R44 vs 280FX
John Smith
piston (business use) helicopter down to two. The Enstrom 280FX (or F28F)
and the Robinson R44. They cost essentially the same new. I have done
exhaustive research on the Enstrom but know very little about the R44. I had
decided not to look at the R22 due to it's reputation, but the R44 may be a
more forgiving ship. I am attracted to the Robinsons due to their apparent
lack of required maintenance and high TBO times, which is the ONLY thing I
can find to dislike about the Enstrom.
The Robinson R44 appears to be faster, with a longer range, and can take up
an extra body and has a 540 instead of a turbo 360 (sounds more reliable).
But the Enstrom seems "safer" and easier to fly with it's 3 bladed high
inertia rotor system and more powerful (if dependable) engine.
If you guys were going to personally own and fly an R44 or 280FX two or 3
days every week and had to pay for your own maintenance which ship would you
own and why?
Thanks. Joe Kirby.
P.S. If you know anyone who is particularly "in the know" concerning the
R44 or Enstrom who wouldn't mind discussing this subject I would like to
call them.
Gary Allen
"John Smith" <john...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:FsU75.4031$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> If you guys were going to personally own and fly an R44 or 280FX two or 3
> days every week and had to pay for your own maintenance which ship would
you
> own and why?
>
> Thanks. Joe Kirby.
>
I'd buy a used JetRanger.
Gary
John Smith
couldn't justify the purchase or maintenance expense. Maybe I'm wrong?
Can a decent one be bought for 300k?
Got any idea what the direct operating cost/hr would be?
Are there any factory service centers in the Chattanooga, Tn to Atlanta Ga
area?
Thanks.
"Gary Allen" <rga...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:3960f...@news.iglou.com...
Seay
> I have heard that response before, but being a pilot/owner I assumed I
> couldn't justify the purchase or maintenance expense. Maybe I'm wrong?
> Can a decent one be bought for 300k?
> Got any idea what the direct operating cost/hr would be?
> Are there any factory service centers in the Chattanooga, Tn to Atlanta Ga
> area?
> Thanks.
Go to http://www.aero-access.com/
Based in Bristol, TN
Now owned by Bell/Textron
They rebuilt my 1968 206 in 1995 and I have nothing but compliments fot
their work and service.
You should be able to find a good Jetranger in the price range you listed.
Austin Jet http://www.austinjet.com/
acted as broker for myself between a private owner.
If you are new to the used helicopter market I would strongly recommend a
reliable broker to help you or else a good mechanic (or both)
There are almost no consumer protections when it comes to used aircraft.
Good Luck
Let me know if I can help.
N8988DR S/N327
John Smith
Sure would be simpler just to get a new FX280!
David Enson
Raven in the Feb. 2000 issue of Rotor and Wing and the March 2000 issue of
Flying. You need to fly all three machines, study the performance and safety
specs, the used helicopter market and overall operating costs off these beasts
and you'll find out why Robinson sold 150 44's in 1999, several times more than
all new Enstroms and Bell 206's combined. They're projecting sales of over 200
in 2000 and there's currently a four month waiting list. Take a cue from the
laws of supply and demand. No one waits in line for an Enstrom or a used 206b.
Smaller cities are buying 44's like craze for police and eng work. I too have
been shopping the market to buy a four place light business/personal ship. I fly
a 44 now but renting drives me nuts. I've talked to Austin Jet, Edwards, Lloyd
and the others. I've spent months looking at 20+ year old high time Ranger II's
and III's in the $300-350K range....I've talked to several operators and bell
shops and I love the woody I get in my pants when I twist the throttle to flight
idle at 15% and the turbine lights....but at the end of the day, the R44 is an
overwhelming winner unless you're rich or are planning to work the machine in
heavier utility operations. Then, the Jet Ranger might make sense. The Enstrom
is totally out of the picture for me. It's slow and has a terrible seat mile
cost.
Shaber CJ
>couldn't justify the purchase or maintenance expense. Maybe I'm wrong?
>Can a decent one be bought for 300k?
>Got any idea what the direct operating cost/hr would be?
>Are there any factory service centers in the Chattanooga, Tn to Atlanta Ga
>area?
>Thanks.
