Counterrotate Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Any insight into these machines? Seem more popular in the EU than they are here stateside. Anyone owned or operated one? Reasons to buy or not to buy? I'm looking for a light, cost effective turbine and a 66 is off the list. My all time fav is a 500 but back seat pax hate them. I had to figure that they are not very popular for a reason, but I have never heard anything either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superstallion6113 Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) I worked on a few of them when I worked for Sikorsky Aircraft at the old Schweizer factory in Horseheads, NY. They had minimal issues, and we were selling a fleet of them to the Saudi MOI to use as flight trainers for their pilots. Roomy cockpit, but no back seats. While I never got to fly in one, they were easy to work on. Beyond that, I have no other experience with them. I'm not sure if its out yet, but Sikorsky was turning the 333 into a 434, basically 4 main blades, on a 333, with a little more power. Not sure where they are at with that, as it was still in flight test in our hangar when I left that job to begin my flight training in AZ. Edited January 25, 2013 by superstallion6113 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreating Brain Stall Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Great training aircraft. It's ugly in my opinion and I would lean towards Robinson or Eurocopter products (if it was a personal/pleasure aircraft) for reliable support and parts. Parts and support for the 333 has been an ongoing issue with schweizer and even worse now with Sikorsky (especially support). They finally got a 434 (four blade model) for the MOI. The 333 is pretty much owned by the Saudi government as far as fleet numbers. There are some in Mexico and a few domestic law enforcement agencies are using them. I think San Antonio and another in Florida (west palm beach maybe?). Overall it's a strong little machine and forgiving in flight. It's like a S300 on steroids with a Bell 206 B3 engine essentially. Very simple and plain aircraft. Edited January 24, 2013 by HeliFun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apiaguy Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) I'm very interested in the 434... I hope they can get their act together with it... it seems promising. The 333 starts as a turbine powered 300... then got upgraded blades and a little more power... the 434 adds a 4 bladed main rotor for better gross weight and speed, upgraded transmission and even more power (up to 320 hp). Usefull on the 434 is close to 1700 lbs... almost 2000 on the hook. No, it is not a people carrier, but I still like the idea of 3 sets of controls for training purposes. The Saudi's are running 434's... they are supposed to end up with 9. Edited January 24, 2013 by apiaguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S9coldfire Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 My school has one for its instrument trainer and for students wanting to do turbine. The rationale I heard was that it is harder to hot start - making it good for training students. Definitely not the prettiest looking bird though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkyMtnHI Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 coldfire, i think you might be a bit misinformed..i see by your avatar signature that you are in Colorado. There have been two 333s here in Colorado in the past, but at this time there are none in the State. The last one was repossessed about two months ago and will not be coming back.. (according to the owner who i spoke with three days ago, Tom Sands (406)755-6481).I have some experience with this platform and will try to share that with the OP.. I was approached a few years ago and encouraged to buy a 333 for a local school here. I was very excited and wanted to own a turbine helicopter, and, the thought of having three sets of controls and being able to teach two instrument students at the same time sounded like a good deal (now i know that no one wants to train like that, but as a newbee it sounded like a great pitch).Since i couldn’t afford to lose ~$500K i did a ton of research; i called everyone i could find that was operating the platform, at the time it was three different law enforcement agencies (none of them are flying the platform today). They all said the same thing (eerily almost in the same words), that it was a great ship ‘when it was flying but that it didn’t like to fly much’, meaning that the maintenance was pretty high and parts were hard to get (sounds like a helicopter doesn’t it). Then i went to HeliExpo and Schweizer announced that they were developing a new 434 model, well, that was it for me, here we had a company that hadn’t changed the 300 much in 50+ years, but in less than a decade they were discontinuing a model. And man was i happy that i backed out as that ship, the one below, was trouble from the day it landed on the ramp (they found other investors to buy it). It failed in flight two or three times and ended up being permanently grounded