Hughes 300 questions.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes 300 questions.
Hi:
I am a retired fixed wing / helicopter pilot who is looking at buying a training helicopter for a new business we are involved in.
The purpose of the purchase is to train three company personell, then trade it in on a bigger machine such as a Bell 206.
It has been many years since I flew helicopters so I am out of the loop so to speak.
I learned to fly on the Hughes 300 and also flew it commercially at the start of my helicopter career.
I also owned and operated a R22 Mariner in a flight school I owned.
What can you guys share with me for a good entry level trainer?
Thanks:
Chuck Ellsworth.
I am a retired fixed wing / helicopter pilot who is looking at buying a training helicopter for a new business we are involved in.
The purpose of the purchase is to train three company personell, then trade it in on a bigger machine such as a Bell 206.
It has been many years since I flew helicopters so I am out of the loop so to speak.
I learned to fly on the Hughes 300 and also flew it commercially at the start of my helicopter career.
I also owned and operated a R22 Mariner in a flight school I owned.
What can you guys share with me for a good entry level trainer?
Thanks:
Chuck Ellsworth.
The R-22 is cheap, cheap to operate, has good parts support, but does not have the best survive-ability in a mis-hap, and has a tiny safety envelope.
The 300 CBi has a huge safety envelope and in my mind is a better initio trainer, but costs more, and parts may be a problem.
I suspect if you ran a risk analysis on the issue, the 300 would win.
I personally will never get in another Robinson, and before the bashers come at me.....yes I have flown it--I have over 4,000 hours in the R-22 in a former life.
The 300 CBi has a huge safety envelope and in my mind is a better initio trainer, but costs more, and parts may be a problem.
I suspect if you ran a risk analysis on the issue, the 300 would win.
I personally will never get in another Robinson, and before the bashers come at me.....yes I have flown it--I have over 4,000 hours in the R-22 in a former life.
I regularly hear of 300s AOG awaiting spares for months. There seems no willingness by Hughes, or is it Schweizer, or is it Sikorsky, or is it Lockheed Martin, to actually produce some spares. And then they have you over a barrel on the costs.
Any reason you have omitted mention of Guimbal or Enstrom? There are no Guimbals (yet) in Canada, so perhaps that one is explained
Any reason you have omitted mention of Guimbal or Enstrom? There are no Guimbals (yet) in Canada, so perhaps that one is explained
Moderator
I flew the R22 a few times, and did not like it. I had previously flown the 300 and liked it, and when a local school made two available for training, I earned my license on them. A much superior helicopter to fly in my opinion.
I was aware though that they were more demanding for maintenance (as I would see them off line). But they are a different type of helicopter too.
I was certain that I saw a Guimbal flying in Victoria YYJ last August.
I was aware though that they were more demanding for maintenance (as I would see them off line). But they are a different type of helicopter too.
I was certain that I saw a Guimbal flying in Victoria YYJ last August.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only have experience on the 300, which is a very good trainer. I will have to switch to R44 in the near future (lack of 300s around here at my new home).
From the numbers, the R22 seems a little bit underpowered (and having a smaller safety-envelope). Same (missing power) applies to the Guimbal Cabri - at least in hot & high conditions.
The upcoming R44 cadet (basically a R44 reduced to a two-seater) may become an option in the future, but the IO540 will cost more per hour than the 300s IO360.
Enstrom should be another option.
Maybe you can decide between Enstrom and 300 depending on the nearest available maintenance shop to your planned location?
Thracian
From the numbers, the R22 seems a little bit underpowered (and having a smaller safety-envelope). Same (missing power) applies to the Guimbal Cabri - at least in hot & high conditions.
The upcoming R44 cadet (basically a R44 reduced to a two-seater) may become an option in the future, but the IO540 will cost more per hour than the 300s IO360.
Enstrom should be another option.
Maybe you can decide between Enstrom and 300 depending on the nearest available maintenance shop to your planned location?
Thracian
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the trainees *ab initio* or do they have prior aviation experience? This is a big differentiator. Your post implies this is some kind of business aviation flight department currently operating airplanes and looking to add a helicopter asset.
If the trainees have commercial flying experience in FW and you are in fact a flight department in a situation such as I have described, my solution to this problem would be to acquire an R-44 and lease a Fly-It simulator. Do all possible training in the sim, do the rest of the training in the helicopter, and then utilize the 44 as an initial asset for your department.
