Older small copters - seem like fun - but nearly nonexistent?

[WDD]

If you’ve ever swapped batteries on a forklift you’ll begin to understand that it isn’t the most practical thing to do in an application like this.

Yeah - would need to be a size of a suitcase, not close to today's reality. Maybe 5 years? Who knows. It would help with the speed of "refueling". It's all about the energy density I guess.

 

[Racerx]

I'm not very bullish on the urban air mobility idea. There's a lot infrastructure that would have to go along with it to make it work. We're closing airports next to cities...but we're ok with landing these things in them?

 

[MBDiagMan]

The only rotor time I have is in a Bell 47. It is amazing to me that they were used so much with so much effect. They are terribly underpowered. If you really want to own one, you would be well served to just plan on flying with yourself and another less than overweight person for some fun rotoring around the local area.

Parts are getting more and more scarce also.

 

[Bell206]

I'm not very bullish on the urban air mobility idea.

I am very bullish to the point I got involved in it... sort of. With valuations in the billions by 2030 in the US market, the UAM industry is poised to change how things are done from what I've read and seen. There's a lot of dated info in the public domain but every western style government/state is allocating funds to handle this new industry.

There's a lot infrastructure that would have to go along with it to make it work.

Not really. Part 1 is to use existing infrastructure. The UK recently approved a contract to design and build an eVTOL port which will also provide a hub to ground eTaxis as well. I believe this one will be located within Londons urban footprint. China just built the first eVTOL port and I believe they repurposed a standard corner parking lot. But there is a side push to operate solely from roof tops in large cities but I don't think that will work so much from the liability side or usage agreements. Things really picked up on the planning side around 2017/18 and the only thing holding things up is the regulatory side at the moment but every CAA is working on it more than you think. But there's enough existing infrastructure to get things going.

We're closing airports next to cities...but we're ok with landing these things in them?

Yes. Its green..... Regardless the comparisons are being made to urban heliports and not airports. And the "standard" eVTOL port takes up only 50% of your "standard" heliport.

 

[Salty]

Last I checked an "all in" cost with insurance, fuel, etc. was around $700 to $900 per hour. Maintenance reserve cost made up $250 of that. But it is very specific to how many hours flown per year and what specific model you have: D, G, etc. For comparison an R22 which is basically the cheapest TC machine to operate is in the $400 to $600 per hour all-in and around $145 to $170 mx reserve per hour.

I don’t understand that when I can rent a R22 for less than $300 an hour.

 

[Bell206]

I don’t understand that when I can rent a R22 for less than $300 an hour.

Not all, but some people rent out their helicopters for a percentage over their maintenance reserve hourly costs. So your $300 rate is basically double that cost. The fixed costs are built into their overall business plan. As with any aircraft DOCs, the more you fly the cheaper it gets per hour, i.e., rental hours.

 

[Paul V]

The $300 rate sounds about right for a R22. The R44 rents closer to $600 / hr in most places. this is “inexpensive” by helicopter standard and is one of the reasons Robinson has taken over it’s segment of the market.

There is a reason the older piston helicopters have fallen out of favor. They are too expensive to maintain and operate. Bell 47s and Hillers are all but extinct at this point. They really only make sense for very specific operations such as agriculture where speed isn’t an issue (they are dirt slow) and they can be operated and maintained by individuals highly familiar with the type. Even then these operations are more and more switching away from the types to the R44 or turbine helicopters.

Owning a helicopter is completely different from owning an airplane as a private owner. They have a lot more life limited parts which MUST be changed or overhauled based on operating hrs or calendar time or both. These life limits can even be part of the type certificate so they are in effect regulatory.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

The only rotor time I have is in a Bell 47. It is amazing to me that they were used so much with so much effect. They are terribly underpowered. If you really want to own one, you would be well served to just plan on flying with yourself and another less than overweight person for some fun rotoring around the local area.

Parts are getting more and more scarce also.

That is very dependent on which bell 47 you were flying. There are versions of that helicopter that can work beside turbine helicopters in the ag business. It’s like saying a Ford F-150 is underpowered…

 

[donjohnston]

Bell 47s and Hillers are all but extinct at this point.

TIL that 500 of something is "all but extinct".

 

[Bell206]

FYI: for the collective knowledge of the PoA fixed wing clan, helicopters are maintained under the same rules and regulations as airplanes. So just as a private Part 91 airplane can be legal with only an annual inspection per 91.409, plus the performance of the additional inspection items in 43.15 and the compliance of the Airworthiness Limitations requirements per 43.16, so can a Part 91 helicopter to include turbine helicopters if so desired. And while there can be more life-limited parts on a helicopter it depends on the specific model how long that life is and what type part is listed. And if one removes the duplicate entries due to P/N difference, these life limit lists are not that extensive as some people believe. For comparison, the R22 and Bell 206L3 airframe AL life limits are posted below. There is a separate list for the engine if applicable.

