Enstrom Helicopters 2022
I saw this posted on Enstrom Helicopters FB group page and not sure what to make of it if it’s even true.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2fea20865.jpeg I hope it is not going to happen. cheers |
As Madeline Kahn said (in "Blazing Saddles") it's twoo, it's twoo!
Menominee’s Enstrom Helicopter closing, filing for bankruptcy (uppermichiganssource.com) |
Its Never happy to see that, a good safe product, some good jobs, and probably good value for many customers.
It makes you wonder what has lead to that, lack of capital, lack of inovation, or lack of new products? |
if you have an Enstron parts machine, its time to raise your price.
|
Surprised they lasted this long. There couldn’t be a less “cool” aircraft to own, Robbie killed their market and it was a standing joke that they spent more time in maintenance than the air.
Next one hanging on by its fingernails is MD. |
That's a shame. My experience of Enstrom products has been very good - the current EN480B is an excellent entry-level turbine and trainer, with lots of qualities that I would rate above the R66 and B505.
The problem is that, in today's world, it has been run as a small company - almost a cottage industry - and the product was worthy of much better and more dynamic management progression. Hopefully, 'Chapter 7' makes it more attractive for potential purchasers to acquire the business, and any new parentage takes Rudi Enstrom's clever innovation onwards and upwards. |
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 11172480)
Surprised they lasted this long. There couldn’t be a less “cool” aircraft to own, Robbie killed their market and it was a standing joke that they spent more time in maintenance than the air.
Next one hanging on by its fingernails is MD. |
Pilots kill helicopters. Helicopters don't kill pilots (except in very rare instances).
Enstrom has produced 1,300 helicopters in it's entire history. Robinson over 12,000. Say what you want about Robinson, but they must be doing something right. While I would like nothing more than to be flying around in an AS350B3, or a 407GXi, I am extraordinarily pleased with the performance, comfort and economics of the R44. There is an Enstrom 28F that is kept in the same hangar as my R44. The Enstrom is always in maintenance, rarely flies, and obtaining MX is an ordeal compared to the plethora of Robinson MX shops. Putting three in it is another kind of ordeal, four is, of course, not possible. While there is much to like about the Enstrom rotorhead and control system, that is probably the only good thing about it. Swinging those three blades around is asking a lot for a small Lycoming. Even with the complexity of turbocharging, performance suffers dramatically at max. gross weight compared to the R22. We see some of that same issue in the Cabri G2, but of course the Cabri employs much more modern technology and is only a little less powerful than the R22. In either case, how can the Enstrom design compete? Poor design and management also kill helicopters. The company was always a hobby time affair, passing through the hands of so many owners, none of whom were ever successful in motivating a marketable design. Dean Kamen came close with the 480, but a cabin perfect for low cost training became a bizarre aberration in an attempt to sell it commercially when the military didn't want it. Perhaps he was too distracted by his other failure, the Segway, which was occurring at the same time, to really take the 480 where it needed to be. Again, market share tells a story. 250 480's total since 2000. 1000 R66 since 2007. And 505 production is banging right along at 200+ since 2015, perhaps it will ultimately overtake the R66. I don't have the data, but it is easy to suspect that 480B production fell into the low single digits per year when the R66 was released. With both the R66 and 505 available the 480 was and is as doomed as the 28 and 280. Perhaps the company will change hands again and the new owners will be more visionary. But the new vision would have to be very compelling in some way given Robinson and Bell's lock on the low end market. |
All I know is that when I flew a 280 a couple years ago, the collective felt like trying to lift a 50 lbs dumbell.
As with the Cabri and Schweizer though,... Why would I pay more money to fly what is is essentially just another two-seat piston, when I can simply fly an R22 instead? |
Originally Posted by Robbiee
(Post 11173293)
All I know is that when I flew a 280 a couple years ago, the collective felt like trying to lift a 50 lbs dumbell.
|
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 11173296)
Not bad considering it was trying to lift a 200lbs dumbell :E
|
I wonder what a certain Dennis Kenyon would have to say about this?
|
Originally Posted by Robbiee
(Post 11173293)
All I know is that when I flew a 280 a couple years ago, the collective felt like trying to lift a 50 lbs dumbell.