You can get a nice 500C for $200,000, which would be much more helicopter than
the R44 the 280 or a Used Jet Ranger.
Craig
Ron Donahue
Ranger or 500C for my boss. If I am paying for the maintenance bring on the
Robinson.
Happy Flying
Ron Donahue
"John Smith" <john...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:FsU75.4031$JZ4....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
John Smith
requires 200hrs before "manipulating" the controls and I just read the NTSB
special investigation of "loss of rotor control". Not sure I trust the rotor
design with the separate flapping hinges.
Unfortunately, I heard the 206 requires 250hrs in "type". That would rule it
out as a first ship. Is this true? Or can I buy and be trained in a used
206?
Joe Kirby.
"Ron Donahue" <ron...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ec995.10246$xL3.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Seay
> Thanks for the reply. This would be my first helo. I understand the R44
> requires 200hrs before "manipulating" the controls and I just read the
NTSB
> special investigation of "loss of rotor control". Not sure I trust the
rotor
> design with the separate flapping hinges.
>
> Unfortunately, I heard the 206 requires 250hrs in "type". That would rule
it
> out as a first ship. Is this true? Or can I buy and be trained in a used
> 206?
> Joe Kirby.
>
R22 pilot (new license) to a used jetranger and found it much easier to fly
than the R22.
Autorotation in the 206 is effortless -- including the hover auto that is
such a bitch in the R22.
It all seems to occur in slow motion with plenty of time and inertia.
Marc Whisman
>
> Thanks for the reply. This would be my first helo. I understand the R44
> requires 200hrs before "manipulating" the controls and I just read the NTSB
> special investigation of "loss of rotor control". Not sure I trust the rotor
> design with the separate flapping hinges.
Hi John. I don't have any R-44 time but I got my ticket in an R-22 and
I can't imagine that Frank Robinson would use a different rotor design
in the two helos. The R-22 doesn't have separate flapping hinges in the
rotor system. The top hinge is the teetering or flap hinge and the
lower two hinges are the coning hinges. It's what's called an
underslung system and it works pretty good as long as you keep it loaded
positive.
That said, the R-22 and R-44 require training in several SFARs. The 200
hours that you referred to above has an exception in SFAR No 73 (to Part
61) 2, (2), (ii) which allows you to substitute 10 hours dual
instruction in a Robinson which must include 5 hours in the R-44. If
you don't have a rotorcraft rating you must have 20 hours dual prior to
solo flight in the R-44. You also have to have a flight review annually
until you reach 200 hours in Robinsons.
The bottom line is that it is only slightly more complex to fly the
Robinson helos, and it comes in the form of SFARs that your instructor
must train you in and enter in your log book. Some of the training
(i.e. low 'g' avoidance) applies to other two-bladed rotor systems too.
regards
-Marc
John Smith
"Marc Whisman" <mar...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:39680AEC...@sprintmail.com..
.
> Hi John
(Somehow I replied wrong. Message came from Joe Kirby, not John)
> I can't imagine that Frank Robinson would use a different rotor design in
the two helos
You're right - I understand they're the same
>The R-22 doesn't have separate flapping hinges in the
> rotor system
Not being a helicopter guy (yet) I might have used wrong terminology, but it
is a unique rotor system in that while a typical two bladed simi rigid
system flaps one blade down while the other flaps up, in the R-22/R-44 they
can flap independently (i.e. they could both flap down, both flap up, or one
blade could flap up or down a greater amount in proportion to the other
blade flapping the oposite direction) That is why the NTSB requested the
R22/R44 not be allowed to fly until they could determine if it was a safe
design but the FAA decided training would suffice (plus a required governor
and a few more things).
I guess you can tell I'm losing interest in the R series but I'm going to
continue my research. Primarily I want to see if there have been any more
occurences of unexplained loss of rotor control in the R44 since the new
measures were put in place in 1995/1996. I will also have a chance to fly
one on Tuesday and I've just completed my first helicopter lesson this past
Friday(2hrs) in an R22.
The Robinson dealer was trying to discourage me from a Jetranger by saying
there was a 250 hour requirement "in type" before you could be a pilot in
command of a 206. "Seay" responded otherwise which is encouraging. I have
sent some emails to some brokers who I'm sure can clarify this for me.
