The Future of Trainer Helicopters?
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
The Future of Trainer Helicopters?
If Robinson stops manufacturing the R22, which helicopters will be used as trainers?
CRAN has suggested that in Europe and Great Britain a brand-new craft, which complies with the new Very-Light Category, might allow for lower cost pilot training.
However, what about the US? It does not have a Very-Light Category. Do the US companies use the Schweizer? Or, do they continually rebuild and use older R22's? Does the used price of an R22 go up as more and more as companies try and get their hands on one to rebuild it?
Alternatively, will there be a future need for single-rotor trainers? What if the Tiltrotors and other laterally-located twin rotor configurations become the VTOL craft of the future?
Any speculation or thoughts?
CRAN has suggested that in Europe and Great Britain a brand-new craft, which complies with the new Very-Light Category, might allow for lower cost pilot training.
However, what about the US? It does not have a Very-Light Category. Do the US companies use the Schweizer? Or, do they continually rebuild and use older R22's? Does the used price of an R22 go up as more and more as companies try and get their hands on one to rebuild it?
Alternatively, will there be a future need for single-rotor trainers? What if the Tiltrotors and other laterally-located twin rotor configurations become the VTOL craft of the future?
Any speculation or thoughts?
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 15th April 2005 at 23:16.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: UK
Wouldn't Frank Robinson be more likely to sell the rights to the R22 to another company?
There are lots of issues in doing it, but the rights to build what is one of the biggest sellers in the industry must be worth a packet. Better than just taking the hit of closing down the line and writing off all the un-amortised investment.
BW
There are lots of issues in doing it, but the rights to build what is one of the biggest sellers in the industry must be worth a packet. Better than just taking the hit of closing down the line and writing off all the un-amortised investment.
BW
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
If R-22 production ends for some reason then I think Enstrom might return to trainer production with a lower cost non-turbo version. Just my guess.
Schweizer (now owned by Sikorsky) is likely to just increase in cost under the management of the giant company. Just my opinion.
Both are three seaters and therefor not ideal as trainers but they have a better fatal accident history than the R-22 according to NTSB records I have seen. Again just my opinion.
A new company is needed for a fresh start without crash lawsuits.
Schweizer (now owned by Sikorsky) is likely to just increase in cost under the management of the giant company. Just my opinion.
Both are three seaters and therefor not ideal as trainers but they have a better fatal accident history than the R-22 according to NTSB records I have seen. Again just my opinion.
A new company is needed for a fresh start without crash lawsuits.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: Murica.
????
The Schweizer not ideally suited as a trainer???
This helicopter was designed as a TRAINER....nothing else!!
In my opinion it is by far the best trainer out there...way better than the 22 will ever be!!
And it is a 2 seater!! Granted, they do come in a 3-seat version..but the original is a 2 seater.
This helicopter was designed as a TRAINER....nothing else!!
In my opinion it is by far the best trainer out there...way better than the 22 will ever be!!
And it is a 2 seater!! Granted, they do come in a 3-seat version..but the original is a 2 seater.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: texarkana texas
Fucum Lesgo
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
From: Waterworld
What is happening with the Aerokopter that was in a thread here recently. I thought that it was a good prospect for a training machine, and looks to have a lot more stability with it's three blade main rotor head. The other thing in its favour is price,.thought to be in the 90,000 to 100,000 euro bracket.
Not sure about the engine but they wouldn't build it without a reliable power unit ...would they?
Edited:: Bloody hell Glyn..are you telescopic??
Not sure about the engine but they wouldn't build it without a reliable power unit ...would they?
Edited:: Bloody hell Glyn..are you telescopic??
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: texarkana texas
well, great things take time
i am working on getting a FAA certified Diesel engine installed. the airframe isn't certified yet, but soon to start the process. the price range will be between 90,000 and 100,000 USD here in the US. i am trying to keep the cost as low as possible so that everyone can have a great heli
, as with anything else, it takes time. people know the heli is out there and we already have orders for quite a few. they are starting to show up alot in Europe, hopefully soon here in the US. again, everything is not set in stone so the above, price and engine selection is not set. i want the best at the lowest cost.
glyn
i am working on getting a FAA certified Diesel engine installed. the airframe isn't certified yet, but soon to start the process. the price range will be between 90,000 and 100,000 USD here in the US. i am trying to keep the cost as low as possible so that everyone can have a great heli
, as with anything else, it takes time. people know the heli is out there and we already have orders for quite a few. they are starting to show up alot in Europe, hopefully soon here in the US. again, everything is not set in stone so the above, price and engine selection is not set. i want the best at the lowest cost.glyn
Better red than ...
