Hughes 269/Schweizer 300 series
One of my buddies was thinking about buying an older 269A or B. In talking to one of my other buddies, who has a lot of time in the 269 and 369 and is an A&P, he says the thing to look out for on the older ships is corrosion. The gearbox & mast are mag, make sure those are good. Problem is, you can be a victim of somebody dishonest who cleans up bad corrosion and gives it a paint-job overhaul. This applies to the other parts of the airframe too.
Otherwise, he thought the older 269 series aircraft were good.
-- IFMU
Otherwise, he thought the older 269 series aircraft were good.
-- IFMU
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a refurbished H269/Th55 for sale. Also operated a few over the years
Great little helicopters however when having to compete against the R22 the economies do not work, higher maintenance, higher fuel consumption, older technology and a bit slower. Still an excellent training platform for abinitio.
Lower VNE on the 269A was due to the rear windows popping out in the early days, fixed now but type cert not up dated to meet the higher VNE on the C's
Power and performance in the 269A/TH55 (assuming new style main blades, bigger tail rotor and electric clutch installed) better than the CBi in my opinion
As a private play thing would be a good little helicopter. Bit more room than the R22, has litters on the side and longer range fuel tanks and don't forget conventional controls.
Great little helicopters however when having to compete against the R22 the economies do not work, higher maintenance, higher fuel consumption, older technology and a bit slower. Still an excellent training platform for abinitio.
Lower VNE on the 269A was due to the rear windows popping out in the early days, fixed now but type cert not up dated to meet the higher VNE on the C's
Power and performance in the 269A/TH55 (assuming new style main blades, bigger tail rotor and electric clutch installed) better than the CBi in my opinion
As a private play thing would be a good little helicopter. Bit more room than the R22, has litters on the side and longer range fuel tanks and don't forget conventional controls.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montana
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R22 vs. 269/300
I have limited experience so far in the hughes. So far I have to say that the R22, performs better. I was actually quite disappointed at the lack of reserve power hovering with half tanks, a 165 pound passenger, at 3000' msl and a balmy 3 degrees celsius. The engine RPM limit in this bird is 2900. I had it pegged there, and still only had about 1.5 inches of MAP to spare until full throttle. Maybe it's a weak bird. I would like to hear from people with experience flying 269A's with fuel injected 0-360's. So far I have seen a couple of the good attributes of the heli. It is extremely easy to fly. I was a bit concerned about flying with a standard cyclic and no governor, but I held that thing like a rock right off the bat. Anyway, I have to get one thing off my chest. I really hate it when people say the Schweizer has more power than the 22. It's just not true. From what I've seen in the Hughes, you need almost all that 180hp you can get, but guess what happens to HP as you climb? In the R22 you can usually get by with hovering at 124HP. You can pull an extra .9" for 131HP. That's usually enough to get ya an alright Max Perf. takeoff. You can climb all the way up to about 8000' on average before you can't pull 124HP (depending on the DA). If the R22 was only just a bit wider with more fuel capacity.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 58
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really hate it when people say the Schweizer has more power than the 22.
Is there any way of circumnavigating the seat weight limit in an R22?
Cheers
Whirls
Try a 300C model if you think you are short of power !
Yesterday 35 gals of fuel 900ft amsl plus 60 degrees 2 x 200 lbs pilots could do a vertical climb to 100 ft over trees, wind about 8 kts
The 269A has smaller blades than the cbi or c models
Yesterday 35 gals of fuel 900ft amsl plus 60 degrees 2 x 200 lbs pilots could do a vertical climb to 100 ft over trees, wind about 8 kts
The 269A has smaller blades than the cbi or c models
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any way of circumnavigating the seat weight limit in an R22?
The maxima (240lb per seat) is designed to preserve the integrity of ones vertabrae. (max design weight)
The empty Beta weight will be around 861lb and the minima allowable AUW is 920lb. at minima AUW the aircraft should autorotaate at right on the bottom red line (90%) at about 52knots in standard ISA. This will give you full travel of the collective to arrest descent.
so you see it is all very simple, if you are petite and beautiful as all petite fenminine people would be, then carry enough weight to preserve the CofG and you will never fail to safely conduct an autorotation should the need arise.
cheers tet
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: mexico
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R-22 vs 300C/CB/CBi
Well,
The big debate on track again.. A absolute wrong debate in term of pure training. Franck Robinson himself said again and again he never designed the R-22 as training helicopter. On other hand Hughes designed the 269 based on a training helicopter requirement from the US Army.
Therefore, I believe the 300 is much better suited for initial training. The R-22 being too touchy, it could be frustrating for any beginner - after all willing is not the only ability required to learn helicopter flying.
The R-22 is a good aircraft and when possible all student should learn to fly it - after having passed at least half the flight time for the certificate thought....
