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

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!

 

Hahaha. Yeah, its funny how people seek out helicopters with less power, less blade inertia, less TR authority, etc. Robinson 22s have their place... but it isn't in flight training.

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.

 

I would disagree about the A model. The C or the 280's would be much better. At the higher DA's the A tends to run out of power and is weight limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree about the A model. The C or the 280's would be much better. At the higher DA's the A tends to run out of power and is weight limited.

 

Ya, we only ran the turbo models in Denver. The A won't due up in the thin air. You also need the dual oil coolers to keep the temps down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree about the A model. The C or the 280's would be much better. At the higher DA's the A tends to run out of power and is weight limited.

 

You know whats funny, the A model has the same power rating as the C or 280C, although its pretty obvious that the turbo gives it plenty of extra power. Enstrom will tell you that both are rated at 205hp.

 

We operate in SW Ohio, and A models are pretty good around here, even in the summer. We still use our C model for rides and anytime when you want to take 2 passengers. I think if you can deal with the A model on a high DA day, everything else is cake. Around here, if you can get an Enstrom into ETL it will climb. Don't know how that is at 5-7K feet though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you can deal with the A model on a high DA day, everything else is cake.

Just like if you can deal with R22's low inertia rotorsystem, everything else is a cake. Even that A model Enstrom :lol: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like if you can deal with R22's low inertia rotorsystem, everything else is a cake. Even that A model Enstrom :lol: .

 

As long as you have ninja-like reflexes. How many seconds do you have to lower collective and enter the auto after the engine quits in the R22... 1.5 or something? You usually don't get a second chance to make a successful auto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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'.

I may end up now having to eat my own words. I have the choice, now, of attending a school with mainly low-time instructors, close to where I am now, in a 300, or I may get the chance to move...drastically lowering my expenses, but near a school that uses Robinson vs. 300's.

 

Never say never... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I may end up now having to eat my own words. I have the choice, now, of attending a school with mainly low-time instructors, close to where I am now, in a 300, or I may get the chance to move...drastically lowering my expenses, but near a school that uses Robinson vs. 300's.

 

Never say never... :lol:

 

Statistically speaking it takes 15 to 20 more hours to get a private rating in a robbie than in a 300, so how is it cheaper to learn in a robbie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically speaking it takes 15 to 20 more hours to get a private rating in a robbie than in a 300, so how is it cheaper to learn in a robbie?

 

Hey there Fat N Lazy ! First let me say that we have missed you...been awhile since we compared the R22 to a Huey ! Enough said. Glad to see you back writing again.

 

Now, while I understand that the 300 is more stable (slow, but stable) and pretty intuitive to fly, where exactly are these statistics you speak of ? Honestly, I would hope that some DPE could show us his last 100 applicants and how many hours they had in what kind of ship. We could then get a large enough data pool to see if its really true or not.

 

Of course, getting your PPL 20 hours quicker doesnt really do that much for you in this business.

 

Goldy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I browsed the responses, and I'm surprised the R44 Raven 1 didn't get more attention in this thread. It doesn't cost much more than a new 300 CBi, has the same fuel burn rate as a CBi, and scoots out to the practice area much quicker, improving training efficiency. When it comes to autorotations, I prefer the R44 over the 300CBi.

 

During a press conference at Heli-Expo, Frank Robinson mentioned that the price of Pathfinder insurance would come down to equal that of an R22, provided that the R44 was used for flight training. I have not seen that in black and white yet, maybe someone who pays the bills could fill us in on that.

 

That being said, when I first flew the R44 I had 300 hours in helicopters, and I found the transition to be pretty easy coming from the R22. But, I have been training some lower time and primary students in the R44 lately, and they are having a difficult time with it, particularly hovering, pedal turns, pick-ups, and set-downs. So, it's hard for me to say if the R44 would be easier to LEARN than any other helicopter.

 

I'm interested to hear from anyone that did their primary training, nearly from day one, in the R44 and how they feel about it.

 

In the big picture of things, if you're trying to bypass instructing, it looks like your best bet would be to load up on R44 time and get a tour job to fill the gap to the 1000 hour mark.

