View Full Version : Hughes 269/Schweizer 300 series


Pages : [1] 2

eurocopter
3rd Nov 2000, 00:18
We are considering the Schweizer 300CB in place of the R22 as a school training aircraft. Apart from being slightly slower and a marked nose down attitude in cruise flight, does anyone have any good or bad comments about them?



Hughes500
3rd Nov 2000, 12:36
I use 300C's, much better than R22 ( oh God are we going to open up the R22 debate again).Advantages of the 300; it is more stable, more power, more forgiving and just better, I reckon on 400 /500 hours a year it is cheaper to run although it uses 11 gal fuel an hour;3 more than an R22. As for speed , mine criuse at 80 / 85 kt pulling 23 inches. I hear the CB has less guts but most of the above applies although everyone who has one reckon the C is better but CB streets ahead of R22.

The H300 was designed as a training helicopter
What was the R22 designed to do ??

FlyAny
3rd Nov 2000, 18:36
I have a few hundred hours in a Hughes 269A, predecessor to the 300. It was the first helicopter I flew and, I have instructed commercial and instrument it. I am told they are very close in handling and, with that as my qualification I will tell you that it is a great A/C to fly. Stable, as little helicopters go, reliable, and in autorotation you will land on the spot you hold 3 inches above the toes of your boots in the descent, every time. I have not flown another helicopter you can maneuver to a precise landing point in autorotation as easily. The landing gear design lends itself to both absorbing minor abuse and ground resonance. But, ground resonance is pretty easily avoidable by maintaining and preflighting the struts and blade dampers. Can't tell you what care and feeding will cost you.

[This message has been edited by FlyAny (edited 03 November 2000).]

hover lover
4th Nov 2000, 06:11
Passing along experience of Dave Adams, 5000 hours, employed in electronic news gathering, also a heli CFI..
Goods Points R-22
- relatively modern simple design
- allows pilot high degree of precision
- very reliable, frequently needs no attention at 100 hour check
Good Points Schweizer
- stable helicopter and smooth ride
- good visibility + roomy cabin for two
- lots of power at sea level

Bad Points R-22
- hard starting in cold weather
- real tight fit in cabin for pax + baggage
Bad Points Schweizer
- older design
- needs more maintenance, 100 hour check often turns up needed repairs
Adams says "cannot give a definite answer, each has its good points. This is a list of my personal likes + dislikes for each model"

Hone22
28th Nov 2001, 08:39
Hi all

It's funny how questions pop up in yer head and slip away if not acted on straight away, here's a couple i hope the collective wisdom out there can help with.

1.The H300 manual says during start up no more than 2000ERPM or a overspeed condition and short shaft strip required.

How come during auto I was taught to stabilise the ERPM at 2500. Is this not overspeeding the engine?

2. Why are they such maintanance hogs?

Compare to the R22, big difference, big $$ DOC difference.

3.Great machine for local stuff but why the 45 degree nose down in the cruise (good thing the 4 point harness stops you falling out the bubble).

4.Why are they all (pigs) so different to start. Once again look at the R22, pretty much all start exactly the same turn key bruuummmmmmmm.

5. Heard lots of different opinions re keeping RPM top green 3200, mid 3100 or bottom 3000.
I personally use top green for all max performance,limited pwr, confined areas. and cruise at mid green 3100. Anyone expand on this. I've just been told if you constantly use top green 3200 the engine blows up (untrue in my experience to date).

Don't get me wrong, i have a very soft spot for the ol girl, great for autos (apart from the vertical glide path) good sized cabin (2up) good grunt (once again look at the R22) and it's like a real helicopter when you climb up into it (once again look at the R22).

Thanks for all correct answers and remember this was posted by a pilot not an english teacher .

edited to add Q5

fly Safe
Hone ;)

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: Hone22 ]

Hughes500
29th Nov 2001, 12:16
To answer your questions
1. Engine is still driving freewheel / clutch arrangement rather than just spinning with nothing to drive. The damage on start up occurs due to the massive accleration from 0 to 1600rpm plus. The same engine in a plank drives a prop at 2700 with no damage
2.They are not maintenance hogs, i would question your engineers. DOC's are cheaper in my experience with the exception of fuel.In the UK 300 is almost half of what an R22 is to insure. Plus you do not have a 2200 / 12 year rebuild !
3. remember the 269 series was built as a training helicopter for the US mil ( TH55). You are not interested in high cruising speed ( if you are take a 500D). However I have never worked out why some of my machines are quicker than others and have varying nose down attitudes at 80 kts.
4. Welcome to fuel injection. we pay the price for different starts against carb heat. All mine start with throttle fully open prime for 3 secs close throttle crack 1/4 inch and go. If engines is hot crack 1/2 inch and go.
5. Be kind to the engine, you can quite comfortably hover 2 up full fuel 15 degrees C at 2800rpm, yes you have to be careful. Pesonally I teach all my guys 3100rpm unless it is very hot, tight confined area or very windy for spot turns.
6. They are a very good and reliable machine. Difficult to compare to a 22. One was designed as personal transport the other as a training helicopter. One is considerably better than the other at training and they are about the same in the other role - work it out for yourself ( where does the 3rd person sit in an R22 ?)

;)

The Nr Fairy
29th Nov 2001, 13:32
Two questions, then H500.

1. Is the fuel cost the ONLY reason for the £35 wet rate difference between the R22 and the H300 at FAST ?

2. In your opinion, which is the better trainer, and why ?

Hughes500
29th Nov 2001, 14:59
Nr Fairey

Fast have used my 300's I have charged them more than the R22 owners charge them.

As for which is better ask any one who has flown both types as a trg machine. The 300 has
a) more power
b) more stable in the hover ( trim it and you can remove hand from cylic for up to 5 seconds)
c) Bigger inside (R22 advantage if your student is female and attractive)
d) Has a proper cylic
e) Has a sensible trimmer
f) You can look behind you
g) better eol
h) Does not lose rrpm so quickly
i) Built like a brick outhouse
j) Much better C of g if you are very big
k) More powerful tailrotor
l) No carb heat
m) Holds more fuel
n) Better visibility
o) Better C of g when instuctor gets out for first time
p) Outclimbs an R22
q) Its not a Robinson product therefore safer
r) Doesn't have 18degree offset in the rotor head !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ppruners - sorry if I have got Lu going again
s) Can't think of anymore

Disadvantages

a) Usually more expensive to hire
b) Uses more fuel 10litre / hr more
c) slower - about 80 kt cruise
d) ridiculous oil filler

OK the R22 Brigade lets hear your side :D

Up & Away
4th Dec 2001, 17:38
So ....it would appear that there is nothing that can be said against the H269/S300??

Heard that there is a small company start up with S300 in the Yorks /Lincs area any info??

topilot or to pprune
:rolleyes: :)

diesel76
6th Dec 2001, 01:52
The Excellent Ground Resonance feature on the 269 series is very good...... ;)

Hughes500
7th Dec 2001, 04:57
Deathranger

if you got ground resonance in a 269 the maintenance guys and pilot should be shot. Normally caused by an oleo being knackered which is very obvious on a walk round. Can also be caused by damper problems. ;)

diesel76
7th Dec 2001, 11:31
I haven't ever flown nor been in a 269

I have seen them disintigrate though...
Yes it is usually dodgy maintenance though

Here in New Zealand maintenance can be done on helicopters by anyone who has a set of tools or a arc welder..

Hone22
18th Dec 2001, 02:25
Hi all,

Further on this line of enquiry, most of the fixed wing Lames spoken too all go on about the engine high RPM 3200 being an ask for eventual trouble.

Having some brief time in the 300cb, the FM tells ya the donk is producing 180hp at 2700RPM.

This is a figure more in line with the fixed wing applications for the 360 Lycoming. The R22 Beta 2 also runs the 360 at about 2700RPM for a lower rated HP output.

IF the question of engine reliabillity is bound by how hard you work it, Would the H300C be a more reliable A/C if the donk spun slower, Would the HP produced still be in line with load capacity (I know the CB is a little short on oomph when required).

Is the power band in the 360 such that it has to spin at 3200 for the FM stated performance of the H300C.

Questions, questions, questions

Cheers & fly Safe

Hone

(Written by a pilot not english teacher).

t'aint natural
18th Dec 2001, 04:07
Hughes 500:

Nice try. No cigar.
I bought a helicopter last year, after long and careful appraisal. I looked at the Schweizer and the R22, among others. I looked at actual maintenance records, actual utility figures, I looked at performance, handling, safety, and last but not least I looked at money. I bought the R22. Why? Because nothing else even came close, on any criterion with the exception of office space. I just got a 50-hr bill this month… it’s £216 plus VAT. My insurance is £272 a month for a machine that does about 400hr a year, on a school flightline. My fuel bill is £23 an hour. The 300 just isn’t in the hunt, and anybody who has to stoop to “it isn’t a Robinson” to justify running a 300 must know exactly what I mean.

Hughes500
18th Dec 2001, 11:15
tain't natural

Hate to say this my last 50 hour on a 300 was £ 150
Just had a 300 hour inspection done £ 850

Last annual was £ 3200, this on an aircraft that flies 400 to 500 hrs a year

A question for you how much is your 12year 2200 hour rebuild going to cost you plus the down time ?

Yes agree there is no competition on fuel, I use about £ 35 hr
Resale value on 300's I think you will find is a tad better.

As long as your're happy not a problem really

Have a safe one
PS the 500 is much better than both put together!!! ;)

Vfrpilotpb
18th Dec 2001, 18:36
H5,
Would the Hughes be a good replacement for the R22 or are they in such different fields , one with the two rotor blades and the other with three, so therfore totally different to handle and fly, Ie the Neg G area and Auto's, and finally in your opinion, what would be the conversion time for this more docile craft?
My Regards
PeterB

Magumba
18th Dec 2001, 20:52
I have 1300 hrs in the 300C, good heliopter for the size. Remember flying 3 up front a few times, almost had the collective between my legs. Flew lots of Santa flights too, one where the belts would not fit around the jolly old man. Flew him anyway, can't keep Santa from the kids.
Starting was always a bug with the 300. I think it's due to the 'shower of sparks' booster for the mags used during starting. I flew an Enstrom F28C with a IO-360 engine that was a dream to start. I always sweated starting the 300.

Had a few overspeeds on start over the years too. The tach needle wips around so bad on start that it left you scratching your head as to whether you had an overspeed or not.

I think it flys so nose low because it has no mast tilt and not much horizonal tail area. The canted fin also caused it to pitch and yaw in turbulance.

As to RPM Keystone had 5 of them in 1974 used for Cable Patrol, all flying was below 3oo ft. Flight manual in those days said use 3200 below 500 ft so that is what we did. In turbulance the thing would yaw so much the RPM would be 3000 to 3400 inspite of your best efforts to control it. Huges finally gave us permission to fly at 3000 and use 3200 for take off and landing only. When we were using 3200 all the time we had several engine problems because of valves bouncing off the seat at RPM above 3200.
An engineer at Lycoming said the cam dropped the valve too fast if you got above 3200, valve would bounce off the seat. Didn't take too much of that to cause a problem. Later they changed to cam.

