Rating: R44 v B206 Jetranger?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a pilot's perspective, I don't know any pilots who would go for the 44 over the 206, it's pretty simple.
Safer, more powerful, more comfortable, faster, can go to high DA's, etc. etc. (Real Helicopter)
But from an accountant's point of view it could probably be the other way around, but I am not an accountant so my choice is simple.
Safer, more powerful, more comfortable, faster, can go to high DA's, etc. etc. (Real Helicopter)
But from an accountant's point of view it could probably be the other way around, but I am not an accountant so my choice is simple.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find that the one less seat in the 44 is a slight hinderance in the fact that when I take people flying they are usually couples and they're not best pleased when you tell them that one of them can't go !
I guess you have to workout if the majority of your work will be tourists flights then the extra seat might be a big factor.
I guess you have to workout if the majority of your work will be tourists flights then the extra seat might be a big factor.
So how do you take two couples on a golfing weekend away? Four people don't fit into a 44, and neither do two sets of golf clubs.
Maybe a private owner could take The Big Mistake and another couple, but no golf clubs and only soft squishy bags - no formal dress, no suit bags.
Why drag this thread out of the cobwebs again?
Maybe a private owner could take The Big Mistake and another couple, but no golf clubs and only soft squishy bags - no formal dress, no suit bags.
Why drag this thread out of the cobwebs again?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depends on what you want to do with it.
But I can say there is at least one company here in Aus operating exclusively R44s (and I think they now have 5) operating out of Cairns and Horn Island who are making money and turning away customers (actually directing them back to Jetranger operators) because they can't service all the work being offered to them.
Their website is http://www.brazakka.com.au/
In answer to a question posed about government contracts - I think the above mentioned company has contracts with Telstra and has done power line slinging work. I think they also have done stuff with crocodile counting for whichever department does that stuff.
But I can say there is at least one company here in Aus operating exclusively R44s (and I think they now have 5) operating out of Cairns and Horn Island who are making money and turning away customers (actually directing them back to Jetranger operators) because they can't service all the work being offered to them.
Their website is http://www.brazakka.com.au/
In answer to a question posed about government contracts - I think the above mentioned company has contracts with Telstra and has done power line slinging work. I think they also have done stuff with crocodile counting for whichever department does that stuff.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RobboRider,
You are quite correct in saying that it depends on what your doing, we operate a couple of bases and at one location the main core of business is tourism and predominantly couples. the R44 is perfect for tourism work, such as scenic tours etc, everyone gets a window seat and and are very happy. low operating cost reliable. we have a R44 and 206 to compliments on other work we do such as corporate, firefighting, filmwork etc.
As far as punters knowing what type or if it has 100-or 10000 hrs on it they woudnt have the slightest idea.
Presentation of equipment are a paramount. you put 2 aircraft together doesnt matter what it is if ones busted arse and the other is presented clean,tidy and looked after guess which one they will hop in. ive seen it so many times.
the 206 and R44
You are quite correct in saying that it depends on what your doing, we operate a couple of bases and at one location the main core of business is tourism and predominantly couples. the R44 is perfect for tourism work, such as scenic tours etc, everyone gets a window seat and and are very happy. low operating cost reliable. we have a R44 and 206 to compliments on other work we do such as corporate, firefighting, filmwork etc.
As far as punters knowing what type or if it has 100-or 10000 hrs on it they woudnt have the slightest idea.
Presentation of equipment are a paramount. you put 2 aircraft together doesnt matter what it is if ones busted arse and the other is presented clean,tidy and looked after guess which one they will hop in. ive seen it so many times.
the 206 and R44
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all for the advice so far. Keep it coming!
Ascend Charlie: I started this thread last night and the previous one has been merged to it.
Your point about the golf is a good one as there appears to be a fair market for that sort of thing where I'm looking
Belly Tank: Roughly how many hours do your machines do a year?
Cheers
Ascend Charlie: I started this thread last night and the previous one has been merged to it.
Your point about the golf is a good one as there appears to be a fair market for that sort of thing where I'm looking
Belly Tank: Roughly how many hours do your machines do a year?
