Robinson R44
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainly Astros and some Raven 1 - but no Raven 2.
400 helis out of about 2500 produced. It's a Lycoming thing......many many more fixed wings are affected.
See http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm
400 helis out of about 2500 produced. It's a Lycoming thing......many many more fixed wings are affected.
See http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm
Join Date: May 2005
Location: the world
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucky
one of the R44's that my company operates just missed the A.D by one serial number (Lucky ha)
Although saying that it makes up for all that bo**ocks we had to put up with when the AS350 A.D was issued
Although saying that it makes up for all that bo**ocks we had to put up with when the AS350 A.D was issued
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliringer,
It might look like a Bell 47 but what you have seen in the tourist industry up north is probably a Kawasaki. Think about the business model. One pilot one pax doesn't work too well. Cram in two pax and you may get figures in the black at the end of the month.
The problem with the Kawas is that the design concept came out of Kawasaki Japan, where at that time most Japanese were 60 kilos with a 34 inch hip measurement. (Sorry to mix the units here...) When you get the 2005 average Mr and Mrs Australia turning up for a flight, you find a 90 kilo big man and a sheila not far off. Even if you get off the ground, they will still grizzle at the space and tell their friends to avoid you.
R44 may work in areas of lower density altitudes, with half fuel you should be able to carry three big pax. (This is why tour operators like to employ 55 kilo pilots...)
That said there are still operators of the Kawas in NT, and if you are good with a grease gun and a sunny personality it might make an interesting change from mustering.
FWIW
It might look like a Bell 47 but what you have seen in the tourist industry up north is probably a Kawasaki. Think about the business model. One pilot one pax doesn't work too well. Cram in two pax and you may get figures in the black at the end of the month.
The problem with the Kawas is that the design concept came out of Kawasaki Japan, where at that time most Japanese were 60 kilos with a 34 inch hip measurement. (Sorry to mix the units here...) When you get the 2005 average Mr and Mrs Australia turning up for a flight, you find a 90 kilo big man and a sheila not far off. Even if you get off the ground, they will still grizzle at the space and tell their friends to avoid you.
R44 may work in areas of lower density altitudes, with half fuel you should be able to carry three big pax. (This is why tour operators like to employ 55 kilo pilots...)
That said there are still operators of the Kawas in NT, and if you are good with a grease gun and a sunny personality it might make an interesting change from mustering.
FWIW
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For tourist work the comparison would really be KH4 v R44. The KH4 is a great tourist machine. Slow and stable, great with the doors off although the middle seat is a bit of a disadvantage.
The R44 has more power, better tail rotor authority, all seats are window seats but is not as comfortable in turbulence, and with front doors off the rear pax mics need to be disconnected so as not to interfere with pilot commentary.
I don't know that there are many 47s or KH4s left out there though. Heliwork has upgraded all theirs for 44s although with the ad on the 44s that has grounded most of their fleet during peak season they may be regretting that. NAH may still have one in the gorge ?? don't know for sure, last time I was thru they still had one at Vic River roadhouse.
It's a shame the 47s are disapearing. With less power, less tail rotor authority and no governor I think that they taught pilots better basic handling skills than the much more forgiving 44.
The R44 has more power, better tail rotor authority, all seats are window seats but is not as comfortable in turbulence, and with front doors off the rear pax mics need to be disconnected so as not to interfere with pilot commentary.
I don't know that there are many 47s or KH4s left out there though. Heliwork has upgraded all theirs for 44s although with the ad on the 44s that has grounded most of their fleet during peak season they may be regretting that. NAH may still have one in the gorge ?? don't know for sure, last time I was thru they still had one at Vic River roadhouse.
It's a shame the 47s are disapearing. With less power, less tail rotor authority and no governor I think that they taught pilots better basic handling skills than the much more forgiving 44.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heliringer
Overpitch is very correct about his posting except NAH is no longer at the Gorge (Katherine). Last time I was in Oz (94) the Gorge contract had been awarded to another Katherine Operator with R44's. I think Helimuster may still use one at their Katherine road pad. Far North Helicopters in Darwin has one as well albeit not in full operation I think.
