FAA mandates replacement of R22 & R44 main rotorblades

[peekay4]

After a long discussion period, the decision has been made. All stainless steel MR blades must be replaced within 5 years. Estimated cost of replacement from $30k to > $100k per helicopter, depending on the affected model.

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-12-10 for Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, R22 Mariner, R44, and R44 II helicopters with certain main rotor blades (blade) installed. AD 2011-12-10 required inspecting each blade at the skin-to-spar line for debonding, corrosion, a separation, a gap, or a dent and replacing any damaged blade with an airworthy blade. [...]

This new AD also requires a terminating action for those inspection requirements [...] and to correct the unsafe condition by replacing the main rotor blades with new blades that do not require the AD inspection.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/1c99426cc73ec86886257da5004f4e10/$FILE/2014-23-16.pdf

[Paul Cantrell]

From the FAA document:

Five operators requested that we remove the requirement for replacing the blades for the R44 Astro models, because these models are not equipped with hydraulic assisted controls and the new blades cannot be installed on these models unless the helicopter is converted to hydraulic assisted controls, a costly conversion which is not necessary for safe flight. These commenters further stated that the conversion is not only an additional expense but also can only be performed at the Robinson factory. One commenter believed the new blades are compatible with the non-hydraulic airframe and requested we require that Robinson test the new blades on the non-hydraulic R44 Astro airframe, so that the new blades can be installed on the R44 Astro without also having to convert the helicopter. The commenters also stated that Robinson then reserves the right to upgrade any component on the helicopter to their latest revision even though there is no AD or SB stating the Robinson required change, and this Robinson requirement results in additional cost increase.

Although I personally hate flying Astros I don't think it's fair to make Astro owners upgrade to hydraulics, and certainly I don't believe it's cool that Robinson reserve the right to upgrade any component on the helicopter to latest revision without an AD or SB. It totally seems unfair that due to Robinson's inability to produce a reliable rotor blade (though they've been trying unsuccessfully for 30 years) that an Astro owner might also have to replace other components unrelated to the rotor system while trying to keep his aircraft airworthy.

I'm not sure why Robinson won't allow the blades to be installed on an Astro without hydraulics. Is it simply that they want to avoid the cost of flight test on that airframe? Given that it is their bad blade design that is behind this AD it seems quite reasonable for them to have to go the extra mile to keep the Astros flying without requiring upgrade to hydraulics. And finally, if there really were no way to avoid that, then at least they should be limited to changing only those components on the helicopter related to mounting the hydraulics, and not be allowed to change unrelated components on the helicopter as part of the upgrade.

[Hairyplane]

I have until June 2016 to take advantage of the 50% discount offered by RHC to change my blades on my June 08 Raven2. I have ordered them now simply because (a) Its a safety related item. (b) If I ding my blades between now and then, or they fail an inspection, the discount is not applicable. AFAIAA it only relates to sub 8yr/ 1800hr airworthy blades.(c) The waiting time is less than a month currently. This is bound to increase IMO. (d) The inspection requirement has just been increased and, IMO , might be increased yet further, perhaps risking protracted down-time.

Its a big hit but what price safety? As with the fuel bladders it is a small price to pay for your head or, more important, those of your innocent passengers.

Just my opinion.

HP

[cockney steve]

Its a big hit but what price safety? As with the fuel bladders it is a small price to pay for your head or, more important, those of your innocent passengers.

And how many more "as with" AD's before the substantial sums involved mean it was false economy to not buy a better-quality Helicopter in the first place?

I'll bet there was a very good reason that Denis Kenyon stuck with Enstrom
:hmm:, and so many Ex-Robbo owners have not bought another.
It is, what it is, -a very cheap entry to Rotary flightbut the hidden cost of lifting the safety-level to an acceptable level, means you may as well have enjoyed the safety, security and comfort of a more airworthy aircraft from the get-go.....and before anyone argues about the Robbo's airworthiness, why are you wasting money on bladders and blades and...... if the thing is serviceable anyway?
Never flown in one and no intention to.

[Helilog56]

Interesting to note...many manufacturers have gone through airworthiness problems in the past. I remember when Astars were so bad they were nicknamed Falling Stars. So does that make it an inferior aircraft also that is unsafe to fly? Opininions are like a$$holes....everybody has one....:E

[claudia]

Helilog. That title only referred to the early N American and Canadian A Stars fitted with the problematic Lycoming engines fitted to please that market. Rest of the world machines with Turbomeca engines were superb. My 30 year old A Star still has original main rotor blades.!!

[nigelh]

That was engine related and I believe only on the twins . I have to say I would prefer to take my chances with a dodgy engine than have blades fall off !!!
I don't think you can in any way compare the two ..... The Astar is a fantastic reliable and powerful machine and the Robinson is .... Well it's a Robinson .
Why anyone would chose a Robbo over an Enstrom is beyond me !!!

[claudia]

Nigel. Agree with everything in your post. Except however the problematic Lycoming engine i refer to was never fitted to the twin. It was only in the early N.American 350 called the "D" Model. Interestingly had i been flying a Robbo for that 30 years i would probably have gone through about 6 set of blades ie £200,000 -- economical flying?

[Dennis Kenyon]

I couldn't agree more Nigel ... but the simple fact is, that over the years for every buyer who opted for an Enstrom model ... around ten went for the Robinson. That surely tells us something! Fly safe. Dennis K. Oh ... and a happy and good flying year in 2015 to all pps.

[GreenKnight121]

What it shows is Robinson has done an excellent job of emphasizing the initial purchase cost differential while simultaneously minimizing the ability of the purchaser to learn before purchase the long-term ownership/safety costs.

Everything I've seen on all the R-XX threads has convinced me to never buy a Robby rotortoy.

[noooby]

claudia, I think you'll find the very first prototype AS350 flew with an LTS engine as the Ariel wasn't certified yet. So, while the D was marketed towards North America, it wasn't the only time an AS350 flew with the LTS.

Sorry for the thread drift, back to the Robbo's!

[claudia]

Noooby. Maybe, but at no time on this thread were we discussing or comparing prototypes Robbo AS350 Enstrom or otherwise. Thanks.

[Helilog56]

Memories....let me think! Astar also had tail rotor blade strikes on tail boom, servo transparency is still a reality, Bell 407 tail rotor blade strikes on tail boom also, Allison C-28 engine issues in Longrangers (before the C-30 came out), FH100 short shaft failures, Hughes 369D main rotor head blade grip failures, Bell 214 main rotor blade failures (metal blades), (anyone care to add to the list?)....and there are many, many, more where the manufacturer's had to issue countless A.D.'s, S.B.'s and A.W.D's to rectify design shortcomings......point is, Robinson is far from the only one....:}

[claudia]

Helilog, Your memory is letting you down, 350 never suffered from tail rotor hitting boom. The 407 did. AS350 servo issue like Robbo mast bumping- pilot issue but with the 350 lower the lever a little and it is gone, with the robbo low g issue the main rotor head is gone.!! But yes you are correct Robinson is not the only manufacturer with major issues.-- blade ADs etc.

[matt82]

How is the Rob low g issue is gone? In my opinion this issue isn't gone.
The only thing to avoid the low g issue is pilot training and the resulting awareness of low g situations?

[claudia]

Matt. Read my post. I did not say the Robbo low g issue was gone. I said get into a low g situation and the main rotor HEAD is gone.(in a Robbo that is)

[Helilog56]

Sorry Matt...but I remember two distinct incidences in North America where there was tail boom contact.....hence why Aerospatialle extended the output shaft on the Astars....back in 81 or 82 I believe..????!!?!

[claudia]

Helilog. Dont want to dwell on this as it is too much thread drift but you are wrong about the 350 T/R . Thanks.

[Torquelimited]

Helilog is right, Aerospat issued a longer T/R output shaft in the early 80s due to a few blade / boom contacts.

[matt82]

Hi Claudia, sorry I misunderstood this.

[claudia]

Matt. Thanks -- maybe my post was a bit vague!!
Helilog /Torque. Appreciate your corrections my memory must be fading!

[mixing lever]

Claudia, I beg to differ with you. I had an tail boom strike from the tail rotor on a AS-350D back in the very early '80s. The hole in the tail boom was almost large enough to stick my head in. This lead to an AD from Aerospatiale that lengthened the tail rotor gearbox output shaft. If I could figure out how to post a photo here, I would show you the photo.

[claudia]

Mixinglever. First hand experience is hard to beat. many thanks.

[13snoopy]

I have in my possession an email from Kurt Robinson warning me if I did not purchase a set of -2 main rotor blades before a particular date, Robinson was going to discontinue them and I would be forced to upgrade my Astro with hydraulics to use the newer stainless blades.
Soooo, I heeded his warning and paid close to US $45,000 for a new set of main rotor blades for my Astro that would not entail my having to add hydraulics.
Now, I am being told that my main rotor blades (which came with a 2200 hour or 12 calendar year limit) will have to be taken off in less than five years!
My real issue is the following:
Kurt Robinson HAD TO KNOW this AD was on the horizon, yet he didn't allow that tidbit to get in the way of him convincing me to buy a new set of aluminum blades that would shortly thereafter have their lifespan chopped in half.
After owning several Robinson helis over the last decade plus and being caught up in their multiple abject failures in main rotor blade manufacturing that has required me to replace perfectly good blades MORE THAN ONCE, this is my last go with Robinsons.
They simply cannot admit their engineering failure in being able to make a durable and dependable main rotor blade.
Robinson users can defend the company all they like, but what I've stated here is FACT.

[cockney steve]

After owning several Robinson helis over the last decade plus and being caught up in their multiple abject failures in main rotor blade manufacturing that has required me to replace perfectly good blades MORE THAN ONCE, this is my last go with Robinsons.

So , you're a bit of a slow learner, then? :}

No intention of ever climbing into one, - and I've NEVER flown in a heli !

I'd be happy to jump into an Enstrom, Bell or Guimbal, though.

Something about reputation preceding? :\

[Vertical Freedom]

aaaargh to be sure.......to be sure - 'Crapinson Flimsicopter' :yuk:
(such an appropriate name for such Crap)

If You value Your Life? then run-away, run-away from all Robinson made Crap :ok:

[13snoopy]

Cockney Steve,

How many helicopters do you or have you owned? I assume the answer to be zero.
And if I understand you correctly, you have never flown in a heli, either?

Classic.

[Sam Rutherford]

Cockney Steve states himself that he's never been in a helicopter. Perhaps he should try it before holding such strong opinions?


For the record, I have flown an R44 into the arctic circle, across the Sahara (twice) and from London to Cape Town - as well as number of other locations far afield. It's a great machine.


I'm not debating the merits or otherwise of rotor blade replacement. Simply saying that it is an extremely capable aircraft (for it's size and price) - and very nearly everyone who knocks them has never actually flown one!


Give it a go, you might be pleasantly surprised.


Safe flights, Sam.

[Hughes500]

Sam

Pretty crap though that the blades fall apart, with little or no warranty !!!
Seem to remember years ago that Robinson overpainted a load of subframes that had corroded and then refused warranty on them .
like most OEM's these days they try and palm us off with ****e product, charge a fortune for it and then make us feel we are doing them a favour by buying their machines:ugh:

[Sam Rutherford]

As I said, I wasn't passing comment on the rotor blades (or indeed anything else about the 'value' of the helicopter).


I just get tired of people criticising something they've never tried!


Have a go in an R44, I guarantee you'll be impressed.


And no, I have no links to Robinson.

[Hughes500]

I have and not impressed thank you

[Vertical Freedom]

500+ hours flying in Robinson products & not impressed, zero there still $hiitt. Hence the apt name; Crapinson Flimsicopter :yuk:

[Sam Rutherford]

Hm, okay then.


I'm surprised. All the other (ex mil/police etc.) helicopter pilots I've actually talked to has stepped out of their first flight in an R44 with words to the effect: "hey, I'm impressed, I wasn't expecting it to be as good as that".


But not everyone, apparently.

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

Well I have 3000 hrs in Robinsons and if not for the R22 would probably not have been able to afford to learn to fly and I am sure that goes for a lot of people . That said every time I get into a 22 after not having flown one for awhile I do have a slight panic that's something is broken until I remember that's how they are supposed to fly .

I do think the whole blade thing is a mess ! With cars you get a recall paid for by the manufacturer , Rolls Royce had to foot the bill with the a380 engines so why do Robinson and other helicopter owners have to foot the bill when sold something that doesn't work as advertised .

I don't think this situation will last that much longer there are new small machines on the horizon from a number of companies and Robinson will have to step up or take a big hit in sales

Cbs

[13snoopy]

For what it's worth, there is a Japanese company apparently considering an entry into the American light helicopter market with a helicopter that will rival the R44.
One of their markers called us for a lengthy Q&A and I found they asked some very intriguing questions.

[Sam Rutherford]

Can you post the questions here, or are they confidential?

[MD500Driver]

Well, no one ever said that pilots were not passionate people....

When I learned to fly helicopters, I learned in the Schweizer 300. After years of renting, my accountant told me I should buy a helicopter due to the amount of time I was spending flying them. I would "save" money....yea right...

After looking all over, I turned to the guy that taught me to fly helicopters for help. Having been a helicopter pilot for 40+ years and having flown nearly every Bell, MD and Eurocopter product available (including as a test pilot), he still recommended the R44 to me (and no, he was not trying to sell me one).

Because of the respect that I had for him and his flying abilities, I bought a brand new R44 Raven II (N4142G) without ever having flown one. He and I picked it up at the factory with four hours on the hobbs.

