Helicopter Questions

[Mike]

In my mind they are. The AStar is new technology and the Bell, although proven, hasn't changed much since before the Vietnam war. I'd take an AS350 over any 206 or 407 model any day!

[Frank N. O.]

I still think the Bell 222/230 looks so awesome, take a look at this danish one (that company also has a 222U with skids that came from the NYPD and I got a picture of it hover-taxiing at Odense Airport still in the blue and yellow colours, that must've been one heck of a long ferry-flight). http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0688178/M/

How about a Gazelle, that's not that new but they say it's very fast and appearently it has a system called SAS that according to the sales article in Pilot magazine could make a average pilot look good. Speaking of the Gazelle, the Eurocopter 120 Colibri actually looks a bit like the Gazelle when looking at it from several angles, just a big chunkier and wider proportion-wise.

Frank

[Plthijnx]

I was out at the school yesterday and noticed a new FlightSim simulator........with software for a Schweizer 300!! Mike, the owner of the school, is in Dallas today looking at one to add at the flight school!! I toyed with the sim for a few minutes and flew it and although i spun around a few times I didn't crash! that would be sooooo cool if Mike gets it because then I can go after my sling-wing! ssssuuuuuuhhhhhhhweeeeet!

[Roland]

@ Frank:

Slow down, Frank, slow down. Many questions here.

The good ol’ Bell 206 compares very well to the “new” helicopters. We will see this type for another decade or two. Simple, reliable, cheap helicopter. The Colibri is set to replace the 206 but that will take some time, if it ever happens.

The Bell 222/230 is not so lucky. The 230 is made out of the 222 by generally replacing its engines, LTS 101 to Allison 250 C-40. And then Bell gave the 230 four rotor blades an named it 430. In this class of helicopters competition is hard: Agusta 109, AS 365, Sikorsky S76 and you play with six to twelve passengers, twin engined helicopters, IFR, complex systems like retractable landing gear, dual electrics and so on.

The Gazelle is an old helo too. And no wonder the Colibri looks like the Gazelle, they shared the same drawing board. SAS (stabilisation augmentation system) you will find from this class of helos up. Nice to have.

The European helicopters are different to the US helicopters. It is a different approach to the same problems. Finally the cost of purchase and operation will decide the type of helicopter for the segment it should work in. You will not use a K-Max for offshore transport of people and a S76 for wood logging. And of corse new technology wants to be applied to new products, too

[Frank N. O.]

I read an article in an english aviation magazine that had a test of the R44 Raven II and the pilot said that with his experience in both aircraft then he would take a Raven II over a 25 year old JetRanger for the same money without giving it an extra thought. The controls, performance, reliability, warranty etc. was overwhelming. He described it like the JetRanger was an old VW Golf-I vs a new Golf-V almost but I guess that could be a matter of oppinion and circumstance. If you know a JetRanger and can keep them serviced and you are content with how they fly and what they can do then there's nothing wrong with keeping it even though newer aircraft designs appear (at least that's how I feel about cars and I'm sure it can go for aircraft too, especially since aircraft have a much much longer lifespan than cars both for the specific vehicle and the design).

I think the 222 looks pretty good, especially the tri-gear version but the 430 has a new big ugly engine section and it ruins the elegance of the helicopter and if the performance and quality isn't good vs the competition then there's nothing to do. Another interesting feature about the 222 besides the wheel-boxes is the, uhm, what's-it's-name, the handle you contorl the rotor-pitch with, I used to know it but just now I forgot it. The handle is transverse and seems to move much morehorizontally instead of up and down and longitudal like on just about all other helicopters, I wonder if there's any benefit of that system for the pilot.

If the AS350 is in class with the Jet/LongRanger and the Bell 222/230/430 is in class with the Augusta A109 and Sikorsky S76 then where does the Gazelle and Colibri fit in? I'm not sure about that since I haven't had much exposure to this field of aviation yet.

Thank you for the great replies, it's a true pleasure 
Frank

[Roland]

The simple question first:
The Colibri, Jet Ranger, Gazelle, Hughes 500, and so on art he class of simple, single engine, single systems helicopters. In military speak they are “light observing helicopters”. They are easy to operate and maintain. VW Käfer even.

On the 222/230/430 Family they use a unique collective lever (that’s the word you did know but forgot I suppose). This kind of lever is to be pulled towards the pilot to raise the helicopter into the air instead of pulling the leaver up, as it is on the other types of helos. This idea of a collective lever you can see in the Bell 214 ST. An impressive helicopter btw.

A Jet Ranger is a Jet Ranger is a Jet Ranger. I’ve met people which preferred the R 44 to the Bell 206. One of them was called Frank. Frank Robinson.

Naw, ok ok, just kidding. Every helo has its niche to perform and that is good so.

[Frank N. O.]

Thanks for the information once again, I love learning about aircraft and such

I found some pictures of the 222-series on Airliners.net and I can see the collective (yes that was the word thanks) is even more vertically then I saw from other pictures and of course the Airwolf show. I coudln't find a picture of a ST cockpit but the helicopter sounds and looks interesting though from what I found about it.

I also agree that vehicles in the same class are often not quite as comparable as some people think but maybe that's also because I'm an enthusiast both for aircraft and car although the later is more faded than ever before in my life. One special thing about the Robinsons is the strange control-stick which remind me a bit of the control for a old danish KZIII which have a Y-shaped stick in between the two seats.
Funny joke about Frank Robinson 

Frank

[wbarnhill]

So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks

[Frank N. O.]

