Which is the best helicopter trainer

[DeltaMikeCharlie]

Maybe, but I think it is much simpler than that.

 

Hmm.... after much research which yeilded no useful information I resorted to experimentation on my own gas cooker. putting my life on the line for the betterment of humanity this is what I came up with...

 

(over simplification)

It is a safety feature, there is a little heat activated vave installed to kill the gas when the flame goes out. When you hold the ignighter it bypasses it and allows the pilot flame to heat the valve until it opens.

 

That ends my field of expertise. LOL. Plenty more posts to read and learn from.

[mechanic]

I don't know about the "cookers" you guys have referred to. But, sounds like it has a Thermocoupler or Mercury Flame Sensor system to keep the gas on. Like a hot water or open air heater would. I am not sure about the heat to sustain theroy because a propane bbq grille will light with a cold buner with a few clicks of a silicon push button striker and I have installed electric light Natural gas stoves that click a few times until the burners light. But, I can honestly say I don't know for sure since appliances are not my field.

[flingwing206]

...but back to the poll, where we find the Schweizer 300 series confortably in the lead with (as of 26 Jun) just under 50% of the vote. The R22 is in second place with 37%, and the B47 and R44 are getting a nod with a 3% showing (I'd have been most happy training in either one of those, but there are some unfortunate realities to the industry).

 

As far as preferred characteristics, it's heartening to see safety as the dominant desired characteristic, with "easy to fly/learn in" a solid second. "Can transition..." is third on the list, which begs the question - are there any trainers which hinder the transition process? It would seem that while the R22 and 300CB(i) have their particular traits, neither should cause unique problems when transitioning to larger (turbine) aircraft.

 

It's also good to see that students and CFIs alike put safety first, but unsurprising that students put cost as their next-most important consideration while CFIs put ease of flying.

 

This is a great poll! I hope people keep contributing.

[Helijason]

I'm glad to see that safety was the biggest priority among students and instructors. I was honestly expecting a different answer from both groups. Now if we could only decide on which is a safer trainer, the 22 or the 300, we could all rest in peace for the rest of our careers

[500E]

Flew a 22 for the first time yesterday!

Give me 80k and nose down every time I don t think the 22 will ever grow on me now the 44 a diferent beast

[Guest 13snoopy]

Fling will love this one but it's true:

If you can master the more difficult R22 you adapt quicker to the other, larger helis than if you train ina 300.

 

Sorry, but it seems the facts show that newly minted 300 pilots are not quite as sharp at the controls as the more hirky/jerky R22 requires it's pilots to be. And that's not their fault nor their instructors fault since they don't have to be as skillful because the 300 is an easier ship to master.

As Fling even stated, the more docile machine is easier to learn on.

EXAMPLE:

My first boat was a 220 Sport Baja with a long, closed bow and a 454 mag engine. It has a long, pointed front end and it's pretty hard to learn how to back up this boat into a slip, particularly in windy conditions. But after you master it, parking a similar sized runabout is a piece of cake and parking a larger boat isn't very hard at all.

Now, could a person who was experienced only in a similarly-sized runabout park the more difficult to handle Baja that easily? No way. Why? Because the Baja is harder to learn to park than the runabout. But the Baja boater, who finally learns to park the difficult to handle Baja sport boat can then VERY easily park the more easy-to-handle but similarly sized runabout boat.

************Face it, the 300 pilots don't have to have the finess that a R22 flyer has.************ And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But some here try to have us believe that an easier-to-fly ship turns out just as skillful a pilot as a pilot that trains on a harder-to-fly ship. And that's simply not true.

In that sort of theory, a person who has just mastered their ABC's would be just as comfortable writing a novel as a person who'd just finished their 3rd year at Stanford majoring in literature. Seriously, I am not saying the R22 is that much more difficult to learn to fly, but it does require more skill. Period. And if more skill isn't "better" then I don't know what is.