As with the Cabri and Schweizer though,... Why would I pay more money to fly what is is essentially just another two-seat piston, when I can simply fly an R22 instead? |
Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme
(Post 11173323)
I wonder what a certain Dennis Kenyon would have to say about this?
Hopefully a young ... (Dennis Kenyon type person) ... can take over Enstrom support ... similar to Scotts-Bell-47 .... but on a smaller scale. . |
Originally Posted by aa777888
(Post 11173283)
Perhaps the company will change hands again and the new owners will be more visionary. But the new vision would have to be very compelling in some way given Robinson and Bell's lock on the low end market.
I would assume that the Enstom PISTON F-28F & 280FX and the TURBINE 480B are not part of that vision you are calling for. 1st: because indeed more modern tech is needed; (aka: composite, modern avionics as part of the design, and yes engine modernization). I am not talking all the way to Hills helicopters but more like a Cabri. 2nd: because they tried to design sucessfull off-child so many times in the course the ownership transitions, 280 Shark, 280L Hawk ... its not working. 3rd: look at the people who acquired the schweizer type certificate "Schweizer RSG" well it does not feel like a blockbuster operation. Assume that you had the few millions to acquire the Enstrom organization, I would have to sit and think quite a bit to figure out the new business course. |
Originally Posted by Arnie Madsen
(Post 11173445)
I was thinking the same thing ... (probably doing loops in the grave)
Hopefully a young ... (Dennis Kenyon type person) ... can take over Enstrom support ... similar to Scotts-Bell-47 .... but on a smaller scale. . Latterly, whilst I'm sure Enstrom employed some well meaning, dedicated personnel, it appeared more like a small family business than a forward pressing brand. Still think that the 480B is the 'diamond in the rough,' with the most potential, as a safe, easy, turbine trainer (for which it was designed), or private owner use. |
Reading that letter I'm horrified at the treatment of their staff. Has the FBI been told a mass murder is planned?
|
Originally Posted by Agile
(Post 11173470)
Intresting points you mentioned in your post, it ilustrates the reason this is such a distressed asset.
I would assume that the Enstom PISTON F-28F & 280FX and the TURBINE 480B are not part of that vision you are calling for. 1st: because indeed more modern tech is needed; (aka: composite, modern avionics as part of the design, and yes engine modernization). I am not talking all the way to Hills helicopters but more like a Cabri. ... Assume that you had the few millions to acquire the Enstrom organization, I would have to sit and think quite a bit to figure out the new business course. Nevertheless, it would take a clean sheet of paper to make them competitive. Dump the pistons, concentrate on a successor to the 480B. Lose the grease gun and nitrogen bottle, add some real luggage space and 4 conventional seating positions, and add hydraulics. Keep the rotorhead and blade system, obviously, since that's the crown jewel of their engineering portfolio. Add a pilot operable blade fold kit so it can fit in the same space as the competition. Keep the flat floor of the 505, the high level of standard interior finish of the R66, and the superior full fuel payload and range of the R66. Avoid anything inelegant like the 505 tail weights. |
Would such a helicopter require a new type certification?
|
Originally Posted by Hot and Hi
(Post 11173742)
Would such a helicopter require a new type certification?
|
Originally Posted by aa777888
(Post 11173687)
Nevertheless, it would take a clean sheet of paper to make them competitive. Dump the pistons, concentrate on a successor to the 480B. Lose the grease gun and nitrogen bottle, add some real luggage space and 4 conventional seating positions, and add hydraulics. Keep the rotorhead and blade system, obviously, since that's the crown jewel of their engineering portfolio. Add a pilot operable blade fold kit so it can fit in the same space as the competition. Keep the flat floor of the 505, the high level of standard interior finish of the R66, and the superior full fuel payload and range of the R66. Avoid anything inelegant like the 505 tail weights.
