Jump to content

R-22 or 300?


Recommended Posts

I'm looking at flight training schools right now. I noticed some offer training in the R-22 and others in the Schweizer 300. I was wondering if this could be a problem in job placement after completing training depending on which helo I trained in. Would I be able to instruct flight training in a R-22 if I trained in the 300 with no prior R-22 experience. Wondering how much of a difference there is between the two. Any input would be great THANKS. :)

Edited by ARCTICFOX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would i be able to instruct flight tranning in a R-22 if i trained in the 300 with no prior R-22 experience.
No.
Wondering how much of a difference there is between the two.
A lot - as in apples and oranges.
Any input would be great THANKS. :)
You're welcome! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not fly both?

Helicopter Adventures, Inc. in Fl.

 

Most people think that they need to fly the 22 because most schools use it. Here's my logic on the subject, since there are more 22 schools there are more 22 instructors out there, 300s are certainly becoming more popular for flight training so someone thinking about the future could conclude that there will be a higher demand for Schwiezer pilots since there are less of them, R22 pilots are a dime a dozen. Sure you dont need an SFAR73 sign off to instruct in them but who's going to hire someone to instruct on an airframe they've never used. The best bet is to fly both. Good luck.

Edited by HelliBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 13snoopy
I'm looking at flight training schools right now. I noticed some offer training in the R-22 and others in the Schweizer 300. I was wondering if this could be a problem in job placement after completing training depending on which helo I trained in. Would I be able to instruct flight training in a R-22 if I trained in the 300 with no prior R-22 experience. Wondering how much of a difference there is between the two. Any input would be great THANKS. :)

Most people say that the 300 is a bit more docile. Others say that the R22 is just plain harder to learn to fly because it's so "sensitive". Yet and still others will say that if you can learn to fly the R22 then you can learn to fly anything pretty quickly. And even others would say it takes a bit more "skill" to learn in the R22, since it is more sensitive control-wise.

I would agree to all the above.

And my pal FlingWing (who's more experienced than I) and I have debated forever about this.

I do know that full down autos are safer/easier to do in the 300.

Maybe you could say that the R22 is sort of like a sports car and the 300 is more like a jeep.

Both are very good helicopters. (I learned in the R22)

Good luck to you. Train in either and you'll be fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet and still others will say that if you can learn to fly the R22 then you can learn to fly anything pretty quickly.

 

Is this actually true, or just a sales gimmick? Just an observation...

 

I have taken students both ways ;) . From Robbie to 300CB and from 300CB to Robbie.

 

I couldn't see any significant difference in the time it took for students to become comfortable whichever way they were going.

 

Every aircraft has its own traits that have to be learnt. If its not hovering, then its RPM.

 

Joker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 13snoopy
Is this actually true, or just a sales gimmick? Just an observation...

 

I have taken students both ways ;) . From Robbie to 300CB and from 300CB to Robbie.

 

I couldn't see any significant difference in the time it took for students to become comfortable whichever way they were going.

 

Every aircraft has its own traits that have to be learnt. If its not hovering, then its RPM.

 

Joker

Now that's very interesting, Joker. Because I've had several CFI's tell me that the 300 pilots had a little trouble getting the hang of the R22 and that the R22 pilots had no trouble flying the 300 at all.

I think this refers to pilots that are licensed and not students switching back and forth.

FWIW

I have ZERO hours in the 300 but just to see for myself, I'm gonna try and get in a couple hours, so that I can really see how I do in them after having all my training and subsequent flying time in R22 and R44s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have ZERO hours in the 300 but just to see for myself, I'm gonna try and get in a couple hours, so that I can really see how I do in them after having all my training and subsequent flying time in R22 and R44s.

 

You could do that, but it wouldn't be a fair test of this question, because you have loads of hours of 'helicopter' time already. It's a paradox, because you can never get a satisfactory test by yourself!! It'd still be interesting for you to be able to compare the two so go for it. 13Snoopy, I'm not getting at you here. You were very clear in your posts not to make any claims yourself. Your post was helpful and accurate.

 

Because I've had several CFI's tell me that the 300 pilots had a little trouble getting the hang of the R22 and that the R22 pilots had no trouble flying the 300 at all.

If that's what you've heard, I can't dispute that, but read on...

 

First of all, to strictly resovle this question, it would be a much more valid test to go ask instructors who teach initial course for other types, whether they see a difference between pilots with R22 and pilots with 300CB experience. I'm sure they don't even record that information, such is the minimal difference.

