advice pls R66 or 480B or 206Biii

[ika]

I'm new to helis, have 500+hrs fixed wing mep/imc flying a twin, half way through ppl(h).
Looking at getting a single turbine, ideally to do 2nd half of ppl(h) in (instead of repeating navigation etc, would make sense to get time and instruction in what I'm going to fly rather than just doing conversion after). Find flying around at 70 kts frustrating when used to 150kts.
Flew an MD500e (and a d and a c), they were great, fast and responsive, sadly no 5th seat else others are no contest and I would buy one. Plan to put kids in so weight not so much a problem but no of seats is.
Tried a Jetranger, perfectly good, supposed to be solid and safe and components go to time, and old ones are cheap, maintenance questionable cost but reckon say £20k pa plus any big things coming up. 120mph/105kts seems realistic.
Being persuaded to try a 480b or an R66 before I commit.
480B on paper a little faster than 206, is it in practice (comfortable, reasonable mid weight - I find that in helis people tend to quote max cruise but in reality don't fly at that as it's uncomfortable if light/heavy/bumpy/at engine limits), going to try one.
Saw an R66 the other day and am impressed by cabin layout and speed (on paper) and predictability of maintenance if I get a new one, capital cost at reasonable finance and predictable depreciation may be offset by lower running costs in next few years at say 100-200hrs a year (assuming I do 50-100 and find someone to buy about 100hrs to make the hole burnt in my pocket by fixed/periodic costs slightly smaller). I'm expecting that on a new aircraft a 100hr will be for once just an inspection, rather than having components to replace. However am slightly concerned by two unconcluded accidents (negative G? seems to be something a fixed wing pilot with low heli hours (i.e. me, might be prone to do, on the assumption others who have done thought they wouldn't do something silly either, or worse spontaneous in-flight breakup) and whether the apparent politics behind EASA refusal to certify will impact on resale or use in the UK (can't put out for training at present, is a slight pain that I will have to complete my training in something else and then convert, and get an FAA licence).
Assume I was planning to spend £200-300k if I could, am happy to pay little now for something a bit tired looking but sound but I could finance an R66, want something fun to fly, fast as can be, resellable without a large loss/wait in a few years from now - one plan is to expect to get smitten by helis, get a couple of hundred hours, my A109 rating/multi/ifr, get an old A109, ditch the twin fixed wing, and then forever be shuddering at running costs and harking back to the halcyon days of a £20k annual and being able to fly non-stop to Corsica.
Any advice (on what heli to get, why/realistic speeds and maintenance costs/experience and at what sort of price is the best value/likely resale exit rather than to get psychiatric help), gratefully received.
Have rejected EC120 and AS350 (which I'd love) on running/ownership costs, also SA341, which would be lovely, for same reason.
If there is something else I should be considering, open to information.
Appreciate there are some threads and comments on related subjects, have read some, tried to distil nuggets from evangelical outpourings, hoping that asking the question again may elicit fresh insights as I haven't yet made the decision!

[rick1128]

A few years ago I was talking with my chief pilot about light turbine helicopters. What he told me stuck. When you are choosing between a 206 or a 500, the you buy depends on where the person who is paying for the machine. If they are sitting up front you get a 500. If they sit in back you get a 206. I have to agree with you on the R66. Until they properly explain how the two fatal accidents happened, I would not consider an R66. Based on Robinson's past record anyone that owns an R66 that needs any fixes or mods, will be left holding the bag on that. If you get a chance to fly an EN480, try it. I have flown the 28 and 280 models and have enjoyed the experience. Plus there are very few life limited parts. If you get a chance talk with Dennis Kenyon.

If you decide on the 206, get a Bell made 206, not an Agusta made 206. From what I have been told, there is a big difference between the two.

[Granny]

Bell 206 B3 every time-get a good low time machine you won't regret it.

[paco]

The 206. You might consider a tidy 206A, as the engine is not start cycle limited.

Phil

[Savoia]

Ika: The questions you are asking, if one were to respond in full, would require forwarding a considerable amount of information.

With your budget one should only expect to be able to acquire an early model 206 with a good number of hours on the clock. If it were my choice I would finance the purchase of a 480B which, compared with the 206, would give you a newer craft with reasonable operating costs and better handing qualities.

If you decide on the 206, get a Bell made 206, not an Agusta made 206. From what I have been told, there is a big difference between the two.
The differences between Bell and Agusta built 206's have been discussed on the Nostalgia Thread and are miniscule. Across Europe all of the initial 206 deliveries were made by Agusta. To give you an example; in the UK of the first 24 models delivered only two were Bell-built.

It was widely recognised that Agusta manufactured versions of the 206 were of slightly better build quality and incorporated a number of refinements absent on their American counterparts. However, as part of Agusta's licencing terms restrictions were placed on the sale of Agusta-built models in the Americas and which is where the "don't buy Agusta" mantra originates. Outside of the Americas Agusta-built Bells will serve you just fine.

Bell 206 B3 every time-get a good low time machine you won't regret it.
There is no more nostalgic aircraft for me (rotary wing) than the 206 and I have accumulated many varied and wonderful experiences in this type but .. today I honestly can't say that I enjoy flying her. Sloppy controls, uncomfortable seating and a bit slow and bumpy. The Ecureuil is far more pleasant as a personal transport.

The 206 is as reliable as they get however but .. when buying the older (high time) models don't think that they will retain their economy. Old creaky 206's can become expensive if you fail to conduct a thorough pre-buy.

[206 jock]

If 5 seats is a must, I don't think the 480B is the answer. The 5-up arrangement is odd. Really, it's a 3 seater that they managed to squeeze 2 more into. And don't forget, kids grow up.

For your budget, if you have rejected the EC120, you should reject the R66. The Robbo is still too new in the marketplace to be at sensible money whereas the EC product can be bought for not terrifying cash.

As for 206's, they do what they say on the tin. However as someone who has bought both, I would say a) do NOT buy an Agusta (I had one): the issue is not the quality, but availability of parts which will get worse as time goes on and b) buy the best one you can afford, then wait for incoming. I was once told that you have to have pockets deep enough so that when an unexpected bill arrives in the post for £35k for some part or other, it doesn't put you off your breakfast!

£300k will get you a 1980's machine with good component times - get a machine post 35xx serial no and it's all the latest design points (91gallon tank, later door locks etc). Mine is 1982 built, has done nearly 14k TT, looks and flies well with good times. If you ask people, they say it's a couple of years old!

