Robinson R66 (merged threads)

[Need money]

Has some clever editing been going on, here is the launch video per this thread earlier with the "aggressive" take off:

XiIQ_oDxqNc


this is the launch video per the heliair website, which is much more considered:

6w-Oj9gkCK4

or were there 2 "launch" dates, (& the pilot learn his lesson after the first one ?)

[parasite drag]

From memory your second YT clip was the first flight with the new owners on board, then the first clip was the second flight with just one pax, and then there was a third flight with five pob...

[splitneedles]

Does anyone have any info about when the R66 will get EASA certification?

[AirWon]

Not meaning to rain on anyone's parade here, but am I the only one who just can't get excited about the R66?
That "UK launch" video just about sent me to sleep. Loved the brass band though, nice touch.

[hands_on123]

Is it me or was there a tiny bit of potential dynamic rollover on that takeoff?

[John R81]

Or just a lot of weight on the left!

[Hughes500]

Looks like the r66 is a great buy comes with A Butler and a remote battery pack to start the engine - wow :ok:

[rotornut]

toptobottom
Allison 250 = RR300 (more or less):

Rolls-Royce RR300 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RR300)

[Unhinged]

Got endorsed on our new R66 yesterday, then flew it back to base today and started the endorsement for one of our line pilots. So far I have the vast total of 8 hours on type, but it's a bloody impressive machine. The most noticeable things so far are the power reserves and performance.

It's fast. I loaded 5 adults and just over half fuel. With 80% Tq we were doing 120 kts without breaking a sweat.

Hover engine failures were interesting. We started at 1 metre skid height. I won't say how high we eventually did them from, but if I ever caught one of our pilots taxiing at that height, I'd kick their backside from here to next week. I'm guessing some of it was rotor intertia, and some was slow engine spool down, but it was impressive.

It has a fair bit of tail rotor roll. Noticeably left-skid-low in the hover, and I could easily balance it on just the heel of the left skid when picking up or setting down. When flying from the left seat, the cyclic grip is right above my right knee in straight & level flight.That's a fair way over - certainly compared to R22/R44.

The controls are heavy without hydraulics - no surprises there. They're heavier than an R44 or B206, but are well behaved (unlike an AS350, for example !) and it's very comfortably flyable down to a hover or run-on landing.

Niggles for me were: (1) It leaks just like a Robbie. We flew for a couple of hours in rain, and the water was everywhere, including the boot. (2) The heating also turns on a ventilation fan, but I couldn't find any way to have the fan on its own, which is a bugger when you're flying in tropical rain and you want to defog the windshield without cooking your passengers. And (3) the warning light which tells you if a cowl has been left open is only triggered by some of the cowls. So even if the warning light is off, you can't be sure that all of the cowls have been secured.

[Runway101]

Thanks Unhinged, nice reporting.

[Unhinged]

A few more thoughts on our new R66 ...

Before we got it, I was worried about people getting hurt by walking near the exhaust while it's running - Not worried any more ! I've only seen one start cycle from the outside, but it was enough to convince me that anyone who was anywhere near the exhaust when the fuel goes in would get the idea and leave pretty quickly. Once it's running you'd have to be willfully bonkers to go anywhere near the exhaust.

The boot is huge. It looks as big or bigger than the one on a Jetranger, and can carry more weight than the Jetty boot (136 kg). You can still put stuff under the seats, but I don't think you'd bother. We'll keep safety items and company requirements under the seats, but it seems very unlikely that you'd ever need to put passenger baggage there.

There are some great little touches like the light which shines onto the circuit breaker panel, or the drains which catch any fuel spill or engine oil spill when you're filling those.The engine, MR gearbox, and hydraulic oils can all be checked via the same cowl on the LHS. A torch will be handy, but isn't needed if you don't happen to have one in your pocket at the time. There are steps up the LHS so you can get up to pre-flight the rotor head without needing a ladder.

The exhaust is directed somewhat downwards as it leaves the engine, but the underside of the boom, tail feathers and the tail rotor still get a fair bit of soot. Our aircraft are washed every day they fly, but we'll be painting a fair bit of that area dark to help keep them looking good.

I think one of the problems is likely to be over-enthusiastic take-off profiles. I looked at the video someone posted earlier on this thread, and I can tell you that it's just sooo tempting to do that when you first get the keys to an R66. It has so much spare power, that there's a major surprise in store for those who've spent too long easing heavily loaded 44's and 206's into the air. I suspect that's why the book limits take-off torque to 10% above hover torque - to try and keep pilots somewhere near a sensible departure profile. I'm planning to do specific work with our pilots along these lines.

Lastly, I'm happy that we still have the Robbie cyclic. When I fly a 206 or 350 for a day, I invariably end up with a sore lower back as a result of lifting my leg over the cyclic and turning at the same time to get out of the helicopter a dozen times a day. With the Robbie I just lift the cyclic handle out of the way and there's no stress on my lower back as I get out. I'm equally happy with the cyclic from the left seat, and don't have any problem with keeping my hand up a bit higher when flying from that side so the other pilot can follow through on the exercises. It's entirely personal of course, but I'm happy the way things are.

[helicopter-redeye]

I sat in the UK 66 today. I was told to avoid touching the starter button becuase it would run the start cycle even with Master Batt Off.

Is this right? Is there a starter breaker that stops this risk as on the 206 ? (I forgot to look)

The front seats look wide and feel like a 44 seat. The back seats and leg room look cramped. The middle seat looks like the Enstrom third seat and there is a raised area at floor level that would make it more cramped for tall types like me

h-r

[Unhinged]

Not true. If the Master is off or the rotor brake is engaged, the starter button is disabled - the same as other Robbies.

If the Master is on and rotor brake disengaged but the Igniter key is off, pressing the starter button will power the starter for as long as you press the button, but the starter will not latch and the igniter will not fire.

[DennisK]

Here's another supporter of Robbo's latest turbine. I got in a couple of longish sorties at WAP and loved every second ... except the cyclic. She's fast, (125 knot at 70%) rediculously smooth and quiet. See my report in May Flyer. Out April Dennis K

[ascj]

So would you buy one over a 480b Dennis?

[zip]

Flown it / power is great / speed good / cost to run is awesome - potentially cheaper than an R44 !

It's the most exciting thing to happen to the helicopter industry for years.

And for all those sceptics ...watch the sales !




Plug for a supplier deleted.

[DennisK]

For ascj,

Would I actually buy one .. I don't have the $1million handy just now but thinking the question through, and as much as I liked the R66, I suppose I'd have to say 'No' simply because I'm an Enstrom fan and like the space, the fully articulated handling and multi-blades of the 480B. Then there is the occasional fifth seat. But to return to the Robinson, the turbine 66 was the smoothest ship I've ever flown out of thirty-three rotary types .. how much of that was due to John Mik's 'tracking' know-how, I couldn't say.

I'd bet a few bob that she will prove a surefire hit, especially with the loyal Robbo fans. But that wouldn't be the first time I've got a sales forecast badly wrong. Dennis K

[Heliport]

Latest News

Another one gone .....

I've been reliably informed that Quentin Smith resigned from HeliAir Ltd on the 4th March and is no longer associated in any way with the company.



End of an era.
Q and Mike Smith built up a very successful company and, under their leadership, the 'old' HeliAir used to be the most consistently recommended UK helicopter school.

H.

[ascj]

cheers Dennis :ok:

[zami]

Actually we fly an R44 II in Italy for short sightseeing tours of app. 10 flight minutes each. (sorry for my english :bored:).
Many passengers arrive in two to fly so we fly principally two passengers at a time. This configuration is also ideal in the R44 for weight and balance. For this reason the R66 can halve the current number of rotations with 4 pax/flight.
Can someone help me compare the operating costs (the R44-2flights/tot20min.) and (the R66-1flight/ tot10min.) considering the limits of the turbine cycles (TBO engine) for this short flights as 10 min. RHC/RR give a tbo limit of 2000 hours/3000cycles (an average of 40 minutes per flight)
Thanks!

[EddieHeli]

I thought with engines a cycle meant switching the engine on and off, so if you are doing engine running passenger changes its the hours that count.
I think airframe cycles are lift off to touchdown, but I don't think these are limited on the Robbo.

[zami]

Thank you for the answer.

Unfortunately, our problem is that we often must startup the engine during our activity because it is not continuous.
My question is, when we reach the cycles limit (I estimate in our case approximate at 1000 hours) we must overall all the turbine or only one stage while the other stages mantain the hourly limits of 2000 hours TBO?

ciao

[Arrrj]

Zami,

The answer is in the R66 brochure on the Robbie website.


