Crash-weary ex-pilot looking to train again in London?

[AdamFrisch]

Hi there.
New to this forum, but I've read every posting in one long sit-through:zzz:
Short backstory. I'm a Swede living in London. Used to have a Swedish PPL (A) in Sweden (that I'm renewing as we speak to a JAR) and started training on choppers. Did 23 hours of training and solo flying on Hughes 269's between 1994 and 1995 until the following story kind of put me off a bit. Bare with me:
One late autumn day in 1995 my instructor calls me up and ask me if I want to fly an old 269 to its operator across the pond free of charge. It's about a 45min ride and of course I jump at this. We pre-flight and take-off, chit chat and whatnot. Haven't flown that prticular ship before, and it feels less 'firm' and responsive than the ones I'm used to.
Anyway, the route takes us over the archipelago in the Stockholm area and I'm doing my best at flying a straight line. Instructor says I should try to keep within autorotational distance of the all the litle islets we pass, in case something would go wrong. I think he is being overly cautious, but I do as he suggests. So we start to zig-zag between all the little islets.
Obviously, the second after we've passed out over a stretch of open water after just having left a small island, the engine starts to sound really strange. We look at eachother and I can see my instructors hands coming up from their restful position on his laps and starting to grab the cyclic.. BANG! Motor quits violently (seized up - as we later got to know - due to valve lodging into cylinder), aircraft yaws heavily to the right. We're at 1500ft and my instructor yells to me that he's got control and that I should call a mayday on the radio. I'm sh***ing myself and am probably calling a mayday on every radio frequency there is but the right one. He's managed to turn the aircraft around towards the little island. We narrowly miss a power line (I recall screaming "Do you see it? Do you see the line??!!" to which he responds "got it!"). We settle in a horse field - hard, but alive.
I remember just sitting there for the longest period of time in complete silence. Finally the horses start to come up to the heli and throw curious glances at the strange arrivals. We finally start to make our way to the nearest house on shaky legs.
Would I have managed if I've been on my own? Who knows - I had done lots of autorotation training, but I doubt I'd have gotten all of it right in such a short time. But it's impossible to tell. All I can say is that I am very grateful that he was with me that particular day.
Anyway, after this I took one more helicopter lesson and then quit. I was afraid, I was spooked. I was also broke and thought that the only way to continue was on turbines. And I simply couldn't afford that at the time.
Fast forward to 11 years later. Today I can afford it (just barely). And I've always had a love for flying helis - it was so much more joyful to me compared to fixed wing, and I've missed it. So, I've decided to take it up again. But my credo still stands - no piston powered helis. They're just not built for flying, as far as I'm concerned. And all you get today is heli schools training on the one machine that has to be the worst trainer ever - the R22. No leeway there, if you get into trouble.
To make a long story short (are you still awake?): Since I'm spending the money, I want to train on my fav turbine - the Hughes/MD 500 or the 520N. Always loved them and from what I've heard, they're a dream to fly. That leaves me with two training options in the London area (as far as I know) - Fast Helicopters in Brighton and HeliAir at Denham. And now finally to my questions:
Has anybody got any info about these schools and first hand experience? Has anybody flown the 520N out of Fast?
Also, is there anyway I could somehow use the 23 hrs I logged over 11 years ago for my new PPL (H), or are they just 'lost', so to speak?
Thanks for listening.:}

[Whirlygig]

Hi Adam,

Well, you got out of it alive and that's all credit to your instructor. As you progress through your PPL(H), you practice engine-off landings 'til you're sick of them. I also learned in a Schweizer 300C/Hughes 269C and it is a tough little helicopter that can withstand quite a deal of rough treatment. It IS designed as a training aircraft and is very forgiving.

So, if you do think you may want to have another go in a Schweizer, there's Biggin Hill Helicopters who use them rather than R22s. Depending on how far you want to go (either learning full-time or in a block), there are Schweizers in Norwich and Bournemouth; both of whom I can recommend.

