PDA

View Full Version : R44 Raven II vs Older 206


rotorspin
19th Oct 2008, 19:38
Question for all Ppruners as I have little Bell experience

There are many current cheap options to buy older 206's B3's (more expensive), B2's and B's...which brings them into the price range for purchase of private owners of new R44 RII's.

I would imagine running costs are massively different, but JR's appear to depreciate less (with the dreaded 12 year rebuild on R44 II's)

So my question is - as a private flyer would you buy a circa 1970's / 80's Jetranger or Robbie RII? Is there any major reason for buying a B3 over a B2 / B (other than power)?

Any help, sarcasm and wit most welcome! :ok:

HS125
19th Oct 2008, 20:49
I've flown a R44, and found it to be the most hateful, diabolical, awful 'aircraft' I have ever encountered in my life.

It might be relatively cheap to run etc, but I hated it on a cellular level.

Many of you may have worked out from my username that Im a plank by trade but have flown other copters that I do like and get on with quite well.

Do yourself a favour, get a Jet Ranger.... R44? I'd rather walk/swim.

Edit: Go on Im up for the receipt of sarcasm as well.

Bladecrack
19th Oct 2008, 21:07
I would go for the 206 B3. A good, well maintained one is much, much more reliable than an RII. I have flown old poorly maintained B2's that were more reliable than a RII. If I had to buy a robbo though, I would but a RI, NOT a RII. Too many problems with RII in my experience. But thats just my opinion...

BC

JTobias
19th Oct 2008, 21:25
A 206 BIII without doubt. I have just bought one (May 2008) and they are excellent. I mean no dis-respect to the the Robinson, but IMHO they are a different class of machine.

Joel

350boy
19th Oct 2008, 21:31
Hello,no question here.Get the best206 B3 you can afford and you'll never look back.The 206 has history and is a real helicopter,not some disposible ,lightweight,check the blades EVERY time you fly it peice of junk that has somehow sliped thru the cracks and is called a helicopter.All R44s should still (and for ever) be in the restricted catagory .
Sure the J/R will be a little more costly to run but at the end of the year (or 12 ) won't be a lot in it and you will have the peice of mind that given proper care it will transport you and your pax safely and reliably for years and years as history has shown,and yes I like the 206.Done a lot of time in them and love the old girls.
50 hrs in R44s was 51 hrs to many.(have included the 1hr convincing to get me in the silly little thing).
GO Bell.:D

EN48
19th Oct 2008, 21:36
Take a look at an Enstrom 480B. For the same money, you might get a newer, lower time acft than the JR. Running costs should be a bit less due to lower parts costs in general. Performance numbers are close to the JR, and cabin layout vastly superior for an owner flown helicopter (IMHO). Also, safety record can be argued to be superior to either JR or R44, and LTE is virtually unheard of (unlike JR). You'll likely hear some negatives on the 480 from those with little experience with them, but most who actually have meaningful time in them are quite positive (myself included). OTOH, if you intend commercial operations, possibly with camera mounts, cargo hooks, etc, the JR will have many more options available. I have time in all three and the 480 wins hands down in my book.

r44heli
19th Oct 2008, 22:05
"but IMHO they are a different class of machine."............

Lets really compare eggs with eggs shall we?? A 4 seat piston heli and
a 5 seat turbine machine....

I just hope if you buy a B206 you dont mind writing large cheques...

helonorth
19th Oct 2008, 22:31
No time in a 44, but I do love the 206. It'll cost you double to operate, but a much more capable machine. If you have the money and buy it
"right", you'll do fine when you sell it. Get someone that really knows
their stuff to check it out before signing on the dotted line. There seems
to be quite a few available right, but prices are holding steady. After
the last couple of weeks, though, you might get a bargain!

birrddog
19th Oct 2008, 22:37
I would say a factor in the decision should be if you intend to charter it out at all, which is where the 206 beats the R44.

As with all aircraft, the purchase price is only part of the story, the running costs and maintenance factors should play a major consideration.

If you toast the turbine in a 206 you could buy a 44 for the price of the replacement turbine (not that you would do this, but one of the risks to consider if you don't have buckets of cash to splash out).

If you can afford it, go for the 206, though I would say if your budget only allows for 44, don't stop from getting it because it is not a turbine.

If it is well maintained it can be as safe and rewarding as a 206.