[John R81]

Interesting that you rejected the EC120 on grounds of maintenance cost. I have run one for three years now and when comparing my machines with a 206 I would have concluded the exact opposite.

[paco]

These days, when engines simply don't come out at the drop of a hat, I would expect the maintenance bills to be cheaper with a 120.

Savoia mentioned a pre-buy inspection - well worth the investment if the engineer knows what he is doing and is given the time to do it. The first Alton Towers helicopter suffered from the latter. Luckily it was basically a good ship.

Back then it cost £80K per year to run.

phil

[Jet Ranger]

Recently, it was a topic about "B206 vs. R66"...

[Arrrj]

Amusing responses. Two R66 crashes (a while ago and very early in the delivery cycle) and the forum writes off the R66. Well written up advice indicates "over controlling" (in short) as the cause. Google it chaps.

Sister ship to the biggest selling heli in production. R44. Sure, people crash those too. Same with 206 and EC120B (Even John's (R81) machine - ps...you always write something measured, if you are ever in Sydney, PM me and we will go flying !).

Ok, maybe I am biased because I have actually flown the R66. Easy to fly, safe, comfortable and good value. One of my mates just got one, it is a very nice machine. Smooth, heaps (!) of power and really nice to fly.

206 = designed in 1950s, R66 designed this century.

OK, let the debate rage !

(VF ?)

Enjoy flying whatever you are.

Arrrj

PS - I would have 66 tomorrow if not for the GFC.

[toptobottom]

Ika

I agree with John R81 and Paco - you shouldn't rule out the EC120 on cost grounds, particularly if you're relying on "predictability of maintenance" costs as published by Robinson. I did that with a Raven II but then came the stream of non-scheduled maintenance, SBs and ADs: a bare-metal respray (because of corrosion problems that the factory refuse to accept - £12k), 3 x auxilliary fuel pumps (3 x £1k), landing light bulbs every 20 hours, the latest requirement for bladder tanks (£9k), plus the constant battle with blade problems... I like the 44, but don't believe the marketing guff on running costs for this or the R66.

IMO the R66 isn't good value. Sure, it has plenty of power and maybe there won't be as many surprises as the far more established R44 (although I doubt it very much), but if I was looking at spending c. £650k (as I was a few months ago) on a 5 seat turbine, the R66 is the last machine I'd consider. You can live with paper doors and meccano construction on £250k robbie, but not a £650k robbie - you can get a lot more for your money elsewhere.

As others have said, it depends on exactly what you're looking for. I went for the EC120 and so far for my purposes, it's proved to be the best compromise for performance, running costs, reliability and comfort.

[Arrrj]

TBT,

A serious question - not just a wind up.

Can a 120B take 5 x "normal" 85-95kg people and 3/4 (+) fuel and fly ?

I have a fair bit of time on the 120B, without doubt the best made machine of the list (above). But (as I have said before), I have concerns about the legitimate performance of the machine. And when I say that I don't mean to insult any owners, it is a real comment.

Give me a 120B with a B2 or B3 performance, and HELLO that would be the pick for this discussion and many others. Sadly, despite my requests to EC, that does not and will not exist.

Arrrj

[Hughes500]

Dont write a 500 off, they do have 5 seats (centre collective comes out). Can put 5 people in (yes it is a squeeze, but if they are your kids so what) with full fuel and get off the ground. Average 500d = 1650lbs, 550 lbs of fuel (330nm) 800lbs of people. Will lift just, another 550 lbs if on a hook so a good power margin.
Cheaper maintenance as the thing flies less hours to cover the same distance. hold their value very well, in fact sought after machines.
Down side lack of luggage space (pod underneath looks hideous) need bigger hangar to accommodate 5 blades.
Have owned them for years along with 206's and 341's they are more reliable and the cheapest of the 3 to run when you look at nm flown not just hours. Buy an e model for £350k upwards.
Pm me for any more

[FLY 7]

I'm a big fan of the EN.480B, which is IMO the best value entry level turbine. (A used 480 is even better value, but the later 'B' has useful improvements).

Advantages:

- You'll get a late, low hour example for relatively modest money.
- It's a new(ish) model based on an established proven design
- It was designed as a Turbine trainer for the US military and is used as such by various military around the world
- It has an excellent safety and reliability record and tough build integrity
- It has a sophisticated 3-blade fully articulated rotor head
- It has conventional cyclic controls
- It has a flexible spacious cabin set up with various configurations - although best as a 3 seat or 2+2
- It is very comfortable, especially in windy or turbulent conditions
- The handling is safe and benign

Disadvantages:

- Although the cabin can be configured as a 5-seater, it's a bit of a compromise and not for 5 adults (bear in mind that any of these helis with 5 adults will have restricted range)
- Although running costs are reasonable, it needs three new TT straps every two years (c.£6,000)
- Not as fast as a 500 or, probably, R66

Turbine 480B « Enstrom Helicopter Corporation (http://www.enstromhelicopter.com/helicopters/turbine-480b/)

[toptobottom]

Arrj

The 120 will physically seat 5 people far more comfortably than an R66, that's for sure. From a performance perspective though, you're right. The 120 is sensitive to W&B when it's fully loaded, especially if it's hot 'n' high. For me, living in the cold UK valleys, I rarely need to take 5 'above average weight' pax AND full fuel and that's why I said 'for my purposes'.

Not every machine will provide everything a prospective buyer is looking for and ika's decision will be based on his own priorities, budget and general circumstances. I looked at all the same aircraft he did and selected the 120 because it ticked the most boxes for me. No regrets so far :ok:

TTB

[topendtorque]

get the 480B and if you are heading to hot weather get the hot kit for not much more.

people tell me the 206BIII does not quite do what it says on the tin, a lot extra loot for something that wont lift much more than its predecessers. and lots more running costs.

so for leisure an cool climes an 206A might be OK but I'll bet its running cost will line up with or be more than the 480B. Go for a fly in one, they are magic and easy. You will be amazed at the fuel economy when you wind back the airspeed a bit as the three bladed rotor just seems so efficient and smooth as others have said, be sitting down when you read the retirement life on the blades.

480B autos, well was there one?

never seen a 66 and not looking to see one anytime soon.

[ika]

First, thx to all who have commented, all very helpful and time appreciated.

