The R44. What is its place in the Training Market?

[i4iq]

I've been chatting recently to someone who wants to get part of his ratings in the R44. At least 25 hours I think.

 

His view is that the R44 is going to play an ever increasing role in the training market and he wants to be ready for it. My initial re-action is that it may appeal to private buyers but I wouldn't have thought it would have the mass appeal of the R22 because of running costs. e.g. $320 + per hour.

 

Do you get paid more as an R44 instructor? Presumably it would be a benefit if a school needed both an R22 and R44 instructor but how frequent is that? Is it worth the added expense to get the time to instruct in one?

 

What do you think?

[West Coaster]

Well I can't try to answer this one concerning the heli industry in the US, but we've had a similar conversation about R44 vs BH06 training here in Canada.

 

Even 3 years ago almost every school in Canada had a JetRanger endorsement included in the commercial course. Recently the R44 has started pushing the BH06 outta the way. Now many schools here offer a R44 endorsement, and one or two even offer 1/2 the course in the R44 and 1/2 in it's 2 seat brother. Jet Ranger endorsements can still be done at most schools, but it's no longer a major selling point to the students. Up here a student is almost assured that their first job will be in a R44, doing patrols in the oil patch or charters in BC if you're lucky.

 

There are a few schools in Canada who offer the entire commercial course in a BH06 and these schools never have trouble filling the classes. Doubt the price of the R44 will make a difference.... up here anyways.

 

I wouldn't have thought it would have the mass appeal of the R22 because of running costs. e.g. $320 + per hour.

 

Oh Lord how I wish insurance rates were as kind here as they are down there. $320 US won't even get you an hour in a R22 here. Doubt you want to know what a R44 goes for!

 

Long live the Double-Deuce!

[alasvegascfi]

Well, with 700hrs just in the R-44 alone, I can tell you that you are not going to get paid MORE, as a CFI just because you can fly AND have the SFAR to instruct in the R-44.

 

Pathfinder of course, requires you to have 500hrs TT, 50 I think in type and the SFAR to instruct in the R-44, as well as the Factory safety course. - Not if you don't use pathfinder, then it will be different. But just about evey Robbie owner is using pathfinder... 1. It's cheaper 2. A lot of other carriers wont cover robbies.

 

Now, back to your ?. You will be MORE MARKETABLE if you have the above requirements. But in general you are not going to get paid more per hr, just because your school uses R-44's as well.

 

Generally, the higher time folks are going to be training and doing all of the photo shoots, etc in the R-44.

So if your at 500hrs and some of the other instructors at your school are at 750-800, you can bet your ass that they will be flying the R-44 and not you. - That's just the way it goes.

 

The R-44 as a trainer? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE - At an average rental of $400-500 an hour, who is going to want to get their ratings in an R-44? - Only people who are really really really rich or people who are planning on buying one or who own one already (again the really really rich) are going to train in the R-44 and pay those costs.

 

Robinson does produce more R-44's then R-22's, hard to believe, but that's what they report. I think it's something like 4 R-44s to 1 R-22 or something like that. In anycase, they are selling and making more R-44s and they can not keep up with the orders.... That's why when you buy one brand new, it takes u 4 or 5 months to get it.

 

Schools will continue to use the R-22 for training... They are not going to use the R-44. Would you want a 25 hr wonder flying YOUR R-44 solo? Noooooooooooooooo.

 

Now if your rich and you can afford it, sure they will train you in the R-44, knowing that when u wreck it, that you can pay for another one. - Most schools will not even rent their R-44 out. Try finding schools that rent an R-44 solo. Now there are some, my old school does in So. Cali, but most schools will not.

 

Again, in general your not going to get paid more as an R-44 instructor... but you will get the bennies of being the ONE person in your school whom is qaulified to fly it and teach in it...

 

I got lucky... I had 330hrs - 55hrs R-44 and the rest R-22 and I got a job flying tours in the R-44 in Minnesota... $600 a week fly or not. Plus I got to build a bunch of time and not have to instruct.

There are jobs out there like that, don't let people tell you that you can't get a job flying tours until you have 1000 hrs...

 

If you have 300 TT and at least 50 in the R-44, you can find jobs out there flying tours.

 

Good luck and fly safe.

[flingwing206]

If you go the R22 route for training and can afford the extra $3,000 ~ $4,000 premium, then the 25 hours in the R44 will be a great asset, as you will then be SFAR-able to teach in the R44. Ideally, do your Commercial training in the R44. At the very least, get the five hours of dual required to act as PIC. Of course, if an operator is using Pathfinder insurance, then you need 500TT and 50 PIC in the R44 before you can provide primary instruction (but you can still train any post-PPL students and do commercial work).

