Last time I leased out my R22 I got £106:50ph.
A run-out machine is worth what someone's prepared to pay for it. Budget £20,000 and you shouldn't be too disappointed. An Alpha or an HP is pretty much valueless, while a Beta II might get you more.
Rebuild costs depend on whether you send it back to the factory or have it done in the UK. Value thereafter depends on whether it's on its second or third trip around the clock.
Get two quotes and add twenty per cent.

Hi,

I went through this "shall I buy stage". I didn't buy because of cost, risk and utility of the R22.

Cost:
Cost of tieing up capital say £5-7k on the £80-100k required is equivalent to 40 hours no risk flying if you rent.

Risk:
Anything goes wrong - you pay and you can't fly. nothing is cheap to replace

Utility:
R22 doesn't go that far between refuel with 2 POB


Financially it doesn't make sense to me - I'd save a few £ per hour but have much more risk and overheads to cover. Also there is never a guarantee of renting back from you.
If there is a down turn in the industry - you're helicopter stays on the ground but your costs still carry on !

As far as utility I came to the conclusion that an R44 is cheaper per mile as I don't spend time landing and taking off for fuel and it goes faster, but there is no way I can tie up £250k

Anyway I'd love to see if anybody can make the numbers work. Anybody made it work ?

R22 Supply & Demand Leaseback
 

Hi,

I know that this has been discussed in previous threads but I'm interested to know what lease back rates people are currently getting around the UK for leasing their machines back for training and sfh.

It is apparant that there is an extreme shortage of 22's for training and I've always felt that the rate offered has always been low.

Is now the time that 22 owners should be able to drive the price paid up?

As a note I currently get £75ph for mine.

Thanks

Ikey

Ikey,

I cannot answer your question because I am out of the R22 loop these days. However, from past experience I think you will need to say what the lease rate includes and whether, as part of the deal you get discount rates for anything. I mean things like fuel, insurance and special rates for hangarage and engineering.

Hi Ikey,

At £75 PH - sounds like you need to look at the contract again.
We hire out the R22 S.F.H - Wet, Insurance, Landing Fee, all inclusive at between £165 - 175 PH

For training, current rate is £225 PH inc inst'r.

I agree that owners need a better deal for the leasebacks and I believe that this is now the time of year to re-negotiate before the "Silly Season" starts.

Speak to other owners at the same airfield and have a pool. That way you may get a better deal.

Happy !

I get £106:50 wet.

(For some reason the mail system wouldn't accept that... it won't take messages of less than 20 characters, it tells me... so I have to witter on aimlessly to get my point taken... sums up a lot of what goes on around here...)

Hi,

My lease rates at £75 per hour don't give me (as far as I perceive) any special favours.

Hangarage is 199per month
Insurance on the school fleet policy works out to be £5200 per year
Landing Fees £12 per landing, special summer block deal in the silly season which brings it down to £10.
Fuel at standard airfied rate.

The school charges £215 per hour training, £165 SFH

Thanks,

Ikey

Your hangarage sounds very expensive, especially when you have to pay landing fees on top - I assume you are somewhere expensive like Biggin?

I noticed in a recent copy of Pilot that one operator is quoting £130 wet per hour for sfh inc VAT. There can't be much for the poor owner in that deal.

Owners I have spoken to round here seem to get around £90 dry.

R22 IGe OGE charts - arguing with FI
 

The R22 IGE OGE charts for the alpha have temperature lines on and a standard day line. How do you calculate the hover ceiling if all you have is an OAT @ sea level and a QNH (the expected LZ elevation is unknown). I know it's possible if you have ISA lines on the charts but my FI says ignore the standard day line and follow a path from the MAUW to the OAT (sea level) line and across to Palt, then correct for QNH. He then corrected for 120ft X ISA temp difference. I could be missing something but surely the temp lines represent OAT at expected LZ elev which if unknown make it impossible unless you manually draw ISA lines onto the chart. Flight test is v soon :confused::confused:

I haven't seen the IGE graph but assume that it has weight along the X axis and Pressure altitude (Hp) on the Y axis, with temperature lines rising from left to right (ie weight reducing with increasing Hp, Higher temeratures to the left).

That being so, you need to calculate the Hp at the elevation you have the OAT for, using Hp = Elevation+ (QNH-1013)*27'

I assume you have some idea of the expected landing weight for which you wish to determine the ceiling? If so, the draw a vertical line from that weigh.

Then enter the graph at the Hp you have calculated and the temperature at that elevation. Use the closest ISA temperature line to then move parallel to it up the graph until you meet the vertical line from the weight you plotted. Then move to the Hp axis to determine the Hp hover ceiling. You can now reconvert that to QNH altitude if you need to, using the reverse of the above formula.