 

If you're price shopping, comparing hourly costs of flying each helicopter, it's worthwhile to know how the BILLING hour meter works. The R22 is on oil pressure, I think most 300CB/CBi's are on engine oil or M/R gearbox pressure (someone chime in and tell me, because I don't know), but the R44 is usually billed based on the collective switch unless the operator added an oil pressure switch and another hour meter... That means you get more out of an hour of R44 flying, than the other two.

 

I do agree with Fling, and Joker, and all the other 300 fans out there... I'd sleep better at night if all the primary training was done in a 300CBi instead of the R22. But, a pilot who flies an R22/R44 for only the instrument and CFII courses doesn't have the necessary experience to train ANYBODY in a Robinson, in my opinion and experience. They may have 50 hours in Robbies, but it was mostly straight and level, standard rate, and 500 feet per minute... That leaves them far from qualified to teach maneuvers in a Robinson, regardless of the SFAR sticker in their logbook.

 

I'm sure the 280C, or F28, or Bell 47 may be great trainers, but when it comes time to get an instructing job, you'll regret not having an 300CBi, R22, or R44 experience (not to be confused with hours)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Okay, time for me to get my two cents in here as it looks like I am going to be finishing my training soon in a 300 (i've got my CFI & II to go).

 

I am the rare animal that was able to get all of my training done in the R-44 Raven II. The whole time I was training everyone kept telling me how jealous they were that I had the "Caddy", while they were stuck with the "Pinto".

My head swelled with this and I had never felt so fortunate to be a big guy (I never weighed less than 245 throughout my training - so Silver State was forced (due to a poorly written contract to allow me to train my time in the R44)), but as I closed in on my instrument rating I noticed how hard I struggled to get straight and level and even basic power management down. Compared with R22 guys, they were flying circles around me.

I had to really work at it to maintain heading, altitude and airspeed where for them (the 22 guys), they could hold it dead on. Now, you could blame this on me in general - maybe I'm just a crap pilot. Maybe I had a crap instructor that should have worked with me on these areas earlier on. . .

Or maybe after 100+ hours of flight time. the R-44's forgiving flying style didn't force me to learn these principles as good as my R-22 counterparts.

I personally believe it was a combination of the latter two. I think the unforgiving R-22 made these guys shine when flying the R-44, where I may have flown sloppier simply because the R-44 allowed me to make these minor errors, that would have been major one's in the R22.

I really didn't appreciate how much tougher that little R-22 must be to fly until I completed instrument. I finally got it figured out, but it took me an extra 15 flight hours. . .

I just wish I had a frame of reference for the Schweizer. I guess I'll revisit this topic when I do, but its my guess the 300 will be more like the R-44 than the R-22. Except that if my R-22 buddies were taking out the "Pinto" when I had the "Caddy", does that make the 300 like the "Gremlin"?

It'll be interesting flying a bird that flies slower than the pattern speed I'm used to maintaining, let alone, cruise speed.

Edited by Buckethats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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.

 

Hey! following this line of logic, there are kinds of thinge we can do to make the R-22 even more squirrely, would that turn out better pilots?

 

I know what you are saying man, I have hundreds of hours in the 22 and only a few in the 300, but I still think learning in the 300 would have made transitioning to a larger helicopter easier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I'm not sure if I can get in trouble for quoting websites but I'm sure someone will let me know...

 

Anyway, just wondering what everyone thinks about these three statements(I'm pretty sure statements 2&3 have already been debated):

 

1)Pilots who have a majority of their flight time in the R-22 find jobs much faster and easier.

 

2)The skill level obtained in the R-22 is higher than in any other helicopter.

 

3)It is a relatively easy transition from the Robinson R-22 into another model of helicopter, but it is hard to do it the other way around!

Edited by hooked4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I can get in trouble for quoting websites but I'm sure someone will let me know...

 

Anyway, just wondering what everyone thinks about these three statements(I'm pretty sure statements 2&3 have already been debated):

 

1)Pilots who have a majority of their flight time in the R-22 find jobs much faster and easier.

 

2)The skill level obtained in the R-22 is higher than in any other helicopter.

