What are the differences between flying a helicopter and an airplane?

[BlenderPilot]

To those of you that have experienced it, what are the differences between flying a helicopter and an airplane?

IN EVERY ASPECT, actual flying of course, but also professionalism of the group and environment, economically, etc.??

If you transitioned from one to the other, what was your transition like?

I myself left flying helicopters to fly Hawker business jets for a little more than a year, I have lots of impressions, but I wan't to hear yours first.

[Wizzard]

Basically, in a fixed wing aircraft you take your hands off of the controls and say "look, no hands!" In a helicopter you take your hands off of the controls and say "look, NOOOoooooo!"
Sorry, couldn't resist;)
Wiz

[effortless]

When you get cramp in your leg you get dizzy.

[remote hook]

Hey Blender,

I went the other direction, from FW to rotary.

In FW I flew lots of off-strip type work in the mountains, big tires, skiis etc in the summer, and IFR turbo-prop stuff in the winter, with one year spent abroad Base Managing for a large U.S. based outfit.

When I made the move to RW, I thought I knew quite a bit about hands and feet type flying, wind, mountain work, high altitudes etc, etc - I was in for a surprise! Those envirnoments are very tough in a light airplane, but are much more complex in a helicopter, with the consequenses of a screw-up coming faster and harder.

I've also been very impressed with the maintainance and overall attitude in the Rotary world. Things are done better, AME's are more concerned with getting things done right than quickly, and the level of pay is much better. I think this probably has something to do with it.

Perhaps the most interesting difference is the attitude. In Utility rotary work, you need the skills to do the job, long-lining(siesmic, drill moves, construction), mountain work etc. If you don't have those skills, you simply cannot do those jobs. In IFR FW, much like IFR RW, you don't need these hands and feet/decision making skills, and most anybody can be put in the seat and do a reasonable job of it. Because of that, there are HUGE egos walking around, thinking they're God's Gift, but in reality, their greatest ability lies in tieing a half-windsor and applying hair gel in the morning.... In Utility RW work, you walk the walk, or you just don't talk. You can move that diamond drill, or you can't, and everyone knows it. In FW, most pilots I came across in the IFR side of things couldn't fly their way out of a paper bag, yet would have you believe they're the second coming of Geoffory DeHavilnd/Chuck Yeager depending on your country of orgin.

I think there is a level of pride in VFR rotary work that doens't exist in most FW/IFR RW applications, because of the level of skill involved. Now, RW pilots are not the spit and polished bunch that most FW guys/girls are, but their proffesionalism lies in the way they do their jobs, not how they're dressed, or the Mach number their machine cruises at.

Just my 2 cents,

RH

[ShyTorque]

RemoteHook,

Having also "crossed and recrossed the great divide" a number of times I can fully relate to that view.

Flying fixed wing is generally where you have f*** all to do and someone to help you do it. Rotary wing is where you have it all to do and NO-ONE to help you do it.

The fixed wing flying job usually ends at the destination. The rotary wing job usually BEGINS at the destination. :E

[remote hook]

The fixed wing flying job usually ends at the destination. The rotary wing job usually BEGINS at the destination. :E

Very well put!

RH

[diginagain]

In one, you land, and then stop.
In the other, you stop, then you land.

Everything else is academic.

[whinetyler]

I've always felt that a helicopter is a tool which can enable you to complete a particular task that can't be done by anything else.:ok:

An aeroplane is a mode of transport:cool:

[rotornut]

You can doze off in a plane but certainly not in a helicopter:eek:

[nouseforaname]

i'm just about to do my helicopter add-on over in the states. I like the idea of having a helicopter in the near future but if I could only have one then it would be the plane.

We have a serious plane it's a SE turbo-prop pressurised and has a range of over 1000 miles all for about $1m practically brand new glass cockpit and all the works....

With a helicopter for the same money what can you really do. Get between relatively short distances in comfort but if you wanted to fly in bad weather to say Nice or something. You can't.

