PW
Real data is hard to find but where it is available (UK for one) it seems that Enstroms have probably accumulated quite a large fleet flight time. A lot of those still about have done thousands of hours. Mine has 2700 hours. They have also been produced for 30 odd years and more than a thousand have been produced. Agreed it is not terribly good data but it is all we can get - unless someone knows better.
There are no really good figures for comparing all the different types but looking over all the AIBB, NTSB et al, it is hard to draw any conclusion other than flying an Enstrom carries a lower risk of fatality than an flying an R22.
R22s fall out of the sky in bits for unexplained reasons (allegedly). They have issues such as mast bumping and carb ice. R22s have had terminal blade problems. Enstroms don't have any of these problems.
Enstroms are easy to auto to the ground. R22s aren't, assuming it hasnt already killed you before you got auto established. Enstroms give you time to think "Duh the engines stopped" before you drop the pole. R22s don't.
It has even been suggested that the chance of retaining control after a wire strike is better than other types as in an Enstrom, the control rods run inside the mast.
8% of reported Enstrom incidents resulted in a fatality
21% of reported Robinson incidents fatal.
(Source AAIB, NTSB, 1969 to present)
This analysis is broad and rough but to some extent nullifies the effect of hours flown and fleet size.
Incidently the BMW/Escort analogy is not necessarily a good one. In the late 1980s I did a similar analysis (fatal and serious accidents out of total reported accidents) on cars and the loser in that survey was the Audi Quattro, presumably because when it hit things it was going faster!
Last edited by Gaseous; 14th November 2004 at 08:50.