Airplane To Helicopters

[avbug]

I can think of very few things crazier than buying a helicopter rating.

That wouldn't be such an arrogant statement if you hadn't been given your training and paid to take it...paid by the same folks who are "buying" their helicopter rating.

In the real world, where most dwell, earning and paying for things, including education, training, etc, is standard fare.

For the helicopter student who begins instructing within a year or less of starting training, a career flying is off to a much faster start than a fixed wing student. A year of flight instructing at a busy school and then off to the gulf or Alaska and into turbine equipment...where the fixed wing student will see five or ten years or more before this happens. The helo student embarking on his or her first jobs will be making considerably more than the fixed wing student...and will be in the job market sooner.

Long term pay isn't as great...it's a drawback. But many don't fly for the paycheck...that is, many would be making much more doing almost anything other than flying. Many fly because they're driven to do so...and if one is driven to fly a helicopter and didn't have the benifit of allowing the taxpayer to fund his or her career...then paying out of pocket isn't bad judgement or unreasonable. It's taking a step to fulfill one's goals...and that's never a bad thing.

 

[scarface]

I do miss flying helos. I can remember getting ready to go to the TH 57 after flying the T28 and telling one of my friends that the Jet Ranger should be no sweat after flying the last of the red hot props. After one flight in the Ranger I told him that I didn't think I was going to make it. The only thing I found vaguely familiar was in cruise; the rest was vuja de. Keep in mind I was flying a turbine powered helo, my best friend was an Army IP at Fort Rucker and reminded me that he had to solo in a manual throttle Hughes TH 55 so I was quite fortunate not to have the throttle to worry about.
Thanks to a Navy IP who had the patience of Job I eventually caught on and was designated. I view learning to fly a helo as a difficult transition, but very rewarding.
One of these days I'll try my hand at hovering again; hopefully I won't be in an airplane when this happens.

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

I have had a long love affair with helicopters. I vacillated between contract/part time jobs in airplanes and helicopters before "settling in" to a pretty good part 91 jet gig. Some of the most challenging and rewarding flying I did was in helicopters - particularly instruction. I had the privilege to fly pier tours in a Jetranger and also my personal favorite, the Hughes 500. Briefly considered going the EMS route (have a buddy that's flying for Careflite in Dallas and is having a ball doing so, and he's never gone from home) but the low pay and the increased chance my kids might lose their dad to a risky profession steered me into siezed-wing aviation for good.

I don't really regret the decision, but I do miss flying helicopters on a regular basis; my job in Hawkers is to push buttons and make good decisions, along with the occasional crosswind squeaker. My job in the copter was to FLY.

-Ryan

 

[Lead Sled]

Question

I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm toying around with the idea of getting a commercial add-on rating. There are a couple (at least) helicopter schools around and the two big trainers seem to be the R-22 and the 300. Is one better than the other?

'Sled

 

[Sim Sweat]

The 22 has a governor ... the 300 doesn't. I've never flown a 300, but I've flown a 44 with the governor disabled. Those who fly 300's say you learn better if you're the 'governor'. I think I tend to agree.
But there are far more 22's out there than 300's, so it may be a matter of what's available in your area.

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm toying around with the idea of getting a commercial add-on rating. There are a couple (at least) helicopter schools around and the two big trainers seem to be the R-22 and the 300. Is one better than the other?

'Sled

The 300 is a better and safer training helicopter. At least, that's the popular view, and I happen to share it. The R22 wasn't built for the rigors of training; the 269/300 was. From my experience teaching in the 300C/CB/CBi, I gained a lot of confidence in the aircraft. It's not likely to let you down.

 

[nosehair]

The 300 - hands down! That's the old Army Trainer (TH-55) I learned in.
It is a solid, stable, (for a helicopter) machine that will teach you how to fly helicopters. and use a manual throttle. for real throttle jockys.

 

[PilotoHalcon]

I believe it was the H269. Almost like a 300.
Jerry

 

[avbug]

The R22 wasn't built for the rigors of training;

Actually, it was.

The R-22 is the most popular training helicopter in the world. Which is better...that's like asking a student pilot group w(h)eather a low wing piper is better than a high wing cessna. They're airplanes. These are helicopters. You gravitate to that with which you have expereince. Pilots with Bell 47 experience like the Bell (mostly). Pilots with TH-55/Schweitzer/Hiller experience have differenct preferences than one who has only R-22/44 time. One who has experience in several may have a basis for comparison and may prefer one over another...but that doesn't mean that one is necessarily better.

Unfortunately, if you don't train in the robbie and you want that first job...almost certainly flight instructing...you'll not qualify for SFAR 73 without 50 hours in type and 200 in helicopters...you need the robinson time to instruct in a robbie.

The robinson has low rotor inertia. Complacency and bad judgement can lead to dire circumstances faster, with less time or potential for recovery. For airplane drivers, a rough analogy to training in a robinson vs. an aircraft with more rotor inertia and more stability might be a nosewheel airplane vs. a tailwheel airplane. In cruise, both fly substantially the same, but for takeoff and landing, one exposes pilot erros and flaws more blatently than the other. One forces you to be a little more honest and attentive more of the time, is less tolerant to rough handling or careless operation, than the other. Likewise for the robbie vs. the 300 and other similiar types.

In the real world when a student funds his or her own training, cost is a big issue, and more so by a long shot in a helicopter than in a fixed wing aircraft. Robinsons cost less, which means you do a little more flying for the same buck...unless you're particularly well heeled, you probably need all the help you can get.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

I agree with Avbug. I have a considerable amount of time teaching in Robbies.

R-22s have all mechanical controls, and is the closest thing to a thought controlled aircraft as I have ever flown. VERY light control forces...we used to say if you could see your hand move, you moved it too much.

For some reason, this leads to "pilot hi-jinks". Problem is, the semi-rigid rotor system will bite if you fool around outside the envelope (like any aircraft). It most certainly hates low G and mast bumping.

Then there is the low rotor inertia that 'bug talked about. When you do 180 autos, you had to lead with the collective or you would redline the rotor in a heartbeat.

But the R-22 is quite quick, and made a great instrument trainer. You can keep pace with the 172s on the ILS.

If you plan on going on to instructing, I would think about the R-22. There is the SFAR to deal with, and you don't want to limit your opportunities. If you do your thing in the -22, you can always fly the 300, but not the other way around. Heck, I got tons of hours of dual given in the thing AND a type rating, but because of the SFAR, I'd have to jump through a tone of hoops to instruct in it.

Nu