PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Forgotten your Username/Password?

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20th Oct 2000, 22:28   #1 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb Robinson R44

I received the following email from Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB:
Quote:
Dear Mr. Zuckerman:
The page from the R44 Pilot's Operating Handbook that you are referring to resulted from Safety Board recommendations A-94-143 and A-95-1 through -7 to the Federal Aviation Administration. As a result, the FAA issued Priority Letter Airworthiness Directive 95-02-03. This AD required operators to insert an update page in the end of the Normal Procedures section of the POH. This update page contained information intended to prevent loss of main rotor control. The AD was sent to all owners, operators, and pilots for compliance. The Robinson Helicopter Company did not publish the page, so it would not have a page number in the Robinson Helicopter Company POH.
Since the issuance of the recommendations, there have been two additional Robinson Helicopter accidents in the U.S. involving main rotor loss of control. On October 26, 1998, an R22 crashed in Littlerock, California, and on August 18, 2000, another R22 crashed in Watsonville, California. In addition, there have been four similar accidents outside the U.S. and the possibility that a recent accident in Denmark that may be related. The Safety Board will send a representative to assist in that investigation later this month.
In light of these events, we will be reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective action taken by the FAA and other airworthiness authorities. Additional recommendations may be forthcoming.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention.
The following message prompted Mr. Halls' reply.
Quote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Lu Zuckerman [mailto:rmspdq@sprint.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:35 PM
To: hallj@ntsb.gov
Subject: Follow up to email regarding page from Robinson Helicopters POH
Dear Mr. Hall,
About a month age I sent you a copy of a report I had submitted to the NTSB in 1996. This was several days after a Robinson helicopter lost its' rotor in an accident in California. A day or so later you sent me an email telling me that you had turned the report over to four of your investigators whom I assume were assigned to the California accident.
The page I sent in the email preceding this one comes from a Robinson R44 Pilots' Operating Handbook. Contrary to FAA procedures the page is unnumbered and there is no indication of it being a part of the book as indicated in the LOG OF PAGES APPROVED BY FAA TYPE CERTIFICATE NO. H10WE. This is mandatory as it indicates what the FAA has signed off as the operating instructions for the helicopter. The same situation exists in the R22 POH.
I have been participating in a forum called PPRuNe or, Professional Pilots Rumour Network which has a subset called Rotorheads.
In the Rotorhead forum I have offered the report to interested helicopter pilots. About 60 of them requested the report and after an appropriate period I started getting feed back. Most of the pilots told me that the page I sent you was not in their POHs for the R22 and the R44.
A lot of them indicated that they quite often flew outside of the restricted envelope referenced in the unnumbered page and some from Australia stated that in mustering cattle they almost always flew outside of the restricted envelope.
Now I am getting feedback that the restrictions are only suggestions and have no weight because they are not indicated as a warning. Not following the specific instructions can lead to high flapping loads resulting in mast separation . This is especially true for flying out of trim and sideslipping the helicopter. The wording is such that the pilots that do have the page don't pay any attention and those that do not have the page just keep on trucking until the have an accident.
I would think that the FAA should take the necessary action to have the page properly registered as an approved page and that the page be numbered and included in the Normal Procedures section (4) of the two POHs. As it stands now, the page is unnumbered and is placed as the last page of section 4 of the POH.
The UK CAA has requested the report and have indicated that they are checking why this page is not included in the POHs of UK registered Robinson Helicopters. One of the respondents to my postings in the forum indicated that he specifically asked the Robinson Pilot who was instructing a safety seminar in the UK about the restrictions relative to side slip and out of trim flight and the Robinson pilot told the student that there were no such restrictions.
I honestly think the NTSB is missing the boat on the Robinson problems. The highway safety board is having a field day because of defective tires. There have been 32 Robinson helicopters lost due to rotor separation and many more lost for unexplained reasons. Both types of failures are covered in my report.
Speaking about the report, I have made several additions to include a diagram that will help explain several points made in the body of the report. I have added two comments/notes and they are easy to recognize as they are in bold type. I am sending you a copy of the amended report.
With warm regards,
S L Zuckerman
RMS Engineering
In Responce to Mr. Halls' email I sent the following:
Quote:
Dear Mr. Hall,
Thank you for your recent email regarding the unnumbered page in the R22 and R44 Pilots Operating Handbook. Robinson did in fact publish the contents of the FAA Priority Letter dated 13, January 95. In doing so, it became a permanent entry into the handbook and as such (per FAA regs) should have a number and be noted in The LOG OF PAGES APPROVED BY FAA TYPE CERTIFICATE NO XXXXX (R22 AND R44). Even if it was not a requirement to number the page the problem still exists that this information was not promulgated very well outside of the United States. I had email contacts with around fifty pilots in the UK and Australia that indicated that they had never seen the page nor, were they aware of the FAA Priority Letter that set the operational restrictions in place. When I made reference to the restrictions I was told that they operated the helicopters outside of the restrictions on just about every flight.
The page was published on the internet and the pilots were advised to check it out. They then argued that since the wording did not specifically state that sideslip and out of trim flight were forbidden that they said there was no weight behind the recommendations.
I contacted the UK CAA safety office and they stated that they were looking into why the page was not included in all POHs for the R22 and R44 helicopters registered in the UK. The CAA is also presently investigating the large number of small helicopter accidents including those involving R22s and R44s and I assume they will see if there is any relation of these accidents to the material covered in my report.
I can't emphasize this point too much. There is a problem with the Robinson rotorhead design that can cause these accidents. There is also a major problem with the rigging procedure of the R22 and R44 that can lead to blade stall and mechanical binding in the flight control system.
The above attached report is the same one I sent to you but I have added a diagram and two passages in BOLD TYPE.
Finally, if your investigators do not consider the points I made in my report I will guarantee that they will never get to the bottom of the problem. In saying that, I will make you an offer. I normally get paid for my services but if your organization will bring me down to your facilities in Washington and pay the transportation and living expenses for two days I will explain to your investigators exactly what they should be looking for. At the same time I will go through my report and explain why the R22 and R44 should have never been certificated.
With warm regards,
S L Zuckerman
RMS Engineering
Note: On a previous post someone asked me why I kept pushing my point when so many people said I was wrong. I don't know how to answer that, other than to say, maybe some day the people that make the final decisions will think I am right. If "they" tell me I'm wrong, I, like a good dog, will drop the bone I have had in my mouth since 1996 and start digging for another bone.