A 300 IS EASIER TO LEARN TO FLY. HANDS DOWN. DOES IT TURN OUT AS SKILLFUL A PILOT AS AN R22 TRAINER? NO. BECAUSE THE PILOT NEVER HAS TO BE AS SKILLFUL AS AN R22 PILOT SINCE THE 300's HAVE MUCH MORE "DOCILE" CHARACTERISTICS. There really shouldn't be a debate here.

*****The poll asks which is the better trainer but what it should ask is what is the EASIER trainer.

Then we all would know that answer. There'd be no debate.*****

[Guest rookie101]

Snoopy your going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms My only comment about your post is could you please post the links for your facts "Sorry, but it seems the facts show that newly minted 300 pilots are not quite as sharp at the controls as the more hirky/jerky R22 requires." I am not tryin' to bash you, call you a lier or anything along those lines I just wanna see the numbers and charts for myself as I imagine most of the people here do as well

 

As for Fling's theories, I will considre them pretty much fact as he's been around a lot longer than me (maybe even you, I don't know) and he's been flying helicopters for a good many of those years, so I will definatly listen when he talks (well, posts).

[Guest 13snoopy]

Snoopy your going to open up a whole 'nother can of worms My only comment about your post is could you please post the links for your facts "Sorry, but it seems the facts show that newly minted 300 pilots are not quite as sharp at the controls as the more hirky/jerky R22 requires." I am not tryin' to bash you, call you a lier or anything along those lines I just wanna see the numbers and charts for myself as I imagine most of the people here do as well

 

As for Fling's theories, I will considre them pretty much fact as he's been around a lot longer than me (maybe even you, I don't know) and he's been flying helicopters for a good many of those years, so I will definatly listen when he talks (well, posts).

I have zero explaining to do. Reread my entire post. It explains itself.

A higher skill level is required to learn to fly the R22 because it is indeed more "squirrely" and "flighty" than the 300.

If you cannot understand the examples I set forth then I really don't know what else would enable you to grasp the simple concept.

Sorry.

One more thing, flight hours and understanding the most basic learning concepts don't go hand in hand. Fling's theorys are proof of that. (Fling knows I'm kidding...sort of. Fling, You never did tell me the smallest width door I'd need to get a 300 pushed/twisted through)

[jehh]

Snoop, I have to disagree with you...

 

Based on over a thousand hours of dual given between the two types, the 300 is easier for students to learn on.

 

As for moving from one to the other, did all my initial training in the 300CB, first flew in the R-22 after I passed my CFI ride. Found the R-22 to be no big deal, so I have to say your thoughts on that point are incorrect, based on my personal experience.

 

As for the "facts" you talk about, there aren't any, one way or another. Just personal experiences of various instructors.

 

You can learn to fly anything, they each have their upsides and downsides, and that IS a fact.

 

************Face it, the 300 pilots don't have to have the finess that a R22 flyer has.************

 

I would disagree with that statement.

 

A 300 IS EASIER TO LEARN TO FLY. HANDS DOWN. DOES IT TURN OUT AS SKILLFUL A PILOT AS AN R22 TRAINER? NO. BECAUSE THE PILOT NEVER HAS TO BE AS SKILLFUL AS AN R22 PILOT SINCE THE 300's HAVE MUCH MORE "DOCILE" CHARACTERISTICS. There really shouldn't be a debate here.

 

I also would disagree with this statement.

 

I do not believe that a R-22 being less docile than the 300 turns out better pilots. In fact, I've seen some bad habits from R-22 pilots that have to be unlearned getting into bigger helicopters. Stiring the cyclic in a hover is just one of them.

 

I have yet to run into a helicopter that doesn't fly like a helicopter. I've got time in everything from the R-22 to an S-58, including the AStar, which really IS "twitchy". In fact, I'd toss out there that it is worse than the R-22 in many regards. It didn't earn the nickname "squirrel" for no reason.

[Guest 13snoopy]

Snoop, I have to disagree with you...

 

Based on over a thousand hours of dual given between the two types, the 300 is easier for students to learn on.

 

As for moving from one to the other, did all my initial training in the 300CB, first flew in the R-22 after I passed my CFI ride. Found the R-22 to be no big deal, so I have to say your thoughts on that point are incorrect, based on my personal experience.

