FAA mandates replacement of R22 & R44 main rotorblades
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was only that for my mission and of the two helicopters that I have owned personally, the R44 could not be beat without spending a LOT more money.
An older C model with a C18 may have been a lot cheaper to run?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Escondido, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chopjock -
In my experience turbine (anything) is just more expensive, and generally a lot more fun. I have owned turbine airplanes (still do) and they are just more expensive than their piston counterparts. Even brand new turbines.
My 500 burned twice as much fuel at the same speed as my R44 carrying the same four people the same 350 miles every weekend. The C18 my buddy had in his C model 500 had to have the containment ring AD complied with at a cost of several years of my total R44 maintenance. The insurance on my 500 at a hull value of $1.1M was over four times the cost of my R44 insurance at $400k.
Was the 500 more fun.? Absolutely it was. Is the Enstrom more fun? Not the one that I have flown. Is there something that costs the same as a new R44 to purchase and operate, flies 115 knots on 14GPH and goes 350 miles non-stop in air-conditioned comfort? Not that I have found.
Is the R44 safe..? Well, in 1300 hours in it I never had it explode on me, never had it throw a main or rotor blade, never had the main rotor depart the aircraft due to mast bumping, never had my engine quit, never had any unscheduled maintenance except for a battery and an electric fuel pump.
My 500 never had any unscheduled maintenance, but the maintenance it did need was very costly.
I would be curious of the operating costs of other 500 owners here absent maybe the insurance. Maybe I was outside the norm, but I have multiple friends that own 500s (its a small world for 500 owners) and many of them are at or near the same hourly costs after you factor out insurance.
So I don't think my costs were because I had the wrong 500, they were just because I had A 500!
In my experience turbine (anything) is just more expensive, and generally a lot more fun. I have owned turbine airplanes (still do) and they are just more expensive than their piston counterparts. Even brand new turbines.
My 500 burned twice as much fuel at the same speed as my R44 carrying the same four people the same 350 miles every weekend. The C18 my buddy had in his C model 500 had to have the containment ring AD complied with at a cost of several years of my total R44 maintenance. The insurance on my 500 at a hull value of $1.1M was over four times the cost of my R44 insurance at $400k.
Was the 500 more fun.? Absolutely it was. Is the Enstrom more fun? Not the one that I have flown. Is there something that costs the same as a new R44 to purchase and operate, flies 115 knots on 14GPH and goes 350 miles non-stop in air-conditioned comfort? Not that I have found.
Is the R44 safe..? Well, in 1300 hours in it I never had it explode on me, never had it throw a main or rotor blade, never had the main rotor depart the aircraft due to mast bumping, never had my engine quit, never had any unscheduled maintenance except for a battery and an electric fuel pump.
My 500 never had any unscheduled maintenance, but the maintenance it did need was very costly.
I would be curious of the operating costs of other 500 owners here absent maybe the insurance. Maybe I was outside the norm, but I have multiple friends that own 500s (its a small world for 500 owners) and many of them are at or near the same hourly costs after you factor out insurance.
So I don't think my costs were because I had the wrong 500, they were just because I had A 500!
MD500 driver
Here in UK there is a massive difference in fuel cost
Avgas is £ 1.80 a litre R44 uses about 75 litres an hour so £ 135 an hour or $ 210
Jet fuel is £ .60p litre 500E uses about 120 litres an hour so £ 78 per hour or $120 an hour. Add to this the 500 goes about 20% faster the difference becomes even greater generally reckon on about £ 65 an hour.
Have always sold a 500 for more than purchased ( sold 8 of them I have owned ) which you can't say for a Robinson product, but to be fair never purchased a new one Granted maintenance will be more expensive on any turbine
Suppose it is horses for courses !
Here in UK there is a massive difference in fuel cost
Avgas is £ 1.80 a litre R44 uses about 75 litres an hour so £ 135 an hour or $ 210
Jet fuel is £ .60p litre 500E uses about 120 litres an hour so £ 78 per hour or $120 an hour. Add to this the 500 goes about 20% faster the difference becomes even greater generally reckon on about £ 65 an hour.
Have always sold a 500 for more than purchased ( sold 8 of them I have owned ) which you can't say for a Robinson product, but to be fair never purchased a new one Granted maintenance will be more expensive on any turbine
Suppose it is horses for courses !