Joined: Aug 2004
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 1,415
Likes: 0
From: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Just because Robinson stop PRODUCING (i.e. making new) R22s does not mean they disappear from the Earth.
The 2200hr rebuild means there are lots of existing machines being recycled back to 'new' especially in the high hours training environment.
Even given 'training attrition' (student write offs) there will still be a lot in circulation.
Plus more people training on stripped down R44s (7 hole panel, one radio, etc) which gives a better link to more product sales to PPLs for Robinson.
Commercially b'williant,
h-r
The 2200hr rebuild means there are lots of existing machines being recycled back to 'new' especially in the high hours training environment.
Even given 'training attrition' (student write offs) there will still be a lot in circulation.
Plus more people training on stripped down R44s (7 hole panel, one radio, etc) which gives a better link to more product sales to PPLs for Robinson.
Commercially b'williant,
h-r
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 489
Likes: 2
From: UK
It'll take another Frank Robinson
Making money, making helicopters is difficult. In fact in almost all first-world countries engineering in general is not really very good business (in relative terms) - ask any venture capitalist or investor...(and I quote)
"Tell me CRAN, if you were sat where I am with this big pile of money would you (a) invest Xmillions in property development/insurance and double your money in a year, or (b) give you Xmillions to you to develop a new unproven helicopter for a tiny market with little growth potential, which you will have to gain at least a 50% market share to make any real money and even if you did we would probably loose it all again through product liability suits..."
The real problem is actually even worse than that...
The problem with contemporary light helicopters is actually not the helicopter, it’s the engine. Simply stated, contemporary reciprocating engines are far too heavy to allow a good helicopter to be designed around them. Furthermore, much of the cost in light helicopters is directly and indirectly due to the deficiencies of the engine design. So if you were seriously going to design a next generation training helicopter i'm afraid you would need to start with the engine. We are all aware of what aerospace folk-law says about designing a new engine for a new aircraft! You just don't do it...
Therefore, if we really want a next generation machine then it is my belief that it will take a dedicated and capable individual to invest copious amounts of time and energy to design test and develop such a machine off his own back. Once all of this is done and a viable product exists, then and only then will the venture be taken seriously as a business proposition. Frank Robinson is just such a person, but unfortunately he is 75 and there is no technical successor amongst his children, so when his glorious reign finally draws to a close the Robinson helicopter company will become another Schwieser or Enstrom as their designs gradually becomes obsolete.
There are many projects around the world that seek to superseded the R22 and R44, but they all suffer the same problems; the chronic shortage of funding during development and then the massive cost of certification. I have a two-seat machine on the drawing board that would render the R22 instantaneously obsolete and would offer some serious competition to the R44 in the PPL owner-flyer market. However without a third party investment it will take many, many years for me to develop, test and certify the machine by funding it through my own business. So simply stated, if the helicopter community really wants a quantum leap in performance, cost effectiveness and safety then it will need to put its money where its mouth is and invest in some of the people that are working in the area. If it doesn't, well, it took Frank Robinson 20 years to get his first model of the ground, so you'll be enjoying low inertia, low performance and dubious safety for a couple more decades...
NOTE: The thread to which Dave referred was the 'Let's make a helicopter' thread by bugdevheli.
CRAN
"Tell me CRAN, if you were sat where I am with this big pile of money would you (a) invest Xmillions in property development/insurance and double your money in a year, or (b) give you Xmillions to you to develop a new unproven helicopter for a tiny market with little growth potential, which you will have to gain at least a 50% market share to make any real money and even if you did we would probably loose it all again through product liability suits..."
The real problem is actually even worse than that...
The problem with contemporary light helicopters is actually not the helicopter, it’s the engine. Simply stated, contemporary reciprocating engines are far too heavy to allow a good helicopter to be designed around them. Furthermore, much of the cost in light helicopters is directly and indirectly due to the deficiencies of the engine design. So if you were seriously going to design a next generation training helicopter i'm afraid you would need to start with the engine. We are all aware of what aerospace folk-law says about designing a new engine for a new aircraft! You just don't do it...