Then if you still need a turbine aircraft, you could fairly easily sell/trade the 44 and acquire something along the lines of a 206.
Best of luck on the project.
If the trainees have commercial flying experience in FW and you are in fact a flight department in a situation such as I have described, my solution to this problem would be to acquire an R-44 and lease a Fly-It simulator. Do all possible training in the sim, do the rest of the training in the helicopter, and then utilize the 44 as an initial asset for your department.
Then if you still need a turbine aircraft, you could fairly easily sell/trade the 44 and acquire something along the lines of a 206.
Best of luck on the project.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hayling island
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trainer
At the moment you are limited on choice, Enstrom, R22/R44 if your looking for bigger people or Cabri G2 little more expensive but probably good if they are going onto another airbus type.
They are the only one's with support
They are the only one's with support
The frequently overlooked advantage of the 300C is that it is actually a 2.5 person carrier, meaning even two 250lbs guys could fly it in summer with 30gals of fuel on board.
So while in reality it only provides space for 2 fully grown people, it has extremely fine hot and high capabilites for a trainer.
In the competition you'd have to do the math at ISA +20, sacrificing range and whatnot.
So while in reality it only provides space for 2 fully grown people, it has extremely fine hot and high capabilites for a trainer.
In the competition you'd have to do the math at ISA +20, sacrificing range and whatnot.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: AGL in Brazil
Age: 46
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The experience we had in our school here in Brazil was always with the 300 and it's a nice machine, very reliable and excellent for training. However from a year from now, since the Sikorsky ending process for the 300, it has been very difficult to find spare parts and the school has now moved over to Cabri as a new project and spare parts availability. Have a close look at Guimbal and I am sure you will love this new trainer! The R22 is cheaper, but for quality training purposes, I understand the Cabri is a better choice.
Best training helicopter but Sikorsky lost the plot on spares. Just been AOG for 8 months on a driveshaft ! However the type certificate is about to be sold so there will be life in the old girl yet !
Most operators have taken to buying machines to strip them for spares, well I did and it is more profitable than flying them !!!
Most operators have taken to buying machines to strip them for spares, well I did and it is more profitable than flying them !!!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sydney NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Chuck
In my flying school years, I taught in the B47, H300, Enstrom and R22. All significantly different beasts. I also have done ab initio training in the B206 and that definitely works, if you can afford it.
But from a flying school point of view, there was nothing as reliable as the R22. It always went the distance between 100-hourlies and it was a good classroom too. We made sure our training included the recommendations of the Robinson safety course, and that made the R22 as safe or safer than any of the others types, in my opinion. (Prior to the Robinson safety training, it could be considered a little marginal.)
All the commenters have offered sound advice, and you’ll have to sort through it according to your circumstances. Good luck, from down-under.
Blowie
PS How goes the Cat’ flying, Chuck?
In my flying school years, I taught in the B47, H300, Enstrom and R22. All significantly different beasts. I also have done ab initio training in the B206 and that definitely works, if you can afford it.
But from a flying school point of view, there was nothing as reliable as the R22. It always went the distance between 100-hourlies and it was a good classroom too. We made sure our training included the recommendations of the Robinson safety course, and that made the R22 as safe or safer than any of the others types, in my opinion. (Prior to the Robinson safety training, it could be considered a little marginal.)
All the commenters have offered sound advice, and you’ll have to sort through it according to your circumstances. Good luck, from down-under.
Blowie
PS How goes the Cat’ flying, Chuck?
If you are going to buy a 206 anyway, get it at the start and train all the way with it. Your trainees will only need to learn one engine, one batch of systems, one lot of emergency procedures, and by the end of their licence training, they will be competent on the type.
Save your money and don't waste their brain cells learning piston rubbish.
Save your money and don't waste their brain cells learning piston rubbish.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS How goes the Cat’ flying, Chuck?
I flew the company Husky for a few years but got tired of having to bend over for my medical every six months so I let my medical lapse a couple of years ago.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to give your thoughts on this issue.
I will be telling the guy who owns the lodge we are building about this site in a few days and he can read all these ideas.
We have no intention of getting into our own commercial aircraft operation, even with a full lobotomy I would not be able to deal with today's bureaucracy.
