need some opinion here...:( [Archive]

ivierre

28th May 2006, 01:51

Hello...

Hope i am posting this at the right place and I apologize if this is not. :}

I am currently thinking of learning flying, getting my PPL. However, since the school offers helicopter lessons also, it got me into thinking. I have always been interested in the "fixed-wing" style plane and I really do not know much about helicopter that I will need some opinion here....:\

Are you flying helicopter or not? what made you make that choice or the other way?

Also, can anyone please give me idea on like what is some strengths or weaknesses of helicopters? or for "fixed wing" small aircraft?:confused:

thank you very much...:D :

cessnasey

28th May 2006, 02:09

if the engin fails on a cessna, there is still hope. :}

coodem

28th May 2006, 04:59

Helicopters cost a lot more than aeroplanes, I guess about double, so for me it was one of my main reasons for doing fixed wing. But I am sure I will do a rotary licence in a few years.

I think a skilled rotary pilot could put a helicopter down safer and softer if the engine were to fail and he had enough altitude. But I agree, there is so much more to go wrong on a helicopter. Both mechanical and pilot error, I guess and aeroplane is far more forgiving

plucka

28th May 2006, 06:49

And dont forget, if you ever want to make a living as a pilot one day there are more oppurtunities out there for fixed wing than fling wing....

Bravo73

28th May 2006, 07:58

if the engin fails on a cessna, there is still hope.

Helicopters = engine failure is bad news

Ahhh, the power of ignorance! Don't believe everything that you hear in the 'clubhouse'. I can imagine that cessnasey and monkeybdg haven't even ever sat in a helicopter, let alone flown one. :ugh:

For the record, the Bell 206 Jetranger is statisically the safest single engine AIRCRAFT in the world. Yep, safer than all of those Pipers and Cessnas etc etc. :D

My best advice: have an hour's Trial Lesson in both, then make up your mind. I'd start with the fixed-wing first, if I was you. Helicopters might be more expensive, much more challenging to learn to fly but they are more useful (the number of potential landing sites is practically unlimited) and, at the end of the day, much more fun!

Tin hat on.

Hope this helps, :ok:

B73

PS Before everyone jumps on my back, yes, I have soloed a Piper Warrior. So, yes, I am in a position to make comparisons... ;)

kevmusic

28th May 2006, 08:15

How can those things fly when the wings go backwards half the time! :eek::}

Whirlygig

28th May 2006, 08:27

Bravo Bravo73, the sound of common sense. However, I have never flown a fixed-thing thingy so I cannot make direct comparisons but, if I had a choice of an engine failure (single engine of course) in a helicopter or aeroplane, I'd go for the helicopter!!

Admittedly, during autorotation, you may well be descending at 1,000 fpm and you may well have been only at 2,000 in the first place but that is two whole minutes to pick your space to land! And we don't need much space!! We don't need a runway!! So, large gardens, small fields - that's all we need!

However, the cost per hour to fly even the cheapest R22 is just over double so much more costly. I wouldn't recommend a trial lesson in a helicopter because, if you do, you will be hooked straight away and then there would be no looking back and you would end up spending thousands more on your PPL.

Years and years ago, I had a flight in a small Cessna and I thought, "yeah, that was fun; I'd like to do that someday!" Then, four years ago, I had the opportunity to fly in the back of a Bolkow 105 (Police helicopter - quite military). As soon as I jumped out, grinning ear to ear, I said, "I've got to do that!" And within the year, I got my PPL(H). Fixed wing was fine but it was obviously not enough of a hold on me to make me want to do it. Heli was.

Get a fixed wing licence, build hours on that and do helicopter licence later. If you plan to go commercial and work as a pilot, then hours required for many jobs can be either fixed wing or heli - insurance companies don't seem that fussed!

Cheers

Whirls

Droopystop

28th May 2006, 11:03

ivierre,

Ignore our fixed wing bretheren re engine failures, I'd rather be in a R22 looking for a small football pitch rather than trying to find a smooth, firm, long field. But more to the point, engines do not fail very often.

Your choice depends on two things: What you can afford and what you want out of your flying.

