ec-120 or r44?
206_jock
The R66... hmmmm... sounds like a helicopter, goes like a helicopter, looks like a tractor
And BTW, the 206 is a great looking machine - a classic. Nowt wrong with 60's design if it works - just like the Gazelle
The R66... hmmmm... sounds like a helicopter, goes like a helicopter, looks like a tractor
And BTW, the 206 is a great looking machine - a classic. Nowt wrong with 60's design if it works - just like the Gazelle
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are seriously looking at just these 2 then you are where I got to 3 years back. I looked at most of the other options - Jet box (maintenance issues for anything I could afford); A109 (fantastic price - high maintenance) and Hughes (sporty little thing, but uncomforable and claustraphobic - particularly for any rear seat passengers). Others may disagree with these comments, but that was my conclusion.
I reasoned the higher purchase cost (using interest cost as a proxy) was balanced out by cheaper service costs and retained value of the airframe. So far has proved right. Other benefits - cheaper insurance - I did not foresee when choosing.
Plan on 100kg (not litres) per hour fuel burn but if flying 110kt / 4-up then I actually achieve better than that (the book is 120kg/hr at MCP - never have I burned fuel at that rate!).
So in addition to costing me less to own I have a 5 seat turbine with smooth ride, great views and it is comfortable for 4 hr flight from Redhill to Scottish Highlands, 4POB and luggage.
Happy to share service data if you PM me. The modern design means less breakages and when they do occur the workshop hours to do anything are low.
EC120 has its limits - Hughes 500 certainly has more excess power at MTOW, for example, - but fly within them and she is no trouble. Only negative I have heard but not personally experienced is lead time for parts from Eurocopter.
I reasoned the higher purchase cost (using interest cost as a proxy) was balanced out by cheaper service costs and retained value of the airframe. So far has proved right. Other benefits - cheaper insurance - I did not foresee when choosing.
Plan on 100kg (not litres) per hour fuel burn but if flying 110kt / 4-up then I actually achieve better than that (the book is 120kg/hr at MCP - never have I burned fuel at that rate!).
So in addition to costing me less to own I have a 5 seat turbine with smooth ride, great views and it is comfortable for 4 hr flight from Redhill to Scottish Highlands, 4POB and luggage.
Happy to share service data if you PM me. The modern design means less breakages and when they do occur the workshop hours to do anything are low.
EC120 has its limits - Hughes 500 certainly has more excess power at MTOW, for example, - but fly within them and she is no trouble. Only negative I have heard but not personally experienced is lead time for parts from Eurocopter.
Last edited by John R81; 7th Mar 2011 at 18:56.
Slap a luggage pod under a 500, theres your baggage. They are the only small turbine that really will do a vertical at max all up weight with power to spare. EC 120 certainly doesnt. Also have a cruise speed of 130 kts ( some will go faster) uses 110 litres an hour. Therefore your extra speed means less fuel less component times and therefore cheaper to run ! Just compare R44 fuel burn with the £ 1.80 a litre cost v .60p per litre for jet. Thats £ 120 ish for the R44 for 110nm v £ 65 for 130nm in the 500 Plus 500 will hold its money, have owned 7 of them have sold each one for more than I paid for it, try that with a 120 !
There is absolutely no comparision as to which is the most fun to fly !
There is absolutely no comparision as to which is the most fun to fly !
Hughsey, how many kt do you lose with the pod?
To me the 500 has it hands down in most regards, but there's no escaping - that back seat is a claustrophobic torture chamber. Just as well it's a fast trip.
Hmmm... here we go:
Oceania-Aviation | Home
To me the 500 has it hands down in most regards, but there's no escaping - that back seat is a claustrophobic torture chamber. Just as well it's a fast trip.
Hmmm... here we go:
Oceania-Aviation | Home
500
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no comparison in the looks dept.(R44 is pot ugly)
The baggage hold / quality of interior etc in the 120 is in a different class.
But . . . . I have never come close to running out of pedal in a 44.
I almost put my right foot through the perspex in a 120 trying to transition to the hover. (and we weren't that heavy)
In my, limited, experience the 120 is underpowered, not for a low time pilot.
Tarman
The baggage hold / quality of interior etc in the 120 is in a different class.
But . . . . I have never come close to running out of pedal in a 44.
I almost put my right foot through the perspex in a 120 trying to transition to the hover. (and we weren't that heavy)
In my, limited, experience the 120 is underpowered, not for a low time pilot.
Tarman
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john r81- some negatives for ec120 are fcu inspection at 10 years 27500 euros- gearbox inspections at 10 years and airframe inspections at 12 years very costly then turbomecca engine inspection at 15years simply horrendous-a 500 or 206 or 480 does not have any of these horrors
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in the meantime... [edited to add: all relates to EC120 - SP thought it wasn't clear]
(All actual bills for my EC120)
A 6 month inspection for £243 (including parts)
A 50-hr for £715 (including parts)
A 50-hr for £ 275 (including parts)
A 100hr (plus some additional work re igniter cable replaced, oil cooler replaced due to stripped thread, aircraft re-weighed, replacement skid shoes and some corrosion treatment) £3,860
Yes she has some expensive episodes which you mention; but you paint only one side of the picture. Save up during the 10 years because the intervening service cost is nothing compared to an R44.
