I know. Frank IS the design department)
On another web site I likened this new ship to looking like a giraffe. (And that's probably an insult to the giraffe!)
I mean come on, they are installing an even HIGHER main rotor mast than what the R44 has already??!!:= :ugh:
And please don't tell me that looks isn't going to play a role in the purchase. Particularly when the price tag approaches high six figures.
I love Robinsons but if the initial reports are correct, this new heli is (I am afraid) going to be the most hideous looking helicopter currently being made anywhere.:{

[HeliEng]

Ian Corrigible,

I don't believe it is going to be powered by an Allison C20.

[Big Bucks Bernie]

It will be powered by the new Rolls-Royce RR300 (see here (http://www.rolls-royce.com/media/showPR.jsp?PR_ID=40434)).

[Ian Corrigible]

...the RR300 being nothing more than a rebadged C20 with a scaled-down C30 compressor and a minimal improvement in SFC and life. With all the money that went into GAP back in the '80s, it's just a shame that we're still being forced to use 1960s tech.

Honeywell's SHFE actually looks like an improvement, but how many years away is that?

I/C

[flyby_heli]

For all of us not attending Heli-Expo this year, AIN tv (http://www.aintv.com (http://www.aintv.com))has a news update from the show every day. The R-66 was mentioned and apparently Robinson has ordered more than 200 of the newly developed Rolls Royce 3300 engine.

[Graviman]

As long as we are not talking about the Astro, you have the hydraulic controls in the 44 which obviously makes a big difference; the tail rotor is little bit differerent as well providing a superb control authority.

Thanks TorqueStripe. I didn't realise R44 had hydraulics, but i imagine they have set out to use improved cambered aerofoils, so need it on a medium size machine. TR direction is optimal bottom forwards direction, so will work with MR downwash.

I imagine R66 pylon extension is to keep it's handling competetive with modern hingeless designs, but without the cost. Putting rotor so far above mass centroid may cause reduced hover stability, from low frequency flapback oscillation , so i would not be suprised if design team were considering SAS.

Mart

[Air-Five-oh]

Robinson already announced that SAS and autopilot would be available shortly for the R-44. There is no reason not to include it in the R-66. It only weighs a few pounds

[mountjoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXydx0vhk-k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXydx0vhk-k)

Just found this on another forum, along with pictures, seems like the name is sticking too..

At least someone's got a sense of humour !

[R22DRIVER]

Its surprising how easy it is nowadys to place the sound of a turbine spooling up onto a video!!

Pity the shot is of the 44! Being at Robinson a few weeks ago, a prototype is a long way off from being built, never mind being placed out to be viewed by the fence!

Good editing though!

[mountjoy]

Well it is on youtube, like the name goat though !

[Chukkablade]

Has the footage been edited visually as well as audibly?

That mast looks higher than normal to me:uhoh: :confused: Optical illusion because of the angle?

[mountjoy]

:ugh: Pictures of the R-66 airframe...they're out!

http://originalforum.justhelicopters.com/images/TrackThisThread.jpg (http://originalforum.justhelicopters.com/TrackThisThread.asp?Url=DisplayMsgJH.asp&ForumID=23&MsgID=418390&Page=1&Big_Daddy=418390)Author: Anonymous Date: 3/4/2007 10:01:18 PM
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r87/captainjohnny5/r66goat.jpg

[rotorspin]

listen carefully and you will hear the second turbine starting....

fitting 2 turbines under an R44 body..... :ugh:

[FH1100 Pilot]

A free turbine can be confusing if you hear it start up. The first and most obvious noise comes from the compressor/gas generator section. But as the Power Turbine comes up to speed it can sound like that "second engine" starting. Listen closely next time someone starts a 206 in your general direction. You'll go, "How many engines are IN that thing??"

As for the fuselage, it would not surprise me at all if Frank installed the RR-300 in a modified R-44 airframe. That's just how things are done. The wider cabin will come later, once the powerplant installation is worked out. The "Goat" in the pictures and videos is likely just a test mule.

Frank will have an interesting time pushing this thing through certification. It'll be easy (uhh, "easiER") if he adds it to the R-44 Type Certificate. But if he goes for a separate "R-66" TC, all bets are off as far as certification dates. Either way, the taller mast and wider cabin will probably require the whole test flight regime to be done and documented again. The FAA is hardly any *less* conservative than they used to be. And, given Robinson's reputation, the FAA will probably be extra-cautious with them.

They've undoubtedly already been flying the mule - either with a C20B or maybe even an old C-18 just to see how it would perform and get some "rough" fuel calcs. Certainly, there have been rumors for over a year that people have been hearing the sound of a turbine coming from the Robinson plant. So they didn't just start on this yesterday. Disguised as a regular old R-44, it easily could have been trucked to a remote location for testing.

Let's give Frank some credit. This isn't going to be some half-arsed, cobbed together abortion. If and when Frank brings it to market, it will give the 206 a serious run for the money - not to mention putting that Enstrom 480 and Schweizer 333 right out of the game for good.

[rotorspin]

AND THE ANSWER IS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS0wSElkoZg

An old bit of you tube footage with a piston, with a 355 soundtrack....

I have far too much time on my hands, off to do something more interesting now I have proved that one. :rolleyes:

Does it really matter? The minute Frank launches the new beasty it will be pounced upon and ripped apart by this forum anyway.

[Whirlygig]

A 355 soundtrack? Sounds more like a cross between a Daf 55 variomatic and a spindrier full of teaspoons!

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

Sounds more like a cross between a Daf 55 variomatic and a spindrier full of teaspoons!


I know you've driven both, Whirls :)

[Whirlygig]

No ShyT, I never driven a spindrier full of teaspoons but, hey, you know, when your dishwasher breaks down, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do! And it seemed like a good idea at the time!

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

Actually, I meant the old Alfa! Teasponns? One lamp or two? :E

No, I'm only joking.... :)

[Whirlygig]

Well, the way my OLD Alfa went through headlight bulbs, then I would have to say "one lamp", wouldn't I!

Cheers

Whirls

[ShyTorque]

Precisely :)

:ok:

[bladewashout]

My mum had a daf 55 variomatic, and as a tender youth I was horribly embarrassed to be seen in it...

It was a particularly cr*ppy car and the rubber bands kept breaking.

At least Frank's rubber bands generally stay where they are... do you think he will retain belt drive in the 66?

BW

[mountjoy]

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r87/captainjohnny5/euror66.jpg

[IntheTin]

A friend of mine was asking about where the name for the R66 'goat' came from? When I thought about it I really had no idea.

Anyone like to help? :ouch:

[Bravo73]

A friend of mine was asking about where the name for the R66 'goat' came from?


Maybe because it's going to be hard working, will eat/drink anything and be very, very ugly...? :E

[Bravo73]

Is this an actual shot of the R66?

http://robinsonhelicopters.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=199;image

(Sorry for the pic size)

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=466R&cmndfind.x=20&cmndfind.y=16

[Revolutionary]

Whirls, funny you should mention the DAF in connection with the R66 turbine, because in an alternate universe populated by the Dutch there exists this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUW5F05D7ZM

By the way, having the variomatic means it'll go just as fast in reverse.

[N707ZS]

Boring! Thought it was going to crash, break like most DAF 66s.

[Camp Freddie]

My mum had a daf 55 variomatic, and as a tender youth I was horribly embarrassed to be seen in it...

It was a particularly cr*ppy car and the rubber bands kept breaking.

unbelievably, my mum had an even worse car, A DAF 44 which as soon as it got to any kind of hill wouldnt go faster than 30, I do recall there were DAF 33's about, but they were just taking the p***

regards

CF

[Whirlygig]

Hey! Didn't realise this was turning into a DAF bashing thread! Won't hear a bad word said against them.

I learned to drive in one of those and, on my first lesson out with my father, one of the belts broke :eek:

The car slowly ground to a halt at the side of the A1 in Sandy and my father suggested that he would get under the car and try to free the belt (which had wound itself around the rear axle) whilst I slowly reversed. Over him. He did live for another 25 years to tell the tale!