Someone more up to date than me will give you an accurate hire rate for an R22, but I think it is around £150+vat, instruction will cost another £50 -60 on top. Budget for at least 50 hours plus the cost of medical, books, exams etc. Once you have a ppl, try and fly at least an hour a month, although I would try for at least an hour a fortnight - it is just too much fun to do any less! Remeber this is just for an R22 (two seater). For greater flexibility a R44 (four seater) rating is well worth it. Helicopters open up a whole load of hotels, race courses, and back gardens (careful here, big back garden not surrounded by houses only) where as fixed wing are bound to airfields.

If you want to go touring long distance and be less affected by weather a fixed wing might be better. Instrument flying (flying in clouds) is relatively cheap in fixed wing, IF for helicopters is in the realms of double lotto winners (if you buy your own aircraft, hiring an IF helicopter is not cheap and availability will be an issue).

If you want a career out of flying, check out the rotorheads forum for a huge thread on becoming a professional helicopter pilot.

Don't forget to look at other options, eg gliding and microlights. Aviation is expensive and it is a shame to spend all your money on training and have none left for flying once you have your license.

ivierre

28th May 2006, 19:37

thank you very much for the replies!:ok:

So helicopter is harder to learn than aeroplane? oh and so fixed wings planes are less affected by weather? :eek: :confused:

At this moment, I am not hoping to get a job out of being a pilot since it is very difficult....but no harm to know more....(of course i will visit the rotor head forum) So, usually professional helicopter will flight shorter distance than other fixed wings pilots?

thanks once again and sorry if I am asking some stupid questions here :{

Droopystop

28th May 2006, 20:20

No such thing as a stupid question, just stupid answers!

The point I was trying to make about the weather is this: We are limited to two types of flying, Visual Flight Rules (look out of the window and use the pretty view to navigate and fly by) and Instrument Flight Rules (nothing to see outside so use a miriad of dials and displays to navigate and fly by). Helicopters can fly VFR in poorer weather than fixed wing, but in reality, the weather that limits VFR in fixed wing is not much fun for helicopter flying.

IFR is much, much cheaper in fixed wing compared with rotary.

If you are merely flying for fun, you need not worry too much about IFR unless you want to do some serious a to b flying (ie have a time constraint).

Most professional helicopter pilots do very short trips (sometimes only a few minutes) although the pilots flying out to the oil rigs in the north sea can do some long sectors. Even so, we are only talking a couple of hundred miles at the most. But you will find with most A to B flying, the arriving and the departing are the most interesting bit, and for a helicopter they can be very interesting.

You will find that pilots fly for very different reasons. Some like the formal pseudo airline type flying, for others it is aerobatics or flying classic aircraft. Take your pick! Some would say helicopter pilots do it because at some stage in their life they became unhinged!!!

flyboyike

28th May 2006, 20:29

Some would say helicopter pilots do it because at some stage in their life they became unhinged!!!

Amen to that!

Whirlybird

28th May 2006, 21:07

I fly both so I'm quite well qualified to answer this...would have done so sooner, but just back from three days away.

I got a PPL(A) first, thinking helicopters were too expensive. I flew for about a year, then went for a trial helicopter flight just for something different to do. I managed to hover for about 45 seconds with all three controls on my trial lesson, and I was instantly hooked! I HAD to do more. I said I was only going to do a few hours and learn to hover properly, then it was just a few more hours. Then I realised what I really wanted was to get a PPL(H). But on the day of my Skills Test, I realised I couldn't afford to pay to fly helciopters for ever, so...
"You've passed", said the examiner.
"Can you tell me about getting a CPL", I replied.
"OK," he said, "but shall we do the paperwork for this one first".

Fast forward about five years. I'm instructing part time on R22s and occasionally R44s, although it looks like becoming almost fulltime, at least over the summer. And I love it!

So what is it about helicopters? Where you get in a f/w aircraft and fly it, you kind of strap on a helicopter and it becomes a part of you. You don't need to fly, just hovering and doing manoeuvres close to the ground is fun. You can go anywhere and land practically anywhere, but you really don't need to. It's the most versatile means of transport there is, and the ultimate toy.

If the engine failed in either f/w or rotary, I wouldn't be at all happy, to be honest. In a f/w aircraft you've got more time, but you've got to find a big flat field, and it if there isn't one, you won't make it. In a helicopter you've got to get that lever down quickly, but you can land anywhere that's flat, and it doesn't have to be very big. Quite often I have students on trial lessons who think if the engine fails they'll drop like a stone; I show them an autorotation, and they're always surprised by how non-scary it is, how relatively slowly you descend, how much control you have. And, by the way, all trial lesson students come down to earth with an ear to ear grin...where else can you have fun and get paid for fulfilling people's dreams?

