Selecting the right helicopter...

[Hook_Em]

Hello. I will be finishing up my license in a month or so and I am looking to buy my first helo. I live in the D.C. area and here is sort of what I am looking for:

 

- Comfortable Interior

- Seats at least 4

- Range of at least 300 miles

- Reasonable mx costs

- Easy to operate and maintain

- Comfortable to fly (doesn't kill you after a few hours in the seat)

- Ability to cross Appl. mountains (Avg. 3,000 ft.)

- Price range: try to keep it under $500,000.

 

The helo will be used for little to no work at all. It will mostly be a commuter of ranges from 100-300 miles. I don't necessarily need anything extremely fancy but I would like the option of having an upgraded interior for business associates. I am an enthusiast but never an owner and pretty new in general to the helicopter market. I am looking at the Bell 206B or 206L but can't really decide. However, I don't know what else is out there that might be a better choice for what I need.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[dangerouslyclosetoavolcano]

R44 Raven 2

 

This is what I believe you are looking for. For your requirements, a brand new R44 is a much better option than a late 70's jetranger. This little puppy is also faster than a B206

Edited December 12, 2005 by dangerouslyclosetoavolcano

[Hook_Em]

R44 Raven 2

 

This is what I believe you are looking for. For your requirements, a brand new R44 is a much better option than a late 70's jetranger.

 

 

 

Thanks for the information. My concern with that aircraft is that I am not extremely familiar with the reliability and overall safety/quality of the aircraft. In your opinion, is the aircraft reliable and dependable?

 

Thanks again

 

Jeremy

[dangerouslyclosetoavolcano]

Piston reliability used to be an issue, it is really not the case anymore. It can be successfully argued that they are even more reliable than turbines these days. If you have not attended the Robinson factory safety course, you should sign up asap if you are wanting to pursue the R44 idea. I believe having attended the course is a pre-purchase requirement anyways. You will also want to read pages 36-37 in your FAR/AIM titled SFAR 73. Your CFI Im sure can give you the 'low down' on what you will need to do inorder to satisfy FAA requirements.

[Hook_Em]

Piston reliability used to be an issue, it is really not the case anymore. It can be successfully argued that they are even more reliable than turbines these days. If you have not attended the Robinson factory safety course, you should sign up asap if you are wanting to pursue the R44 idea. I believe having attended the course is a pre-purchase requirement anyways. You will also want to read pages 36-37 in your FAR/AIM titled SFAR 73. Your CFI Im sure can give you the 'low down' on what you will need to do inorder to satisfy FAA requirements.

 

 

Thanks! You really opened my eyes to the Robinson. I hadn't really considered it before...I thought it cheap and unreliable. Thanks for the information, I will continue to do my research before buying anything but you have helped a great deal!

 

Thanks

[dangerouslyclosetoavolcano]

You're welcome, the R44 raven II would definately be my bird of choice but there are many who prefer the enstrom. I would recommend checking them out also although I think they will only seat three.

 

Enstrom

[flingwing206]

I'll second the Raven II - it's as safe as the pilot flying it. With conscientious maintenance, it is as reliable as any aircraft flying (and more reliable than most). It even sounds pretty darned good for a piston ship, especially when you first crank it up!

Edited December 14, 2005 by flingwing206

[rotor91]

I'll second the Raven II - it's as safe as the pilot flying it. With conscientious maintenance, it is as reliable as any aircraft flying (and more reliable than most). It even sounsa pretty darned good for a piston ship, especially when you first crank it up!

 

Check out the Robinson website for the R-44 Raven II, click on operating costs. DOC is $129.90 based on 500 hours a year, and new they're $360,240. And it was said in this thread, it's faster than the 206. A great ship to fly too!

 

http://robinsonheli.com/r44ravenii.htm

 

Good luck!

 

Rob

[Hook_Em]

Thanks all. I will check into the enstrom but ya'll have pretty much sold me on the Raven. I plan to go visit the dealer tomorrow since it is only about 45 minutes away and do a little more research. Thanks again!

 

Jeremy

[blave]

Thanks all. I will check into the enstrom but ya'll have pretty much sold me on the Raven. I plan to go visit the dealer tomorrow since it is only about 45 minutes away and do a little more research. Thanks again!

 

Jeremy

 

Here are my comments, as a low-time renter pilot with 45-ish hours in the R44:

 

1. I think a Raven I will suit your needs. A Raven II has a little bit more carry capacity, and quite a bit more high-altitude capability. Also, you can only get the air conditioning option on a "II" model. But, otherwise, save some $ and get a Raven I if you're not going to be dealing with high Density Altitudes for your landing spots.

