Md500 Or Jetranger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Md500 Or Jetranger
Which is the best for privete use ,fores and against/ fuel per mile/ maintanence costs /reliability overall capability/? value for money many thanks Levo.
From a pilot's perspective the 500 wins hands down....from the passenger perspective the Jet Box wins.
Cost to operate...the 206 wins.
For spare parts availilbilty....the 206 wins.
For speed and sheer fun of flying.....the 500 wins.
Fuel consumption.....the 206 wins.
The 500 can land in smaller places....and is fun to fly.
If you should ever have a seriously bad landing....the 500 wins against the 206 by miles.
Cost to operate...the 206 wins.
For spare parts availilbilty....the 206 wins.
For speed and sheer fun of flying.....the 500 wins.
Fuel consumption.....the 206 wins.
The 500 can land in smaller places....and is fun to fly.
If you should ever have a seriously bad landing....the 500 wins against the 206 by miles.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a nice comparison between the R44, MD500E, and B206.
http://helicopterflight.net/r44_v_bell_&_md.htm
-Razer
http://helicopterflight.net/r44_v_bell_&_md.htm
-Razer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London (UK)
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari vs Mondeo
500 = Ferrari
206 = Mondeo
Like all the previous posters said, if you want to take your granny for a trip round the countryside or you are running a mini cab service take the Mondeo.
If it's yours and you enjoy flying, take the 'rarri everytime
In my eyes the analogy is perfect. One is noisy cramped but great fun, the other is comfortable, slow and wallowy.
If it is yours and the difference in running costs makes the choice for you - YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!
206 = Mondeo
Like all the previous posters said, if you want to take your granny for a trip round the countryside or you are running a mini cab service take the Mondeo.
If it's yours and you enjoy flying, take the 'rarri everytime
In my eyes the analogy is perfect. One is noisy cramped but great fun, the other is comfortable, slow and wallowy.
If it is yours and the difference in running costs makes the choice for you - YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT!
SASless
Er fuel consumption the 206 wins - I think not. Same engine both between 23 to 25 gals an hour. 500 crusies at 130 kt v 110 kt. So fly 130 nm which has used less fuel ?
500 is cheaper to maintain ( i have owned both types ) 500 does not need some very expensive straps changed every 2 years !!
Compare the time to cover a journey the 500 will use less component times therefore is cheaper on its components asit goes so much quicker
Er fuel consumption the 206 wins - I think not. Same engine both between 23 to 25 gals an hour. 500 crusies at 130 kt v 110 kt. So fly 130 nm which has used less fuel ?
500 is cheaper to maintain ( i have owned both types ) 500 does not need some very expensive straps changed every 2 years !!
Compare the time to cover a journey the 500 will use less component times therefore is cheaper on its components asit goes so much quicker
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm....
As said previously ...... the 500 if you like flying, control response etc .... bit like flying a responsive airplane .... the JetRanger ... well its more like flying a bowl of porridge (and sloppy porridge at that!).
Also from a maintenance point of view ... the 500 HAS to be cheaper in the long run ... no control hydraulics etc ... engine is less stressed in the 500 install than in the 206. No mandatory TT strap changes on the 500......UNLESS you abuse the head.
Also the 500 has a 125kt cruise or better depending on weight.
Now the question is .... "What model of 500 to get?" for private use a 500A converted to "C" would prob be the way to go.
If you have lotsa money ... perhaps a 500D ... don't go near the "F" or one with the 250 R engine.
Cheers
As said previously ...... the 500 if you like flying, control response etc .... bit like flying a responsive airplane .... the JetRanger ... well its more like flying a bowl of porridge (and sloppy porridge at that!).
Also from a maintenance point of view ... the 500 HAS to be cheaper in the long run ... no control hydraulics etc ... engine is less stressed in the 500 install than in the 206. No mandatory TT strap changes on the 500......UNLESS you abuse the head.
Also the 500 has a 125kt cruise or better depending on weight.
Now the question is .... "What model of 500 to get?" for private use a 500A converted to "C" would prob be the way to go.
If you have lotsa money ... perhaps a 500D ... don't go near the "F" or one with the 250 R engine.