All I can say, is, go and give both a try. I almost guarantee you'll go for helicopters. And yes, it costs more, but not that much more. I don't really think it's more difficult, just different. And if you really want to do it....well, you only live once.

IO540

28th May 2006, 22:07

We are limited to two types of flying, Visual Flight Rules (look out of the window and use the pretty view to navigate and fly by) and Instrument Flight Rules (nothing to see outside so use a miriad of dials and displays to navigate and fly by).

Not really correct, and I would suggest it may be unhelpful to those pilots whose license privileges (which is another way of saying time and money) limit them to VFR flight rules.

What I would call "smarter VFR pilots" navigate using instrument methods even if flying under visual flight rules.

Obviously I don't know everything but in 600+ hours over 4-5 years have never been lost, "uncertain of position", scared (except when scared by a mad instructor), etc etc so I guess I know a little bit about this stuff, and this is what I've been doing since the day after my PPL skills test.

Also, a lot of UK pilots are limited to VFR only when flying outside the UK.

As regards IFR, actually the name of the game is to get into VMC, below cloud or above cloud. Nobody likes to sit in cloud; it's usually bumpy and there is the risk of airframe icing.

Whirlygig

28th May 2006, 22:20

IO540, Droopy was talking from the helicopter point of view for which an IMC rating does not exist; it is VFR (yes, of course you scan the instruments) or IFR in a twin-engined, stabilised, £1,000 per hour helicopter!

An IFR rating for a helicopter would cost around £40,000 and so is probably irrelevant to this this thread!

Cheers

Whirls

Droopystop

29th May 2006, 12:04

Sorry for hijacking the thread.....

Not really correct, and I would suggest it may be unhelpful to those pilots whose license privileges (which is another way of saying time and money) limit them to VFR flight rules.
What I would call "smarter VFR pilots" navigate using instrument methods even if flying under visual flight rules.
Obviously I don't know everything but in 600+ hours over 4-5 years have never been lost, "uncertain of position", scared (except when scared by a mad instructor), etc etc so I guess I know a little bit about this stuff, and this is what I've been doing since the day after my PPL skills test.
Also, a lot of UK pilots are limited to VFR only when flying outside the UK.
As regards IFR, actually the name of the game is to get into VMC, below cloud or above cloud. Nobody likes to sit in cloud; it's usually bumpy and there is the risk of airframe icing.

I deliberately avioded the IMC rating issue because a) i know very little about it and b) it is beside the point. If one wants to be able to have some flexibility with weather for touring then go for fixed wing because instrument flying is more attainable. The fact remains there is only VFR or IFR.

I too had 600+ hrs after 4 years of flying, but I have been lost on one or two occasions and I have been scared once or twice. All of them were quality learning experiences.

IO540

29th May 2006, 15:58

Can't speak for rotary from personal exp (only had a few trial lessons in some truly bottom end ones) but it's obvious that if you want the ultimate capability to fly from A to B no matter what the conditions are, and you have ba11s made of solid brass, not to mention disregard for rules, a helicopter will beat fixed wing anytime.

I see them flying under OVC002, in thunderstorms, in fog, in fact anytime anywhere. If the pilot loses his nerve, or comes up against a solid wall of fog, he can just put it down somewhere, go for a wee, and eat his packed lunch.

Obviously it's also a good way to get killed but I think that a clever and very good rotary pilot will have a much greater all-weather mission capability than an equally clever fixed wing pilot.

To get comparable ability to go anywhere in a fixed wing one would need to be doing seriously hairy DIY instrument approaches on the GPS, and then you still have to find a runway.

If I wanted to be able to travel around the UK in all weather (say, had a business where I was on a constant call-out and the work was of very high value) I would buy a turbine helicopter, probably a Gazelle, and get a military instructor to train me to fly it. Or something newer with an autopilot - I believe there are some American single engine turbine helis that have an AP even though very few singles are approved for IFR (of course this is entirely N-reg context). A friend of mine sells a lot of this stuff.

