The R22 corner: Owning, flying & training questions

[allanon1980]

Hi guys,

Anyone know where I can see some sample lateral c of g calculations done out. Im fine with the longitudinal but for some reason my mind is gone blank with regards the lateral.

Thanks and merry christmas!!!

[VeeAny]

Check your PMs just sent you a link to an online one.

[Peter-RB]

When I trained for my PPL(H) I did so in the R22 I passed and progressed onto the R44, I enjoyed my flying and enjoyed the responsibility of the pre flight and after flight checks, being an ex farmer and involved with heavy Road transport I have a rudimentry knowledge of how mechanics work and what should be tight in order to be safe. During my early solo flying I cocked up twice, my fault I took my eye of the ball (so to speak) but managed to recover and carry on to land. I am able to admit to my failings in those two flights,...... sadly many flight dont have an outcome like I did, and we read many times about the sad ending of life whilst flying helicopters at my level mainly Robinsons( because they are the chepest to run) But one burning question ................,

Has there ever been a fatal ending to a Robinson flight, were the RHC have taken or accepted any form of responsibilty, or has it always been down to the driver?

Many of you out there say much about how bad they are, but can we get some accurate feedback on this!

My regards

Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb

[KNIEVEL77]

I hope not, i'm just about to start my training on yes, you've guessed it, a R22! :{

[BHenderson]

What was the outcome of the R44 that crashed on a ferry flight from the factory?

[rotorfloat]

This is what I was able to find, BH.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
a loss of control and the divergence of the main rotor blade system from its normal rotational path for undetermined reasons

Factual Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06FA156&rpt=fa)

Probable Cause (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06FA156&rpt=fi)

Peter R-B

In response to your question, I am unaware of any direct acceptance of liabality on the manufacturer's part, but, they have adapted their aircraft in response to common accidents/incidents on their types.

2 examples would be the addition of the throttle governor as a 'non-optional' piece of equipment, and the carb heat correlator on the R44s.

[manfromuncle]

Big NTSB study of 'unexplained' R22 accidents here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf

[4ftHover]

Knievel

May i sugguest you have a look at this site www.aaib.dft.gov.uk (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk)

Its the air investigations website and there is a monthly bulletin.

Do a search for R22 and it will give you all the accidents over the yesars. I found this incredibly informative and regularly discussed the accidents with my instructor and how to avoid the situations that have caused them.

Personally i find the reports extremely useful and if any good is to come from these accidents or tragic loss of life, its that guys like you and me dont make the same mistakes.

[KNIEVEL77]

4ftHover,

Thank you very much for that link.

I have to say, I wasn't sure how I would be accepted on this forum as i'm a novice and the title says that 'Rotorheads is a haven for professional helicopter pilots' of which I am not, but i'd just like to thank everyone for all of their help and advice so far, it is very much appreciated.

Long may it continue!

[Peter-RB]

Knieval77

A long time ago I was in a similar position and thought the Pros would Blow me out being just a PPL(H) I found all of them to be absolutely brilliant at giving advice, I feel the qualification is PURE COMMON SENSE these guys are good and will pass on info to help keep simple folks like me in the air without trauma, Fly with any of them shows you your shortcommings.

Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb

[KNIEVEL77]

Yes, i'm learning loads from you chaps so please keep the advice coming!

[helimutt]

KNIEVEL77, I assume you'll be flying with Northumbria Helicopters up at EGNT. You'll be in very capable hands if you fly with Scott. Not sure who else is up there now as it's a while since I worked there. They have only had one accident up there which without doubt was due to pilot error. Low time PPL got it wrong. Many witnesses to the incident I think, including some Heli instructors who saw it happen. No big deal. Fly safe within your limits and well within a/c limitations and you will have no worries. Even if things do go a bit pear shaped, you will be trained how to deal with it.
The problems start when a low time PPL becomes over confident in his abilities, trying something he hasn't been trained for. ie hovering where he shouldn't (on top of fence posts, crocodiles heads etc???:uhoh:)
If you want advanced training, do it with an instructor, not from a Youtube video.
Most of all, have fun and enjoy it. It's a very rewarding thing to gain that PPL(H).
:)

[KNIEVEL77]

Hello Helimutt,

Yes, I will be training with Northumbria Helicopter and hopefully Scott, i've heard a lot of good things about him.

I know Neil Clark, the owner, from my days working at the BBC, we used to hire his aircraft regularly so at least I already have a decent rapore with him before even start!

I'm popping up to see them next week just to finalize things so fingers crossed this time next month I should be on my way.

K77.

[EN48]

K77,

A year or so ago, I was in a position similar to yours: just getting started with helicopters (but with 40+ years in airplanes) and planning to fly the R22. I was concerned about the R22 safety record and did estensive research into accidents, reading all 400+ accident reports on the U.S. NTSB website, the special report published by the FAA about 1996, and also doing the Robinson factory Safety Course via DVD. Frank Robinson has staed that the R22/R44 are safe if flown within the approved operating envelope. My research seems to confirm that statement to be correct, however, it also suggests that the approved operating envelope is so narrow that inexperienced pilots have difficuly remaining in the approved envelope, even with an instructor in the left seat. After flying the R22 for about 25 hours, I concluded that, for me, there was a sufficient level of concern that I stopped flying the R22 and moved on to the Enstrom 480B and Bell 407, both of which are considerably more forgiving, and wildly more expensive. Each must make his own call on this issue.

EN48

[helimutt]

EN48, I feel that your statement it also suggests that the approved operating envelope is so narrow that inexperienced pilots have difficuly remaining in the approved envelope, even with an instructor in the left seat.

is slightly unfair. Sufficient level of concern? Do you mean in your own abilities as a rotary wing pilot, having been a plank driver so long? Are you suggesting that instructors are having problems flying them within limits too?
The R22 was never built for aerobatics or advanced flying manuevres. It is a starter level helicopter which brought affordable(ish) relatively safe heli flying to the masses, which is exactly what Mr R wanted.
I know many inexperienced pilots, having trained a couple too, and they manage to stay within the envelope. Flying in bad weather, trying things you have no experience of, is where you'll make mistakes, not just flying as the manual states. I'd love to know why you think it's difficult to fly inside the envelope. I'd flown them for 13 years and had no problems myself, along with the majority of pilots here I bet. A bigger machine is generally always going to be more docile. Cost is always a factor. As you associated more risk to a smaller machine, you chose the bigger one. The number of R22 accidents is higher than other types, generally because there are more of them about and they are being used in a training environment and by low timers. Let's not get into another position like the late Lu Z. RIP.
They are what they are and everyone has their own comfort zone/ability.

As for doing a Robinson Factory Safety course by DVD? Bet there was a lot of mileage in that.

[EN48]

Hmutt,

It was not my intent to be unfair, just to call it as I see it. Others have and will come to different conclusions. What tipped the balance for me was the FAA special safety report published in the mid 90's. This report examined around fifty fatal accidents which had occurred to that time for which there was no clear cause. The accident scenarios have a remarkable similarity: low time student (0-4 hours) flying with instructor crash killing both. The report attributed the cause to a loss of main rotor control resulting from an abrupt, unanticipated cyclic input by the student. Within 2 revolutions, the main rotor flaps down and chops off the tail boom, and this happens faster than the instructor can respond. Some will respond, "Dont make abrupt cyclic inputs," and this is excellent advice, but the real world is a bit more complicated.

The R22 is in many ways a brilliant design. As far as I can tell, a very small per centage of accidents are due to mechanical failure. However, in the interest of performance and cost, it is also a somewhat primitive design, which by necessity asks more of the pilot. I'd rather have more margin for error while I am learning, and then accept a smaller margin when I am more proficient. This is a tradeoff which each who puts his ass on the line needs top decide for himself.

The RHC Safety Course on DVD is actually quite valuable IMO - not as good as going to the factory in person, but better than not having this exposure. (Obviously, the DVD covers only the ground schooll portion of the course.) I have flown with a few R22 instructors (all in the category of "students teaching students," i.e. just a few hundred TT in helicopters) and none covered most of this material with me. I recommend that anyone planning to fly the R22 obtain this DVD, or better yet, do the course in CA. Ther is also a DVD aviavable on autorotations in the R22 which I found useful - dont have a link, but its easy to find on the web.

EN 48

[helimutt]

EN48, I understand what you're saying. One of the problems I saw in the US when I went to do some hour building there, my examiner had the same hours in the R22 as myself when he was checking me out for SFH. He was a fixed wing guy, 23yrs old, and had just converted to rotary. When he asked for an auto back to the field, I put it on the deck and he nearly sh*t his pants, as he wasn't used to doing them to the ground. I had taken virtually every auto to the ground when training in UK. There are a lot of low hour instructors out there and this is likely to reflect in accident statistics. I noticed as peoples hours increased, so did the self confidence levels and belief in their ability. 500hrs, 1000hrs etc. We learn every time we fly but some never do.
:hmm:

[[email protected]]

The best way to avoid accidents in an R22 (other than not flying it at all) is to stay in current flying practice on it. The R22 is not an easy helicopter to fly and can bite unforgivingly if mishandled.

Unfortunately, once PPLH qualified, few pilots keep the tempo of flying that they had during their training period. Skills perish, ego assumes that a PPL is a badge of excellence and rusty pilots take to the air in a machine they are not fully in control of; there is no experience to rely on and so anticipating problems is difficult.

Now we are left with a low time pilot reacting to the aircraft, often way too late and sometimes with inappropriate control inputs - is it any wonder there are a lot of R22 accidents?

Oh, and it's killed a whole lot of very experienced R22 pilots as well...

[EN48]

Hmutt said:


"I noticed as peoples hours increased, so did the self confidence levels and belief in their ability. 500hrs, 1000hrs etc. We learn every time we fly but some never do."


Exactly. When new to helicopters (or most other pursuits) you dont know what you dont know. It takes some time to gain insight and develop judgement, and this process goes on for a lifetime. It seems to me that there are many more ways to get into trouble in helicopters than in airplanes, and I am highly motivated to make it through the early learning period. In 40+ years of flying, no accidents, incidents, violations, or insurance claims, and I'd like to keep it that way! Some might say I have not taken enought chances, but I have had some anxious moments and learned from them. :ouch:

EN48

[Dato_R44]

Hi there fellers I am a low time 44 pilot c.180 hours and a retired member of the constabulary here in scotland. I must say that the dialogue here is exactly IMHO what pprune is all about. Very interesting and informative.

At a time here in Scotland when accidents fatal and non are appearing on the increase I am writing a paper on the hypotheses that using the term "risk" more frequently in the actions of a small/med sized heelio will go some way to establishing just that bit more awareness and a bit less accident. I am particularly fond of my flying but the more I investigate the circumstances, actions situations and events surrounding helicopter incidents the less time I find myself in the air in the right seat. Would anyone like to make any comments or observations observations on my thoughts.

This paper acts as a part of my degree in Risk at Glasgow Caledonian University and I will be happy to acknowledge any constructive comments...

[KNIEVEL77]

Should I think again about starting to train in an R22????

The only other option i've got is an R44 but obviously that is more expensive!

Helimutt,

Would it be politically incorrect of me to ask Neil if I could have the same instructor for every lesson and also if it could be Scott or do I simply get who i'm given?

[timex]

Would it be politically incorrect of me to ask Neil if I could have the same instructor for every lesson and also if it could be Scott or do I simply get who i'm given?

Wait and see how your course is structured, you may find a mix of instructors will be the case. This is not a bad thing, you will find that each instructor will teach/instruct with slight variations...