 

[Paul V]

Correct, however…

you routinely see airplanes operated under part 91 that run over TBO. One cannot do the same for any of the the life limited parts. Once the life limit is reached the component is unairworthy.

Then you have the cost. The overhaul kit for the R22 with the airframe life limited parts listed costs around $100k + a core charge. This does not include the engine overhaul or any labor. For the R44 it’s around $150K + core charge.

a set of main rotor blades for a 206 retail on the order of $140k in parts cost.

 

[Bell206]

you routinely see airplanes operated under part 91 that run over TBO. One cannot do the same for any of the the life limited parts. Once the life limit is reached the component is unairworthy.

Sure. Except that Airworthiness Limitations requirements (life-limits) and overhaul schedules are not the same thing as the former is regulatory and the latter is not. So the comparison is not valid.........unless that OH/inspection is specifically listed in the approved Airworthiness Limitations Section which most OH schedules are not.

As to whether you wish to purchase/replace those timed-out items as part of other maintenance/inspection tasks vs simply replace the life-limited part on its own, that falls more to the owner’s decision. While I know the Robbie parts world is a bit different, there’s nothing regulatory that prevents an R22 owner from sourcing various parts individually and installing them based on part time alone. Just as other helicopter owners do. This becomes especially evident when you have mismatched times on a life-limited parts where not all parts will be changed at the same aircraft TT.

a set of main rotor blades for a 206 retail on the order of $140k in parts cost.

FYI: There are serviceable used M/R blades out there that can be purchased at a much lower cost and still have reasonable time left to fly with. It falls more to the owner requirements than just buying new.

 

[Paul V]

Sure. Except that Airworthiness Limitations requirements (life-limits) and overhaul schedules are not the same thing as the former is regulatory and the latter is not. So the comparison is not valid.........unless that OH/inspection is specifically listed in the approved Airworthiness Limitations Section which most OH schedules are not.

Agreed. Helicopters of all sizes, typically have these life limited parts specified in their Airworthiness Limitations, whereas many light GA airplanes do not. The comparison to running over TBO was simply an example of what can't be done with respect to life limited parts. Their replacement is regulatory.

As to whether you wish to purchase/replace those timed-out items as part of other maintenance/inspection tasks vs simply replace the life-limited part on its own, that falls more to the owner’s decision. While I know the Robbie parts world is a bit different, there’s nothing regulatory that prevents an R22 owner from sourcing various parts individually and installing them based on part time alone. Just as other helicopter owners do. This becomes especially evident when you have mismatched times on a life-limited parts where not all parts will be changed at the same aircraft TT.

Also agreed. Robinson simply aligned all of their life limited parts together so they can be swapped out all at once. If you were to go out and buy the individual parts out of the kit you really wouldn't be saving any money on the full lot of parts vs buying the kit, but you would be paying more in labor to tear the machine apart to swap parts out one by one. This is one of the reasons why the Robinson machines tend to be less expensive to operate compared to older types which may have a gearbox due at one interval and bearings due at another interval (for example). Not the only reason but it is one of the reasons. That said, real world wear and tear as well as other factors like ADs sometimes throw the whole plan out the window and you sometimes do need to individually replace life limited parts out of sync with the main set of parts like I and others have experienced with MRBs.

FYI: There are serviceable used M/R blades out there that can be purchased at a much lower cost and still have reasonable time left to fly with. It falls more to the owner requirements than just buying new.

Yes but again the cost per hour doesn't really change. Not 100% sure on the 206's but for the R44 the cost of used serviceable blades is typically pretty close to the cost of new blades adjusted for the amount of life left on them (e.g. blades with 50% of life remaining could be about 50% of the cost of new blades).

Overall the main point I was trying to make to the OP is that people can and usually do keep fairly old airplanes flying with fairly straightforward maintenance and relatively low operating costs but you don't see the same thing for older helicopters because the replacement of various components is mandatory and the cost for these components is relatively very high.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

Disclaimer:

• Not a terrible number of parts to my, albeit, untrained eye.

(*) yeah, yeah. ... I know.....

So, my friend owns a 47G5. A number of years ago while at the airport, he takes the Mrs for a short hop, lands on the dolly and back into its hanger. It was the last flight before he completely overhauled his 47. The following weekend we stopped by his hanger before our flight, there in the hanger were a dozen 8’ tables containing the now disassembled 47. As a pilot who supervised the overhaul and refurbishing of 2 Grumman’s over the years, I was, well astonished and a bit scared at what was before us. Neatly layed out and inventoried were disassembled parts that had numerous little parts, bolts, nuts, washers,screws, clamps…on and on table after table. And..this was separate from the engine and transmission, which were sent out individually to their respective overhaul shops!

And the cost! A few years later he had to replace the tail rotor blades, which, if memory is correct were about $11k a piece, you don’t want to know what main rotor blades go for. By The Way metal blades have a 2500 hr life span and believe it or not, sought after wood blades have no overhaul time.

Hope this puts things in perspective for you. But yes, you are correct, they are fun. As a kid in the ‘50’s WIRLYBIRDS was my fav show.