TIME-BETWEEN-OVERHAUL (TBO)
is 2000 hours or 12 years for the airframe and 2000 hours or 3000 start cycles for the engine, whichever occurs first. All life limited components have approved service lives of at least 2000 hours.


http://www.robinsonheli.com/brochures/r66_turbine_brochure.pdf

I have a R44 II and am considering upgrading to a R66, because I want to take 4 adults (including me), 2 sets of golf sticks and overnight bags. The numbers work on paper...I have flown the 66 briefly (15 minutes) and it is very nice. My intention is to get my endorsement next week which will give me more flight time to make the decision, however from what I have read here, it all sounds great.

Arrrj :ok:

[Runway101]

Does anybody have a scan or photo of the R66 checklist(s)?

[cyclic flare]

Flown it too.

Fairly smooth, not sure its worth ther extra $$$$. No more performance than the 44 when all up. 2700 all up well the raven two is 2500lb. bit more room in the back than the 44 but i sit in ther front anyway.

[206Fan]

YouTube - R66 Introduction flight at Helibiz www keepvid com

[foxmead]

Hmm, i am curious as to where this will fit in, private owners who wish to upgrade from 44? it would certainly need to be a cheaper turbine option if you were to fly hire. I hear the 100 hr costs are not much more than a 44 and fuel usage between 19 & 23 galls hr, i suppose that would depend on how it is flown & weather conditions etc.

However for hiring out / corporate use you would need to start with a 120 size. Only time will tell how well it does but for Robertsons sales options will include overseas military use, law enforcement will attract sales................

[Droopy]

but for Robertsons sales

By golly you may have a point there...

[peter principle]

I note that from the RHC website that the R66 Operating costs lists both airframe & engine have only 2,000 hours life rather than the 2,200 hours on R22 & R44, see below,
http://www.robinsonheli.com/price_lists_eocs/r66_eoc.pdf

However that was not the main point of my post here which concerns how RHC calculate the overhaul cost element of both R22 & R44. Taking as an example on the Raven II overhaul reserve costs are quoted as $83.18 per hour, which multiplied by the 2,200 life = $182,996 see below
http://www.robinsonheli.com/price_lists_eocs/r44_2_eoc.pdf


but if you look at the overhaul section of the RHC website for the Raven II, see below
http://www.robinsonheli.com/price_lists_eocs/r44_factory_overhaul_pricelist.pdf
you see that the basic overhaul cost is given as $210,000

That is a difference of $27,800 or $12.64 per hour on the overhaul reserve bringing the hourly overhaul allowance up to $95.82.

Similar differences apply to the R22.

Now, am I missing something here? I am unable to see how both figures can be correct

Are PPRruners able to enlighten me and should we take as gospel the overhaul reserve figures quoted by RHC for the R66?

[Helomaster59]

Peter,
the 83.18 US$/FH are the hourly reserve for the two kits and the estimated 240 manhours required to carry out the job. Most Robinson Service Centres around the world can do the overhaul. If you take your aircraft to a place where labour cost is lower (higher) you might allocate a lower (higher) reserve. Be mindful that 240 MH is a suggested figure and any Service Centre will use that as a minimum.
The overhaul at the factory is an altogether different process, where the aircraft is stripped down, inspected and put through the assembly line, to include full repaint of the exterior. At the end of the process the aircraft really looks brand new. This of course attracts a higher cost, which is the one mentioned in the Overhaul Price list, but equally a higher value to the a/c.
I hope it clarifies your concerns.

[Johe02]

Thats the best promotion video for the R66 I've seen yet.

Well done Helibiz :D

[John R81]

Any idea when the R66 gets certified for use in UK?
Is there a float package for AOC work over water (eg London helilanes)?
Is there a lighting kit for night VFR?

Can't find these things on the Robinson website

[HeliCraig]

Latest speculation appears to be that it will get EASA certification in September John. Are you toying with idea to replace Ec120 (sorry to see that by the way!)?

EASA certification of R66 now expected September 2011 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://www.helihub.com/2011/05/27/easa-certification-of-r66-now-expected-september-2011/)

[John R81]

Looking at all the options.
2 yr old low-hrs EC120 about £1m pre haggling
Not keen on taking one of the many 2000 - 2001 machines (12 yr airframe and 15 yr engine overhauls coming up). I'd rather spend that extra now for a younger machine
R66 is a possibility
So is a used AS350 - but can I get a nice one? (1.8m for a new B2 is more than I want to pay).
Not sure I would go to a 206 - possible the L4 if I could get the right price

Still not had "official" word that mine is a W/O but I don't hold out much hope that it will be repaired. The hull value pay-out and sell what's left (and there is a lot of expensive, undamaged bits to sell!) will I suspect cost the insurance company less.

Flew the 66 at Redhill during the roadshow - nice chap let me fly the circuit. Handled just like a 44 but with more power.

I prefer the space and cabin layout of the EC120, and I am actually impressed by its crashworthyness. R66 has price going for it, and more power surplus. However, it gets that surplus mostly (as I see it) from being less substantial in build. Does that trade crashworthyness?

Anyway - can't do anything until the insurance position is settled so just looking at options.

[Hughes500]

Dont believe any manufacturer as to what his machine costs to run !

[cyclic_fondler]

"Flown it / power is great / speed good / cost to run is awesome - potentially cheaper than an R44 !"

I was at a recent demo of the R66 a few weeks ago and they were saying that the sfh cost would be in the region of £600ph - ouch.

So this low cost turbine will be more expensive than a Jet Ranger and about the same price as a EC120 to hire?

[Hughes500]

cylic fondler, so lets get this right it is cheaper to run thean an R44 but sfh is going to be about 50% more what does that tell you ??????????

[lelebebbel]

it tells me that there are only a few of them out there so far, and every man and his dog want to fly them. If I had one, I'd charge you an arm and a leg to fly it, too.

[hands_on123]

All the cost of an EC120 with the looks of an Austin Allegro.

[griffothefog]

From a helicopter veteran of all things that have tried in vain to kill me...... Its plain nasty :ugh:

Even the Hiller 12E I used to beat crops to death with was more boootiful..:ok:

[Unhinged]

I reckon lelebebbel has it in one: "it tells me that there are only a few of them out there so far, and every man and his dog want to fly them" Supply and demand rules in the marketplace.

On the other hand, it's not clear if Griffo's "Its plain nasty" is experience or just prejudice. Personally I wouldn't get into a Hiller for all the tea in China, but that doesn't make it a nasty machine.

Whether you like the looks and the cyclic are personal preferences, but I've been flying the R66 for a few months now, and the most annoying practical thing about it is that the tail-boom absolutely has to be cleaned at the end of every flying day to keep it looking good. And if that's the worst that can be said, I'm pretty bloody happy.

Departed the control zone this morning with full fuel and just me on board, on the way to pick up a customer. 80% and 130 kts on the dial, and sooo smooth. Go Frank :D

[toptobottom]

tail-boom absolutely has to be cleaned at the end of every flying day

Just like the R44s that were painted with the water based paints and live in Europe then. If you don't wash the machine after every flight, the things corrodes itself off after 2.5 years... :mad:

[hands_on123]

Does anyone know the sales figures for the R66? There are hardly any R44 bargains around, so does this mean people are not upgrading?

[Granny]

From an economic point of view I wouldn't touch one-downunder a new R66 is around $1.1-1.2 million, Take it home and over the next few years watch the value of that aircraft decline monthly and considerably as it approachs the 12 yr life overhaul-and as you put time on it and assuming you don't run it out of hrs sooner in 10-12 yrs it would not be worth $300,000.
Take half of the current asking price of an R66-say- $600,000 go to the USA and buy a nice mid 80's Jetranger 3, and you know what you have got?-,one of the best helicopters ever built and in 12 yrs it will be worth a bunch more money-a JR will appreciate in value. They are proven-reliable and solid the world over, and it won't corrode away like these 44's are with their ****ty paint and corrosion proofing.

[Vertical Freedom]

:eek: blade delaminations :{ corrosion :yuk: post crash fires :sad: TBO's not reached :* paper mache airframe :E soaring costs :oh: worst safety record :\ Robbies will go down in history as the most unsafe & suspect machine ever built :mad:

[Amatsu]

So cynical. I've been flying and maintaining Robinson Helicopters for over 15 years and the only serious problems I've encountered have all been induced by the seat-to-stick interface. They just need loving, cherishing and nurturing through to their next wallet ripping re-build life. Having seen, but not yet flown, an R66 I'm sure these wont be any different. Just a lot more costly when the jockey stuffs the start up.

That said, I'd rather have a 206 strapped to my pants any day!!!!

[CO280fx]

Take that $600k and get yourself a nice mid-80s Jet Ranger with 10,000 hrs on it...? Or how about a 5 year old Enstrom 480B (http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/ENSTROM-480B-TURBINE/2007-ENSTROM-480B-TURBINE/1172260.htm?) with less than 500 hours on it? The Enstrom brand is the best kept secret (worst marketing, least understood) in the light helo market!

Enstrom's Turbine 480B - Better than an R66? (http://saflyermag.co.za/index.php/about/features/flight-test.html)

[krypton_john]

The Enstrom may be nicer than the other two in many ways - but crucially it just lacks the practicality and versatility of either of the others.