I would say buy the aircraft that allows you to afford the most time using it, based on mission practicality and cost. No point having a pretty machine just sitting on the ground....

krypton_john
20th Oct 2008, 00:25
EN48, as always I am interested in your knowledge of all things Emstrom. In particular this time it is your comment on the cabin layout is better. I can see that this is true for leg room and visibility for the pax, but you get one less seat which is critical for many who typically want to carry 4 pax plus the pilot? Also I think the 206 baggage compartment with extender can fit at least a couple of sets of golf clubs. How big is the baggage compartment in the 480?

Cheers
JohnO

RotaryRat
20th Oct 2008, 00:34
Why R44 - Faster (5-15kts), AVGAS 60 LPH Vs JETA1 100+ LPH, Obviously a lot cheaper per hour to run (half the cost), Piston engine Vs Turbine (see above re turbine cost), brand spanking new Raven I Vs 30+ year old B206, cheaper component costs on average.... cost effective platform.

Why B206 - Extra seat, Turbine power, big baggage compartment compared to under seat boxes in R44, better utility/camera ship/airwork etc. platform (can remove seats, sling more, nose mount camera etc), more payload......

As a private buyer.... unless you have the extra coin to spend on B206, R44 is more economical for what you want to do.

ReverseFlight
20th Oct 2008, 02:04
Go for the B206. High inertia blades which don't peel is a good enough reason. There are many others.

If you are considering R44 or B206, I presume you can afford either.

From a flyer's point of view, the T-cyclic is my pet hate. It induces vertical as well as lateral movements and does not hover smoothly like a floor cyclic. I actually learnt on the R22/R44 but subsequently found out how stable floor cyclics are (eg H269, B206, EC120, AS350).

Get a B206 with high skids. Your stinger sits higher off the ground and there's more clearance landing on tall grass or bushland. They're also a lot stronger than Robbie skids - the latter crumple easily on impact (I've seen the results, not a pretty sight).

If you're getting a (used) B2, get a friend who's an experienced B206 engineer to calculate the replacement and future running costs so you can budget for it (no nasty surprises there).

I would go a bit further than 350boy - I believe R44s should be in the experimental category.

EN48
20th Oct 2008, 02:24
JohnO,

Both the 480 and 206 are certified with 5 seats, but these are in a different configuration in each acft. In neither case would it seem prudent to fill all the seats except with small people and a small fuel load. There is no "broom closet" in the 480 dividing the cabin into front and rear compartments, as in the 206. The result is two relatively widely spaced front seats with much more room laterally than in the 206, and 3 seats behind these. I would say that if one consistently carries 3 or more pax (plus pilot) the 206 may have an edge. For up to two pax (plus pilot) the 480 has more room for all. The 480 may have more flexibility in that the cabin has a relatively large flat floor, and all but one seat may be easily removed, permitting several arrangements for seats and cargo in the cabin. The baggage area in the 480 is relatively large, but oddly shapped, however it is also available with an extender option. The standard baggage area is rated at 150 lbs, with an additional 50 lbs for the extended area. As for golf clubs in the baggage area, not being a golfer, I cant say. Each acft involves some tradeoffs re seating and baggage area, with neither IMO winning in every case. At 6ft 1in and 200 lbs, and one who rarely flies with more than 3 total on board, I'll take the 480 every time. In the 206, a larger pilot is cramped all the time, even with no pax.

Re the R44, IMO, too much is made of the T-bar cyclic; in my experience, one adapts to this quite naturally in about 2 minutes and forgets it thereafter. Might be different if you were frequently flying other acft in addition to the R44.

As far as robustness is concerned, both the 206 and 480 seem to be in a different world from the R44. In fairness, however, the instances of mechanical failure on the R44 seem to be less than one might expect based on the accident reports.

krypton_john
20th Oct 2008, 02:43
Thanks EN48,

With regard to 5 pob, I'm thinking one wife and 3 kids who would only add up to about 290 lb plus me makes a mere 470. So weight is not so much the problem as seats and baggage volume.

Looking at the numbers for the 480B:
Useful load: 1180 lb
1 x family 470 + full fuel 600lb and 110lb left over for baggage!

Not sure what the appeal of the JR was now that I am aware of the 5 seat option.

EN48
20th Oct 2008, 02:48
I'm thinking one wife and 3 kids who would only add up to about 290 lb plus me makes a mere 470


The 480 will work quite well is this case, IMO.

FLY 7
20th Oct 2008, 12:59
I've been looking at the light helicopter market and I'm intrigued to see what will happen to prices in the near future.

On paper the R44 might well tick a lot of boxes, but the Robinsons do seem to divide opinions. If you reallly do want one then 'new' can't make sense - the depreciation could be horrendous. I think there'll be a lot of bargains in the 'nearly new' market.