I don't think my IFR-navigation comparison was entirely irrelevant - helicopters must be a very good example of a case where most pilots have to fly under VFR, and for basic safety reasons have to remain VMC, but I am sure all but the most hardened part-timers will be using GPS. Whereas in fixed-wing flight there is a large community which regards that as doing a pact with the devil.

ShyTorque

29th May 2006, 16:29

"If I wanted to be able to travel around the UK in all weather (say, had a business where I was on a constant call-out and the work was of very high value) I would buy a turbine helicopter, probably a Gazelle, and get a military instructor to train me to fly it. Or something newer with an autopilot - I believe there are some American single engine turbine helis that have an AP even though very few singles are approved for IFR (of course this is entirely N-reg context). A friend of mine sells a lot of this stuff."

:ugh: IO540, The belief that a non-IFR helicopter such as a Gazelle is an "all weather" way of getting around UK on "high value work" is a recipe for getting a low-time pilot killed, and has done on many occasions in the past. :=

JW411

29th May 2006, 17:31

IO540:

"Obviously I don't know everything but in 600+ hours.........."

I started instructing in 1963 and I have sent pilots solo in just about everything from gliders to 4-engined jet aircraft. I beseech you to continue to fly safely and to realise just how relatively inexperienced you really are.

I would hate you to become a statistic.

IO540

29th May 2006, 18:16

Funny how some people here pick on some phrase I use and turn it around out of context, rather than take the time to write something that makes a positive contribution to knowledge on the topic.

I think that if somebody is flying a helicopter they will probably know that they can get killed in it.

Fuji Abound

29th May 2006, 20:06

After a hundred hours you know you are still learning.

After two hundred hours you just start feeling comfortable.

At four hundred hours you think you know it all.

At 600 hours you know you know it all.

At 1,000 hours you realise you still don’t know everything, but the bits you don’t know are coming more slowly.

At 5,000 hours you are grateful that none of those bits you didn’t know has caught you out.

At 10,000 hours you just hope there are no more bits!

If you review the statistics I seem to remember the serious gotchas seem to come between 200 hours and 600 hours - makes sense.

You should be safe now IO540!!!

and there we all go but for the grace of God, 200 hours or 10,000 hours.

IO540

29th May 2006, 21:03

What I actually wrote was

What I would call "smarter VFR pilots" navigate using instrument methods even if flying under visual flight rules.
Obviously I don't know everything but in 600+ hours over 4-5 years have never been lost, "uncertain of position", scared (except when scared by a mad instructor), etc etc so I guess I know a little bit about this stuff, and this is what I've been doing since the day after my PPL skills test

That was the context of my "600 hour" comment.

It's no wonder almost nobody here can understand the UK ANO, or even the simplest piece of legislation. You've got to read the context of what somebody wrote. Has anybody noticed that when I write something I try to set it out in nice easy to digest paragraphs? I can't make it any clearer.

It's a bit like the suppliers I deal with in my business. I send them a purchase order for three items, and they stop reading after the first one.

British education has a lot to answer for!

:ugh: <- a very appropriate animated GIF

Fuji Abound

29th May 2006, 21:35

IO540 - I agree with your comments and I agreed with your earlier your comments. I understood perfectly what you were saying.

I thought the earlier comments and deliberate mis interpretation of your post was banal. It also seemed a good opportunity for those who think hours are all that matters to remind them that none of us stop learning - 100 hours, 1,000 hours, ten thousand hours.

Whirlygig

29th May 2006, 21:42

:confused: I think the earlier comments were pointing out that the rules governing helicopter aviation and fixed wings were quite different - that's all. No disagreement with respect to hours :ok:

Cheers

Whirls

Fuji Abound

29th May 2006, 21:51

Whirly - you are generous.

The earlier comments were, perhaps the later comments were not :confused:

bencoulthard

29th May 2006, 22:59

I back you up IO

You seem well informed and on the ball to me. Between you and Whirlybird i've seen some of the best advice offered on pprune.

ivierre: please accept my apologies for this thread hijack(even more than it has become already)

Ben (don't know much bout nuffin) Coulthard

Whirlybird

30th May 2006, 08:03

IO540,

I understood you. I'm sure many others did too. That's why we didn't comment - nothing much to say, except to waste bandwidth saying "I agree", "you're right", "good post", or something similar. But perhaps we should post that kind of feedback more often.