The storage is no way near as big, and flying it with 5 POB? Maybe a short hop for pilot and 4 midgets.

[Granny]

Go to www.controller.com there are quite a few Jetrangers for instance-
1996 Jetranger 3 with 984 hrs TT-US $670.000
That would be more bang for your buck than a R66

[belly tank]

Agree with Vertical freedom and Amatsu,Give me a good ol Jetbox with good paintwork anyday:ok:

[hands_on123]

How long will Frank give it before he gives up on the R66? (if it just doesn't sell?)

[bolkow]

shorten the mast? I'vwe heard they are cutting off enough tails already when the main rotor is offloaded, would'nt that make the problem worse?

[3top]

Hi all,

.....did any one of you that seem to have a total aversion to Robinson actually FLY one - not just in flight school, but in commercial life after??

Cheers,

thjakits :cool:

[eivissa]

Yes I do fly it commercially and the R44 is actually cheap to run, reliable (except for the aux fuel pump on the Raven II, that seems to be sorted now), powerful and nice to fly.

Its also plain ugly and every time I jump in it after flying the AS355 I dont feel like sitting in a real helicopter.

The upsides outweigh the downsides though.

This Robinson discussion will never end. Someone is allways saying its a toy and the other one arguing that it is very cost effective and reliable.

I for my part dont like the R22 and dont see a market for the R66 with so many cheap B206 available.

[206Fan]

There is quite a few 66s for sale also!

ROBINSON Turbine Helicopters, Used ROBINSON Turbine Helicopters, ROBINSON Turbine Helicopters For Sale At Controller.com - Page 1 (http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?ETID=1&catid=7&Manu=ROBINSON&setype=1)

[Palma]

How long will Frank give it before he gives up on the R66? (if it just doesn't sell?)


Currently, the next available delivery for a new R66 is January 2013.

I trust this answers your question....

[hands_on123]

I am surprised there are so many used R66S for sale already. They are awfully expensive though, and it does seem like a used 206 will be a better bet in the long run, as you don't have to throw it away after 12 years.


Currently, the next available delivery for a new R66 is January 2013.

I trust this answers your question....

This could mean demand is high, or they are making them very slowly!

[Torque and temp]

Does anybody have any news on the EASA certification? Have they run into problems with the crash worthiness or are they stuck in bureaucracy?

[Lewycasino]

Does anybody have any news on the EASA certification? Have they run into problems with the crash worthiness or are they stuck in bureaucracy?


Heard that EASA won't certify because it only has single hydraulics, they want dual and Robinson won't comply.

[eivissa]

Heard the same about the dual hydraulics from an operator in germany who is still waiting for his ship to be delivered.

I bet it flys hydraulic offs just as nicely as the r44 and doesn't need the second system at all.

[Arrrj]

Yep, you are correct. The 66 flies fine with no hydraulics, just like a 44. :ok:

[MartinCh]

EASA CS 27.695 a and b Certification Specifications for Small Rotorcraft only talk about either 'alternative means' and the need to have control in case of engine or component failure, or at least be manually operable.

So why all the BS about the single hydraulic system? I doubt having one extra place in the chopper as per FAA certification/POH is makes it different. Also, I don't see any differentiation between small helicopter with turbine and small helicopter with piston engine.


Edit: Took me few mins to find it. Those who fancy reading it. It's buried in the EASA website. CS-27 (http://easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/certification-specifications/CS-27/CS-27%20Amdt.%201.pdf)

[wigglyamp]

EASA and Transport Canada have delayed certifcation of the R66 due to concerns about the hydraulic system according to this week's Flight International.

[MartinCh]

HELI-EXPO: Hydraulics concerns hold up R66 certification (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/heli-expo-hydraulics-concerns-hold-up-r66-certification-368235/)
"We're very pleased with what's going on around the world," Robinson said. The airframer will soon introduce new versions of the R66 dedicated to law enforcement and news gathering, he said.
The former is considered a gateway to offering the R66 for military roles. The helicopter could be offered to the US Army in several years to replace the Bell TH-67, a variant of the 206 that serves as a basic helicopter trainer, Robinson said.
"I would think that would be a good idea," he added.

You're kidding me?? :ugh:

As posted in R66 thread, the said valve design is taken from R44 AFAIK and the heli is controllable manually, as CS specs require. There must be more to the story. It'd be good if solved by the summer. I guess I can just dream on.

[OAX]

Hey guys I just took delivery of my new R66 wow is all I can say
I have had a R44 ii for 2-5 yrs great thing but u do get sick of sitting on a milk crate for hours
Last week end I flew the 66 Sydney to gold coast and back smooth cumfortable and roomy sat on 125-135 kts. Airspeed and smooth as. Used 80 ltr hr up and 81 lt hr home yea more than the 44 but going 20 per cent quicker And did I say more comfortable
2000 ft OGE hover 5 people 3/4 fuel no worries and flies same full or empty
Also I now have my nov 2009 R44 470 hrs for sale with factory bladders and everything else u would need for sale cheap as I don't need two helis
I also have another 66 coming this Xmas that I now don't need but that is another story
Yes I think the 120 is a better looking Heli but doesn't perform full like this
Cheers all

[as350nut]

Anyone know if the R66 has a barrier filter option for the engine, or if one is planned. I see the intake is at the bottom of the mast, from operating R44 I know this is a place where dust settles. :sad: When are engine manufacturers going to put filters on from new, its seems like a bad joke. Make an incredibly expensive air guzzling fine tolerance, engine but don't give it any protection.:ugh:

[Matari]

R66 is equipped with inlet air filter as standard equipment.

http://robinsonhelicopter.com/price_lists_eocs/r66_pricelist.pdf

[as350nut]

Well thanks for that I should have checked it out first:bored: Have to give Frank credit when its due, certainly makes another tick for the 66 I just paid 27,500 to put an FDC in my AS350

[helofixer]

Be advised the inlet filter is a thin foam type filter, that slips over a cone shaped frame. Its not anything like an FDC Aerofilter or any of the other filter system. its a throw away....think you change it 100 or 200 hour intervals.

[Amatsu]

For my fellow geeks out there, The following is a statement on the R66 TCDS which is free for all at FAA: Home (http://www.faa.gov) :

"Exemption No. 9589, dated January 28, 2008, to § 27.695. This exemption was granted to permit a powered flight control system without considering the
jamming of a control valve as a possible single failure."

This is the reason for the lack of EASA certification.

Another statement that is of interest to everyone bolting GPS's into their aircraft without an approved mod... as happened behind my back as I walked away from the aircraft I had just certified the build of:

"NOTE 6. Determination for compliance with 27.562(c)(5), Head Impact Criteria (HIC) must be performed for any equipment installed in the cockpit or passenger cabin."

[mickjoebill]

"NOTE 6. Determination for compliance with 27.562(c)(5), Head Impact Criteria (HIC) must be performed for any equipment installed in the cockpit or passenger cabin."

Does this regulation have scope for interpretation, which includes wearing of a helmet to lessen the effects of impact? In relation to this clause below, does wearing a helmet mitigate the HIC risk of the temporary installation of a TV monitor that is within striking distance of my head when I operate a cineflex?


(d) An alternate approach that achieves an equivalent or greater level of occupant protection, as required by this section, must be substantiated on a rational basis.

Mickjoebill

[Heli-Jock]

I agree with "verticl freedom" and "Granny",,,,Jet banger all day long!
There was a N Reg jet ranger on e bay recently for £165k,,seemed a decent aircraft.
I also watched the Heli Air R66 N reg, N66NN i think was the call sign,,take off from Oban on Friday around 4pm, it departed straight over the water at 90 degrees to the main runway! :ugh:

No floats and people sitting in back seats!
I trust the RR engine is fail proof?

[Hughes500]

Probably be the MD of heliair with a take off like that, utube the first flight in UK !!!

[helicopter-redeye]

It is usual for heli's to depart EGEO at 90 degrees (west) to the runway for noise abatement purposes. Especially if going West..

From the pages of the AIP

5. Helicopter Operations
a. All helicopters are expected to make approaches from, and depart to, the west to minimise environmental impact on airport neighbours, unless
weather conditions dictate otherwise

[Heli-Jock]

Red eye,,,,
Im sure the AIP will in now way overrule the ability to safely conduct a flight to and from the airport!

Couple hundred yards out to sea and couple hundred feet high, no floats, one engine, people in back seats,,,but im sure the pilot would have been able to safelly autorotate to land in the event of a failure? :=

Im not bleating on about it, really im not, i see things like it week in, week out, up and down the country, im sure we all do.



5. Helicopter Operations
a. All helicopters are expected to make approaches from, and depart to, the west to minimise environmental impact on airport neighbours, unless
weather conditions dictate otherwise

[chopjock]

Heli-Jock

Im sure the AIP will in now way overrule the ability to safely conduct a flight to and from the airport!

