nightsta1ker Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sounds like you're spoiled. What happens when your governor fails on your R22? You might appreciate what managing your throttle can teach you. Pilots have been doing it safely in the TH-55/269/300 series for... well... about 60 years! And the 300 still has one of the best overall safety records of any helicopter. I do agree with you about the warning horn. Though if you let your RPM decay enough to need it in the 300 you really have no business operating one. I think maybe you are mistaking the rotor inertia for the glide ratio... the 300 is affectionately known as the "Anvil" due to its autorotative properties. But the Rotor RPM is very manageable compared to a heavy 22. I do recommend that pilots that want to become professionals get their SFAR 73 requirements done so that they can teach. If you do your Private and Instrument in 300, you can get your commercial and CFI/II done and have more than enough hours to get endorsed to teach in the robbie. In fact, at that point, you would be comfortable teaching in both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilot#476398 Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sounds like you're spoiled. What happens when your governor fails on your R22? You might appreciate what managing your throttle can teach you. 300 pilots always use your same argument. However, I've flown without a governor, I've flown without a correlator. Manually adjusting the throttle is no big deal,...even for a spoiled Robbie Ranger! Yes, pilots have flown without low-rpm warning sytems or governors for decades. I learned and drove a car without anti-lock brakes or traction control, or power steering (or even an airbag or seat belts for that matter) for decades, however, there's no need to anymore! By the way, if you think that manually working the throttle in a 300 is such a great skill, try flying an R22 without the governor on a checkride! Unlike a 300 where you can make nice small movements with just your thumb and index finger, the R22's throttle has way too much friction, and it sticks like a mutherfu$%r! As a matter of fact, the throttle is the ONLY feature about the 300 I actually like! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both helicopters. As I stated in an earlier post, if I had my own school, I would operate both. I think they both have strengths and weaknesses that are complimentary to each other, and I recommend that aspiring pilots spend time in both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) I was using the word argument in the text of "discourse used to persuade". I know were not heatedly bickering over this. It's a civilized discussion being conducted by rational adults with slightly differing experiences and opinions. I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm just voicing my opinion. As are you. I would love to hear your version of how the RHC safety course came about. I always thought it was because Frank got tired of being sued so he decided to do everything in his power to make it as difficult as possible. Also. I was also under the impression that the R22 became, and remained popular as a trainer because of it's low operating cost and ease of use (the difference between starting a 22 and a 300 is significant...), not necessarily because it was the safest or best choice (opinion!). I’m not attempting to persuade either…. I’m attempting to educate…. As far as I know, the safety course came about to allow newly minted 150 hour CFI’s to qualify for the Robinson insurance coverage (Pathfinder?). This way a newbie CFI could qualify to be employable to fly a R22 where other insurance carriers wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot poll. And, this had nothing to do that is was a Robinson product. It had to do with the number of hours a pilot had (150). This IS the reason why a 150 hour pilot can be employable in any machine today (i.e. an industry changer)… As with the numerous law suits, Robinson handled them by his $100,000.00 take all or nutten settlement practice. While I don’t have the hard numbers, pre-SFAR, students progressed through certification pretty much just like any other machine. Some, like me, had difficulty with negative transfer going from a 300 to a R22. Therefore, it took slightly more hours than normal and thus the reason why ab-initio training should be conducted in the Robinson. Mind you, I’m no advocate for the R22 even though it may sound like it. When you have a co-worker killed in one, then you can have a reason for your standing. You can read about it here: http://www.ntsb.gov/...211X15708&key=1. Yes, out of necessity, todays entry-level pilots need time in both to be marketable. However, you’ll need to step-it-up when operating the R22 because that extra effort will get your students through the program on-time…. Save the laziness for the 300…… Edited May 22, 2012 by Spike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilot#476398 Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 I’m not attempting to persuade either…. I’m attempting to educate…. As far as I know, the safety course came about to allow newly minted 150 hour CFI’s to qualify for the Robinson insurance coverage (Pathfinder?). This way a newbie CFI could qualify to be employable to fly a R22 where other insurance carriers wouldn’t touch them with a ten foot poll. And, this had nothing to do that is was a Robinson product. It had to do with the number of hours a pilot had (150). This IS the reason why a 150 hour pilot can be employable in any machine today (i.e. an industry changer)… As with the numerous law suits, Robinson handled them by his $100,000.00 take all or nutten settlement practice. I don't quite understand. From what I've seen no pilot is employable today at 150hrs unless he's a 300 pilot. R22 pilots need 200hrs for employment? Has something