To: CJ Eliassen
You are so tightly wound that you have a bad case of optical rectumosis. (A sh!ty outlook on life).
You are so eager to criticize me that you have gotten all of the points I have been trying to make over the last few years on this and other threads all twisted together.
There are two points. One relates to safety and the other relates to a possible compensation for the 18-degree offset.
First let’s address safety. The design of the rotorhead can under certain conditions lead to excessive flapping of the rotor system on the teeter hinge and even though you disagree on the cone hinges. This excessive flapping can lead to rotor incursions and mast bumping both of which cause loss of control. Those conditions are flying out of trim, sideslip, and zero-G flight. It can also happen with excessive cyclic input or other excessive maneuvering. It is for this reason that Robinson introduced the SFAR and the safety course for Robinson pilots.
Now let’s address the 18-degree offset. This too is related to the rotorhead design. The purpose of my last few postings was to get people to think about the aerodynamics of the Robinson head as opposed to the aerodynamics of other designs. Some of the respondents to these postings admit to believing in both gyroscopic precession and that the R-22 head had a rigged phase angle of 90-degrees yet they still state that it has an aerodynamic phase angle of 72-degrees. In pushing this idea I am not talking about flight safety. I am only addressing the possibility that the pilot has to correct for this offset.
Now instead of attacking me on my opinions please tell me why I am wrong. Just because you state in many bad words that I am wrong does not make you right.
You have an A&P ticket and I assume that you have rigged the R-22 on several occasions. Haven’t you ever questioned the ambiguous rigging procedures as well as the positioning of the blade when setting forward cyclic settings? What were you taught about gyroscopic precession? Didn’t’ your instructors teach you that the precession angle is 90-degrees (discounting phase angle shift)? If they did teach that the precession angle was 90-degrees why don’t you question the Robinson doctrine that the blade will respond in 72-degrees as opposed to 90-degrees.
I might not be the sharpest tool on the bench but I do know that I can disagree with another person’s point without a lot of vitriol. I have rigged a lot of helicopters and the procedures for rigging the R-22 are totally different from any other helicopter. Also another minor point is that Robinson did not comply with the FAA design guidelines in that the R-22 has fixed limit stops and not adjustable stops as required in the design guidelines. On a regular helicopter the stop is adjusted to a given pitch on the blades as opposed to the R-22 where the pitch is set to the fixed limit stops.
I would strongly suggest that you follow the instructions I gave to Delta 3 regarding the positioning of the blades and moving the cyclic. If you have access to a Bell helicopter try the same test.
Also read the rigging procedures and try to follow the setting of forward blade pitch and then aft blade pitch. Why are they different and what happens to the forward pitch setting when you change the aft setting? Then consult the rigging procedures to find out how you compensate for the change to the forward pitch setting. The mechanic is left hanging on this point.
The reason this happens is because of the fixed pitch stops.
Now the next time you respond please check your guns at the door. If you don’t and you go on the attack then you will look like an idiot.