I would go on to put 1,300 hours on 42G including enough time and training to add an instrument and ATP Rotor ratings to my certificate. I flew 42G all over the place, day, night, mountains, desert, everything but IFR. Then I decided it was time to upgrade.

First I thought I was going to get an EC120. They looked cool. So I went up to Canada and went through the EC120 course taught by Canadian Helicopters (at the time). No where near the performance that I expected from a turbine and nothing like flying my Robbie. It was a total dog and would not come close to performing like the R44.

I did end up finding a turbine that I like and I purchased an MD500e. Yes, it performed better than my R44, flew faster, and would do maneuvers that would leave you in the morgue had you tried them in ANY two-bladed helicopter, not just the Robbie.

I loved the 500, sold 42G to a Chinese company and was never going to look back (or so I thought). I put almost 1,000 hours on my 500 before selling it and getting back into an R44.

After tracking all of the costs (purchase, insurance, all maintenance bills, fuel, oil, everything) I found that I was paying 4 1/2 times more per hour in the 500 than what my R44 cost me for nearly the same mission. After selling my R44, my total cost per hour over 1300 hours was $260.00 per hour. After selling my 500, I was at $1200 per hour.

Since I fly jets for a living and only fly helicopters as a hobby, the justification simply was not there for me. A very good friend of mine has an Enstrom 280FX...I thought I would look at one of those but the lack of capability over the R44 (speed, range, # of seats, and no available A/C that I could find) lead me right back to the R44.

So, from an owner/operator standpoint I can tell you that the R44 is a fantastic helicopter, easy to maintain, easy to fly, stable, and inexpensive to operate. Even if I had to replace my blades at the extra cost of $50K, it still would have been far less expensive to operate than my 500 for my mission.


I have a friend that bought a new AStar and it sat on the deck die to a bearing problem in the tail rotor system. He paid millions for that helicopter and could not fly it until they figured out how to fix the tail rotor problem....Not sure about any of you, but I would have been pissed had I just dropped millions on a new helicopter only to not be able to fly it.

My point being that Robinson is not the only helicopter that had ADs, and frankly the ADs on my 500 were FAR more expensive than my R44.

So from someone who has put several thousand hours in my own helicopters turbine and piston both, for my mission, the R44 wins hands down!

[13snoopy]

If you fly large numbers of hours the R44 comes out looking pretty good, but I don't fly big numbers, I bought my heli used and the main rotor blade issue is gonna end up costing nearly as much as I paid for my helicopter originally.
To wit:
I paid for a new pair of main blades only because the set on my heli had "calendar" timed out. The blades I removed had hundreds of hours remaining and were in great condition.
Then I bought a new set that, less than three years later, have had their "calendar" time more than chopped in half.
So if I keep this R44, I will have to buy a THIRD set of main rotor blades that I don't need, when if things were as they should be, I would still be flying on the original blades that would still have many, many hours remaining until TBO.
The R44, for a pilot flying less than 100 hours a year, IS NOT the way to go.

[13snoopy]

Sam Rutherford,

They asked many, many questions about cyclic and collective usage and whether I would like for the controls to be combined, ala an airplane yoke..
They also asked about complaints I have with helicopter maintenance issues as well as how much I'd spend to have a better experience with flying helicopters.
The interview lasted about an hour and was conducted from Japan to USA by telephone.

[MD500Driver]

13snoopy -

I agree with you - the blade debacle with Robbies is much like the bladder fuel tank issue (IMHO). I never planned on crashing my R44, why should I have to replace my fuel tanks..

My point was only that for my mission and of the two helicopters that I have owned personally, the R44 could not be beat without spending a LOT more money.

[chopjock]

My point was only that for my mission and of the two helicopters that I have owned personally, the R44 could not be beat without spending a LOT more money.

Or perhaps you just got the wrong 500?

An older C model with a C18 may have been a lot cheaper to run?

[MD500Driver]

chopjock -

In my experience turbine (anything) is just more expensive, and generally a lot more fun. I have owned turbine airplanes (still do) and they are just more expensive than their piston counterparts. Even brand new turbines.

My 500 burned twice as much fuel at the same speed as my R44 carrying the same four people the same 350 miles every weekend. The C18 my buddy had in his C model 500 had to have the containment ring AD complied with at a cost of several years of my total R44 maintenance. The insurance on my 500 at a hull value of $1.1M was over four times the cost of my R44 insurance at $400k.

Was the 500 more fun.? Absolutely it was. Is the Enstrom more fun? Not the one that I have flown. Is there something that costs the same as a new R44 to purchase and operate, flies 115 knots on 14GPH and goes 350 miles non-stop in air-conditioned comfort? Not that I have found.

Is the R44 safe..? Well, in 1300 hours in it I never had it explode on me, never had it throw a main or rotor blade, never had the main rotor depart the aircraft due to mast bumping, never had my engine quit, never had any unscheduled maintenance except for a battery and an electric fuel pump.

My 500 never had any unscheduled maintenance, but the maintenance it did need was very costly.

I would be curious of the operating costs of other 500 owners here absent maybe the insurance. Maybe I was outside the norm, but I have multiple friends that own 500s (its a small world for 500 owners) and many of them are at or near the same hourly costs after you factor out insurance.

So I don't think my costs were because I had the wrong 500, they were just because I had A 500!

:ok:

[Hughes500]

MD500 driver
Here in UK there is a massive difference in fuel cost
Avgas is £ 1.80 a litre R44 uses about 75 litres an hour so £ 135 an hour or $ 210
Jet fuel is £ .60p litre 500E uses about 120 litres an hour so £ 78 per hour or $120 an hour. Add to this the 500 goes about 20% faster the difference becomes even greater generally reckon on about £ 65 an hour.
Have always sold a 500 for more than purchased ( sold 8 of them I have owned ) which you can't say for a Robinson product, but to be fair never purchased a new one Granted maintenance will be more expensive on any turbine
Suppose it is horses for courses !

[chopjock]

The C18 my buddy had in his C model 500 had to have the containment ring AD complied with at a cost of several years of my total R44 maintenance.

Something does not sound right there, I have a C18 in mine and I have not had to comply with the containment ring AD?

[MD500Driver]

chopjock -

Not sure the specifics, but he was required to comply with the AD and as memory recalls ended up having to replace the entire section in the process. Thankfully my C20B had just been overhauled (to the tune of $190,000.00) by Premier when I purchased my 500 so I had little to do but compressor inspections. Also, I had brand new blades on my ship when purchased, so I was well ahead of the game in regards to really expensive parts. I did go through a tailrotor gearbox after an in-flight chip light, that went to Canada to be overhauled...I think that and a blade grip replacement (had to be done by MD, they flew two guys out to do it) were the two most major items in all the time I had the 500. Beyond that, "regular" maintenance was just way expensive.

[500e]

The C18 does not have containment ring AD it is C20, as for blades check erosion strips, if there are Millevolts between erosion strip & alloy of blade the corrosion has started

[Hairyplane]

Hi Hughes 500.

The R44 uses IRO 55 litres per hour only.

I have had my issues with the machine - corrosion on my first one and now a blade swap at 550 hours, plus other lesser niggles. However, my overall costs are a fraction of what they might have been, had I gone the turbine route.

I'd buy a third….

HP

[cockney steve]

Well, Gentlemen, they say "ignorance is bliss"
I have been in engineering, all my life, on and off. I have also had an interest in Aviation all my life. I think I know enough to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Robinson Machines.

They are cheap for a reason! safety has been traded for the bottom line....so much so, that someone with a conscience has decided stuff like bladders and blade changes should be mandatory......If the machines weren't certified, the putative pilot would be much more wary (think Rotorway!)
there are very real limitations in the 2-blade, teetering-head rotor system but the alternatives are hugely more expensive.

IF you are a commercial user, technically and mechanically astute and a good pilot, certainly, the Robbo makes good financial sense if the hours run and the calendar keep pace with each other.
The vast majority of private owners buy a cheap machine and calendar and deterioration hit their wallet disproportionately.

Mr. Hughes is not the average private owner! Robbo works for him and he's confident that his skill-level mitigates the much higher mechanical and envelope risks compared with a more elaborately main-rotor- equipped machine.

I know one member of this Forum, sold a 3-seat Enstrom in which he'd enjoyed many safe flights, and bought a very tidy, pretty R44....he lost control at very low level when a few weeks into it's ownership.
luckily, a neighbour,1/2 a mile away, saw the accident. our man was dragged clear and as far as I know, there was no fire!....he is relatively mobile nowadays and no longer needs a wheelchair....I also don't think a replacement Robbo appeared on his shopping list.

you don't need to ride a Hooker to know she's extremely risky :}

[Spunk]

he lost control at very low level

Can't see no technical problem, could have happened in his Enstrom as well. Don't blame it on Robinson.

[Sam Rutherford]

Ah, Cockney Steve is back.


I do think you need to have flown an aircraft (as a pilot) before making analysis of how good that aircraft is.


I'm still intrigued by the certainty of your conviction measured against the fact that you've never actually flown in a helicopter, even as a passenger!


Oh, and there are some really big, really serious, and very expensive teetering head helicopters out there... No, really, there are...




In a slightly more friendly continuation, why don't you buy yourself a 30 minute hands-on flight lesson in an R44. Chance of death, almost zero - chance of fun, 100%!

[Hughes500]

Hairy plane well all the ones I have tested pilots on for their LPCs have used 15 to 17 gallon fuel burn 15 x 4 = 60 litres 17 x 4 = 68
Can only speak as I find MD 500 still wy cheaper on fuel though !!!

[rotorboater]

But as any fule kno there are just under 3.8 Lts in a U.S. Gal

[cockney steve]

@ Sam Rutherford Thanks for the suggestion, but I'll stick to planks or an egg whisk with a much more forgiving flight-envelope, less fragile blades and good passive safety levels.

I have flown in Auster, Chief, Champ, 152, 172, and Rans S6 and handled the controls of some. I've also attempted to master RC Nitro-powered helis.

I really don't think I needed to drive a Moskvitch, Triumph Herald, Skoda (old) Octavia and other ,similar vehicles, to know they had severe handling limitations!
It is no secret that the Robinson is the cheapest CERTIFIED helicopter , by a goodly margin. there is a very good reason for that margin....technically inferior design and build.

yes, I've GOT an A/hole, but don't consider myself to be one:}
OTOH, I don't intend to expose it to get bitten, if I don't have to.

(you already know I have an opinion!)

thanks for your indulgence.

@ Spunk I think this Pilot would still be happily flying his Enstrom, if he hadn't traded it. I also suspect the Robbo's handling characteristics/flight envelope caught him, as a low-time, inexperienced Robinson pilot.

That is pure conjecture.

Of course, you high-hours high currency sky-Gods are well ahead of your machines at all times, but mere mortals are readily snared by unforgiving machines.

[Sam Rutherford]

So, just to get this straight - you're not actually a pilot at all? Of any type of aircraft?


You presumably do have a driving licence though (so your views on Skodas etc. are actually backed up by driving experience)?


I do think it a shame you won't give an R44 a go. Unfortunately 'I'm not going to try it because I'm sure I won't like it' doesn't sound too good.


I've heard that Skodas now build extremely good cars (never driven one) - until I've had a go in one I'll not be saying anything to the contrary on the basis of old news and hearsay.


I didn't have any intention of starting an online spat (sorry) but I find your (negative) attitude odd (and a little sad).




Small addendum - why have you actively been on this forum for such a long time if you're not actually piloting? Please go take some lessons in something - even get your PPL - you're obviously passionate about aviation...

[cockney steve]

@ Sam Rutherford
No, my piloting has been confined to models(from when I was old enough to fold paper.
Driving since 1963 including,solo m/c , sidecar, 3-wheeler and everything up to a 7.5 ton truck. mobile engineer for medical equipment, 70,000 in less than 2 years!....own repair garage for ~15 years....so, a fair bit of driving experience and a lot of hands-on mechanical experience.

I'm sure I'd love flying in a demonstrated safe, low risk, forgiving helicopter. Unfortunately, the Robinson does not measure up to my personal acceptability levels......by the way, did you research the history of the pretty little Rotorway?

Skodas has a swing-axle rear-end which could make handling "interesting" They are now a Volkswagen in a plain dress. Indeed, a good, solid reliable car.


Tank-bladders and Blade changes are hardly "old news" I would accept the product if the manufacturer had done a recall and replaced the DEFECTIVE components at it's own expense.....Screwing the captive -customer for the obscene sums involved , says a lot to me about the ethics and morality of the company. an outright con, the customer is still a test-pilot.

Finally, not enough disposable income, coupled with the red tape,drag across country to the nearest airfield (Barton, now grandly called "Manchester Barton") means I get a better bang for my buck in other ways.

Yes, I am interested in SSDR as a cost-effective way to become airborne. I came to the Forum Via the Blog "Cockpit Conversation" through a R/C model heli forum....liked the banter and the level of intellect, the stimulus....so i've stayed for a bit.

[Hairyplane]

I'm puzzled here. Why don't you read but not post?:hmm:

HP

[13snoopy]

Cockney Steve posted:

"I'm sure I'd love flying in a demonstrated safe, low risk, forgiving helicopter."



Dearest Steve,
There is no such thing.
And PS
Mentioning the word Rotorway in this forum is only making yourself look (more) foolish.

Go ahead, climb aboard that Rotorway and talk to us about safety.��

[Hughes500]

13 snoopy

think you will find a Hu 269 meets his requirements

[13snoopy]

Hughes,

I don't know of any helicopter that's "forgiving".
None.
You get behind and the event ends up pretty badly, imo.
On any of them.

