Bell 206 B3 or Robinson R44 ?
 

I am trying to decide which one to buy. A helicopter I could use for charter and personal service. These two types are quite a competition.

Please help me decide on pros and cons.

Well, having flown both myself I'd say it depends. Want to carry more stuff, pick the 206. Short flights, with minimal stuff, pick the 44. Other than that, I don't really know, as they fly very similarly to each other, but I'm guessing one may cost more?

The Bell doesn't need rebuilding every 12 years. The Robinson is cheaper to buy.

The Bell doesn't really depreciate, but costs more to maintain annually. The Robinson seems to depreciate with age following each 12 year rebuild.

When you start the Bell, you feel like a Skygod. When you start the Robinson, you feel like a tractor driver!

Then there is the issue of Piston vs Turbine with the usual comparisons of fuel burn, TBO's, Remaining Life, and overhaul costs or Replacement Cost.

The important cost issue is buying all those brown paper bags with the eye holes in them....so no one will know you are actually flying a Robinson.:oh:

Funny, being a Robbie guy myself, I couldn't care less if I'm flying a 44 or a 206, but I'm getting a feel from the others that there seems to be a bit of a bias on this forum.

Do you think so!!! I'm with you

If you have a coherent business plan, the answer: whichever one makes you the most money.

I have NO idea what the market is like in the PI. I can only speak to the US. In the US the answer is a no-brainer: it is MUCH easier to make money with, and much less expensive to fly, the R44. And that INCLUDES putting money into an account for the big 12 year overhaul.

In the US the retail cost for an R44 is in the $500/hr range, and for the 206 in the $1200/hr range. Even though the R44 is not as capable you will find many more people willing to rent time in it. Insurance will be FAR less costly on the 44, and therefore it will cost you a lot less when it is idle. And any personal time you put on a 44 will cost you half of what it costs to operate the 206, yes, again, INCLUDING putting money away for the 12 year overhaul.

Two caveats with the 44: 1) assuming a brand new or newly overhauled machine, put at least 200 hours a year on it otherwise it'll time out before overhaul and that's money down the drain. 2) Save that money for the overhaul or you'll be throwing away $100K worth of run-out machine at the end. It's mostly in this latter area where people go wrong.

So...figure out a realistic business plan and go with what makes you money and what gets the cost of your personal flying where you want it to be. A 44 vs. a 206 is apple and oranges, chalk and cheese, they work in two relatively different market segments. If you can make the 206 business plan work, obviously it is a nicer, more capable machine to be flying.

And I was answering the original poster, not you! :ok:

Well, if you want to play that game, then to be honest, I'm not all that impressed with either one, so I'd buy an R22 for when I feel like just a quick pop up to watch the sun set over the city, and Airwolf for when I want to go out and play.

I'd just stick them in my garage in between my Aventador and Trans Am :)

The Robinson is much cheaper to buy.
The Robinson is much cheaper to maintain.
The Robinson will probably accomplish 95% of what you plan to do with it.
I'd go with the 206 every time.

Whenever I contemplate getting into a Robinson.....I order a Double Cheeseburger and Fries (Chips) to ensure I remain unable to make it through the Entry Door.

Nigel, you might get 8 seats, but if you put somebody in each of them, your fuel will get you to the airfield boundary and back. If it is a small airfield.

Maybe our Mk2 Plus Widebody was a heavy example, but we barely got 45 mins endurance with full seats, and in a country the size of Oz, it wasn't very far, even at 145kt.

US accident statistics do not support that assertion. We've been down that road a million times. In the OP's country, maybe that's true. But then the difference would be proper pilots and maintenance, not the machine.

Go and grab an hour in each type. In particular try an auto. there are huge differences! B3 has a lot of intertia in blades when things go quiet.

I'm looking outside the box beyond performance and cost, and urge you to ask yourself what your final paint plans are.
Do you want plain jane boring? then either with suffice.
however, do you want that eye catching pizzazz that makes people look in awe? then I would choose the 206, it has a much better shape and canvas to create something that pops.

I've done autos in both. They perform identically, same slow, long glide, with plenty left for a nice cushy set down. In fact, all the while I was flying the 206 I kept thinking, "damn, this thing flys just like a 44"!

Its almost like driving a Trans Am, then getting into a Camero.

