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

[jehh]

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.The Robinson is the only piston helicopter that comes with a governer as standard equipment.

 

True, but that is a governer issue, not a carb vs. fuel injection issue.

 

Now that I'm flying turbine helicopters, it all seems so much of a moot issue, but I do understand that in training, you want to be as safe as possible.

 

Given that as a desire, and given what I know about piston helicopters, I think the Raven I is probably a great training helicopter, it just needs to get a bit cheaper, and the R-22 needs to get a bit more expensive, before the changeover will happen.

[flingwing206]

True, but that is a governer issue, not a carb vs. fuel injection issue.

It is a "carbureted with governer" issue!

I think the Raven I is probably a great training helicopter, it just needs to get a bit cheaper, and the R-22 needs to get a bit more expensive, before the changeover will happen.

I agree with you about training in the R44, but the purchase price is not the issue - it's the TCO. It's going to be hard to ignore that $100/hour difference, even if Robinson closes the price gap to $50k.

[jehh]

It is a "carbureted with governer" issue!

 

Fair enough... But the governor isn't going away any time soon.

 

I agree with you about training in the R44, but the purchase price is not the issue - it's the TCO. It's going to be hard to ignore that $100/hour difference, even if Robinson closes the price gap to $50k.

 

What happens when the overhaul cost of the R-44 stays where it is, and the overhaul cost of the R-22 goes up $20K more? That is one way to get the TCO closer.

 

And yes, I know the purchase price issue is only a minor issue, but you also have to look at the benefits to your customers to fly in the R-44 from day one.

 

The fixed-wing world used to use C-152s to train in, over the past decade they have almost all moved to C-172s, many of them brand new aircraft. Why? The leaseback tax advantages are one point, but I think that point carries over to the R-44 as well. People who can afford it don't find the R-22 all that useful, but an air-conditioned R-44 is far more attractive.

 

If the TCO difference drops to $50/hr, I think that is when the migration will change from the R-22 to the R-44. After all, when Cessna restarted piston production in 1997, they did a survey of their flight school customers to find out if a brand new C-152 would be desirable. When the TCO come to almost 80% of the cost of a C-172, they balked, and thus Cessna dropped plans to make new 152s.

 

Of course, it all depends on what kind of flight school you run. Where I trained, 2/3 of their customers are not on a career track, they are doing it for fun. All their helicopters are leasebacks owned by people who want to get into ownership for less money. In that environment, I think it will happen sooner rather than later.

 

Anyway, those are my random thoughts.

[HH60Pilot]

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).

 

Fling,

 

If you check Endorsement One Paragraph A of the Pathfinder R44 policy, you will find that it reads as follows.

 

A. Flight instructors giving flight instruction in the R44 must have completed the RHC Factory Safety Course during the preceding six years and have logged at least 500 hours in helicopters, including at least 50 PIC hours in the R44.

 

This was the way the policy was written that I got from Pathfinder just six months ago. The reference to primary instruction has been removed, so any flight instruction given must meet the above listed requirements.

 

Doug

[flingwing206]

Fling,

 

If you check Endorsement One Paragraph A of the Pathfinder R44 policy, you will find that it reads as follows.

 

A. Flight instructors giving flight instruction...

Yep, looks like they took out the word "primary".

[Gerhardt]

I checked with the owner of my flight school yesterday about training in his R44. It rents for $600/hr but only with the CFI with you. It's not for rent w/o the CFI.

 

Is this the exception, or the rule?

[delorean]

I've been out of the loop when it comes to RHC for about the last two years, but R44s couldn't be rented under Pathfinder. Coverage "D" was unavailable.

 

So we got clarification that students could use it to build time and it was considered "training", not rental.

[kit]

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.

 

The 44 is a very capabile helicopter that allows us to push limits with ease and feel good about the experiance but we should always note the dangerous side of creating over-confidence in our students.

[kanedog]

The 44 is a very capabile helicopter that allows us to push limits with ease and feel good about the experiance but we should always note the dangerous side of creating over-confidence in our students.

 

Yes, sometimes over-confidence can be dangerous.

 

 

Does anyone have the contact info for pathfinder insurance......thx

[kanedog]

pathfinder anyone......

[i4iq]

Kanedog, I'm sure Robinson will be able to point you in the right direction...

[kanedog]

Kanedog, I'm sure Robinson will be able to point you in the right direction...

 

Got it 141q, thx. I had sent them(pathfinder) a fax and email but no response back, I thought I had the wrong info but they contacted me today.Thx.

I think you scared them into answering me.

[deadstick]

If the TCO difference drops to $50/hr, I think that is when the migration will change from the R-22 to the R-44. After all, when Cessna restarted piston production in 1997, they did a survey of their flight school customers to find out if a brand new C-152 would be desirable. When the TCO come to almost 80% of the cost of a C-172, they balked, and thus Cessna dropped plans to make new 152s.

 

You are correct. Cessna changed the face of the f/w training fleet in the late 1990's. It only took them 10 years to realize they were killing flight training. 2006 student starts are down 30% from 2005. You can't sell a primary trainer for $241,000 and expect the numbers to work for flight schools and aircraft owners. In 1997, the VFR 172R was about $130k or so. Now, the 180 hp 172S out sells the 160 hp -R by 8:1 and the 2007 line will be 100% glass. Finally, they have realized their "oops" and have launched this. The Cessna 158? The price will be less than $100k.

 

If Frank wants the Raven I to be the r/w 172 and can strip it down to $300k, then after 5 years at a 4% CPI, the purchase price will be about $365k. If the parts and insurance continue upward, too, how is the cost of training going to be reasonable at all? Hold it -- Frank controls those prices, too.