 

It's almost made out that if you haven't got R22 experience, you'll not be able to transition to other helicopters without struggle! Of course, this is not true, as I've seen 300CB-only pilots go on to be excellent pilots of a full range of helicopters. Most of the US Army pilots weren't trained in R22s and they are very good pilots (or so they say themselves!) When I was on the S76 training course, I didn't see anything that said, "R22 pilots only have to do 12 hours, while everyone else has to do 20 hours!" Why? In fact, the only intance where R22 experience will get you time off a new type training course is for the...yes, you've guessed...the R44. Go figure!

 

However, with respect to students going from one to the other...

 

Considering hovering alone, then the 'if you can fly robbie you can fly anything' statement is probably true. Yes, EVERYONE will wobble on their first Robbie pickup where they might not in other aircraft. Even the 150000 hour pilot will. But how valid is this statement as advice to a newbie?

 

When considering the art of flying helicopters as a whole, there is way more than just hovering so that the average time to say the licenced pilot is 'competent' in the new aircraft amounts to about the same. When going from R22 to 300CB the time saved 'being good' at hovering (if any) is taken up having to learn how to control the throttle or coordinating your 'left-skid-low landings', or getting used to the rate of sink during autorotation, etc..etc... Like I said, every aircraft has its own traits that have to be learned.

 

For ab-initio training, I would say the 300CB is an easier aircraft (or R22 is harder, if that makes people feel better). But down the line after 50 hours or so, I don't think there as much weight to that 'fly anything' statement, as is often suggested...(usually by R22-only schools / pilots!)

 

The only way that statement is true is in a legal sense (for helicopters 12500lbs or less) thanks to SFAR73-1.

 

I could be all alone on this one though...it certainly seems that way! I have my flame suit on!

 

Joker

 

Putting all the above aside, my answer to Arctic Fox's question (regarding employability) is as the others have already put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say, Joker hit the nail on the head with his comparison of the 22 and 300.

 

As a student (grand total of 33 hours) having learned on the R22 here in Hong Kong I went back to the states last December for holiday. While I was there I flew about 4.5 hours in the 300 with HAI in Titusville. It was an interesting experience especially the clutch engagement procedure and autorotation rate of descent!

 

It definately took some time to adjust to having to use the throttle on the 300. I had the RPM warning going off quite often in the first couple of hours but after about 4 hours I was able to fly a complete circuit without the warning going off! Remember, I only have 33 hours total time so this was a big accomplishment for me :rolleyes: ! I realised you could listen to the RPM and get a feeling of when you needed to increase/decrease throttle.

 

One thing that was not an issue at all was going from the T-bar cyclic to a traditional cyclic. Didn't even cross my mind when I was flying. I did like the electric cyclic trim on the 300 though.

 

Anyhow, hope this is of some use.

 

By the way Joker, when are we grabbing that beer at the aviation club? B)

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 13snoopy
You could do that, but it wouldn't be a fair test of this question, because you have loads of hours of 'helicopter' time already. It's a paradox, because you can never get a satisfactory test by yourself!! It'd still be interesting for you to be able to compare the two so go for it. 13Snoopy, I'm not getting at you here. You were very clear in your posts not to make any claims yourself. Your post was helpful and accurate.

If that's what you've heard, I can't dispute that, but read on...

 

First of all, to strictly resovle this question, it would be a much more valid test to go ask instructors who teach initial course for other types, whether they see a difference between pilots with R22 and pilots with 300CB experience. I'm sure they don't even record that information, such is the minimal difference.

 

It's almost made out that if you haven't got R22 experience, you'll not be able to transition to other helicopters without struggle! Of course, this is not true, as I've seen 300CB-only pilots go on to be excellent pilots of a full range of helicopters. Most of the US Army pilots weren't trained in R22s and they are very good pilots (or so they say themselves!) When I was on the S76 training course, I didn't see anything that said, "R22 pilots only have to do 12 hours, while everyone else has to do 20 hours!" Why? In fact, the only intance where R22 experience will get you time off a new type training course is for the...yes, you've guessed...the R44. Go figure!

 

However, with respect to students going from one to the other...

 

Considering hovering alone, then the 'if you can fly robbie you can fly anything' statement is probably true. Yes, EVERYONE will wobble on their first Robbie pickup where they might not in other aircraft. Even the 150000 hour pilot will. But how valid is this statement as advice to a newbie?

 

When considering the art of flying helicopters as a whole, there is way more than just hovering so that the average time to say the licenced pilot is 'competent' in the new aircraft amounts to about the same. When going from R22 to 300CB the time saved 'being good' at hovering (if any) is taken up having to learn how to control the throttle or coordinating your 'left-skid-low landings', or getting used to the rate of sink during autorotation, etc..etc... Like I said, every aircraft has its own traits that have to be learned.