 

As for the "facts" you talk about, there aren't any, one way or another. Just personal experiences of various instructors.

 

You can learn to fly anything, they each have their upsides and downsides, and that IS a fact.

I would disagree with that statement.

I also would disagree with this statement.

 

I do not believe that a R-22 being less docile than the 300 turns out better pilots. In fact, I've seen some bad habits from R-22 pilots that have to be unlearned getting into bigger helicopters. Stiring the cyclic in a hover is just one of them.

 

I have yet to run into a helicopter that doesn't fly like a helicopter. I've got time in everything from the R-22 to an S-58, including the AStar, which really IS "twitchy". In fact, I'd toss out there that it is worse than the R-22 in many regards. It didn't earn the nickname "squirrel" for no reason.

Ahh, go back and reread my posts!! I never said the R22 was more docile than the 300. I said it was less docile than the 300 and you know it is.

You also stated that your first flight in the R22 wasn't until after you became a CFI and that it was "no big deal". Sure it wasn't, since you were already a very experienced pilot by the time you took the controls of an R22.

Try starting out in an R22, it's a far different matter and you know it.

The 300 is far more docile and easier to learn to fly. Anyone who argues this is simply being obtuse.

As I stated earlier, this poll should ask: "What is the easier heli to learn to fly in?"

It's the 300 hands down. And that's nothing for a 300 lover to be ashamed of. But somehow you guys feel that if you admit the 300 is truly an easier machine to learn in you are afraid it also means you'll get less credit for being skillful and that it diminishes the "skill level" and "ability level" that all heli pilots are proud to have.

Not so, it takes great skill to fly the 300, I never said it didn't. But the truth is it's harder to fly the R22, that's all.

The R22 is far more squirrely and unstable in a hover compared to the 300.

I think at times EGO makes some here argue that on one hand the 300 is easier to fly but then conversely argue that the skill sets are the same for both helis. Sorry, it cannot be both ways.

Don't worry, you won't be considered less of a pilot just because you grew up on the "slightly less demanding" 300.

[DFWFlyer]

When you apply any amount of logic to this argument, it makes no sense.

 

Your statment is that an R-22 turns out pilots with more finess or skill than a 300 because the Robinson is more squirrely.

 

But some here try to have us believe that an easier-to-fly ship turns out just as skillful a pilot as a pilot that trains on a harder-to-fly ship.

A higher skill level is required to learn to fly the R22 because it is indeed more "squirrely" and "flighty" than the 300.

 

You have changed between the skill PRODUCED by flying an R22 vs a 300, and the skill required to LEARN to fly at all. A 0 hour pilot has NO skill at flying either. What they learn is the skills needed to fly a helicopter, accompanied by the techniques needed to fly THAT helicopter.

 

Switching to another machine AFTER your CFI (or at any other time) will require some adaptations in that base learning no matter what machine you are changing to. The differences may be slight, or a bit more obvious, but stepping from an R22 to a 300 would still require some adjustment.

 

EXAMPLE: When you say that an R22 is more twitchy, and needs more finess, could you not also say that a 300 requires a pilot to use a bit heavier of a hand on the cyclic to get it to perform? It's not more or less finess, it's just DIFFERENT. I would say the skill of the pilot comes not from which machine they learned on, but thier ability to adapt to something different.

 

Also, your analogy between this, a kid learning ABC's, and a Stanford scholar is a bit inappropriate. A 5 year old and a 25 year old are hardly expected to have the same degree of education; however if the FAA did everything equal, 2 CFI's are presumed to have equivilent levels of training no matter which ship they learned on.

 

This poll is initially based on OPINION, and it's obvious there are some strong ones, however lets all stay open to looking at things from somone else's perspective.

[HelliBoy]

I have to agree completely with DFW. Helicopters dont 'produce' good pilots, competent CFIs do. The 10hrs dual intruction reqired for the r22 transition is more than enough time for a rated pilot to get over the more sensitive controls of the robbie. One could then expect to get into advanced maneuvers like autos in which I think that you could argue, under snoops reasoning, that r22s have such a low inertial rotor system that they 'produce' worse pilots because more advanced aircraft dont have them.

