Robinson R44

[Bondu121]

The sprag clutch was in several parts when investigated, very worrying that all the recommended checks do not show up a failing clutch.

When removed from the aircraft the sprag felt a little rough, when dismantled it was obviously not far off complete failure.

A new design clutch is now in use - C188-3 Rev H.

Be wary of writing off bangs in flight as panel flexing.

MOR raised & RHC notified.

[John R81]

How many sprag clutch failures are needed before CAA (etc) get interested?

[DEER CULLER]

After 25 years and 14 Robinson aircraft I would like to make a couple of observations, limited to the R44
Most cost effective helicopter available, as long as you sell before the 2200hr
Only helicopter I know that if you U/S one blade you have to do both
In the highest speed to lowest fuel burn ratio they are tops
Safe within limitations
The only aircraft I know of with in built recurring corrosion problems
Robinson should at least offer them without paint so the buyer can get a decent job done, including undercoat.
A pleasant aircraft to fly, maintain and store, no fuss operation with great dependability.

[valve guide]

Do Robinson supply touch up kits for their machines. Just had mine back from its annual and would like to touch up all the screw heads etc to make it look presentable again.

Thanks

[Practice Auto 3,2,1]

Dont think so VG, if you ask your maint. outfit they may have the right colour Robbo paint (and activator) that they can let you have a small jar of. Depending on how big they are they may not though because its expensive (not so much the paint, getting it here).

Failing that with new machines there is/should be a bag of spare screws that could be used if no paint is available. It should be in the RHC under seat bag with all the other goodies they give you.

[topendtorque]

It should be in the RHC under seat bag with all the other goodies they give you.

tha's right, right along with that good ol' US of A quarter they give you that you do the tap test with

good luck ha ha.
tet

[TiPwEiGhT]

If you have painted fuel caps take one off and head down to a paint shop and they can make up a small can for you. We used to do that and it worked really well on small areas like screw heads.

TiP;)

[FullTravelFree]

Any advice on how to prepare an R44 for a 3 months 'wintersleep'? It's kept in an isolated hangar, but temperatures of -20 C are possible.
Thanks in advance,
FTF

[Pandalet]

Probably a good idea to take the battery out and put it somewhere warm. Can you run a dehumidifier in the hanger?

[61 Lafite]

The IO540 manual from Lycoming has some specific advice (from memory), including removing the plugs to squirt in some kind of corrosion inhibitor.

Robinson customer service would, I'm sure, provide some advice too.

I would personally prefer going to the trouble of turning it over at least once a month and ground/hover running to keep all the seals well lubricated. Then the hassle of protecting the cylinders is unnecessary.

Lafite

[williamair]

I have an R44 and have just returned from the desert and unfortunately my blades have been scrapped . I am doing some more flying in africa early next year and am considering putting blade tape from Airwolf ( made by 3m) - they have an easa and faa approval - on my new blades to give them some protection. Does anyone have and experiance with the airwolf blade tape?
Thanks

[bvgs]

Pretty sure Robinson do not allow the use of tape on their blades.

[500e]

By David Collogan
The epoxy tape application process developed by Airwolf Aerospace LLC to help prevent de-bonding of the stainless steel rotor blades on Robinson Helicopter R22 and R44 models has been purchased by some 300 Robinson operators, officials say, and that number is likely to increase in the wake of an FAA AD early this year and a series of safety recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board this month (BA, June 16/272).
The stainless steel blades on both models of Robinson helicopters have a stated service life of 2,200 hours time in service. But following its investigation of a number of rotor blade delamination accidents, NTSB said FAA should require non destructive testing of all Robinson rotor blades "at intervals appropriately less than 596 hours time in service...to evaluate the bond joints between the skin and spar at the tip of the main rotor blade..."
Airwolf began working on developing a fix for the Robinson blade delamination problem a couple of years ago. John Kochy, director of engineering for Airwolf, said he and other company officials sought help from 3M, which had developed an epoxy tape erosion barrier for use on military helicopters operating in the Mideast. During Operation Desert Storm, Kochy said the military was being forced to replace blades on its large transport helicopters every 20 hours because of sand damage. After some experimentation, 3M developed a tape for those helicopter blades that extended the life to approximately 200 hours.
"3M was very, very nice to us" when Airwolf officials approached the company for help in addressing the Robinson blade problem, Kochy told BA in a telephone interview last week. There was considerable effort to find a material that had the properties to protect the blade, but which was light enough not to affect the performance of the helicopter. Kochy is a fixed- and rotary-wing pilot and Airwolf has R22 Serial No. 12, which it has operated for years. Kochy did much of the flight testing that led FAA to issue Airwolf a Supplemental Type Certificate late last year. Installation of the STC fix is approved as an Alternate Method of Compliance for the AD the agency issued Jan. 18, 2008.
Technically, FAA regulations permit an operator to apply the specialized tape that 3M custom manufactures for Airwolf, Kochy said. But he strongly recommends that Robinson owners who buy the blade tape kit employ the services of a licensed Airframe & Powerplant mechanic to perform the installation. "A lot of people underestimate how complicated it is," he told BA. "It's not as simple as 'just send me some tape.'"
It is possible to apply the epoxy tape while the rotor blades are still attached to the helicopter. But that is "a miserable job" that requires standing on a ladder while attempting to place the tape in precisely the right area, a task that Kochy says he "would not wish on my worst enemy." Airwolf advises operators to have the rotor blades removed - which requires an A&P - so tape application can be accomplished more easily and accurately on a stable work surface.

We use 3M tape on all our 500s &300 saves a lot of damage buy it by the role,
If I remember the kit is very expensive, must make sure no air under tapes, don't know if they supply mastic for edges as well.
3M make a fair no of tapes for leading edges
Erosion Protection (http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Aerospace/Aircraft/Prod_Info/Prod_Catalog/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECIE20SOG5_nid=61XB41ZN6Jbe90657JDCX3g l)

3M? Polyurethane Protective Tape 8681HS Transparent, 1 in x 36 yd, 9 per case, Non-Skip Slit (http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Aerospace/Aircraft/Prod_Info/Prod_Catalog/?PC_7_RJH9U5230GE3E02LECIE20SOG5_nid=GS88QP618Ygs90657JDCX3g l62H6LV2TVFbl)
go to documentation lots of useful tips on removing, repairs &installing

Tapes will affect lift, especially noticeable in hot & high conditions.

[williamair]

My understanding is that Robinson do not recommend the use of Blade Tape but i can'nt get a clear answer as to why. The airwolf tape is made by 3 m and they have an faa stc approval for its use to protect the blades - they also have easa approval. Has anyone out there used it?

[B47]

I had a nasty feeling this one was coming after the mod was made to the spec of new ships.

SB-78: All R44s with aluminium tanks are to be retro-fitted with bladder type tanks.

Kit to cost $6800 if ordered before Dec 2011 + 40 hours labour. Mod to be completed by Dec 2014. RHC say 'the retrofit requires substantial sheet-metal work and paint refinishing for aesthetics may be desired' - sounds like it makes a right mess of your machine.

Could have done without this expensive news the day before RHC go on their Christmas break.

I never understand the FAA/UK CAA logic (not RHC, that's obvious) behind these 'preferable but not essential and you can have four years to save up for it' mods. If more of us are likely to die in a fire flying around in our ali tank ships in the meantime, why give us so long? This mod is of questionable importance - four point harnesses, nomex suits and helmets would make more sense and prevent more injuries at far less cost - but we don't do any of these, because we're adults who can make up our mind about where we want to draw the line. Instead of which I assume insurers are behind this and again treating us as fools.

Any R44 without the mod that is currently for sale is also now worth a chunk less......

(incoming, from the pros who don't pay their own engineering costs....)

[as350nut]

There are 2,064 R1 and 2,809 R2 out there. Of course you have to take off the ones where the crash was so severe for the tanks to burst but the occupants were untouched untill they burnt to death = Zero. But anyhow my calculator says 4954X $6,800 is $33,687,200 30% GP should give Frank JR an easy 10m extra in 2011. Of course the cost to us, the faithfull users of Robi's is a bit more, close to 78million when you add in paint, fitting at 40 hours, freight etc. Not a bad business model. Of course if you have a white paint job all is good, why can't they at least supply them painted, to your colour code. Oh, maybe not; the paint comes off anyway with no primer used, forgot that.I can't find the same requirement for the R22 which obviously has the same tank. Why don't RHC put a heavy steel plate on the inside of the tank next to the short shaft to the flex plate there's been a few of them come appart and flog there way through the tank?

[lelebebbel]

This mod does reduce fuel capacity by a few liters (litres). Someone mentioned to me that this might actually violate the certification requirements for the aircraft...

Only in aviation can a company issue what is effectively a mandatory, safety related product-recall and then make the customers pay for it.

Didn't Ford have a similiar situation with the "Pinto" in the seventies? Imagine them trying to make the customers pay for the fix, that would've been interesting...

[oge]

I personally know of at least 4 people in 2 separate accidents in Robbies that would have walked away from crashes were it not for the tank rupturing after impact causing post crash fires. It is sad that Robinson came out with this SB so late and also appear to be adding a nice profit margin onto the mod.

[500e]

Blades! Tank! limited life! well was it a cheap helicopterhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

[ReverseFlight]

Nice Xmas Present from Robinson Helicopter

IMHO, any news from RHC is bad news. :sad:

Merry Christmas, Frank.

[SWBKCB]

Some interesting views...

An Eclectic Mind The Real Cost of Helicopter Ownership (http://www.aneclecticmind.com/2010/12/28/the-real-cost-of-helicopter-ownership/)

[toptobottom]

This is a SB, not an AD so it's not a mandatory mod. The advice is wait for the overhaul.

[HeliCraig]

Doesn't that depend on the regulatory regime and the type of use? I think if you are using it for Part 135 under FAA rules then the SB is mandatory. Not sure what EASA / CAA do?

[lelebebbel]

Except that IF your machine happens to be involved in an accident, and IF there is a post crash fire with injuries to the occupants...
-> lawsuit...
"neglicience" or whatever they call it these days...
trying to prove that you had no opportunity to complete the mod "As soon as practical, but no later than 31 December 2014", as it says in the SB...

[heligal]

Thanks for the link...here's an addendum that I didn't want to post on my blog.

The first year I owned the helicopter, my hourly cost of operations was $220US/hour. This past year, my sixth year of ownership, the cost has risen to $320US/hour. That's about a 30% increase.

Those costs include just fuel, oil, maintenance, repairs, insurance, and reserve for overhaul on my R44 Raven II. I fly approximately 200 hours a year.

This is a far cry from Robinson's claim of only $185US/hour.

[as350nut]

As Topbottom pointed out this is a SB (SB-78), but it will become an AD, and the wording is very plain, change the tanks, 4 years to do it. I think it is the need to stagger the building of tanks to meet the demand that warrants the time delay. As the owner of a 2009 model I approached the factory to get this done under warranty although it was just out of warranty and the factory agreed to do it. But only after a lot of discussion:ugh: As said before if you had a safety issue with a fuel tank in any vehicle made today it would be fixed, no cost , no question. Surely some of the big operators with 10 or 20 machines will get together for a class action.

[RVDT]

Robbie Owners,

Welcome to reality.

On larger aircraft I could show you 50 SB's just like this.

The wording of SB's is written by a lawyer to avoid admission there is normally a problem. "may" "could" "possibly" "to increase the reliability" "in certain circumstances" blah blah etc are a few of the gems used.

If something does go wrong they can say "we told you so" without admission of responsibility.

Depending on your type of operation and the way your aircraft is maintained, SB's of course may or may not be mandatory.

Keep in mind that SB's are part of the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (ICA's) and are part of the Type Certificate requirements.

Normally ASB's (Alert Service Bulletins) are mandatory and will probably but not in all cases be accompanied by an AD. Normal SB's need to be interpreted with their compliance requirement which can also be mandatory.

Manufacturers sometimes will offer the required parts FOC depending on how silly the problem makes them appear. If it is not a real safety but reliability issue they will just make you eat it.