[Helilog56]

Arm chair quarter backing from an RC enthusiast.....this forum just keeps getting better....:rolleyes:

[Hughes500]

13 snoopy
I agree but the 300 is probably the most forgiving of the small helicopters, the R22 would be at the bottom of the list imho

[blakmax]

I have sent you a PM.

Blakmax

[cockney steve]

@ hairyplane
Judging by the replies my contributions have stimulated, I believe I may have bought something to the table.

You may like to check "rules of engagement" Viz.- "Play the ball, not the man"

@13snoopy The last time I looked, Rotorway was edging towards certification.....I merely used the Marque to demonstrate the gap in price and maintenance, between "experimental"(not allowed in UK) and mainstream Commercial machines.(there have been kits built in the UK and successfully registered via the CAA...it seems that 3 hours maintenance was needed , per hour's flight with earlier examples.)

One takes one's chances with Experimental.
One relies on professional evaluation and oversight BY THE CERTIFYING AUTHORITY in a C of A machine.
That Robinson managed to build a certified, Commercial machine at a price-point way, way below anything else in the same category, was a real achievement.
With the number of "substandard / design safety" components being mandated for change, one asks if the machine would get certification today.


IMO the Giumbal Cabri has established itself as THE machine that is one price-level above the Robinson, for initial purchase, but a whole lot better engineered and far, far lower TCO.
I am not the only person to think so....suggest you look at Heli Henri's posting, re- Growth of Guimbal, sales and hours of operation.

this "upstart" doesn't appear to have any major component, safety, handling or snow operation deficiencies, as yet.
@ BLAKMAX. tHANKS, I seem to recollect a very comprehensive technical posting you made a fair time ago...maybe in the "engineering"forum?...regarding blades, delamination, rebonding and tap-testing.

I leave Robinson to the sky-gods....

Anyone who denigrates the skill-level needed to fly RC, has obviously never tried it. I know of a full -scale Rotary-pilot who is an RC enthusiast as well, he claims that RC is is far more demanding....several fixed-wing pilots have said the same....so, don't knock it until you've tried it and learned a bit of humility!

[Sam Rutherford]

Whilst I agree that flying an RC helicopter is more difficult than the real thing, I cannot let this pass:


so, don't knock it until you've tried it and learned a bit of humility!

Brilliant!

[13snoopy]

Steve Cockney,

Read what YOU wrote in your last post here. In particular, the last sentence.
Take your own advice, mate.

[blakmax]

I have sympathy for Cockney Steve here. You guys attack him because he has not flown in a Robinson as passenger or as pilot so how could he possibly know anything?

Well, I am not a pilot and I have never flown in an Robinson, (I twice declined Frank's offer of a free flight) but I assure you that I know far more about this blade issue than all of you put together.

You do not have to be a watchmaker to know how to tell the time!

Give him a break!

Blakmax

[Helilog56]

Last time I checked....this site was labeled "Professional Pilots Rumour Network"...:ugh:

[13snoopy]

blakmax,

Please tell us the entire story behind Robinson's blade saga.
Anxiously awaiting your reply. :rolleyes:
I suspect you and Cockeyed Steve are the same poster. :D

[blakmax]

13 snoopy I assure you I am not Cockney Steve, and I have never met him. With regard to the blade issue, I suggest you read this and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.adhesionassociates.com/papers/57%20Safety%20Risks%20in%20Applying%20Damage%20Tolerance%20A nalysis%20to%20Certification%20of%20Adhesively%20Bonded%20St ructures%20and%20Joints.doc

Regards

Blakmax

[500e]

13
Slightly snide remarks I feel.
Have met BM & corresponded with him very knowledgeable & keen to impart his vast experience.
For a person at the top of the game he was more than helpful explaining to person who knows little regarding bonding, there was no suggestion, of talking down or superior knowledge just helpful information.
The last time in Europe he was lecturing on adhesive failures & testing to industry
http://www.adhesionassociates.com/papers/46%20Importance%20of%20Failure%20Mode%20Indentification%20IC CM%2012%20Paris.pdf
Hope you are well Max

[cockney steve]

To the professional pilots I tender my most humble apologies for having the temerity, the bare-faced cheek, to post in a professional's forum.

If I told you I was a professional R.C pilot, displaying at competitions, model shows and the like, - would that be different?

Or perhaps if I flew the Yamaha R-Max?....No? I still would be a nerd playing with toys and not a sky- god?.....
Hows about I sit in a barracks, somewhere, watching a screen and "playing" with the RC transmitter in front of me, controlling a Drone some thousands of miles away?

Yes! Quick to jump all over someone who doesn't suit your profile/ views/opinions, from your lofty, arrogant, superior perch......We are all, by and large, in agreement, are we not?.... so why all the childish name-calling and petty, spiteful digs?


For it's price-point, I have always agreed, the Robinson is untouchable as an entry-level, low capital cost helicopter.

This cost -saving had to come from somewhere! I have made my case that there is a price to pay in terms of flight-characteristics, durability, safety-margins and ongoing costs.

(yes, I'd forgotten about the corrosion issue, the scrap tailbooms.......) never mind, you just have to grin and bear it.

If the Mods feel fit, they'll bar me. meanwhile, I'll leave this thread to the people who are happy to fly the product and watch the Guimbal and Enstrom threads instead.

[blakmax]

C-Steve

I think you raise a fundamental question about this forum. Is it a "pilots only" forum? I don't see that in the term "Rotorheads" but maybe others do. Yes it is Professional Pilots Rumour Network as pointed out by Helilog56, but if it is exclusively for PILOTS, then why are there threads for so many other non-pilot aspects of aviation? Maybe the structure of the threads should be reviewed so that rotary pilots can have their own thread where they can slag off at each aircraft type to their heart's content while there is a second thread where the technical aspects that actually may save lives can be discussed.

The ONLY reason I post mainly on "Rotorheads" is that I am a specialist in adhesive bond failure forensics and helicopters are a classic example of structures which absolutely depend on adhesive bonds for flight safety of principal structural elements. I am only here because I strongly believe I have unique expertise which can help advance flight safety (yes, I am talking to EASA and FAA directly).

Note that while I have some concerns about some types of helicopter I do not join in the Robbo (or any other specific manufacturer) bashing because in my experience there are issues with many bonded structures on rotary and fixed wing aircraft irrespective of the manufacturer. The difference is that for fixed-wing bonded structures the items are usually not principal structural elements. I do not usually comment on issues which do not relate to adhesive bonding. (The occasional comment on the humour page excepted.)

I think the opinions on this page (especially as it relates to the technical aspects of blade ADs,) should not be restricted to flight crew only. Mods any comment?

Blakmax

[Helilog56]

CS and BM....I have been flying rotary wing for 39 years, over 23,000 flight hours globally doing work like heli-logging, construction, and fire-fighting. I Do not spend my time bashing any manufacturer on any forum anywhere. I still fly Skycranes and yes, go help out on occasion at my friends helicopter flight school flying, 47's, 44's, and 206's.
Both of you and I, have nothing in common. I only state facts, not innuendo to form my opinions.....but, I do get critical when outsiders start forming little known opinions from second and third hand information.

So henceforth my sarcastic stab at reminding all (you) that this is a forum for flight crews. You are both guilty of bashing a product you know very, very, little about.

When I instruct on the R44, I feel confident and safe...I read all the A.D.'s and service bulletins...check maintenance being performed ( how and by whom), and ensure log books are accurate. So have you done that recently....either of you?
Not a sky god speaking with attitude....just a worn out broken down helicopter guy that gets sick reading a bunch of bleating from people with lack of knowledge and education that can only be found within our helicopter industry.
Off my soapbox now....:}

[blakmax]

You are both guilty of bashing a product you know very, very, little about.

Oh dear! Did you even bother to look at the link I provided or are you just adopting a stand whereby unless you are a pilot a contributor can not possibly comment on what are in fact technical issues? Firstly my approach is not to bash RHC, rather I have been addressing this issue with RHC and the FAA as well as publishing papers to alert the aviation community in general to the limitations of reliance on NDI and damage tolerance analysis for adhesive bonds which degrade in service, especially where the overlap length is exceptionally short.


Now you may not be interested in technical comments, but I am sure that there are other rotary wing personnel who are concerned about flight safety, irrespective of the manufacturer.

I await guidance from the Mods. Is this site exclusively for pilots? If so why are there threads for ground crews, freight handling, ATC etc. etc. These people are not all pilots. Maybe the solution as I said is to split the thread into Rotary flight crew and Rotary Technical Issues?

Regards

Blakmax

[Senior Pilot]

I await guidance from the Mods.


No-one needs guidance from me on posting here. I amended the forum header a couple of years ago to read:

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

If you spout nonsense then your peers will let you know. If a member is so insensitive not to realise they are spouting nonsense then they shouldn't be allowed out without adult supervision.

This forum has always and will continue to be self moderating in all but extreme circumstances.

[Helilog56]

A quote from CS.......They are cheap for a reason! safety has been traded for the bottom line....so much so, that someone with a conscience has decided stuff like bladders and blade changes should be mandatory......If the machines weren't certified, the putative pilot would be much more wary (think Rotorway!)
there are very real limitations in the 2-blade, teetering-head rotor system but the alternatives are hugely more expensive.

When I read trash like this, he has treaded into territory I very much take exception to from someone with no aviation background and experience. You seem to want to defend someone speaking of something, they know nothing about...I mean really, his commenting on rotor head design that has been the forefront of many successful rotary wing manufacturers.
His smug and condescending attitude referring to pilots as "sky gods"....yeah, I get more than a bit agitated by that kind of attitude. Flying at the contols of a toy, that he thinks would be humbling and perhaps cause some humility...give me a break.
And as for in my long winded prior rant, I stated "flight crews", not specifically pilots.
That encompasses pilots, engineers, cabin crews, and ground support people...you know, ones that actually work in aviation.
That is what I consider, as the mod put it ...."helicopter professionals"!!!
I no doubt that you have an area of expertise in adhesion bonding, and yes, I will take the time to read your link thank you.
But I think your support to someone who has demonstrated a lot of ignorance and borderline disrespect is a bit misguided blakmax.

[Hughes500]

Helilog56

Actually mate you are now starting to be the same as Cockney Steve but on the other side.
Quite frankly the manufacturers take the piss all over the place, Robinson probably more than most although that may be due to their shear numbers.
Name me one manufacturer whose product actually makes the distance i.e. gets to the life stated without major issues. How many recalls does aviation put out compared to the car manufacturers ? Toyota recalled millions of vehicles over a potential throttle problem , no one killed but they did it. Robinson have had issues with frames blades and fuel tanks, guess what it is the punter who has to pay. Yes the other manufacturers are the same, just spent $24k on a RR gearbox due to it making metal 6 years old with 1800 hours on it, that is left than life !
Even the newer machines are no different, I refused to buy 2 Cabri G2's as they would not provide a labour warranty !!!
I might not have your experience but been in the industry for 28 years but have seen enough !

[13snoopy]

Hughes 500,

Please, one cannot compare a helicopter part recall to an auto manufacturer recall. You said it yourself: Toyota recalled "millions" of cars...
That's right, they recalled millions because they've sold tens of millions.
The sheer scale of the auto industry leaves it not even remotely similar to helicopter manufacturers,
I don't have a problem with ADs. What bothers me is a company like Robbie not admitting their ineptitude in main rotor blade manufacturing and their customers paying for not once, not twice, but three different times or more.

Cockney Steve,
You've posted some really dumb and incorrect statements about Robby. (I cannot believe I'm defending them?!)
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole every time you post. Take my advice and give it a rest for awhile.
You've made yourself look very, very silly, imo. :D

[13snoopy]

Blakmax,

Thank you for the link. Can you summarize the info and how it's related to Robinson?

[Hughes500]

13

No you are wrong Toyota care about their consumers safety, do our manufacturers ? EG Super Puma gearbox's in The North Sea, manufacturer said that will be ok and guess what !!!
Lets be honest the automotive industry is years ahead in safety, customers service, quality of product. Aviation has a lot to learn !
We only put up with it as there is no where else to go and they have us by the bollocks !
As an owner of a company, where over the years we have owned 7 Hu 300's, 9 MD 500's, 2 x 206's, SA341's and 342's. Have run for customers R44's and 355's
I can assure you that a manufacturer is crap at just about everything whether it is customer support, parts supply, warranty etc etc
Another example for you, rod end bearing list price $ 195 took it to my local bearing shop, same thing from same manufacturer $ 25 but no aviation paperwork, now if that is not taking the piss I don't what is.
Sikorsky have just put up the price of tr pitch links from $375 to $1275 where is the justification in that.
To be honest the manufactures are driving themselves out of business ! One of my customers owns a construction company plus a helicopter and as he says
if my plant is as unreliable and takes weeks to fix I would be out of business !
I could accept it if we were dealing with the space shuttle but even an R44 has been about for 20 years:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[500e]

What a strange thread
13
Read the tech paper why should the Author summarize it for you, then you might understand (there are pictures to).