So was the flight made safely?

Im not bleating on about it, really im not, i see things like it week in, week out, up and down the country, im sure we all do.

How many things do you see like it actually crash?

[Heli-Jock]

CHOP JOCK

So was the flight made safely?

Maybe the question should have been, "Could the flight have been conducted even safer than it was"?

How many things do you see like it actually crash?

Whats your point?

[helicopter-redeye]

What was YOUR original point? Was the R66 flight conducted in an unsafe manner?

The prevailing wind at EGEO is from the west and the runway is north south. Should he take off out of wind?

Why would the engine fail anyway?

An engine failure on 19 will drop a helicopter into deeper water (or an area that is not flat). 01 gives you a caravan park (OK if you are working for Top Gear).

Would the rescue boat have been able to deploy in time irrespective of the location of the landing over water?

[chopjock]

Heli-Jock


Quote:
How many things do you see like it actually crash?
Whats your point?


My point is if you see things that you think are dangerous happening week in, week out, up and down the Country and there are no accidents, then perhaps they are not so dangerous as you think?

[initalcontact]

Had a look but couldn't see this elsewhere on the forum

http://www.robinsonheli.com/media/pressrelease/r66_police_helicopter_certified_pr.pdf

[misterbonkers]

Hi All,

Does anyone have an update on the situation with the R66 & EASA? Have the European distributors had their 'meeting' with EASA?

regards,

MB

[Soave_Pilot]

I flew the 66 Sydney to gold coast and back smooth cumfortable and roomy sat on 125-135 kts. Airspeed and smooth as. Used 80 ltr hr up and 81 lt hr home

OAX:

how many aboard? These numbers seem a bit off to me.

w/ 4 aboard i cant get over 120 kts (nil wind) and the torque would be at about 78%, bringing the fuel flow at about 95 lts/hour. Normally i fly at 72% TQ that gives me 110kts 85lts hour.

Cheers

[Soave_Pilot]

I'm also getting an instrument error in my IAS at about 10% less than the true airspeed, seems a lot to me.

I have the non heated pitot on the 66 I operate, has anyone else experienced this?

[Gemini Twin]

"The exhaust is directed somewhat downwards as it leaves the engine, but the underside of the boom, tail feathers and the tail rotor still get a fair bit of soot. Our aircraft are washed every day they fly, but we'll be painting a fair bit of that area dark to help keep them looking good."

Anyone else having this problem ? Is it something that should/could be fixed?

[Grenville Fortescue]

Does anyone have an idea as to how many R66's have been sold in the UK to date?

Is it doing well?

Robinson sales sometimes provide a glimpse of how the private helicopter market is holding up.

[John R81]

As the R66 is not yet certified for the UK register sales may not yet provide any indication of the state of the private helicopter market in the UK.

[FLY 7]

The R66 is not EASA approved and there is some uncertainty if/when it might be.

I think the private helicopter market 'peaked in 2000-2008.

However, in the current climate, I would imagine most private buyers would be looking for 'pre-owned' bargains. So, a good indicator might be how quickly used MD500s, B206s, EN480Bs, EC120s, R44 RIIs, etc, are selling.

[OAX]

To reply to the fuel usage in my R66
I mainly travel with 2 up and baggage
Sitting at66% 115 kts I use 81 ltr hr
I just flew back from tazzie a few weeks ago 5.1 hrs from flinders and headwind all the way
Heading up new coast had 20 kts on the nose so we sat 83'% all way from malacoota and burnt 84.7 ltr hr also 2 up this was 130 kts air speed
I do agree they do fly better with a heavier load on but speed and fuel don't seem to vary much

[OAX]

Yea my 66 has a heated pitot
The asi is not accurate and I'm told it is user error
Seems to b more effected with a cross wind
I have also had them take off the small reflectors on both sides at the static vent due to asi bouncing

[Ian Corrigible]

Reports of a third R66 fatal in Brazil at the beginning of the month: ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 152438 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=152438).

This follows the two previous fatals in July 2011 (Colombia) (http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/first-robinson-helicopter-r66-crash-victims-families-hire-baum-hedlund-261768.php) and October 2011 (South Dakota) (http://helihub.com/2011/10/01/01-oct-11-n266cy-robinson-r66-philip-us-south-dakota-1f).

I/C

[Soave_Pilot]

Reports of a third R66 fatal in Brazil at the beginning of the month: ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 152438.


This accident is very likely to have been caused by bad weather, CFIT. They found the remains of the wreckage on a hill. Weather was shi%$y at the time. Pilot was a Private Pilot non IFR rated.

[Savoia]

I'm not really a 'Robinson person' but I take my hat off to what old Frank achieved for the industry in terms of making rotary-wing operations increasingly accessible through cost-effectiveness.

And .. I've not been following the 'progress' of the R66 that closely either but .. this Helihub report seems interesting:

Sloane Helicopters, the UK and Ireland Robinson Dealer since the mid 1970's has, along with many other potential European buyers, been frustrated at the delays to EASA certification of the R66.

During the original FAA certification of the R66, the FAA granted Robinson an exemption from the redundant control valve regulation. Several non US countries do not accept exemptions;

Therefore, Robinson elected to work with the FAA to establish an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) finding, thereby negating the need for the exemption.

The ELOS involved a rigorous analysis and test program to demonstrate the single-valve design was equivalent in safety to a redundant design. Robinson has now received the ELOS, which will remove the exemption from the R66 hydraulic control system.

This should therefore open the way for the R66 to be certified by those Authorities that do not accept exemptions. We therefore wait with interest to learn of EASA's response to this significant step.

Sloane Helicopters encouraged with R66 development | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/03/07/sloane-helicopters-encouraged-with-r66-development/)

[500e]

Now is that like Sk saying our gearbox will never leak all it's oil ?

[lelebebbel]

No, because unlike the S92 and its gearbox, it is quite easy to fly the R66 without hydraulics. No different than an R44.

[Hughes500]

lele
Think you are missing 500e's the point there, manufactureres will do and say anything to save money

[FLY 7]

No, because unlike the S92 and its gearbox, it is quite easy to fly the R66 without hydraulics. No different than an R44.


I understand, from an experienced instructor who has undertaken the official conversion course, that the R66 can fly fairly easily hydraulics off, but some manoeuvres produce an exceptionally heavy cyclic, far greater than in the R44, and enough to be of concern.

[FSXPilot]

Like someone else has said I've been told by someone who has flown them that with the hydraulics off the forces involved made him worried that the cyclic stick might actually break. He is a big bloke and he was struggling to put enough force in to make it move the way he wanted. This is someone with many thousands of hours. Robbos have and will continue to be a source of design related problems.

[Savoia]

UK allows uncertified R66 to fly commercially

Helihub, Brooklands, 11th March 2013

Here in the UK we have had some recent high-profile general media stories about huge international organisations avoiding tax. Household names including Amazon, Google and Starbucks were splashed across the headlines - each of them using various legal tactics to minimise their UK tax payment. While these activities may be ethically dubious, they are all perfectly within the law as it is written. Tactics like paying a "licence fee" to another group company, which happens to reside in a lower-taxed country, which all but wipes out any profits made in the UK.

And so we come to helicopters.

In the UK, aircraft type certification is under the remit of EASA, and it is widely known that the Robinson R66 does not yet have their approval and sales across Europe are stagnated. That said, there are in fact examples of the R66 operating commercially in the UK, fully within the regulations as they stand.

We noted recently that Heliair were operating an R66 on a pipeline contract (including the actual aircraft featured in the photos here), which comes within the definition of the "Aerial Work" and not the "Passenger Transport" flavour of commercial flying.

The CAA's Richard Taylor confirmed to HeliHub.com that "providing it has a current Certificate of Airworthiness, an aircraft on the US register can indeed undertake aerial work in the UK, but not public transport flights. The operator of the aircraft needs to apply to the Department of Transport [DfT] for a permit. The DfT would usually need to see the CoA and Certificate of Registration as well as the log book. Depending on the type of aerial work undertaken, exemptions might also be needed from the CAA, such as a low flying exemption for pipeline recognisance [sic] etc."

Mr Taylor also confirmed "An aircraft with a Standard Certificate of Airworthiness under ICAO provisions, such as the R66, may indeed be permitted to do aerial work in the UK even though it has not yet been type certified by EASA." and that "The DfT have indeed issued some aerial work permits for N-reg R66s"

So, Heliair are completely inside the rules and regulations from the UK point of view, and have complied with the Department for Transport permit requirements. Like the tax story above, the ethics of what they are doing is dubious, but they _ARE_ inside the law as the CAA explained to us. Is the law a sham?

Just last week, the longer-established UK distributor Sloane Helicopters issued the following press release - Sloane Helicopters encouraged with R66 development although it is obviously still focusing on the EASA certification issue.

