Jump to content

Which is the best helicopter trainer


Best Training Helicopter  

253 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the best overall helicopter trainer

    • Enstrom 280
      14
    • Robinson R22
      71
    • Schweizer 300 series
      124
    • Bell 47
      10
    • Hiller 12E
      0
    • Brantly B-2B
      1
    • Rotorway Exec
      2
    • Robinson R-44
      20
    • Other
      12
  2. 2. What is its BEST characteristic as a trainer?

    • Safety
      98
    • Easy to fly and learn in
      61
    • Can transition to other helicopters easier
      42
    • Cheap to operate
      17
    • Crashworthy
      7
    • Fun to fly
      7
    • Simple systems
      3
    • Complex systems
      0
    • Difficult to fly
      13
    • Other
      6
  3. 3. As a student what is your PRIMARY consideration for a good training helicopter?

    • Cost
      65
    • Safety
      106
    • Easy to fly
      22
    • Difficult to fly
      5
    • Crashworthy
      9
    • Image (Does it look cool)
      0
    • Other
      8
    • [Not a student pilot]
      39
  4. 4. As a flight instructor what is your PRIMARY consideration for a good training helicopter?

    • Cost
      7
    • Safety
      128
    • Easy to fly
      25
    • Difficult to fly
      0
    • Crashworthy
      10
    • Image (Does it look cool)
      2
    • Other
      2
    • [Not a flight instructor]
      80


Recommended Posts

I have had the pleasure of learning in both the R22 (first 50 hours) and the 300. I had thought that I was going to prefer the R22 to the 300, but at this time I like both of them equaly. The 300 is easier to auto (RPM management) for sure. I didn't have a problem learning to hover in the R22 and think that it was helpful learning about the SFAR 73 stuff. Also the fact that I flew the R22 first, which is said to be way more touchy may have been the right way to go as I have not felt that much difference in the 300. Having the govenor in the R22 sure seems like a luxury now that I am flying the 300 with the constant throttle management, but it does become second nature after a while. The cyclic trim system on the 300 is very nice and is constantly used and is much better than the right cyclic trim which is really nothing more than a rubber band. In summary I think both ships have their plusses and minuses and that they are both fine trainers. I also thought less of the T-bar on the R22 initially but now I could care less. It is still a cyclic and works just lke a cyclic. My CFI had a good saying when I was ready to pick up for the first time in the 300 with much anticipation. I was pestering him with all kind of questions about the differences between the two ships and what to expect by way of differences. He said matter of factly, "Jim, you all ready know how to fly a helicopter. Now pick this one up and lets go flying so that you can feel the differences for yourself and we can talk about them while we are in the air". After the first 2 or 3 minutes it was as if I was still flying the R22, albeit with the govenor off. This whole reply may have been way different if I had had the first 50 hours in the 300 and then switched to the "touchy" R22, but i will never know. I love flying helicopters and would be glad to fly either.

 

Not trying to fuel any fire, just telling my experience,

JimT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone,

I'm not a pilot, I've not even started training yet. It's a long term goal, and I'm currently trying to work out all the finances and logistics and stuff like everyone has to. I decided I wanted to give it a go after having a trial flight in a 206 a few years ago.

I have been reading this forum for quite a while now and have learned a lot, but I felt I had to post an answer to 13snoopy as juggling is something I do know about!

 

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???????????

 

Juggling three balls is harder than two (in one hand), but odd as it sounds a student who can juggle two balls can do four balls more easily, as the pattern is the same (two in each hand).

 

I suppose the analogy can still be used for training helicopters, but in favour of the 300 and the 'normal' cyclic and stability being an easier transition to other aircraft rather than the T bar and instability of the R22.

I'm just guessing, I'll leave it up to you guys to pass judgement on that!

 

From a raw beginner point of view, and somewhat un-initiated in all of this, the fact that there are extra rules for the R22 and so much said about the Robinson Safety course (I've only ever heard mention of a Bell factory course as far as other manufacturers go) and Robinson Helicopters issuing addendums and safety notices, makes me think that there must be something dangerous, different or wrong about R22s and I'm almost nervous to fly in one!

 

Thanks for all the debate and posts, they are great to read and from which to learn a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the analogy can still be used for training helicopters, but in favour of the 300 and the 'normal' cyclic and stability being an easier transition to other aircraft rather than the T bar and instability of the R22.