------------------

The Cat


[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).]


See also ..... Robinson Technical Questions
  Reply
Old 20th Oct 2000, 23:20   #2 (permalink)
eurocopter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Keep up the good work - You do have some supporters!
  Reply
Old 21st Oct 2000, 01:03   #3 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

I received this message via email:

Posted Oct 15th, 2,ooo
A helicopter plunged 50 feet and crashed onto busy
Pines Boulevard in Pembroke Pines on Saturday, killing
the two people aboard and terrifying dozens of
motorists.

The pilot, 46-year-old Barbara McKinley of Pembroke
Pines, died en route to a hospital, and a passenger in
the helicopter, 50-year-old Brian Auerbach, also of
Pembroke Pines, died on impact.

McKinley was an experienced pilot who had flown
corporate planes for Burdines, said her fiancé, Ken
Michaelis. He said she took Auerbach, a neighbor, up
for his first helicopter flight Saturday.

Michaelis said she called right before taking off and
told him to stay home because she was going to fly
over his home in Southwest Ranches.

Michaelis went outside with his two daughters a little
later and waved to McKinley as she circled.

"She buzzed about four or five times, waving at us,
and then headed to Miami,'' Michaelis said. "We were
going to get together later in the day.''

Witnesses said the chopper, a Robinson R22 Beta,
swayed back and forth minutes before dropping onto
Pines Boulevard about noon, narrowly missing
motorists.

"I could tell it was in trouble by the way it
sounded. It didn't seem like he had any power -- he
was definitely having some kind of mechanical
problems,'' said David Mayer, who was jogging along
Pines Boulevard when the crash occurred.

"I was sitting at the intersection on the phone and
heard a helicopter really low,'' said Kristi Krueger,
an anchor with WPLG-ABC 10 who lives in Pines. "I saw
it listing from side to side and said to my mom, `Oh,
my God, I'm going to get hit! ' then it swerved down
south on Pines Boulevard and crashed.''

