Which is the best helicopter for training?

[zhishengji751]

in the August issue of one of the pilot mags, they mention that given the reduced downtime for the 300CB, that economically, their isnt much difference between it and the R22.

still.. seems like R22s dominate the training market. I wish there were more 300s out there.

So do numbers make it the industry standard?

[blave]

(disclaimer: I sincerely hope I do not start yet another Robinson Pissing Match with my comments...)

I have about 85 hours in the 300C/B and 300C, and about 10 in the R22 (actually, 10.1 - just got the SFAR73 signoff recently!). Most of my overall time is over the last 15 months or so.

In addition, I have spent a lot of time investigating the Robinson Factor - I've read the Special Investigation Report on Loss of Main Rotor Control that the NTSB did, I've read about 1/2 of the Lu Zuckerman Debates, I've read a lot of the Robbie NTSB accident reports... frankly 'cause I wanted to determine whether I really wanted to fly, let alone ride in, them.

Right now here is where my head is at: I'm willing to get back into the R22, but I'm always going to be very mindful about "sudden/large control inputs", and I'll be pretty nervous in medium-turbulence (or worse) conditions. I also know that if I want to go very far or take two pax, I'll need to take the 300C that I have access to, 'cause in the R22 with me and my fairly light instructor, we were good for about 15 gallons of go-juice. (Actually, I can't take *any* pax in an R22 right now, due to the insurance requirements of the one FBO that has them for rent in the San Francisco Bay Area - I think the minimum is 50 TIT.)

What I wonder about these loss of main rotor issues is whether at least some of them were due to either sudden turbulence, resulting in a low-time and/or inattentive pilot making large cyclic inputs, or same trying to avoid a bird or whatever and doing a pushover in the process. I also wonder if I will ever inadvertently f*** up and do the same - hopefully my SFAR73 training and my "awareness" of the potential outcome will keep me honest but I still wonder what I'll do if I encounter turbulence that suddenly unloads the rotor. It happened to me in my one R44 cross-country flight and it was very unnerving...

What I also wonder about the R22, along this line of thought, is whether a design change should be made to decrease the available movement range of the cyclic. I have no idea whether the current range of motion is required to allow for all flight regimes, but it sure seems like the thing has a lot of longitudal and lateral travel.

Regarding using the R22 as a trainer: IF the instructor is very diligent, and IF the very low-time student doesn't manage to still surprise the instructor with a giant pushover, then I think that training in the R22 will result in a very competent helo pilot whose skills will transfer nicely to lots of other, bigger types. In contrast, IMO the S300 is a lot "easier" and more forgiving to fly, and certainly has more carry capacity and range (for two reasonably-sized occupants) - Even with a single tank the S300 will fly for over 2.5 hours with full fuel, and still spare about 600 lbs of cabin payload. So for some combinations of student/CFI, a refuel will be mandatory on a cross-country training flight of any length.

One final thought is that training in an S300 will most likely (and should) be done without a throttle governor - I would think that this would make transitioning to another piston helo that doesn't have a Guv more easy, even though at least some training in the R22 is theoretically done with the Guv off.

That's all my .02.... Safe flying to you.

Dave Blevins
San Jose, CA, USA

Edit: I wanted to add that my comment about the "diligent CFI" is directly due to the circumstances of a fatal accident that happened not too far from here (WVI), involving a very high-time CFI that was giving an introductory flight to a potential student. IIRC, it was the classic case of a high time fixed-wing pilot getting into an R22 for the first time. I have wondered if that guy just whanged the cyclic forward while the CFI was looking the other way - and thus no time for the CFI to react... That is the sort of situation that gives me pause before unconditionally recommending the R22 as a primary trainer.

[weedflier]

I have to agree with SFIM. I was originally instructing on Bell 47s but then the school I was at changed to R22s. I was prepared to dislike them but we had very little trouble even with hundreds of touch-down autos every week. I always used to carry out throttle chops in the hover and even in the (very few) harder than normal landings which resulted, the Robbie proved itself a much tougher little beast than its looks suggested. The school I was on was a commercial school and I believe that the experience of handling a machine with a low inertia rotor to have been more valuable to students who would mostly go on to fly modern helicopters with low inertia rotor systems. The Bell 47 had more relevance in the old days when students would as likely have gone on to do power and gas patrols in 47s or on to the-then fairly modern Bell 205/212 series.
At the end of the day though, any basic helicopter trainer does the job and it mostly has to come down to economics.