Therefore, if we really want a next generation machine then it is my belief that it will take a dedicated and capable individual to invest copious amounts of time and energy to design test and develop such a machine off his own back. Once all of this is done and a viable product exists, then and only then will the venture be taken seriously as a business proposition. Frank Robinson is just such a person, but unfortunately he is 75 and there is no technical successor amongst his children, so when his glorious reign finally draws to a close the Robinson helicopter company will become another Schwieser or Enstrom as their designs gradually becomes obsolete.
There are many projects around the world that seek to superseded the R22 and R44, but they all suffer the same problems; the chronic shortage of funding during development and then the massive cost of certification. I have a two-seat machine on the drawing board that would render the R22 instantaneously obsolete and would offer some serious competition to the R44 in the PPL owner-flyer market. However without a third party investment it will take many, many years for me to develop, test and certify the machine by funding it through my own business. So simply stated, if the helicopter community really wants a quantum leap in performance, cost effectiveness and safety then it will need to put its money where its mouth is and invest in some of the people that are working in the area. If it doesn't, well, it took Frank Robinson 20 years to get his first model of the ground, so you'll be enjoying low inertia, low performance and dubious safety for a couple more decades...
NOTE: The thread to which Dave referred was the 'Let's make a helicopter' thread by bugdevheli.
CRAN
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,479
Likes: 178
From: UK
If Robinson stops manufacturing the R22, which helicopters will be used as trainers?
In the fixed wing world - what replaced the C152 after it went out of production? You guessed, the C172.
G
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
glyn thrash,
I have heard something to the effect that all new helicopters in the US, which are not grandfathered from a previously approved one, must conform to an upgraded set of requirements. Requirements such as $25,00.00 pilot seats and $10,00.00 passenger seats. Will not these upgraded requirements apply to the Aerokopter?
CRAN
Agreed. Monetary return will be the motivating force for all participants in a new rotorcraft project. The two possible exceptions to this are the inventor and perhaps the Armed Services.
IMHO, for a new small rotorcraft to be successful in the commercial/recreational field, it must appeal to a mass market. This dictates that the craft be as easy and as safe to fly as a light airplane. Optimally, it should be as easy to control as an automobile. One might consider that a car with stick-shift has 5 primary controls and so does a helicopter.
Dave
I have heard something to the effect that all new helicopters in the US, which are not grandfathered from a previously approved one, must conform to an upgraded set of requirements. Requirements such as $25,00.00 pilot seats and $10,00.00 passenger seats. Will not these upgraded requirements apply to the Aerokopter?
CRAN
Agreed. Monetary return will be the motivating force for all participants in a new rotorcraft project. The two possible exceptions to this are the inventor and perhaps the Armed Services.
IMHO, for a new small rotorcraft to be successful in the commercial/recreational field, it must appeal to a mass market. This dictates that the craft be as easy and as safe to fly as a light airplane. Optimally, it should be as easy to control as an automobile. One might consider that a car with stick-shift has 5 primary controls and so does a helicopter.
Dave
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
Genghis has it right.
I interviewed Frank Robinson about this a year ago. (In fact, the intergalactic scoop that he was considering stopping production of the R22 came from that interview).
In Frank's words, the R44 Raven 1 would make the best trainer ever. "Flown as a two-place in training it would have big advantages in performance, autorotational capabilities... with the hydraulics it handles really well. The Raven 1 would be a much nicer trainer than any helicopter ever - better than the Bell 47, the Hiller... and safer than any helicopter flying, even in training.
"It would still be cheaper than a piston Enstrom. It would be cheaper than the Schweizer 300C with comparable equipment. Matter of fact some of the stuff you get as standard on the Raven, like the governor and the rotor brake, you can't even get on the Schweizer as an option. It would be a little more than the Schweizer CB, and of course a lot more than the 22 - the capital cost is greater, and it uses more fuel, but the insurance rates for the Raven 1 can come down below those of the 22, even in training. The 44 with two people in has a really great performance margin. You'd have a reduction in training accidents - fewer per hour flown."
I interviewed Frank Robinson about this a year ago. (In fact, the intergalactic scoop that he was considering stopping production of the R22 came from that interview).