Helicopters aren't as nerdy as fw pilots though. They seem more switched on if you ask me.

[Kulwin Park]

Well, I engineer on both, and it was put simply to me one day....

Fixed Wing is a necessity for transport and recreational activities, but....
Rotary Wing aircraft are work horses, built for a purpose, to carry out a purpose.

That theory may have changed over the years with new corporate config choppers arriving, but that was the explanation.

[212man]

In a fixed wing you get a sore backside from your wallet pushing against it, in a helicopter you just get a sore back.:uhoh:

[Arm out the window]

The fun stuff is generally manouevering, operating close to things, low level. Fixed wing are all right if you are going into small tricky strips, going fast and low, doing aerobatics or formation, or both, but the droning along from place to place part soon loses its appeal.
Helicopters are mostly down there amongst it doing the interesting work. If I had to choose, rotary would be it.

[EBCAU]

I have flown both on and off over the years, but fixed wing was mainly agricultural. That puts the FW into a similar environment as the utility helicopter, and the same skills are required.
I value the experience from both. In my opinion FW will teach you to think much further ahead of the machine. It may take longer for things to go wrong, but you're deep in when it does. RW will teach you that things can go from just fine, to dire straits instantly - and hopefully back again.
I know some say that there's no useful cross credit of experience between the two but for me that's not true. However, watching an IFR airliner fly itself won't be much use as experience if you're moving a drill rig in a helicopter. Being able to move a drill rig may not help you fly to one in cloud either!
I think that any flying time is good experience, and the wider that experience, the better.
Remote Hook, Shy Torque - very profound comments IMHO.

[maxeemum]

The $$$$$$$$ you can earn.


:\

[Arm out the window]

Fully agree, EBCAU - I think there is considerable value to be gained and transferred from fixed to rotary and vice versa, and almost any kind of flying can be enjoyed, even if it's only the satisfaction of a job done properly when it's the boring stuff (hopefully not too much of that).
As far as crews go, I've mostly found rotorheads to have a good can-do attitude and be ready for a laugh as well.
Some of the larger fixed-wing types by nature tend towards a bit of a formal atmosphere, not that I've been in the big jets, but have done some time in decent sized multi crew FW.
I haven't found transitioning between FW and RW jobs a problem (done it a couple of times each way) - don't know if that's the general experience though. I have heard of rotary guys having a bit of hands and feet confusion when trying to fly close FW formation, eg. pull back 'cyclic' and push 'collective' away from them to slow down, only to find themselves pitching up and putting on throttle. Could just be an urban myth, that one.

Anyway, if you can't hover, you know the old saying ....

[topendtorque]

The answer is simple, just look at the drivers.

Your F/W type is a clear eyed extrovert, four bars, five biros and the latest three-time-zone-dick-tracy-special, you know, brush back the flowing locks and with a shining smile-- 'life's a beach!'

The other type, those with just a tad more than newbie hours I mean, --well- a rheumy eyed introvert, the bloody biros have all shook out, the clock has vibrated to AFT, and --'if something bad hasn't happened it is about to!'

[MightyGem]

The other type, those with just a tad more than newbie hours I mean, --well- a rheumy eyed introvert, the bloody biros have all shook out, the clock has vibrated to AFT, and --'if something bad hasn't happened it is about to!'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/MightyGem/Pilot4.jpg

[cuffs]

Maybe the question should be asking management whats the difference between a Multi engine IFR Helicopter Pilot and a Multi engine IFR fixed wing pilot.

[antisthenes]

Main difference is about 250kts.

[Rotorcraft]

Well, bring on the 609 tilt-rotor then for the best of both!

[Sailor Vee]

Once had a brilliant T-Shirt that read:-


Helicopter Pilots
Have seen places, most people only DREAM about!