for tail boom cracks in the end. You can see that some of the photos in the add on controller are ones that i took, it’s odd tho, that the add doesn’t say anything about the ship being in parts and not flying for the past year or so..http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/SCHWEIZER-333/2003-SCHWEIZER-333/1256209.htm So, being intimately involved with the ship above, and watching the owners suffer thru trying to keep it flying, i had a really poor opinion of the platform. I only flew it about ten hours, but really liked it; lots of power, tons of room, although more of a three seater than a four, the seating was kinda weird at first, but you grow to like it, especially when flying friends or on a cross country.. they don’t like to slow down on final but you get used to that quickly too. Since this one kept failing in flight i stopped flying it cuz i didn’t want to die, but some of my friends flew the crap out of it for a couple of months and loved it (note; a couple of months). Finally a couple of years ago it went down for good and it was parked.Then, about a year ago, this ship showed up:http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/SCHWEIZER-333/2008-SCHWEIZER-333/1268149.htm... and it flew, and flew, and flew. It was flying all the time.. and, it looked good doing it. It had some help as they constantly robbed parts off of the the one from above which was sitting on the floor in the hangar.. but, it kept flying. Some say that the type is ugly, that it looks like a fishing lure, but i think it’s the paint job and this one looks really good. Then it was gone, i heard rumors about a buyer, and that it was taken back by the owner but didn’t pay much attention as that’s a common thing with this operator, but then a buyer called me asking about the same ship as it was listed on controller. I told him that it flew a lot and i thought it was a good ship, he asked me to look into it and i did. I spoke with Tom and he seems like a really straight up guy. He knew that there were parts from the other ship and he was working on getting all of that straightened out.. I really liked the guy and would do business with him for sure.  So, would i buy one of these for training? No! Would i recommend this ship for a private owner, yes, and i already have. I think that, as in any aircraft acquisition, you have to be very careful and do an extremely diligent pre buy.. and it needs to be done by a reputable operation NOT connected to the seller. In this case; Tom’s ship, he offered full disclosure and takes good care of his aircraft. I also agree with apiaguy, the 434 sounds like it might have some of the issues solved.. If you have any further questions please pm me here.. i’ll always try to help.sincerely,dp 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counterrotate Posted January 25, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 That was EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you! Sounds like a no-go to me. I think the seating looks cool and it would be great for tours if it actually sat four. I have no idea why there would need to be three sets of controls in it. That just seems dumb. It's hard enough figuring out who's flying when there's two sets of controls. And I certainly don't want to buy a hangar queen. We need something that is going to work and work hard. And I have heard about the parts situation getting worse since Sikorsky took over production. I don't want to buy something I can't get parts for. Thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreating Brain Stall Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 For the three control figuration someone else might be able to she'd some more light on it, but I have herd that the government was looking for that configuration and schweizer was the only one that actually pursued the contract that didn't go anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013 SK Service & customer suport!! you are having a laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingBuma Posted January 25, 2013 Report Share Posted January 25, 2013  So, would i buy one of these for training? No! Would i recommend this ship for a private owner, yes, and i already have. I think that, as in any aircraft acquisition, you have to be very careful and do an extremely diligent pre buy.. and it needs to be done by a reputable operation NOT connected to the seller. In this case; Tom’s ship, he offered full disclosure and takes good care of his aircraft. I also agree with apiaguy, the 434 sounds like it might have some of the issues solved..  