R22 Increased MAUW - Feasible?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
there are a whole host of reasons for weight limits, and the manufacturer often doesn't say what these reasons are. Things like ability to hover (the rotor system can only put out so much thrust (lift) and the engine can only put out so much power, for example).
The landing gear's ability to absorb loads is another limit, as is the seat's crashworthiness.
If the Robbie could do more with safety, don't you think the manufacturer would try for it?
The landing gear's ability to absorb loads is another limit, as is the seat's crashworthiness.
If the Robbie could do more with safety, don't you think the manufacturer would try for it?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't support you AOTW. Have you any time in the -1 rotor blades? If so you would remember how quickly the RRPM decayed soon as pitch was pulled with engine off. Since then the rotor blades are significantly heavier to cope with the extra weight now allowed.
I would not like to hazard a guess as to how much less time there would be available to get the collective down in the event of sudden engine stoppage at anything over current allowable MAUW. Graphing of it might give you another spectacular J curve prior to meeting ol' mate at the pearly gates.
I would not like to hazard a guess as to how much less time there would be available to get the collective down in the event of sudden engine stoppage at anything over current allowable MAUW. Graphing of it might give you another spectacular J curve prior to meeting ol' mate at the pearly gates.
Thread Starter
Fair enough, just putting the question out there for discussion really - the super quick decay of rpm at high pitch settings is a big enough problem already, it's true.
I'm a relative newcomer to the type, only 500 hrs or so. Started out on a Beta which because it was lighter allowed us to carry more fuel, then when we got the Beta IIs suddenly we were that much more restricted in endurance unless the people up front were light.
I do, but it was the Bell increase that prompted the question in my mind.
I'm a relative newcomer to the type, only 500 hrs or so. Started out on a Beta which because it was lighter allowed us to carry more fuel, then when we got the Beta IIs suddenly we were that much more restricted in endurance unless the people up front were light.
If the Robbie could do more with safety, don't you think the manufacturer would try for it?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cham Switzerland
Age: 65
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way of looking at this could be to strip some of the weight out of the R22, to leave more scope for loading normally-nourished customers together with a sensible amount of fuel.
Have you seen the R22-based Ultralights from Italy and Poland?
(Not sure if this link will work, but...) these were on display at Friedrichhafen this year:
Spot the R22 components.
(Not my thing. My preferred approach: I set out to lose 28lb when I started instructing just to give myself more margin).
Have you seen the R22-based Ultralights from Italy and Poland?
(Not sure if this link will work, but...) these were on display at Friedrichhafen this year:
Spot the R22 components.
(Not my thing. My preferred approach: I set out to lose 28lb when I started instructing just to give myself more margin).
Last edited by uniformkilo; 20th Jul 2014 at 18:54. Reason: punctuation