Most of the student pilots are passing through CFI rating an most of the school are using R-22, and I believe it should be a requirement to handle the R-22 properly to avoid any mishap while teaching.
The R-22 took a dominating position, due to its low operating cost, and 2000 original overhaul limit. Training is a business and lowering cost was/is an issue.
However, I am sure school owners are less stressed when their fleet of 300 is outside flying...!!!!
Having some R-22 in the fleet for navigation training, is a good solution to give your student "costless" way to build time and navigation requirements.
My perfect flight school fleet would be 4 x 300CBi, two R-22 and one R-44 (operated from a private owner.
The big debate on track again.. A absolute wrong debate in term of pure training. Franck Robinson himself said again and again he never designed the R-22 as training helicopter. On other hand Hughes designed the 269 based on a training helicopter requirement from the US Army.
Therefore, I believe the 300 is much better suited for initial training. The R-22 being too touchy, it could be frustrating for any beginner - after all willing is not the only ability required to learn helicopter flying.
The R-22 is a good aircraft and when possible all student should learn to fly it - after having passed at least half the flight time for the certificate thought....
Most of the student pilots are passing through CFI rating an most of the school are using R-22, and I believe it should be a requirement to handle the R-22 properly to avoid any mishap while teaching.
The R-22 took a dominating position, due to its low operating cost, and 2000 original overhaul limit. Training is a business and lowering cost was/is an issue.
However, I am sure school owners are less stressed when their fleet of 300 is outside flying...!!!!
Having some R-22 in the fleet for navigation training, is a good solution to give your student "costless" way to build time and navigation requirements.
My perfect flight school fleet would be 4 x 300CBi, two R-22 and one R-44 (operated from a private owner.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: land of fruits & nuts
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I owned a 300C for 5 years. Parts are very expensive. Few A/C for sale were as represented. If considering a purchase, get someone who really knows the 300 to do the prebuy. I cannot emphasize this enough. Do not cut corners on the prebuy. Unless you are an A & P don't even consider buying a ship that is not in flying condition. Compliance with some A/D's can be very costly. Nice ship to fly but very slow. Avoid the short fat guy at LGB with all the military aircraft who claims to have flown in all sorts of movies. You will get hosed if you deal with him. If I had it to do over, I'd bit the bullet and buy a R-44 Raven 2.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montana
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes 269A Weight and Balance
Can anyone help me with the lack of information in the Hughes 269A RFM regarding weight and balance info? It doesn't give me anything on the doors etc. There is no lateral CG info. What is the deal?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The land of the cranberry
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd take the 300 over the R22 any day. The 22 is nice on a cross country with that bit of extra speed but that sit in my books. Was in a 300C last week hovering at 5000 MSL, 55 degrees F. In my books that gives a DA of around 5900ft. Pretty good going!!
Last edited by Trans Lift; 1st May 2009 at 02:45.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Region 5 / Region 4 / and sometimes Region 8?
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd take the 300 over the R22 any day. The 22 is nice on a cross country with that bit of extra speed but that sit in my books. Was in a 300C last week hovering at 5000 MSL, 55 degrees F. In my books that gives a DA of around 10000. Pretty good going!!
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 58
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the lack of information for lateral CofG improves much from the A model to the B, C, CB, CBi 
It's nigh on impossible to throw a Schweizer outside the lateral CofG limits; longitudinal though is a different matter, hence more data on the stations.
Cheers
Whirls
It's nigh on impossible to throw a Schweizer outside the lateral CofG limits; longitudinal though is a different matter, hence more data on the stations.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lateral C.G. limits can be exceeded in the 269 series of aircraft, albeit with some difficulty, and accidents have been recorded as a result of lateral C.G. exceedances.
The 269D has specific limits in the Type Certification Data Sheet.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...$FILE/4H12.pdf
The 269D has specific limits in the Type Certification Data Sheet.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...$FILE/4H12.pdf
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montana
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lateral CG Hughes 269A
Thanks for all the responses. I checked out the specs on the D model. I had looked at that publication before. I love how it says under the A model. "See RFM for details" next to Lateral CG limit. Then you look in the RFM and nothing...lol. I've been spoiled on the Robinson. My situation is that I need to train pilots in the Hughes 269A, and I want them to be thinking about lateral CG and factor that into their calculations, but I have NO DATA to use for the A model. I was thinking about using the data I have from the C, but I don't think it is right. The C has different longitudinal limits than the A. I'm also super bummed out about the 400 pound limit in the cab. Did they rig the cyclic differently in the C and CBI models to give you more cyclic effective movement, or is it a crashworthiness kind of thing? Anyone interested in 2 269A's for a really good C model? I'm not terribly worried about the lateral CG being out, with a typical male size, but I am worried about solo'ing someone light in the future, like a 100 pound girl. Any safe ideas for ballast?
