That seems awfully high. What is the hover ceiling for, say, an OH-58D?

Life is hard but it's harder when you're stupid.

Remind me not to crash into an idiot festival like that in the video.

Can you imagine being in need of help in a wreckage and all you saw outside was Bill and Ted with their cell phones capturing a "most righteous event"?

"Holy fcuk dude!"

An Out of Ground Effect hover at a Density Altitude of 10,000 feet in a helicopter that looks like the engine might be the same one to power a snow mobile?  I wouldn't even need to do any pre-mission performance planning to know that I would not want to attempt that.

Many pilots don't have enough respect for mountain flying.  Alot of things going on in that type environment, and while not inherently dangerous, it is very unforgiving.

I'm at a truck stop where I can get internet service and have no sound, but I had similar thoughts. I would not want to have an incident anywhere near a bunch of people out of the general population.

Come on.......It's an Lycoming IO-540.  That's the same engine in used in Cessna 210s, Piper Saratogas/Cherokee6s, Beech Bonanzas and Barons, etc.  It's a good engine, it just can't perform at that altitude without a turbocharger......especially at gross weight.

The pilot was an idiot, there was nothing wrong with that helicopter, the engine, or its design.

An Out of Ground Effect hover at a Density Altitude of 10,000 feet in a helicopter that looks like the engine might be the same one to power a snow mobile =
it just can't perform at that altitude without a turbocharger......especially at gross weight.  

Having logged a few hours in a helicopter (a UH-1H at that, not exactly an overpowered aircraft) above 12,000 ft (and I mean landing and taking off in unimproved LZs), I was just making an observation about the Robinson and mountain operations.    

I am not sure the Lycoming IO-540 could hold that aircraft in an OGE hover with a turbo charger, but what do I know, my piston rotary time is limited to about 50 hours or so in a TH-55 running around at sea level, so maybe it can.  I have seen the aftermath of an UH-60 after it lost tail rotor efffectivness at 11,000 feet while attempting an OGE hover and the twin turbofan engine performance of that bird (and it's max gross weight) far exceed the Lycoming IO-540 and the Robinson.  Comparing peformance of fixed wing aircraft and rotary wing aircraft sporting the same enigine is of little value anyway.

A Dodge Charger is a nice car, nothing wrong with the engine/performance, but an Indy Car driver doesn't need to do a time trial lap with it to know it will not perform his environment.  That was point I was making more than the value of the Lycoming IO-540.

And you are very correct there with that analogy.  

I love R44s....except when it comes time work on that damn engine shroud...If I remember right they're derated quite a bit.  Not exactly a forgiving aircraft when you get behind the power curve.

Just to put my opinion in.......

I have a couple thousand hours of Robinson (22 & 44) time, and a couple thousand hours of B206 (B & L).  For purely the flying end of things........in low level ops, I would take the R44 any day over the 206.  Much better tailrotor & faster.  But getting up high, the turbine is a must.  I've never flown a R66, but I'm sure it would be my choice over the 206.

Robinson messed around with some tubrochargers and diesels, but could never get them to pay off for the extra weight, MX, and money.  They had to bite the bullet and go with a turbine in the R66......but Rolls Royce designed on specifically for that helicopter.

+1.  I don't have much Jetranger time, and not nearly the amount of time in the -44 that you have.  I did love flying the R-44 back when I was flying it.  It was always a pleasure to fly.  And the tailrotor is fantastic.  

 

I should have known it wasn't that simple.

Wasn't talking about reliability, maintenance, hourly cost, parts availability, or anything else......just the stick.

But since you brought up reliability, I disagree.  When a piston engine is failing, it starts running rough, temps go up, pressures go down, etc.......you may get a few minutes out of it to find a spot.  Lots more moving parts inside of a piston to break though.  But when a turbine engine quits, it just quits.  Ice, birds, tiny air leaks, etc can all wreak havoc on a turbine and cause it to quit.

I'm not saying a piston is more reliable, but it's not less.  And I would rather have a piston failure than a turbine failure.  For over extended over water ops, I would take a turbine.  But over forests, I would want a piston since I might be able to limp it into a clearing.

Both engines are very reliable if maintained correctly.

I'd like to punch the bell engineer in the face. I hate the horn. One in the 206 is annoying. 5 in the 407 makes me want to shake a baby Every. Single. Time.

Eurocopter did it right with the button to activate the horn

You're welcome to that piston engined helicopter.   I don't have to pay the operating bills so I don't want one ever again, under any operational circumstances.  

Well, somebody didn't think about TOLD.
He's dang lucky that he had that pleasant of a crash, if you ask me.

It also appears that the cameraman in the first video was enjoying the benefits of Colorado's laws regarding things to be smoked!