I also delivered a new 300, a police version that was the 'quiet' version it allowed cruise at 2500 RPM. Felt strange flying with that slow a rotor RPM.

Keystone flew the **** out of those 300. 25-30 hrs a week on 4 helicopters for 9 years. After the first few years they ran and ran.

t'aint natural
18th Dec 2001, 23:54
Hughes500:
If I may make a constructive contribution - na na na na na.
I put aside a healthy £25 an hour for my rebuild, which covers everything including postage and packing. The rebuild gives me a zero-timed machine. No "on-condition" spending. How much is a blade for a 300?
Better resale value? If you can sell them. Why does the R22 outsell the 300 twenty to one? You tell me.
Agreed, the 500 is a barrel of laughs. The 600N is good, too, and you can get more than two midgets in the back.

Hughes500
19th Dec 2001, 10:55
tain't natural
blade is £ 7500 at current exchange rates with a life of 5500hrs
As long as you are happy who cares, incidently I have never had a problem selling 300's
With a 500 I never sit in the back, but at 6ft 2 I would prefer to sit in the back and have a 135kt cruise then lumber round in a 206 at just over 100kt.
Ever flown a 500 ? Come down to the West Country and I will convert you on to one. ;)

Hughes500
19th Dec 2001, 11:03
Hone22
I have just had my engine overhauled (300C)
She had flown 1556hrs and 1820 on the datcon.
As a training heli the engine takes quite a lot of stick from students.
I teach my students to keep the engine at about3000 to 3100rpm unless you are very heavy or you want more tailrotor authority when there is more than about 20kts of wind.
The machine will quite happily hover at 2800rpm but the tail response is slow.
My best advice for the engine is to change the oil every 25 hours, very easy to do yourself. This will ensure hours of fun and reliability.

Have a safe one ;)

Hughes500
19th Dec 2001, 11:09
VfrPilot

I would be very surprised if it took more than 5 hours. I think you hit the nail on the head the 300 is a much more docile machine. Someone once said if you can fly an R22 you can fly anything - I would have to agree !!
Oh no does this mean I am starting to like the R22 ;)

t'aint natural
28th Dec 2002, 17:40
Interesting for-real engine-off landing out of Redhill a couple of days ago. Hughes 269 whose owner had squawked it as over-revving at idle. It was tweaked, revved well on the ground, but (probably) fell victim to more carb icing than it could handle during a practise autorotation near Dorking. Luckily it was being flown by one of the best pilots in the business, who could land my sofa without a mark on it. It was flown away from the field he put it in. Respect, Mr Boswell sir.

tecpilot
28th Dec 2002, 21:19
The 269 CB is a step in the wrong direction. Pilot workload is higher than on the "C" models. The carb with manually controlled heating is an additionally riskfactor escpecially for the lowtimers.
Deep respect for the described touchdown! OK, engine failure or loss of power during a stabilized autorotation makes some things easier, but to get the ship clean on the ground is anyway a proud performance! And a fully AR touchdown in a 269 CB isn't easy.

Helinut
29th Dec 2002, 11:37
Well done that pilot! The problem is always there in carburetor piston engines. Roll on fuel injection and compression ignition, not to mention the fuel cost saving if you can use Jet A1!!

bigruss
29th Dec 2002, 19:18
I am told there is a problem with the carb on the CB269. apparently if you down the collective and then bring it back in a bit quick the motor can start missing badly even to the point of stopping. Practice autos anyone. This happens on mustering operations with 40 degree C days, nil humidity, sky clear. They say there is injection option now available. Just been talking with my friend who has operated a CB for 4500 hours and he says he can get it to miss badly, even stop any time time he likes.

Kent Brockman
12th Mar 2003, 19:10
New to the world of helicopters, I was wondering if any rotorheads could help me find a M/R drive shaft for a Hughes 269A.

The current one has a few hours to run, but I was trying to source a replacement to prevent the helicopter being grounded.

Any info would be much appreciated.

Regards, Kent.

Flying Lawyer
12th Mar 2003, 23:48
I suggest you call Dennis Kenyon at the Aviation Bureau, Shoreham.
When I spoke to him last week, he was setting of for Poland - but only for about 10 days.
I'm sure he'll be able to point you in the right direction.

Slotty
14th Mar 2003, 20:11
You can always try CSE engineering at Oxford, mind you I don't think that it would be the cheapest but they have some parts from scrapped 269's and do deal with schweizer direct.:}

Hughes500
16th Mar 2003, 06:50
Kent

I run 3 x 269's send me the part number you are after as A model shafts are different to C model shafts. To give you an idea a new C model shaft is about $ 13500 at the moment with very little discount offered.

Most people scrap the machine rather than spend £ 9000 as it overcapitalises the machine. A model only worth about £ 30000 at best. Cheaper to sell the machine with timex shaft and sell the remaining rotatables to other 269 owners.

Let me know;)

Hi Flyer
17th Oct 2003, 21:51
Can anyone please recommend a point of contact re: possibility of purchasing a used 300c?

The Nr Fairy
18th Oct 2003, 01:36
If you're in Devon, AH Helicopters MD may know - he's into 300's.

But you may already know that . . . :D

Slotty
18th Oct 2003, 04:03
CSE Sales at Oxford can probably help you out.

Steve76
18th Oct 2003, 09:25
A very nice model with Rev limiter fitted and good times available here in Canada at the moment.

The Flashing Blade
21st Oct 2003, 19:15
Hi Flyer,

Just sent you a PM. I know someone who knows something about a 300C for sale up north.

The Flashing Blade

Amazon man
22nd Oct 2003, 20:38
Hi Flyer,

I have sent you a pm with regard to your request

nonradio
23rd Oct 2003, 00:19
Call Aeromega at Cambridge - their 300 is for sale now.
Ask for Alex.
:ok:

Cron
23rd Oct 2003, 00:46
Heliair (01789470476) had one in the Hanger - may be sold

pilotwolf
24th Oct 2003, 08:13
I have the opportunity of a share in a 269A, offered as a very good share option/cost.

The only 'anti-things' I can find are:

The cost of the share - goes without saying but would be significant savings on SFH of R22, etc.
VNE of 80 knots.
Direct sideways vision poor due to my height.
Lack of luggage space for touring.

Any advice or genuine supportable reasons why I should say no? Have numerous reasons in favour but need an independant view.

PW

PS Apolgies to HQ - need to be sure ;)

Steve76
24th Oct 2003, 11:01
Poor tail rotor authority.

bigruss
24th Oct 2003, 11:51
they say 269A's are where the saying whirlybird comes from

roundwego
24th Oct 2003, 12:24
VERY poor tail rotor authority. If you allow Nr to drop at all you will have difficulty maintaining yaw control. Underpowered at the best of times. Maybe OK if you are a lightweight and not carrying a passenger. Much better with a C model if you can find one.

ProfessorFate
24th Oct 2003, 21:54
Lead/Lag dampers are coil springs, I believe. Haven't been there myself, but somebody I worked for once told me they can stick and you can get a very rare problem called "air resonance" until you crack it loose.

Rich Lee
25th Oct 2003, 01:37
Sticky friction lead-lag dampers cause a main rotor 1/rev slight to medium lateral vibration. The dampers can be phased in the air by a quick, small diameter counterclockwise circular movement of the cyclic. An alternative method is a hovering autrotation.

There is something to be said about owning a piece of history, even if only for a short while. The skills acquired flying an underpowered helicopter with manual throttle and no correlation will serve you well in the future.

pilotwolf
25th Oct 2003, 13:54
Thanks everyone.

I was told about the tail rotor authority - or lack of - problem. Didn't have any trouble when I flew it, 2 up in lightish winds. Seemed to climb well and no problems with hovewring turns etc.

As Rich Lee said the experience will be good, having flown only governor equipped machines before.

Still think I will probably go ahead with it if finances work out OK as the deal is a very good one. Also its going to be used for keeping my hand in and a few jollies over a couple of years or until I get paid for flying, so not too worried as won't HAVE to fly if the conditions aren't good.

Watch this space!

PW

rotornut
27th Oct 2003, 01:43
From my experience, having owned a 269B a few years ago, I can tell you that these things can be expensive, although often cheap to buy second hand. Lots of things to break, wear out, and corrode so emptor caveat! But you can also have a lot of fun. Good luck. By the way, Kinzie Helicopters, if they are still in business, is one place to go for parts and used machines. I couldn't find them on the net but they are located or were located in Oklahoma.

Vfrpilotpb
27th Oct 2003, 21:12
Hey Rotornut,

Sorrow to jump in with two size nines, but the words should be the other way about, IE, "Caveat Emptor" My brief has just sorted a thingy out for me and the sly barsteward has included that in his legal scribings, I suppose to cover his own fine arse!

Regards
Peter R-B

rotornut
30th Oct 2003, 20:18
Yes, you are absolutely right. I looked it up in my quotation book.

Gav500D
15th Jun 2004, 09:29
Question for h269c pilots.
The h269c flight manual states that with rotors disengaged maxium engine RPM is 2000rpm above this possible damage to the lower coupling sharft could be caused.
In a practised autorotation if the engine RPM is maintained above 2000 RPM while in the guide is this the same thing as allowing the engine RPM to go above 2000 on start up.In a Autorotation the freewheliing unit disenages the engine from the drive system so to me the engine is under no load and is overspeeding
Anyone who flys the H269C is aware that are all completey different machines, some have good corrrelators some don't.
As an instructor I find especially with new students that if the engine RPM is not above 2000RPM when the collective is raised after skids levels the needles join at very low RRPM especially if the flare rough. And somes students you want the needles nearly joined as the keep you working!
And Help would be much appreciated

VeeAny
15th Jun 2004, 18:46
The 2000 rpm limit is apparently to do with
'whip' in the crankshaft. The difference in autorotation is that the belts are tense which will probably prevent the whip / lower coupling damage to some extent. If autos below 2000Rpm were not permitted then i doubt the flight manual would mention the risk of throttle chops above a certain DA (i am away at the moment and not near 300 RFM). When the engine rpm is wound down in auto the freewheel unit in the upper pulley allows the rotors to turn, it doesn't slacken the belts and disengage the upper and lower pulley from one another like the clutch would.

I should point out that I am not an engineer so this could be total b****x.

Before rejoining the needles in a C set the rpm somewhere between 2400 and the bottom of the green arc. It'll be much smoother then, although some manual throttle is still required.

Flingwing207
15th Jun 2004, 19:17
Like VeeAny says, the 1600 rpm limit w/rotors disengaged (momentary inadvertant up to 2000 rpm) is due to the oscillations that can occur between the coupling shaft and the lower pulley. Once the belts are tensioned, the lower pulley is held fairly rigidly and the oscillations don't occur.

helimatt
17th Jun 2004, 15:06
G'day charlie,
I've got a copy that I'd be happy to lend you. Drop me a pm if your interested
Matt

SEL
17th Jun 2004, 17:26
Hi

I think that CSE at Oxford is the UK Schweizer agent:

http://www.cseaircraftsales.com/schweizer/schweizerhome.htm

I'd guess you could get one from there but I have no idea how much it would cost.

pilotwolf
17th Jun 2004, 17:58
Email them direct and they ll send it to you from the US cheaper than you can buy it here... just make sure its shown on the Customs Declaration as a manual not general aircraft parts or you ll have to pay the import taxes.