It's a shame operators are going away from B47 and KH4, but it is getting harder to get parts, and pilots that can fly them properly. It is a great flying machine but as mentioned before, you must love greasing it every 10 hours eheh
R44 's our days, is a better endorsement if you wish to pursue tourism flying in OZ, to clock up your hours.
Cheers
Overpitch is very correct about his posting except NAH is no longer at the Gorge (Katherine). Last time I was in Oz (94) the Gorge contract had been awarded to another Katherine Operator with R44's. I think Helimuster may still use one at their Katherine road pad. Far North Helicopters in Darwin has one as well albeit not in full operation I think.
It's a shame operators are going away from B47 and KH4, but it is getting harder to get parts, and pilots that can fly them properly. It is a great flying machine but as mentioned before, you must love greasing it every 10 hours eheh
R44 's our days, is a better endorsement if you wish to pursue tourism flying in OZ, to clock up your hours.
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44 Astro/Raven differences...
Can anyone here please give the differences or improvements between the R44 Raven I and the older Astro, other than the hydraulic controls? Thank you in advance for any help.
Also, do these ships have the 10 year calendar limit or is it 12 year?
Also, do these ships have the 10 year calendar limit or is it 12 year?
Last edited by 13snoopy; 11th Sep 2005 at 06:49.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: That Bit up the Top Down Under
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44's
You might also find that they started mounting the battery in the nose. Bit more of a hassle when you want to jump start them though. Don't know if all Ravens had this nose mounted battery though. Makes quite a difference to the way that they fly, especially solo pilot wise, if you are only just over that minimum weight. The Astro is a bit more of a handful with just me in it going to some of our tight little bush pads. seems it always wants to slide backwards off that groundcushion, where the raven sits a little more level. I know the Clippers also have the battery in the nose, and with the floats they are a lot more nose heavy. The Astros have a 12 year life, with 2000 on the engine and 2200 on the airframe. You can get an extension over here for the engine, but the machine can only be used for Aerial work, not charter if it is running on the extension.
Oh..and give me an Astro any day.. except for that damn trim motor. The Astros are the work horse for a 44. That extra weight that you get with the Hydraulics does make a real difference when you at MAUW in ISA + 25 - 30 (Thats in *C) thats another few kilos that can make all the difference, and out in the bush its one less thing to worry about, and carry around fluid for.
But i wouldn't say no to a new Raven II if anybody is offering.........
Oh..and give me an Astro any day.. except for that damn trim motor. The Astros are the work horse for a 44. That extra weight that you get with the Hydraulics does make a real difference when you at MAUW in ISA + 25 - 30 (Thats in *C) thats another few kilos that can make all the difference, and out in the bush its one less thing to worry about, and carry around fluid for.
But i wouldn't say no to a new Raven II if anybody is offering.........
Last edited by chopperpug; 11th Sep 2005 at 07:02.
The real advantage of the raven is the rotor disc stability, which is a direct result of the hydraulic actuators. One advantage of this is the convenience for the pilot in turbulent conditions as the feedback through the cyclic is reduced on the hydraulic models. The Astros are becoming known as the "stick shakers". If you can imagine a rotor blade flying through turbulent air, the the subsequent twisting of the rotor blade is transmitted down through the control rods direct to the cyclic. I've been in hot & heavy conditions in the Kimberly region of north west Australia & nearly had the cyclic ripped from my hands when flying through thermals. In the raven this force is transmitted through the flight controls down to the the point where the vertical swash plate control rod is connected to the hydraulic actuator. At this point the force is absorbed by the hydraulic actuator & transmitted to the airframe instead of the cyclic. Another advantage of the hydraulics is during sling load ops. The rotor disc on a raven is more stable during sling load ops due to the above mentioned aerodynamic forces. This allows a greater load to be lifted of the deck which gives the pilot the few seconds he needs to gain airspeed & translation. On any helicopter every time a cyclic input is made by the pilot in an attempt to keep the machine stable lift is "spilt" out the edge of the rotor disc. Keeping the disc as stable as possible greatly increases the lift available. Every R44 sling load I've done I've been competing against Jetrangers or Squirrels to get the work, so every little bit of lift is food in the family's stomach. I can't supply the figures to back up this statement, but in my experience the machine weight increase due to the hydraulic system is more than compensated by the lift advantage gained by the hydraulic flight controls for OGE ops. The Raven II has a 24Volt electrical system which turned me off. It's hard enough in the bush finding 1 x charged 12 volt battery to get your helicopter going on a cold morning let alone having to find 2! CHOPPERBUG summed it up nicely - the Astro is the work horse of the R44 family, but damn those ravens are nice to fly!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckinghamshire, UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two penny's worth
I have an Astro, and have flown many Ravens, including clippers.