Anyway, please stop banging your head against that wall now, OK ;)

ShyTorque

30th May 2006, 08:05

Ben,

IO often gives very good advice. However, irrespective of how many hours fixed wing experience he has, please DON'T go believing that small helicopters such as the Gazelle are "all weather" machines.

They are most definitely NOT, any more than are small fixed wing aircraft. Even relatively experienced pilots (some of them ex-military) have found that out the hard way....

The least expensive way to get aviation experience is in the least expensive aircraft. Most folks begin on FW and go on to get their rotary licence later and I wouldn't disagree with that. (There is at least one contributor here who didn't - she is, no doubt, just about to remind me :p ).

Whirlygig

30th May 2006, 08:09

That would be the contributor who said she's never flown a fixed wing thingy then eh?

Cheers

Whirls

Whirlybird

30th May 2006, 08:20

Most folks begin on FW and go on to get their rotary licence later

I'm not sure that this is the case. When I was doing my PPL(H), most of the other students had started straight off with helicopters. Similarly, as an instructor, I don't often get f/w pilots; it's usually people who just want to learn to fly helicopters. And considering the CAA only gives you 6 hours off the course if you've got a PPL(A), and not many people do the PPL(H) in minimum hours anyway, I'm not sure that it would save you any money...though extra experience, in any flying machine, is always useful of course.

ShyTorque

30th May 2006, 09:24

That would be the contributor who said she's never flown a fixed wing thingy then eh?

Cheers

Whirls

Those fish are up early, good morning Whirls! :D :)

Whirlybird, you may be correct and I bow to your instructional recency. My main, opening point was that it is cheaper to gain flying experience per se in a cheaper flying machine, irrespective of any concession given by the CAA. ;)

bladewashout

30th May 2006, 09:59

Having only ever done Rotary, and starting in middle-age, it can take a while to get the hang of the thing (70+ hours rather than the minimum 45), and like most of my fellow-middle-aged students, we had a very healthy respect for the numerous ways helicopters can bite back, bordering on paranoia...

Fixed-wing students of a similar age seemed a lot more relaxed about their training, and seemed to pick up the skills a lot quicker.

Young whippersnappers seem to be irritatingly able to jump in and fly without a care in the world :*

I was hooked within about 30 seconds of the trial lesson, and being able to land in your back garden just can't be beat. As has been already said, it's the ultimate toy!

Good luck whichever you choose, just get airborne!

BW

IO540

30th May 2006, 10:35

Looking at the people I know who went to helicopters, it seems to me that while flying generally is not anywhere as cheap a hobby as many UK participants would like it to be, helis are even less cheap if you want something that feels reasonably solid.

Those (that I know) who went straight to helis were very well funded individuals, completely unlike the vast majority of the UK PPL customer profile, and while the scene does attract more posers than fixed wing (helis are a far more effective way to pull birds than fixed wing, so who can blame them) there are many punters who get into it because of the ease of parking and general versatility for ad hoc travel within the UK.

Very few people seem to get into f/w with any apparent utility objective, and indeed it is difficult to do so without becoming an owner or part-owner. The stuff which one can rent is mostly junk. Adequately capable helis can, on the other hand, be rented (at a price starting at say £400/hour).

I have zero personal operational experience of helis but having spoken to a number of the pilots (rare IR(H) types excepted) it appears that they do rely on the ability to easily land to avoid weather. In this respect, it seems to me that having had prior fixed wing IFR flight planning and navigation experience might be an advantage. Of the pilots who I know personally who have done both, this is their view too.

I have often toyed with the idea of doing a PPL(H) but it seems very hard work especially being nearly 50! Also I would really hate to have to go through the "Robinson" stage, flying what feels like a lawn mower except that it vibrates a lot more than my lawn mower. It would be like doing the PPL(A) all over again, in decrepit old Cessnas/Pipers. That's where my "Gazelle" comment came from. I strongly believe one should train, even ab-initio, in the same machine which one wishes to fly afterwards. Of course this makes instructors cringe.

Also I am not sure what is involved in going the N-reg route in the UK. I know it is practically impossible to do a standalone FAA PPL(A) in the UK, due to lack of FAA examiners coming over, DfT restrictions, etc. Where do PPL(H) pilots flying N-reg helis do their training? Do they all go to the USA? Or are they flying on a piggyback FAA PPL(H)?