,...or with the 44 you autoed :)

why not buy an ex Uk military SA341. 4 seats 125 kt cruise. cheap parts ( stacks of bits in UK ) it will beat either R44 or 206 as a personal machine

Thank you for this. This is actually what I heard about the R44 or the Robinson helis. 12 years use, 2,000 hours or 2,000 start cycles the operator will have to "return" the Robinson heli to factory for rebuilding or so. And will have to be repurchased at 50-60 % of the brand new price.

While the B206 B3 is no more in production but are in huge number around the globe.

Thank you for the replies so far. Quite a learning there already. Let's just take it easy on our biases although we are entitled to them by nature.

Are Bell 206 Tension-Torsion Straps still the issue they once were?

This is not accurate. It's 12 years or 2200 hours, whichever comes first, and I believe it's specifically 2200 collective hours for aircraft equipped to show it, which is even better. The overhaul does not have to be done at the factory and you do not "repurchase" your aircraft. Most of the cost is for supplies/parts, with the rest covering roughly 240 hours (factory estimate) of labor. The cost has nothing to do with the purchase price of the helicopter.

Yes and no, Airwolf and Bell have three year life now, so are slightly better for low hour usage but still can be an embugerance.
The life limit is from when fitted, no dispensation for when the helicopter is sitting idle.
There are also many part life and midlife inspections/overhauls required on the B206 series, that can blow out the direct operating costs.
FWIW

The OP should consider Enstrom - either piston or turbine. Hardly any calendar limited parts. Very pilot friendly. Just need an experienced engineer within flying distance...

The cost isn't that high a percentage but it is a significant chunk, largely depends on the hours you do how much of a problem it is.
As they approach rebuild the value drops to next to nothing, they will then sit on the ground for 3 months while they are rebuilt.
in this neck of the woods the rebuild costs approximately 50% of what you could sell it for for post rebuild.

Hot and high performance is not good, it really is an aircraft for 2 adults and two kids, in the Bell we could always take 4 adults and know we would be ok.
The 44 is a cost effective aircraft, to achieve that there are compromises - you can see it in the way it is built and in how it performs.
If you intend flying with friends and family, I would take the tried and tested aircraft with a long steller reputation ahead of one that continually lives under a cloud and where you could become yet another topic of conversation with the faithful going on about your experience. According to them you need to be a real hotshot to fly the Robbie, must be the case since it is only the inexperienced that seem to break them.

"Hotshot to fly a Robbie", damn, the bias on here is so thick you need an IR to get through it!

Do yourself a favor dude, whichever you pick,...lease it. Advice from everyone I've known who has owned a helicopter.

100% accurate :ok:

I've witnessed many of these overhauls at the local school which is also a Robinson approved MX facility. Some of the school R22's are flying on their third or fourth overhaul. I.e., they are doing it right financially, not just pissing away every dollar that comes in the door so that at the end of a cycle they have to sheepishly post their run-out on controller.com for someone to buy from them.

You should have taken that as a compliment!

All joking aside, having owned both types I would say:-

1. Lease your choice if possible
2. A good 206B3 is reliable, safe and has a lot of margin for pilot error other than on start
3. 44 good fun, but little margin for error, need rapid reactions and feels "flimsy" all round
4. In turbulence I want a B3
5. Passengers - love the B3. Even with the bulkhead, they have more room than a 44
6. Despite the jokes that a 44 feels the same as a B3 in auto - thats cr*p. Ignore the forums and try for yourself. Its chalk and cheese and B3 wins. An auto in a B3 is a non-event
7. The 44 I had I lost money on when selling after 2 years. The B3 I made 15% profit after two years use. (Still would lease in future!) + I did more hours in the B3
8. The cyclic... when duals out and passenger in left seat - far less room for a sudden whack as passenger see's a river to the right!
9. B3 is a real helicopter. 44 is a fun training toy for getting ready for turbines but not a full time option in my opinion (IF you have the choice)

I'll get my hat...

Oh fenstron 8 what have you done !!!

OP, I'll buy you a B3, just so Bell_Ringer can get his participation trophy and we can all move on...

The bad guy in the Bond film Goldeneye escaped out of a train car in what looked a lot like an R22.

If you like horror movies, the bad guys in the movie Hostel 2 had a 44 parked outside their house.

,...so it seems the bad guys like Robbies :)

Didn't they dub the sound track with turbine noises, or was that another movie?