Anderson.Debra@<hidden>

PW

RotorDompteur
18th Jun 2004, 07:03
Hi,

I got one from jeppesen.com two years ago.
It's included in one of their Pilot Student packages but can be ordered seperatly.

Just write to them and ask for
"Schweizer 300CB Manual"
Item number JS312501
Item ID: SHELM

Blue skies,

RD

The Flashing Blade
18th Jun 2004, 11:18
I got mine from CSE at Oxford. I think it cost about 17-99 or thereabouts with postage on top of that.

Be persistant though as they weren't that interested in selling me anything. It took two emails, a visit to their stand at Helitech and a phone call.

:confused:

FB

pilotwolf
18th Jun 2004, 12:24
It took two emails, a visit to their stand at Helitech and a phone call.

I know sometimes there is no avoiding it but out of interest why bother with a company that has customer service like that?

PW

ossie_lation
25th Nov 2004, 09:47
After a check list for the Schweizer 300c. Been using the Oxford avation one before and just wondered where or if indeed anyone can suggest where I may take a copy. Original seems to have gone on walk abouts!!
Thanks Ossie.

rotornut
25th Nov 2004, 10:59
I have a copy of an old one. PM me and I'll send it to you.:ok:

ossie_lation
25th Nov 2004, 11:09
Rotornut
Tried to pm you but system said you can't receive (or don't want to) Would be happy to pm my address as your offer would be much appreciated.
Regards
Ossie

rotornut
25th Nov 2004, 14:54
ossie,

Please try again. I just changed my e mail address so they asked me to re-verify it, which I have done.

Spunk
6th Dec 2004, 18:39
There seems to be a MEL for every single helicopter in the universe but I just can't get my hands on one for the Hughes/Schweizer 300. Any help???

Thanks in advance,

Frank

Flingwing207
6th Dec 2004, 20:35
Perhaps the lack of a MEL for the H269 series is due to the fact that it would be a very short list!

-landing light
-VSI

for the CBi
-Low RPM warning horn
-rotor autoengage system

Anything else would be equipment added optionally and/or aftermarket.

Certainly there is nothing stopping an operator from developing a MEL, but there's not much to be gained from the exercise.

Lightning_Boy
7th Dec 2004, 01:07
Minimum equiptment list for the 300 CB

Manifold Pressure Guage
Ammeter
Rotor Tachometer
Carb Heat Guage
Cylinder Head Temp Guage
Outside Air Temp Guage
Warning Lights

All theses in addition to your standard VFR / VFR Night / IFR equiptment list.

LB
:ok:

Flingwing207
7th Dec 2004, 03:41
Hi Lightning,

Be careful not to confuse required equipment (Part 27 or the Schweizer equipment list) with an MEL. Put in somewhat oversimplified terms, the MEL is a list of the equipment than can be non-functional but still allow the aircraft to fly. For the Schweizer, the equipment you list is required by FAR Part 27 (except for the OAT, which is on the TCDS Equipment List as required equipment), so could not be on a MEL.

2beers
7th Dec 2004, 09:35
Hi!

Flingwing is right. But also, the MEL is only connected to commercial ops. The MEL is in the operators ops-manual and it may vary depending on the task at hand. Different MEL for charter and firefighting. The list has to be approved by the authorities and can use the manufacturers master minimum equipment list as a guide and has to be more restrictive than, or the same as, the MMEL.
It would be a very stupid thing to put in the MEL, but just as an example: If the MEL says landinglight must work, then no flying with a broken one even if it's broad daylight. Don't have to worry about that if it's a private flight though.

The MEL is aircraft and operator-specific so you would have to find an operator who have bothered (or been forced) to make a list for the 269.

This is according to the JARs as I recall them, but... ;)

/2beers

FlightOops
7th Dec 2004, 11:53
Hey Spunk you slimy devil (Great name !!)

I was staggered to read that you couldn't find an MEL for the 269 and after some digging around at my usual sources I have to agree with you !! How queer !!

As an ops manager this is a process I am currently going through myself, so can sympathise with your pain.

I am lucky insofar as for the fleet I operate a Master MEL (MMEL) is available for all types, on the CAA website - however NO 269 !!

A brief search through the FAA site also revealed a lack of info... BUT (and its a good looking but !) ... I did find the following site http://www.opspecs.com/melpolicytalks/ which lists all the final policy letters for each ATA code, and with some head scratching and application to your own operation you may be able to produce your own (based on another known type).

Who knows - if it's good enough you may be able to sell it back to the Aviation Authorities who clearly think that nobody performs commercial ops in a H269 !!

Good luck.


Its always better to be pissed off than pissed on !!

Reefdog
8th Dec 2004, 10:10
Having about 1500 hours in H 300s the MEL is as follows










ONE PILOT at least with 2 hands, 2 legs, 1 head and sober if possible..


Cheers

Heli-Ice
8th Dec 2004, 17:12
Reefdog.

You scrapped my ideas of growing big in the heli industry with my H269. This MEL of yours is just to hard to follow, specially the last part! :{

Spunk
8th Dec 2004, 18:38
Thanks for your replys so far guys. I found another useful advice in someone else's ops manual. Trying to quote and translate: " As there is no officially approved MEL for the Hughes 269 (neither from the FAA nor the JAA) the operator is exempt from providing a MEL for the above aircraft."

Now that sounds like a reasonable solution for me. :D


@<hidden> FlightOops: Never thought of that meaning of the name before, I swear. When I logged in for the first time I was eating my favourite liquorice called "Spunk". That's when the name was born :}

Next week I'll turn in all the manuals at the local aviation authority. Let's find out if they'll approve them and hand out the desired AOC.:ok:

DennisK
27th Dec 2004, 08:16
Just a small word of caution when buying, 'locally produced' check lists.

The UK AAIB's view is that unless these include EVERY item exactly as produced in the PFL, they are not legal and would come under the microscope following an accident. (possiby adversely)

I checked with 15 pilots and all but one said he would use a 'locally produced' item. 14 of us badly wrong !! With the benefit of hindsight, I now use the PFL schedule.

DennisK

Hughes500
27th Dec 2004, 16:44
PM me and I will send you one that is a copy from the Flight manual. I have added some extras that engineer suggested. It is in word format so you can add your own bits to it.

It is best to personalise a checklist to each ac for students. Before I am shouted down of the 2 I own, prime one for 3 seconds and it will never start, prime it for 6 secs - fires every time ! The other, prime for more than 3 secs and it will flood !

catseye
17th Feb 2005, 22:47
I have been asked if there were any H300's in use for training near Sydney Australia. Anyone aware of any in use that are serviceable????

The Eye.

belly tank
17th Feb 2005, 23:12
Not that im aware of however i do know there are a few based around melbourne.

mostly all 22's in sydney

heli_spy
18th Feb 2005, 00:33
Catseye

Aerowasp Helicopters near Wollongong ( approx 1 hour south of the Sydney CBD) provide training on the 300 and to my knowledge are the only company in the Sydney area who do so.

Chief Pilot is Peter and you can phone him on 02 4256 8444.

You can check out the website by going to www.google.com.au and typing in 'Aerowasp Helicopters".

Any further info required then PM me.

Cheers

heli_spy

ATPMBA
11th Jun 2005, 13:12
Schweizers are all across the board, by that I mean all the components on the copter can have a mix and match of different times rermaining. Unlike the R22's where everthing is done at 2200 hours at a huge cost.

Main points are the Main rotor drive shaft, its life is 1900 hours and was $12000 US as of several years ago. Blades last 5500 hours but can go bad before that and they are 14,000 each, you have three of them.

Several years ago Air Flite of Oklahoma faxed me some time sheets showing the life limited component, useful life, and cost to replace. By getting the aircrafts componet times you could calc what a used helicopter would cost run. It can be staggering until you start replacing some of those high priced and due early compoenets.

Also, if you mess up and auto and bend the afy cross beam that is $4,000, on a R22 it's a 1,000.

Aesir
11th Jun 2005, 14:19
I remember also having seen a list (maybe it was AirFlite!) that had all the time life components in a spreadsheet where you could insert hours and get remaining hours in a easy way & cost of the components.

With a little work you can make it yourself, just download Schweizer price catalog from the website.

TheFlyingSquirrel
11th Jun 2005, 19:42
and don't forget £10k for the MRGB !! :uhoh:

Cross-eyed
12th Jun 2005, 00:53
Here it is in full with hours, U.S. Dollars are totaled (i.e., qty x cost) but are 2003 prices:

Lycoming Engine 1500hrs $21038
Main Rotor Transmission 3000hrs $6300
Tail Rotor Transmission 3000hrs $4924
Upper Pulley Bearing 3000hr $574
Lower Pulley Bearing 1800hrs $1027
Idler Pulley Bearing 3000hrs $406
Carrier Assy, M/R Transm 6000hrs $3268
M/R Transm. Pinion 6000hrs $6036
M/R Hub & Shaft Assy 1900hrs $11801
M/R Mast 13590hrs $8080
M/R Thrust Bearing 3000hrs $1553
M/R Pitch Bearing Shaft 3600hrs $6311
M/R Blades 5500hrs $40961
Tailboom Assembly 4200hrs $5586
Horizontal Stabilizer 4200hrs $2659
Vertical Stabilizer 20540hrs $3786
Tail Rotor Driveshaft 6000hrs $4152
T/R GearBox Input Gear 8600hrs $2586
Elastomeric M/R Damper 6000hrs $10170
Tail Rotor Blades 9000hrs $11,440
T/R Blade Reten. Straps 5100hrs $1,035
Lower Pulley Coup. Shaft 6000hrs $1,671
Tailboom Strut Assy 10700hrs $2,276

Aesir
12th Jun 2005, 01:24
Hmm...

www.sacusa.com pricebook say´s that basic overhaul for a MRGB is $7.914.78.-

And that is the absolute minimum if nothing else in the gearbox needs to be replaced.

I think Cross-eyed that your price of "Main Rotor Transmission 3000hrs $6300" is a bit outdated!

"edited: ohh sorry just now saw that your prices were 2003 prices :ouch: "

KevinLonghurst
1st Oct 2005, 20:22
Hi All, I've been offered a share in a 1968 269 'A' model.....and I'm in a bit of a quandary as to whether to go ahead.......some say yes....some say no......more opinions welcome...thanks.

Whirlygig
1st Oct 2005, 20:28
I thought the old adage was...

Never fly the 'A' model of anything!!

Schweizers are great little helicopters; the A is not as good as the C (does this one have fuel injection?) but, if the maintenance checks out..... I'd probably go for it!!

Cheers

Whirls

rotornut
1st Oct 2005, 20:53
Well, I had a partner and we bought a 269B at a good price. However, that was just the beginning... It got very expensive because of worn out or timed out components. So you gotta make sure you know what you're getting into. It might be a good idea to have an engineer go over the machine - even if it costs a bit.

