07 Jun 2025, 17:13 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 31 Dec 2014, 22:36 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/18/11 Posts: 948 Post Likes: +137 Location: (KCYW) Kansas
Aircraft: PA28-140
|
|
I have worked on everything from a Piper J3 to Boeing 737. I am still in awe working on the higher end helicopters (Sikorsky, Bell and Airbus), watching all the different linkages, control rods and inputs moving the swashplate as a single unit. You don’t see that type of operation on a fix wing aircraft, I miss working on helicopters they were a challenge, but it was worth every minute.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 03 Jan 2015, 00:05 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 03/28/13 Posts: 196 Post Likes: +31 Location: Norwell, MA
Aircraft: Bonanza A36
|
|
I fly both. I own a A36 1998 BO, received my first license in a Sweitzer and then an R22 before fixed wing training. The R22 would be the best helicopter to fly between skyscrapers as they have less moving parts. I wonder how Mr. Sikorsky got the first helo off the ground. GW
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 13:39 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/22/12 Posts: 38 Post Likes: +22 Location: KCRQ - Carlsbad, CA
Aircraft: CJ, MD500, R44, PA34
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm not saying a EC135 is better at being a chopper than a Bell 47 or R66. But they sure seem to have a lot of more modern tech. esp airframe and tail rotor tech.
Then again - IA says the if they are started more than 3 times, somethings gonna break. good job security I guess. Typically holiday weekends are busy for these guys. which is unfortunate.
Again - kinda cool. I know I chopper pilot is not an option for me. Gary - I purchased a brand new R44 some years ago and flew it 1300 hours in the first three years that I owned it. Then I decided that I needed something bigger, better, faster, stronger, and most importantly, something that burned jet-A, so I purchased an MD500. I put almost 1,000 on it in the four years or so that I owned it. What I can tell you is that you're IA said is not totally accurate, but closer to the mark on a used turbine than on the R44. After selling my R44, my all-in, total per hour operating cost including insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc was about $260.00 per hour. My MD500 was closer to $1200.00 per hour, much of that on the maintenance side of the house, and double the fuel burn. The MD500 was a fantastic ship and could do all sorts of things the R44 could not, but not things that I do myself. Since I fly jets for a living and helicopters as a hobby, the 5-1 ratio of costs no longer made much sense. I have since sold the 500 and now I am back in an R44. I can fly almost five hours in the R44 for the cost of a single hour in my 500.....no contest.
_________________ I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 13:53 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 03/19/12 Posts: 4044 Post Likes: +1792 Location: Belton, TX (KTPL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have since sold the 500 and now I am back in an R44. I can fly almost five hours in the R44 for the cost of a single hour in my 500.....no contest.
But a MD500 is a much more fun helicopter to fly.  Much more crash worthy also. If I had the coin the MD would be my favorite to fly day in and day out. Probably the most fun I ever had flying was an MH-6, absolute blast!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 14:04 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/22/12 Posts: 38 Post Likes: +22 Location: KCRQ - Carlsbad, CA
Aircraft: CJ, MD500, R44, PA34
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I have since sold the 500 and now I am back in an R44. I can fly almost five hours in the R44 for the cost of a single hour in my 500.....no contest.
But a MD500 is a much more fun helicopter to fly.  Much more crash worthy also. If I had the coin the MD would be my favorite to fly day in and day out. Probably the most fun I ever had flying was an MH-6, absolute blast!
Very true, my 500 would do things that would send you to the grave in the R44, but in the end my missions (with my kids on board) are far more docile and so the R44 does everything I needed the 500 to do but with a greatly reduced operating cost!
_________________ I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 17:00 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 08/03/08 Posts: 16153 Post Likes: +8869 Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Of course, it is hard to do desert camping on top of secluded mesas in a fixed wing....  Somewhere a liberal is crying himself to sleep over that first photo 
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 17:02 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 01/29/08 Posts: 26338 Post Likes: +13080 Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Of course, it is hard to do desert camping on top of secluded mesas in a fixed wing....  This is my kinda fun. Very cool. You're living right. I flew with T.R. in his helo out in Vegas not long ago and just thought the scenery was amazing. That's a reason to have a helicopter out there. Around the S.E. it's just pine trees.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 17:36 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 08/25/13 Posts: 615 Post Likes: +128
|
|
Username Protected wrote: And that makes me sooooo happy! Every 12 year old girl should know how to shoot a Kimber .45 (IMHO)!
Why is hammer not cocked? It is a single action pistol after all  That's the only thing making this liberal cry. Or can I still be a liberal if I own a few Kimbers. Would that make me confused?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 18:19 |
|
 |

|
|
Joined: 04/21/10 Posts: 351 Post Likes: +113 Location: Montana
Aircraft: Cub/182/Bell206L4
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I'm not saying a EC135 is better at being a chopper than a Bell 47 or R66. But they sure seem to have a lot of more modern tech. esp airframe and tail rotor tech.
Then again - IA says the if they are started more than 3 times, somethings gonna break. good job security I guess. Typically holiday weekends are busy for these guys. which is unfortunate.
Again - kinda cool. I know I chopper pilot is not an option for me. Gary - I purchased a brand new R44 some years ago and flew it 1300 hours in the first three years that I owned it. Then I decided that I needed something bigger, better, faster, stronger, and most importantly, something that burned jet-A, so I purchased an MD500. I put almost 1,000 on it in the four years or so that I owned it. What I can tell you is that you're IA said is not totally accurate, but closer to the mark on a used turbine than on the R44. After selling my R44, my all-in, total per hour operating cost including insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc was about $260.00 per hour. My MD500 was closer to $1200.00 per hour, much of that on the maintenance side of the house, and double the fuel burn. The MD500 was a fantastic ship and could do all sorts of things the R44 could not, but not things that I do myself. Since I fly jets for a living and helicopters as a hobby, the 5-1 ratio of costs no longer made much sense. I have since sold the 500 and now I am back in an R44. I can fly almost five hours in the R44 for the cost of a single hour in my 500.....no contest.
Richard, a Gentleman started a thread and is looking for a "diamond in the rough" Hughes 500C if you know of any leads here is the link to his thread if you haven't already seen it. Thanks for sharing this info, I believe Stan should read this post I just quoted also. Interesting stuff, what a great way to raise kids also. I like photos, and wish more people would share them, they say a thousand words. http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=101562
WTB: Hughes/MD500C helicopter Author Message Stan Voket Post subject: WTB: Hughes/MD500C helicopterPostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 10:10
Joined: 12/22/08 Posts: 30 Post Likes: +1 Aircraft: Bonanza A36 Looking for a new (to me) personal helicopter. Good remaining times please.
Thanks,
Stan
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Helicopter technology vs fixed wing Posted: 06 Jan 2015, 20:12 |
|
 |

|

|
 |
Joined: 03/19/12 Posts: 4044 Post Likes: +1792 Location: Belton, TX (KTPL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza E33
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Of course, it is hard to do desert camping on top of secluded mesas in a fixed wing....  Wow, the Sierra Club would also be screaming. Fly a helicopter to undisturbed places and camp? Blasphemy! Awesome pics and like JC said the way to do it right.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|