Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

"Why Robinson helicopters seem to have a bad habit of crashing"

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

"Why Robinson helicopters seem to have a bad habit of crashing"

Old 11th Mar 2019, 12:31
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 15,770
In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile
Just saying.....If you are a Republican from the Deep South trying to discuss politics with a Yankee Democrat is much the same as arguing with Robbie folks.....after all the situation is much the same....when your opponent's party is being run by a Barista who garnered 16,000 Votes and has scant knowledge or experience that allows for a basis to discuss the issues.

If all one has flown is a Robbie of some sort....how does one begin to understand the difference between a Robbie and a Helicopter?
SASless is online now  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 16:45
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer View Post
Freshly rebuilt aircraft, or those with fewer hours remaining, are far less than that and quite affordable, relatively speaking.
As an R44 owner I can tell you this really isn't entirely correct. True, you can buy a used ship that is halfway through the Big Overhaul cycle for half the money. Indeed, I found a very good deal on a Clipper II with A/C like that. But unless it is your intent to basically throw it away as a run-out on controller.com when it times or calendars out you will, eventually, put $400K into it, just not all up front, which is definitely an improvement on your cash flow situation.

Fractional ownership is also fairly common.
I have not found this to be true either, at least not in my neck of the woods. The R44 owner demographic around here is driven by the R44 pilot demographic, which divides itself into two distinct groups. The first group is comprised of young pilots who want to fly helicopters and are willing to live in some shithole or their parent's basement, work three jobs, and put every cent towards the dream. These folks fly the ships owned by the schools. The schools can keep them moving 500+ hours a year, which is good enough to pay for MX and the loan, plus a small profit. The second group tends to be wealthy folks who can afford the training without breaking a financial sweat. Folks who can do that also tend to be wealthy enough to simply buy a new machine, not share it with anyone, and fly it 80 hours a year. I tried for two years to find a partner or two and found that the guys who were renting and not buying were forever going to be "dabblers". The "dabblers" are a distinct group, but a very TINY group. Those who were buying were buying brand new ships as sole owners. The jump from one level to the other is significant. I'm not saying partnerships don't happen, but they are more rare than I would have liked. In fact I know of a three-owner partnership in a beautiful EC120B. But that is exceedingly rare.

You can pick up an older Jetbanger for a bit of a premium relative to a fresh out of rebuild 44, but the gap isn't huge.
Absolutely agree, from a capital cost perspective. But the leap in operating cost is a factor of 2, mostly insurance driven. This becomes a huge turn-off for the wealthy, "gentleman owner", since they are only flying a few hours a year. They don't want to pay $20K a year or worse for something that gathers dust most of the time. And a lot of venues they want to fly to (casinos, racetracks, etc.) often require $2M or even $3M in liability coverage for turbine helicopters.

In any case, no one is disputing that a Robinson can't be flown or operated safely but like any safety discussion the whole landscape must be considered. They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.
Absolutely agree. Hell, I'm a case in point, totally cost driven. It's fly the 44 or don't fly. And, as an owner, I need a ship I can put to work at least part time. The 44 is the only easy way to do that.

The robbie faithful don't seem to share the philosophy that the aircraft is what it is, they seem to hold it in very high regard, blaming problems on those that fly them and never at what the factory could have done better.
In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile
Ah, but you must look in the mirror when you say that! Right back at you, others, and big-city, northeastern shiny-eyed social justice warriors And don't forget that I agreed with your last point above, so not everyone is living in a "Robinson dream world". More seriously, we should all hold the design in high regard. No, really. Forget private owners. The economics of Robinson helicopters have made it possible for nearly anyone with the skills and the desire to become a professional helicopter pilot (I suppose some ex-MIL types might not like that!) And the economics of Robinson helicopters have allowed many people to experience the joys of rotary wing flight who otherwise could not afford it. And they are not at all "flimsy" machines. Just spend a week instructing hover autos at a school, or a weekend at a fairground flying a dozen loads an hour for eight hours straight each day. These things are reasonably rugged workhorses and survive such conditions with aplomb. But, no, I would not fly one when it is gusting 40KN out. From that perspective they are "flimsy", if you must use that word. However, everything is relative. You don't see the USCG headed out into a gale with a Jetranger or a Squirrel. Does that make them "flimsy". Of course not!