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C18 my buddy had in his C model 500 had to have the containment ring AD complied with at a cost of several years of my total R44 maintenance.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Escondido, CA
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chopjock -
Not sure the specifics, but he was required to comply with the AD and as memory recalls ended up having to replace the entire section in the process. Thankfully my C20B had just been overhauled (to the tune of $190,000.00) by Premier when I purchased my 500 so I had little to do but compressor inspections. Also, I had brand new blades on my ship when purchased, so I was well ahead of the game in regards to really expensive parts. I did go through a tailrotor gearbox after an in-flight chip light, that went to Canada to be overhauled...I think that and a blade grip replacement (had to be done by MD, they flew two guys out to do it) were the two most major items in all the time I had the 500. Beyond that, "regular" maintenance was just way expensive.
Not sure the specifics, but he was required to comply with the AD and as memory recalls ended up having to replace the entire section in the process. Thankfully my C20B had just been overhauled (to the tune of $190,000.00) by Premier when I purchased my 500 so I had little to do but compressor inspections. Also, I had brand new blades on my ship when purchased, so I was well ahead of the game in regards to really expensive parts. I did go through a tailrotor gearbox after an in-flight chip light, that went to Canada to be overhauled...I think that and a blade grip replacement (had to be done by MD, they flew two guys out to do it) were the two most major items in all the time I had the 500. Beyond that, "regular" maintenance was just way expensive.
The C18 does not have containment ring AD it is C20, as for blades check erosion strips, if there are Millevolts between erosion strip & alloy of blade the corrosion has started
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Midlands
Age: 71
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44 crash
Hi Hughes 500.
The R44 uses IRO 55 litres per hour only.
I have had my issues with the machine - corrosion on my first one and now a blade swap at 550 hours, plus other lesser niggles. However, my overall costs are a fraction of what they might have been, had I gone the turbine route.
I'd buy a third….
HP
The R44 uses IRO 55 litres per hour only.
I have had my issues with the machine - corrosion on my first one and now a blade swap at 550 hours, plus other lesser niggles. However, my overall costs are a fraction of what they might have been, had I gone the turbine route.
I'd buy a third….
HP
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Gentlemen, they say "ignorance is bliss"
I have been in engineering, all my life, on and off. I have also had an interest in Aviation all my life. I think I know enough to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Robinson Machines.
They are cheap for a reason! safety has been traded for the bottom line....so much so, that someone with a conscience has decided stuff like bladders and blade changes should be mandatory......If the machines weren't certified, the putative pilot would be much more wary (think Rotorway!)
there are very real limitations in the 2-blade, teetering-head rotor system but the alternatives are hugely more expensive.
IF you are a commercial user, technically and mechanically astute and a good pilot, certainly, the Robbo makes good financial sense if the hours run and the calendar keep pace with each other.
The vast majority of private owners buy a cheap machine and calendar and deterioration hit their wallet disproportionately.
Mr. Hughes is not the average private owner! Robbo works for him and he's confident that his skill-level mitigates the much higher mechanical and envelope risks compared with a more elaborately main-rotor- equipped machine.
I know one member of this Forum, sold a 3-seat Enstrom in which he'd enjoyed many safe flights, and bought a very tidy, pretty R44....he lost control at very low level when a few weeks into it's ownership.
luckily, a neighbour,1/2 a mile away, saw the accident. our man was dragged clear and as far as I know, there was no fire!....he is relatively mobile nowadays and no longer needs a wheelchair....I also don't think a replacement Robbo appeared on his shopping list.
you don't need to ride a Hooker to know she's extremely risky
I have been in engineering, all my life, on and off. I have also had an interest in Aviation all my life. I think I know enough to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Robinson Machines.
They are cheap for a reason! safety has been traded for the bottom line....so much so, that someone with a conscience has decided stuff like bladders and blade changes should be mandatory......If the machines weren't certified, the putative pilot would be much more wary (think Rotorway!)
there are very real limitations in the 2-blade, teetering-head rotor system but the alternatives are hugely more expensive.
IF you are a commercial user, technically and mechanically astute and a good pilot, certainly, the Robbo makes good financial sense if the hours run and the calendar keep pace with each other.
The vast majority of private owners buy a cheap machine and calendar and deterioration hit their wallet disproportionately.
Mr. Hughes is not the average private owner! Robbo works for him and he's confident that his skill-level mitigates the much higher mechanical and envelope risks compared with a more elaborately main-rotor- equipped machine.