 

For ab-initio training, I would say the 300CB is an easier aircraft (or R22 is harder, if that makes people feel better). But down the line after 50 hours or so, I don't think there as much weight to that 'fly anything' statement, as is often suggested...(usually by R22-only schools / pilots!)

 

The only way that statement is true is in a legal sense (for helicopters 12500lbs or less) thanks to SFAR73-1.

 

I could be all alone on this one though...it certainly seems that way! I have my flame suit on!

 

Joker

 

Putting all the above aside, my answer to Arctic Fox's question (regarding employability) is as the others have already put.

I think most of the bru ha ha regarding the R22 has mainly to do with the fact that it's probably a little more difficult to hover in initially. It seems to be "twitchier", if that makes any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most of the bru ha ha regarding the R22 has mainly to do with the fact that it's probably a little more difficult to hover in initially. It seems to be "twitchier", if that makes any sense.

 

That's pretty much what I am saying! 'If you can fly the R22, you can fly anything'. That's a pretty rich statement to use as a marketing gimmick to new pilots, and a new pilot would be equally foolish to base his choice of school on this statement. Do as ArticFox is in this thread, and ask worry about 'employability' and that sort of stuff. ('Bru ha ha' - great phrase that I'd forgotten...I must use it more often!)

 

Choose R44, it's more like a real helicopter than both 22&300 together.

 

I was wondering about this too? Care to explain?

Just a point...

When I learnt to fly, I flew a helicopter which you had to be physically controlling 100% (hands, feet and eyes), and where an engine failure meant that you were going down. Where your control inputs translated directly through cables and rods to the rotor head. Where power limits and aerodynamic limits (LTE, SWP) were a concern everyday. Where the wind rushed around, and if it was hot outside, you were hot.

 

Now I fly a helicopter which has 3-cue autopilot and flies better with your hands and feet off the controls! Turning is smoother if you turn the heading bug (or couple directly to the GPS, then you don't even have to do that), rather than trying to do it yourself. If I do decide to take control, my inputs are pushed through a myriad of hydraulics and computers, before getting to the rotor head. Engine failure is not major panic, because we are CAT A, so we just fly on. Power is controlled by 2 engine control units. Also, being CAT A we have always have more than enough power to vertically climb at a rate greater than 1500 fpm on departure. SWP is actually difficult to acheive. We have aircon and heaters.

 

Which is the more 'real' helicopter now!? Don't ever underestimate the 'realness' of any aircraft. The ground is hard, whatever you're flying.

 

Joker

 

Klassmartin, I'm on holiday for 10 days, but we'll get together after that, for sure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was doing my flight training we had a lot of students that were just a too big for the R-22 and were flying 300C. Well the 300C was involved in a crash due to a clutch tension cable breaking and the students that were flying had to loose some weight to start flying the R-22. Well out of the 15 students, 12 had problems transitioning in the R-22 from the 300C. Now this is not just my observation, I was a student flying the R-22 at the time and also flying the 300C for my commercial ticket and the difference was told to my by the students who had this transition problem. To me the throttle was not a factor in the 300C. The school did get an R-44 Astro for the bigger students and I also flew that to finish up my commercial ticket. The controls were heavy and it took me about 1hr to get the hover in the R-44 down due to over controlling. So for me to say it is earsier to go from 22 to 300C is correct but it is not always the case. I fly with a 38,000hr pilot in a S-61 doing fires and logging and he told me he did get a chance to fly the R-22. He has about 12hrs in it. The first time he seen one he asked "What the Hell is that" but he got in it and flew it. Now mind you he had around 20-24,000hrs at the time but his first flight he started the helicopter and flew it off of a trailer and flew the pattern for a couple and then landed it back on the trailer and the guy who owned the helicopter never touched the controls at all. He did tell me it was really sensitive but that he had no problems. To him it was just another helicopter. So high time pilots can fly the 22 just as well as any other helicopter. Some just have the knack to be able to fly anything. I would recommend trying to fly in all types for training. R-22, R-44, 300C(CB/CBI) and the hiller if you have that option. Just my two cents.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've flown both and prefer the 300CB over the R22. But I've always preferred a sturdy ATV over a sports car anyday.

 

I think the 300CB was better just because of the power management experience you gain as well as having the stability of a fully-articulated rotor. However, for most people, as they progress in the helo world, will most likely end up in a 206 somewhere along the line; and having experience with semi-rigid rotors and mastbumping conditions are always a plus.

