Should I build a chopper while taking lessons?

[evictor]

Hi, I'm new here so little bit about myself first. I'm a computer programmer by trade, I race dirt bikes, and I love building things. OK that's enough.

 

I've recently been fantasizing about taking helicopter flight lessons -- something I always wanted to do as a kid but until now haven't had the money. After some quick Googling, I came upon RotorWay kits (~$100k) and did some research on that.

 

The RotorWay ones sound OK and it would be good to hear your opinions on that brand or others in general. What I'm really wondering though is do you think it's a good idea to get a kit and begin building while simultaneously taking lessons? Is it a good idea to build your own chopper at all, especially as a noob?

 

The idea of building this big spectacular flying machine in my garage makes me drool but I have no experience in aviation and no helicopter pilot friends to talk to (I know a few pilots but no one with chopper experience).

[Wally]

First off, I like 'choppers' even though they're strongly identified with anti-social biker gangs. I'd rather ride a classically configured Norton, but whatever floats yer boat.

 

To the point- you can't know too much about the mechanical part of the machine, it will give you real insight into what you're pre-flighting, flying, and at times- hanging your life on. If you have the personality to do it right (I don't) and the resources to do both, then I think building your own flying machine is a brilliant idea. The pilots I know who have done so built really beautiful aircraft.

[WolftalonID]

Have fun build, fly, learn, build, train, fly, train, build, train.....did I mention train?

 

So training, learning, asking questions, and network with some good A&P guys that might enjoy a cold beer and bbq at your hanger once in a while!

[Dreamin of a Commuter 2B]

join Rotaryforum.com several helicopter threads going right now, Stan Foster has a first Class Helicycle he he build and has been flying about 3 years now, got a few Mini 500 owners on the Forum, even one with a 120 h.p. Yamaha sled engine in it. and don't forget the Safari helicopter if you want Lycoming power. be warned there are a bunch of jerks on that Forum, but if you wade thru the crap you can find a lot of good Info. I did a restore tread when I rebuild my 1968 Helicom Commuter H-1B, ( sold) working on a new top secret project now..lol

 

Building if a lot of fun. and you can also pick up some nice machines if you know what to look for.

[cburg]

I would not train while you build…unless it’s in the same type aircraft you are building. For example, if you decided to build an RW, then go to the Factory for a *limited* amount of initial training, which might help your build project.

 

After you are finished, then go Mark, Orv, or the factory for your rating. Note you will end up forgetting much of you’ve learned in you intro, so keep it to a minimum…just for familiarization.

 

If you are training in a certified ship, you will have some negative transfer, and spend money to do some re-learning. While fun…it’s expensive.

 

Mark and Orv have Examiners who will do Checkrides in your RW. No real need to learn to fly anything else…much less remember R22 specs which you will never use again…hopefully.

 

The RW and Eurocopter turn clockwise, and all the other American trainers turn counter-clockwise. This is one example of the negative transfer when you transition. Best to stay with what you buy.

 

Also, R22 has a Correlater and a Governor…which will ruin you. RWs don’t have either. But you can buy an after-market, and rumor is the factory may supply one at some point.

[WolftalonID]

Wow cburg!

 

As a rated CFI, it never occured to me formal 141 training ruined my ability to fly other aircraft..... f**k I waisted alot of money.........

[pilot#476398]

Personally I'm saving up for an Eagle Helicycle as opposed to the Rotorway,...I guess I just prefer to fly alone?

 

From what I've read it takes a couple of years to build these things, so you may as well start now. Chances are you'll still have a way to go after you get your ppl?

 

By the way, as someone who was trained in an R22 who has since flown a chopper without a governor and correlator, I can tell you its no big deal!

[tradford]

Evictor, your situation is much like mine. I became enamored with the Mosquito and chose to get my required 10 hours of flight instruction in a commercial helo (R-22) before making a go/no-go decision. I started last August and when I realized how hard it was to fly a helicopter, I put everything on hold except for getting way more than the recommended 10 hours. That was 60 hours ago and I'm getting ready for my PPL check ride. I can't say that my interest in experimentals is gone, just that I now know how much formal training I needed to be safe while flying.