Regarding auto manufacturers, yes millions of cars vans lorry's etc, but the cost is per unit.
They have to coordinate recalls, loan customers cars, pay dealers to do repair + there is wide condemnation, Also there are a host of other makers looking to capitalize on their misfortune.
We as owners & pilots are being taken for mugs, with poor spares delivery, abysmal customer support & prices escalating at a rate that is beyond reason after starting at astronomic levels.
Warranty don't even go there! gearbox rebuilt 3 times would not release until paid every time, they have you over a barrel. blades erosion strips dis-bonding in 70 hours, send them back says manufacturer, not we will have them collected & shipped USA.
As a pilot & owner with an engineering\electronics background the reliability is poor to say the least.
Most of the manufacturers seem to think the customer is a nuisance so we will ignore them.
It is a shame that Cabri did not have the B***s to pay labour warranty, especially as I was told by them how little there was going to be, if true? at least 3 machine sales lost

[Helilog56]

Just finished reading your posted link on your article blakmax....very in depth, concise and informative article. As you wrote this back in 2011, and the information was made available to RHC, the FAA, and other manufactures, have you had any feed back from any of them undertaking and implementing changes in their adhesive bonding procedures? I would like to think with any deficiencies and quality control in their processes, that they would have made improvements.

[blakmax]

Thanks Helilog. I have heard along the grape vine that RHC has changed some practices, but you will never get told directly for commercial and legal reasons. The FAA has taken my comments on board and have raised the priority on adhesive bonded structures as a direct result.

13 Snoopy, I will try to summarise the paper soon, but at present I am flat-out like a lizard drinking, writing a further paper on a related subject for an NDI conference in Brisbane in May.

Regards

Blakmax

[500e]

Try this helilog another interesting read

http://www.adhesionassociates.com/papers/46%20Importance%20of%20Failure%20Mode%20Indentification%20IC CM%2012%20Paris.pdf

[Helilog56]

Thanks....:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

max, are you doing a paper on rotary wings and bonding?
Not sure if you saw the thread on this forum about the National Guard UH-60 Blackhawk (http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1c0052058ae80cd79cd249061d6e7d8b851a6016/c=107-0-644-404&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/WLTX/WLTX/2014/12/04/635532997584344545-1495438-10202199706873557-3266696846301117291-n.jpg)that had a rotor blade suffer what looks like a dis-bond (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/guard-reserve/2014/12/10/guard-pilot-blackhawk-crash/20160877/)inflight. Emergency landing was successful.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/552421-uh-60-bad-rotor-blade.html

[13snoopy]

Hughes500,

No. You are wrong.

Are you aware of how much a typical aviation manufacturer pays and must put aside for lawsuits????? Check that out and then come back here and tell us.
A Toyota issue crops up and usually the car stops working. An aircraft issue crops up and the ship usually falls from the sky.
Does that sound remotely the same to you???
Statistically speaking, the percentage of lawsuits filed against an aircraft company PER accident is in the order of a magnitude of at least one hundred compared to a similar auto accident.
The consequences of failure resulting in tragedy are thousands of times more likely in an aircraft accident versus a car accident.
Autos do occasionally have an issue that causes a death. On the other hand, an aircraft manufacturer that has a product failure nearly always results in fatalities. Big difference, mate. Big, big difference.
Stop typing and start thinking.
PS
I laugh if you own an aircraft company that buys stuff but you don't understand why aviation manufacturers MUST charge huge prices. Surely you aren't really as naive as you sound?!

[13snoopy]

500e,

I asked blakmax for a summary so I would get to see him differentiate his "facts" from his "theory" on debonding. You do understand there is a vast difference, don't you?

[blakmax]

13 Snoopy

I don't have to convince you of the theory, mate! Read the AD:

However, airworthiness cannot be assured long-term by reliance on continued repetitive inspections.

Tell me what part of my "theory" isn't supported by the FAA statement?

Even NASA agrees with my proposition that hydration drives bonds failures:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080040188.pdf

Now before you start accusing me of Robbie bashing, I assure you that this problem exists for a lot of other manufacturers both in rotary and fixed wing. The reason that RHC has been bitten more than others is that their design involves an exceptionally short overlap length 0.4in for R22 and 0.5 in for R44. Any degradation at all is going to be exacerbated by the fact that there is negligible reserve strength in such short bonds.

If you really want to get into a technical discussion in an attempt to debunk my "theory", bring it on!

Kindest regards

Blakmax

[500e]

13
Justify the price rises in the last 15 months From such a high start on parts.
Have not checked the 2015 price for this item clam shell door pin.
Why is the rate of reaching life times poor, if the quality is so high.http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l259/500d_2006/DSCF0359.jpg
I do appreciate the difference in failure between car & helli but as said if a lot of equipment had such a poor life\ delivery of spares the Co would be out of business.
You cant stop the snide remarks (I laugh if you own an aircraft company that buys stuff)
Now back to the Robo problem

[blakmax]

Sorry Lone wolf, I got wrapped up in the other debate and forgot to respond.

I had seen the article and it certainly looks interesting from a composites perspective, but without close up photos I would only be guessing.

Regards
Blakmax

[Hughes500]

13
You must live on a different planet or work for a manufacturer. There IS NO difference when it comes to safety. Tell me when Robinson for instance last recalled their machines due to a perceived safety problem, certainly didn't over bladder tanks, let alone pay for it. It waves 2 fingers at owners when they build crap blades and then get owners to pay for their incompetence.
My son just had is Ford Fiesta recalled due to a problem with the fuel system, there was a small chance it could catch fire. Ford recalled everyone just in case, what has Robinson done about its fuel problem ( fuel bladders), told owners to pay $12500 to change their machines. Please please explain to me which company is doing the right thing and obviously running a robust/working SMS
. While you are at it please explain to me ( I am obviously thick ) why a manufacturer triples the price of a pitch link. Before you answer that, it is not cost of manufacture as a PMA company makes a pitch link for a 369 which is the same as a 269 ( you are no longer allowed to fit them) for $ 350 presumably they are making a profit, so why does Sikorsky put the price up from $ 375 to over $ 1200 ???.

[whoknows idont]

so why does Sikorsky put the price up from $ 375 to over $ 1200 ???.

I would guess because they want to kill off a type that they dont really feel like supporting anymore. In the automotive sector that would equal to not supplying parts anymore at all (barely any manufacturers properly supply old models, only one im aware of is MB). BUT they do that mostly so they sell more cars.
Which doesnt make sense for sikorsky since a) they still appear to be offering the good old 269 and b) dont offer anything else in the same segment. Ergo they are kind of sawing on the branch they are sitting on. Somehow it seems to me that once someone in the siko management thought it would be a great idea to buy the 269 to expand their portfolio, now someone else figured that it wasnt that brilliant after all and decided to try and undo it somehow.

I agree with snoopy that the comparison automotive vs rotary industry is not a really good one. Extremely high costs for certification and what not, extremely low unit numbers. The circumstances as well as the markets themselves are totally different in so many ways.

Although i certainly also agree with the other side, saying that the helicopter manufacturers treat their customers like garbage. Out of the big players, only one makes an honest attempt at decent customer service for civilian customers. On the monetary side they certainly play the same game like the others.
I think this whole situation is a lack of real competition in the market. Todays battles of the industries are mostly fought by the marketing departments, you will find that to be true in so many different industries.
IMHO, the manufacturers decided a long time ago to happily team up on us and got perfectly comfortable with shamelessly milking the cash cow, to put it in pub talk terms.
This seems like a great opportunity for new manufacturers, but in the end of the day they are all prone to yield the temptation sooner or later... :rolleyes:

[500e]

There is a difference of scale but there is also a difference of life, car 7\10 years & reducing, helicopter our 500 was built in 1974 so there is a lot more bights at the cherry + we have to spend & in the main with the manufacturer, where as the automotive Co. have after market Co like flees.
Forgot Robos only last how long before you are into big re build.
If some on can answer H500 question regarding PMA pitch link question (other than greed) why was it ok & now it is not

[whoknows idont]

Must be a strategic (respectively a political) decision? What else is left? Certainly not just a happy little accident, as Bob Ross would have put it...

[13snoopy]

Why is it so hard for some people here to grasp the fact that aircraft manufacturers and their parts suppliers have to charge tremendously for their products just to satisfy their costs in the result of a huge lawsuit.
Go look up what a jury verdict against Avco that resulted in a 26 MILLION DOLLAR judgement.
Stop the crazy lawsuits and unlimited jury awards and see the price of aviation come down.

Engine Maker Hit With $26M Verdict Over 2008 Plane Crash - Law360 (http://www.law360.com/articles/430970/engine-maker-hit-with-26m-verdict-over-2008-plane-crash)

[Helilog56]

I find here that the comparison of automotive to helicopter manufacturing similar to comparing apples to say, rocks. Automotive has the luxury of high tech robotic assembley line fabrication, build and assembly far advanced, than the antiquated and dated ways of how helicopters are constructed. Just think how many Toyota Corollas role off the line in a day verses say 76's????!!!

The cost of parts and their increases, do not require a degree in physics to under stand die, tooling, fabrication, and assembly costs to both sides....automotive has massive volume out the door and must compete against aftermarket corporations that may build their replacement parts cheaper...don't see too much of that in our industry other than some innovative accessories like cargo baskets. Also labour costs in stocking and shipping with low volume adds to that cost. How about R and D costs, destructive testing, certification requirements, tracking and traceability, flight testing, etc, etc. that we are faced with?
Trying to construct something as light as possible and defy gravity and still maintain structural integrity and safety under some pretty harse operating conditions, is a tough challenge for any manufacturer. All those brilliant engineers that design these....we manage to take them into the field and show them what they did wrong....:}

[Hughes500]

Helilog yup I agree with some of what you are saying but a load of designs are years old and not really rocket science. Look at bearings these are generally normal industrial bearings but with aviation paperwork put on them.
Most of the older designs were R and D by the military, 269,369,206,105 to name a few
All of you defending the industry can't answer why 269 pitch links have trebled in price, come on Snoopy answer the question.
Have you seen some of the law suits against car manufacturers ?You seem to think there should be a different level between the auto motive industry and the aviation industry in terms of proactive safety ? Aviation has only just started to have SMS where the automotive boys have had it for over 25 years ! Mind you that is obvious as they recall stuff when there is a doubt on it. What does aviation do, it will be all right, just look at Super puma gearboxes in the North Sea. Things are only done when people die, the automotive boys SMS tries to stop this because they are frightened of huge law suits .

[Egg whisk driver]

It's all about the marketing, chaps.

The majority of argument on this thread seems to fall into two camps; those owners and operators who believe that the auto industry has a better record of paying for customer-safety recalls and directives than aircraft manufacturers, and those that don't think this is a valid comparison.

The fact is that certain helicopter manufacturers actively promote comparisons between operating a helicopter and a car, so it's hardly surprising that wider comparisons are made.

The subject of this thread, Robinson Helicopter are an example of this. For every model, they publish an estimated operating costs page. This suggests hourly reserves they feel appropriate for unscheduled maintenance and also compare the cost per mile flown with that cost per driven mile in a car.

Consider the Raven 2 estimated operating costs published by RHC. The reserve for unscheduled maintenance is suggested as $9:72 per hour. Over 2200 hours, this adds up to $21,384 total. Peekay4 at the very start of this thread writes that the estimated cost of the mandatory blade replacement is $30k-$100k per aircraft depending on the model. RHC could revise their publications to take account of the AD costs like blade replacements, etc, if they chose to do so. So the Robbo owner who put his faith in the RHC publication is going to inevitably feel disappointed. :*

Robinson opened up the market to privateers like me who couldn't have otherwise contemplated getting into the air. But when the marketing material encourages comparisons with car costs, I don't think owners and operators can be blamed for feeling sore when the components don't reach their advertised life limit, but it's the owner that is left to pick up the bill.

I've walked away from the idea of an R66 purchase simply because of the spectre of unscheduled maintenance based on the frequency of the Blade revisions. The 44 has been around a long time now, and they've changed their minds on the MR Blades often enough to for me to question whether the same thing is going to happen to the 66. I don't question who would have to foot the bill if it did.

[500e]

Well reasoned post EWD, the last comment is the one I think others have missed or chose to ignore.
Other manufacturers have their own ways of distorting costs.

[Peter-RB]

Hey Snoopy

Re Lawsuit's on Product liability.

Here in the UK I manufacture a Carbon Steel Forging for use in the Transport Industry,..Its a brand new product, that stops cargo from departing any carrying platform when or if involved in any sort of Incident/Accident or rollover, We have used the very finest of steels and well known Testing procedure's at Fully ISO registered testing labs and facilities, we have full traceability plus temperature records for the forgings and cooling down times. Remember the words " Brand New Product " they have been tested to destruction by a Government testing house,

We carry a LLOYDS at LONDON Product Liability Insurance that covers us for
£5M for any one incident, we sell about 20 units per week, and we are covered should any or all fail,,,

So tell me, why If little ole me here in the North of the UK can get such excellent cover.....WHY CAN'T the ROBINSON COMPANY.. you state they have to put funds aside....are you saying they have NO PRODUCT LIABILITY cover....IE Insurance on their manufacturing and traceability of parts??

Peter R-B

[Hughes500]

Peter

Thats what we would call down here in the SW " proper job":ok:

[13snoopy]

Peter RB,

This is my last post in this thread and you are the perfect person to end it with.
You are trying to compare your "cargo stop" with a helicopter?????
Go back to sleep, Petey.:rolleyes:

[Hughes500]

13

Suggest you go and get someone to explain the meaning and understanding of the English language. Not really difficult to understand the concept of product liability or insurance is it.

