advice pls R66 or 480B or 206Biii
Robinsons are cheaply constructed, but that doesn't necessarily make them dangerous if flown within limits, or they would never have got any approvals. You could argue the Bell 47 and Alouette were cheaply constructed, but they were aimed at a particular role/market sector and were very successful as a result. Robinson has historically been extremely successful in its penetration of a specific market sector, where affordability was high on the list of decision points.
However, it's now aiming at a different sector: the $1m turbine market where prospects are more discerning, demanding and have more choice; high in their decision criteria lies value for money. Why buy a brand new Skoda if you can buy an immaculate 4 year old Jaguar for the same money? Personally, I wouldn't touch the (very ugly indeed) R66 with a barge pole, but only because I know I can get a far more 'robust' and proven helicopter for the same money elsewhere.
However, it's now aiming at a different sector: the $1m turbine market where prospects are more discerning, demanding and have more choice; high in their decision criteria lies value for money. Why buy a brand new Skoda if you can buy an immaculate 4 year old Jaguar for the same money? Personally, I wouldn't touch the (very ugly indeed) R66 with a barge pole, but only because I know I can get a far more 'robust' and proven helicopter for the same money elsewhere.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes,
I am a fan of the 66 because of its performance. That's all. 5 up, 3/4 fuel, OGE hover at 75%. You simply cannot do that in a jetty.
Your criticism of weight saving does not make sense. Indeed, that's what everyone in aviation, from a model aircraft to the space shuttle is trying to achieve.
TTB,
Well said, the first bit anyway. That would be why Robbies are the biggest selling helis in the world.
Anyway, good flying to all.
Arrrj
I am a fan of the 66 because of its performance. That's all. 5 up, 3/4 fuel, OGE hover at 75%. You simply cannot do that in a jetty.
Your criticism of weight saving does not make sense. Indeed, that's what everyone in aviation, from a model aircraft to the space shuttle is trying to achieve.
TTB,
Well said, the first bit anyway. That would be why Robbies are the biggest selling helis in the world.
Anyway, good flying to all.
Arrrj
Crapinson Flimsicopter
Hughes500 yes sadly You are correct in that the Robinson Helicopter is poorly & cheaply underconstructed hence the name Crapinson Flimsicopter & flying this dodgy thing is the same as playing Russian roulette with a couple of extra bullets loaded into the chambers.........scary
Arrrj but the space shuttle uses new age technology & materials. The Crapinson Flimsicopter has nothing like that tech, they just cut back weight by reducing metal strength & sadly safety. I can HOGE at 15degrees C at 10,000' @ MTOW 2,250kg in my AS350B3+ I have HIGE at MTOW 1,520kg same height & temp. with a B206BIII with theC20J donk 
I am a fan of the 66 because of its performance. That's all
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Yes indeed. We all want a B3 (yes VF, even me), but like John I am short the $2.5 meg. That's why we are talking old jetties and R66 etc.
On a related note, there are two new R66 working in the outer Lake Taupo area, replacing two MD500, apparently the operators are really happy with the performance. I would be interested to get a first hand report, do you know anyone ?
On an unrelated note, I flew one of Helipros 44s around there, great day and very pretty !
Arrrj
Yes indeed. We all want a B3 (yes VF, even me), but like John I am short the $2.5 meg. That's why we are talking old jetties and R66 etc.
On a related note, there are two new R66 working in the outer Lake Taupo area, replacing two MD500, apparently the operators are really happy with the performance. I would be interested to get a first hand report, do you know anyone ?
On an unrelated note, I flew one of Helipros 44s around there, great day and very pretty !
Arrrj
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny these posts about the 'flimsycraptors' or whatever.
When the AS350 was first introduced, I was a young mechanic and more used to the sturdy Bell 212 and 206B.
I remember looking at the AS350's Peugeot gauges, the pop-riveted control tube connections, and the post-rainstorm peeling composites. I thought, what a shoddy piece of junk.
Many years later, the AS350 has proven itself. And now, believe it or not, it is held up as the epitome of engineering excellence.
Well, the smart Aerospatiale design engineers found clever ways to reduce weight (every aerospace engineer's first task) and cost, and built a pretty darn good helicopter. Expensive, but good.
I've never flown in or worked on a Robinson, but it sounds like Frank has made a step-change in five-place turbine powered helicopter design. He reduced weight like a good engineer, built to the latest specs, and made it less costly than any other. Time will tell how it sells and performs. But 'crappyflopter' or some other silliness? C'mon.
When the AS350 was first introduced, I was a young mechanic and more used to the sturdy Bell 212 and 206B.
