Schweizer 333...Again

[Flying Pig]

Does anybody know anyone in the So. Cal. (U.S.) area that has a 333?  As I mentioned before, My dept is exploring the idea of starting a unit through the Schweizer H.I.P.S. program.  Another pilot and I would like to see a 333, and maybe even work something out to get some time in one before commiting to telling the council thats what we want.

[RDRickster]

I think the only school that has a 333 is Hummingbird Helicopters in CT.  I think the only PD that has a 333 is in Florida.  Call Scweitzer directly at (607) 739-3821 and ask them... they'd know (not too many 333's around).

[CJ Eliassen]

Flying pig,

 

Has your department looked at the R-44 police variant?

[BDR]

San Antonio PD were using a 333. Have you asked around on the ALEA website, you should be able to get info from there.

[Flying Pig]

CJ.

 

The three pilots that we have, none of us like the Robinson.  Mainly personal preference only, and we are all rated in the 300C  Plus, we were looking into the HIPS program through Schweizer, where you start with the 300C, then after a couple years transition to the 333.  One of our officers has about 2000 hrs in the MD-500.  At the end, we wanted to end up with a Turbine, and the HIPS program seemed the most feasable way to get there.

[CJ Eliassen]

I am sorry, but shouldn't you think about the community first?   Its the taxpayers money, not yours.  Your personal preferences shouldn't get in the way of making a decision for the people.

[RDRickster]

Flying Pig,

 

Since you are just starting to put together an Aviation Unit for your Department, why not look at the R44 Police Variant?  Your end goal may be a turbine-powered aircraft to fit your mission, but the R44 Police Variant is proven and has definitive costs for operation and maintenance.  In a budget conscious environment, the R44 should be given serious consideration and seems to be the first logical step in building your program.

 

Since you are in Southern CA, why don't you go over to the Fontana Police Department?  They've had the R44 Police Variant for several months and it's been in operational mode since before the fires.  You could look at the city records and learn what approval process was used and the justification that won the day.

 

The Mayor over there seems to like it a lot, and it has saved a lot of money over a turbine-powered operation.  You could probably get a Letter of Endorsement from the Mayor's office to help.  My two cents, but I think you'd have better success taking this in reasonable phases... especially for a small municipality.

 

 

 

I sit on the Innovations and Technology Committee for the City I live in.  Costs are always a big issue, but a guaranteed return on investment is even a bigger one.  Believe me, if you don't have a solid defense against the R44, it will be difficult to get a more expensive turbine (especially when other cities are successfully using the R44).  I know how I would vote...

 

This is my opinion only, and I could be wrong.  However, I have no manufacturer loyalty... there are pros and cons to each type of helicopter.  That said, this seems to be the economical favorite that would probably be approved before others.  http://www.robinsonheli.com/R44Police.htm

[Flying Pig]

CJ........

 

Relax buddy................we havnt bought it yet.  We were considereing the HIPS program through Schweizer, which is why I was talking about the 333.  

 

You start with the 300C, then after 2 years, you transition to the 333 or keep the 300C.  We were not starting with the 333.  Both pilots at the dept are rated in the 300C, and have no Robinson exp, not that we couldnt learn though.   I will fly a hang glider naked if they want me to.

 

 

Fontana leases the helicopter, and the pilot is a civilian.  That isnt the avenue we wanted to take.

[CJ Eliassen]

I am relaxed.  I just think you have to consider the tax payers instead of your desire "to have a turbine".  The R-44 has a more reliable engine record than any turbine helicopter currently flying.  Its also cheaper to acquire and operate and outperforms the 333 hands down.   The R-44 Raven II is faster, has a higher HIGE and HOGE altitudes, same payload, comes factory equipped with all equipment for police work, is more quiet, and is far easier to fly than the 269 series.  Why spend more for a 1960's design when you can have a far better 1990's design thats cheaper?

[flingwing206]

The R-44 has a more reliable engine record than any turbine helicopter currently flying.  Its also cheaper to acquire and operate and outperforms the 333 hands down.   The R-44 Raven II is faster, has a higher HIGE and HOGE altitudes, same payload, comes factory equipped with all equipment for police work, is more quiet, and is far easier to fly than the 269 series.  Why spend more for a 1960's design when you can have a far better 1990's design thats cheaper?

Hm - if the 333 is a "1960's design", then the R.44 is a "1970's design". But enough subjectivity, shall we look at the actual specs?

