UH12 vs R22?
 

OK, I fly a Super Cub and I'm not a rotary pilot, but am fascinated by them and would love to become one some day. Nevertheless, I've just re-read the flight test of the UH12C in Pilot and I can't see how the R22 is a great design advance and why it should be such a popular helicopter. It's a bit faster, yes, but the high rotor inertia of the UH12 and its great stability must make it a far safer and better training / flying machine, surely? Add to that the fact it has only five lifed components of 2500 hours, all in the tail rotor and costing $10,000 to replace and it can carry three people, as opposed to two. Looks like a proper helicopter too and a decent example seems to cost about £40K.

Someone educate me: why is the R22 a better machine? Why is it so successful? If I was to buy a helicopter today, I would go for a UH12 or a Bell 47, (admittedly on the basis of extreme ignorance!).

I look forward to reading opinions.

QDM

I did my initial training on the UH-12ET (the turbine version), and engine off to the ground where the order of the day. Great strudy machine, loads of inertia and wide skids!

I couple of years later, I found myself flying an R-22. Nothing to do with the UH-12ET, but once I got use to it, I enjoyed flying it.

Anyway, at the end of the day, if I had to take my family with me on one of these to choppers, I'd certainly go for the UH-12.

I know little about spare parts / service availability for the UH-12 wherever you are. I guess that that could be the only inconvenient, if any.

If you can fly the R22, then you could fly your wife's washing machine, any other after the R22 seems to be so solid and stable as to make you think in a similar way to your question!;)

The R22 is so popular due to one reason: Cost... cost of purchase, and perhaps more importantly, cost of ownership and maintenance.

The R22 will bite your arse in a heartbeat if you're not paying attention, but from what I can see (based on a heckuva lot of research on the type) that a properly trained pilot can fly them without fear of being Thusly Smited.

FWIW, I have been "analyzing" the personal helicopter alternatives closely over the last couple years, and I think that, given my economic situation, the R22 would be what I'd end up buying... Most of my 100-plus hours is in the S300C/CB, and I have the SFAR73 signoffs for the R22/44... With my "vast" experience (yeah right), the R44 would be what I'd really like to own, but I prolly won't be able to fork over that US$300K anytime soon - so my options are limited to the 2 and 3 seat ships... I have seen that the S300 series can exhibit some pretty eye-opening non-scheduled maintenance at times - whereas the R22 seems to be much less prone to this sort of thing. Thus, even though I'm not a huge fan of some aspects of the R22 (size, cargo capacity, the cyclic arrangement), it seems to end up the winner from an economic standpoint.

The other ship that I still need more data on is the Enstrom - I haven't flown one yet but hope to do so soon... A local operator has an F280C that I want to take up.

cheers,

Dave Blevins

What about the Brantly from what I've read this is a very underated helicopter and by all accounts is a very safe a capable machine.

what is a UH12?
after flying a KH4 (B47), the R22 feels like its flying itself.

Vfrpilotpb, the 47 series is much like flying a washing machine!
:}

The only five lifed components strikes me as wrong. This chooses to ignore engine overhaul (oh) main transmission oh, carden joint oh, tail gearbox oh, cuff and trunnion oh, etc.

I dont have access to data on the 12B but later Hillers had lifed components within the main rotor head as well as other areas not within the tail rotor.

The Hiller was a fine aircraft particularly for aerial work but it needs more maintenance than an R22.

blave

I can reccomend the Enstrom against the R22, I paid the same money for mine with relativly low hours (1100) as I would have paid for the R22 and although it is a 1983 machine, age dosn't seem to matter as much as hours. The other big benefit is that all I have to do is replace a few bits every now and then rather than have a full factory overhaul at god only knows how much cost.

On a practical point of view, the Enstrom is a lot bigger and really can take 3 people (not all my size though!) and will take off ok on a hot day with me at 240lbs and a similar pax and we can put a bag in the back, and with the high inercia rotors, it is a lot safer.

Personally, I think it's a fallicy that the Robbo is cheaper to operate, I looked very carefully and I can't see where the savings are and IMHO there was no choice.

rotorboater

thanks for your comments on the Enstrom. One of my CFIs is not so fond of them - says the control forces are high - but then he went through a crash in one (no fault of his - first lesson way back when!) so he might be a bit biased 8^) .

The Enstrom operator that I hope to go flying in a couple weeks with just raves about them, but then he is a factory rep/sales dealer so again it's hard to tell what's what... I should have a much better idea about it once I've actually flown one!

One question - let's assume I'm going to be located in a place (Hawaii) someday that doesn't have any Enstroms locally... Do you think the type requires a maintenance shop that's very familiar with them to keep them safely flying?

cheers,

Blave.

Re the Enstrom

As to control forces, they are very light indeed if you trim, in fact you can trim it to fly hands and feet off!

I wouldn't have thought they are particularly difficult to service, the engine is a standard lycoming with a turbo and FI and everthing else seems pretty simple, apparantly the main gearbox was originaly based on 1/2 a truck gearbox!

Fly one and see what you think, I have no regrets with mine but there seems to be a few Enstrom bashers around who have never actually flown one but enjoy slagging it off, this is a shame because it is one of the safest helicopters in the world!

I evaluated a lot of helicopters before I bought my R22, including the UH12C. Yes, it does in fact have five time-lifed parts; a surprising number that you'd expect to be time-lifed are on condition - including the blades, which are balsa wood aft of the spar! It's a shaky old cow to fly, and it's an old design with all the concomitant maintenance problems. But the killer was the Vne. 75 miles an hour - not even knots. Comfortable cruise is about 60mph, which is fine if you don't want to go anywhere.
The 12 is a 1940s design; if you'd be happy buying a 1940s car, go ahead and buy one, but if you'd rather have the year 2000 model, go for the Robinson.
I also spoke to a number of Enstom owners.

Vne according to the Pilot flight test is 84mph, but fair enough on the speed issue.

I'm very happy with my Super Cub, whose design roots clearly go back to 1932 and whose actual design is more or less unchanged since 1954. No aircraft has yet been brought into production which can fulfil its niche as effectively, which is why it's still in such widespread commercial use in Alaska and other places.

Age alone shouldn't be a bar, should it?

QDM

Why?
 

Why is the R22 so popular?
...in a word - rentability!
Most rotorheads don't own - they rent. Ever tried renting anything other than an R22/R44?
That said, the R22 is a great trainer, especially given the darn thing was never designed for the role. Master the R22 and you can fly anything. I know...I did it, and almost competently on a few occassions.
Dantruck