I remember looking at the AS350's Peugeot gauges, the pop-riveted control tube connections, and the post-rainstorm peeling composites. I thought, what a shoddy piece of junk.
Many years later, the AS350 has proven itself. And now, believe it or not, it is held up as the epitome of engineering excellence.
Well, the smart Aerospatiale design engineers found clever ways to reduce weight (every aerospace engineer's first task) and cost, and built a pretty darn good helicopter. Expensive, but good.
I've never flown in or worked on a Robinson, but it sounds like Frank has made a step-change in five-place turbine powered helicopter design. He reduced weight like a good engineer, built to the latest specs, and made it less costly than any other. Time will tell how it sells and performs. But 'crappyflopter' or some other silliness? C'mon.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matari,
Hooray for a sensible comment ! I remember the Astars were called "Falling Stars" when first released in the US.
Krypton John,
The chap I spoke to said the 2 x MD500 were replaced by 2 x R66 for lifting work. No doubt there will be a story in Helinews or such soon, and we will all know.
Arrrj
Hooray for a sensible comment ! I remember the Astars were called "Falling Stars" when first released in the US.
Krypton John,
The chap I spoke to said the 2 x MD500 were replaced by 2 x R66 for lifting work. No doubt there will be a story in Helinews or such soon, and we will all know.
Arrrj
Matari
Obviously havent seen the 350 crash lifting the xmas tree where the tailboom fell off and the seat came away from the floor then ?
Having had friends burn to death due to 350's fibreglass fuel tank and a another couple die after a gerabox seizure fresh from overhaul not sure I would hold them up as that special from an engineering prospective.
If you speak to Bruno who owns the Cabri G2 he was one of the development engineers on the 120. He weeps telling the story of how it gained 250kgs of weight from drawing board to reality. Now if the 120 was 250kgs lighter what a machine !
Obviously havent seen the 350 crash lifting the xmas tree where the tailboom fell off and the seat came away from the floor then ?
Having had friends burn to death due to 350's fibreglass fuel tank and a another couple die after a gerabox seizure fresh from overhaul not sure I would hold them up as that special from an engineering prospective.
If you speak to Bruno who owns the Cabri G2 he was one of the development engineers on the 120. He weeps telling the story of how it gained 250kgs of weight from drawing board to reality. Now if the 120 was 250kgs lighter what a machine !
That's a bit unfair Hughsey. That AS350 lifting accident was subject to the forces of a wire getting into the rotor - no surprise that the ship broke up. No helicopter would survive that.
As to the seat - maybe it's a poor design. Maybe if it didn't give the pilot's shoulders would have been torn out and his neck broken. The guy walked away. Can't complain about that.
To a certain extent it's a good thing when parts of the helicopter give. That's all energy not being directed into the pilot.
Anyway, AB139 tails fall off all the time and that's just taxying.
:-D
As to the seat - maybe it's a poor design. Maybe if it didn't give the pilot's shoulders would have been torn out and his neck broken. The guy walked away. Can't complain about that.
To a certain extent it's a good thing when parts of the helicopter give. That's all energy not being directed into the pilot.
Anyway, AB139 tails fall off all the time and that's just taxying.
:-D
KJ
Just making the point that the tailboom seemed to fail rather easily ! As for the seat that is ridiculous ! I agree no helicopter would have survived that but !!! I am sure if the pilot had been thrown out while still attached to his seat and killed the insurers would be seeking a rather large amount of compensation for a seat that was not fit for purpose. I know he walked away but only by the grace of god.
If you look at most 206 accidents they havent had the tailboom fail. Was only trying to make the point that not sure that 350's are as well constructed as Matari thinks. As for the139 which the tailcone fell off while taxiing ( the crew didnt know
) the ac had had a heavy landing and the maintenance company did not inspect the composite. Well according to Westlands, I teach a couple of their managers, so view from the inside.
It just seems imho that the 1960's machines are built like a brick sh-t house in comparision to what we see today !
Just making the point that the tailboom seemed to fail rather easily ! As for the seat that is ridiculous ! I agree no helicopter would have survived that but !!! I am sure if the pilot had been thrown out while still attached to his seat and killed the insurers would be seeking a rather large amount of compensation for a seat that was not fit for purpose. I know he walked away but only by the grace of god.
If you look at most 206 accidents they havent had the tailboom fail. Was only trying to make the point that not sure that 350's are as well constructed as Matari thinks. As for the139 which the tailcone fell off while taxiing ( the crew didnt know
) the ac had had a heavy landing and the maintenance company did not inspect the composite. Well according to Westlands, I teach a couple of their managers, so view from the inside.It just seems imho that the 1960's machines are built like a brick sh-t house in comparision to what we see today !