 

Comparo:........333 ----- R.44

 

Speeds KT:

Cruise............105 ----- 117

Vne...............117 ---- (NA)

 

Weights:

Empty...........1250 ---- 1506

MGW.............2550 ---- 2500

Useful Load....1300 ---- 996

 

Max Range(NM).310 ---- 384

Endurance(HR)..4.1 ---- (NA)

 

IGE hover........8100' -- 8950'

 

Power:

Max Cont.........230 ---- 205

Max T/O..........250 ---- 245

 

So if you are needing to go 50 NM from Point A to Point B, the R.44 will get you there three minutes sooner. The 333 will carry 306 more pounds. The R.44 will hover at 900' greater MSL altitude.

 

As far as safety and reliability goes, there is NO, repeat NO documentation comparing the reliability of the R.44's Lycoming fuel-injected IO-540 vs the 333's Rolls-Royce 250-C20W. In fact, there is no factual basis for comparing the R.44-II against the 333 - as of the moment, they both have excellent records.

 

They are also completely different helicopters. If I wanted to cruise three pax around town, I'd choose the R.44. If I wanted to load up with equipment and hover, yank and bank, I'd choose the 333 (I'll take a turbine and fully-articulated rotor system over a piston and teetering rotor any day, thank yew).

 

As far as cost goes, talk to me after each machine has 2500 hours. Then again at 4000 hours.

 

The R.44 is a great helo! So's the 333. They're too different to compare - kinda like pitting a Volvo XC90 against a Toyota 4Runner. But go ahead anyway, 'cause it's fun. :alien:

[CJ Eliassen]

The 333 can carry 306 pounds more than the R-44 Raven II, but you have to carry that all in fuel.  

 

And yes, the Allison/RR 250 has far more engine failures in helicopters then the IO-540 does.  Turbines were simply not designed to fly at low altitudes.  

 

You can't even compare costs.  The insurance alone on the 333 will be 5 times as much!

 

Also, the R-44 was designed int he 1990's.  It is not a stretched R-22.  It is a completely different design. You might notice it has a different type certificate.  The 333 has is a 269D.  The same type certificate.  Get your facts straight.

[BDR]

The R44  police models only have one 3 seats in the helicopter...the right rear seat has been "removed" because of all the electronique equipment under it.

[flingwing206]

The 333 can carry 306 pounds more than the R-44 Raven II, but you have to carry that all in fuel.

No you don't, unless you need to fly for three hours.

And yes, the Allison/RR 250 has far more engine failures in helicopters then the IO-540 does.  Turbines were simply not designed to fly at low altitudes.

Documentation? 333 turbine failures against R.44-II IO-540 failures? Otherwise it's (as you accused me of not too long ago) an innacurate use of statistics.

You can't even compare costs.  The insurance alone on the 333 will be 5 times as much!

Documentation, again, please? This is a difficult claim to trust implicitly.

Also, the R-44 was designed int he 1990's.  It is not a stretched R-22. It is a completely different design. You might notice it has a different type certificate.  The 333 has is a 269D.  The same type certificate.  Get your facts straight

First, I never made a statement of fact, CJ. It was more of a wry comment on your argument.

 

Yep, the current Dodge pickups were designed in the 1990's too, but underneath the sheet metal, they are the same basic thing as a 1974 Power Wagon. A new type certificate doesn't mean any new innovations (or even new design), nor does a 1960's design mean there's anything wrong with it.

 

We do get to each other don't we. :yinyang:

[Flying Pig]

Ummmmmmmm,

 

I was just wondering if anyone knew if there was a 333 in So Cal.   Guess not.

[Dynamic Component]

The R-44 has a more reliable engine record than any turbine helicopter currently flying.

 

I hope you don't kiss anybody with that mouth!! ???

 

I would very much like to see the facts on paper.Or are you just a sour piston driver that doesn't have enough time to get onto turbines?? :nuncha:

For one-Would you like to compare AStar Engine failures around the world to R44 engine failures?

 

Each aircraft has its own place in the market.

[RDRickster]

Dynamic Component, I happen to know that CJ has a fair amount of experience (including turbines).  Granted, his posts are a bit aggressive at times, but it is usually good information.  Anyway, I'll let him defend himself.

 

Concerning your post, I agree that each aircraft has its own place in the market.  There are pros and cons to each type, which is why some seem to fit different missions better than others.  However, I also agree that the Robinson R44 has better engine reliability than most turbines.

 

As requested, see the following article (click here).  The article was printed in March of this year, and will show how stable piston engines are IN ROBINSONS (mainly because they are derated).  Reliability issues aside, the R44 should be given consideration for the intended police application listed above.  However, it sounds as though Schweitzer's HIPS program seems to be a good deal.  At this point, Flying Pig will have to get ALL the information and produce a Cost Benefits Analysis that proves the point one way or another.