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILL continue on from previous thread accidently pressed the submit buttom oopps.
the 206 and R44 both have their place and are suited for different applications. I find operating both types compliment each other very well.
as a pilot machine the 206 is a delight to fly, very reliable and tough as nails.
Just my two bobs worth
the 206 and R44 both have their place and are suited for different applications. I find operating both types compliment each other very well.
as a pilot machine the 206 is a delight to fly, very reliable and tough as nails.
Just my two bobs worth
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having flown the 44 in Canada doing, among other things, fire fighting (believe it or not), it has proven to be a tough and reliable machine - I have put three huge fire fighters, piss packs and tools and gone off on Initial Attack in +35C with 3/4 tanks.
The visibility is excellent so they make a great recce platform. The seismic guys like them because their turn around times are quicker than the 206, even though the external load limit is less - instead of having to carefully monitor torque limits, you simply pull till the horn goes off and deal with it. So they are more productive in terms of volume.
Although it may feel tinny compared to the 206 the autorotational characteristics are very similar. Granted the old Astro did not perform well at altitude, but the new IO-540 seems to have taken care of that problem.
What it boils down to is how close the apples are to the oranges, and it is function and suitability versus the cost. I think the big argument is the fact that the 44 only has 3 pax seats, yet any one who has used them for tours swears by them and it doesn't seem to affect the fact or the theory that couples like to fly together. The AStar is a 5 pax seat aircraft and is also a very popular tour machine.
Yes the 206 is reliable - but so is the 44.
The 206 is relatively cheap to operate - the 44 is cheaper.
The 206 has 4 pax seats - the 44, 3.
I think the two main advantages the 206 has over the 44 right now is cargo space, and air conditioning which might affect corporate business. There was a company in Florida that was kitting up the 44 with A/C but it meant losing two underseat spaces (as if there wasn't insufficient cargo space already.)
two cents.
The visibility is excellent so they make a great recce platform. The seismic guys like them because their turn around times are quicker than the 206, even though the external load limit is less - instead of having to carefully monitor torque limits, you simply pull till the horn goes off and deal with it. So they are more productive in terms of volume.
Although it may feel tinny compared to the 206 the autorotational characteristics are very similar. Granted the old Astro did not perform well at altitude, but the new IO-540 seems to have taken care of that problem.
What it boils down to is how close the apples are to the oranges, and it is function and suitability versus the cost. I think the big argument is the fact that the 44 only has 3 pax seats, yet any one who has used them for tours swears by them and it doesn't seem to affect the fact or the theory that couples like to fly together. The AStar is a 5 pax seat aircraft and is also a very popular tour machine.
Yes the 206 is reliable - but so is the 44.
The 206 is relatively cheap to operate - the 44 is cheaper.
The 206 has 4 pax seats - the 44, 3.
I think the two main advantages the 206 has over the 44 right now is cargo space, and air conditioning which might affect corporate business. There was a company in Florida that was kitting up the 44 with A/C but it meant losing two underseat spaces (as if there wasn't insufficient cargo space already.)
two cents.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with 'taint natural on this one.
If I had a (big) lotto win, I'd go for the EC120. 5 seats, good luggage space, excellent viz for the pax, quiet and nice to fly. I guess it would be more expensive than the R44, and only time will tell on the reliability issue. But I would think that a EC120 would be a far more flexible machine than either a 44 or 206.
If I had a (big) lotto win, I'd go for the EC120. 5 seats, good luggage space, excellent viz for the pax, quiet and nice to fly. I guess it would be more expensive than the R44, and only time will tell on the reliability issue. But I would think that a EC120 would be a far more flexible machine than either a 44 or 206.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from a commercial operator's point of view, it's still hard to see past the 206. If you're pleasure flying / event shuttling (which is still a staple operation of many small commercial companies) that extra seat makes a big difference.
