Saw a guy do a "Demo" of the scout at Kemble last year.
He started in the hover at about 7 or 8 feet and chopped it to the ground. It landed with a bang I can tell you.

Afterwards I asked him why......

He informed me that he was demonstrating the brick shi*house build of the beast, and in it's Navy guise was alway's landed on decks very hard !

Mind you, Denise Kenyon followed him in the 300 ! WoW

Kennyr

I took the Scout down to Thruxton yesterday and was followed in by a very snazzy Gazelle containing an experienced Scout pilot (1000+hrs) who is undergoing conversion training. It looked absolutely gorgeous (good enough to eat) but I do now understand why they call it the Whistling Drumstick.

Nevertheless I was amused to see that the owner was HATING it and had to be forcibly restrained from kicking his new machine. He was really questioning why he was upgrading to a Gazelle. It was costing him twice as much to fly and the handling made the Scout feel like he was comparing a cosy,much loved armchair with a bar stool on ice.

You will be amused to hear that, as a Scout pilot, he was keen to complain about the Gazelle autos, which he felt were not steep enough. It climbed when he entered and, with the lever flat down, he was careering about the countryside, trying to lose height whilst keeping the Nr under control. (he should be so lucky)

He felt the Scout offered less options and this concentrated the mind on the important bits, the flare and levelling. Dump the lever, turn it into wind, and flare, level, check, pull, dump at the bottom.

I accept that conversions to a new machine can be a difficult time but this man feels that the Scout is massively easier to fly than the Gazelle by an order of magnitude. I have to say that I agree with him. Compared, for instance, to a Robinson R22 the Scout is a complete doddle. If that is really the case what is it about the Scout that gives it a reputation for bite-back-ability?

By the end of the conversation I was pretty convinced that he was going to retain his Scout and his Gazelle was just about to be history. (Hmmm! If I sell the children into slavery maybe, just maybe, I could ……maybe not.)

In conversation he recalled, as you do, that, in the forces, pilots were not allowed on the Scout before they had something like 160 hrs on other things, notably the Gazelle. Make no mistake, I’d love a Gazelle for the extra 25 knots and the sexy looks but I am, regrettably, much too poor at the moment.

I’m always ready to learn so, in the Scout v Gazelle debate that constantly goes on in my wallet, I’d like to hear some more arguments in favour of the Scout, a machine that you appear to have very happily survived. As far as I can tell the problems have been connected to pilots using the excess of available power, which overcomes the tail rotor authority if manoeuvring hard, close to the ground and with a low airspeed.

The Gazelle is hardly squeaky clean on that subject. There seem to be a plethora of sudden and unexpected twizzles reported. A tad of left pedal left in for a fraction of a second is reported to have done for many a fine ego.

The Scout

(Who, with a roll-over lottery win, really wouldn’t mind at all if he added to his handle to “The Gazelle”)….but I’d still keep the Scout.

I cannot believe that this chap does not like the Gazelle. I have over 3,000 hours on the Gazelle and I loved every second of those hours. I also flew Scout, Bell 47, Bell 206 and R22. The Scout is a pilots helicopter, its a workhorse. Very strong, no luxuries. Can I ask who the pilots are at Thruxton teaching the conversion courses? If you dont want to name them here you can always leave me a private message or e-mail me. Thanks...............Ken.

I think Mike Green of Fast is the only one approved for the conversion, in the UK.

Scout, an amusing story of this 'chap' with a thousand hours on the Scout, wouldn't own one would he? Now what did you say...

"It climbed when he entered and, with the lever flat down, he was careering about the countryside, trying to lose height whilst keeping the Nr under control. (he should be so lucky)"

Sounds like he can't fly either properly and I would draw your attention to the original meat of the posts. In the hands of low time PPL(H) wannabes the Scout and the Gazelle (lets drag that in as well) are accidents waiting to happen. The examples that you mentioned, (technical term was it 'twizzles' ) were Pilot error and once again low time pilot error, read those reports.

The Scout is a fine helicopter and those of us who do have many thousands of hours on the beast love it dearly. The Gazelle is also a grand machine and in safe, competent hands will behave properly.
I did wonder from your post if you were becoming a legend in your own lunchtime but I just reckon you have a vested interest in the Thruxton Scout thing and therefore are talking it up for their street credibility.
Fly safe and remember the Scout left wrist twitch, it may save your life!!!

Flygunz hi!

You are correct about low time pilots being involved in Scout accidents but I suspect that we low timer amateurs are a problem in any kind of flying machine.

You said
“I did wonder from your post if you were becoming a legend in your own lunchtime but I just reckon you have a vested interest in the Thruxton Scout thing and therefore are talking it up for their street credibility”

Not sure about the “lunchtime” reference but you are absolutely correct about my vested interest in the “Thruxton Scout thing”.

As a Scout owner I have a huge interest in the continued health of my maintenance operation especially as there don’t seem to be too many other options open to me. At the moment I get an amusing reception, a cup of tea and a comparatively modest bill from them. I’m not too technical so my assumption, based on the fact that everything on the aircraft always seems to be working, is that I’m getting proper maintenance as well.

