Progress in aviation as measured by the Robinson R88

by philg

Robinson has figured out that the big money in helicopters is government and medevac (also government, since Medicare and Medicaid pay). Consequently, they’ve released the R88, a machine big enough to serve as an air ambulance (government pays) or firefighter (government pays) or police (government, obviously, and oftentimes air taxi for bureaucrats). Here’s what it looks like:

The turbine powerplant is made in an Islamic country and generates 950 hp. Rumor has it that the new helicopter will cost $3.3 million so let’s call that $4 million in today’s dollars by the time it goes out the door with useful equipment.

My summary to a pilot group:

Never in the history of humanity has there been a single-engine helicopter that could carry two pilots and 8 passengers underneath a two-blade rotor system.

Let’s have a look at the Bell UH-1 (“Huey”), which first flew in 1956 and of which more than 16,000 were built. The Huey had…

  • two pilots
  • seats for 11 passengers
  • a single engine (700 hp in the prototype; 1100 hp by 1960)
  • a two-blade rotor system

What did the first Hueys cost? $250,000 (source). Adjusted from 1960 into today’s mini-dollars… that’s $2.7 million.

The Robinson R88 is surely an improvement over the Bell in many respects. There are LCD screens in front and a modern autopilot to “pitch in” (so to speak). It may also be more reliable and cheaper to maintain (I hope!). But it’s kind of interesting that there hasn’t been more of an improvement in specs or cost after nearly 70 years.

20 thoughts on “Progress in aviation as measured by the Robinson R88”

  1. Miss the days of Greenspun the flight instructor. No-one really knows how effective DOGE is, but rumors are government travel is way down. Artificially creating a recession in order to improve efficiency is a new idea.

  2. Related: Pilatus announces PC-12 PRO. It has slick new *Garmin* avionics, with 5 touch screens. It features Electronic Stability, Autoland, auto-throttle, and Smart Glide (if engine stops?). Its just 1 engine short of being my favorite turboprop!

    • That’s crazy. And yes, Smart Glide is for a no-power situation. Previously, Pilatus executives had privately said, “Garmin does not exist for us.” It was Honeywell or nothing!

      Seeing Pilatus adopt Garmin is like watching Gavin Newsom disavow everything that he previously said he believed.

  3. Hmm, somehow I have trouble imagining it accommodating one of these –

    https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fi6u3mhizuak71.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Da63d9ce0a544a9818f5831df842ebe4a5d82fc3b

    …which I think could be a problem for police is some uh “emerging” markets (Rio, Mexico City, our new allies in Moscow, etc)

    Although in fairness you can arguably wreak more havoc these days with a GPS and 5G jammer and I bet Robinson will offer those.

  4. PS not to take us too far off track but I wonder why the 7.62mm Gatling minigun has not been tested for anti drone work. Its big brother the 20mm m61 Vulcan is famously part of the naval Phalanx automated close in defense system (for shooting down anti ship missiles). Seems like you could have a similar setup with a minigun mounted on a tracked vehicle. And at considerably less cost than the microwave and laser systems we are apparently developing.

    • I think that due to low speed of drones fire density is not an issue, the issue is quick enemy drone detection, identification and target acquisition, especially in environments when friendly drones are used. So regular machine guns and even automatic / semiautomatic rifles would do, when equipped with proper targeting system. Anti drone lasers are much cheaper in use. Even with bulk ammo discounts, 20 7.62/ .308 mm rifle cartridges are bound to cost $10-$30, depending on ammo quality. Plus new barrel needed after few thousands shots and proper sighting procedures should be followed. Lasers are usually shot from vehicles equipped with batteries and mobile diesel generators, I think around a buck or two for a sure shot not as much affected by wind or other atmospheric and mechanical variables at 7.62 or 5.56 shot range.

    • According to google, military drones can fly at 60,000 feet. A .308 won’t have much left after 2000 yards and presumably has a lower BC. It also has no explosive charge and would have to strike the drone directly. Seems unsuited for such a purpose.

    • A. Jackson, military drones that fly at 60,000 feet are nearly as expensive as jet fighters. I assumed that the question was about drones of supermarket + quality used in Ukraine and by Hamas They go neither fast nor far nor high and well placed 7.62 round is sufficient to bring them down. There are hand held and vehicle mounted machine gun systems to shoot them. Mini gun would be expensive overkill for them

  5. I think the R88 meets the “improvement in Specs” by removing the T-Bar cyclic and installing traditional helicopter controls.

    It is disappointing that they did not go with GE (Then again, I guess GE would not want to jeopardize their Bell 505 program) or back to Rolls Royce for the R88.

    • “Removing the T-Bar cyclic” is not an improvement over a 1956 Bell because the 1956 Bell did not have a T-bar cyclic.

      The Bell 505 also has an Islamic engine!

  6. Where are the engines made? Wikipedia says they are a french company with a plant in Texas. I wonder how this tariff war is going to affect the uber-globalized aerospace industry.

  7. I love how it’s like convergent evolution in the helicopter business:
    “Let’s build a small, economical helicopter with reasonable operating costs”
    “We really should make a bigger one”
    “You know, if we put a turbine engine in this thing, it would be awesome”
    “With all that extra power, we can make it quite a big bigger…”
    “You know what’s better than one turbine engine? Two turbine engines!” (next)

  8. Phil, I’m not a pilot, but I enjoy hearing about aviation on your blog. I can’t follow your post here though – your self-quote says a helicopter never existed with those specs, but obviously you would have known that the Bell UH-1 existed and met those specs. Were you quoting yourself being sarcastic?

    If so, that might have been more obvious to people without a deep knowledge of old helicopter models if you’d listed 3 or so past helicopters that have the specs. With only one example, wouldn’t it have been simpler to instead list the specs as the selling points of the R88?

Comments are closed.