Thanks for making this video. I have an Enstrom 280FX and I love it. The lack of a governor is not a big issue with the heavy rotor system and the correlator.
R44 tail strikes/mast bumps and drops like a ton of bricks with the wrong input during turbulence, this looks a lot more promising and stable and safe.
Ensrtroms are the best as i have flown both the F28a and the 280fx both very safe and fly 90percent better than the Robinson's we need to see more of ensrtroms around the world, Peter
I certainly agree with that. I learned in the UK, on an R22, and the Enstrom has always been an ambition to fly. There dont seem to be many Enstrom airframes.here, but I'm still hoping that I'll be lucky to fly one, someday.
If you look at various helicopter designs, the ones with multi blade fully articulated rotor heads are usually faster. When they went from the 2 blade rigid teetering head of the Bell 212 to the 4 blade fully articulated head of the 412, it added over 20kts to the cruise speed, so the Enstrom should have the capability to be faster over something like the R44, maybe it just needs more Horsepower.
Yes you are absolutely correct! All things being equal usually the more blades a helicopter has, the faster it will be. Which is also usually true for airplane propellers! Especially when comparing 2 to 3 blades. Which makes it very sad that somehow the R44 is faster than the F-28FX, when best I know the 28 has more blades, more horsepower and even a turbocharger lol ... really the only reason I can come up with that makes any sense to me is the R44 is significantly less wide than the F28. Which really streamlines the fuselage going through the air. It is really a bummer for the F-28's actual speed given its potential :( seems like it should be more!!
I've taught in the Enstrom, R22/44/66, and Bell 206B/L. The statements about rotor inertia are probably confusing people. When a helicopter pilot talks about inertia, there are two concerns: how long do I have to lower the collective, and how much energy is stored in the rotor for the landing phase of an autorotation. The Enstrom is clearly a high inertia system... Enough energy that a low rpm warning system isn't required or fitted. Enough energy at the bottom to pick the aircraft back up, pedal turn 180°, and then... well, pretty much flop back onto the ground. Of the two accidents you showed from Wikipedia, the first one, the pilot was one of my instructors. He was in pretty bad shape from that crash ( he spent several minutes trapped in the wreckage at the bottom of the river ). But I don't think it's fair to even consider that as a strike against the Enstrom... Any helicopter will have catestrophic failures if you install incorrect components. The killer aspect of the Enstrom is the maintenance costs. I've seen many examples of people who buy them, fly a few years, and then are forced to sell them when the cumulative costs of maintenance get too high. ( They also need a lot of attention, including greasing all the fittings every 10 hours - the Robinsons purposely don't have any maintenance like that - no grease fittings at all ). Back to the rotor inertia issue, the R44 has less inertia, I'd call it "moderate" inertia... It does great touchdown autos, if you're even slightly skillful. The Enstrom is so easy, I've coached a student pilot through a touchdown auto on their 2nd or 3rd lesson. Part of that is having oleos, versus the stiff gear of a Robinson or Bell. Still, Enstrom kinda need those qualities... engine failures are not exactly rare on piston Enstrom helicopters. The radio station traffic reporter for WBZ here in Boston was proud of the fact that in the dozen engines failures he had in the Enstrom, he never damaged a machine. But still, 12 engine failures tells you something! ( For those who don't know, Enstrom did the old strategy of using a smaller engine to keep it lighter, but working that engine very hard, either by running higher RPMs, or through turbocharging... Robinson recognized the problem with that approach and did the opposite - put in a larger engine so even at "max" power it was loafing. The Robinsons have always had very good engine reliability. Final word on rotor inertia - R66 is about equivalent to the R44, but the R22 is very low inertia. R22s are difficult to autorotate. You have to nail all the numbers and timing to get good results, whereas the Enstrom ( and Bell 47/206 ) are very forgiving...
Though the Enstrom does glide like a dream, given the rarity of engine failures these days I'd definitely trade that for the air conditioning of the R44,...not to mention the hydraulic assisted controls, as that Enstrom collective is like being a flying weight lifter in training.