I think the Astro is a fine machine (I would say that), but a Raven is of course better, but you end up paying more.
The Astro needs to have the track and balance set up well, then she really flies well. I like, when possible to do this in conjunction with the engineers, and it typically takes a few hours to do properly. at £55 per hour, its worth investing in to get it right, and a 'OK' setup, compared with a 'well' setup machine makes them worlds apart. They fly really well when 'right'
The Electric cyclic trim also needs to be calibrated correctly, but again if done, you can get it pretty good. There is more feedback through the cyclic, and the is a slight sort of delay, over say an R22 or Hydraulic Raven, but you simply get used to it, like any difference in a machine. In normal forward flight, there are virtually no differences, and you spend more time doing this than anything else (unless you are Dennis Kenyon!). In the hover, and low level manouvering, like quickstops, pirouettes, etc, then the sligth heaviness, takes a little getting used to, especially in significant winds.
Having an Astro, you can tell the difference MAUW, which of course is slightly better. I haven't noticed the battery in the nose on the Raven that much and I weigh 75kg, which is quite light
Calendar over here in the UK is 2200 for both engine and airframe. There is an 'intermediate' 12 year calendar review you can do, which means stripping the whole machine apart, which I am led to believe is about £20-£25k, so if your TT hours are quite low, its worth doing.
Again, at the end of the day, its about finances. I couldn't afford a Raven, but was extremely happy with my Astro. If i had the money, of course I would go for the later machine, but then, I would also go for a turbine...
Set out your budget. Have a survey carried out and buy a good machine. ANY helicopter is wonderful, and buy within your price bracket.
The Astro is a very nice machine, if setup well.
Hope that helps.
Jonp
PS: If anyone wants a really nice Astro, mine is available today at £69,000 - that's cheaper than most R22's. ([email protected])
I have an Astro, and have flown many Ravens, including clippers.
I think the Astro is a fine machine (I would say that), but a Raven is of course better, but you end up paying more.
The Astro needs to have the track and balance set up well, then she really flies well. I like, when possible to do this in conjunction with the engineers, and it typically takes a few hours to do properly. at £55 per hour, its worth investing in to get it right, and a 'OK' setup, compared with a 'well' setup machine makes them worlds apart. They fly really well when 'right'
The Electric cyclic trim also needs to be calibrated correctly, but again if done, you can get it pretty good. There is more feedback through the cyclic, and the is a slight sort of delay, over say an R22 or Hydraulic Raven, but you simply get used to it, like any difference in a machine. In normal forward flight, there are virtually no differences, and you spend more time doing this than anything else (unless you are Dennis Kenyon!). In the hover, and low level manouvering, like quickstops, pirouettes, etc, then the sligth heaviness, takes a little getting used to, especially in significant winds.
Having an Astro, you can tell the difference MAUW, which of course is slightly better. I haven't noticed the battery in the nose on the Raven that much and I weigh 75kg, which is quite light
Calendar over here in the UK is 2200 for both engine and airframe. There is an 'intermediate' 12 year calendar review you can do, which means stripping the whole machine apart, which I am led to believe is about £20-£25k, so if your TT hours are quite low, its worth doing.
Again, at the end of the day, its about finances. I couldn't afford a Raven, but was extremely happy with my Astro. If i had the money, of course I would go for the later machine, but then, I would also go for a turbine...
Set out your budget. Have a survey carried out and buy a good machine. ANY helicopter is wonderful, and buy within your price bracket.