|
Originally Posted by aa777888
(Post 11173283)
Dean Kamen .. Perhaps he was too distracted by his other failure, the Segway
Or his infusion pump business or his iBot wheelchair business, or his dialysis work or ... Dean Kamen has had more successes and failures than I have had hot dinners. |
Originally Posted by aa777888
(Post 11173687)
it would take a clean sheet of paper to make them competitive. Dump the pistons, concentrate on a successor to the 480B. Lose the grease gun and nitrogen bottle, add some real luggage space and 4 conventional seating positions, and add hydraulics. Keep the rotorhead and blade system, obviously, since that's the crown jewel of their engineering portfolio. Add a pilot operable blade fold kit so it can fit in the same space as the competition. Keep the flat floor of the 505, the high level of standard interior finish of the R66, and the superior full fuel payload and range of the R66. Avoid anything inelegant like the 505 tail weights.
The time, effort and money required is immense, that's before you consider re-tooling, re-certifying people etc. Without volume or defense funding, it is beyond the grasp of a small business. Even Robinson won't clean-sheet an aircraft, it's cheaper and more practical to live with the flaws and evolve it - they at least have a market. In engineering you can't polish a turd, you can only cover it with glitter. Enstrom were stuck in a narrowing niche, in a struggling industry, with neither the funds nor vision to change. There will be further contraction in the rotary market, it is unavoidable. |
Originally Posted by aa777888
(Post 11173753)
Can't see how it would not. It would be a pretty big change from the existing 480B.
Let’s rather think what an investor can do with the remaining assets and goodwill (that is, in particular the Type Certificate for the 480). |
Originally Posted by Hot and Hi
(Post 11173972)
Agree. So it’s a non starter, as other have pointed out here earlier.
Let’s rather think what an investor can do with the remaining assets and goodwill (that is, in particular the Type Certificate for the 480). Can't think of how they can save the 480 or evolve it into anything that would be successful in the marketplace, unfortunately. |
Originally Posted by jimjim1
(Post 11173899)
Or maybe one of his other "over 1,000 patents".
Or his infusion pump business or his iBot wheelchair business, or his dialysis work or ... Dean Kamen has had more successes and failures than I have had hot dinners. |
Originally Posted by Gustosomerset
(Post 11173388)
Each to his own, of course but would you apply the same logic to, for example, choosing a car? I’m not sure that cheapness and market share are generally the way we judge ‘best to drive/fly/own’.
The car I own (like the helicopter I would buy if I were rich) I'd base on looks and how fun it is to operate. That's why I own a Trans Am and would love to own an R22. |
It's sad to see Enstrom closing its doors for good. I'm a geologist and in 1982 we used a 280C (from Les Hélicoptères Verreault, now defunct, I believe) for geological survey work between Baker Lake and Chantrey Inlet on the northern Canadian mainland. It worked fine and as I remember was well-liked by the pilots. As to the Robinson, one pilot I knew from another year recounted how he'd been invited to test fly a Robinson (model?), did so, and was so frightened swore he would never set foot in one again. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Rockhound |
Originally Posted by Robbiee
(Post 11174296)
That's why I own a Trans Am and would love to own an R22.
|
Originally Posted by Rockhound
(Post 11175060)
It's sad to see Enstrom closing its doors for good. I'm a geologist and in 1982 we used a 280C (from Les Hélicoptères Verreault, now defunct, I believe) for geological survey work between Baker Lake and Chantrey Inlet on the northern Canadian mainland. It worked fine and as I remember was well-liked by the pilots. As to the Robinson, one pilot I knew from another year recounted how he'd been invited to test fly a Robinson (model?), did so, and was so frightened swore he would never set foot in one again. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Rockhound |
Well, how about this:
I flew an Enstrom for about 10 hours 33 years ago. It was the worst of the 22 aircraft types I have flown, and the ONLY type that I would never want to be in again. Rattly, flimsy, engine wouldn't re-start until it had cooled right down, couldn't even maintain height if the turbo failed. |
Originally Posted by Agile
(Post 11172394)
Its Never happy to see that, a good safe product, some good jobs, and probably good value for many customers.
