private vs business, R22 and R44.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
private vs business, R22 and R44.
Was having an argument with a mate re helicopter ownership. He said private people prefer a 'better' class of helicopter than buying an R22 or R44, and that only business people purchases 22s or 44s due to lower operating costs etc. Sort of intimated that Robbies were 'cheap and nasty'. My understanding is that Frank Robinson specifically designed his helicopters for private type ownership, but that due to a number of factors commercial operators started buying them in droves.
Does anyone know what the 'private vs business' figures are for Robinson helicopters and where to find that sort of info? There seems to be too many of them around for the 'cheap and nasty' argument.
Thanks
Bush Pelican.
Does anyone know what the 'private vs business' figures are for Robinson helicopters and where to find that sort of info? There seems to be too many of them around for the 'cheap and nasty' argument.
Thanks
Bush Pelican.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonderful machine
I owned an R44 for years. Loved it. Great flying, economical, comfortable.
I think they are one of the best choices for private ownership.
I recently transitioned to an Enstrom 480B.
I think they are one of the best choices for private ownership.
I recently transitioned to an Enstrom 480B.
My take on it (for what it's worth) is that the Robbo's are targetted at the lower end of the rotary transport spectrum to entice those who are very comfortably off (financially) but not rolling in it. IE: The analogy in the car spectrum would be Robbo = Ford Fiesta, Jetbox = mondeo, 109S = BMW. [Based on a person who can barely afford a new car!].
They work, they are practical for what they were designed to do, but they don't do much for image
What they have done, more than any other helicopter on the planet, is introduce people to the rotary world, that would not normally aspire to 'defying gravity'.
From a business perspective, they must be a God send! Driving costs to a minimum (which is still a lot!).
What I discovered recently and wasn't aware of is that they are lifex'd on hours whatever components one changes. Once that airframe reaches that time frame, the cab is worthless..........
[For instance an R44 is lifex'd to say 2400hrs, the end.....can that be right?].
They work, they are practical for what they were designed to do, but they don't do much for image
What they have done, more than any other helicopter on the planet, is introduce people to the rotary world, that would not normally aspire to 'defying gravity'.
From a business perspective, they must be a God send! Driving costs to a minimum (which is still a lot!).
What I discovered recently and wasn't aware of is that they are lifex'd on hours whatever components one changes. Once that airframe reaches that time frame, the cab is worthless..........
[For instance an R44 is lifex'd to say 2400hrs, the end.....can that be right?].
What I discovered recently and wasn't aware of is that they are lifex'd on hours whatever components one changes. Once that airframe reaches that time frame, the cab is worthless.......... [For instance an R44 is lifex'd to say 2400hrs, the end.....can that be right?].
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
What I discovered recently and wasn't aware of is that they are lifex'd on hours whatever components one changes. Once that airframe reaches that time frame, the cab is worthless.......... [For instance an R44 is lifex'd to say 2400hrs, the end.....can that be right?].
Cheers
Whirls
Not necessarily. You don't have to send the machine back to Robinson, instead you can take it to any licensed Overhaul shop and have it rebuilt. The overhaul kit that Robinson sells for this purpose is far cheaper than a factory rebuilt, but it doesn't include the cosmetic items such as upholstery. It is then pretty much up to you if you just want the mandatory overhaul items done, or if you want your machine to look like a new one. Only the life limited parts have to be replaced, and only if they are actually timed out.
For example, rotor blades often don't make their 2,200hr life and get replaced earlier. If your blades are only 1,000hrs old when the rest of the machine is due for an overhaul, you can buy the kit without blades and just keep using your old ones for another 1,200hrs, or until the calendar life expires.
It is quite common for older machines to have parts due replacement outside the regular 2,200hr intervals for this reason.
For example, rotor blades often don't make their 2,200hr life and get replaced earlier. If your blades are only 1,000hrs old when the rest of the machine is due for an overhaul, you can buy the kit without blades and just keep using your old ones for another 1,200hrs, or until the calendar life expires.