I dont think this poll should be a forum for r22 and 300 pilots arguing over which is the 'better' helicopter This poll is about training and while 'easy' and 'hard' to fly do have their place in that, the poll shows that 'easy' or 'hard' is less important by several orders of magnitude when it comes to training.

[500E]

Start learning on a F1 \ Or NASCA car, You would be luckey to live.

The way most people learn is to start with a task thet can manage then go on to more comples\dificult tasks.

When you have a mastery of the basic functions and some confidence then go to the next level, I learnt in a 300 then after 15 hours converted to a 500.

After flying a 22 I felt it was a machine I personaly would not try again,and would not recomend to any learner.

If that is what you feel ok with Great go fly but as FR said it was never meant to be a training Helio.

[jehh]

Ahh, go back and reread my posts!! I never said the R22 was more docile than the 300. I said it was less docile than the 300 and you know it is.

 

I would agree that the 300 is a more stable helicopter than the R-22. If that is what you are saying, then we can agree on that point.

 

You also stated that your first flight in the R22 wasn't until after you became a CFI and that it was "no big deal". Sure it wasn't, since you were already a very experienced pilot by the time you took the controls of an R22.

 

Ok, so tell me again why you wouldn't want to start out on an easier helicopter, rather than the harder helicopter?

 

When you are learning, you have zero skill, in either one. Why make the task of learning harder than it has to be?

 

I've trained a half dozen students from scratch in the R-22, I've also trained a few people in the 300, and the 300 is easier to learn in, hands down. It also produces every bit as good a pilot as the R-22.

 

If we had the budget, I'd train everyone in a 206L from scratch. That is about the easiest to fly helicopter I have found yet. Since we cannot afford that, we use the 300 and/or R-22.

 

The 300 is far more docile and easier to learn to fly. Anyone who argues this is simply being obtuse.

 

I agree 100%, which is why I think it is a better initial trainer. I fully support the use of the R-22 during commercial and CFI training, to provide students with another point of view, as well as experience with another type of aircraft.

 

Not so, it takes great skill to fly the 300, I never said it didn't. But the truth is it's harder to fly the R22, that's all.

 

I would say it is harder for someone with zero time to fly. It is not harder for someone with helicopter experience.

 

The 300 would give a 206 pilot a challenge, if that pilot had nothing but 206 time from day one.

[67november]

boys, boys, boys, rein in the head butting. this is a learning place

[mechanic]

Hey all,

 

This post has been of interest to me, since I only have 22 time and look forward to getting some CBI time. I spoke to a retired army warrant that's over an aviation college dept that had 8000 hrs heli time. We touched on this very subject. He was quick to tell me to not be fooled, that all helicopters are quirky, but some are a little bit easier to fly than others. He said even the Blackhawk is quirky.

 

 

 

It is funny to me that some get so intense about the model they fly. We have to remember that we fly what we can afford, well most of us anyway, and it also takes a loan to do it. I would like to own a Brantly, R22, or CBI myself. I just wish I could afford one of them. Some of you guys remind me of my fiends arguing over what muscle car is best. To me, if it doesn't have maintenance issues or extremely expensive to operate I would like to own it. Speed is nice but very low on my list, useful load and safety is more important to me than speed. I also like the 280FX, 300c/cbi, and Hiller 12 series since they have seating for 3. Heck, if the wings swing I probably will find something I like about it! Don't care if its old or new. I think my favorite heli's are the UH1's, Cobra's, and S-58/H-34's. Lets all learn and fly safe!

 

 

 

Take care

 

[Grant B]

I too only have R22 time.

 

After a long break from flying - the attraction of trying, flying and going for the CFI in the 300 is very appealing.

 

(Not to mention the differences in dynamics the two models offer.)

 

Crazy as this may sound - I feel I have been robbed as such (on a personal level by myself) and I still haven't flown a real helicopter because I never aspired to use or even saw the T-Bar cyclic in any of my childhood books or posters. So to this point I've never flown (by myself) a machine with a proper cyclic. (Nearest I came was a museum ball-bearing helicopter simulator).