One thing I'm learning, good helicopters arent' cheap.
Marc Whisman
>
> "Marc Whisman" <mar...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39680AEC...@sprintmail.com..
> .
> > Hi John
> (Somehow I replied wrong. Message came from Joe Kirby, not John)
>
> > I can't imagine that Frank Robinson would use a different rotor design in
> the two helos
>
> You're right - I understand they're the same
>
> >The R-22 doesn't have separate flapping hinges in the
> > rotor system
>
> Not being a helicopter guy (yet) I might have used wrong terminology, but it
> is a unique rotor system in that while a typical two bladed simi rigid
> system flaps one blade down while the other flaps up, in the R-22/R-44 they
> can flap independently
The flap hinge (also called the teetering hinge) is a single bolt at the
top of the Rotor. As one blade goes up the other MUST flap down the
same amount.
> That is why the NTSB requested the
> R22/R44 not be allowed to fly until they could determine if it was a safe
> design but the FAA decided training would suffice (plus a required governor
> and a few more things).
I think that what you are referring to is the negative 'g' issue. They
found that if the rotor is unloaded as when doing a cyclic pushover at
the top of a climb, the tail rotor effect can then roll the ship to the
right. If this happens pilots would then give hard left cyclic which
would cause mast bumping, where the rotor hub would contact the mast
first on one side then on the other side. The result would be
rotor/mast separation, and as my instructor would say: "You fall from
the sky". The correction for any weightless condition is to apply
gentle aft cyclic to load the rotor, then correct the flight attitude.
> I guess you can tell I'm losing interest in the R series but I'm going to
> continue my research.
I just wanted to clarify the 200 hour requirement that you mentioned for
the R-44. The same requirement is for the R-22, but instruction with a
logbook entry satisfies it with only 10 hours dual.
I only have experience with the R-22, so I'm the last person that would
recommend one helo over another. I do believe that the high TBO times
and convenience of the Robinsons warrants a closer look, but as always
YMMV.
regards
-Marc
Bob Barbanes
they're all the same (except for the infamous Robbie SFAR requirement, of
course). There is no "multi-engine helicopter rating." If you're license says
"Rotorcraft-Helicopter" you are "legal" to fly ANY helicopter that does not
require a Type Rating up to and including an S-76. Even the JetRanger is
included. As far as I know, there is no "time in type" requirement for flying
a Bell 206. A private pilot fresh out of flight school can do so legally.
But as we know, what is legal is not always practical or possible. Insurance
companies dictate pilot requirements more stringent than the FAA's. If you
actually want to have your new Bell 206 covered by insurance (surely a
requirement of any loan on the ship) then you'll have to meet THEIR open pilot
warranty requirements. But this would pertain to time in MAKE AND MODEL (which
insurance companies are anal about), not "time in type" which is a whole other
thing.
Marc Whisman wrote:
>The flap hinge (also called the teetering hinge) is a single bolt at the
>top of the Rotor. As one blade goes up the other MUST flap down the
>same amount.
I'm not real familiar with the Robbie head, but doesn't that goofy thing have
what they call a "Tri-Hinge Head?" Seems like I read that the blades can flap
UP, but now DOWN or some shenanagans. What's that all about?
Jim Carriere
> I think that what you are referring to is the negative 'g' issue. They
> found that if the rotor is unloaded as when doing a cyclic pushover at
> the top of a climb, the tail rotor effect can then roll the ship to the
> right. If this happens pilots would then give hard left cyclic which
> would cause mast bumping, where the rotor hub would contact the mast
> first on one side then on the other side. The result would be
> rotor/mast separation, and as my instructor would say: "You fall from
> the sky". The correction for any weightless condition is to apply
> gentle aft cyclic to load the rotor, then correct the flight attitude.
One thing to add to this- at low speed, if the helo begins to roll right
under 1g as you describe, and altitude permitting, you can use right
pedal and/or collective to effect a sort of safe "wingover" recovery and
end up in a nose-low attitude- where you'll pick up some speed for that
aft cyclic. This is in the flight characteristics chapter of the Navy
manual for 206, as opposed to the emergency procedures, so the reference
is a little obscure.
