Md500 Or Jetranger

[levo]

Which is the best for privete use ,fores and against/ fuel per mile/ maintanence costs /reliability overall capability/? value for money many thanks Levo.

[SASless]

From a pilot's perspective the 500 wins hands down....from the passenger perspective the Jet Box wins.

Cost to operate...the 206 wins.

For spare parts availilbilty....the 206 wins.

For speed and sheer fun of flying.....the 500 wins.

Fuel consumption.....the 206 wins.

The 500 can land in smaller places....and is fun to fly.

If you should ever have a seriously bad landing....the 500 wins against the 206 by miles.

[razer]

Here's a nice comparison between the R44, MD500E, and B206.

http://helicopterflight.net/r44_v_bell_&_md.htm

-Razer

[remote hook]

I agree with SASless, the 500


Did anyone say it's fun to fly??? You put it on, you don't get in.

RH

[havick]

The 500 is a little Ferrari, but the 206 will be cheaper to operate and source parts for.

[leemind]

500 = Ferrari
206 = Mondeo

Like all the previous posters said, if you want to take your granny for a trip round the countryside or you are running a mini cab service take the Mondeo.

If it's yours and you enjoy flying, take the 'rarri everytime

In my eyes the analogy is perfect. One is noisy cramped but great fun, the other is comfortable, slow and wallowy.

If it is yours and the difference in running costs makes the choice for you - YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!

[Hughes500]

SASless
Er fuel consumption the 206 wins - I think not. Same engine both between 23 to 25 gals an hour. 500 crusies at 130 kt v 110 kt. So fly 130 nm which has used less fuel ?

500 is cheaper to maintain ( i have owned both types ) 500 does not need some very expensive straps changed every 2 years !!

Compare the time to cover a journey the 500 will use less component times therefore is cheaper on its components asit goes so much quicker

[EMS R22]

Hughes,
500 is cheaper to maintain? I find that hard to believe.:confused:

[agent 99]

110kt cruise!
Is that in a dive with a tail wind?:E

[spinwing]

Mmmmm....

As said previously ...... the 500 if you like flying, control response etc .... bit like flying a responsive airplane .... the JetRanger ... well its more like flying a bowl of porridge (and sloppy porridge at that!).

Also from a maintenance point of view ... the 500 HAS to be cheaper in the long run ... no control hydraulics etc ... engine is less stressed in the 500 install than in the 206. No mandatory TT strap changes on the 500......UNLESS you abuse the head.

Also the 500 has a 125kt cruise or better depending on weight.

Now the question is .... "What model of 500 to get?" for private use a 500A converted to "C" would prob be the way to go.

If you have lotsa money ... perhaps a 500D ... don't go near the "F" or one with the 250 R engine.

Cheers :E

[havick]

If you get a 500 with the 250 R engine in it, are all the engine starts counted? From memory any 500 with the C18 in it, number of starts were not an issue, so probably better for a private owner doing short hops as far as running out of starts before the hot section came due? (happy to be corrected here)

[diethelm]

It is difficult to compare true operating costs between a 206 and a D or E model 500 unless they are both brand new or your are an expert accrual accountant. In most cases you are dealing with aircraft over 15 years old and the historical use, component times remaining and maintenance history will all effect the cost. Most operators complain that they had to spend 30,000 for this part or that part as opposed to doing accrual accounting and saying I "invested" 30,000 in a part which has a life of 4,000 hours and only costs 7.50 per hour.

On a DOC basis, the 500 is less complicated, has the same engine and so I beleive it is cheaper to operate. However, I beleive used 500's have become more expensive in the marketplace than a used 206 and so total cost of owning and operating a 500 may be higher. Aslo, you need a bigger hangar for the 500 as the jet ranger will squeeze into narrow hangar spots due to the head and blades.

Spinwing:

Why do you not like the F? It is the same as a D or E with the exception of a C30 and slightly longer main and tail rotor blades. 650 SHP versus 425. Chews a little more gas in the winter but close to the same in the summer. C30 is actually cheaper to overhaul than a C20R. So for 3 - 5 more gallons an hour, you get a lot more performance. Also, 3200 MAUW versus 3000.

