A specific question about handling... EC120 pilots perhaps?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: With Wonko, outside the Asylum.
Age: 56
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A specific question about handling... EC120 pilots perhaps?
I wonder whether someone might help me with a very specific question...
I gave up rotary flying a few years ago, largely because I stopped enjoying it. Analysing why, I concluded that the large-amplitude cyclic inputs required on the 206 (which I was flying) made flying it a lot less intuitive than I would have liked (especially from my perspective as a died-in-the-wool fixed-wing pilot).
All was well and I returned to the plank world.
...until, a little while ago, when I flew a Gazelle. The controls were the absolute antithesis of the 206's, and I felt completely connected to the machine in a way which I hadn't in the 206. This was reflected in the smooth and accurate results of my somewhat rusty piloting; very satisfying.
However, being either permit machines or on foreign registers, at least in the UK, they are not legitimately available for hire.
So, my question: which single turbine helicopter (no pistons please) comes closest to the Gazelle in terms of control input versus response? I've heard good things about the EC120; does it compare well? I'm thinking about machines which can be flown, wrist immobile on the leg, small inputs with the fingertips being adequate for all but the most dynamic manoeuvres...
(By the way, I do acknowledge that the 206 is a great helicopter. This is not a 206-bashing post. It's just that the 206 is not for me, thanks).
I gave up rotary flying a few years ago, largely because I stopped enjoying it. Analysing why, I concluded that the large-amplitude cyclic inputs required on the 206 (which I was flying) made flying it a lot less intuitive than I would have liked (especially from my perspective as a died-in-the-wool fixed-wing pilot).
All was well and I returned to the plank world.
...until, a little while ago, when I flew a Gazelle. The controls were the absolute antithesis of the 206's, and I felt completely connected to the machine in a way which I hadn't in the 206. This was reflected in the smooth and accurate results of my somewhat rusty piloting; very satisfying.
However, being either permit machines or on foreign registers, at least in the UK, they are not legitimately available for hire.
So, my question: which single turbine helicopter (no pistons please) comes closest to the Gazelle in terms of control input versus response? I've heard good things about the EC120; does it compare well? I'm thinking about machines which can be flown, wrist immobile on the leg, small inputs with the fingertips being adequate for all but the most dynamic manoeuvres...
(By the way, I do acknowledge that the 206 is a great helicopter. This is not a 206-bashing post. It's just that the 206 is not for me, thanks).
Sounds like you are just preferring NOT to fly a teetering head, which means there are a lot of options. Pick any from the french family, the germans, or anybody except Bell 2-bladers or Robinsons. Easy.
Btw, I would imagine there could be one or two civilian Gazelles which one may be able to SFH.
Plenty of choice here: Try a BO105. Practically impossible to fly in a calm way with your hand on the stick: Both CPLs I know fly them by trim only. I once was allowed a uhmm navigator place on a photo flight of said BO. The photographer in the back at the open sliding door naturally wanted us to do perfect, banked turns, no wobbling, no blades in his sight.
The CPL would adjust bank with the trim and slightly correct that from time to time.
Then he motioned me to try and fly her. First I was sure my calm hand with wrist on knee will do the trick, moving the stick with thumb and pointer only one mm a time. It definitely didn't work. Fly by trim is the way to go, albeit rather odd a skill to develop.
Then two days ago I was allowed to board the doctor's seat of a HEMS EC135 while somone got his TR/IR renewed. They did some ILS approaches, and finally a Cat 1 backwards ascend with simulated engine failue below 150ft (return to base) and another one past 150ft followed by micro circuit loop back to the takoff spot on one engine.
Granted there was some wind, maybe 10-15kt, but he was apparently gripping the stick good, poor EC was shaking like on cold turkey.
So if you really like something responsive to the point of being finnicky try BO105 or apparently EC135 (and probably BK117, direct successor of BO)
The CPL would adjust bank with the trim and slightly correct that from time to time.
Then he motioned me to try and fly her. First I was sure my calm hand with wrist on knee will do the trick, moving the stick with thumb and pointer only one mm a time. It definitely didn't work. Fly by trim is the way to go, albeit rather odd a skill to develop.
