LeSving wrote:
There are much more places a helicopter can land than a Cirrus, by a factor 100M
There are plenty of places where a helicopter is capable of landing. But places where I can actually legally land? Not that many. Since it requires permission from the owner. Unless we’re talking about hotels and such, just finding out who owns any particular piece of land and contacting the owner is IMHO a huge PITA. And even if you get a permission, how comfortable are you leaving your very expensive toy sitting unguarded while you go about your business?
So I can’t agree with you. I really like helicopters and IMO lack of places to conveniently land (and park) is annoyingly limiting. I can use it to shuttle between my properties, to and from the airport, visit friends, family, business partners, even travel if I limit myself to hotels that will allow me to land there and have it parked there (and I would still have to fly to airports to refuel). But not much else (at least nothing comes to mind right now; there will be some oddballs like a restaurant with a helipad, but how common is that?). Even if you end up flying to an airport, you still have the advantage of flying out of your backyard. That’s why I like them. But you’re only getting half the advantage.
Martin wrote:
As for door to door speed, it really depends on “A” and “B”.
Yes, but in general. There are much more places a helicopter can land than a Cirrus, by a factor 100M ? 
For those particular As and Bs where a Cirrus is faster, a Cirrus will be better, but those As and Bs are infinitely more restricted than for a helicopter, hence the utility value can’t isn’t even comparable. Also, VFR in a helicopter is very seldom the restriction it can be in a FW.
@LeSving I was merely stating that you’re paying for different things as you move up the price range so the machines are less and less comparable. As for door to door speed, it really depends on “A” and “B”. As I wrote, you can’t park a helicopter anywhere you like. And an SR22T is substantially faster, it doesn’t take that much distance to make up an hour. Airlines work well only between select city pairs. Even a single stop will have a big impact.
A helicopter can work well under certain conditions. Cities are usually problematic. And any helipad might be useless if you’re the pilot and need to leave the machine there for an extended amount of time (you know, unless it’s yours). You also have to refuel somewhere.
Not sure how legal is that without a permission from the owner (unless it’s genuine emergency). If you don’t damage anything (including crops) and are far away from residences, nobody should care (unless you land in a nature reserve or something like that).
In the UK, it’s trespass but it’s a problem only if you get spotted 
In open countryside, the landowner is not likely to catch you, and anyway a pee is an emergency One pipeline / overhead cable inspection company (AOC) guy I spoke to told me they do that all the time.
Martin wrote:
With aeroplanes, it’s more speed and all weather capability.
Yes, but the distances has to be very long in an aircraft because it is the door to door time that counts utility vise, and you have to make up for the lost door to door capability. With increasing distance, the utility value of a light aircraft decreases compared with taking an airline. But, helicopters are expensive and complicated to maintain, and they crash a lot, due to pilot error mostly, so they are overall more complex machines both to maintain and operate.
LeSving wrote:
It’s safe to say that helicopters are comparatively “cheap” compared with certified fixed wing. Today, a helicopter is in fact useful, in the same way a boat can be useful, while a fixed wing is a hobby/recreation.
I think that SR22T comparison is taking it too far. Helicopters in this range are VFR only and even twin turbines can’t fly in icing. Not to mention that an SR22T will trash any helicopter on straight speed (not necessarily on door to door speed). These two worlds quickly diverge. With helicopters, you are mostly buying payload and/ or hot and high performance. Speed doesn’t increase very much. With aeroplanes, it’s more speed and all weather capability.
As for usefulness, it would be helpful if there were more heliports/ helipads. If I have to go to the same airport as a fixed wing when going into the city, the advantage is not as great as it could be. But for flying between private estates where you have permission to land, it’s quite convenient (as long as you can make do with the fuel).
I agree on the performance front. A helicopter can land in a courtyard. Try that with a Cub.
Peter wrote:
if the wx gets too bad or you need a pee you just drop into a field.
Not sure how legal is that without a permission from the owner (unless it’s genuine emergency). If you don’t damage anything (including crops) and are far away from residences, nobody should care (unless you land in a nature reserve or something like that).
Peter wrote:
skimming the ground at 200ft AGL and AFAIK legally
AFAIK SERA doesn’t allow that by default. It does provide a provision for a permission to go lower than the default 500 feet above the highest obstacle within 500 feet (AIP should do).
@alioth What does “IFR equipped” mean? Of course you can stick a GPS with an HSI into it (and it isn’t that expensive), but if you want IFR, you’ll have to shell out about ten times as much. No turbine single can fly IFR (there were some attempts in the past), much less a piston single.
Anyway, this is just about cost. It doesn’t matter why it needs that engine (and I’m not aware of any two seater with a 540), you have to pay for it. If you’re saying that aeroplanes are more expensive because they’re more capable, then they could obviously be cheaper. Yes, a basic piston helicopter will be lightly equipped. Not even light turbine singles have in practice that much equipment.
I’ve been told by owners that the maintenance cost of helis is substantially higher than FW. This is apparently because
There is obviously also a very different mission capability e.g. the country hotels I mentioned But many more are used for work. I used to know a lift service guy who travelled all over the UK in one. The % of FW piston GA which is used for work and delivers a genuine advantage (once you take out the contrived cases of flying to a trade exhibition in Greece, or delivering an urgent parcel to a customer in Wales, so you can bill the flight to your business) is miniscule.
They can fly in the most atrocious wx, skimming the ground at 200ft AGL and AFAIK legally, and if the wx gets too bad or you need a pee you just drop into a field. In FW, unless you are flying a real STOL type, that would mostly mean a damaged plane if you have to do it in a hurry (a “precautionary landing”).
alioth wrote:
With the exception of hovering, the certified Carbon Cub does everything a 2-seat helicopter will do for less money (and a much lower operating cost)
The Top Cub (certified “Carbon Cub”) is just a 180 HP plain Super Cub with 1200 lbs empty weight. It’s nothing like a EX/SS with 900 lbs empty weight. The EX/SS is nothing like a helicopter, it’s performance is no better than a typical 100 HP short field microlight, but it’s better than most Cubs.
A Top Cub cost US$ 250k, a R22 cost 288k.
A 4 seat R44 costs around 400k. A basic SR22 starts at over 500.
A 5 seat turbine powered R66 cost 870k, A piston powered S22T with some options costs over 800k
It’s safe to say that helicopters are comparatively “cheap” compared with certified fixed wing. Today, a helicopter is in fact useful, in the same way a boat can be useful, while a fixed wing is a hobby/recreation.
I can’t think of a two seat helicopter with an O-540 (OK, there’s the R44 cadet which is a four-seater with two seats removed). Most two seaters have an (I)O-360 variant which is derated. For example, the Cabri G2 has a plain old O-360 derated to 145 HP.