In Frank's words, the R44 Raven 1 would make the best trainer ever. "Flown as a two-place in training it would have big advantages in performance, autorotational capabilities... with the hydraulics it handles really well. The Raven 1 would be a much nicer trainer than any helicopter ever - better than the Bell 47, the Hiller... and safer than any helicopter flying, even in training.
"It would still be cheaper than a piston Enstrom. It would be cheaper than the Schweizer 300C with comparable equipment. Matter of fact some of the stuff you get as standard on the Raven, like the governor and the rotor brake, you can't even get on the Schweizer as an option. It would be a little more than the Schweizer CB, and of course a lot more than the 22 - the capital cost is greater, and it uses more fuel, but the insurance rates for the Raven 1 can come down below those of the 22, even in training. The 44 with two people in has a really great performance margin. You'd have a reduction in training accidents - fewer per hour flown."
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
lets build a helicopter
Cran,
I just reread the above post from last november.
Can we (ppruners) work together in some way to design a helicopter?
Rather than discuss the design details so much, how could we work together?
I would be willing to donate my time and some cash.
Also, I notice most large aircraft (Boeing) are built in pieces all over the world.
We could do the same! But how can a diverse group agree on details?
slowrotor
I just reread the above post from last november.
Can we (ppruners) work together in some way to design a helicopter?
Rather than discuss the design details so much, how could we work together?
I would be willing to donate my time and some cash.
Also, I notice most large aircraft (Boeing) are built in pieces all over the world.
We could do the same! But how can a diverse group agree on details?
slowrotor
Last edited by slowrotor; 17th April 2005 at 04:38.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: texarkana texas
glyn thrash,
I have heard something to the effect that all new helicopters in the US, which are not grandfathered from a previously approved one, must conform to an upgraded set of requirements. Requirements such as $25,00.00 pilot seats and $10,00.00 passenger seats. Will not these upgraded requirements apply to the Aerokopter?
we are hopeing to get certification within Europe before the US. through the JAA.. no matter what the cost of the certification, the price of the heli will still be as low as possible and still the great performance..
glyn
I have heard something to the effect that all new helicopters in the US, which are not grandfathered from a previously approved one, must conform to an upgraded set of requirements. Requirements such as $25,00.00 pilot seats and $10,00.00 passenger seats. Will not these upgraded requirements apply to the Aerokopter?
we are hopeing to get certification within Europe before the US. through the JAA.. no matter what the cost of the certification, the price of the heli will still be as low as possible and still the great performance..
glyn
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 489
Likes: 2
From: UK
Using the Web
Slow,
Yep, teams of engineers have been designing very complicated products working together from different corners of the globe for many years now and with the recent improvements in the internet (i.e. widespread adoption of broadband) then large files and data can be shared very easily over the internet.
I guess the way to work together on a project like this would be a very interesting project in itself. Much of the communication software is available free from the GNU project www.gnu.org so communication software, i.e. Forums, bulletin boards, web phone, web-based video conferencing etc is all available essentially cost free. Results, work-in-progress and data can be shared easily through the web using an FTP server.
Once you have assembled a team of people with the necessary capabilities, I’m sure that by default you will have 'gained access' to all of the necessary software and computer resources to actually do the work.
With a 'by-the-people-for-the-people' project like this then there is enormous scope to develop something very impressive since the project need not be limited to the aircraft design. With a large proportion of the community mobilised it would be possible to review training, licensing and operational issues as well which all contribute the cost of rotary wing flight. In the UK for example, being able to train for an NPPL(H) on a kit helicopter would massively increase the appeal of helicopter flight and be good for everyone.
With regards funding for such a project then my approach would be thus:
NOTE: Kit build machine only.
(1) Assemble a team to design the machine in their own time with their own resources.
(2) Assemble a legal team to handle the legislative side in a similar way; licensing and operational issues.
(3) Publish progress on the web and build-up a broad international following to help steer the project to its intended market.
(4) With a completed design, take small deposits from project supporters (approx. USD1000) to finance the low-budget building and testing of the first prototype.
(5) Complete testing and begin selling kits
This is certainly not a way to make money but it is viable way to develop a high quality product that meets the needs of the current market at very low cost. By means of a validation of the approach one could use the Linux project (www.linux.org) as an example of people power over the industrial titans.
