Which is the best helicopter for training?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my humble opinion, the R22 is the biggest pile of horse manure ever produced and used in a training role. The only good thing about the R22 is the price and the running costs. Now for me the only decent trainer is the Bell 47 G4. I did my basic helicopter training in this machine back in 79. It is slow enough to enable a student to get ahead of the machine and is forgiving enough to allow a few mistakes. It is also a dream to do EOL's in. Just my opinion though!!!
Next Generation Training Helicopter
It is my opinion that a training helicopter should have the following characteristics and attributes.
Flying Qualities
The aircraft should be easy to fly, therefore a very high level of flying skills, airmanship and safety can be produced in the short time period over which training typically occurs.
Furthermore, if students are able to master the required manoeuvres quickly then the instructor will be free to expand the training syllabus to cover more advanced topics and further enhance the quality of the budding pilots.
The helicopter should of course fly in a manner that is representative of larger helicopters and all of the typical helicopter traits must still be present, but they should be engineered (possibly using SAS) to occur slower to allow the pilot to learn to master the control quicker.
Hands off flight should be possible - i.e. Hydraulic controls are required in order to allow a right-handed pilot to right on his knee-board safely in flight and to aid map fondling and other in-flight tasks.
The aircraft characteristics should be modified such that with SAS selected the machine is inherently stable. In this sense inadvertent entry into IMC conditions need not result in a high likelihood of an accident.
The low-g push-over limitation must be removed.
The mast bumping problem must be removed.
The loss of MR control problem must be removed.
All manoeuvres required for flight training should be safely flyable with an amateur at the controls. i.e. the aircraft should be capable of tolerating large abrupt control movements on all of the controls. The aircraft should be robust to extremely aggressive manoeuvring.
Aircraft Attributes:
Training helicopter are inherently more likely to crash than commercially operated machines by virtue of the experience levels of the pilots that fly them. Therefore, it is essential that the basic training helicopter is highly crashworthy. Firstly silly mistakes such as ground role-overs etc should be protected against with a strong roll-cage, and within the cage the occupants should be secured by 4-point harnesses and bucket seats. The aircraft structure itself should be designed in such a manner as to protect the occupants in the advent of a high velocity impact. The criteria I use here is that the machine should be able to protect the occupants in the event of a 100mph impact. (Before you argue - think formula one!) A resultant crash velocity of 100mph is adequate for allowing the machine to be flown into the ground in autorotatative configuration 65kts forward and 15kts down without any attempt to flair - i.e. not seeing the ground until too late in poor vis at night!
Having crashed, the aircraft should then able to prevent itself from spontaneously combusting. The doors should be easily removed - even with a mangled fuselage, and the seatbelts readily released. The bucket seats and 4-point harnesses ensuring that the two occupants don't pin each other in as is often the case with R22.
The landing gear need to be highly robust and articulated at the rear. The rear articulation will allow for a slightly heels first arrival during full-down auto's without kicking the whole aircraft forward risking a toe dig-in and subsequent roll over. Undercarriage need to be designed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of toe-catches, the EC120 is a good example of this consideration being put into practice.
The cabin must be no smaller than R44 in width and height.
All flight controls should be conventional.
RRPM should be well correlated and governed. Flight training should be carried out in both flight regimes. The rotor should be a high inertia system. The rotor speed should remain in the stable speed range for at least 3 seconds following a instantaneous power failure at maximum contingency power - i.e. Towering/Max performance take-off. This in turn will provide a very benign H-V diagram and make the safe profiles much easier to fly.
The installed power should be plentiful in all parts of the world in which the aircraft is sold. The tail rotor should have a high degree of authority and have no sensitive quadrants - a strake may be necessary.
All start-up procedures should be automatic - including standard start-up system checks. This insures that they are all done correctly and quickly. The same principle applies to shutdown.
The machine should have half the DOC of R22.
130kt Cruise, 400nm Range 614lbs of passengers and bags with 3hrs of fuel on top.
Drop dead gorgeous looks inside and out, modern paint job, modern cockpit fit.
Price £140,000 inc VAT ($180,000 exc tax)
If you want one let me know!
For further details on this particular configuration do a search for:
What about the LIGHT helicopter needs fixing?
Flying Qualities
The aircraft should be easy to fly, therefore a very high level of flying skills, airmanship and safety can be produced in the short time period over which training typically occurs.
Furthermore, if students are able to master the required manoeuvres quickly then the instructor will be free to expand the training syllabus to cover more advanced topics and further enhance the quality of the budding pilots.