It is quite common for older machines to have parts due replacement outside the regular 2,200hr intervals for this reason.
Even so; I was under the impression a cab working hard in a helicopter school could easily rack up 1000+hrs per year. Seemingly not
If that were the case, you'd have a 2yr old robbo going back to the factory/rebuild on your hands????
Surely this process (sending it for a factory/rebuild) is peculiar to robbo's - no?
It might make sense from the owner of a hire company/school perspective because you have a definitive overheads budget, but long term it must surely be very expensive running a robbo if it starts clocking the hours up quickly???
Enlighten me
If that were the case, you'd have a 2yr old robbo going back to the factory/rebuild on your hands????
Surely this process (sending it for a factory/rebuild) is peculiar to robbo's - no?
It might make sense from the owner of a hire company/school perspective because you have a definitive overheads budget, but long term it must surely be very expensive running a robbo if it starts clocking the hours up quickly???
Enlighten me
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
long term it must surely be very expensive running a robbo if it starts clocking the hours up quickly
The day-to-day costs of an R22/R44 are pretty minimal: 50/100/annual checks plus some extra checks here and there around 500 hours/1000 etc
On most Robinsons most parts will make it to the life limit - there are a few exceptions - blade erosion, aux fuel pumps on Raven II's, but compared to the maintenance of say a 206 (TT straps, anyone?) or many others, it's pretty cheap to run, and the more hours you fly, the standing costs get smaller and smaller - less annuals, insurance etc.
If you do 1,000 hours in an R22/R44 in a year, you're probably operating one of the most cost-effective helicopters around.
The rebuilds (which vary slightly, e.g. new tailcone only on the second) should be seen as a provision for each hour of flight and built into your low running costs.
Lafite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, it is not a complete rebuild but rather an overhaul of those things whose life expires at 2200hrs or 12 years, whichever comes soonest. Some private owners choose to have resprays and upgrades that are not strictly required.
The designer has focussed on getting the time life of as many parts as possible to 2200hr/12yrs. If an aircraft has been left unaltered, then lots of fatigue-affected parts need replacing at the same time.
There seem to be various ways of looking at the "best" way of running a Robbo. Probably the worst is to get to 12 years with a significant number of the 2200 hrs NOT flown. My Robbo experience is from a few years ago (and in the UK), but many machines seem to spend their lives with a period in private ownership and a period being used at a flying school. That more or less balances out the flight time/calendar time to expire at more or less the same time.
A "time-expired" Robbo has a modest residual value. Deciding what that is depends upon looking at the expiry of all the time-lifed components like any other helicopter, as well as the general market. It is just that it is likely to be rather simpler to do than say an Enstrom.
I get the impression that R22s are used less for PPL training these days with everyone, except the person who pays the bill, preferring the R44 or another basic type. Is that correct?
My experience of R22 ownership was that the "unscheduled" replacement items were a much larger element than expected and that the salesman suggested
The designer has focussed on getting the time life of as many parts as possible to 2200hr/12yrs. If an aircraft has been left unaltered, then lots of fatigue-affected parts need replacing at the same time.
There seem to be various ways of looking at the "best" way of running a Robbo. Probably the worst is to get to 12 years with a significant number of the 2200 hrs NOT flown. My Robbo experience is from a few years ago (and in the UK), but many machines seem to spend their lives with a period in private ownership and a period being used at a flying school. That more or less balances out the flight time/calendar time to expire at more or less the same time.
A "time-expired" Robbo has a modest residual value. Deciding what that is depends upon looking at the expiry of all the time-lifed components like any other helicopter, as well as the general market. It is just that it is likely to be rather simpler to do than say an Enstrom.
I get the impression that R22s are used less for PPL training these days with everyone, except the person who pays the bill, preferring the R44 or another basic type. Is that correct?
My experience of R22 ownership was that the "unscheduled" replacement items were a much larger element than expected and that the salesman suggested
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP, the real answer is that they can be far more cost effective than most others. As said, heaps of items retire at 2200 when you do O'haul of gearbox, big and small and all the rest. An aircraft at 2200 hours will be worth say 50K.