If you're definitely going to do a PPL(H) on a turbine, the JetRanger is nice to fly and they're more plentiful.

As for the other schools, FAST are very good but I have no experience HeliAir - they have a good reputation though.

Cheers

Whirls

[helopat]

If you're definitely going to do a PPL(H) on a turbine, the JetRanger is nice to fly...

Adam,

Great story...glad you made it. Concur with Whirls, the Jet ranger is about as easy to fly as anything. I know bupkus about flying schools over there, but I thought I'd throw my 2 euros worth in.

Any type of aircraft, piston or turbine, can have an engine failure, so don't get the idea you'll need to be less proficient at engnine out stuff if you train on turbines. Truth is that if the engine quits in a turbine you're in the same boat (no pun intended), so bear that in mind. If you can fly and auto, thats the main thing.

Hope your love of flying rotary keeps you on track. Best of luck, mate:ok: .

HeloPat

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks, guys:)

I know. In fact, some poeple even say that the R22's and '44's have as good a safety record as turbines due to their de-rated engines. Not the case with the Hughes 300, though - it crams every ounce of horsepower there is out of that Lycoming:eek: So maybe a turbine is a false safety blanket, at least compared to Robinson.

Problem is, I have a couple of hours of Robinson time, and I simply didn't care for how they flew. Never liked the cyclic and the flimsy hovering. That said, I haven't flown the R44 and it's supposed to be brilliant. But the price of training on R44 isn't that much less than the 520N, so why not splash out...;)

[HillerBee]

Because of one engine failure in a 'bad' Schweizer, you should condemn all piston helicopters. Schweizers have an excellent safety record, and is one of the best training helicopters. Why spend tons of extra money training on a turbine, unless you're rich of course.

The problem is you have to overcome your fear, I think the school and instructor took very bad care of you 11 years ago. I've had engine failures but you have to go back to flying straight away, if you let it settle in you're lost.

Find a good school, explain what happened and they will get you back on track.

[Whirlygig]

You sound like a spoiled little brat. How are you so much more educated to say something like "piston's are not ment to fly"??? You think turbines are somehow above engine failures? Do some research matey, save some money and don't be such an arrogant idiot.
:ouch: Ouch! Please re-arrange the following words into a sentence:-
Calling pot black kettle the.

Cheers

Whirls

[AdamFrisch]

Believe me, I'm the least spoiled brat ever - I grew up in a poor houeshold with a single mom and all I've made in this world I've made on my own.

And I have done research. The fact is that in the case of an engine failure in a R22, you have about a second, second and a half before you're beyond recoverable rotor RPM. That's less time than on any other flying helicopter today.

As for engine failure, well, that's what I was asking in my other post - maybe the newer piston helicopters have become better in this regard? But the overhaul time of a piston engine is still around 2000hrs, whereas a turbine is much higher - surely this must have some relation to reliability?

Anyway, this was not the question in my initial post and we're getting off-topic.

[GTNav]

Try doing your training in a R44, lots of autorotation capability, the R44 is really easy to maintain NR. Even Frank Robinson is trying to convince schools to use an R44 rather then R22 as basic trainer. As for reliability for engines, piston versus turbine; lots of the data for the reliability of pistons is from the 50s and 60s, be careful of statistics.

I work for a company with 50 helis, R22 to B212 (25 piston, 25 turbine) and in the last 5 years all our accidents (none were fatal) have been pilot error not mechanical failure. I joined this company with a hatred for pistons and have become a bit of a convert to the modern piston helicopter (R44 not R22).

Good luck with your training where ever you go.

[AdamFrisch]

No harm done.

No, this is for a PPL and I'm not looking to get employed, really. I have a great job that I love and that pays well - heli flying is just for fun and travel. Might want a CPL in the future (since I could fit it in with my other job), perhaps, but nothing planned.