Originally Posted by SASless View Post
If all one has flown is a Robbie of some sort....how does one begin to understand the difference between a Robbie and a Helicopter?
That's a little disingenuous, isn't it? Anything in approx. the same performance class is going to be nearly identical in all ways. Form follows function. For example, R22 vs. G2. Is the G2 a "real helicopter"? I did not find them to be all that different. Compared to the 22 I found the G2 be plusher, less sporty handling-wise, a little under-powered, and much easier to auto. Oh, and half again more expensive to rent. There is nothing comparable in the niche the 44 lives in. You can compare the 66, 505 and 206 more easily. Sadly I have no turbine time to speak of so can't legitimately make that comparison.

"Hi, my name is aa777888 and I have a Robinson helicopter problem. That is to say, I have a wallet problem that forces me to fly a Robinson helicopter if I want to fly." So, helicopter twelve-steppers, what's the next step? Quit flying?
aa777888 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 17:42
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 397
A7's & 8's, you're a good sport
Bell_ringer is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 18:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 15,770
"AA" also understands the issues and can rationally and reasonably discuss them.

The 44 is far more than just a 22 times 2. Having no knowledge of the 66 I can safely assume it is more than just a 22 times 2.

Helicopters are expensive no matter which one you dump your money into....and it all gets down to return on investment.

Sometimes it might be rather abstract....like what is gaining a Commercial License worth in today's employment environment or in rental/charter revenue.

Last edited by SASless; 14th Mar 2019 at 12:00.
SASless is online now  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 23:17
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,674
Hot and Hi.

Smell the coffee sunshine:

All of these are the same price as a range of car prices most people with a reasonable salary can afford.
They see it as a route to getting airborne on the cheap and mixing with everyone else "up there".
Problem is - aviation isn't straight forward, requires lateral thinking and very careful planning.

People who are desperate to drive will buy the cheapest car possible with an MoT for next to nothing and then join the rest of us on the motorway in all weather! It isn't going to end well is it?

Those who do their research properly and wish to committ aviation properly, complete the proper training, stay current and buy the right equipment for the right circumstances before they let loose.......

https://www.aircraft24.co.uk/helicop...22--xm1253.htm
https://www.heliair.com/store/used-g...-beta-ii-2014/
https://www.heliair.com/store/used-r...a-i-1988-hull/

A neighbour of mine came into some serious money a few years ago (Millions). Prior to this he was a builder with his brother. Before he was a builder, he was a bouncer! He was 20 stone atleast and loved partying.
One day he said to me (because he knew my background).... "I'm joining you pal". I've bought a chopper now and I'll be up there with you before you know it. He bought a R22 for 90k. He got his PPL (god knows how!) 50hrs total. Didn't ask for any advice.
Clocked up 6hrs on type before he realised the damn cab couldn't fly him and his 25 stone brother at the same time!!!!
Sold it back to the broker. Never flown since. Told me recently that it was all too difficult "sticking to the rules"?????

So I say again - nothing wrong with the chopper in the right hnads. What Frank hasn't dwelled on, is that his designs can and most definitely will bite you if they are manhandled in awkward situations. He has left this to training schools to point out.......and there's the rub!







Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 07:23
  #46 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 66
Posts: 3,669
...and it wasn't meant to be a training machine anyway....
paco is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 10:30
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,174
He was 20 stone atleast
That's 127kg, the seat rating of an R22 is I believe 109kg.

He got his PPL (god knows how!) 50hrs total.
That's quite impressive for someone with no prior aviation skill and no interest beforehand. I got my ticket (double endorsement too R22 and H300) in just a little over 30hrs and I thought that was very impressive, but had loads of plank time beforehand which made it easier to just focus on the handling side (autos, confined areas, slope landings, limited power, tail rotor failures, etc), also fortunate to be with a great school at the time which would never would have allowed a 20 stone person in an R22.

Clocked up 6hrs on type .... Never flown since.
Brown pants moment perhaps. Reality does have a sense of creeping up on folk.