Hughsey, they certainly are. Those 60's machines are mil spec and you can't get better than that.
But hardly anybody in the private world these days can afford mil spec. General aviation spec is bad enough.
After all, you and I don't pay the premium for an armoured Hummer to drive the kids to work.
If there were no robbies, there wouldn't be much of a GA helicopter scene at all.
The bar is set very high for FAA type certification these days. The R22 would never ever make it. The R66 did. I've never even seen one but have yet to hear a bad thing about it from anybody who has flown it. It is troubling that they have lost a couple already though. Maybe there was pilot error. Even the 206 will lose its whirly bits with the wrong inputs. Maybe the blades failed. That seems to be the only persisting weakness of the R44.
Time will tell. I hope the r66 does really well and makes those old 206's and 500's get even cheaper!
I also hope someone does a scottsbell47 on the 206 and buys the type certificate. Pipe dream maybe.
But hardly anybody in the private world these days can afford mil spec. General aviation spec is bad enough.
After all, you and I don't pay the premium for an armoured Hummer to drive the kids to work.
If there were no robbies, there wouldn't be much of a GA helicopter scene at all.
The bar is set very high for FAA type certification these days. The R22 would never ever make it. The R66 did. I've never even seen one but have yet to hear a bad thing about it from anybody who has flown it. It is troubling that they have lost a couple already though. Maybe there was pilot error. Even the 206 will lose its whirly bits with the wrong inputs. Maybe the blades failed. That seems to be the only persisting weakness of the R44.
Time will tell. I hope the r66 does really well and makes those old 206's and 500's get even cheaper!
I also hope someone does a scottsbell47 on the 206 and buys the type certificate. Pipe dream maybe.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Bell is built like a tank and weighs in like one because its composite technology is old. In some places the composite is over an inch thick and stuffed full of metal. Designed in an era to withstand bullets from below and run on cheap fuel paid for by the government. Nowadays it's not hard to beat this with the newer stuff and come out with an aircraft 600lbs lighter.
Talk about spouting rubbish. Have you ever removed every single bit of useless plastic trim from a 206 and placed it in a pile? Even the doors are twice the weight, yet offer no realistic increased protection from blades/the ground if it were to really go wrong. Does that big heavy instrument panel really make you safer …or is that Bell build quality more likely to just bend out in the sunlight? I could go on forever about unnecessary bulk in the 206.
I think the 206 is a lovely, reliable and solid machine, but saying a new entrant is not up to the job because it's not 1960's Bell is quite pathetic. Noone does '1960's Bell' anymore because no one wants to pay to keep all that metal in the air.
Yes the B3 is a fantastic machine, and I'm very happy for you guys out there flying the bigger stuff, but not everyone can afford Eurocopter’s prices. We are talking about entry level turbines here, and unfortunately for you, the new R66 is now one of them.
Talk about spouting rubbish. Have you ever removed every single bit of useless plastic trim from a 206 and placed it in a pile? Even the doors are twice the weight, yet offer no realistic increased protection from blades/the ground if it were to really go wrong. Does that big heavy instrument panel really make you safer …or is that Bell build quality more likely to just bend out in the sunlight? I could go on forever about unnecessary bulk in the 206.
I think the 206 is a lovely, reliable and solid machine, but saying a new entrant is not up to the job because it's not 1960's Bell is quite pathetic. Noone does '1960's Bell' anymore because no one wants to pay to keep all that metal in the air.
Yes the B3 is a fantastic machine, and I'm very happy for you guys out there flying the bigger stuff, but not everyone can afford Eurocopter’s prices. We are talking about entry level turbines here, and unfortunately for you, the new R66 is now one of them.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last 3 posts
I read 3 out of the 4 last posts and wondered if I was really connected to "pprune"...3 sensible comments in a row !
(Except for the "unfortunately" - which probably should read 'fortunately' - at least in terms of the argument presented, in the last one).
Arrrj
(Except for the "unfortunately" - which probably should read 'fortunately' - at least in terms of the argument presented, in the last one).
Arrrj
Last edited by Arrrj; 7th Jun 2012 at 08:31.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the winner is!..........(cricket.....cricket)
Hey! I just spent a good deal of time enjoying this thread. Where's the happy ending?!
If you made any purchase, ika, I suspect you're thrilled. To own ANY turbine heli would be awesome. So what did you choose? What advice can you give?