[CRAN]

Thanks for bringing my thread back to life folks!

If I may I would like to steer the thread a little...

What I was trying to get at was what people want from a training helicopter. Chewing over the differences between the R22 and the S300C is very very interesting indeed & useful but what i'm intrigued to know is this...

Which out of the two following configurations is more appealing, i.e. which one would you buy!

R22 SIZE machine with similar MTOW limits and a small increase in speed and range, but a SIGNIFICANT drop in DOC of approximately 50%. The compramise here is the machine would still have a lowish inertia rotor system and crash protection would be marginal. Rotor system is still a teeter hub.

OR......

A S300C SIZE machine with a cruise speed of 130kts (Vne 150kts), range of 400nm, ablity to carry 2 big guys, full fuel and bags. High degree of crashworthiness, 3-bladed articulated hub, fenestron tail-rotor and very nice handling qualities. DOC's are 10-20% lower than that of an R22.

Both machines are significantly better looking than the R22 and cost £120-140K (UK Pounds Sterling).


SO.....where do the worlds pilots and operators want the line to be drawn...........DIRT CHEAP-----or-------PERFORMANCE & SAFETY?

I look forward to hearing your feedback.
CRAN

[blave]

You bring out the second one for under US$200K, and I will be saving my pennies. (Not as a trainer, but as a personal ship.)

I really like the fenestron tail rotor (are we talking about a 3-blade version of the Jagcopter?). My biggest problem with the R22 (the contents of my other post notwithstanding) is the carry capacity with full fuel, and my beef with the 300 is that (stock) it has absolutely no storage except the glovebox under the panel (if installed). Your 2nd alternative sounds like it would solve these issues with light piston helicopters. I want one!

Dave Blevins
KHRV

[Hone22]

I'll go with No. 2 thanks Cran.

[Gaseous]

SFIM - Oh no you can't. Learn in a Robbie and then get into an Enstrom and see what sort of a balls up you make of throttle control until you get the hang of it. It took me a significant chunk of the 5 hours of conversion training to get it right. (Maybe I am just slow). I have no doubt that someone will disagree, but if you master the Enstrom, that sets you up for most piston types, better than the R22. I have a vague memory that the CAA consider Enstrom, Brantly and a couple of others as one type for renewing type ratings.

I have no experience of turbines and learned in a R22.

[moosp]

CRAN

I go with your second option too, for training, private and embryonic commercial flying. However add a diesel motor to give you that range and remove all the mag drop and carb icing problems of the present fleet.

And why not go for an avionics/systems suite like the Eclipse Jet? The "Avio" set-up that they are developing is light, cheaper than conventional instruments and gives an order of magnitude improvement of the information presented to the pilot. The glass cockpit would make an easier transition to the big birds that your trainees will eventually fly.

Umm looks like I've steered the thread around to "What about small helicopters needs fixing". Sorry pardon.

[Dave Jackson]

Hi CRAN,

Are you in a position to elaborate lightly on any specific features, which you envision this helicopter should possess?

In addition, can you comment on the proposed means of keeping the initial and operating costs down?

Dave J.

________________________

Edited to add apology.

Yesterday, I started a thread entitled [Open letter to Lu]. The poorly written post was a satire, but it could have been taken the wrong way.

I closed the thread, and apologize if anyone was offended.

Dave J.

[3top]

Hello gang,

learned to fly in old 47´s and then worked on tuna boats with 47´s for about 1500 hrs. Then into the R22 - took me about 20 hrs to get the autos right (due to lack of confidence of the first instructor).

Personally I find the R22 the best trainer (as long as the instructor / student combo stay within the weight limits....) as it will hone the students skills from zero. I had just as much trouble to get to hover in the 47 as I see students today in the R22.