I'm just guessing, I'll leave it up to you guys to pass judgement on that!

 

I've never found the Robbie cyclic to be "unstable". Who told you that?

 

RW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

There.

 

I didn't mean a Robbie cyclic was unstable, but that the 300 is a more stable aircraft as a whole (determined from the previous posts) I guess saying "less stable" would have been a better term.

 

Apologies for the confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

It is really eerie to read Flings posts. I used to work with him when he was instructing. Back to the

topic... the 300 is a better trainer because it is more forgiving. We are talking about training.

Anything that help keeps the instructor/ student from ending up in a twisted pile of aluminum is what

you want. Training in something that is more difficult to fly would have neglegable benefits in the

long run. Would I have hovered the 206 more smoothly if I had more Robinson time? I would say

most likely, but who cares? I work with a guy who watched 4 of his students crash on their first solo

over 11 years ( I know that sounds bad, but he trained over 2000 pilots) at Fort Rucker in 300s.

They all walked away. What if the army did all their primary training in R-22s? It would be a

disaster and Frank Robinson would never disagree with that.

Edited by helonorth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

For what its worth, I choose the 300 to train in simply because (to me) it looked more substantial as a helicopter than the R22 did. At the time (3 years ago) the cost between the two was quite a bit, with the 300 being more expensive, but I still choose the 300 over the 22.

 

I read quite a bit about the two after I started flying the 300, but all in all, I am happy to have that I choose the 300. I am now working towards my IFR, and my flight school (Civic Helicopters KCRQ) has 300s and R44s for IFR training. I decided to give the 44 a try and I am glad that I did since I enjoyed myself a great deal.

 

It was a different experience than the 300, but after an hour (and never having flown the 22 or 44) I was able to hover to the private specs. My instructor (Chin) did a fantastic job of noting the main flying differences between the two before we started, so I was expecting what happened. All in all, a fine ship to fly, but int he end - I still prefer the 300.

 

I know the 44 will carry far more far faster, but for someone not in the passenger hauling or speed business, I like to 300 better. Will I spend the 50 hours required to solo the 44..? I am not sure. My entire PPL only took me 38 hours from start to finish since I am a commercial rated fixed wing guy already and 50 hours seems like a long time at $385/hr + instructor. At the same time, since I am going for my instrument and commercial adon, it might be the perfect time to get to know the Raven II.

 

Just my $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the Enstrom 280FX compare to the 300 and Robbies in price and performance? Would it be a better choice for someplace with a high DA such as Denver?

Here's the numbers ont he 280 and R44 for Denver: Also 300 at bottom.

 

Enstrom 280FX

 

Technical Specs:

 

Brake Horsepower: 225 Hp Turbocharged

5 Min. Takeoff Horsepower: No Limit up to 12,000 ft

Maximum Continuous Horsepower: 225 Hp Turbocharged

Max Manifold Pressure: 36.5"

Maximum Gross Weight: 2350 lbs

Empty Weight: 1659 lbs

Maximum Weight per seat: No CG Limits

Minimum pilot weight: No CG Limits

Rotor blade Diameter: 32 feet

Rotor blade Chord: 9.5 inches

Tail Rotor Diameter: 4.67 feet

Tail Rotor Chord: 4.4 inches

Engine: Lycoming HIO-360-E1AE (4 cylinders)

Vne Speed: 117 knots

Maximum Density Altitude: 16,000 MSL

Maximum Fuel Capacity Main Tank: 40.0 gallons

 

Fuel Burn: 8 to 13.5 GPH

Hover Ceiling – IGE 8800 feet

Maximum Rate of Descent: 1500fpm

Maximum Rate of Climb: 1125+ fpm

Rotor System: Fully-Articulated 3 Blade

 

Seats: 3

 

Robinson R44 Raven II

 

Technical Specs:

Brake Horsepower: 260

5 Min. Takeoff Horsepower: 225

Maximum Continuous Horsepower: 205

Maximum Gross Weight: 2400lbs

Empty Weight: 1466lbs

Maximum Weight per seat: 300lbs

Minimum pilot weight: 150lbs

Rotor blade Diameter: 33feet

Rotor blade Chord: 10inches

Tail Rotor Diameter: 58inches

Tail Rotor Chord: 5.1inches

Engine: Lycoming 0-540-F1B5 (6 cylinders)