The helicopter should of course fly in a manner that is representative of larger helicopters and all of the typical helicopter traits must still be present, but they should be engineered (possibly using SAS) to occur slower to allow the pilot to learn to master the control quicker.
Hands off flight should be possible - i.e. Hydraulic controls are required in order to allow a right-handed pilot to right on his knee-board safely in flight and to aid map fondling and other in-flight tasks.
The aircraft characteristics should be modified such that with SAS selected the machine is inherently stable. In this sense inadvertent entry into IMC conditions need not result in a high likelihood of an accident.
The low-g push-over limitation must be removed.
The mast bumping problem must be removed.
The loss of MR control problem must be removed.
All manoeuvres required for flight training should be safely flyable with an amateur at the controls. i.e. the aircraft should be capable of tolerating large abrupt control movements on all of the controls. The aircraft should be robust to extremely aggressive manoeuvring.
Aircraft Attributes:
Training helicopter are inherently more likely to crash than commercially operated machines by virtue of the experience levels of the pilots that fly them. Therefore, it is essential that the basic training helicopter is highly crashworthy. Firstly silly mistakes such as ground role-overs etc should be protected against with a strong roll-cage, and within the cage the occupants should be secured by 4-point harnesses and bucket seats. The aircraft structure itself should be designed in such a manner as to protect the occupants in the advent of a high velocity impact. The criteria I use here is that the machine should be able to protect the occupants in the event of a 100mph impact. (Before you argue - think formula one!) A resultant crash velocity of 100mph is adequate for allowing the machine to be flown into the ground in autorotatative configuration 65kts forward and 15kts down without any attempt to flair - i.e. not seeing the ground until too late in poor vis at night!
Having crashed, the aircraft should then able to prevent itself from spontaneously combusting. The doors should be easily removed - even with a mangled fuselage, and the seatbelts readily released. The bucket seats and 4-point harnesses ensuring that the two occupants don't pin each other in as is often the case with R22.
The landing gear need to be highly robust and articulated at the rear. The rear articulation will allow for a slightly heels first arrival during full-down auto's without kicking the whole aircraft forward risking a toe dig-in and subsequent roll over. Undercarriage need to be designed in such a manner as to reduce the risk of toe-catches, the EC120 is a good example of this consideration being put into practice.
The cabin must be no smaller than R44 in width and height.
All flight controls should be conventional.
RRPM should be well correlated and governed. Flight training should be carried out in both flight regimes. The rotor should be a high inertia system. The rotor speed should remain in the stable speed range for at least 3 seconds following a instantaneous power failure at maximum contingency power - i.e. Towering/Max performance take-off. This in turn will provide a very benign H-V diagram and make the safe profiles much easier to fly.
The installed power should be plentiful in all parts of the world in which the aircraft is sold. The tail rotor should have a high degree of authority and have no sensitive quadrants - a strake may be necessary.
All start-up procedures should be automatic - including standard start-up system checks. This insures that they are all done correctly and quickly. The same principle applies to shutdown.
The machine should have half the DOC of R22.
130kt Cruise, 400nm Range 614lbs of passengers and bags with 3hrs of fuel on top.
Drop dead gorgeous looks inside and out, modern paint job, modern cockpit fit.
Price £140,000 inc VAT ($180,000 exc tax)
If you want one let me know!
For further details on this particular configuration do a search for:
What about the LIGHT helicopter needs fixing?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trivia, ~ copied from article on the intermeshing helicopter;
"It was exceptionally steady and stable in flight, which made pilot training a breeze. In fact, this is why the Navy ordered them in the first place, as trainers - only to decide later that they were "too easy to fly" as a preparatory stage in training for conventional helicopters.
"It was exceptionally steady and stable in flight, which made pilot training a breeze. In fact, this is why the Navy ordered them in the first place, as trainers - only to decide later that they were "too easy to fly" as a preparatory stage in training for conventional helicopters.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see both sides of the thread, which has been raised before.
The 22 ... well yes, it's difficult to master, unforgiving, etc. Been placed into the trainer role due to costs. Of course I've also heard that a 300 makes a good one, less unforgiving, etc. (And I may go up to ocean to fly one soon to try it out, heck having a "Real" cyclic for once hehe ...)
Are they really going just by cost though? If the 22 has such a rep, wouldn't it be cheaper to insure the other (300) ?
If so, and if costs are lower to run the 300, then why are operators NOT switching? (There's a thread for ya ...)
I do feel a machine needs to be balanced for it's mission.