If you are green and have to learn the helicopter-balance-act it does really not matter in which helo - in a hover they are all unstable!

However if you are in a R22 you are very fast at the performance limits and learn to handle these (although the 47 I learned to fly in where on their limits all the time as well!!), which comes in handy when you are lucky enough to fly for a living later on.

I read, that for example the EXEC-kit helicopter is extremly stable - Jet Ranger like. I never flew one, however the performance figures are just a little behind the R22.
Just one big difference: I have to see yet any EXEC that has close to 4000 hrs of hard work on it (heck show me one with a 1000 hrs!) - the 4000 hr R22 mentioned was of course overhauled at 2000!! (new blades and all - no 7000hr blades here!!)

If you have more than 240 lbs all up weight, well soory you will have to go on a diet or a bigger ship! (R44...!!)

Although the R22 was not intended as a trainer, I think it is the best omne arouind today! If you are fancy and have the doug you always can catch your training in a Ranger or EC120!

Throttlecontrol - no machine better than a R22 - you better control RPM or you lose it fast (without a governor), not like in a 47 where it takes half a day to register any rpm change (though it takes for ever also to get it back up...)

Enstrom - have only one hour in it - way underpowered- even with half fuel on a cold New Jersey morning. A friend had one for some time in the Smokey Mountains - he had to run constantly everything on the red line to make it fly with a pax on board.

And yes, what about that dream two seater, the R22 is still under 170 grand, did the JAG ever fly yet? Until you get one in the air it will cost you past 200 G!

Enough rambled,

3top

[CRAN]

moosp -

The two certified diesel engines available at the moment are not really suitable for helicopters. They're just too heavy. Maybe Lycoming and Continental can come up with something better.

The Eclispe jet avionics, is (from what I can assertain) a system being developed in-house for that aircraft. It will be rather difficult to certify since is is based on 'computer-industry' technology. Furthermore, of the flat panel EFIS systems on the market at the moment that are certified are very nice, BUT, they cost about half the selling price of the aircraft!! I'm sure Uncle Frank would fit them in the R22 if you wanted them and were prepared to pay $220K for the privalige!

Dave -

The purpose of this thread and the 'What about light helicopters needs fixing' was to determine what the requirements should be for a second generation training helicopter. The threads provide these answers quite nicely...the only remaining question is where should the line be drawn between, performance & safety and DOC's.

How do you get the DOC's down.....well I could tell you, but then I would have to...

CRAN

[Flight Safety]

New training helo

Has anyone seen the new 300CBi that Schweizer has introduced?

Here's 2 press release links, one introducing the new model, and the other indicating the first shipment of the new helo to the UK.

New 300CBi

First 300CBi delivery

The main new features include a fuel injected engine, and AES (Automatic Engagement System), which is a computer controlled device for startup overspeed protection, automatic rotor engagement, and low RPM warning sytem. It's described in the link below.

AES description

(edited for typos)

[Dave Jackson]

CRAN,

"How do you get the DOC's down....well I could tell you, but then I would have to.."

OK, e-mail the answer. This way your cost is only one bullet.

In response to your request, the following is submitted for consideration.
It may be advantageous to have this future training craft as similar as possible to what future VTOL craft will be like. This raises the speculation as to whether the teetering rotor is part of the future, or will the future consist of hingeless hubs and tilt rotors etc.

With emphasis on the 'etc.'

Dave

[3top]

To the "new" 300 CBi:

whatever.......it still looks ugly, still is slow, I still fly circles around it with a R22!!




3top

[3top]

Hey CRAN, and everyone else off course!

forget about the Renault-Diesel for a trainer, and it seems it still vibrates quite a bit. There is a german turbo diesel on the market (Thielert TAE 125) which is actually sold in a certified airplane - http://www.thielert.com/en/aicraft_industry/tae_125/content.html

This one should be able to power the R-22.
Besides these guys a working on a 300Hp V8 diesel on the same base as the smaller one. FAA-certification for the TAE 125 is underway. The V8 should be light enough to power any R44 or some future 5-place Robinson!!