However, it was quick off the lights and had many a Ford Crapi perplexed until they soon caught up. Plus of course, the embarassment of not being able to find the petrol filler cap when I went to get fuel! :}

What are the similarities between a DAF44 and an R44? Same the 66s? Perhaps an unfortunate choice of model numbers by Frank but at least there wasn't a DAF22 to my knowledge!

Cheers

Whirls

[belly tank]

Found on another forum.....here it is........thats one tall mast!!!
http://www.robinsonhelicopters.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=34&topic=260.0

[Choppie]

I doubt that is what the R66 is going to look like. They said it will seat 5 people and that is just an R44 cabin. So where are you going to fit a third person in the middel?

[Jared]

This picture of a reputed "R66," prototype at Robinson's Torrance factory looks suspiciously like a doctored R44 photograph.

We are led to believe that the new ship has an extra seat ultimately seeing the demise of the JetRanger. I see no sign of this in the photograph and surely the turbine powerplant would result in a shift in the CofG and therefore a different design?

Keep the pics coming!
:ok:

[airmail]

****WARNING - STUPID QUESTION ALERT****

Ok, I'm no professional pilot or engineer but used to work in the industry and like keeping upto date on what is going on. Anyway, my question is this:

Asuming that the R66 is a turbine and will take 6 people (just following the numbers on that one), wouldn't RHC need to change the rotor design to cope with the extra weight of passengers, fuel, engine etc, etc or would the design from the R22/44 be able to cope??

Asked out of sheer curiosity and nothing else (although I can just picture Lu Z looking down and composing his response from afar).

[Johe02]

Asuming that the R66 is a turbine and will take 6 people (just following the numbers on that one),
I heard Frank said is wasnt going to be the R55 just because that was what everyone was expecting!
R66 will only have 5 seats. . :hmm:

This picture of a reputed "R66," prototype at Robinson's Torrance factory looks suspiciously like a doctored R44 photograph

If you save the picture to your PC you can zoom in to pixel level and see that this picture is genuine. It may have been enhanced for clarity but I would say it was a real pic. . :8

[Nige321]

If you save the picture to your PC you can zoom in to pixel level and see that this picture is genuine. It may have been enhanced for clarity but I would say it was a real pic. .

You can also reveal the EXIF data...

Taken with a Nikon E2500, but the date has been zeroed...

[RINKER]

On a recent Robinson safety course Tim Tucker spoke about the R66.Your quite right Johe02 the name R66 was chosen partly to dismiss the myth R22 two seats R44 four seats etc.Allegedly when Frank was getting the R22 certified he didn't have a name and R22 was put down in a split second desicion allegdley ! .The R66 he said will have 5 seats with interestingly the rear centre pax seated slightly ahead of the ones on either side to allow more shoulder room and possibly I presume for more headroom as the turbine is mounted ala H369 /500 style so it may encroach on the inner centre cabin roofspace ? .It will have a baggage dept as well as the under seat stowage.He did say it is similar to an R44 blown up larger.I can't think of any other things , he didn't quote performance figures.

[skadi]

Here some more infos about that bird:

http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=da0fe99e-d61d-4540-9ecd-4a8049c7cabc

skadi

[McGowan]

Still just looks like an engine testbed to me.
If it IS the 66, going to be pathetic.........................

[HeliCraig]

Found on another forum:

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o123/craigparsons/Choppers/r66tx7.jpg

[Bravo73]

Woah, that's fugly... http://www.mtorque.co.uk/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/default/sickie.gif

[17thhour]

eeek


(this parenthesis is merley to lengthen the comment)

[Tango and Cash]

Yikes!

What happened to that saying "if it looks right, it will probably fly right"?

[alouette3]

It may be ugly but at least it will fly slow.;)

[mini]

Batteries not supplied... :E

[Ian Corrigible]

So does it supply the national grid as it flies...? :E

I/C

[kevin_mayes]

ooops, that's not good....

[somepitch]

wow and i thought robinsons couldn't get any uglier...

[Kruxl]

Hmmm, I am not sure if Robinson will present the R66 to the public like this.
My guess is that they just test the turbine in an modified R44.

I don't think that is the R66, Frank is smarter than that.

[Hughesy]

Somepitch...I was going to type the same thing!
Its pretty damm ugly, maybe it come's with a paperbag!

[somepitch]

well on a positive note it looks like the masts of the r66 and an america's cup racer could be interchangeable...maybe a shrewd cost saving measure?

[belly tank]

geeee..........will have to hire a crane to look at the head on a daily!!
im presuming the corrosoin issues on the tailboom will be adressed on this model:{:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Weve operated robos for 10+ years and goto say "F@#K what an ugly machine"......that of course if the latest pic is anything to go by!

[Gaseous]

Its payback time for all you Robbie pilots that slated Enstroms for being ugly.:p

A thing of beauty is a joy forever:hmm:

Is the world ready for another cobbled together turbine?

[Freewheel]

I can only imagine - or perhaps hope - that somewhere in the Robinson Factory, someone's having a really good laugh at the comments here......

Of course, if it would cost money to put together a prank that size, and we know how Frank feels about spending money on frivolities..........

[206Fan]

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/euroastar350/Helicopter%20Pics/R66_sm1.jpghttp://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/euroastar350/Helicopter%20Pics/R66_sm.jpg

[Simon853]

So, during the pre-flight, will you calculate pressure altitude at ground level, or up at altitude where the rotor hub sits?

Si

[manfromuncle]

The R44 and the "R66" always reminds me of this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Austin_Allegro_Brown_1.JPG/800px-Austin_Allegro_Brown_1.JPG

Anyway, PLEASE let it have a 'proper' cyclic.

[jeepys]

I doubt it will. There is not much 'proper' about Robinsons.

[TiPwEiGhT]

Blimey, I honestly cannot believe Frank is basing it on the R44. Don't get me wrong, I have been flying Robinson's for 8 years but there is so many things that could be improved on, he needs to get a design team in to make his new chopper, not draw it on the back of a pack of smokes whilst on the phone!

Where do you stow the cherry picker for checking the head?

[timberwolf]

If the tail pipe blows up, there goes the boom. If the tail pipe blows down bush pilots are going to start some serious fires.:oh::ouch:

[funfinn2000]

The R66 has completed it's first flights in August 2007.

[Graviman]

That's good news! Since Frank Robinson brought cost effective helicopters into the world, for folks like myself, i can only wish the R66 development team good luck. I'm sure when the initial R44 powertrain prototype becomes an actual R66 prototype the designers will have a good looking machine to keep everyone happy. Some styling concepts probably already exist.

Interesting to see the mast extension. The longer moment arm should reduce the cyclic response time constant, although it will also reduce dynamic stability from increased flapback for pitch/roll attitude change. I gather SCAS will be standard. I suspect the reason is to improve controlability in reduced g manouvres, to keep the machine competetive in a market place moving towards hingeless rotors.

Keep up the good work RHC... :ok:

[moosp]

In no way am I a helicopter designer, but looking at the jet efflux thrust line, I assume it was necessary to raise the rotor to get the rotor forward thrust line in balance with the jet efflux.

If you kept the current R44 head height the jet efflux looks as though it would cause a pitch up moment which would require too much forward collective to make a viable machine.

This may be complete b***t so I seek the expert advice of the pprune design team out there.

[Graviman]

...I seek the expert advice of the pprune design team...


Hehehe. It may be that simple, Moosp. Then again that jet output looks about the same height as the machine CG, so the extra thrust likely just reduces nose below horizon attitude. If cyclic control was a problem, i would have thought RHC would go the usual route of putting additional horizontal empennages on the tail boom. Don't forget the RR300 will raise the CG over the Lycoming O-540 engine.

I think it's just to try and keep the machine competetive against machines like EC120, without the cost of a bearingless 3-blade rotor. It just keeps a good moment arm above the CG.