It makes you wonder what has lead to that, lack of capital, lack of inovation, or lack of new products? I've got pictures of the new glass cockpits we were designing. I've flown the F28/280 throttle governor (makes an easy helicopter to fly stupid easy to fly). I've got emails with companies ready to kick off new aircon systems and discussing autopilot STC's. I've got a full social media and marketing plan.We had millions of dollars in parts sales, and were working on multiple new aircraft contracts. The will was there, just not the way. The good news is that there's a number of groups competing to buy the assets out of bankruptcy and restart the company. If they do even 1/4 of what they are promising, it's going to be great for Enstrom owners and fans. Keep the faith. Dennis Martin (they guy who signed the letter in the original post) |
Originally Posted by Dennis at Enstrom
(Post 11179871)
Lack of capital led to a lack of new products and a lack of marketing. This in turn led to a lack of capital, which led...you get the idea. It's a classic death spiral. We warned our ownership this was going to happen, but it seemed to fall on deaf ears in China. They refused to invest in the company and instead funded it with debt. The result was they lost their company, we lost our jobs, and the aircraft owners are left holding the bag. .... The good news is that there's a number of groups competing to buy the assets out of bankruptcy and restart the company. If they do even 1/4 of what they are promising, it's going to be great for Enstrom owners and fans. Keep the faith.
|
I hope it works out, I love my 280C.
|
Enstrom
I own a 480 B and use it as a private owner. I looked at all of the usual suspects before buying it. I always assumed that I would buy a MD 500. What I found in my research was interesting. My main goal was cross country travel.
1. There is no comparison in comfort. The Enstrom has real seats. All of the others you sit on a box with a cushion. I’m a big guy and found the MD horribly uncomfortable. He 206 is legendary with chiropractors. The R44 isn’t any better. 2. There is no comparison in operating costs. Robinson was probably the most expensive, considering how the ship was to be used. 100 hrs/hr. The Enstrom has 3 calendar items, the TT straps. There are less than a dozen Hobbs limited items on the airframe. Most items are “on condition “ including the blades. I just finished my third annual, I had a loose belt and a loose cable. Last annual was similar. 3. When properly set up it will fly hands off as long as most airplanes. You can’t take your hands off a Robbie stick. Yes the cyclic is heavy. It’s also heavy n a MD600. The thing is you don’t fly it by tugging on he stick, you use the trim. If you use the trim you don’t feel the weight, same on the MD. It’s not for mustering cattle it’s for comfortable traveling. Also no hydraulic system to break and maintain. 4. It’s smooth. Again I’m traveling in it. The Robbie and 206 are not. Too much 2 per. MD is nice. The 3 per is damped by dampers on the controls and tail. 5. Although unorthodox, the seating configurations are great. There is way more leg room for the “rear seat” passengers than the Robbie and certainly the MD. The straight 206 is close. If you don’t need the seat, then fold them up out of the way. Believe me it only looks weird. 6. It’s not good for shooting hogs out of. Only one door/gunner at a time. 7. My wife and I carry our golf clubs in it, in he baggage compartment not the cabin. Try that in anything else. 8. They are heavy. My useful load is 1100 lbs. With 3.5 hours of fuel that’s only 500 lbs in cabin. Not sure how this compares. 9. Although not IFR they are a great instrument platform. Vey stable and easy to fly. 10. Much slower than Robbie. I plan on 110 kts at 185 lbs/hr @ 2000 agl. I have a G500H that displays true airspeed. 11. You don’t have to slow down in turbulence. (Yes,I know I’m already going slow.😕) 12.. No exposed pitch connecting rods. This, believe it or not is a biggie for me. I fly around a lot of big birds, geese and buzzards. They scare me in a 206. History has shown that it’s not a significant factor. I don’t want to find out. Also probably not as effective as wire cutters, but there are plenty of Enstrom pilots who have hit wires then backed off of them. okay I’ll get off my soapbox now. The 480B is a great helicopter for traveling. It is also has the lowest cost of maintenance for the private owner (no comment on training). Bill |
Originally Posted by discap
(Post 11186673)
I own a 480 B and use it as a private owner. I looked at all of the usual suspects before buying it. I always assumed that I would buy a MD 500. What I found in my research was interesting. My main goal was cross country travel.