You are correct if it was a car it would be fixed with a recall or somesuch. If manufacturers of helicopters operated this way I doubt there would be any still in the civil business.:rolleyes:

[Ag-Rotor]

Yeh I had a recall on a couple of Toyota 4X4's, took them in and all fixed & no charge ( not even labour ) You only get treated like a dick head when your a helicopter owner.:yuk: I was just working out how much this Fuel tank SB on my r44's is going to cost...then how much extra work I have to find to pay the bill....it's getting to be a bit of a joke.

[Nubian]

To follow up RVDT,

It's not only Robinson.
Just be happy that you guys DO operate the Robinson..... As, it is a fairly cheap helicopter to start out with, and you get a good ''bang for the buck', and even how annoying it may be to have to change parts due (A)SB or AD, they're relatively cheap. If you're upset about Robinson and it's prices, try a Eurocopter or Agusta guys...:E

D.O.C from the factory(any factory), will in most cases be stated a tad too low, so blindly believe in those numbers, I'm afraid is a little naive.

Now, how was the saying again?! If you want to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a big one...:{

When I say fairly and relatively above, I do mean: compared to similar-size helicopters on the market, capable of doing the same as the R-44/22

As for linking Toyota-recalls and helicopters being different, it all has to do with numbers built, unit-price(cost of spare's, production-tolerance etc.), amount of people using it daily and the fact that any moron can find his way into it and drive off after paying $12 for his license.... I don't say it is fair, but just how it is......

[Mike Barnard]

RHC have issued Service Bulletin no.78 requiring the retrofitting of bladder-type fuel tanks, with a 'time of compliance no later than 31st December 2014.'

In the case of the R44 the cost is, I am advised, likely to fall within the £12-£15k range, involving substantial sheet metal work, and will take approximately 40hrs exclusive of paint refinishing.

Its a lot of work involving significant downtime.

The result will of course be a safer machine. However, it will also be heavier and with a lower fuel capacity.

It remains to be seen whether or not the CAA issue an AD, rendering this work mandatory for G-Regd. aircraft.

The cynical amongst us might conclude that anything requiring compliance within the next four years and regardless of hours flown can't be that important from a flight safety perspective, and may have some commercial undertones.

In my opinion the work described in the Bulletin should be complied with, if at all, at the 12 year rebuild.

I would be interested in the views of other Robinson owners. My guess is that the views of maintenance organisations might not be totally impartial...?! Nice work if you can get it.

[chriswhi]

There cannot be many industries where you design and sell an item then later on it is decided that your design is flawed, then you can make a profit out of the customers who bought your product having to pay for modifications to your original flawed concept. I would like to see Toyota or Ford try that !!!

[Nubian]

A thread already on the subject here: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/437518-nice-xmas-present-robinson-helicopter.html

[vfr440]

Mike
I don't think it will be the CAA (UK) who will issue an AD - almost certainly it will be EASA; CAA have no discretionary authority anymore. It seems they have to do as they are told by EASA now we are all in the 'pooh' together :sad: - VFR

[northpoint]

This first came to light as a Service Letter in December 2009; see
http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sl36.pdf

As you will see from the Service Letter the replacement bladder tank was then priced at $13,500 and it was to become mandatory at on factory overhauls but no other time limit was specified.

I have heard it mentioned that the new Service Bulletin with a compliance time limit attached to it may be an effort by RHC to stave off an AD from the FAA. The almost 50% discount offered in the SB would tend to support this view as it follows similar pattern to earlier R44 issues such as the mandatory blade replacement on early R44 Astros.

As mentioned on a related thread there are about 5,000 R44s in service around the world. Having to produce an extra 5,000 sets of tanks would be a major production effort.

I have a question to ppruners on this:-
Will the bladder tanks have to be replaced at the the standard 12 year rebuild?

Bladder tanks are not uncommon if fixed wing aircraft neither are bladder tank leaks mainly due to age related degradation.

No word, as yet, from RHC about a similar mod on R22s. Instead bacck in 2006 RHC suggested that the occupants wear Nomex Flight Suits and Helmets;
http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sn40.pdf
although to be fair this same Safety Notice did also apply to R44s.

[rick1128]

I just finished the Robinson Safety Course last week. We were told by the instructor that the decision to do the bladder tank was Frank's decision. Since the R44 was certified the regulations on helicopter design had changed. The R66 required a bladder tank and Frank decided to make a change to the R44 using bladders. The instructor stated he did not foresee the Service Letter becoming an AD. However, an SB becomes mandatory for 'for hire' operators. Plus any factory overhaul or major repair will get the bladders. Other facilities that do overhauls are not required at this time to do the bladders on an overhaul.

As for the course itself, I was quite pleased with it. I came away with things that I feel I should have gotten during my initial training. And it is a shame that students don't get this. My opinion right now is that even if a pilot doesn't plan on flying a Robinson, the course is well worth the money spent.

[tecpilot]

Yep, the R66 needs bladder tanks and therefore now the R44 owners have to pay for it. Thats the way uncle Frank is able to offer a better price for the new R66, cause with such a simple paper the production of bladder tanks will reach the green area.

[Paul Cantrell]

It might have to do with the large number of fires associated with R44 accidents...

When I first attended the RHC safety course in the 1980s Frank mentioned to the class that he was very proud that the R22 had never had a post crash fire that was survivable (i.e. any post crash fire was associated with impact forces large enough that the occupant were killed by the impact forces). He mentioned at the time that he had copied the Hughes 500 egg shape and attributed that with great strength and crashworthiness.

I've noticed that the same does not seem to be true of the R44. Taking a quick look through the NTSB accidents I see all the following in which there was a post crash fire and either people survived, or as best as I could tell reading the report people might have been able to survive (it's not always clear from the report).

ERA10WA510, ERA10WA428, WPR10LA354, WPR09CA470, ANC08CA112, LAX08CA182, DFW08LA122, NYC08FA026, SEA07FA223, DFW06FA102

Remember a while back Robinson came out with the safety notice suggesting the use of Nomex flight suites? I think Robinson has realized for a while that the fuel tanks of the R44 are much more likely to spill than those in the R22.

While it sucks to have to pay to upgrade the fuel tanks (and I assume lose a little tank capacity), it appears to me that the R44 really does need some changes to address post crash fires - the change to flexible fuel lines and this Service Bulletin seem like good ideas to increase the chance that we can walk away from a survivable accident...

[Ag-Rotor]

As most of the crashes involving R44'S are pilot error maybe that situation should be addressed rather than slugging every one to make it.. supposedly more crash worthy....:yuk:

[Nubian]

Ag-rotor,

As most of the crashes involving R44'S are pilot error

Pilot error is what causes MOST accidents over all, not only in the Robbies, so what should we "address" as you say??
NASA is testing out "airbags" that would deploy under the belly to cushion the fall, and make the aircraft more crash-worthy. Probably just useless waste of money and effort then....right?? :rolleyes:
NASA Uses Giant Swingset To Test Helicopter Airbag | Autopia | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/nasa-uses-giant-swingset-to-test-helicopter-airbag/)
Fact is, as long as there is helicopters, we WILL sad to say, have accidents regardless of what efforts put in place to have a zero-accident policy...Therefore things like this need to be addressed.
Why do you pay for insurance by the way?? I have done so for 20 or so years, but has yet never had the use for it! But I bet, quite a few others have had good use for theirs...:ok:

[Runway101]

I don't remember where I read that, possibly here on pprune, but I was under the impression that before the Nomex letter was released by RHC somebody was in the process of taking them to court over an accident. It may also have been at the RHC safety course.

Maybe, and this is pure speculation, this legal issue resulted into the need for these bladder tanks now. We all know how difficult it is to insure an aviation company, remember what happened to that carburetor company that went out of business a few years ago, just because they couldn't afford insurance (not that they would have been sued by anyone, but they were just making carburetors for Lycoming engines and that was considered high risk by insurance companies).

I vaguely remember the story of Frank ordering and testing the samples of the flight suite, including putting them into the sun for weeks, then deciding to sell one single color for some specific reason. Must have been Tim Tucker at the safety course who was telling this story...

[fling-wing_1]

Runway101,

I know the guys at the carburetor company you speak of. They were in fact sued due to an accident that was clearly pilot error (ran out of gas.) The lawyers slapped a suit on anybody even associated with the airplane. Most settled to make them go away, as that's the way it's done here in the states. :mad:

The carburetor company's lawyer decided to fight but alas he was not as adroit at defense as the company would have wished. Next thing you know they have a $20 million judgement against them. After the trial their insurance company dropped them as being too expensive to insure. :{

Interesting footnote is that the president of the company later was summoned to Washington to testify before congress about frivolous lawsuits. Congress agreed it was outrageous and decided that perhaps they should cap judgements at $12 million instead. :ouch:

As to the bladders, I don't know how Frank ever got the R44 certified without them? It's about time they make that design flaw right. Too bad the customers have to pay. :ugh:

[rick1128]

FW,

It is quite simple how Frank got the R44 certified without bladders. They were not required by the certification regs at the time. The regulations have since changed, but the 44 is grandfathered, so it is not required for the bladders to be installed in 44's.

[chopperchappie]

My understanding was that in the UK it wasnt currently a mandatory requirement (although that could of course change) other than if you want your R44 rebuilt by a Robinson certified facility (e.g. 12 years / 2200 hours).

I dont see anything different above but just want to check my facts.

CC

[Heliman8]

Am looking for a private owner of a R44 who would be ok with letting a
pilot rent it from him for a number of hours per year for my use -
I am based in the South West of England
So any one interested please get in touch

Many thanks
Commercial Heli Pilot
Heliman8

[Helicopter44]

My 3 year old Raven 1 with only 300 hours total time was found to have blade delaminating despite maintaining the blades to Robinson recommendations. The bond line has never been exposed as I have kept them well painted, and I have washed blades after every flight. I had to buy new blades and my helicopter was out of service for six weeks. This has been financially devastating from both a replacement cost and loss of revenue.
· FAA AD 6/17/11 (http://www.robinsonhelicoptercomplaints.com/Docs/AD2011-12-10.pdf), pilots are required, on the day of each flight, to inspect blades to detect main rotor blade skin debond which can lead to loss of control of the helicopter
· Robinson designed and manufactured the steel blades experiencing the delaminate problem
· Delaminated blades must be replaced at owner expense at an estimated cost of $50,000; plus loss of revenue for owner operators during the 4 - 6 week replacement downtime
· Owners may only purchase replacement blades from Robinson
· Robinson no longer manufactures the design flawed steel skin blades and replaced them with their 4th generation designed aluminum blades
FAA AD 6/17/11 (http://www.robinsonhelicoptercomplaints.com/Docs/AD2011-12-10.pdf) indicates the FAA is considering mandating the replacement of R22 and R44 rotor blades.
R44 Bladder Tank Retrofit

Service Bulletin SB-78 (http://www.robinsonhelicoptercomplaints.com/Docs/r44sb78.pdf) requires all R44 helicopters to be retrofitted with bladder tanks.
Owners must pay for the retrofit at an estimated cost of $12,000
Additional financial losses to commercial owner operators include the approximate 2 week downtime for the installation
Owners can only purchase the Bladder Tank from Robinson
Robinson will profit off the estimated 5000 owners affected by Robinson's mandated retrofit

We have power in numbers so if enough Robinson helicopter owners join our cause we can put pressure on Robinson Helicopter Company to do right by its customers and if not we will proceed with a class action lawsuit against Robinson Helicopters.
Please join us at Robinson Helicopter Design and Manufacturing Defects - Owner Complaints (http://www.robinsonhelicoptercomplaints.com)

[Hedge36]

That's some username.

[blakmax]

Hi Alphanumeric character set.

I have sent you a personal message. Since you are new here, look above the "quick links" tab at the top of the page.

Regards

Blakmax

[Torquetalk]

It' the WEP for his LAN. Thanks for sharing :ok:

[heligal]

I'm wondering if washing your blades so much contributed to the debonding. I don't wash mine very often at all and fly in corrosive environments: dust in AZ and rain in WA. Yes, my 1200- hour, 6yo blades have been repainted twice, but there is no evidence of debonding.