[mickjoebill]

Maintenance and pre-start checks noted, is there a net gain in safety due to added clearance of the blades?

Less chance of the rotor injuring passengers or striking the cabin in an accident?


Mickjoebill

[mini]

Sod the looks, what are the perf.stats and the price...

Frank is no fool... :E

[manfromuncle]

Whats that extra bit stuck on top of the head, near one of the coning hinges?

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/euroastar350/Helicopter%20Pics/R66_sm.jpg

[helicopter-redeye]

There is a cable taped down the front of the mast so it could be a "chadwickomiter" or similiar measuring device.

CDT

[120torque]

Any idea how enough air gets into the compressors ? i think all other turbine heli's i've seen have air intakes - normally toward the front - and i've always been told if these get blocked it stops! I assume the small vents on the back are possibly the air intake and mean you dont fly forward - just backward?
:confused:

[Graviman]

MJB, increased clearance will help reduce risk of bladestrike, so may also have been a factor.

120, air intakes are at the root of the tail boom. The RR300 may not have been optimised to make use of the dynamic pressure from forward facing inlets in cruise. Normally this would be accomplished with moveable stators at inlet of an axial compressor, but this unit has a centrifugal. I'm planning to read up a lot more on gas turbine design in the future.

helicopter-redeye, is there another name for "chadwickomiter"? I gather this would be some instrumentatiun to measure flapwise movement of blade?

Actually the vertical stabiliser, and blade just above it in photo, appear to have a network of strain guages over them to determine in flight loads. That most likely means this R44 based powertrain prototype is flying R66 rotors and tail fins. Looking at details like the aerofoil section skid struts, this machine is aimed at a good cruise speed.

[mickjoebill]

Will jet blast have a distinctive effect to a bystander (it being so close to ground level) or will it mix with down wash?


Also in a typical testing programme (at this stage) would an enlargement of the cabin have to be based on the length of the cabin in the test ship with only way of increasing capacity by width extension, or can the cabin be lengthened?

Could this testing be applied to a completely new cabin?




Mickjoebill

[EN48]

Anyone know how engine power is transmitted to the main rotor? Could it be a similar belt setup to the R44?

EN

[helicopter-redeye]

helicopter-redeye, is there another name for "chadwickomiter"? I gather this would be some instrumentatiun to measure flapwise movement of blade?


Sorry, try Model 2000 Balancer System (Chadwick) part number KI-68. Used in blade tracking/ balancing. The wire attaches to a 'sort of osciliscope' that will be in the cab. I can't see it entering via the door cowls (usual approach) so it may be "permanently fitted" and wired through the roof light.

IF this is what the device and wire/ tape is for then I guess the engineers would be looking for any blade tracking deviations in certain manoeuvers.

h-r (CDT)

[Nubian]

If this would be the final design of the R-66 (which I seriously doubt) it would not be the first helicopter with its "smoke-stacks" close to the ground. There are quite a few 500's out there, high or low-skid and there seems not to be of any problems as long as you stay away from the area under the tail-cone (which should be avoided in ANY case, as there are more imminent dangers there!!!) The enstrom 480, and Schweizer 330-series helicopters also has the pipes under the tail and haven't heard of anyone yet, with "jetblast" injuries.

This is most likely only the testbed for the engine that they have desided to go for in the new aircraft.

[chuckolamofola]

IF this is what the device and wire/ tape is for then I guess the engineers would be looking for any blade tracking deviations in certain manoeuvers.

That's the magnetic pickup. It's used for determining rotor azimuth (clock angle), rotor speed and triggering the strobe if used.

Chuck

[mickjoebill]

That's the magnetic pickup. It's used for determining rotor azimuth (clock angle), rotor speed and triggering the strobe if used

Can you draw any conclusions from the use of this type of test equipment re the purpose of the flight?
Some are saying the craft is a test bed for the engine and not necessarily anything to do with final layout for the airframe.


Mickjoebill

[Graviman]

Thanks, helicopter-redeye - this system looks nicely automated:
http://www.e-equipments.com/vibrex2000.htm
http://www.e-equipments.com/images/v2000plus-title.jpeg
Some interesting discussions going on here about instrumentation techniques. :ok:


MJB, regarding cabin size increase the CG will have been carefully calculated. This machine will have been designed as a prototype using the R66 powertrain, but adapted to an R44 testbed. You will probably find that that the prototype has been massed up to replicated the likely R66 weight (depending on test requirement). This just allows the design engineers to gain confidence in their components/systems, by accumulating some hours before the proper R66 airframe is tested.

I imagine there was a detailed R66 concept evaluation before even starting the powertrain evaluation prototype design. Most likely RHC have done extensive wind tunnel or CFD work and have a very good idea of drag coefficients and cruising speed. I would have though they opted for 3 in the back as a good packaging compromise. From memory a "tadpole" shape with 2.4:1 length:width offers the lowest fuselage Cd. Once the flight testing has proven out the R66 powertrain, you will likely see a prototype with the intended R66 fuselage.

Doing it in small stages is the sign of a well run test/development program...

[Ken Wells]

According to Robo mole this will be a 5 seater 3 in the back

[chopper2004]

I guess I'll see it in a few weeks in Heli Expo Houston;)

[mickjoebill]

Note sure if this has been linked, I assume it is genuine despite not hearing much turbine music...

R66 test flight.. the first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMM7jl_smw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO1kx8AuEGA&feature=related


Mickjoebill

[Gordy]

Rumor has it that it crashed yesterday doing H/V testing..Just a rumor though.

[Scissorlink]

A Robinson product crashing, now there is a real surprise

[Gaseous]

They got to test every aspect of its future training role.

On a more serious note, if it did, hope the pilot's OK.

[Graviman]

Are there any precautions taken during HV testing?
I imagine there are at least hand calcs done to estimate the corner points first.

[Elan Head]

Does anyone out there own the copyright to some good, high-res photos of the R66? Please PM me if you do.

Elan

[Freewheel]

I'm going to sound like a smartarse here - without really meaning to I might add - but......


The only people likely to have good enough access to an R66 to get good, high res pictures are those within Robinson.

Give 'em a try, you never know.

Otherwise, does it have to happen right now?

[Elan Head]

My understanding is that Robinson is not releasing R66 photos itself, but is not working too hard to prevent others from taking them. Am happy to be corrected on this.

Elan

[Runway101]

Since Torrance is a public airport you can walk to the ramp and take pictures.

[johned0]

R101, you beat me to it.

I did a touch and go at Torrance a month ago but with hands on the controls there wasn't much opportunity to take photos.

It was parked near a Red 44 which gave a good idea of the difference in size - very tall.

John

[rotorrookie]

dam it is just as ugly as the rest of the family:yuk::yuk:

[RVDT]

It will be interesting to see how they comply with the current FAR Part 27 Regs regarding crashworthiness in the seating and fuel system. Or will "grandfathering and sunset clauses" allow it to slip in as a derivative of the R44 which is now a 16 year old helicopter?

And with that 30 year old engine in it will need more than the 180 odd litres it currently has available.

[Elan Head]

According to Tim Tucker, "The R66 will be certified to the latest amendment of Part 27."

Elan

[g-mady]

http://i27.tinypic.com/300cx6o.jpg

[Bravo73]

A classic example of 'taking a photo without showing any of the interesting bits'... :{

[Graviman]

Looks sleeker than the '44...

[Helififtysix]

So here is some footage of the new R66 for those of you interested, is it just me or does it look really ugly and not much wider than the R44. Well at least we can have good old chin wag about it. Enjoy

LoopTV.Aero (http://www.looptv.aero/LTVCategory31/FlightTests.aspx)

[Rotorhead412]

Certainly not what i'd call a 'nice to look at' heli!!! :\

[FlyGooseFly!]

Ugly or not - I envy that chap's flying skills ! Obviously an experienced demonstrator and probably hamming it up somewhat when he spied the camerafolk but nevertheless - more power to his elbow - and many more happy landings.

Goose.