Taking a couple away for the weekend, or dropping the newly weds at the airport? What are you going to do with the luggage in a 44? Perhaps Frank could offer a roof-rack option? The 44 has its place, as a backstop for example, for those times when you may have a couple of pax with no luggage who dont want / need to pay 206 prices, or for aerial photography. Problem is, every operator NEEDS a 206-size machine, and not many can afford to have an R44 sitting around just for those other occasions. Unless, of course, they are also a flight school and have one anyway. How many UK AOC operators have the R44 as their primary type? 'Nuff said.
The EC120 should have been (and in the future may well be) good competition for the 206. However, get it specced to any decent equipment level, and your payload really isnt up to it.
And there aren't any cheap ones around yet.
As for reliability, I don't see it as being a real issue with the 44 or 206 (I have flown over 2,000 hrs in the same 206 and I have had 1 gen fail and 1 m/r chip in 9 years). The 120 is still a bit too new to comment.
My two-pennies - the 206 will remain top dog for a while yet, but when it is finally dethroned, it will be by an aircraft like the 120, but definitely NOT by the R44
Taking a couple away for the weekend, or dropping the newly weds at the airport? What are you going to do with the luggage in a 44? Perhaps Frank could offer a roof-rack option? The 44 has its place, as a backstop for example, for those times when you may have a couple of pax with no luggage who dont want / need to pay 206 prices, or for aerial photography. Problem is, every operator NEEDS a 206-size machine, and not many can afford to have an R44 sitting around just for those other occasions. Unless, of course, they are also a flight school and have one anyway. How many UK AOC operators have the R44 as their primary type? 'Nuff said.
The EC120 should have been (and in the future may well be) good competition for the 206. However, get it specced to any decent equipment level, and your payload really isnt up to it.
And there aren't any cheap ones around yet.
As for reliability, I don't see it as being a real issue with the 44 or 206 (I have flown over 2,000 hrs in the same 206 and I have had 1 gen fail and 1 m/r chip in 9 years). The 120 is still a bit too new to comment.
My two-pennies - the 206 will remain top dog for a while yet, but when it is finally dethroned, it will be by an aircraft like the 120, but definitely NOT by the R44
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you unhappy with your Raven II then?
James Roc
Given that previous threads have established you as a Raven II owner ( see http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=85620 ), what made you post this thread, then? It implies that you are unhappy with your choice after 9 months and are considering the JetRanger? And why the JetRanger over any other turbine?
Given that previous threads have established you as a Raven II owner ( see http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=85620 ), what made you post this thread, then? It implies that you are unhappy with your choice after 9 months and are considering the JetRanger? And why the JetRanger over any other turbine?
As Brazzakka is finding out in Cairns, the R44 is limited in its operational capacity. For a couple of jobs it is absolutely the most applicable helicopter regarding price and performance etc...
BUT,
What the bean counters don't factor in is the limitations for the machine.
The fact of the matter is that the B206 and EC120 can do EVERYTHING that a 44 can do plus more. The 44 is great for easy work but as soon as you start taking it out bush and trying to jam firefighters or surveyors into it, it starts to stumble. Those fairings on the skids also get a hammering from boots.... daft place for the crosstube location if you ask me.
I cannot figure out how you fit 3 firefighters + gear and equipment into a 44 and without overloading it and having them hold their packs in their laps. Which, if I recollect, is actually against the CAR's recommendations for a secure internal load.
I know why you do it, because on occaisions I did the same thing
but it sure is uncomfortable. Nothing like having a cargo area to store that stuff.
And when you move on from the piston operator, the next guy with the turbines is going to need you to have T5 time. So the 1000hrs of robbie time is practically worthless to you.
BUT,
What the bean counters don't factor in is the limitations for the machine.
The fact of the matter is that the B206 and EC120 can do EVERYTHING that a 44 can do plus more. The 44 is great for easy work but as soon as you start taking it out bush and trying to jam firefighters or surveyors into it, it starts to stumble. Those fairings on the skids also get a hammering from boots.... daft place for the crosstube location if you ask me.
I cannot figure out how you fit 3 firefighters + gear and equipment into a 44 and without overloading it and having them hold their packs in their laps. Which, if I recollect, is actually against the CAR's recommendations for a secure internal load.