[bvgs]

If they make something that's defective and has been proven to be defective they should replace it. For me that goes for cars, helicopters, boats whatever. The blade issue has been an ongoing problem, I can remember as a private owner having to fork out for -4 blades for my R22 when they had problems with -2's. I think Robinson's attitude is very poor here. I might be shot down in flames here but I seem to recall lycoming issuing new crankshafts for certain serial numbers in the R44 series and from my recollection they paid for them and the labour costs.. I also know that a number of owners had additional charges because when they " opened up the engine" other unrelated problems were found but the point being is that lycoming took responsibility. If I've got this wrong my apologies but I think I'm correct. People who fly the Robinson product are some of its greatest ambassadors and defend it continually on here and other places from the slagging off it gets.. Such a shame that Robinson don't embrace this loyalty with great support. Poor poor poor Mr Robinson.

[blakmax]

Guys, it may be a bit of a shock given my previous postings on the blade issue, but I actually have some sympathy for RHC.

The problem with these blades is related to degradation of the bond interface between the adhesive and the metal. The regulations (FARs) require demonstration of strength, fatigue resistance and damage tolerance, and I am sure that RHC would have complied with these requirements, otherwise they would not have received certification approval.

The real issue is that there is no specific requirement in the regs that stipulates demonstration that the bond will maintain strength throughout the life of the part. Understand that there are two component in adhesive bond which control strength; the bulk adhesive material and the interface between the adhesive and the metal.

Interfacial degradation is directly related to the methods for preparing the surfaces prior to bonding. The most probable mechanism of degradation is by hydration of the oxides on the bonding surface. For the oxides to hydrate the chemical bonds between the adhesive and the metal dissociate leading to disbonding. Now hydration takes time so if a test is undertaken at the time immediately after manufacture, then the strength would be adequate, but if the part is in service for a while the interface degrades and the strength of the bond progressively weakens.

This hydration is a direct result of environmental exposure, so you would expect that the regulations would address environmental effects and they do. However, the usual approach throughout almost all of the entire industry (NOT JUST RHC) to assessing environmental effects is to expose specimens for a short time until the moisture levels stablise and then test to generate design data. This approach will address the effects of moisture on the bulk adhesive properties.

The flaw with this approach is that the exposure time before testing is not long enough to enable hydration to occur. Therefore the results of the tests will provide sufficient confidence in the processes to convince the company and the FAA that the design is sound, even though the bond may experience interfacial degradation in later service. Yet testing of moisture conditioned specimens is standard practice throughout the industry.

The issue of hydration and bond degradation has only been known for a relatively short time and that knowledge came to light well after RHC started making -4 blades, so there is no reasonable expectation that RHC should have been aware of the additional needs for testing to assess resistance to environmental degradation and I am sure that almost all other manufacturers were equally unaware. Even if they eventually did become aware, the change of processes would require an entire and lengthy re-certification of the blade and hopefully that is what the -6 blades are.

I think the issue of product liability and warranty is a bit murky to say the least. If any company follows regs and adopts industry best practice to make a product are they liable if the regs are not explicit and industry best practice is deficient?

OK, I'm now going into my bomb shelter for a while....

Regards

Blakmax

PS I hope 13snoopy still is reading the thread even if he has stomped his feet and taken his bat and ball and gone away.

[vfr440]

Blakmax,
VERY educational, thank you very much for explaining in simple language. But please advise to this ignoramus (!), does this hydration and degeneration of bond only occur on metal skins? As compared to composite construction (and bonding).


Sorry if this seems an asinine question, I have very little experience in this discipline; as an LAE one can only follow the TCH's repair procedures (or condemnation of the blade) - VFR

[blakmax]

vfr440

You touch on a topic that annoys me. Most industry and the FAA consider "composites" to mean the fibre-reinforced material as well as adhesive bonding. I have never understood why. The analytical methods and failure modes and purpose of use are completely different. The only commonality is that they both start off as sticky materials which when cured form a structural material. I would really prefer that composite materials (fibre-composites) and composite construction (bonded structures) were treated completely separately.

Now to answer the question I think you are asking: Does hydration occur in bonds between adhesives and fibre composites? The answer is that I have no evidence to support the proposition, but equally I have some suspicions that it may. The mechanism may not be hydration of oxide layers, but it may well be hydration of polymeric bonds, but this is pure supposition.

Regards

Blakmax

[blakmax]

Sorry vfr440 I missed the comment in the last sentence. If you really want to start a steamy discussion, ask me about "approved repair procedures". Let's start here.

http://www.adhesionassociates.com/papers/32%20A%20Call%20For%20Minimum%20Standards%20In%20Design%20An d%20Application%20Technology%20For%20Bonded%20Structural%20R epairs%20Vancouver%201995.pdf

or this

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/artn0657.pdf

Maybe it is too far off the thread topic. If you want to start another thread I am happy to participate. Maybe we can get rid of stupid repairs such as injection repairs for disbonds, get surface preparation procedures for repairs which actually address hydration issues, address temperature measurement and control procedures which actually produce cure of the adhesive without overheat damage of the structure instead of the stupid one heater blanket, one thermocouple approach adopted by a MAJOR manufacturer who sold a number of aircraft to the Australian Defence Forces.

Oh, we also need to get rid of meaningless fasteners in bonded repairs.

OK, off the soap box...

Regards

Blakmax

[13snoopy]

All,

I'm going against my promise to not post again, but this time will truly be the final:
Ask ANY aircraft manufacturer how much revenue that are forced to set aside for their liability insurance, potential lawsuit judgements and the laboriously detailed testing their country's aviation authority demands. The number will be staggering, I guarantee you.
THAT is why the same part that costs $10 for an auto will cost $100 for a helicopter. It's simply a matter of economics.
Over and out.
PS
Do I think Robby makes a bad rotor blade? Yes. Should they give us an even better price break that what they're offering? Yes.

[Freewheel]

I've mentioned previously on here that an aftermarket composite blade would very likely to a commercial success given the potential market.:eek:

You've got to wonder why it hasn't happened already.....:confused:

[Peter-RB]

Hey Snoop,
I really enjoyed the endearment of the" Petey" thingy, but being a hard nosed Lancastrian sticks and stone break ya bones, names just make ya larf if you think further on what you "posted after your "Final Post"
I hope you are keeping up
using your $10 for car compared with $100 for Helicopter,.. its still only a direct maths problem for the premium, you cannot be serious to say and have us all believe that out of every sale beit Helicopter or Boeing 777 the greatest portion of funding recovered from the customer is put into a box somewhere waiting for the day when the manure hits the fan..:eek:

Its purely got to be an Insurance premium on the companies ability to manufacture and produce a traceable item/component whether it be a screw on the windscreen frame or the Hydraulic seal on the Flap jacks, all the suppliers of such items will also have a Product Liability Insurance and a premium also, so you cannot be correct in suggesting people like RHC have some box stuffed with Greenbacks, waiting for Armageddon.

I am not a Robby Basher, I got my ticket on one, but I am certain I will never, ever open a Robby door again.:suspect:
Petey masquerading as
Peter R-B :ok:

[500e]

We inquired price for
Line MFG P/N Manufacturer Condition Pckging RoHS Pb F D/C Sell Qty Sell Price Line Total Description 1 369H8131
Supp: AE1187B0104-000
... U U NEW UNUSED SURPLUS / HOSE ASSEMBLY,NONMETALLIC / PN:AE1187B0104-000 / NSN:4720-01-549-2264 / CERT PROVIDED: WBPARTS COC / EST 7-10 DAYS TO SHIP 1 $1,607.14
This is a price for 10" SS pipe (original fitment) or hose with 2 nuts & 1\8 bore all measurements approx.
The same component from MD $2500
All the manufacturers are driving the private & small operators out of the market, I can only presume this is their intention.

[Hughes500]

500E can get that part for $ 750 !!!

[500e]

Will tell Gramp

[blakmax]

CAA NZ has grounded all R44s because of concerns about the blades following the apparent failure of a -7 blade, yes -7.

The Civil Aviation Authority is grounding Robinson R44 series helicopters following a fatal chopper crash this week.
All Robinson R44 series helicopters fitted with main rotor blades P/N CO16-7, otherwise known as dash 7 blades, have been banned from flying as of today, the CAA said in a statement.
The directive was issued in response to an investigation into an R44 accident near Queenstown on Thursday

Choppers grounded following fatal crash | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/66485213/Choppers-grounded-following-fatal-crash)

Blakmax

[Vertical Freedom]

With the never ending deaths from Robinson failures......when will people learn & reject them till all of Frank's garbage is burying at the local dump where they belong :ok:

Happy Landings

[blakmax]

This may also be of interest. It is also a -7 blade also in NZ.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caa.govt.nz%2FAirworthiness_Directives% 2FContinuing_Airworthiness_Notices%2FCAN_62-003.pdf&ei=tQfoVNPRBYnn8AXvnoGAAw&usg=AFQjCNEwCIlN9OV_xsvUWni9RtfjNXQ2yg&bvm=bv.86475890,d.dGc

This report is not from the Queenstown crash reported elsewhere on this site.

Blakmax

[av8trixnz]

You might like to keep a close eye on the accident investigations in NZ.

FAA are mandating a blade that has caused two accidents due to in flight break up of the blades, and sadly it caused the death of two people in the most recent crash on Thursday. NZ CAA has grounded all R44's with these blades till further notice.

[bellsux]

CASA Urgent Airworthiness Directive AD/R44/24 issued for C016-7 Main Rotor Blades

[topendtorque]

Blakmax. Thanks for being on channel.

I just said to the missus I am going over here to see if I can find you to help put some sense into this.

My question. Disregarding why the hell something more positive wasn't done internationally on the first incident, the question we must now ask is, "can there be a professional metallurgist examination to establish in each case the crack progressive history"? That - for a professional - "should?" be an easy task. We have all got R22's running around now with the same design in their new blades.

I.E. The case photographed had at least enough time to land after vibrations noticed. We need to know the time interval between vibes felt and landing effected on the first machine, and we need to find out ASAP what the operational history of each aircraft was - WARTS an ALL.

VF - get rooted, this is serious.

cheers tet

[blakmax]

Tet

There may be an element of stress concentration at the curve in the back of the blade, and it is possible that a nick in the metal led to cracking. However, there may also be underlying issues.

I have a good friend in NZ who is a qualified crash investigator and he is a specialist in failure forensics. His company is Prosolve. He and I worked together on the crash of DQ-IHE which was most probably as a result of blade break-up in flight. I did the adhesive bonding failure forensics issues and he did the rest.

I think we both would like to get access to this blade.

I'll send you a PM.

Blakmax

[topendtorque]

Thanks Blakmax,

will look forward to any developments.

tet.

[Hot and Hi]

My R44's (both Raven 1 and now Raven 2) use 50 lt of Avgas per engine Hobbs hour (about 55 lt per flying Hobbs hour). This fairly constant (short term average, regardless of pilot) as well as over 14 years of ownership.

(Edit 2.4.2016: Fuel flow increases to 65 lt per flying Hobbs hour when fully loaded AND using maximum continuous power for maximum speed.)

70 lt or more is unheard of.

[Helilog56]

Not sure hot and hi what that has to do with a thread on m/r blades...:ugh:

[RVDT]

For those that are having trouble joining the dots.

Try a wee bit of this -

http://scheincommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/turd_polish_thumb.jpg

[Robbieengineer]

I have just read the above threads and I cannot believe that there is so much conjecture regarding -7 blades when they haven't even been examined by Robinson to determine if it was a manufacturing defect or a stress fracture from overloading the airframe


No one has even asked the simple question of what type of work the R44 that landed safely with the cracked blade was used for, from which I understand that it was used for spraying.


Every a/c fixed wing or rotary wing has design limitations and it usually real life activities that push those limits where ultimately failures and sadly deaths occur but there is never any finger pointing to an operator exceeding those limitations just a wall of outrage at the manufacturer who should replace at no cost and is always making money out of the owners


This is a knee jerk reaction to as yet to be confirmed perceived blade design problem until there is an ultimate conclusive solution the R44 is as safe as any other single engined helicopter

[13snoopy]

Robbieengineer,

Why did New Zealand ground the entire fleet? Huh????
Are you calling them knee jerkers??
Your poster name suggests you work on Robinsons. Care to explain their repeated blade ADs and their abject failure to make a blade that won't break up in flight??
THERE ARE REPEATED INCIDENTS OF IN-FLIGHT MAIN ROTOR BREAK-UPS WHERE THE FLIGHT CONDITIONS WERE PERFECTLY NORMAL.
Care to explain those????
This is life or death. Not some bs "Robinson is great" thread. It's crystal clear there are deep seated problems in Robby's blade manufacturing process. Anyone who claims otherwise is just showing their sheer stupidity.

[Helilog56]

If one wants good reading go back in time, research, and read the amount of AD's, AWD's and service bulletins on blades from Bell, Hughes (MDHC), Airbus, Sikorsky, Kaman, etc.....some of which were also catastrophic failures in flight.
They have all had their problems....!!!!!!

[KiwiNedNZ]

Robbieengineer - First off the FIRST incident about three weeks ago was an ag machine, this one a couple of days ago was a tourism machine and knowing both operators I highly doubt they would be overstressed or pushed past the limits.

Secondly - If the accident investigators who attended the crash scene found something that caused them enough concern to ground all other 44s with -7 blades then I doubt they would have done that lightly. I spoke to one of them on the phone and based on what they told me they saw they did the right thing.

Give the NZ CAA investigators and Louisa Patterson a call and tell them its a knee jerk reaction.

[Hot and Hi]

Apologies Helihog:

Not sure hot and hi what that has to do with a thread on m/r blades...

