Robinson R66 (merged threads)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R101, you beat me to it.
I did a touch and go at Torrance a month ago but with hands on the controls there wasn't much opportunity to take photos.
It was parked near a Red 44 which gave a good idea of the difference in size - very tall.
John
I did a touch and go at Torrance a month ago but with hands on the controls there wasn't much opportunity to take photos.
It was parked near a Red 44 which gave a good idea of the difference in size - very tall.
John
It will be interesting to see how they comply with the current FAR Part 27 Regs regarding crashworthiness in the seating and fuel system. Or will "grandfathering and sunset clauses" allow it to slip in as a derivative of the R44 which is now a 16 year old helicopter?
And with that 30 year old engine in it will need more than the 180 odd litres it currently has available.
And with that 30 year old engine in it will need more than the 180 odd litres it currently has available.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Tim Tucker, "The R66 will be certified to the latest amendment of Part 27."
Elan
Elan
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 9th Jun 2008 at 10:08. Reason: Remove advertising reference
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London
Age: 43
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video of the R66
So here is some footage of the new R66 for those of you interested, is it just me or does it look really ugly and not much wider than the R44. Well at least we can have good old chin wag about it. Enjoy
LoopTV.Aero
LoopTV.Aero
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rickmansworth
Age: 74
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ugly or not - I envy that chap's flying skills ! Obviously an experienced demonstrator and probably hamming it up somewhat when he spied the camerafolk but nevertheless - more power to his elbow - and many more happy landings.
Goose.
Goose.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an ex R-44 owner and looked for my next move and bought a 206 B3, as there was no turbine version of the Robbie....I still fly the 44 and have to say when I am in it I love it. But it has the obvious downsides of looking ugly and sounding like an old truck starting up.
I am shocked that nobody from the design dept came up with something that has better looks for the 66? It now sounds like a real heli, but still has the look of a very old and odd helicopter.
22's and 44's were always aimed at private owners and I haven't met a private owner of one yet that wouldn't want to make the Robbie design sleeker...
So, the 66 is going to have to be CHEAP to compete with other single engine turbnes, and had they spent a bit of time on the look of it, they probably could have taken the Jetranger, EC120 and other singles head on.......
Nice to see it finally fly, but hope this is a prototype that is in "design stage" rather than the "final" ugly bird it is?
I am shocked that nobody from the design dept came up with something that has better looks for the 66? It now sounds like a real heli, but still has the look of a very old and odd helicopter.
22's and 44's were always aimed at private owners and I haven't met a private owner of one yet that wouldn't want to make the Robbie design sleeker...
So, the 66 is going to have to be CHEAP to compete with other single engine turbnes, and had they spent a bit of time on the look of it, they probably could have taken the Jetranger, EC120 and other singles head on.......
Nice to see it finally fly, but hope this is a prototype that is in "design stage" rather than the "final" ugly bird it is?
Who cares if it's ugly, I don't.
Will it be a good work machine?
Does it have good running costs?
Will it make us more money than buying and running a EC120/Jet Ranger?
These are important, not what it looks like.
We have never lost a tender due to the client thinking the Helicopter is UGLY.
Will it be a good work machine?
Does it have good running costs?
Will it make us more money than buying and running a EC120/Jet Ranger?
These are important, not what it looks like.
We have never lost a tender due to the client thinking the Helicopter is UGLY.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally dont think its ugly! Its not a great looking helicopter but there's certainly uglier heli's out there, I personally think the Mi's are damn ugly but I bet there bleeding great at what they do!
Like this will be, ideal for the private owner who wants that bit more power and extra seat they didnt get with there R44, what does every owner say about the R44? "I wish there was a little more power and an extra seat would be nice" Thats exactly what Robinson has done and I can't fault him.
Its gonna give new cpl(h)'s a cheaper way of gaining turbine hours, I also think it will be able to do some proper commercial work, slinging etc... I see people have done slinging with R44's well the same ship with lots more power and payload is a winner if you ask me, all as long as the price is kept down!
Thats going to be its down turn, if it's not priced well below a 206 ad 500 I can't see how it can compete in a commercial world, private and training maybe, as there gonna be readily available at schools in a few years (just my predictions).
It does look sleeker, notice the line down the bottom of the windows lines up with the bottom of the windscreen, put the 44 next to it and you'll see, I think it makes all the difference.