[Steve76]

Honestly Adam, unless you are a squillionaire - don't bother. You're 35, you are going to blow a lot of coin on a whim. Sure you wish you had been a pilot and like the idea but that was 11yrs ago and if one incident changed that; then perhaps it really wasn't for you.
Think about the next decade. Kids, wife, mortgage? Unexpected loss of business or job. Why blow $50K on a whim, take the money and spend it wisely or invest it and go for a fly on the interest or profit with a professional pilot.
When you get your PPL, don't think you are then going to be prepared for the next engine failure. You will go a year or more between practice auto's, you will be an inexperienced private pilot encountering more dangerous moments than an engine failure every flight and you will be carrying friend, children and family. If the money runs out in the future all you will have is a piece of paper.
My thoughts: forget it.

[bellfest]

Instead of putting so much effort into what type of machine to do it in, why not put that effort into what type of operation you are going to do it with. A lot of the comments you have made in your first post are bu!!****. (no offence). It is to say the least, extremely arragont and uneducated of you to express your opinion on whether piston helicopters should be flying or not when you are a weekend warrior, well, a weekend warrior's warrior or, is that, a partly trained and somewhat expired wannabe weekend warrior. Many millions of hours prove otherwise mate so drop that thought real fast.
BTW piston's haven't really changed in the last 50 years so they are not safer now than what they were back then, but they're still as safe:ok: .

[AdamFrisch]

Either I seem to rub people the wrong way on this forum, or it's one of the unfriedliest forums I've ever joined. Then again, since I'm the only one here signing with my real name, I'm not terribly surprised. Anyway, I'm not here to steal anybody's thunder or muscle my way in to the 'big boys domain'. I know I'm a weekend warrior and a newbie, a non-proffesional and whatnot - have I ever alluded to anything else? All I wanted was some advice. Lighten up.

I never said that piston powered aircraft are unsafe - just unsaf-ER. I never said I though anyone else was a reckless person for flying them, just that I (as in personally) got scared by them based on what I encountered.

[Chesty Morgan]

I can't believe some of the unhelpful replies you've got here Adam. We're not all like that.

I don't know anything about helicopters or schools but I do know that if you want to do something for personal reasons, and you can afford it, then do it and enjoy it. I know you probably didn't need to hear that from me but I felt it needed saying if only for the benefit of the ignorant among us.

Good luck in your quest, and welcome to Pprune.

[helopat]

Either I seem to rub people the wrong way on this forum, or it's one of the unfriedliest forums I've ever joined.

Adam,

Don't sweat it...some (not all) posters on PPRUNE have attitude :E when posting back...maybe it DOES have something to do with being anonymous...try to filter through the insults about your manhood, experience level, incompetence, etc and just look at the little jems among it all...if you've got thick(ish) skin, keep coming back for more till you've got the answer you need...if it gets too 'nasty' in here for you, PPRUNE (like helicopter flying) may be someplace you'll choose to avoid.

I wish you all the best.:ok:

HeloPat (the last part is my real name):}

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks HeloPat and Chesty:ok: Feels better now:}

Steve76 had a point. It is important to question why one want's to fly again. If it's vanity, or trying to impress others, or some other youthful folly that needs to be satisfied - then it's for the wrong reason. I will not lie and say that wasn't slightly part of it when I was 24-25 years old and with a fixed wing license in my hand. But now that so many years have gone by, I can honestly say that what I miss about it is the flying. I have no dreams of working as pilot or anything like that - I just want to be able to go flying a helicopter once in a while all by myself, land anywhere, pitch a tent and do some fishing.