Mind you the R22 is extremely benign in fair weather which is really misleading because if you throw in a few air bumps it then become a challenging machine to fly well.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 15:12
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: usa
Age: 60
Posts: 32
Just wondering if there is any regression data relating hrs-required-to-PPL and propensity to crash. I've heard a number of stories about dead fixed wing guys that go something like: "He took twice as many hours to get his instrument rating as he should have, and in fact switched instructors when the first one said "no mas", so its no surprise he killed himself IFR". Also know a guy in town who is over 70 hrs and still can't get signed off, and wonder if in that situation a student should be washed out.
gator2 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 17:33
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer View Post
A7's & 8's, you're a good sport
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
"AA" also understands the issues and can quit rationally and reasonably discuss them.
That is indeed high praise in this forum, thank you, gentlemen!
aa777888 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 17:44
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling View Post
What Frank hasn't dwelled on, is that his designs can and most definitely will bite you if they are manhandled in awkward situations. He has left this to training schools to point out.......and there's the rub!
Do you really think that is the case? More than a few times folks here have pointed out the rather extraordinary safety bulletins that form part of the POH. Not to mention the rather blunt, no excuses stuff they teach at the factory Robinson Safety Course. And their total support of SFAR 73.
aa777888 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 09:40
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the fast lane...MOVE OVER!!
Posts: 46
Wow....I am loving this debate!!

Here's me. Just approaching my Skills Test in the UK, for issue of my EASA (YUK!!! Bloody bureaucrats...) PPL H. I will do the Commercial Add on to my FAA Plank Wing ATP at some point.

My issue is this......I learned in the Cabri. A GENIUS little helicopter that thinks its a Squirrel (or A Star if you prefer) / EC120 (only because of the Fenestron). It has an abundance of power, a massive RRPM band in Auto, modern systems, fully articulated rotor head (which is an amazing thing to behold....engineering excellence) and numerous other great qualities. Stick 100 litres in it, 2 grown men and go off on a hot day for some in field hover work without worrying too much. It's genuinely brilliant and must go some way to me being ready for the Skills Test in the bare minimum allowed time (including the max 6 hours under the min 45 for non pilots).

PROBLEM!! I will pass my skills test (despite the UK weather Examiner availability, helicopter availability and permanent standby Jet Jockey job trying to mess me up!) and will want to fly the most valuable thing in the Whole World....my family. Sure, my wonderful wife can come with me and we can drop into Pub's and restaurants for lunch and overnights, in the Cabri and it will be perfect for the job, not least because it has a decent baggage bay and 100kts Cruise when you wind it up (I'm not paying extra for extra fuel!)....BUT, if I want to fly my 2 kids as well and drop into a friends paddock....what can I rent to do it in, that doesnt cost even MORE ridiculous amounts of money per hour to rent? It HAS to be an R44....and THEREIN lies my issue. Theres no doubt that with my thousands of hours in fixed wings (from 2 seat pistons to 3 engine, multi crew jets of different sizes), that the Cabri forgives some of my slightly crap handling at times whereas, I'm not sure the R44 would and I'm not exactly ham fisted either, but I do find the whole mast bumping thing, a bit of a concern.

In the UK, the cost of a turbine like a 206 (YES, I know they have teetering heads too...but having been in one, more than once, with an ex RAF Test Pilot, who really could make it dance, I'm confident that I'd struggle to break the thing up) is at least 200 per HOUR more to hire and yet, are NOT that much more to operate and could even be less given the 12 year / 2200 overhaul...same applies to similar Eurocopter (I know this for fact....I've been in the aviation game in various roles for 20+years). Remember that we pay $3.75 (2.88) per USG for Jet A1 and $8.45 (6.50) per USG for AvGas (yes...really!!) in the UK as an average. So an R44 at 15 USG per hour is $126.75 (97.50) and a JetBanger is about $104.83 (80.64), based on 28 USG per hour...which is on the heavy side and usually a bit less in my limited experience. Even with notable parts in the turbine and hydraulic actuators and the dreaded TT straps etc, the cost is NOT ($260) 200 per flight hour more. Especially when you consider that an R44, flying its 2200 hours off entirely, costs $150 (115) per hour in fund/depreciation for rebuild, if you factor it in. Get through HALF of those hours and you are looking at double per hour. So, why is it SO expensive to fly a Turbine here? Insurance covers ham fisted people, cooking engines on start up (which are not THAT regular if the training was any good!) and in fact, given more power and better handling qualities in Auto etc (I mean, how GOOD is a 206 in AR....amazing). It's mental. I have almost no choice but to rent an R44....206 is too much....H500 is too much....Enstrom 480B isn't available/too rare and would be similar cost (and they have very few lifed parts) and group ownership appears to be a complete non starter!!