TheFlyingSquirrel
2nd Oct 2005, 03:31
I would certainly get some very careful advice on a 68 269 - especially if it's been used for training - i've seen the bills when these old machines go bad.....it aint pleasant !

bigruss
2nd Oct 2005, 06:53
I have heard that the A model has some sort of weird pressure carburettor that is very troublesome. lots of failures apparently.

KevinLonghurst
2nd Oct 2005, 12:56
Thanks guys.......
For the record....she's fuel injected (one tick for the pros then)
Please keep the opinions coming !

Kev

rotornut
2nd Oct 2005, 13:38
Our "B" had fuel injection and it was trouble free (about the only thing that was!) I assume it's the same Bendix system as the "A" although I seem to to recall that the "A" is 180 hp vs. 190 for the "B". So hopefully that's at least one thing in your favour.

KevinLonghurst
2nd Oct 2005, 13:44
I believe she's 160 horse.......and about 4400 total hours........

Hughes500
2nd Oct 2005, 14:35
Is it G-SSHP ?

If it is I air tested the machine after its last annual inspection june 29. It had just had new main rotor drive shaft. Someone has spent a lot of money getting her up together. It is 24v, fuel injected, with a normal electrical clutch, good glass and it flies like a dream. I suppose if you are buying a share it depends on how much and what the monthly costs are. On the open market it would be £ 45K at max.

Don't expect to go very far very fast, flat out is about 70 kts !

KevinLonghurst
2nd Oct 2005, 16:47
Hi H500, thanks for the post. I guess you meant G-SHPP 'cos she did have the mast changed just recently.

The share is offered at £7k.......£125 a month in the communal 'pot',and then £150 per 'wet' hour.....

How does that sound ?

Kev

.......that was for a 6th share...

K

rotornut
2nd Oct 2005, 19:25
Oops, it's been a while. Yes, the "C" has 190 hp, the "B" 180, and the "A" 160 hp, if I am correct. One other thing about the "A": it's a little short on tail rotor authority so it can keep you from falling asleep in gusty conditions.

KevinLonghurst
2nd Oct 2005, 19:39
Hi Rotornut.....I too had heard that about the tail rotor.....thanks mate.......(one tick for the cons).

Kev

Friendly Black Dog
2nd Oct 2005, 20:22
The A models that I flew had a cruise speed of 70kts and a VNE of 75kts. This was attributed to a number of bubbles letting go...always flew with a helmet! Does she have oil filled drag dampers or elastomeric (spelling..sorry)? The oil filled models are fantastic for sharpening up your ground resonance recognition and recoverys. Engine RPM will want to be kept right at the top of the green especially when taxying downwind....bloody paddle pop sticks would have more authority. Make sure that the aft cluster has had any AD's carried out...very expensive I believe. The list does go on a bit sorry. FBD:rolleyes:

Hughes500
2nd Oct 2005, 21:38
Yup, your right I got the reg wrong ! I think £ 150 an hour wet is very high. My school currently rents out 300C's ( 1990 or newer ) for £ 195 hour wet ( plus vat) and thats before you get a discount for a block of hours.
The C model is streets ahead on an A eg 2 x 16 stone people 49 gals of fuel and still do a towering take off plus an 80 kt cruise !
as already stated watch the t/r it will give you a nasty surprise in a moderate wind !
All I would say is why buy and have a running cost plus hassle greater than being able to rent ?
Best of luck, PM me if you want more info

KevinLonghurst
8th Oct 2005, 09:22
Hi FBD

Thanks for your input

Too true on the VNE...but slow flying's better than no flying, LOL

The bubble is apparently "good"....

The dampers are the elastomeric type....with about 2600 hours remaining

Kind regards

Kev

Oh...and the rear clusters have been replaced to comply with the AD.

ATPMBA
11th Jan 2006, 23:05
My new CFI (female and attractive) has challenged me with a question as I am going for my CFI. I need to know why the weight and balance envelope is missing a triangular piece on the lower right hand corner.

Whirlygig
11th Jan 2006, 23:08
How many fuel tanks does it have?

Cheers

Whirls


....also female and incredibly stunning!!!

imabell
11th Jan 2006, 23:13
because it wasn't needed.

is that all you have to know to become a helicopter intructor????????????

thecontroller
11th Jan 2006, 23:32
because thats the way schweizer made it

ask her if she knows the answer to these questions

- when you push the cyclic forward the swashplate tilts forward and left. given gryoscopic precession, why doesnt the swashplate tilt right?

- why is the horizontal tail rotor stabiliser mounted at an angle?

- why does the helicopter have a tendency to yaw left during the flare portion of an auto?

- why does the helicopter hang left skid low in the hover?

Cross-eyed
12th Jan 2006, 03:24
Please someone post the answers before I scratch a hole in my head.

Hughes500
12th Jan 2006, 09:24
Because it would be out of balance here if you were in that missing triangle.
ask her why the top left corner is missing too !!!
If she is that attractive send her over here !

Hughes500
12th Jan 2006, 09:30
Another question for your CFI. If you set 2300rpm at flat pitch, why when you pull the lever up to 18inches is the erpm at 3000 rpm and you dont need to touch the throttle for the next 95% of your flying ?

Hughes500
12th Jan 2006, 19:01
Kissme quick if gyroscopic precession doesn't happen how do you accont for flapback ?

highfinal
12th Jan 2006, 19:26
Phase lag perhaps...?

Hughesy
13th Jan 2006, 00:05
Hang on, we are getting of the topic here.
How attractive is she? :E
Hughesy

Whirlygig
13th Jan 2006, 00:13
;) ....er... not as attractive as me! :}

Cheers

Whirls

Flingwing207
13th Jan 2006, 02:10
How many fuel tanks does it have?

Cheers

Whirls


....also female and incredibly stunning!!!Two

Ask her...
why the tail rotor blades angle forward from the hub?
Why are there two pressure switches on the MR gearbox?
What is the function of the slat?
Will it fly at 320 RRPM?

thecontroller
13th Jan 2006, 12:09
>why the tail rotor blades angle forward from the hub?

** you mean the 30 degree offset? thats to reduce the flapping amplitude

>Why are there two pressure switches on the MR gearbox?

*** one for the hobbs, one for the warning light?

>What is the function of the slat?

*** stability during autorotation. stops the nose dropping

Whirlygig
13th Jan 2006, 12:18
Fling, are you refering to this particular aircraft in the original question 'cos some Schweizers only have one tank! I was being a tad facetious!

Off the top of my head (and I'm at work at the moment so don't have the numbers handy) isn't 320 RRPM a bit low for the Schweizer. 3,200 is top of the engine RPM band isn't it?

Cheers

Whirls

highfinal
13th Jan 2006, 13:44
:confused: Call me stupid but isn't RRPM "rotor revolutions per minute", and if so, if that thing was swinging around at 3200 rpm, wouldn't that make the tip speed around 19,000 mph?

Flingwing207
13th Jan 2006, 14:29
>why the tail rotor blades angle forward from the hub?
** you mean the 30 degree offset? thats to reduce the flapping amplitudeNot the delta hinge, the fact that the blade angles forward from root to tip when viewed side-on.>Why are there two pressure switches on the MR gearbox?
*** one for the hobbs, one for the warning light?Starter interlock - keeps the starter from operating if the rotor isn't turning and the clutch is engaged. If there is pressure in the MRGB, the starter will operate no matter what.>What is the function of the slat?
*** stability during autorotation. stops the nose droppingYep, but how?>Will it fly at 320 RRPM?
*** 320?! you mean 3200??320 rotor RPM (green range is 390 - 504, power on is 442 - 471). BTW, that pic is from a CB or CBi, note the 2530 - 2700 ERPM range.
Whirls, 300C models will have two tanks to go along with the left-hand PIC - let's put it this way, I've never seen one with only one tank. The CBs and CBis often only have one tank as suits their training role and RH PIC setup. You can option LH PIC and dual tanks on a CBi, but at 1750 lb MGW you will not often be able to put more than 35 gal into the tanks with two people, so it's of limited utility. The 300C has 200 or 300 lbs more useful load (depending on when it was built), so it can usually go full fuel (up to 64 gal).

Whirlygig
13th Jan 2006, 14:31
Thanks Dave, I said "engine" in response to a now-edited post (a few above) which commented on the "320 RRPM" as stated by FL207 suggesting that it should have been 3200 RRPM. That was what generated the comments from myself and highfinal.

Is the picture of your Schweizer a CB or CBi? 'Cos I'm sure my ideal operating ERPM is 3,100 making 3,200 the top end on a 300C.

Cheers

Whirls

Hughes500
13th Jan 2006, 15:21
ATPBMA

Back to the subject
I was getting excited at the thought of a picture from Dave Smith, but to find it is a tacho and a cbi one at that ! When are we going to see what your CFI looks like so we can have a more interesting discussion ?

Head Turner
13th Jan 2006, 16:07
so don't keep us all edgy - send a picture of the lady and if Whirlygig so desires to send in one as well, all the better.

Head Turner
13th Jan 2006, 16:16
The W/B envelope is a graphical explanation of the amount of cyclic/lever control available throughout the permitted weight range. As a safety device. Fly your helicopter out of this area and you will not have full control available. The corner is not missing, it was never there. Consider weight, manoeuvring 'G' and autorotations all require full control availability.

flap flap flap
13th Jan 2006, 17:51
CFIs ask some daft questions don't they?

Yeah, I think a picture of the instructor would help everybody

Flingwing207
14th Jan 2006, 02:13
My new CFI (female and attractive) has challenged me with a question as I am going for my CFI. I need to know why the weight and balance envelope is missing a triangular piece on the lower right hand corner....so back to the original topic (and I admit the hottest CFI's fly Schweizer), what about the clipped corners on the CG envelope?
OK I'll take one for the team (in a semi-drunken, whoops did I say that, condition), I'm not sure! The CG of the Schweizer is primarily derived from the limits of control movement and the flapping limits of the rotor. The clipped corners are right-aft and left-forward. Fuel tanks and PIC position are immaterial to the CG envelope (they only affect the position of the CG within the envelope).
So I can't see the reason. There's no problem moving the cyclic forward-left and aft-right (in fact it's the aft-left position that's the biggest problem if you have a left-PIC or the dual controls in). This is really going to vex me until I know the answer...:zzz:

Cross-eyed
14th Jan 2006, 02:40
Whirls, 300C models will have two tanks to go along with the left-hand PIC - let's put it this way, I've never seen one with only one tank.

Got one, seen a bunch. Right tank, left PIC.

octavo
14th Jan 2006, 11:47
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the standard 300C's have a right hand side fuel tank and left hand side PIC. The left hand side tank is optional. The 300CB has a left hand side tank and right hand side PIC.

Whirlygig
14th Jan 2006, 12:08
Thanks guys,

For a minute I thought Flingwing was trying to do a "Fanny By Gaslight" on me as I could have sworn that I had flown a 300C, LH PIC that only had one tank (on the right!). But with old age and senility creeping up ever more on me, I couldn't be sure that I wasn't going bonkers!