HeliHub.com went to some lengths to elicit a statement on the situation from Heliair, but they have not responded to us.

BHA Chief Executive Peter Norton, whose organisation represents British helicopter operators, gave the following response to HeliHub.com "I have no issue with the granting of an Aerial Work permission to operators who wish to use an N registered aircraft from within their own fleet subject to the agreement of the DfT and compliance with UK regulations. In the case of the R66, useful operational experience with the type will support future UK sales once the aircraft has been certificated by EASA." Interesting! Perhaps we have unearthed a sales opportunity that has been previously overlooked?

There are currently ten Robinson R66s in the UK, all on the N register. There are a similar number again in total spread among other countries around Europe including Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland and Spain. The aircraft operating on Aerial Work in the UK are fitted with HISL (High Intensity Strobe Light) as shown in the image below.


UK allows uncertified R66 to fly commercially | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/03/11/uk-allows-uncertified-r66-to-fly-commercially/)

[Hughes500]

So what is the point of having any aircraft other than AOC machines on an EASA reg ? Thought the idea of DFT approval was where there was no viable option for use of a national reg machine ?
not sure why I really bother anymore if EASA /CAA allow this ( not having a go at the R66 just the principle as it doesnt produce a level playing field)

[tu154]

Bit hysterical I thought. Won't someone think of the children! :rolleyes:

[CYHeli]

Not sure if it had been mentioned already, but I know that the question has come up from time to time.
Press Release (http://robinsonheli.com/media/pressrelease/canada_certifies_robinson_r66_turbine.pdf)
The sticking point had been that during certification of the R66, the FAA granted Robinson an exemption from a regulation requiring hydraulic control systems be designed with an alternate or redundant system in place in case of failure.

[Arrrj]

Sav,

I can confirm (for what it's worth !) that flying the 66 with hydraulics OFF is quite easy. Very similar to the 44 (which you can land easily without hydraulics).

In fact when I did my endorsement on the machine, I landed more than once with no hydraulics, right on the spot I wanted to...no run on landing either.

So, without defending "Frank" and his boys, the exemption is not a big deal from a safety perspective. We have been flying the 66 in Aus for ages, and it's a great machine - HEAPS of power - really can take 5 people and fuel for a "fair dinkum" flight of more than 20 minutes !

Now, make the 120B (or 206B) perform like that and we would have some sort of choice !

All the best,
Arrrj

[JimBall]

Interesting about Heli Air. There is a rule, however, that any aerial work flight conducted by an AOC holder must be conducted to AOC rules.

So, we must only assume that Heli Air per se is not "the operator" in this instance.

[helops]

Hi all,

can somebody tell me how long it will take to get an EASA certification for the R66?

Many thanks

[Heli-News]

Herewith is one of the first photos of the Robinson R66 belonging to the Fish n' Fins dive company of Palau, registration T8A-39S.

This is the first of R66 in the Western Pacific region.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3743/9316992118_1f354b01cd_b.jpg

[Arrrj]

Heli-news...

Great machine.

Looks like a pretty ordinary location though ! ;)

How much fun would it be to fly around there ?!

All the best,
Arrrj

[KiwiNedNZ]

How many R66s are there actually delivered around the world now.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

How many R66s are there actually delivered around the world now.

Ian Corrigible seems to have his finger on the pulse of global heli sales so hopefully he'll show up.

Re: the heli in paradise - overlooking the fact that its a Robinson :E okay its a new helicopter with turbine power but - its operating in an area where most of the islets are less than a mile wide. How come then that they chose not to equip it with standby floats?

[lelebebbel]

There should be somewhere between 400 and 450 by now. Robinson was talking about "close to 400" when the 66 was certified in Canada end of May.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Couple of pics of one here in NZ I shot.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/OutGro%20Aviation/778748_10151409846541023_680370400_o_zps33737718.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/OutGro%20Aviation/792218_10151409821856023_790022294_o_zps3010b082.jpg

[HeliStudent]

Nice photos. :ok:

Do you remember which kind of crops they were spraying?

[KiwiNedNZ]

Just gorse I think.

[HeliStudent]

Ok thanks. And do you know why they are spraying gorse?

[KiwiNedNZ]

To kill it.

[Steve76]

Congrats Ned on the most appropriate reply.

[John R81]

Ned - are you certain??

They may have been spraying perfume to enhance the 'gorsey' smell:*

[toptobottom]

Surely they were spraying weed killer?!

:O

[HeliStudent]

Congrats Ned on the most appropriate reply.

Most appropriate reply? Really?

Had there been a simple tag with the photo saying "spraying gorse in New Zealand" and perhaps explaining that gorse is a problem there, I wouldn't have had to ask any questions.

As it is gorse in Wales is really a non-issue because our winter winds keep it in check. Last week though we did suffer gorse fires including one bad one on the Sychnant Pass, near Dwygyfylchi, Conwy, because as I am sure you know, gorse is highly flammable due to the oil contained in its branches.

The situation in New Zealand (for a non New Zealander) is not obvious because some weed control experts believe that spraying with a single application of herbicide is not effective and that combination methods of control are required. Moreover the situation in New Zealand is again less than straightforward because it was purposely introduced and has been found to provide ideal conditions for some of New Zealand's native seeds to germinate and grow. However over the past century it seems to have become a problem to be controlled.

So - you will forgive my inquisitiveness!! I like seeing helicopter images such as Ned's but I like it even better when I understand what's going on and why.

[as350nut]

Having just had my first ride in a R66 I would like to post my impressions;
Congratulations to Robinson for a great aircraft
I thought the build quality was good to great.
The rear centre seat is comical.
Power reserve on take off quite good, and T/r superb.
Cargo space is great improvement on R44 but losing underseat capacity a pain.
Auto was exceptional, probably the best I have experienced.
Top speed didn't meet expectations at about 115- 118 with 4 people
Wonder about logic of hooting along at 120+ light weight on own if it will do it, however as it would appear to be a danger zone for blade adherence.
Biggest issue I have is the 3000 cycles on 2000hr engine life when I average .5 per flight. This is a deal killer for me.
Aircraft had a bad lateral wallow type feeling with moderate side on winds, to be expected I suppose with such a high mast.
It would fit in to any shed someone has a R44 or Jetranger in, so that is important for some.
Its familiar type for all the R44 owners out there.
Is it 300-400k better than a R44 - no, don't think so
Is a new one better than a 10 year old EC120 for the same money, no I don't think so
Is a new one better than a 15 yr old AS350 BA , nope, unless your paranoid about fuel burn.
Is a new one better than a Jetbox, for the same money, well its going to be faster no doubt. That removed from the equation then no I don't think so.
The big thing about the Bells and Eurocopter is that many of the parts have much longer TBO's than the R66.

[RVDT]

EnZed R66's.

I guess it was a natural progression after the overloaded R44 debacle.

Shorts - check.

T-Shirt - check.

Helmet - oops.

Ahh WTF off we go!

The gear of course will be superb.

[toptobottom]

as350nut

Perfect summary - couldn't have put it better myself :ok:

[Bellrider]

Can´t find infos about wind limitations!
Can help anybody?
Really no chance to fly an R66 in falling snow conditions?
Doesn`t exist snow protectores for the air inlets (like Bell 206 or others)??
Any ideas?:{
Thanks for help!
Greetings

[Ian Corrigible]

From the first page of Section 5 of the RFM:

Hover controllability has been substantiated in 17 knot wind from any direction up to 11,000 feet density altitude. Refer to hover performance charts for allowable gross weight.

I/C

[Paul Cantrell]

I think I'm replying to some 2 year old postings, but wrt:

"Exemption No. 9589, dated January 28, 2008, to § 27.695. This exemption was granted to permit a powered flight control system without considering the
jamming of a control valve as a possible single failure."


Several people responded about how it was no big deal to fly with the boost off, but that's not really the point, is it? What about a hard-over on one of the servos? Especially in a 2 bladed system, how bad is it to suddenly have a servo go full travel without warning?

Granted, I much prefer having the boost off switch on the cyclic as compared to having to let go of the collective in the Bell, but I still worry whether I'm strong enough to prevent mast bumping while my thumb is going for the switch.

Can anyone comment on what it's like to have a servo go hardover on any kind of a helicopter? I've asked a knowledgeable person about how often accidents are caused by these kinds of problems and all he said was that it has occurred (and that he had been involved in at least one investigation of such a failure but I'm not sure he was referring to a helicopter).

I'd also be curious to hear from test pilot sorts (Nick?) whether this is something that is testing during certification?

[chopper2004]

http://www.robinsonheli.com/media/pressrelease/r66_turbine_marine_certified.pdf

Cheers

[Ian Corrigible]

Uh-oh... :(

New Zealand accident investigators find R66 experienced mast bumping in turbulence (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/New-Zealand-accident-investigators-find-R66-experienced-mast-bumping-in-turbulence)

I/C

[3top]

Hi all,

does anyone have any experience with either of the glass-cockpits??