Then two days ago I was allowed to board the doctor's seat of a HEMS EC135 while somone got his TR/IR renewed. They did some ILS approaches, and finally a Cat 1 backwards ascend with simulated engine failue below 150ft (return to base) and another one past 150ft followed by micro circuit loop back to the takoff spot on one engine.
Granted there was some wind, maybe 10-15kt, but he was apparently gripping the stick good, poor EC was shaking like on cold turkey.
So if you really like something responsive to the point of being finnicky try BO105 or apparently EC135 (and probably BK117, direct successor of BO)
Last edited by Reely340; 5th Oct 2013 at 21:16.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not book a 'trial flight' in an EC120 and find out?
I find it very responsive and intuitive. No trim force needed / available on the standard machine. But that's just me.
I find it very responsive and intuitive. No trim force needed / available on the standard machine. But that's just me.
"...I concluded that the large-amplitude cyclic inputs required on the 206..."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: With Wonko, outside the Asylum.
Age: 56
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your responses. I shall try a Hughes 500 and the EC120.
If anyone can point me to operators in the south-east, I'd be grateful, though I have found a couple already. Obviously, I'd need to do the rating, so training establishments are of interest.
GoodGrief, all the 206s I've flown (perhaps 5 or 6 of them) have been very similar, so it's not a rogue airframe... Have you flown the Gazelle? If not, we can't be sharing the same spectrum.
If anyone can point me to operators in the south-east, I'd be grateful, though I have found a couple already. Obviously, I'd need to do the rating, so training establishments are of interest.
GoodGrief, all the 206s I've flown (perhaps 5 or 6 of them) have been very similar, so it's not a rogue airframe... Have you flown the Gazelle? If not, we can't be sharing the same spectrum.
Last edited by TheiC; 6th Oct 2013 at 18:20.
TheiC: There are a number of PPRuNers with the numerals '500' in their username (and which can get a little confusing at times) but .. though I don't know him personally PPRuNer Hughes500 seems to have a background of involvement with 500's in the UK so it could be worth dropping him a PM as he may be able to point you in the right direction.
Herewith .. a couple of UK registered 500's, a 'C' and an 'E':
Note: The 500 is a little louder (inside) than the 206 and .. the controls are not hydraulically boosted .. so the craft has quite a different 'feel' and there is a 'technique' involving the use of a cyclic-mounted trim switch 'coolie hat' which one has to learn (not difficult).
To appreciate the 500 you need to try out some slope landings and hovering manoeuvers .. this is where you will see her crisp responsiveness shine through. In the cruise (if well tracked) the craft is wonderfully stable and responds with alacrity to any inputs but, when trimmed in the cruise, the cyclic tends to display a little bit of movement (feedback perhaps from the lack of boost) which can cause the 'stick' to shake when holding it loosely. Nothing to be concerned about .. just little quirks of the aircraft.
What I'm saying is .. you will probably find one or two traits which at first may seem peculiar but .. after just a little while these are easily embraced and give way to an appreciation for the craft's stunning responsiveness through that five-bladed fully-articulated rotor. However, I think it will take more than an hour to 'embrace' the 500 because some of these traits can initially be off-putting .. indeed they were for me in the very beginning until I got to see just what the 500 could do!
Herewith .. a couple of UK registered 500's, a 'C' and an 'E':
Note: The 500 is a little louder (inside) than the 206 and .. the controls are not hydraulically boosted .. so the craft has quite a different 'feel' and there is a 'technique' involving the use of a cyclic-mounted trim switch 'coolie hat' which one has to learn (not difficult).
To appreciate the 500 you need to try out some slope landings and hovering manoeuvers .. this is where you will see her crisp responsiveness shine through. In the cruise (if well tracked) the craft is wonderfully stable and responds with alacrity to any inputs but, when trimmed in the cruise, the cyclic tends to display a little bit of movement (feedback perhaps from the lack of boost) which can cause the 'stick' to shake when holding it loosely. Nothing to be concerned about .. just little quirks of the aircraft.