In a little plainer language, if the ship starts to roll right on you
after you pop up over a hill, you just "follow it around" with pedal.
Food for thought...
John Smith
"Marc Whisman" <mar...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3968A577...@sprintmail.com...
> John Smith wrote:
> The flap hinge (also called the teetering hinge) is a single bolt at the
> top of the Rotor. As one blade goes up the other MUST flap down the
> same amount.
From reading the special investigative report, the R22 R44 has both a
teetering hinge and coning hinges and the report states that this is the
only 2 bladed semi ridgid rotor system in existence that has the ability not
to flap one blade down while the other flaps up, although centrifigal and
aerodynamic forces usually make it do so.
> I think that what you are referring to is the negative 'g' issue. They
> found that if the rotor is unloaded as when doing a cyclic pushover at
> the top of a climb, the tail rotor effect can then roll the ship to the
> right. If this happens pilots would then give hard left cyclic which
> would cause mast bumping, where the rotor hub would contact the mast
> first on one side then on the other side. The result would be
> rotor/mast separation, and as my instructor would say: "You fall from
> the sky". The correction for any weightless condition is to apply
> gentle aft cyclic to load the rotor, then correct the flight attitude.
>
>
> -Marc
The original investigation in the 80's stated what you said. However, in
1992 a girl was recording her lesson on a cassette recorder and they
determined from sound spectrum analysis that the rotor blades were turning
about 540rpms (high but normal for an R22) and cruise speed was about 80.
Basically there was nothing to explain it but an abrupt cyclic input causing
the blades to immediately stall and diverge out of their rotational plane.
The mast bumping they determined to be secondary to the blades going
haywire. They have now said that even without exceeding the flight envelope
or putting the ship in light G loading, low rpm, etc. it is possible to
destroy the R22 in about .5 seconds with one abrupt move of the cyclic at
cruise speed. They suspect a strong gust could do the same thing. They said
with the R22 usually flying close to its gross weight and spinning a low
inertia high rpm rotor system, that the blades are always close to stalling
and a strong gust or input could be all it takes. With all the awareness
training, AD's, etc. in early 95, I'm trying to find out if there have been
any more occurrences of "loss of rotor control" in the R22 and especially
R44.
I did appreciate the suggestion of the other way of handling the low G
reaction of swinging right by following it around with the pedal. The R22
training just says pull some aft cyclic but it's good to know there's more
than one way.
Joe Kirby
Shaber CJ
>there was a 250 hour requirement "in type" before you could be a pilot in
>command of a 206.
That is pure Bullshit. Ask him for the FARs requiring 250 hours. The 206 is
an easy to fly bird. In fact I did my training in the 206. However, for my
money the 500 series is much more helicopter than the Bell products. Plus the
teetering rotor in turbulence is not much fun.
Marc Whisman
> I'm not real familiar with the Robbie head, but doesn't that goofy thing have
> what they call a "Tri-Hinge Head?" Seems like I read that the blades can flap
> UP, but now DOWN or some shenanagans. What's that all about?
I've never heard the "Tri Hinge" term before and I sure don't know
enough about other helos to know if this is standard in two-bladed
rotors or not. Robinson calls the top hinge the teeter hinge and the
lower hinges the coning hinges. Obviously with the teetering hinge when
one blade goes up the other MUST move down. I suppose it's possible for
the coning hinge to allow one blade to flap up without the other blade
flapping down, but that was never mentioned in my training. Other than
that, it's just called an unslung simi-ridgid rotor system.
regards
-Marc
John Smith
> Bob Barbanes wrote:
>
> I suppose it's possible for the coning hinge to
> allow one blade to flap up without the other blade
> flapping down, but that was never mentioned in my training>
>
> -Marc
From Joe Kirby:
It wasn't mentioned in mine either. The SFAR was explained as a result of
untrained new pilots doing things that would get "any" helicopter in
trouble. It was explained that all the fixed wing operators could now afford
a helicopter and new pilots were jumping in R22's and doing things no
helicopter pilot could get away with. While that might have been true in
some of the accidents, no other helicopter has had their rotor blades
diverge out of their rotational plane and strike the cockpit, especially
when being operated at cruise speed in calm conditions. The FAA stated there
have been no accidents of this sort from early 95 when SFAR 73 was initiated
through Nov 97 when the final FAA ruling made SFAR 73 permanent.