Inside this thread the R44's fuel consumption was discussed a few days ago in various posts between 4 and 7 Feb 2015. I was responding to one of the posts in this thread where members gave their opinion about R44 fuel consumption being 75 lt / hr. (8852947)

I thought it would be useful to give 'actuals' from somebody who has operated this a/c type for over 10 years.

I clicked the "respond" button directly inside this post, I didn't realise that our Forum software doesn't automatically reference the post that I am responding to.

As you can see I have only started posting recently, so please bear with me. I also only just now figured out how to 'properly' quote somebody, so that the quoted text appears in a nice blue box :).

[Robbieengineer]

yes I do have extensive knowledge of these and other rotary aircraft and do not care to make ill-informed comments in an industry and forum that seeks to make scape goats out of hear say and conjecture


these blades have been in service for many years now and in Australia which has an extensive fleet of r22,r44 & r66 aircraft there has been little to report of failure let alone fatalities relating to these or the previous -5 & -2 blades


until the first set of blades are properly examined by robinson only then can we say there is a problem. until then then yes this is a knee jerk reaction that will hit many poor operators who are doing the right thing and yes this will impact the maintainers too


casa has done this in response to their bladder tank debacle let us all never forget that people did perish in those terrible accidents but all were due to pilot error not due to an unsafe aircraft


if we look at aircraft throughout aviation they have all hade their pitfalls


didn't the americans call the as350 the falling star?

[HeliHenri]

Robbieengineer
casa has done this in response to their bladder tank debacle let us all never forget that people did perish in those terrible accidents but all were due to pilot error not due to an unsafe aircraft


:eek:

So if you make an error in a R44, you deserve to die burnt alive.
And your passengers too because they should have choose a "good" pilot.
.

[blakmax]

Robbie Engineer

Maybe you and I live in a different Australia?

these blades have been in service for many years now and in Australia which has an extensive fleet of r22,r44 & r66 aircraft there has been little to report of failure let alone fatalities relating to these or the previous -5 & -2 blades


Here are three after a very short search:

aair200302820_001 VH OHA 20 Jun 2003 2 fatalities blade failure

aair200701625_001 VH HPI 15 Mar 2007 skin separation landed safely

ASIB 200300316, VH-AIC 12 Feb 2003 skin separation resulting in crash 1 injured

As I have stated elsewhere I know of one overseas case of probable blade failure due to adhesive bond degradation and those blades were inspected twice by tap test and three visual inspections within 80 hours of the crash.

Please don't insult our intelligence with the "nothing to see here...Move on" attitude.

Regards

Blakmax

[13snoopy]

Robbieengineer,

Australia (YOUR claimed country of residence) just grounded all R44 aircraft. I suppose they are succumbing to "knee-jerk" reactions, also??
I noticed that you are a brand new poster here. It's plain to see your agenda.
Go away unless you can add anything remotely resembling sane remarks.
I've read this site for a long time, and you're plainly the biggest idiot to ever grace these pages.
PS
I'm merely a long time owner of Robinson helicopters who has grown weary and wary of the main rotor failures of Robinson Helicopters. It hasn't only happened in "bad" environments with over-stressed components and timed-out machinery. These blade failures have occurred repeatedly in well-maintained helicopters used in normal conditions.
YOU KNOW THIS AND I KNOW THIS TO BE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

[13snoopy]

Moderators,

Please consider banning the moron calling himself Robbieengineer.
He is recently registered and his only posts clearly show his fool's agenda:
Trying to defend an obviously serious issue with asinine remarks. My bet
is he's either got a financial stake in Robinson or he's 12 years old.

[blakmax]

Crikey Snoopy, we agree on the lack of sense in these postings:

It hasn't only happened in "bad" environments with over-stressed components and timed-out machinery.Actually the Appendix to aair200302820_001 VH OHA lists details of two blades with disbonds in the root fitting with ZERO flight hours. They disbonded in storage. I can just see Robbo Engineers explanation "Maybe they dropped the box".

I was hoping that the issue of bond manufacturing processes had been addressed in the -7 blades. The recent ADs relate to cracking which may or may not be a consequence of bonding issues. We will wait and see. Hopefully the Kiwis have expertise in bond issues which may (or may not) provide causal effects rather than just focusing on the crack.

As a specialist in the field of adhesive bond failure forensics I can assure everyone that interfacial failure is NOT caused by loads. It is directly related to the processes used for surface preparation at the time of manufacture, and the disbonds I have seen exhibit lots of adhesion failure. There is also a lot of mixed-mode failure which is a mixture of weak adhesion failure and some cohesion failure. Cohesion failure is the strongest, and in all the surfaces I examined there was not a trace of true cohesion failure.

This issue is too important to be fobbed of by Robbo.

Regards

Blakmax

PS welcome back Snoopy.

[chopjock]

Moderators,

Please consider banning the moron calling himself Robbieengineer.
He is recently registered and his only posts clearly show his fool's agenda:
Trying to defend an obviously serious issue with asinine remarks. My bet
is he's either got a financial stake in Robinson or he's 12 years old.

Moderators,

Please do not consider banning Robbieengineer.
He is recently registered and his only posts clearly show his "different point of view" agenda:
Trying to defend an obviously serious issue with a differing point of view. My bet
is he's either got a financial stake in Robinson or he just wants to put the other side across for discussion.

I don't like Robbies either but I always like to see both sides of an argument / discussion and make my own mind up. :rolleyes:

[blakmax]

Chopjock

Just to be clear. I agree with Snoopy's assessment of the sense involved in the postings. I do not agree that Robbo Eng needs to be banned. Indeed, there have been suggestions that as a non pilot I should not post here.

Up front, I am a firm believer in the power of persuasion. If R/E can back up his statements, then let him. I have expressed my opinion, let him express his. It is pretty damned hard to defend the indefensible.

However given the "follow the party line" tenor of his postings, I suspect you are right:

he's either got a financial stake in Robinson....

Or maybe he is an employee or local rep?

Regards

Blakmax

[Michael Gee]

Hope they dont go for Calendar Life. We all know how expensive the TT Straps are to replace after 2 years Flown or Not Flown on a 206

[chopjock]

blakmax
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caa.govt.nz%2FAirworthiness_Directives% 2FContinuing_Airworthiness_Notices%2FCAN_62-003.pdf&ei=tQfoVNPRBYnn8AXvnoGAAw&usg=AFQjCNEwCIlN9OV_xsvUWni9RtfjNXQ2yg&bvm=bv.86475890,d.dGc

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those -7 blades seem a poor design, stepping to a wider chord half way out towards the tip.Looks like they have designed in a stress point and asking for a crack to appear.
I always assumed a tapering section or parallel (with no steps) would be more efficient and sensible.

[blakmax]

Thanks Chopjock

I am intrigued. The previous designs had a relatively uniform chord with the additional TE section added by inserting a metal strip behind the uniform core profile to support the face sheets.

To change the chord length would either require a much larger and thicker strip to support the face sheets (which would add significant weight and centrifugal loading for that weight) or the core profile would have to step at the change in chord. There are two ways to change the core profile: 1. Machine the core block with a step and then expand the core and hope that the machining process provided a good match with the location of the chord change, or they could machine the core in two profiles and join them with core splice adhesive. Alternatively they could make the core in three sections, one for the smaller chord, one for the larger chord and a third block machined with the trailing edge angle incorporated so that the skin is supported in the transition zone. The three segments would then be joined by core splice adhesive.

Now if they didn't get the correlation of the change in core profile correctly aligned with the change in the actual chord change, OR if they didn't actually splice the core at all at the change in chord length, then either condition would lead to undesirable local stresses which could lead to cracking of the skins. In particular if the core splice adhesive was not applied, then this is a real problem. The core transfers shear loads, caused by the blade aerodynamic loading being distributed along the blade. If there is a disconnection such as caused by an absence of core splice or poor design of the transition in core shape then all the shear loads are dumped into the skins, and that would possibly cause a rapid increase in stress in the skins and could possibly initiate fatigue problems.

Alternatively if the core plan profile doesn't match the skin profile, then there will be some unsupported skin material which could experience local buffeting and again initiate fatigue. From a production perspective it would be very difficult to machine the core to the shape of the transition zone between the two different chord lengths.

I hope our Kiwi friends can enlighten us on the presence or absence of core splice adhesive at the step in the chord and the configuration of the core at the change in chord.

Regards

Blakmax

[RVDT]

Of note -

~ 1200 folks have departed for good in an R product for various reasons.

22/44 at 55/45 percent respectively. :ugh:

[topradio]

Interesting statistic and one I have not heard before. We often hear stats about the number of accidents per hour etc. but how many souls lost is a sobering one.

So is there similar data for other types - I know, its still meaningless without knowing the service hours and type of operations but interesting nevertheless.

On the topic, I am a UK based low time PPL(H) and recently flew a 44 in a non-eu country effectively as a student under instruction. The pre-flight checks were done by the 'instructor' and I just got in the right hand seat.

While doing a full and free check I noticed definite ripples on the underside of the blade about 18 to 24 inches from the tip. I mentioned it to the MUCH more experienced chap in the left seat and he said that somebody had hit a small branch a few days earlier but that 'the tech guys tell me its within limits'. Now I was fairly happy to accept his explanation as he is well known and considered a bit of a legend in the rotary world and also he was in the aircraft as well and 'he must know what he's doing'

However I believe that if that aircraft belonged to the outfit I normally fly with in the UK it would have been grounded and the blades condemned. Perhaps I am just too cautious, what would you guys have done?

[topendtorque]

Statistics RVDT, can sometimes be useful. If the time was taken to analyse the piloting skill as main contributor I believe you would not get any better or worse than many other products, except for Enstrom which until recently was exceptionally good.

I think you would also be well aware of the problems we had with cracked and broken Bell 47 grips some moons ago which claimed one life and went within minutes of claiming either two or one other, self included.

For example, one of the latest "stars" found mother earth at speed, without IFR training or instruments whilst heading in a westerly direction and the last radio transmission reported following the tail light of the preceding helicopter.

Now, the preceding machine was ten minutes ahead and travelling in an Easterly or NE direction. I know my eyesight is not that good and I guess you being an OZ and I think well experienced in Northern OZ would know what particular piece of illumination sits at an appropriate height above the western horizon about 45 minutes after sundown and could be mistaken as a R22 tail light in close proximity?

For those who live in different climes and may not see it, what we would be looking at would be Mars. Sick to the bottom of your guts reading this? I don't blame you.

There have been plenty, plenty more of those non VFR night time accidents in R22's. No doubt someone will come on here and criticise my post as being in poor taste, as they have elsewhere, but Jesus how f'n stupid do you wish to get to claim a Darwin award and tarnish the statistical reputation of an aviation product? Once again a young family was left behind and everybody is running around falling all over each other wringing their hands and wailing.

There has also been a steady increase of accidents that upon reflection are nothing other than collision with terrain in an out of control situation, usually from the Low Level operated sphere, either by plain stupidity or lack of skill because of an abysmal lack of mentoring and or useful ab-initio training.

Figures relating to catastrophic failure on the other hand are very slight, not that I am any happier as to the latest state of affairs than anyone else, in fact I agree these Robinson blade problems are and have been a massive root right from the first one, the unfortunate victim of which I had met.

[nigelh]

Top .... I think you make a very fair point about skills . Putting the Robinson catastrophic failures to one side I think it becomes transparent that although this is the "first" helicopter for most ( due to being cheap ) .... Sadly it is not the most low time pilot friendly machine either . The reason there have been almost no fatal accidents ( I know of the sad recent one ) in the Enstrom is that it is the friendliest helicopter in the world to fly . It has no vices , you can abuse it in so many ways and it still doesn't bite . The Robinson is actually probably only safe , barring falling apart , in very experienced hands , which actually makes it far from ideal as a starter machine !!
Vmc at night for low to middle time pilots especially in the sparsely populated areas is eventually going to go wrong in my view . I just wish the powers that be would push for an IMC for night ops .

[blakmax]

I have had another look at the blade profile and I think it is still possible to make the blade with a uniform core profile and no joints.

Disregard the last message from me.

Blakmax

[fushnchups]

For those that haven't seen it yet - this is the blade that cracked back in January (the first machine - non fatal):

http://i.imgur.com/NxVJ7YBl.jpg (http://imgur.com/NxVJ7YB)

http://i.imgur.com/E2fEsX2l.jpg (http://imgur.com/E2fEsX2)

http://i.imgur.com/AuRbhIel.jpg (http://imgur.com/AuRbhIe)

http://i.imgur.com/fERi4MSl.jpg (http://imgur.com/fERi4MS)

http://i.imgur.com/xf6icZ2l.jpg (http://imgur.com/xf6icZ2)

[as350nut]

Have talked to some engineers today and the thought is that in the next day or so the answer may be for yet another directive to inspect the blades and away you go. Personally I find that hard to believe and would not happy with that outcome. Having seen the photo in the Australian AD of the blade crack/crevasse/shifting of the tectonic plates :uhoh: It is hard to have faith in a blade in its seventh revision and I wonder how someone who has changed out dash 6 blades for 7 would feel now. If it turns out the dash 7 is toast and the dash 8 hasn't been invented, where does that leave the world fleet. We went from aluminium to stainless and back to aluminium. How could you have faith in a dash 8? None of this is good news for the helicopter industry. Interesting to see what turns up at Heliflite stand at Avalon! A 22 and a 66 I suppose.

[FSXPilot]

Another inspect AD would be a fudge but without it You could see Robinson struggle to stay in business. Money talks so they will fudge it and hope that no more crash whilst Robinson are told to make another better blade and guess who will end up paying for it?