[Heloplt]

One of the first things that I learned in my statistics class is that you can make statistics show whatever side you want to be on. The one thing that I could not find in that story is the amount of time being flown by each type of helicopter. I don't want to weigh in on whether turbines or pistons are more reliable but I must put my two cents in on this whole statistics thing. If a business has two cars and one gets driven 200,000 miles a year and the other gets 2,000 miles a year would you be surprised to see that the second car is more reliable based solely on the fact that car "A" was in the shop 5 times more than car "B"??? When I see a story showing failures per flight hour I might be a lot less skeptical than I am right now based on what I read in the article. Again, before you get hateful on your responses---I think Mr. Robinson has put out some wonderful products, but you will have to pardon me when I say that I have some reservations on that whole "blanket statement" claim of reliability.

[RDRickster]

Heloplt, you are absolutely correct and I agree with you 100 percent.  Unfortunately, we just don't have the proper denominator data to get a real comparison going.  Nobody tracks hours flown per type (from an accurate source).

 

Nevertheless, it's hard to argue against a ZERO engine failure rate in the R44... especially when they have over 70 percent of the helicopter market share!

[chopperdr]

beyond the debate of 333 vs r-44, also consider which aircraft, regardless of engine type does the misson. in that i mean which is the better platform. can either carry a sx-16, also what are your camera options, what are the vibration levels, how does the aircraft perform in a tatical orbit, can you order a/c, do the skids impose on the flir picture, do you have enough juice to operate all the police systems together, do the door posts impede on visibility, etc.

these are the issues that you will have to live with in the long run and usually the hardest to overcome.

dr

[RDRickster]

For those who are interested, I recently came across the following article.  It seemed relevant to the initial query...

 

http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/sto...19/daily30.html

[Dynamic Component]

RDRickster,

Nevertheless, it's hard to argue against a ZERO engine failure rate in the R44

 

I would like some more info on this if possible please?

I was in California in 2000 and remember a engine failure very well on a R44 camara ship.I know minimal about pistons, but from what I recall it was a stuck valve or something. And then there was a R44 that hit powerlines in Soweto, South Africa which was said to be Engine failure on departure.

These are 2 that are definate(I was there).

 

Are the stats for after or before that? ::

 

Please don't take this the wrong way-I'm just curious  

[RDRickster]

Okay, from 1993 to 2000, there have been NO R44 engine failures.  I don't have figures beyond 2000, but the NTSB database produced the following...

 

Preliminary Information Only - Not Final...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...718X01148&key=1

(Original R44 - probably carb ice, still under investigation)

 

Preliminary Information Only - Not Final...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=2...701X00975&key=1

(Raven II - fuel injected, still under investigation)

 

The above cases are still under investigation, no definitive cause.  I found two other engine related cases since 2000; however, both were definately attributed to carb ice.  In both cases, the pilots admitted they should have put on carb heat and they were final reports.  Since it was pilot error, I didn't include them.

 

That said, the first one listed above MAY be carb ice.  We'll have to see what they say in the final report.  Nevertheless, the second one listed above experienced power failure and it is fuel injected.  Although the Dew Spread was only 9 degrees (favorable to carb ice), it shouldn't have been a factor with a fuel injected engine.  We'll have to see what the NTSB comes up with.

 

Still, even if you count the two accidents above as engine failures, only two failures over a TEN year peroid (1993 - 2003) is pretty darn good.  I'm not a die hard Robinson fan, but you have to admit that the reliability seems much better than many turbines.  Don't get me wrong... just because I have flown Robbies doesn't make it a religion for me.  I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[J-nut]

Ok I'm new here but thought I'd add a thought or two to the discussion.

 

Good stuff guys but don't forget about the "incidents" that are never reported.

 

A few years ago I had to head out to the boonies to replace a jug on a brand spanking new 44. Seems it had stuck a valve and bent a pushrod so bad it was puking oil all over the place. Good thing they were just doing hop rides and someone spotted it otherwise...

 

I was told (hearsay) that it wasn't an unheard of occurance. I agree they're reliable machines but I'd be curious to see how they hold up under a lot of heavy hard work conditions.

 

Cheers

:kungfu:

[BDR]

I know personally of two R44 that have had stuck valves and bend the pushrods. They both were able to continue to their location but they did need to have those cylinders effected replaced.  One had 300hr one 500hr.

  But are these engine failures?

[yzchopper]

If the rods are bent and the valves are getting stuck I would consider that to be engine failure. I would think that anything that makes an engine work, (like rods and valves) that quits working, that to me is an engine failure. You don't neccessarily need to have the engine shut down completely to be considered a failure. If for any reason, a part fails, then the engine will soon self destruct to a certain degree  depending on what quits working. If the valves are sticking it is possible there excessive heat in the engine. When this happens, you will almost always have bent rods. I won't get into anymore details on this as I'm not 100% for sure.  Just my 2 cents

 

Steve