It's no comparison to the EC120 (one of the best looking helicopters ever in my opinion) We also don't know anything about the performance so we can't compare of those either. One thing is for sure, Frank managed to build another ugly helicopter.

When I attended the Robinson safety course in Torrance last summer, amidst the safety messages there was much propaganda about the merits of the R44 over rival single turbines. So ... er ... why then the R66?

Because Frank sees a gap in the market for an 'affordable' entry level turbine that gives more space/power than the R44 but is much cheaper to buy/run than a B206/C120/H500.

Will his gamble pay off? Only time will tell...

The tails of the skids in the hover seemed quite low with only the pilot on board, what's it going to be like with three pax in the back?

Probably.

But not because Robinson helicopters are the best (many people loathe them). It's because:

1. Robinson products are cheap/affordable
2. As such they have captured market control
3. Train in an R22, buy an R44, aspire to an R66
4. The competition haven't really challenged this

Hopefully better, because they sit forward of the mast?

(That said, I guess we won't know until we see proper CoG figures etc; in the same way we don't know what was in the back on that test flight!).

Sits the same as a R44 with 1 pob, and if it's gonna be the same as the R44, you have to load two front up first. i.e there shouldnt be 3 in the back 1 in the front, it would have to be 2+2 configuration. Like the R44 is not just with a little extra seat squeezed in the back.(in the above case empty)

I should imagine it wont be too bad in the back width ways, because if you think about the 'drinks holder' (obviously to be used as a seat) between the rear seats, that, plus upto 8" wouldnt be too bad really. Don't think the things any longer is it? So probably the same leg room which is medioca imo, not much good for proper charter like a B206, ok for pleasure flights though I would guess, but I think they would still use a piston for that because 1 seat wont out way the extra operating costs.

It'll be interesting to see what it burns an hour......:hmm:

As said, I think the possible success of this will be determined by its operating costs.....

1) "Three in the back." Heh. Now that's a joke. Well, if you mean three adults, which won't fit. Okay, *would* fit for a five-minute sightseeing ride, but anything longer will be torture. (Is there a centre console? Where do the centre passenger's feet go?) Two adults and a (small) child, much better. I think we're going to see some bubble windows in the rear doors before the first one rolls out of the hangar.

2) I gotta tell you, I sure don't like that long mast. Wow. But even a LongRanger mast is scary. Ever seen one? Ever see how much of the mast sticks up *above* the trans compared to how much goes down in it? Ever wonder about the forces on the mast bearing, not to mention the transmission mounts during cruise flight or even heavy maneuvering? Yikes. That long R-66 mast is just disturbing. (I predict the R-66 will have the same sloppy handling of a 206.)

3) People have noted the nose-high hover attitude. That may have less to do with c.g. than some forward tilt of the mast, like a 206. I'd bet Frank gave the mast another degree or three of tilt vs. the R-44. (And I wonder if Frank didn't extend the mast to get the hub further forward to help out with #4 below?)

4) But c.g. *will* be an issue. Isn't the baggage compartment pretty much right under the mast? Which means you can't really use baggage to counter balance a big load in the cabin, which is ENTIRELY forward of the mast! All two-blade systems have about five inches of c.g. range. The R-66 will be set up so that with one pilot and no baggage the c.g. will be right at the rear limit. Then the problem becomes cyclic travel in high speed cruise. There was a damn good reason Bell put the 206 trans over the back seat. Without that, the L-model would not have been possible.

5) Friend of mine used to fly a 47G-2 doing traffic around NYC. Backup was an En-280. Side-by-side in the hangar, I asked Lou which one he prefererred. He pointed at the Bell: "Industrial strength." And then at the Enstrom: "Household strength." Enough said. (No offense intended to the Enstrom crowd. I've got time in the F-28/280 and quite like them.)

I look at the R-66 and see household strength.

Conclusion: Nevermind all of the above. With Frank's reputation and worldwide dealer network, he will sell every R-66 he can build, no doubt. Can't carry five adults? No problem. Hot/high performance not great? No problem. Not a good sling ship? No problem. There is a market for the little scooter, and if he can bring it in for under USD $1 million, buyers will be lined up all the way to the Mexican border. Mark my words.

When the pilot has the machine in the hover at the runway, the disc is level but the skids are at about 30 degrees, looks a bit odd.

Is there so much money out there at this time of financial worries that this 'Goat' will sell? Most likely Barak O'Bama will find an Irish Leprecorn to help out dear 'ol Frank to sell his machines. I'd like to hear how the money will flow to keep the production line in motion.

Some information on weight, fuel capacity and fuel burn can be found on the link below,


http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/robinson-ties-its-future-to-r66/

Seems to have similar endurance to the 44.
No mention of cruise speed!!

FH1100,

What you're saying is that the R66 will have no better performance/load carrying capacity than an Enstrom 480B or even an FH1100, at a similar cost and all the drawbacks that half the world seems to loathe of anything with an R on the side.

I agree that there will be issues with the extremely long mast, but given that there are a number of R44's that shake themselves crazy on the ground, I expect the R66 will be even worse.

The biggest advantage, agreed, is the marketing/familiarity of the person buying their 2nd helicopter.

I think it will probably be the 3rd place in sales, but if the R44 is at 800ish a year, the R22 about 400, 200 of these things per annum is probably going to be quite a return.

Freewheel:Izzat what I said? Kinda sounds like me. I don't agree though that "half the world" loathes anything with an R on the side. "R's" sales numbers would seem to be counter to that.
You know it!
If Frankie sells 200 R-66's per year, he will go to his grave a very happy (and very rich) man. And frankly (no pun intended), I see exactly that happeneing.

Unlikely given Frank's political leanings... :E

I/C

Yeah, didn't he just have George Dubbya and Aaaanold visit not so long ago!

The first thing Arnold said to GW when he seen the R66 was; "git to the chappa, now!!":}
Sorry couldn't resist!!

Does this R66 have three or two seats in the back, if there is hardly any room to swing a cat if there is three seats. Frank has just made an aircraft like the enstrom, md500 with very little commercial outlet to get a family of four in comfortably, not like a 206 or EC120. Why do people learn to fly a turbine ? because they can or to get a type with the capacity for more pax, or making money commercially.

fluffy

R66 Launch
 

Pictures here:

Robinson R66 Reception Torance CA

170Knots top speed!!!
 

Looking athe instrument panel and the the airspeed indicator goes all the way up to 170Knots but there was no red line on it to indicate any possible clues to speed. :(

Shame no pictures of the rear passenger seating.

Also, notice something else? No trans oil temp *or* pressure gauges. A chip detector/light, obviously - and a caution light, most certainly. But in this day and age, no press/temp gauge for the trans?

Unforgivable.

On second look, the cabin does appear to be wide enough to seat three "more or less" comfortably in the back. But the question of legroom still remains.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...6/DSCN2849.jpg



http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...6/DSCN2846.jpg



http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...6/DSCN2847.jpg