The 22 certainly makes it easier to transition to others having more power available, etc. I flew the 22 a few times before the gov was made mandatory (That occured because too many of our brethern didn't manage to maintain RPM, having it now is nice, but not a necessity (For me anyways IMHO)).
I'd love $Shot's suggestion, I too with the 22's response would love a hydraulic pak for it
Of course such an addition would most likely leave that model single seat.
The 22 ... well yes, it's difficult to master, unforgiving, etc. Been placed into the trainer role due to costs. Of course I've also heard that a 300 makes a good one, less unforgiving, etc. (And I may go up to ocean to fly one soon to try it out, heck having a "Real" cyclic for once hehe ...)
Are they really going just by cost though? If the 22 has such a rep, wouldn't it be cheaper to insure the other (300) ?
If so, and if costs are lower to run the 300, then why are operators NOT switching? (There's a thread for ya ...)
I do feel a machine needs to be balanced for it's mission.
The 22 certainly makes it easier to transition to others having more power available, etc. I flew the 22 a few times before the gov was made mandatory (That occured because too many of our brethern didn't manage to maintain RPM, having it now is nice, but not a necessity (For me anyways IMHO)).
I'd love $Shot's suggestion, I too with the 22's response would love a hydraulic pak for it
Of course such an addition would most likely leave that model single seat.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it really matters that much. Learning on one may build necessary qualities faster than another, but other qualities will lag. Maybe we should look at accident stats during training and the first 500 hours after training. Anything that predominates there should be what is focused on in training. If flying a different type will help reduce accidents, then go that way.
In reality, what we have now is very safe, effective and fairly cost efficient. Why change it? Okay, lower the cost, make it even safer and more effective....methinks it would have happened by now if it could have.
Now if we're talking carte blanche approach to training then I'd say fly pistons, turbines and twins, everything from non-governed to FADEC, etc. Maybe a variable stability fly-by-wire twin turbine machine to simulate many different types of helicopters but can also simulate piston engine performance and indications.
______________
Where I would advocate change is in syllabus. Basic handling and aircraft knowledge seem to be the strongest focus. CRM, regulations, and decision making are things that I'd like to see improved.
In reality, what we have now is very safe, effective and fairly cost efficient. Why change it? Okay, lower the cost, make it even safer and more effective....methinks it would have happened by now if it could have.
Now if we're talking carte blanche approach to training then I'd say fly pistons, turbines and twins, everything from non-governed to FADEC, etc. Maybe a variable stability fly-by-wire twin turbine machine to simulate many different types of helicopters but can also simulate piston engine performance and indications.
______________
Where I would advocate change is in syllabus. Basic handling and aircraft knowledge seem to be the strongest focus. CRM, regulations, and decision making are things that I'd like to see improved.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My two cents worth -
Training is all about teaching you to compensate for the shortcomings of machines- both the one you are training on, and the ones you will later fly.
The problem is that the learning curve initially is too steep on machines that eventually teach you to compensate well. What is needed is a machine that has stabilization and a governor for the engine that can later have these turned off as the basic skills are developed.
A major change in the method of teaching flying is needed- hopefully some of the new simulators being marketed will develop this. If the various authorities will allow something that isn't a simulator (has no motion) and also is more than a training device...
Training is all about teaching you to compensate for the shortcomings of machines- both the one you are training on, and the ones you will later fly.
The problem is that the learning curve initially is too steep on machines that eventually teach you to compensate well. What is needed is a machine that has stabilization and a governor for the engine that can later have these turned off as the basic skills are developed.
A major change in the method of teaching flying is needed- hopefully some of the new simulators being marketed will develop this. If the various authorities will allow something that isn't a simulator (has no motion) and also is more than a training device...
Guest
Posts: n/a
and my $0.02 as everyone else is,
I get fed up of hearing the same old crap about the R22, yes it has got characteristics, but then every a/c does.
it is all very well for people to say the Bell 47 is better, i am sure it is but it is also much more expensive.
I would never have become a pilot if it wasnt for the R22, to old to be trained by HM forces, I had to pay the whole damm thing myself and as you all know it was not cheap.
as long as you reach the standards required why does it matter if it is less stable etc etc, the training should account for it.
I have more than 1000 hours as an instructor on robinsons and still like them, so what if they are underpowered, you learn better power management.
I would not agree that if you can fly the R22 you can fly anything, but you have demonstrated you can cope with a/c that have interesting "characteristics".
I am tired of snobbery exhibited by people who were trained at someone elses expense. (HM forces).
self improvers exhibit great determination and then get critiscised for the a/c they trained on.
the whole process of making a succesful career in helicopter aviation is difficult enough with trying to make it even more unobtainable for the wannabe
end of rant, fire away !
