mechanic Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Seems Rotorway was serious about all they have been talking about over the last few years. This looks to be a great little helicopter if they don't get too high on the price. FAA certified assembled, glass panel, RR300B1 turbine, wider cabin, 110 kt cruise and hook provision for sling training...1100 lbs useful!! link, Vertical Mag Article, Rotorway 300T 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanathpc Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Seems Rotorway was serious about all they have been talking about over the last few years. This looks to be a great little helicopter if they don't get too high on the price. FAA certified assembled, glass panel, RR300B1 turbine, wider cabin, 110 kt cruise and hook provision for sling training...1100 lbs useful!! link, Vertical Mag Article, Rotorway 300T WOW!!!!! This should stir up some conversation here! I like what I see.. Specs in regards to weight seem pretty good to considering... And to be priced lower than the R66? Look out Robinson cuz there is some competition finally!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick1537 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 It looks like it will carry 3 less people than the r66, I hope they would sell it for cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashed_05 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 So, would flight schools start using somethhing like that as a turbine trainer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanathpc Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 It looks like it will carry 3 less people than the r66, I hope they would sell it for cheaper. Yeah but if it's a "trainer" like the R22 is then shouldn't be a big deal right? I mean if that's the route they are trying to take this thing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apiaguy Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I think some schools will use it and market as intial turbine training. I don't think it will compete against the r22 or 300 on operational costs.. it will still cost more fuel and purchase cost will be significantly higher. I do think it would be a fun way to go to have a fleet of them for training... not that I think that it makes any difference to learn in a piston and transition to turbine...I don't think 1100 useful is anything to write home about... most pistons are capable of nearly the same and 500 on the hook is worthless.... less than just about any piston.. The 12E is capable of nearly 1300 on the hook... the 300C 850lbs....Just think that turbine is nice and fancy and sounds cool but costs 4 times more to overhaul and robinson has shown that a piston engine can deliver similar engine safety.... I'd buy one but am still leary of rotorways non certified stuff making the transition.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechanic Posted August 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 With the useful comment I was thinking IFR work with larger students, taking full fuel on long IFR training flights with the higher cruise speeds. You are getting up where fixed wingers travel and cruise speeds. Was wondering if this heli could cheapin up the hourly costs for IFR instead of using a 44II? PPL R22, turbine trans/IFR 300T, Com 300T and CFI R22?? somethin of the such.. Seems like it would be a good match since both have a semi rotor head, but would add a challenge if Rotorway spins the disc clockwise as all other Rotorways do. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 I like it! I'm glad they took my suggestion to put a hook on it Could be a good ship if they keep the price right... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Looks like a beautiful ship. I will fly one 15 years from now when all the crashes and NTSB reports and AD's are sorted out. Kinda the same learning curve Robinson went thru. Just one question though. There are 999 numbers out there you can use to describe your new machine. 3,12,22, 44, 47, 58,64,66,206, 212,214,269, 300, 333,407, 412, 429,500, 902 ...those are examples of numbers that have already been TAKEN ! Why on earth would you call your brand new flagship the same as a long standing, but totally different aircraft? Was there just not enough unused numbers for them to choose from? Guess its just me. Goldy Edited August 14, 2009 by Goldy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 I was wondering the same thing Goldy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechanic Posted August 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 Maybe they are using it because of the RR300 turbine?? Why not A60?T or somethin the like. The airframe does look to be quite a bit different from the A600, so IDK.. The aircraft looks larger than a 22 but smaller than a 300c/cb/cbi, to me in the photo's. I was kinda excited about the Cabri G2, but seems that thing is stalled for coming across the pond at the moment, with the dollar a little weak, so it's pretty expensive for a piston 2 seater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETTSET99 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 What are they thinking? here"s their big chance to change the dated look of the exec and they come out with that big clunker I'm ashamed for them do they think they can just put a turbine in their old outdated heli and people will buy it? super sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 What are they thinking? here"s their big chance to change the dated look of the exec and they come out with that big clunker I'm ashamed for them do they think they can just put a turbine in their old outdated heli and people will buy it? super sad Isn't that exactly what Frankie is doing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETTSET99 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 The R66 is a R44 turbinated Yes but it is based on the best selling 4 place helicopter and maybe the best selling helicopter in the world the R44. Now Rotorway could compete but they are dated.... if youngcopter gets going their kit business is in serious trouble thus collapsing this turbine terd! this will be the wild card for them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 $400-500k price range... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETTSET99 Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 For 400-500k one can buy a nice 500C/D good luck to them I just looked at it again wow the guys at rotorway need to really get a clue,hopefull the transmission wond be a chain in a oil bath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mechanic Posted August 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 All the youngcopters neo is, is a copy cat design.. Fuse- 520NSkids- Cabri G2Panel- R22Cyclic- R22Rotor- Cabri/Eurocopter youngcopter main youngcopter pics Cabri G2 gear 520N R22 interior Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 For 400-500k one can buy a nice 500C/D good luck to them I just looked at it again wow the guys at rotorway need to really get a clue,hopefull the transmission wond be a chain in a oil bath Well for $800k to a million for an R66 you could get an even better 500c/d or a pretty decent A-star... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Well for $800k to a million for an R66 you could get an even better 500c/d or a pretty decent A-star... Boys, Boys...its not the acquisition costs, its the operating costs that kill you. Besides you are comparing buying a used 500 or AStar compared to a brand new 66. Now, would I rather have a used 500 or AStar than a 66? Probably, but every month it would cost me more for fuel and maintenance that the 66 would. BTW-How did they get around the patent on the NTR technology? That's proprietary stuff...in fact I think the inventor still works for MD. Goldy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Very true Goldy...that's why I'm pulling for a Hiller C model with an Enstrom engine... I think Boeing invented the Notar then sold some of the rights to MD...?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Very true Goldy...that's why I'm pulling for a Hiller C model with an Enstrom engine... I think Boeing invented the Notar then sold some of the rights to MD...?? I know nothing of Hillers- just always heard that the E model was the strong one, the rest were underpowered....maybe thats why the upgrade to an Enstrom engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam32 Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 I know nothing of Hillers- just always heard that the E model was the strong one, the rest were underpowered....maybe thats why the upgrade to an Enstrom engine? It has decent power, but the turbo Lycoming would be SWEET! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETTSET99 Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 Boys, Boys...its not the acquisition costs, its the operating costs that kill you. Besides you are comparing buying a used 500 or AStar compared to a brand new 66. Now, would I rather have a used 500 or AStar than a 66? Probably, but every month it would cost me more for fuel and maintenance that the 66 would. BTW-How did they get around the patent on the NTR technology? That's proprietary stuff...in fact I think the inventor still works for MD. GoldyHi the notar patent is exspired! you forgot about insurance OUCH ! The 66 better sell or Robinson will be in deep dodo....Thiers over 400+ R44 for sale right now cant be good for new orders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted August 15, 2009 Report Share Posted August 15, 2009 I understood it was licensed to MD not sold big differance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotormatic1 Posted August 16, 2009 Report Share Posted August 16, 2009 The enstrom turbocharged engine has 225 horsepower, while the C model hiller has 210. Also, the enstrom engine is not vertical, so installing it in a Hiller would not be practical. Not much of a gain to install a 4 cylinder engine in place of a six. The E model engine has 340 horsepower, derated to 305. The best performing piston hiller was the SL3, with an injected turbocharged engine, and improved main rotor system. It was able to use 315 horsepower. Then you had the Soloy turbine conversion. 420 horsepower turbine engine, derated to 301. Hard to beat for utility operations in it's day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.