I know why you do it, because on occaisions I did the same thing
but it sure is uncomfortable. Nothing like having a cargo area to store that stuff.And when you move on from the piston operator, the next guy with the turbines is going to need you to have T5 time. So the 1000hrs of robbie time is practically worthless to you.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about safety?
I was a passenger in a 206A that came down hard after an engine failure. We all managed to walk away with no injuries thanks to bathtub which was damaged but took most of the impact. I wonder if we would have been as lucky in an R44?
rotornut:
Depends on what you have under the seats, how much you weigh, and if the aircraft is in a roughly level attitude - the R22/R44 seats have a limit of 240lb (I'm sure I'll be corrected if it's different in the 44), the seats are energy-absorbing collapsible, and the skids bend once all other avenues of deformation are exhausted. It may have been in your accident that you were lucky not to bang your head on the inside of the frame.
To some extent, while crashworthiness can be designed in, under certain circumstances the worst can happen - I remember seeing an Australian accident report where a 206 rolled after lifting which one would expect to be survivable, but because the pilot hadn't done up his shoulder straps he struck his head - fatally - on the door pillar.
Depends on what you have under the seats, how much you weigh, and if the aircraft is in a roughly level attitude - the R22/R44 seats have a limit of 240lb (I'm sure I'll be corrected if it's different in the 44), the seats are energy-absorbing collapsible, and the skids bend once all other avenues of deformation are exhausted. It may have been in your accident that you were lucky not to bang your head on the inside of the frame.
To some extent, while crashworthiness can be designed in, under certain circumstances the worst can happen - I remember seeing an Australian accident report where a 206 rolled after lifting which one would expect to be survivable, but because the pilot hadn't done up his shoulder straps he struck his head - fatally - on the door pillar.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash!
NR Fairy
Thanks for your insights. The machine was indeed light - instructor, student, and myself as passenger plus 40 gallons fuel. We lifted straight up off the tarmac of a small airport to about 45 feet. Then a sharp yaw and the lights and horn came on. The instructor took over and pulled collective to avoid going straight down and hitting parked aircraft. However rotor rpm decayed and we landed hard a bit lopsided to the right. I saw it coming so I bent at the waist. The impact forced the top of the skids into the bathtub but it stayed upright. We were all belted or strapped in and all weighed around 170 lbs.
Thanks for your insights. The machine was indeed light - instructor, student, and myself as passenger plus 40 gallons fuel. We lifted straight up off the tarmac of a small airport to about 45 feet. Then a sharp yaw and the lights and horn came on. The instructor took over and pulled collective to avoid going straight down and hitting parked aircraft. However rotor rpm decayed and we landed hard a bit lopsided to the right. I saw it coming so I bent at the waist. The impact forced the top of the skids into the bathtub but it stayed upright. We were all belted or strapped in and all weighed around 170 lbs.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaced, Got it in one. The buget is about 600 grand aussie which wll buy a 44 with change or a decent second hand jetranger. An ec120 would be the pick of the lot but at around 900 to a mil for a low time used one, it's a bit out of the price range.
Thanks all for the input so far. Much appreciated. Curent thinking leads towards a jetranger
Thanks all for the input so far. Much appreciated. Curent thinking leads towards a jetranger
Guys
Be honest a 500D or E beats the 206 and 44. It looks sexy has the performance second to none, incredibly fun to fly and is more crash survivable than most. The reason it beat the 206 in the US army Loach trials.
However I might be biased here plus I don't often sit in the back !!
Be honest a 500D or E beats the 206 and 44. It looks sexy has the performance second to none, incredibly fun to fly and is more crash survivable than most. The reason it beat the 206 in the US army Loach trials.
However I might be biased here plus I don't often sit in the back !!
urm, hughes 500 guy missing the point -
Where do you fit your passengers and baggage on a commercial flight? and do the people in the back really enjoy the cramped conditions?
The 500 maybe be like a ferrari, but we dont see many ferraris used as taxis!
Where do you fit your passengers and baggage on a commercial flight? and do the people in the back really enjoy the cramped conditions?
The 500 maybe be like a ferrari, but we dont see many ferraris used as taxis!