PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - "Why Robinson helicopters seem to have a bad habit of crashing"
Old 14th Mar 2019, 16:09
  #56 (permalink)  
Triple Nickel 8 Ball
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the fast lane...MOVE OVER!!
Posts: 54
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by aa777888 View Post
Triple Nickel 8 Ball Some of your perceptions might be a bit off.

With respect to the power of the G2, when I flew it, before the software change that allowed some extra horsepower, it was definitely not as powerful as the R22. Now perhaps they are more on par. Someone else will have to weigh in on that. But swinging all that extra inertia around, the physics suggest it won't be quite as powerful feeling as an R22 still. But that's just me being pedantic

More importantly, your math is probably just a bit off with respect to the cost of running the various machines. I can't speak to UK costs, but they should be similar to US costs. You can't get hung up on the 12 year/2200 hour cycle of the Robinsons. All that does is lump a bunch of maintenance together on the Robinson that is more distributed over time on other helicopters. At the end of the day it is still the equivalent amount of maintenance. As soon as you go from the piston world to the turbine world hourly operating costs double. This is a combination of more expensive engine maintenance and more expensive insurance, and more than offsets any differences in fuel costs. It doesn't matter if you bought a cheap Alouette, it'll cost you double to run it compared to an R44. Worse, you won't fly it that much and the insurance alone will be quite painful, as you will be paying it whether it flies or gathers dust. That insurance will more than offset any perceived savings of on-condition maintenance. Go get some insurance quotes if you would like to see for yourself.

Most important of all, that brings us to the issue of flying the R44 itself. My strong recommendation to you is to go get some time in the 44. You will find it is not, by ANY means, a China doll. Indeed, other than no pushovers being allowed, I think you will find it far sportier to fly than the G2, and after a few hover autos or full downs you'll see just how rugged it is. You will also see that it is not any bother at all to keep it out of low-G. Yes, the interior styling is not quite as plush, but until there is a G4 it's going to be a BIG leap, cost-wise, into a turbine. And a tatty old (but entirely airworthy, don't get me wrong) 206 is not going to be very plush, either The only thing you will not like is how difficult the auto's are. Let there be no doubt, it is quite a bit more difficult to auto a 44, much less a 22, than a G2. So there will be some learning curve there. The up side to that is when you get back into the G2 the auto's will seem like they are unfolding in slow motion and that you hardly have to do anything
Thanks "AA" .....I appreciate the time you took to respond.

I think that, one of the things with an R44 is that, unless you buy it from new and get the benefit of the cost saving, then down the road, the next owner (and the one after that etc), until OH time, all take advantage until the machine is worth "not a lot". Compared to a Corporate Jet for example, if you buy one without any programs (i.e no money in the bank for engines and airframe), then the value has the crap knocked out of it. If you were buying into a machine that had a program type set up, it would retain a stack of value. In the UK, the cost of buying the kit from RHC is 210k plus VAT....add a decent paint and interior makeover, a few new bits of avionic magic, plus an engine overhaul and BOOM.....you've spent 250-300k....PLUS, buying the machine in the first place. If you bought it at half life for even half the value new, you're looking at spending MORE than a new one will have cost in the first place.....so I just dont get it? It seems artificially cheap to me, because it isn't at all cheap. I also dont understand how Turbine costs double? Fuel per hour is cheaper, or say, equal to....insurance is a percentage of the hull value, plus pilot experience and guesstimated utilisation and, having had quotes, is very close. The engines have higher TBO's and even if you factor the added bits and bobs that need to be changed, the hourly cost is still not double and of course, the depreciation is NEARLY non existent compared to a Robbo and you have to factor that in. My pals 98 206 B3 is worth MORE now than when he bought it a few years ago. Yes, he has lavished some cash on things he wanted (avionics mostly and some other things), but he did so knowing he wouldn't really add value....he just wanted the mod cons. If he sold it tomorrow, he would get the cash back.

I'm pleased to hear that you rate the R44 and indeed, many do. I've flown a couple of hours in the R22 (and in fact, will have access to one for "cheap", once I'm licensed) and quite liked it....as it's a little more challenging and "Sporty". The R44 I have also had some time in (only as a pax...not to fly) and again, I liked it....but it was some time ago and the bad press they seem to receive (justifiably or not), has just leaked a little doubt in over time. As I say, I dont really feel like there is much of a choice for progress in types and seats for me right now.

I confess to being a little "tongue in cheek" when I mentioned the Alouette. I just love the fact that they will pull down a house, you can buy one with spare engine and blades for less than 100k and I can have a pal maintain it, with me passing him the tools and making the tea. It's a romantic notion that I will get one. Same as with a Westland Scout!!!!

Thanks again all.....love the Fling Wing World
Triple Nickel 8 Ball is offline