Unfortunately I have found several fatal accidents that have happened since
then in R22's where the rotor blade cut through the front of the cockpit
(internet NTSB database query search for all fatal helicopter accidents
since Nov 97, make = "Robinson").
I have totally ruled out an R22 in my life and even question training in
one, I flew in an R44 today and I can't rule it out. The 44 is almost twice
the weight, 2.5 times more rotor inertia, 6cyl Lycoming 540, has hydraulics
plus an electronic governor. It's got everything else beat hands down on the
maintenance side. Safety is the only issue left. All I can say is it felt
very smooth and stable, even in convective turbulence and skirting
thunderstorms.
David Enson
wrong. At the Robinson Safety Course today, they made us watch a 60's era Army
training film on mast bumping. It was part of the Army's response to a series of
fatal mast bumping accidents involving hueys and OH58's caused by low G and
other improper or abrupt maneuvers. In fact, there is an old CBS Sixty Minute
segment floating around about "mysterious vietnam helicopter accidents". This
show again focused on Huey pilots coming home in body bags from mast bumping
encountered during nap of the earth flying. In every case, the aircraft was
exonerated and the blame went to pilot training. You can also search and find
civilian 206 mast bumping accidents. Its the same story over and over. If you're
afraid of the R22, you shouldn't go near them. You'll just be an accident
waiting to happen. There are some wanna-be flyers that should not solo an R22.
More than any other training choppers, you need to work hard to achieve a level
of competence and confidence. But those pilots will ultimately reap the biggest
rewards from their training....without dying.
Bob Barbanes
low-inertia rotor being moved through the air at (relatively) high speed can go
divergent on its own or when excited by a random gust of wind and come slashing
through the cockpit or tailboom (your choice).
I'm not sure I buy this. Having said that, I have not studied the subject much.
But let's look at the little Robbie objectively. Light ship, low inertia
underslung rotor, yes. A careful, deft touch on the controls is required. And
yet the ship was mainly being flown by low-time flight instructors teaching
primary students. Is this any factor at all? Perhaps.
I think that until the peculiar characteristics of the Robbie were well-known,
pilots and instructors may not have been giving the little bird all the respect
it deserved. That is to say, you evidently can't muscle it around like you can
a Bell 47 or 206 and expect to get away with it. Sure, a 47/206 is intolerant
of low-g maneuvers, but who among us hasn't INADVERTENTLY floated pens and maps
and such in a 206 cockpit and lived to tell the tale? (Hint: Don't even TOUCH
the cyclic until the g's have started building again.)
If the R-22 rotor can be scooting along, hit an errant gust of wind and go
divergent, then it probably should be speed-limited to something lower than the
current VNE. And would be if the FAA/NTSB thought it was a serious
possibility. We don't see them raining down out of the sky any more, so
something must be different, and that is the way they are being flown.
Would I fly one? Tough question. Light-weight, high speed test runs downwind
of a mountain range on a blustery day after cold front passage? Probably not.
Rounding up cattle in Oz? Why not!
Bob -turbines only, and two of 'em!- Barbanes
Petroleum Helicopters
"The dignity of the craft is that it creates a fellowship."
Antoine de St. Exupery
Joe Kirby
"Bob Barbanes" <bh2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000713100247...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> I think the apprehension about the R-22 stems from the fear that the
> low-inertia rotor being moved through the air at (relatively) high speed
can go
> divergent on its own or when excited by a random gust of wind and come
slashing
> through the cockpit or tailboom (your choice).
>
> I'm not sure I buy this. Having said that, I have not studied the subject
much.
Thanks. You nailed my "apprehension" right on. That's why I love machinery
like motorcycles and helicopters and despise horses. My limited
experience on a horse leads me to conclude they have a mind of
their own and occasionally use it. With a high performance bike (I
own an R1) or hang glider I've always accepted that my skill
or lack of makes or breaks my day. I don't want to deal with
machinery that has a "mind of its own". That being said, I will continue
my training in the R22, but probably not in gusty or very windy conditions.