I'm actually worried that, until I can buy my own machine for a realistic cost (Alouette anyone?!!)....that I will be reluctant at best, to fly the R44 and surely, that isn't the right mindset to have before even getting in one. I'd be worried about every bump and unloading the disc. Of course, I would get to choose the days I fly....and can bin it on days that aren't entirely to my liking...

So, here is the crux of it. The Robbo debate is divided straight down the middle. Those that say they are fine and are brilliant and smell of roses and those that think that if you start at one on the ramp, the rotor will break the mast and disappear over the horizon. Which is it...who is right...are they safe enough for me....or are they most definitely not and should i fly a third less per year (surely not safe) and try to find a Turbine, within 200 miles of me, that I can hire?!
Triple Nickel 8 Ball is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 12:04
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 15,770
a78 displays what I meant....upon reading his response I noticed auto-correct snuck into the conversation and injected "quit" when I meant "quite".

Thus...I did an edit and removed that word completely and produced a much more clear statement.

The amended sentence now reads.....
"AA" also understands the issues and can rationally and reasonably discuss them.
SASless is online now  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 12:43
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 58
Posts: 1,339
TN8B
I learned on the R44, so did my daughter. I fly exclusively turbine these days, my EC120 and some time in a 206 L4. The R44 is more forgiving than a 22. Higher rotor energy and machine weight means that you don't have the same "skittish-ness" as the 22. Yes, the 120 is even better (and you would have no issues transitioning to the 120, having learned on the Cabri) but can you get SFH in one? I have no hesitation in taking my loved ones in an R44 (though it is daughter at the controls, as I let my type-rating laps).
John R81 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 14:08
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Triple Nickel 8 Ball View Post
Wow....I am loving this debate!!
Triple Nickel 8 Ball Some of your perceptions might be a bit off.

With respect to the power of the G2, when I flew it, before the software change that allowed some extra horsepower, it was definitely not as powerful as the R22. Now perhaps they are more on par. Someone else will have to weigh in on that. But swinging all that extra inertia around, the physics suggest it won't be quite as powerful feeling as an R22 still. But that's just me being pedantic

More importantly, your math is probably just a bit off with respect to the cost of running the various machines. I can't speak to UK costs, but they should be similar to US costs. You can't get hung up on the 12 year/2200 hour cycle of the Robinsons. All that does is lump a bunch of maintenance together on the Robinson that is more distributed over time on other helicopters. At the end of the day it is still the equivalent amount of maintenance. As soon as you go from the piston world to the turbine world hourly operating costs double. This is a combination of more expensive engine maintenance and more expensive insurance, and more than offsets any differences in fuel costs. It doesn't matter if you bought a cheap Alouette, it'll cost you double to run it compared to an R44. Worse, you won't fly it that much and the insurance alone will be quite painful, as you will be paying it whether it flies or gathers dust. That insurance will more than offset any perceived savings of on-condition maintenance. Go get some insurance quotes if you would like to see for yourself.

Most important of all, that brings us to the issue of flying the R44 itself. My strong recommendation to you is to go get some time in the 44. You will find it is not, by ANY means, a China doll. Indeed, other than no pushovers being allowed, I think you will find it far sportier to fly than the G2, and after a few hover autos or full downs you'll see just how rugged it is. You will also see that it is not any bother at all to keep it out of low-G. Yes, the interior styling is not quite as plush, but until there is a G4 it's going to be a BIG leap, cost-wise, into a turbine. And a tatty old (but entirely airworthy, don't get me wrong) 206 is not going to be very plush, either The only thing you will not like is how difficult the auto's are. Let there be no doubt, it is quite a bit more difficult to auto a 44, much less a 22, than a G2. So there will be some learning curve there. The up side to that is when you get back into the G2 the auto's will seem like they are unfolding in slow motion and that you hardly have to do anything
aa777888 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 15:48
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the fast lane...MOVE OVER!!
Posts: 46
Thanks John....appreciate the response. I guess I'm just after a bit of reassurance. I'm in the middle of finding an EC120 for a customer...PM me if you're selling yours anytime soon

On a different note, I do understand what you're saying. I do feel a little spoiled by the Cabri, all be it for good reasons!! Maybe the 4 seat one will be along before I'm too old to enjoy it?!
Triple Nickel 8 Ball is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 16:09
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the fast lane...MOVE OVER!!
Posts: 46
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by aa777888 View Post
Triple Nickel 8 Ball Some of your perceptions might be a bit off.