[bellfest]

I never said that piston powered aircraft are unsafe - just unsaf-ER.
Again, wrong! A well maintained piston is much safer than a badly maintained turbine. The purpose of my post, apart from taking the piss a bit which my fingers seem to do all on their own:E , was to highlight the fact that a flying school with a professional outlook, professional instructors, professional engineers, money to spend and a Bell 47, R22 or a 300 is much safer than a shortcutting dodgy flying school with a 206, 500 etc. If the episode frightened you so much, go to a hangar somewhere when an engineer can teach you a bit about what to look for and listen out for, exactly how it all works, what indications, margins and performance to expect.
I can't understand why it did frighten you so much, it was an auto for goodness sake. It's more frightening getting a pie at half time at the MCG.
I completely destroyed a helicopter when I started out (<200hrs), and I mean completely, it was scattered from asshole to breakfast time when I was done with it and I was in another within 24 hours with another pilot to ensure it didn't mess with me. To this day, that was the most crucial and important lesson I have ever had and it did far from put me off. On the contrary it made me a lot better. Still **** mind you, but better:ok:

[Chesty Morgan]

A well maintained piston is much safer than a badly maintained turbine

And a well maintained turbine?

[corncrasher]

I know someone who worked for honeywell and investigated failures. He has the same bad opinion of turbines because he has seen everything that can go wrong with them. The point is anything can break and chances are it's not even going to be the engine, what about the 100's of other little things that can go wrong and be worse than a power failure.
I think you need to either forget about flying or get over your fear and go jump in an R44 and have fun.

[bellfest]

And a well maintained turbine?

On par:ok:

[Vee-r]

Adam,
By your own admission it felt "less 'firm' and responsive than the ones I'm used to.", so leaving aside the (endless) Turbine Vs. Piston debate isn't it more a question of flying a well maintained machine? I say look for a school with a great reputation, get a demo flight in an R44 (you'll love it). You'll benefit from a machine you can carry passengers in, at a (much) lower cost per hour. Then, take a look at the accident reports out there for Helicopters. I worry more about pilot error than engine failures.

Safe flying.

Vr

[Revolutionary]

Jeezus crispies, what has poor Adam said or done for all of you piston drivers to get your panties all in a twist like that? I know, I know, you guys have all of 600 hours (or thereabouts) in an R22 or a Schweizer 300 and -since it's the only helicopter you know- feel the need to defend them like they're the greatest engineering triumph since the moon landing. Here's a newsflash: they are not. They are entry level models and -while eminently capable in their own right- are neither as capable or as safe as the Hughes 500 or almost any other turbine helicopter.

Not as safe, you say? The insolence, the arrogance the... the... (froths at the mouth)... audacity! Well, engine reliability aside, would you rather have a hard landing in a 500 or in an R22? As anybody who has flown both can tell you, it's the 500. Not that it should be a surprise that a helicopter that is twice as expensive is more solidly built. Sjeez...

[Hughes500]

Adam

You will be lucky to training abinitio in a 520N, there are only 3 in the country
G-NEEN at Fast helicopters that is up for sale
G-SIVN at Brian Lyell in Scotland
G-SMAC that I use to do conversions on to, the machine is in London and owned by a friend.

While the 500 is probably one of the best and most fun helicopters to fly I would not recommend it to learn on. Would you let a 17 year old learn to drive in a Mini Metro or a Ferrari ? Learn in a 300 then progress on to a 500, that way you will be a better pilot and have a load more money in the bank.
Drop me a PM if yoyu want more info and I will give you my mobile no

Cheers

[Bravo73]

Adam,

Going back to your original question, Biggin Hill Helicopters (http://www.bhh.co.uk) will also do ab-initio training in an H500.

However, I think that it will be in a D or an E, not a 520N. Your best bet is to call them and ask!


HTH,

B73

[O27PMR]

Adam

Asuming you're still following this thread and haven't got bored yet, I'll try to get back to answering your original question...

I am familiar with both schools and both have a good reputation, however I have considerable first hand experience of HeliAir and can thoroughly recommend them.

I am sure many people will disagree with me but, IMHO, whilst the 500 is a beautiful machine to fly, it's noisy and very uncomfortable for your passengers (assuming you wil be taking friends & family out) and as a low-hour PPL, not the easiest of machines to auto, should the engine quit.

As has been suggested by other people on this thread, have a go in an R44, it's a completely different beast to the R22. Faster than a 206 and more comfortable than a 500, not to mention considerably cheaper than both (aprox £250 +vat per hour cheaper!). As an extra bonus the R44, as far as I am aware, also has one of the best safety records too.