[13snoopy]

Just to repeat:
I have in my possession an email from Kurt Robinson warning me if I did not purchase a set of -2 main rotor blades before a particular date, Robinson was going to discontinue them and I would be forced to upgrade my Astro with hydraulics to use the newer stainless blades.
Soooo, I heeded his warning and paid close to US $45,000 for a new set of main rotor blades for my Astro that would not entail my having to add hydraulics.
Now, I am being told that my main rotor blades (which came with a 2200 hour or 12 calendar year limit) will have to be taken off in less than five years!
My real issue is the following:
Kurt Robinson HAD TO KNOW this AD was on the horizon, yet he didn't allow that tidbit to get in the way of him convincing me to buy a new set of aluminum blades that would shortly thereafter have their lifespan chopped in half.
After owning several Robinson helis over the last decade plus and being caught up in their multiple abject failures in main rotor blade manufacturing that has required me to replace perfectly good blades MORE THAN ONCE, this is my last go with Robinsons.
They simply cannot admit their engineering failure in being able to make a durable and dependable main rotor blade.
Robinson users can defend the company all they like, but what I've stated here is FACT.
EDIT: Since I made the above post earlier in this thread, we have seen two instances of the -7 main rotor blades FAILING in flight. We now have three separate countries all grounding the entire R44 fleet!!
If anyone here thinks Im now gonna replace my perfectly fine -2 blades with the same old crap only now labeled -7 blades, please tell Elvis and Santa I said hello.

[topendtorque]

you're quite entitled to be pi**ed orff, which is the third country?

[barryt]

Helilog56 said : "Arm chair quarter backing from an RC enthusiast.....this forum just keeps getting better...."

I just have to say something here, because I find this somewhat amusing...don't be so quick to knock the RC crowd now...

Here is the "acid test" in terms of the RC crowd VS full-scale pilots...

I will bet you my bottom dollar that if you took an average RC pilot and put him in (say) a full-scale 172 in an emergency situation (where the real pilot was suddenly incapacitated)...chances are pretty good he would get back on the ground again, having never flown before - his chances would not be "nil".

The reverse however, is not true...(put a full-scale 172 pilot behind the sticks of an RC transmitter with a model 172 up in the air for the first time and tell him to put it down again safely), and he will create matchsticks in short order...guaranteed....so respect them RC pilots... ;)

I have seen it time-and-again, where a gung-ho full-scale pilot comes to fly a "toy" (RC) plane / chopper for the first time, and has the attitude it should be a doddle, since, after all (he is a FULL SCALE pilot), and, it all ends in tears within a couple of minutes with a broken model and a severely dented ego...;)

[Vertical Freedom]

Namaste topendtorque

Very intelgent & typical comment from a blinded Robi worshiper. That is about all you guys can muster-up as you have no real valid arguments pro the Crapinson's other than slag off at those who offer real experiences with Fank made garbage

Happy landings

[Lonewolf_50]

Namaste topendtorque

Very intelgent & typical comment from a blinded Robi worshiper.
An unfair response to TET, particularly if one notes the closing remarks.
Figures relating to catastrophic failure on the other hand are very slight, not that I am any happier as to the latest state of affairs than anyone else, in fact I agree these Robinson blade problems are and have been a massive root right from the first one, the unfortunate victim of which I had met.
Back on topic: Robinson fills a particular niche in the rotary wing industry. Sometimes events have non linear outcomes, and ripples turn into tsunamis. Confidence in one's rotor blades is a must.
One way this turns out is the beginning of the end for Robinson.
Another way is that it is addressed well and confidence is restored.
We shall see.

[Reunion Bird]

I wonder how someone who has changed out dash 6 blades for 7 would feel now
Well I can tell you, being co-owner of a 44 who had to buy a new set of blades blades last year because of a delamination. P..d off because we had been dutifully checking our blades and it delaminated at the tip anyways, p..d off because we exchanged them for auto-breakable blades.
I fly in a French territory, no AD from EASA so far but we decided to ground our 44 for the duration.

[helihub]

RHC have issued a Safety Alert (http://robinsonheli.com/service_library/safety_alerts/r44_c016-7_main_rotor_blade_crack_safety_alert.pdf)

[Egg whisk driver]

http://www.robinsonhelicopter.com/service_library/safety_alerts/r44_c016-7_main_rotor_blade_crack_safety_alert.pdf


Looks like the advice is to check and fly. Not sure I like the idea of getting airborne under a pair of dash 7 blades for the time being. :ooh:

[nigelh]

Well you can certainly see where the Robinson family's duty of care is .......
Their bank balance !!!!!! A one page " have a little look and it will all be ok "

[Hughes500]

well now let me see, if this was a potential problem in a vehicle bet your bottom dollar the vehicles would be recalled !!!!:ugh:

[nigelh]

In a country where they are not grounded . If someone was to do an inspection as per Robinsons alert and you fly ... And the blade fails . Would you feel there should be a manslaughter case ??? Just a question and God forbid ..

[Reunion Bird]

The safety alert says "careful visual inspection of this area during preflight will provide early detection and prevent a catastrophic failure".

Wow. "Will" prevent. Not "should", but definitely "will", in other words "we have perfect confidence in our products".

So if the inspection is anything less than perfect, a failure may happen but it will be because of the pilot's careless inspection, not because of the blade manufacturing.

Am I being paranoid?

[citpilot]

Looks like the AD has been rescinded. It seems like the skins may fail if you run them into a solid object.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26417101/caa-lifts-flight-ban-on-robinson-r44-helicopters/

[lelebebbel]

doesn't explain what happened to the blades back in January though.

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

We wait with baited breath then .

Hughes500 although I agree with you about Robinson products I think people in glass houses etc HTC blades on the 500 are ****e unless you send them for a chord balence and hope they weren't mad on a Friday afternoon :)

CBS

[Hughes500]

Crazy

Yup HTC blades are ****e, had to send mine back due to a bonding failure. I think they are just ahead of Robinson in quality !! I suppose to be fair they were repaired free of charge and shipped back to me free and they were way out of warranty HTC also put out a notice saying they wold inspect and repair any blade !
Still would prefer the OEM blades but they haven't been made for years .
Must have some faith though as did 10 hours of long lining with them over the weekend !

[blakmax]

Just some clarification 500H:

HTC also put out a notice saying they wold inspect and repair any blade

Do you include disbonds as being repaired? If so, please tell me it is by rebuilding, not just sqeezing fresh adhesive into the gap!

Regards

Blakmax

[Thomas coupling]

Wouldn't all of this 'hassle' with replacing R22 and R44 rotor blades, go away overnight if they were exchanged for rotating clothes lines and they could be parked in local communities and allow families to share with the drying of clothes - hence reducing the green global footprint and as a bonus - ground all Robinson's too :oh:

[Hot and Hi]

As pointed out by user Freewheel in Vertical Forums (http://forums.verticalmag.com/index.php?showtopic=22451) it

(w)asn't that long ago that 206 owners were told to comply with an AD which called for a preflight inspection of main rotor blades (using blue dye).

And that despite those blue dye inspections being complied with,

(u)ltimately a pair of those blades failed killing all on board.

The problem related to Long Ranger MR blades. The accident report gives details about the bonding problems encountered here.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A11O0205 (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11o0205/a11o0205.asp).

[Hughes500]

blaxmax

The doubler plates were taken off and rebonded I believe but they won't say !

[Winnie]

I DO feel there is a difference between new blades and repaired blades, I know of an issue with a crack in a 205 blade as well, but it had I believe, had maintenance that may not have been carried out correctly.

[as350nut]

So now as a pilot I get a letter to say that I can see if the blades are cracked prior to flight, then I sign my name on the MR to that effect. So if something goes wrong with them in flight is that the pilots fault, or Robinson. If after 2 yrs and I am still alive I have to get it renewed, isn't the fact that I am still alive proof that I can check the blade:E

[fdr]

B.max,
as always, enjoyable following your input. Concur with your S-S couple disruption by the use of fasteners through a bonded surface.

The -7 blade matter speaks potentially of a different issue of causation than the past events, given the CAANZ interest in the inner region proximate to the TE expansion of chord of the -7, and RHC's bulletin on inspections. As you are aware, when we independently strain gauged the root of the blades, the trailing edge showed relatively high variations in peak to peak strains which is expected given the structure of the blades, relative to the leading edge. The highest strains were recorded in the touchdown, as expected, and in the entry into autorotation, which was a surprise, but obvious after the fact with the reorientation of the flow through the disc. Cyclic strain amplitudes pretty much were consistent with research done by NASA in our area of interest, and that points to the subject here; an abrupt step in the chord will result in localised strain from the high amplitude unsteady angle of attack outcome, which we were able to mitigate without the usual massive drag rise. I would think that the design could do with a bit more finesse in this area, to avoid stress concentrations, and mitigation of the SR from unsteady aerodynamics.

Hope that bond hydration is a past tense matter, however the design of the lap joint on these blades is tough on the bond, and so it will be an area of concern as long as a metal blade is fabricated with a bond line in an area subject to torsion/bending conditions.

I happen to love the RHC aircraft. We record and measure it in depth, and I still like the aircraft to fly. It is elegantly spartan, but the other side of that is that it is sensitive to damage, and care is needed in its operation. The marginal time constant of the -22 is always mind concentrating, but the pure joy of flying such a responsive device makes up for that concern in part. The -44 really is an amazing design. I am not a fan of the RHC's product component removal from service without effective compensation, and that corporate stance may need to change when a fun, capable, and relatively cost effective alternative machine turns up from anywhere, EASA, PRC, or RUS, then RHC may have some issues with marketing.

Composite rotor blades do not come without issues, have a look at any out there and view the erosion of the resin in the area behind the embedded erosion protection. (EC, Carson CMRB etc... even the GE90 fan blade), or look at the NH90s pressure face erosion in service... interesting matters for CAME.

cheers.

[RVDT]

elegantly spartan

More like cheap and crude to me.

Looking at the photos of the cracked blade it doesn't even follow sheet metal basics. 0.25" Radius anyone?

The poor finished trailing edge looks like stress raiser heaven!

[topendtorque]

elegantly spartan

Interesting definition, when thinking of all other light helicopters through history.

I think Rivet has a point, perhaps Robinson could practice more salesmanship and describe the reason why of their products designs a bit better?

[topendtorque]

Well everyone has to inspect their blades before flight, unless an engineer is on site to certify, or the pilot may be taught by the engineer as a face to face - how to - under an instrument which will then be issued.

Robinson say just check it and sign off daily, CASA say "each flight" being when the A/C lands each time. Maybe CASA have backed themselves into a corner?

A blade from either the accident or the incident, I know not which, is on its way to USA by row boat.

NZ CAA have said the accident blade broke as a result of the accident so no use sending that one.

I guess we wait and see, meanwhile all useful utility work is finished here at least.

[Helilog56]

I am curious....would anyone know what country (or counties), happen to have the highest incidents and accidents with this problem....anyone?

[Lonewolf_50]

:confused: Are you asking "per hour flown" (accident rate) or "number of incidents accidents" irrespective of rate?

[RVDT]

I am curious....would anyone know what country (or counties), happen to have the highest incidents and accidents with this problem....anyone?

Hard to come up with a "meaningful" statistic.

A bit like "crime" levels. All depends on what and how it is recorded and if at all.

As far as catastrophic blade failure goes that is definitely one with a very small group of survivors.

[Helilog56]

Yeah...my question was a bit generalized. Should have been more along the lines of country and location, amount of Robbie's registered, hours flown, type of work carried out, commercial or private, etc.

Curious too think about how aircraft are treated. Are they abused with overloading and high G turns, constant over torques, over speeds and abrupt control inputs?
A company I was with many years ago, started putting data recorders in their aircraft....the results were absolutely shocking and caused the company to let go many flight crew, and rethink their hiring practices.

A culture that can develope within the industry, can that be that pushing a machine beyond its limits to get the job done is acceptable, or the hero mentality of, I can do it better than the next bloke, or other job and financial pressures.
Digressing a bit here....perhaps looking also into operational arenas are also required when parts are failing?

[blakmax]

Evidently there is a new SB from RHC requiring owners to modify the blade shape on -7 blades to reduce stress concentrations??? R44 SB 89 23 Feb 2015 refers.

Surely they did fatigue testing of the -7 blades as part of the certification program???? Or did they just grandfather the design from the old stainless skins? Given the relatively low hours on the NZ cracked wing, you would expect that any plausible fatigue test would pick up the problem before the blades went into service?

The plot sickens!

Blakmax

[gator2]

Watch the tutorial video. No need for a certified mechanic, your local body shop paint and bondo guy will do a better job. If I were the design engineer that put that obvious stress riser into production I'd be ashamed to go to my college reunion and face my fellow engineers.

[Peter3127]

And here I was thinking this was a pretty clumsy April Fools Day joke ...

But here s the video ....

c2aPqgFq3A4

:ugh:

[givdrvr]

http://robinsonheli.com/service_library/r44_service_bulletins/r44_sb89.pdf

[Freewheel]

Very clever, you spent quite a bit of time there didn't you?


:D

[13snoopy]

As a Robinson owner (long time) I'm appalled and embarrassed.
Like an earlier poster, I thought for a minute this was a really good April's Fool joke.
But alas, this is how low Robinson has sunk.

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

Muhahahahahahahaha lmfao lol rotfl ...... That is all .

[Hughes500]

just curious who pays for that or do owners do it themselves ?

[Spunk]

holy :mad:.... You might as well ask the local blacksmith to get that SB done for you.

Just realized, it gets even better if you turn on the volume.