Wave as you go by....(its the Blue and Yellow one):ok:

[KNIEVEL77]

Timex,

More good advice thanks, are you based in Newcastle?

K77.

[EN48]

Dato_R44,

As Crab stated, the most certain way to avoid accidents flying the R22 (or any flying machine) is not to fly at all. But this doesnt work for those of us that wish to fly; we make a tradeoff between risk and reward. I have long thought that structuring/managing and reducing risk by being well informed and proficient is the way to do this. With pilot error the leading cause of accidents by a wide margin, and with the causes of accidents relatively well reported and understood, if one takes a disciplined, thoughtful approach to accepting risk, the the odds turn considerably in your favor, and the data show this in quite a compelling fashion. The problem with this is that not everyone can accept the consequences of being thoughtful and disciplined: its hard work, time consuming, and expensive

Accidents are not inevitable. I know a number high time pilots who have retired without ever putting a mark on a flying machine or injuring anyone - in some cases 40,000+ hours.

EN48

[KNIEVEL77]

EN48,

Great post!

Didn't realise you were from Newcastle?

K77.

[Dato_R44]

EN48 I agree I attended Tim Tuckers Robinson Safety Course in Scotland late last year and the clearest message given to pilots enthusiastic to fly is set a limit personal limit that you know to be safe for example I now follow the quote :

"The least experienced press on while the more experienced turn back, to meet the most experienced the never took off in the first place"

If I am honest however I have of late with much more qualified pilots than me in the left seat tackled trips in weather out of my comfort zone and qualify as the first part of the above.

I am all too aware of the rise in PPL(H) pilots appearing in the skies particularly in Scotland and have now firmly decided this quote will be my understanding of flying. It has to be the greatest experience and privileged opportunity any one can have and hope that others too will read the above and consider it theirs for many many hours of safe, satisfying and fun flying

[KNIEVEL77]

Dato,

What's happened to your thread asking for information, it's disappeared?

[Dato_R44]

yea - interestingly it has ???

I must be honest I have observed PPRUNE for a few years and have ony very recently engaged in the forums so I might well have done something wrong :)

[EN48]

Dato-R44


"The least experienced press on while the more experienced turn back, to meet the most experienced the never took off in the first place"



Havent seen this one previously. Pretty much sums it all up. I will post this prominently in my hangar!

Thanks,

EN48

[EN48]

K77,


Didn't realise you were from Newcastle?



Not Newcastle, but New Hampshire.

EN48

[KNIEVEL77]

Oh sorry, its just you put your location as CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!! :)

[EN48]

K77,


its just you put your location as CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!


Well? :)

EN48

[KNIEVEL77]

Well Newcastle IS the Centre of the Universe! :)

[helimutt]

Can't agree more K77. :ok:

Had to move a bit further south for my job but will always regard Newcastle as home.
If you enjoy flying with one instructor, remember you are the customer and you can pretty much fly with whoever you wish. Neil will have no problem with that i'm sure. It won't do you any harm though to fly with another instructor at some stage if you have to, because different peole teach in different ways. Some have experiences which they can pass on. You may get stuck on one particular exercise and another instructor might just have a simple way around it. I only flew with one instructor for my ppl. One for the cpl. But over the years, I have drawn on experience of flying with many instructors/examiners etc who all had a positive input to my flying skills. Now I fly with different people every day in a multicrew environment and they are all vastly more experienced than me in the role. I feel i'm often just there to make up the numbers. :hmm: but I still watch and learn.
If you do have a problem during the course, say, learning to hover, you may think at some point you're wasting your time and money but believe me, most of us have been there at one time or another.
Some of us more than others, :O Just stick at it and you'll get there.

[EN48]

"will always regard Newcastle as home. "



I can see that I am outnumbered here!

Great advice Hmutt. I have learned something from every instructor I have worked with. Just want to be working with the grayhairs in the early going.

EN48

[KNIEVEL77]

Thanks Helimutt,

I will report back once i've chatted to Neil!

K77.

P.S. Went to Old Trafford yesterday..........wish I hadn't now!!!!!

[Senior Pilot]

Dato,

What's happened to your thread asking for information, it's disappeared?

Having had Dato_R44 post exactly the same query in this thread, there was no point running two threads answering the same question from the same person!

[KNIEVEL77]

Senior Pilot,

Yes, I see where you are coming from, fair enough!

Thanks for keeping us right!:ok:

[rattle]

It would be interesting to know the Datcon difference between a new trainee in a 22 and a 44. As the 22 time is rotors running, all the time warming up and shutting down is charged for (and counts towards the magic 45). If we plot a 65 hour pass rate, in a 22 the real flying time is considerably less. So although a 44 will cost more per hour, you may pass in "less" hours. Autorotations are free after all in a 44!

Thoughts?

[Whirlygig]

From Lasors - Appendix B to Section A

The total time from the moment a helicopters rotor
blades start turning until the moment the helicopter
finally comes to rest at the end of the flight and the rotor
blades are stopped.


Therefore, the amount of time logged shouldn't make any difference; the time charged by the school may well differ though as will the time on the Tech Log!

Cheers

Whirls

[KNIEVEL77]

Rattle,

Are you suggesting that only flying time is charged for in an R44 but not so in an R22?

Surely a flying school's definition of 1 hours charge should be the same for both types of aircraft?

[Whirlygig]

Yes, he is suggesting that (although not entirely accurately) and no, an hour invoiced is not necessarily an hour's flying.

Some aircraft work on a switch on the collective and others on engine time or rotors running time. These times are important for checking the maintenance scheduling. However, how a school charges is largely up to them! There are Datcon meters, Hobbs meters, all sorts which measure various running times.

However, the time you put in your logbook for training purposes is as defined in LASORS - download your copy now!

Cheers

Whirls

[KNIEVEL77]

Interesting, so perhaps he is suggesting that the R22's meter starts running with the rotors and the R44's when it lifts from the ground?

Or do all schools have their own way of 'metering' it!

Suppose its worth me checking though!

As for the minimum 45 hours, this starts when the rotors start I presume, so isn't exactly 45 hours 'flying' time?

[[email protected]]

Whirly - does that mean you can hours build doing ground runs?:)

[4ftHover]

K77

On one of your previous posts you mentioned training with just one instructor.

Personally i had 3 instructors through the majority of my training and one for the last 6 hours or so as i prepared for my test.

Personally this worked well for me as each instructor had a slightly different approach. The communication at my school was excellent, and each time i arrived for a lesson the instructor was fully briefed on my previous flight (s )

Trying to stick with one instructor may also have availability issues.

[Whirlygig]

Whirly - does that mean you can hours build doing ground runs?:)

That's how LASORS reads to me Crabby! How does it read to you? It is, after all, in a "flyable" condition during ground runs and let's face it, we've all met plank drivers who've done their hour building taxiing around!!

Cheers

Whirls

[manfromuncle]

From the ANO

For the purposes of this article, a helicopter shall be deemed to be in flight from the moment the helicopter first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the rotors are next stopped.

[KNIEVEL77]

Re above the post..........so does that mean that you are charged similarly?

[Whirlygig]

Not necessarily! It's another important question to ask any school; how they charge the time!

Cheers

Whirls

[4ftHover]

K77

I'll stand corrected on this next comment but i do believe the average hours taken to qualify on the 44 from scratch is less than the 22.

So although its more expensive to learn on - you may need less hours to pass and at then end you wont need the conversion.

Just a thought

:)

[come in copper 1]

One of the places I SFH from on the R44 charges 0.1 for start up and another 0.1 for shut down on top of the datcon time.:= A rip off I know, but its handy to get to.
Another place I fly the 44 just charges on the datcon which for me is far better.:ok:
Any other people know of the 0.1 for start up and another 0.1 for shut down?

[KNIEVEL77]

So the R44 may be cheaper in the long run???

Suppose it all depends on the Flying School but surely the same company wouldn't have two different 'time' charges for two different helicopters?

[Ken Wells]

New R22 competitor avialable.

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/cote20bleu2.jpg

[rattle]

Whirls

Apologies. I stand corrected.

I have only ever been charged datcon time, and as we know, in the 22 this is rotors running time. I could have done my 206 conversion much quicker if I'd known to count engine running time! But I still can't afford to take it off the ground - just start up, listen and shut down. Don't tell the owner!!

[puntosaurus]

Rattle from prev page: It would be interesting to know the Datcon difference between a new trainee in a 22 and a 44. As the 22 time is rotors running, all the time warming up and shutting down is charged for (and counts towards the magic 45). If we plot a 65 hour pass rate, in a 22 the real flying time is considerably less. So although a 44 will cost more per hour, you may pass in "less" hours. Autorotations are free after all in a 44!

Thoughts?Autorotations in the 44 are only free if you're solo and minimum weight. A 'free' autorotation in any other condition will spoil your day, or possibly cancel it entirely.

We charge Datcon for the 22 and Datcon + 0.1 for the 44. I'd say that marginally favours the 44 because most students take longer than 6mins to start up and shut down.

[Whirlybird]

Suppose it all depends on the Flying School but surely the same company wouldn't have two different 'time' charges for two different helicopters?

Actually, some do. All the ones I know of charge purely by Datcon time of both machines.

In the R22, as stated, the Datcon starts when you switch the engine on, and stops when you turn it off. In the R44 the Datcon only turns when the collective is raised...so you don't pay while you're warming up, shutting down, or in autorotation.

Adding a little to the R44 charges, like 0.1 hrs at start and finish, is fairly common.

Most people log their flying hours the same as the Datcon hours. Since it's rare to qualify in 45 hours, the possible slight difference in the R22 won't really bother anyone. For the R44, I usually use my watch and log the "real" flying hours.

Hence the R44 is slightly cheaper than it appears, but it'll never cost less than an R22!

However, although this is all very interesting, it's probably the least important question when you're learning to fly. The school's reputation, how well you get on with your instructor, how often you can fly, what books to buy etc etc....these are all far, far more important than whether you save....the price of your next hover-taxi to the fuel bay - and yes, in many places you'll pay for that too.

[BHenderson]

Northumbria work on the datcon for R22 and datcon + 0.1 for the R44. Instructor time in the R44 goes off the aircraft clock.

[[email protected]]

Whirlygig - I meant it tongue in cheek, the aircraft may be in a flyable condition but it is not moving under its own power for the purposes of taking off. Unfortunately that statement means you could ground taxi a helo with wheels and claim flying time! Sounds barking mad to me.

[KNIEVEL77]

Please please excuse my ignorance but what EXACTLY is the meaning of Datcon time?

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

It’s been a few years since I flew the R44 but as far as I remember the datcon keeps turning in autorotation.

[EN48]

K77,

"Datcon" is a brand of hour meter, just as "Hobbs" is a brand of hour meter.

EN48

[KNIEVEL77]

Thankyou, its all making sense now, I think!

So in a R22 the DATCON starts to turn over as soon as the engine is switched on?

In a R44 the DATCON starts to turn over when the collective is raised?

So does the flying hours relate to the DATCON?

If so, the minimum PPL(H) 45 'flying hours' in an R44 are ALL flying hours where as in an R22 a portion of the 'flying hours' are whilst still on the ground?

If that is the case, I still don't understand why an R44 might work out cheaper in the long run unless the PPL(H) hours are actually logged whilst in the air meaning that with the R22 you are only getting say 45 minutes for every hour paid in the air, whilst in an R44 you are getting a full 60 minutes in the air.........hence in the long run it may be cheaper?

I hope all of this makes sense and I haven't missed the point?

[puntosaurus]

You got it !

