Robinson Vs Bell

[Coastal]

Hey Skidz, I guess your 206 in James Bay didn't have a red TOT warning light eh??!!

 

Also, it was an LR if it had a C20R, not a straight L.

 

The fuel burn on the LR I'm on right now is around 200-210lbs an hour. The L3 I was on was closer to 250 lbs/hour.

[OB1]

hmmm...why did I have it stuck in my head that the RavenII had a GW of 2600lbs?

 

dopey me.

 

At any rate, although it can't compete with the JetBox in that roll, it does do a rather remarkable job elsewhere. It fits well in the oil / gas roll. Much lower operating costs, is actually faster than a JetBox when it's light and is a very reliable bird. Generally goes from 100 hr to 100 hr inspection with little or no snags.

 

Apologies for my GW error.

 

cheers,

RTR

 

Thanks for your input. Given the location of our operations we have little concern regarding high density altitudes so the advantages at altitude with the turboshaft are not a big factor in the decision. My post was robinson vs bell but after reading the replies it seems to have turned into a bell vs bell.

 

I have flown some of the machines mentioned in the replies (we had a 206B for many years) but not the R-44. I'm told the doors were a concern on earlier versions but the addition of dampners has addressed that issue. Our requirements of 500lbs into confined areas seems to be achievable. The cost per hour operating the piston machine is certainly a strong influence in this decision.

 

I do know there are pilots who look down their nose at the Robinson. likely those who were overtaken in flight by the lighter bird (aka Pop can). If I need to sling an engine I'll charter a 407 or 212 depending on the weight but those occurances are few and far between thankfully.

 

I think the Raven II will suit our needs. 90% of the time it will be flying 500lbs and the remaining 10% spent on short commuter flights. Our pilot is 210lbs and can enter confined areas with one passenger at a time and have ample power available on a routine basis. Safety is paramount.

 

Thank you all for the replies, any input on the skid mounted pods for the Raven II?

 

OB1

[dimit]

Hi OB1,

 

I have about 600 hrs R44, 5 yrs ago or so and my memory's a bit poor... I remember being able to take a couple of biggish guys and 100 lbs of gear and an hour of fuel, or something like that. That seems to work out with the 950lbs payload referred to elsewhere in this thread. Company I worked for used lots of 44s for oil and gas support, so they took a sh*t kicking and kept on working. Good, experienced R44 engineers were definitely part of the success equation. The pods on the skids were great so long as we weren't landing in snow. Snow'll push up on them. At gross weight the 44 wouldn't vertical out of a hole, and definitely wouldn't fly a couple of full barrels of fuel!

 

Best of luck!

 

D!ck

[Vast]

Thank you all for the replies, any input on the skid mounted pods for the Raven II?

 

OB1

 

I'd go with the "Pod II". It's the larger of the pods available. You can put 100 lbs. in it if you're only running one pod and you will always be within C of G limits providing you haven't exceeded anything else. You'll want to have the pod on the left side. Having one on the right side will limit your vision during long line operations. The pod also limits your Vne to 120 mph. It will easily exceed this speed. No pod and full tanks solo and you're doing 130 plus. Me at 160 and 1/4 tanks it'll lift about 700 lbs. legal. It will easily pull more than that so just know your weights. Oh...the fuel burn at idle is about 7 gal/hr.

[mellowyellow]

One note that I thought I would mention about the 44 is that there is a big difference from one to the

 

other. This is the result of how the individual aircraft was initially broke in and how the pilot flew it over

 

time, like many people no a piston engine needs the piston rings to seat well for the best compression.

 

I am a pilot not an engineer, but this has been my experience with this ugly but well designed

 

helicopter.

[OB1]

One note that I thought I would mention about the 44 is that there is a big difference from one to the

 

other. This is the result of how the individual aircraft was initially broke in and how the pilot flew it over

 

time, like many people no a piston engine needs the piston rings to seat well for the best compression.

 

I am a pilot not an engineer, but this has been my experience with this ugly but well designed

 

helicopter.

 

Thanks

 

I have an expirienced pilot in the R-44 to test fly lowtime aircraft which are registered in Canada, otherwise it will be a new machnine.