[levo]

Thanks for your veiws

Levo.:ok:

[Whirlygig]

or you are an expert accrual accountant.

You called? :O :E Good press for the bean counters :ok:

Cheers

Whirls

[spinwing]

Diethelm ......

Don't get me wrong .... I loved the 500F ....flew it/them in PNG heaps of power good fun doing long line wonderful ...machine .... except so few made ...probably going to be a problem for a private operator to get/afford parts..... and unless operating hot/high a complete waste of money trying to operate one .... :eek:


Cheers :E

[rotornut]

I trained on a Hughes 300C and then got a 206 endorsement. I understand the 500 feels like the 300 - no hydraulics, tight controls etc. When I flew the 206 it felt like driving a boat. However, it autorotates beautifully and every pilot I know who flew or flies them has a great deal of respect for the machine.
Engineers generally like to work on them except for the servos which always leak. Then you get hydraulic fluid on your hands which attracts black flies out in the bush which is not very pleasant, according to my engineer friends.:yuk:

[Mav27]

I am just finishing up my licenses and looking to get my own Ship. I need some advice on weather it is best to get a piston to start with and build some time in or just go for a turbine. If I get a piston it would be a Enstrom 280FX. My second question is for a personal ship that is a turbine. Which would be a better choice, Hughes 500 C or a Bell 206. The field elevation here is 4230. The terrain consists of a lot of mountains and lakes etc...

[toptobottom]

There are so many variables here, it's almost impossible to suggest a particular model. It depends on what type of flying you do, how many pax, budget, etc. Even the type of hangorage available can affect your choice...

[parasite drag]

The 206 is like a graceful old Jaguar...the 500 is like a fire breathing old Ferrari....the 500 will leave you wearing a silly grin for longer though :ok:

[Two's in]

At the risk of being blunt - how much helicopter can you afford?

Turbines bring simplicity, reliability, outstanding performance, but horrendous running costs. Figure out how many hours per year you are likely to fly (be realistic) and for how many years. From that total see how many TBO's you are going to run into on each aircraft, get a S.W.A.G. on the cost and see if there is any measurable difference to help you make a decision.

If you are reading this while lighting cuban cigars with $100 bills, then just go out and buy an MD 530 :)

[Bravo73]

**cough, cough**

http://1.2.3.10/bmi/www.irishfaminememorial.org/images/gifs/ship_black.gif = ship


:E

[mfriskel]

How much weight will you carry, how many people? How wide is your hangar door? How tall is the hangar door?

500- Lots of fun to fly. Need wide hangar door. Friends won't like the back seats, small kids won't mind. Make sure it has a C20. You can get a 500 in smaller landing spots than the 206. Low exhaust compared to the 206 is something to think about landing in tall dry grass in the mountains.

206- More like a family car, but still fun to fly. Needs a tall hangar door- but can be much narrower than for the 500. More comfortable back seats and room for 3. Will be limited on fuel and pax starting at your field elevation in the summer. More baggage room for fishing tackle, hunting/camping equipment and picnic baskets in the 206.

[JTobias]

The answer also depends on what you intend to do with it.
If you want to cary passengers in comfort than the Jet Ranger is definitely the way to go. If you do want to have some fun then you 'might' consider the 500c.

Also bear in mind that the Jet Ranger is likely to be easier to re-sell in the future. I always though that it was the 500 I wanted, but I chose the Jet Ranger and I have a silly grin every morning when I wake up and realise I have one.

I've recently flown a 500c and watched its progress as its been overhauled and I have to say that whilst it's a great bit of kit and a pleasure to fly. I wouldn't swap my Jet Ranger for one.

Hope this helps.

Joel :ok:

[FLY 7]

If you like Enstroms, how about a 480? Very good helicopters.

[Hughes500]

Well my first turbine was a 500C then purchased a 206B3, sold the jetbanger 12 months later for a 500D, since then have owned 4 x 500E's, but have always kept the D.
That probably sums up which one I would go for. Most important about either machine, make sure you have it surveyed by someone who knows the type before buying. Then have a descent maintenance company look after it.
As for resale value, the 500 wins everytime, never sold one for less than I paid for it. Have a look and see how many 500 are ever for sale compared to 206's

[rick1128]

As piston helicopters go, it is darn hard to beat the Enstrom. Only 9 life limited parts and no major inspections (1200 or 2200 hr) required.