As for the fuel bladders, that is not a "required" upgrade -- at least, not until overhaul. (I'm Part 135 and my POI is not requiring it.) The SB is a knee-jerk reaction to an accident that occurred in WA a few years back that resulted in a post-crash fire. Robinson is, as usual, attempting to protect itself from future legal action by recommending this "improved" fuel tank system. If we don't get it and have a fire, they'll point to the SB and blame us.

You talk about Robinson profiting off the fuel tank retrofit. I guess the cost of R&D and FAA approvals don't count in your calculations. Saying they profit from every tank sold is like saying we profit from every dollar we collect beyond fuel costs. I'm not saying there's no profit for Robinson. I'm saying that profit is likely not nearly as big as you think. Perhaps the discount on the tank purchase before year-end is more reflective of their actual costs?

While I feel your pain, having had problems with other Robinson components over the years, I don't think that pressure from owners is going to make a difference. And I can't imagine that threatening a class action lawsuit would get you very far, either. Even if you did succeed, the lawyers are likely to far more than you'll ever see.

No aircraft is perfect. Design changes happen all the time. If you don't like your Robinson, why not just sell it and get something you think won't have any problems? Good luck with that.

[g0lfer]

Don't bite guys, this is a wind up. Probably from the press or a competitor. If I am unhappy with a car, boat, heli then I get rid of it. I don't go on a crusade.

[heligal]

Definitely not worth a crusade.

[Runway101]

Probably from the press or a competitor.

And who might that be?

[9Aplus]

Real person, real and more than common case.... :ugh:

[21lefthand]

What would a mid life R44 sell like at the moment ?

[jeepys]

Have a look at Online Helicopter Trader (http://www.onlinehelicoptertrader.com) which I have just discovered messing about on my computer wasting time!

[21lefthand]

Thanks Jeepys

I just wondered if they were selling at the moment and what sort of value a 2004 Raven II with 320 hours would be worth.

[toptobottom]

Wait for it... :bored:

[helicopter-redeye]

...2004 Raven II with 320 hours would be worth...

Worth more if exported with the £££ situation, even expensive helicopters in the UK look cheap at the moment.

Worth more to a flying school or commercial operator because of the low hours (they could burn through these before a rebuild at 12yrd/ 2200hrs).

If sold in the UK, I'd say around £150K + VAT if applic, probably not much more unless a dealer bought it and priced it up, but they would be looking to stag the asset.

If exported, may make up to £170K + VAT if applicable.

May also depend on fit out, but Raven II basic machines are quite numerous in the UK and there are less buyers around than 2004, and the price of Avgas is very high. A lot of overseas operations run the R44 on gasoline, so the operating cost is less.

Depends on urgency of sale. Like busses, you wait around then three buyers come at once....

[21lefthand]

Thanks Helicopter- redeye

My situation is the farm next door is on the market and i just wondered what the market is like at the moment for price and speed of selling . It would be a reluctant sale but if it would sell for a sensible amount i think i would do it and buy back when the dollar gets good?
Its vat paid and all the usual kit + twin coms and bubble windows

21

[valve guide]

Would you fly an R44 that did not have the crank AD done. I believe that they can be flown till their 12 year life occurs or until the crank case is opened. I know most people complied with having it replaced at the time but just wondered what your views were on flying one that hadn't when it was on the list of suspect ones?

Thanks

[Chopper Doc]

If it was urgent and necessary for it to be done quicker the AD would've said so. Not heard of it causing it any problems.

[bvgs]

Yeah thought that myself Chopper Doc but just wondered what everyone elses view was. Thanks!

[chopperaguilera]

Hi everyone;

I need a R-44 maintenance program example, i'm confused, what's the difference between the RHC's Maintenance Manual and The Operator's R-44 Maintenance Program ???. Million thanks in advance.

Kind Regards;

[Amatsu]

Hi Chopperaguilera

Your simplest option is to refer to the R44 Maintenance Manual Section 2 and Lycoming Operators Manual Section 4 which have a full manufacturers maintenance programme detailed.

What we do at our maintenace facility is copy these pages and use them as a check sheet with addition worksheets detailing AD's, SB's and any other regional authority requirements.

If your regional authority require you to produce an Approved Maintenance Programme then all a lot of companies do is copy word for word the contents of these inspections onto a headed document.

I hope this helps

[FSXPilot]

Anyone in the UK have an R44 Main Rotor blade -5 for sale? I only need one. PM if you have one.

[61 Lafite]

Anyone in the UK have an R44 Main Rotor blade -5 for sale? I only need one

I'm curious as to whether it's permitted to fit one relacement blade if the pair hasn't been through a factory match process.

Robinson does go to a lot of trouble to match the blades up in the production line, so replacing one in the field with an arbitrarily sourced spare sounds like the kind of thing that might be against recommendations. I have no actual knowledge either way - anyone know?

Lafite

[FSXPilot]

With modern tracking equipment I don't see it being a problem. The real problem is Robinson don't sell the -5 blade any more so if you damage a -5 blade you need to buy two new -7 blades or source a second hand -5.
Robinson helicopters are fairly straight forward to track and balance.

[chopperaguilera]

Million thanks Amatsu for the useful response.

Kind Regards;

Martin.

[47guy's]

G'day to all!

I try to find a picture of R-44 and a big John-Deere tractor in same color, saw that a few month ago but lost track of it!

One of my nephew (4years old) is tripping about copter and tractor.

Guy

[lonestarchalk1]

Just curious to read and get positive/ negative feed back from other pilots who are flying the R-44. I'm presently flying a R-44 Clipper II, my first impression is the aircraft is weak and under-powered in general and very unforgiving, very small margins for error and unforgiving. I'd like to know if anyone has ever deployed the emergency floats on a Clipper during an emergency and what was the reaction of the aircraft?

[500e]

Families of 2 men killed in crash settle with Robinson Helicopter - The Daily Breeze (http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19827664http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19827664)

[Vertical Freedom]

Make sure your blades don't come off, :{ or delaminate on their own, http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif as they a prone to do SO OFTEN.

I have had 2 friends killed in Robo products & another 1 near catastrophe from an in-flight blade delamination, they ONLy just walked away as the delam happened near the end of a practiced auto.

I have 2 good Engineer friends who have both expressed their concern to the way this product is made; its made to a price, cheep, very cheep & very nasty. I have seen a blade with some delamination fresh from the box straight out of the factory & NEVER FLOWN yet!!! Good one yer, right - flimsicopters :oh:

Are they safe? Robo's kill more Pilots than any other machine. Crash one & You will be lucky to walk away, if the post crash-fire does not get to You first. RIP http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

I fly 'em too, yep :{ but only when I have to, sure they are crisp & precise to fly (well don't mention the cyclic shhhhiiite its like the war, mums the word) but given unlimited choice; NEVER. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

If we all boycott them, they might just go away, yes just go away............

Good Luck & Happy Landings.

VF

[blakmax]

I am aware of an investigation report which addresses a significant factor in blade failure, but the report is gathering dust on the desk of the authorities in a Pacific country. They have had the report for over two years, but have not released it to date.

So much for the "wait for the official report" policy.

[3top]

Lonestarchalk,

what did you fly before the R44, what is your previous experience?

3top:cool:

[206Fan]

Robinson R44 autorotation - YouTube

[hillberg]

Nothing close, Just sloppy or a new meat servo getting calabrated:=

[CYHeli]

Some more negative thoughts from a writer in Sydney who also doubles as a barrister.
earth-wind-fire-and-pain (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/earth-wind-fire-and-pain-20120218-1tfs5.html)

[HeliCraig]

However, they need heavyweight pilots, because when flown at low forward speed, especially at heights lower than 500 feet, they are susceptible to OGE - out of ground effect, which means in close proximity to the terrain at a low air speed or at hover, they fall out of the sky.

Flying and sailing make me nervous, which is why I walk everywhere.

These two quotes alone, I think, sum up the credence we should give the author on this subject; regardless of his standing in the legal profession.

[Arrrj]

The article is a disgrace, and written by someone who has not done their homework and is clearly illiterate.

This section of the article is particularly ridiculous and written in language that Mr Waterstreet must have invented himself !

However, they need heavyweight pilots, because when flown at low forward speed, especially at heights lower than 500 feet, they are susceptible to OGE - out of ground effect, which means in close proximity to the terrain at a low air speed or at hover, they fall out of the sky.

The comments regarding “helicopter was burnt” in his eyes seem to only occur to “Robinson 22 and 44” helicopters. Did he miss the recent Twin Squirrel crash or the B3 at YSBK, both were burned to the ground, regardless of being made by other manufacturers. :ugh:

The industry does not need this sort of uneducated publicity, written in a style that suggests he knows what he is talking about.

Shame on you “Sun Herald” and shame and disgrace on you Mr Waterstreet.

It is hard to believe that any reputable newspaper would publish such rubbish. :=

Arrrj

[topendtorque]

Very hard to believe that a Barrister would write such rubbish. He is either slightly unhinged or is being spun by a drinking buddy who could be full of hate without knowledge.

I sincerely hope for his sake that he doesn't come up against these words of his in a case somewhere against someone who actually knows a bit about aviation or he might find himself in a sticky situation.

I shall keep them for sure.

The gentleman has quite an illustrious career in films and literature and according to his web site is touted as a caring individual.

How the crass carelessness of his words from the article fit with caring, is beyond me.

People from stateside who are related to the last unfortunate accident and reading them will understandably be quite upset.

[JimBall]

Davy, FFS get out more. That wasn't a "close shave". It's called training - where students learn their limits. You should head off to Sydney and join the barrister who only walks everywhere. Find him before he gets run over.

And tell him that his "Opinion" piece was written as a reaction to the crash which killed film-maker Mike De Gruy. I understand that this happened at no more than 10 feet off the ground. IGE? OGE? Tell him to get his facts right. (And maybe to wait for the inquiry results.)

[wallism]

Regarding the video, I'm happier landing on the front of the skids and bouncing back a bit than the other way round and flipping over forward. The only scare there was perhaps a bit of back cyclic when it touched down.

[206Fan]

Jim,

I was refering to how close the Rotor and the Tail Boom got when Aft Cyclic was applied upon touching the ground.

Dave

[Spunk]

Now we all know where the fuel tank bladder AD comes from:

accident report (http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/2010060_D-HNOC_ENG.pdf)

SUMMARY
2010060
Accident
14 August 2010, approximately 12.30 hours Stroe
D-HNOC
Robinson R44
Helicopter

During a positioning flight, both ground handling wheels were left attached to the helicopter. While hover taxiing before landing, the left ground handling wheel fell from the aircraft. The right ground handling wheel, however, was still attached to the right skid with its lifting handle pointing downwards. When the lifting handle hit the ground, the helicopter pivoted over to the left, the tail hit the ground and the tail, including the tail rotor, broke off. The helicopter became uncontrollable and came to a standstill lying on its side. The pilot suffered no injuries. The helicopter was damaged beyond repair.

D-HNOC was equipped with a single-walled aluminum fuel tank. This tank has proved to be vulnerable to post-accident fuel leaks and fires in other R44 accidents. To improve the R44 fuel system’s resistance to a post-accident fuel leak and possible fire, the helicopter manufacturer issued R44 Service Bulletin SB-78 (see Appendix C) on 20 December 2010. This bulletin requires R44 and R44 II helicopters with single-walled aluminum fuel tanks to be retrofitted with bladder- type tanks. With this modification the tank consists of a metal outer tank and a rubber inner tank which makes it double-walled and less vulnerable to fuel leaks and fire in the event of disruption of the outer tank. The SB states that compliance should be “as soon as practical but no later than 31 December 2014.”

:ugh:

[claudia]

Spunk

Compliance is now moved forward one year to 31st December 2013
Not so good for most R44 owners.

[Fracturelines]

I've got a few questions, maybe some of you can help. I just started flying an r44 Clipper I. It has fixed floats and according to the POH, yes, the VNE is reduced. But the airspeed indicator has a placard that reads, "80kts VNE with floats". I'm not sure if this is correct or if one of the spanish speaking mechanics mis-read something regarding pop outs or if, in fact, that is the actual VNE of an R44 Clipper I with fixed floats on it? There is a placard under the collective regarding VNE 80kts "when floats are deployed", which I take is referring to pop-outs.