We have two companies picked out to do our flying, one fixed wing and one helicopter.
Feel free to keep commenting.....
...Chuck E.
Hi Chuck,
The 300 is the much better Trainer than the R22 in my view. No idea about the Gumbai. A few areas which make it this are these:
The non-governed versions mean that the student learns strongly the relationship between pitch and RRPM. The Robbie masks this via the governor. Even when the governor is switched off, the mechanical correlation in the power range involved doesn't really cause much of a drop or rise (which in the 300 must be manually compensated). This is a valuable lesson and training directly on a turbine misses it completely.
It has stick trim: this is great for teaching balanced flight and learning a realxed hold on the stick. You can get the aircraft balanced out and fly hands off (guarding naturally). It's also a nice step for later work with aircraft that have more sophisticated trim systems and AFC.
You can see the tip plane path. This is great for all sorts of reasons. It is of course a great aid to leaning to fly an attitude. But it is also good for demonstrating the relationship between pedal and disk displacement, and especially the effects of collective movement and disk displacement.
It needs more work to fly in a balanced state (and in general to fly nicely). The Robbie achieves balanced flight very easily and at quite low airspeeds. In my view this actually makes the 300 "harder" to fly than a Robbie. Sure the Robbie is flighty and the stick must be held and minded actively, but the R22 is a doddle to fly once you've got over its flighty nature and this masks lots of valuable hands on flying lessons.
I have also heard the argument that the R22 is the best trainer because its tolerance margins are low. To me, that's lobotomy logic.
TT
The 300 is the much better Trainer than the R22 in my view. No idea about the Gumbai. A few areas which make it this are these:
The non-governed versions mean that the student learns strongly the relationship between pitch and RRPM. The Robbie masks this via the governor. Even when the governor is switched off, the mechanical correlation in the power range involved doesn't really cause much of a drop or rise (which in the 300 must be manually compensated). This is a valuable lesson and training directly on a turbine misses it completely.
It has stick trim: this is great for teaching balanced flight and learning a realxed hold on the stick. You can get the aircraft balanced out and fly hands off (guarding naturally). It's also a nice step for later work with aircraft that have more sophisticated trim systems and AFC.
You can see the tip plane path. This is great for all sorts of reasons. It is of course a great aid to leaning to fly an attitude. But it is also good for demonstrating the relationship between pedal and disk displacement, and especially the effects of collective movement and disk displacement.
It needs more work to fly in a balanced state (and in general to fly nicely). The Robbie achieves balanced flight very easily and at quite low airspeeds. In my view this actually makes the 300 "harder" to fly than a Robbie. Sure the Robbie is flighty and the stick must be held and minded actively, but the R22 is a doddle to fly once you've got over its flighty nature and this masks lots of valuable hands on flying lessons.
I have also heard the argument that the R22 is the best trainer because its tolerance margins are low. To me, that's lobotomy logic.
TT
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enstrom
Take a good long look at the Enstrom. Its safety record is right up there with the 206. The company supports all the models it has built, so no more, 'Not Made Here' attitude that some manufacturers have. A very stable machine with good flying characteristics and comfortable. Up through the C model, they don't have a corrolator so the pilot will have to be fully attuned to what they are doing and what the engine is doing. The only pilots had I have found who bad mouth the Enstrom are those who have never flown it.
I would not get a straight or A model Enstrom. The normally aspirated engine is a little short of ummhp. The C model does quite well.
I would not get a straight or A model Enstrom. The normally aspirated engine is a little short of ummhp. The C model does quite well.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 84
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 300 is a good reliable trainer. The problem is that it teaches out of date technique - airspeed is related to pitch attitude. All more modern helicopters, including the R22 require the attitude change to accelerate/decelerate, then re adopt pretty much the original attitude. The biggest problem operating the R22 in reality is its limited payload. The current generation of pilots are bigger and heavier, leading to C of G problems and having to seriously limit the fuel load.
The best trainer now is the R44 as with two up it has no fuel load limitations and is totally representative of modern helicopters. Obviously the ideal is to go straight to the 206, but is seriously expensive.
The best trainer now is the R44 as with two up it has no fuel load limitations and is totally representative of modern helicopters. Obviously the ideal is to go straight to the 206, but is seriously expensive.