First I would take a careful look at the Type Certificate Data Sheets for each and the ADs for each. Especially the recurring ones. Then get a little time in each to see which ones work best for you. Many like flying the 500, it is a nice handling machine. The Enstrom and the 206 have probably the best safety records out there. As for fuel costs, the 500C and 206B2 will have fuel costs that are close to the 280FX's.

As for the 480, the seating is not as comfortable and the value for money is better on the 500 and 206.

[EN48]

As for the 480, the seating is not as comfortable and the value for money is better on the 500 and 206.


Not as comfortable as what? Which seats? Havent been in a 500 but the 480 front seats have all kinds of room compared to the 206. Depending on use, these may be the seats that are most important. Also, for a given model year and airframe time, the 480 will typically be 30% to 50% less than the equivalent 206, and it looks like similar numbers for the 500. Of course you can buy a 40 year old 206 with 13,000+ hours for a bit less than a 10 year old 480 with 1000 hours, but not sure this is a meaningful comparison.

Also important to consider the "whole product" - insurance costs, availability of parts and service, availability of training, etc. There is much more to aircraft ownership than handling qualities. It is said of some helicopters that the news is both bad and good. The bad news is that every part costs $100,000. The good news is that even if you have the $100,000, the part is not available. Could the 500 be toward this end of the scale, at least compared to the 206 or 480? :E

[Mav27]

I appreciate all of the input. What is the correct slang word used for helicopters? Obviously not ship as I have seen used. Anyway that acknowledged it seems that it all comes down to end use and personal choice as far as a turbine. I tend to lean towards the go fast performance end of the scale. My current hobby is a rear engine Nostalgia top fuel car. You can check it out at Utah Charger (http://www.utahcharger.com) .

I just needed some good advice from those of you with a bunch of experience with ownership and flying in both the MD and the Ranger. So then about jumping into a turbine for a first helicopter?

[Hughes500]

EN48
Dont have a problem with spares for my D and E models. 5 years ago I would have agreed

[EN48]

So then about jumping into a turbine for a first helicopter?


If cost is not the primary constraint, IMHO, this is the way to go if your intent is to end up in a turbine. I took this approach and am happy that I did. Up front costs are higher but you get some of this back when it comes to insurance, training, etc. However, not all turbines are created equal, and a 206 or 480 will likley be a less expensive trainer than the 500.

The most difficult thing about a turbine is learning to start the engine without destroying it. This has proven to be within the capabilities of many but not all humans. ;)

[Hughes500]

EN48 why do you think a jetbox is cheaper to run than a 500 ?

[EN48]

why do you think a jetbox is cheaper to run than a 500 ?


Parts: widely available new & used (many more airframes out there)
Service: everyone knows how to fix a 206; the ubiquitous turbine helo
Training: Many sources
Insurance: Guessing but likely less expensive for equivalent coverage due to 206 excellent safety record.

The 206 is sort of like a King Air 90 in the fixed wing world. A very well known quantity with few vices.

[krypton_john]

On the NZ register there are approx 105 500's and approx 60 206's. Not sure if that is a common ration world wide or mainly down to the typical usage of helicopters down here.

[There are about 150 AS350, AS355, EC120, EC130, EC135 types and 320 odd Robbos]

[Hell Man]

... there are approx 105 500's and approx 60 206's. Not sure if that is a common ratio world wide ..

This is not a common ratio, in fact I cannot think of another country where the 500 population is greater than the 206 but, being in NZ you should be aware of this!

In the 1970's just about every NZ farmer bought a Hughes 500 and went out to try his luck at catching deer. The 500 was really the only aircraft capable of performing this task and of withstanding the 'Kiwi Touch'!

HM

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/5/9/8/1163895.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/photo/Fox-&-Franz/Hughes-500C-(369HS)/1163895/L/&sid=90e326e5b628b21b918e37264b315cd6)

[Hughes500]

Well having owned both, 500 is way cheaper to run, you have to factor in its greater speed, approx 20% therefore 20% less component times and 20% less fuel to do the same job.
Thats in my application maybe different for others.

[SuperF]

Go with whatever suits what you want to do. If you are flying very few hours then the cost of the TT straps for the JR may be a bit of a burden. While a 500 is faster than a JR don't believe everyone that says they outperform them all the time. Remember that when people talk max gross fill with fuel then say a 500 performs better, they have forgotten that you have 3.5 hrs gas in a JR and 2 max in a 500. Other than that maint on both will be similar, depending on what you get when you buy. The 500 does pull more power out of the same engine as the JR and generally they go through engine parts quicker. If you are only ticking off a few hrs a yr then engine O/H will be the least of your concerns.

Parts for 500 should't be a problem anymore, and they have never been a problem for Bell

As someone else has said if you are going to take a couple of adults, with a bit of gear, or maybe some kids, then a 500 could do it. If you want 5 adults comfortable with gear in the boot, you can't beat the JR. Also initial purchase price you should be able to get a far better JR for the same money compared to a 500. Should, not will, and you can get screwed not matter what you buy. Also the reason that there are so many JR's for sale is that there are so many out there. I don't see many ferraris for sale compared to fords, bit of a silly comparison really.

I doubt that a private pilot would get a 500 into any smaller area than a JR, as they won't go anywhere that tight.

[Hughes500]

sf

To be fair most 500's have fargo tanks which means you get 2.8 hours out of it !
5 adults in a jetbanger, if they are average size then forget about full fuel
Figures for htose comparing

206 avg wt approx 1900lbs max take off 3200lbs
500D avg wt approx 1600 lbs max take off 3000lbs

Please bear in mind these are weights of some of the machines I fly, yes you can strip them down by approx couple of hundred pounds.
At 3200lbs the jr does struggle, 500 doesnt at 3000lbs as SF says both have the same engine using the same 5 min power limit ( been a few years since flown a jr so could be wrong). Both will lift more if load on a hook, but at max external gross both will struggle !

[long box]

Lev

I was asked this very question yesterday, whilst discussing "Airwolf" if it is you send me a pm I amy be able to offer some more advice for you:ok:

[NY HELICOPPER]

It may be prudent to make some insurance inquiries too and determine if you'll have any problem insuring a turbine vs. piston based on your experience level.

All the maintenance and overhaul costs should be considered but if you can't afford to insure it the point is moot and you're best served by a piston that they WILL insure.

[helispeediii]

206/369 its allbeen said and most of it spot on ive owned many 206s and all the 500s except 530, im sure the 500 is the cheaper aircraft to run its also more rugged, but if you were looking to offset your costs there is more revenue available,on 206s in the uk any way , the 206 is more relaxed form of flying ,the 500s ,is like the girl all the boys would like to get there hands on but not settle down with!, or500 is the boy that none of the girls mums would approve of which is why they chase him! hope this helps helispeed iii

[EN48]

the 206 is more relaxed form of flying ,the 500s ,is like the girl all the boys would like to get there hands on but not settle down with!, or500 is the boy that none of the girls mums would approve of which is why they chase him!


This seems exactly right! :E

[fly2pb]

When sex appeal is factored in, the 500 wins hands down.

[EN48]

When sex appeal is factored in, the 500 wins hands down.


With women, high sex appeal inevitably means high maintenence. Would seem to be true for many helicopters.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Horses for courses: Isn't that what they always say?

Choosing between an H-500 and a 206 will come down to personal preference. Which one will be "cheaper" to operate? Heh. Neither. They're turbine helicopters. Bring money. Lots.

I've got a bazillion hours in 206's, so I'm partial. I've flown the 500. Didn't care for it much. Too much time pushing a hydraulically-boosted stick around, I guess. Still, let me try to be objective.

HANDLING: I had to take our 206B to an avionics shop today, about 30 minutes away from Home Base. The airport manager rode along. He's a fixed-wing guy (5K hours or so), who flies a Cessna 210 for a local businessman and who really wants to put a helicopter flight school in at our airport. I put the duals in to let him fly.