Ultimately it's your life, your money & your choice, but I hope this helps:ok:

[bellfest]

I know, I know, you guys have all of 600 hours (or thereabouts) in an R22 or a Schweizer 300 and -since it's the only helicopter you know- feel the need to defend them like they're the greatest engineering triumph since the moon landing. Here's a newsflash: they are not. They are entry level models and -while eminently capable in their own right- are neither as capable or as safe as the Hughes 500 or almost any other turbine helicopter.

Revolutionary,
FYI I personally am speaking from several thousand hours in R22's, R44's, B47's, H300's and several thousand more in 206's, 350's, 500's, 120's, 117's, 412's, 365's and a few more, as well as being a licensed engineer for 15+ years.

[BigMike]

Adam, take Hughes500's advice and learn on the 300 first. The new CBi is becoming a popular training aircraft and quite a few former R22 operators are now using it. The 500 is a lot of fun to fly but you are not gaining anything by learning on it first.
As Steve76 said, I think you need to get over your initial fears before you worry too much about types. Go for a fly for a few hours and do some auto's with the instructor, and see how you feel about it afterwards.

Good luck. ;) BM

[JAMES FLEMING]

I am learning to fly the R22 at FAST in Shoreham. Also have PPL(A). FAST seem to me to be a very professional establishment, so I would recommend them. Bloody expensive though!

Hi there.
New to this forum, but I've read every posting in one long sit-through:zzz:
Short backstory. I'm a Swede living in London. Used to have a Swedish PPL (A) in Sweden (that I'm renewing as we speak to a JAR) and started training on choppers. Did 23 hours of training and solo flying on Hughes 269's between 1994 and 1995 until the following story kind of put me off a bit. Bare with me:
One late autumn day in 1995 my instructor calls me up and ask me if I want to fly an old 269 to its operator across the pond free of charge. It's about a 45min ride and of course I jump at this. We pre-flight and take-off, chit chat and whatnot. Haven't flown that prticular ship before, and it feels less 'firm' and responsive than the ones I'm used to.
Anyway, the route takes us over the archipelago in the Stockholm area and I'm doing my best at flying a straight line. Instructor says I should try to keep within autorotational distance of the all the litle islets we pass, in case something would go wrong. I think he is being overly cautious, but I do as he suggests. So we start to zig-zag between all the little islets.
Obviously, the second after we've passed out over a stretch of open water after just having left a small island, the engine starts to sound really strange. We look at eachother and I can see my instructors hands coming up from their restful position on his laps and starting to grab the cyclic.. BANG! Motor quits violently (seized up - as we later got to know - due to valve lodging into cylinder), aircraft yaws heavily to the right. We're at 1500ft and my instructor yells to me that he's got control and that I should call a mayday on the radio. I'm sh***ing myself and am probably calling a mayday on every radio frequency there is but the right one. He's managed to turn the aircraft around towards the little island. We narrowly miss a power line (I recall screaming "Do you see it? Do you see the line??!!" to which he responds "got it!"). We settle in a horse field - hard, but alive.
I remember just sitting there for the longest period of time in complete silence. Finally the horses start to come up to the heli and throw curious glances at the strange arrivals. We finally start to make our way to the nearest house on shaky legs.
Would I have managed if I've been on my own? Who knows - I had done lots of autorotation training, but I doubt I'd have gotten all of it right in such a short time. But it's impossible to tell. All I can say is that I am very grateful that he was with me that particular day.
Anyway, after this I took one more helicopter lesson and then quit. I was afraid, I was spooked. I was also broke and thought that the only way to continue was on turbines. And I simply couldn't afford that at the time.
Fast forward to 11 years later. Today I can afford it (just barely). And I've always had a love for flying helis - it was so much more joyful to me compared to fixed wing, and I've missed it. So, I've decided to take it up again. But my credo still stands - no piston powered helis. They're just not built for flying, as far as I'm concerned. And all you get today is heli schools training on the one machine that has to be the worst trainer ever - the R22. No leeway there, if you get into trouble.
To make a long story short (are you still awake?): Since I'm spending the money, I want to train on my fav turbine - the Hughes/MD 500 or the 520N. Always loved them and from what I've heard, they're a dream to fly. That leaves me with two training options in the London area (as far as I know) - Fast Helicopters in Brighton and HeliAir at Denham. And now finally to my questions:
Has anybody got any info about these schools and first hand experience? Has anybody flown the 520N out of Fast?
Also, is there anyway I could somehow use the 23 hrs I logged over 11 years ago for my new PPL (H), or are they just 'lost', so to speak?
Thanks for listening.:}

