R22 vs 300C

On 1 Jun 2003 11:37:50 -0700, (HeliPilot) wrote:

I REALLY dislike the R22, its got some nasty design characteristics,
and more importantly, it develops some really bad habits in pilots,
ask any Bell instructor who are the most difficult pilots to
transition into the 206, you guessed it the guys who come from R22's,
for starters its nearly impossible to keep them from stirring the
cyclic like crazy, you just don't fly turbines like that. and then I
could go on and on but its useless, the statistics speak for
themselves.


Man, with as much respect as can possibly muster here, I couldn't
disagree more.

If you "stir the cyclic" in the R22, it'll be all over the place. You
barely even move the cyclic in the thing! If they're stirring the
stick in the JetRanger after flying the Robbie, they're just not used
to having to put in that much more cyclic input to get a result.

The reality is that being a proficient R22 pilot will make you better
at EVERYTHING ELSE, since the R22 is the most difficult to master.

I used to be a jittery mess flying the AS350 (as a non-rated
ride-along pilot). Then I went out and trained in the R22. Now I get
in the AS350, and I'm sitting there thinking, "This thing is a piece
of cake! What the heck was I doing before?" But that is the reason I
went with the R22. My CFI friends in town are right - if you can
master the R22, the Astar will be much more managable early on.

Hey, the 300 is a wonderful ship as well. I originally planned on
learning in the 300, but for economic reasons, I opted into the R22
instead. Man, am I glad. Every other helicopter I fly now feels a
million times easier since I mastered the R22. I'll confess that it
took a while before I "found" the R22's feel. (My good friend who
flies ENG called it, "Turning on the PILOT switch." One day, you just
get it, and everything is terrific from then on.) Now I'm so glad I
did it this way. Hey, makes sense, right? If you can master the
squirrelist of them, everything else will be a walk in the park.

So, where are the friends of the R22 in this discussion? Oh yeah, I
know. They're tired of defending a perfectly good aircraft that gets
loads of criticism from people who "will never fly in one."

Too bad. It's really a great little aircraft.

Here's the comparison I get from people who don't have a
pre-disposition AGAINST the Robbie.

The R22 is less expensive, the 300 is more expensive.

You will learn to hover faster in the 300 because it is more stable.

Some counter that, even though it takes longer to learn to hover the
R22, once you do, since it's cheaper, it ends up costing the same to
train because you're paying less for it hourly.

The 300 is definitely roomier, so go with the 300 if you're big or...
errr... bigger!

The R22 is more nimble and fast, so if you like performance, the R22
is more fun to play in.

My experience in So Cal is that the R22 is definitely LESS costly in
maintenance. Of course, operators here have a nice advantage of
sending their helicopter in to the factory LOCALLY to have the 2200
hour overhall done. Florida operators may have different viewpoints!
(What do they do overseas?)

Some 300's do not have a governor (to keep RPM's at the right level),
the R22 does. Countering viewpoint here would be that flying without
a governor will make you a more proficient pilot. ("Hey, who told the
Governor he could fly with me today?")

You may not be insured to fly some R22's unless you take the Factory
Safety Course. This is a cost to consider.

You have some extra training required under the SFAR's by law. This
is very little and should not factor into anything.

And as people have mentioned, the reactions times are much less for
corrective action in the R22. In some flight regimes, you have one
second to get the collective down. If this reality makes you
uncomfortable, you will want to opt for another aircraft.





Interesting conversation at the airport the other day about power
failures. One of our well-known pilot examiners was telling a CFI
friend of mine that apparently the number of engine failures in the
R22 (barring carb ice and no-fuel situations) is basically negligable.
Anybody else have any stats to back this? It came up when somebody
made the traditional, "Give me a turbine over a piston any day..."
comment. I guess if you stack up turbine power losses over pistons
(specifically the R22), the Robbie actually shines...

Anyway, just felt like putting in some more "balanced" info.

By the way, Bart is right. Sign up for Heli-Props. It's free, mailed
to your address of choice. A great little safety newsletter by Jim
Szymanski. Good stuff. Get it!


Hey, to-be students out there... Remember, flight schools offer
"demo flights" for a discounted price... I say, go do a demo flight
in an R22 at one school, and another demo flight in a 300 at a
different school! Try out each one and see what you like...


Hey, I checked out that NASA link but couldn't find any 300 vs. R22
comparison data... I'd actually like to see that myself... Anybody
got any links?

Either way, everybody have fun out there.

Alex
Helispot
http://www.helispot.com

Hey Alex from a fellow newzie who at age 40 got off my ass and started
training. I took demo rides in R22, 300C and Enstrom. If all I was interested
in was autorotative characteristics, I probably would have trained in the
Enstrom, but there are other issues to consider as a student, not the least of
which is cost. I too have heard that "if you can fly an R22 everything else
will seem easier" and now that its starting to become a lot easier for me, I
tend to believe that. I think every aircraft has its advantages and
disadvantages. One also has to consider that the first job will likely be
teaching, and there are certainly a lot of robbies out there in training. All
I can say with any authority is that if you're one of those people on this
newsgroup just thinking about learning to fly rotorcraft....DO IT in whatever
you choose to fly. I wish I had done it years ago (perhaps when I was young
enough to have the government pay for it!)
Also alex...keep up the good work on your website!
Dave

I also trained in the R22 (though I haven't flown in quite a long time) and
would describe it much like electricity... dangerous stuff, but extremely
useful if you're cautious and treat it with respect. :-)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:21:47 -0700, Alex Calder wrote:

And as people have mentioned, the reactions times are much less for
corrective action in the R22. In some flight regimes, you have one
second to get the collective down. If this reality makes you
uncomfortable, you will want to opt for another aircraft.