[rotorspin]

I am an ex R-44 owner and looked for my next move and bought a 206 B3, as there was no turbine version of the Robbie....I still fly the 44 and have to say when I am in it I love it. But it has the obvious downsides of looking ugly and sounding like an old truck starting up.

I am shocked that nobody from the design dept came up with something that has better looks for the 66? It now sounds like a real heli, but still has the look of a very old and odd helicopter.

22's and 44's were always aimed at private owners and I haven't met a private owner of one yet that wouldn't want to make the Robbie design sleeker...

So, the 66 is going to have to be CHEAP to compete with other single engine turbnes, and had they spent a bit of time on the look of it, they probably could have taken the Jetranger, EC120 and other singles head on.......

Nice to see it finally fly, but hope this is a prototype that is in "design stage" rather than the "final" ugly bird it is?

:ugh:

[Heliringer]

Who cares if it's ugly, I don't.

Will it be a good work machine?

Does it have good running costs?

Will it make us more money than buying and running a EC120/Jet Ranger?

These are important, not what it looks like.

We have never lost a tender due to the client thinking the Helicopter is UGLY.

[R44-pilot]

I personally dont think its ugly! Its not a great looking helicopter but there's certainly uglier heli's out there, I personally think the Mi's are damn ugly but I bet there bleeding great at what they do!

Like this will be, ideal for the private owner who wants that bit more power and extra seat they didnt get with there R44, what does every owner say about the R44? "I wish there was a little more power and an extra seat would be nice" Thats exactly what Robinson has done and I can't fault him.

Its gonna give new cpl(h)'s a cheaper way of gaining turbine hours, I also think it will be able to do some proper commercial work, slinging etc... I see people have done slinging with R44's well the same ship with lots more power and payload is a winner if you ask me, all as long as the price is kept down!
Thats going to be its down turn, if it's not priced well below a 206 ad 500 I can't see how it can compete in a commercial world, private and training maybe, as there gonna be readily available at schools in a few years (just my predictions).

It does look sleeker, notice the line down the bottom of the windows lines up with the bottom of the windscreen, put the 44 next to it and you'll see, I think it makes all the difference.

The one thing I would say and can't for the life of me figure out, is why Frank Robinson didnt put a FADEC in it, he knows it's going to be use by students all over the world, just cant get my head around it. I would also do a real tricked out model with Glass cockpit and FADEC, it would be a good dtepping stone onto a bigger machine. just my 2 cents anyway. I think the Police model if and when they bring one out would be nice too. and probably sell a few in the States where they dont require twins.

[ReverseFlight]

Sorry, Frank I won't be buying an R66. I prefer a turbine with a cyclic stuck to the floor.

I have owned two R44 Clipper 1s and an R22 Beta2 but I never got used to the T-cyclic in the R44. Don't know where to stick it (no pun intended). Maybe I'm not built for it but I thought the R44 was designed for a person of average build (as I am).

I still love the R22 though - fits like a hand in glove for me.

[Outwest]

Do you think they could have made the mast just a bit longer :eek:

Where is the maintenance crew going to store the 14 ft extension ladder? ;)

[R44-pilot]

"Do you think they could have made the mast just a bit longer http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

Where is the maintenance crew going to store the 14 ft extension ladder? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif"

What are you suppose to do for preflight check?? :ugh: Build some scafolding? :}

[Outwest]

Or maybe this: Dura III | Dura-Stilts (http://www.durastilts.com/dura-iii) :}

[windowseatplease]

Mmmm... that mast is awfully long.

It's a shame it won't have a "real" cyclic.

Will it be a success? Hard to tell, I think some private owners will buy it because a) they want the lastest toy, and b) they want the turbine sound. but it will have to be a hell lot cheaper than a B206/Hughes 500 to make impact in the commercial world.

People may just view it as "an R44 with a different engine".

It mat not matter to people how ugly it is, but...ask yourself this question - how successful would the EC120 have been if it had been ugly? Given it's poor performance, and high maintenance costs, some of it's success is down to fact people like to be seen operating/stepping out of it.

[FLY 7]

Front cabin looks quite spacious, but rear must be tight for three. Be interested in the performance of the new RR 300 turbine.

I'd like to have seen an articulated 3 or 4 blade rotor (without that huge mast), more substantial skids (perhaps with oleos), and proper cyclics.

But that's why Robbies are cheap. Wish Schweizer and Enstrom would get more aggressive in this end of the market.

[EN48]

Wish Schweizer and Enstrom would get more aggressive in this end of the market.

Based on estimates of R66 pricing, Enstrom is very competitive with the 480B turbine at about $1mm, and this is for a REAL helicopter!

[HillerBee]

It's no comparison to the EC120 (one of the best looking helicopters ever in my opinion) We also don't know anything about the performance so we can't compare of those either. One thing is for sure, Frank managed to build another ugly helicopter.

[choppertop]

When I attended the Robinson safety course in Torrance last summer, amidst the safety messages there was much propaganda about the merits of the R44 over rival single turbines. So ... er ... why then the R66?

[windowseatplease]

So ... er ... why then the R66?


Because Frank sees a gap in the market for an 'affordable' entry level turbine that gives more space/power than the R44 but is much cheaper to buy/run than a B206/C120/H500.

Will his gamble pay off? Only time will tell...

[Robbo Jock]

The tails of the skids in the hover seemed quite low with only the pilot on board, what's it going to be like with three pax in the back?

[FLY 7]

Will his gamble pay off? Only time will tell...

Probably.

But not because Robinson helicopters are the best (many people loathe them). It's because:

1. Robinson products are cheap/affordable
2. As such they have captured market control
3. Train in an R22, buy an R44, aspire to an R66
4. The competition haven't really challenged this

[HeliCraig]

Hopefully better, because they sit forward of the mast?

(That said, I guess we won't know until we see proper CoG figures etc; in the same way we don't know what was in the back on that test flight!).

[R44-pilot]

The tails of the skids in the hover seemed quite low with only the pilot on board, what's it going to be like with three pax in the back?

Sits the same as a R44 with 1 pob, and if it's gonna be the same as the R44, you have to load two front up first. i.e there shouldnt be 3 in the back 1 in the front, it would have to be 2+2 configuration. Like the R44 is not just with a little extra seat squeezed in the back.(in the above case empty)

I should imagine it wont be too bad in the back width ways, because if you think about the 'drinks holder' (obviously to be used as a seat) between the rear seats, that, plus upto 8" wouldnt be too bad really. Don't think the things any longer is it? So probably the same leg room which is medioca imo, not much good for proper charter like a B206, ok for pleasure flights though I would guess, but I think they would still use a piston for that because 1 seat wont out way the extra operating costs.

It'll be interesting to see what it burns an hour......:hmm:

As said, I think the possible success of this will be determined by its operating costs.....

[FH1100 Pilot]

1) "Three in the back." Heh. Now that's a joke. Well, if you mean three adults, which won't fit. Okay, *would* fit for a five-minute sightseeing ride, but anything longer will be torture. (Is there a centre console? Where do the centre passenger's feet go?) Two adults and a (small) child, much better. I think we're going to see some bubble windows in the rear doors before the first one rolls out of the hangar.

2) I gotta tell you, I sure don't like that long mast. Wow. But even a LongRanger mast is scary. Ever seen one? Ever see how much of the mast sticks up *above* the trans compared to how much goes down in it? Ever wonder about the forces on the mast bearing, not to mention the transmission mounts during cruise flight or even heavy maneuvering? Yikes. That long R-66 mast is just disturbing. (I predict the R-66 will have the same sloppy handling of a 206.)

3) People have noted the nose-high hover attitude. That may have less to do with c.g. than some forward tilt of the mast, like a 206. I'd bet Frank gave the mast another degree or three of tilt vs. the R-44. (And I wonder if Frank didn't extend the mast to get the hub further forward to help out with #4 below?)