What I'm saying is .. you will probably find one or two traits which at first may seem peculiar but .. after just a little while these are easily embraced and give way to an appreciation for the craft's stunning responsiveness through that five-bladed fully-articulated rotor. However, I think it will take more than an hour to 'embrace' the 500 because some of these traits can initially be off-putting .. indeed they were for me in the very beginning until I got to see just what the 500 could do!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Reely340 - if you really were allowed on the "Doctors" seat of a HEMs 135 doing CAT A Rejects and Continued Take-offs. Unless you are a pilot, directly benefitting from the training being delivered, the TRI(H) involved is breaking the law.
You might like to show him this for future reference.
DB
You might like to show him this for future reference.
DB
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 120 has more direct control response than the 206.
With a little bit of friction applied you only need an occasional gentle
touch to keep her level.
That said, I also like the 206. She's also very stable and it should be a matter of minutes
to get used to a (slightly) delayed control response.
FTF
With a little bit of friction applied you only need an occasional gentle
touch to keep her level.
That said, I also like the 206. She's also very stable and it should be a matter of minutes
to get used to a (slightly) delayed control response.
FTF
Guest
Posts: n/a
EC120 vs Hughes vs alot
I think you should definitely focus on getting in an EC120. Having flown it, the Gazelle, a Hughes/MD, and lots of others I quite like it.
The EC120 is the crispest, most well harmonized turbine single I have flown and with no AFCS or SAS. I hate the First Limit Indicator (FLI) but that's just me. The high skids make it slightly less sporty somehow that a Gazelle but nothing beats EOL in a Gazelle!!
Love to know what you think after the event.
The EC120 is the crispest, most well harmonized turbine single I have flown and with no AFCS or SAS. I hate the First Limit Indicator (FLI) but that's just me. The high skids make it slightly less sporty somehow that a Gazelle but nothing beats EOL in a Gazelle!!
Love to know what you think after the event.
DB: Reely340 - if you really were allowed on the "Doctors" seat of a HEMs 135 doing CAT A Rejects and Continued Take-offs. Unless you are a pilot, directly benefitting from the training being delivered, the TRI(H) involved is breaking the law.
edit:
comming to think of it, the TRI asked if I were a pilot, and where I trained. Maybe he had your thoughts in mind when checking my facts.
You might like to show him this for future reference.
I'm am aware that one mustn't sell an annual TR check flight as scenic flight to a third party, (although that would help lowering pilot's TR overhead costs
, flight safety would be well addressed by the presence of the TRI) but was under the impression, that a free riding crew member, acting as, say navigator, doesn't count as PAX. 
Always eager to learn from people in the know: What precisely is your concern?
Just my in cabin presence during said Cat A maneuvers due to their SEO nature
or the whole idea of watching an annual TR check first hand?
Btw. that is the nice part of living close to eastern europe instead of strict rule enforcing northern germany: that guy did his TR check in an AOC listed machine (and he ain't a CPL) *ducking for cover*
PS: of course had the stuck pedal landing gone haywire we might have had to explain things a bit more detailed.
Last edited by Reely340; 7th Oct 2013 at 19:44.
I wonder whether someone might help me with a very specific question...
I gave up rotary flying a few years ago, largely because I stopped enjoying it. Analysing why, I concluded that the large-amplitude cyclic inputs required on the 206 (which I was flying) made flying it a lot less intuitive than I would have liked (especially from my perspective as a died-in-the-wool fixed-wing pilot
I gave up rotary flying a few years ago, largely because I stopped enjoying it. Analysing why, I concluded that the large-amplitude cyclic inputs required on the 206 (which I was flying) made flying it a lot less intuitive than I would have liked (especially from my perspective as a died-in-the-wool fixed-wing pilot
Obviously the BK117 and other rigid rotor types are far more responsive, but generally I'd put fixed wing control inputs to be way on the other side of 'sloppy' when compared to the 206 or other helicopter types. Indeed, when flying the Spitfire the other pilot (another helicopter driver) commented that the controls were much looser than a helicopter except for the aileron which was almost what you'd expect of a 206.
Mind you he was a Wessex driver, and an ex-Crab at that ...
If you want something more responsive then try a 105, 117, 500 or a Gazelle. Or a properly rigged JetRanger
TheiC: There is an article in this edition of Blades magazine in which Denissimo (Dennis Kenyon) comments on his flight test of the Gazelle. You may find it interesting.