1] I am trying to figure out which of the 2 systems would be better suited for a "perfect IFR Trainer" - Garmin vs. Aspen

2] Which one would be better for an All-rounder?

ONE supposed data-point I received was, that Garmin likes to fail in high heat areas, and that's why the Aspen would be recommended, but there was no info on how the Aspen would hold up in a high heat environment....

3] WHAT is the consensus on "classic analog" vs. glass in the R66 in general?

Any and all replies appreciated!!

Cheers,

3top :cool:

[FlimsyFan]

Hi 3top,

I can't give you any kind of comparison between Aspen and Garmin, as I've not had any exposure to the Aspen myself.

We had our new R66 delivered about 7 weeks ago, and have the G500 hooked up to a GTN750, Synthetic Vision, 2-axis autopilot, Radalt and remote transponder.

My biggest argument for going Garmin was that it is a fully integrated suite of equipment designed to fit together as a system, and I think they've got it about right. The G500 display will show the Radalt height, which is always useful, and obviously the autopilot links to the GTN750 and will follow a pre-programmed route, including vertical nav and GPS approaches.

It makes the panel look a lot cleaner and more modern as well, but it does take some getting used to. For what it is worth, I personally found the VSI to be the biggest adjustment versus a standard 6-pack, as with the traditional needle you pick up very quickly any vertical acceleration really quickly, and I find it a little harder with the tape display, but then I am only 20 hours in so far.

On the negative side, the GTN750 is much less intuitive than say, Sky Demon, and to be honest, in spite of all the built-in tech, I still take my Ipad with me.

As a private user, I think the best way to go is either a traditional panel layout, or a full install of everything Garmin. I'm not sure a halfway house of just the G500 is worth it, just my 2 penneth.

Finally, our machine will be having a Garmin traffic system fitted next month, which again, will intergrate perfectly, displaying either on the MFD of the G500 or on the main display of the GTN750.

Synthetic vision is brilliant, and doubtless adds an additional layer of information from which to make safe airmanship decisions.

It is worth mentioning that if you have a GTN750, certain elements of its functionality are lost in the install in an R66. I can't remember all of them off the top of my head, but a major one is the ability to play back ATC transmissions. Apparently this is down to this feature not being FAA certified for light helicopters, but it annoyed me that RHC do not make you aware of this when you place an order.

Overall, I'm really happy with what we have, but bear in mind if you load yours with a similar spec, (and we have air conditioning also), you do start to eat into the payload a bit.

If you want any more specific info, feel free to PM me, and I'll do my best to answer any questions you have.

FF

[helicopter-redeye]

Further, I've flown the Aspen systems with G750 & etc components. Perfectly good for VFR or IFR. The 750 is not intuitive, nor is its iPad cousin Garmin Pilot although once you are used to it, G Pilot and the way the Aspens work with it then you are fine. The synthetic vision is only available with the Garmin screens or if with Aspen, on a separate iPad mount, but if you need synthetic vision you are probably in the wrong aircraft .....

Analogue instruments based on Garmin 430 or Bendix King 165 are good too. It depends what type of mission you expect to fly. Modern systems can overwhelm some people with too much information and we have survived for decades on simpler fit machines, but glass and information is the future (IMHO).

H-R

[krypton_john]

Glass ought to be standard in this day and age. It should have no moving parts and be lighter. And it should allow either a EFIS or classic look for those who like to see steam gauge needles represented graphically.

And it should be cheaper to make.

But there are still helicopters being made and sold with ancient technology carburetted lycomings so maybe I just have no idea what I'm talking about!

[3top]

Gentlemen,

thanks for the replies so far!

Keep it coming!!

Flimsy - I appreciate the offer and most likely will PM you, IF and when the project goes ahead!

We will, most likely, use 2 or 3 different configurations, just need to figure out which ones to use. Training environment, Zero - to maxed out IFR training....


ANYONE who has operational experience with the Garmin Suite in HOT and/or HUMID environment?

Cheers,

3top:cool:

[evil7]

You brave people - maxed out IFR in a Flimsicopter:ooh::mad:

[3top]

....well, I already wondered when someone would take this too literal... :E

TRAINING my friend - TRAINING!!

NOT going to use the Robinson for ACTUAL IFR...... no worries!!:E

3top :cool:

[r88]

When will there be a factory hook for the r66?

[helicopter-redeye]

I think there is a Dart hook for the 66 now.

[r88]

That is correct, also onboardsystems has got a STC hook for the r66, but they are both limited to 1015lb. What I heard is that Robinson is working on a hook with higher capability and flying from the left seat.

[Looks like 250]

Been hearing about this R66 LH drive lifter for years now, anyone close to the coal face able to enlighten us.

[reubensmurphy]

Hello, this is my first question ever, so don't judge me if I sound like an idiot. I've recently got to the point where a helicopter may be a viable option, and don't know what to do or where to start. I live in the UK, near Canterbury, and regularly go skiing in Val D'Isere as I have an apartment there. There is a helipad nearby and so would like to fly to and from there, so any info on this would be great. What I would like to know is first of all, what helicopter should I go for? I can spend roughly 700k, though would like to know how I can do this- lease, finance etc. I would probably do roughly 200 hours per year. I've done one lesson and thought it was fantastic, and will carry on, when I know what to do.

Thanks in advance,

Reuben

[chopjock]

If you will be flying in the mountains try to get something with at least three rotor blades...:ok:

[Ascend Charlie]

Take an instructor with you into the mountains for the first 2 years, you will really struggle as a brand-new pilot in such terrain.

[Helicodger Pilot]

ruebensmurphy-
I'm not bashing the R-66, but you really should consider the Enstrom for high altitude flying. If you feel the need for turbine power, the 480B is an alternate to the R-66. If you're comfortable with a piston engine, you'll save a lot of money going with a 280FX or F28.
I agree with chopjock- flying in the mountains or anywhere with potential turbulence, a fully articulated rotor head is a better choice. (Now hunkering down for the inevitable storm of controversy...)

[FlimsyFan]

Reuben, I’m an owner and lover of the R66, but have to agree with the comments above. Two bladed machines, and the Robinsons in particular need extremely careful handling in any kind of turbulence, and in my view Alpine altitudes and associated up/down drafts would mean that the weather window for that sort of trip would be very narrow.

Enstrom 480 worth a look, but you’d get into a Squirrel (AS350) for that sort of money, albeit an older model.

Be aware of how many pax and how much baggage you want to carry for the trip, as well as the impact that would have on how much fuel you could take. You may be surprised at how limiting that might be, whichever machine you go for.

Whatever, have your eyes very wide open and don’t dive in - it’s a world where a very costly error in judgement can be just around the corner.

I would think very hard about private jet UK to France and helicopter transfer to Val D’Is. You could do that journey an awful lot of times for 700k, and that’s before you even start with insurance, maintenance, hangarage and all the BS on here.

If you want more info on the R66, PM for honest appraisal!

FF

[Old Farang]

If you will be flying in the mountains try to get something with at least three rotor blades...:ok:
And at least 3 gold bars on the pilots epaulettes!

I know it is good to own your own helicopter, I once did just that, but until you have a lot of hours behind you, consider just hiring with pilot / instructor.

[Hughes500]

Ruben

Having owned many helicopters over 25 years ( 9 x 300's, 206's 6 x 500's 341 ) I would think very carefully about owning your own machine.
The manufacturers are in a race as to who can take the piss the most out of the customer. Example MD helicopters overnight put the overhaul price of a transmission up by $50k last year
Any turbine helicopter will cost you in broad figures £ 15k a year to insure and another £ 15k in an annual inspection. So that is £30 k if you are lucky before you have even pressed the start button.
To fly down to the Alps, you will be lucky with the ****e weather his country has. To get down there you would really need an IFR helicopter which will significantly increase the price of the machine and its running costs ( a friend had his 2 x turbomeca engines overhauled which cost 750k Euros ! )as it has to be a twin engine. Plus you need to have an instrument rating which is not cheap in terms of time, experience and money.
As others have said you would be better off hiring a machine and pilot. In that way you can still fly it, you have a pilot who is way more experienced etc etc. So all in all the risks to one's self and wallet are reduced enormously.
PM me if you want more good news :ok:

[gulliBell]

Words of wisdom there from @Hughes500.

I would add. Learning to fly a helicopter is one thing. Learning to operate a helicopter to do what you (@reubensmurphy) want to do is something entirely different. In other words, aiming to be a recreational pilot, stick to Day VFR over the Canterbury rolling green countryside. Aim to do 200 hours per year of that for a few years before ever considering going into the mountains, particularly in winter.

[HeliHenri]

I'm not bashing the R-66, but you really should consider the Enstrom for high altitude flying. If you feel the need for turbine power, the 480B is an alternate to the R-66.
I agree with chopjock- flying in the mountains or anywhere with potential turbulence, a fully articulated rotor head is a better choice. (Now hunkering down for the inevitable storm of controversy...)

