VF,

Nice to see you back...any mention of Robbies gets you going !

John,

If you want to look cool, then there is only one choice, your machine - the best small (looking) heli around, no question.

Others,

The 66 will be approved in Europe soon, I believe the problem relates to hydraulics.

Remember the 66 was designed this century (unlike all the other aircraft mentioned, many designed in the 1950's !), and has passed all the tough new tests, it is entirely different (look closely) to a 44. And it's brand new. I don't know about owners out there, but I like to buy new machines that haven't been thrashed by students or blokes putting out fires. Don't knock what you have not flown, that's just thick (as they say in NZ).

Just a thought !

Arrrj

PS - I am in NZ, middle bit of the North Island on a couple of days off, and there is a guy running scenics with a really nice 44, flying past my window ! I think I need to call him and have a chat about flying tomorrow...

It's pronounced "thuck" though Arrrj, you know that!

KJ,

Correct & apologies.

Love your country, and lots of helis here too !

Arrrj

or you could just fly in an Enstrom! How many 480s have crashed killing the occupants?

Surveys
 

Looking again at an MD500. Hughes500 is persuasive, as is flying one. It is maintained at skytech. Skytech is highly recommended by several as the best place to go for a survey of an MD500. It has an annual due soon. If skytech is trusted as the place to go to maintain/do a survey does it make sense to ask someone else to check their work? Does it make sense for them to survey their own aircraft? Should I just get it with a fresh annual from them? In the past I have bought 4 fixed wing aircraft without surveys having been satisfied the existing maintenance people looked reasonable and not regretted it, and had surveys done on 2 boats which didn't tell me anything useful they might have done. It's relatively low hours, not like say an old Augusta bell which might have an unholy mix of components lurking to surprise. Also checking out an R66 tomorrow and an EN480 for comparison - if you don't hear again from me, look in the AAIB.

As far as I know SkyTech are the best place for 500's.



Joel:ok:

arrrj

Designed this century, what bolloks. if it were it wouldnt be an aluminium helicopter it would be composite. Please tell me if you compare the 206 an aluminium helicopter with a teetering rotorhead with 5 seats with a c20b gas turbine that weighs in at about 1900 lbs v your 66 which is also an aluminium helicopter with a teetering rotorhead which is " bigger" than a 206 with 5 seats and a C20B er sorry RR300 engine which weighs about 1250 lbs where has 600 lbs of metalwork gone ? If it was composite i could understand it but it was apparantly designed in the 21st century with a construction technuique from the 1950's. Suggest you wise up before spouting off

Totally agree with Paco, & also the 206 is very safe & so are the 350 series too :ok:

Good on You Hughes500, where has the metal gone??? from a none composite Helicopter?? that's why they fall apart. I can PM some Engineers details who will now NOT fly in them (Robinsons) as they don't consider them airworthy :{

& Arrrj yes I have flown enough 22 & 44's to have an idea, frankly I don't think they did anything different nor special with the 66 :\

Happy Landings & avoid Russian Roulette

VF

Most crashworthy..?
 

Re: paco and FSXPilot--

There has only been ONE fatality in an Enstrom 480, straight or the B model. The solo pilot had an in flight medical emergency and was killed in the subsequent crash. IMHO, Enstrom makes the most crashworthy light turbine and piston helos on the planet.

PS- the "inflight disintegration of rotor system due to 'overcontrolling'" explanation of the R66 fatal crashes is terrifying and pathetic. >4 million hours and counting on the Enstrom rotor system without a catastrophic failure. Not that one should!!, but you could make abrupt full control deflection manuevers, loop, roll, Zero-G pushover, overspeed, and pull Gs till your nose bleeds in an EN28/48 and it would keep on truckin'...

Certainly if a few more of these 480's would crash we would have some statictics to go on rather than having to dig thru the wrecks of other types all over the place.

As a bit of trivia I've done a vey rough breakdown of the responses so far, including reported mates' preference etc., but it's a bit hard to decipher as some seem in favor of two types. ??

Here's the result.
EC120, 3
R66, 2
L3 or L4, 3
AS350, 3
H500, 2
E480, 9
B206 either A or BIII, 11. (and mostly for reasons of product sale use or resale)

This turns upside down the previous mentioned 10:1 bias in favor of the 206.

cheers tet

Strong favouritism for the 480 - and I'm not surprised.

However the OP expressed a desire for 5 seats. Technically the 480 can do that but I don't believe it is practical. Has anyone here actually sat in the middle seat of the back row on a flight?

Not a "clean" use of statistics re the Enstrom 480 comparison. There are so few of them about, it is like discussing the crash statistics of "Bat Mobiles".

Dirty numbers
 

Here's a "clean" statistic for you:
Within one year of first delivery, with less than 100 flying worldwide, the R66 killed three people.

The Enstrom 480 has been in use for over 20 years, with approx 160 delivered, and has killed no one. (properly speaking, one person died while flying in it...)