I think most of the conversation here is a bit of insiderish and will seem exagerated to some others. They are certified and sell well so complete deathtraps they can't be, but what the talk was about was which one was best for training and therefore some exagerated comments might come. Furthermore people are different both of the body and the mind so naturally when vehicles are designed by dfifferent people as well then there are going to be different preferences. I've sadly never even been close to a helicopter but I'm not sure the type of cyclic the Robinson uses will be that good for me to use, but that doesn't mean anyone won't be able to use it well.

Best wishes for your training, hope you'll have a great time

Frank

[Roland]

So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks

Frank is right. There is a lot insiderish knowing-better in here. Nothing wrong with it learning to fly helicopter on an R 22. The teacher, the flight instructor, is the important link here. Every young student should go fully confident into its training. The “knowing” of thing all around here in the forum with all the “experts” should not frighten newcomers at all.

The R22 has its certifications for training and that is ok so. Have fun, welcome to the helicopter world. 

[Mike]

Amen brother!!
Roland is right. I did all my training up to commercial in a Robinson and I turned out allright...
I guess the previous discussion was about preferance not safety.
The Robinson will make you a good pilot. I have found back when I was giving transition training in the Jet Ranger, that people coming from the Robinson had a much easier time learning how to fly the Ranger than the ones coming from the Schweizer.
The Robby has a bad reputation mainly because any idiot with a littlebit of money and lot-of-bit self confidence can go out and buy one and get oneself in trouble because it's fairly cheap to operate.
Like Roland said, the CFI and his attitude and behavior, is the key here....

[SkyKing]

  I have no doubt that the Robinson is a safe heli when operated in the correct way. 
 

You mean as a static display . . ?

[SkyKing]

Say SkyKing, are you a rotor pilot?

I've been flying a loooooooong time.  The only classes that I have no time in are powered LTA and glider (at least, they weren't gliders when I TOOK OFF . . .).

The ground resonance comments are what I remember from a class many years ago, in which we dissected a GR experiment on high-speed film.  You could see the Interpid Birdman doing everything but the right thing (intentionally) to prove that his company's chopper could survive a severe and long-duration case of GR. 

I have to say, I have never heard anybody explain ground resonance the way you do in all my years of flying. I have to admit though that I never went deep into the physics and aerodynamics about the whole thing. However I gotta tell you, I have gotten into resonance a couple of times for all kinds of different reasons and it happened each time on the landing and everytime I pulled the ship back into the air and was fine. I have to mention there though that it was only the onset of resonance (the-skid-to-skid bounce) every time and I never let it go far. A couple of times it happened in a Schweizer after touching down when the student doesn't fall through with putting the collective down all the way and as soon as you do it goes away, so I agree with you there.
Your explanation also doesn't explain how the blades would get knocked together and shift the center of rotation away from the mast...

I don't remember anything about the center of rotation, but if I said it, I probably meant center of lift.

Also, how come you're preferring to be a guest instead of signing up. You're definetly invited !!

Not a matter of preference, I don't get here all that often and wasn't signed up at that point.

[SkyKing]

Actually, the really cool thing about NOTAR systems is that you eliminate the major failure points in the antitorque system.  No belts, shafts, clutches, swash controls or 4-foot rotating curb feelers.  The antitorque drive is part of the main transmission and all that goes back into the tail boom is air and the director control cables.

The sluggish feel is eliminated with the addition of a "booster fan" in the tail.  If the booster fails, you still have control, but with the booster turning you have a very high pressure into the director cone, right where you want it.

Have you ever flown a NOTAR?
If yes, please elaborate! I have only a few hours in them and I never see them anymore, especially not longlining and on fires....

Yes, I've got some time in the Hughes -- er, MD -- NOTAR (aka "Fat Sperm").  An organization that I was part of was considering the NOTARs to replace our 500s.

We did a low-altitude, high-speed full auto-rotation during orientation, and firmly planted the end of the boom into a pile of sand . . .then took off again after a look to make sure that nothing back there had been deformed.  Don't try this at home, or with anything that's got sharp spinning stuff back there.

[SkyKing]

So why all the hating on R-22s?  I keep reading people saying they're squirrelly, and that they're essentially death traps with no margin for forgiveness, yada yada yada... I also hear that the DA-20 will shatter on an emergency landing and you can kiss your butt goodbye, but I've not seen any evidence to back it up.  With the R-22s, I also see SFAR 73 and guess people also use that in their vilification of the bird... but why?

I'm asking all of this because I plan on starting my training and the place where I'll be training (MG Aviation, KGMU South Ramp, Greenville, SC) uses R-22s.  Thanks

The early Rs were unforgiving and had some design or mfg challenges. 

I was on the scene not long after a fatal in which an R pilot was shuttling his helo home from the plant/training center in SoCal and the thing came apart over Santa Ana.  It seemed that there were still little bits of composite drifting down from the sky when the company president was in front of the TV cameras, pronouncing that the pilot had "tried to go too far too soon" -- he had about 25 hours in that particular helo, I don't remember how many in rotors, 70 or 80 IIRC, and a lot of fixed-wing time.

Whether he was or was not competent in the type, the reflexive "It-can't-be-our-product" response significantly cut my trust in RR, and eliminated any chance that I would be transitioning into them.

They have a decent reputation these days, but there are a lot of really good helo designs out there, so I never saw any need to reconsider the issue.