Can't argue a ton there my friend. The R44 is a great machine and if someone got one over the Enstrom, I'm not going to say you made a bad decision. The Enstrom does look better though and you won't change my mind on that :P
I learned in a Brantley B2b. Did a half hour in a Bell 47 and an hour and a half in the Enstrom. Hands down the Enstrom is the best. It had the best autorotation of the three. It was so easy to fly compared to the Brantley. If I had an aircraft, this is what I would have.
00:08 “ … from point A to point B”. Actually this was the initial selling point for this aircraft. One of earliest publicity campaigns had a picture of an older guy standing next to one of these with the slogan: “Since I bought the Enstrom I’ve hardly done a thousand miles in my Mercedes”. Unless you are constantly having to fly to places with no landing facilities, a fixed wing craft is far more feasible for getting from said point A to point B. If you want to fly a helicopter rather than an air taxi don’t bother with this one. People don’t buy an F28 for aerial work, there’s a reason why …
While turbo charging might be a good idea, it will increase the cost of maintenance, which may not necessarily be a good idea. One, just how high do you wanna fly? And is it necessary? You may also need oxygen to breathe. Less oxygen also means less combustion efficiency, turbo charging notwithstanding, if there is less oxygen, fuel will not burn efficiently, or not at all. Turbocharging in this case gives you more power to hover n lift weight more efficiently, at lower altitudes, but is the extra cost justified? There are other Helicopters out there like the RotorX n Safari that can get you up with less cost overall. The Safari 400,a scaled down Bell 47, has the Lycoming 360 with a Robinson governor, twin tanks for longer range and a bit heavier payload thanks to a bit larger main rotor. While I don't knock the "Eggstrom",it really should have a shroud like the Robinson to cover up the mast and give it more stream lining n keep it cleaner from the elements... And is it really necessary to fly really high?? By the time you climb to 10,000 ft you'll be looking to come down anyways cuz you've already hit Bingo fuel... 🤔
Living in a mountainous area turbocharged is very useful taking off full power at altitude. On the FX models it also adds 20HP over the non turbo Enstrom’s. Standard TBO of turbo is 2000 hours, relatively minor in light of all other expenses, especially for the additional power. I have used one commercially for 20 years.
@@chopperflyguy The only turbo I would like is in the UH-1B. In a small personal aircraft a 4 cylinder Lycoming is just fine. So you get an extra 20 hp? Losing 20 ibs will also gain you a few HP...
Unfortunately, the content creator doesn’t know much about helicopters. The statement made indicating that most helicopters can be flown solo from either the right or left seat is not only wrong, but misleading and a dangerous comment to make. The primary reason for designating a specific seat for solo pilot operation is due to wait and balance considerations, which are extremely important in anything that flies and that includes helicopters.
I’m so tired of talking auto rotation … when that rotor stop spinning? Your fkt. It’s the end. It’s a matter of luck. Autorotation. And that’s reality ….
I'm not understanding your comment. Autorotations are my favorite maneuver, and I'm not the only one. There's a lot of satisfaction in managing your energy and bringing the machine to a safe, soft landing, precisely where you want, all with a dead engine. The Enstrom ( and Bell 47 ) are arguably the two easiest helicopters to autorotate, and the R22 is arguably the hardest production piston helicopter to autorotate...
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for making this video. I have an Enstrom 280FX and I love it. The lack of a governor is not a big issue with the heavy rotor system and the correlator.
R44 tail strikes/mast bumps and drops like a ton of bricks with the wrong input during turbulence, this looks a lot more promising and stable and safe.
I think you should also consider to make a video for the rotorway-rotorx a600 talon helicopter .
Just made it today! =D
I learned to fly in an Enstrom. Good stable strong machine.. Miss it..