 

2. Just like most four seater fixed-wing aircraft, the R44 (Raven I or II) is IMO only a 4-person helicopter on paper, unless you and most/all of your pax are

 

3. The stated DOCs on the Robinson site are, to put it mildly, "idealized". At the very least those numbers do not consider the cost of insurance. I have a friend that operates a leased R44 and his DOCs are > $300 an hour. Even if you own the ship outright, I suspect your numbers will be more than what RHC publishes.

 

4. No Enstrom that I know of carries more than 3 people. (Legally 8^) . )

 

5. All that said - if I had $1M to spend on a helicopter, there is no other choice than an R44. Sure you can get a (used) turbine ship for less than that (even an EC120) but the fuel and mx costs will eat you alive. The Robinsons have a reputation of having very few Unscheduled Maintenance events, and (IMO) even a non-hydraulic-equipped R44 is a very nice helicopter to fly for the per-hour cost - and getting a boosted one is just icing on the cake.

 

Good luck on your decision,

 

Dave Blevins

[flingwing206]

Raven II. Why? Two words: Fuel Injection - which eliminates these two words: Carb Ice.

 

Sure you can use carb heat, but with FI, carb ice becomes a particular hazard you never have to worry about.

 

Our costs on our Clipper II were about $280/hour - we did not use Pathfinder.

[Rotor7e]

Go with the Turbine Enstrom. It holds 5, If safety is what you want as well as re sale value, this is the machine for you. It also has more rotor inertia and it fly's better. Check the accident rate between the Enstrom and the Robinson. The last time I checked the Enstrom has never had a fatal accident in North America.

[flingwing206]

The Enstrom is a great helicopter (I have somy happy hours in the 280C), but the 480 is almost double the purchase price (new) of the R44-II, and it costs about $80/hour more to run.

 

It is in every way more helicopter then the R44, so if you want or can afford more, go for it!

[helidoc]

A couple of years ago I went through the same analysis about which helo to buy after I decided the Enstrom 280FX I owned needed another seat position. Should I get a new R44, used 206, used Enstrom 480 or used EC120? For what I felt I could afford I really couldn't find a nice 206. I thought I might just barely get an EC120 but maintainance costs scared me and it is French and I would really rather have something made in the US. Plus the blades turn the wrong way (LOL). I came close with the R44 but was concerned about higher altitude performance, narrow cabin and funky controls. I trained in the R22 and always worried about flying in it although I never had any problems. I found that going from the R22 to the 280 was like driving a old VW and going to a Cadillac so I had that bias. The R44 was definitely more afordable for my needs. Ultimately I found a good deal on a low hour 480. I love the turbine motor, the cabin is wide and comfortable, I feel safer with the high inertia rotor and the performance is adequate for my needs. It is not really high tech but more like a reliable old tractor in its simplicity. The down side is that since it uses jet fuel you have to plan your fuel stops more closely, there are only a few qualified CFI's to get your insurance check rides (yearly with my insurance so I have to fly somebody out), it's not quite as fast as an R44, and annuals and 100hr inspections are really time consuming (usually for me it is a 5-6 week event). I am happy with my choice and would do it again. For your needs if you can find a good used 480 go for it but if you can't the R44 is a reasonable 2nd choice IMHO.

[500E]

mistake sorry

[Rotor7e]

Pretty ridiculous reason not to buy a certain type of helicopter: Because it's French!! C'mon Doc, you can't be serious with that one!

 

 

 

IF the French made Pamela Anderson I wouldn't screw her. Well I might, but I wouldn't tell people I enjoyed it...

[SuperF]

stick with your original plan and go the Bell way. You can easily get a low time JR for under $500 and even if you have to put a few dollars into making it pretty you will get a new looking machine.

 

Nothing against the 44, a great little machine and all, and if you can get what you want into it then it would posably be the way to go. Probably cheaper to run in the short term, but would have thought insurance was better on a JR or LR, for the same $$ value?? don't know myself.

 

The reason i say go with Bell is that you are getting that much more helicopter for your money. Probably make the 44 people jump up and down but the fact is that you can get 5 plus luggage into the JR, and should be able to get into and out of virtually anywhere within your altitude. A 206L would struggle if you filled it up, but an L1/C30 would do the same with 7 plus luggage.

 

Also with the Bell if you are flying with only 4 onboard then you have that much more room in the cabin. I know people use the 44 seats for luggage, but it can only be soft, as in the event of an accident they are supposed to compress. If there is something hard in there it just tries to punch another hole!!!