I would have thought your next question is why on earth is this so difficult ? It comes down to Robinson's purpose in installing the Datcon, which is not to help operators with their billing or pilots with their logbooks, but to keep an indelible track of the engineering life of the machine.

The engineers work this out based on flying hours because that's where the main stresses they worry about occur, rather than loggable or chargable hours which are somewhat subject to the vagaries of legislation and commercial pressure. Therefore the number that goes in the helicopter tech log is the flying time, and hence imho Robinson's change in the 44 range to measure a better proxy for that flying time ie. engine running and collective up.

And yes, in the R44 unless you get the lever all the way down in autorotation (ie solo pilot, minimum weight, or serious updrafts), the Datcon will continue to turn.

[bvgs]

The point re the R22 vs R44 for training is simply this. Generally a student will pass his test in less hours in a R44 than a R22. So you may do it in 50 hours in a 44 whereas it may take 60 in a 22. This is from speaking to people who have been taught on both. So it may work out a similar end price, the datacon thing does make a difference but at the end of the day looking at the big picture not that much. I don't own a school but really don't see what the problem is in adding .1 onto the start up and end of the flying session, after all you are using fuel and oil and applying some wear and tear to the machine. I own my own 44 and still fly a 22 an odd time and think they are both great machines. You can also specify a 22 from the factory to have the datacon collective activated!

[John Eacott]

Therefore the number that goes in the helicopter tech log is the flying time

Not according to Robinson's certification requirements for the R22. RHC mandate that the figure to go in the Maintenance Release (or Tech Log, or its equivalent in other countries) is the engine time, as recorded on the factory installed Datcon. No exceptions, and not flight time.

[Pandalet]

There are also a number of operators who bill you for R22 datcon (ie. engine running time - the datcon is oil pressure activated), but subtract 0.1 from that for the tech log.

The R44 is somewhat easier to fly than the R22, since things happen slower and it's less twitchy. That said, I suspect you'd still have to try quite hard to make doing a PPL in a R44 cost less than in a R22.

As always, the question you should be asking yourself is what you're planning to do once you have a license. If you're going to go buy your own R44, then you might be better off doing the training in the same machine, even though it costs more; if you're wanting to go commercial, say north sea or police, you might as well do the training in whatever's cheapest (unless you can afford to do it in a squirrel or gazelle or something), which generally translates to the R22.

[John Eacott]

There are also a number of operators who bill you for R22 datcon (ie. engine running time - the datcon is oil pressure activated), but subtract 0.1 from that for the tech log.

In that case there are a number of operators who are running the risk of an unpleasant surprise if caught. Robinson require that the R22 tech log time be logged as engine time, off the Datcon.

The R44 is flight time, but not the R22. As I mentioned, there are no exceptions, it was part of the Certification of the R22.

As pilot filling in the MR/Tech Log, you would also be culpable if you failed to complete the times in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements :=

[puntosaurus]

John, interesting, but I think you'll find that deals have been struck somewhere along the line, because the Datcon - 0.1 approach is very common over here. Because you came out so strongly I rechecked with two independent maintenance orgs over here, and they confirm this basis.

[John Eacott]

puntosaurus,

It may be to your own advantage to ask to see the approval/dispensation from CAA in writing, to CYA if you are the pilot signing for the hours flown ;)

The Robinson R22 POH tells you that the time to be logged is the engine time. It would have to be a very strong case to Airworthiness for them to approve what is in effect a 10%+ extension of maintenance hours for the life of the aircraft :eek:

[MartinCh]

And it might make you not to want to train full autos in Robbies at all.

Got my US consulate in Belfast visa interview in 2 hours.
Man I hate mornings. Better get used to early wake up as that's something I'll get should I get through with all training and instructing in the future.. (hopefully saving like hell and being patient not to waste my precious cash for flying in the UK unless necessary)

I'm going to do my private in R22 in NW of US during summer.
Having read accident spot over past year's worth of HI issues, I can conclude that even though R22 is most commonly used trainer in the US, it's still unacceptable to witness so many F='*d up autorotations (or going wrong the last few metres above ground or right on the ground)

I'll have to make sure if I'm told to do full auto in whatever, that the insurance got me fully covered (heli damage).

I do agree with previous posts that there IS some 'operational envelope' and that would not include ab initio training where people are rougher on controls.
When I'm returning to flying after a year or so after PPL, I'll make sure I'm getting some 'refresher' instruction and not just do SFH because it's cheaper.

I'm getting nervous. I already blew around £300 for all the 'fees and charges' and if I don't get my visa.. Well, I'll have to do with Argentina for summer then. That'll make up for my financial losses, all the gain in my personal life.

Yeah. Pishing like hell. "Why does it always rain on me?" gets new meaning.

Safe flying

[KNIEVEL77]

Okay, i'm still trying to get my head around why it might work out cheaper training in an R44 instead of an R22?

In an R22 the Datcom starts when the engine is turned on and that is included in the log book 'flying time' and so is charged from that point?

In an R44 the Datcom starts when the collective is raised yet the 'flying time' that is logged still starts when the engine is switched on but is charged from the raising of the collective?

This then means that in an R44 you log your 'flight time' from the moment the engine is powered up yet you pay from the moment the collective is raised. therefore if it takes 10 minutes before take off to complete checks and get permission from ATC and 10 minutes after landing before shutting the engine down, you are actually getting 1 hour and 20 minutes towards your minimum 45 hours 'flying time' but only paying for 1 hour?

Have I got this right or am I missing something?

[Whirlygig]

In principle, yes. That is why you need to check with any flying school how they charge the time because time invoiced is not necessarily time logged. Plus, there is the anomaly between LASORS and the ANO!

As with so many things, have a chat with your instructor.

However, I am struggling to believe that an R44 PPL would be cheaper than R22 even allowing for datcon readings. An R44 is about 50% more per hour than an R22 so I don't think you'd be saving.

Cheers

Whirls

[Peter-RB]

On the start of this thread I hoped that some more enlightened of the Ppruners would be able to make the answer to my posed question quite easy, but now having spent over a week when time allows going through the CAA and now Faa lists Re R22 accidents I am no nearer, but I will persist, I have a little patience left.:8

MartinCH, Autos must be learnt so you can perform them flawlessly and without having to think, it is a part of Heli flying that YOU MUST become able to perform this action without a second thought, especially in the Robinson Family you have very few seconds to get into this config after all goes quiet, most definate this would be your life saver ( done properly):eek:

Peter R-B
Vfrpilotpb

[manfromuncle]

Every school in the UK I've flown/worked at the student pays/logs on engine time, and the techlog is engine time minus 0.1 (this is supposed to reflect skids off to skids on time).

[Heli-phile]

Any vehicle willl take you to the scene of the crash if you misuse it.
However some are more forgiving than others!!
This is even more pronounced with Helicopters.

If possible fly a H300c -older technology but Much more forgiving.
Ive flown lots of hours in both.
If either of my children came to me and asked which one to learn in I would not want to see them in an R22!!

[MartinCh]

MartinCH, Autos must be learnt so you can perform them flawlessly and without having to think, it is a part of Heli flying that YOU MUST become able to perform this action without a second thought, especially in the Robinson Family you have very few seconds to get into this config after all goes quiet, most definate this would be your life saver ( done properly)

If possible fly a H300c -older technology but Much more forgiving.
Ive flown lots of hours in both.
If either of my children came to me and asked which one to learn in I would not want to see them in an R22!!

That's exactly what 'says it all' I have in mind.

I'm not saying I won't have to practise autos in R22. I'm going to sooner or later. It's just that I'd rather do them in S300. Though I understand that due to dif aircraft behaviour I'll have to be 'proficient' in doing R22 autos too.
If I eventually make it to 200-250 TT and FI/CFI papers and a job, I'm likely to teach others to do autos in R22. Be it in the US or UK.

Just that from accident spot I can see that autos training can cause accident itself. Funny (if no injuries) irony is therefore when practising accident prevention /safety procedures for possible future emergency/ and causing real accident. Whether just whacking it bit hard to the ground or having one skid too high due to assymetrical lift or terrain and 'losing' blades when keeling to one side.

[500e]

Why to to the ground with autos ?.
If you can recover at 2 meters, you should be able to put it on the ground in case of silent donk.

[KNIEVEL77]

Well as the R22 is the most cost effective, the R22 it is.............better get my Will written!!!!!! :)

[KNIEVEL77]

I'm going to check with my flying school as to how they work out their charges with reference to the R22 and R44.

Presumably learning on a Jet Ranger will be cost prohibitive?

[Whirlygig]

Yes, if you've only budgeted for minimum hours. A Jet Ranger will be in the region of £500 - £600 an hour.

Cheers

Whirls

[KNIEVEL77]

Thanks Whirls, an R22 it is then.

[whirlwind]

R22/44? If you stand back and look at what you're trying to achieve, I don't think cost comes into it, so much as safety.

I suggest that all Robinson pilots watch the Robinson safety video. Order from Robinson's website; if you are in the UK, it's only $55 including shipping, which is cheap when you consider what you can learn from it. It's has a series of sobering clips in it. Forget the Davtron, and whether the lever is fully down. Learn how to enter auto! My experience with students is that they are inevitably slow to get that lever down, and as time passes since getting their PPL, they become less and less able to enter auto, turn into wind and find a field, let alone keep the Nr under control and demonstrate the potential to carry out a safe landing. (Is that too long a sentence?).

Back to my first paragraph and cost - the 44 may be more expensive, but I believe it's safer and more manageable for a low time pilot - more power and more potential Nr when you need it (ie without an engine!)

Cheers, WW

[KNIEVEL77]

WW,

Some more good points, I will double check with my flying school to see if they would like to offer me a good rate on their R44, if not then it WILL have to be the R22!

[Whirlygig]

The only way that they will offer a good rate is if you pay in advance for a considerable number of hours. Do not pay in advance.

Cheers

Whirls

[KNIEVEL77]

DO NOT PAY IN ADVANCE?

Why, in case the school folds perhaps?

Or in case I decide that this helicopter flying isn't for me?

They do offer reductions for bulk buys!

[Whirlygig]

Yes, in case the school folds. In the past year, I can think of two schools that have folded owing students money and they were both well publicized on Pprune. And going even further back, there are several schools in the UK who have gone bust.

If you only listen to one piece of advice on this thread, please listen to this one.

Cheers

Whirls

[EN48]

Presumably learning on a Jet Ranger will be cost prohibitive?

Only you can answer that question. Consider what your longer term objectives may be. If you intend to fly as a professional pilot, by training in the 206, you will have a head start on building turbine time. If you intend to operate a turbine helicopter for personal use, you will have a head start building trubine time for insurance purposes. No doubt you will pay more, but you will also get more.

EN48

[KNIEVEL77]

Must check all of this out when I get a minute, thanks everybody.

[KNIEVEL77]

Just ordered the R22 Safety DVD direct from Robinson and I have to say certainly on 'accessories' their service was second to none!

[EN48]

"Just ordered the R22 Safety DVD"


Be forewarned: The DVD is quite graphic and after viewing it, some may decide to never leave the ground in an R22. However, if you can get past this, its an excellent training aid.

[MartinCh]

Be forewarned: The DVD is quite graphic and after viewing it, some may decide to never leave the ground in an R22. However, if you can get past this, its an excellent training aid.

Then it'll be better to watch it straight after successful PPL checkride before embarking on longer/more frequent solos :-P
I think I'll just get mine in the US or just borrow it from flight school.

[Heli-phile]

I would like to pose a general question to all you Robinson jockeys out there.