At 4400 hours there are a couple more throw away items like the head and tail boom so at 4400 the thing will then be worth only 40K say.
After the fourth life (8800) it always pays to re loom it, at about 4 or 5K as electrical snags in the field, or even on a airport with a sparky not far away, will soon cost more than that.
The biggest bug bear is the engine which is TBO'd at 2000, unless it is private where you can run through on condition to 2200.
Belts should last about 800 real hours, there are more extensive service lists at 300 hour intervals and the 12 year limit is statutory on the retirement components and O'Haul the rest if you haven't been smart enough to run it out of hours by then.
But the 12 yearly or 2200 hourly airframe inspection is just the same as the major on most others, more a paper war than anything else.
There are some silly staggard times on the frames and T/R blades.
Any Robinson Approved licensed service centre does the lot.
In real anwer to yourself and TC the real trick is you can use the proverbial back of the envelope better with these than most others, here's how.
Divide your 2200 hours by fours years, take your finance over four years, over here you get a 25% tax depreciation every year, get the drift?
You might like to take a 50K balloon, it's up to you and your pencil.
At four years you will arrive at the tanatalising dimishing point of all aircraft where they are worth almost nothing with your component times having nicely marched down in time/value with finance/capital and tax depreciation.
It is also convenient because you only have to insure that which is financed, and if that matches your real value then you are not wasting isurance dollars, neither will yuou be over or under insured.
It might even pay you to run a fourth machine if you are working three already @ three years each / 2200hrs.
But then again if you bought it to look at, you shouldn't be asking.
At 4400 hours there are a couple more throw away items like the head and tail boom so at 4400 the thing will then be worth only 40K say.
After the fourth life (8800) it always pays to re loom it, at about 4 or 5K as electrical snags in the field, or even on a airport with a sparky not far away, will soon cost more than that.
The biggest bug bear is the engine which is TBO'd at 2000, unless it is private where you can run through on condition to 2200.
Belts should last about 800 real hours, there are more extensive service lists at 300 hour intervals and the 12 year limit is statutory on the retirement components and O'Haul the rest if you haven't been smart enough to run it out of hours by then.
But the 12 yearly or 2200 hourly airframe inspection is just the same as the major on most others, more a paper war than anything else.
There are some silly staggard times on the frames and T/R blades.
Any Robinson Approved licensed service centre does the lot.
In real anwer to yourself and TC the real trick is you can use the proverbial back of the envelope better with these than most others, here's how.
Divide your 2200 hours by fours years, take your finance over four years, over here you get a 25% tax depreciation every year, get the drift?
You might like to take a 50K balloon, it's up to you and your pencil.
At four years you will arrive at the tanatalising dimishing point of all aircraft where they are worth almost nothing with your component times having nicely marched down in time/value with finance/capital and tax depreciation.
It is also convenient because you only have to insure that which is financed, and if that matches your real value then you are not wasting isurance dollars, neither will yuou be over or under insured.
It might even pay you to run a fourth machine if you are working three already @ three years each / 2200hrs.
But then again if you bought it to look at, you shouldn't be asking.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinsons
Don't know why but I have an irrational hatred of them, have never flown in them and dread being photographed looking at one. The numbers sold attest to something but they don't look substantial enough nor capacious enough for my 6'4" oversized frame and the thought of getting airborne in one fills me with dread. Give me a Bell 47 any day. (dear dear - showing my age again!!)
G.
G.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A place I did my training in the States was doing 200 hours a month in the IFR trainer R22, this meant they were being rebuilt every 13 months. One of the machines I flew was 6 years old with 11,000 hours on the datcon. Although that was probabaly the only original bit.
Great machines though, had 2 hours in one yesterday, after 18 months of flying the 92. Great fun, especially if you are not oversize
Great machines though, had 2 hours in one yesterday, after 18 months of flying the 92. Great fun, especially if you are not oversize
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stagnation Point
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff,
Can not argue that they look somehwat flimsy, especially when the panels have been removed for maintenance. Looks rather like a small child's climbing frame with an engine hanging in the middle of it actually.
