-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Random Griz Aviation Musings
- Thread starter Griz882
- Start date
For adding on an instrument rating, it's actually not a bad platform. I guess as long as you can afford it.
The Air Force academy does new pilot training to the private and commercial level with a fleet of SR-22s, pretty successfully
There is better bang for the buck out there than the SR22, especially in used airplanes and experimental (used and new), but Cirrus really cracked the code on their marketing. Their sales teams have a good reputation at airshows (the other players in the new airplane general aviation market have a rep for being, uh, indifferent at best when it comes to the little guy who can't afford an airplane right now but might be able to 5-10 years down the road).
The "what if the wings fall off/I'm not going to let you buy an airplane because those things are dangerous" crowd often has veto power on household decisions. Sometimes those same people also think "why don't they invent parachute for the whole airplane," regardless of what really gets people killed in small airplanes, which is usually really basic pilot error- running out of fuel, inadvertent IMC, skipping maintenance, flying in thunderstorms.
Then again, even with the stats of general aviation accidents, that parachute is a heck of an ace in the hole.
What Chuck said about the airplane being more like a product ecosystem, that's very significant. Early on their airplanes had an accident rate that was hurting the company. The company embraced customer flight training and standardization and that solved the problem. Aviation is as safe as you make it but it also gives you a lot of freedom to hurt yourself too. Cirrus' training system keeps a lot of their customers from hurting themselves.
Their wing is designed to be very, very stall and spin resistant. Yes, this is very dumbed-down (in line with the FAA's pilot training philosophy about stalls and spins). Poo-poo that all you like, and I'll poo-poo it with you, but ask yourself how many people on this board drive a car with ABS, traction control, electronic stability, automatic braking, automatic lane keeping (and whatever other modern electronic nannies for people who suck at driving), and ask yourself what those kinds of things have done to highway safety.
My inner capitalist really likes that they're a great success story. I do hate that the company is owned by Chinese money (not that I fault the Chinese owners' financial decisions to buy it).
The "what if the wings fall off/I'm not going to let you buy an airplane because those things are dangerous" crowd often has veto power on household decisions. Sometimes those same people also think "why don't they invent parachute for the whole airplane," regardless of what really gets people killed in small airplanes, which is usually really basic pilot error- running out of fuel, inadvertent IMC, skipping maintenance, flying in thunderstorms.
Then again, even with the stats of general aviation accidents, that parachute is a heck of an ace in the hole.
What Chuck said about the airplane being more like a product ecosystem, that's very significant. Early on their airplanes had an accident rate that was hurting the company. The company embraced customer flight training and standardization and that solved the problem. Aviation is as safe as you make it but it also gives you a lot of freedom to hurt yourself too. Cirrus' training system keeps a lot of their customers from hurting themselves.
Their wing is designed to be very, very stall and spin resistant. Yes, this is very dumbed-down (in line with the FAA's pilot training philosophy about stalls and spins). Poo-poo that all you like, and I'll poo-poo it with you, but ask yourself how many people on this board drive a car with ABS, traction control, electronic stability, automatic braking, automatic lane keeping (and whatever other modern electronic nannies for people who suck at driving), and ask yourself what those kinds of things have done to highway safety.
My inner capitalist really likes that they're a great success story. I do hate that the company is owned by Chinese money (not that I fault the Chinese owners' financial decisions to buy it).
I agree with @ChuckMK23 in the SR22 is a wildly expensive 150 knot airplane but it is very safe. Their wing is based on the same model as my Tecnam P2002 and is really hard to stall. But as @Jim123 mentioned it keeps things safe. We have two SR22’s at my airfield and they all like to laugh at my puny airplane...then I remind them I can fly on gas station 97 octane gas and they can only beat me by 25 knots in speed. I could replace my engine 20 times and still not spend as much money as they do on insurance. I don’t have a BRS chute but I could have one installed if my wife cries enough. So, I am inclined to agree that it is a fantastic airplane but very expensive to purchase, operate, and maintain for the average user.