Where I am today is still thinking an EC120 expensive, £500k buys one close to 12 years old.
No one says a Bell is a bad, unsafe or unreliable buy, or that I'll get badly burnt on cost, many say it's boring and it is a bit but it does look more like a "proper" Heli than an R66 or a 480 and I thought exactly as someone said I need to be prepared for £40k not to put me off breakfast, and as long as it doesn't happen too often, fair enough - 150 paying hours will absorb that.

I think if I get a decent Bell I'll be able to sell and use it and get some paying usage without so much hassle. Speed difference over R66 or 480 is probably 15 mins most on a 2 hr flight.

Looking at a post 35xx post 1980 cheap £200k bell with basic utility spec, high 16k tt but good component times except mini turbine (est £40k) due in 300 hrs and maintenance history reputed to be first rate, a slightly newer lower time one for about £250k and also toying with idea of $650k for a late 70s L1 with 5000 hrs, extra speed and space tempting, being able to carry 6 would be a big plus and it may in future put me off the idea of getting a 109, which can only be good for my finances!

Will still try out an R66 and EN480 as I think I should fly before I decide not to buy.

[John R81]

Arrj

I agree = the 120D (same machine with engine and transmission from the EC130) is the machine of my dreams!!!

I like the R66 (just one short flight) but I prefer the 120. If I had to pick from that and the B206 it would be the 206 only because early in life of any ship we are part of the beta testing. The 206 costs are more predictable.


If I can get to Aus I will definately call you up. Same goes if you are ever in UK.

John

[RotarySpanner]

If it was me, I'd get an early lightweight 206 converted A, with good component times, run it a few hundred hours a year, then move on to a Longranger as and when I need a bit more room/better ride.

I'd steer clear of the 480, and maybe have another look at the R66 in another year or two once they've notched up a few more hours and the real operational data is coming in.

[Arrrj]

My mate flew his new 66 up the coast (NSW) yesterday. 125 kts cruise. 130-135 kts fastest. Fuel burn was below published. He is excited about the performance, smoothness and build quality. "You have to get one mate !" was his message last night.

My 44 cruises at 110 kts. That's a big difference in speed and time, particularly in Aus where we have long distances to cover (and can't afford a A109 !).

Longranger IV, superb machine, but it does not cover the ground like that.

Cheers
Arrrj

[paco]

Be careful with the L1 - even with the yoke mod you can't really use the extra seats with full fuel. Been there, done that.

The L3 with the C30P engine would be the minimum to go for.

Phil

[JTobias]

Hi,

All things 'considered' you're choice firstly depends on your budget! If it's reasonably 'unlimited' then it's either a 206 III, the EC120 or a single squirrel. You're going to get big bills with any helicopter so keep that in mind.

Whilst I love the 480 and used to own a share in one, it's not and never will be, a 5 place machine. The Hughes 500 isn't either and its not a 'passenger' aircraft in the way I think you need it to be. No luggage space either. I think the R66 is a great machine but at the moment you can't get one on the UK register and if I was going to be spending upwards of £600k on a helicopter it wouldn't be a Robbo.

My pal Toptobottom has recently purchased the EC120 and that machine is undoubtedly awesome, but if you're new to heli's, and turbines in particular , you've got a machine with zero tolerance for error with the 120. It's also got some weight and balance considerations too.

If I had to recommend one of those machines, taking into account your specific requirements, it would have to be a 206 Jet Ranger.

Joel :ok:

[helofixer]

As a mechanic who works on 480B, R66, and Jet Rangers, Id recommend the 206. The enstrom I maintain is 4 years old and has a little over 1200 hours. We've changed the main gearbox twice in that time due to their low 600 hour overhaul limit...which is being worked on by the factory to double it...time will tell. but thats still low even at 1200 hours. We have been thru 4 tail rotor gear boxes due to chip light recurrences and have done 2 sets of TT straps due to calendar retirement and one set of tail rotor feathering bearings. Track and balance can be very touchy on both main rotor and tail rotor if you don't have a good mech with experience tracking enstroms...using the kit enstrom recommends..they are unlike anything Ive ever dealt with. Also at 1200 hours you will be spending money on retirement items and the labor to change them like lower pulley bearings and seals (2), two cyclic vibration absorber weights and arms and a few others I cant think of at the present time. Also a problem is corrosion with the enstrom. We fight blade and body corrosion because the lack of primer in certain areas. Also an enstrom will need quite a few special tools most shops wont have unless they are enstrom familiar so that could add to the cost. My dealings with Enstrom customer support has been very good, so that is a plus on their. So if you live somewhere that has a corrosive environment, you might want to think about it. Not that the Bell doesnt have its problems, or the R66 but Id go with proven tech over the other two.

[as350nut]

A new R66 runs out at 850,000USD++ so for my money I would prefer a AS350B or BA. For private use both can fit in all the average guy needs to carry, and can be bought for the same money as a new R66. They have more room, fly better, have a solid feel, and I think time will show a better resale value. Parts are more expensive so you need to be carefull when you buy, but there are some great deals out there at the moment. Still remains to be seen what a R66 is going to be worth in a few years time. The 206 is too slow and the LR costs the same as the as350b. The EC120 is nice but not that easy to sell, due most commercial guys shy away from them unless they have a specific (low fuel/wt) use for them.

[Savoia]

So disappointed to read Helofixer's post (above) regarding the 480 after all the positive press I've been reading in recent years on the type. Was told the craft handles 'like a dream' :(

Regarding AS350Nut's comments .. if you are to throw the Ecureuil into the mix then (for me) there is no contest. She is the 'better' all-round personal transport if one is with family - the obvious issue is cost.

[ika]

Agree as350 wins hands down on almost every count, several about for £400k up. Flew in one and was planning to get one, almost bought one. My concern is stories of getting whopping unpredictable (other than that they will be large) bills and poor service as a small operator (I am told that if you have a fleet they are responsive, if not, go to the back of the queue) due to need to send off to eurocopter. From what I hear, I would guess I'd need to budget £50k a year with a contingency of double that, and whatever I saved in the first year or two thinking smugly I'd had a bargain would probably vanish in the third while it sat on the ground for a summer. But if you think I could sensibly operate one for less than I think or with less concern, do say.
Am leaning heavily towards 206B3, its vices seem more benign - I can look at it as each 2 hr trip I take gives me 20 minutes extra flying experience thrown in almost free! The capital saving will probably pay the maintenance for the next 5 years.
Plus, on a very minor note, if I get a 206 I will save about £20k on the cost of the hangar door!