Also, when I first started going through the weight and balance I read that this aircraft has 7 unusable gallons of fuel. Is this common or is this possibly another mistake? I certainly use the 7 gallons in all my fuel calculations, but I spoke with a couple of guys I work with, also pilots, and they said that it is not correct.

I'm going through about 1q of oil every 1 1/2 hours, seems excessive to me? There's definitely some bleeding going on around the engine and head covers, I see it everyday.

Lastly, when shutting down the R44 at what cylinder head temp do you look for before closing the throttle and disengaging the clutch. I've heard and read many different things. It's not terribly hot here, stays around 30-32c almost everyday. I know this aircraft feels a bit underpowered and I'm wondering if there are problems regarding the amount of oil being used, possible loss of compression from the oil leaks, and if this R44 hasn't been cooled down properly in the past and I've got a valve issue. A lot of these guys that fly in this area just say 2 minutes at closed throttle and then you're good. But people I talk with are telling me completely different stories.

I'm new to the R44 and pretty low hour, so don't kill me over these questions, I just need some insight from pprune instead of getting advice from some of these guerilla pilots that fly down here who say not to worry about anything.

[Hairyplane]

Hi Fracturelines,

I cant answer all of your questions but here is my contribution, as a pilot/ owner with 800hrs on my own machines.

Engine - Sounds very tired to me. They shouldn't leak. My 2008 Raven 22 uses a litre of oil every 4-5 hours. I have never had any plug fouling issues.

Cooling down - I run mine at 65%, which also assists in finding the 'cyclic sweet spot', for around a minute, maybe 2 if I have been hovering extensively when hot/ heavy. I just look for a drop in temps.

Unuseable fuel - Can you imagine Frank R, who doesn't even want the added weight of door trims and seat backs, designing a machine with a fuel system that requires you to carry around over 40lbs of gas? Nah.

My advice? Flog it and buy a better one. I think there are a few question marks over your machine and its maintenance history. I wonder if it has..ahem.. done more than the Datcon would have you believe?

Watch out for those Gorilla's, they are out there in the 'midst'.

Happy flying.

HP

[lelebebbel]

Maximum allowable oil consumption for Lycoming engines:
The maximum allowable oil consumption limits for all Textron Lycoming aircraft engines can be determined by using the following formula:
.006 x BHP x 4 ÷ 7.4 = Qt./Hr.
The clipper is rated at 245BHP, so according to this formula your limit is 0.8qt/hr.

1qt every 1.5hrs is very close to that - have you talked to the owner and the engineers? Anything over 1qt / 3hours is unusual, I wouldn't fly it if it goes through twice that....


Regarding the floats: The Robinson Fixed floats have a VNE of 110kts if I'm not mistaken (don't quote me). Your floats might be a different make. In any case, there should be a supplement in the flight manual that tells you exactly what your limit is. If the flight manual doesn't match the placards, something fishy is going on.

[sloanemallorca]

We also operate the R44 Clipper I with Fixed Floats:

80 kts VNE Placard - this is for R44's Clippers with POP OUT Floats, not fixed floats.

120 knots is VNE of Fixed Floats, subject to weight and also reducing with temp and alt. Get the R44 POH, Section 9-5 is the Fixed Float Supplememnt, Placard that should be shown is there (Section 2: 9-5.3). These are the VNE's you should use.

Unusable Fuel 7 Galls?
R44 POH Section 2 gives Fuel Limits (2-6)
Main Unusable is 1 US Gallon
Aux Unusable is 0.2 US Gallon
Total Unusable is 1.2 US Gallon

Are you confusing the "minimum landing fuel" which is normally around 7 US Gallons?

Cheers Jonny

[MartinCh]

Hairyplane, Fracturelines is likely PPL working on his CPL/CFI. Never mentioned being owner. Flying something ain't the same.

True, about the unusable fuel. Sounds more like rough guide for min fuel to have left when landing back/at the end of flight on VFR flight. Look at some generic POH and compare it with yours. If it's updated correctly, the main difference would be obviously W&B specifics.

FL, you were right about the seemingly inconsistent 80kts VNE. Seriously low.
No need to point out flight schools etc, but having placards for pop out floats and actually having fixed ones, is just shoddy standards, if not against A&P's safety standards. It is entirely possible the frame had pop out floats and then it got changed. Why not sort the POH and placards? Actually, I do believe it's against the rules. Ramp check may not be a pleasant thing if it happens and docs are as they are.

[CYHeli]

A little more to add to Spunk's post about the fuel tank AD's. This comes from here (http://robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sb82.pdf) and simply states, Current production R44-series helicopters have a more rugged, environmentally sealed rotor brake switch. This bulletin requires replacement of earlier switches.

From what I have been told, the rotor brake lamp switch (reed switch attached to rotor brake system) is the probable source of the spark that is causing the post crash fires. Simply, as it always has power going to the switch, it becomes the ignition source for the split fuel when the tanks burst!:eek:
Yet Robinson describe the change simply as "a more rugged, environmentally sealed rotor brake switch" to disguise its the importance of carrying out this this SB.

[hillberg]

The tank ruptures the fuel flows onto the fire wall down the control closet to the belly keels and all the electrical sparks from the fire wall electrical through holes Boom !

[Fracturelines]

Just to clarify, I am a commercial pilot working in a very remote area without any sort of mechanic or support to be found. I am not the aircraft owner, just the pilot. There is also a huge language barrier that prevents me from getting many answers I have regarding information in this particular POH and about the aircraft. There are some things that don't seem to match up and I've never been able to get a straight answer from anyone here.

I've got through the POH with a pick and comb. That is why I am asking some of these questions. The VNE placard, the weight and balance document(s), the unusable fuel(yes, it does state unusable fuel 7 gallons in the POH on one of the W&B sheets along with a statement regarding GW being 2500lbs), there's quite of few issues that I'm dealing with as a low hour commercial pilot and just haven't been able to get straight answers down here.

I appreciate all the feedback and information you guys have provided. Certainly some things I need to get a hold of the operator about, but that's a completely different story in itself.

This aircraft has another 20 hours until the 100 hour, so I'm hoping to get some answers with the current weight and balance, the low power issues, the rust that is developing in many different spots, the VNE placard, and some other minor things.

So thanks again to everyone that commented, it gives a small piece of mind getting feedback from people that don't just say, "you worry about everything too much, just be a gorilla pilot".

Edit: I'm going to get the part numbers off the floats when I get back out to the helicopter to double check the manufacturer.

[powerlimited]

Regarding the oil consumption. Just be careful that these numbers you quote are realistic, it is not uncommon for Robinson to vent oil and find a suitable "usable" level.

For instance you fill your 44 upto 9 Quarts, within the first hour the engine vents 1 quart out of the oil breather (not burning it). This engine can then take 5-6 hours before getting anyway near the 7 Quarts lower limit. But if you keep filling back up to 9 Quarts each time then it appears to be using a lot of oil. This just springs to mind as you mention oil mist on cowls etc.

Regarding the low power, have a look at the figures for the compression check at the 100hr.

If you're not happy with the machine - don't fly it!

[Hairyplane]

Hi Fracturelines,

Further to the 'rust' you speak of, I guess you mean corrosion beneath the painted aluminium of the airframe.

My first machine, a brand new 2005 Raven 2, Did not have the 'additional corrosion proofing' that was offered, as my Agent told me there had never been any corrosion issues.

After 11 months, bubbles began to appear along the tailboom, around the tail surfaces and the fuel tanks.

I was told afterwards that RHC had changed their paint processes for environmental reasons and mine was one of those quickly affected by corrosion beneath the overlapped joints in the various sections.

RHC refused to accept any liability 'due to the vagiaries of the English weather', despite my telling them that it had only done a few hours and lived in an airconditioned hangar.

All they did was say 'send the corroded bits back and we'll repaint them for you or send the paint, as you prefer'.

If it had been a corrosion carbunkle on the bonnet of a brand new Skoda I would have had it all sorted under warranty and been given a loaner.
However, spend $0.5M on a helicopter....

It cost me £thousands to sort, simply because it was less costly in both £'s and downtime to get it done here, i.e. I would have had to pay the crating & freight charges etc.

My 2008 machine seems OK, they must have got the paint sorted prior to its m/f.

HP

[Fracturelines]

Regarding the VNE, this is the placard on the panel and from the supplement
Panel: http://i.imgur.com/PGxo4.jpg
Supplement: http://i.imgur.com/K7a8Z.jpg
Float P/N: http://i.imgur.com/0QkiZ.jpg
Right side float with oil spots from leaks: http://i.imgur.com/8jmRL.jpg

Regarding Rust, these are a few different areas. But many bolts, rod end areas, and places where paint is wore or chipped off.
Shaft: http://i.imgur.com/Kxwoe.jpg - http://i.imgur.com/KbYlI.jpg
T/R: http://i.imgur.com/6hP0J.jpg

I just snapped a couple quick pics this morning with my phone, sorry if the quality is poor. I firmly believe there are leaks on the engine too. I see them everyday and clean the engine bay every morning and it's covered at the end of a day.

[Arrrj]

Fracture,

If you don't like the condition of the machine, don't fly it.

The engine bay should be clean after flying, I currently have a 500 hour R44 machine and it is always clean in the engine bay, and it gets in the air a lot.

All helicopters can suffer from poor maintenance, and from poor handling, it sounds like the machine you are flying has had a bit of both.

Again, if you are not happy, don’t fly it. Simple as that.

Arrrj :ok:

[toptobottom]

HP - the corrosion problem on the 44 still existed in machines built during 2008, usually manifesting itself just after the 2 year warranty expired. It is extraordinary that Robinson, despite changing to water based paint, denied it was using materials that were not fit for purpose... I know of several 44 operators that were landed with expensive remedial work.

[sloanemallorca]

Float P/N same as my aircraft, stamped in same area so, assuming genuine, they are RHC Floats. Have photos of mine but still learning to post pictures on Pprune.

It looks like the ASI "80 kts VNE" Placard is incorrect, and the POH placard is correct.

You mention GW as 2500lbs on your paperwork, note a GW of the R44 Clipper I is 2400lbs, if you fly 2500lbs you are overweight - unless you are flying a R44 Clipper II?

Oil spots on floats - I get similar, but not as many as in your photo, it tends to be oil venting out of the breather, clean the oil off then see how quickly the spots reappear.

[Skippy80]

Am after some tech assistance.

A friend has been having some issues with his 44 electrical system. Helicopter has been sluggish and slow to start, when the 44 has flown for a bit with the amp gauge showing that the batt is charging, when trying to start the 44 again after a flight the batt is almost dead. The batt has been changed and it appears to be doing the same thing. When the pilot has looked under the 44 and felt the starter it has been red hot.

Any help and ideas would be appreciated.

Cheers.

[Uncapeez]

Sounds like you have answered your own question there. Sounds like starter motor jamming on, overheating and then rendering it u/s when its required to start up. :hmm:

[FSXPilot]

When you say the starter motor is hot. Have you checked it when it was working normally. Remember it is bolted to the engine and will get hot through conduction when the engine is hot anyway.
Does jump starting the helicopter make any difference?
If you're still getting no joy take it to your maintenance facility.

[Skippy80]

No i don't beleve it made any difference when jump started. The fact that the starter is getting hot, i agree is due to it's location. If it was remaining on you would think you would be getting the starter light remaining on. Have you had any problems with the starting relay.

[JimBall]

Pinion stuck in ring gear? This happens when people get a no-start and press the button again too soon. Can also chip ring teeth off.

[AnFI]

101.001 Starter Motors

101.001 a) .....
101.001 b) .....
101.001 c) .... using the motor for too long or attempting too many start cycles without time to cool the starter motor will cause it to over heat. Once the motor has overheated the magnetic strength of the permanent magnets will be diminished resulting in a permanently screwed starter motor. Subsequent starts will draw more current and produce less starting torque, resulting in the motor getting hotter quicker and making it more likely to further damage the magnets eventually turning the motor into an electric heater rather than as a startermotor...