Whirlybird

30th May 2006, 11:41

Those (that I know) who went straight to helis were very well funded individuals, completely unlike the vast majority of the UK PPL customer profile, and while the scene does attract more posers than fixed wing (helis are a far more effective way to pull birds than fixed wing, so who can blame them) there are many punters who get into it because of the ease of parking and general versatility for ad hoc travel within the UK.
Very few people seem to get into f/w with any apparent utility objective, and indeed it is difficult to do so without becoming an owner or part-owner.

While these individuals do exist, a lot of helicopter pilots start because they love the machines, the hands-on aspect, the sheer versatility which f/w aircraft just don't have - in my albeit limited experience of f/w types.

I have zero personal operational experience of helis but having spoken to a number of the pilots (rare IR(H) types excepted) it appears that they do rely on the ability to easily land to avoid weather.

I'm not sure that this is true. We do talk as though it is! We do feel better knowing we can. But I've never actually done it, in 450+ rotary hours (not a lot really, before anyone tells me). And I don't know many people who have. And it needs to be done with a lot of care, or you end up flying at 200 ft below cloud in poor vis and becoming another statistic - since even helicopters can't make instant landings.

I have often toyed with the idea of doing a PPL(H) but it seems very hard work especially being nearly 50!

IO540, I don't give my age away on PPRuNe, but I wasn't very much younger than that when I started flying helicopters. You are nowhere near too old. That's a lousy excuse. ;)

I strongly believe one should train, even ab-initio, in the same machine which one wishes to fly afterwards. Of course this makes instructors cringe.

No, I'm not cringing. I think learning on an R22 might make you a better pilot though.

IO540,
One thing you seem to have omitted in all of this is the pilot who flies for the fun of it. The pilot who doesn't necessarily want to go anywhere, and certainly not any great distance, but is happy doing a little jaunt on a sunny weekend. A f/w pilot like this quickly uses up all his/her local airfields and gets bored. The rotary equivalent can probably spend a summer or two at least landing in friends' gardens, local pubs and hotels, and similar places. And it probably won't cost much more, if any.

Finally, we're not all well-heeled. Some of us were well-heeled for long enough to qualify...but windfalls get used up. :{ One of my PPL students does manual work in Tesco. Another is a psychiatric nurse. Another is in IT, surprise surprise. The private owners tend to be medium-size business owners, but not the rest of us. We're just helicopter addicts. :ok:

muffin

30th May 2006, 13:41

The pilot who doesn't necessarily want to go anywhere, and certainly not any great distance, but is happy doing a little jaunt on a sunny weekend. A f/w pilot like this quickly uses up all his/her local airfields and gets bored. The rotary equivalent can probably spend a summer or two at least landing in friends' gardens, local pubs and hotels, and similar places. And it probably won't cost much more, if any.:

Thats me Whirly.

I do exactly that in both f/w and rotary. And the list of pubs, hotels, friends back gardens, museums, etc is a lot longer than the list of airfields and farm strips combined. The nice thing about doing this in a helicopter is that I rarely need to go above 1000 feet or so agl to do it. Can I add the field next door to you to the list yet?

Whirlybird

30th May 2006, 17:02

muffin,
I was thinking of you as I wrote that....funny thing, that. ;) As for the field next door to me, I still haven't met the farmer, but since it's full of sheep and cute little lambs right now, I rather suspect he wouldn't appreciate your R22 landing there. :( The woman two doors away says you can land in the field she uses for her horses, but I haven't found out where it is yet. I'll see what I can do; can't have you getting short of landing sites for sunny weekends, can we?

bladewashout

30th May 2006, 20:50

Someone should keep a list of people who have landing pads and can offer mutual cups of tea....

BW

Whirlygig

30th May 2006, 20:56

They have - it's called The Helicopter Club of Great Britain but you're meant to be a member to take part!