Interesting conversation at the airport the other day about power
failures. One of our well-known pilot examiners was telling a CFI
friend of mine that apparently the number of engine failures in the
R22 (barring carb ice and no-fuel situations) is basically negligible.
Anybody else have any stats to back this? It came up when somebody
made the traditional, "Give me a turbine over a piston any day..."
comment. I guess if you stack up turbine power losses over pistons
(specifically the R22), the Robbie actually shines...

One of my old instructors had to do a forced auto in an R22 fresh back from
the factory. The cause? A clutch belt broke. He said there was a loud
bang and he just went straight into the auto. No damage to the ship and
the factory shipped a new belt. I also caught a bad lower clutch bearing
on a pre-flight once [ The previous CFI - not mine - and his student had
said that the clutch light was flickering, but apparently that didn't bother
them. :-( Please see above comment about electricity. ]

My guess is that clutch problems are the biggest cause of loss of power in
the R22, after stupidity (fuel exhaustion) and negligence (carb ice).

--
J Dana Eckart, PhD, PP-RH, KA4EVL | People who think that life couldn't be
Virginia Bioinformatics Institute | better lack vision, and those who think
| it couldn't be worse lack imagination.

In article , Stu Fields
wrote:
Interesting report available from Helicopters only (www.helicoptersonly.com)
Titled: Special Investigation Report on the R-22 "Loss of Main Rotor Control
Accidents" Some very experienced pilots have died in crashes the caus of
which is not clear. The fatal accidents /100,000 flight hours are 2.5 times
greater in the R22 than the Huges 269 according to this report. The Report
contains quite a bit of detail about the investigation.

Too bad the web site is porrly laid out (no heirarchy of organization)
and I didn't see a link on any of the pages I viewed. But this is
probably the same report that was discussed here a few months ago.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=5037cb80ff066cdb

This report was dated pre-SFAR 73, which makes it mostly irrelevant for
today's pilots. Granted there are flight regimes in the R-22 (and any
other two bladed teeting hub helicopter) that can make you have a bad
day. Since the SFAR was put in place, the R-22 accident rate has become
very small. It has (or at least had as of a few years ago) accident
rates (both accidents and fatal accidents that were fractions of the
accident rates for all GA aircraft. That doesn't make it seem like a
death trap to me.

Steve

I just finished my commercial after going back to an R-22. I couldn't seam
to get used to the 300C in any reasonable amount of time so I went down to
West Palm Beach FL at a place called Ocean Helicopters and finished my
rating in 14 hr in a good old familiar R-22. I felt the 300C was easier to
auto in especially because the rotor speed seemed to stay in one place and
the steeper angle made hitting a spot easier. all the other maneuvers seemed
more difficult.

I still think the 300C is a better machine but it is certainly not easier to
fly.

Also Ocean is a good place I highly recommend it.

J. Roncallo

"Stu Fields" wrote in message
...
Interesting report available from Helicopters only
(www.helicoptersonly.com)
Titled: Special Investigation Report on the R-22 "Loss of Main Rotor
Control
Accidents" Some very experienced pilots have died in crashes the caus of
which is not clear. The fatal accidents /100,000 flight hours are 2.5
times
greater in the R22 than the Huges 269 according to this report. The
Report
contains quite a bit of detail about the investigation.

Stu Fields
Safari pilot

"Dr. J Dana Eckart" wrote in message
u...
I also trained in the R22 (though I haven't flown in quite a long time)
and
would describe it much like electricity... dangerous stuff, but
extremely
useful if you're cautious and treat it with respect. :-)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:21:47 -0700, Alex Calder wrote:

And as people have mentioned, the reactions times are much less for
corrective action in the R22. In some flight regimes, you have one
second to get the collective down. If this reality makes you
uncomfortable, you will want to opt for another aircraft.

Interesting conversation at the airport the other day about power
failures. One of our well-known pilot examiners was telling a CFI
friend of mine that apparently the number of engine failures in the
R22 (barring carb ice and no-fuel situations) is basically negligible.
Anybody else have any stats to back this? It came up when somebody
made the traditional, "Give me a turbine over a piston any day..."
comment. I guess if you stack up turbine power losses over pistons
(specifically the R22), the Robbie actually shines...

One of my old instructors had to do a forced auto in an R22 fresh back
from
the factory. The cause? A clutch belt broke. He said there was a loud
bang and he just went straight into the auto. No damage to the ship and
the factory shipped a new belt. I also caught a bad lower clutch
bearing
on a pre-flight once [ The previous CFI - not mine - and his student had
said that the clutch light was flickering, but apparently that didn't
bother
them. :-( Please see above comment about electricity. ]

My guess is that clutch problems are the biggest cause of loss of power
in
the R22, after stupidity (fuel exhaustion) and negligence (carb ice).

--
J Dana Eckart, PhD, PP-RH, KA4EVL | People who think that life
couldn't
be
Virginia Bioinformatics Institute | better lack vision, and those who
think
| it couldn't be worse lack
imagination.

I'd be interested in hearing more of your experience transitioning 22 -
300.
Wally