The red and white two-seater helicopter took off from
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport at about 11:30 p.m.,
said Corky Smith, senior investigator with the
National Transportation Safety Board, who was at the
scene Saturday. The helicopter is owned by Volar
Helicopters at the airport.

Smith said the pilot was a certified instructor and it
was a "routine flight.''

FLYING LOW

Witnesses told Smith the chopper approached Pines
Boulevard, flying south at a low altitude. The chopper
was swaying back and forth and, at the intersection of
Pines Boulevard and Northwest 155th Avenue, yawed to
the left and headed east, Smith said. Seconds later,
the helicopter dropped from the sky and crashed.

"I saw the helicopter coming and it looked like it
was in trouble. It was swerving all over the place and
it seemed like the tail flipped,'' said Andy Gonzalez,
owner of an Exxon gas station at the intersection.
"He was really flying low and it looked like she was
trying to veer to the left and land in the lake but
she couldn't make it. It's amazing no one was killed
and that she missed the traffic lights.''

The chopper hit the road with a resounding boom,
sending pieces of the tail across several lanes. Some
were found up to 50 feet away.

The windshield shattered and the blades of the rotor
were bent and twisted underneath the mangled frame.
Fuel began leaking across the highway.

According to the R22 Pilot and Owners Association, the
Robinson R22 is one of the most popular training
helicopters in the world. In 1995, the NTSB
recommended that R22s be grounded because of 26 fatal
accidents in which the main rotor hit the airframe
during flight. Those were the total fatal accidents
involving the R22 since its inception in 1979. (NOTE: This statement is misleading as it addresses only rotor loss and rotor incursion accidents and even then the figure is wrong. The correct figure at last count is 32). (LuZ)
As a result of the NTSB recommendations, the Federal
Aviation Administration issued revised airworthiness
directives for the R22. Those directives are the
operating procedures required by the FAA. Among other
things, the FAA required R22 pilots to avoid high and
low air speeds and maintain maximum power on RPM.

`STEEP DESCENT'

"It had to have been a steep descent because it went
under the traffic lines,'' said Armando Orraca, a
commercial pilot who lives in the Towngate subdivision
on the north side of Pines Boulevard. "It's amazing
it didn't burst into flames, really amazing.''

Cars headed east minutes after the wreck swerved off
the road to avoid hitting the debris. Passersby jumped
from their vehicles and ran to try to help the two
people strapped inside.

Auerbach was dead. The pilot, McKinley, was moving and
breathing, witnesses said. They unstrapped her, pulled
her out and Mayer began administering CPR until medics
arrived. She was rushed to Memorial Hospital West but
was pronounced dead on arrival.

"It flew over my head at about 50 feet and then
crashed,'' said Mayer, a lieutenant colonel with the
Southern Command in Miami. "I ran over there and both
passengers were still strapped inside.''

The westbound lanes of Pines Boulevard from Interstate
75 to Northwest 155th Avenue were closed for more than
four hours while NTSB investigators inspected the
wreckage and questioned witnesses. At about 5 p.m.,
the aircraft was hauled away and the road opened.

"All of us who work around here call this
intersection the `intersection of death,' '' Gonzalez
said. "There's always wrecks at this corner and
someone dying. We've never had a helicopter crash
before, though.''

I read this news on sunday miami herald..

__________________________________________________


[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 21st Oct 2000, 23:20   #4 (permalink)
huntsman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post R44 enquiry

as a total helo novice, what is the R44 like as a machine
i believe they are supposed to be cheap and reliable
any comments and a price in aussie dollars (or otherwise)is appreciated

also if many people have dual fixed/rotary licenses and their opinion on the differences

i'm one of those fixed wing chappies
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 02:14   #5 (permalink)
piloteddy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

hi huntsman,

If you want lots of info on the R44 go to www.robinsonheli.com . There you'll find everything you want to know.

I must say though, i got a flight in a new R44 Raven today, and (as everyone else says) the hydraulics make such a difference. im not too sure about the price but it should tell you on the website.