Cheers

Whirls

Flingwing207
15th Jan 2006, 00:10
For a minute I thought Flingwing was trying to do a "Fanny By Gaslight" on me as I could have sworn that I had flown a 300C, LH PIC that only had one tank (on the right!).
Cheers
WhirlsNever on purpose, Whirls! Must be that old UK/USA thing, or the fact that I've seen all of, lessee, one, two, three, four, five, SIX, 300C's (1977 to 2005 vintage) up close and personal - all had dual tanks and LH PIC. So chalk it up to my youth and inexperience...
Anyway, hopefully I'm more Harry Somerford than Lord Manderstoke :E

fitternturner
15th Jan 2006, 00:58
Happy Birthday Whirls! :D

SmashTheVSI
15th Jan 2006, 22:20
Notice how no really intelligent comments have come from NZ...except Hugesy of course...that must mean that weight and balance is only used in northern hemisphere aviating. I guess we figured your guys water goes down the plug hole the wrong way, so rip out that W&B page in case it's wrong as well!!!

P.S.
I ALWAYS worry about my weight...and my balance.

Spunk
2nd Feb 2006, 10:58
I'm looking for a scale model of a Hughes 269.

Anybody with a link to an online shop (preferable in Europe, due to faster delivery).

Thanks Spunk

Three Blades
2nd Feb 2006, 11:01
Easy enough to get the radio controlled version but if you just want an Airfix type then I have not been able to find one anywhere. One used to be made but is out of production.
If you find one, let me know.
TB

BigMike
2nd Feb 2006, 14:07
Try here:
http://www.daveswebshop.com/sh72016.shtml

They have a good range of model kits, including a 1/35 scale Little Bird, and 1/24 scale 500MD, and 1/24 scale civil version.

http://www.daveswebshop.com/dr3527.shtml

http://www.daveswebshop.com/hc2702.shtml

91205
26th Mar 2006, 23:43
can someone explain the differences between these 3 models? i need to know max gross weight, horsepower, standard equipment, and component times. i've tried the internet but cannot find the info, and the schweizer website doesnt seem to give all the info either.

thanks...

Galapagos
27th Mar 2006, 00:15
Simply put...
300C: Carburated, engine not derated, 3 seater so FP in left seat.
300CB: Carburated, derated engine (higher TBO but less powerful), 2 seater, FP in right seat. Was designed to be a trainer and attract schools back to the Schweizer brand after Robinson started invading the market.
300CBi: Same as the CB except it is injected.

Flew the CB and C and they are great little things... if only they could be a little faster!!!

Might be more subtle differences but that is the big stuff. Hope it helps!

G

Hiro Protagonist
27th Mar 2006, 01:14
If my memory serves (questionable), the 300C is fuel injected not carburated.

autosync
27th Mar 2006, 01:47
Off the top of my head, and I stand to be corrected.
180 Horsepower on the CB and CBi with 1750 MAUW
300C is fuel injected with 190Hp and seats three, pilot flies from the left, can be used as a trainer with the middle seat taken out.
2200 TBO on the lycoming HO360 engine
4400 hours on the airframe.
Most parts have varying life limits 8000 hours on the MR blades down to a couple of hundred hours on other parts.
About 92kts VNE but lucky to get 75kts on either machine.
Manifold pressure limit on the 300C of about 26 inches.
No MP limit on the CB/CBi

kwikenz
27th Mar 2006, 01:49
Both the CB and CBi are available as three seaters... there is a fairly straight forward seat conversion.
Mind you... 3 up in a C was bad enough... youd only want to weigh about 65KG to get anywhere.
Great little machines
I could be wildly wrong but Im sure the following is near true :ok:
C-Lycoming H10-360 D1A 190HP injected 2050 lbs MAUW
CB - Cant remember but I think 180HP Carb 1750lbs MAUW
CBi - HIO-360-G1A Engine 180HP injected 1750lbs MAUW
As far as times and stuff... you will find the Schweizer website has a full TBO list for as parts on both available types (they dont sell CB's anymore)
http://www.sacusa.com/helicopters/300c_overhaul.asp
http://www.sacusa.com/helicopters/300cbi_overhaul.asp
There are also standard equipment lists for each type at the site... have another look http://www.sacusa.com/helicopters/300cbi_equipment.asp
http://www.sacusa.com/helicopters/300c_equipment.asp

Flingwing207
27th Mar 2006, 03:36
The 300C (269C):
Lycoming HIO-360D1A running at 3200 RPM, 190 HP, fuel injected. Currently a 2050 max gross. Standard is left PIC, three-seat option.

The 300CB (269C-1)
Lycoming HO-360 C1A running at 2700 RPM, 180 HP, carbureted. 1750 max gross, right-PIC is standard, left-PIC/three seat option.

The 300CBi (269C-1) 2003/4 replacement for the 300CB
Lycoming HIO-360-G1A, 2700 RPM, 180 HP, fuel injected 1750 max gross, right-PIC is standard, left-PIC/three seat option.

Galapagos
27th Mar 2006, 09:18
If my memory serves (questionable), the 300C is fuel injected not carburated.

You are right!!! My memory did not serve me right... :\

Sorry...

rotornut
27th Mar 2006, 10:27
The engine in the C has a TBO of 1500 hrs., I believe. I think it's the same for the other models as well. I trained in the C and owned a 269B. They have a lot of charm but are a little slow. I remember not being able to keep up with traffic on an expressway when flying into a moderate headwind one day:ugh:

ascj
28th Mar 2006, 03:00
What is the fuel use on them?

Flingwing207
28th Mar 2006, 04:16
300CBi - plan on 11 gph (US)
300CB 12 gph
300C 13~14 gph

Oh yeah, life-limited parts are the same for the 300 CB and CBi with the (possible) exception of the MR driveshaft - the older-style (bolted) driveshaft had a lower life limit (pre 2004 or so).

ascj
28th Mar 2006, 10:11
Thanks FW207

Ian Corrigible
22nd Apr 2006, 15:48
Schweizer 300CBi flight report here (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/bba4697e-d19b-11da-a38b-0000779e2340.html).

Not a bad write-up once you get past the initial 'Apocalypse Now' references... :hmm: Also includes a flight handling comparison with the R22.

I/C

FanPilot
22nd Apr 2006, 20:13
So, the start of the story where they are flying along the river between the trees, ala apocalypse now... is that not against rule 5?

I know, person, vehicle, structure or vessel. Well, how can the pilot see if there is a couple gone alfresco in the woods nearby?

SEL
22nd Apr 2006, 21:07
Interesting write up. I didn't know there were aircraft reviews in the FT. Does this mean we can expect Clarkson type reviews in the future? Top Blade?

As for the Rule 5 comment, folk do tend to jump onto these kinds of things. I would expect any demo flight to a journalist on a paper like the FT, who, it appears is also a pilot, is likely to be a tad more than legal. Journalistic licence perhaps..?

Do you suppose that there will eventually by a pilot-Stig test pilot? We could be onto a winner here...

13snoopy
17th May 2006, 04:25
What is the absolute minimum hanger door width that you can still get a Hughes 269 through. (I don't mine spinning the main rotor blades a bit it as it comes through the door, either).
My door is 16 feet wide (little bit less than 5 meters). Can I get a 269 through it ok?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thank you.

gyrotyro
17th May 2006, 18:25
Hi

I have a 300C and I can get it into a barn measuring 6 metres wide by placing the skids as close as possible to one side and then turning the blades as I push it back.

This also relies on the building being wider inside of course.

ampk
27th May 2006, 09:40
Any changes to fuel tank or cap since about sn 35 was made know of a fatal due not latching cap. hope changes have been made since.

any info?

From what I saw if the fuel cap is not on AND LOCKED 100% crash and burn in less than 60 secs from take off.

ANY INFO?

ampk
27th May 2006, 14:07
After 78 hits I would think that some-one may be interesed in not dying in a 333 even if they dont fly it.
I never will. on top of what they say exsposive proof fuel tanks. CRAP>>>
Try n find out what happened to A2-HDB OR A2-HBD one is the 333 the other 300 owned by the same guy dont get confussed

ampk
27th May 2006, 14:09
After 78 hits I would think that some-one may be interesed in not dying in a 333 even if they dont fly it.
I never will. on top of what they say exsposive proof fuel tanks. CRAP>>>
Try n find out what happened to A2-HDB OR A2-HBD one is the 333 the other 300 owned by the same guy dont get confussed

ampk
27th May 2006, 15:24
can you close this.

AS normal rotor heads defy logic n dont care.

The Nr Fairy
27th May 2006, 18:10
At the risk of getting ampk's post count up, I suspect no-one replied because they couldn't understand the original post, unless they're from PNG.

The Rotordog
27th May 2006, 18:24
Don't you love posters who, if they don't get an immediate response to their inquiry, call us names? Where the heck is PF1 when you need him? Just like a cop.

Flingwing207
27th May 2006, 22:18
I'm not sure whether to walk to school or carry my books. With the two elephants in the bathtub one says PASS THE SOAP the other says NO SOAP RADIO. so if the fuel caps are vented for bigger stiffness then

:E

Rotary-Wing
4th Jun 2006, 18:12
Hi. I'm training on the schweizer 300CBi and having slight trouble with throttle correlator during the pick up before 20" MAP, the problem is when I begin to raise the collective the rpm flucuates even though I anticipate the need to reduce throttle as I raise the collective but it seems like am chasing the needles to maintain rpm in the green band maybe this is normal in a sense.
Why does throttle need to be reduced during this stage anyway, is it because the correlator over manages RPM while the heli is still on the ground like load is still on the skids and not the blades or something??:confused:

Thanks
Rotary-Wing

Whirlygig
4th Jun 2006, 18:51
I learnt on the 300C and now fly a 300CBi. What can I say? It's a knack! I had the same difficulty. That's not to say I don't now but it's not so bad.

For the CBi, you probably want to keep the ERPM at the top of the green for lift. As you raise the collective, have your wrist cocked round so that you can reduce the throttle as you do so.

You'll get the hang of it :ok:

Cheers

Whirls

mongoose237
4th Jun 2006, 19:07
There is an alternative to experiment with, which does have the advantage of not having to raise the collective and roll off throttle, which is a little unnatural to say the least.

With flat pitch, set the appropriate RPM (for the CB it was 2000 rpm, if memory serves me correctly - ask your instructor or experiment as necessary). Suitably friction up the throttle, raise the collective and bingo its in the green courtesy of the correlator.

The throttle will hardly need to be touched for most (gentle) collective movements with a properly set up 300. The C was even better than the CB as I recall.

In any event, as time goes on you'll become more aurally-attuned to the engine note and throttle control will become far easier.

Point to note - some instructors do not like this approach on account of raising the collective lever with the RPM below the green. Treat accordingly.

vaqueroaero
4th Jun 2006, 20:21
By far the easiest way to overcome this is to do as the previous poster stated. Set the rpm about 2000 and start coming up on the collective. You should find that as the collective comes up so does the rpm. Adjust the throttle slowly to get it in the green if necessary. Adjust the initial rpm as required. You should find the sweet spot and your life will be a whole lot easier.