 

My suggestion - sign up and start formal training with a CFI and see where the sport takes you. See how you feel about it. I'm flying every weekend all over northeast Georgia by myself and having a great time. You can quit whenever you want to - but, like me, you may find yourself hooked on the premise of joining the ranks of licensed helicopter pilots.

[cburg]

Wow cburg!

 

As a rated CFI, it never occured to me formal 141 training ruined my ability to fly other aircraft..... f*ck I waisted alot of money.........

Me too, but I'm sympathetic to folks who are working with a very tight budget...and every penney must count.

 

I was lucky enough to have the money to train in 300s and R22/R44 and loved every minute...but not everybody can afford it (truth is neither could I...just barely).

 

Agreed...if you can...get all the high dollar training you can get. If not, there are strategies to reduce training costs.

 

My other point, is that building should be the priority. Flying is a distraction when you should spend every free minute building...it has to be an obsession...first building...then training.

 

The intro training is just enough to start the embers and confirm you want to go the distance. It's a long expensive walk...to build and train.

 

My other point was that re-learning and un-learning at $300-400 per hours adds up quickly and for the most part can be avoided. I never said it was a “waste”…merely that it was an avoidable cost…if that matters.

[cburg]

Wow cburg!

 

As a rated CFI, it never occured to me formal 141 training ruined my ability to fly other aircraft..... f*ck I waisted alot of money.........

So you’ve never had a student, transitioning pilot or Add-on pilot that experienced negative transfer? That’s surprising.

[cburg]

Personally I'm saving up for an Eagle Helicycle as opposed to the Rotorway,...I guess I just prefer to fly alone?

 

From what I've read it takes a couple of years to build these things, so you may as well start now. Chances are you'll still have a way to go after you get your ppl?

 

By the way, as someone who was trained in an R22 who has since flown a chopper without a governor and correlator, I can tell you its no big deal!

I started building my first helicopter in 1971 while still in high school in Phoenix (never finished it). Followed BJ’s progress on the Helicycle from the very beginning, and always wanted one and planned to buy one, but my wife insisted on a two-place (after a string of single-place aircraft). She’s like the season ticket holder who never goes to the games. Example, in 900 hours of flying my Twin Comanche she sat in it once the day I bought it.

 

If it wasn’t for that…I would have bought Helicycle or perhaps the turbine Mosquito.

[cburg]

By the way, as someone who was trained in an R22 who has since flown a chopper without a governor and correlator, I can tell you its no big deal!

Most readers here know all this, but it’s only fair that people who don’t…be made aware of the Governor story.

 

FAA conclusion: "The electronic governor reduces pilot workload, especially in critical times."

PB96-917003

NTSB/SIR-96/03

 

“In June 1995, the technical panel released its report, dated March 17, 1995, to the Safety

Board. The report summarizes the panel's actions and outlines recommendations for further design

changes, operating limitations, and future actions. Specifically, the panel recommended the

following: (1) that the R22 be reconfigured with an electronic engine rpm governor similar to that

previously installed in the R44;33 (2) that the low rpm warning threshold be increased to activate at

a higher rpm and the audio warning be added through the R22's intercom system; (3) that the

operating limitations be changed to increase the minimum power-on rpm limit to 97 percent; (4)

that the cyclic control be removed for all passengers in the left seat; and (5) that normal flight

operations with the governor switched off be prohibited. The technical panel further recommended

that the simulation and modeling program initiated by Georgia Tech be continued until Safety

Board concerns and any deficiencies discovered by simulation were satisfied.”