[M1900]

Pilots tend to love what they fly, and I think the responses to your questions may have a numerical relationship to the number of aircraft on the register. Looking at G-INFO, there are 118 'Bell 206's' registered in the UK, compared to only 12 'Enstrom 480's' (there are also N-reg variations of both). The numbers are a function of production longevity and factory capacity.
So logically, there will be more responses in favour of the 206 than the 480 (perhaps up to 10:1, based on the numbers).

Interestingly, I was in exactly the same position as you this time last year - part way through my PPL(H), (already having a PPL(A)), and in the lucky financial position of being able to afford a light turbine.

I bought an Enstrom 480B, and have no reason to regret it for all the reasons mentioned by FLY 7 in post #14 above. For me it was a no-brainer - I couldn't see myself shelling out up to $500,000 for a 20 year old machine with thousands of hours, when the same money could buy a much younger machine with a 3-bladed fully articulated head and the benign handling that suited my relative inexperience.

Those who knock the Enstrom have likely never flown one. My advice is not to dismiss it until you fly it

[206 jock]

M1900

Absolutely agree that we all tend to love what we fly. However, we can all also appreciate the others for what they do best. The Enstrom is a fine piece of kit, arguably it would be better for me than a 206 as I fly two or three up most of the time. However, it won't fit in my hangar and I know the 206 animal now (through painful, bitter experience!). Ditto the 500 and the Gazelle and the R66 - they are great but not for me, for a variety of reasons.

One factor that leads me to the concluion that the 206 is the right machine for Ika, is that he clearly wants to charter it out to recoup some of the costs. It's what I do (though let's not kid ourselves it will ever 'make money') and the JetBanger finds a ready market in the commercial world. The EC120 (and ultimately the R66) will erode this situation - I shied away from calling it an advantage - but the 206 and the R22 are the current machines that will find homes relatively easily with commercial operators.

Oh and ika, be aware that when turbine engineers 'estimate' a cost, they are always being optimistic. Whenever I have had a component that required overhaul, the bill has come in higher. Every time :{

[ika]

I work on the basis that when someone estimates a cost and downtime you should double them both and then add an arbitrary amount and then make no plans at all to need the thing back anyway, and then you might be pleasantly surprised.
Similarly when someone says they can definitely use 100 hours, I assume something will happen and I'll be lucky to get 50. Having said that, it looks like enough people who sound credible are happy to say they'll use a 206 (and no-one an Enstrom) that there is a fighting chance I will at least get close to absorbing a chunk of my fixed costs (yes that is deliberately vague!). Hell, I might even make money if engineers and prospective hirers are to be believed, perhaps I should buy two. Don't worry, the heat hasn't got to me, not serious.

Will fly the enstrom and am open minded to be converted but on a cost basis I think it would have to be close to being as much fun as an MD500 to justify itself. Similarly the R66 might be so much fun to fly, as some have said, that the fact that what is statistically a substantial proportion of the production so far have spontaneously fallen out of the sky can be dismissed as due to pilot error, something that would never happen to someone with my experience, and the fact it will never be Easa certified becomes a mere badge of exclusivity.
Someone said an MD500 can fit a 5th seat, I think that is theory only and not in UK due to front belt restrictions, could put an under slung stretcher for extra passengers but suspect it would cause objection.
Unfortunately I think there are too many AS350s around (near London) and operating costs too large and unpredictable for me to gamble on offsetting some of the fixed costs by charter. If someone can persuade me otherwise, please do.
The L1 5000 hr 1978 long ranger with good times does have a certain appeal though, even if more expensive for a number of reasons, capital, less return and more cost.
All comments have been very helpful and are appreciated, keep them coming.
Most importantly of all the great thing about this input and buying a 206 is I can now buy myself a helicopter as a toy and tell myself/others with an entirely straight face that I considered carefully, took advice and went for the sensible, family, financially prudent option, in much the same way that I bought a 4 seat Ferrari as a sensible family car which was financially prudent as it won't depreciate much further. ;-)

[Hughes500]

Ika

Cam put a 5th person in, there are NO Uk restictions, we do it all the time. It is a squeeze. had 5 in the heli the other day. Myself 210lbs 2 front pax 175lbs and 170lbs plus 2 in the back at 175 lbs each with over 2 hours of fuel on board and did a vertical take off !

PM me for more info

[vfr440]

Ika
I'm not a pilot, BUT..... I'd be VERY wary of the L1. The C28 engine was not a good one, it's out of production and spares (even questionable ones) are, in my experience, difficult to come by. And expensive. The C30 retrofit is a great idea but $$$$$$$$$.

That's my 10 cents' worth I'm afraid - VFR

[RotarySpanner]

Ika - you are correct to be weary of parts problems. I have seen lead times of over 2 years for certain bits. Not sure how larger companies get on, but certainly in my experience, the smaller companies get overlooked. Finding someone who can speak fluent french would work wonders though!

Savoia - The Enstrom can be very very nice once perfectly tracked and balanced. I'd contemplate flying one for a year then getting rid shortly before the first annual, as it would appear only Enstrom employees can make those blades behave (although I've heard that might have more to do with the fact that they have racks upon racks of new blades to pick from at build). What a shame - technical support and part lead times are among the very best.

M9100 - I dont own/fly either types, but with the greatest respect, I'd still pick a 206 over a 480 even if the UK statistics were reversed in the Enstroms favour. My opinions are based on my experience of parts availability, costs, and most importantly the products themselves.

[FLY 7]

That doesn't correspond with my experience. I flew in a 480B about five years ago and was very impressed - so impressed that, a couple of years later I bought one. It's always flown very smoothly. T&B'd at each annual.

Never had any problems with parts and always found the factory very helpful. Mine shares a hangar with several other 480s and 480Bs and they don't seem to have any more issues than any other makes of helicopter.

The 480B may not meet the OP's criteria, but it's perfect for many private pilots looking for safe, comfortable, predictable handling - no vices and relatively affordable at an average 100 - 200 hrs pa.