Hope this helps a little bit

*Update*: I've just checked and the basic price for an R44 Raven is US$294,000


[This message has been edited by piloteddy (edited 21 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 02:38   #6 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Sure the R44 Raven feels better with hydraulic boost. Now you don't get the vibratory feedback, However, the feedback forces are still there but they are prevented from getting into the control system by the servos. If in redesigning the flight control system to incorporate the boost cylinders, they did not compensate for the trapped vibratory (push-pull loads) by beefing up the upper controls, that will be their next set of problems. At the least, wear on the push pull bearings and on the pitch link bearings will be accelerated and at the worst, one of the linkage elements can fail. It can also effect the monoball in the swash plate by accelerating wear and cause it to fail or at least have to be replaced due to excessive wear.

Here is a suggestion for those of you that fly or work on the R44 Raven. Check the part numbers of all of the elements above the servos. Swashplate,Pitch links and pitch horns. If they are different from those on the R44 Basic then I stand corrected. If they are the same then look for problems down the line. Also, check to see if the attaching structure for the bottom end of the servos has been modified to take the pounding loads transmitted through the fixed servo. They had similar problems when they put servos on the Bell 47 and replaced the irreversibles in the flight control system.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 02:59   #7 (permalink)
piloteddy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Red face

Dont let Lu put you off. Robbo's are great machines. Unfortunately he has a grudge against them, and i think that he is trying to get everyone else on his bandwagon too.
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 04:53   #8 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: PilotEddy

32 years as a senior Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Engineer and an involvement with helicopters since 1949 when your father was a small boy allow me to make comments like those above. I don't have a grudge against Robinson Helicopters, I am a supporter of flight safety. If you had ever logged onto the Just Helicopters website you would know that I have made some really bad comments about Bell, Boeing and Hughes Helicopters (AH-64). All of those comments were made from having worked on those programs and for most of the major builders of helicopters. I have never worked on or flown in a Robinson Helicopter but my technical background gives me the authority to make the statements that I have made in this forum and in the Just Helicopters forum. From where I sit you are defending the Robinson Line out of some sort of loyalty and not from an understanding of what I said in my above posting.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 07:10   #9 (permalink)
tiltrotor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wink

Well, I may not have flown R22/ R44s in 1949, but after flying both types quite extensively, I have to say that not once did I have trouble (well, that's not quite true, I had a flat battery once).

Lu, there is one question I already wanted to ask you previously. It seems that you are very much after Robinson and the FAA for certifying the aircraft- you consider it a huge mistake.

How come that other contries, incl. Canada, the UK, etc. etc. have certified the same basic design without any significant differences in the flight envelope?

Just curious. According to you they all should be corrected then.
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 07:45   #10 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Dear Tilt,

Read my posting titled The missing page, R22 and R44, A view from the top. As I type this posting the problem as to why the page did not appear in POHs in the UK and OZ is being investigated by the CAA and the NTSB.

According to the message to me from Jim Hall chairman of the NTSB, the FAA and Robinson were required to notify all owners and operators of the material on the so called "missing page" and the information was to be entered into the POHs for the R22 and the R44.

As far as the certification by Canada, The UK and Australia is concerned If the helicopter is certified by the FAA the other certification authorities will in most cases rubber stamp the certification for use in their respective countries. If they don't rubber stamp it they may run a few performance tests to verify operational limits or performance characteristics but not much more.

The real problem is why the information about the restrictions in the performance characteristics was never widely circulated when the FAA required Robinson to do it.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 17:28   #11 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Unless someone acknowledges reading this post I'll never know if anyone is reading it or for that matter is even interested in the contents of the post.

------------------
The Cat
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 18:04   #12 (permalink)
Skycop
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Lu,

I have been quietly following your threads.

There is undoubtedly more than a little truth in what you say with regard to the safety of these machines. Like I said before, I flew one (just once) in the mid-1980's when I was asked to help set up a small flying school. I decided not to continue as I did not feel that the aircraft was suitable as a training aircraft. Frank Robinson himself later said the same. Looks like I made a good decision. Many of the pilots lost to these aircraft have been very experienced.