1,
What wind strength/conditions would make you feel 'nervous'.

2,
What wind strength/conditions would you decide to cancel or even scrub your flight.

3,
What wind strength would you worry about starting/stopping (blade sailing)

The reason I ask is that there seems to be a huge range of opinion in pilots I have spoken to, Also Quite often I am flying in the AS350 on nasty but 'ok' days and am amazed to see 22's and 44's chopping away with no apparent reduction in speed or route!! Surely if Im feeling the bumps in the squirell it must be even worse in the teetering headed machines!!:confused:

[lostpianoplayer]

Hmmm. Well, everyone has opinions, so mebbe this'll be all controversial and stuff, but...

R22 is apparently different to the 44. I'm told the 22 actually handles better in turbulence, f'rinstance. (Shorter blades). My time is all in the 22, so I can only answer the 22 part of the question. First answer from most people, of course, would be look in the manual - Mr Robinson lays it out pretty comprehensively. In my opinion, the limitations there are bang on, if not on the high side, for lower time 22 pilots. Second answer, as usual in all aviation, is "it depends". No simple answers here - flying in or near mountains? Or on a big flat plain? We talking about wind on the ground, or up high? Weight? Density altitude? All sorts of things to consider....with all the caveats in place, and bearing in mind I'm talking ONLY about you have a few hours up, though, I'll guestimate for you...

1,
What wind strength/conditions would make you feel 'nervous'.

Personally, I've flown in up to 50 knots up high, say 30 on the ground, no worries. BUT BUT BUT - my instructor, who's very experienced, told me that was pushing it, and now I usually stay on the ground at 40 (up high) and above. Wind on the ground? I guess I'm pretty comfortable with, say, 30 knots...but gust spread would also be a very big factor. For what it's worth, when I was flying, in the mountains, in bad WX, in 50 knots, I was happy enough, but getting bumped all over the place, with pitch and roll excursions that wouldn't be comfortable for passengers. Crucial issue in a 22, of course, is mast bumping/zero G, so I tend to use reduced power settings (minimises roll in zero G) and also accept a certain amount of "where the wind takes me is where I go". I think of it as similar to white water kayaking in a strong current - you don't have total control as to your route, really - in the mountains, anyway. The stronger the wind, the more updrafts, and where there are updrafts, there be downdrafts. You certainly need to be confident with predicting what the wind is actually going to DO, when it hits big lumps of rock, before you go anywhere near said lumps of rock in high winds.

2,
What wind strength/conditions would you decide to cancel or even scrub your flight.

Cancel v scrub - synonyms? Again, it depends. At higher density altitudes, higher weights, 40 knots is my usual limit, and sometimes much lower. There are some conditions where 20 knots could get you hurt, or at best embarrassed. Depends on the mission. High DA's (eg a lot of Western US flying) means that reduced performance is a huge issue, and it may not take too much for downdraft to be greater than aircraft performance. If nothing else, I always consider fuel load in situations like this. Again, for me, the main issue is what the wind does when it hits bits of rock - downdrafts and so on. Of course, you could technically fly perfectly comfortably in 200 knots (not including landing & T/O of course) if it was a smooth flow over flat ground. Down our way, there's not much flat ground though.

3,
What wind strength would you worry about starting/stopping (blade sailing)

Anything substantial - 20 knots would have me thinking. I don't understand blade sailing as well as I would like to. I just ensure the controls are positioned so the front blade is as low as poss, which means the back one will be high....I hope I have that right?

In any wind conditions, anything at all, I also think hard about downwind operations. Often I treat my 22 as a "one way" machine - I'll ONLY fly into wind, until I'm at least 1000 feet off the ground. This means no downwind pedal turns to get to the gas pumps, or whatever...and this could be as low as 5 knots. Again, "it depends".

I have to stress - these are my PERSONAL limitations, and I cannot recommend that anyone else follow my advice. In fact, this isn't advice - just answering the question about what I do, myself. If in doubt, look in the manual, and treat that as an upper limit...and never be shy about asking an instructor to go up with you in real wind conditions and see what it's like...presuming, of course, that the instructor is experienced and competent. I've often thought there's too much of a gap between instruction (usually on good days) and real world ops for private owners. Proper comprehensive training, of course, could close that gap...

[poor southerner]

Can i tag a dumb question on to this thread.

Should be training on a 300 at either Bournemouth or Shoreham this year.

Why is an R22 cheaper to run. Is is maint or purchase price. It is cheaper to pay for the 12 year rebuild than buy the varios differnet timed parts for the 300 over same period. I know the 300 has an 0360 over the R22's 0320, surely it cant just be down to that for the £ 40 hr sfh rates ?

[Heli-kiwi]

Poor Southerner,
Parts are fewer and simpler, Just look at the drivetrain of a 300 vs an R22, look at the undercarrige of the 300 and note all those extra parts including shocks that need to be serviced. You have one extra main blade that has a limited life and a more complicated rotorhead with extra dampers and other lifed parts.
All these lifed parts have their hourly costs added up so when overhaul time comes the cash is sitting in the bank to replace those items.
Also the fact that there are many thousands of R22s out there probably means the sale of far more parts which in turn brings down production costs.

[iws]

You should be flying an Enstrom anyway. :p

[poor southerner]

would love to train on an Enstrom, I think they still have one at Goodwood as well.
But again costs are even higher for some reason. ??
It has an 0360 like a S300 and three blades. When they try and sell you one they say how good it is for component times etc, yet its even more per hour to hire / train. Again am I missing something ?

[Ding Dong]

I have all my TT on the 300. ... I recently had a chat with an R44 pilot and a walk around the R44 at a well established school as I am looking at getting a type rating. This was the first time I have stood up close and looked over an R44. .. The two types (R44 v 300) are chalk and cheese I know ...

I walked away not to keen, but not totally off the idea of getting the rating ... IMHO there are obvious short comings with the Rob family, if there was not then we would not be posting about it here.

I have a couple of Questions of a Rob pilot: Can you check the plates and Teeter hinge, Pitch rods etc physically yourself in preflight (is it required in the preflight check) .. Why are the checks for the electric bus in the engine bay??, you have to look back into the cockpit from outside to check your bulbs, this seems a tad cheap and weird ?? ... I have never looked at the manual, whats the AUW ??

I was impressed by the size of Tail Rotor, and the main blade aspect, not as large as the 206 but still bigger that expected .. Is the tail rotor authority good ??

[The Nr Fairy]

Ding Dong:

Yes, you can check all the bits you need to from a pre-flight need. Depending on how tall you are, you might need a ladder to see/feel the top surface of the blades, although I have seen someone once standing on the top of the main fuel tank.

The press-to-test lights are where they are - it was designed that way for presumably very good reasons (someone correct me, but the whole circuit gets tested, not just the bulb), like not having oodles of wiring leading to the console and back. Unless you're a midget, there's no problem seeing the lights when testing them.

AUW is 2400lb, except Raven II which is 2500. Tail rotor authority is excellent, given that Frank Robinson had a hand in re-designing the Hughes 500/OH-6 tail rotor in the late 60s. I've seen the RPM wound down in a low hover, and spot turns in a reasonable wind are still possible.

If you don't want to do the rating, then the only option for 4 seats or more is Jetty or equivalent, and add £200 an hour or so onto the R44 costs. If you've got the money, it's your choice. Personally, I think they're nice beasties.

[Ding Dong]

That was my plan (B) thought to go turbine. As I mentioned I not off the idea, the R44 is (from a glance) a more substantial heli than the R22.

Hmmmmmm, I will ponder further .... Thanks for the info above Nr Fairy

[topcat28]

Someone mentioned Enstroms... I think I'm aware of a couple of 480's that are very similar money to R44's... Are they that much cheaper than jetboxes?!

[Efirmovich]

What happened to the Wind Thread ?

E.

[Ding Dong]

What happened to the Wind Thread ?

There are various types of wind (more hot wind then cool wind).. on many threads !!!!! :}

[biggles99]

Windy days in Robinson's finest...

Lost Piano Player --

Absolutely spot on. With 3 suggestions:

1/ Blade sail. if you park/position 30 degrees out of wind, then the potential for hitting the tail is further diminished in high/gusty winds.

2/ Experience. Obviously you are quite comfortable in what most people would consider to be extremely challenging conditions. What you can cope with may be WAY beyond the limits of a lot of R22 (and other) pilots.

3/ In GENERAL TERMS, the pilot will fail before the machine, so if you aren't confident with being able to cope with the weather conditions, don't take off. If you are in the air when the bumps start, remember that the machine CAN cope until you get on the ground again.

Big Ls.

[Heli-kiwi]

Hook up the drain to a clear hose and swing the hose back up into the tank. for the R22 I'd put 10 litres in at a time then line up the broomstick beside the tube and mark away.
The syndicate I was in thought about doing it but we decided it was only a matter of time before somebody damaged the indicating system and created more headaches. I think you will find that dipsticks have been avoided for obvious reasons.....Frank would not like the idea of any foreign objects being put into Robbie tanks. If you are the sole pilot and are pretty careful it may work well for you though.

[mavila02]

I do not want to open a new thread but talking about fuel tanks, does any body know where can I buy locked fuel caps; I have not been able to find them.

Thanks in advance.

[whirlwind]

Sandy - I'll try and remember to look at one for you today and pm you later. No guarantees on accuracy of course, but it's more comforting than the useless fuel gauges in the R44 and ours is a Robinson dipstick. Cheers, WW

[Lutefisk989]

does it matter whether it's an Imperial Dipstick or a Metric Diptstick? :}

[Heli-kiwi]

So Robinson do have dipsticks then? Do they do one for the R22?

[whirlwind]

Sandy - have a look at your PMs.

I favour a dipstick in pints myself; makes it more useful for dipping the yard of ale :ok:

H-kiwi - can't answer your question about R22 dipstick I'm afraid. You'll have to contact the factory.

Cheers, WW

[heli-mad]

As far as i know a dipstick will be with the aircraft when delivered new....If its not there now...blame the previous pilot!! All our machines have one(R22 & 44, I remember seeing 2 different ones for the R22, one foe each tank. Dont know if you can get them outside the factory. I will ask our engineers and let you know!

H-M

[VeeAny]

I used to have one dipstick for the R22 i had a few years ago, had AUX in RED one one side and main in Blue on the otherl. That wasn't a factory item. I think the factory supply two with different scales, one for each tank.

I also seem to recall that Mini ( from the 60s-90s car) fuel caps fit R22s and possibly R44s. As to whether its acceptable to use them is another matter !

[helicopter-redeye]

I had a nice metal one but it was stolen (if anybody finds in please return it to me).

I'm told that it is not a std part but was made by Sloane Helicopters.
I guess if you can find one you can just have it copied.

hr

[Jackboot]

My R44 came with a fuel dipstick.

It is inscribed 'Main tank/ U.S. Gallons' and is calibrated to 45 US max.

The main tank holds 30 US, the Aux 20 ( rounded values). The Aux feeds into the Main.

It therefore reads the contents of both tanks. Because the combined fuel capacity is 50 US, RHC presumably decided on a 5 US fudge factor, possibly to allow for uneven ground?

I can easily provide you with a drawing or photo with measurements if you wish.

Catcha

Jackboot

[TiPwEiGhT]

R22's come with both Main and Aux tank dipsticks calibrated in USG.

R44's come with a dipstick (for the Main) which give you the total contents of the two tanks combined, calibrated in USG.

Dipsticks, rotor tie-downs, fuselage cover, pilot cushion, cyclic end-cap and fancy documents bag are all standard with a new Robbo. Obviousley over the years things go missing, mainly dipsticks though!