 

I never really cared about speed in a helo until I joined the Army, so that doesn't factor for me. The only thing I truly don't like about the R22 is the T-bar cyclic. That's truly what makes it a little trickier to fly, and I wish Robinson had reconsidered that design. But I've heard there's a cyclic kit out there now, so who knows, maybe there's progress out there somewhere:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARTICFOX - You will hear the "if you can fly an R22 you can fly anything" line continuously throughout your new career, mostly by folks who are also early in their new career and have learned in the R22. You'll also frequently hear words and phrases such as "twitchy", "sensitive", "harder to hover initially", "great helicopter when properly flown", "easier to transition to 300 from R22 than vice versa", etc. associated with the R22. All of which are true. Usually folks are trying to imply that if you learned in an R22, you make a better pilot. A more accurate statement is that if you learned to fly in an R22 you make a better R22/44 pilot (initially). It's also true that on average, a student takes longer to master hovering, autorotations, etc. in the R22 than in the 300.

 

And, the R22/H300 debate is irrelevant except to folks who've only flown the R22 or the H300. Neither is a predictor of the quality of a pilot in any type helicopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have about 1800 hours in the R22 and about 1500 in the 300. It has been my experience that people that are trained in the R22 will fly a 300 no trouble at all. It is not so true the other way round.

 

There is no questioning that the R22 is a more sensitive aircraft. It is very responsive and requires more finess.

 

However it is just a helicopter. The single most important factor in flying any helicopter for the first time is to do the initial pick up very, very slowly. Get her light on the skids and keep the nose straight with the pedals at all times. If you take your time you will pick any aircraft up first time no problems. One of the biggest problems I see with people is that they are in too much of a hurry to get in the air.

 

As for which aircraft is better. In my opinion, (and this is me and therefore not open to debate!) I prefer the 300. As for which one to train in? Try and do both. Do all your private in the R22 to satisfy SFAR 73 requirements and then get some time in the 300 while time building for the commercial. You have to make yourself marketable and the way that the training market is, by not being able to teach in the R22 you restrict yourself considerably.

 

I too have flown with very high time pilots in the R22 who have never flown it. Probably the most memorable one was a guy from the test pilot school in Mojave. He flew it perfectly from the start. He had thousands of hours in a huge variety of helicopters, but this was his first flight in a helicopter without the doors on. He was reduced from highly experienced test pilot to small child in a matter of minutes!

Once we landed he said that it was one of his most memorable flights. Maybe the R22 has a little more magic than we all believe.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i had an hour in a 22 back in '85 or so,,,all i remember was the stick (T-bar) felt like "IT" wasnt connected to the helicopter,,,,,anyone have any experience w/ that STC mod that puts the stick "where is should be" ? flew a huey a while back too,,,, hydraulics were soo "light"---reminded me of a 22

i like the ole 300 myself, <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 13snoopy
I have about 1800 hours in the R22 and about 1500 in the 300. It has been my experience that people that are trained in the R22 will fly a 300 no trouble at all. It is not so true the other way round.

 

There is no questioning that the R22 is a more sensitive aircraft. It is very responsive and requires more finess.

THAT'S THE WORD: FINESS!

I used it to describe the R22 to my girlfriend and forgot about it when I described the helicopter here.

Finess is the word that seems to differentiate the two aircraft, listening to pilots who have flown both alot.

I also have heard many CFI's express just what this fellow says re the transitioning from R22 to 300 and vice versa. The R22 seems to be just plain harder to fly initially, hence a pilot can go from 22 to 300 easier than from 300 to 22.

 

And as far as the: "if you can fly the R22 you can fly anything" statement, I don't take that as any sort of sales pitch, since it certainly isn't construed by me to be complimentary. It is basically saying that the R22 is simply more difficult to learn to fly. That surely wouldn't be anything a helicopter salesman would be pitching if he were trying to sell the R22. I do understand the way some folks look at it i.e. "if you master the R22 you can easily graduate to another ship" but I don't agree with that either.

It seems like maybe it's some macho thing that no helicopter pilot wants to admit that his heli is easier to fly than another.

For me if I could do it all over again it would be:

Give me the easiest one, PLEASE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point of debate I dont often hear students bring up when deciding which to fly is safety. Obviously, all things being equal, safety resides 18 inches in front of the panel. So when it comes down to it which would you rather have: ground resonance w/ the 300, or low g mast bumping and low rotor inertia with the 22. I fly both and I'd consider the 300 a better TRAINING helicopter for this alone. Lots of speed and comfy seats are little relief 1.1 seconds after an engine failure or an ill advised nose over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...