I get fed up of hearing the same old crap about the R22, yes it has got characteristics, but then every a/c does.
it is all very well for people to say the Bell 47 is better, i am sure it is but it is also much more expensive.
I would never have become a pilot if it wasnt for the R22, to old to be trained by HM forces, I had to pay the whole damm thing myself and as you all know it was not cheap.
as long as you reach the standards required why does it matter if it is less stable etc etc, the training should account for it.
I have more than 1000 hours as an instructor on robinsons and still like them, so what if they are underpowered, you learn better power management.
I would not agree that if you can fly the R22 you can fly anything, but you have demonstrated you can cope with a/c that have interesting "characteristics".
I am tired of snobbery exhibited by people who were trained at someone elses expense. (HM forces).
self improvers exhibit great determination and then get critiscised for the a/c they trained on.
the whole process of making a succesful career in helicopter aviation is difficult enough with trying to make it even more unobtainable for the wannabe
end of rant, fire away !
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another two cents
An article in a knowledgeable rotorcraft publication suggests that the current fighter aircraft under development, such as the F-22 Raptor, the RAH-66 Comanche and the Tiger may be the last manned attack aircraft. Future ones will probably be flown from the ground via satellite link.
This might be good; if the UAV ground control technology is eventually spun-off to ground trainers. These trainers might then be re-configurable, to have the characteristics of the various helicopters.
This might be bad; if eventually the need for onboard pilots, in civilian non-transportation aircraft, declines as UAVs start performing missions such as traffic reporting etc.
This might be good; if the UAV ground control technology is eventually spun-off to ground trainers. These trainers might then be re-configurable, to have the characteristics of the various helicopters.
This might be bad; if eventually the need for onboard pilots, in civilian non-transportation aircraft, declines as UAVs start performing missions such as traffic reporting etc.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFIM, My original reply to you contained un-called for and unfair language and therefore I have edited my post. It so happens that the training provided by HM Forces is the best in the world no matter what service you are in! Don't take out your frustrations on the Guys and Girls in the Military aviation world. Believe it or not we in the Military (or ex military) pay or have paid the price for our training and /or licenses (other duties including getting sand up your butt crack or putting out fires for HM Government or missing Xmas to assist in SAR missions to help idiot civilians. My rant is now over!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by KENNYR; 14th Dec 2002 at 03:08.
Regardless KENNY, we paid for your licence and not all you guys are as flash as you think. Fact.
I never had a problem with the R22. As for dealing with low rotor inertia...so what? If it is all you know then why is it such a problem. Single pilot in a robbie leaves plenty of power reserve for all training and while with an instructor you are learning great aircraft control and handling for the real world. Flying aircraft around with ample amounts of power in reserve for training purposes is teaching a student nothing. The robbie is the worlds best trainer, full stop.
The 47 is a great ship and should be used for the benefit of throttle to RRPM correlation. Otherwise, I think a licence should be endorsed as "automatic" only (like your car...) because it is terribly embarressing and dangerous for a robbie pilot to do a basic rating in the 47 and then try to fly it for a living. The lack of governor OFF training shows up like dogs balls.
Its akin to the first world war pilots... if you survive the first two weeks you might just make it.
I never had a problem with the R22. As for dealing with low rotor inertia...so what? If it is all you know then why is it such a problem. Single pilot in a robbie leaves plenty of power reserve for all training and while with an instructor you are learning great aircraft control and handling for the real world. Flying aircraft around with ample amounts of power in reserve for training purposes is teaching a student nothing. The robbie is the worlds best trainer, full stop.
The 47 is a great ship and should be used for the benefit of throttle to RRPM correlation. Otherwise, I think a licence should be endorsed as "automatic" only (like your car...) because it is terribly embarressing and dangerous for a robbie pilot to do a basic rating in the 47 and then try to fly it for a living. The lack of governor OFF training shows up like dogs balls.
Its akin to the first world war pilots... if you survive the first two weeks you might just make it.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76, You did not pay for my license, a Canadian company paid for my license. I did, however, aquire the hours in the service of Queen and Country........by choice, I might add. You must remember that the type of flying in civvy street is vastly different from military flying. The military pilot, whether heli, transport, fast jet or whatever, doesnt just take off at A and land at B. In between he/she is dodging SAM's, small arms fire, low level wires etc., or even engaging enemy forces. Sure it sounds dramatic, glamorous or whatever, but that's reality for a military pilot. So,come on, lets not get into a pi@@ing match over the differences in flying. As a civilian you decided that you wanted to fly and to that end it was your choice to pay for it!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny.........