Standard Fuel (30.6 gal): 184 lb

Auxiliary Fuel (18.3 gal): 110 lb

Passengers and Baggage w/standard fuel: 810 lb

Passengers and Baggage w/ auxiliary fuel: 700 lb

 

Performances

Cruise Speed: up to 135 mph (117 kts)

Maximum Range (no reserve): approx 400 miles (348 nm)

Hover Ceiling IGE @ 2500 lb: 8,950 feet

Hover Ceiling OGE @ 2300 lb: 7,500 feet

Hover Ceiling OGE @ 2500 lb: 4,500 feet

Rate-of-Climb @ 2500 lb & 6000 feet: over 1,000 fpm

Maximum Operating Altitude: 14,000 feet

 

Rental costs in Denver: Enstrom $325, R44 $450, 300 $295

 

Schweizer 300C

 

Technical Specs:

 

Performance

VNE(Kias) SeaLevel 95 knots 176 km/hr

Cruise Speed 86 knots 159 km/hr

Maximum Endurance 3.8 hrs 3.8 hrs

Hover Ceiling IGE 10800 ft 3292 m

Hover Ceiling OGE 8600 ft 2621 m

 

Dimensions

Height (overall) 8.72 ft 2.65 m

Length (overall) 30.83 ft 9.40 m

Fuselage length 22.19 ft 6.76 m

Landing gear tread width 6.54 ft 1.99 m

 

Weight

Empty weight 1100 lbs 499 kg

Gross weight 2050 lbs 930 kg

Useful load 950 lbs 431 kg

 

Power Plant

Textron Lycoming H10-360 D1A

Maximum Take Off 190 shp 141 kw

Maximum Continuous 190 shp 141 kw

 

Rotor System

Main rotor diameter 26.83 ft 8.18 m

Main rotor disk area 565 sq ft 52.49 sq m

Main rotor RPM 471

Tail rotor diameter 4.25 ft 1.30 m

 

Fuel

Standard capacity 32 gal 192 lbs 87 kg

 

Seating Capacity

Training 2

Utility 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for not including the R22 in your Denver request....I know all of you R22 guys won't like this, but your nuts to fly the R22 in Denver in the summer....

 

 

John,

 

The Raven II mgw is 2500, and empty is 1506 with oil. ;) Also, the raven I and II have a 130knot Vne and are great flying ships, I don't think an enstrom, nor schwiezer compare. The way I see it they are in completely different classes than the big robbie. I would think the B47 would be more comperable to a 44, but then again I've never flown one.

 

goromadgo: if I were you I'd stick with John's advice and stay away from flying 22's at denver DAs. I'm not anti robinson, but the cost savings isn't worth their lack of performance at that altitude, trying to learn, much less teach someone to hover in one of those things during a 95º denver summer is the suck. Now, I do have some time in a 280C and while it is no R44, I was amazed at how much power it has up to the where the skinny needle on the alt meets the 1. I think the ride is a little less smooth in the 280 over the robbies, it has a little less power to weight than the 44 with two on board(but blows the 22 out of the water) both have awesome TR authority. The 280 is slightly heavier on the controls and feels more like what I'd imagine am a-star to feel like, while the 44 equates to a 206. I'm not going to talk any trash about the denver schools but If it is Enstroms you want Rocky Mountain Rotorcraft, S300 Rotors of the Rockies or Elite, Robinson Premier Helicopters if they are still around, and be sure you do your research on all of them.

 

Clifs notes: Enstrom=Chevy4X4, powerful, kinda bulky, but 100% there when you need it, oh and lots of grease.

R44=Subaru outback, has good power, very responsive, flies great, fast, kinda dinky.

R22= hahaha, oh seriously, umm VW gti, sporty and fun, don't bring your friends, oh yeah- leave it at sea level

S300= Mazda Miata, not a completly bad ass sports car, but handles well and gets the job done.

 

all of this is merely opinion and if i had my choice I think I'd like to have done all my training in a 407, sorry for the novel ya'll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finnrotor,

 

You aren't serious are you?!!!

 

If an instructor finds it easier to teach, then the quality of his teaching should be better. As teaching and learning almost go hand in hand, then surely the quality of learning is better too.

 

Another point...I would rather start a student off on an aircraft that is easy to fly (rather than one that is 'difficult to fly') as that is in keeping with all the education philosophy training I have had over the years! It's called 'progression'....