Now, all that said, I got to fly today and decided that the Navy should shift their IFS to an LSA like the P2002. First of all, you can never let it go, you have to fly it all the time, and second you feel every single ripple of air. A slight gust, and your wing is up. Slight downdraft and you drop like a rock. Turbulence is a very real thing in my little airplane. I took up a kid who has about 250 hours all in 182’s and he couldn’t believe how much work it was to fly such a light plane. It would be a great way for the navy to weed out the weak and train new people in some simple, seat-of-the-pants flying skills.
Great photo. My grandfather was stationed at NAS Hutchinson, Kansas - where they flew Stearmans in the training wing - for four months in 1943 as a SUPPO ENS.
The airfield was in a dry county, surrounded by Amish farms. My grandmother tried to sneak a handle of whiskey into their hotel under her skirt but it fell and shattered on the sidewalk when she got out of the taxi at the hotel entrance. The bellhop just looked at her and quipped “You’re going to miss that whiskey.”
Since my flying skills are anything but “elite,” I decided to shift the conversation on helicopter possibilities over to the GA discussion.
Here is another aircraft I am considering.
The company is called Scout and they build their 3 seat helicopter in Pennsylvania. It is a Ukrainian design and has a Lycoming engine. It is sold as a kit or a fully assembled helicopter. The numbers they advertise are impressive...but that is n advertisement. The company has been to Oshkosh a few times and those who have flown it offer good reviews. Not many hours on the type however. You can read more about them here. http://scout.aero/
The top contender, for now, is a Hiller UH-12E4. Like this one, but not this one since the one shown here was the one flown by “Pussy Galore” in Goldfinger.
Hiller s are dreadfully slow, you won’t get above 85 knots in one, but they have unbelievable longevity and the three-seat version of this ship trained just about every Army helicopter pilot that went to Vietnam. It even served as an armed scout helicopter in that war well into 1969. It is easy to maintain and parts are available.
Next is the Enstrom F28.
It is a lot faster than a Hiller but is a bit more expensive in terms of work. It has three seats but a friend of mine who has one says it is better as a two person flyer. Enstrom’s are really popular and have great longevity. Several police departments used them until they shifted to turbines and a recent article noted that some departments are looking to go back to piston because turbines are too expensive to operate.
In any case, this is a long way off for me. I hope to spend a few hours in each type and then continue my research. I am fully aware of the operating costs (first thing I look at!) and I have learned to plus up those costs to be realistic. So the question is...do I want a little more speed or a little more capacity?
Here is another aircraft I am considering.
The company is called Scout and they build their 3 seat helicopter in Pennsylvania. It is a Ukrainian design and has a Lycoming engine. It is sold as a kit or a fully assembled helicopter. The numbers they advertise are impressive...but that is n advertisement. The company has been to Oshkosh a few times and those who have flown it offer good reviews. Not many hours on the type however. You can read more about them here. http://scout.aero/
The top contender, for now, is a Hiller UH-12E4. Like this one, but not this one since the one shown here was the one flown by “Pussy Galore” in Goldfinger.
Hiller s are dreadfully slow, you won’t get above 85 knots in one, but they have unbelievable longevity and the three-seat version of this ship trained just about every Army helicopter pilot that went to Vietnam. It even served as an armed scout helicopter in that war well into 1969. It is easy to maintain and parts are available.
Next is the Enstrom F28.
It is a lot faster than a Hiller but is a bit more expensive in terms of work. It has three seats but a friend of mine who has one says it is better as a two person flyer. Enstrom’s are really popular and have great longevity. Several police departments used them until they shifted to turbines and a recent article noted that some departments are looking to go back to piston because turbines are too expensive to operate.
In any case, this is a long way off for me. I hope to spend a few hours in each type and then continue my research. I am fully aware of the operating costs (first thing I look at!) and I have learned to plus up those costs to be realistic. So the question is...do I want a little more speed or a little more capacity?
Trust me....that is rolling around in my mind. I always remind myself that I’m the kid who used too much glue on his model airplanes.
Scimitarze
Automated Member
It does look pretty well built from this design website.
Also found this flight review on VR from Oshkosh
"I have been following this helicopter as closely as possible. I was at OshKosh last week with my ship (Safari). I had the opportunity to fly the Scout along with my friend Marcello from Brazil. Marcello has much more heli time than I, but I have much more experience with piston powered ships without a governor.