I know one member of this Forum, sold a 3-seat Enstrom in which he'd enjoyed many safe flights, and bought a very tidy, pretty R44....he lost control at very low level when a few weeks into it's ownership.
luckily, a neighbour,1/2 a mile away, saw the accident. our man was dragged clear and as far as I know, there was no fire!....he is relatively mobile nowadays and no longer needs a wheelchair....I also don't think a replacement Robbo appeared on his shopping list.
you don't need to ride a Hooker to know she's extremely risky
Ah, Cockney Steve is back.
I do think you need to have flown an aircraft (as a pilot) before making analysis of how good that aircraft is.
I'm still intrigued by the certainty of your conviction measured against the fact that you've never actually flown in a helicopter, even as a passenger!
Oh, and there are some really big, really serious, and very expensive teetering head helicopters out there... No, really, there are...
In a slightly more friendly continuation, why don't you buy yourself a 30 minute hands-on flight lesson in an R44. Chance of death, almost zero - chance of fun, 100%!
I do think you need to have flown an aircraft (as a pilot) before making analysis of how good that aircraft is.
I'm still intrigued by the certainty of your conviction measured against the fact that you've never actually flown in a helicopter, even as a passenger!
Oh, and there are some really big, really serious, and very expensive teetering head helicopters out there... No, really, there are...
In a slightly more friendly continuation, why don't you buy yourself a 30 minute hands-on flight lesson in an R44. Chance of death, almost zero - chance of fun, 100%!
Hairy plane well all the ones I have tested pilots on for their LPCs have used 15 to 17 gallon fuel burn 15 x 4 = 60 litres 17 x 4 = 68
Can only speak as I find MD 500 still wy cheaper on fuel though !!!
Can only speak as I find MD 500 still wy cheaper on fuel though !!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Sam Rutherford Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll stick to planks or an egg whisk with a much more forgiving flight-envelope, less fragile blades and good passive safety levels.
I have flown in Auster, Chief, Champ, 152, 172, and Rans S6 and handled the controls of some. I've also attempted to master RC Nitro-powered helis.
I really don't think I needed to drive a Moskvitch, Triumph Herald, Skoda (old) Octavia and other ,similar vehicles, to know they had severe handling limitations!
It is no secret that the Robinson is the cheapest CERTIFIED helicopter , by a goodly margin. there is a very good reason for that margin....technically inferior design and build.
yes, I've GOT an A/hole, but don't consider myself to be one
OTOH, I don't intend to expose it to get bitten, if I don't have to.
(you already know I have an opinion!)
thanks for your indulgence.
@ Spunk I think this Pilot would still be happily flying his Enstrom, if he hadn't traded it. I also suspect the Robbo's handling characteristics/flight envelope caught him, as a low-time, inexperienced Robinson pilot.
That is pure conjecture.
Of course, you high-hours high currency sky-Gods are well ahead of your machines at all times, but mere mortals are readily snared by unforgiving machines.
I have flown in Auster, Chief, Champ, 152, 172, and Rans S6 and handled the controls of some. I've also attempted to master RC Nitro-powered helis.
I really don't think I needed to drive a Moskvitch, Triumph Herald, Skoda (old) Octavia and other ,similar vehicles, to know they had severe handling limitations!
It is no secret that the Robinson is the cheapest CERTIFIED helicopter , by a goodly margin. there is a very good reason for that margin....technically inferior design and build.
yes, I've GOT an A/hole, but don't consider myself to be one
OTOH, I don't intend to expose it to get bitten, if I don't have to.
(you already know I have an opinion!)
thanks for your indulgence.
@ Spunk I think this Pilot would still be happily flying his Enstrom, if he hadn't traded it. I also suspect the Robbo's handling characteristics/flight envelope caught him, as a low-time, inexperienced Robinson pilot.
That is pure conjecture.
Of course, you high-hours high currency sky-Gods are well ahead of your machines at all times, but mere mortals are readily snared by unforgiving machines.
So, just to get this straight - you're not actually a pilot at all? Of any type of aircraft?
You presumably do have a driving licence though (so your views on Skodas etc. are actually backed up by driving experience)?
I do think it a shame you won't give an R44 a go. Unfortunately 'I'm not going to try it because I'm sure I won't like it' doesn't sound too good.
I've heard that Skodas now build extremely good cars (never driven one) - until I've had a go in one I'll not be saying anything to the contrary on the basis of old news and hearsay.
I didn't have any intention of starting an online spat (sorry) but I find your (negative) attitude odd (and a little sad).