[Sam Rutherford]

I'm interested in anyone with first hand experience of the difference in useable power hot and high between the two types of R44?

Thanks, Sam.

[Goody35]

Do you know if the crash report has ever been released. I was in Fiji the day it happened ...to this day the company will no longer fly 44's ... All Squirrels and H500's in their fleet these days

[blakmax]

Goody35

If you are referring to the crash 06 Dec 2006 (DQ IHE) CAAFI has not released the report. I know for a fact that it was submitted to them in April 2010. Why haven't they released it?? Ask them. The report clearly identifies that the most probable cause of the crach was blade failure due to disbonding. I am happy to discuss this further if you PM me.

Regards

Blakmax

[airvole]

I need to repaint some R44 Raven 11 main rotor blades
any hints or tips appreciated

[Sam Rutherford]

Dulux weathershield? ;)

Surely Robinson have some guidance on this?

[airvole]

Theirs always one

[Helinut]

Get it done by or through the engineer who maintains your aircraft. That way you will actually be able to fly it legally, as well as admire the finish

[airvole]

I will re phrase the question

Has anybody had R44 Raven 11 M/Rotor blades painted successfully, obviously by a licensed maintenance facility and if so which facility ?

The new finish is for practical and safety purposes not cosmetic

[Arrrj]

I have had my blades painted a couple of times in Australia. No problem at all, they needed painting due to the salt spray in Aus.

Just get them done with a LAME, and all will be OK.

Arrrj :ok:

[airvole]

Same problem with my machines (coastal area)

But the maintenance facilities I have spoken too are not very confident about the longevity of the new paint finish

How many hours have you been getting after re-finish ?

Thanks in anticipation

[Arrrj]

Airvole,

We get around 400 hours between repainting on the main rotor, and about half that on the tail rotor.

Arrrj

[airvole]

Arrrj,

Thanks for that

Airvole

[zami]

Can you tell mi please the price of a VIBREX 2k or 2k+ (new or used)?
Do you know a good and less expensive balancer for a R44
Thanks

[John R81]

So.....

Long term problem - starting motors and ring gear getting into conflict on a regular basis. Every couple of months teeth go missing. New starting motors and new ring gear (one / other / both) makes no difference.

Finally, it was suggested that we check the L magneto as it might not actually retain correct advance / retard for the full time to overhaul.

Turned out to be correct. The timing did not retard correctly for the start sequence. Advanced timing was leading to the engine pushing backwards against the starter and the weakest link gives way.

In future I will be checking timing and points at the 100 hr checks. £120 for that beats the cost of a new starter and ring gear

John

[as350nut]

Flying yesterday in R4411, 800 hr tt 2005; alternator light comes on, and I can tell you the battery drain is pretty high, check circuit breaker and it is in. So land and cycle ALT switch and all is good. Hasn't happened again. Is this symptom of impending failure, or just a under/over power spike, maybe diode fauilure??? Belt is good, battery fine, and all nuts tight, no wires broken, etc. After cycle of ALT switch took about 15 min for amps to read normal. Only ask because in 2000+ hours never had this one before.

[Flingwinger]

400hrs only between repaint!!!??? We operated an eng machine around 120 hrs a month, coastal and in plenty of rain and we would get over 1000hrs before even a slight touch up was required! You don't need to be over anal on this, just don't let them erode to the bond line. Use the Robinson tool to put a felt mark on the blade with the location of the bond line and monitor the erosion. If its starting to come off in chunks then take some sandpaper and feather the edge of the paint down to the stainless so that the wind/water/dirt etc can't get under the paint and pull chunks off.

[jackx123]

UTair will acquire 50 Mi-34S1 helicopters - News - Russian Aviation - RUAVIATION.COM (http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2011/8/11/466/)

Mil Mi 34 - YouTube

[Hughes500]

AS350

Sure the wires are good, look carefully at the feild wires at the ring tags, quite often look good but may only have a couple of strands making a contact, seen it a couple of times giving yoour symptoms

[Rotordent]

Had the same problem. Earth connection was the problem. 5 min. work.
Was a good emergencies rehersal.

[zerosum]

FAA have published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the replacement of main rotor blades on both R22 & R44 not using current specification main rotor blades.

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-02-25/pdf/2013-04217.pdf

Proposed time of compliance is 5 years but we all recall the process on the R44 Bladder Tanks which started with compliance by 31 December 2014 which then came back to 31 December 2013 and back again to 30 April 2013. We have yet to discover what will happen to R44s after end of April.

R44 Bladder Tanks are not yet an AD but they could easily become such. Even if this does not happen R44 owners and schools hiring them out will place themselves at increased risk in the event of a serious accident. Lawyers may claim that the owner/school were negligent in ignoring a safety recommendation made by Robinson having been given adequate time to do so.

Fuel tanks, blades, whatever next?

[blakmax]

Zerosum

In my professional opinion this should have happened earlier and the time to complete the change over is too long. This should have occurred as soon as the report on the Israeli crash was released. That crash had all of the characteristics of the crash of DQ-IHE (see the comments at the top of this page of the thread) and I know the FAA has seen the draft of that report even if CAAFI have not released it. So they had two reports which indicated a problem with the blades. I don't know why they waited so long to issue this AD.

As for managing the integrity by reliance on the tap test, I urge you to read this: http://www.adhesionassociates.com/papers/57%20Safety%20Risks%20in%20Applying%20Damage%20Tolerance%20A nalysis%20to%20Certification%20of%20Adhesively%20Bonded%20St ructures%20and%20Joints.doc

There have been documented cases of blade disbonds with service as low as about 750 hrs. I know of two blades reported with disbonds at the root fitting with ZERO flight hours, so I would love to know how they think these blades will be safe for the next five years.

In my opinion they should have withdrawn a number of blades with a range of service lives and then undertaken static tests to demonstrate that they maintain a sufficient level of reserve strength.

Regards

Blakmax

[topendtorque]

I don't think I am alone with the feeling that we have been jointly and severally duckshovelled by both FAA and Robinson on this issue?

I.E. Who worked out first that something should have been done but wasn't and thus they similarly worked out that they may be severally and jointly responsible for inaction?

I would dearly love to see those Florida blades independently and professionally examined away from both FAA and Robinson.

[blakmax]

TET

I too would like to see an independent AND COMPETENT inspection of the blades. Did they ever find the second blade or did I miss that?

It always amazes me that in any crash the suspect item is sent back to the manufacturer. Surely there is a conflict of interest there? Isn't it in the best interest of the company itself not to find a cause for which they are potentially liable?

I have seen one manufacturer overlook the scenario that is obvious to the IIC and fall back on a theory for which there is absolutely no evidence and which does not fit in with the failure features. And the FAA seems bound to accept their findings.

Sometimes I think that the only way to change this system may well be by litigation.

Regards BM

[Gemini Twin]

Bladder tanks will not stop these helicopters crashing all of the time!

[homonculus]

Every time a Robinson crashes there is a deluge of bashers. I have no great love of Frank Robinson, having been told the blades on a five month old 44 had to be changed at my expense and a litany of other issues over the years. BUT before the 22 and 44, self fly in the UK and many other countries was limited to small groups of rather eccentric chaps.

I am not alone in preferring to fly more substantial helicopters but I and many others would never have learned to fly without the 22 purely because of cost. With the exception of perhaps the US, tax authorities are so strict that very few people can afford to operate turbine helicopters other than as part of a commercial operation. As we enter the seventh year of a global recession I am struck by the reduction in self fly operations and the number of people giving up helicopter ownership. This cannot be good for any part of the industry. The 22 and 44 may be Ladas but when there were no other affordable cars Russians found them invaluable.

By all means put bladder tanks in new aircraft, but bear in mind that mandating retro fitting, combined with the recurring spectre of blades and the fiasco over the 66 will drive people away. This not only effects Robinson sales but also employment within the industry, the number of people moving up to more substantial ships and potentially the ability of the industry to resist increasing political regulation.

[mickjoebill]

From an aviation lawyers website;Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman | Wrongful Death and Personal Injury Lawyers (http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/)

n November 2011, Robinson announced that it had produced its 10,000th helicopter. They are currently the world's leading manufacturer of civil helicopters.

According to the NTSB’s online Accident Database, it appears that 1,053 Robinson helicopters have been involved in accidents across the globe since the first R22 crashed on December, 22, 1975 at Torrance, California and that of those 1,053 accidents, 237 were fatal accidents, killing a total of 413 people.

According to US and foreign government accident databases, there have been at least 30 low-impact R44 crashes resulting in post-crash fires since 1993. Fifty-nine people have died and more than a dozen people were injured in these accidents.

Above stats do not include recent crashes.

Mickjoebill

[dmark1]

Actually for 10,000 helicopters built, the large majority of which are involved in either basic flight training or low time pilots flying them, that is an extremely good safety record. Especially when you look at the per hour fatality.


Fly safe, fly conservative, fly within your abilities.

[Vertical Freedom]

'Crapinson Flimsicopter' - if the crash don't get ya...........
the post-crash FIRE will!!!

:ugh: :{ :yuk: nuff said :mad: :eek: :yuk:

http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviation-press-releases/robinson-helicopter-colombia-crash.php :ooh:

[homonculus]

Ok VF eliminate the Robinsons. That reduces the piston helicopters available for training by say 85%. Assume the other manufacturers have the space and funding to increase production by a third so the reduction is only 80%.

What are you going to train tomorrow's commercial pilots on? The guys I see coming through are really struggling financially as it is. They simply can't afford to train on turbines.

So fewer pilots, less engineers, a smaller industry. How many other industries promote their own destruction? Those that can afford more substantial ships are indeed fortunate, but more normal mortals.......

[belly tank]

Agree with VF. These Crapinsons have claimed the lives unnecessarily of 3 mates of mine and nearly my own. I will never step foot in one again.:{

[Thomas coupling]

Homonculus - arguing in favour of a poorly designed helo, surely is worse than having it removed in the first instance.
One would hope that eventually someone - either another entrepreneur or FR himself might build a more user friendly lawn mower in future simply because of the onslaught of complaints about it.
Of course you are right - because of the Robbo, many more are now flying....but you know what I'm about to say next, don't you: many more are now dead :sad:

[homonculus]

Cant argue with you TC. What is needed is clarity about the level of risk combined with good training and an appreciation of one's limitations. The individual can then decide the level of risk he is prepared to take and whether they can fly to that level of risk. In that respect the decision process is no different than many other industries.

What I dont see in other industries however is the incessant baying from within the industry to attempt to eliminate a major proportion of itself. Especially when the initiating event has not been reported and may well be pilot error, not aircraft design. We simply do not know if the impact would have been survivable in the absence of fire.

Now back to the lawn mower

[Gemini Twin]

Cheap poorly designed helicopters allows cheap poorly operated flying schools which attract poorly motivated non aviation dreamers who think they can become helicopter pilots.
Next we have a plethora of in experienced instructors and and some less than highly skilled examiners.
This allows a bunch of in experienced low skilled ppls who take themselves and often there loved ones to their doom primarily because they do not really understand what they are doing especially in tough conditions or in emergencies. Yes all the paper work says they are ready to go but in fact many are not capable of handling some situations.

Please note the goods one always will make it and do well, after they have stopped flying Robinsons.

[heliduck]

A few decades ago I did my Ag rating with a very experienced Ag pilot in a Hiller 12E(bladder fuel tank), & back then he refused to fly in a Bell 47 due to its propensity to burn after a heavy landing as the fuel tanks came down through the engine bay. I'm too young & internet chat forums weren't around at the time, but I wonder if this same conversation was had at the time about Bell 47's? Deja-vu all over again, we're slow learners.

[Gemini Twin]

With the wrapped tanks and breakaway valves I've know of many Bell 47's crashes that didn't burn. Great trainer too and what a work horse with an Allison engine.