 

The Robbie was great - I'm now just wanting to fly other machines and hoping that the non t-bar cyclic will be a joy and somehow more natural or comfortable to use.

 

I've had the pleasure of going up in a few machines - just not hands on.

 

I'm not knocking the R22. Just looking forward to trying a standard cyclic and a model with more than 2 blades etc.

[Guest 13snoopy]

Last reply here:

The 300 is easier to learn to fly. Thus, it requires less skill.

Which requires more skill: Students who learn to juggle three balls or students who learn to juggle two balls?

Then, which student would be quicker to adapt to juggling 4 balls???????????

 

I am not saying the 300 turns out sloppy pilots, far from it. I'm just saying it takes more skill to fly the R22 than the 300.

AND IT DOES.

 

The 300 is easier to fly. AND IT IS.

 

FYI

I think the 300 is the better ship to train in (initially) because it's more stable.

There.

[flingwing206]

Fling will love this one but it's true:

Fling is tired. Just because Snoopy believes it to be true doesn't make it true.

If you can master the more difficult R22 you adapt quicker to the other, larger helis than if you train ina 300.

 

Sorry, but it seems the facts show that...

Where are the facts? All we see (and ever hear from you) is opinion. There is ZERO repeat ZERO documentation supporting your opinion.

As Fling even stated, the more docile machine is easier to learn on.

...and as Fling has stated, the difficulty of mastering the R22 does not mean you will be better at flying an EC120.

EXAMPLE:

My first boat was a 220 Sport Baja with a long, closed bow and a 454 mag engine. It has a long, pointed front end and it's pretty hard to learn how to back up this boat into a slip, particularly in windy conditions. But after you master it, parking a similar sized runabout is a piece of cake and parking a larger boat isn't very hard at all.

Apples and oranges. I have had quite a few years piloting boats off the Maine coast, from the original Sea-Doo up to a 37' Cigarette. I found the Cigarette easier to park than a 28' sloop, but driving the inboard sloop did nothing for my skills in the twin-stern drive Cigarette, and vice-versa.

In that sort of theory, a person who has just mastered their ABC's would be just as comfortable writing a novel as a person who'd just finished their 3rd year at Stanford majoring in literature.

Complete nonsequitor - you are implying that there is a greater level of KNOWLEDGE required to fly the R22, and therefore (for example) the R22 pilot will know more about airspace, navigation and aeromedicals. What you actually seem to believe is that someone who learns to write their ABC's using a quill pen will write a better novel than someone who learns using a ball-point pen, because the quill requires more skill to use.

- Seriously, I am not saying the R22 is that much more difficult to learn to fly, but it does require more skill. Period.

It is more difficult to learn to fly. It requires more skill development in a certain area (an extremely light, non-standard, sensitive cyclic), but this skill area is exclusive to the R22. In addition, it actually rewards a certain error, that of stick-stirring, as it is easier for a neophyte R22 pilot to keep the helicopter in one place by many rapid movements of the cyclic than it is by keeping the cyclic quiet. The teetering rotor absorbs the rapid movements. Put these folks into any fully-articulated helicopter and you'll be in for a rough hover at best until they learn to hover without the gratuitous movements. While the R22 doesn't require that style of hover, it tolerates it much more quietly than the 300CBi.

There really shouldn't be a debate here.

Ah, on this one point, we agree!

*****The poll asks which is the better trainer but what it should ask is what is the EASIER trainer.

Then we all would know that answer. There'd be no debate.*****

But in fact the poll specifies "best overall", and is seems that there is indeed no debate - at least not for 52% of us.

 

13Snoopy, I actually do enjoy these debates. I also know, because Frank Robinson states emphatically, that the R22 is not a trainer by design. The only reason it enjoys the success it does is pure economics - it costs less to buy and fly, and it is mechanically reliable. From an operator's standpoint, it makes $ense. Students like it because it drives down the cost of attaining a rating. But don't confuse popularity with training effectiveness. I guarantee if the R22 cost more than the 300CBi, it would be a distinctly unpopular trainer. In the R22 v 300CBi showdown, you get what you're willing to pay for.

