Originally Posted by
Robbiee
"Its easier to demonstrate tail rotor problems" lmao,...I'll definitely give you that one.
Anyway, it may be a better trainer, but from what instructors have told me (not to mention my own experience) its easier to transition from a 22 to a 300 than the other way around.
A couple more things I might be misunderstanding. If the Schweizer has a greater power margin, why was I hitting full throttle at just over 70kts at sea level? Whereas, not only can I go faster, but I've never hit full throttle in a 22.
Then theirs the stability thing. In the Schweizer I could let go of the cyclic and if it was out of trim it would just lean to one side, then I'd move the hat and it would stabilize,...easy peazy. In the 22, I wouldn't dare let go of the cyclic, as its just not stable enough for that.
Anyway, maybe I'm just missing something?
I didn’t say power margin Robbie, I said power range. As you know, the same engine is in both aircraft, but is D-rated in the R22. There is, in fact quite a bit more power margin in the R22. But parts like the MGB won’t thank you for using it. Using the full range of power in the 269 means you are not constantly making small inputs within a limited range (which are further fine tuned by the governor). The inputs in a 269 encompass a bigger range and require more compensation. That trains the relationships between pilot input and associated corrections better.
The R22 is arguably “less stable”. Flighty you might say. But we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about balance: The R22 comes easily into balance; the 269 needs more help. A poorly flown 269 feels clumsy. The fact that you can trim out the 269 cyclic is also very important in terms of workload management and safety. There are no prizes for making things unnecessarily hard.