 

So, if the cost of training for a helicopter pilot is so much more than an airplane pilot, why aren't the financial rewards (ie PAY) proportional? Nuff...that's a subject for another thread.

 

As for the engine problems and fuel injection, you figure they could get something working if they really wanted to. There is either too much or too little fuel -- I know a real news flash. Is there an electric boost pump? High/Low idle setting? Just curious.

[wheatbix]

I can't see the 44 ever replacing the market that the 22 currently holds, not with its current purchase cost, but moreso its TCO.

 

The R22 is great to train in, especially with its agility and light controls, which makes it relatively easy to transfer over to other aircraft

[500E]

Deadstick Price of 158 = $172.00 For basic +++

[mechanic]

The Brantly has had engines quit during auto's and it's fuel injected. There is a short discussion on brantly.info and collective/throttle techn's.

 

brantly.info

click-flying

then click-autorotations

 

 

Also, the new IP looks nice.

IP

and cyclic grip

grip

[AeronauticallyInclined]

The Brantly has to be one of the ugliest helicopters every made. Also I wouldnt dare fly in one with the rotors being what looks like inches above the bubble canopy. Freaking scary if you ask me.

[wheatbix]

Im with AeronauticallyInclined

 

That thing looks like something out of the 50's.

 

I'd take an R-22 or 44 anyday.

[mechanic]

Im with AeronauticallyInclined

 

That thing looks like something out of the 50's.

 

I'd take an R-22 or 44 anyday.

 

Yes, they were designed in the late 50's. But, they are the leader of this new type of rotorhead design that companies like Bell, Eurocopter, MD, and Ansat have modified and started using in the last few years. Yes, the Brantly is old but, has some good features. Fuel Injection (no carb heat), no transmission drive belts, TBO of 3500 hrs on most major componets, the lowest is the sprag clutch at 300 hrs, no 12 year/2200 hour full rebuild, and S.F.A.R.73 and factory school to go to. I will say I like flying the R22, it is a challange to fly at times. I have not flown the Brantly yet, but look forward to the day I get to try one out for myself.

 

The Brantly has to be one of the ugliest helicopters every made. Also I wouldnt dare get in with the rotors being so close to my head. I don't need another haircut.

 

I can think of a few other models that have the ugly syndrome. But, the Brantly is not one of them in my opinion. I feel the paint scheme has a lot to do with how the Brantly looks. I have seen some bad paint idea's on the Brantly. I also only like the newer B2B bubble setup. With the low rotor height, when you change out passengers you go to ground idle and disengage the drive clutch and stop the the rotor/tail rotor from turning (much safer). Load a pass and reengage the rotor system and spin up.

 

 

I like these scheme's and colors for the B2B. The red/white is my favorite one. I also like the Beta red/white on the robbie, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[500E]

Is there realy enough power to run 2 lamps??

[brushfire21]

Nothing against the Brantly mechanically, but its not very easy on the eyes. Some sexyness is needed on some level for any aircraft or vehicle. The R22/44 isn't to bad compared the Brantly in the looks department. Its hard to drive anything that looks ugly IMHO!

 

Take this for example, adding one small component to the aircraft and its something completely different!:

 

Here is another example of sexyness, though I prefer the look of retractable landing gear!: (Swiped from Prrune I think?)

[Goldy]

Nothing against the Brantly mechanically, but its not very easy on the eyes. Some sexyness is needed on some level for any aircraft or vehicle. The R22/44 isn't to bad compared the Brantly in the looks department. Its hard to drive anything that looks ugly IMHO!

 

Take this for example, adding one small component to the aircraft and its something completely different!:

 

Here is another example of sexyness, though I prefer the look of retractable landing gear!: (Swiped from Prrune I think?)

 

 

Roger we can always rely on you when we need a bird dressed up !

 

BTW- Robinson fixed the engine dying problem on the R44, had to do with the way something was mounted....I wasnt paying a lot of attention when one of their pilots was telling me about it. But, I still dont see a fuel injected R22 !! I agree that the governor could mask an icing problem,....I detected the exact thing happening one night as I felt the throttle rolling on under my hand, at a time when I was flying straight and level...I immediately went for the carb heat...felt the power fall off slightly and then the power increased....I consider that a close enough call. I now move carb heat on and off more than the collective!! ( j/k there)...c ya

[Guest rookie101]

I thought we already had a discussion on what was the one of the ugliest (possible the ugliest) helicopter out there. The K-MAX 1200. It so ugly and goofy lookin! I would still fly one though.

 

pic. taken from verticalmag- "Photos from the Field" thread

 

BTW- B21 that picture of the 130 is from PPRuNe.

[mechanic]

In a perfect world. I think I would buy a R44II w/ac if I could afford a heli. The turbine engine is nice but I think I still would want to keep maint costs low as possible and the 44 is capable as a C172, but with more landing options.

 

 

 

I am glad that they have worked out the engine shut down problem on the 44, it will make it more appealing for sure.

 

 

 

Fly Safe..

[500E]

Nothing against the Brantly mechanically, but its not very easy on the eyes. Some sexyness is needed on some level for any aircraft or vehicle. The R22/44 isn't to bad compared the Brantly in the looks department. Its hard to drive anything that looks ugly IMHO!

 

Take this for example, adding one small component to the aircraft and its something completely different!:

 

Here is another example of sexyness, though I prefer the look of retractable landing gear!: (Swiped from Prrune I think?)

 

Give me the lady from patriot at least she is delivering

 

Fly a dream fly 500