[rick1128]

Arrrj, My biggest concern about the R66 is the fact that there have been 2 inflight breakups of R66's within the first year. At this point there has been no reasonable explanation of what happened. Until that happens there will be a question hanging over the R66. My other big concern is that based on Robinson's past record, if Robinson finally comes out with a required fix, that as the owner I will have to fix it totally on my nickel. Even though the problem was most likely caused by Robinson's inadequate engineering.

[Arrrj]

Rick,

The two crashes have been well explained (so far) by numerous experts. I am no expert, but I have read the reports. "Over controlling" is the knowledgable reason. Interesting that there have been no problems since then...makes one think - and with a whole lot more machines flying around. There are quite a few flying in AUS now and I have not met anyone WITH ONE that has anything bad to say.

Of course, on Pprune there are plenty of experts on subjects that they actually have no experience of...

I am not a salesman for Robbie, I just have flown one a lot (my own 44), and I have never had a problem. My mate just got his 66 and has been raving about how good it is. I am jealous ! 130 knot cruise at 75%.

Given the fact that numerous 206, 44, 350s (etc) have had accidents since the 2 x 66, I do not think this is a concern. But each to their own.

I do know that the approval process for the 66 was extreme (not a variation to an existing approval like many models receive), and for that reason alone I expect that it will be a really good machine for the future.

Arrrj

[Jarvy]

Ika, not sure where you are in Kent or who to have spoken to. If you intend to lease back then the 206 is the better bet. People have said the 120 is sensitive to W&B, so is the 206.
I'll be honest and the only turbines I have flown are the 206 & 206L.
Always get a good survey done, will save you money what ever you buy.

[John R81]

Is the 66 now approved for G- registration?

I would not be so sure that there is no market for leaseback. True tat until recently a PPL wanting turbin etime / hire would most likely end up with a 206 or MD500. That's what it was like when I decided that I could get more hire time with a 120 - there were no 120's in the south of England, no competition but no market. It took a couple of years to build a base, and even over winter I have been getting 20 hrs / month average.

A lot of my hires are public transport work and I suspect the R66 is a less attractive option - to rich punters the look of arriving in a 120, 206, 350 is way above a Robinson.

I do think there could be a "big" market for PPLs who have trained 22/44 - less of a shock to go 66 than another route.

Worth doing the homework before writing-off the rental angle, including checking the insurance restrictions (if hayward want 150hrs / 100 turbine / 50 on type before allowing someon to rent the machine bang goes your PPL hire market!

[Amatsu]

Please don't forget that at the present time, and possibly for the foreseeable future, the R66 isn't EASA registered so you wont be able to get your PPL in one even if you buy it.

I have flown all of these machines and I would say from my experience if you want to have a quick comfortable ride from A to B with or without passengers a B206 is the best choice (STEER CLEAR OF ALL AGUSTA BELL 206's - they are a wallet melt down waiting to happen) but if you want the aircraft more for fun and the pleasure of flying get an MD500E.

[Vertical Freedom]

AS350B or BA or BB or B1 would do the job nicely as would the good ole trusty B206BIII Jetbox. But if you value Your life don't play Russian Roulete with 3 bullets in the chamber - too dangerous, far too risky - hence stay away from the Crapinson Flimsicopter :( :yuk:

[paco]

Nobody's mentioned crashworthiness yet - the 205 and 500 win hands down in that respect.

Phil

[Arrrj]

VF,

Nice to see you back...any mention of Robbies gets you going !

John,

If you want to look cool, then there is only one choice, your machine - the best small (looking) heli around, no question.

Others,

The 66 will be approved in Europe soon, I believe the problem relates to hydraulics.

Remember the 66 was designed this century (unlike all the other aircraft mentioned, many designed in the 1950's !), and has passed all the tough new tests, it is entirely different (look closely) to a 44. And it's brand new. I don't know about owners out there, but I like to buy new machines that haven't been thrashed by students or blokes putting out fires. Don't knock what you have not flown, that's just thick (as they say in NZ).

Just a thought !

Arrrj

PS - I am in NZ, middle bit of the North Island on a couple of days off, and there is a guy running scenics with a really nice 44, flying past my window ! I think I need to call him and have a chat about flying tomorrow...

[krypton_john]

It's pronounced "thuck" though Arrrj, you know that!

[Arrrj]

KJ,

Correct & apologies.

Love your country, and lots of helis here too !

Arrrj

[FSXPilot]

or you could just fly in an Enstrom! How many 480s have crashed killing the occupants?

[ika]

Looking again at an MD500. Hughes500 is persuasive, as is flying one. It is maintained at skytech. Skytech is highly recommended by several as the best place to go for a survey of an MD500. It has an annual due soon. If skytech is trusted as the place to go to maintain/do a survey does it make sense to ask someone else to check their work? Does it make sense for them to survey their own aircraft? Should I just get it with a fresh annual from them? In the past I have bought 4 fixed wing aircraft without surveys having been satisfied the existing maintenance people looked reasonable and not regretted it, and had surveys done on 2 boats which didn't tell me anything useful they might have done. It's relatively low hours, not like say an old Augusta bell which might have an unholy mix of components lurking to surprise. Also checking out an R66 tomorrow and an EN480 for comparison - if you don't hear again from me, look in the AAIB.

[JTobias]

As far as I know SkyTech are the best place for 500's.



Joel:ok:

[Hughes500]

arrrj

Designed this century, what bolloks. if it were it wouldnt be an aluminium helicopter it would be composite. Please tell me if you compare the 206 an aluminium helicopter with a teetering rotorhead with 5 seats with a c20b gas turbine that weighs in at about 1900 lbs v your 66 which is also an aluminium helicopter with a teetering rotorhead which is " bigger" than a 206 with 5 seats and a C20B er sorry RR300 engine which weighs about 1250 lbs where has 600 lbs of metalwork gone ? If it was composite i could understand it but it was apparantly designed in the 21st century with a construction technuique from the 1950's. Suggest you wise up before spouting off

[Vertical Freedom]

Totally agree with Paco, & also the 206 is very safe & so are the 350 series too :ok:

Good on You Hughes500, where has the metal gone??? from a none composite Helicopter?? that's why they fall apart. I can PM some Engineers details who will now NOT fly in them (Robinsons) as they don't consider them airworthy :{

& Arrrj yes I have flown enough 22 & 44's to have an idea, frankly I don't think they did anything different nor special with the 66 :\

Happy Landings & avoid Russian Roulette

VF

[CO280fx]

Re: paco and FSXPilot--

There has only been ONE fatality in an Enstrom 480, straight or the B model. The solo pilot had an in flight medical emergency and was killed in the subsequent crash. IMHO, Enstrom makes the most crashworthy light turbine and piston helos on the planet.

