A 206 or a 500D? Which is right for the job?

[RoToR_V8D]

Hi all,

I realise that everyone will have their own opinions on this subject - there will be hard core advocates of both types.

I am considering the purchase of a light Turbine Helicopter for local airwork operations in a Town of approximately 200,000 people (in Australia). There is a variety of work available. In addition to a bunch of work for the mines there is also some ENG, various government contracts (that require Turbine Helicopters) and a handful of tourist destinations that would like a purpose built helicopter solution for their clients/guests.

An R44 would possibly fit the bill for much of the work, but the lack of a turbine helicopter would destroy any hopes of fulfilling government contract work. There are also plenty of people (self included) who would much prefer flying in a Turbine Helicopter than a Piston. Lu's R44 thread here on Rotorheads certainly doesn't do much to counter those thoughts, feelings and concerns.

I have spoken with as many potential clients as I can and I believe pilot plus two people with bags (or a camera), or three pax, is likely to be the common load. Average of approx. 0.7-1.2hrs flying for the local area work.

Current thoughts - please put me right if I am in error.

B206 III

PROs
In common use, popular, comfortable - a bit more room (?)

CONs
Prone to LTE if you are not very careful, especially if still fitted with the smaller, earlier tail rotor. (Yeah, I know - but I've been spoilt flying the Squirrel)

Hughes 500D

PROs
Small Rotor Diameter is good for CAs and steep terrain, left hand pilot seat good for vertical reference, faster, quieter, able to lift more (C20B engine), excellent tail rotor clearance with extended (high) skids.

CONs
Fewer available and not very common - certainly not as common as the B206. Is there a reason for that?

My background has been in the AS350BA - if I could afford one, and knew I would fill the extra seat to make it worthwhile, I would buy one - but I can't, and therefore won't.

At present there is no real helicopter competition within a two hour flight time. There is another operator nearby, but he is reported as being "a little difficult to deal with... " :oh:

With a lack of competition and plenty of people and organisations already prepared to use the services of a light Turbine Helicopter in the area, I feel this has an excellent chance of success.

What I would would like to hear from you all, as another step in the research chain, is your collective points of view regards the B206 versus the 500D in this type of role? There are certainly advantages and disadvantages with each that will require compromises. I wish to be certain that all considerations have ben addressed before we take the plunge.

I thank you in advance for your contributions.

Cheers

(P.S. Mr 'Finlease' is standing by with a checkbook. i.e. This is not a hypothetical request and there will always be a huge amount of financial risk attached to such a proposition - but, ahhh.... the rewards! We have an umbrella AOC (Air Operating Certificate) that we can operate under, already sorted - which would seem to be half the battle.)

[Shawn Coyle]

I like the MD 500 from a pilot's point of view. But have you ever ridden in the back seats? How about riding in one in turbulence?

If you have to do very precise flying (like hovering alongside a power line tower), then I'd look seriously at an MD500. But I don't think you'll find it's very popular with passengers in the back.

[350boy]

No comparison really.The 500 is fun to fly ,gr8 for tight spots eh ?? thats it.NO endurence,NO boot,No comfort at all for those poor buggers in the back,Noisy ,and if you want to carry 4 pax you are seriously cuddly with the mid front seat pax as well as more maint intensive compaired to the 206.
The 206 maynot be as quick but over all is a far better general utility helicopter then the "cab over chainsaw" 500.
You can go almost anywhere in the world where they have helicopters and generally find a 206,the same can't be said for the 500.
They have their place don't get me wrong but for a steady ,reliable äll rounder"you can't go past a 206.
Bit like compairing a Ford or Holden with a porsche really,sporty and fun but not an all rounder like the 206.
Oh the dreaded LTE ?,know your limits and stay as light as practical.No problem to sling out of either,have done it with both and it's not a problem with the 206,+ you have a nice set of hydraulic's on the 206 to assist you cruz around the sky instead of trim motors ,a witch's hat and big bundgys' to help you push a 500 around.
Goodluck with your venture !

[CarryOnCopter]

MD500 needs more maintance, the head mostly, so more expensive to run, two pax in rear uncomfortably with the gearbox right by their ear and not much space, three up front including pilot, great view but a little cramped, no baggage bay although you can get a pod that hangs off the cargo hook and step, slows you down so role change is a pain, exhaust burns nice green lawns so some fire hazard, the good points you know. Not knocking them just something to think about.