In addition, once designed I now that one of the existing manufacturers of light helicopters would jump at the opportunity to manufacturer the kit components (at low cost) and handle the testing.
Some food for thought.
CRAN
Yep, teams of engineers have been designing very complicated products working together from different corners of the globe for many years now and with the recent improvements in the internet (i.e. widespread adoption of broadband) then large files and data can be shared very easily over the internet.
I guess the way to work together on a project like this would be a very interesting project in itself. Much of the communication software is available free from the GNU project www.gnu.org so communication software, i.e. Forums, bulletin boards, web phone, web-based video conferencing etc is all available essentially cost free. Results, work-in-progress and data can be shared easily through the web using an FTP server.
Once you have assembled a team of people with the necessary capabilities, I’m sure that by default you will have 'gained access' to all of the necessary software and computer resources to actually do the work.
With a 'by-the-people-for-the-people' project like this then there is enormous scope to develop something very impressive since the project need not be limited to the aircraft design. With a large proportion of the community mobilised it would be possible to review training, licensing and operational issues as well which all contribute the cost of rotary wing flight. In the UK for example, being able to train for an NPPL(H) on a kit helicopter would massively increase the appeal of helicopter flight and be good for everyone.
With regards funding for such a project then my approach would be thus:
NOTE: Kit build machine only.
(1) Assemble a team to design the machine in their own time with their own resources.
(2) Assemble a legal team to handle the legislative side in a similar way; licensing and operational issues.
(3) Publish progress on the web and build-up a broad international following to help steer the project to its intended market.
(4) With a completed design, take small deposits from project supporters (approx. USD1000) to finance the low-budget building and testing of the first prototype.
(5) Complete testing and begin selling kits
This is certainly not a way to make money but it is viable way to develop a high quality product that meets the needs of the current market at very low cost. By means of a validation of the approach one could use the Linux project (www.linux.org) as an example of people power over the industrial titans.
In addition, once designed I now that one of the existing manufacturers of light helicopters would jump at the opportunity to manufacturer the kit components (at low cost) and handle the testing.
Some food for thought.
CRAN
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
team design
Cran,
Wow! It does sound like you have thought alot about the ways in which a new helicopter design could be born.
My thoughts are: (hope Dave doesn't mind this use of his thread)
I would like to help get a safe design(s) built for the same motivation that someone would work on a cure for polio. Not out for money, would be OK to earn some money, but more interested in the science and adventure. Designing, building and testing a new helicopter may be beyond the capability of one person.
For a group effort, the plan you have suggested of a kit built machine makes sense. Or maybe just a set a plans and instructions could be provided to the group members and each could build or buy parts from vendors (other group members with special skills). A non profit association of helicopter builders may have less liability if each member is considered to be the manufacturer for the helicopter that he or she builds. You cannot sue yourself if you are the manufacturer.
The problem is how can something be designed by a committee and still be light enough to fly? I'll be thinking about that.
regards,
slowrotor
Wow! It does sound like you have thought alot about the ways in which a new helicopter design could be born.
My thoughts are: (hope Dave doesn't mind this use of his thread)
I would like to help get a safe design(s) built for the same motivation that someone would work on a cure for polio. Not out for money, would be OK to earn some money, but more interested in the science and adventure. Designing, building and testing a new helicopter may be beyond the capability of one person.
For a group effort, the plan you have suggested of a kit built machine makes sense. Or maybe just a set a plans and instructions could be provided to the group members and each could build or buy parts from vendors (other group members with special skills). A non profit association of helicopter builders may have less liability if each member is considered to be the manufacturer for the helicopter that he or she builds. You cannot sue yourself if you are the manufacturer.
The problem is how can something be designed by a committee and still be light enough to fly? I'll be thinking about that.
regards,
slowrotor
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Last night on CBS's 60 minutes there was a segment on the future of rotorcraft. It featured NASA's Highway in the Sky Project and then these four craft.
Air Scooter
Moller Skycar
Carter Copter
Trek Aerospace
Most of these have received government funding.
Is this the US concept for future rotorcraft?
Hell, I'm switching my drawings from the FPS system to Metric.
Air Scooter
Moller Skycar
Carter Copter
Trek Aerospace
Most of these have received government funding.
Is this the US concept for future rotorcraft?
Hell, I'm switching my drawings from the FPS system to Metric.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 18th April 2005 at 21:38.