Training Helicopters
 

Most pilots and engineers agree that the R22 is not an entirely suitable training helicopter. It's pro's and con's are well known throughout the industry.

Would anyone be prepared to suggest what a training helicopter should be? Performance, Size, hub, handling, engine, TR type, design features, equipment etc. What do the owners, high-time instructors and students want from such a machine?

Cran

:confused:

Boink! Boink! Boink!

This is the sound of my 10Ft pole touching the thread :D

I can only talk about the 22, as I haven't flown anything else.

So I'm abstaning, because anything I say could be construed as robbie defending.

But in short, although not designed as a trainer, I think that when flown to limits it becomes an excellent one, as other model out there have higher inertia rotor systems, and the transitioning Robbie pilot may not have transition issues later on.

It's those "mean" qualities, IMO that make one stay on their toes when flying it, and that leads to increased skill later on.

Ok, flame on ...

I just LIKE R22s:) :) :)

The R22, would be a much better and possibly a safer machine if it was possible to have more energy ability in the rotor/head, and the possibility of slightly more space inside the cabin, fit a nice romote type of cyclic, better seat belts and a slightly more modern instrument panel, larger dia tail rotor shaft, beefed up main and tail gearboxes, more power, a better set of skids and then I think the R22 would then be fit for some serious enjoyment, Oh, and a compartment for the odd suitcase, but then would this be called the R22!:cool: :D

Despite the ever-increasing numbers of R22s being used in the training environment it was never designed to be used in this capacity. At least that is what Frank Robinson keeps saying every time an R22 is lost due to a catastrophic event.

Lay off, Lu. You've blown your credibility on this one.
The perfect trainer would always give you a second chance. Trouble is, by definition it wouldn't fly. Microsoft may one day create one.

About the R22 being "unsuitable" as a training helicopter...

The RNlAF (Dutch Air Force) required those line pilots selected to become IPs to train in R22s. The reason being that "as an IP you have to be a better pilot than line pilots".

Nuff said methinks.

Personally I found the Bell 47 the better of the two helicopters to train on. Much more forgiving for both student and instructor than a R22. Old technology for sure but has proved incrediably reliable and mature given the basic technology is over 50 years old!!

The old real draw back to a B47 is that it is a slow cruiser. Plenty of time to watch the view go by.

AS to new machines I cannot comment. My old school has introduced H269/300s for training but cannot comment.

Regards

Whissper

Why not try the hughes 300, very reliable machine. Passed my ppl(H) in this type. The aircraft is very forgiving and very easy to fly, (no carb heat!) Operating costs are a little higher, but for the safety aspect and manoverablity can't beat it...:)

As a flight instructor I like the 300C for flight instruction. Taught a little in Jetrangers and 500's but find the 300C a tough aircraft. When teaching touch down auto's it can be dropped from about 5 feet and not get damaged. Nevr flew a R-22 so can't comment on it. The flight school I worked for as a part time instructor recently went out of buisness as the insurance went up some 45 %.

The r-22 appears to be getting the job done as a primary trainer and is around $30 cheaper to rent than the 300C. Bottom line, if you develope a good foundation you will beable to fly any helicopter safely.


SKYCOP9

R22 v 269c
 

I'm sorry to have to delete your first post on Pprune, but this topic has been discussed in great detail many times already.
If you use the 'Search' function, you will find everything you could possibly need to know.

Also, we don't allow free links to other aviation websites. ;)

Heliport

One thing to remember about a training machine is that easiest isn't always best. One is trying to instill good habits that will last a lifetime (career).

Regardless, cost will always be an overriding factor.

Personally, I liked the Bell 47 but would rather use the R22 for ab intio training, its tougher than nails.

hi there,

i am high time on robbies and zero time on other piston types, therefore I am biased by default, anyhow I was reading in helicopter world ages ago about training in the USA, and they featured HAI (i think) and quoted the guy as saying when new peeps come through the door, if they are basically leisure pilots they would normally expect to do ab-initio on the 269/300, but if they were looking for a commercial career then they would march them straight to the R22, on the grounds that it is a bit more demanding but also more appropiate given that they want to go all the way.

while we are on the subject of robbies i hear this statement all the time "if you can fly a R22 you can fly anything" well yes you can i guess, but i would say that landing a super puma on a turbulent helideck is way harder than landing a robbie in strong winds!

anyone care to add aspects of flying other types that are harder than the equivalent manoever in an R22?

I just query the requirement for a special course - if it was that good, why would it need one? Why should somebody have to learn how "not" to fly a helicopter?

Phil

From what I saw of the course, I'd say that the purpose is to remind pilots of things they should already know. There was nothing in it that is Robbie specific, but there are things that are easier to get away with in more forgiving types.

Still looking for that elusive H269 endorsement in order to be able to compare it.

Do have to agree with Peter on the refinements. 'Course then it would cost more, etc.

Why doesn't the R-22 have a standard looking dual Tach anyways?

Did my PPL in an R22 and CPL in a H300CB. Also just gone from Texas to Florida in an R22 (still recovering :-).

IMHO, the 300CB is a better training machine because the RRPM is more stable and there is no governor - just correlator and throttle which gives a student better appreciation of power / overpitching. For example, you notice as you gain translational lift that you need to roll off throttle now that induced drag has decreased - just an example of something I never appreciated in in the governed R22 during training. It's also better for training for full down engine-off landings due to greater inertia in the head and it feels tougher. Every school I've been at is hesitant or simply does not permit full-downs in R22s. Also, instructors at my school like to do throttle chops when you least expect it which I have found extremely valuable. Some of them have said, they don't do chops when teaching in R22s as the required reaction time is too fast.

However, the 300CB doesn't want to fly - the R22 does and is a faster, more 'fun' machine. It's extra speed and space under the seats make it better for x-country.

I'd recommend doing PPL on a 300CB then going R22 later but I don't think it's really a big deal.

IMHO having done hundreds of full down autos in training in an R22 as the instructor, they are perfectly safe as long as you have a bit of wind ideally 10 knots being the minimum, and are not too heavy.

also i used to do throttle chops all the time and as long as you follow the safety notice advice in the R22 manual regarding "suprise throttle chops can be deadly", I believe these are safe too

i think the robbie is misunderstood, you just have to be nice to them and a bit careful !

Up here in Canada it's likely that yer first flying job'll be in a robbie, so it's a good idea to train in one!

Added bonus: After learning autos with those frigging lightweight blades, anything else seems sweet and forgiving.

In my experience as a part time instructor at an r2d2 only school, the autos were almost never done to touch down. this was school policy; although I had at the time tons of fullons in enstrom, 300, 206, etc. The thought process there was that once again risk was too great. This same school in the ""old days""(up north) did full ons regularly with robbies, all instructors did them so they remainded current, with no problems.

So what does this say? Full ons in a 22 can be done, lets say it's not as forgiving at the bottom as a 300, etc. So run it on a bit!

This same school recently graduated a student that had done only 10 full ons; her training consisted of 30 hours 22, and 70 Bell 206. Any thoughts about that??

Back to the question at hand - 300's are a great overall trainer for ab initio students. Turn off the friggin' governor in a 22 and it gets a bit better but still spoils a student in rpm control.

Drawback for the school is cost of the 300 and the maintenance it requires.

Just my thoughts.:cool: