apiaguy Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 The 269B: The best training/private ownership helicopter out there. The design is the same as manufactured today and you can get any part you need from the factory (although 2007 price book is scary)The HIO-360-A1A engine is powerful and allows gross weight in ground effect hover at 7700 ft. (stp) vs 5200 for the C model. It turns 2700-2900 rpm making it much more reliable than the D1A engine in the C model that is prone to failure and premature wear spinning up to 3200.While the B model only has about 600 lb useful, it is not much less than many equipped C's... alot of which push 1300 empty (or more) for a useful of 750 lbs.It has 5 fewer time limited components. Cost savings $$Spare parts can be readily found on the used market as it is identical to the TH-55 (besides the engine and cockpit configuration).The speed thing is not really a factor as you don't usually plan on flying a C model over 75 kts in cruise and it's a helicopter! What's your rush?I wish a company would produce an aftermarket main rotor blade at a reasonable cost! I believe if there was one, the 269A and B fleet would be revived and see much more use. Alas, I suppose a fleet of @1000 helicopters isn't enough demand for the financial investment.If you have the means..... I highly recommend flying/owning one. Quote
jet trash Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 The 269B: The best training/private ownership helicopter out there. The design is the same as manufactured today and you can get any part you need from the factory (although 2007 price book is scary)The HIO-360-A1A engine is powerful and allows gross weight in ground effect hover at 7700 ft. (stp) vs 5200 for the C model. It turns 2700-2900 rpm making it much more reliable than the D1A engine in the C model that is prone to failure and premature wear spinning up to 3200.While the B model only has about 600 lb useful, it is not much less than many equipped C's... alot of which push 1300 empty (or more) for a useful of 750 lbs.It has 5 fewer time limited components. Cost savings $$Spare parts can be readily found on the used market as it is identical to the TH-55 (besides the engine and cockpit configuration).The speed thing is not really a factor as you don't usually plan on flying a C model over 75 kts in cruise and it's a helicopter! What's your rush?I wish a company would produce an aftermarket main rotor blade at a reasonable cost! I believe if there was one, the 269A and B fleet would be revived and see much more use. Alas, I suppose a fleet of @1000 helicopters isn't enough demand for the financial investment.If you have the means..... I highly recommend flying/owning one. I've owned a Brantly B2B, 3 Hughes 300C's, an OH6 (standard category), an Enstrom 280C and a TH55. Of all of them my favorite was and still is the TH55. Quote
apiaguy Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 Jet Trash... Tell me about your Enstrom 280C experience.... I've thought about going to one for a little extra high altitude performance and a true 3 seats. Quote
RockyMountainPilot Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 Jet Trash... Tell me about your Enstrom 280C experience.... I've thought about going to one for a little extra high altitude performance and a true 3 seats. If you want good altitude performance and carry 2 or 3 passengers, I would recommend the R44II. It will out perform a turbocharged enstrom, and be much less to maintain. Quote
apiaguy Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 yeah, the new R44II would be nice... but for the really high stuff around here... 10-12000 feet and density altitudes even higher in the summer, the Enstrom would have a little advantage not running out of manifold like the 44. That having been said, the real problem with a R44 is the aquisition cost and the private ownership penalty if you don't fly 200 hours per year. The 44II just hasn't been around long enough and like the r22 they don't lose enough value being REQUIRED to be overhauled on a calendar basis. An early 80's enstrom will be hundreds of thousands less to purchase which translates into lower operating costs factoring aquisition. The calendar limit on the robinson just ruins the helicopter in my opinion. What a scam. 2200 hrs...ok, but that is really low retirement times in the helicopter world, 10 year mandatory retirement, rediculous. Quote
apiaguy Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 OK, had to do some checking on the R44II vs. Enstrom. I didn't think the R44 would outperform it but I wanted to check first.... There is no way the R44 would outperform the Enstrom except in cruise speed. The enstrom can maintain rated power to 12000 feet with the turbo... the R44 while derated will not maintain 5 min. take-off power at altitude. While robinson advertises 8900 ft hover ige vs. enstroms 7700 (both at gross weight). If you pick a typical mission weight (as each helicopter has different gross weights) and compare their hover ceilings... the Enstrom will far outperform the Robinson (at 2350 lbs. hover ige 13200 ft in the enstrom vs. 11500 ige at 2300 lbs Robinson) There is no substitute for a turbo when going high!!And I must disagree that the Enstrom will be much less to maintain.... I've worked on both. Quote
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.