[topendtorque]

Not too many '47's ever burnt, I know of two out of a very large number over a thirty year period when they were used extensively right across Northern Oz by a number of companies. One hit the ground so hard that it had to burn, another back in '71 or '72, an American pilot in the Kimberlies WA, we never really worked it out but reports were that he was on fire before he hit the ground..

Heliduck that training pilot of yours (not BC by any chance?) suffered from the same problem that VF does, A stigma based on blaming the goods instead of the poor training as many have indicated is the main problem. And as I have reminded him before, plenty of those plastic tanks squirrel turnouts have burnt to a cinder of late.

I could up until recently have shown you about thirty '47 wrecks, not one of which lost the fuel tank mounting integrity or were ruptured.. So, yes definitely he was dribbling utter bulloney. We on the other hand viewed the Hillier with very much the jaundiced eye with their history of engines and xmon's complete crashing thru the cabin over the centre mounted pilot and then burning with the ruptured belly mounted fuel tank. That is how one dude got killed not far from here in fact back in '76..

The thing most of us worried about in a '47 was the stab bar coning down to take the top of one's head off, however that seems to have been merely hypothetical also, as I can't recall any that did..

I don't dispute at all that R44's suffer badly in mainframe distortion upon a severely heavy arrival, even when the skids are level, but I know of only a very small number of R22's that have burnt and they were ONLY those that arrived so hard and fast that they had to burn and there was no hope at all for those on board. Even so we constantly see many examples of terrible crashes in R22's where there was no fire, the one in England a bit more than 12 months ago being typical..

The reason I don't like the R22 for a trainer is that it's tight RRPM limits and low inertia system don't allow a trainee to have time to make a mistake and then still have time to realize / recover before the instructor has to rescue it. Even the Hughes is much better in that regard.

[mickjoebill]

Bladder tanks will not stop these helicopters crashing all of the time!

Correct, but when the crash does occur, in this day and age we expect a more crash worthy vehicle.
The crash in oz witnesses say that it lost control after hitting trees, landed on skids, rotors turning, then bounced a few feet and rolled over.
Passengers that were observed were seen alive, with one opening a door popping head out and saying he was stuck.

In something as common as a rollover, this craft can entrap its passengers then incinerate them.

If only a beefed up cabin frame and fuel bladder had been fitted from day one...

Mickjoebill

[Arrrj]

Homonculus,

Please advise what this statement means ?

"the fiasco over the 66".

Are you referring to the approval issue in EU due to the argument about the hydraulic system ?

Mates of mine own these in Aus and love them, I am always happy to fly their machines, powerful, fast and easy to fly. Comfortable too !

Thanks
Arrrj

[as350nut]

Can someone explain why there has been such a long time between the decision to put in fuel bladders and that actually happening. 3 friends of mine each with R44's have complied with the sb/ad, but it appears some owners (50% in Aus??) haven't. At a cost of say 20k to achieve is it that expensive? Given the results that we have seen now a few times in Australia. When does the regulator step in and say "That's enough! Get it done guys" In this accident, the fact the aircraft became airborne again even monentarily leads me to think it may have been survivable for all inside. I've done 1000hr in 44's and love them but I think that the tanks must now be done without delay. My experience with Eurocopter and ad's ( whilst annoying) lead me to think that it would not carry on nearly as long as an unfixed problem. In other words they send out an ad, and it gets fixed, and too bad about the expense.

[FSXPilot]

Purely cost. Until it becomes an AD and is forced on some owners they will choose not to have the SB carried out.

[HeliStudent]

I am trying to find out if this is a training procedure and if so what it is for?

Helicopter Close Call Take Off with Robinson R44 Raven II Near Rotor Strike Accident at Airfield - YouTube

[topendtorque]

I am trying to find out if this is a training procedure and if so what it is for?

Excellent entry for the Darwin awards,:ok: but - failed this time.:{

[FSXPilot]

training procedure? It's not April 1st until Sunday pal!

[Hairyplane]

Hi all,

I had bladder tanks fitted to my G-Regd 2008 R44 Raven 2 at the last Annual. I decided that I could never forgive myself for saving the money/downtime/ slight reduction in load and accepting the known risks on behalf of my innocent passengers.

The case for bladder tanks has been well made and is a no-brainer. Pay the money, get it done. Fly safer.

Hairy

[chopjock]

Pay the money, get it done. Fly safer.

Pay the money, get it done. Crash safer.

[Hairyplane]

Yep,

Can't argue with that...

Hairy

[seniortrooper]

Chopjock: For once I agree with you and it's quite funny too if it wasn't sad.

[ka26]

I would like to now if the R44 pop-out floats are EASA approved? and if not, where can I find the written document?

[FSXPilot]

They are mentioned in the TCDS and are therefore part of the original design so the answer is yes they are allowed in EASA. The EASA TCDS is EASA.IM.R.121.

[ka26]

I found this:

http://www.easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/rotorcraft/EASA-TCDS-R.121_(IM)_Robinson_R44-03-21042010.pdf

but there isn't anything about the pop-out floats.. So are the pop-out floats certified by EASA?

Can a R44 do charter (off shore - between islands), or aerial work over sea with pop out floats?

Thank you

[Chopper Doc]

Look at section 8. Air speed limits. It gives a limit for pop floats. From that I would have to say that if you have Robinson fitted pop out floats they are part of the TCDS.

[ka26]

I'm not sure about this...in Italy R44 can not operate over water

[John R81]

The R44 Clipper II is built with pop-out floats, unless you specify fixed floats, (and with additional anti-corrosion protection). The aircraft is EASA certified and mine is used for Public Transport work including over-water routes that require floats.

So I think the answer to the OP is "yes", in the circumstances above.

It would be a totally different question to ask if pop-out floats can be fitted to a non-Clipper aircraft. I don't know the answer to that one.

[staticsource]

John R81

That's interesting re: floats, when I look under the Flight manual change sheets on the CAA web site it states that the floats are not approved as a ditching floatation system. Have you got approval in the UK to use them on coastal corridors? If so can you let me know as it would be handy for us to be cleared to do this.

Cheers

Ss

[ka26]

In Italy everybody told me that the floats are not approved as a ditching floatation system. That's why I am looking for that document where it's written that EASA did not certified the R44 pop-out floats. Who knows...

[firebird_uk]

I was under the impression that they were only approved for flat water, which is why they are OK along the Thames to Battersea (public transport). However, they are not approved for open water in anything more than a sea state 2 (whatever that is).

I heard this from an AOC holder before the EASA shakeup.

[John R81]

Sea State 1, I am told by the splendid chap who looks after the AOC paperwork. But then he also swears that he has seen evidence that an R44, once landed on water, can depart if they do so quickly before the belly-pan floods. Personally, I have no intention of trying that particular manouver.

More of a problem for the R44 intending over-water passenger transport is the lack of a second engine. That means heliroutes along the Thames, Battersea, etc are all fine. Unfortunately, no commercial flights to France due to the width of the English Channel.

[CYHeli]

Ditching?

From the Robinson web site, here, (http://robinsonheli.com/r44_poh.html) you can download the latest POH Supps section.

Under limitations it states that the aircraft is not certified for ditching with pop out floats. I believe that if you read the Part 3 Emergencies and consider their definition and actions for ditching that makes more sense. Basically, let the pax out, fly away and roll off the throttle putting it into the water. My opinion is this is Robinson speak for don't ditch, just inflate and land.

Also in this link you will see that the aircraft is stable in 12 inch wave height, crest to trough.

[ka26]

Under Limitations, I didn't find anything about ditching... Where have you read that the aircraft is not certified for ditching?????????

[sloanemallorca]

I think the problem lies with the definition of "ditching".

NTSB -
DITCHING:
A planned event in which a flight crew knowingly
makes a controlled emergency landing in water. (Excludes
float plane landings in normal water landing areas)

Normal R44 Raven, no floats, ditching in Emergency Procedures Section 3 into water

R44 Clipper, fixed and pop-outs, you don't "ditch" as you are landing on water (not in water), therefore in Section 9 Supplements the POH (boths Fixed Floats and Pop Out Floats Supplements) say:

"DITCHING - Not applicable with floats"

This is probably why it isn't "certified for ditching" as it isn't applicable!!

They are part of the original EASA Type Certificate so are approved equipment on the aircraft.

Operating floated R44's (and any floated single engine helicopter) depends on EASA regs, but also local rules (UK ANO for example), and Ops Manuals. It also depends on what category of flight, Private, Aerial Work or Public Transport.

I know that regulations for single engine helicopters with floats differs between Spain, UK and France!

Safe Operation on water has been demonstrated in 12 inch wave (trough to crest), but I do have a video of a R44 Clipper which made an emergency landing in a Sea State 4 and stayed upright.

[Ag-Rotor]

Paid the money......now safe !!!

[rjtjrt]

CASA (Australia) Urgent Airworthiness Directive re fitting Bladder to tanks.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/airwd/adfiles/rotor/r44/r44-023.pdf

[John R81]

I have my bladder tanks.

The machine was returned painted and looking fine. Filler neck a little higher, and no more painted filler cap.

The tank kit did not include a new fuel guage, or re-calibrated dial face, so the guages showing in the cockpit are calibrated to the old volume. Though it is most likely that half-tank indication is still half a tank the US gal numbers on the guage are wrong and could lead to over-estimation of remaining range. This seems a simple thing to fix and it is silly, in my opinion, to add another "swiss cheese hole" that, one day, I am sure someon will line-up.

In addition, as we should not take the guages to be accurate we dip the tanks before flight. The tank kit did not contain a new dipstick, and the old one is going to over-read if used in the bladder tank. And as Arrj advised me recently, are you really going to stick an aluminium dipstick into a bladder tank? What have others done? Do I resort to making my own wooden dipper?

[as350nut]

Finally the AD, only 6 or 8 deaths late, at least some other poor bugger won't get caught now

[powerlimited]

John R81.

Why don't you have painted filler caps anymore?

Also, there should have been a decal applied to both the Main and Aux Tank cockpit gauges, to "recalibrate" the gauge. These are RHC Part No. D819-1 and D819-2 respectively.

Cheers.

[LOZZ]

What are the implications for 44s in the UK that have not had this carried out by the date in the SB please?

Is it down to the CAA to enforce this as an AD (like CASA has if I have understood a previous post correctly), and until such time actually carries no weight in the UK? So purely at the owner's discretion?

TIME OF COMPLIANCE: As soon as practical, but no later than 30 April 2013.

[Helinut]

In the UK, the CAA can no longer issue ADs: now down to EASA. Of course, the primary source for USA manufactured aircraft would normally be the FAA. It is early days yet, but EASA may have a different philosophy about urgency and how safe is safe. The CAA and EASA seemed to have a different view/approach about the EC 225 gearbox issue.

[belly tank]

As As350 said....I've lost 2 mates in the last two years from a post crash fire at slow speed low level, nearly lost another mate that was in the same accident. He has major burns. I nearly lost my own life if it was 30mins earlier that same day doing check rides. It can't happen soon enough.

[FSXPilot]

SBs are at the owners discretion. Only the FAA or EASA can change it into an AD. Most people I deal with are having them done when the aircraft is due a rebuild. It's a £10,000 mod between buying the kit, having it fitted and then having it painted and matched to the rest of the aircraft.

[as350nut]

How much does a funeral cost, I just can't understand how anyone could justify the delay just as I can't understand how Robinson isn't fitting the total cost of the tank mod. If it was a car that caught fire when ever it got rear ended there would be no way the car company would expect the owner to pay for a safety rectification

[Auntie Cyclone]

You may like to scroll down this link which allegedgly details correspondence between a R44 owner and RHC.

http://www.helicopter-sales.co.uk/********.php

There are a couple of unrelated items at the beginning just keep scrolling until you get to the SB78A item

[Spunk]

Lead time, if ordered today, 4-6 weeks.