 

In any event, the R44 is having the same effect on the light-utility market that the R22 had on the training market. Operators are discovering that they can get by with a little less helicopter for a lot less money. After all, you can buy two new R44s for the price of one new Jet Ranger. As the cost and weight of installed equipment goes down, you will see the R44 continue to make inroads into the ENG and police market. I don't see the R44 growing substantially in the tour market, as the rear seat is a pretty tight fit for tourists.

 

Bottom line: if you are planning to get the R22 time, get the R44 time.

[alasvegascfi]

Oh ya, and not to mention that the R-44 is faster then the almighty turbine Bell 206BIII. LOL

 

You will not find that many ships that are as fast as the R-44... For a little piston, it cruises at an easy 120kts, all four seats filled, a lot of 5, 6 and 7 seat helicopters, can't even do it.

 

With two people, you can cruise right at it's 135KT VNE...

 

 

Plus it's always fun pulling 4G's in a 90 degree bank turn in the R-44.

 

Does full down autos like a dream, as well.

 

 

And if anyone says that it's not a good helicopter, please come to Las Vegas and I will show you how to do 20' foot hover autos in the R-44 and set it down like a feather. Can't be done you say???

Take me up on the challenge. 20' foot hover autos, no problem.

 

My old CFI would do them from 50 feet... But that's too high for my blood.

Not too many helicopters or pilots for that matter, can pull off a 50' hover auto...

 

The only thing that sucks about the R-44, is that ROBINSON still have not figuerd out where that stupid cyclic belongs... BETWEEN THE LEGS FELLAS... I know that they are trying to cut down on the weight, but that T-bar crap sucks...

 

Fly safe ya all....

[flingwing206]

Oh ya, and not to mention that the R-44 is faster then the almighty turbine Bell 206BIII. LOL

 

You will not find that many ships that are as fast as the R-44... For a little piston, it cruises at an easy 120kts, all four seats filled....

There must have been some parts missing from the Raven II and Raven that I flew - there was no way to stay within MP limits and get more than about 105 knots at max gross. That's about the same as a clean, low-skid 206 at 3100 lbs.

 

This thread isn't a comparo of the JR and R44 - they are very different anyway. The R44 created a niche where none existed, just like the R22. Neither aircraft has a direct comparison to any other (although the R22 competes more directly with the 300CB, they are still very different aircraft with very different strengths and weaknesses inherent in their design and execution).

 

The closest predecessor to the R44 would probably be the Bell 47G. If you need to carry 1480 useful lbs, the JR will do it. If you need to burn 100LL at 15gph while you get three pax across town quickly the R44 will do that. They both autorotate like a dream. But yeah, there's that d--d cyclic, and that d--d persnickity belt-clutch tensioning thingy.

 

So get the R44 time - another added bene is it is easier by far to transition from an R44 into a JR or Astar than it is to transition from an R22 (or Schweizer, for that matter).

[lockedcj7]

Frank Robinson would like to see more R-44's used in training. To that end, he's going to make a bare-bones Raven I available in the near future aimed at the training market. He's going to cut the price as low as he can stand and raise the price on the R-22 so that the the financial incentive to train in the R-22 is reduced. He admitted that he couldn't do anything about the fuel burn-rate difference. He's hoping to duplicate the replacement of the C-152 with the C-172 that has largely already happened in the FW training arena.

 

How do I know this? I had heard this as a rumor and I asked him point-blank if it was true when I attended the factory course a few weeks ago. He confirmed it.

 

Will we see tons of flight schools switching over immediately? Not likely, but I think it will happen eventually. At least until somebody comes out with a replacement for the R-22.

 

As for the cyclic, I had a problem with it too when I first started but now it seems perfectly normal. It actually wasn't designed to save weight as is often claimed. It was originally set up that way to satisfy range-of-motion requirements for initial type certification. The simplicity and weight-savings were side benefits.

[Tweedles]

alasvegascfi,

 

Please take the time to read this article written by Rey:

 

http://www.verticalreference.com/articles/...rticle_88.shtml

 

What makes you think that your statement: "Plus it's always fun pulling 4G's in a 90 degree bank turn in the R-44" is appropriate to post on a forum where many fledgling pilots and students come for advice?

 

FAR 27.337 says:

 

The rotorcraft must be designed for—

 

(a) A limit maneuvering load factor ranging from a positive limit of 3.5 to a negative limit of −1.0; or

 

( Any positive limit maneuvering load factor not less than 2.0 and any negative limit maneuvering load factor of not less than −0.5 for which—

(1) The probability of being exceeded is shown by analysis and flight tests to be extremely remote; and

(2) The selected values are appropriate to each weight condition between the design maximum and design minimum weights.