Further to that I am an unashamed fan of the aircraft itself….I’ve never hidden that fact and I want it to be quite clear that I fly a Scout because, at some visceral level, I enjoy everything about it and it’s not because I can’t afford a Gazelle. (I can’t by the way)

I feel very safe in the Scout; it always seems to do what I want and, so far, has not shown the slightest inclination to bite me. I admit I’m not the most aggressive of pilots so it always seems massively more capable than I am.

I will admit that I am a bit twitched by the steepness of the autos but, at the point where it matters you don’t seem to have to work harder or faster than on the other machines I’ve E.O.L.’d to the ground. R22,R44, 206, 300CB.

I compensate by flying a bit higher just to give me more thinking and turning time.

I also accept that it probably costs the same as an R22 to fly but, in my limited experience, it’s twice as easy and I prefer the image. Fat-old-git-in-a-truck is slightly less hideous than a fat-old-git-in-a-sports-car.

Anyway, I’m running out of money fast, the Scout might have to go so it is also in my interest to let others know that I’ve had three years of utterly useless fun in a cheap, reliable, easy to fly turbine helicopter. And, Mr Chancellor, I’d like at least another year.

On the question of turbine versus reciprocating; Am I missing something? Reading through Pprune there is a running presumption that turbines are only for big boys and yet my limited experience suggests that a 300 or R22 pilot is obliged to have ten times the engine and Nr management skills of a Scout pilot. (and other single turbine machines)

Starting and stopping the Scout seems ridiculously easy when compared to any reciprocating aero engine I’ve ever come across. You just pour in the fuel, wind it up and beggar off in as many seconds as it takes to scan the gauges and check the hydraulics. It’s just as simple and quick to stop as well.

Sorry….blathering too much,,,I’ll get my coat......and thanks, I'll keep that left hand twitch going

The Scout

Firstly, thanks for the many interesting posts. As the originator of this thread, I was making a fairly idle enquiry about an ad I'd seen in a flying magazine, but, as with so many rotorheads threads, it has developed into quite a lively discussion.

One point which I note from this and many other threads is the horror expressed by some, that low-time PPL(H)s are let lose on these ex-military machines and, sometimes, ANY helicopter at all! I probably won't be flying the Scout, due to a lack of capital and the distance I would have to travel to fly it, but if circumstances were different then chances are, I would. Thinking back (not that long ago, admittedly) to when I first started my PPL(H) course, if I'd listened to many people I would never had got into an R22, but here I am...

My point being, is it not a state of mind that prevents accidents rather than simply the type of machine? While I do recognise that some machines will be more complex or difficult to fly than others and that a pilot with thousands of hours is going to be far more proficient than me, I have witnessed both CPL(H)s and instructors fly, on a few occasions, in an appallingly cowboyish and reckless way, while some low-time PPL(H)s approach their flying in a higly disciplined manner.

I know there will always be good and bad examples of both professional and private flying, but what do you think? And what can we fly without the whole world cowering beneath us?

Any views?

DBChopper
:cool:

Some of us went straight from the Sioux to the Scout directly after the pilot course - there was no rule then about going from the Gazelle on to it, and the Gazelle was in service.

I'm not so sure that training on other types like the Gazelle is a good idea anyway - I certainly don't think that a PPL would necessarily find the Scout a problem, provided the training is OK. It's the same argument about taildraggers and the "special" training you need - I can't remember any trouble with the Beaver!

The same with the Scout - I flew many happy hours in it as my first turbine, but that was probably because I didn't know any better.

I remember Red Meaton once went over to the Ugandan Police for some recurrent training and expressed concern that the overtorque warning was going every time they took off - apparently they thought that it was just there to tell them they'd left the ground!

Phil

I'm with Paco on this. Most of our Scout Flight went straight from the Sioux (on their pilots course) onto the Scout and then out into a Germany winter. No problems with low time, inexperienced pilots flying it. I reckon that an R22 is far more dangerous in any circumstance when compared to the mighty Scout!

Scout
 

Hi

I have come on to your thread a bit late I guess but I was one of those who went from the Bell 47 (Sioux) to the Scout and whatever I have flown since does not compare to the "Queen of the Skies"...otherwise known as the brick !!!!house The incomparable "Westland Scout"

Regards to all

Airtoday Hi!

thanks for you message. I was, originally, feeling a bit of a lonely nerd in my appreciation of my machine but I've had a number of messages from others who, like you, have been similarly captivated by our "bit of rough".

Not pretty but who cares. Does exactly what it says on the label and doesn't cost a fortune.

I met a man a few years ago who flew the early Scouts which were prone to engine failure. At ten thousand feet above the ground he was in full autorotation and had picked his spot in the paddy below.

Having thererfore, three spare minutes, he turned to the Gurhka observer beside him and said "I've bet you've never done this before".

"Oh yes Sahib. My third engine failure"

"Really? ...er...perhaps you'd like to do this one for me?"

offer was politely refused and the machine was put down unbent.

The Scout

I just remember that if you threw a manhole cover out, you'd be down before it :)

Phil