In my experience doing 180° autos in both, it seemed like they both fell at the same pace, but with the 22 I had more room to glide, whereas the 300 felt like sliding down a flag pole. As for rpm loss and gain, they're both low inertia and I couldn't tell any difference in controlling it.

The only aspect with an engine off landing I could see was a lesser likelihood of rolling over in the 300, but I have done full downs in the 22 and I never felt like that was an issue. I've even had a 22 hop 90° after lowering the collective too fast on a running landing, with no hint of rollover, so,...?

As Hughes500 hinted, it has a fully articulated rotor head, so the manoeuvre tolerances are greater for a start. That is a world of difference.

The governor/correlation relationship in the Robbies only offers limited exposure to the relationship between ERPM and RRPM. This can really be drilled to intuition in the 269

The power range used in the 269 is greater (it is not D-rated) and you can more easily simulate power-limited situations.

Bringing the aircraft into balance and trimming the cyclic are good fundamentals for other larger types. The Robbies come into balance pretty much on their own and there is no cyclic trim.

It is more robust and has more energy in the rotor. The margin of safety is greater during autorotation meaning there can can be more tolerance of error. This margin can be translated into more exercises getting done which don’t always have an eye on the thin RRPM margin and the risk of mast bumping.

It is easier and safer to demonstrate t/r problems..

"Its easier to demonstrate tail rotor problems" lmao,...I'll definitely give you that one.

Anyway, it may be a better trainer, but from what instructors have told me (not to mention my own experience) its easier to transition from a 22 to a 300 than the other way around.


A couple more things I might be misunderstanding. If the Schweizer has a greater power margin, why was I hitting full throttle at just over 70kts at sea level? Whereas, not only can I go faster, but I've never hit full throttle in a 22.

Then theirs the stability thing. In the Schweizer I could let go of the cyclic and if it was out of trim it would just lean to one side, then I'd move the hat and it would stabilize,...easy peazy. In the 22, I wouldn't dare let go of the cyclic, as its just not stable enough for that.

Anyway, maybe I'm just missing something?

I didn’t say power margin Robbie, I said power range. As you know, the same engine is in both aircraft, but is D-rated in the R22. There is, in fact quite a bit more power margin in the R22. But parts like the MGB won’t thank you for using it. Using the full range of power in the 269 means you are not constantly making small inputs within a limited range (which are further fine tuned by the governor). The inputs in a 269 encompass a bigger range and require more compensation. That trains the relationships between pilot input and associated corrections better.

The R22 is arguably “less stable”. Flighty you might say. But we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about balance: The R22 comes easily into balance; the 269 needs more help. A poorly flown 269 feels clumsy. The fact that you can trim out the 269 cyclic is also very important in terms of workload management and safety. There are no prizes for making things unnecessarily hard.

Robbiee - the training for EOL s is where there is little margin for error in a 22 - you can't let an error develop to make a training point because it is difficult to recover from with that low inertia head.

Well, I guess I just don't have enough time in them to really get what you're driving at,...plus I'm not an instructor, so its almost like we're speaking different languages.

I'm kinda like Tom Cruise in Days of Thunder. I just know that the 300 was easy to fly, and I didn't enjoy it. Same impression of the Enstrom by the way.

The Sikorsky S-55,...now that I did enjoy flying. :E