JetRanger slower, not as fun to fly depending on your view, cheaper to maintane, better for pax, baggage bay, easy to get parts and find people that maintane them and the reason they are so widely used is simple, does most things at a reasonable price, we are talking helicopters so reasonable??

Buisness wise MD500 if you have more specialised roles, JetRanger if you need a good all rounder. Good luck hope it works out.

[HeliJedi]

If you buy it they will come.......

Get the squirrel.......

As a businessman, I found that if I focused on my tools, I built my business around what my tools could handle. As a result I limited myself in growth and potential.

If I focused on my growth and potential, I found I was limited by my imagination and as a result my tools grew in size.

In short... If the tools are wrong, the business will fail.

Get the AS350BA/ B2/ or B3

The jet ranger and the MD500 are good helicopters, but from what I could read, between the lines, your potential is far greater than both those helicopters.

Regards & Goodluck

[rotornut]

"cab over chainsaw" 500.
I thought that was a Schweizer/Hughes 300.:)

Seriously, you should find out what shops/engineers are available for each machine in your area - especially for a more maintenance intensive helicopter like the 500. If there's no one locally available and you have a snag it can be a real pain if you have to bring in an engineer from a long distance.

[500 Fan]

Yea, I know what you're thinking. This guy is gonna recommend the 500D. Well have a look at this first:

Air Discussion Forums (http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=152030&st=460)

Read the first post and then scroll down the page for some photos of a gorgeous 500D. It is a 500D fitted with lateral baggage pods which adds to the versatility of this type. You still get to use the belly hook as required and most of your passengers' baggage can be carried externally in the pods. Riding in the back seat of a 500 is not comfortable for longer than an hour and a half but flying it is as good as it gets. The Jet Ranger is not much fun to fly at all (the R44 is nicer to fly, in my limited experience) but your rear seat passengers will thank you. So the passenger issue depends on the nature of your ops.

R0t0rdr1ver is apparently a 500 pilot in the Canadian Bush so knows what he is talking about. He states that their (Great Slave Heli) customers are now demanding the AS350 over the 500D so maybe that is an indicator of what you should consider (as much as it pains me to say it). However, if you do the right thing and go for the 500, you might get a good deal in Canada!:ok:

500 Fan.

[Scissorlink]

Just make sure you get a machine with the biggest baddest air filter you can find :), would guess the extra endurance in Jetranger over a 500 would be handy in Oz with the big distances you have, 3 hrs against less then 2

[RoToR_V8D]

I was hoping to find a bunch more opinions and some points raised that I hadn't considered - which you have all provided in spades. :ok: :) :D

Thank you for taking the time.

All of your comments and considerations are going into our melting pot. The extra maintenance on the 500's head is certainly worth investigating further and I am speaking with the locals (Mechanics) today to discuss the options with them further. We have to chase hangar space anyway, so the conversations have a two-fold intent.

BTW, the lease overhead on a $500,000 platform is roughly $2000/week over 60 months with a 30% balloon, before fixed and per hour running costs, insurance, hangar space etc.

I didn't realise that the 500 was reportedly so uncomfortable in the back? Worth knowing, for sure. One of the major ones though may be the exhaust. We will have to operate from CA's in the bush on occassions - and in the dry the bush is a tinderbox. I know of an Army Kiowa that was torched when the guys accidentally knocked over their Hexi-Stove! It was that quick. Perhaps, even with High Skids the 500 would pose too great a risk of starting a bush fire?

HeliJedi - I take your point. I like the Squirrel to fly. It has more seats and three good 'boots'. The biggest issue is with price. That's not to say we wouldn't expand into it, and there IS something to be said for offering a unique cabability, even if someone else comes on the scene. I believe the Navy will be getting rid of their AS350BAs 'soon'. They may go for a reasonable price. Full IFR with A/P, hooks, winches etc. Until then, there just are not many Squirrel's around. The AU$ was at US$0.79 lat night, which is a shock when compared with two months ago! I'll certainly give it some more thought. Bottom line - an AS350 'anything' will cost two to three times as much as the platforms we're investigating. But your words are haunting....:rolleyes: :bored:

500 Fan - thanks for that. I know Great Slave -I've always wanted to fly for them - I think they would still have my resume on file :). I have seen the Great Slave 500Ds with the belly pods, but I hadn't seen that set-up before. Cheers. I have always figured the 500D to be a better sling/vert.ref platform than the 206. Would you agree? I have heard tell of 50% better in terms of loads?