With the exception of my North-Sea flying, that about sums it up!!:ok:

[hbpfly]

I flew fixwing for many years, mostly singles, but twins on occasions. all the work was low level and working with an observer documenting things.

About 8 years ago I moved to rotary. I have now spent the last 4 years on a Hughes 500d working for an organization documenting illegal activities all over the world. The difference is extreme ! I now have about 4000+ hours and every day is a new challenge. A lot of the time I work from the deck of a ship, but I may well be positioned in the jungle or on a remote glacier.
My last trip, a week ago, was from UK to Gambia in the 500, coming down the Moroccan coast at 100' using the updraft from the cliffs to generate forward speed, then going across the Western Sahara. I am now working with some local authorities arrestng illegal fishing boats.
Doing this in a fix wing just doesn't cut it, Choppers are the biggest rush, and being able to position a machine from 5000' down onto an area the size of the skid pattern is a wonderful reward for MANY hours of thinking 'I'm going to have to stick with fix wing 'cos I just can't get a handle on this hovering bit' !

I have done a couple of positioning flights from Alaska to Mexico and from Alaska to Montreal, and it makes you realize what a beautiful world we have when you can transit at low level and see so much. Helicopters rock.:ok:

[Bertie Thruster]

A wheeled undercarriage helicopter can climb from brakes off to 5000ft quicker than any wheeled undercarriage piston fixed wing.

[212man]

"...coming down the Moroccan coast at 100' using the updraft from the cliffs to generate forward speed, .."

Run that one by me again.....:confused:

[Ascend Charlie]

A wheeled undercarriage helicopter can climb from brakes off to 5000ft quicker than any wheeled undercarriage piston fixed wing.

I once challenged a Mirage pilot to a race to 5000' - I was in a B-model Huey.

He sneered, but refused to accept the challenge, because one condition was that the race was from a standing start, outside the aircraft, which was to be parked in the lines!:8

[MD900 Explorer]

Think of the nose end attitude in an engine failure and ask yourself (Do you feel lucky..well do you!!), is this a good time to be in a plank...:E

MD :ok:

[IHL]

Because of their limited range and speed the helicopter alternate airports are usually influenced by the same air mass as the departure and arrival airport. With fix wing the alternate is usually in an entirely different air mass than the departure airport. Pressurized aeroplanes can usually get on top and out of the weather, and thunderstorms are a lot easier to go around at 25, 000 FT that at 5000. In other words, when flying IFR in helicopters you are always flying in crap.

Then of course there’s the ice issue as few helicopters are equipped with anti-ice.

Personally I find fixed wing IFR a lot easier than helicopter IFR, with the exception of dealing with engine failure emergencies; the absence of asymmetric thrust on twin-engine helicopters makes handling the emergency much easier.

Of course , I may be wrong.

[Dave_Jackson]

Wizzard said;Basically, in a fixed wing aircraft you take your hands off of the controls and say "look, no hands!" In a helicopter you take your hands off of the controls and say "look, NOOOoooooo!"


Hendrick FOCKE said;

"... hovering, the longitudinal oscillations .... values of 12 seconds were ascertained. With this time of oscillation of a dynamically unstable character, the helicopter could be flown without difficulty.

The Fa223 is statically and dynamically completely stable around all axes other than the longitudinal one. At traveling speed of 140 to 150 km/h all controls can be released, because longitudinal instability disappears at about 120 km/h. Then this aircraft behaves just like a normal airplane and is automatically stable.'

The Fa233 --> http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?http://www.luftarchiv.de/hubschrauber/fa223.htm


Who said that helicopters MUST BE unstable? http://www.unicopter.com/NoNo.gif
Who said that helicopters MUST HAVE a single rotor? http://www.unicopter.com/Chairshot.gif

[Rotorcraft]

Well. Helicopters are more fun to fly but airlines pay better.
I'd like to work in the airlines (alleviating boredom by wondering what to spend my huge salary on next) and fly helicopters in my copious spare time.
:rolleyes:

[Bertie Thruster]

Ascend Charlie; in the early '90's I witnessed a Seaking beat a Tornado, from brakes off to 5000ft. At the start both aircraft were side by side, brakes on ready to roll, at the end of the runway.