TiP

[anglechopper]

Does anyone know any schools demonstrating negitive G in the air in R22s ?

[ShyTorque]

I think if there are, there were probably no survivors.

[helimutt]

Rumour has it a french pilot used to demo negative G in an R22 but unfortunately met his demise doing that very thing. Only heard it in passing so not sure how much truth in it.

Why on earth would you want to anyway? Death wish? Go in something like a Bolkow to get the experience but leave well alone in a Robbo!!!

[Johe02]

As I understand it, this was removed from the syllabus years ago (c. '97) after a German pilot took 3 members of the "German CAA" up in an R44 to demonstrate low g and the recovery - and killed them all.

I know an instructor that claims to be the only one to survive a 'mast bump' in an R22 and that was because he started to demo the recovery just as the 'droop stops' hit the mast. He said it was as if the mast had been hit with a sledge hammer.

Low G demo is one thing - but if you go too far the recovery is just theory.

[on21]

I know it's probably been discussed in the R22 thread, but how easy is it to get into a low g situation during "normal" flying?

[4ftHover]

There has been at least one case where a passenger with a PPL pushed stick forward by mistake while trying to take a picture both were killed. - Always remove the left seat controls before departure.......

I understand Ex fixed wing guys are quite prone to pushing the stick forward out of habit i guess.

[helimutt]

it's not that easy to get into truly negative G wth normal flying, but things like a lot of turbulence, showing off etc could be a factor to watch out for. If you ever feel that slight weightless feeling, just load up the disk a bit more with gently aft cyclic.

[helicfii]

Coning hinges on a teetering rotor head should not exist- it is a crime against nature! :mad::mad::mad:

[fulldownauto]

Lu Z hath reincarnate! Now explain to the masses why the coning hinges should not be! Perhaps somthing to do with the Delta 3?

(I should mention I agree with you, Robinson should design some blades that can handle load without hinges.)

[topendtorque]

Coning hinges on a teetering rotor head should not exist- it is a crime against nature


Big call.

Now why did ol' Frank leave his last place of employment??

And, How many times have we said, why not bolt a R22 head straight onto a 269 mast, pretty much the same bolt hole I believe?

But wait there's more, maybe it was we were saying why not bolt a 269 head onto a R22 Mast, that would make sense, for lots of reasons.

Or should I ask, how do those who are deleriously pragmatic by nature solve, or even accept as a problem, an obvious conundrum?

[helicfii]

No Delta 3 in an R-22 set-up, I'm afraid... The problem with coning hinges is the main rotor blade divergence scenario, which is still not completely understood. Oddly enough, it is also not discussed at Robinson's CFI school. Instead, they spend the time extolling the virtues and safety record of the Lycoming piston engine...! :ugh: The problem is, Robinson bases their assumption on statistics gathered only in the USA, when the majority of their helicopters are operated outside of the USA- just a little bit dishonest, me thinks. :=

Anyone who flys the aircraft should read the NTSB Special Investigation Report posted above, and make sure that they understand it.

It doesn't matter that they later raised the rpm setting where the low rpm horn comes on, and it doesn't matter that they added a electric governor- it does not stop the aircraft from experiencing main rotor blade divergence. :eek:

Unload the rotor head, and the following occurs:

1. Airframe begins to roll
2. Mast bump
3. Droop stop tusk shears as blade swings down on the coning hinge
4. MR blade continues to travel downwards, passing through tail cone and front bubble.
5. Death to all occupants

[Flyin'ematlast]

Every R22 I've flown has had dipsticks ( obviously only 1 for the alpha). Just for info they have varied in colour.

The plain aluminium ones in the machines that I SFH at the moment are awful to read in bright sunlight but the anodised matt black ones I used at Heli-Air made the fuel level very clear to read in all light conditions. If you can then get the black anodised ones :ok:.

Good luck

Ian.

[Johe02]

get the black anodised

Just a spot of matt black paint actually. . :8

[Heli-phile]

I think they are usually located in the Right hand front seat!:E

[manfromuncle]

Yes, the R22 aint perfect, but if you bolt a Schweizer rotorhead on it, it becomes heavier, more expensive, requires more power, becomes slower etc etc. Then you are left with, errr, a Schweizer, lovely training aircraft, but expensive to operate, slow, and no storage space. It's a trade off.

[500e]

I will take the slow & no storage please + at least it does not have to be returned to sender.:E

[Heli-phile]

Those handy little 'storage areas' under the seats in the R22 are the difference between a sore back and a life in a wheel chair in a heavy landing event. Having seen both a R22 and a H300 that suffered heavy landings (i.e. verticle deceleration) there is no question as to which machine absorbs the most of the energy. The H300 cabins are undamaged but the skids etc are trashed (the way it should be) The R22 cabin is trashed (skids might as well not have been there!) and If those 'storage areas' are full of manuals and junk all the energy goes into the pilots backside then on and up from there. :eek:

[topendtorque]

I must say that the last three posts look like those who know back pocket pain, regardless of storage space.

Could I ask each of you, how slower would it be, given that the 269 blades are filled with air not foil, but, there must be, may be, more frontal area that is thrashing around??

Or, could that configuration be run at a more geared down level that would exclude that discussion???

I suppose for any suggested M/R xmon ratio change, that something other than a Half a Buick diff would have to be used??

auto capacity, would be not largely dissimilar?? would it??
curious??

[500e]

AND whats wrong with half a Buick diff? also blades not held together with glue & paint.
Is this where I hear incoming:suspect:

[aldee]

"anglechopper wrote"
Does anyone know any schools demonstrating negitive G in the air in R22s ?


I think you'll find an instructor at Wanaka that will show you low to neg. in an R 22 although an EMS pilot/instructor I use who was put through his paces by Simon suggests one demonstration of true -ve will be enough for anyone:eek:

Did some mountain flying with one of their instructors recently and during a period of turbulence we got a very good example of what happens during low "g" .

If the 6000' landing on Mt. Aspiring wasn't justifaction enough for the $500 spend the low "g" roll was the icing on the cake.
One of the best days flying to date :ok:

[CS-Hover]

Hi

i'm trying to do some calculations, about the fuel tank capacity , but needing some help (not near R22 now :rolleyes:)

QUESTION 1: both tanks (main and aux) are connected together, so the level of fuel, in each tank will always be the same (U tube hydrostatics example) - when the AUX go empty (less capacity, and higher end) the MAIN still have the quantity of fuel given by the difference between MAIN-AUX capacity ???

QUESTION 2: (if Q1 = true) it's possible to know the quantity of fuel in both tanks (total), only by knowing the amount of fuel in the MAIN - not total accurate - dipstick use


regarding the dipsticks (R22 or R44), can anyone post a picture, please?

thanks

regards

[SpinningSnowbird]

CS-Hover:

Question 1: No, the difference in tank capacity is not merely because the main tank is deeper, the aux tank is also shorter lengthwise than the main tank. On level ground you can expect approximately 4-5 US Gal remaining in the main tank at the point that the aux tank runs dry.

Question 2: I suppose that you could now estimate aux tank fuel with a formula like this:

(Main tank gallons - 5)/(19.8 - 5) x 10.9)

However, this is now approaching something close to witchcraft, since dipstick fuel measurements are more of an art than a science.

Also, since the connecting tube between the tanks is of relatively small diameter, it can take a while for tank levels to equalize, so don't try this immediately after fueling.

Every dipstick I've ever seen is just a length of wooden dowel with gallon markings on it.

Cheers, SS.

[Gaseous]

The best dipstick is a piece of black anodised angle alloy with a piece of clear pipe held to it with cable ties. Scratch the calibration marks on the alloy. Dip the tank. Put thumb over open end of pipe. Fuel stays in pipe when dipstick withdrawn from tank. Absolutley no doubt about the level. Remove thumb from pipe and it empties. If you have 2 tanks with different amounts the calibration marks can be different on each web of the angle. Simple, cheap, 100% reliable.

I'll post a picture of mine later.

To calibrate, empty tanks, add known quantity of fuel, wait to equalise, dip and scratch. Repeat.

[CS-Hover]

Hi

SpinningSnowbird:

can you explain how you came to the "expect approximately 4-5 US Gal remaining in the main tank at the point that the aux tank runs dry." ??

i'm with you on "connecting tube between the tanks is of relatively small diameter, it can take a while for tank levels to equalize"

but see my point:

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/3525/r22fueltankcopynj2.jpg

both start at decrease at same time, since the tanks start at same height, because are interconnected, both will have the same height all the time (as fuel is consumed) - there will some delay because tube diameter, maneuvers, ...

so when the level (consumption) goes that, AUX is empty, the MAIN will still have (19.8 - 10.9 = ) 8.9 US Gal

make sense ?? :confused:


Gaseous:
picture will be appreciated :D

regards

[lostpianoplayer]

1. Blade Sail. Biggles99, thx for suggestion re blade sailing - just one question - do you mean 30 degrees EITHER WAY??? ie wind coming from 1.30 position vs wind from 10.30 position??? I would have the thought the direction of rotation would mean one would be better than the other. Any idea??

2. Dipsticks (fuel). I'm very interested to hear about this - most of my time is fixed wing, where you're always told that the fuel gauges are innaccurate. and you ALWAYS verify visually, or with a dipstick, where possible before flight. The existence of fuel dipsticks for the 22 new to me, I'm afraid. I've always been a little uncomfortable w trusting my gauges, and try to use common sense to back up the gauges.....BUT a fuel dipstick would be marvelous....

BUT...I don't know how the indicator system works, and always thought that it was unwise just to ram something in the tank, gently or otherwise. Is it, in fact, safe to put some sort of fuel dipstick straight down from the fuel tank filler hole, till it hits the bottom of the tank? I guess I'd always imagine some form of helicopter version of the ball-on-lever thingie you see inside a toilet cistern, or something equally fragile, and didn't want to damage it. Thinking about it, this may have been a little naive. Anyone know EXACTLY how the indication system works, and whether there are, in fact, any risks in dipping the tanks? I'm referring to my own machine, which is a R22B. It's strange - I trained w a good school, but never saw or heard anything about tank-dipping. Thoughts welcome.

[Gaseous]

Here you go, a painted one, not anodised but it does the job. Not brilliant photos but I'm sure you get the idea. The final one shows just above 43 litres, thumb still on top of pipe of course. No problems trying to read it before the fuel evaporates here!
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/avenuedentistry/stick1.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/avenuedentistry/stick2.jpg
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/avenuedentistry/stick4.jpg

And NEVER rely on the gauge. AAIB has plenty of tales of those who did.

[manfromuncle]

This is what I tell my students for weight and balance calculations and it works very well

Main tank USgallons = (total fuel x 0.6) + 2

[Brilliant Stuff]

When I started flying the R22 we used to have dipsticks for it, they looked factory but maybe the mist of time are working against me on that but they were T shaped and you dropped them through the filler neck and they would rest on the top of the T, now you would pull them out and hey presto you knew how much was left. We had one for the big tank and one for the Aux tank. Maybe banjo24 can back me up?

[Runway101]

I read once (believe at the Robinson Helicopter Owners Group) that RHC doesn't supply them _any more_, it was mentioned that this was maybe for liability reasons. Not sure if this was indeed exactly true. Maybe they never did, and it's something dealers add?

At the safety course they explained how these gages work, and said that they are pretty accurate. They actually said that using dip sticks might make it unsafe, because you may damage the fuel senders with the sticks, introduce other stuff into your tanks, etc etc.

