Sightseeing business? Why not a second hand Astar 350B/BA or Super D? All cost less than a new 66 and have more power. Lots of 2nd hand parts support. 12 yearly frame is around 6 sets of TT straps for a LR.:O

Arrrj

Just curious, both 66 and 206 are 5 seat teetering head machines, both aluminium made. A question for you, the 66 is about 400 lbs or 25% lighter than a 206. Seeing as both machines do the same thing, of the same size with the "same" engine, where has 25% of the metal gone in an R66 ?
No i havent flown an R66, but used to own 206's:eek:

Ok, so the 66 is a lot lighter! That's going to save all those good things like power required, etc. That answers why they can get away with a smaller engine than a JR.

Soave, or Arrrj what is the fuel capacity of the 66, just curious regarding the 3/4 fuel comment, as I have a lot of discussion with 500 pilots who love to tell me that on full tanks a 500 will out lift a JR. My answer has always been fine, but if you are stuck 400 miles offshore on a sinking boat, I would rather have a JR with full tanks than a 500, as I can't swim 100 miles, maybe you can. Or, you know, bigger tanks, the thing is going to lift less when the tanks are full. It's the stupidest comparison you could have.

So is 3/4 fuel an hours worth, or nearly 3 hours worth? If it's got tanks like a JR then that is quite impressive. I still won't get one, but pretty good for a Robbie...

I think that RR are learning something from RHC. how to really make money!

crapsinson flimsicopter......... errrr .........death trap comes to mind, throw away blades, or, a survivable minor bingle post-crash fire consuming all the occupants. hmmmm - no thanks, I reckon boycott the R - widow makers :yuk:

Super F

206 96 gals ( if memory serves me right with range extender, sold my 206 's for 500's years ago ) at 25 gals an hour that is say 4 hours at 110 kts range approx 420 nm

500 72 gals ( wit fargo tank) at 25 gals hour say 3 hours at 135 kts equals 405 nm

Not much in it really, but 15 nm is still a long swim !!!!

As for R66 yes its lighter but at the expense of strutual integrity ?:sad:

it's 279 liters useful

I think you could fly at least 2 1/2 hours with 3/4 tank at 70% torque (that will fly you at 105-110 knots)

At 72% torque I was burning 1,38 lts per minute last time I checked.




I think comparing a Long ranger to a R66 it is a bit unfair, of course a Long Ranger is better.
But it just makes no sense operating a LR for sightseeing at my point of view.
R66 is the right choice for this one. But if we were talking corporate flying or anything similar I'll go with the LR for sure!! I operate in many confined areas and tight spots and the LR could lack of power depending on your weight, the R66 will do the job!

Cheers!

Vertical Freedom (etc)
 

OK VF, we get it, you don't like Robinson Helicopters. I see that your alias on another Aussie Heli site also makes the same statements with your trademark colourful language. Why don't you use your energy and try to add something useful to the debate? :ugh:

Again, perhaps we can stick with the facts. In Australia there have been 4 tragic helicopter accidents caused by fire (after crashing) within the last 12 months or so. 2 of these have been R44's (without fuel bags) and 2 were Eurocopter product (Twin Squirrel @ Lake Eyre and B3 at YSBK), presumably with fuel bags and "extra" safety that Robinson does not offer (according to many) ?!

Maybe someone can explain why the 2 Robbie accidents were worse the the 2 Eurocopter fires ? Maybe someone can explain why the Robbie fires were worse than the Eurocopter fires ? Of course, that's not possible is it ? All 4 were really bad accidents and NOT LIMITED TO ROBBIES !

Like I have said prior, let's stick to the facts and this site maybe of value to all.

PS - I think SP answered the questions directed to me, however I suggest that anyone interested in finding out about the R66 look at the Robbie website. We will all be flying them soon, I went to the the factory in January and they can't make them quick enough. (Of course VF would rather walk, up to him !).

Arrrj

206 vs R66 weight difference
 

Hughes500,

I think I can answer you question but before I do, I want to make one thing clear. 206 Jetties are great machines, but they are a 40 year old design and (this is important) they don't make them anymore.

The weight difference is due to the fact the the 66 is a smaller machine in terms of body length (it is the same width) and the rest of it is Frank saving weight to add to performance. Does that make it less "solid", probably, but what does that mean in the real world ? Maybe not a lot.

