I've heard the Army is having trouble with the UH-72 transition from the TH-67. Is the UH-72 or TH-67 the better training helicopter?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 22:48:11 -0400

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2017 11:11 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:11:56 -0400

CW3 Lindsey Muller can you help us on this topic?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Apr 17 at 2017 11:17 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:17:41 -0400

This is one of the reasons I love RP. I get to learn as I sit on the sidelines observing discussions I know nothing about

Response by CPT Nicholas D. made Apr 18 at 2017 6:35 AM

CPT Nicholas D. — Tue, 18 Apr 2017 06:35:52 -0400

The TH-67 was a great trainer. It was durable, simple, and could take a beating. Rucker's problem was the airframes were getting old. The LUH-72 is not an ideal trainer. It is a rigid rotor system (which means in the hands of an inexperienced pilot... e.g Flight School Student) things that break will be very expensive. A Rucker IP can weigh in, but I heard the kids aren't even doing full autorotations to the ground anymore. That's an important skill any helo driver should have a foundational understanding on. So the EC145/LUH-72 would not have been my pick. I would have voted to keep the TH-67.

Why is the LUH better? It's pretty much already an "advanced aircraft." There's going to be a much more steeper learning curve in the beginning but it will be shallower as IERW continues into the FSXXI Advanced phases. Transitioning from the LUH to a UH60M, CH47F, or AH64E glass cockpit will be much easier than jumping from a steam gauge Bell 206. Plus, units (specifically ARNG units) will get Aviators with more than one aircraft qualification which will save commands costly transition course dollars and giving position management more flexibility.

In summary, switching to the LUH has its pros and cons. I loved the 67, got your feet wet before you got into your advanced platform. With the glass cockpit upgrades everyone is getting, I will confess it makes sense to have a glass cockpit trainer. Just the new generation of Army Aviator will have a little tougher "first segment climb" once they get to the flight line for the first few weeks.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Apr 18 at 2017 11:09 AM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:09:30 -0400

CPT Private RallyPoint Member 1stSgt Glenn Brackin If the Army was looking for a trainer, why didn't they look for something like the Robinson R66, R44 or even R22 for initial flight training? They would need advanced training on specific airframes later, but that is true regardless. These are not beefy military machines, but for initial flight training, they would seem to be both economical to purchase, and economical to maintain.

Response by LCDR Keith Trepanier made Apr 18 at 2017 12:01 PM

LCDR Keith Trepanier — Tue, 18 Apr 2017 12:01:10 -0400

It all depends on what you think makes one helicopter better than another for training.
The Bell 206 in whatever variation you want, TH-67, TH-57, glass cockpit, or steam gauges, has a lot of things going for it as a trainer. It is fairly durable, it is forgiving if you make a wrong input, and it is relatively inexpensive.
A Robinson in any iteration is a horrible trainer in my opinion because it is unforgiving, but it is cheap and that is why you see so many out there.
The EC-145 is a great aircraft, is relatively forgiving, but it is expensive. The other issue is that it is dual engine. Great if you want people to get used to flying twin engine aircraft but as a primary trainer it is overkill.
A single engine aircraft like the Bell 206 with a glass cockpit would be perfect for starting off and then use the LUH later for more refined training as they transition. If you have to choose go with the 206