PS- the "inflight disintegration of rotor system due to 'overcontrolling'" explanation of the R66 fatal crashes is terrifying and pathetic. >4 million hours and counting on the Enstrom rotor system without a catastrophic failure. Not that one should!!, but you could make abrupt full control deflection manuevers, loop, roll, Zero-G pushover, overspeed, and pull Gs till your nose bleeds in an EN28/48 and it would keep on truckin'...

[topendtorque]

Certainly if a few more of these 480's would crash we would have some statictics to go on rather than having to dig thru the wrecks of other types all over the place.

As a bit of trivia I've done a vey rough breakdown of the responses so far, including reported mates' preference etc., but it's a bit hard to decipher as some seem in favor of two types. ??

Here's the result.
EC120, 3
R66, 2
L3 or L4, 3
AS350, 3
H500, 2
E480, 9
B206 either A or BIII, 11. (and mostly for reasons of product sale use or resale)

This turns upside down the previous mentioned 10:1 bias in favor of the 206.

cheers tet

[krypton_john]

Strong favouritism for the 480 - and I'm not surprised.

However the OP expressed a desire for 5 seats. Technically the 480 can do that but I don't believe it is practical. Has anyone here actually sat in the middle seat of the back row on a flight?

[RMK]

Not a "clean" use of statistics re the Enstrom 480 comparison. There are so few of them about, it is like discussing the crash statistics of "Bat Mobiles".

[CO280fx]

Here's a "clean" statistic for you:
Within one year of first delivery, with less than 100 flying worldwide, the R66 killed three people.

The Enstrom 480 has been in use for over 20 years, with approx 160 delivered, and has killed no one. (properly speaking, one person died while flying in it...)

[Hughes500]

Cant argue on crashes as 844 OH6's ( mil 500) were shot down in vietnam and i am priviliged to fly one of those machines 42 years later and she still goes very nicely:ok:

[krypton_john]

You're flying one of the ones that was shot down? *Now* I am impressed! :-D

[ika]

Flew both R66 and (another) MD500.
R66 is nice inside, spacious, good view, supposedly idiot proof starting, very quiet (you can truly talk without headsets with the thing running), benign autos (while the rotorhead is still attached!) - one of the few helis I've been in which actually seems to move horizontally rather than plummet almost vertically, albeit while light. It's pretty good at quite a lot.
But, while opinion may be divided as to whether it is a supreme piece of engineering to achieve remarkable strength with half the amount of aluminium or it's clearly missing vital strength, it does subjectively feel a bit light and flimsy. Also, I think I'm becoming shallower than I thought I was - it just doesn't look that cool! It has distinctive looks of the R44 which sort of says it's not quite the real deal. A 206 is a proper heli and an MD500 is impressive. Also, cruising at 120kts is only 10kts off Vne and other limits seem near, even if apparently they are conservative limits - if you're going through something gusty at 120kts and drop something it seems like there's a risk that with an accidental nudge of the T bar (will probably get used to it but it doesn't feel that natural) and if the rotorhead doesn't detach, you'll bust Vne. The start feature is nice but I trust myself to pay attention for a full 30 seconds and remember the complex process of not taking my finger off the starter and frankly I wouldn't want to lend my toy to anyone whom I suspected might find that a challenge!
MD500 is just great to fly. It does descend somewhat sharply in auto but it can indeed fit a 5th seat with a shoulder strap in (and I'm only planning to fill seats with kids or slim women so don't care if it's a bit cozy, need number of seats not space in them).
No doubt a 206 would be better for carting kit or people who might complain around in but I can travel light, (and if people start to grumble about space, I'm sure exploring the flight envelope limitations will take their mind off that).
Weather and a diversion meant I haven't yet seen the 480 but will look seriously at one.

Re TET's analysis, I think the picture is different if you factor those against and the strength of feeling rather than simply counting votes in favour. No-one really says a 206 is a bad thing, nor an MD500, just one is a bit slow and boring and the other is not designed primarily for passenger space/comfort, both valid but not damning.

Re accidents, the R66 incidents are somewhat concerning, even if one blames the unfortunate pilots, it's only fair to assume they had some time in helis and probably weren't trying to detach the rotorhead and probably wouldn't have succeeded in doing so in another type. The EN480 has low numbers and hours flown so you wouldn't expect much in the way of accidents but I think everyone would agree there is nothing to suggest a safety concern. However the passionate views on maintenance can't be ignored and it isn't that quick or that pretty or that spacious. Interestingly I looked up accidents in the MD500 and, leaving out what I would consider silly pilot error (like hitting something) in a few decades it seems to have suffered little in the way of mechanical problems, but there were a fair few stuffed up autos (pilot error perhaps, but suggests it may be easier to cock up an auto in one than in some others, a concern to me) although at least the pilots tended to kill the aircraft rather than themselves in the process. Just something to bear in mind, I guess practise should mean at the end of each trip you can calmly start the cool-down timer at 2000ft and have the chart neatly folded by the time you put it gently on the pad!

[toptobottom]

ika
Nice to see an objective assessment based on real experience. Don't forget to try an EC120 before you make your final choice though... If your concern is around running costs, there are a few owners/operators on here who can share their real experience too. As I said before, your selection will be based on which machine ticks mosts boxes for YOU; based on your comments above, you owe it to yourself to test one :ok:

[Arrrj]

Hughes,

No need to use poor language mate. The 66 WAS designed this century, and I suggest you may wish to do your homework and understand what FAA rules it was approved to.

It was a "clean" approval and (theoretically at least) that should make it a much better machine. Again, I am no salesman for the type, but at least I have flown one...have you ?

I think that composite is the way to go, but I also understand that there are FAA approval issues with composite. Time will no doubt change that.