dp For the $500K you mentioned, wouldn't it make more sense to buy a used 206 as a training aircraft?? There are still a lot of them around and having CFIs and students with 206 time could look good going forward in their careers..... MGB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choppercop2718 Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I have about 300 hours in the S333 model from about ten years ago. ITS A PIECE OF JUNK...RUN AWAY FROM IT. San Antonio, Houston and some Mexican and U.S. govt agencies had them. SAN had one sure enough failure that resulted in a "hard" landing. I think they had a second problem but can't say for sure. HOU had two "hard" landings and other problems resulting in one not being repaired and being bought back by S. The other was grounded and eventually sold to a company in Europe. The Schweizer websites' descriptions of the "capabilities" of the aircraft went way beyond poetic license into the gray area just before fraud. For instance Schweizer claimed that the aircraft could carry 400 pounds worth of crew, and a full tank of fuel and hover on a 95 F degree day. I tried on many days that were a lot cooler than that and never got light on the skids with that load. Four seats are a joke. Two of your pax had better be 12 or younger. As for the ability to have three sets of controls; the Army was looking for a trainer to replace the B206. Schweizer's plan was to put the instructor in the middle with students on the left and right. This is a terrible plan as there is a huge instrument panel in the middle in front of the instructor position. The B206 was retained by the Army and the S333 was sent packing. This is a terrible platform, it handles badly, it porpoises in windy conditions, it has no power to speak of when carry a load, it is slow, when the doors are off your arm is in the slipstream. I could go on for hours. I do have one positive thing to say about it. It does auto-rotate well. The engine is the same as a B206 or MD500. The comment about it being harder to hot start is not accurate; it will hot start just like any other turbine. If you look it over very closely you will see that it is mostly a Hughes 300. It was certified as a 269D. Their plan was to use the 300 platform and the 500C rotor-head, but they could not get permission to do that so they wound up with this NOT 300 and NOT 500 by a little of both. An R44 is a much better aircraft than a S333. If you feel you must have a turbine the MD 500 is a fast and great handling aircraft it also is cheaper to operate than a B206. Yes there is not much creature comfort in the MD 500 and there is virtually no baggage space if you have four pax. You did not say what your mission was. If you need cargo space the B206 is the way to go. It is also a great aircraft and uses the same engine as the MD500. I have time and experience with all four of the mentioned aircraft. I have not flown an R66 but I would imagine that it is a great aircraft like the R22 and the R44. I hope this helps 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 That was EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thank you! Sounds like a no-go to me. I think the seating looks cool and it would be great for tours if it actually sat four. I have no idea why there would need to be three sets of controls in it. That just seems dumb. It's hard enough figuring out who's flying when there's two sets of controls. And I certainly don't want to buy a hangar queen. We need something that is going to work and work hard. And I have heard about the parts situation getting worse since Sikorsky took over production. I don't want to buy something I can't get parts for. Thanks again! Take a flight in an Enstrom 480B 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counterrotate Posted January 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 Take a flight in an Enstrom 480BÂ I like Enstroms. Very solid flying aircraft. Never flown a 480B but I have flown a 280FX and I was impressed. They are on the list. I was really just asking about the 333 because I have heard very little about them and didn't want to rule them out until I had some insight into the machines and customer support, parts, etc. Which I got. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 I like Enstroms. Very solid flying aircraft. Never flown a 480B but I have flown a 280FX and I was impressed. They are on the list. I was really just asking about the 333 because I have heard very little about them and didn't want to rule them out until I had some insight into the machines and customer support, parts, etc. Which I got. Thank you! Yeah, feel free to rule them out! Here's my thoughts on the 480B. I like this story, (maybe because I wrote it). http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1v4zc/RotorcraftPro0112/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.free.yudu.com%2Fitem%2Fdetails%2F455547%2FRotorcraft-Pro_0112%3Fedit_mode%3Don If I was looking for a small turbine, in the 600-$1M range, this is what I would buy. Goldy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Counterrotate Posted February 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Yeah, feel free to rule them out! Here's my thoughts on the 480B. I like this story, (maybe because I wrote it). http://content.yudu....12?edit_mode=on If I was looking for a small turbine, in the 600-$1M range, this is what I would buy. Goldy Read that when it came out (I get Rotorcraft Pro). It was a great read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Don't forget the oil cooler scroll AD Another one to spoil your 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.