One would assume that RHC had some on stock :ugh:

[krypton_john]

There's a gingerbeer called "Doodle" in NZ with a fixed price NZD$16,560 for the R44 bladders and will travel to the site:

Robinson R44 Fuel Bladder Kits | Trade Me (http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/aircraft/parts/auction-590338951.htm)

Love the "customer reference" ! :-D

[pilot and apprentice]

as350nut:

Ford Pinto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect)

TC:

Homonculus - arguing in favour of a poorly designed helo, surely is worse than having it removed in the first instance.
One would hope that eventually someone - either another entrepreneur or FR himself might build a more user friendly lawn mower in future simply because of the onslaught of complaints about it.
Of course you are right - because of the Robbo, many more are now flying....but you know what I'm about to say next, don't you: many more are now dead http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

This assumes it's an 'unsafe' design. Based on most of the arguments in this thread, if they were applied to all types, we would have most of the helicopters in the world struck from the register.

Warning, my opinion is based on a little over 600 hrs in the R22 and R44.

Flown within the envelope by a competent pilot these a/c are as safe as any out there. I am supportive of additional safety features, such as bladder tanks, but I fail to see that any of these accidents was caused by a lack of tanks. All to often these aircraft are being flown into solid objects, run out of fuel, overloaded, or just generally mishandled.

[Hairyplane]

Hurrah for common sense Down Under. I appeal to all owners globally to book their machines in forthwith for the work and not wait for the inevitable (?) AD.

Taking innocent passengers in an un-modded machine is totally irresponsible IMO.

Pilot & Apprentice - Not sure if you get it. I agree that most accidents can be attributed to pilot error. If I screw up, as indeed so can you(!), investing just a few percent of my overall expenditure on an R44 in making the machine significantly safer for me and my innocent passengers is a no-brainer.


Hairy

[John R81]

Powerlimited

Yup! Seems I showed up before the whole job was finished. Inserts in the fuel gauges and the caps were off to be touched-up.

Dipstick is a CAA requirement, and the aluminium one we have is not useful - risk of puncture and wrong calibration. Fabrication time.

[cockney steve]

First, I have to state that I have absoloutely NO hands-on knowledge about the bladders..........Now.
A big "rubber" sack, lining a metal tank...presumably the openings for fill and demand are both clamped/gasketted/bonded to the openings in the metal tank.

These bladders are (if they're fit for purpose) strong enough that the metal tank can be severely deformed/distorted, yet the bladder will retain it's integrity with a large weight of fuel sloshing around in itand possible gross misalignment between inlet and outlet.

Anyone want to "flame " that hypothesis?

So why all this paranoia about dipsticks?....the bladder spreads away from the filler and is impossible to "use" to empty,-therefore there is a layer of fuel ALWAYS spreading the bottom and thus the lower-sides.

If Robbo were doing the job properly, there would be a bonded-on "crash-plate" beneath a guide-tube so the dipstick has only one direction to go and could not puncture the base..

A properly-designed dipstick would have a cross-piece or flange at the "handle" end so it wouldn't touch the bottom,anyway.

A bladder that's strong-enough to meet the service-requirements is unlikely to be damaged by a non-metallic dipstick dropping under it's own weight.

One would hope a Rotary pilot would have the intelligence to refrain from having at it like Dartagnan :} the smooth, rounded tip should make penetration impossible anyway.

As a former petrol Retailer, I've dipped a lot of Motor-Spirit, Kero and Diesel tanks,taken deliveries and checked the tanker-dips and drained tanks!
So, my advice is to examine objectively and dip intelligently!

[John R81]

I don't disagree with anything that you say.

However, I will be replacing the old dipstick with one that is not made of metal with square edges, does not over-read by virtue of being calibrated for a tank containing 1.5 US gallon more capacity, and which is slightly shorter so that when the cross-bar meets the top of the filler neck the base of the dipstick is not in contact with the floor of the tank.

I don't see the disadvantage in designing out the residual risks (even if very small) but more so when multiple pilots use the machine on a lease-basis (if the tank lining were to be damaged I would be unlikely to be able to pin the cost on the person who damaged it), and the machine is used for training purposes so PUT will also be 'dipping'.

Each to their own

John

[roger1x2003]

Does this R44II have good engine or low power?

Helicopter 1504 lb 682 kg
Fuel 43 gal 260 lb 118 kg
Pilot 200 lb 90 kg
Pax 200 lb 90 kg
Pax 185 lb 85 kg

Total 2349 lb 1065 kg

OAT 79 F 26°C
QNH 30.00 inHg 1016 mb
Altitude 360 ft MSL
Hovering 3 ft AGL
Manifold pressure 26 in

[Dynamic Roller]

OAT 47 F 26°C

Either the F or the C is wrong; they can't both be right.

DR

[roger1x2003]

Its true! 79 F

[topendtorque]

doesn't seem too flash, what is the flat pitch power setting, presuming of course the auto RRPM is set up correctly.

[Arrrj]

Does not look correct to me. Sure, you are close to MAUW, but you should be able to OGE hover off in a R44II with 3 guys and full fuel. It's not that hot @ 26 degrees.

Either the engine is under power or you have forgotten to count the 20 kg of stuff jammed under the 4 seats !

Arrrj

[Heli-News]

BRISTOW ACADEMY INTRODUCES GLASS COCKPIT TECHNOLOGY TO R44 TRAINING FLEET

Bristow Academy Inc., a division of Bristow Group Inc., on Aug. 8 announced that its first four R44 Raven 1 training helicopters with the Garmin 500H electronic flight display have been introduced into service.

Bristow Academy trainees flying this R44 aircraft will be using dual 6.5-inch LCDs, mounted side-by-side in the bezel, with both Primary Flight Display (PFD) and Multifunction Display (MFD) capabilities directly in the field of view to help streamline instrument scanning.

Real-time True Airspeed calculations and selectable Winds Aloft data – as well as aircraft ground speed, GPS active waypoint, distance-to-waypoint and desired/actual track are just a few of the features available in the cockpit.

R44 glass cockpit (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bristow-Academy-introduces-glass-cockpit-technology-to-R44-t#.UgeEhdI3A80)

[lelebebbel]

What could cause the alternator light to fail to illuminate in a Raven II?

When the mixture is pulled and the engine stops turning, the ALT light doesn't immediately illuminate. It takes at least 10 or 20 seconds for the light to come on. When the alternator switch is toggled "OFF", the light immediately turns on, however when toggled back "ON" within 10 or 20 seconds of engine shutdown, the light actually turns off again even though the engine isn't turning.

What is going on there? Maybe a loose ground connection somewhere?

[Hairyplane]

Hi all,

My 2008 Raven 2/ 430hrs is in for an Annual.

I am told that the Clutch Actuator has 'failed the switch test', taking 'four seconds as opposed to the allowable two' and needs to be replaced.

The part is well over three thousand pounds.

Does anybody else out there have any similar experiences?


HP

[FSXPilot]

This is does not sound right to me. There is a test that uses a connector you plug in but that only tells you if the limit switches are working correctly. If they are not then they can be replaced.
In terms of the clutch actuator. In the run-up procedures you have 70s for the clutch to fully engage.

Ask them to show you in the maintenance manual where there is 2 s/ 4 s limit is. If they do can you please come back and list the pages.

You also have a PM Hairyplane.

[Hairyplane]

Will do. Always keen to share information.

All the best

HP

[powerlimited]

Sounds like another leg lifting exercise, no doubt by one of the big "professional" Part 145 outfits.

R44 MM Page 2.25, describes "Method 2" for testing the actuator (manually depressing the column springs), stating that if the motor runs for more than approximately 2 seconds, stop for a moment then depress the spring again, if motor runs again then replace the opposite switch per Section 7.551.

Switch P/N: C053-2 - List Price $165

[FSXPilot]

His helicopter is new enough that you would not use that method. It will have the link on the harness to insert the switch. Someone is trying to take the piss big style.

[powerlimited]

Yes I agree FSX.

So they plug in the test plug, motor runs and they need to replace a switch.

Any update Hairyplane?

[Hairyplane]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the advice/ PM. I am very happy with my CAMO and have remained loyal to them since they trained me and sold me my first brand new machine 9 years ago.

I'm sure they will be perfectly relaxed about their customers sharing their experiences.

I promise to report back.

All the best.

HP

[206Fan]

7lX7q5ccTbg

[FSXPilot]

So good W & B done there then.

[lelebebbel]

So good W & B done there then.

That looks like a highly professional operation altogether.

[Aucky]

What could cause the alternator light to fail to illuminate in a Raven II?

Not sure if you found an answer to this? I had the same a while ago and an engineer said something to the effect of, if the battery has just had a good charge and it is in good condition it needs to drop below a certain voltage before it registers the battery discharging and the ALT light illuminating.

[AvNews]

New recommended flight planning app for Robinson helicopters -

Tim Tucker's Robinson R44 Performance Pad by Gyronimo on Vimeo

[Hughes500]

Blimey you would need to do w and b with Tim Tucker on board !!!!!!!!!!!!

[13snoopy]

Re the video posted by 206fan:

Did I see what I thought I saw? He landed hard enough to spread the skids on what looked to like rows of cinder blocks, then got passengers out and simply took off again??
Is that what happened???

[toptobottom]

Looks like it. It also looks as though his first lift was before RPM was in the 101/102% range (governor not kicked in?). Engine note changes before 2nd attempt, but he looks mighty heavy for a downwind departure..

[helicopter]

EASA has proposed the AD for R44 Fuel tanks replacement (24 months):

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/14-038)

[FSXPilot]

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0159-0001)

Proposed AD from the FAA regarding blades as well. Owning an R44 is about to get expensive.

[B47]

We knew this was coming. It's all well and good for those of us who have been in helicopters for years and who can interpret the previous FAA AD as sufficient warning, but the problem is RHC are selling their products to many first time owners who are suckered into helicopter ownership by their flying school (don't get me going on the lies told of operating costs and free flying with the magic 'leaseback' to the school..). All this with the completely disingenuous 'promise' of fixed costs over a twelve year period between overhauls. I'd laugh if this wasn't so dishonest. I doubt there has been one R44 that hasn't suffered an AD clout like this in its first twelve years. RHC should drop any claim to fixed term costs - they now look ridiculous. This blade AD has effectively written off every non-hydraulic Astro - only 300 left in the world apparently - customer go hang, again. I had the good sense to sell my Raven II and assist another friend in selling his - both went overseas. Good riddance - now happily behind a diesel in my DA40. To the dark side, over and out.

[Spunk]

I have to admit that the PAD issued by EASA got me a little bit confused.

Talking about the SB for the fuel bladder tank to my local aviation authority about a year ago they told me that neither them nor the EASA saw any use in turning it into an AD. One year later they suddenly do.

Can somebody please enlighten me how the fuel bladder is attached / installed in the tank. I heard that it's not completly attached to the tank but only at the filler neck and that there have been the first reported cracks on the neck.

What about all those other helicopter in the world flying around without fuel bladder tanks? Our H300 doesn't have one either. Will we have to replace those tanks as well pretty soon?

[Peter-RB]

How nice to see the legends name appear again,...but on the other hand how sad he is no longer able to argue that Black is really White..!

Peter R-B
Lancashire

[lelebebbel]

Talking about the SB for the fuel bladder tank to my local aviation authority about a year ago they told me that neither them nor the EASA saw any use in turning it into an AD. One year later they suddenly do.

I'm speculating, but I think the accidents in Australia might have changed some minds.

What about all those other helicopter in the world flying around without fuel bladder tanks? Our H300 doesn't have one either. Will we have to replace those tanks as well pretty soon?

The H300 doesn't have the same history of post crash fires as the R44. I'd say the size of the R44 tanks, as well as the proximity to the driveshaft and forward flex coupling are a factor here.

[FSXPilot]

If you read the PAD it is very clear why they are making this an AD. In July last year a helicopter crashed in the US and it had bladder tanks fitted, The aluminium shell was badly damaged but the bladders held out fine and there was no post crash fire,
IF you read the SB it explains all about the bladder tanks. You take the old tanks off and bin them and fit the new tanks that have bladders installed inside, Expect each aircraft to cost around £10,000 by the time you've bought the tanks had them fitted (40 hours labour) and then got the new tanks painted.

[FSXPilot]

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2014/A-14-001.pdf


Read that NTSB report. It explains why EASA acted.