That said I have a few hours in both the 22's and 44's and can say that once in them and flying you really do not notice the size at all. If flown within their limits they are a lot of fun and very maneuverable.
As to height well it is tight I grant you but size laterally is more of a problem that vertically when it comes to the occupants. Many a "larger" passenger has hung over the collective for me but having taught a certain England cricketer to fly who was 6'5" tall I can say it was no problem at all.
Every one loves the 47 though :-)
Can not argue that they look somehwat flimsy, especially when the panels have been removed for maintenance. Looks rather like a small child's climbing frame with an engine hanging in the middle of it actually.
That said I have a few hours in both the 22's and 44's and can say that once in them and flying you really do not notice the size at all. If flown within their limits they are a lot of fun and very maneuverable.
As to height well it is tight I grant you but size laterally is more of a problem that vertically when it comes to the occupants. Many a "larger" passenger has hung over the collective for me but having taught a certain England cricketer to fly who was 6'5" tall I can say it was no problem at all.
Every one loves the 47 though :-)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robo Phobia
I hope no-one is offended by my irrational phobia and I am sure that for many it is the bees-knees. Sometimes it's better not to know the size of the 'Jesus' nut and if there is one on a Robo I'm sure its M6 and ample justification for my nervousness. Happy flying to all Robo enthusiasts.
G.
G.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope no-one is offended by my irrational phobia and I am sure that for many it is the bees-knees
as far as the bees knees goes, well there are some very clever design charateristics that one only appreciates after a while. like when one is busy really concentrating on the outside scenery, it is only a quick flick left with the mark one eyeball, to see gods number one, two and three and four, I.E. MAP, oil pressure and temp and CHT. needles all conveniently in symmetry. Frank even looks after the real god number one - RPM - with an automatic device, as long as one listens intently to the blade noise level, it will be there, no worries mate, right where it is supposed to be all day long.
but I can say that getting out of them after a long day and sprinting away after a mad mickey bull or some such is somewhat detached from the realities of yesteryear.
I will be with you in the '47 don't worry. age yeah well, I have an engineer mate who is just waiting for me to say the word and he will supply one which I know will be a work of art, shaved dipstick, straight thru glovebox, tuned stacks, lowered doorhandles the whole nine yards. The only thing he doesn't do is use brylcreem.
TSNBO asked about the 480B. That is what I would prefer anyday over the '44 it's a dream to fly, smooth as a baby's bum, heaps of power, stacks of room to go away camping with a few mates, will fly for four and a half hours without needing a refuel and best part is one still gets to use a grease gun occasionally. if one wants to follow the desert car racing for example, with the hot kit installed, they will fly up to fifty degrees OAT, quite unlike either of the R44 marques which will either completely run out of puff or vaporise the gas.
tet
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BIG Jesus nuts
G
I'm with you on this one; just LOVE big Jesus nuts, the bigger the better = F*@$%ing big torque wrench, and is good news in my book.
Mind, the A109 idea of a ring of smaller bolts to ante-up the equivalent of a MASSIVE torque wrench is a bloody good idea too. Pity it was the Italians, not the Brits, who came up with it
How you doing by the way? 'Senior Management' sends love, and MR up in ABZ is now a gentleman of leisure
(Sorry Mods, my PM function is a little distressed at present) - VFR
I'm with you on this one; just LOVE big Jesus nuts, the bigger the better = F*@$%ing big torque wrench, and is good news in my book.
Mind, the A109 idea of a ring of smaller bolts to ante-up the equivalent of a MASSIVE torque wrench is a bloody good idea too. Pity it was the Italians, not the Brits, who came up with it
How you doing by the way? 'Senior Management' sends love, and MR up in ABZ is now a gentleman of leisure
(Sorry Mods, my PM function is a little distressed at present) - VFR