 

Something tells me there may be a bit of bravado in your 4G statement. I don't believe the R-44 is designed to handle 4G, even at Min. GW; and even if it were, a 90 degree bank (acrobatics) is not allowed per the RFM.

 

How about sharing some more stories, but this time include the aircraft's N-number? Or are you now going to turn shy on us?

 

 

My apologies for this reply being off-topic.

Tweedles

[jtravis1]

I think the ELT goes off at just over 3g's..... One time on a real agressive 180 auto it got set off....

[Niteshade]

My school runs an Astro mainly for instrument training - they say its better for IR training because it is a more stable platform. I would have to agree to some extent. But what I really perfer about the 44 is how much more comfortable it is for me to fly. I'm a tall fella @ 6'3" and I stagger around when I get out of the R22 after a couple hours. No problem in the R44.

 

I would predict that it becomes more popular for training, especially if a lower cost model is introduced. I think the learning curve would be flatter for low-hour wonders on the R44 as well - it is more stable and a lot less cramped. So maybe starting people out in a 44 and moving into the 22 would be a good idea?

[birddog]

lockedcj7 is correct (as confirmed by Frank) the idea is to turn the Raven I's into trainers. I will be curious to see what R22's price goes to. It may take some time but you will see more and more schools using 44's for training.

I can't remember the name of the school, somewhere in CA, but they were offering an instrument training program in a R44-IFR Raven II for $350 an hour. That is a deal!!

 

Not sure of the truth to it but I have been told that many of the GOM companies like seeing 44 time when they are hiring.

Any comments on this from anyone that knows for sure?

 

 

fly safe!

 

 

birddog

[flingwing206]

While I have not hear that GOM operators are specifically mentioning R44 time, it would certainly be advantagous. You actually have to plan an approach in the '44, especially if it's heavy. The first time I flew approaches in a Jet Ranger was after a couple of years in Schweizers - now THAT was an eye-opener. The R44 slows down a little more easily than the JR, and the power comes in more quickly, but there's a lot of good transfer there.

 

The R44 is a great, stable, roomy IFR trainer - it's also a great VFR trainer - I've been lucky enough to do a bunch of primary training in a Raven II. My only pick with IFR training is the layout of the panel - it's a long reach to the instruments, and very awkward to operate the GPS and comms. Overall though, if the R44 was the "Robbie", I'd have no problem being a "Robbie Boy"!

[SSH CFI]

Not sure of the truth to it but I have been told that many of the GOM companies like seeing 44 time when they are hiring.

Any comments on this from anyone that knows for sure?

fly safe!

birddog

 

I work for one of them, and have friends at two others... They could not care less what you were flying before, they want to know that you can fly down there, and their interview and training programs are designed to figure that out.

[kanedog]

Wisdom in flying, by alasvegascfi:

 

Can't be done you say???

Take me up on the challenge. 20' foot hover autos, no problem.

 

What is your name and what school do you teach at?

 

 

My old CFI would do them from 50 feet... But that's too high for my blood.

Not too many helicopters or pilots for that matter, can pull off a 50' hover auto...

 

The bravado you speak makes it look like you are a chip off the old block.

 

Plus it's always fun pulling 4G's in a 90 degree bank turn in the R-44.

 

What is your name, school and tail numbers on the above mentioned machine?I didn't think you would answer.If your brave enough to post that you do maneuvers that not many can do, you need to be brave enough to post your name, school and machine.Other than that, don't waste people's time.

 

 

With two people, you can cruise right at it's 135KT VNE...

 

And when a gust of wind takes you over vne, you have exceeded manufacturers limits established in POH(they are there for a reason) you may crash, kill you and your passenger. You are now a hero for flying right at VNE with a passenger. Please, please post your name so I won't have ANY of my family or friends Ever fly with you.

 

 

ROBINSON still have not figuerd out where that stupid cyclic belongs... BETWEEN THE LEGS FELLAS...

 

Yet more words of wisdom from this genius. You should phone Robinson right away to let them know they really missed out by not hiring you and you can show them what their machines can really do and how they should design them.

 

Fly safe ya all....

 

You sir, are an idiot. Start to follow your own advice and more people will be around to enjoy this great passion, flying not dying.

[i4iq]

So... Kanedog... what do you really think?!

[alasvegascfi]

Kane dog or who ever u are...

 

You sir, are the Idiot.

 

Did I not say come to Las Vegas? I clearly did not hide where I was.

 

First Flight Aviation.... come and see me. Ask for Mark

 

 

Happy? I have NOTHING to hide nor did I do anything wrong.

[Tweedles]

alasvegascfi,

 

Have you not read my reply posted on 3/20? Please explain how your 4Gs and 90 degrees of bank is allowed by the FARs and the RFM. The N-number please?

[kanedog]

"You sir, are the Idiot.