Cant argue on crashes as 844 OH6's ( mil 500) were shot down in vietnam and i am priviliged to fly one of those machines 42 years later and she still goes very nicely:ok:

You're flying one of the ones that was shot down? *Now* I am impressed! :-D

R66 and MD500
 

Flew both R66 and (another) MD500.
R66 is nice inside, spacious, good view, supposedly idiot proof starting, very quiet (you can truly talk without headsets with the thing running), benign autos (while the rotorhead is still attached!) - one of the few helis I've been in which actually seems to move horizontally rather than plummet almost vertically, albeit while light. It's pretty good at quite a lot.
But, while opinion may be divided as to whether it is a supreme piece of engineering to achieve remarkable strength with half the amount of aluminium or it's clearly missing vital strength, it does subjectively feel a bit light and flimsy. Also, I think I'm becoming shallower than I thought I was - it just doesn't look that cool! It has distinctive looks of the R44 which sort of says it's not quite the real deal. A 206 is a proper heli and an MD500 is impressive. Also, cruising at 120kts is only 10kts off Vne and other limits seem near, even if apparently they are conservative limits - if you're going through something gusty at 120kts and drop something it seems like there's a risk that with an accidental nudge of the T bar (will probably get used to it but it doesn't feel that natural) and if the rotorhead doesn't detach, you'll bust Vne. The start feature is nice but I trust myself to pay attention for a full 30 seconds and remember the complex process of not taking my finger off the starter and frankly I wouldn't want to lend my toy to anyone whom I suspected might find that a challenge!
MD500 is just great to fly. It does descend somewhat sharply in auto but it can indeed fit a 5th seat with a shoulder strap in (and I'm only planning to fill seats with kids or slim women so don't care if it's a bit cozy, need number of seats not space in them).
No doubt a 206 would be better for carting kit or people who might complain around in but I can travel light, (and if people start to grumble about space, I'm sure exploring the flight envelope limitations will take their mind off that).
Weather and a diversion meant I haven't yet seen the 480 but will look seriously at one.

Re TET's analysis, I think the picture is different if you factor those against and the strength of feeling rather than simply counting votes in favour. No-one really says a 206 is a bad thing, nor an MD500, just one is a bit slow and boring and the other is not designed primarily for passenger space/comfort, both valid but not damning.

Re accidents, the R66 incidents are somewhat concerning, even if one blames the unfortunate pilots, it's only fair to assume they had some time in helis and probably weren't trying to detach the rotorhead and probably wouldn't have succeeded in doing so in another type. The EN480 has low numbers and hours flown so you wouldn't expect much in the way of accidents but I think everyone would agree there is nothing to suggest a safety concern. However the passionate views on maintenance can't be ignored and it isn't that quick or that pretty or that spacious. Interestingly I looked up accidents in the MD500 and, leaving out what I would consider silly pilot error (like hitting something) in a few decades it seems to have suffered little in the way of mechanical problems, but there were a fair few stuffed up autos (pilot error perhaps, but suggests it may be easier to cock up an auto in one than in some others, a concern to me) although at least the pilots tended to kill the aircraft rather than themselves in the process. Just something to bear in mind, I guess practise should mean at the end of each trip you can calmly start the cool-down timer at 2000ft and have the chart neatly folded by the time you put it gently on the pad!

ika
Nice to see an objective assessment based on real experience. Don't forget to try an EC120 before you make your final choice though... If your concern is around running costs, there are a few owners/operators on here who can share their real experience too. As I said before, your selection will be based on which machine ticks mosts boxes for YOU; based on your comments above, you owe it to yourself to test one :ok:

Hughes,

No need to use poor language mate. The 66 WAS designed this century, and I suggest you may wish to do your homework and understand what FAA rules it was approved to.

It was a "clean" approval and (theoretically at least) that should make it a much better machine. Again, I am no salesman for the type, but at least I have flown one...have you ?

I think that composite is the way to go, but I also understand that there are FAA approval issues with composite. Time will no doubt change that.

Arrrj

Arrrj

No I havent flown one which if you notice I havent claimed. I asked the " question" on its constuction which is from the 1950's using aluminium skin with stringers and frames. As you are obvioulsy a fan please tell me where does such weight saving come from. There are three possible answers, Bell is well constructed and therefore overweight, The R66 is cheaply constructed and is therefore underweight or you have a combination of both. :ugh:

Crapinson Flimsicopter
 

Hughes500 yes sadly You are correct the Robinson Helicopter is poorly & cheaply underconstructed hence the name Crapinson Flimsicopter & flying this dodgy thing is the same as playing Russian Roulette with more than one bullet loaded into the revolving chamber :{

Happy landings

VF

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.

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

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:{:yuk:

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 :D

If performance is your thing (regardless of all else), then get a Gazelle; 35% of the cost of an R66, so the money you save on purchase will go a long way towards its first maintenance bill... :E

If its POWER you want there is only One option, hot, high, heavy go the AS350B3 :D

Agreed. Dang, now where is that spare $2.5mil I thought was in my back pocket???

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

No idea, Arjjj. 500s get used more for utility work - would have thought R66s would have been doing tours?

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.

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

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 !

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

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:eek:) 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.

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.

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 ! :D

(Except for the "unfortunately" - which probably should read 'fortunately' - at least in terms of the argument presented, in the last one).

Arrrj:ok:

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?

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!

Zeke, in real terms how does the 120 compare with the 206 - operating cost and performance?