I have been in some hellacious conditions in hang gliders since 1972 and
also in
my piece of junk Rotec Rally 2B ultralight (1980 vintage) I have never
experienced panic, been ham fisted(although with the Rally 2B
you didn't have any choice) or been afraid (as someone suggested).
Sorry about the macho defense response to being called afraid,
but I'm going to be a damn good pilot (there I go again)
> If the R-22 rotor can be scooting along, hit an errant gust of wind and go
> divergent, then it probably should be speed-limited to something lower
than the
> current VNE. And would be if the FAA/NTSB thought it was a serious
> possibility. We don't see them raining down out of the sky any more, so
> something must be different, and that is the way they are being flown.
Actually the NTSB did ask for all flight of R22s and R44s to be restricted
but the FAA declined. I don't know what qualifies as raining out of the sky,
but the rotor going through the cockpit hasn't stopped, unfortuneatly. Here
are some snips from recent (since the final ruling on the SFAR)
a Robinson R22, N8457J, impacted terrain in a ravine near Littlerock,
California. The aircraft was destroyed and the commercial pilot/owner, the
sole occupant, suffered fatal injuries. One witness reported he heard a loud
"schwapp-like" noise followed shortly by engine silence, a helicopter rated
pilot, characterized the pilot as a "very conservative, better than average"
pilot whom "always wanted to learn more." He had "good ability for a man his
age." The two men had attended a CFI renewal conference at the HAI
convention in February (1998) where low-g flight and mast bumping were
discussed. The friend said "he was well aware of it."...
The indentation was approximately at the lateral center of the left seat and
exhibited the shape and size of the leading edge radius of the main rotor
blade.
There's a fatal crash on a training flight in Amport England - no info but
looks suspiciously similar
On September 29, 1998, about 1530 eastern daylight time, a Robinson R22B
helicopter, Argentina registration LQ-BJP, operated by Policia Pcia Bs As,
crashed into the ground after an in-flight separation of the tail section
(no further info yet)
On October 5, 1998, at 1405 hours Pacific daylight time, a Robinson R-22,
N801EH, collided with the ground while maneuvering over an open meadow south
of Lower Lake, California. The aircraft was destroyed in the impact sequence
and postcrash fire. The flight instructor received fatal injuries while his
student sustained serious injuries. The aircraft was operated as an
instructional flight under 14 CFR Part 91 by Sacramento Executive
Helicopters, Inc. The flight originated from Sacramento Executive Airport
earlier in the day, and departed Lampson Field, Lakeport, California, after
refueling about 1330 en route back to Sacramento. Visual meteorological
conditions prevailed at the time and a VFR flight plan was filed. Witnesses
near the accident site reported that they saw the aircraft fly over their
home eastbound across the meadow toward Hidden Valley. The aircraft was low
and the winds were gusting. The aircraft then turned and began flying back
in their direction. As they watched they saw the aircraft nose over and
strike the ground. Seconds after seeing and hearing the impact, they heard
the explosion as the aircraft burst into a fireball. A postaccident
inspection of the aircraft revealed that there had been contact between the
main rotor and the empennage.
On August 27, 1999, about 1015 Greenwich mean time, a Robinson R22B
helicopter, EI-MAC, registered to Eirecopter Helicopter, impacted with the
terrain ...witnesses that heard the helicopter before impact said the engine
sounded fine. The helicopter impacted in a 2-acre field. Plexiglas from the
helicopter was found in the field (usually from you know what) - no more
info available yet
On March 24, about 1249 hours Pacific standard time, a Robinson R22 Beta,
N8328Q, operated by Universal Air Academy in El Monte, California, descended
into terrain while approaching the (uncontrolled) Rialto Municipal Airport,
Rialto, California...Plexiglas bubble material and cockpit debris were
located near knife-like depressions in the soil which contained paint chips
matching the colors on the rotor blades.The continuity of the flight control
system was confirmed
>
Pat
hard to achieve a level of competence and confidence. "
Since you are in the TOA area, stop by Rolling Hills Aviation(1/4 mile west
of RHC factory on Airport Drive) and take a look at the R22 picture on the
wall - the one in the "non-standard" rate-of-turn. If it is not hanging in
the lobby, ask Bill Sherwood(proprietor) to see it. Falls under the "do not
attempt this at home".
Fly safely!
Pat