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z194/r0t0rdr1ver/scan0004.jpg

rotornut - cheers mate - onto it today!

[rick1128]

I was told not too long ago that it depended on where the guy paying for the helicopter sat. If he sat in the front, the 500 was the machine and if he sat in the back, the 206 was the machine. In reality, the guy paying for the machine is the guy in back.

[Heli-kiwi]

From an Engineers point of view the 500 is a great machine but some parts are getting hard to find and if you operate in a dusty environment the head is going to require a little more attention down the line.
The Jetranger is the good allrounder especially having a baggage hold, passenger comfort and a cargo hook, Its easy to work on and you won't find a heli facility in Oz that doesn't have someone who can work on it.
The Squirrel however takes the cake, If you have to spend 7 hours in it you can still walk upright at the end of the day, you have the extra margin of power on those hotter days, they have the speed, a flat floor and maintainence wise are great to work on.

[CYHeli]

RoToR_V8D your list of roles is wide and varied.
Think about each role carefully and if you actually will need more than one type.
I know that this sounds a long stretch, but bare with me.
I am flying a B206 at the moment and thinking about getting an R44 for some of the work we do. We have trouble filling the B206 when we have couples walk up to do the tourist thing - it's too expensive for a couple to run the B206, but I can sell the flight for the right price in the R44.
If there is a family, or two couples walk up this is easy in the B206. It is all to do with volume. If you are only doing a couple of tourist flights per week, consider an R44. An R44 is just as comfortable for pax as a B206.
The B206 suits our needs for filming and other AWK (CSIRO surveys, etc.)
If the AWK you are planning is sling related or large load/short hop - go the H500. You can't compare the lifting against the B206.
You mention ENG. Are you fitting a hard camera mount or just a cameraman in a harness. The H500 is a more stable a/c over the 206, but how much work is there of this type? Remember the reduced VNE in the B206 when doors are off.
My own opinion is that the H500 is not a pax aircraft. Even for AWK, the working pax get tired of them unless in the front seat.
If you have hugh volume of tourists, lots of variety in AWK, then go AS350, just ensure that you have maintenance support.
Good luck and if you need a driver with time on all types mentioned...

[thekite]

If you savour your motocross experience you will love the 500D
If not you will not savour the back seat passenger who punches you out after the flight!

Yes pilots love it but anyone not carrying an M16 in the back will be quite hostile.

[Hughes500]

Having owned both types and used them both commerically something that most forget
500 is cheaper to run per mile flown - 130 kt cruise v 110 kt cruise. Therefore you use 20% less fuel and component times in a 500, to do the same job. Down side there is then less revenue due to less hours flown, if you quote by the hour.
Most would put up with the smaller back seats knowing the bill was 20% cheaper and they would get there 20% quicker.
Incidentally the 500's were always cheaper to maintain. Remember TT straps every 2 years in a Bell head

[spinwing]

Mmmmm. ....

The reality is this ...500 to old, too small and really too limiting.

The Bell is the way to go ...if you could get a 407 probably perfect for what you need to cater for all eventualities????

But of course ...expensive ...

Remember ......
"You cannot make strawberry jam out of goat droppings" .... does'nt matter how hard you try... it will just not taste right!

Identify your major money earner ... and cater for that market the best way you can.

Good luck :E

[RoToR_V8D]

OK - confusion was setting in... but I think we are there now (?)

From reading your comments, for which I am most grateful, it would appear that the 500 enjoys a narrower operational focus, and the evidence here would suggest it is a very uncomfortable ride in the back. Comfortable in the front, but then, if you were only going to take one person in the front, why would you make the flight in a 500 in the first place?

Your overall comments regards the B206 being more common, easier to work on/find parts for etc were identified initially - now reinforced. Everything here points to the B206 as being a far more versatile platform. In an environment where the true potential of a commercial helicopter operation remains largely untested, versatility is quite important.

