Airplane To Helicopters

[Pilot_Ryan]

Actually, it was.

I'm afraid that statement pretty well disqualifies you for the rest of your post. Frank Robinson himself went on record when the R-22 was released in 1979, explaining quite clearly that this was a 'personal helicopter.' It was never designed to handle more than a couple of hundred hours per year, and when the aircraft reaches its airframe overhaul limits, it was designed - originally - to be thrown away. Or, if the owner preferred, to could be stripped and overhauled in Robinson's plant (nowadays, there are authorized overhaul centers which can do it, too.) Frank envisioned the helicopter as a 10-year toy, which at 100-200 hours per year on a 2,000 hour life-limited airframe, was about right.

But, something happened. The training market siezed upon the R-22 as a cheap and reasonably reliable rotor trainer. Robinson changed his tune in a hurry, and he made a fortune. But no one ever really forgot the fact that the helicopter was not designed for training. It was obvious in the erector-set gear, the teetering "dual" cyclic, and low rotor inertia. Frankly it's obvious in other areas, too.

The R-22 is the most popular training helicopter in the world.

LOL... I always enjoy the "popularity makes it good" argument. They are popular because they are CHEAP! Period.

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.

When it comes to these two helicopters - the Schweizer 269/300 series and the Robinson R-22 series - in the training role, one is clearly better. And the accident rates support this fact. The R-22's safety record was so questionable that SFARs were developed for the damn thing. It is very difficult to perform an auto without under or overspeeding in the R-22; there are guys far, far better than me that can't do it consistently. They're either under or over, every other time. In the 300CB even a student pilot can perform nice autos. And the margin for error is much greater. The quality of construction is clear - the gearbox is a beefy affair. Everything from the pitch links to the gear to the mixer, to the dual controls up front, to the ease of pre-flight and maintenance, to the dampers (which are now elastomeric on the CB series, and much less of a mx concern), to the transmission, are simply stronger, beefier, and better. If you compare the two helicopters side by side, this is immediately obvious. In fact, many of the components in the 300 can be found in the Hughes 500. The T/R gearbox is virtually identical, as are the M/R and T/R blades, dampers, and controls. Nothing bolted onto an R-22 is likely to find its way into production turbine helicopters.

As a personal helicopter I'd choose the 300, but I could see either one being reasonably safe in that role - provided the pilot stays current and proficient. When it comes to training, there's no comparison.

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.

This is true. However, the 269/300C/CB/CBi aren't exactly chopped liver. It's flown by many flight schools. However, from a strictly job-related standpoint, not having Robbie time can limit your instructor opportunities.

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.

I see where you're trying to go with that, but I don't think I completely agree with your analogy. Flown under normal circumstances in a non-flight training role, and without considering the possibility of equipment failure, weather-related problems, etc., both aircraft will take the pilot where he wants to go, requiring about the same degree of proficiency. Throw in a systems-related emergency and you generally have a real handful of a problem in the R-22; less so in the 300. In a noseplower or tailwheel airplane, the 'systems emergency' is likely to be resolved to the level of the pilot's proficiency, regardless of where the third wheel is. In other words, when it counts, the TW vs. noseplower comparison doesn't make any significant difference. It's more of a personal preference type of comparison, and while I agree that some pilots may prefer one type over another, the question relates to these helicopters used in a training role.

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.

It may be possible to earn certificates and ratings spending less, overall, in the R-22. I don't consider this a significant factor when comparing the inherent safety in training in these two very different rotorcraft.

Best regards,

-Ryan

 

[avbug]

No, a statement by frank robinson a quarter of a century ago doesn't disqualify my statements...certainly the popularity of the aircraft is closely tied to cost...but the numbers sold and in use have increased rapidly and continue to do so, with great success. The accident rate, despite the rapidly growing numbers, continues to go down.

I don't believe for a minute that Frank didn't consider the training market when he developed the aircraft...he certainly advertised that he did intend it for that role...he made statements to the contrary in light of a number of accidents and threats to the aircraft certification...almost right off the bat (the prototype was destroyed).

In the 300CB even a student pilot can perform nice autos.

Easier doesn't mean a better training aircraft. I flew the first Katana airplane to enter the country...it's a popular training airplane, too, but when asked for my recommendation, I recommended against it. My assessment was that it was too forgiving and too easy for a student, and I thought it was fine as an airplane, but didn't challenge the student as a trainer.

Many disagree, and that's fine...but easier isn't better.

The aircraft was conceptualized and has been used from the outset as a training aircraft, regardless of any public statements to the contrary (consider the environment in which the statement was made).