[Revolutionary]

Well bellfest, then you are excluded from my diatribe.

[Whirlygig]

Well, engine reliability aside, would you rather have a hard landing in a 500 or in an R22?
A 500 given the choice. Would I rather a hard landing in an S300 or an R22? An Enstrom 280 or an R22? A Bell 47 or an R22? Er... R22 doesn't feature much in my answers!

Personally I think the best aircraft on which to train are the ones designed for training.

Cheers

Whirls

[Revolutionary]

Sure Whirls, we all make do with what we have. And -as has been pointed out by several people- the Hughes 500 is probably not the best choice for initial training. I learned to fly in an R22 and it suits that purpose well as far as I'm concerned.

To put your mind at ease: I have had occasion to test the 'harmonica' concept of the R22's seats and I can report to you that it works just fine so long as you put your umbrella or curling iron under your passengers' seat;)

[Hughes500]

027PMR The 500 is an easy machine to auto in, in fact is biggest problem is containg nr. From cruising speed you have an enormous range once you get the lever down. As for cost a 500 is about £ 500 an hour plus vat to train in, where can you get lessons in an R44 for £ 250 an hour, r22 maybe ?

[Pandalet]

As for cost a 500 is about £ 500 an hour plus vat to train in, where can you get lessons in an R44 for £ 250 an hour, r22 maybe ?

If you know of somewhere doing R44 time for £250 dual, please please please post names and contact details! I'm looking to do a 44 rating soonish, and most places I've looked at are around £350+VAT!

[Islandcrazy]

Pandalet,

Check your inbox for details for the R44 training.


IC

[O27PMR]

Hughes

My apologies, I got my figures mixed up:O

I should have said about £150 cheaper per hour, based on £365 R44 v £520 H500 +vat of course!

As for autos, do you not think that as a low hour pilot an R44 is easier to auto than a 500? Maybe it's just an experience thing, something which you clearly have in a 500:ok:

[Heli-Ice]

Adam.

If you really want to have a go at the 500, just do it. After you gain your PPL, try to fly at least once every two weeks to keep in flying shape and occasionally bring an instructor to brush up on your emergency drills.

About piston engine reliability, there was an article in Rotor & Wing magazine some time ago comparing piston and turbines.

Please have a look:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0303&file=0303turbine.htm

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks everyone. I've taken it all in and might have a couple of test rides in the R44 and the 300CB to feel what seems best and if I'm overcome with fear..:\ . It's a lot of money to blow on turbine tuition and I'm not likely to get many credits for my 23 hours logged eons ago. Although, you do save a turbine transition at the end of your PPL piston tuition....;)

I did like the way the 300 flew - that wasn't the problem - it was just the mechanics of it that kind of put me back a bit (obviously moreso after the accident...). Belts to drive the main shaft? And why wasn't there a single 300 where you could engage the main rotor clutch with the switch the way it was supposed to work? Instead you had to sit there for ages flicking it on and off to get the rotor rpm up in increments. My ships didn't even have governors and you had to watch the RPM like a hawk. In fact, they even tried to blame the engine failure on us for over revving, although it was clearly a mechanical problem, so it didn't stick. Heating was either roasting you or iglooing you. The dual fuel tanks - can't remember exactly what it was, but it was something illogical (oh, I think you could only check the level with the stick on one side, or something..). But I've heard the CB version is supposed to be very easy with its fuel injected engine, so maybe this is all a thing of the past.