 

3)It is a relatively easy transition from the Robinson R-22 into another model of helicopter, but it is hard to do it the other way around!

 

1,2,3 = nope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I can get in trouble for quoting websites but I'm sure someone will let me know...

 

Anyway, just wondering what everyone thinks about these three statements(I'm pretty sure statements 2&3 have already been debated):

 

1)Pilots who have a majority of their flight time in the R-22 find jobs much faster and easier.

 

2)The skill level obtained in the R-22 is higher than in any other helicopter.

 

3)It is a relatively easy transition from the Robinson R-22 into another model of helicopter, but it is hard to do it the other way around!

 

I'm with Adam32... NOPE to all 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with wise guy. I trained on the Bell 47, and have almost 100 hours on the Bell 206 and 35 hours on the H269. This fall I got to 55 hours in the R22 and found the transition was not a problem at all.

 

Any helicopter can be over controlled and while the R22 has immediate feedback (which some may interpret as twitchy) the less is more principle (steady cyclic hand) works on all the types I've flown. Compared to the 47 and the 300 the R22 governor really reduces work load, just wish it was fuel injected. I don't like the R22 position for carb heat, it's kinda awkward especially when flying left seat. The huge carb heat lever on the 47 panel is way easier to deal with especially on final into confined areas where you don't want to let go the collective or look down to make sure your'e not touching mixture by mistake! I thought the R22 has the best tail rotor authority of them all. The 300 feels damper (steadier, easier?) than the R22, but my guess is if someone learned on the R22 they would take more adjustment getting used to throttle control than vice versa with the sensitive cyclic response on the R22.

 

In my opinion it's good to fly as many types as you can. It would make sense to do your PPL on the 300 and then most of the rest on the R22 for future CFI work reasons. I only have an hour on the R44 but squeeze at least 5 hours in if you can.

 

I still think the 47 is the best trainer (except for long x-country) but recognize why the 22 and 300 fill the training niche due to cost, availability, etc... The R44 would make a great trainer but that won't be common for a looong time because even if Frank stops production on the 22 there are just so many out there... It was pretty shrewd of him to create the cheapest/lowest operating cost helicopter. Even if it wasn't designed as a trainer, the market has spoken.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a balanced and sane POV, Whistlerpilot. I never could really understand all the venom spit over what to fly.

 

Happy and safe flying to all...

 

HVG.

 

Thats true, is really doesn't matter what you fly.

 

I would recommend flying EVERYTHING you can get your hands on. I would rather see someone with 200hrs 269/300, 200hrs Hiller/47, 200hrs Enstrom, and 200hrs R44, then a guy with 800hrs in the same make and model...thats why I bought a Hiller :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would only add that in calm conditions, the 22, 44, 300, 47 all fly just great. However, get me into 30 knot winds and I would much rather be in a 300 or 47..huge difference. The 47 pretty much doesnt move vertically in gusty 30 knots....in the 22 I feel like a beach ball.

 

Goldy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started out in a 280c. Logged in about 30 hrs in it then moved into the 300c. You wanna talk about auto reaction time! I thought the guys in the hanger were joking with their brick as an auto glide slope indicator. Can honestly say the 300 is easier to fly, less lag time in the controls, but the 280c flew great. Not sure if all of them have such touchy throttles, that really kicked my butt. I think that not having a governor or coralater(sp?) was a great teaching tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...
I am a new helicopter pilot. I have not a clue what helicopter is the better trainer. I did most of my training in R22, and about 8 hours in R44. I love the power and speed of the R44. I fly the R22 better. This discussion just made me sign up for a lesson in the h300.

 

Rick- you will enjoy the 300. very solid feel, you feel like you are flying a much bigger ship...like a 44, but without hydraulics you pick up the cyclic feel instantly. I struggled with the transition from the 22 to the 44, just wasnt used to the boosted hydraulics/no feedback in the controls. I instantly flew the 300 with no problem coming straight out of the 22. Make your landings soft, you sit a lot higher so the bird touches down before you think it should. No governor means the horn will remind you a few times if you get behind the throttle.

 

Fun stuff.

 

Goldy

  • Like 1
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...