The one thing I would say and can't for the life of me figure out, is why Frank Robinson didnt put a FADEC in it, he knows it's going to be use by students all over the world, just cant get my head around it. I would also do a real tricked out model with Glass cockpit and FADEC, it would be a good dtepping stone onto a bigger machine. just my 2 cents anyway. I think the Police model if and when they bring one out would be nice too. and probably sell a few in the States where they dont require twins.
Like this will be, ideal for the private owner who wants that bit more power and extra seat they didnt get with there R44, what does every owner say about the R44? "I wish there was a little more power and an extra seat would be nice" Thats exactly what Robinson has done and I can't fault him.
Its gonna give new cpl(h)'s a cheaper way of gaining turbine hours, I also think it will be able to do some proper commercial work, slinging etc... I see people have done slinging with R44's well the same ship with lots more power and payload is a winner if you ask me, all as long as the price is kept down!
Thats going to be its down turn, if it's not priced well below a 206 ad 500 I can't see how it can compete in a commercial world, private and training maybe, as there gonna be readily available at schools in a few years (just my predictions).
It does look sleeker, notice the line down the bottom of the windows lines up with the bottom of the windscreen, put the 44 next to it and you'll see, I think it makes all the difference.
The one thing I would say and can't for the life of me figure out, is why Frank Robinson didnt put a FADEC in it, he knows it's going to be use by students all over the world, just cant get my head around it. I would also do a real tricked out model with Glass cockpit and FADEC, it would be a good dtepping stone onto a bigger machine. just my 2 cents anyway. I think the Police model if and when they bring one out would be nice too. and probably sell a few in the States where they dont require twins.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Frank I won't be buying an R66. I prefer a turbine with a cyclic stuck to the floor.
I have owned two R44 Clipper 1s and an R22 Beta2 but I never got used to the T-cyclic in the R44. Don't know where to stick it (no pun intended). Maybe I'm not built for it but I thought the R44 was designed for a person of average build (as I am).
I still love the R22 though - fits like a hand in glove for me.
I have owned two R44 Clipper 1s and an R22 Beta2 but I never got used to the T-cyclic in the R44. Don't know where to stick it (no pun intended). Maybe I'm not built for it but I thought the R44 was designed for a person of average build (as I am).
I still love the R22 though - fits like a hand in glove for me.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Do you think they could have made the mast just a bit longer 
Where is the maintenance crew going to store the 14 ft extension ladder?
"
What are you suppose to do for preflight check?? Build some scafolding? 
Where is the maintenance crew going to store the 14 ft extension ladder?
"What are you suppose to do for preflight check??
Build some scafolding?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or maybe this: Dura III | Dura-Stilts
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mmmm... that mast is awfully long.
It's a shame it won't have a "real" cyclic.
Will it be a success? Hard to tell, I think some private owners will buy it because a) they want the lastest toy, and b) they want the turbine sound. but it will have to be a hell lot cheaper than a B206/Hughes 500 to make impact in the commercial world.
People may just view it as "an R44 with a different engine".
It mat not matter to people how ugly it is, but...ask yourself this question - how successful would the EC120 have been if it had been ugly? Given it's poor performance, and high maintenance costs, some of it's success is down to fact people like to be seen operating/stepping out of it.
It's a shame it won't have a "real" cyclic.
Will it be a success? Hard to tell, I think some private owners will buy it because a) they want the lastest toy, and b) they want the turbine sound. but it will have to be a hell lot cheaper than a B206/Hughes 500 to make impact in the commercial world.
People may just view it as "an R44 with a different engine".
It mat not matter to people how ugly it is, but...ask yourself this question - how successful would the EC120 have been if it had been ugly? Given it's poor performance, and high maintenance costs, some of it's success is down to fact people like to be seen operating/stepping out of it.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front cabin looks quite spacious, but rear must be tight for three. Be interested in the performance of the new RR 300 turbine.
I'd like to have seen an articulated 3 or 4 blade rotor (without that huge mast), more substantial skids (perhaps with oleos), and proper cyclics.
But that's why Robbies are cheap. Wish Schweizer and Enstrom would get more aggressive in this end of the market.
I'd like to have seen an articulated 3 or 4 blade rotor (without that huge mast), more substantial skids (perhaps with oleos), and proper cyclics.
But that's why Robbies are cheap. Wish Schweizer and Enstrom would get more aggressive in this end of the market.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wish Schweizer and Enstrom would get more aggressive in this end of the market.