I flew lots of R22s with home made sticks, but also saw these T-shaped ones mentioned above. Maybe it's time for another after market product. On R44 however, I've never seen any of these dipsticks (didn't fly many different R44's though).

[Lost Again]

Heliair at Wycombe make them for the 22 and 44


r

[windowseatplease]

Peoples opinions differ on the use of R22 dipsticks, some say "always dip before and after flying", others say "dont use dipsticks, they can damage the fuel sender".

A bit like pulling the tail down to check the TR flex coupling, some people do it, but others say 'dont do it - it strains the tail too much' (I think this is what Robinson tell you on the Safety Course)

Personally, I have always trusted the gauges, and have never had a problem after 1,000+ hours in R22s.

I have flown two-tank Schweizer 300 CBIs that have very unreliable gauges, even brand new machines.

[Heli-phile]

This report is like the elephant in the corner, no-one seems to want to go there!!:\

[bvgs]

I used to use dip sticks in my 22, don't have them now in my 44. An engineer friend hated them as said they could damage the sender and introduce crap into the fuel tank if they were not totally clean. I don't miss them now as I believe that: 1. The guages are fairley accurate. 2. If you fly the heli on a regular basis you know the way both guages go down together, so if one was faulty you would know. 3. You should know your fuel burn and keep accurate records of when refueled etc anyway. 4. Finally you have 3 things to go wrong before you fall out the sky: 2 guages and a low fuel sensor, all independent of each other.

I speak with regard to my own machine that only I fly, sure it might be different at a school, but point no 4 still holds!

[SpinningSnowbird]

CS-Hover,

You are close. Your explanation would be correct if the length and width of the tanks were the same and they only differed in depth. However, the aux tank is not only less deep than the main tank, but also shorter in the longitudinal axis, ie from the front of the tank to the back of the tank. I think it may also be narrower laterally, but I'm not certain.

So the excess volume is not just at the bottom of the main tank, it is also at the aft end of the tank. Here's a simple diagram with an aux tank (in black) overlaid inside a main tank (in blue), not to scale by any means:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/mattyg.net/SDJQN898-6I/AAAAAAAAABk/N4Q9IAhUJCs/s144/pprune1.jpg

If we were to remove the crossfeed tube so that the tanks' levels didn't automatically equalize, and then remove an equal amount of fuel from each tank, we would observe that the fuel level in the aux tank would decrease more than the fuel level in the main tank.

Hope this helps,

SS.

[VfrpilotPB/2]

Gas,


What a good and simple device, visual and only a thumb as a working part,.... sounds a bit like a Robbie!:ok:

Peter R-B

[Runway101]

With the R22 it is probably more important to add the correct amount of fuel due to weight limitations, but on the R44 (Raven 2) I usually top off and stick my finger into the tanks to see if I am fully loaded.

[bvgs]

Runaway, is your finger properly calibrated and is it part of the annual to get it checked:). I actually do the same on my Raven II. as a matter of interest what do you reckon your fuel burn equates to?

[tegwin]

Im planning a little camping trip up North in an R-22.


The storage space in the r-22 is a little limited...

So if I load my tent etc into my (quite large) rucksack and strap it into the left hand seat making sure that all straps etc are restrained, and providing that my W&B is all within limits...

Would this be acceptable practice?

[windowseatplease]

Dual controls out & kit well strapped in.. shouldnt be a problem. Best check the POH though.

[topendtorque]

is your finger properly calibrated and is it part of the annual to get it checked:).


hah haha and where has your funger been? cleanliness in the fuel is sacred.

[choppertop]

Quick one for ya, chopper chaps and cyclic sisters...

Lateral W&B arm on the R22 for the BEM is always.... zero? Books and my hunch suggest it is; instructor thinks otherwise.

Thoughts please.

Cheers

[helimutt]

check the PO handbook regarding Lateral C of G.
You don't usually need to determine the lat CG position unless unusual installation or loading of equip occurs.
I wouldn't have thought it was always zero though.
Does that help?

[VeeAny]

The fact that the RFM gives you a lateral vs longitudinal graph, probably gives away that you can be expected to calculate it.

However if there isn't a lateral arm or moment in the schedule completed by the people who weighed it what else can you be expected to do but assume it is zero when the aircraft is free of any load(s).

Make sure the RFM hasn't got the actual airframe schedule hidden in it somewhere, often in the weight and balance section.

I've got 40 R22s that I've flown in the database and only 1 has a lateral moment specified for it.

[JoeM]

Look in your techlog at the details of its latest weighing and you will find the answer there. For the longitudinal it will specify the helicopters weight and it's datum ie the start point from which you start the calculation. However I have never seen a start point for the lateral arm ie. they seem to always presume that the aircraft starts at zero BUT as the start point is not specified the ACTUAL lateral cannot be calculated only one given a presumed starting point and what use is that?

Therefore my answer has always been that it cannot be calculated....and I've never got into trouble for that:ok:

[Camp Freddie]

Choppertop and JoeM you are i believe wrong

just did a sample calculation with 200lb pilot 150lb copilot 10 galls in main tank and 5 galls in aux tank and got answer of +0.95 inches i.e. to the right.

so your instructor is right i think

1) so the initial lateral is 0 and the a/c forms no part of calc
2) 0 is halfway across a/c laterally
3) everything loaded to right is a +ve and to the left a -ve
4) the arms which are all between -11 to +11.2 are for a sample a/c check your weight and balance schedule to see if they are the same for your a/c
5)lateral is almost always going to be +ve

200* 10.7 = 2140
150* (9.3) = (1395)
60* (11.0) = (660)
30* 11.2 = 336

total moment/total weight = 421/440 = 0.9568

[choppertop]

Fellas, delighted we've ignited on this. Woo hoo.

1. I've checked the POH and the C of G schedule in the tech docs and no lateral arm listed that we could see on either of the 22s at the school.

2. John Swan's book bases his calcs for BEM lateral arm on zero.

3. Are you suggesting, CF, that I'm a bit of a porker? A trim 155lbs if you please...

[Cynicstick]

I'd go with your instructor on this! Try not to get bogged down with minutiae but pay particular attention to MAUW though with Mr Cross on board! Good luck with your LST.

[helimutt]

you saying he's fat? :)

[212man]

If the aircraft is not symmetrical, how can it be 0? Fuel tank on the left, TR on the right, POM under the seat etc

[sebbo]

Hi

I have two questions concerning the Robinson R-22 helicopter.

1. When the Cylinder head temperature gage stops working while in flight, and shows the same as when shut off, what does that mean?

2. How much max. takeoff power can we pull when we are in a R22 Beta, at
5000ft. pressure altitude and and OAT of 18degree celsius. And what does the
Full Throttle on the Chart mean?

Thanks in advance
Best regards

[Chopper Doc Junior]

Either the cylinder temperature head thermocouple is broken or the wires are broken or you have a guage problem. No way of knowing until you investigate it. If your maintenance people have a thermocouple test set then it is a easy problem to diagnose.

Can't answer your other question though.

[tattooed]

Ditto on #1


#2-Refer to your POH. You cannot pull more than FT. If you DO, you will destroy your drive train. The engine on the R22 is stronger than Frank's lightweight drive train (part of the derating and hence lower operating costs).
Weight aside, with the parameters you gave, 23.5" is all you've got, and probably not much avail at that PA.


~T

[topendtorque]

And what does the
Full Throttle on the Chart mean?


you are high enough to have wound the throttle right up against the stops, (make sure that you have not exceeded the POH power limits) now as you climb higher you will notice that the MAP decreases, there is no more left. You must maintain RRPM by lowering the collective.

You will also enter a realm of dicsussing as to whether this is the most ecenomical range setting and other interesting arguments. There are threads on the subject (s)?.

To run a motor in, that hasn't been on a test truck it is where we go for about 45 minutes.?? that's a small outside the square trick.
tet

[VeeAny]

While writing up some training notes today I came across this and remembered this thread, thought I'd post it in case its of use to anyone with a similar Question in the future.

http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/images/r22frmcrop6-4.jpg

Its an extract from a Robinson R22 Pilots Operating Handbook in the weight and balance section.

[800]

If your Mechanics (Engineers), ie your approved weighting specialist, has not provided a lateral arm and moment on the intial aircraft weight details then they are not doing their job properly.

If this has occured, you may find that they usally weigh fixed wing aircraft!

As said before you cannot compute a lateral CG if the base figure is not there, irrespective whether your particular loading would exceed a limit or not.

Just by placing a pilot in the PIC seat you usually (most types) are imposing a lateral CG condition. You may (and should not, in this instance), exceed any limitation BUT you should now it is there.

Start with the basics and HASSLE you Mechanics for the RIGHT info.

:ok:

800

[muffin]

I remember a thread here many years ago that came to the conclusion that you should have the wind in your left hip pocket when slowing the blades down in gusty conditions.

[droop_snoot]

if you have a look out back you can see the blade climbing over the tailboom nicely with the wind on your right...

[Pandalet]

The general recommendation is with the nose just out of wind, so you get an easier landing, but the blades shouldn't flap into the tail boom.

[topendtorque]

I remember a thread here many years ago that came to the conclusion that you should have the wind in your left hip pocket when slowing the blades down in gusty conditions.

Not so sure about that. does that mean from your rear left quarter? If so then how do you start it if is a turbine, if you're out in the bush without ground handling gear, and the wind is still blowing?

My rule of thumb is, in stiff winds, always position the machine fifteen degrees or so off the wind, either way. One way the blades will be climbing over the tail boom, the other they will still be descending.

Its a topical question as one dude not far from here a few months ago did position his machine (an R22) on the edge of an escarpment facing directly into an approaching storm with wind gusts. Surprise surprise, as it was running down he got a dint in the tail-boom, but then flew home.

I am led to believe that his engineering team gave him the chewing he deserved.

Mind you, I would not have parked on top of the hill, where there is likely to be that nasty electrical stuff.

[TrT]

As she has just started up before the clutch switch is even on or is engaged the blades are turning.. Good or bad? I understand if the belts are new that can occur.

[Hedge36]

Not a huge deal.

[GOT]

As she has just started up before the clutch switch is even on or is engaged the blades are turning.. Good or bad? I understand if the belts are new that can occur.

If the machine is new it's common that the drive belts are quite tight at least the first 50 hours. This is nothing to worry about.

GOT

[muffin]

Mine used to do that. It is just a simple adjustment to cure it.

[Hughesy]

Seems like these things always drop out of the sky.
Yes they have trained alot of pilots....but they have also killed alot of them!
Isn't it time to look at getting rid of the peices of.......

Preparing to duck from incoming.....but hopefully not robbo bits!

:E:ok:

[Rotorhead1026]

Flame bait ... don't bite. :ugh:

[Scissorlink]

I know of 3 in the last ten days

[hef]

Guimbal Cabri G2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guimbal_Cabri_G2) ???

Fingers crossed....

[Gas Producer]

Hughesy, old boy,

You're a game man. Feeling like a bit of controversy, are we? Hope you have a good helmet for the incoming when in starts.

Good luck, and know when to duck, my friend.

GP:uhoh:

[Ding Dong]

You know what they say ... 'Guns don't kill people .. People do' :hmm:

[Big Foot]

Im thinking Hugesy that you have not flown 22s that much, almost always the people that bag them have not much experience on them, nothing wrong with them i reckon. Most 22 accidents are from pilot error like most accidents.
BF

[Tarman]

When did "alot" become a word ? :ok:

[Ding Dong]

Guimbal Cabri G2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guimbal_Cabri_G2) ???

