R22 vs. 300C

[i_want_a_bell_222]

I have heard a lot of people that swear by training in an R22. I guess this is mainly to secure future employment because most flight schools use them. But it seems that most high altitude schools use the 300C, is this because the 300C performs better at higher altitudes? I am definitely considering training in the Denver area, so it seems as though I will end up training in a 300C. Can anyone tell me advantages/disadvantages of training in both types of aircraft.

 

Thanks

[Sparker]

This has been discussed a lot, try using the search.

[Falko]

If you want to be in a good position when it comes to get hired, you should get flight time in the R44(25hrs),R22(~50hrs) and Schweizer 300 (-25hrs).

 

But even as a high time pilot with plenty of flight time in the models mentioned above, you will still struggle to get a CFI/CFII job in these tough days.

 

Falko

[r22butters]

I had this problem too, when I was trying to find a mountain course taught in the R22. Nobody who flies in the mountains seems to like the R22, its perfectly capable, so I think it must be a weight issue?

 

As far as just comparing both aircraft goes, its safer to train/teach in the 300 because its more stable, but the R22 is a lot more fun to fly!

Edited February 9, 2010 by r22butters

[Goldy]

Three things,

 

Yes this has been talked to death in the past.

You havent lived until you've done some mountain flying in the R22. The 300 is tons more stable in turbulence.

Its a power issue at high DA. The 300 has a lot more power available than the R22B, or even BII.

 

I guess if you each weigh in at 120 pounds and you have half tanks of fuel, the R22 would do fine. Reality tends to be a little heavier than that.

 

Should you find yourself up in high DA of 5 or 6 K plus in an R22 watch your power and rotor RPM closely.

[R22139RJ]

I landed at a lake in California that was at 5,000+ feet with myself, 165lbs, my instructor 180lbs and about an hour of fuel and it was around 20 degrees Celsius. I don't remember the exact numbers but it was around 7,000 ft D.A. It was an approach to a rock (above the water line of course, later, the FAA gave me a call) and we used a shallow approach. No problems at all.

 

I don't mean to spark a debate or anything because this topic is about as dead as an add on rating. I have never flown the 300C but I'm sure each machine has its benefits. Good luck!

[apiaguy]

at those listed weights...180, 165, 1hr fuel.... a 300C could double that altitude...

14000 density

Edited February 10, 2010 by apiaguy

[R22139RJ]

...cool... im glad to know... that...

[Miloe]

They're both good aircraft and you can find good schools/instructors for both, sometimes all 4 at the same place.

It seems to be more of a weight issue, hey all of us can't be 150# soaking wet.

I would say diversify your experience a bit, fly them all if possible. You don't want to be the R22 only instructor that is weight limited to 140# students but being a 300 only instructor cuts out all the schools that use Robbies also.

[beckwith]

These threads are like a train wreck, I want to look away but I can't.

 

In the summer we regularly have DA's at the ramp of ~7k, so yeah we fly the 300 or the r44 if we were lower we would probably fly the r22.

[r22butters]

There is actually one last tid-bit I can offer to this exhausted debate, which is especially revelant in our current time, where CFi jobs are seemingly impossible to get.

 

Over the past four years I have found 12 jobs for around 500hr. pilots that do not involve, or require, a CFi. Of these 12 jobs, 10 were in the R44, the other 2 in the R22. I have yet to see a non-teaching job in a 300.

[adam32]

Neither...fly a Hiller or Bell 47 and never look back!!

[lelebebbel]

Neither...fly a Hiller or Bell 47 and never look back!!

... because if you do, you'll see all the parts you have to grease after the flight!

[adam32]

... because if you do, you'll see all the parts you have to grease after the flight!

 

Haha...and then the wipe grease off the tailboom...

[r22butters]

So, what museum are you guys flying those from?

[adam32]

So, what museum are you guys flying those from?

 

I own a Hiller and 47's and Hillers are actually pretty common out in the real world...I guarantee you won't see a Robbie out working daily 30-50yrs from now like you see Hillers and 47's...

[Miloe]

Speaking of 47s, anyone know of someone around TX that would do a bit of instruction/time building in a 47?

Never been in one and would like to see/feel what it's like.

[r22butters]

adam32 Posted Today, 12:04

I own a Hiller and 47's and Hillers are actually pretty common out in the real world...I guarantee you won't see a Robbie out working daily 30-50yrs from now like you see Hillers and 47's...

 

I wouldn't mind checking out a 47, however, I'd be willing to bet that the R44 will still be around, and working hard, 50yrs from now. Don't sell the R22 short either. The 300 you can sell as scrap.

[adam32]

I wouldn't mind checking out a 47, however, I'd be willing to bet that the R44 will still be around, and working hard, 50yrs from now. Don't sell the R22 short either. The 300 you can sell as scrap.

 

Haha...the 269/300 has been around since the late 1950's...do the math...