With respect to the power of the G2, when I flew it, before the software change that allowed some extra horsepower, it was definitely not as powerful as the R22. Now perhaps they are more on par. Someone else will have to weigh in on that. But swinging all that extra inertia around, the physics suggest it won't be quite as powerful feeling as an R22 still. But that's just me being pedantic

More importantly, your math is probably just a bit off with respect to the cost of running the various machines. I can't speak to UK costs, but they should be similar to US costs. You can't get hung up on the 12 year/2200 hour cycle of the Robinsons. All that does is lump a bunch of maintenance together on the Robinson that is more distributed over time on other helicopters. At the end of the day it is still the equivalent amount of maintenance. As soon as you go from the piston world to the turbine world hourly operating costs double. This is a combination of more expensive engine maintenance and more expensive insurance, and more than offsets any differences in fuel costs. It doesn't matter if you bought a cheap Alouette, it'll cost you double to run it compared to an R44. Worse, you won't fly it that much and the insurance alone will be quite painful, as you will be paying it whether it flies or gathers dust. That insurance will more than offset any perceived savings of on-condition maintenance. Go get some insurance quotes if you would like to see for yourself.

Most important of all, that brings us to the issue of flying the R44 itself. My strong recommendation to you is to go get some time in the 44. You will find it is not, by ANY means, a China doll. Indeed, other than no pushovers being allowed, I think you will find it far sportier to fly than the G2, and after a few hover autos or full downs you'll see just how rugged it is. You will also see that it is not any bother at all to keep it out of low-G. Yes, the interior styling is not quite as plush, but until there is a G4 it's going to be a BIG leap, cost-wise, into a turbine. And a tatty old (but entirely airworthy, don't get me wrong) 206 is not going to be very plush, either The only thing you will not like is how difficult the auto's are. Let there be no doubt, it is quite a bit more difficult to auto a 44, much less a 22, than a G2. So there will be some learning curve there. The up side to that is when you get back into the G2 the auto's will seem like they are unfolding in slow motion and that you hardly have to do anything
Thanks "AA" .....I appreciate the time you took to respond.

I think that, one of the things with an R44 is that, unless you buy it from new and get the benefit of the cost saving, then down the road, the next owner (and the one after that etc), until OH time, all take advantage until the machine is worth "not a lot". Compared to a Corporate Jet for example, if you buy one without any programs (i.e no money in the bank for engines and airframe), then the value has the crap knocked out of it. If you were buying into a machine that had a program type set up, it would retain a stack of value. In the UK, the cost of buying the kit from RHC is 210k plus VAT....add a decent paint and interior makeover, a few new bits of avionic magic, plus an engine overhaul and BOOM.....you've spent 250-300k....PLUS, buying the machine in the first place. If you bought it at half life for even half the value new, you're looking at spending MORE than a new one will have cost in the first place.....so I just dont get it? It seems artificially cheap to me, because it isn't at all cheap. I also dont understand how Turbine costs double? Fuel per hour is cheaper, or say, equal to....insurance is a percentage of the hull value, plus pilot experience and guesstimated utilisation and, having had quotes, is very close. The engines have higher TBO's and even if you factor the added bits and bobs that need to be changed, the hourly cost is still not double and of course, the depreciation is NEARLY non existent compared to a Robbo and you have to factor that in. My pals 98 206 B3 is worth MORE now than when he bought it a few years ago. Yes, he has lavished some cash on things he wanted (avionics mostly and some other things), but he did so knowing he wouldn't really add value....he just wanted the mod cons. If he sold it tomorrow, he would get the cash back.