I am interested (never having owned a Hughes 500) - is this comparable to your service cost? I know it is substantially cheaper than a 206 or an A109 or an R44 because I did the research. I didn't bother with the 500 because although it is a nippy fun ship, I want to take passengers incomfort so it wasn't for me.
In truth, we all love the ships we fly and want to defend them. I don't say "you were wrong" choosing a 500 - if that's what you want then it is the best ship in the world for you. Don't "rag-off" on the 120 because it isn't a 500. It is something else, and it is fantastic at being what it is.
Work out what your needs are, match a ship to that and you will be happy forever.
(All actual bills for my EC120)
A 6 month inspection for £243 (including parts)
A 50-hr for £715 (including parts)
A 50-hr for £ 275 (including parts)
A 100hr (plus some additional work re igniter cable replaced, oil cooler replaced due to stripped thread, aircraft re-weighed, replacement skid shoes and some corrosion treatment) £3,860
Yes she has some expensive episodes which you mention; but you paint only one side of the picture. Save up during the 10 years because the intervening service cost is nothing compared to an R44.
I am interested (never having owned a Hughes 500) - is this comparable to your service cost? I know it is substantially cheaper than a 206 or an A109 or an R44 because I did the research. I didn't bother with the 500 because although it is a nippy fun ship, I want to take passengers incomfort so it wasn't for me.
In truth, we all love the ships we fly and want to defend them. I don't say "you were wrong" choosing a 500 - if that's what you want then it is the best ship in the world for you. Don't "rag-off" on the 120 because it isn't a 500. It is something else, and it is fantastic at being what it is.
Work out what your needs are, match a ship to that and you will be happy forever.
Last edited by John R81; 8th Mar 2011 at 16:00.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, r44 makes no sense at all when you consider the depreciation factor over the 12 year life. ec120 is without doubt the vastly superior machine as you have outlined. just a pity that some day turbomeca will spoil the party-£££
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Claudia -
These "big bills" are an issue if you don't know they are comming and you don't factor them in (saving for them). The overall cost of running an EC120 we appear to agree is lower than a 44. So as the 500 doesn't have these big bills, what are the general running costs like? If you pay 5k for a 50 hr then it might be more expensive overall than an EC120.
Can you (or any 500 owner) post comparative bill details for 50 / 100 / 6 month for the 500? It is the only way we will all know.
These "big bills" are an issue if you don't know they are comming and you don't factor them in (saving for them). The overall cost of running an EC120 we appear to agree is lower than a 44. So as the 500 doesn't have these big bills, what are the general running costs like? If you pay 5k for a 50 hr then it might be more expensive overall than an EC120.
Can you (or any 500 owner) post comparative bill details for 50 / 100 / 6 month for the 500? It is the only way we will all know.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R81, I would also like to see the figures. Yes the 120 like all EC models have the 12 yr or on some 9 yr but man you do very little up to that point. The 500hr/2yr is the big inspection but I was told by someone recently that the 500hr/2yr on his 120 cost him less than the 300hr on his R22 so yes? The 120 is not maintenance intensive and yes she desrves to at 12 year get a good airframe and flight control check and as for Turbomeca, if you look after your Arrius it will look after you with very little maintenance up until the 3000hr??? I think overhaul or the 15yr inspection. You do have 15yrs/3000hrs to save for it don't you? Don't look at just that, look at the overall period and the 120 is great! Also, she does have a big baggage compartment, take 5 people and quite a lot of fuel-just remember she is below 2 ton class and she was not designed to take all at once just because she can! She is the baby model-1 thing at a time! You will love her if you get to know her and that fenestron is sweet if you learn and understand it and fly accordingly-no rocket science!
For a 500 looking back at mine
50 hour £ 650
100 hour £ 1200
annual £ 7500
All the above is assuming no component changes and normal ags plus some normal wear and tear parts ( based on 300 hours on a 30 year old machine)
Worst ever annual was £ 18k but that included turbine change and fitting of a filter barrier system plus £ 4000 of rectification work
50 hour £ 650
100 hour £ 1200
annual £ 7500
All the above is assuming no component changes and normal ags plus some normal wear and tear parts ( based on 300 hours on a 30 year old machine)
Worst ever annual was £ 18k but that included turbine change and fitting of a filter barrier system plus £ 4000 of rectification work
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I paid €242,347 plus vat in 2002 for an arriel calendar inspection -a friend paid €360,000 in 2009. Both engines 1700 hours from new and running perfectly. Starter generator and fcu was not included. I have no reason to believe that an arrius would be much less if indeed less at all. Can anyone with first hand recent experience with an arrius inspection comment. ?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Fleetwood, PA
Age: 45
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC 120 Real World
I've been flying an EC 120 for 5 years. I even took my check ride for my private pilot in it at 75 hrs. It's not a hard heli to fly. Aside from the high cost of the 500hr and upcoming 12 year we have, the ec120 is a fabulous helicopter. Keep in mind I've only flown 1 hour in a bell47 5 hrs in a 206, 3 hrs in a 350b Astar, and 55 hrs in a 1968 369a Hughes 500. Never been in a twin. yes, it is underpowered with full fuel and 3 people, but it is a solid machine and I highly recommend them. Message me if anyone wants more info. I fly it and am heavily involved in the maintenance.