The fast jet mates even had someone on the Seaking to time the event and ensure fair play.

[Sailor Vee]

There are times when it's beneficial to be able to stop and ask directions, can you land a 737 next to a farmer's house and enquire, "wherethefeckarewe?"http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-017.gif

[handysnaks]

No, but you can stop off at your nearest Army Barracks and ask the way;)

[Dave_Jackson]

Sailor Vee;
can you land a 737 next to a farmer's house and enquire, ... Could this be a current premonition of a future reality?


The Boeing 737-700 was the benchmark for the American Helicopter Society's heavy lift rotorcraft design conference in January/06.

[LUXSTAR]

WHEN YOU SAY TO A CHAIN SMOKER,DONT SMOKE ...YOU KNOW ,YOU GOING TO GET LUNG CANCER.....WHAT HE/SHE DO....IGNORE YOU AND CARRY ON SMOKING....HELI PILOTS..ALLWAYS .LIKE TO KISS THE DEATH AND GO IN STYLE.ONLY 1400 APPROX CPL [ H] IN UK.

[NickLappos]

I posted this on rec.aviation.rotorcraft back about 4 years ago, and found it in a search yesterday. It says how I feel:

Mara,
I've been squeezing the cyclic since 1968, and its always been a gas. The
typical helicopter job matches the typical airplane job in hours and pay,
except for the major airlines, where ALPO (did I spell that right?) somehow
got the world to believe that an airline pilot is like a brain surgeon, but
with better sex life.

I think the typical helo driver has to think more, has to work more at the
controls, and has to expose himself to more hazardous situations to make a
living. Every airplane lands on the same runway (bush pilots excepted) and
every helicopter pilot is endangered by the fact that all it takes to design a
heliport is the ability to spell "H".

How many airline pilots would put up with a telephone pole exactly in line
with final? What airline would allow its operations to land long, over the
high tension lines?

We earn our pay by being able to do the un-usual, which is why the job needs a
helicopter to begin with. We have a saying in the Sikorsky pilots office, "If
the place needs helicopters, it isn't worth visiting." We earn our pay
figuring it out on short final, going into rough country where the Wx Channel
is the best we've got and landing on platforms at night with rain on the
bubble and nothing to look at but the platform, because the horizon took the
nght off.

Read what the pros - Bob Barbanes, Micbloo, Flyinrock, Butch Grafton and 180
Walt, for example - have to say about this job. I think in 50 years, when all
the flying transport is done with microchips and lasers at the stick, they'll
tell tales about the helicopter folks who kept the greasy side down during hot
insertions, and who brought out the wounded, or pulled crews off the rigs when
the hurricane had started to make white froth, or who winched up scared
sailors from crippled freighters, or who landed beside icy highways to whisk
injured kids to surgery in minutes.

I've landed next to rushing streams in the Phillipines where monkeys in the
trees laughed at me, and I've tossed rocks off needle-thin spires that no
human has ever climbed, and I've put my aircraft's belly into the water to
save some poor soul who jumped from a bridge,and I could have done none of
these things in an airplane!

I'd puke if I had to walk into a terminal wth a Jepp case, climb into a big
aluminum bus and drive down highway Victor boring!

If you can't do what you enjoy for a living, you're already dead.

Nick Lappos
It it can't hover, it really doesn't fly, does it?

[hbpfly]

"...coming down the Moroccan coast at 100' using the updraft from the cliffs to generate forward speed, .."

Run that one by me again.....:confused:

It is no different to techniques used by glider pilots. Get a strong up-draft, and you can use the power for speed instead of lift. :ok: Try it !