If I had $2.2 meg spare, I would probably get a L4, which has HEAPS of power and is a proven performer (and yes, you can still buy one new). But I can get 2.5 x R66 for the price of a L4, and I can talk to the PAX face to face.

As I have said prior, I haven't made a choice, and I thank everyone so far for their constructive comments. :ok:

Arrrj

Top of the World
 

Namaste Aarj, Yes You are right I don't like the robinson flimsicopters. I have been around them for 23years & yes though crisp & reponsive to fly they have killed 2 good mates, nearly killed 2 others & from engineering professional contacts I have had a good insight into the flimsy workmanship & minimal metal built into them. They rust, they throw blades, ah f.... its not worth explaining as many Robi lovers are blind to their almighty R? we are all entitled to an opinion (in the free world) I like Holdens & not Fords, so what? but mention that about R??? WoW look out the war path has again commenced. :yuk:

I have had enough time in & around R's to make a fair judgement. In my experience I know that they are NOT as safe as claimed & I feel this is constructive. The new R66 has already had 3, yes 3 catastrophic airframe failures with fatalities on all. Very sad to loose fellow Pilot's & friends. :{

Happy landings

VF

VF - 3 x R66 failures
 

Hello VF,

OK, you mention something of interest. You state that there have been 3 "airframe" failures with the R66.

I am aware of 2 x 66 crashes (South America and USA), and I have researched the causes (as best I can) and read expert opinion (s) (sure, the official reports are not out yet), but the experts (and one of them purports to be a crash inspector in Europe) have formed a view that these 2 were caused by (simply put) over controlling the aircraft. In one well worded theory it has been suggested that the rate of climb (3k per minute) is so great that the chances of becoming weightless at the top of climb is a present danger for inexperienced pilots (neg G), and that expert had a view that at least one of the crashes above was caused by this.

So, in both cases, not "airframe failure"...but pilot error. The 66 and 206 (etc) are two blade machines, you can (of course) cut the tail off, particularly if you were trained as a fixed wing pilot.

OK, so a) what's your view (and any knowledge) of above and b) what about the mystery third accident ? What's the details of that please ?

There are over 100 66's flying today. Orders for another 300 in the system. SOMEONE likes the machines. Again, I have flown one and I reckon it's a good thing. Easy to fly etc, plenty of power. Really precise, more solid than a 44. (Bloody dirty with the exhaust where it is though ! Lot's of cleaning required).

However I am happy to accept information to the contrary, but facts please.

Thanks
Arrrj :ok:

Pretty sure you can still buy a 206L-4 :confused:

SA

Yes we all know that the 206 L4 is available for sale. Perhaps you should read the rest of the thread where this is clearly stated, as is the fact that you can only buy (new) 2 (jet) two blade helis. L4 and 66.

You would appreciate a L4 is an entirely different aircraft to a 206 Jetty...

Arrrj

I suppose I need to apologise for not knowing precisely what a "206 Jetty" is referring to. 206A, 206B, 206L? I am still not sure.

And I must say, this is the first time in memory where someone referred to a new generation 206 as being a "completely different aircraft" to an older generation. Typically people hammer on Bell's current products for being extremely minor alterations to ancient designs.

JetRanger == models 206A-BIII
LongRanger == models 206L1-4

Good point hughes500... let me guess what you fly!!

down here in NZ, most 500s are stuck with the old 50-60 gal tank, so 2 hour hops everywhere, whereas most JRs have the range extenders... Thats the difference im referring to. in NZ 2 hr hops are not too much of a problem, as you go past a few pumps in 2 hrs, but in OZ or Canada, different story.

Now some NZ 500 owner is going to come on here and bleat that they have a fargo tank, well it would be the first one i have seen, and i have seen a few.

Just saying that you have to compare apples with apples, an example of 4 normal sized people and 3/4 a tank of gas is really hard to make comparisons about. I took 4 really large people plus myself over 9000' a couple of days ago in an old BII with the small tail rotor, no problem at all, and i have been in that same helicopter at about 13,500' full of pax.

But the guy wants a new machine so the JR is out. and sorry, whoever said it, but we won't all be flying them one day! you may be, but i won't.

ps, i may give the 500 boys a bit of grief sometimes, but I'd rather fly them than anything beginning with R...

Super F

Interesting all the 500's I know in the UK ( 22) except 3 have fargo tanks in them some even have the robertson giving 4 hours flying.Agrre about not flying machines starting with R !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!