4) But c.g. *will* be an issue. Isn't the baggage compartment pretty much right under the mast? Which means you can't really use baggage to counter balance a big load in the cabin, which is ENTIRELY forward of the mast! All two-blade systems have about five inches of c.g. range. The R-66 will be set up so that with one pilot and no baggage the c.g. will be right at the rear limit. Then the problem becomes cyclic travel in high speed cruise. There was a damn good reason Bell put the 206 trans over the back seat. Without that, the L-model would not have been possible.

5) Friend of mine used to fly a 47G-2 doing traffic around NYC. Backup was an En-280. Side-by-side in the hangar, I asked Lou which one he prefererred. He pointed at the Bell: "Industrial strength." And then at the Enstrom: "Household strength." Enough said. (No offense intended to the Enstrom crowd. I've got time in the F-28/280 and quite like them.)

I look at the R-66 and see household strength.

Conclusion: Nevermind all of the above. With Frank's reputation and worldwide dealer network, he will sell every R-66 he can build, no doubt. Can't carry five adults? No problem. Hot/high performance not great? No problem. Not a good sling ship? No problem. There is a market for the little scooter, and if he can bring it in for under USD $1 million, buyers will be lined up all the way to the Mexican border. Mark my words.

[rotorboater]

When the pilot has the machine in the hover at the runway, the disc is level but the skids are at about 30 degrees, looks a bit odd.

[Head Turner]

Is there so much money out there at this time of financial worries that this 'Goat' will sell? Most likely Barak O'Bama will find an Irish Leprecorn to help out dear 'ol Frank to sell his machines. I'd like to hear how the money will flow to keep the production line in motion.

[Freefall77]

Some information on weight, fuel capacity and fuel burn can be found on the link below,


http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/robinson-ties-its-future-to-r66/ (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/robinson-ties-its-future-to-r66/)

Seems to have similar endurance to the 44.
No mention of cruise speed!!

[Freewheel]

FH1100,

What you're saying is that the R66 will have no better performance/load carrying capacity than an Enstrom 480B or even an FH1100, at a similar cost and all the drawbacks that half the world seems to loathe of anything with an R on the side.

I agree that there will be issues with the extremely long mast, but given that there are a number of R44's that shake themselves crazy on the ground, I expect the R66 will be even worse.

The biggest advantage, agreed, is the marketing/familiarity of the person buying their 2nd helicopter.

I think it will probably be the 3rd place in sales, but if the R44 is at 800ish a year, the R22 about 400, 200 of these things per annum is probably going to be quite a return.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Freewheel:What you're saying is that the R66 will have no better performance/load carrying capacity than an Enstrom 480B or even an FH1100, at a similar cost and all the drawbacks that half the world seems to loathe of anything with an R on the side.
Izzat what I said? Kinda sounds like me. I don't agree though that "half the world" loathes anything with an R on the side. "R's" sales numbers would seem to be counter to that.
I agree that there will be issues with the extremely long mast, but given that there are a number of R44's that shake themselves crazy on the ground, I expect the R66 will be even worse.
You know it!
The biggest advantage, agreed, is the marketing/familiarity of the person buying their 2nd helicopter.

I think it will probably be the 3rd place in sales, but if the R44 is at 800ish a year, the R22 about 400, 200 of these things per annum is probably going to be quite a return.
If Frankie sells 200 R-66's per year, he will go to his grave a very happy (and very rich) man. And frankly (no pun intended), I see exactly that happeneing.

[Ian Corrigible]

Most likely Barak O'Bama will find an Irish Leprecorn to help out dear 'ol Frank to sell his machines.
Unlikely given Frank's political leanings... :E

I/C

[darrenphughes]

Unlikely given Frank's political leanings...

Yeah, didn't he just have George Dubbya and Aaaanold visit not so long ago!

The first thing Arnold said to GW when he seen the R66 was; "git to the chappa, now!!":}
Sorry couldn't resist!!

[fluffy5]

Does this R66 have three or two seats in the back, if there is hardly any room to swing a cat if there is three seats. Frank has just made an aircraft like the enstrom, md500 with very little commercial outlet to get a family of four in comfortably, not like a 206 or EC120. Why do people learn to fly a turbine ? because they can or to get a type with the capacity for more pax, or making money commercially.

fluffy

[nervouspassenger]

Pictures here:

Robinson R66 Reception Torance CA (http://buyarobinsonhelicopter.com/66w2/)

[cyclic_fondler]

Looking athe instrument panel and the the airspeed indicator goes all the way up to 170Knots but there was no red line on it to indicate any possible clues to speed. :(

Shame no pictures of the rear passenger seating.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Also, notice something else? No trans oil temp *or* pressure gauges. A chip detector/light, obviously - and a caution light, most certainly. But in this day and age, no press/temp gauge for the trans?

Unforgivable.

On second look, the cabin does appear to be wide enough to seat three "more or less" comfortably in the back. But the question of legroom still remains.

[nathan_m]

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/RkyMtnHI2/Robinson%20R66/DSCN2849.jpg



http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/RkyMtnHI2/Robinson%20R66/DSCN2846.jpg



http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/RkyMtnHI2/Robinson%20R66/DSCN2847.jpg

[nathan_m]

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/RkyMtnHI2/Robinson%20R66%20Videos/th_DSCN2878.jpg (http://s298.photobucket.com/albums/mm243/RkyMtnHI2/Robinson%20R66%20Videos/?action=view&current=DSCN2878.flv)

[n5296s]

Looking at the picture, I don't see what the fuss is about. For sure it's cozy for 3, but no worse than 3 in the back of a car. Many years ago I was a frequent passenger in the back of a Jetranger (the DEC helicopter fleet if anyone here remembers that) and with three people it was VERY cozy... this doesn't look any worse.

The controls look exactly like an R44. I notice they haven't taken the opportunity to put an Ident button on the stick, even.

n5296s

[EN48]

The controls look exactly like an R44


Almost everything looks exactly like an R44 - "economical" to phrase it in delicate terms. Cant tell from the pix the design of the rotor drive system - belts or gears or ?

[n5296s]

One thing that puzzles me... how come it has a mixture control knob? I suppose you COULD do the Fuel Condition this way but it seems unusual, to say the least. On the other hand I guess it really is a turbine since it doesn't have the mag test positions on the key.

As for the drive, if it ISN'T either belt or gears then it will be jolly interesting to find out what it is! Photonic drive? Electric transmission like on railway locomotives? Chains? Hydrostatic?

Actually there's a pic I saw somewhere which seems to show the engine angled upwards (from the rear), presumably it can just drive the gearbox directly, no need for a "clutch" (quotes because it's the most un-clutch-like clutch I've ever come across).

n5296s

[EN48]

As for the drive, if it ISN'T either belt or gears then it will be jolly interesting to find out what it is! Photonic drive? Electric transmission like on railway locomotives? Chains? Hydrostatic?



I knew the second after I pressed the Submit key that someone would jump on me for my lack of precision. Does it use belts & gears (similar to the 22/44), or just gears?


presumably it can just drive the gearbox directly, no need for a "clutch"


The RR300 free turbine design almost certainly eliminates the need for a clutch such as found on the 22/44, but even so belts may be used for additional engine speed reduction and/or getting power where it needs to be. OTOH, these functions could be integral with the MR transmission.

[EN48]

how come it has a mixture control knob?


My guess is that this is the emergency fuel shutoff, and that there is no "condition lever" per se, just the twist grip throttle.

[FH1100 Pilot]

And furthermore! Because of no tunnel and no "broom closet" and no engine pan intruding into the headroom, the center passenger in the R-66 has it pretty good...at least compared to a 206 or 500 that is...

The "mixture control" is most certainly the link to a mechanical fuel shutoff valve. Interesting carryover. Let's hope no one attempts to "lean this one out" to get the fuel burn down a little...

With the RR300 mounted on an angle like that, we can assume that Frank is using a driveshaft connection to the trans (wrong angle for a belt?). How and where he reduces the 6600 (or so) output shaft rpm will remain to be seen...as well as where he puts the freewheeling unit - on the engine like the 206 or on the trans.