Arrrj

[Hughes500]

Arrrj

No I havent flown one which if you notice I havent claimed. I asked the " question" on its constuction which is from the 1950's using aluminium skin with stringers and frames. As you are obvioulsy a fan please tell me where does such weight saving come from. There are three possible answers, Bell is well constructed and therefore overweight, The R66 is cheaply constructed and is therefore underweight or you have a combination of both. :ugh:

[Vertical Freedom]

Hughes500 yes sadly You are correct the Robinson Helicopter is poorly & cheaply underconstructed hence the name Crapinson Flimsicopter & flying this dodgy thing is the same as playing Russian Roulette with more than one bullet loaded into the revolving chamber :{

Happy landings

VF

[toptobottom]

Robinsons are cheaply constructed, but that doesn't necessarily make them dangerous if flown within limits, or they would never have got any approvals. You could argue the Bell 47 and Alouette were cheaply constructed, but they were aimed at a particular role/market sector and were very successful as a result. Robinson has historically been extremely successful in its penetration of a specific market sector, where affordability was high on the list of decision points.

However, it's now aiming at a different sector: the $1m turbine market where prospects are more discerning, demanding and have more choice; high in their decision criteria lies value for money. Why buy a brand new Skoda if you can buy an immaculate 4 year old Jaguar for the same money? Personally, I wouldn't touch the (very ugly indeed) R66 with a barge pole, but only because I know I can get a far more 'robust' and proven helicopter for the same money elsewhere.

[Arrrj]

Hughes,

I am a fan of the 66 because of its performance. That's all. 5 up, 3/4 fuel, OGE hover at 75%. You simply cannot do that in a jetty.

Your criticism of weight saving does not make sense. Indeed, that's what everyone in aviation, from a model aircraft to the space shuttle is trying to achieve.

TTB,

Well said, the first bit anyway. That would be why Robbies are the biggest selling helis in the world.

Anyway, good flying to all.

Arrrj

[Vertical Freedom]

Hughes500 yes sadly You are correct in that the Robinson Helicopter is poorly & cheaply underconstructed hence the name Crapinson Flimsicopter & flying this dodgy thing is the same as playing Russian roulette with a couple of extra bullets loaded into the chambers.........scary:{:yuk:

[Vertical Freedom]

Arrrj but the space shuttle uses new age technology & materials. The Crapinson Flimsicopter has nothing like that tech, they just cut back weight by reducing metal strength & sadly safety. I can HOGE at 15degrees C at 10,000' @ MTOW 2,250kg in my AS350B3+ I have HIGE at MTOW 1,520kg same height & temp. with a B206BIII with theC20J donk :D

[toptobottom]

I am a fan of the 66 because of its performance. That's all
If performance is your thing (regardless of all else), then get a Gazelle; 35% of the cost of an R66, so the money you save on purchase will go a long way towards its first maintenance bill... :E

[Vertical Freedom]

If its POWER you want there is only One option, hot, high, heavy go the AS350B3 :D

[krypton_john]

Agreed. Dang, now where is that spare $2.5mil I thought was in my back pocket???

[Arrrj]

John,

Yes indeed. We all want a B3 (yes VF, even me), but like John I am short the $2.5 meg. That's why we are talking old jetties and R66 etc.

On a related note, there are two new R66 working in the outer Lake Taupo area, replacing two MD500, apparently the operators are really happy with the performance. I would be interested to get a first hand report, do you know anyone ?

On an unrelated note, I flew one of Helipros 44s around there, great day and very pretty !

Arrrj

[krypton_john]

No idea, Arjjj. 500s get used more for utility work - would have thought R66s would have been doing tours?

[Matari]

Funny these posts about the 'flimsycraptors' or whatever.

When the AS350 was first introduced, I was a young mechanic and more used to the sturdy Bell 212 and 206B.

I remember looking at the AS350's Peugeot gauges, the pop-riveted control tube connections, and the post-rainstorm peeling composites. I thought, what a shoddy piece of junk.

Many years later, the AS350 has proven itself. And now, believe it or not, it is held up as the epitome of engineering excellence.

Well, the smart Aerospatiale design engineers found clever ways to reduce weight (every aerospace engineer's first task) and cost, and built a pretty darn good helicopter. Expensive, but good.

I've never flown in or worked on a Robinson, but it sounds like Frank has made a step-change in five-place turbine powered helicopter design. He reduced weight like a good engineer, built to the latest specs, and made it less costly than any other. Time will tell how it sells and performs. But 'crappyflopter' or some other silliness? C'mon.

[Arrrj]

Matari,

Hooray for a sensible comment ! I remember the Astars were called "Falling Stars" when first released in the US.

Krypton John,

The chap I spoke to said the 2 x MD500 were replaced by 2 x R66 for lifting work. No doubt there will be a story in Helinews or such soon, and we will all know.

Arrrj

[Hughes500]

Matari

Obviously havent seen the 350 crash lifting the xmas tree where the tailboom fell off and the seat came away from the floor then ?
Having had friends burn to death due to 350's fibreglass fuel tank and a another couple die after a gerabox seizure fresh from overhaul not sure I would hold them up as that special from an engineering prospective.
If you speak to Bruno who owns the Cabri G2 he was one of the development engineers on the 120. He weeps telling the story of how it gained 250kgs of weight from drawing board to reality. Now if the 120 was 250kgs lighter what a machine !

[krypton_john]

That's a bit unfair Hughsey. That AS350 lifting accident was subject to the forces of a wire getting into the rotor - no surprise that the ship broke up. No helicopter would survive that.

As to the seat - maybe it's a poor design. Maybe if it didn't give the pilot's shoulders would have been torn out and his neck broken. The guy walked away. Can't complain about that.

To a certain extent it's a good thing when parts of the helicopter give. That's all energy not being directed into the pilot.

Anyway, AB139 tails fall off all the time and that's just taxying.

:-D

[Hughes500]

KJ

Just making the point that the tailboom seemed to fail rather easily ! As for the seat that is ridiculous ! I agree no helicopter would have survived that but !!! I am sure if the pilot had been thrown out while still attached to his seat and killed the insurers would be seeking a rather large amount of compensation for a seat that was not fit for purpose. I know he walked away but only by the grace of god.
If you look at most 206 accidents they havent had the tailboom fail. Was only trying to make the point that not sure that 350's are as well constructed as Matari thinks. As for the139 which the tailcone fell off while taxiing ( the crew didnt know:eek:) the ac had had a heavy landing and the maintenance company did not inspect the composite. Well according to Westlands, I teach a couple of their managers, so view from the inside.
It just seems imho that the 1960's machines are built like a brick sh-t house in comparision to what we see today !

[krypton_john]

Hughsey, they certainly are. Those 60's machines are mil spec and you can't get better than that.