But, tend to agree with the general sentiment here, Jet Ranger or 480/480B. Initial and running costs might be higher, but buy wisely in hard times and your capital should be better protected.

JTobias
20th Oct 2008, 13:00
Chaps and Chap-esses (?)

I've owned both the 480 and now a 206. They are both fantastic machines. The choice of which one is "right" for you is an individual one. I operated the 480 for two tears quite happily but needed that extra seating capacity hence the move to the 206.

I cannot slate the R44 as I've never owned one or even flown one, but my recommend is still the 206.

As for writing out big cheques on a 206, I haven't had mine long enough to have a bad experience, but if you buy it right up front, you should be minimising the chances of big bills later. Either way, it's a heli, and heli's cost money to operate. End of.

If anyone wants an owner operator comparison of a 480 v 206, just ask or PM me.

Joel

RavenII
20th Oct 2008, 13:46
Don't listen to the people who tell you a 44 is crap, they are good machines and do exactly what they are build for and what you are paying for.

I do like the JR as well, i think they are both great machines.

If you are looking for a workhorse the JR is probably the better choice, but just for buzzing around and burning holes in the sky??? Why spend the extra money???

If you want to spend extra money, what about a MD500 ;-) Cooler than both, JR or 44......Get the Magnum PI paintjob!!!

EN48
20th Oct 2008, 14:09
JohnO

While the 480 has much to like, one area where the 206 may win hands down is "supportability." The 206 is perhaps the best known and most numerous light turbine on the planet, with support widely available. Enstrom has been around for decades and is quite well supported in some parts of the globe, but probably not as well as the 206. Support in my part of the US is superb; not sure what you can expect in your corner of the world.

TheMonk
20th Oct 2008, 15:03
Seating layout for the Enstrom 480B. If anyone's interested.

http://www.enstromhelicopter.com/products/images/480B_seating.gif

Monk

Hedge36
20th Oct 2008, 15:35
Right turns must get interesting, depending on the layout.

krypton_john
20th Oct 2008, 19:39
EN48, I just checked the NZ register and it appears there are *no* 480B's here!

On a related note, I hear that Enstrom are working on a stretched version of the 480B that will offer a more roomy 5 seats. Heard anything about that?

kneedwondean
20th Oct 2008, 19:45
I fly charter and instruct on both R44 and JR, and honestly think the 44 does most things equally well if not better than JR. I have also got to say that the JR feels special still when I fly it but factoring in running costs vs performance and it would be R44 everytime for me.

krypton_john
20th Oct 2008, 19:58
If I was a paying passenger I would far rather sit in the back of an r44 than the back of a JR.

EN48
20th Oct 2008, 19:59
I hear that Enstrom are working on a stretched version of the 480B


Thats not one that I have heard. Been to the factory a couple of times in the last year or so and havent seen anything that would confirm this, but then that doesnt prove anything either way.

Other rumors include a 200lb gross weight increase for the 480B, which makes lots of sense and I am told may be mostly a matters of testing and certification, not lots of new development. Also a return to elastomeric dampers for the MR, which Enstrom tried a few years ago, but had some problems with and withdrew from the market. Both of these would be meaningful improvements, but no "official" word yet.

Bravo73
20th Oct 2008, 21:13
If I was a paying passenger I would far rather sit in the back of an r44 than the back of a JR.

You'll be in a 'class of 1' then, john. The majority of paying passengers (in my experience) would also rather be seen getting out of a JetBanger rather than an R44.

krypton_john
20th Oct 2008, 22:10
Heh! I don't care what anyone sees me getting out of!

However I do like to have a decent view of where I am going and what the pilot is is up to.

But then again, I never claimed to speak for the poseurs of the world.

Now if I am sitting up front, then that is a different story.

Bravo73
20th Oct 2008, 22:24
the poseurs of the world.

Aha. You got it in one. The very definition of many of the 'paying passengers' who choose helicopters! ;)

krypton_john
20th Oct 2008, 22:30
Yep. God bless the poseurs!

RotaryRat
21st Oct 2008, 02:20
You'll be in a 'class of 1' then, john. The majority of paying passengers (in my experience) would also rather be seen getting out of a JetBanger rather than an R44.

Unless your the poor sod that has to sit in the middle of two big people!

Give me a window seat anyday of the week.

biggles99
21st Oct 2008, 06:54
I've never heard so much bias on one thread for a long time.

I'd bet that the vast majority of the responders in favour of the 206 are all people who get paid to fly and/or have a background in the forces.