Cheers
If you get a 500 with the 250 R engine in it, are all the engine starts counted? From memory any 500 with the C18 in it, number of starts were not an issue, so probably better for a private owner doing short hops as far as running out of starts before the hot section came due? (happy to be corrected here)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is difficult to compare true operating costs between a 206 and a D or E model 500 unless they are both brand new or your are an expert accrual accountant. In most cases you are dealing with aircraft over 15 years old and the historical use, component times remaining and maintenance history will all effect the cost. Most operators complain that they had to spend 30,000 for this part or that part as opposed to doing accrual accounting and saying I "invested" 30,000 in a part which has a life of 4,000 hours and only costs 7.50 per hour.
On a DOC basis, the 500 is less complicated, has the same engine and so I beleive it is cheaper to operate. However, I beleive used 500's have become more expensive in the marketplace than a used 206 and so total cost of owning and operating a 500 may be higher. Aslo, you need a bigger hangar for the 500 as the jet ranger will squeeze into narrow hangar spots due to the head and blades.
Spinwing:
Why do you not like the F? It is the same as a D or E with the exception of a C30 and slightly longer main and tail rotor blades. 650 SHP versus 425. Chews a little more gas in the winter but close to the same in the summer. C30 is actually cheaper to overhaul than a C20R. So for 3 - 5 more gallons an hour, you get a lot more performance. Also, 3200 MAUW versus 3000.
On a DOC basis, the 500 is less complicated, has the same engine and so I beleive it is cheaper to operate. However, I beleive used 500's have become more expensive in the marketplace than a used 206 and so total cost of owning and operating a 500 may be higher. Aslo, you need a bigger hangar for the 500 as the jet ranger will squeeze into narrow hangar spots due to the head and blades.
Spinwing:
Why do you not like the F? It is the same as a D or E with the exception of a C30 and slightly longer main and tail rotor blades. 650 SHP versus 425. Chews a little more gas in the winter but close to the same in the summer. C30 is actually cheaper to overhaul than a C20R. So for 3 - 5 more gallons an hour, you get a lot more performance. Also, 3200 MAUW versus 3000.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or you are an expert accrual accountant.
Good press for the bean counters 
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diethelm ......
Don't get me wrong .... I loved the 500F ....flew it/them in PNG heaps of power good fun doing long line wonderful ...machine .... except so few made ...probably going to be a problem for a private operator to get/afford parts..... and unless operating hot/high a complete waste of money trying to operate one ....
Cheers
Don't get me wrong .... I loved the 500F ....flew it/them in PNG heaps of power good fun doing long line wonderful ...machine .... except so few made ...probably going to be a problem for a private operator to get/afford parts..... and unless operating hot/high a complete waste of money trying to operate one ....
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I trained on a Hughes 300C and then got a 206 endorsement. I understand the 500 feels like the 300 - no hydraulics, tight controls etc. When I flew the 206 it felt like driving a boat. However, it autorotates beautifully and every pilot I know who flew or flies them has a great deal of respect for the machine.
Engineers generally like to work on them except for the servos which always leak. Then you get hydraulic fluid on your hands which attracts black flies out in the bush which is not very pleasant, according to my engineer friends.
Engineers generally like to work on them except for the servos which always leak. Then you get hydraulic fluid on your hands which attracts black flies out in the bush which is not very pleasant, according to my engineer friends.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes 500 C or 206
I am just finishing up my licenses and looking to get my own Ship. I need some advice on weather it is best to get a piston to start with and build some time in or just go for a turbine. If I get a piston it would be a Enstrom 280FX. My second question is for a personal ship that is a turbine. Which would be a better choice, Hughes 500 C or a Bell 206. The field elevation here is 4230. The terrain consists of a lot of mountains and lakes etc...
There are so many variables here, it's almost impossible to suggest a particular model. It depends on what type of flying you do, how many pax, budget, etc. Even the type of hangorage available can affect your choice...
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
At the risk of being blunt - how much helicopter can you afford?
Turbines bring simplicity, reliability, outstanding performance, but horrendous running costs. Figure out how many hours per year you are likely to fly (be realistic) and for how many years. From that total see how many TBO's you are going to run into on each aircraft, get a S.W.A.G. on the cost and see if there is any measurable difference to help you make a decision.
If you are reading this while lighting cuban cigars with $100 bills, then just go out and buy an MD 530
Turbines bring simplicity, reliability, outstanding performance, but horrendous running costs. Figure out how many hours per year you are likely to fly (be realistic) and for how many years. From that total see how many TBO's you are going to run into on each aircraft, get a S.W.A.G. on the cost and see if there is any measurable difference to help you make a decision.
If you are reading this while lighting cuban cigars with $100 bills, then just go out and buy an MD 530