I thought that's what I did? Did I not do it right? Should I go back and edit?

Agreed!

*shrug*

He came off as a Robbie Hater.

You came off as a Robbie Ranger.

Like the chicken and the egg, nobody really knows which came first.

Make no mistake, I am a Robbie Ranger. Some of us have to be

I would have left out the "vote Democrat" comment.

coc 6

edited by shotar

First, understand that the stat's you quoted are for the fleet as a whole, not specifically for air tour operations. It's apples and oranges. Air tour stat's for Robinson are very good, commensurate with other helicopters. That's what this thread was originally about. But add in all other uses, in particular training and personal use, and that's where the accident stat's really mount.

They are not less safe nor less reliable than any other helicopter if flown in accordance with the pilot's operating handbook (POH, aka "flight manual"). So that's not the reason, but that's what many would have you think. Exceed the limits set in the POH, or deviate from POH procedures, and all bets are off. This is true for all aircraft.

The relatively low cost is most definitely a factor. This has made it the darling of flight training schools, and much more easily allows personal ownership. Both are very high risk flight demographics.

Consider that the civilian training sector is completely dominated by Robinson products. As accidents are, unfortunately, a known risk and byproduct of training, Robinson winds up being mentioned in nearly all of those civilian training accidents.

Worse, as previously mentioned the Robinson helicopters have handling characteristics that might be positively described as "sporty", or negatively described as "challenging". These characteristics are not the best choice for trainees, or for low-time pilots who only fly occasionally. But, as usual, low cost of acquisition and ownership more than outweighs this risk for nearly all civilian training businesses and for those who can afford to have a personal helicopter. As you might expect, this leads to a higher number of accidents than one might expect if more docile, forgiving helicopters were used in those applications. Meanwhile, in other applications such as aerial application (crop dusting), tours, news gathering, etc., where the pilots typically have more experience, more training, and fly regularly, you don't see accident rates that aren't commensurate with other make/model helicopters in those mission areas.

Unfortunately, nobody makes an FAA certified helicopter that costs less to run than the R22. And nobody makes a four seat, piston powered helicopter at all except Robinson in the form of the R44. And the leap to a 4 or 5 seat turbine powered machine is a big one, typically double the price for both acquisition and operation.

Guimbal Helicopters introduced their Cabri G2 as a competitor to the R22. It's a very nice helicopter (I've flown one myself) but it costs half again as much to acquire and operate as an R22. And it has it's own set of foibles, as do all helicopters. The G2 is short on power, and while in many ways the G2 is much easier to fly than the R22, the G2 fenestron (fan-like tail rotor) is arguably more difficult to master and has been a contributor to a number of accidents. Everyone has been waiting for a "G4" as a competitor to the R44, but it's been almost 15 years since the G2 was first delivered and still no G4. Given all the (IMHO misplaced) Robbie hate there is clearly a market for it. But if it was easy anyone could do it, and Guimbal still hasn't.

Similarly Enstrom helicopters have always been looked at quite favorably as wonderfully docile beasts very suitable for training and low-time, occasional pilots. And yet their economics were not well liked by the training community and have not sold well. The company recently flirted with bankruptcy but was bought by a very wealthy fan of the mark. And, like Guimbal, Enstrom has been unable to develop and market a four place, piston-powered helicopter design that can compete with the R44. And it would appear that people who want a personal helicopter want at least 4 seats.

With no real competition, the R44 therefore owns the low cost, lightweight personal helicopter market, and thus nearly all accidents associated with the level of airmanship provided by low time, occasional pilots fall again on Robinson's shoulders.

Slightly off topic, but Robinson is a force to be reckoned with in the entry-level turbine market, too. Bell and Airbus (nee Eurocopter) had exited the low cost, light single turbine market, choosing not to produce the 206 series (Bell) or EC120 series (Airbus) any longer. Robinson saw an opportunity and produced the R66, a 5 place turbine machine that is essentially a slightly larger R44 with the venerable Rolls Royce RR250 turbine engine. When the R66 started selling like hot cakes Airbus ignored them but Bell got back into the game with their new 505 design. Sales are now running neck and neck between the two.

edited by shotar

I was involved in a full down auto in an R22.

edited by shotar

Bunch of purse swingers in here.  

I just came to say that I flew a r22 once maintained by 2nd world mechanics and I didn’t die.  

No, on Kauai.  


I rode in Jet Ranger there as well.  I think the pilot was in to shooting ARs.  Been a long time though.

The guy who owns the hangar I'm using to build my Pitts has a 44. His stepdad is a former Blackhawk pilot and then flew powerlines and is now doing the EMS bit. He had never flown a 44. My Brother took him up in the 44 and he came back with a totally changed opinion about it. He now flies it regularly.

BTW...I'm posting from an authorized Robinson Repair Center....

What's the deal with the muffler on that??  Never seen that STC before.

Robinson got a bad rep from some early engineering issues. The reputation definitely hasn’t  caught up to the upgrades in the helicopters.

STC?  Lol.  Pretty sure the 2nd world country using them doesn’t care about silly American rules.  

Ha, ok.....didn't understand that part and figured it was a fancy paint job for a civilian.......has a US flag on the tail.  I see they have the skid fairings on there--those are a STC in the US.  

Did they have a cabin heater?  I assume not.

The only reason I'd fly in a Robinson is because I want to take a couple of lessons and they're common for training.

Otherwise... nope.

I used to live and work near the Robinson factory in Torrance, CA.

Saw them flying all of the time. Never got smushed by a crashing helicopter.

This right here.

I fly in a heli at least once a month for work and if the company we are currently using had R44s instead of MD500s, I'd still take the ride.

How the fuck is a new R44 the same price as a 172? Robinson’s management could probably significantly lower the costs of airplanes.

Take your 172 and add two variable pitch props, two gearboxes, probably a dozen or so flight critical pushrods, and a swashplate and see what that does to the price.  Any of those parts fail in flight and you die, so they’re not cheap to produce.  The Cessna has only aileron and elevator cables and bellcranks that are equally critical.  

I think he's saying they could reduce the cost of a 172.

A base model, new, Cessna 172 goes for around $370K. But that includes the G1000NXi avionics standard.

Pricing out a new R44 Raven I with an attempt at equivalent factory avionics, which from Robinson would be a Garmin G500H 700L TXi display + GTN650Xi, that'll run you about $511K.

So about a $140K difference. And with full tanks the Raven 1 can carry 671 lbs of people and stuff, the Cessna only 638 lbs

But your point is well taken. What if Robinson got into the fixed wing business

If you stripped the Robbie down to just the basic 6-pack it brings the price new to $460K. And you can easily get into a low time Raven 1 for $350K. But of course your hourly operating costs will be three times the Cessna per hour. You can knock that down to about twice the Cessna if you self-insure the hull.

eta: pelling mistakes

Maybe when I retire I'll buy the Mooney aircraft company and start making $200,000 airplanes.

Wait, which one? The X2 program descendant or the tilt rotor?