These types don't need to factor in economics.

Blimy, it's just tosh that the R44 should be "experimental". Why? On what basis?

Both the 206 and the 44 are great machines, and both do virtually the same thing if you are the person sitting in the right hand seat. They even feel similar to fly (yes I do fly both).

At least the 44 doesn't have the silly issues about parts marked "AB" not being compatible with parts marked "B". There are lots of horror stories about machines being grounded as unairworthy merely because some bits were made under licence in Europe.

As for the depreciation, you can buy a perfectly good R44 for GBP100k or less that has lots of years left. Buy one for (say) 90 grand with 500 hours and 8 years left and you've reduced your depreciation by over 50%.

For a private pilot that wants to own his or her helicopter and only flies 50 hours a year or less, then the depreciation pales into insignificance when you compare it to turbine costs, TT straps, fuel govenors, I could go on.

If anyone wants slighty less biased views, please PM me.

Big Ls.

bvgs
21st Oct 2008, 09:16
The views that the R44 should be "experimental" is plain stupid - the best selling helicopter in the world DUHH :ugh:. I own a Raven II, had a Raven 1 before that and as a private individual think it to be a great machine. NOW, if I was simply flying a machine for someone and they were picking up the costs and repairs then sure I think the JR wins hands down. I think it looks better and sounds better. I constantly look at the ads for 2nd hand or should that be 30th+ hand JR's but am put off by the maintenance costs. Lets face it your not going to get any crazy big surprises on the 44 but with the JR?? I do hate the Robinson 12 year thing, however, as biggles says, if you buy with the right hours/ years left it really doesnt matter. For what its worth, I had hoped the new 66 would have looked a bit more JR ish but alas not to be. Just remember, its always easy to sit in the side lines firing comments, you should really make sure only owners of either machine make comment. If you want any advice on the Raven II PM me.

FLY 7
21st Oct 2008, 10:06
Don't agree with the statement, "......you should really make sure only owners of either machine make comment".

In my experience, it's the owners and operators who are often the least impartial, as they usually want to justify what they own or offer.

rotorboater
21st Oct 2008, 10:56
The difference is eating your breakfast, if you can open a bill for an unexpected 25K without choking on your cornflakes, you can afford the JR!

EN48
21st Oct 2008, 11:06
The difference is eating your breakfast, if you can open a bill for an unexpected 25K without choking on your cornflakes, you can afford the JR!


Com'on folks! For comparison, a new JR costs about four times the price of a new R44. There is a reason why. Yes, the R44 is cheap (in more ways than one) but it cant be realistically compared with the JR.

RavenII
21st Oct 2008, 15:44
EN480,

i can't wait to hear the reasons that justify the 4 times higher JR price....and why we can't compare the 2 machines.

Bring it on......!! Maybe i can learn something today!!

EN48
21st Oct 2008, 20:09
Maybe i can learn something today!!


So compare away.

dragman
21st Oct 2008, 20:45
Rotorspin - We haven't heard from you since the first post. Any of this coming in handy? I think some have forgotten that you wanted to use this machine privately, but still it makes a good arguement to compare things from a commercial view.

I know of a few private users that can afford JRs, squirrels, 500s; but they have a 44.

Never flown a JR myself, but fly a squirrel and 44. 44s are fast, economical, and good performance for what they are. Medium inertia blades give a good, safe auto. I have heard the JR also has a good auto. Lots said about blade issues with 44s, but how many are out there, and how many have issues? I don't know.

As far as the cyclic thing goes - sure it's ugly, but great for slopes when your knee would stop a traditional cyclic travel.

BigMike
22nd Oct 2008, 03:07
Depends what you want to do with it.
For private use a 44 makes a lot of sense, relatively cheap to operate, good vis, nice to fly with air-con for warmer climates.
The Jet-ranger adds a boot, extra seat, been around for ever so no surprises maintenance wise, very reliable, but comes with increased costs.

Commercial operations are a different story. As always it depends on the majority of work you do. We operate both, including a 120, Squirrel's, and others.
Jet-ranger wins hands down if you do a wide verity of work. You can pretty much do anything with one. Do you think you will ever see a 13,000 hour+ 44?
Don't see many using the Enstrom for commercial work though ... ;)

krypton_john
22nd Oct 2008, 03:16
But if your private use Robbie only does 100 hours a year you are still forced to rebuild a half-lifed ship after 12 years? I bet many private owners get less than 100 a year too.