Rotary-Wing
4th Jun 2006, 21:49
One instructor did demonstrate a pick up with RPM set at 2000 before rising the collective which seemed alot easier but I don't think the other instructors appreciate that method too much either- I dunno, depends on the person maybe, so its kinda hard to know which one to go for! I like the idea of keeping the needles in the green when I'm going for lift as the other way seems a bit unnatural like mongoose237 mentioned, but it may be more practicable if I cant get the knack of it!:ugh: I'm not too long at it yet so hopefully its just a matter of quality kinesthetic time with the CBi;)

Gordy
4th Jun 2006, 21:51
By far the easiest way to overcome this is to do as the previous poster stated. Set the rpm about 2000 and start coming up on the collective. You should find that as the collective comes up so does the rpm. Adjust the throttle slowly to get it in the green if necessary. Adjust the initial rpm as required. You should find the sweet spot and your life will be a whole lot easier.
Try 2200 rpm for the CBi-----works every time.
This is my personal style of doing it, and not necessarily the standard procedure for where I fly, if indeed there is a standard procedure.

Flingwing207
4th Jun 2006, 22:14
The way I train my students is to have the RPM at the bottom of the green when starting the pick-up. While it still requires some minor throttle work as you raise the collective, it has the advantage of not raising any DPE's eyebrows.

Flingwing207
4th Jun 2006, 22:38
The way I train my students is to have the RPM at the bottom of the green when starting the pick-up. While it still requires some minor throttle work as you raise the collective, it has the advantage of not raising any DPE's eyebrows.

Rotary-Wing
7th Jun 2006, 21:48
Thanks for the suggestions, I've been flying since and it seems like I no longer have a problem with RPM during pick-ups!:)

Flyting
9th Jul 2006, 10:25
Why is the Vne on the 300 so slow? Heard it might be the limitation on the stabaliser fin.....???

Flingwing207
9th Jul 2006, 13:30
Since even the mighty 300C is hard-pressed to exceed 85KT in level flight, the 94KT Vne doesn't seem overly restrictive. Perhaps the restriction is due to the tail rotor pedals, since you are pretty much pointed straight down and standing on them at that speed... :8

Brien23
27th Jan 2008, 15:38
Thinking of buying a 269A or TH55 is this a bad idea due to the age. What should I know about a "A" or TH55 when looking for one other than the normal component time life items.

IFMU
27th Jan 2008, 17:17
One of my buddies was thinking about buying an older 269A or B. In talking to one of my other buddies, who has a lot of time in the 269 and 369 and is an A&P, he says the thing to look out for on the older ships is corrosion. The gearbox & mast are mag, make sure those are good. Problem is, you can be a victim of somebody dishonest who cleans up bad corrosion and gives it a paint-job overhaul. This applies to the other parts of the airframe too.

Otherwise, he thought the older 269 series aircraft were good.

-- IFMU

Helibeginner
28th Jan 2008, 02:13
I have a refurbished H269/Th55 for sale. Also operated a few over the years
Great little helicopters however when having to compete against the R22 the economies do not work, higher maintenance, higher fuel consumption, older technology and a bit slower. Still an excellent training platform for abinitio.

Lower VNE on the 269A was due to the rear windows popping out in the early days, fixed now but type cert not up dated to meet the higher VNE on the C's

Power and performance in the 269A/TH55 (assuming new style main blades, bigger tail rotor and electric clutch installed) better than the CBi in my opinion

As a private play thing would be a good little helicopter. Bit more room than the R22, has litters on the side and longer range fuel tanks and don't forget conventional controls.

PHILDOG
13th Mar 2009, 22:36
I Have A 1989 269c Hard Starting When It Is Hot. Any Help? Or Suggestions?

jeepys
13th Mar 2009, 22:58
Try minimal fuel pressure boost if at all.
Only my suggestion.
Hope it helps.

loggerman
13th Mar 2009, 23:18
put a skytech starter on it and problem solved!!!!!

chopperjockey77
20th Mar 2009, 00:10
I have limited experience so far in the hughes. So far I have to say that the R22, performs better. I was actually quite disappointed at the lack of reserve power hovering with half tanks, a 165 pound passenger, at 3000' msl and a balmy 3 degrees celsius. The engine RPM limit in this bird is 2900. I had it pegged there, and still only had about 1.5 inches of MAP to spare until full throttle. Maybe it's a weak bird. I would like to hear from people with experience flying 269A's with fuel injected 0-360's. So far I have seen a couple of the good attributes of the heli. It is extremely easy to fly. I was a bit concerned about flying with a standard cyclic and no governor, but I held that thing like a rock right off the bat. Anyway, I have to get one thing off my chest. I really hate it when people say the Schweizer has more power than the 22. It's just not true. From what I've seen in the Hughes, you need almost all that 180hp you can get, but guess what happens to HP as you climb? In the R22 you can usually get by with hovering at 124HP. You can pull an extra .9" for 131HP. That's usually enough to get ya an alright Max Perf. takeoff. You can climb all the way up to about 8000' on average before you can't pull 124HP (depending on the DA). If the R22 was only just a bit wider with more fuel capacity.

chopperjockey77
20th Mar 2009, 01:51
Is there any way to circumvent the 400 pound cabin weight limit? Why do the newer 269/300's have a 600 pound weight limit.

Whirlygig
20th Mar 2009, 07:21
I really hate it when people say the Schweizer has more power than the 22.
For every Schweizer model (except perhaps the "A" model), it's true. Sorry if you're going to hate that. That's why the C model can take three people and have a cabin weight limit of 600 lbs.

Is there any way of circumnavigating the seat weight limit in an R22?

Cheers

Whirls

Hughes500
20th Mar 2009, 07:40
Try a 300C model if you think you are short of power !
Yesterday 35 gals of fuel 900ft amsl plus 60 degrees 2 x 200 lbs pilots could do a vertical climb to 100 ft over trees, wind about 8 kts
The 269A has smaller blades than the cbi or c models

topendtorque
20th Mar 2009, 11:54
Is there any way of circumnavigating the seat weight limit in an R22?


No. for a Beta I think you will find that the minima solo weight (135lbs with doors on) is designed to keep the Cof G within limits with full tanks, aux installed as well.
The maxima (240lb per seat) is designed to preserve the integrity of ones vertabrae. (max design weight)
The empty Beta weight will be around 861lb and the minima allowable AUW is 920lb. at minima AUW the aircraft should autorotaate at right on the bottom red line (90%) at about 52knots in standard ISA. This will give you full travel of the collective to arrest descent.
so you see it is all very simple, if you are petite and beautiful as all petite fenminine people would be, then carry enough weight to preserve the CofG and you will never fail to safely conduct an autorotation should the need arise.
cheers tet

Whirlygig
20th Mar 2009, 13:55
TET, thanks but it was a rhetorical question!!

Cheers

Whirls

Capt JB
30th Mar 2009, 18:58
Well,

The big debate on track again.. A absolute wrong debate in term of pure training. Franck Robinson himself said again and again he never designed the R-22 as training helicopter. On other hand Hughes designed the 269 based on a training helicopter requirement from the US Army.
Therefore, I believe the 300 is much better suited for initial training. The R-22 being too touchy, it could be frustrating for any beginner - after all willing is not the only ability required to learn helicopter flying.
The R-22 is a good aircraft and when possible all student should learn to fly it - after having passed at least half the flight time for the certificate thought....
Most of the student pilots are passing through CFI rating an most of the school are using R-22, and I believe it should be a requirement to handle the R-22 properly to avoid any mishap while teaching.
The R-22 took a dominating position, due to its low operating cost, and 2000 original overhaul limit. Training is a business and lowering cost was/is an issue.
However, I am sure school owners are less stressed when their fleet of 300 is outside flying...!!!!
Having some R-22 in the fleet for navigation training, is a good solution to give your student "costless" way to build time and navigation requirements.
My perfect flight school fleet would be 4 x 300CBi, two R-22 and one R-44 (operated from a private owner.

Freewheel
30th Mar 2009, 23:17
Shouldn't this thread be renamed;

Hughes 269/Schweizer/Sikorsky 300 series


?

Stan Switek
31st Mar 2009, 02:58
I owned a 300C for 5 years. Parts are very expensive. Few A/C for sale were as represented. If considering a purchase, get someone who really knows the 300 to do the prebuy. I cannot emphasize this enough. Do not cut corners on the prebuy. Unless you are an A & P don't even consider buying a ship that is not in flying condition. Compliance with some A/D's can be very costly. Nice ship to fly but very slow. Avoid the short fat guy at LGB with all the military aircraft who claims to have flown in all sorts of movies. You will get hosed if you deal with him. If I had it to do over, I'd bit the bullet and buy a R-44 Raven 2.

chopperjockey77
30th Apr 2009, 16:52
Can anyone help me with the lack of information in the Hughes 269A RFM regarding weight and balance info? It doesn't give me anything on the doors etc. There is no lateral CG info. What is the deal?

Trans Lift
30th Apr 2009, 17:41
I'd take the 300 over the R22 any day. The 22 is nice on a cross country with that bit of extra speed but that sit in my books. Was in a 300C last week hovering at 5000 MSL, 55 degrees F. In my books that gives a DA of around 5900ft. Pretty good going!!

Hiro Protagonist
30th Apr 2009, 17:47
I'd take the 300 over the R22 any day. The 22 is nice on a cross country with that bit of extra speed but that sit in my books. Was in a 300C last week hovering at 5000 MSL, 55 degrees F. In my books that gives a DA of around 10000. Pretty good going!!

Ok, either it was 55° C. up there or you were about 5,900' DA... check out the online E6B (http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html)

Whirlygig
30th Apr 2009, 18:08
I don't think the lack of information for lateral CofG improves much from the A model to the B, C, CB, CBi :}

It's nigh on impossible to throw a Schweizer outside the lateral CofG limits; longitudinal though is a different matter, hence more data on the stations.

Cheers

Whirls

Rich Lee
30th Apr 2009, 22:30
Lateral C.G. limits can be exceeded in the 269 series of aircraft, albeit with some difficulty, and accidents have been recorded as a result of lateral C.G. exceedances.

The 269D has specific limits in the Type Certification Data Sheet.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/7768E159E426CFB386257367005FBF58/$FILE/4H12.pdf

chopperjockey77
1st May 2009, 03:54
Thanks for all the responses. I checked out the specs on the D model. I had looked at that publication before. I love how it says under the A model. "See RFM for details" next to Lateral CG limit. Then you look in the RFM and nothing...lol. I've been spoiled on the Robinson. My situation is that I need to train pilots in the Hughes 269A, and I want them to be thinking about lateral CG and factor that into their calculations, but I have NO DATA to use for the A model. I was thinking about using the data I have from the C, but I don't think it is right. The C has different longitudinal limits than the A. I'm also super bummed out about the 400 pound limit in the cab. Did they rig the cyclic differently in the C and CBI models to give you more cyclic effective movement, or is it a crashworthiness kind of thing? Anyone interested in 2 269A's for a really good C model? I'm not terribly worried about the lateral CG being out, with a typical male size, but I am worried about solo'ing someone light in the future, like a 100 pound girl. Any safe ideas for ballast?

Torquetalk
1st May 2009, 11:23
100lb girl with a heart of Gold?

