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.
Last edited by EN48; 20th Oct 2008 at 02:43.