I am not really surprised by the loyalty to the R-22 shown by some pilots on this forum. It's quite normal for a pilot to consider the aircraft he flies to be the best thing in the skies, especially if he has little experience of anything else, more so if it hasn't bitten him yet.
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 19:14   #13 (permalink)
PurplePitot
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Lu

Keep up the postings, I rejected a flight in an R22 many years ago out of a gut feeling that it just doesn't look right! and I have never felt the need to get in one since.

Keep at it...
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 20:00   #14 (permalink)
tiltrotor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Lu, I disagree, I would rather say that the real question here also is that if the design really is so terrible wrong, I say again, WHY WAS THE AIRCRAFT CERTIFIED IN MANY COUNTRIES WITHOUT QUESTIONS ASK?

I know the rubber stamping procedures, but according to all your details it just doesn't sound right.
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 23:18   #15 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Dear tilt,

Check the POH on page ii and you will see that the certification signoff for the R22 and by definition the R44 was granted by the Manager, Flight Test Branch of the Transport Airplane Directorate which is based in Seattle. I ask you, what the hell do these people know about helicopters? The helicopter certification branch is in Fort Worth, Texas. Most certification Authorities have a lot of tallented people that are technically qualified to do their jobs. On the other hand they have a lot of technical dim bulbs that are not qualified for their positions but governments being what they are these people stay on. First of all, Frank Robinson was the DER for some time during certification. This is against FAA regs and both the FAA and NTSB were aware of it. Could it be that he, being the great persuader, convinced the FAA that all of the tests were done and in doing so proved to the FAA that his design was certifiable. Nobody knows and nobody is talking. All of the players have a vested interest in keeping quiet. The FAA can't admit that there are problems in the design as to do so they would have to admit to making a major error in granting certification. And Robinson Helicopters certainly not going to admit anything. This in legal terms is called conflict of interest and would make the participants legally culpable.

Now I want to give you a practical illustration of the calibre of the technical capabilities of members of the CAA, DGCA and the LBA. The following took place in the eighties. The following was a post I made on the Tech Log thread


I was visiting the IASA web site and read several articles dealing with the incompetence of FAA personnel and how they didn’t let that incompetence stop them from forcing an airline out of business. I had an experience with similar incompetence when I worked on the Airbus program. As senior RMS engineer for a German company that was the lead contractor on the flap / slat drive system design I had to attend a design review meeting at the home facility of our English design partner.

The purpose of the meeting was to make a final determination about the run of the hydraulic lines that powered the wing tip brakes. Another part of the design review was to determine if it was necessary to incorporate anti flail guards on the slat drive system. The Integration contractor from Germany and the English wing designer were in favor of running the lines along the front spar as this would simplify the tubing run and it would be cheaper. To prove their design philosophy they had the English partner of the German firm conduct a test.

The test consisted of an electrical drive motor connected to a Hook’s joint that was attached to a short section of the slat drive shaft. This short shaft was supported by a live center to allow shaft rotation and the live center could also be disconnected to allow the shaft to fall as if it suffered a mechanical disconnect. They filmed the entire test and presented it to the meeting attendees. In attendance were representatives of the CAA, the LBA and the DGCA.

In the film, the shaft was brought up to design speed of about 1400 RPM. When the shaft was disconnected the shaft fell to an angle of about 20 to 30 degrees off of the drive line center. The shaft continued to rotate and it did not flail. They showed several tests filmed from different angles and each time the shaft fell and continued to rotate with out flailing. With that the certification authorities along with the wing designer and the integration contractor stated that it was not necessary to provide anti flail guards and that the hydraulic lines could be routed along the front spar. Case closed. Or, was it.

After the presentation I asked my English counterpart to step out side. I asked him if he thought there was something wrong with the test and he agreed with me that the shaft should have started to flail after dropping several degrees off drive center due to lock –up of the hooks joint.

We went back into the meeting room and every one was congratulating each other. We asked the test engineer to come outside with us. In the hall, we asked him about the test and why the Hooks joint didn’t lock up. He stated that he didn’t use a Hooks joint because the German design firm would not provide one due to a shortage and that they were behind in their delivery schedule to the integration contractor. We asked him what he had used in place of the Hooks joint and he told us that he had used a shaft and coupling from (If I remember correctly) a BAC 111 which used constant velocity joints. If my counterpart and I were not in that meeting the A310 would have the hydraulic lines routed along the front spar and there would be no anti flail guards. If in that configuration a shaft had separated the A310 would lose all three hydraulic systems which would make the aircraft a bit difficult to control.

