OK. It seems that if the work were predominantly 'A' to 'B', the 500 would have lower running cost from a fuel consumption point of view.
If planning to do more 'on station' work (ENG, slinging in short hops... ) or tourism flights (where the distance travelled isn't important, just the time in the air), the B206 would have lower fuel consumption costs.
All down to SGR for the consumption side of the house - but then fuel is only part of the equation.
Waiting to hear back on insurance cost differentials on both types. Seems we can get either platform serviced locally without heartache.
Now, I received an email from the Enstrom chaps and had a look at the website. I had always put Enstrom in a bucket with the R22s and R44s - only, less popular.
Their 480B, with the C20W? Tons of space, tons of visibility for everyone, three bladed main, more TR Auth than either the 206 or 500, 536kg useful load, MAUW IGE 12,300', MAUW OGE 5,400', same speeds as a B206, cheaper to acquire, cheaper to operate, etc, etc. It can be fitted with pop-out floats, cargo hook (pilot flies from the left seat like the 500
), searchlights etc. Max range at MAUW/3000' is 355nm or 4.5hrs endurance to tanks dry, which is also impressive. The engine is de-rated by almost 25%, so it has full power to 13,000' or 120 degrees F (good for Australia
).
To me this Heli would seem to be an AS350 with more room, more versatility, fewer parts issues, and much, much lower costs across the board.
Have I stumbled onto a winner, or am I stumbling down a rabbit hole? I'ld be keen to hear from anyone with experience on type? Am I missing anything? This platform would seem very well suited as an alternative...