In your very first post, you said the MD500 would be the hands down winner: "sadly no 5th seat else others are no contest and I would buy one." By the time you learned it does have 5 seats, you were mired deep in various arguments. It's fun to watch because you don't NEED a heli or have to run it profitably for a business, you just WANT it. Everyone seems to agree the MD-500 is the most FUN in the bunch. It might not be for five adults but it sounds like it would fit your kids and small wife just fine...and...although people buy for worst case ("best" case here) of the entire family onboard, most find themselves flying alone or with one other person the majority of the time. For sheer joy of flying (what I think you're after), the MD-500 seems the best choice, all things considered.
If you favor instead the utmost practicality, most appear to agree the 206 would bring happiness...unless you buy one bearing gifts of unscheduled maintenance. TT strap replacement seems to me an issue for a low flying private owner but, as noted, if you're concerned about something like that, you can't afford to be in this market.
The 480B, despite ardent fans, seemed to take heavy hits for maintenance and potential discomfort if seating five. I may be grossly oversimplifying but it didn't seem a front runner for those two stated opinions.
That leaves the R-66. Certainly not as sexy as others but is it the sleeper? Those who have actually flown it seem to think so. Has time revealed answers to concerns surrounding initial fatal accidents? Did any dreaded SBs or ADs materialize? (Legit questions; not sarcastic). For the aspiring private owner, is it a wolf in sheep's clothing? In other words, is it a very strong practical choice if one's ego doesn't preclude that option?
So? Happy ending?
If you made any purchase, ika, I suspect you're thrilled. To own ANY turbine heli would be awesome. So what did you choose? What advice can you give?
In your very first post, you said the MD500 would be the hands down winner: "sadly no 5th seat else others are no contest and I would buy one." By the time you learned it does have 5 seats, you were mired deep in various arguments. It's fun to watch because you don't NEED a heli or have to run it profitably for a business, you just WANT it. Everyone seems to agree the MD-500 is the most FUN in the bunch. It might not be for five adults but it sounds like it would fit your kids and small wife just fine...and...although people buy for worst case ("best" case here) of the entire family onboard, most find themselves flying alone or with one other person the majority of the time. For sheer joy of flying (what I think you're after), the MD-500 seems the best choice, all things considered.
If you favor instead the utmost practicality, most appear to agree the 206 would bring happiness...unless you buy one bearing gifts of unscheduled maintenance. TT strap replacement seems to me an issue for a low flying private owner but, as noted, if you're concerned about something like that, you can't afford to be in this market.
The 480B, despite ardent fans, seemed to take heavy hits for maintenance and potential discomfort if seating five. I may be grossly oversimplifying but it didn't seem a front runner for those two stated opinions.
That leaves the R-66. Certainly not as sexy as others but is it the sleeper? Those who have actually flown it seem to think so. Has time revealed answers to concerns surrounding initial fatal accidents? Did any dreaded SBs or ADs materialize? (Legit questions; not sarcastic). For the aspiring private owner, is it a wolf in sheep's clothing? In other words, is it a very strong practical choice if one's ego doesn't preclude that option?
So? Happy ending?
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: new zealand
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC120
I would at least keep the 120 in the list of aircraft for consideration. Fly before you buy anything else!
I've flown 500 hours on 120s and have owned 2 of them, - for private running they are hard to beat. Quiet ( inside and out ), fast, huge cargo capacity, and a nice looker. But, they are not all equal. One big variable is the weight. A "bare" 120 should weigh abt 1000 kg. At that weight, it should deliver all of the performance numbers, 125 knot cruise etc.
However, many of the early ones are carrying plush leather interiors, heavier older glass panel equipment, floats, aircon systems ( esp the after market systems ), and if there's too much of this stuff up front there may be tail ballast as well!
One of mine weighed 1020 kg empty, the other one was 1130 kg. The practical difference when loaded to MAUW was one hour's less fuel- quite a capability constraint.
The 120 is now a well proven design, and if configured correctly, is a super capable safe quiet modern helicopter with a huge cargo hold. Worth a look!
I've flown 500 hours on 120s and have owned 2 of them, - for private running they are hard to beat. Quiet ( inside and out ), fast, huge cargo capacity, and a nice looker. But, they are not all equal. One big variable is the weight. A "bare" 120 should weigh abt 1000 kg. At that weight, it should deliver all of the performance numbers, 125 knot cruise etc.
However, many of the early ones are carrying plush leather interiors, heavier older glass panel equipment, floats, aircon systems ( esp the after market systems ), and if there's too much of this stuff up front there may be tail ballast as well!
One of mine weighed 1020 kg empty, the other one was 1130 kg. The practical difference when loaded to MAUW was one hour's less fuel- quite a capability constraint.
The 120 is now a well proven design, and if configured correctly, is a super capable safe quiet modern helicopter with a huge cargo hold. Worth a look!