R44 versus B206
I've never heard so much bias on one thread for a long time.
I'd bet that the vast majority of the responders in favour of the 206 are all people who get paid to fly and/or have a background in the forces.
These types don't need to factor in economics.
Blimy, it's just tosh that the R44 should be "experimental". Why? On what basis?
Both the 206 and the 44 are great machines, and both do virtually the same thing if you are the person sitting in the right hand seat. They even feel similar to fly (yes I do fly both).
At least the 44 doesn't have the silly issues about parts marked "AB" not being compatible with parts marked "B". There are lots of horror stories about machines being grounded as unairworthy merely because some bits were made under licence in Europe.
As for the depreciation, you can buy a perfectly good R44 for GBP100k or less that has lots of years left. Buy one for (say) 90 grand with 500 hours and 8 years left and you've reduced your depreciation by over 50%.
For a private pilot that wants to own his or her helicopter and only flies 50 hours a year or less, then the depreciation pales into insignificance when you compare it to turbine costs, TT straps, fuel govenors, I could go on.
If anyone wants slighty less biased views, please PM me.
Big Ls.