Small addendum - why have you actively been on this forum for such a long time if you're not actually piloting? Please go take some lessons in something - even get your PPL - you're obviously passionate about aviation...
You presumably do have a driving licence though (so your views on Skodas etc. are actually backed up by driving experience)?
I do think it a shame you won't give an R44 a go. Unfortunately 'I'm not going to try it because I'm sure I won't like it' doesn't sound too good.
I've heard that Skodas now build extremely good cars (never driven one) - until I've had a go in one I'll not be saying anything to the contrary on the basis of old news and hearsay.
I didn't have any intention of starting an online spat (sorry) but I find your (negative) attitude odd (and a little sad).
Small addendum - why have you actively been on this forum for such a long time if you're not actually piloting? Please go take some lessons in something - even get your PPL - you're obviously passionate about aviation...
Last edited by Sam Rutherford; 7th Feb 2015 at 20:22. Reason: Addendum
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Sam Rutherford
No, my piloting has been confined to models(from when I was old enough to fold paper.
Driving since 1963 including,solo m/c , sidecar, 3-wheeler and everything up to a 7.5 ton truck. mobile engineer for medical equipment, 70,000 in less than 2 years!....own repair garage for ~15 years....so, a fair bit of driving experience and a lot of hands-on mechanical experience.
I'm sure I'd love flying in a demonstrated safe, low risk, forgiving helicopter. Unfortunately, the Robinson does not measure up to my personal acceptability levels......by the way, did you research the history of the pretty little Rotorway?
Skodas has a swing-axle rear-end which could make handling "interesting" They are now a Volkswagen in a plain dress. Indeed, a good, solid reliable car.
Tank-bladders and Blade changes are hardly "old news" I would accept the product if the manufacturer had done a recall and replaced the DEFECTIVE components at it's own expense.....Screwing the captive -customer for the obscene sums involved , says a lot to me about the ethics and morality of the company. an outright con, the customer is still a test-pilot.
Finally, not enough disposable income, coupled with the red tape,drag across country to the nearest airfield (Barton, now grandly called "Manchester Barton") means I get a better bang for my buck in other ways.
Yes, I am interested in SSDR as a cost-effective way to become airborne. I came to the Forum Via the Blog "Cockpit Conversation" through a R/C model heli forum....liked the banter and the level of intellect, the stimulus....so i've stayed for a bit.
No, my piloting has been confined to models(from when I was old enough to fold paper.
Driving since 1963 including,solo m/c , sidecar, 3-wheeler and everything up to a 7.5 ton truck. mobile engineer for medical equipment, 70,000 in less than 2 years!....own repair garage for ~15 years....so, a fair bit of driving experience and a lot of hands-on mechanical experience.
I'm sure I'd love flying in a demonstrated safe, low risk, forgiving helicopter. Unfortunately, the Robinson does not measure up to my personal acceptability levels......by the way, did you research the history of the pretty little Rotorway?
Skodas has a swing-axle rear-end which could make handling "interesting" They are now a Volkswagen in a plain dress. Indeed, a good, solid reliable car.
Tank-bladders and Blade changes are hardly "old news" I would accept the product if the manufacturer had done a recall and replaced the DEFECTIVE components at it's own expense.....Screwing the captive -customer for the obscene sums involved , says a lot to me about the ethics and morality of the company. an outright con, the customer is still a test-pilot.
Finally, not enough disposable income, coupled with the red tape,drag across country to the nearest airfield (Barton, now grandly called "Manchester Barton") means I get a better bang for my buck in other ways.
Yes, I am interested in SSDR as a cost-effective way to become airborne. I came to the Forum Via the Blog "Cockpit Conversation" through a R/C model heli forum....liked the banter and the level of intellect, the stimulus....so i've stayed for a bit.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve posted:
"I'm sure I'd love flying in a demonstrated safe, low risk, forgiving helicopter."
Dearest Steve,
There is no such thing.
And PS
Mentioning the word Rotorway in this forum is only making yourself look (more) foolish.
Go ahead, climb aboard that Rotorway and talk to us about safety.��
"I'm sure I'd love flying in a demonstrated safe, low risk, forgiving helicopter."
Dearest Steve,
There is no such thing.
And PS
Mentioning the word Rotorway in this forum is only making yourself look (more) foolish.
Go ahead, climb aboard that Rotorway and talk to us about safety.��
Last edited by 13snoopy; 8th Feb 2015 at 20:27.