changed? By the way Nightstalker, as much as I dislike the 300, if I had a school I would also have one (for instrument training), but I would still use the R22 for PPL, Com and CFI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodoz Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 I just want to make sure Im reading this right.....You had 80hrs when you took your Private, and the average for that school was 70-100hours? If your not making your appointment with your examiner by 50-55hrs TT helicopter, something is wrong. Yeah. See Spike's post. I didn't know better, and the school I went to, even though it was 141, lacked standardization in their training program. This might be immediately relevant to the OP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) I don't quite understand. From what I've seen no pilot is employable today at 150hrs unless he's a 300 pilot. R22 pilots need 200hrs for employment? Has something changed? Pre SFAR 73, pilots were technically employable in a R22 at 150 hours. Post SFAR not so. Today, you need the 200 hours… Pre-R22, most helicopter pilots weren’t employable at the entry level till the 500 to 1000 hour range. To qualify for a turbine gig, you needed well over 2000 hours and then, maybe……. Edited May 22, 2012 by Spike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 So what you're saying is, back then you either had to be rich, or ex mil to fly helicopters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary-mike Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 Yeah. See Spike's post. I didn't know better, and the school I went to, even though it was 141, lacked standardization in their training program. This might be immediately relevant to the OP. What was the OP again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 So what you're saying is, back then you either had to be rich, or ex mil to fly helicopters... That would be correct........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 What was the OP again? My posts always seem to lead to the thread spiraling out of control... What's up with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C of G Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 This seems as good a place as any to post this: However, the kids of today seem to have forgotten, there was a time when the R22 didn’t have a SFAR. Or why it was implemented in the first place (if you believe the feds explanation, then I have a bridge to sell you in Alabama…) Read this: http://www.rotorshop.com/sir9603.pdf And read this: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/1FC468D426FEA2CE86256A4D006110BF?OpenDocument Check the dates and occurrences. See if you don't see a similarity between the two. Coincidence that most main rotor divergences stopped at about the same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick9er Posted May 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Guess I'm going to be the odd duck here, 31 hrs in a R22 for a pvt add-on, just over 9K including examiner's fee. Did it in a little over a month, I don't believe 50 - 90+ hrs is necessary for a pvt rating, might have something to do with schools and many instructors with the "141" mentality that believe a prescribed # of hrs is req'd despite student ability and commitment. (no I didn't skate by, I flew to commercial pts standards) OR it could be a monetary issue favoring the school and/or the instructor, I passed on a school after meeting w' an instructor that deemed I would fly at least the national avg. of hrs (whatever that is) and attend his groundschool, as I saw it, his course syllabus was designed to waste my valueable time and hard earned $$. Thanks JBX, that is ACTUALLY HELPFUL AND RELEVANT information. And I totally get what youre saying. Would you mind messaging me or letting me know which school/s you ended up at? -Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spirit of '69 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 I now fly at lake superior helicopters in duluth, mn. Have my instrument rating in hand, and am 4 hrs away from my commercial checkride. Lake superior college has a degree program with a heli and fixed wing side. We fly 300c but are adding r44 for instrument as an option. V.a. Funding and private loans, part 141 in final phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary-mike Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 My posts always seem to lead to the thread spiraling out of control... What's up with that? Well, with this one there are obviously many factors involved. Your question seemed to be a simple one to begin with, however the argument comes up with which airframe takes more time to master and regulations. All good points and things to consider in my opinion, but did you ever get a clear average from the posts? I ran across a school that puts their private pilots through using the R-44 using the same arguments...I don't think that is the route I want to take. Not to knock the school, I sum-what see their point, I tried both and the R-44 is a bit more stable but, in the end I think it is more of a money maker for them. Maybe a better way to go with this post would be to answer the original question then add what airframe the poster was trained in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilot#476398 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 I ran across a school that puts their private pilots through using the R-44 using the same arguments...I don't think that is the route I want to take. Not to knock the school, I sum-what see their point, I tried both and the R-44 is a bit more stable but, in the end I think it is more of a money maker for them. Very true indeed! The R44 is an awesome aircraft, however, the only people who should train in them are owners, people who are not paying for their training themselves, and the independantly wealthy! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightsta1ker Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Well it was not my intention to reignite the R22 vs S300 debate. I fly both and I like both, for different reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 I ran across a school that puts their private pilots through using the R-44 using the same arguments... In my opinion, Any flight school requiring their students to do any training in a R44 is purely a rip off. Might as well do it in a 206…… Er, correction, if the school is requiring students to train in a R44, then I’m sure their going rate for a 206 would be in the 2000 bucks an hour range….. Rip…… With regards to thread content; this is an internet forum where posts aren’t owned by the postee. While it’s best for the thread to stay on track, it’s not a crime if it doesn’t. Sometimes, it’s just as good if the OP’s question is answered, but the thread spurs a discussion which provides additional topics/debates/etc, for whoever wants to participate…. Again IMO..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) This seems as good a place as any to post this: Read this: http://www.rotorshop.com/sir9603.pdf And read this: http://www.airweb.fa...BF?OpenDocument Check the dates and occurrences. See if you don't see a similarity between the two. Coincidence that most main rotor divergences stopped at about the same time? My dear Watson, I believe you’ve got it!!!!! Edited May 23, 2012 by Spike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C of G Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Spike, By the way, I figured you were clued in, so I wasn't directing that post at you, but rather picking up where you left off. I am surprised how many Robinson CFI's aren't clued in to this. I honestly believe, if they were, it wouldn't have that bad of a reputation. (I will say that I think getting rid of the T-Bar would do wonders for it's rep, too.) Hopefully a few on here will take the time to read the links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Spike, By the way, I figured you were clued in, so I wasn't directing that post at you, but rather picking up where you left off. I am surprised how many Robinson CFI's aren't clued in to this. I honestly believe, if they were, it wouldn't have that bad of a reputation. (I will say that I think getting rid of the T-Bar would do wonders for it's rep, too.) Hopefully a few on here will take the time to read the links. No worries and yes. Yes to being clued in that is….. Additionally, a company who manufactured an aircraft which was subsequently certified by the fed’s. You can make your own assumptions from there….. I thought this was going to take off when they initially produced it. http://www.helicopte...om/Unusual.html I thought wrong….. Edited May 23, 2012 by Spike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary-mike Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 In my opinion, Any flight school requiring their students to do any training in a R44 is purely a rip off. Might as well do it in a 206…… Er, correction, if the school is requiring students to train in a R44, then I’m sure their going rate for a 206 would be in the 2000 bucks an hour range….. Rip…… With regards to thread content; this is an internet forum where posts aren’t owned by the postee. While it’s best for the thread to stay on track, it’s not a crime if it doesn’t. Sometimes, it’s just as good if the OP’s question is answered, but the thread spurs a discussion which provides additional topics/debates/etc, for whoever wants to participate…. Again IMO..... Agree and Agree. My intent was to suggest a way to get/give pertinent data to the original question. The the other topics which were brought up were fun to read also. At least there is discussion, the forum has been pretty quiet for awhile. V/RGary-Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kstump77 Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 I spent 60 hrs and around $20K, took me 3 months (school full time & working 40's a week) in an Enstrom F28-C. But fuel prices have gone up quite a bit since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heligirl03 Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Another point that hasn't really been highlighted is what YEAR you paid to get your PPL, as things change. In 2007 I spent $13k for 60hrs in an R22 over 6mo, working full time with no real aviation background (to the OP, can't remember if you're an initial or an add-on but the basic knowledge can sometimes make a difference). The rates at my old school have gone up $25/hr since then (still wet with instructor) so I'd expect to spend around $15k on flight time alone now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick9er Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Spike youre lucky I never even pulled the handcuffs out for your being so dangerously close to grand thread post theft. Honestly though, its not even that. Its that rob v. 300 is older than time and its obvious the motives behind most/any school using them, exclusively. Not to spell it out but the long and short of it comes down to, yep, business. Longer learning curve = more money. Period. I honestly wouldnt mind the 22 for my entire training IF it didnt cost nearly as much or as much as the Schweizer. Since it does however, im not so sure where the Robinson advocates' arguments are founded. Definitely not on fact as we've all seen the statistics but rather, on scare tactics that you wont get a job after Schweizer training, and other idealogies and feelings, etc etc. Having said that, ideally i can find one with both; that's good business! ;')Nick Ps. Truly appreciate all the respone here from everyone.Pps. I speak in broad strokes and know for fact that not all 22 schools are evil (some quite the opposite)...just most of them! Ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.