Would roll over in a stiff breeze .. but thats going to be a whole other thread, I can't wait !!!! ... :p

[bugdevheli]

Could someone tell me how the loadpath is passed through the stack of bearings in the 22 or 44 blade roots. I have dismantled them as far as removing the bearing pack from the blade, but have not had occasion to remove the bearings from their stub shaft. I cannot understand as yet how four of five bearings stacked in this manner achieve a higher load carrying capacity than say one thrust bearing and two radial bearings to accomodate the lift and driving forces. Puzzled Bug.

[Ranger III]

I would like to know if the regulation SFAR-73 for Robinson R22 is still valid.

In the official letter (SFAR-73) I read as follows: .....3. Expiration date. This SFAR terminates on March 31, 2008, unless sooner superceded or rescinded.

From the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) Switzerland, the answer I get ist not satisfactory!

Thanks for your answers

[EN48]

Look here: SFAR Robinson R-22/R-44 Special Training and Experience Requirements (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/14547436CDBEE122862575040074D203?OpenDocument)

[VeeAny]

I think the reason there is confusion about this is because the SFAR database seems to have a few anomolous entries in it.

One says SFAR73-2 is valid until terminated but the text of the document has 30 June 2009 in it , but the bottom of the document says until terminated. It appears we are supposed to replace the 30 June 2009 with the until terminated entry, I've just had a look at the way the wording about the dates was changed in the other versions of the document and it was done the same way.

The other says SFAR 73 is valid until 30 June 3009 (yes 3009) and yet the document itself say 30 June 2009.

I found this http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-12532.pdf which seems to detail what they actually meant.

I put some stuff together on this ages ago, it doesn't detail the SFAR requirements just the history of the SFAR and what they based it on you can find it at Griffin Helicopters | Interpreting SFAR 73 in the UK. (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/note/sfar73.asp)

RangerIII remember that SFAR73 is only mandatory for FAA licenced pilots (possibly to FAA registred helicopters, but I cannot remember that). If you are not under FAA jurisdication the SFAR may not have been adopted by your local authority.

[Runway101]

RangerIII remember that SFAR73 is only mandatory for FAA licenced pilots (possibly to FAA registred helicopters, but I cannot remember that). If you are not under FAA jurisdication the SFAR may not have been adopted by your local authority.

I know at least one flight school in Switzerland that has a SFAR73 Safety Awareness Course that you have to complete before your first solo flight (they say it's required by SFAR73 but they don't mention why this is needed in Switzerland).

The topics of the awareness training were brought to my attention during normal ground lessons at my FAA school in the USA, while this school in Switzerland actually charges for it separately and wrapped it in a 4 hour course.

If I am not wrong then according to the SFAR73 that I remember this awareness training is needed by anyone who manipulates the controls of a R22, not just before the first solo as they describe it.

The R22 POH refers to SFAR73 so it may be required by the Swiss authorities as well, but I don't really know that.

SFAR73 is definitely still valid and not expired.

[VeeAny]

Runway101

Yes the SFAR is still valid, its just a matter of whether the local authorities have decided to adopt it or not. We are not all licenced as FAA pilots and as such not subject to their rules.

Indeed this link is the SFAR embodied in 14 CFR part 61 which is where it lives Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.0.1.1.7) and clearly says
This SFAR No. 73 shall remain in effect until it is revised or rescinded. which makes life a whole lot easier without needing to look at the SFAR database.

The POH refers to the awareness training in SFAR 73 as part of the last page of the limitations section, and that is only if the wind is outside the limits specified on that page.

That is as a result of an AD (the AD no. is specified at the bottom of the page) that modifies the flight manual, there was a similar one for the R44 which was rescinded a few years ago.

Please don't think that I am trying to say that its not worth doing, I think SFAR 73 is worth its weight in gold, its just the "Is it still applicable" and "Do you legally need to do it according to your national authority" that I am talking about.

[Handsome Bob]

Hi,

I am having ignition problems with my R22 and feel that my ignition barrel may be not making contact as it should. Has anyone else had these issues?

I have the barrel out and am testing the different contacts, but without an ignition diagram, I am unable to determine which, or where the fault lies?

Does anyone have access to these diagrams? I can't find them on the net and my engineer is not back for 3 weeks from holiday?

I realise the key switch is wired into other circuits like the rotor brake, clutch system and landing light etc., but still cant find any other reason why its not switching as it should?


Any help would be greatly appreciated,

:ugh::ugh:

[ShyTorque]

You will of course remember, that to spark, magnetos are "ungrounded" rather than switched on. ;)

[RVDT]

I wouldn't be too worried about it as you have just rendered the aircraft U/S.

Read up on the CASA Regs. I don't think this comes under "pilot maintenance".

[puntosaurus]

I'm sure all R22 instructors and pilots who read the 1996 NTSB Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf) were left with a lingering sense of unease. The problem was that the Californian accident with the student's informal CVR simply defied rational explanation, and that's where it sat with me until an incident last week.

I was flying as an instructor with a low time but very competent student on a routine sortie prior to sending him off on his third solo. We took off, and on the downwind turn (Left Hand), he slightly overbanked it to around 30 degrees. No cause for alarm, and I let him get on with it, knowing it was well within his capabilities to sort out.

In this condition we got hit by a gust, not severe, but enough to increase the bank angle another 10 degrees or so. At that point, my very competent student threw in a bunch of cyclic into the turn. The raw shock factor meant that we were almost on our side before I was able to return us to the horizontal.

However, the shock did not prevent me from observing what had happened. Basically he was pushing the T-Bar cyclic as hard as he could into his seat, as if trying to steer the ship back to level, rather than input opposite lateral cyclic. Of course by pushing the cyclic down, the geometry meant that he was actully adding into turn cyclic.

I have no doubt that had he been on his own, he would have crashed the aircraft and died. I'm also somewhat relieved that because of the shock factor my response was measured, because I think if I'd snatched it back to level we could have had mast bumping.

I'm posting this not to get brickbats or bouquets for what I did, but to give food for thought. I've always been agnostic about the T-Bar cyclic, but I think I'm coming off the fence after this incident.

[Runway101]

Basically he was pushing the T-Bar cyclic as hard as he could into his seat, as if trying to steer the ship back to level, rather than input opposite lateral cyclic. Of course by pushing the cyclic down, the geometry meant that he was actually adding into turn cyclic.

I am not sure if the cyclic design is to blame here, at least not as the sole culprit. I remember that I caught myself once or twice reverting to car driving (steering) mechanisms very early in my training when the helicopter went ahead of me. I didn't take notes of this, so I can't tell if it was at hour 2 or 20, and it was probably just a microsecond before I realized, but I remember that I definitely had that thought and it took a while to program my brain for proper helicopter logic (remember the old story of 10.000-hour-fixed-wing-guys-turned-helicopter-pilots dropping the nose instinctively if something goes wrong? I guess this goes into the same drawer).

Reactions to such unintended and uncontrolled attitudes happen in the sub-conscious, that's why it is so important to get this programmed into your brain. Only when things become second nature, if you know what to do in your sleep and by instinct, then you are ready to go fly a helicopter on your own.

Now I am not your chief, but in my opinion a qualified instructor should ask himself how his student would react in an unexpected situation that gives him only a blink of an eye to react. Would he do the right thing? And I am not talking about entering auto rotation quick enough if the engine fails or even lowering the collective instead of raising it. I am speaking of something unexpected and not trained for. If the answer is 'i am not sure' or 'i am not confident', don't let your student go solo. Try him, that's what you are there for. If they are not there yet, talk to them about visualization and sofa flying.

I am not sure how long you have been instructing or if I am on to something completely wrong here, but I'd rather take this as an opportunity for yourself to improve your ability to rate a student as ready or not (instead of blaming the stupid Robinson cyclic design).

There, I said it, I am also not a friend of the cyclic design, I would rather like to use something like in a real helicopter (actually, I would like to fly a real helicopter instead of a Robinson, best the AW139). But I personally wouldn't blame the cyclic for this eye opening situation. Take it positive and look out in the future.

My 2 cents.

(sorry if this sounds like a lecture, wasn't intended as such and you would probably be the more qualified person to give lectures to myself)

[puntosaurus]

Well, thanks for the advice, but I've given this post a title in the hope that future contributors will centre the discussion where I intended.

[Runway101]

You are welcome ;-)

[tyl3r]

...pushing the T-Bar cyclic as hard as he could into his seat, as if trying to steer the ship back to level, rather than input opposite lateral cyclic. Of course by pushing the cyclic down, the geometry meant that he was actully adding into turn cyclic.
Sorry to be a bit thick, but I can't visualise what you're describing here. ie. referenced to machine/horizon, pull/push. Even given that I could understand the movement, I'm not sure how the t-cyclic is different to a 'real' one in this regard. [Keen to learn.]

[chopjock]

tyl3r,
Imagine the T bar as a large steering wheel. The student in the right seat has his hand on the right side of the "wheel" and wishes to bank right. He would pull down on the handle. I did this once my self when training for the first time in a robbo, my instructor immediately took control!:eek:

[puntosaurus]

The T-Bar (http://www.johnpmorgan.com/helicopters/robinson-cyclic/) cyclic.

[tyl3r]

Sorry, I'd missed the significance of steer in that context, despite Runway101 mentioning it in his post. I understand now. Thanks.

[topendtorque]

Have seen plenty of dozer drivers, push the steer clutch levers like crazy when the blade is loaded right up. Of course it doesn't mean a damm, it cannot help the power of the machine, and for any effect on the steer clutch they must be pulled.

With a big load that is when everything stops dead with one track not driving, far easier to turn by side tilting the blade to lift one side and hey presto the whole deal turns toward to more loaded side, unlike the TBAR cyclic.

Are you sure your student is not a dozer driver by perchance??

[puntosaurus]

That's uncanny TET, yes he is !

[j21k]

Hi there, I own a R22HP. I have been out flying today for over two hours & landed.
Gone to move the machine later on and the clutch wont engage. Starts works fine ive checked the circuit breakers.. any ideas ??? Am I about to get a big :rolleyes:bill.

Many Thanks

[21lefthand]

It once happened to me and it was a faulty micro switch

[IntheTin]

Micro switch won't allow it to turn over. He said it would start but won't engage the clutch....;)

[Runway101]

I am not sure about the R22, but on the R44 there is a clutch actuator test plug tool (MT558-1) that you use on the 100hr inspection.

I remember that I overheard a conversation a long time ago where the guy asked for a tool at RHC, just in case his clutch on a Raven I wouldn't engage anymore. Call your maintenance center, they will know what I am talking about.

You can also use a paperclip instead of the test plug. The test plug actually just short circuits pins 1-2 or pins 2-3, depending how you put it in. It's that unused white plastic connector (http://pictures.xbox-scene.com/xbox360/360sata/Molex-style-power-connector.jpg) (click for image of how it kind of looks like) that hangs out of the aft cowl door. It's fixed to the frame with some cable binders if I am not wrong. Ever wondered what that is for?

However, before doing anything like that I'd get confirmation from your mechanic. I've just heard about it, never used it myself. There could be more to it.

[topendtorque]

j21k
I think that you will find that the clutch circuitry is all same, same for all R22's.

You can bypass the problem usually. if it is not just a blown fuse as ivor points out.

You should have in your kit a short piece of wire to short circuit the malfunction when next you recognize it, so as you don't cop a large bill from ol' mate engineer who has to drive way out to where you are, on a sunday arvo, and do exactly what you can do with your bit of wire, until he gets it back in his hanger on a sober monday!