Then there is the ZOCHE aero diesel..........if he ever gets the FAA-certificate........http://www.zoche.de/


If you are into engines check the following site,

Go to the Quasiturbine!!!......http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTIndex.html

BUT take your time it is huge. If you get stuck, just for info, it is a (french)-canadian site, but they have an english and I think also a spanish version. If you let it "sink" in a bit, this would be a perfect aviation-engine. They are actually in the process to build a prototyp-Ultralight-engine with 70 Hp or so- http://quasiturbine.promci.qc.ca/QTAviation.html

The concept is awsome! Warning, do not stop to check it out, when you just get to the point where you compare it to a Rotary-engine (Wankel), it should be a whole lot better than that! If this thing works out, it will let ANYTHING else look old and outdated, even the newest Ferrari-engine!!


Enough,

3top

[Whirlybird]

Training: an idiot-proof helo, or a basic and difficult one?

This was touched on recently in another thread, and also discussed at the SRG helicopter seminar last month, but I thought it was worth a thread of its own....

Most of us learn to fly R22s, said to be the most difficult helicopter to fly. It could mean we become better pilots. It could also mean that there are more accidents in training and among low hours pilots than there would be on a more forgiving machine.

Piston engine failures are most often caused by carb icing. Perhaps it would be possible to fly with permanent carb heat, or some other foolproof method. Or are we better off developing an understanding and awareness of the problem from the start, even though it means a certain number of accidents happen.

Most of us now learn to fly on helicopters with governors. As a result we're probably less rotor RPM aware than pilots who have to operate a throttle from the start. But it makes training much easier. A good thing, or not?

There must be other examples, but I can't think of them now. Anyway, I'm sure you get my point. So what does everyone think?

[Moneyshot]

I suppose whatever you learn on has its own little foibles which need to be accounted for.
I learned on the Gazelle and the Sea King which, from a purely poling aspect are fairly easy to fly. Military machines, I think, need to allow the pilot a certain degree of spare capacity to 'fight' the machine, ie carry out its role without crashing.
Something like the R22, I find requires more of the pilots brain power to merely fly the aircraft and does not allow much scope for 'hands off' flying in order to carry out cockpit management related tasks. It's also so underpowered (esp in the summer) that a permanent carb heat would probably not do. So that's something else you just have to keep your eye on.
A good training machine must be able to allow the student to make some mistakes without dying and allow him or her the spare capacity to actually learn something rather than be permanently struggling with an angry beast.

[Tail Bloater]

This is not the first time that this subject has been raised and I'm sure not the last.
In some respects the R22 has ended up as the trainer because it is the supposedly cheapest to operate out of the small choice list.
Justifying this, training schools have indoctrinated the students to believe that if you can fly the R22 you can fly anything. Which is not really true.
I agree that a training helicopter should have the inbuilt degree of forgivness to provide firstly a confidence moral and secondly the chance to learn by trial and error. Few students get the hang of the flight techniques at the first attempt.
I learnt on the Hiller12B/C, Bell 473B1 and Skeeter. All had ungoverned throttles and I have accumulated about 5000 hours on these and about 300 hours on the R22 with governor. I prefer to control the ERPM myself so that I know what is happening. The automatic control of the R22 provides the student with the confidence aspect but takes away the control. That together with the icing 'carb with the barb' problems and you take away the confidence boost that was provided for with the govenor.
The landing gear is too basic and any small error has proved to end in an accident. The simpicity of the start sequence is great and allows more time to be given to flying. While flying in anything other than 'best conditions' the student has to have in their mind that any unintentional pitching moments of the fuselage/disc could end in disaster, eroding the confidence level again.
As someone has already pointed out that the 300 is a better training machine and costs are almost similar. So I wonder why budding pilots are still fighting the R22 when they could enjoy better.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I do believe.

Just about everyone on this forum knows of my views on the Robinson line of helicopters so I won’t go there. Frank Robinson on many occasions has stated that the R-22 was not designed with training in mind. I have to believe that if he originally intended the R-22 as a trainer he would have done things differently.

[misterbonkers]

I did a bell 47 conversion, and it fabulous, teaches you a good thing or too.

I think flying more than one type is good for you as things such as the governor issue can be easily addressed.