 

"Students, you go and design a helicopter trainer...afterall your opinion is what matters, not the instructors!" God help us, if it ever comes to this! Surely its the instructors who can see past the 'financial' haze that a student has! What you're saying is that cost should come before safety?!

 

Afterall, its the instructor who is in that machine day-in, day-out, each day is exposure to risk.

 

Gosh, I almost took your post seriously, until I saw that you'd signed off with..."Long Live Robbie!" Some sort of crussade for you, is it!?

 

Joker

 

P.S. For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the R22. With over 400hrs instructing in both. (Finn, how many do you have in both types?) Sure, the R22 is great for those long 2-hour cross-country flight; and hell yeah, it fits in a garage (car port).

 

However, the question was, "Which is the best helicopter trainer?" There is no doubt about it that the H269 series is a superior training ship than the R22. That does not belittle the R22 instructors and students, nor does it 'big-up' Schweizer instructors and students, its simply a fact. Most people who disagree either haven't had any time (or minimal time) in a H269, or have financial interests with R22s.

 

Training aid selection when instructing is crucial. That's what I learnt during my education degree. Whether it be diving, climbing, canoeing, or just teaching sports in general, there are certain philosophies which should be applied when selecting the training tools and aids. For example, when teaching tennis or baseball to small kids, you might use a bigger than normal ball that bounces slower. This is to make it easier for the child. When teaching a beginner climbing or canoeing, you don't get them climbing a E4 (5.11b US ) grade climb or a Grade 4 river on their first go do you? When teaching someone to ride a bike, you don't give them a unicycle to start off with, do you? In gymnastics, if I had had an accident with a child when doing handstands, and I couldn't show that I had taught them 'headstands' before that, do you think the courts would be on my side? Ask yourself why not?

 

BECAUSE fundimental education philosophy is for progression from the easy to the more difficult. Not only is this proven to be a more efficient way of learning, but it also ensures first of all safety, and secondly success, which in itsself promotes learning. Unfortunately, not enough flight instructors take seriously their 'FOI' study, and so this sort of thing gets lost in the aviation world!

 

So when someone asks me which is the better helicopter trainer, in my mind there is no doubt that the R22 is not it!

 

P.P.P.S As someone said earlier, this is all really a mute point. I learnt to ride my bike without stabilizers. My friend had stabilizers. I took a few more bumps and scratches than him in the beginning, but 25 years on and who do you think is the better bike rider? Of course, there is no conceivable difference between us. Similarly, I learnt to drive in a Nissan Micra, my friend learnt on his dad's tractor. Again, today we both can get from A to B as well as the other. What I'm saying is that it really dosen't matter that much which you start in, to someone who is going to be looking at this as a career. What matters most is the quality of the instruction.

 

 

P.P.P.P.S Our friend, A.N. Oppenheim would be turning in his grave if he saw this questionnaire!!!

Edited by Crusty Old Dude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :lol: :D (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)

From where I've stood, and it's not all helicopters, "squirrely" = "more inherently dangerous". You can count me out as an instructor. Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'd say the best trainer is an A model Enstrom (F-28A, or 280). I know everyone says it about R22s but if you can fly a naturally aspirated Enstrom you can truly fly anything. You have a manual throttle to manipulate, which most helicopter pilots are clueless about. It makes you more in tune with the aircraft and it power demands. Not having the power of the turbo, as with the later model Enstroms, makes you appreciate the power you do have and makes you work the helicopter to its full potential.

 

Oh, and anyone that has done an auto in an Enstrom knows what piston helicopter they would rather be in when the engine quits. Full downs are a not event. Plenty of TR authority, even in with the older style tail rotor. Built like a tank. The safest piston helicopter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the best trainer is an A model Enstrom (F-28A, or 280). I know everyone says it about R22s but if you can fly a naturally aspirated Enstrom you can truly fly anything. You have a manual throttle to manipulate, which most helicopter pilots are clueless about. It makes you more in tune with the aircraft and it power demands. Not having the power of the turbo, as with the later model Enstroms, makes you appreciate the power you do have and makes you work the helicopter to its full potential.

 

Oh, and anyone that has done an auto in an Enstrom knows what piston helicopter they would rather be in when the engine quits. Full downs are a not event. Plenty of TR authority, even in with the older style tail rotor. Built like a tank. The safest piston helicopter.

 

Oh are you going to hear it from the mighty 22 crowd!

 

But guess what....you're right!

 

So bring it on 22cc weed wacker drivers!

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...
×
×
  • Create New...