Ensrtroms are the best as i have flown both the F28a and the 280fx both very safe and fly 90percent better than the Robinson's we need to see more of ensrtroms around the world, Peter
Glad someone agrees! =D
I certainly agree with that. I learned in the UK, on an R22, and the Enstrom has always been an ambition to fly. There dont seem to be many Enstrom airframes.here, but I'm still hoping that I'll be lucky to fly one, someday.
If you look at various helicopter designs, the ones with multi blade fully articulated rotor heads are usually faster. When they went from the 2 blade rigid teetering head of the Bell 212 to the 4 blade fully articulated head of the 412, it added over 20kts to the cruise speed, so the Enstrom should have the capability to be faster over something like the R44, maybe it just needs more Horsepower.
Yes you are absolutely correct! All things being equal usually the more blades a helicopter has, the faster it will be. Which is also usually true for airplane propellers! Especially when comparing 2 to 3 blades.
Which makes it very sad that somehow the R44 is faster than the F-28FX, when best I know the 28 has more blades, more horsepower and even a turbocharger lol ... really the only reason I can come up with that makes any sense to me is the R44 is significantly less wide than the F28. Which really streamlines the fuselage going through the air. It is really a bummer for the F-28's actual speed given its potential :( seems like it should be more!!
@@RelativeMotionCC It would be interesting to see a 28, that used the same Lycoming 540 engine as the R-44.
@@Agwings1960 Yes! or even if someone built a radial engine helicopter again =D
Nobody beats the B47. Still. Handling looks performance. Yeap. The best My opinion
I've taught in the Enstrom, R22/44/66, and Bell 206B/L. The statements about rotor inertia are probably confusing people. When a helicopter pilot talks about inertia, there are two concerns: how long do I have to lower the collective, and how much energy is stored in the rotor for the landing phase of an autorotation. The Enstrom is clearly a high inertia system... Enough energy that a low rpm warning system isn't required or fitted. Enough energy at the bottom to pick the aircraft back up, pedal turn 180°, and then... well, pretty much flop back onto the ground.
Of the two accidents you showed from Wikipedia, the first one, the pilot was one of my instructors. He was in pretty bad shape from that crash ( he spent several minutes trapped in the wreckage at the bottom of the river ). But I don't think it's fair to even consider that as a strike against the Enstrom... Any helicopter will have catestrophic failures if you install incorrect components.
The killer aspect of the Enstrom is the maintenance costs. I've seen many examples of people who buy them, fly a few years, and then are forced to sell them when the cumulative costs of maintenance get too high. ( They also need a lot of attention, including greasing all the fittings every 10 hours - the Robinsons purposely don't have any maintenance like that - no grease fittings at all ).
Back to the rotor inertia issue, the R44 has less inertia, I'd call it "moderate" inertia... It does great touchdown autos, if you're even slightly skillful. The Enstrom is so easy, I've coached a student pilot through a touchdown auto on their 2nd or 3rd lesson. Part of that is having oleos, versus the stiff gear of a Robinson or Bell. Still, Enstrom kinda need those qualities... engine failures are not exactly rare on piston Enstrom helicopters. The radio station traffic reporter for WBZ here in Boston was proud of the fact that in the dozen engines failures he had in the Enstrom, he never damaged a machine. But still, 12 engine failures tells you something!
( For those who don't know, Enstrom did the old strategy of using a smaller engine to keep it lighter, but working that engine very hard, either by running higher RPMs, or through turbocharging... Robinson recognized the problem with that approach and did the opposite - put in a larger engine so even at "max" power it was loafing. The Robinsons have always had very good engine reliability.
Final word on rotor inertia - R66 is about equivalent to the R44, but the R22 is very low inertia. R22s are difficult to autorotate. You have to nail all the numbers and timing to get good results, whereas the Enstrom ( and Bell 47/206 ) are very forgiving...
Thanks
Where is the position of swash plate rotor ?
Though the Enstrom does glide like a dream, given the rarity of engine failures these days I'd definitely trade that for the air conditioning of the R44,...not to mention the hydraulic assisted controls, as that Enstrom collective is like being a flying weight lifter in training.