Everyone raves about how the R44 flies, so I might give that one a try. It's just that cyclic thing that I really disliked from the R22...

Nobody seems to favour Enstroms, for some reason. Why is that?

Anybody train on the Enstrom 480 Turbine and the Schweizer 330 turbine in Britain? Would they be an alternative?

[AdamFrisch]

Adam.
If you really want to have a go at the 500, just do it. After you gain your PPL, try to fly at least once every two weeks to keep in flying shape and occasionally bring an instructor to brush up on your emergency drills.
About piston engine reliability, there was an article in Rotor & Wing magazine some time ago comparing piston and turbines.
Please have a look:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0303&file=0303turbine.htm

Interesting! False security, indeed!

[Whirlygig]

Adam, just be careful. It sounds like you flew the 300C which is fuel-injected. The 300CB has carb-heat; it is probably the CBi that you want.

I don't think the 480 or 330 are used as trainers here.

Also consider what you want to do with the licence oce you have it. If you learn on an uncommon type, then you could be limiting yourself to one or two machines in the whole country.

Cheers

Whirls

[CYHeli]

In Oz, if I had a ppl and wanted to hire a machine to go away for the w/e, fishing, camping, that sort of thing, I would really struggle.
Flying schools have the most available helos, but are these are always busy with students. The school would put the hourly rate up to cover their loses over the w/e. Is this similar in other parts of the world?
I know that F/W is not a problem, b/c there are always spare machines sitting around at aero clubs and schools, but not R/W. Also after paying for the licence there's not enough $$$'s left over to join a syndicate and buy a '44, etc.
Any thoughts, even from Oz.

[Hughes500]

Adam

I think you will find all piston helis have a belt drive system ! The clutch actuator on a 300 is easy - up to engage let blades turn about 5 ft then switch to hold, about 2 flicks and the needles will be superimosed, switch to engage, job done. The new cbi has an automatic system ( Star). The fuel tanks x feed on a 300, just need a dipstick that is correct for the machine, not difficult really ! Dont need a governor in a 300, in a C model set 2300 rpm at flat pitch and the correlator will hold erpm in the green up to about 24 inches of MP after that you have to open throttle a tad.
You will find the 300 a much better heli to learn in, it does what it was built to do - teach people to fly. If you do use a Robinson product use an R44 not a 22. You will learn quicker in a 300 than either R44 or R22.
It looks and sounds like the 300 you flew in was a shed !

[Needlesplit]

Nobody seems to favour Enstroms, for some reason. Why is that?



Probably because there aren't many around, so most people probably havent flown one. As far as I know you can only fly them at Shoreham and Barton. However, as an ab initio piston trainer I think they are great!

They feel big and solid, they have a 'proper' cyclic, there is no carb heat (in the 280fx) you can do autos to the ground, you can practice 'feet off' emergencies to the ground, they have a proper trimmer (Helps a lot on your cross countries!) and you could boil an egg between engine failure and the requirement to lower the lever. (not really but you know what I mean). So lets hear it for Enstrom!:D

However, all stories have two sides:rolleyes: - so - the downsides are that the early models have some aerodynamic issues with lack of power, tail rotor on the wrong side etc. but like everything, fly a new(ish) one and thats all been fixed.

They tend to be a bit more expensive than a Robbie or 300, because its a much bigger machine. (still a lot less than a turbine though!)

As with all things in flying and life you need to gather some information ( ideally from reliable sources) and then make you own decision thats what 'command' is all about.

However, if you run your own business that will pay for heli flying at turbine level you must know that already, in fact its probably why you came here in the first place!:ok:

Hope some of this helps. PM me if you want more info on Enstrom flying. Best price I know is £255/hr all in! My advice - dont forget it. If you're like the rest of us it will just eat away at you until you do it. So go do it!!

Regards

N/S