Obviously this makes various assumptions such as temperature reduction at -1.98 C per 1000 ft, and the landing weight being known. If you don't know these then you can't really work out the ceiling.

Hope that makes sense!

IF it helps, you may need to go right back to basics. All other things (rotor RPM, height above ground) being equal, the power required to hover will depend on density altitude and weight. The power available in a piston engine helicopter depends on density altitude. So you need to know temperature at the pressure altitude you want to hover at, and in your example, you really do need to know both.
It sounds like your FI may be slightly confused about what standard temperature is and the effect of lapse rate. Either that or he doesn't explain things well....

We went round the bouy several times with this one last year, do a search for either Irlandes (the guy who opened the thread) or R22 performance.

pete
 

>>I could be missing something but surely the temp lines represent OAT at expected LZ elev which if unknown make it impossible unless you manually draw ISA lines .

oat and LZ ph can not be worked out without an altitude to work from.

T-bar cyclic - why?
 

OK guys/gals of much rotoring experience, here's a thought that struck me after a peek in a Rotorway Exec at Aerofair last week...

Why have Robinson stuckwith the t-bar cyclic? While I admit it works very effectively, few must doubt that a conventional arrangement is more comfortable and stable. I always thought it was for weight-saving purposes, but as no other light helo has a similar arrangement (as far as I know) then why do Robinson stick with it when it seems to put so many people off the R22/44?

Just interested, that's all...

DBChopper
:confused:

Three reasons for the T Bar cyclic
 

1) It's cheaper

2) It's less complex

3) It's cheaper

:rolleyes:

The short answer is because it's brilliantly simple.

A longer answer would involve considering what you'd lose if you replaced it with a conventional stick...
1. Simplicity (addition of another set of levers/hinges and gizmos for the copilot)

2. Baggage space (in other helis there's wasted space beneath the seat squab to allow for the control runs)

3. Then there's the weight thing.

Personally I can't see the problem with not having the stick between my legs (but then I'm happy with my God-given endowment). For those that need the extra I seem to recall seeing an add-on kit for the 22 that attached over the central tunnel and took the control run across the floor to rise in a more conventional manner.

The big, big plus for me is that it makes the Robbo so utterly easy to get into and out of.

The vast majority of pilots now learn on helicopters with T-bar cyclics. I don't think your assertion that "it puts so many people off R22s/44s" holds water. Some of the old stagers used to moan about it in the early days, but a lot of them were looking for reasons not to like the Robinson. Anyone who learned on the 22 finds the contortions required to get into a helicopter with dual sticks ridiculous.

It's easier to hold onto with both hands when you lose control of a Robinson;)

When reading the comments of pilots aboout the R22 (or any other type), methinks it is relevant to know whether they have any time in it................

I've got plenty of time on Robo's, but for me the best bit about the T-bar is it offers vertical adjustment of the grip, ie: the grip can be wherever your hand is. Rest your forearm on your thigh and the grip comes to you. How many JetRanger or Hughes 500 pilots do you see clutching the lower half of the grip and half the steel pole because they too rest their arm on their leg?
Now, if they can only make R22 doors fit...

Doors fit on a 22....?

And the 44, 206, 105, 412, 120,135....

I was informed that I had a dent in a panel of my new 44
Shock Horror... Funny, it went away when I next parked it on level ground
:*

The T bar is an excellent invention by Franky Boy. No struggling getting the wife in and out !

Happy

T Bar. Excellent for all the tech reasons above. But also makes superb chassis for clamp-on cupholder. ;)

Happy Landing - I'll remember that next time I'm dumping the wife.

I was talking to Dick Sanford recently and he said that he'd developed a retro fit conventional cyclic a few years ago which was great until Frank R found out about it and went into orbit, and has since banned any thing like this unless it comes from the factory. Something I can't see happening anytime in the next thousand years!!

Personally I think the T-bar is great, unless you are an instructor who gets smashed in the head by it everytime you lean forwards:}

The add-on kit to convert to a standard cyclic is made by/called Altair if memory serves me right. It's similar to an MD900's up and over type cyclic as opposed to the more traditional jetranger type. I learned with it and had no problems (apart from the usual problems of learning to fly a helicopter).

Actually, I get on quite well with it too. Being a tall chap, even my long legs fit under the t-bar. My only difficulties arise when 2-up with more than a teacup of fuel... :rolleyes:

I was just interested as to why they stick with as it it would seem (and this is backed up by your very interesting replies) that there are more conventional alternatives.