Rich Lee
1st May 2009, 16:55
The reason there is no lateral CG published for the 269A is regulatory. The 269A was first certified under CAR/CAM 6, Rotorcraft Airworhtiness; Normal Category. These were older and vastly different certification regulations than FAR Part 27 used today. You must read the entire CAR/CAM6 to fully understand the interelationship between the various regulations but a very superficial answer can be provided using those most pertinant to this discussion.

CAM 6.101 pertained to weight limitations. The maximum and minimum weights at which the rotorcraft will be suitable for operation is established according to the rules. The maximum weight is based on a 170 pound person in each seat. The minimum is a single 170 pound person which is the minimum necessary to operate the 269A.

CG limitations could be found in 6.102. In that regulatory era, CG limitations were based on the aircraft minimum and maximum weights for which the aircraft was intended to be operated and had to be established for the most forward and aft permission for each weight. Loading instructions were only required to be provided if the center of gravity position under any possible loading condition between the maximum and minimum weights in 6.101, with assumed weights for individual passengers and crewmembers variable over the anticipated range of such weights, lies beyond:
1. The extremes selected by the applicant,
2. the extremes for which the structure has been proven,
3. The extremes for which compliance with all of the applicable flight requirements has been demonstrated.

CAR 6.740 defines what information shall be furnished in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. For weight and loading distribution it states that the rotorcraft weights and center of gravity limits required by sections 6.101 and 6.102 shall be included. CAR 6.716 says essentially the same thing. Where the variety of possible loading conditions warrants, instructions shall be included to facilitate observance of the limitations. The 269A was not required to publish specific lateral limits if all applicable flight requirements could be demonstrated and no structrual limits were exceeded when there was a 170 pound person in each seat.

Simply stated, lateral CG limits could not be exceeded in the 269A when the aircraft was operated within the approved limits using a weight of 170 pounds for passengers and pilots; therefore the regulations at the time the aircraft was first certificated did not require Hughes to publish lateral limits.

Longitudinal limits were required to be established by regulation so they are provided in the flight manual.

The 269B and 269C were certificated as modifications to the original type certificate for the 269A so were not required to meet the additional requirements imposed by FAR Part 27.

When you read CAR/CAM 6 you will find many arbitrary standards used for design and performance. For instance in 6.353 controls had to be located and arranged for full and unrestricted movement for individuals ranging from 5'2" to 6'0". If you were shorter or taller the controls were never designed for you since the regulations did not require them to be so designed. You might be suprised to learn that controls could be certified for forces of 130 pound in the pedals and 100 pounds fore and aft and 67 pounds laterally for the cyclic. Imagine the complaints!

In days gone by there were fewer regulations and pilots relied more on common sense, judgement and experience. I don't mean to argue that hard regulations for weight and CG has not improved safety over the years, but it has limited the usefulness of rotorcraft. You do not need to be a test pilot or an engineer to know when you are near the limit of lateral cyclic travel. You know that when you begin the lift to a hover and before the skids ever fully leave the ground. Common sense dictates that if there is a half an inch of lateral cyclic margin remaining you might be a little heavy on the opposite side and should consider doing something about it. Nevertheless, I have conducted flight testing in the TH-55A, H269A, H269B, and H269C at lateral CG limits of 2.0. This was acheived using weight bags attached to the outside of the helicopter since it was often not possible to put enough weight inside.

bladegrabber
5th May 2009, 15:51
Is anyone interested in forming a small syndicate to buy / lease a 300C / CBI in Norfolk ?

If anyones selling a good example of the type then happy http://static.pprune.org/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif to hear from you either on here or PM me please.

Thanks
BG

Heli-Ice
4th Jun 2009, 11:03
Anyone have a cargo hook kit and a float kit for the 300C need getting rid off?

PM please?

levo
4th Jun 2009, 18:34
Heli ice i think there are a couple for sale at aerosales.de in Germany
part no 1605037 lastentrager :ok:

Heli-Ice
4th Jun 2009, 20:01
Thank you Levo. I got your PM :ok:

duvan
21st Jul 2009, 20:36
Hi
I have a problem with my Hughes 269A starter; it turns the engine very slowly. The starter motor has been checked by a shop and they did not find any problem with it. The starter battery is from a truck with plenty of power. I have tested to connect the battery to the motor with jumper cables to exclude possible problem with the relay and ground cable without success. As you can see and hear in my video clip on youtube.com the engine kicks-back for each turn of the engine. Ignition and fuel are cut of during this clip. It is a 12 volt system

I have checked the timing too, it was correct. What if the work-shop are wrong about the starter motor ? They said that they open it up and had a visual inspection and there was notning wrong about it. Could it be that the starter output tourque are to low. It is a very old starter. What brand of starter motor is it on new Hughes 300 ?


Please advice

6AMteJv_LbM

Hughes500
22nd Jul 2009, 07:50
Doesnt sound any different to any of my 3 300's. You have a high torque starter motor on it ( normally sound like that) could try a Kelly areospace high speed starter which turns the engine over very quickly. Is the engine not starting ? In which case have the starting vibrators checked these give a shower of sparks to help start if the contacts are not good you will have a problem
Have you cleaned the earth strap which normally goes to the cluster on the left side of the aircraft ?

9Aplus
22nd Jul 2009, 09:12
Your cables from accu are very THIN
better use more profile of thick cables,
"welding" cables are great for that,
DC voltage on high consumption like on start up
drops voltage drastically.....:ok:

that chinese fella
22nd Jul 2009, 12:03
They said that they open it up and had a visual inspection and there was notning wrong about it

I would think that the shop needs to do more than a visual inspection. I detailed electrical bench test may find the real problem.

Good luck!

RVDT
22nd Jul 2009, 12:14
Not a 24V starter is it? Later 300's are 24V.

12V is MZ-4226 (LW 18989)

24V is MHB-4020 (LW 18990)

Kelly Aerospace Power Systems

Aftermarket and STC equivalents will be different of course.

Just watched your tube clip. Sounds about right to me.

pitot212
22nd Jul 2009, 12:40
I think RVDT is right! It does sound like a 24V starter being used on a 12V system.

cockney steve
23rd Jul 2009, 13:56
Not only is it cranking slowly, but the kickback is very noticeable....this will damage the starter pinion and the flywheel ring-gear....as soon as the starter starts spinning, you are giving a mighty blow in the opposite direction.

PLEASE NOTE I am not an Aviation mechanic but DO have a wide experience of 2-strokes and 4-strokes, petrol and diesel and petrol-paraffin :}

Connect a volt-meter (a cheap multimeter will suffice) between the battery-lead terminal on the starter and an earth-point......a fully-charged 12 volt battery should give a shade over 14 volts........crank the starter and it should hold 10 volts.....lower and you are looking for excessive current-draw or high resistance in the feed or return or a battery with high internal resistance.

Are the leads getting hot?....if yes, high current draw.....starter could have shorted field, field down to earth,a weak brush-spring or a lot of conductive brush-dust tracking it down (very unlikely that the starter is faulty as any decent engineer would have checked the brushes and blown out with an airline.)

As has been suggested, you MIGHT have a 24V starter on a 12V system....this would turn the engine very slowly......your ignition-advance at cranking -speed should NOT kick-back,but should be retarded enough that the combustion pressure builds AFTER top dead centre, pushing the piston down......if it's too advanced, the pressure will oppose the up-coming piston and can stop it dead, and even reverse it's direction as seen in your video.

That is extreme cruelty to machinery and you should be prosecuted :}

(you will have your wallet lightened with the repair-costs ,anyway! )

After the war, many old cars were converted to 12Volt from 6....it was common to leave the 6-volt starter in place....took a hellish current but spun the engine mega-fast....the start was so quick that overheating wasn't a problem!

duvan
24th Jul 2009, 09:27
Hughes 500
It´s surprise me that all 300 sounds like mine. No it is not a high torque motor, it is a 12 V Prestolite starter. I was a builder and owner of Van´s RV6 with a Lyc O-360 for many years and that starter motor was turning the prop much faster. I´m able to start the engine but the starter drains the battery very quickly.

9Aplus
I will check the Voltage drop

that chinese fella
I agree with you but the shop had no equipment to mesure the tourque.

RVDT
12V is MZ-4226 (LW 18989)
Kely Aerospace Power System
Okay, I will check prices.

pitot212
I agree, It sound like a 24V starter being used on a 12V system, BUT it is not. It´s a 12 V starter in a 12 V system.

I have a new question
Do anyone have experiance of starter motors made by B&C or SKY-TEC?

seacat22
21st Aug 2009, 20:20
There is currently a 300/269 share for sale in Gloucester if I was interrested in this what should I look out for .( I have no experience of helicopters ,looked like a cheap way of doing my training)

AIR1 GR
22nd Aug 2009, 08:45
Hello dear friends
Any one knows how much the new M/R driveshaft for the 300C with the increased lifetime(3100 or 3500 hours) will cost ?


Thank you very much !

Hughes500
22nd Aug 2009, 19:52
Er look at Schweizer website and download parts prices, easy really

AIR1 GR
23rd Aug 2009, 15:22
thnks a lot...

FLY 7
23rd Aug 2009, 21:14
You can always get a quote from these people.

Helimart, Inc. (http://www.helimart.com/)

Speak to Ed Brown

Hughes500
24th Aug 2009, 13:49
269A5326-005 M/R DRIVESHAFT ASSY SPLINED 300-40 18405.67

List price in USD, can normally do better than that

206dvr
25th Aug 2009, 13:15
Check with a few suppliers before you buy. I did and saved thousands....

MrEdd
28th Sep 2009, 17:55
Hi I´m looking to get hold of a start/shutdown list and preflight list for a 269A. A friend just bought one and the POH was not in the best shape.
Perhaps someone got a handy one on the computor?

Also does anyone got a W&B excel program for it?

Been looking for it all but no luck, any help is appriciated.

Thanks...

pitot212
29th Sep 2009, 22:16
MrEdd,

Will this help?

Sorry link not working I'll send you a pm. Try this, it comes up 4th one down!

269a checklist - Google Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ei=HYnCSsCqJ9O04QaYobSxBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAkQBSgA&q=269a+checklist&spell=1)

MrEdd
30th Sep 2009, 02:37
Thanks Pitot212 that was just what was needed.
Just so you don´t think Im a lazy ass, so did I google alot but couldn´t find it.

Let me know if you are around and the firs beer is on me:ok:

Phoinix
14th Aug 2010, 10:52
A noob question. I noticed a power limit placard in a 300cb (manifold pressure in relation to pressure altitude and OAT). At the bottom right corner of the placard (corresponding to the altitude and OAT) states FT. Is that full throttle? Logic suggests the engine manifold pressure is no longer a limiting factor as the available power drops with lower air density?