.
Hello HP, no controversy coming, just facts :

In Swizerland there are 12 R66 and only one 480 operating.
Just in Austria and Switzerland, there are more than 100 Robinson helicopters operating plus all the 206 family.
Our VF who not realy flies at SL seems to like much the 206.
.

[reubensmurphy]

Thank you very much for all your advice. A friend of mine is fully qualified etc, so he will fly with me most trips. I'm sure I could stretch a bit budget wise, but how about something like an MD500?

[Hughes500]

Ruben

MD 500 a great aircraft
Pros
1. Will handle very rough weather very well
2. Very quick, a good one will cruise at 130 kts
3. As turbines go its running costs are lowish ( due to its speed )
4. Fun to fly known as The Ferrari " of the helicopter world
5. Hold their money, I have owned 7 in my time each one has sold for more than I paid for it.

Cons
1. Very small, yes you can get 5 in but think of 5 in a traditional mini
2. No baggage area other than under rear seats, unless you put a pod underneath
3. manufacturer takes the piss on parts prices but they all do
4. Second hand ones expensive
5. New ones ridiculously expensive

[John R81]

Make a list of those machines that you would feel happy to use in that environment, then best advice is to beg a flight in as many of the "options" as you are able. You might need to travel a little (around the UK) but you might be surprised how often "a kind soul" will offer the opportunity to ride along.


(If you offer to pay for landing fee / tea and a bacon sandwich then you might have even more luck getting rides!)

[SuperF]

don't overlook the 206 JR or LR. As with any helicopter there are pros and cons.

In rough weather, if you have the brains to slow down then they will handle the weather almost as well as a 500 or 350, and if you are flying for pleasure you should just be able to look out at the weather and say, oh well we aren't going today.... no point taking your family out in conditions that could kill you, no matter what helicopter you are in!!

They are slightly slower than a 500, but give you more room for the money. A JR should be about 1/2 the price of a 500 and a good LR about the same price, as a 500, and a LR is way bigger than a 500 and is quicker than a JR.

You also get a boot in both of them, and you get a far greater range than you will from a 500.
Way easier to put in a shed, only need a single 3 m wide bay to slide it in.
A good bell engineer will get them to track as smooth as any other machine, or if you are real clever like Dick Smith you put the magic balancing machine in the nose and they will then be silky smooth

make sure you look at real Bells, not Agusta Bell, otherwise it gets too hard.

[Hot and Hi]

put the magic balancing machine in the nose and they will then be silky smooth
Are you talking about DynaTrack?

[SuperF]

Hot and Hi,

It may have been. I can't remember what it was, but it made it beautiful and smooth.

[FLY 7]

Hello, this is my first question ever, so don't judge me if I sound like an idiot. I've recently got to the point where a helicopter may be a viable option, and don't know what to do or where to start. I live in the UK, near Canterbury, and regularly go skiing in Val D'Isere as I have an apartment there. There is a helipad nearby and so would like to fly to and from there, so any info on this would be great. What I would like to know is first of all, what helicopter should I go for? I can spend roughly 700k, though would like to know how I can do this- lease, finance etc. I would probably do roughly 200 hours per year. I've done one lesson and thought it was fantastic, and will carry on, when I know what to do.
Thanks in advance,
Reuben

I'd definitely recommend getting your PPL (H) as a starting point. That in itself will teach you a lot. Although, don't expect it to be done in the 40 hrs. Enjoy the learning process but expect 60-80 hrs to do it properly.

By default, many people go down the R22>R44>R66/B206 route and that could be an easy option. But the S300>H500/EN480B route or Cabri>Eurocopter routes are other logical options.

There is a lot to be said for ownership - it's your helicopter, you learn to know it intimately, and it's there for your use whenever you want it. Financially, it starts to become viable above 100hrs pa. 200 hrs pa is actually quite a lot for a PPL, but you need hours to improve proficiency.

[reubensmurphy]

Thanks again to all of you. How about a Bell 505, when they start being delivered?

[KiwiNedNZ]

They already have been, some in South America, Australia, NZ, USA.

[John R81]

Bell 505 - twin rotor, articulated head; just like the Jetranger, which would be much cheaper. If you are happy with the head design, then a used Longranger might be in your price range. The L1 is a little underpowered (for me) but after that (again, for me) they beat a Jetranger (206 or 505) hands down.


However, for me, I would be looking at 3 blades or more and a fixed rotor head. I fly a bit in Scotland, and around the mountains it can get rather "interesting".


Seriously; blag a ride in several machines and get a feel for what they can do vs what you want to do

[3top]

...maybe just rumour, but I heard they had a number of 505 orders in Guatemala - after the 1st delivery all others cancelled...

I would think - 505 using most of the 206 gear and switching the RR for the Arrius (which loses out on the RR above 6000 ft) - seems the 505 is NOT very impressive in HOT and HIGH and HUMID.....

As mentioned - if you need something else than a 66, get TWO 44s!

Or find a good used 206 and soup it up with the new blades!!
EC120s are going cheaper now too!
...or find a light 350.....

3top

[reubensmurphy]

Thanks again, there is a lot to choose from... if I can afford it I reckon an AS350/ H125 would be best? How would I go about leasing one and how much does it cost?

Thanks for your time,

Reuben

[r88]

https://robinsonheli.com/press-releases/r66-turbine-cargo-hook/

Guess I got my answer. This is awesome! There is nothing on the bubble window doors, but I'm sure they are available as well

[cameronbridge]

They are offering bubble windows for $4,900 a door and mirrors for $340. Go to the helicopters link, R66 and then R66 cargo hook link.

I see they are also offering heated seats and nice looking new G500H panels.

[TunaSandwich]

Can anyone tell me the reason the R66 is limited to 30 degrees Celsius for Autorotations?
Many thatnks
TS

[Heli-Jock]

Too keep it simple,,up to and including 30 degrees heat and you’d have just enough density in the air for the autorotative forces to work on the blades at the bottom of an autorotation and at 31 degrees,,, you’d splat off the ground! Seemples!
Or Robinson only tested the R66 in temps up to 30 degrees!

HJ

[Bell_ringer]

Can anyone tell me the reason the R66 is limited to 30 degrees Celsius for Autorotations?
Many thatnks
TS

You referring to this:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1054x1229/0489d7af_254a_473f_b0e8_425ec300f958_bef1e978ee97ac6e7c8413e fabc088f43464cd26.jpeg

[TunaSandwich]

You referring to this:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1054x1229/0489d7af_254a_473f_b0e8_425ec300f958_bef1e978ee97ac6e7c8413e fabc088f43464cd26.jpeg


Yes!! That is correct, I do not recall a similar limitation on the R44, but it's been a while..

[Robbiee]

Can anyone tell me the reason the R66 is limited to 30 degrees Celsius for Autorotations?
Many thatnks
TS

That limit begins at 6,000'. If you overlap that chart with the "power on vne" chart you will see that both NO FLIGHT sections match up. Therefore if you cannot fly at 6,000' and 30 degrees, how can you autorotate from there?

[TwinHueyMan]

Those temp/PA combos equal out to 14k+ DA, which is the limit for any operations.

Mike

[TunaSandwich]

OK, thanks, I was assuming it was SL - 6000

[Bell_ringer]

And yet the R44 II has somewhat higher limits.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/523x358/screenshot_2018_09_03_at_13_00_17_410673bd290429a65426b0688c afdb46f14f3786.png

[3top]

That's what I say - choosing between R44-II and R66 - one needs to REALLY analyze the mission at hand!!

3top

[Robbiee]

Anyone know why (according to those charts) the only place an R44 can fly that an R66 cannot is at 6,000' and 8,000' and 40 degrees? The rest of the NO FLIGHT area looks to be identical.

[Robbiee]

Those temp/PA combos equal out to 14k+ DA, which is the limit for any operations.

Mike

Actually (according to the DA chart in my Robbie POH) 6,000' PA and 40 degrees is only 10,000' DA. To get to 14,000' DA at 40 degrees you'd have to take it to just above 9,000 PA and at 30 degrees you'd have to go up to around 10,000 PA to get to 14,000 DA.

The R44 NO FLIGHT area checks out ok with everything being at or above 14,000 DA, but the R66 chart does not at 6,000' or 8,000' PA and 40 degrees where NO FLIGHT is below 14,000' DA.

[TwinHueyMan]

I stand corrected... There's also a limit on closing the throttle above 10k DA "to prevent engine flameout", and an ISA+35c / 50c temp limit in section 2 of the POH.

Mike

[chopper2004]

So many congratulations And celebrations to Robinson on this milestone..

https://robinsonheli.com/news/robinson-delivers-r66-serial-number-1000/

Cheers

[CRAN]

An amazing achievement indeed. I fly the 66 regularly and as an all round practical personal helicopter nothing beats it.

