Interesting, but not surprising.It looks like Army is moving forward with RFI/RFP for a pilot training platform for Initial Entry Rotary Wing to replace the UH-72.
Interested in what @FlyNavy03 thinks...
TH-73 is real contender with the SPIFR requirements
Helicopter-Makers Line Up For U.S. Army Rotorcraft Training Refresh | Aviation Week Network
Rotorcraft manufacturers are seeking partners and preparing bids for the U.S. Army’s updated training plans.aviationweek.com
I've said it in other places and I'll say it again here. Having been a Bell factory 505 instructor, I can tell you that the 505 is an amazing aircraft...for what it was designed to do. It's purpose in life is to be a helicopter that a retired banker can use to fly his grandkids around the ranch or back and forth between his house and his hunting property. It's a very easy aircraft to fly and extremely reliable. However, the same things that make it an awesome private helo also make it a less-than-ideal trainer. There are a total of 8 switches in the cockpit, no circuit breakers, and binary fuel control - you're either in fly or idle, there is no in between. So the only EPs that you can effectively simulate in flight are hydraulic boost failure or an engine failure. Even then, the aircraft is so stable that you can not only easily run it on without boost, you can pretty easily pull it into a hover and make a vertical landing. As far as autos go, I miss my days at Bell when I would spend several hours with clients doing nothing but throwing it at the ground. That bird is the most forgiving aircraft in an auto that I've ever flown. You can do a lot of things wrong on the way down and still come out on the right side of the equation. And it will absolutely save your bacon if things start to get weird. I once had a client put the throttle back to fly right at the bottom of the auto - in the pull - and we had no exceedances and never touched the ground. Maybe I'm just old and crotchety, but I'd like my students to start out in something a bit less forgiving. I think they'll learn more that way. I'd also like to be able to show them more than a couple of EPs.
I got the chance recently to spend some time in an R66 and I'm not sure why it gets so much hate. I thought that it flew just fine. In a lot of ways, it's a closer follow-up to the revered 206 than the 505 is, despite the name. Plus they're relatively cheap to buy and operate and readily available. Is it the ideal solution? I haven't done enough with it to make that determination, but I think it's definitely worth consideration.
I'm not familiar enough with the other contenders to weigh in at all. I still think if we want an IFR/VFR/Do everything trainer there is only one real option - the 407GXi.
As far as the rest of the discussion about the need for full-down autos I look at it this way - True, most pilots will never experience an actual engine failure in their careers, but anyone who thinks autos are only about engine failures is teaching them incorrectly. In my opinion, autos are the best way to truly develop an understanding of how helicopters work. Something clicks in pilots when they suddenly find themselves being the thing that's controlling Nr and having to make constant adjustments to their flight parameters to avoid bad things happening. I think we should take it all the way to the ground as often as possible. The last 5% of the auto is where 80% of the learning takes place.