Probably make an okay sightseeing ship - for short rides. In Japan. I wonder how much of a useful load it will have with floats and air-conditioning?

[TheMonk]

That's a tall climb to check the rotor head.

[GoodGrief]

Looking athe instrument panel and the the airspeed indicator goes all the way up to 170Knots but there was no red line on it to indicate any possible clues to speed.

Maybe it is because Vne has not been established yet.
If you put a red line on that indicator it becomes a law and you cannot go faster.
Nick would know more about that.

[CaptainKing]

Howzit guys,

Anyone heard anything further on the new and upcoming Robinson R66. I read that it is slightly bigger than the R44 and is a turbine. Also is will be cheaper than the Jetty but more expensive than the R44. I think it's getting released in around November this year.

Any new information from anyone, some pictures would be nice.

Thanks

[kwachon]

Not just a picture, but a video of the first lift off.

YouTube - Robinson R66 N466R liftoff at factory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMM7jl_smw)

KW:ok:

[Ian Corrigible]

CaptainKing - AIN ran this (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/with-in-development-r66-robinson-bets-on-turbines/) feature on the program last month, in which Frank R. tempers his expectations of the R66 ("fuel consumption is too…high and parts costs are too high"). The article also suggests deliveries are more likely to commence in 2010 rather than '09. Given the depth of the current recession (which may well stretch into 2011) it's not a great time to launch a new GA-targeted project, so later may be better.

I/C

[FLY 7]

If it was my money, I'd much rather put it in the already proven, similarly priced, Enstrom 480B.

[darrenphughes]

The 480B is derived from the TH28 (a contender in the 90's for a new US Army training helicopter) and appears to be substantially more robust. It has a far superior safety record (never killed anyone) and fit and finish are excellent, IMO.

I take no pleasure in making this statement but it looks like you spoke too soon; http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/375572-fatal-heli-crash-dominican-republic.html

I'm no Robbie fanboy, but with the amount of them out there versus Enstroms it should go without saying that there are going to be more accidents in Robbies and therefor more fatalities. Just a thought.

[Matari]

EN48:

Certainly seems like you get more bang for the buck with the venerable Enstrom!

One thing I've always wondered, especially since the other posters have discussed seating in the R66 model: how flexible is the seating arrangement in your Enstrom?

That is, do you buy a certain configuration from the factory, and that is what you are stuck with outside of a major modification, or are the seats easily reconfigured depending upon the role?

I would imagine that one good thing with the R66 (and the Jetranger, etc.) is the relative mission flexibility...that is, you can train (slap in some duals), or carry 4 pax (if weight allows, etc.).

With the Enstrom, it seems that if you bought the "executive" seating version, you'd not be able to fly duals, etc. Right or wrong?

Enstrom Seating Chart
(http://www.enstromhelicopter.com/enstrom_new/documents/480B%20seat%20configuration%20photo.pdf)

[Matari]

EN48:

Clear, thanks. Sure seems like a very capable machine.

[Hilico]

But why has a turbine got a mixture control?

[zip]

Does anyone have an update on the R66 ?

Seems there are a huge number of people waiting to buy one .....:cool:

[Never in Balance]

I heard rumor has it they are still having trouble with the crash worthiness of the middle seat. Don't know if that's the truth or not.

[nigelh]

Matari ...you probably have the answer by now but all of those seating configs can be changed by the pilot by just moving seats , so yes you can have duals and 4 people . Great machine and best value on the market by a mile and v v cheap to run 10 /10

[FLY 7]

I went around the Factory late last year and there was no sign of anything relating to the R66 and no discussion about it. Seems it's all in a restricted area.

No doubt, like other Robinson products, it will probably be a sales success in due course, but as ever, it doesn't mean it will be the best helicopter for the money (new or used).

Enstrom really should be marketing the 480B better, it's a very good package.

[The Night Owl]

I heard that they should start arriving by October 2010 in the UK although no doubt this could be delayed...

[cyclic_fondler]

Hopefully Big Frank will reveal the progress on the R66 at the Heliexpo next month and maybe we'll see what the final R66 will actually look like.

[JimBall]

Night Owl, it'll be on sale only in the US for a year after launch, then ROTW. I believe the plan is one per distributor worldwide. Then the public.

[victor papa]

nigelh, please be careful with the pilots changing the seats around statements. Where I operate the CAA is getting so strict that a pilot may no longer remove a quick release door of a R22/AS350. A licensed engineer on type must remove seats incl the co pilot quick release and even has to certify the bambi bucket and once it is hooked certify the installation.

[3top]

"Where I operate the CAA is getting so strict that a pilot may no longer remove a quick release door of a R22/AS350. A licensed engineer on type must remove seats incl the co pilot quick release and even has to certify the bambi bucket and once it is hooked certify the installation."

At some point it will be so out of hand, that you cannot start-up anymore!:mad:

Than everything will stop. The CAA-"specialists" will all get fired, because if there is no one flying anymore we don't need them! :E

A couple of months later we start again (all by ourselves) and hopefully it will be many years before CAA is all mad again! :}


Cheers,,3top :cool:

[nigelh]

As far as i am aware the seats are designed to be idiot proof and therefore a pilot can change them !! But i agree on your point ....as for the 480B being under rated i couldnt agree more . I have seen them for years and never ever considered owning one . After flying an AS 350 for many years going back to a 206 feels like going from a ferrari to a bus ...when i jumped in and flew the 480B ( not with any view to buy one ) i liked it straight away . 3 blades make for a much nicer experience in comfort and manoevreability ..no neg G issues etc and it has to have the best cockpit of ANY heli incl the 350 !! Masses f room with 3 big pax and a perfect place for the dog in the footwell !!! Have done a hundred hrs in it now and honestly do not miss the 350 ..especially the bills . I reckon it costs 1/3rd of a 350 to run and probably 25% less than a 206 . 3 1/2 hrs endurance makes up for lack of speed ( 115kn) as most places can be reached without fuel stop. Good 4 yr old machine with under 1,000 hrs will cost around £300k same as a 20 yr old jetbanger with 5,000 hrs !!

[Runway101]

Robinson is now accepting orders for the R66. This info comes from my RHC dealer.

RHC is now accepting R66 orders. The base price with standard equipment is $770,000 and the required non-refundable deposit is $75,000. Serial numbers will not be assigned and delivery dates will not be confirmed until after FAA certification is complete.

The R66 will be sold through the dealer network and RHC is currently accepting R66 dealer applications. We will be submitting our application to add the R66 to our R22/R44 dealership and we are compiling an order list to submit along with our application. If you would like your order to be submitted along with our application, please let me know and I will forward purchase documentation as soon as it becomes available.

The R66 will be on display at Heli-Expo in Houston, TX on February 21, 22, and 23, 2010.

[ppheli]

I see there's some information now available, ahead of HAI's show in Houston, on this page here (http://www.helihub.com/2010/02/09/robinson-r66-deposits-being-taken/).

[SimonClif]

Robinson Helicopter Company Newscopter Page (http://www.robinsonheli.com/r66turbine.htm)

Prices to download as well, no direct link from the Robinson site though!

[Runway101]

http://www.r44sales.com/documents/RHCR66PressRelease.pdf

The following data is taken directly from the RHC press release which specifically states that "R66 SPECIFICATIONS ARE BASED ON PRELIMINARY TEST DATA AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE"


Weights:
Gross Weight - 2,700 lbs
Empty Weight (incl oil & avionics) - 1,280 lbs
Max Fuel (73.6 gal) - 493 lbs
Passengers and Baggage (with max fuel) - 927 lbs

Performance:
Cruise Speed - approx 120 kts
Max Range (no reserve) - approx 325 nm / 375 statute miles
Hover Ceiling IGE - over 10,000 ft
Hover Ceiling OGE - over 10,000 ft

Rate of Climb - over 1,000 fpm
Max Operating Altitude - 14,000 ft

[JCR]

Well folks-get your cheque books out. RHC now taking orders for the R66. Hope its a hit.