But hardly anybody in the private world these days can afford mil spec. General aviation spec is bad enough.

After all, you and I don't pay the premium for an armoured Hummer to drive the kids to work.

If there were no robbies, there wouldn't be much of a GA helicopter scene at all.

The bar is set very high for FAA type certification these days. The R22 would never ever make it. The R66 did. I've never even seen one but have yet to hear a bad thing about it from anybody who has flown it. It is troubling that they have lost a couple already though. Maybe there was pilot error. Even the 206 will lose its whirly bits with the wrong inputs. Maybe the blades failed. That seems to be the only persisting weakness of the R44.

Time will tell. I hope the r66 does really well and makes those old 206's and 500's get even cheaper!

I also hope someone does a scottsbell47 on the 206 and buys the type certificate. Pipe dream maybe.

[RotarySpanner]

The Bell is built like a tank and weighs in like one because its composite technology is old. In some places the composite is over an inch thick and stuffed full of metal. Designed in an era to withstand bullets from below and run on cheap fuel paid for by the government. Nowadays it's not hard to beat this with the newer stuff and come out with an aircraft 600lbs lighter.

Talk about spouting rubbish. Have you ever removed every single bit of useless plastic trim from a 206 and placed it in a pile? Even the doors are twice the weight, yet offer no realistic increased protection from blades/the ground if it were to really go wrong. Does that big heavy instrument panel really make you safer …or is that Bell build quality more likely to just bend out in the sunlight? I could go on forever about unnecessary bulk in the 206.

I think the 206 is a lovely, reliable and solid machine, but saying a new entrant is not up to the job because it's not 1960's Bell is quite pathetic. Noone does '1960's Bell' anymore because no one wants to pay to keep all that metal in the air.

Yes the B3 is a fantastic machine, and I'm very happy for you guys out there flying the bigger stuff, but not everyone can afford Eurocopter’s prices. We are talking about entry level turbines here, and unfortunately for you, the new R66 is now one of them.

[Arrrj]

I read 3 out of the 4 last posts and wondered if I was really connected to "pprune"...3 sensible comments in a row ! :D

(Except for the "unfortunately" - which probably should read 'fortunately' - at least in terms of the argument presented, in the last one).

Arrrj:ok:

[Raven15n4]

Hey! I just spent a good deal of time enjoying this thread. Where's the happy ending?!

If you made any purchase, ika, I suspect you're thrilled. To own ANY turbine heli would be awesome. So what did you choose? What advice can you give?

In your very first post, you said the MD500 would be the hands down winner: "sadly no 5th seat else others are no contest and I would buy one." By the time you learned it does have 5 seats, you were mired deep in various arguments. It's fun to watch because you don't NEED a heli or have to run it profitably for a business, you just WANT it. Everyone seems to agree the MD-500 is the most FUN in the bunch. It might not be for five adults but it sounds like it would fit your kids and small wife just fine...and...although people buy for worst case ("best" case here) of the entire family onboard, most find themselves flying alone or with one other person the majority of the time. For sheer joy of flying (what I think you're after), the MD-500 seems the best choice, all things considered.

If you favor instead the utmost practicality, most appear to agree the 206 would bring happiness...unless you buy one bearing gifts of unscheduled maintenance. TT strap replacement seems to me an issue for a low flying private owner but, as noted, if you're concerned about something like that, you can't afford to be in this market.

The 480B, despite ardent fans, seemed to take heavy hits for maintenance and potential discomfort if seating five. I may be grossly oversimplifying but it didn't seem a front runner for those two stated opinions.

That leaves the R-66. Certainly not as sexy as others but is it the sleeper? Those who have actually flown it seem to think so. Has time revealed answers to concerns surrounding initial fatal accidents? Did any dreaded SBs or ADs materialize? (Legit questions; not sarcastic). For the aspiring private owner, is it a wolf in sheep's clothing? In other words, is it a very strong practical choice if one's ego doesn't preclude that option?

So? Happy ending?

[Dr Zeke]

I would at least keep the 120 in the list of aircraft for consideration. Fly before you buy anything else!

I've flown 500 hours on 120s and have owned 2 of them, - for private running they are hard to beat. Quiet ( inside and out ), fast, huge cargo capacity, and a nice looker. But, they are not all equal. One big variable is the weight. A "bare" 120 should weigh abt 1000 kg. At that weight, it should deliver all of the performance numbers, 125 knot cruise etc.
However, many of the early ones are carrying plush leather interiors, heavier older glass panel equipment, floats, aircon systems ( esp the after market systems ), and if there's too much of this stuff up front there may be tail ballast as well!
One of mine weighed 1020 kg empty, the other one was 1130 kg. The practical difference when loaded to MAUW was one hour's less fuel- quite a capability constraint.

The 120 is now a well proven design, and if configured correctly, is a super capable safe quiet modern helicopter with a huge cargo hold. Worth a look!

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Zeke, in real terms how does the 120 compare with the 206 - operating cost and performance?

[Dr Zeke]

Sorry for slow response! havent checked in for a while...
I havent operated a 206 so am unable to offer direct comparison information. The 206 is best as a helicopter work-horse with excellent lift and hover capability, but quite a bit slower. Slower = longer flight times = greater cost per leg though... For all helicopters, faster flights should be cheaper to operate since costs are "per hour".
A very large part of the total cost of ownership is in the cost of capital and the insurance. You can beat this if you are prepared to trade, since the market price - esp for 120s - can move up & down sufficiently - also the US $$ has its own volatility compared to other currencies which gives you another variable to work to your advantage. Obviously, it can work for or against you, so timing is everything!
My operation cost experience with both EC120s was good - no big surprises. ( Avionics was the flukey variable, the airframe/engines were all solid ) Biggest issue for a private operator who only flies 130 hrs per year is that many components hit their calendar life limit before their flight time limit - frustrating to replace parts that are clearly not worn out. These are predictable in advance though.
The marginal operation cost per hour is much much lower than the full replacement cost per hour, so if you time your ownership period to avoid the big engine and airframe inspections your operation cost can be much lower than Conklin & Dekker predict.
Its useful to prepare a full cost forecast including buying, selling, exchange rates estimate, market shift estimate, hours for your operation, and assess each individual helicopter ( with their own hours/calendar profile ) in that model. For me, the buying & selling circumstances were far more significant than the marginal hourly operation cost.