1. There is no comparison in comfort. The Enstrom has real seats. All of the others you sit on a box with a cushion. I’m a big guy and found the MD horribly uncomfortable. He 206 is legendary with chiropractors. The R44 isn’t any better. 2. There is no comparison in operating costs. Robinson was probably the most expensive, considering how the ship was to be used. 100 hrs/hr. The Enstrom has 3 calendar items, the TT straps. There are less than a dozen Hobbs limited items on the airframe. Most items are “on condition “ including the blades. I just finished my third annual, I had a loose belt and a loose cable. Last annual was similar. 3. When properly set up it will fly hands off as long as most airplanes. You can’t take your hands off a Robbie stick. Yes the cyclic is heavy. It’s also heavy n a MD600. The thing is you don’t fly it by tugging on he stick, you use the trim. If you use the trim you don’t feel the weight, same on the MD. It’s not for mustering cattle it’s for comfortable traveling. Also no hydraulic system to break and maintain. 4. It’s smooth. Again I’m traveling in it. The Robbie and 206 are not. Too much 2 per. MD is nice. The 3 per is damped by dampers on the controls and tail. 5. Although unorthodox, the seating configurations are great. There is way more leg room for the “rear seat” passengers than the Robbie and certainly the MD. The straight 206 is close. If you don’t need the seat, then fold them up out of the way. Believe me it only looks weird. 6. It’s not good for shooting hogs out of. Only one door/gunner at a time. 7. My wife and I carry our golf clubs in it, in he baggage compartment not the cabin. Try that in anything else. 8. They are heavy. My useful load is 1100 lbs. With 3.5 hours of fuel that’s only 500 lbs in cabin. Not sure how this compares. 9. Although not IFR they are a great instrument platform. Vey stable and easy to fly. 10. Much slower than Robbie. I plan on 110 kts at 185 lbs/hr @ 2000 agl. I have a G500H that displays true airspeed. 11. You don’t have to slow down in turbulence. (Yes,I know I’m already going slow.😕) 12.. No exposed pitch connecting rods. This, believe it or not is a biggie for me. I fly around a lot of big birds, geese and buzzards. They scare me in a 206. History has shown that it’s not a significant factor. I don’t want to find out. Also probably not as effective as wire cutters, but there are plenty of Enstrom pilots who have hit wires then backed off of them. okay I’ll get off my soapbox now. The 480B is a great helicopter for traveling. It is also has the lowest cost of maintenance for the private owner (no comment on training). Bill |
Forgot to mention, Enstrom will be back up and running soon, with American owners.
|
Originally Posted by discap
(Post 11186783)
Forgot to mention, Enstrom will be back up and running soon, with American owners.
|
It is so refreshing to hear Discap's private owner perspective! The 480B is indeed a very viable machine. It goes to show that to a large degree smoothness and reliability of a helicopter depend on having a good mechanic to look after your machine.
That of course applies to other helicopter types too. I can assure you that a well-balanced Robbie can fly as smooth and without annoying or tiresome vibrations as any 3-bladed helicopter that I have been in (H269, EN28, EH48, Cabri G2, AS341). I agree though that the rotor head, and the overall weight, make the 480B less susceptible to turbulence than it's two-bladed hangar companions. How does 3.5 HRS of fuel and 500 lbs in the cabin compare? Well, out of all the machines you mentioned, only the R66 can carry 3.5 HRS of fuel at all. While you correctly say that the 480B is not your typically cattle mustering machine, Dennis Kenyon has shown us that it is nonetheless highly manoeuvrable: |
When Steve Daniels was the VP of Marketing there I did a couple of air to air shoots with them and used the 480B as the camera ship and have to say it was one of the smoothest helos I have shot from.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.