I'm not going to get into a robbie vs. everything else debate...it's a pointless debate that should never take place. Find what you can, where you can, within your means, and fly it. If you don't like it, find something else.

Far from rocket science.

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

No, a statement by frank robinson a quarter of a century ago doesn't disqualify my statements...

Well, I'm glad you think so... I guess. I wrote that it wasn't designed for training, and you wrote, "Actually, it was." Well, it wasn't. That's a fact. And it's rather obvious when you compare it to a helicopter that was built for the task. Robinson may have changed his tune once he saw where his orders were coming from, but it's on record that he envisioned the R-22 as a "personal helicopter." And the design ain't changed that much in the last 25 years.

Easier doesn't mean a better training aircraft. I flew the first Katana airplane to enter the country...it's a popular training airplane, too, but when asked for my recommendation, I recommended against it. My assessment was that it was too forgiving and too easy for a student, and I thought it was fine as an airplane, but didn't challenge the student as a trainer.

In theory, that is true. But you're comparing the flight characteristics of two basically similar fixed-wing flight training aircraft, which are simple machines and equally safe, vs. the actual risk of damage, injury, or death flying two different helicopters. I'll take the margin when it comes to safety. And "easier" is rather subjective... get an R-22 guy into a 300CB and have him work the throttle for the first time when he's hovering, and he'll look like he's grabbed a snake with his left hand. You have to wonder what he'll do the first time he has a governor failure in a B206, later down the line in his career. There's a popular statement made by people who miss the point about the R-22; they say, "It's the hardest helicopter around to hover. You can fly that thing, you can fly anything." Give me a break. I've seen students learn to hover in the same amount of time in either ship. They'd solo at about the same time (SFAR notwithstanding) and earn their certificate or rating in about the same amount of time. Now put that student or low-time pilot in a real auto scenario in the R-22. I'll wager that nine times out of ten, the ship's going to be cracked up (and I'm not willing to guess on the injuries or fatalities; it's too grim a thought.) Put the same guy with the same quality of training in a 300CB and I'd give him excellent odds on survival, excellent odds on no injuries, and a 50% chance or better than the helicopter survives without a scratch.

The aircraft was conceptualized and has been used from the outset as a training aircraft, regardless of any public statements to the contrary (consider the environment in which the statement was made).

LOL... that sounds like imagineering to me, but I'd love to know your 'source' for that information. When you're standing next to a torn-apart R-22 talking with a mechanic, it becomes VERY clear this thing ain't built to fly day-in and day-out flight training operations. And the type of accidents the type has endured does reflect that... and I'm not talking about equipment failures, either.

I'm not going to get into a robbie vs. everything else debate...it's a pointless debate that should never take place. Find what you can, where you can, within your means, and fly it. If you don't like it, find something else.

Far from rocket science.

It is, indeed, an endless debate. Most of the participants stick on one side of the fence vs. the other based on their experience. Those who have flown both, tend to believe the 300 is a better training helicopter. Maybe not cheaper, but safer, yes. I am in that camp.

-Ryan

 

[NuGuy]

It is very difficult to perform an auto without under or overspeeding in the R-22; there are guys far, far better than me that can't do it consistently. They're either under or over, every other time.

This is a complete crock. I've got tons of time in Robbies, and every private student I sent nailed the green every time, straight in or 180, or he/she didn't go for the checkride. And, no, they didn't take extra time, either. Our commercial students could modulate the RPM to manage the glide path.

You and your boys seem to need more practice in -22s with someone who knows what they're doing.

The key to autos in the Robbie are anticipation and planning ahead. You can't wait to react to the RPM...you have to KNOW that when you start your turn you are going to get a rise in RPM and when you roll out it's going to sag.

The Robbies at both schools I worked at held up very, very well. I never had a single probem. The key was responsible, mature instructors that instilled good decision skills along with passing along good operating technique (good warm-ups/cool-downs, etc). Of course, these are nice skills to carry with you to any helicopter. But we had real instructors with real experience, and apparently that counts for something.

I also did a lot of instrument training. There is no way I would have been able to get anything done at the airport I flew out of with a 300...way too slow. The R-22 could keep a good 95 knots on final, at least keeping up with the light single traffic.

I'm not bashing the 300. Different ship entirely. But I've seen a lot of hacks bust on the R-22 who just didn't know what they were doing.

Nu

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

This is a complete crock. I've got tons of time in Robbies, and every private student I sent nailed the green every time, straight in or 180, or he/she didn't go for the checkride. And, no, they didn't take extra time, either. Our commercial students could modulate the RPM to manage the glide path.