I was looking at the FLM but i found no obvious explanation of the placard.

tony 1969
15th Aug 2010, 08:15
Phoinix.
It is indeed full throttle:ok:

eagle27
19th Oct 2010, 05:42
I would like to thank everyone for the wealth of insight and info provided on this site.New to this so hope I am posting appropriatly.
My questions being --If one were to look at purchasing a partially restored 269 rollover --airframe changed out--to what extent would the ame have had to go to with regard to tear down etc to meet faa standards?manditory parts to be replaced ?main rotor drive shaft alighnment?blade couplers etc.Also availability with mr blades?Thanks kindly

FSXPilot
19th Oct 2010, 06:21
Rollover? Where the blades turning at the time? IF so you are looking at an O/H for the T/R and M/R gearboxes plus a sudden stop inspection of the engine which may end up requiring a full O/H. I would also imagine depending upon the amount of damage done thta near everything that turns will need at the least an inspection and in some cases replacement.

vfr440
19th Oct 2010, 09:36
Exactly right. If the blades were turning, power on or off, check the Conditional Inspection requirement in the MM. Gives you an idea of what costs will be incurred ~ VFR

Lainer
22nd Dec 2010, 02:22
Good day

I would like to buy 300С. I have a question on maintenance service. It is possible maintenance of the helicopter by hands of the pilot if nearby there is no service centre?
Сan I be trained and do it by myself for a flight time about 300-500 hrs ?
For more difficult works I will cause the expert in the place. How much difficult to do it?
Sorry for my English

Thanks

Hughes500
22nd Dec 2010, 07:08
Lainer

You problem will be the one 100 hour check which contains an Airworthiness Directive on the aft pinnion nut to be check torqued. Most people will not be able to answer your question as it will be up to The Russian civil aviation authority to grant dispensations from the Schweizer maintenance manual.
More importantly it is wise to get it checked by someone who knows what they are doing.

Lainer
22nd Dec 2010, 07:36
Hughes500

Whether should 100 hour check become the certificated centre or I can do it?
I do not consider the relation with aviation administration now.
Now I try to understand possibility of technical operation in Siberia, without the service centre.
I understand that it will be necessary to cause the mechanic from еurope.
I want to understand it for what works it will be necessary, and what works I can do by myself.

Thanks

pitot212
25th Feb 2011, 19:47
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice201101.pdf

Relevant to all those who fly any of the 300's. Check your checklists.

Phoinix
18th May 2011, 10:33
We got our S300C back from rent in what seems to me a "low rider" appearance... The dampers on the landing gear are more contracted (still there is some damping motion, but i would say a third of what I'm used to see). There is no fluid within the boot of the damper, still squeaky clean.

New dampers were ordered the same day and it's almost 9 months since than - all sorts of excuses from storage facilities being moved to company reorganization.

What I'm most eager to find is why exactly would something like this happen? The guy that returned the helicopter said the helicopter was on the ground for almost a month with full fuel tanks (64 US gal) and that is it. Any other cause from your experience?

RVDT
18th May 2011, 14:36
Er, the gas has leaked out.

Pretty common. There isn't much in there to start with so......................

Hedge36
18th May 2011, 15:22
Yep.

Ordering new dampers seems like an extreme solution to a normal service issue. I take it your engineers found some damage?

birrddog
18th May 2011, 16:12
Can't recall exact details, though is it not an option to top up the oleo's with nitrogen?

Phoinix
18th May 2011, 17:40
Thats what i'm thinking, but i don't have the MM at hand. Filling up with nitrogen is probably the solution but no clue why this wasn't performed. If there was other damage i'm sure it would be grounded.

Hughes500
18th May 2011, 17:47
Depending on the dash number overhaul kit is about $ 120 then labour plus the nitrogen !

Phoinix
18th May 2011, 17:49
Thank you. I'll check what went wrong with this one.

Hedge36
18th May 2011, 19:20
Straight strut with no pitting or corrosion, seal condition, oil level and N2 pressure (with bleed-down check)... pretty straightforward as I recall. There really isn't a lot more going on than that.

Captain Capricorn
18th Jun 2011, 21:02
Hi there

I’m having a real problem sourcing a replacement Main Rotor Drive Shaft, new or used, for a Schweizer 269C. Does anyone know of a Schweizer owners’ group? This part is apparently ‘no longer being made’ so surely other people must be in a similar position.

Thanks CC

Hughes500
19th Jun 2011, 07:27
CC
No for your machine there is a new type of drive shaft which has seperate head and shaft with much greater times. I presume yours is looked after by FAST as they asked me for one. Currently I have one but FAST dont want to fit it as it is in a current machine that is flying.
Incidently the factory have no drive shafts in stock which is crap and they cant even give a lead time !

rick1128
19th Jun 2011, 15:01
I have posted on the Manuals thread with very little luck. Does anyone here have a pdf copies of the 269 maintenance manual and IPC they are willing to share. Also I am looking for a pdf copy of the 269B/300B rfm. They do not have to be current, but should be complete. These will not be used for maintenance of any sort, just for information for a training manual.

Thanks.

Captain Capricorn
20th Jun 2011, 00:30
Thanks, Hughes500, for your reply.

Fast was quoted a lead time of ‘maybe years’ which is hardly helpful. Surely an opening for an enterprising manufacturer to start making them. I was told of a second hand one ‘without paperwork’. Would there be any inspection regime to provide valid paperwork? Difficult to imagine for a lifed item where there’s no service record.

Cheers, CC

500e
20th Jun 2011, 10:06
Perhaps out of life & they have just mislaid:E paperwork

Spunk
20th Jun 2011, 10:10
lead time of 120 days :ugh:

Darren999
20th Jun 2011, 14:59
We work with a supplier here in the US he has pretty much anything we need for our S300CBi. We are also very close to the Sikorsky plant. If you any parts and are struggling to get them, drop me a PM and I can see if I can get it for you, and I'll ship it over, if that helps..
Regards
Darren

ec155mech
26th Jun 2011, 19:48
Hey guys

does anyone have a complete description of the maint program under part M and LAMP.

looking into buying a CBi and would like to know what to expect. had a look at Schweizers website and came up short.

thanks in advance

M

Hedge36
18th Aug 2011, 02:37
Gentlemen:

Met a local chap with a 269A-1 sitting outside his kitchen window, which looks to be in excellent condition (overdue annual and potential pre-purchase inspection notwithstanding, of course). Some discussion with the missus as of late has had me in the mode of trying to establish a market value for the beastie, but I'm coming up short with regard to references.

Can anyone give me some valuation tips or point out some online refs which would give me a negotiating ballpark? My choices thus far have been sales listings online (wherein the sellers seem to regard their aircraft as highly desirable collectibles) or "Blue Book" subscriptions which appear to be more costly than warranted by my fancy for a single airframe.

Much appreciated.

crusaderone1
4th Oct 2011, 19:47
My question is if your have information on the frequency of Engine failure dew to fuel starvation associated with boost pump failure,if on this occasion the boost pump when engaged burnt out is it possible for the engine to cut out in the H269...........:confused:

tony 1969
4th Oct 2011, 19:57
Its possible I suppose,
but fuel is gravity fed and there is a mechanical fuel pump too, so unlikely.
boost pump only has to be on below 450 feet agl according to the POH

crusaderone1
4th Oct 2011, 20:09
Take a look at where the boost pump is situated in 300cbi... if the fuel boost were to burn out will this in turn possibly block the flow of fuel...:confused:

Hughes500
4th Oct 2011, 20:52
Crusader

Bolloc.. I am afraid, boost pump burns out the engine does not stop, had it about 5 or 6 times over 4000 hours in 300's, never stopped the engine.
The pump is what it says a boost pump. Basically it boosts the fuel supply for take off or landing when you might pull full power in case the mechanical fuel pump cant keep up.
So what is your point ?

crusaderone1
4th Oct 2011, 22:55
Ok 369 Look as AD the part...Which could result in an engin failure....

2003-14-03 Textron Lycoming : Amendment 39-13222.Docket no 97-ANE-50-AD. Supersedes AD 98-18-12, Amendment 39-10728.

Hughes500
5th Oct 2011, 07:01
As I said have had about 5 or 6 burn out while flying ( the on / off switch pops off) Normally it is caused by a leaky seal that then washes the grease out of the rotor bearing that causes the rotor to seize and then burn out

FLY 7
5th Oct 2011, 07:49
In practice, do most 300s fly with the fuel boost pump on all the time, regardless of height?

Phoinix
5th Oct 2011, 08:17
Not sure about the others but we do.

Whirlygig
5th Oct 2011, 09:23
Again, can't speak for others but ... yes, I was taught to fly with it on all the time.

Cheers

Whirls

chopjock
5th Oct 2011, 11:16
Hell, I flew one across the Irish sea with no boost pump, had fun starting it too!

500e
5th Oct 2011, 11:41
This is what I remember
Cold eng start Mix control out, fuel shut of fully in, Fuel boost on, Mix control in 3\5 sec, Fule boost off, close throttle open 1\4 inch, Ign both, Crank, as soon as it fires mix control in (do not exceed 1600rpm),
Hot start Crank, no boost, Mixture control in when eng fires.
Flooded eng Ignition OFF, Throttle fully open Fuel boost OFF crank for 10\12 seconds then as for hot start.
Part of Pre Take off Check list.
Warning lights out
Fuel boost ON
Sufficient fuel (12 gal hr)

Phoinix
3rd Nov 2011, 20:04
Schweizer, due to it's limited power, is a great tool to learn power management at higher altitude landings.
But, to what stretches do you go (as an instructor) altitude wise?

Within the mass&hover chart limits, I personally don't feel comfortable with landings above 7.000 ft DA.

jonwilson
3rd Nov 2011, 21:55
I suggest getting a 300C version then. If you are power limited in a Schweizer then it must be a CB or CBi but the C model is more powerful by a noticeable amount.
Cannot think of another helicopter in it's class that would be better.

Phoinix
4th Nov 2011, 05:33
It's a 300C version. My comparison about performance (limited power) according to the turbine counterparts.

ascj
4th Nov 2011, 22:39
ah well then better get a skycrane:}

CO280fx
4th Nov 2011, 23:37
Phoinix, summer days in Colorado flatlands are often above 8,000ft DA. We land our 300c's up to 10,000ft DA. Other copters in class that outperform? A turbo B47 or, of course, a turbo Enstrom 280 model. I regularly land our Enstrom 280fx above 12,000ft MSL. POH lists HIGE up to 13,600. Hard to beat the EN28 for high altitude piston performance. Direct operating costs comparable to the 300c.

Phoinix
5th Nov 2011, 15:46
Thanks, I guess low rotor RPM horn with max. throttle is an ordinary occurrence after all.

CO280fx
6th Nov 2011, 05:01
If you cant fly your 300c at 7,000DA without low RPM warning horn, you need a new machine, some better training, a new hobby, or to lose a few hundred pounds. Lighten up, mate.

Phoinix
6th Nov 2011, 06:05
Right... thanks for sharing.

There's no way of putting your experience before your ego is there 280?

Losing translational lift and starting a hover-IGE 30 cm of the ground, still air, full throttle causes LRPM horn until the engine catches some breath and gains the extra revs. 350 lbs of crew and 15 gallons of fuel. At 7.000DA we have alps, no flat airports to land on.

I'm asking because I only have one Schweizer, nothing to compare its performance to and I've had some rentals in the past, probably pulling too much from its beater.

hillberg
7th Nov 2011, 04:28
It's been some time when did the low RPM horn get installed in the 300 line?