[Spunk]

IF you read the SB it explains all about the bladder tanks. You take the old tanks off and bin them and fit the new tanks that have bladders installed inside
I know how they are exchanged but what do they actually look like from the inside? What's the use of fuel bladder if it is only attached to the filler neck and will rip off upon impact or even before? (rumours about cracks at the filler neck)

[206Fan]

Haven't seen this one before. Fast-forward to the 3:20 mark!

fe2CN0SIwTk

[lelebebbel]

pulling about 26 inches, at over 2,000ft indicated, and 90+ knots. RPM drops to 80% or so, lights on horn blaring, and still over 25" on the MAP gauge for almost 30 seconds?


I'd say this RPM loss was caused by a severe case of stuck collective. And by that I mean, he had it stuck in his armpit.

[topendtorque]

Think it has been done over before and yes the excess power is noted, however isn't Max continuous about 24"? Nevertheless the slow airspeed at the power shown would indicate a fair load.

The compass and airframe vibrations are very indicative of engine malfunction of some sort. This could be driven by the high power usage giving the engine cabinet and CHT high readings - then if there is a soft spot in the valve area one could easily have a valve stem get grippy or a valve guide get loose, each of which can recover to be virtually undetectable on a mag check immediately afterwards.

Of course these valve problems can strike any time especially if the valve guides are either overdue for a ream or it wasn't reamed properly before WRT operating in a warm environment.

Or it may have been a magneto breaking down with the plugs on the other side not working too well.

So, yes if he is using a higher than acceptable power, flying along with a it won't happen to me or he hasn't worked it out and is too brain dead to do so attitude, then he deserves what happened, his pax did not.

The totally unacceptable bit here is that he continued in cruise throttle setting for some time after the usual half second allowed to get one's emergency thoughts in order. I found myself with my left hand almost dropped my coffee as I automatically was grabbing for the lever and heart thumping soon as I saw the vibes.

There were plenty of places to land at, particularly, he was stupid in placing himself into a low level auto area and therefore placing himself and pax in jeopardy every time a copse of trees flashed by thus excluding safe sites. That was just not on.

In this case he should have immediately entered a low power descent steering toward a selected site as would have been seen on video, landed and then asked for help and shut down until help arrived. No excuses.

For the sake of any future hapless pax for this pilot and operating company I sincerely hope that the regulatory agencies have done something positive with firstly a number ten boot to their posterior, next sent them back for some reading of the AFM and then some revision of general safety flying procedures with an instructor.

Also of great importance the regulatory airworthiness mob should have on their desk a maintenance defect report of the problem and how it was solved, bet they haven't.

It is a good video to repost for mentoring purposes.

[CYHeli]

The word around the traps in Australia was that it was a failed magneto. There has been a couple of magneto issues recently that CASA are examining. This appears to have been one of them.
Lots of discussion also about where to put it down, or how far to 'continue'.

[Spunk]

Finally some good news for the R44 operators: Lycoming Eliminates “Frequent” Use Requirement on 2200 TBO for Robinson Helicopters.

News (http://www.robinsonheli.com/media/pressrelease/robinson-announces-extended-tbo-for-lycoming.pdf)

[lelebebbel]

What would cause a R44 to blow hydraulic fluid out of the vented cap on the reservoir? The machine makes a big mess inside the gearbox compartment and the fluid level drops below the sight glass within 1 or 2 flight hours.

[Jetexec]

I think I had the same problem at one time. I had to replace the reservoir. Seems to me it was caused by the internal bladder leaking inside the reservoir, allowing fluid to leak out of the vent.

[Spunk]

We need to perform the pop-out float inflation check on our R44 Clipper II. Is there any other place in Europe where you can refill the bottle afterwards. The shipping costs to RHC are a little bit high.

[evil7]

@ spunk

Try these guys - www.ablsrl.com (http://www.ablsrl.com) - they did a good job on our float sets.
They are near Rome, Italy.
Well, the sets were for bigger Helis but you can ask them if they do the Flimsicopter ones as well. :ok:

[Spunk]

Thanks evil, will drop them a note.

[GoodGrief]

Tauchshop?

[John Eacott]

S-Tec introduces Robinson R44 Autopilot (http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/helicopters/s-tec-introduces-robinson-r44-autopilot)

S-Tec introduced a version of its HeliSAS helicopter stability augmentation system and autopilot for the Robinson R44 series, bringing big-helicopter capability to the piston rotorcraft market for the first time.

The system's two-axis autopilot provides heading and nav hold as well as vertical speed and altitude hold modes. HeliSAS provides attitude stabilization and force feel features that improve handling and mitigate inadvertent cyclic control inputs that could result in dangerous attitudes.

In addition to the R44 series the HeliSAS system is certified for installation on Bell 206B, 206L and 407 helicopters as well as the Airbus Helicopters EC130 and AS350.

HeliSAS for the Robinson R44 series is priced at $40,752 for SAS only and $50,279 for SAS with two-axis autopilot. S-Tec parent company Genesys Aerosystems said today at Oshkosh that deliveries are scheduled to start in the fourth quarter.

[HeliCraig]

Is it April 1 ? :)

[Heliboy68]

There have now been 60+ reported failures of the washer in the FCU. Symptoms reported include: stiff throttle or lack of anticipated power. Has anyone got reports of this or had maintenance carried out?

Pics of debris which can migrate to the injector and reduce fuel flow at the cyclinder are on the following:

http://www.caa.govt.nz/Airworthiness_Directives/Continuing_Airworthiness_Notices/CAN_73-003.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/73/007.pdf

[Ennio]

R44NUT currently on retention certificate.
Please PM if interested.

[Ascend Charlie]

****STOP PRESS!!******

Robinsons are secretly testing a twin-diesel variant of the R22.

It's called the R2D2.........:}

[CRAN]

There are also rumours of a wheeled undercarriage four wheel drive version of the 44...

The R4x4

😜


****STOP PRESS!!******

Robinsons are secretly testing a twin-diesel variant of the R22.

It's called the R2D2.........:}

[500e]

Cran now I feel much safer:E

[Fun Police]

for additional design ideas for RHC, here is a (sadly) long forgotten thread that is full of brainwaves!

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/209292-new-robinson-r88.html

[Hot and Hi]

I know that Robinson now offers LED-type landing lights. This question is about the traditional incandescent landing light globes (which in the case of a Raven II would be two 28V, 100W, General Electric GE4591 bulbs).

We feel that these globes fail too often. In all cases, the filament is 'gone', sometimes with, or sometimes without, black charring inside the glass. But never is the glass of the bulb imploded or cracked, nor does the circuit breaker ever trip.

I tried to search this Forum for advise but couldn't find any thread that has dealt with this matter. Hence my question: What is in your experience the typical failure rate of these globes in a R44? And has anybody identified specific operating conditions that cause those globes blow more often?

Fix wing people indeed report (in this Forum and elsewhere) frequently the same problem. Admittedly, a broken landing light seems to be a much bigger problem for a fix winger, during any night landing. Whereby arguably in a helicopter, landing lights are not needed for safe night operations, provided you operate to and from landing sites that are equipped with "night flying facilities", which again in many legislations is a minimum requirement for any night ops (however, in case of night autos a working landing light would be a great benefit ;) ).

We only started keeping accurate records of this 'routine' replacements recently. Over the past 300 flying hours (engine Hobbs) we had 11 blown bulbs, with any one globe failing between 20 and 120 HRS after its last replacement. This is flying time, and the actual time with lights ON would me much less, although the lights get switched ON once during daily preflight (with engine OFF) and occasionally during flight.

The average life of a given globe therefore is around 60 flying hours. Practically that means (as the a/c has two landing light globes) that in average every 30 HRS either one globe has to be changed. (Only once though we had that both globes were blown at the same time.)

Is that still normal? :ugh:

[Aluminium Mallard]

I was flying scenics out in central Australia and if left on they would blow after a few landings.

Engineer recommended turning them off on approach as they overheat in hot climates at low speeds.

The LED ones are loads better they should be standard fitment IMO.

[John R81]

Turn off the landing lights before setting the machine down. When hot, it seems that the filament is less able to withstand any shock from setting down with anything other than a feather-bed kiss of the ground.


Not limited to R44; OP notes fixed-wing comment and I fly EC120. I think the LED option is to be preferred.

[toptobottom]

I think the LED option is to be preferred


...or get more practice at landing gently :E

[John R81]

Not possible with a machine used for initial training (R44) or one where you are not the only pilot (EC120 Charter work)

[nellycopter]

Hi john,
Is the led light not available for the 120 ?
Although £24 for the front light isn't the end of the world when u need one anyways....
Did you know the same light was fitted to the 1970,s masey furgesen tractor ........

Nelly

[HeliCraig]

Nelly - totally off subject; but do you know which model Massey had the same bulb?

(My father in law is a tractor buff and is convinced helicopters are the work of the devil... be nice to show him a link!).

C.

[toptobottom]

...one where you are not the only pilot (EC120 Charter work)


John - surely a student would only need the landing lights on for landing once he/she had the experience to land gently?! And I don't see why different pilots in a 120 should make a difference :confused:


Re HID/LED landing for a 120; I'd be interested in one of those too!

[EN48]

May not be possible with the R44, however, in light airplanes, if the landing light is installed (rotated) so that the filament is vertical instead of horizontal, the life of the bulb is significantly extended.

[Hot and Hi]

Thanks EN48, will give this a try.

[Hot and Hi]

As you already said, this is not possible in the R44. The bulb has a nudge, and there is a matching gap in the fuselage. So there is only one orientation (which is exactly horizontal) the bulb can be installed.

[Hot and Hi]

I was flying scenics out in central Australia and if left on they would blow after a few landings.

Engineer recommended turning them off on approach as they overheat in hot climates at low speeds.

The LED ones are loads better they should be standard fitment IMO.
Actually, Robinson doesn't offer LED landing lights. Even the latest R44's come out with High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps. LED is not an option, at least not on the RHC price list.

The conversion from incandescent to HID is possible, but it is not a 1-on-1 replacement, as an electronic ballast has to be installed.

Any experience how long those HID lasts in the field?

[helofixer]

Try a Q4591 bulb. same bulb same size but is quartz halogen and has a flashlight type bulb inside the main glass...no flimsy filament to keep breaking. They are a lot more expensive (123.00 US Dollars) but they last for ever.

Edit: Its mfg by Whelen not G.E.

[R44ROBBY]

We had an engine overspeed on startup on R44 Raven2 ,normal cold start throttle closed,RPM went skyhigh .
Markings on fan nut out of line, technical intervention required.
Next on the same aircraft , cold engine starts the engine fires very good but when selecting clutch switch engine stops even before there is any movement of the blades.
Today on the same helicopter on warm start the RPM went very high again with throttle closed ,governor off,overspeed was just avoided.
Does anybody had simular experiences?

[3top]

Sounds like you have some serious linkage problems on this one.
Better do a complete engine-throttle-mixture settings inspection.
Something moved there....

3top

[Paul Cantrell]

Actually, Robinson doesn't offer LED landing lights. Even the latest R44's come out with High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps. LED is not an option, at least not on the RHC price list.

The conversion from incandescent to HID is possible, but it is not a 1-on-1 replacement, as an electronic ballast has to be installed.

Any experience how long those HID lasts in the field?

I've never had to replace an HID bulb in a Robinson.

I like the low power consumption of the LEDs, but I don't think the beam is all that great. I mean it's fine for just flying around, but for a night engine failure my preference would be HID, followed by incandescent, with the LED a distant third. I do prefer the reliability of the HID...

[Hot and Hi]

I've never had to replace an HID bulb in a Robinson.

I like the low power consumption of the LEDs, but I don't think the beam is all that great. I mean it's fine for just flying around, but for a night engine failure my preference would be HID, followed by incandescent, with the LED a distant third. I do prefer the reliability of the HID...


Thanks, Paul, based on your feedback we shall now upgrade to HID. It is also exactly what Robinson replied a few days ago to my AMO on why they still don’t offer LED landing lights: They tested various LED lamps, none was as bright as the HID, and also they all were too hot.

I’d say, the latter is something to keep in mind when considering non-certified after-market LED upgrades.