Hope all Ppruners well.

JR

[krypton_john]

Just noticed this - is this new or did I miss something?

ROBINSON Turbine Helicopters, Used ROBINSON Turbine Helicopters, ROBINSON Turbine Helicopters For Sale At Controller.com (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=7&Manu=ROBINSON&setype=1)

[helihub]

R66 is testing today at Big Bear City Airport

[krypton_john]

Nigel: "Matari ...you probably have the answer by now but all of those seating configs can be changed by the pilot by just moving seats , so yes you can have duals and 4 people . Great machine and best value on the market by a mile and v v cheap to run 10 /10"

The rear seats in the 480B look impossibly small when the front seat is in place - and thats with the front seat moved quiite a way forward and duals removed. The front seat passenger looks then like he obscures much of the pilot's view to the right.

At least the R66 looks like it can carry 5 with duals in place?

To me, the thing that would make the R66 a non starter for a private owned machine would be the 12 year limit.

Does anyone know if R66 will have the 12 year limit?

[ppheli]

Sloane Helicopters have released prelim performance (nothing seems to have changed from Robinsons previously given figures) and pricing $790K ex factory here (http://www.helihub.com/2010/09/01/r66-preliminary-preformance-figures-released/)

[MPR]

Looks like a date has been set - link (http://www.helihub.com/2010/09/29/r66-certification-expected-25th-october/)

[206 jock]

http://www.robinsonheli.com/prarchive/pressrelease/r66_turbine_receives_faa_certificate.pdf

Certification acheived. I wonder when the first blade will delaminate:)

[zalt]

I wonder when the first starts in the GOM.

[Never in Balance]

Have any been shipped to customers yet? I heard that they had a few sitting on the show room floor ready to go.
Would be interesting to hear how they are going in the field.
NiB

[lelebebbel]

Yes, the first one was delivered to Helistream, Costa-Mesa CA at the end of October.

[ppheli]

R66 Flight Test now available here (http://www.helihub.com/2010/11/08/flight-test-robinson-r66-turbine/)

[CRAN]

Guys,

It will be a little while yet before most of us get to fly the new Robinson R66, so I am curious to hear from the few pilots that have flown the new machine as to how its flight characteristics, stability, inertia, power margins and vibration levels compare to the Jet Ranger (it's stated competitor).

All thoughts gratefully received.

CRAN
:8

[miket_68]

Does anyone know when the 1st R66 will be available in the UK.

A type rating and SFH would be great but I would be satisfied (for now) with an hour flight training.

Thanks.
M

[helihub]

Heli Air are due #16 at the end of January or early Feb.

Sloane are due #17 shortly thereafter

[toptobottom]

A couple of short videos and piccies from the R66 launch at Heli Air this afternoon.

HcDc5sUK0OE



Z9fKmZDk5p4



http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/R66/IMG_0925.jpghttp://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/R66/IMG_0927.jpg

[delta3]

Of N-reg... ?

d3

[HeliCraig]

It's not certified by EASA yet, so no possibility of registering on the G (or any other European register).

Out of interest does anyone know if RHC are working directly with EASA to get it certified, or are HeliAir / Sloanes / Dealers assisting or trying to get it done?

[JimBall]

XiIQ_oDxqNc

[Bravo73]

<snip youtube clip>

Ah good ol' HeliScare. Straight up into the H/V curve.

Good to see nothing changes... :rolleyes:

[g-mady]

My thoughts exactly bravo73! :=

MADY

[500e]

Looks flash though, :=

[Epiphany]

The R66 obviously has an engine that never fails because if there was the remotest possibility then the pilot would never have used that profile with those spectators so close now would he?

[Heliport]

Anyone know who was flying the 66?
Looks like someone with more ego than experience. :eek:

[helihub]

Sean flew it.

[parasite drag]

I've no axe to grind here...'no harm no foul' and all that but as one of the throng standing in very close proximity to those blades I was surprised, to say the least, that this was allowed to happen given all the H & S directives these days :confused:

[cjbiz]

i thought the removed posts were pretty spot on and the youtube video did certainly NOT display a market leader in the industry run to professional standards




Posts haven't been removed.
They've been moved.
To this thread.

SP

[hands_on123]

Imagine if the donk had quit and it has crashed onto the pad. Not the kind of launch the R66 needs!

[g-mady]

cjbiz :D Well said that man!

All this talk about professional airmanship and all i ever see is the opposite!

MADY

[Hughes500]

Well if that machime was on my AOC and I took off like that I would be having an interview without coffee with my ops inspector and quite rightly so.
SB may have flown everything but he has a lot to still learn, obviously!
If the donk did fail or tr come to that and someone was killed SB would be at Her majesty's pleasure so we wouldn't be worrying about whats going on at Heliair

[tracker69]

nice to see some proper flying and not the boring cant do this cant do that !

[DennisK]

Evening all .... as a guy who is somewhat known for not flying the Robinsons ... this is just to say I spent today flying a couple of hours on 66NN at WAP. Full report to appear in an Aviation Mag soon. But ignoring the big picture .... all I can say is that the machine I flew is the smoothest ship it has ever been my pleasure to experience AND .... the quickest in its class. 125 knots indicated at 1000 feet & 5 degrees OAT, four up (one SB) three quarters fuel. Torque showing 70%. Did a VNE run at 82% Tq to 150 mph when a steepish turn produced nil increase in vibration. Also a 60 knot autorotational descent, (wind L & V) three up, throttle to idle ... to a zero speed vertical touch down skids on. Am I a convert? Maybe!

PS. Still has a lousy cyclic tho' Dennis Kenyon.

[hands_on123]

Wow! I'm going to all my takeoffs like that in future because it's really cool. Who cares about the risks to bystanders.

Do I look cool?

08Z-FmgbFK0

[hands_on123]

125 knots indicated at 1000 feet & 5 degrees OAT, four up (one SB) three quarters fuel.


Is that much quicker than an R44?

[toptobottom]

Not that much quicker, BUT this was 4 up (including SB), 3/4 fuel AND at only 70% N1 (roughly equivalent to 20" MAP on a 44?). And VNE at 82%?! Apparently, the 300 had to be de-tuned as it was too powerful out of the box; sounds like it still is.

On paper, it's an excellent machine with masses of storage space, good performance/enduranceand and, compared with the competition, it represents great value. But, as Dennis says, it still has THAT cyclic, a mast that looks like a giraffe on viagra and just looks and feels cheap. The 5th seat is a legal achievement more than a practical place to park an adult for anything more than a short trip.

The R66 shares many components with the R44, which isn't a bad thing if you're buying a 44, but at double the money for the 66, I'd expect something a bit more solid. It's a shame, because with that extra power and very little engineering effort, we could even have had proper door handles :}

[hands_on123]

Mmmm... it does seem like an awful lot more money for not a lot more. I'm sure it flies very smooth, as most brand new helicopters do.

I think the fact that it sounds like a 'proper' helicopter, and not a tractor is the appeal to most people.

It's a shame the Frank is still clinging onto the (universally hated?) t-bar cyclic system. Surely a proper cyclic wouldn't put that much more weight on?

Does anyone know if the R66 is "belt driven" like the R44?

[toptobottom]

It is belt driven, which is another shortcoming IMO. There isn't a great track record for belt driven turbines

[tu154]

It's not belt driven. But never get the truth get in the way of a good aircraft bashing! :E

[toptobottom]

Happy to stand corrected :ouch:

This is an interesting extract, taken from here (http://www.helihub.com/2010/11/08/flight-test-robinson-r66-turbine/)

A single Rolls-Royce model 250-C300/A1 (commercial designation RR300) free turbine turbo shaft engine powers the R66. The engine is mounted at a 37 degree nose-up attitude aft of the baggage compartment. A sprag type overrunning clutch or freewheel unit is splined directly into the engine power take off shaft. The free-wheel unit is connected directly to the main rotor gearbox via a shaft with flexible couplings at each end. A ring and pinion spiral bevel gear set at the main gearbox input reduces engine output speed to tail rotor driveline RPM. A second ring and pinion stage reduces speed from driveline to main rotor RPM. The main rotor gearbox is pressure lubricated with several internal oil jets.