Can't argue a ton there my friend. The R44 is a great machine and if someone got one over the Enstrom, I'm not going to say you made a bad decision. The Enstrom does look better though and you won't change my mind on that :P
I learned in a Brantley B2b. Did a half hour in a Bell 47 and an hour and a half in the Enstrom. Hands down the Enstrom is the best. It had the best autorotation of the three. It was so easy to fly compared to the Brantley. If I had an aircraft, this is what I would have.
00:08 “ … from point A to point B”. Actually this was the initial selling point for this aircraft. One of earliest publicity campaigns had a picture of an older guy standing next to one of these with the slogan: “Since I bought the Enstrom I’ve hardly done a thousand miles in my Mercedes”. Unless you are constantly having to fly to places with no landing facilities, a fixed wing craft is far more feasible for getting from said point A to point B. If you want to fly a helicopter rather than an air taxi don’t bother with this one. People don’t buy an F28 for aerial work, there’s a reason why …
While turbo charging might be a good idea, it will increase the cost of maintenance, which may not necessarily be a good idea.
One, just how high do you wanna fly? And is it necessary? You may also need oxygen to breathe. Less oxygen also means less combustion efficiency, turbo charging notwithstanding, if there is less oxygen, fuel will not burn efficiently, or not at all. Turbocharging in this case gives you more power to hover n lift weight more efficiently, at lower altitudes, but is the extra cost justified?
There are other Helicopters out there like the RotorX n Safari that can get you up with less cost overall. The Safari 400,a scaled down Bell 47, has the Lycoming 360 with a Robinson governor, twin tanks for longer range and a bit heavier payload thanks to a bit larger main rotor. While I don't knock the "Eggstrom",it really should have a shroud like the Robinson to cover up the mast and give it more stream lining n keep it cleaner from the elements...
And is it really necessary to fly really high??
By the time you climb to 10,000 ft you'll be looking to come down anyways cuz you've already hit Bingo fuel... 🤔
Living in a mountainous area turbocharged is very useful taking off full power at altitude. On the FX models it also adds 20HP over the non turbo Enstrom’s. Standard TBO of turbo is 2000 hours, relatively minor in light of all other expenses, especially for the additional power. I have used one commercially for 20 years.
@@chopperflyguy
The only turbo I would like is
in the UH-1B. In a small personal aircraft a
4 cylinder Lycoming is just fine. So you get
an extra 20 hp? Losing 20 ibs will also gain
you a few HP...
2 crashes..?
I know of 3 just here in the NW
,,, Sorry, both the R22 and R44 are jusk responsible for many fatal crashes due to Mast Bumping
There’s no ing in Enstrom
Unfortunately, the content creator doesn’t know much about helicopters. The statement made indicating that most helicopters can be flown solo from either the right or left seat is not only wrong, but misleading and a dangerous comment to make. The primary reason for designating a specific seat for solo pilot operation is due to wait and balance considerations, which are extremely important in anything that flies and that includes helicopters.
Sorry friend, it was a competitor in 1982. In 2021...not so much
:'(
How many helicopters do u own ?
The cheesy music ruined it.
Glad you liked it
R 22 44. Can’t bread in them. The cyclic sucks.
I just wish you wouldn't say "Engstrom."
Got tired of the headbanger music
You keep pronouncing it if there were a g in it aka engstrom. Its enstrom. You become annoying.
I'm really surprised it took 1,300 views for this comment lol
I’m so tired of talking auto rotation … when that rotor stop spinning? Your fkt. It’s the end. It’s a matter of luck. Autorotation. And that’s reality ….
I'm not understanding your comment. Autorotations are my favorite maneuver, and I'm not the only one. There's a lot of satisfaction in managing your energy and bringing the machine to a safe, soft landing, precisely where you want, all with a dead engine. The Enstrom ( and Bell 47 ) are arguably the two easiest helicopters to autorotate, and the R22 is arguably the hardest production piston helicopter to autorotate...