PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Enstrom Corner
Thread: Enstrom Corner
View Single Post
Old 21st Aug 2004, 13:34
  #90 (permalink)  
Ga. Chopper
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Atlanta, Ga.
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It needs 29" MAP just to hold level flight, so if the turbocharger quits you are out of the sky, even with the rest of the engine working.
That may be true if hovering at higher gross weights with calm winds and hot outside temperatures, but that is not true for forward flight at speeds above ETL. If the turbo fails in a hover or prior to accelerating thru ETL, the ship would slowy settle to the ground. With full fuel and two people onboard, I can set 23" to 25" MAP and easily do a "run-on" takeoff, be airborne once thru ETL and climbout conservatively.

I normally use 28" to 29" MAP in forward flight for a cruise power setting which yeilds about 95 MPH, that's only about 1" to 2" of boost above ambient.

In the traffic pattern or for slower flight, I set about 23'"to 25" MAP which yeilds about 70 to 80 MPH. No turbocharger required at these power settings, it's operating just as a normally aspirated engine does without any turbo-boost at all.

For a desent or approach I set about 18" MAP which yeilds about 70 MPH with a descent rate of 500 fpm.

Bottom line: if the turbo quits, the ship "WILL NOT fall out of the sky! But transitioning back into a hover prior to landing will have to be accomplished quickly or a run-on landing at low airspeed will also work fine. I frequently practice this non-normal procedure just in case and it is no big deal at all.

it was a mongrel to start when it was hot
Sounds like there may have been a problem with the fuel servo/idle mixture settings or an improper starting procedure may have been used. If any of the "foil" wrapping was missing from the fuel lines it will cause vapor lock to occur during a hot engine start procedure. I have shut mine down and re-started it repeatingly when it's hot without any glitches, such as when I have tracked the rotors system or refueled.

I didn't like the F28C, but the 280FX is a pretty nice ship to fly.
Sounds like something was wrong with the F28C you flew, the F28C flies much the same as the 280FX; other than it has 20 less horsepower and more drag due to the wider cabin. Since all piston model Enstroms use the same rotor/drive systems, they all fly pretty much the same. The only major component difference between the two piston models is the forward cabin section. If you compare a F28C to a 280C or a F28F to a 280 FX, (apples to apples comparision), you will see they fly almost the same except for a small difference in top speed, (5 mph), due to the difference in frontal area drag. Also due to the lower drag of the cabin, the 280C Shark and 280 FX will glide a little better during decents or autorotations. Even the 480B tubine flies vey similar the piston models and uses many of the same parts in it's rotor/drive systems.

Furthermore, the transmission was made from an old Chevy (I think) and the design hasn't changed much.
This is not true! Externally, it may "looK" like half of the rear end differenitial out of a large truck, but in no way does it resemble or operate like any automotive transmission. This is not an experiemental aircraft, the FAA would not certify a design like that. Besides, the structural loads, gearing ratios and torque would not work in this application. It is amusing how many myths are floating around out there!

Most of the other problems (i.e. lamiflex bearings, tracking, etc.) have been resolved over the years. I have not experienced any of the issues or problems that some of the others have posted here. I am not affiliated with Enstrom in any capacity, other than as an owner-operator, and as a factory trained/certified mechanic. I have owned my F28 for almost 5 years, have flown several hundred hours in it, it has been provided me with safe and reliable operation.

The maintainence is similar to a Schweizer which is not as good as the Robinsons. But I think the Enstrom is better in most of the other areas of flying, especially safety. If you check the NTSB accident and fatality statistics, you will find it is the safest in it's class.

As far as the controls feeling heavy, that goes away after several hours of learning how to properly use the trim, then it becomes rock solid with hands off stability! I can also take my hand off the collective in forward flight and not touch it again untill it's time to change the power setting for the approach and landing.

I got my Private pilot add-on in the R-22 and think it's a great trainer. It is more econonmical to operate and has been great for the flight schools. Since then, I have received the Commercial add-on rating in my Enstrom and should soon have the CFI add-on as well. All the various types of Autorotations in the Enstrom are very safe and easy. These excellent flight characteristics have vastly improved my skills and confidence.

I feel safer in an Enstrom than in an R-22, but the R-44 Raven is the only other piston helicopter that I would feel just as safe in.

Last edited by Ga. Chopper; 22nd Aug 2004 at 13:00.
Ga. Chopper is offline