The test was rerun using the correct Hooks joint and shaft resulting in the lines being run in front of the front spar and behind the rear spar and anti flail devices were incorporated.

The integration contractor and the wing designer in their zeal to be proven correct didn’t catch it and the certification authorities didn’t have a clue.

There is one person that could shed a great deal of light on this subject but to do so would jeopardize his position. That person is Tim Tucker who performed all of the flight testing for certification.

This is how it works the other way:

I was aware of several severe design deficiencies on the A310 wing and I made these facts known to my supervisors. It was their contention that if they were to bring the problems up to Airbus they (the German firm) would have to absorb the cost of the change. I jacked it up one level to the Integration contractor. They said the same thing. I then went to the top which was BAe
who designed the wing. They told me that they were sympathetic to my problem but they couldn't help me. It should be noted that problems that effect reliability, maintainability or safety must immediately be brought to the attention of Airbus Industrie. It was never done. When the A310 was certified in the United States the FAA took the word of the JAA and only performed a few tests to verify operating costs and block times. Later I notified the FAA about the problems and when they contacted the DGCA they stated that the problems were solved. I contacted a good friend and he told me that the design was not changed. I again notified the FAA and this time they acted. As a result the VP and the program manager at the German firm were fired. The design however was never changed. I aasume because of a cost benefit analysis performed by the FAA and the using airlines.

The whole process sucks and people like you are flying in aircraft certificated by people like them. Your only salvation is people like me.



------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 23:28   #16 (permalink)
tiltrotor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Lu, good listing there. It was quite interesting to read some of the newspaper articles. However, with the information gathered out of the witness statements and the rotor blades bent underneath the aircraft it very much sounds like a rotor stall rather then mast bumping. But that's only a suggestion based on similar occurences. It will be very interesting to see any further progress you are making. Just out of curiosity, have you ever been threatened with a lawsuit?

To SkyCop:

What machines are you flying then?

Keep in mind that there are people out there that are very experienced in all kind of types of helicopters. E.g. I am currently flying as a Capt. on 412s offshore, have flown most of the Bell single and twin range and other types like 500s/ 520s, etc. but I still love to have a go in the R22/ R44 and play.

Keep in mind that nowadays many commerical pilots are not so fortunate to be military trained and when you have to pay for your own training- well, the whole thing looks different.
  Reply
Old 22nd Oct 2000, 23:41   #17 (permalink)
tiltrotor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Lu,

Thanks for filling me in, quite interesting story. I suppose that like in any other government branch paperwork takes over from actual practice- so do you think you will be successful in achieving your goal?

I personally always loved flying the R22/ R44 but if it is your goal to get the design changed, I wish you good luck and hope that you will come to your destination.

  Reply
Old 23rd Oct 2000, 00:45   #18 (permalink)
huntsman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

interesting points made and just the info a novice looks for before spending $$$$.

Lu,
amend the system or can the Robbos outright.

as i said before i heard the R22/44 are okay to fly but you don't want to get dead doing it.

are they a good scenic helo?

  Reply
Old 23rd Oct 2000, 04:20   #19 (permalink)
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: Tiltrotor:

Dear Tilt,

Regarding your question on another thread about being sued. Not yet.

Regarding my being successful in achieving my goals I don't know. Will I give up? Probably not. What the hell, I'll be 70 years old in December and aside from an occasional consulting job what else do I have to do. My one big joy in life is that I sell models when I'm not on assignment. Check out Model Masters, Inc on the internet

If they would put a rotorhead similar to that used on the Schweizer 300C on the R22 and R44 and adjusted the rigging procedures to acommodate that new rotor system I would close up shop and look for other mountains to conquer. With those modifications the two helicopters would be fantastic machines and 99% of their problems would go away.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).]
  Reply
Old 23rd Oct 2000, 06:01   #20 (permalink)
helidrvr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Mais non !!

Do I finally detect a 'raprochement' between you two hotheads?

Cheers
  Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 19:34.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network