I'm pleased to hear that you rate the R44 and indeed, many do. I've flown a couple of hours in the R22 (and in fact, will have access to one for "cheap", once I'm licensed) and quite liked it....as it's a little more challenging and "Sporty". The R44 I have also had some time in (only as a pax...not to fly) and again, I liked it....but it was some time ago and the bad press they seem to receive (justifiably or not), has just leaked a little doubt in over time. As I say, I dont really feel like there is much of a choice for progress in types and seats for me right now.

I confess to being a little "tongue in cheek" when I mentioned the Alouette. I just love the fact that they will pull down a house, you can buy one with spare engine and blades for less than 100k and I can have a pal maintain it, with me passing him the tools and making the tea. It's a romantic notion that I will get one. Same as with a Westland Scout!!!!

Thanks again all.....love the Fling Wing World
Triple Nickel 8 Ball is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 16:21
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In the fast lane...MOVE OVER!!
Posts: 46
Erm....you have an EC120 of your own....?! FABULOUS!! Giss a go Mister

If you're ever in my neck of the woods (Berkshire/Oxfordshie border), then feel free to drop by for a cuppa and let me admire your heli!!!! I have a farm strip (well, my pal does, that I set up with him).

Again...thanks for the time!
Triple Nickel 8 Ball is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 18:10
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 286
Originally Posted by Triple Nickel 8 Ball View Post
If you bought it at half life for even half the value new, you're looking at spending MORE than a new one will have cost in the first place.....so I just dont get it? It seems artificially cheap to me, because it isn't at all cheap. I also dont understand how Turbine costs double? Fuel per hour is cheaper, or say, equal to....insurance is a percentage of the hull value, plus pilot experience and guesstimated utilisation and, having had quotes, is very close. The engines have higher TBO's and even if you factor the added bits and bobs that need to be changed, the hourly cost is still not double and of course, the depreciation is NEARLY non existent compared to a Robbo and you have to factor that in. My pals 98 206 B3 is worth MORE now than when he bought it a few years ago. Yes, he has lavished some cash on things he wanted (avionics mostly and some other things), but he did so knowing he wouldn't really add value....he just wanted the mod cons. If he sold it tomorrow, he would get the cash back.
All I can say is that the market on your side of the pond must be very different than on our side. I bought a half life Clipper II and got a very good deal on it. Both the seller and I knew that the blades would have to be replaced in 2020 due to the AD against -5 blades and the ship was priced accordingly. I've never heard of anyone selling a 44 and including "program" funds. The only downside to this is that you better have the cash on hand to make up for the "program" not having caught up with the age of the ship. For instance, when I have to do the blades at the end of this year I estimate I'll still be down about $20K at the rate the ship flies. But that's OK, to me I simply deferred having to spend that $20K up front when I bought the machine. In the meantime I have a "program" account that continues to accrue the monies necessary to keep the ship maintained, and after I have owned it for a complete 12 year cycle it will have caught up.

For a nice snapshot of various direct operating costs options in the USA, read Phil Greenspun's article here:

https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/bell-505/review

Now that the 505 is a little more mature, perhaps some of the 505 discussion in that article has changed, but I'm just pointing out the sort of costs that we experience here in the US.

Note that my 44 flew only 180 hours last year, but I was able to almost do as well as what Robinson claims for DOC based on 500 hours/year. My insurance amortization was higher, but my maintenance and fuel were lower, so it all evened out quite nicely. I.e. what Robinson claims here is not just marketing BS:

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/.../r44_2_eoc.pdf

aa777888 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 18:24
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Africa
Posts: 282
Triple Nickel, for a private pilot the key to being a safe pilot to your family is in flying often and regularly - every week, or every other week at least - in all weather and in the same type of helicopter you are going to use when taking up your family.

To only fly every other month, in a helicopter that you are not entirely familiar with, and only in weather that looked fair when you took off, is not safe.
Hot and Hi is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 19:04
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by Hot and Hi View Post
Triple Nickel, for a private pilot the key to being a safe pilot to your family is in flying often and regularly - every week, or every other week at least - in all weather and in the same type of helicopter you are going to use when taking up your family.

To only fly every other month, in a helicopter that you are not entirely familiar with, and only in weather that looked fair when you took off, is not safe.
"All weather"? Yeah that'll get him killed. A private pilot flying his family (especially in an R44) should only go up when the weather is spectacular!
Robbiee is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.