I think that, realistically, I was hoping that the 500 would come out as 'break-even option' against the B206, and mainly because I would really enjoy flying it. Unfortunately that's not the case - I feel the B206 is the light turbine winner for this environment. (Something about 'the head' and 'the heart'.....? )

Down the track I think a Squirrel would have plenty of work, but we need to discover how much work, and what kind of work is available before we can construct a business plan with some validity.

CYHeli, your comments regards the R44 are timely. We had been considering that. A friend of mine has an R44 and is interested in putting it to work. It seems (and I am hopeful) that we may therefore have an R44 regardless. The light turbine would be there, as you say, to take larger groups - and more importantly, to cater to the government contracts that demand the work be carried out in a turbine helicopter.

It looks like we are on our way. Again, I can't thank you all enough for your input. It would seem to be sheer stupidity to consider these sorts of plans without consulting the experience base of the pprune forum. I very much appreciate everybody's input.

Cheers

[krypton_john]

Maybe a bit left field - but have you considered the SA 341G? A lot faster than a 206, still has 5 proper seats.

I'd love to know how the operating costs compare to the B206.

[SASless]

People hauling....go 206. Underslung work....go 500.

206's go hundred hour to hundred hour without problems usually....500's can be more labor intensive especially if trying to blade track the rascals.

500's burn more fuel per hour....but do go like a rocket compared to the Jet Ranger....one can die of boredom going any distance in the Ranger.

I never had back problems in the 500....the 206 destroyed mine!

[spinwing]

"but have you considered the SA 341G? A lot faster than a 206, still has 5 proper seats. "


DO NOT go any where near a Gazelle .... sure its fast ...great machine in its day for pax carrying .... terrible for external load work .... High fuel consumption .... high maintenance costs ... ..

All of which means ..... it would bankrupt you very quickly.

:E

[krypton_john]

Checkout MW Helicopters http://www.mwhelcopters.co.uk - he's biased but disputes your assertion re operating costs, putting them close to B206 level. I have no idea which of you is closest to the truth but it's an interesting machine, relatively cheap to get into and damn they look nice.

[Squeaks]

Since the operation is in Oz, and there is a dearth of Gazelles in the Southern Hemisphere, I'd suggest that's a non starter :confused:

The 206 will give the best entry level turbine for a start up operation in Australia, without a doubt. Predictable DOC's, reliable (if you look after it, but that goes for any helicopter) and able to turn to almost any charter/aerial work task.

Squirrel is nicer, but the operational costs and the poor factory support would kill the operation stone dead unless you have a 3+ year-set-in-stone contract that actually makes a profit :p

[spinwing]

Krypton,

Vested interests there for sure..... I've spent some time in a Gazelle ....loverly to fly no doubt about it ...BUT NOT for aerial work in Australia.

Fuel consumption alone close to 40Gal (200l)/hr is in excess of the Jet Ranger.

Parts and Maintenance here will make your eyes water!!!!

Might be a great machine for rich men in the UK but NOT for Oz consumption.

:=

[Hughes500]

Dont touch a gazelle, they are very expensive to maintain, Turbomeca no longer supports the engine. Last engine overhaul about £ 150k for 1700 hour life. Drinks fuel like its going out of fashion. Unless it is a stretched one back seats worse than a 500 in terms of legroom. One I fly for a customer just spent months and months and about £37 for a new clutch.
Incidentally dont expect to put 5 people and a full tank in a 206 and get it off the ground !!
SASless how do you work out the 500 burns more fuel ? Both have a C20B engine unless the 500 has had a C20R retrofitted. Having had both, at 100% 206 about 110 - 120 ltrs /hr an hour 110 kt cruise. 500D 75 psi 130 plus again 110 ltrs an hour so 500 will use less fuel by nearly 20% on any journey.

[RoToR_V8D]

OK. It seems that if the work were predominantly 'A' to 'B', the 500 would have lower running cost from a fuel consumption point of view.

If planning to do more 'on station' work (ENG, slinging in short hops... ) or tourism flights (where the distance travelled isn't important, just the time in the air), the B206 would have lower fuel consumption costs.

All down to SGR for the consumption side of the house - but then fuel is only part of the equation. :ugh: :ouch: :confused:

Waiting to hear back on insurance cost differentials on both types. Seems we can get either platform serviced locally without heartache.

Now, I received an email from the Enstrom chaps and had a look at the website. I had always put Enstrom in a bucket with the R22s and R44s - only, less popular.