You and your boys seem to need more practice in -22s with someone who knows what they're doing.

Bulllllllllllllll*. The "boys" are flying the Agusta 109 Power, Bell 222s, and MD500s. They don't need any more practice in the Robbie. Not now, not then.

One guy I'm thinking of could put the skids of the 22 in perfect alignment with the H on the helipad... from any type of auto you prefer, even 360s from directly above, any wind condition, every time. Maybe you're that good, but I doubt it. Hacks... ha. What a freakin' JOKE. Some of the best I've ever seen in any type of aircraft, anywhere, and I've done a fair amount stuff in small aircraft... akro, tailwheel instruction, helo instrument/comm/ATP, in a lot of different types of ships, with a lot of different pilots. Yeah, "NuGuy" on the internet doesn't jump out at me as someone qualified to insinuate someone is a hack.

I've never seen the needle remain fully in the green arc for the entire auto. Just doesn't happen. Robinson's techs even said, "it's okay to over or underspeed a bit." We all know that it happens, especially during training, but not a student of mine in the 300 ever solo'd without nailing that RPM consistently.

The key to autos in the Robbie are anticipation and planning ahead. You can't wait to react to the RPM...you have to KNOW that when you start your turn you are going to get a rise in RPM and when you roll out it's going to sag.

No duh? "Check the collective." Basic technique.

The Robbies at both schools I worked at held up very, very well. I never had a single probem. The key was responsible, mature instructors that instilled good decision skills along with passing along good operating technique (good warm-ups/cool-downs, etc). Of course, these are nice skills to carry with you to any helicopter. But we had real instructors with real experience, and apparently that counts for something.

In your own mind, apparently.

I also did a lot of instrument training. There is no way I would have been able to get anything done at the airport I flew out of with a 300...way too slow. The R-22 could keep a good 95 knots on final, at least keeping up with the light single traffic.

Hey, we agree on something... yeah, the 300CB is verrrrry slow. But we flew in some of the busiest airspace in the country and made it work.

I'm not bashing the 300. Different ship entirely. But I've seen a lot of hacks bust on the R-22 who just didn't know what they were doing.

And I've HEARD a lot of hacks on the internet who have no clue what they're talking about, but talk a great game. But I'm not insinuating anything either.

Have a great day!

 

[NuGuy]

Bulllllllllllllll*. The "boys" are flying the Agusta 109 Power, Bell 222s, and MD500s. They don't need any more practice in the Robbie. Not now, not then.

How nice. I had lots of guys with lots of time cycle through the R-22, mostly for the instrument rating who had the same kind of experience.

One thing about the R-22...you didn't just jump out of the 206 or the 109 and expect to nail the green the first time. Lots of guys came in and tried, couldn't do it, and then busted on the R-22 for being a POS. For Christ's sake, you can run a 206 up to 100%, roll the throttle off, pick it up, do a full pedal turn and set the thing back down.

The R-22 isn't like that and just takes a bit of anticipation.

It is not that big of a deal, with just a little practice. If you've never seen it stay in the green, then there are some pretty weak training standards out there these days.

And thats comming from someone who went to R-22 CFI school when Frankie himself was teaching it.


Nu

 

[avbug]

Ryan,

A poor carpenter blames his tools.

You blame the tools. You connect the dots.

A professional doesn't make pathetic excuses about the equipment...but you surely do. Why is that?

 

[Rick1128]

Ryan,

A poor carpenter blames his tools.

You blame the tools. You connect the dots.

A professional doesn't make pathetic excuses about the equipment...but you surely do. Why is that?

But if you look, you will notice that good craftsmen always have good tools.

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

But if you look, you will notice that good craftsmen always have good tools.

Unless they didn't bring them. Ever get stuck using one of those cheapy screwdrivers that strips out every screw it touches? It sucks!

 

[Pilot_Ryan]

Ryan,

A poor carpenter blames his tools.

You blame the tools. You connect the dots.

A professional doesn't make pathetic excuses about the equipment...but you surely do. Why is that?

That's RICH. :laugh: Fine and good that you chose to focus on nothing more than a side comment about some of the flying characteristics of the helicopter... which I absolutely stand by, by the way. Fact is that the R-22, while widely used for training, was not designed for that role. And in my view, it does not offer nearly the same level of safety IN THAT ROLE to the crew. SFARs, NTSB accident reports, the list goes on, but you can choose to ignore it if you like.