 

I have not done it yet but would like to put 4 people, some gear, and 2 hours gas and have a trial between a 44 and a JR. while the 44 will cruise faster when empty, when its fully loaded i would have thought that it would slow down to JR speeds, haven't done it yet tho.

 

Forget about safety record as a reason to buy any individual helicopter, the JR was the safest in the world, and if the crown has gone it would be to either the 44 or 22. As has been said it comes down to the pilot, and type of operation, and in your flying, with a good maintenance shop you should have no trouble.

 

My last point would be to look at resale, if you plan on trading at somepoint. The JR would not loose much value as it is about as cheap as it will get, as for a second hand 44, probably halve in value??

 

If the french made Pamela i would brag about it, but as with all things european i don't think i could afford her!!

[SuperF]

But they didn't, because.... Her ancestry is Finnish.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000097/bio

...

 

 

Are all those scandinavian women that hot???

[helidoc]

Pretty ridiculous reason not to buy a certain type of helicopter: Because it's French!! C'mon Doc, you can't be serious with that one!

IF the French made Pamela Anderson I wouldn't screw her. Well I might, but I wouldn't tell people I enjoyed it...

LOL....I knew that French comment was going to get to someone! I debated about leaving it out but I was never known for my political correctness. Ultimately though, here in the states it usually is easier to get parts that are made here, quicker and for less and we all know helicopters love parts. Money aside, if you twist my arm behind my back I would have to agree that from an overall technology viewpoint the EC120 is a nicer helicopter. Now cars on the other hand......well we won't go there in this forum.

[Eric Hunt]

Nothing wrong with making tractors - David Brown (Aston Martin) and Lamborghini both started out like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Waiting for somebody to point out that Ford owns both of these companies now...)

[SuperF]

do ford own both of them?? I thought that GM had the lambos. not that it concerns me i don't drive either. Funny tho i haven't seen too many FRENCH audis or bmw's..., german maybe, and they make good bikes too. Italians do great bikes cars and choppers, let me think about the french???

 

now a 2CV versus a viper, vette, mustang..... ha ha just a little joke, we don't make any helicopters in New Zealand so we only fly them.

 

don't know if you guys get the Worlds Greatest series on TV but in NZ they just had helicopters and the Bell Huey was number 1. sorry but no eurocopter even made the top 10.

[SuperF]

i really was only talking about Ferraris, and i guess lambos as well. i can only tell by what they look like, having never driven one.

 

Hueys on the other hand, still the greatest at what they do. forget, smoothest, fastest, biggest etc, in the 2 tn load class, for lifting work, can't be beaten.

 

And as you said, they are a legend.

 

there you go we have solved the problem, buy a huey. can get a good restricted cat one for about the same as a JR, you're flying a REAL helicopter, will get into most places that you would consider landing anyway, definitley wake up the neighbours when you are in bound, make all the local horse owners go mad, and only use about 6 times the gas of a 44.

 

PERFECT

 

great thing tho, is you can put a double bed across the back and go camping...

[floripaolo]

there you go we have solved the problem, buy a huey. can get a good restricted cat one for about the same as a JR, you're flying a REAL helicopter, will get into most places that you would consider landing anyway, definitley wake up the neighbours when you are in bound, make all the local horse owners go mad, and only use about 6 times the gas of a 44.

 

PERFECT

 

great thing tho, is you can put a double bed across the back and go camping...

 

Get a 214. 1000 pounds of fuel/hour but you climb at 3500 feet/min -> no waist of time!

You can comfortably sleep 4-5, no power issues and the coolest sound a helicopter can have.

 

BTW get the extended tank. That will give you the range you need...

 

fp

[SuperF]

Get a 214. 1000 pounds of fuel/hour but you climb at 3500 feet/min -> no waist of time!

You can comfortably sleep 4-5, no power issues and the coolest sound a helicopter can have.

 

BTW get the extended tank. That will give you the range you need...

 

fp

 

yep forget the little huey, get the big huey, bigger, faster, thirstier, all those good things

 

comfortably seat 4-5 in armchairs most comfortable ride around. even get a fridge and cabin attendent in the back.

 

Pamela maybe ??

[John90290]

You're welcome, the R44 raven II would definately be my bird of choice but there are many who prefer the enstrom. I would recommend checking them out also although I think they will only seat three.

 

Enstrom

 

Make sure you read this ntsb reprt on the r-22 and r-44. Basicaly it was not conclusive but i have yet to see an investigation of this depth carried out on another piston helicopter. I mean they got Georgia Tech to build a computer model? That demonstrates to me some concern on the part of the ntsb. The charts and such are amazing. I am sure this is covered in the saftey course at the factory.

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf

Edited December 27, 2005 by John90290