Did I not say come to Las Vegas? I clearly did not hide where I was."

 

I agree, I am an idiot. When you said come to Las Vegas you did not say where in Vegas you were.Last time I was in Vegas it was pretty large. I should have been able to telepathically feel your skill and wisdom aura and then I would have been able to pinpoint your exact location. Clearly.

[flingwing206]

Frank Robinson would like to see more R-44's used in training. To that end, he's going to make a bare-bones Raven I available in the near future aimed at the training market.

A carburetor on a piston helicopter remains a bad idea. On helicopters where you don't control the throttle, it has proven to be fatal. Please give us the FI. Another question - how does a Raven get any more "bare-bones" than it currently is?

[jehh]

A carburetor on a piston helicopter remains a bad idea. On helicopters where you don't control the throttle, it has proven to be fatal. Please give us the FI. Another question - how does a Raven get any more "bare-bones" than it currently is?

 

When I was at the Robinson Safety Course last May, I asked why there was no fuel injected R-22. The answer surprised me...

 

I was told that they did indeed have one in-house, they tried it and found it had the same problem the Raven II does, the engine has a nasty habbit of quitting during autorotations with the fuel injection. That is why they have not offered it on the R-22. He said when they figure out how to get the Raven II to stop quitting on the way down, they'll probably offer it on the R-22.

[flingwing206]

the Raven II engine has a nasty habit of quitting during autorotations with the fuel injection. That is why they have not offered it on the R-22. He said when they figure out how to get the Raven II to stop quitting on the way down, they'll probably offer it on the R-22.

Huh! I've done more than a few autos in the Raven II, never had a problem. Guess I was lucky! Of course, I never roll the throttle into the idle detent (except when practising power failure at the hover). I seem to remember a warning in the POH about throttle chops - I'll have to look.

[jehh]

Huh! I've done more than a few autos in the Raven II, never had a problem. Guess I was lucky!

 

I've never flown a Raven, 1 or 2, I'm just reporting what I was told while there. It was one of the instructors teaching the course, don't recall which one.

 

He said there had been several cases of the engine quitting during practice autos in Raven IIs, and they had the same problem in the fuel injected R-22.

[lockedcj7]

Frank went so far as to say that he thought that a pilot needed to learn to fly with a carburetor. I can't remember his exact reasoning but I think it had to do with learning about carb ice.

 

I personally think that the correlator and governor do a pretty good job with the throttle. Besides, you can override it with a firm grip and/or turn it off if necessary. At Robby school, we picked the helicopter up to a hover after turning off the throttle just to show how it was done. We rolled the throttle on to put RPM's in the green and then started pulling in pitch. The correlator tried to add more throttle so we actually had to keep rolling throttle off to avoid an overspeed. Setting it down was just the opposite.

 

On what helicopter besides the Schiewtzer do you actually control the throttle? B-47? Hiller? We never touched the throttle on the OH-58 after getting it up to 100%. Are other turbines different?

 

As for the engine quitting during auto, they are now teaching to roll off just enough throttle to barely split the needles. They have had several practice autos turn into the real thing in the Raven II.

[flingwing206]

Frank went so far as to say that he thought that a pilot needed to learn to fly with a carburetor. I can't remember his exact reasoning but I think it had to do with learning about carb ice.

I personally think that the correlator and governor do a pretty good job with the throttle. Besides, you can override it with a firm grip and/or turn it off if necessary.

The issue is that as the carb ices up, the pilot is unaware of it until the governer has reached WOT and the RPM starts to droop. At that point, you can't really do much about it except head toward autorotation. With a 'manual' throttle, you should note that you are having to keep rolling throttle on to maintain RPM.

On what helicopter besides the Schiewtzer do you actually control the throttle? B-47? Hiller?

The Robinson is the only piston helicopter that comes with a governer as standard equipment. It is an option on the 300C, but to be honest, you don't need it (and it doesn't work as well as the Robinson unit). No other piston helicopter in current production (Enstrom, Schweizer, Brantly...), or still in widespread use (Bell, Hiller) has a governer. Don't get me wrong - I like the governer, and Robinson's setup works excellently. But the trouble-masking properties of a governer combined with an icing-prone carburetor has proven to be a fatal combo. OTOH, the ease with which you can mange power in the Raven II, and the speed at which the power arrives is fantastic - it will spoil you for life.

We never touched the throttle on the OH-58 after getting it up to 100%. Are other turbines different?

All turbine helicopters have a fuel-control unit and form of 'correlator' which manages N2. I don't think I'd want to try to manage fuel flow in a JR by twisting the throttle!

[RotorWeed]

Is there a safety notice from Robinson about the engine quitting while doing autorotations in the Raven II? I’ve never had the engine quite on me during an auto in one.

 

Rotor