So were these conversions ever approved? Would an R22 or R44 with such a mod get through a CofA?

DBChopper
:confused:

I love the R22, and about 90% of my hours are on it. But I'd much rather have a conventional cyclic. I find it very hard to rest my hand on my knee; I'm not very tall, so my legs are stretched out to reach the pedals, so the T-bar is only just long enough. I gather I'm not the only person who has this problem; I was warned on the instructor course that some of my students might. And talking of instructing, there's gotta be easier ways to hold a cyclic than balanced way up in the air! Difficult to get in and out of helos? Never had any problem myself. Overall the R22 is wonderful, but that's in spite of its T-bar, not because of it.

Whirly,

That was one of the problems I was considering when I started the thread. With my height, I tend to have to hold the grip so that the t-bar is almost horizontal anyway, but surely if you have a student following on the cyclic who is a similar height to you, then the grip must be up by the ceiling?!

DBChopper
:confused:

May I add my 2 cents.

I recently took up helicopter flying, and now have 10 hours in an R44, this after 34 years as a spamcan PPL.

I was inspired by several charters I did in South Africa and Zambia last December, and decided to go for it.

The T-bar seems a perfectly logical system from the students point of view, I am instructed to rest my arm/wrist on my thigh with the cyclic vertical, the instructor of course has his end up under his armpit, so to speak, but he has 30 years in helis and is not complaining.

At the 9th hour I eventually succeeded with the hover, managing 5 minutes over the reference spot, I hesitate to say mastered, it has opened up a new world for me, and when I get to fly Longrangers and the Dauphin, perhaps I will be able to comment further, in the meantime T is ok for me.


Please take a ride on
Sultan Ismails Flying Carpet

DBChopper, the Altair mod is a certified mod, at least in NZ. All the relevant paper work was in the flight manual.

T BAR CYCLIC
 

I find the quickly removable T bar excellent, especially in instances of air rage with the local planners.

R22/44 Cyclic
 

All my hours (and they are not many) minus 0.7 are in a 22 or 44.

I got into an Enstrom 280FX with great difficulty. Actually hated the helicopter, which is surprising considering it's easier to fly than a 22. That central stick is so much a pain.

I do rest my hand on my knee, but I noticed the sweat was begining to stain my trousers, now I carry a hanky to put between the two. Quite useful on the warmer hotter days for mobbing the brow as well.

As to the 22 doors, my wife and I did our first trip after I passed my test and as always the doors started puuling away from the airframe. She thought the door was open and that she was going to fall out. Try explaining it is perfectly normal, when you've never noticed (or cared) that this happens to a hysterical wife over the top of Silverstone!

Great days.

When I think back, it was good for flying with the grip between your knees so you could read a book or pour a coffee on those long ferry flights.:D

I agree it's a very clever piece of engineering design, because it's so simple and light.

But as Whirly says, if students are most comfortable with a low hand position, the instructors side is way up in the air.

As instructors are reluctant to be too obvious when 'following through' as this isn't confidence building for the student, I would assume they are not holding the cyclic quite as often as when training in a conventional stick machine.

Given the slick reaction times needed in a R22, it would seem there could be a wasted and critical half second more in taking control from a student who does something daft.

If the handle shaft was adjustable (very simple to do) it would cater for all sizes of pilots and enable instructors to shadow students movements more easily.

B47 (but long forgotten 150 hrs R22.....)

One thing that Frank Robinson, alone amongst helicopter designers, seems to have realized is that people (pilots) have been getting taller the last few generations. I'm quite tall, and as an instructor, when the student had his cyclic grip in a comfortable position, mine was too! The whole cabin fit like a glove and was comfortable for me, although even one inch taller would have been too much.

Conversely, I've often had a sore right wrist from the low cyclic grip in an Astar, and what Bell's engineers were thinking still escapes me. Get out of a 206L and into a 407 and your knees will scream for mercy in 30 mins. flat.

You'd better not tell those guys at Hiller!
 

You should keep this secret Robinson invention away from the guys at Hiller!

They might copy it on their products. http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/foto/hiller_hj-1_2.jpg

Also a feature of early Hiller 12's.

DBCChopper,

You should try holding that thing up while doing 180 autos! :}

Typically student holds down by their knee, but you have your arm up in the air, took a while to get used to it.

Crash in Sydney
 

Heard on the news a R22 went down with "bits and pieces falling off it everywhere" (witness statement).

Unfortuantly 2 dead. According to media, instructor and student.

Anyone throw some light on this.

Condolences to all.

Try www.abc.net.au/newsitems/s884163.htm