[67november]

[joker]

FYI

I think the 300 is the better ship to train in (initially) because it's more stable.

There.

 

13Snoopy,

 

So what the hell was your point in your little rant back then? How do your posts add to the discussion around the title?

 

I think at times EGO makes some here argue that on one hand the 300 is easier

 

I think at times EGO makes some here argue that the R22 is harder to fly!!! So what if it is?

 

The title of this thread is perfectly appropriate. It seems that you and only you have tried to misalign the title of this thread to skill levels alone.

 

If you read back through the posts, you'll see that Fling's posts have agreed that the R22 is probably harder (initially). You'll see from my posts that I have not disputed this either. This is absolutely why I believe makes the R22 a less effective trainer (among other things)!

 

Even you have conceded that it is a better trainer.

I think the 300 is the better ship to train in (initially) because it's more stable.

 

Well, isn't that the topic of debate on this thread? Yes, the 300CB is a better trainer because it is more stable (students can advance earlier), more forgiving (so students can try more), more robust (safer)..etc..etc..do I need to go on.

 

If you think that 500 hours down the line you are going to be any more skillful and able to jump into any other aircraft, just because you did your first 50 hours in an R22, you are more naiive than I thought. Mate, it will make NO difference. That's because there is so much more to flying than the relatively simple muscle skills that you are making such a big deal about.

 

*****The poll asks which is the better trainer but what it should ask is what is the EASIER trainer.

Then we all would know that answer. There'd be no debate.*****

 

OK, it obviously pained you to admit that the 300CB was a better trainer! But, as that is the title of this thread, I'm glad we have that sorted out. The stats above speak for themselves!

 

Joker

[DFWFlyer]

Neat. I love it.

[Guest 13snoopy]

Fling is tired. Just because Snoopy believes it to be true doesn't make it true.

Where are the facts? All we see (and ever hear from you) is opinion. There is ZERO repeat ZERO documentation supporting your opinion....and as Fling has stated, the difficulty of mastering the R22 does not mean you will be better at flying an EC120. (The R22)It is more difficult to learn to fly.

So that I may reply to Fling:

"And just because Fling feels the way he does doesn't make his opine any more than an opine, either."

PS

I do thank you for agreeing that the R22 is harder to fly. (Therefor requiring more skill)

Done.

[flingwing206]

So that I may reply to Fling:

"And just because Fling feels the way he does doesn't make his opine any more than an opine, either."

In my case, it's not opinion, but actual fact backed up with a formal education and 22 years in developing and delivering large-scale training programs dealing with motor learning and skill acquisition in a complex environment. This included coaching elite athletes at a national level, and also included testing and evaluating equipment suitability for all levels of training.

PS

I do thank you for agreeing that the R22 is harder to fly.

yep

(Therefor requiring more skill)

but not any skills that will make any difference once you have mastered the basics in the R22.

Done.

...almost. You continue to confuse the particular motor skill and eye-hand coordination required to hover the R22 with the overall skill set required to pilot a helicopter. The additional finickyness of the R22 cyclic requires learning. That learning could only be further applied to similar aircraft, of which there are precious few - as in, none. That particular learning is not going to help you fly a steep approach, nor hit your spot in an auto. It won't help you talk to ATC, nor plan a cross-country. Put two 1,000-hour wonders at the controls of a Long Ranger and it won't matter at all whether they were sitting behind a cyclic or beside a T-handle.

 

Finally don't think that I believe that 300CBi pilots are somehow superior to R22 pilots. I trained and taught in both. Both get the job done. You can use a pipe wrench or a hammer to drive a nail, but one is most suitable to the task. If all you have is a pipe wrench, you can still learn to drive a good nail, but it won't make you superior at swinging a hammer.

 

However, I agree that the best R22 pilots will be the ones who trained in the R22.

Done (I hope)

[Guest 13snoopy]

Fling,

What sport did you coach?