Geeeee old fella..........who is Canada at war with to get all that exposure.........
My military service was not as dramatic as that.
I am not going to side or lean either way.........but after the first 500 - 1000 hrs.....Mil, Ex Mil or Civil trained pilots are all the same........except for the war stories in the bar.
That I have learnt from many hours of Checking all types of crews.......
Free Training......I agree its not free, no matter which way you start off...!!!!
My military service was not as dramatic as that.
I am not going to side or lean either way.........but after the first 500 - 1000 hrs.....Mil, Ex Mil or Civil trained pilots are all the same........except for the war stories in the bar.
That I have learnt from many hours of Checking all types of crews.......
Free Training......I agree its not free, no matter which way you start off...!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
steve
throttle control stick'en out like dogs balls, hah!hah, i know what you mean.
i quite often say i wish i had done my licence in a B47 but the fact is it was $20 per hour more ($1400 more) and i was told R22's were harder to fly anyway. (its amazing what people will say for you to learn with them)
i came out of heli school thinking i wasnt too bad of a pilot, but came to my sensors in my first attempt at a B47. on the other hand, why learn in the B47 type if you never have to fly one, as (surely) they've got to be sent to heaven sooner or later.
i quite often say i wish i had done my licence in a B47 but the fact is it was $20 per hour more ($1400 more) and i was told R22's were harder to fly anyway. (its amazing what people will say for you to learn with them)
i came out of heli school thinking i wasnt too bad of a pilot, but came to my sensors in my first attempt at a B47. on the other hand, why learn in the B47 type if you never have to fly one, as (surely) they've got to be sent to heaven sooner or later.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Old Man Rotor, Canada, at war, dont make me laugh! Canada is the great unwashed champion of "peace keeping". I feel so sorry for the Canadian Forces. They train hard for war and never get invited or if they do it is with so many restrictions (like they can only fly at night, unarmed or on escort sorties). Your point however is noted. By the way I am ex UK Military.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: too near London
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KENNYR: you've clearly never held an instructor ticket and anybody who watched "flying soldiers" will know the taxpayer was not getting value for money at all times from the point of view of instructional standards.
Ex mil types are a known quantity because of the selection process and (sometimes) in spite of the training. They can also make good employees because they tend to do as they're told..no questions asked, sir.
Ex mil types are a known quantity because of the selection process and (sometimes) in spite of the training. They can also make good employees because they tend to do as they're told..no questions asked, sir.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noradio, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have taught in both worlds, both military and civilian(R22, B206). The quality of military instructors (all branches of Armed Forces) is second to none. I say this because the Armed Forces are not driven by cost considerations therefore more time can be spent with the individual to hone his/her skills and abilities. Nobody who is performing marginally passes out of any military flight school, unless standards have dropped dramatically in the last 13 years since I last taught. I know that I was not a "natural" and had to work damned hard for my ticket. Anyway I think we have got way off the thread. The Bell 47 is still the best bet for beginners to learn on!!!
Want a giggle?
Watch a blackhawk pilot try and get an endorsement on a B47
The last candidate finally gave up after 10.6hrs. To give him his due, he voluntarily admitted he couldn't cope with it. I know for sure that the operator would've gladly kept taking his coin
The bottom line is always the dominator as Voritcey stated. $20 more is money down the drain. If it wasn't an issue then we all would have Canadore College licences...
Watch a blackhawk pilot try and get an endorsement on a B47
The last candidate finally gave up after 10.6hrs. To give him his due, he voluntarily admitted he couldn't cope with it. I know for sure that the operator would've gladly kept taking his coin
The bottom line is always the dominator as Voritcey stated. $20 more is money down the drain. If it wasn't an issue then we all would have Canadore College licences...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Since there is no agreed objective or subjective standard against which to measure 'best', why don't we agree to never use the term 'best trained' or 'best' pilots?
There is no one best way to train or fly or do anything. If there was, it would be the only way.
It took me a long time, but I finally learned-
there is no perfect helicopter design
there is no perfect manufacturer
there is no perfect operator
there is no perfect maintenacne organization
there is no perfect certification agency
there is no perfect licencing authority
if there was, they would be the only one....
There is no one best way to train or fly or do anything. If there was, it would be the only way.
It took me a long time, but I finally learned-
there is no perfect helicopter design
there is no perfect manufacturer
there is no perfect operator
there is no perfect maintenacne organization
there is no perfect certification agency
there is no perfect licencing authority
if there was, they would be the only one....