BigMike
22nd Oct 2008, 04:24
If you only do a 100 hours per year, I would be inclined to cross hire it to off-set costs.
Better yet, set up a small syndicate and share the costs. If your set on having it parked at your house, and available when ever it suits you, then you can probably afford it regardless ;)

Runway101
22nd Oct 2008, 06:11
But if your private use Robbie only does 100 hours a year you are still forced to rebuild a half-lifed ship after 12 years? I bet many private owners get less than 100 a year too.

Not necessarily. As private owner you can get permits from the CAA to run it over the 12 years, but they need a maintenance report and a couple of time limited parts replaced. At least in Europe it's that way, not sure about FAA land.

krypton_john
22nd Oct 2008, 06:36
True, Big Mike, but folks who can afford stuff like helicopters often get that way by avoiding bad choices and they would prefer to avoid an asset that has to be rebuilt before it is worn out!

BigMike
22nd Oct 2008, 06:46
Er... well don't buy one then. The R44 times and rebuild schedules are not a secret. Buy a Jet-ranger, or for that matter a tidy 500C.
They cost what they cost. You just have to decide how much your willing to spend.

krypton_john
22nd Oct 2008, 06:50
But I want the best of both worlds!

<throws toys out of cot and sulks....>

ReverseFlight
22nd Oct 2008, 12:22
I see my "experimental" comment brushed some of you up the wrong way. Please accept my apologies. And no disrespect to Frank either. I too used to defend the R44 and thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.

I have personally owned 2 R44s in succession. Both were Clippers and capable machines. However, when I moved on to JRs, Colibris and Squirrels, I found these to be in a different class of machine altogether (reasons in my previous post). Sure they burn a bigger hole in your pocket, but if they were out of rotorspin's budget, he wouldn't be considering JRs against R44s anyway - he'd be limited to choosing between (say) Raven-1s and Raven-2s only. That's the whole point behind his post which started this thread. And that's why I suggested him to get a trusted friend who is experienced in budgeting JRs to assess the real cost of ownership so there're no nasty surprises.

I also have the safety aspect in mind. I believe the JR is still historically the safest aircraft mankind has ever seen. However, if I can only afford an R44, that is probably what I have to fly.

rotorspin
22nd Oct 2008, 13:48
Thanks for all your advice so far - I was keeping quiet as the feedback has been hugely important to me! As some of you had asked where I went I thought I had better respond!

I have received lots of PM's and made some good friends (not all sellers!!) from this thread and my decision is still out at the moment although thinking of swallowing the cost and going for a JR...

Oh - and its not an adhoc enquiry trying to stir up a debate - I will be buying within the next month and my current thought is an 80's+ BIII but feel free to tell me different!

I will post pic of the heli (whichever I end up buying) !

Thanks all - reeeeeeally appreciate your inputs so far and please keep it coming! :ok:

puntosaurus
23rd Oct 2008, 06:08
Don't know if this helps, but the way I take people through this debate is to ask them what they want to use it for. If they want a two person serious touring machine and/or a four person sightseeing/fun trip machine then the R44 will do nicely. If they need more than this then they need to think about bigger machines.

All the stuff about cyclic, reliability etc. is really just individual preference/prejudice. Of course the Jet Ranger is 'better' and as a result it costs more to buy and run ! But if the R44 does the job you need it to do then it will do it for (much) less. You don't really have to look much further than Self Fly Hire rates. Around £400ph in the UK for the 44 and about £500 for the JR. Knock £75 or so off these for profit and you can see what 'on average' they're going to cost you.

Oh and if you're thinking about buying, remember the three Fs.

EN48
23rd Oct 2008, 20:39
does the job you need it to do


No one really *needs* a personal helicopter. As with many things in life, its about *wants* not *needs*! I want an S-76 to fly for fun and games, but an E480 will have to do as it is what fits the budget.

chalmondleigh
24th Oct 2008, 10:06
When looking at comparative running costs please bear in mind that Jet A1 will have a 50p/litre tax on it from this November when used for "Private Pleasure Flying" and from November 2009 the tax will be applied whatever the purpose of the flight, with a very few exceptions.

biggles99
24th Oct 2008, 21:29
Puntosaurus

I think your reference to the "3 Fs" is a bit esoteric for some readers.

the whole statement goes

"If it Flys, Makes Love, or Floats.............. then rent it."

hope this is of use to the younger members of this forum.

Big Ls


oh by the way:

es⋅o⋅ter⋅ic

–adjective
1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.
2. belonging to the select few.
3. private; secret; confidential.
4. (of a philosophical doctrine or the like) intended to be revealed only to the initiates of a group: the esoteric doctrines of Pythagoras.