[mini]

In terms of operations, give me a helo op over fixed wing anyday. In my experience there is a definite difference in attitude between the two, the rotary guys are far more results orientated - goal focussed if you like. Fixed wing ops tend to have far more crew "issues" and can be hard work, especially in terms of building working relationships, with people who can seem confused as to where they fit into the overall scheme of things, tends to be more of a problem with the younger crews... :sad:

[paco]

Having been dual qualified almost from year one, I have to say that I prefer helicoptering, but it's more down to the work that you do, plus the type of machine. You can do lots of things in a Beaver/Otter that you would never do in a 747 so the same arguments that apply to a helicopter could also apply. Landing a Beaver in crossed headlights at night in a large black hole is just as challenging! Finding it in the first place equally so!

I think the comparison could also be airline/corporate flying vs utility. I would much rather fly a Beaver in the mountains than a helicopter on an airline-type schedule.

Phil

[hbpfly]

A fixwing flies you - you have to fly a heli.

A fixwing has a captain, navigator, and engineer - with heli, you are all 3.

A fixwing you flightplan before you leave - with heli you do it on the run.

A fixwing, you walk aft to the can - with a heli, you go behind a tree.

A fixwing, it's a controled crash - with a heli, it's precision parking.

One could go on - we work hard, are hands on, and spend most of our lives in the dead mans curve.

[LUXSTAR]

GO TOwww.youtube.com and watch the above menshion video,and another one is quite nicely puttogether...AIRWOLF VS FIREFOX QUITE FUNNY WITH CLINT AND BORG9. CHEERS LUX

[Shawn Coyle]

As a result of spending too much time reviewing simulator data requirements, some interesting technical aspects that might generate thought:
Fixed wing aircraft put a lot of emphasis on flying a pitch attitude - helicopters use whatever pitch attitude works.
Helicopters seem to be the only ones that have an adjustable reference mark on the attitude indicator (or am I mistaken). Don't know why, and wish it would go away.
Fixed wing pilots change aircraft quite frequently and have to memorize new airspeeds, procedures, etc. Helicopter pilots don't have to remember too many new numbers. The result is that we tend to think all helicopters fly the same and that we can use the same profiles and methods we've always used.
Fixed wing aircraft always use takeoff power to takeoff (or some other fixed number). Helicopters use what's needed. THis makes it difficult to standardize performance numbers or procedures (see prior comment)
Prior to takeoff, fixed wing pilot needs to set power, check instruments and then commence takeoff. He can concentrate on flying the machine and only worry if something fails. Helicopter pilot needs to simultaneously lift to hover, monitor typically three different gauges to see which one is limiting, and then accelerate to forward flight, all the time monitoring gauges and flight path.
Engine failures in single engine helicopters are the most sensory deprived, multi-variable task you can ask a pilot to perform. Fixed wing have to set glide speed and hope for the best.
Hope that adds to the discussion!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Helicopters seem to be the only ones that have an adjustable reference mark on the attitude indicator (or am I mistaken).

My Super Cub has a twiddly knob on the artificial horizon to adjust the little reference doo-da. Is that what you mean?

[ConwayB]

RW drivers who had tried to apply to the airlines to fly planks often came up against signficant discrimination, even though some of the helo drivers came from full IFR aircraft and had many more instrument hours than their FW competitors.

The local airline had a stipulation that only 50% of RW hours of prospective applicants would be counted!

In my experience, a RW driver, either on the stick him/herself or as captain of a crew, has a much higher workload than his/her FW counterparts; more decision making requirements, more situational awareness requirements and a constant need to monitor the aircraft and its flightpath.

When I fly FW, it's a breeze. Trim it out and then you can relax and navigate and program GPSs/read the map, look at the view, do your fuel calcs, etc, etc without having to worry about the aircraft's attitude.

