What are the differences between flying a helicopter and an airplane?

[LUXSTAR]

Airwolf Vs Corsair In Hunted

GO TOwww.youtube.com and watch the above menshion video,and another one is quite nicely puttogether...AIRWOLF VS FIREFOX QUITE FUNNY WITH CLINT AND BORG9. CHEERS LUX

[Shawn Coyle]

As a result of spending too much time reviewing simulator data requirements, some interesting technical aspects that might generate thought:
Fixed wing aircraft put a lot of emphasis on flying a pitch attitude - helicopters use whatever pitch attitude works.
Helicopters seem to be the only ones that have an adjustable reference mark on the attitude indicator (or am I mistaken). Don't know why, and wish it would go away.
Fixed wing pilots change aircraft quite frequently and have to memorize new airspeeds, procedures, etc. Helicopter pilots don't have to remember too many new numbers. The result is that we tend to think all helicopters fly the same and that we can use the same profiles and methods we've always used.
Fixed wing aircraft always use takeoff power to takeoff (or some other fixed number). Helicopters use what's needed. THis makes it difficult to standardize performance numbers or procedures (see prior comment)
Prior to takeoff, fixed wing pilot needs to set power, check instruments and then commence takeoff. He can concentrate on flying the machine and only worry if something fails. Helicopter pilot needs to simultaneously lift to hover, monitor typically three different gauges to see which one is limiting, and then accelerate to forward flight, all the time monitoring gauges and flight path.
Engine failures in single engine helicopters are the most sensory deprived, multi-variable task you can ask a pilot to perform. Fixed wing have to set glide speed and hope for the best.
Hope that adds to the discussion!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Helicopters seem to be the only ones that have an adjustable reference mark on the attitude indicator (or am I mistaken).

My Super Cub has a twiddly knob on the artificial horizon to adjust the little reference doo-da. Is that what you mean?

[ConwayB]

Discrimination against RW drivers

RW drivers who had tried to apply to the airlines to fly planks often came up against signficant discrimination, even though some of the helo drivers came from full IFR aircraft and had many more instrument hours than their FW competitors.

The local airline had a stipulation that only 50% of RW hours of prospective applicants would be counted!

In my experience, a RW driver, either on the stick him/herself or as captain of a crew, has a much higher workload than his/her FW counterparts; more decision making requirements, more situational awareness requirements and a constant need to monitor the aircraft and its flightpath.

When I fly FW, it's a breeze. Trim it out and then you can relax and navigate and program GPSs/read the map, look at the view, do your fuel calcs, etc, etc without having to worry about the aircraft's attitude.

When I fly RW, it's a matter of organising your cockpit so your stuff is accessible with one hand and secured so it doesn't fly out the open doors and as many calculations are done before even getting near the aircraft so you have more 'brainspace' to do your thing; keeping the spinning side near the blue side and the greasy side near the green/brown side.

'CAN'T HOVER? DON'T BOTHER!'

Safe flying all.
Conway

[Thridle Op Des]

Interesting responses, I think that the assessment can change when comparing a Super Puma to something like an A340-500. I know personally that the hardest conversion course I did in my life was the first conversion onto a fully intergrated fixed wing, possibly the only thing I found in common was what little situational awareness I sometimes possessed. Generally modern FW fly so well on the autopilot that we are actively encouraged to engage it as soon as possible after take-off and keep it there until the very last minute until landing (though the landing disengagement is not always necessary). Suprisingly for me, flying something like a A320 does have it's commonality with a 332L, it has a cyclic (of sorts) and the pitch and roll responses are very similar. Any of those out there who used SFENA on a 212 will remember that when the system infrequently worked it was transparent, well thats exactly what happens when you adjust the flight controls in an Airbus; it stays where you aim it and the autotrim sorts out the rest.
Contrary to what was offered before, we do set the take-off thrust to match the requirement albeit I get the point about doing cushion creep take-offs in a 212 with 2% available torque.
Engine failures are different, I would infinitely prefer a total power loss in a rotary wing, I know I would live to tell the tale. A fixed wing has a larger requirement for luck - such as the availability of a go-kart track which was once a runway being nearby. I always wondered why I have to do single engine ILS's as part of a skill test in a helicopter, the only constraining thing was the go around or as happened to me in Sumburgh, we went backwards with the gentle Shetland breeze (At least there wasn't a problem with the approach climb gradient).
In terms of other failures, helicopters are relatively simple, lowering the collective seems to cover 90% of ills, it is a matter of how much to lower it, I know, but it's usually a good start and the rest gets sorted out later. On the Airbus specifically, it's wonderful when working, it has a huge level of redundancy, but it becomes a real handful when you have a couple of failures on your plate. I suppose the oppotunity for the ever (over) enthusiastic trainer/tester to make your life difficult is amplified.
In the end - vive la difference.

Regards
TOD

[kjw57]

The biggest differences for me after making the transition from seized to fling wing was, I rarely slept in my own bed anymore and I came to realize if it ain't got a hook on the belly it just ain't no fun to fly.

But whatever your preference fly safe.

Cheers.

[globallocal]

Hi people, just my 2 cents worth.

I have flown both F/W and R/W from military to airlines(no R/W) to corporate. Each has its good points and bad.
2.5 transit in B206, boring. 12 hr transit in a Global express, boring. Being able to go to the toilet after 5 hrs in a Global Express, relief. Being able to land anywhere to go to the toilet, relief. Doing corporate transfers around the city in a A109, spectacular. Flying in to the old Hong Kong, spectacular. Planning from Tokyo to London non stop when wx at London below mins prior to dept and only 3500lbs of fuel planned to be left , demanding. Ship deck landings, demanding. External loads to ships in a B206, exciting. Dirt strips in a B200(king air), exciting. The kaos of corporate, the boss said here but when he gets on means there, frustrating. Fixed scheds with the airline, nice. Not being able to see your tail in a confined area, scary. Over the pacific with 4 hrs to an alternate, scary.

Hey, its all fun.

Global Local.

Hi Conway, BC.

[thecontroller]

fixed wing is cheaper, easier, better paid, safer, more boring, and costs less to train on

rotary is more expensive, harder, worse paid, more dangerous, more exciting and costs more to train on

[helopat]

Originally Posted by thecontroller

fixed wing is cheaper, easier, better paid, safer, more boring, and costs less to train on
rotary is more expensive, harder, worse paid, more dangerous, more exciting and costs more to train on

Gentlemen, generally agree with all points...but if you want to read some REALLy sad stories about whoring yourself out for peanuts, have a read of this thread...JAYSUS!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=244154