I was one of 4 guys to fly the ship, I think. For those in the homebuilt world, I am pretty sure that Homer Bell flew it also. I don't think that Homer had any issues. He only hovered the ship.
The next guy up was a Russian whose day job is flying a Global Express. Although a Commercial Pilot he was not current and had very little time. He almost balled the ship up while attempting to hover. He got out and declared that there was obviously something wrong with the ship and left.
After Vladimir and his buddies from the factory went through the ship with a fine tooth comb, and found nothing wrong, Marcello and I climbed aboard. Initially we were very apprehensive and took it slowly. We hovered for about 45 minutes. I forgot to mention that Marcello hovered the previous day for probably the same amout of time.
Marcello is about 185 lbs and I am 240 dressed. It was hot out in the 90s. We had been flying my ship the day before and hovering in the grass took all of the power available in my 180hp Safari. In the Scout we were at about 85% power. Yes there is a "power meter" on the glass panel. Although there is no governor we had no trouble regulating the Rotor RPM. We actually kept the Rotor RPM in the middle of the range for most of the hovering, with no ill effects."
Local politics kept us from doing extended flight in the ship. We did make one circuit before depositing the ship near the exhibitor's tent.
My overall impression is that this is a fantastic ship. This build quality is far beyond Safari, Robinson, Schweitzer etc. It is built like a hmmmm well a Russian Helicopter. The cabin is huge, not just shoulder room but leg room also. With the middle seat out you could build a bin to hold a huge amount of luggage.
I look forward to finding out more about it, delivery, parts availability etc."
Also found this flight review on VR from Oshkosh
"I have been following this helicopter as closely as possible. I was at OshKosh last week with my ship (Safari). I had the opportunity to fly the Scout along with my friend Marcello from Brazil. Marcello has much more heli time than I, but I have much more experience with piston powered ships without a governor.
I was one of 4 guys to fly the ship, I think. For those in the homebuilt world, I am pretty sure that Homer Bell flew it also. I don't think that Homer had any issues. He only hovered the ship.
The next guy up was a Russian whose day job is flying a Global Express. Although a Commercial Pilot he was not current and had very little time. He almost balled the ship up while attempting to hover. He got out and declared that there was obviously something wrong with the ship and left.
After Vladimir and his buddies from the factory went through the ship with a fine tooth comb, and found nothing wrong, Marcello and I climbed aboard. Initially we were very apprehensive and took it slowly. We hovered for about 45 minutes. I forgot to mention that Marcello hovered the previous day for probably the same amout of time.
Marcello is about 185 lbs and I am 240 dressed. It was hot out in the 90s. We had been flying my ship the day before and hovering in the grass took all of the power available in my 180hp Safari. In the Scout we were at about 85% power. Yes there is a "power meter" on the glass panel. Although there is no governor we had no trouble regulating the Rotor RPM. We actually kept the Rotor RPM in the middle of the range for most of the hovering, with no ill effects."
Local politics kept us from doing extended flight in the ship. We did make one circuit before depositing the ship near the exhibitor's tent.
My overall impression is that this is a fantastic ship. This build quality is far beyond Safari, Robinson, Schweitzer etc. It is built like a hmmmm well a Russian Helicopter. The cabin is huge, not just shoulder room but leg room also. With the middle seat out you could build a bin to hold a huge amount of luggage.
I look forward to finding out more about it, delivery, parts availability etc."
Engstrom's have well thought of product support. The early Hillers had Franklin engines. They are not really bad engines even though they have a bit of a rep. But in the Hiller it was no bueno. I'd be suspicious of the Franklin powered Hillers.
Yeah, that is why I am looking at the UH-12e model. It has a much more powerful Lycoming engine (almost 100 hp more) and is a real work horse for the agricultural spray business. The B and C models have the weaker Franklin.
We have a plan for that...we’ll come in low, out of the rising sun. About a mile out we’ll turn on the music. Wagner, scares the hell out of the Pagistanians!
The children of Pagsistan have a demonstrated ability to sleep through anything.
One thing I learned from my Phrog elders was that a speaker on a helo was just a recipe for trouble.