The Astro is a very nice machine, if setup well.
Hope that helps.
Jonp
PS: If anyone wants a really nice Astro, mine is available today at £69,000 - that's cheaper than most R22's. ([email protected])
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NW of SE.
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One main difference i find is, when the servos fail in the Astro, its a hard job to shift the cyclic. But when the hydraulics fail in the Raven, it becomes a nightmare! Its a small point, but valid i think!
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astro Versus Raven
I have flown the Astro / Raven I and now the II
As for as hydraulics is concerned the progress is noticable, and especially the Raven II flies really very smooth, and despite of some concerns (see other tracks), the II is faster AND more economic than the I, for the profiles I fly.
Of course does that make it worth the price difference, that will depend on the pricise differences and your priorities.
I agree that, without hydraulics things do not look so good. Recently a passenger hit the switch, and at first it really looks that controls are frozen.
The 24V, makes starting better, but as said creates some practical problems, even for some accesories that only work of 12V.
Finally as far as the battery location is concerned, I was told it depends on the instrument package and the resulting balance. Having it in the back makes jump starting a lot easier..
One other small point, flying light in turbulent weather in the II is more unpleasant, I think because of the greater rotor. That makes me take extra weight if relocating with little fuel and just 1 POB in turbulent weather (Mistral area).
d3
As for as hydraulics is concerned the progress is noticable, and especially the Raven II flies really very smooth, and despite of some concerns (see other tracks), the II is faster AND more economic than the I, for the profiles I fly.
Of course does that make it worth the price difference, that will depend on the pricise differences and your priorities.
I agree that, without hydraulics things do not look so good. Recently a passenger hit the switch, and at first it really looks that controls are frozen.
The 24V, makes starting better, but as said creates some practical problems, even for some accesories that only work of 12V.
Finally as far as the battery location is concerned, I was told it depends on the instrument package and the resulting balance. Having it in the back makes jump starting a lot easier..
One other small point, flying light in turbulent weather in the II is more unpleasant, I think because of the greater rotor. That makes me take extra weight if relocating with little fuel and just 1 POB in turbulent weather (Mistral area).
d3
Andyhelo,
Having never flown any 44 other than an astro i don't know what the hydraulics are like, however i can confirm that a trim runaway at MAUW in an Astro makes for an interesting day. Trying to fly the cyclic with two hands is a bit disconcerting on finals.
Everyone i know who flys the hydraulic 44 loves them.
V.
Having never flown any 44 other than an astro i don't know what the hydraulics are like, however i can confirm that a trim runaway at MAUW in an Astro makes for an interesting day. Trying to fly the cyclic with two hands is a bit disconcerting on finals.
Everyone i know who flys the hydraulic 44 loves them.
V.
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original q was 'what is the difference between the Astro and the Raven'. Generally the answer is:-
1. Hydraulics (main)
2. Adjustable Rudder Pedals (RHS)
3. Cost (second)
4. Then for the Raven II, different engine, jump start points on the outside of the front console and some rotor variations to reduce noise.
However there were also hydraulic Astros ....
The Astro is also 'discontinued' so most will become Raven I series through rebuild by 2012.
I used to dislike the electric trim, but after 3 years solid flying the hydraulics, I flew a electric trim machine in Australia for a while and it didnt feel so different anymore.
#
h-r
1. Hydraulics (main)
2. Adjustable Rudder Pedals (RHS)
3. Cost (second)
4. Then for the Raven II, different engine, jump start points on the outside of the front console and some rotor variations to reduce noise.
However there were also hydraulic Astros ....
The Astro is also 'discontinued' so most will become Raven I series through rebuild by 2012.
I used to dislike the electric trim, but after 3 years solid flying the hydraulics, I flew a electric trim machine in Australia for a while and it didnt feel so different anymore.
#
h-r
RIP Lu.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calendar over here in the UK is 2200 for both engine and airframe. There is an 'intermediate' 12 year calendar review you can do, which means stripping the whole machine apart, which I am led to believe is about £20-£25k, so if your TT hours are quite low, its worth doing.