The oil is pumped via a pump fitted to the main rotor gearbox through an airframe-mounted filter and cooled by an oil cooler, which receives its airflow from the engine cooling fan. Drive is transmitted directly to the main rotor gearbox. Engine oil cooling is via a ‘squirrel cage’ cooling fan mounted to the shaft forward of the tail rotor drive shaft, supplying cooling air through the engine oil cooler mounted on the left side of the engine bay.

[DennisK]

Thanks 154 ... you just beat me to it. Odd how ppruners will come up with incorrect info and prepared to post. Even so ... the Enstrom 480 has been flying nicely on a rubber belt for 15 years or so and I haven't heard of one failing yet. Add to that an identical system has been used on the 28/280 models since 1968, so perhaps a belt drive isn't so bad after all.

Back to the R66 ... I can't imagine any pilot getting out of the type without being impressed by the way above average, smooth ride. I was astonished. And as a side and daftish note, and as a gimick, the Chief Engineer, (JM), his lady wife and tallish daughter somehow managed to get in the luggage locker for a kinky publicity shot, but it did happen! Now I'm sure the type will take my golf clubs ... and yours ... and yours ... and

Best wishes to all. Dennis Kenyon.

PS. All you Saturday 'open day' blighters at Heli Air 66 into left only empty barrels for my Sunday visit!

[krypton_john]

I'm very surprised (but probably should not be) by the degree of negativity.

The cyclic isn't pretty but i doubt it is universally despised. It does actually work and does stay out of the way of your legs.

An extra seat even if small would be very significant to me. Proper storage space even more so. The ability to load up all the above, a decent amount of fuel and still be able to get off the ground? Priceless. Come on people, this is a different world to the r44, a machine that was itself ground-breaking in the helicopter industry.

It is faster than a B206 and much faster than a 480B. Cheaper to purchase than both and I would guess much easier to maintain based on Frank's driving philosophy.

I'm just grateful that someone has put out a new helicopter in the last 10 years. I want one, even if it is butt ugly.

(Actually I think I could even get used to the looks.)

[hands_on123]

The t-bar cyclic is ok if you're the one doing the flying, but try teaching with one. Constantly having to fly/demo with your arm extended in mid-air. Nightmare.

[krypton_john]

Good point. Why don't they design a variant "instructor's dual cyclic" that doesn't have the angle?

[Hedge36]

As expressed above, the t-bar has some positive points in that it's easy to get around... but I'm not looking forward to instructing with one.

The overall look of Frank's machines leaves a great deal to be desired. For some reason, though, the R-66 seems a bit less ugly than the -44 and the -22 - must be the sound.

[waragee]

I really like using Robinsons unique cyclic, have used it since 1989 and many thousands of hours. I find it gives great access and useability. I have even used the dual cyclic installed with the pistol grip at 180 degrees facing upwards when operating downwind training an advanced mustering student to give a bit more cabin room and was well able to conduct all operations.
If you look past the unusualness of the cyclic and become at home in the cockpit it performs very well, there are thousands of pilots out there now that dont know any different.

[Arrrj]

I agree with KJ from NZ.

I own a R44 and think that the the "universally despised" cyclic is 100% OK to fly with and it allows really easy access - unlike many other helicopters I have flown where you have to fight with the cyclic to get access to the seat.

R66 performance will allow 4 pax, 2 sets of golf sticks and overnight bags - plus enough fuel to get somewhere meaningful. That is a whole lot different to a R44, and at not a great increase in cost.

I am very keen to fly one, and will over the next month or so.

For those of you who own your helis, compare the price & performance (particularly useful load) of the R66 to a AS350 B2, EC120B, B206 etc...there is a compelling argument for the R66 and it's a tough decision on what to buy. Sure you can't take 4 guys with axes and boots in a R66, but for many corporate or private tasks it looks like the machine for the job.

Arrrrj

[toptobottom]

and at not a great increase in cost
:confused::confused::confused:

You need to check your price list again...

[FLY 7]

Not to mention the limited life depreciation :ooh:

[toptobottom]

According to RHC's website, the basic purchase price for a 'standard' R66 is 88% more than a 'standard' R44 RII. That's quite a lot :ok:


http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/R66/R44.jpg




http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/R66/R66.jpg

[Runway101]

Any idea where in the US one can test ride the R66?

[FLY 7]

Interesting, from the price list above, that the R44 weighs so much more than the R66.

[madman1145]

The R66 is no R44, though a lot of design features are comparable. But everyone knows that if you add the label "Turbine" to an aircraft, price increase dramatically.

Look at the Piper PA-46 Malibu airplane. You can get a piston driven Mirage or a turboprop driven Meridian version. Though very very similarly versions of the same airplane, the Meridian is twice as expensive than the Mirage, with the same avionic suite.

And in my opinion, the R66 has more in common with the old Jetranger such as number of seats, payload, cargo room etc., than an R44.

- madman

[puntosaurus]

Fly 7

Specifications (RR300)Data from Rolls-Royce[5]

General characteristicsType: Twin-spool turboshaft
Length: 41 in
Diameter: 26.8 in
Dry weight: 176 lb

Specifications (IO-540-K1A5)
Data from FAA Lycoming IO-540 Series Type Certificate. Retrieved: 1 September 2008.

General characteristics
Type: Six-cylinder air-cooled horizontally opposed engine
Bore: 5.125 in (130.2 mm)
Stroke: 4.375 in (111.1 mm)
Displacement: 541.5 in³ (8.9 L)
Dry weight: 438 lb (199 kg)

[toptobottom]

Interesting, from the price list above, that the R44 weighs so much more than the R66.


But not surprising; the RR300 weighs just 176lbs compared with the IO540's 438lbs, a difference of 262lbs. That's a lot of payload... :8

[FLY 7]

Agree, the saving is in the power plant, but as a bigger helicopter I'm still surprised how much weight appears to have been saved.

[toptobottom]

Well, it's not THAT much bigger (which is why that middle seat is so cramped), but I'm guessing composite materials have come a long way since the 44 was designed in the 80s. What is interesting is how a 22% increase in power and a 15% reduction in basic weight manifests itself in the machine's peformance.

[Ian Corrigible]

But not surprising; the RR300 weighs just 176lbs compared with the IO540's 438lbs, a difference of 262lbs. That's a lot of payload...
Bear in mind a large chunk of that saving is eaten up by the Allison 250's higher fuel burn.

I/C

[toptobottom]

I/C - good point (what Allison 250?)

The 66 takes 73.6 gallons of Jet-A1 (493lbs); the 44 takes 48.9 gallons of Avgas (294lbs), so 199lbs gets scoffed up straight away :}

[puntosaurus]

Well yes, but the thing which piqued Fly 7's interest was the difference in APS (empty) weight between the two craft.

[Tailboom]

Well ive just come back from Wycombe having spent 30 mins flying the R66, what a fantastic machine. I must congratulate Heli Air for the fabulous facility they have there.

For the first flight, 5 of us took off, one of my pals is certainly not small and the machine with just under half tanks lifted off with masses of power to spare. The smoothness of the flight was incredible.

The next flight was just SB and myself the speed is amazing, ive flown the R44 since it was first launched, at it is a very capable machine but this is far better, engine off Auto's from quite high up are just a non event.

From what I can see the R66 is better than the R44 in nearly every point, its faster, more powerfull, bigger, more luggage space, better endurance, bigger seats, smoother, I could keep on going.

We have to remember that for a civillian heli the R44, especially in the Raven II format is a super machine, but this is better in every catagory.

People whine about the Cyclic, ive never had a problem with it, and ive instructed for years using it and its not that bad.

Every one who flew in the R66 today left the machine with huge smiles on their faces, go and try it and see for yourselves.