[Reely340]

Somebody please confirm that this SB is not meant to be conducted by the Pilot or Owner but a certified service technician. Last time I checked I'm neither allowed to change the engine oil let alone take off the blades of a helo, and now I'm entitled to modify blades at a crack prone location myself, using a felt tip pen and a file?

Anyone know how much Robinson charges for that genuine trailing edge tapping coin? :E

P.

[blakmax]

Heard a whisper that one company undertaking the -7 blade mods actually found a disbond. Maybe there is a connection between disbonds in the transition zone and the initiation of cracking?

Blakmax

[Peter-RB]

This is a Robinson Joke site ..surely,

this is appalling, and I am sure somebody, somewhere when the get out from "Traction" will take Robinson for all the washers they have, they really need to take a good long look at how this appears to us the "Schmucks " out here in La La land.

Well done Franky Boy.. what credibility you might have had, has gone.!

Peter R-B
Lancashire UK

[blakmax]

Heard directly from the maintainer. The defect found when reworking the blade was not a disbond.

Blakmax

[Freewheel]

Since there's a bit of it going around,


I was wrong too, I thought the SB was an April Fool's joke, but I've now seen a machine with the modification done.


It's still a joke, but not the vaguely amusing kind I had in mind.......

[Hot and Hi]

ZK-IPY is the registration of the mishap R44 with Dash-7 blades, owned and operated by "Over the Top Ltd" (http://http://www.flynz.co.nz/), which crashed on 19 February 2015, killing both pax on board. Potentially related Robinson Dash-7 blades problems are extensively discussed in this thread.

Is there any update on the related accident investigation? The CAA of New Zealand website (http://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/fatal_accident_reports.htm) doesn't seem to have the accident report yet.

However, ZK-IPY apparently is no stranger to blade damage. A quick Google search reveals the following:

- Raven II, serial # 10555, built in 2004. ZK-IPY was taken off the New Zealand register in or around April 2015, after the recent accident.
- A set of new, "lastest" MR blades, plus new TR blades, were fitting at 1,020 airframe HRS in or before March 2012.
- This is reported in a sales advertisement (http://www.aia.org.nz/site/aianz/files/For%20Sale/ZK-IPY%20Robinson%20R44%20Raven%20II.PDF) from March 2012, when Over The Top Ltd, seemingly without success, tried to sell off this aircraft.
- On 11 January 2013 the same chopper then had an accident (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Script/Accident_Details.asp?Oc=13/158) when "a wind gust caused the main rotor to strike the tail boom during start-up, damaging the rotor blades as well as the tail boom".

I do not know whether those blades damaged in 2013 were repaired or replaced. Or whether the damaged blades, alternatively the replacement blades, were already Dash-7 blades. Possibly the Dash-7 blades were fitted to ZK-IPY only at a later stage. As far as I know, the Dash-7 blades only came out in 2013, but I am not sure.

[Hot and Hi]

Helicopter Association International (HAI) posted in its May 27, 2016 newsletter this link (https://www.rotor.org/RotorNews/May16/AD_Robinson-27.pdf) that apparently shows a new airworthiness directive (AD) proposed by the FAA.

The proposed AD would apply to "Robinson Model R44 and R44 II helicopters with an MRB part number (P/N) C016–7, Revisions N/C, A through Z, and AA through AE; and Model R66 helicopters with an MRB P/N F016–2, Revisions A through E."

"The proposed AD would require a one-time inspection of the MRB for a crack, corrosion, dent, nick, or scratch, and either altering the MRB or removing it from service."

Comments regarding this new proposed AD can be addressed to the FAA and must be received by July 26, 2016.

[Hot and Hi]

I do not know whether those blades damaged in 2013 were repaired or replaced. Or whether the damaged blades, alternatively the replacement blades, were already Dash-7 blades. Possibly the Dash-7 blades were fitted to ZK-IPY only at a later stage. As far as I know, the Dash-7 blades only came out in 2013, but I am not sure.The accident report is out now. Although not yet listed on the CAA website, it can be found on the website of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission skins/taicAviation/skin_aviation]Aviation Reports (http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2015-002/Page/0/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=[G).
It is confirmed that the mishap helicopter at the time of the accident was equipped with the latest Dash-7 main rotor blades. Both blades fractured, but it was determined that this was due to overload, not fatigue:

Both main rotor blades had fractured [...]. Because the fracture of the red blade was near the point where another R44 blade had failed, which the CAA suspected had been due to fatigue, the Commission had this blade examined by a metallurgist at the earliest opportunity. The metallurgist’s initial assessment was that the blade had failed in overload. Subsequent detailed examination by the same laboratory and a further examination by an ATSB metallurgist confirmed this. The ATSB also determined that the failure of the blue blade was also the result of overload and not fatigue. Both blades were examined for signs of any pre-existing delamination or dis-bonding, and none was found.

Else, the cause was found to be mast-bumping followed by in-flight break-up, which occurred on a presumed straight and level flight at IAS of 100 KTS or higher, with no evidence of strong turbulence. It was presumed that the student was at the controls when the accident happened.

[Jettiejock]

Is it now the case that R44's can be flown on a permit and owners can do maintenance? It seems that way.

[Rich B]

After a quick search I found this thread, so rather than starting a new one, I thought I would resurrect it and ask my question here. I know there were issues in NZ and Australia, albeit a few years ago, but does anyone have more recent experience of debonding on the latest Robinson MR blades, type C016-7? (R44 Raven II) Please, I don’t want to hear a load of Robinson bashing replies. I know how many people on here feel about RHC and their products. Thanks in advance and Best Regards. Rich B.

[aa777888]

Been flying the -5's on a 44 for the past two years, and filling out my first flight of the day inspection log mandated by the US AD. No sign of any problems with them. Next MRB inspection is due in about 10 hours. And they will be replaced by a set of -7's per the US AD by the end of the year, which is too bad since they would otherwise still have probably 800 hours on them by then. I have not heard of any problems with the -7's yet, but maybe this thread will change that.

[Arrrj]

Rich B,

The short answer is yes. My 44 RII, with -7 blades (fitted as per the requirement around 5 years ago) have started to delaminate. To the extent they are U/S. I have to buy new ones. I am understandably not happy. It's flown on the east coast of Australia, Robbie are blaming the salt air.

I hope that helps.

Arrrj

[Spunk]

And we've been flying around with our -5 blades for a total of 2197 FH in a salty environment and are heading for the overhaul now to replace them with -7 blades. No delamination at all.

[etudiant]

And we've been flying around with our -5 blades for a total of 2197 FH in a salty environment and are heading for the overhaul now to replace them with -7 blades. No delamination at all.

Perhaps there is some peculiarity in the manufacturing process which produces these variations in the blade sensitivity. Materials are often poorly understood, so sometimes a processing step turns out to be detrimental rather than beneficial.
Finding out which is very difficult, especially with a flight critical component.

[Rich B]

Arrrj

Thanks for your reply. That does help.

Best Regards

Rich B

[blakmax]

Perhaps there is some peculiarity in the manufacturing process which produces these variations in the blade sensitivity. Materials are often poorly understood, so sometimes a processing step turns out to be detrimental rather than beneficial.
Finding out which is very difficult, especially with a flight critical component.

As an adhesive bond failure forensics specialist, I am very familiar with issues relating to the -5 blades, but I was far more confident with the -7 blade processes, so I am very surprised and interested in comments about current disbond (NOT delamination, different fault, different cause) occurrences. Aarj, can you please PM me any details, photos etc. of these occurrences?

Before the suspicions start, NO, I am not a lawyer, journalist or other parasite and I am not a total Robbie basher. Google "A08_25_29 Recommendation" and realise that my input directly led to that report. My issue is that while it is regulated that for certification it is required that an OEM must demonstrate static strength, fatigue resistance and damage tolerance, but there is no current regulatory requirement to demonstrate that an adhesive bond must maintain structural integrity over the entire component (non-fatigue related) life. That is what the report finds.

Regards

Blakmax
Blakmax

[OttoRotate]

Here is the NTSB Safety Recommendation referenced by blakmax above:

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A08_25_29.pdf

[Old Dogs]

Before the suspicions start, NO, I am not a lawyer, journalist or other parasite and I am not a total Robbie basher. Google "A08_25_29 Recommendation" and realise that my input directly led to that report. My issue is that while it is regulated that for certification it is required that an OEM must demonstrate static strength, fatigue resistance and damage tolerance, but there is no current regulatory requirement to demonstrate that an adhesive bond must maintain structural integrity over the entire component (non-fatigue related) life. That is what the report finds.

Regards

Blakmax
Blakmax

I strongly recommend Blakmax's services.

He helped us with a Bell 212 main rotor blade debonding in 2006 that came very close to killing me.

[blakmax]

You are too modest Old Dog. It was your excellent observation during pre-flight that saved your life. After that, it was pure chance that I knew the guy from DTA that was looking at the issue, and between us we worked out what was happening. A bit of cross-the-ditch cooperation helped.

Arjj, I'd really appreciate a PM with photos.

All the best

Blakmax

[[email protected]]

Could the difference between Arrj's and Spunk's blades be due to temperature and humidity since Germany and E Coast Oz are very different environments?

[blakmax]

Hi Crab,

Firstly, the blades I have worked with were not in AUS but they were in a tropical island location, so your point is transferrable. The issue of bond degradation is related directly fly to hydration of oxides on the surface off metals, and the surface preparation processes used during manufacture. Ideally the preparation process will produce hydration resistance, but older processes only provide short term resistance, and the susceptible surfaces eventually hydrate and the bond dissociates, leading to disbanding. This process is more rapid in hot-wet environments where the surface is susceptible to degradation, but in reality the main issue is the ability of the production processes to prevent hydration. The reason I am not bashing Robinson is that there is no specific regulatory requirement for a manufacturer to demonstrate resistance to hydration.

If I could get photos of the failure surface, I could provide an assessment of the causes of bond failures.

Regards
Blakmax

[blakmax]

Hi Arrrj

I sent a PM. Please respond.

Blakmax

[aa777888]

Firstly, the blades I have worked with were not in AUS but they were in a tropical island location, so your point is transferrable. The issue of bond degradation is related directly fly to hydration of oxides on the surface off metals, and the surface preparation processes used during manufacture. Ideally the preparation process will produce hydration resistance, but older processes only provide short term resistance, and the susceptible surfaces eventually hydrate and the bond dissociates, leading to disbanding. This process is more rapid in hot-wet environments where the surface is susceptible to degradation, but in reality the main issue is the ability of the production processes to prevent hydration. The reason I am not bashing Robinson is that there is no specific regulatory requirement for a manufacturer to demonstrate resistance to hydration.And this is why I need to check that there is paint over the bond line on the -5 blades every morning, correct?

[blakmax]

Regrettably paint will not stop moisture absorption, it will only slow it for a while. The best thing about looking at the paint is that any disbond will cause fracking in the paint and that may* become obvious before the disbond becomes critical.

I thought that real;acement of -5 blades was already mandatory by now???

Blakmax

[Spunk]

I thought that real;acement of -5 blades was already mandatory by now???
EASA AD 2014-23-16 became effective on January 9th, 2015. The blades have to be replaced within 5 years of the effective date of this AD.

[MLH]

I have owned two 44's and managed to avoid replacing blades due to AD's. I will not own another Robinson product.

[Arrrj]

Blakmax...answered...Arrrj

[aa777888]

I have owned two 44's and managed to avoid replacing blades due to AD's. I will not own another Robinson product.
Still the most affordable 4 place option even with these issues. Got a hell of a deal on mine because it had the -5 blades on it. Even after replacing them in a few months I'll be way ahead of the game capital cost-wise. If you can afford to own and fly a more capable aircraft than an R44 more power to you, but I can't.

[MLH]

Still the most affordable 4 place option even with these issues. Got a hell of a deal on mine because it had the -5 blades on it. Even after replacing them in a few months I'll be way ahead of the game capital cost-wise. If you can afford to own and fly a more capable aircraft than an R44 more power to you, but I can't.

You're making an assumption that the "new" blades are better in design than the old blades and that Robinson will not pull the rug out from under you with a future AD.

[aa777888]

You're making an assumption that the "new" blades are better in design than the old blades and that Robinson will not pull the rug out from under you with a future AD.The new blades are better, this is not an assumption. As for getting hit with expensive ADs, this can happen to any airframe at any time. Indeed, there seems to be a number of Boeing aircraft dealing with such issues right now. Hell, there were 43 FAA ADs issued in the last 60 days alone: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/airworthiness_directives/

[Rich B]

RHC issued these Service Letters last week.

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/r44_sl70.pdf

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/r44_sl68.pdf

As a result, I suspect we are going to see more reports of problems with corrosion, debonding, delamination, call it what you will.

Best Regards

Rich B

[Bell_ringer]

Better is a relative concept.
After the sheer number of attempts RHC have had producing a reliable blade design, they seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Some may consider this a rather important part of a helicopter, so why they continue to produce something that could be bettered by a small group of children with glue and duct tape is somewhat confusing.
Could you imagine if any other manufacturer had the same approach to client safety and satisfaction?
Perhaps the bar just isn’t set that high for the piston market.

[MLH]

RHC issued these Service Letters last week.

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/r44_sl70.pdf

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/r44_sl68.pdf

As a result, I suspect we are going to see more reports of problems with corrosion, debonding, delamination, call it what you will.

Best Regards

Rich B

This problem goes back many years.

R44 SL-24 21 Sep 2001
superseded by SB-72A https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/r44_sb72.pdf