Cheers

Whirls

cessnasey

31st May 2006, 00:08

hey, didnt mean to come across as ignorant in myfirst post, it was more for humour than serious advice, hence the smilie.

but you are right i have never flown a helicopter. im still learning to fly fixed wing at the mo and havent passed the point that im confident of handling engine failure in a cessna, the thought of it sh*its me up but i know theres still hope as i have a few mins gliding if i keep my speed up. hopefully i will land a little softer this way.

but in a heli, the thought of engine failure above 15ft, to me, just feels like the end! im sorry if im upsetting you rotor heads. i do not know too much about helis, the main factor for me when choosing to fly fixed wing was more a money thing than safety but hey, having wings attached did contribute also.

im sorry but anyone who would choose to have engine failure in a heli over a fixed wing light aircraft has a death wish in my opinion. a light aircraft has wheels, after landing you can roll on to lose speed, in a heli you will simply come to a halt. this in itself is enough to make me feel safer in a cessna, not to mention failure in a heli will cause loss of most controls and gauges. also helis are allot more sensitive at the controls (as far as i know) i could go on and on as to why i think an airplane is safer.

i dont mean to go on and on, its just i dont like to be referred to as ignorant. and i can only judge whats safer by info thats given to me. yea, engine failures are one in a million, but statistics point at the cessna as the safer option, so im going that way!

Whirlybird

31st May 2006, 07:08

but in a heli, the thought of engine failure above 15ft, to me, just feels.........anyone who would choose to have engine failure in a heli over a fixed wing light aircraft has a death wish in my opinion. a light aircraft has wheels, after landing you can roll on to lose speed, in a heli you will simply come to a halt.

A common misconception. Let me see if I can explain this.

If the engine fails in a helicopter, it will go quiet, the low rotor RPM horn will blare at you, and you will get a sudden yaw to the left (right in Russian and French helicopters, depends which way your rotors turn). As for f/w aircraft, you are likely to have had some preliminary warning that all was not well, but let's suppose you didn't and it happens suddenly.

You lower the collective lever. That is ALL you have to do quickly. Now you have time. You will be in autorotation, which means that as you descend, the air from underneath keeps the rotors turning - like a windmill or a sycamore leaf. You will be descending at about 1700ft/min, which is relatively fast, but at 2000 ft gives you over a minute to sort things out. That is enough time. You can turn, speed up, slow down; the helicopter is under control.

You set up at 65kts or so, and start to look for a landing site. All you need is a flat area; it doesn't need to be big. You turn into wind, or approach your site from a base leg; as for f/w, there are different ways of doing this. I prefer to adjust my speed; if you slow down, you will cover less ground, and can work out exactly where you want to land...a bit like using air brakes in a glider. But in a helicopter, you can slow down as much as you want and it won't stall.

You're now at 40-50 ft, and back to 65kts, and you start a flare to arrest your rate of descent. You flare, then level at about 5ft or so, still with some forward movement. As the helicopter reaches the ground, you raise the lever; this cushions your landing. A run-on landing is quite acceptable, and easier than stopping with no forward speed. We have skids, remember; you can run on fine with those.

Now, if you do it right, you can apply the carb heat, lack of which probably caused the engine failure in the first place, turn the switch, and fly again. I know an instructor who did just that on a demo on a trial lesson; his student never knew they'd had a real engine failure. But suppose you get it wrong. So long as you lower the lever, keep the helicopter under control, and find a flat landing site, you should walk away. So long as you land vertically, the seats and skids are designed to collapse to protect the occupants. And helicopters are replaceable.

Whenever I get trial lesson students who think if the engine fails in a helicopter you die - usually f/w pilots - I demonstrate an auto. They're usually surprised at how un-scary it is, and how much control you have.

Here endeth today's helicopter lesson...as I now have to go teach this stuff for real!

IO540

31st May 2006, 07:51

Except that in helis with little rotor inertia, and from hover, you have, how long? to push the collective down. Under 1 second according to a friend who is a 5000hr IR(H).

Whirlygig

31st May 2006, 08:04

If the engine fails in the hover (which is only about 4 -5ft), then you don't lower the collective and shove a load of boot in (which boot depends, as Whirly said, on which direction your rotors turn). Raising the collective helps to cushion the landing. Yes you have to be quick though! These failures are regularly practiced and aren't too hairy!

There is an envelope (affectionately known as "The Dead Man's Curve") of height/speed in which one doesn't fly as these are the points where the helicopter designer's think that survival is unlikely. You are taught not fly beneath this curve.

I'd still rather be in a helicopter than a Cessna if there's going to be an engine failure!

I hope that helps.