I let him try to hover a bit (using just the cyclic), and he couldn't get over how "sensitive" the controls were. To a fixed-wing pilot, it must seem so. Up in cruise flight, he kept commenting on the sensitivity- he was quite astounded by it, actually. I told him that while all helicopters are more responsive than airplanes, there are helicopters that are even more responsive than the 206. Additionally, I told him that some helicopter pilots consider the 206 to be the least responsive of modern helicopters. He couldn't believe that. Is seemed super-sensitive to him.

People say that the H-500 is more "sporty" than a 206. Okay, maybe. And maybe that would be great if you were doing aerobatics or a lot of fancy manuevering - which you kind of try to avoid when you have passengers onboard who aren't named Yeager. So the time I spent in the 500 was just...you know...normal...flying. And thus I wasn't able to appreciate the handling qualities of the aircraft - other than to figure out that I prefer having boosted controls...but again, that comes from a lifetime spent flying helicopters with boosted controls.

Flying an H-500 "normally" is like driving a Ferrari...on city streets. Yeah, the sportscar accelerates and stops great, and it can change lanes like a mofo, but you can't really take advantage of the performance. It's why I ride a Harley and not a sportbike motorcycle. Sportbikes are great - on the track - but on city streets, where I do 110% of my riding they do not offer a superlative riding experience. (Sorry, they just don't.) Same with the 500. Your mileage (and handling) may vary.

FUEL BURN: If you do nothing but point-to-point flying, then yes the H-500 will burn less fuel in the long run because you get there quicker. But for a private owner, there'll be a lot of sightseeing and just farting around...pleasure flying. And the fuel burns for the two ships will be the same.

OPERATING COST: My boss bought his 206B three years ago. In that time, we've put on just shy of 600 hours. Other than Annual inspections and the required TT strap replacement every two years, we've had no significant unscheduled maintenance. As for the straps: $12,000, or $6,000 per year. If you fly 200 hours per year that comes to $30 per flight hour. (Heh, maybe you'll fly more than 200 hours per year, but I doubt it.) The key will be buying the best aircraft with the best remaining component times. Don't buy something that's going to need new turbine wheels or new main rotor blades next year. Cost of operation will be a wash.

Oh, and don't believe people who tell you that the engine in an H-500 will "last longer" because it's stressed less or something. Component lives are component lives. Treat your engine well (don't overtemp it or abuse it) and the components will go to TBO or retirement in both ships.

LOAD CARRYING: Our 206B weighs 1850 - figure 1900 with a cooler. With me, the boss, his friend and their wives, we usually have 900 pounds in the cabin, for a GW of 2800. That leaves 400 more pounds for fuel and bags. 400 pounds of gas is nearly 60 gallons! You won't need that much because believe me, 5 people do not want to be in a 206B
for more than about 45 minutes to an hour, MAX.

Needless to say, when we put 5 in our ship we need a lot of room to take off - no confined-area stuff. Luckily, we operate out of my boss's hunting camp where I have a good, unobstructed site.

In my experience, passengers always have "stuff" they take with them. Women take handbags, men have briefcases. It's nice to be able to put that stuff in the big 206 baggage compartment rather than under a seat or in a lap. Plus, I always carry a lightweight aluminum ladder and a little plastic bin with an extra quart of oil and some window cleaning supplies. When I leave the 206 overnight at an airport or someplace away from Home Base, I lock the Garmin 496 GPS and the headsets in the baggage compartment. Try doing that with your 500.

So again, it comes down to personal preference. Which one do you like more? Obviously, I'd recommend getting a 206. Yes, the 500 is more "sporty" but you give up a lot of flexibility for that sportiness - which you may or may not ever use unless you're into putting on impromptu airshows. If you absolutely, positively have to have a turbine, that's one thing. If not, just go with an R-44. It's a lot of bang for the buck.

[krypton_john]

Hi FH1100 Pilot - are you associated with FH1100.com or Van Nevel or know anything about them?

Cheers
JohnO

[Shawn Coyle]

My two cents worth:
Back seat in the 500 is very claustrophobic - no more than 2 in the back and they'd better not be too big. And where do you put baggage?
Ride quality in turbulence is not great.
But - very good for precise hovering.
Otherwise, it's down to economics!