 

“A technical panel created by the FAA in response to earlier

Safety Board recommendations completed its research in March 1995

and recommended further research and design enhancements. Also,

the FAA and the RHC conducted flight testing of the R44 in July

1995 to evaluate its performance in the approved flight envelope,

and the FAA contracted with the Georgia Institute of Technology

(Georgia Tech) to perform computer simulation modeling of the R22

main rotor. The Georgia Tech research was concluded with a report

to the FAA in December 1995. In response to RHC initiatives and

technical panel recommendations, the FAA issued a notice of

proposed rulemaking in December 1995, which asked for comments on

a proposal to require modification to R22s to include installation

of a new rotor speed governor.”

 

“The FAA has conducted tests of the low rpm warning systems of the R22 and R44 and

has required changes to these systems. The Safety Board is also aware that a new R22 rotor

speed governor has been introduced by the RHC, and that the FAA plans to issue an AD to

mandate its use. The proposed AD would increase the low rotor warning rpm threshold and

mandate the use of the governor except under certain situations.”

 

“According to the RHC, all R22 helicopters produced after serial number 2510 have an

electronic fuel control governor14 as standard equipment, and a kit became available to install the

new governor in other models of the R22 about August 1995. The electronic governor reduces

pilot workload, especially in critical times. It also prevents underspeeds, thereby preventing rotor

stall under certain conditions, and it prevents overspeeds that can overstress the rotor system.”

[cburg]

For those unaware, FAA over the years has made several changes to standard language in Operational Limitations for Experimentals (EABs). Each one more stringent. Current language requires a Category Rating or Solo Endorsement to fly them…despite the FARs that allow an Experimental to be flown solo by a pilot Rated in another Category.

 

In essence, they’ve closed the loophole in the FAR. It makes sense.

 

However, older Experimentals with older Ops Limits can be flown without a Category Rating. Not saying you should…but you could. But…chances are you’d struggle through a ramp check…even worse if there was an accident. But technically you’d be legal.

[cburg]

The current guidance for issuance of operating limitations is given in FAA Order 8130.2G. In this order limitation 17 and 18 are relevant to this conversation.

 

Limitation 17 requires a category and class and type rating if required. The note after this limitation indicates this limitation is appropriate to issue to a turbojet/turbofan powered aircraft or aircraft over 12,500 lbs takeoff weight, or any other aircraft when deemed necessary.

 

Limitation 18 requires the PIC to have a pilot certificate or instructors endorsement, and meet the 61.31 endorsement requirements. The note after this limitation says this limitation is applicable to most amateur-built aircraft.

 

Here is a link to download 8130.2G, http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/8130.2g.pdf

 

Here are the applicable limitations and notes reprinted:

 

(17) The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold an appropriate category/class rating. If required, the pilot in command also must hold a type rating in accordance with 14 CFR part 61, or an LOA issued by an FAA Flight Standards Operations Inspector.

 

Note: This limitation applies to any turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, any aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds, and any other aircraft when deemed necessary. The Flight Standards

 

Service inspectors should see FAA Order 8700.1, General Aviation Inspector’s Handbook, for further guidance.

 

(18) The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold a pilot certificate or an authorized instructor’s logbook endorsement. The pilot in command also must meet the requirements of 14 CFR § 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j), as appropriate.

 

Note: This operating limitation applies to most amateur-built aircraft as a standard operating limitation (reference 14 CFR § 61.31(k)).

 

There are exceptions and FSDOs and DARs vary slightly.

[MLH]

The Helicycle does not have a correlator but it does have a governor. I guess half ruined is better than completely ruined.

[cburg]

To be clear I am advocating not training until he's done building, other than a little fun flying to get motivated. That was (and is) my answer to his question.

 

After it's built (he mentioned a Rotorway), I'd strictly train in the RW...nothing else. It would not be a good use of his money or time.

 

There would, without doubt, be negative transfer...ask any RW CFI who typically spend a lot of the customer's time and money due to negative transfer, particularly from R22 students. This extra cost is completely avoidable and serves no purpose to an owner of his own two-place helicopter.

 

A single-place is another story, and that's not in the context of my previous comments...except...still wait until its built. Then train in whatever is known to be the most like yours.

[evictor]

Thanks for all the info/advice everyone.

