R22 HP vs R22 Beta
Hi
what is the difference between the R22 HP and the R22 Beta?
What are the disadvantages and advantages?
If you were to buy one, what would you chose?
I've flown the Standard, the HP, the Alpha, the Beta, and the Beta II.
My recollection of the major differences (i.e. when they appeared):
Standard: 150 HP - very much a dog but could run on 80/87 fuel. Battery was in the nose, inside the instrument panel.
HP: High compression heads to bring the horsepower up to 160, but needed 100 octane fuel. Battery was typically under the left seat. Like the Standard, 1300 max gross weight.
Alpha: Moved the battery to the current engine compartment location, canted the tailboom up to the present angle. Added the auxiliary fuel tank, and thus upped the max gross weight to 1370 to account for the weight of the tank and fuel.
Beta: I don't remember if the rotor brake appeared here, or whether it was available on the alpha. The first governor (yuck) showed up on the Beta (the one that moved the collective - sounded like a good idea at the time), but they all have governors now so that's not a difference today. 5 minute takeoff rating (required a larger oil cooler). Larger instrument panels, better instrument panel layout.
Beta II: O360 for more horsepower, redesigned TR gearbox.
All from memory so I probably made some mistakes and forgot some differences, but it's mostly correct.
(787-1): The HP is underpowered (even though the HP stands for High Powered!) and the majority on the market are either time expired or have had the rebuild and remain unsold, so either way they are going to cost quite a bit !
I would take the Beta any day, the Alpha and HP as far as I'm concered have too many problems to make them economical to operate.
I guess I would mostly disagree, except that an HP or Alpha (don't think there are ANY Standards left) is going to be an older aircraft, so more likely to have older aircraft type problems. Probably depends on where it was last overhauled and how it has been stored.
An HP will perform just as well as a Beta with one exception - the Beta has the 5 minute takeoff rating, while the HP does not. Don't be fooled by the 70 pound increase in gross weight of the Alpha and Beta. That's a legal limit that was raised (to account for the weight of the aux fuel tank and it's contents). While the legal limit is raised, there is no more engine power in the Beta-1 than the HP (160 in both cases, derated to a max continuous 124HP.). The Beta-1 does give you a 5 minute takeoff rating, but again, this is mostly a legality. While it has a larger oil cooler, using that extra inch of manifold pressure is no different than pulling an extra inch on an HP, except that you are legal to do that on the Beta, but not on the HP (quibbling perhaps, but the point is that if you fly high/hot, you'll hit the wide open throttle at the same point on the two machines. It's only the LEGAL definition of power that is different (and, I admit that is an advantage because I personally would not exceed the MCP rating of the HP - I pay attention to the limits, even if they seem arbitrary).
The resale on the HP is probably considerably lower, so you might get a deal on purchase, but the overhaul kit is going to cost the same, so you probably lose when you sell it. If you play your cards right, you can probably save some money by going with an older aircraft.
HP Advantages: It sure is nice preflighting without that aux tank installed! Also, with the battery up front the CG is actually better, so you have a more level takeoff. That's the reason the tail boom was canted up - to account for the nose up hover attitude when the batter was moved to the engine compartment. When I was first instructing, we soloed people in the HP because the level lift off was easier.
Beta Advantage: Better instrument panel layout, rotor brake, aux tank if you need it, 5 minute takeoff rating. Extra 1.5 hours of fuel if you fill the aux tank.
If I could afford a Beta, that's what I would buy, but if I couldn't afford a Beta I'd try to find a nice HP that needed some TLC. They're good aircraft, just keep in mind that any older helicopter is probably going to require more maintenance.
If I didn't fly at sea level, I'd go with a Beta-II.
Paul