Well done Kurt & Team.
CRAN

[bellblade2014]

Anyone flown this yet?

https://verticalmag.com/news/how-robinson-helicopter-arrived-at-its-new-tail-design/

[helispotter]

Anyone flown this yet?

https://verticalmag.com/news/how-robinson-helicopter-arrived-at-its-new-tail-design/

bellblade2014: I see nobody had so far given any feedback to your question from last September. I certainly can't comment as a non-pilot, but that Vertical Magazine article sure seems quite comprehensive in its coverage of the re-design of the R66 tail surfaces. Of course the test pilots at Robinson Helicopters would presumably be able to respond in detail.

I came across your question while checking if this modification had already been the subject of discussion on PPRuNe as I only just read about it now also becoming available on new R44's with option to retrofit existing R44's, see:https://www.flyingmag.com/new-robinson-r44-empennage-design/

I hadn't been aware it was already being fitted to the R66 until reading that article.

This is where it gets interesting: During initial flight testing, the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X originally had a tail surface configuration which seemed quite similar to the R22, R44 and R66 in that it had a horizontal stabilizer projecting only to one side of the vertical stabilizer. The vertical stabilizer looked similar in overall shape to that on the original Jet Ranger. See image below found on web:

https://d3lcr32v2pp4l1.cloudfront.net/Pictures/1024x536/5/2/4/54524_bell-505_62117.jpg

However at a later stage of flight testing and for production, the horizontal stabilizer was removed and a larger symmetrical (left and right) stabilizer was 'strapped' below the tail boom:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1014x526/bell_505_photo_colorado_demo_ship_cropped_9fcc7c83bd802491d6 6bc8f52092a642f19e79f0.jpg
This brought the 505 back to a tail configuration much more similar to its Bell 206 predecessor, though the horizontal stabilizer now looks like an after-thought rather than its integrated form on the Bell 206 where the stabilizer effectively 'passed' through the tail boom. I am sure this comes at a price of additional interference drag compared to the 206 implementation. There is some old discussion on one Rotorheads thread about the horizontal stabilizer implementation on the Bell 505 in which the need for the larger 206 stabilizer had already been anticipated by one writer.

So while some tail elements of the 505 may have originally been modelled off the Robinson, in the meantime the Robinson now has elements off the current 505 tail! Perhaps all helicopter designers should first look to the 206 for inspiration!

Also interesting to note the Hughes 500, having started life as the competitor to what became the Jet Ranger, originally had an asymmetric V-type vertical and horizontal stabiliser combination (in the 500C). But the design later changed to a T-tail configuration in the 500D. Perhaps Hughes realised the benefit of a symmetrically arranged horizontal stabilizer as well?

A final observation: In one of the Hill Helicopters videos on the HX50, Jason Hill makes mention of the use of what I would call a 'fence' fitted to the horizontal stabilizer just outboard of the tail boom and indicates this is all about improvement of the flow characteristics over the stabilizer (or words to that effect). It seems complicated to me, but I haven't seen the CFD analysis they have no doubt undertaken to come up with this detail. Still, it is surely a less draggy stabilizer implementation than what is now on Bell 505, R44 and R66?

If David Smith reads this post, I would be interested in hearing his take on the topic if he is open to speak about it. From the Vertical Magazine article, I guess he has more experience than most on this subject now.

[PhlyingGuy]

The mounting of the Bell 505 stab is significantly cheaper than the special type of welding that would have been required to integrate it into the tailboom.

[Agile]

A final observation: In one of the Hill Helicopters videos on the HX50, Jason Hill makes mention of the use of what I would call a 'fence' fitted to the horizontal stabilizer just outboard of the tail boom and indicates this is all about improvement of the flow characteristics over the stabilizer (or words to that effect). It seems complicated to me, but I haven't seen the CFD analysis they have no doubt undertaken to come up with this detail. Still, it is surely a less draggy stabilizer implementation than what is now on Bell 505, R44 and R66?

I have doubts that anybody understand the flow patern on the tail of a rotorcraft. You got the induced flow from the main rotor, posssibly the interacting flow from the tail rotor, and then the forward air flow. That sounds like a big wirlwind shake to me, Hills and the HX50 treat it with aerodynamics principle akin to a high performance glidder, well I buy don't it. last time I heard, CFD on a rotor system is still a developing science due to the complexity of the flow interaction between blades (tip vortices) all that in a moving frame of reference.

The proof that nobody has understood anything is all these new horizontal stabilizer evolutions/modification, the H160 being a visible effort in that field.

The R66 just got it from the R44 that got it from the R22, I think you would be chocked to see how little thought went into it.

[helispotter]

I have doubts that anybody understand the flow pattern on the tail of a rotorcraft. You got the induced flow from the main rotor, possibly the interacting flow from the tail rotor, and then the forward air flow. That sounds like a big whirlwind shake to me, Hills and the HX50 treat it with aerodynamics principle akin to a high performance glider, well I don't buy it. last time I heard, CFD on a rotor system is still a developing science due to the complexity of the flow interaction between blades (tip vortices) all that in a moving frame of reference.

The proof that nobody has understood anything is all these new horizontal stabilizer evolutions/modification, the H160 being a visible effort in that field.

The R66 just got it from the R44 that got it from the R22, I think you would be chocked to see how little thought went into it.

Agile: I tend to agree with your sentiments, though I can't be sure what level of sophistication of testing or computations there actually is at helicopter manufacturers, large or small. The Vertical magazine article at link above certainly shows that there are at least two universities in the USA that have more complex rotorcraft aerodynamics CFD analysis software in use that handle transient aerodynamic problems. Those may be standard CFD suites tailored to helicopter aerodynamics problems?? For the tail surface re-design, Robinson seems to be engaging such outside assistance, but clearly without an endless R&D budget. My feeling from the article is that this may in part have been motivated by NZ and other R44 accident investigation recommendations and a 'duty of care' on the part of Robinson to more fully understand what is occurring. If so, good.

As for H160 'bi-plane' horizontal stabilizer, my initial impression is that it is somewhat marketing gimmickry. But then again, there may be structural or other motivations we haven't grasped, for example: https://www.geekwire.com/2023/boeing-wins-425m-in-nasa-backing-to-demonstrate-super-fuel-efficient-airplane/

Regarding the Hill use of fences on their stabilizers, I will bring that discussion over to the HX50 thread (with more details and link to video) as I am really quite interested to hear more about that feature, but so far I share your sentiment on this too.

[DavidSmithHeli]

If David Smith reads this post, I would be interested in hearing his take on the topic if he is open to speak about it. From the Vertical Magazine article, I guess he has more experience than most on this subject now.

I had comparatively little to do with the recent Robinson tail as I joined the company well after the project started in earnest. I just helped to share the background in the article you linked and the associated podcast. It’s a very good story of modern tools helping to improve understanding of a very complex phenomenon. The industry’s understanding for decades has been incomplete regarding the primary contributors to the rolling moment of helicopters during low-g flight. Now we have a much more complete picture of the aerodynamic factors and a way to reduce the rolling phenomenon. That is what drove the new Robinson tail. Please avoid low G flight! No matter what tail you have low G flight can be hazardous with a teetering rotor.

The 505 change was made for an entirely different reason related to the stability of the aircraft in hover and the pitching moment of the aircraft as it transitions from high to low speed and low to high speed. it turns out that the horizontal stabilizer, when it is located inside the hover downwash like on the 505, offers a helpful stabilizing effect to make the aircraft easier to control. It was hard to tease this out during the testing but had nothing to do with low G roll. I imagine if the 505 had not made the change early in the program, it might have seen similar roll moments in low-G.

I hope this helps. Feel free to message if you are curious about this topic.

[helispotter]

The mounting of the Bell 505 stab is significantly cheaper than the special type of welding that would have been required to integrate it into the tailboom.

Yes, I appreciate the production cost would be lower. But Bell did (and still does) produce countless helicopters with the 'traditional' configuration of horizontal stabilizer. While I have read that they needed to design the 505 to a reasonable budget, I see the solution implemented as being the easiest fix to reconfigure the tailboom and tail surfaces from their original prototype arrangement, else it may well now look like that of a 206?

[Agile]

least two universities in the USA that have more complex rotorcraft aerodynamics CFD analysis software in use that handle transient aerodynamic problems. Those may be standard CFD suites tailored to helicopter aerodynamics problems
Exactly right, I think Georgia Tech and another university in Maryland, I had and application filled to both of them to do grad study there, but eventually went somewhere else that was 30 years ago, California was more atractive for a young guy.
(Head of R&D at airbus helicopter is from that Maryland Campus)

Georgia Tech has a nice Video about the state of the art in helicopter CFD, check 25 minute mark to start to feel how involved it is and 54+ minute mark to see how messy it is on the tail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg7uz_ty1PE

14,000 compute hour per simulation run !!! ouch, cloud computing bill must be hot.