Their 480B, with the C20W? Tons of space, tons of visibility for everyone, three bladed main, more TR Auth than either the 206 or 500, 536kg useful load, MAUW IGE 12,300', MAUW OGE 5,400', same speeds as a B206, cheaper to acquire, cheaper to operate, etc, etc. It can be fitted with pop-out floats, cargo hook (pilot flies from the left seat like the 500 ;) ), searchlights etc. Max range at MAUW/3000' is 355nm or 4.5hrs endurance to tanks dry, which is also impressive. The engine is de-rated by almost 25%, so it has full power to 13,000' or 120 degrees F (good for Australia :ok:).

To me this Heli would seem to be an AS350 with more room, more versatility, fewer parts issues, and much, much lower costs across the board.

Have I stumbled onto a winner, or am I stumbling down a rabbit hole? I'ld be keen to hear from anyone with experience on type? Am I missing anything? This platform would seem very well suited as an alternative...:bored::rolleyes::bored:

[RoToR_V8D]

I had a mate flying Gazelles in Hong Kong. Swears by them for load lift, but you just can't get them down here. I didn't kno they were that thristy either :O

[EN48]

Have I stumbled onto a winner, or am I stumbling down a rabbit hole? I'ld be keen to hear from anyone with experience on type? Am I missing anything? This platform would seem very well suited as an alternative...http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wbored.gif:rolleyes:http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wbored.gif


I recently took delivery of a new Enstrom 480B and so far it has not disappointed in any respect. See my posts in the Rotorheads Enstrom Corner (Page 10,11) for more details. One potential issue for you may be support. I have had superb support, from both the factory and dealer, but I am based only 60 miles from the largest dealer in the U.S (if not in the world.) There are only about 130 or so of these manufactured to date, so you wont find parts and support on every street corner. I also considered the 206 and R44 among others, and the 480B won by quite a margin. A new similarly equipped 206 would have been about 2X the price of the Enstrom in terms of acquisition cost, and I would expect parts and support to be much less for the 480. Operating costs (dominated by fuel) are more similar due to using essentially the same engine.

IMHO, the 480B and R44 are so different as to make comparison meaningless. The 44 is more of a "minimalist" design with what appears to be just enough "beef" to hold eveything together. The 480 design comes across as much more robust.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/190595-enstrom-corner.html

[krypton_john]

EN48, how are the DOCs working out? The Enstrom figures were about $250/hr if I recall correctly - is that close?

[EN48]

EN48, how are the DOCs working out? The Enstrom figures were about $250/hr if I recall correctly - is that close?


Hard to say with reliability. So far (55 hours) the only out of pocket cost has been fuel, averaging about $4.90/gal. At an average burn of 160 lbs/hour, this is $117 per hour. Have added 1/2 qt of oil in this time. Insurance premium is about 4.5% of hull value. ( I am a low time helicopter pilot, but insure under the factory sponsored program, so this is probably typical. My quote on 206 insurance was 7% of hull value.) And I own the hangar.

Like the 206, the E480B has TT straps which must be replaced every two years at about $10,000 regradless of time or condition.

I did have a generator relay that became sticky, but this was replaced instantly under warranty at no cost other than the fuel to fly to the shop.

I wasnt aware of Enstrom's estimate but it seems realistic or perhaps even on the high side for a newer acft.

[krypton_john]

Here's the link I found:
http://www.sharkeys.com/New480Cost2007.pdf

Their fuel cost matches you pretty close!

[EN48]

Sharkeys is perhaps the world expert on the 480 outside the factory. Note that fuel prices per gallon are up about 20% since this analysis was prepared.

[krypton_john]

What's the baggage compartment like? No chance of fitting golf clubs in there I suppose?

[EN48]

What's the baggage compartment like? No chance of fitting golf clubs in there I suppose?


It might be done if the bag is on the slim side. (Some golf bags I have seen seem large enough to live in!)The baggage box is actually reasonably large but has an odd shape, so careful packing is essential. Rated at 150 lbs IIRC. There in an option called a baggage box extension which extends farther into the tail cone, but is limited to 50 lbs max weight. This in combination with the standard baggage box would likely accomodate a set of golf clubs, perhaps two. (I am not a golfer so its a wild guess on my part.)