 

I think I'm going to go the route you're saying, cburg: Do some initial minimal training to make sure I'm into this and further spur the obsession, then build and however many years later train in the completed heli.

 

I'm not exactly sold on the RW. I did more searching on forums, etc. and saw that the Hummingbird is pretty well regarded having been based on a Sikorsky, etc.

 

I like the idea of having room for pax and supplies/gear and a long range, so I'd say what catches my eye most right now is the Hummingbird 300LS. Of course, I wouldn't want to be in over my head in terms of the build or handling the machine. At least in terms of motorcycles, you don't typically start off on a big bike so not sure how that analogy goes for helis.

 

Thoughts?

[cburg]

Thanks for all the info/advice everyone.

 

I think I'm going to go the route you're saying, cburg: Do some initial minimal training to make sure I'm into this and further spur the obsession, then build and however many years later train in the completed heli.

 

I'm not exactly sold on the RW. I did more searching on forums, etc. and saw that the Hummingbird is pretty well regarded having been based on a Sikorsky, etc.

 

I like the idea of having room for pax and supplies/gear and a long range, so I'd say what catches my eye most right now is the Hummingbird 300LS. Of course, I wouldn't want to be in over my head in terms of the build or handling the machine. At least in terms of motorcycles, you don't typically start off on a big bike so not sure how that analogy goes for helis.

 

Thoughts?

I've come to believe that it's less money in the end to buy the most capable aircraft you can afford to buy (same with training). Otherwise you'll end up with a revolving door of aircraft like I've done "looking for the perfect ride"...it's exhausting...and has hidden costs. Really hard on the spouse too...

 

Don't worry about learning to fly it...you'll be able to when that time comes.

 

I’d for sure get a demo flight in what you want, unless it’s a single of course.

 

Note there are a few twin engine Helis (with single engine capability) just coming onto the market. This appeals to me…perhaps this is something you like.

[cburg]

Then other school of thought is to buy the least expensive thing you can and...fly it like you stole it…then upgrade later.

 

I found you just end up being constantly dissatisfied with what you have.

[cburg]

Hey Evictor,

 

You owe it to yourself to get an Intro Lesson/Demo in an MTO and a Calidus. If you like side-by-side the Cavalon (all with the 914 turbo or 912 injected option). Will do 90% of a helicopter for half the cost and about two week build time with factory assist. I have no commercial interest…just know they are a blast to fly. Thousands flying all around the world…certified everywhere but the USA, but are EAB here.

 

My friends and neighbors who bought them can’t stop flying em’. Be prepared to fall in love. Plus they are MUCH easier to fly.

 

I sold mine and I’m currently building a single-place twin-engine when I’m not fooling around with my heli.

 

MTO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPjAp-Y08Eo

 

Sport Copter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQzI0v7WQHE

[cburg]

Another promising heli on the distant horizon?

 

http://www.youngcopter.com/

[aeroscout]

Good stuff cburg. I definitely want one.

[cburg]

Note that every landing (and all flight) is in autorotation.

 

The major difference between a heli auto and a gyro auto is the disk loading. It’s around half and therefore flies longer and better in power off autos.

 

Also they are significantly more stable in turbulence…simply nothing can compare in this regard.

 

A high speed pre-rotator allows very short take offs.

[Dreamin of a Commuter 2B]

If you really want to learn about Gyroplanes and Experimental helicopters come to Bensen days fly-in in Wauchula Florida ,there will be gyros and helicopters.

 

several dual place machines to get and intro flight lesson in.

 

I will be there doing Heli op's, this year we will have an area set up just for helicopters. already have an R-66 and R-44 and an R-22 confirmed. also heard a Helicycle and Mosquito will be there.

 

check out the link.

 

http://www.bensendays.us.com/

 

 

Tim aka Animal

 

sadly my helicopter won't be ready yet..

[12-7]

Cburg:

 

single-place twin-engine when I’m not fooling around with my heli.

 

 

What is the single-place twin-engine that you are building?

And may I ask what helicopter will it be replacing or supplementing?