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