When I fly RW, it's a matter of organising your cockpit so your stuff is accessible with one hand and secured so it doesn't fly out the open doors and as many calculations are done before even getting near the aircraft so you have more 'brainspace' to do your thing; keeping the spinning side near the blue side and the greasy side near the green/brown side.

'CAN'T HOVER? DON'T BOTHER!'

Safe flying all.
Conway

[Thridle Op Des]

Interesting responses, I think that the assessment can change when comparing a Super Puma to something like an A340-500. I know personally that the hardest conversion course I did in my life was the first conversion onto a fully intergrated fixed wing, possibly the only thing I found in common was what little situational awareness I sometimes possessed. Generally modern FW fly so well on the autopilot that we are actively encouraged to engage it as soon as possible after take-off and keep it there until the very last minute until landing (though the landing disengagement is not always necessary). Suprisingly for me, flying something like a A320 does have it's commonality with a 332L, it has a cyclic (of sorts) and the pitch and roll responses are very similar. Any of those out there who used SFENA on a 212 will remember that when the system infrequently worked it was transparent, well thats exactly what happens when you adjust the flight controls in an Airbus; it stays where you aim it and the autotrim sorts out the rest.
Contrary to what was offered before, we do set the take-off thrust to match the requirement albeit I get the point about doing cushion creep take-offs in a 212 with 2% available torque.
Engine failures are different, I would infinitely prefer a total power loss in a rotary wing, I know I would live to tell the tale. A fixed wing has a larger requirement for luck - such as the availability of a go-kart track which was once a runway being nearby. I always wondered why I have to do single engine ILS's as part of a skill test in a helicopter, the only constraining thing was the go around or as happened to me in Sumburgh, we went backwards with the gentle Shetland breeze (At least there wasn't a problem with the approach climb gradient).
In terms of other failures, helicopters are relatively simple, lowering the collective seems to cover 90% of ills, it is a matter of how much to lower it, I know, but it's usually a good start and the rest gets sorted out later. On the Airbus specifically, it's wonderful when working, it has a huge level of redundancy, but it becomes a real handful when you have a couple of failures on your plate. I suppose the oppotunity for the ever (over) enthusiastic trainer/tester to make your life difficult is amplified.
In the end - vive la difference.

Regards
TOD

[kjw57]

The biggest differences for me after making the transition from seized to fling wing was, I rarely slept in my own bed anymore and I came to realize if it ain't got a hook on the belly it just ain't no fun to fly.

But whatever your preference fly safe.

Cheers.

[globallocal]

Hi people, just my 2 cents worth.

I have flown both F/W and R/W from military to airlines(no R/W) to corporate. Each has its good points and bad.
2.5 transit in B206, boring. 12 hr transit in a Global express, boring. Being able to go to the toilet after 5 hrs in a Global Express, relief. Being able to land anywhere to go to the toilet, relief. Doing corporate transfers around the city in a A109, spectacular. Flying in to the old Hong Kong, spectacular. Planning from Tokyo to London non stop when wx at London below mins prior to dept and only 3500lbs of fuel planned to be left , demanding. Ship deck landings, demanding. External loads to ships in a B206, exciting. Dirt strips in a B200(king air), exciting. The kaos of corporate, the boss said here but when he gets on means there, frustrating. Fixed scheds with the airline, nice. Not being able to see your tail in a confined area, scary. Over the pacific with 4 hrs to an alternate, scary.

Hey, its all fun.

Global Local.

Hi Conway, BC.

[thecontroller]

fixed wing is cheaper, easier, better paid, safer, more boring, and costs less to train on

rotary is more expensive, harder, worse paid, more dangerous, more exciting and costs more to train on

[helopat]

fixed wing is cheaper, easier, better paid, safer, more boring, and costs less to train on
rotary is more expensive, harder, worse paid, more dangerous, more exciting and costs more to train on

Gentlemen, generally agree with all points...but if you want to read some REALLy sad stories about whoring yourself out for peanuts, have a read of this thread...JAYSUS!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=244154