Get some friendly advice as to how to engage the clutch with the wire, and you need not worry about being left out bush.

Get good advice, because if the actuator motor is smoking it would not be a good idea to then smoke the rest of your electrics.
cheers tet

[s8b]

Does anybody know for certain whether illumination of the clutch light with the switch in the "engaged" position can only indicate movement in the tensioning direction? In other words, can the clutch motor run in reverse with "engage" selected?

The clutch light in flight always indicates that the clutch is increasing tension?

This question came up on a written test. I think you need a maintenance manual schematic to answer it...the POH is ambiguous.

Thanks.

[rjtjrt]

s8b
Clutch light means it is moving in either direction (engaging and disengaging). If you look at shut down proceedure you leave master on whilst clutch is disengaging and only turn off master when clutch light goes out.
John

[s8b]

John-( rjtjrt)
Right..but on shutdown, the clutch switch is "disengage". That really wasn't my question.

Thanks.
Steve

[chopmoo]

Hello , I am looking for the dimensions of the R22 HP,Alpha ,and Beta ,I have the Beta ll ones from the Robinson website but am unable to get the others ,any help would be good
Thanks

[IntheTin]

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=r22+Specs)

Try this one.....:}

[Tru North]

In The Tin - i like that link!!! :D

[topendtorque]

In The Tin - i like that link!!! :D


I concur, excellent.
I see you've only just joined, tru north; Hi, all the best.

If you read back a bit and if my aleing memory serves me correctly i think you will find that 'In the tin' has good reason for posting very sharp comments.

Me i've got quite a lot of experience on heaps of equine models, from the dumbest and slowest to the smartest and that other type the, extremely rough in front of buckle bunnies etc, but never the fast ones. although I did try a couple of times. Mostly I used them to achieve an end.

But when it comes to being sharp, i've yet to meet an ex hoop that ain't.

That is, unless he was just kidding us all along in one post quite some moons ago
cheers tet

[waragee]

I believe there are some new and different R22 drive belts coming into use. Has anyone any early observations or thoughts on how they are performing.

[heli heney]

Mate getting a set and said that they are much harder. Much tighter when fitted too. So all good one hopes. :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/US-2010-24-03)

Just to pass on details of an AD

This amendment is prompted by two reports of Model R22 helicopters experiencing broken supports during flight, which resulted in the T/R control pedals becoming jammed. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent the supports from breaking, which can bind the T/R control pedals, resulting in a reduction of yaw control and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

[chopper2004]

Ummm, whats happened to the R22 Mariner II, can't seem to find it ton the RHC web under products. Swore it was one of the options of the R22....unless the Mariner's stopped production?

[skidoc]

My fuse burned and when replaced, the clutch actuator functions normally. A mechanic told me probably related to a low battery charge since not flying as much during the winter but happened again when just flown 2 days ago. Any ideas or thoughts appreciated. :confused:

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Check the wires that run across the top of the Globe clutch motor on the left hand side of the aircraft at the tailboom attach points, it is best to put a dob of silicone where they chafe on the edge of the motor.

Otherwise, check the disengage limit microswitch, (the limit screw you use to ensure the blades are turning within the required time). I have had instances where the clutch reaches its disengage limit internally before the microswitch tells it to stop and the resulting high current draw blows the fuse. If you have Revision Z belts fitted, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the problem.

Hope that helps! Happy New Year!

[ifresh21]

Hi,

I am just wondering what a spindle/spindle bearing is. I have looked around and am quite unsure. I am not sure if there is a difference between spindle and spindle bearing.

How important is it, also. (might be a silly question)

Edit: I am talking about spindle bearings in relation to - the rotor system(blades/hub/) of the Robinson R22 Helicopter.

Thank you!

I found some pics online. I am not sure if they are of the entire thing, or only parts.

http://i53.tinypic.com/juxs1v.gif
http://i53.tinypic.com/2m64snm.jpg (courtesy of http://www.covehelicopter.com/uploads/Spindle.jpg and http://unicopter.com/Temporary/Robinson_Spindle.gif respectively)

[Devil 49]

Context, please? Best guess is the pitch change bearing at the root of a rotor blade, so very important.

[ifresh21]

"Context?"

What does the spindle do/what is it's purpose?

Is that what you mean?

[anti-talk]

Overspeed????

[ifresh21]

I would like to know how an overspeed affects the spindle.

I want to know what the spindle does though as well though

[FSXPilot]

Depends how big the overspeed was. At worst it can cause damage to the spindle bearing. The spindle bearings purpose is to allow the blade to change pitch. If it is damaged then the helicopter can develop vibrations and become difficult to control.
If an over speed is suspected then one of the actions would be to remove the blades and check the spindle bearings to see if there is a problem. Without draining the fluid in the boot this is problematic. Sometimes it is obvious that the bearing does not feel right without draining the fluid but it is much more apparent after the fluid has been drained.

[ifresh21]

Ok so spindle bearings cause the blades to change pitch. So the entire assembly is the "spindle", and the "spindle bearings" are in inside the assembly.?

Does anyone have an idea of why exactly it is that the spindle bearings are damaged due to high RPM? Why is it that out of all the parts, the bearings inside that would become damaged?

[topendtorque]

Ok I'll try to help you in your picture the lower right image that looks like an axle off the front of your motor car and it works in exactly the same way. you will see there is a hole through it which allows it to be connected to the head, rigid in the lateral plane. It has a thread on the end, that there device is the SPINDLE.

It is a spindle cos everything else spins around it OK?

fitted over that is two bearings and a seal, the white bit in the bottom picture, and on the end is a nut, which has a locking device on it to stop it coming off.

Those bearings are the spindle bearings, the outer race of them are fit snugly inside the blade root (the belled out section) in such a manner that the outer race stays fixed firmly to the blade which turns with the blade when the pitch horn is pushed up or down.

Inside the bearing is a set of small balls which act as rollers and run in a grooved race and allow the turning up or down movement of the usual pitch change.

Those bearings are rated to carry a heavy load dependent on the weight and rotational speed of the particular helicopter blades, as when the blades rotate they generate centrifugal force.

If the blades spin too fast the force will be greater than the load rating of those particular bearings and they abrade heavily against the outer race causing indentations. That is a loose description of what a brinelled bearing will look like, one with indents around the outer race and the balls bounce over them when the blade is rotated up or down by hand.

Or they will be be stuck in them when it is running and thus not allowing the free movement which causes much more wear than if they were allowed to move freely.

that will cause the bearing to wear out quickly and allow for looser uncontrolled movements of the blades which will put them out of alignment at random times thus causing all sorts of nasty bounces.

If unchecked the bearing would eventually collapse and one or other of the blades might fly off. That would really bring tears to your eyes and almost certainly pop the wax outa yer ears just prior to your departure onward to the pearly gates.

howzat, comprez?
tet

[ifresh21]

Thank you for the really good in depth description topend.

So the bearings are the only thing connecting the blade to the rest of the rotor head? I figured that the bearings weren't actually holding the blade against the centrifugal force to keep them from flying away, just allowing them to rotate.

So what signs would there be before catastrophic failure(R22)? Would you be able to feel it when you to the cyclic and collective checks(moving the collective and cyclic around before start). Any inflight signs etc.

[topendtorque]

you wouldn't notice it in the cyclic but the collective may well be much heavier than usual.

You can feel it when you do your daily inspection. an exaggerated feeling would be like rolling under your hand a six sided pencil across a smooth table top.

It may be unusual for a pilot training facility to have a set of brinelled bearings as a teaching aide for demonstration purposes, but they should have.

alternatively you could go down to your local friendly motor car repair station and ask for a set of worn out front stub axle bearings. They might be roller bearings instead of ball bearings, but the same principle applies and they are easy to dissasemble and then you will see the small indentations on both the inner and outer races, and sometimes the same on the rollers, and in extreme cases under a ten power magnifying glass you can easily see where small slivers of steel have departed the bearing surfaces of all three components.

Put a very light coating of light oil on the bearing surfaces, hold them together firmly and rotate them against each other and you will easily feel the brinelling action.

Those tiny slivers of steel is one of the things that you look for to indicate wear in any bearings and other parts of your engine when you cut open your oil filter and examine the contents.

you should also have a ten power glass in you kit at all times to check other suspicious looking marks which may be cracks.

[RVDT]

Normally apparent after the Robinson phenomena of "kicking a goal"

Thats when them 2 little white RPM needles do their best impression of a couple of goal posts!

I'll get my coat. :}

[sycamore]

ifresh21, I think that T-E-T has given a great explanation,especially with the analogy to the car.Many components/driveshafts /gearboxes can be related to autos in operation ,although they may look somewhat different. Remember also that the t/rotor also has similar bearings,and a failure /impending problem can sometimes be felt thru` the yaw pedals....however,it needs `sympathetic` feet/hands to feel a `brinelling` bearing,but if you are ever in doubt,get an engineer to check.If you look at the thread `A haven for rotary nostalgia,p 26, #518, you will also see the results/analysis of a `Jesus nut ` that had not been inspected properly/used repeatedly possibly ,with the loss of pilot and aircraft. I` ve also had a t/r failure when the t/r blade spindle had not been `rolled` properly in manufacture,allowing it to fatigue,crack ,and then fail,taking the blade with it,followed very shortly after by the rest of the t/r and gearbox...
Personally,I`ve only flown a few hours in an R22,and whilst it`is not my `cup of tea`,I just hate the E/RRPM gauge,as it smacks of `cheap &cheerful`, for perhaps the most important gauge in the cockpit,given the rotor properties of the helo...It should be big ,and round,easy to read,so that one can relate RRPM to the soundof the engine/rotors ,very precisely..(end of little rant !)
Learn all you can about the systems in any/every helo,especially when they are `undressed` in the hangar.....enjoy your flying..

[ifresh21]

Thank you very much guys.

Thanks topend :ok: Just to confirm, when you say there would be an exaggerated feel - you mean during the preflight(engine off) check where you move the collective around, right?

I'm gonna order the magnifying glass now. Good idea.


Btw that is really mean RVDT lol

[topendtorque]

Someone else moved the collective and you held your hand on the blade root. When I said, 'exaggerated' I meant that the pencil would bounce up and down much more than your hand would feel in the blade, but a bump is a bump, is a bump. It's much easier to feel the condition on a brinelled '47.

An engineer testing the blade might disconnect the pitch horns and feel each blade separately. He would also check for oil leaking out of the boot as well.

May I reassure you but not gaurantee that it would be very difficult to fly the aircraft until a major failure. It's been our experience that a not very worn out bearing created a major upheavel in the smoothness of the rotor disc to the point where it really couldn't be flown and was frightening.

It seems that the indentations plus wear might be there and as the balls in the bearing move around, as the blades flex from loaded to unloaded say, they occasionally they will line up to give really bad vibes.

Just keep your eye on the RPM don't trust a silly governor, they are mechanical / electrical so they are fallacious.

[ifresh21]

Thanks a ton topend. Extremely informative

I might have the instructor move it while I feel.

Great advice thank you!!!

[heligal]

InTheTin - I know I'm late to the party, but I really LOVE that link. Can't wait to use it for other easy Google Searches. Thanks!

[heligal]

I found this thread while researching a blog post on this topic. Had a similar thing happen with my R44 yesterday. In my case, may have been caused by water or dirt on the clutch activation switch. Used the Clutch Activation Tool to clear the problem.

Details here, if anyone wants to read about it:
An Eclectic Mind » Weird R44 Things: Partial Clutch Activation (http://www.aneclecticmind.com/2011/04/20/weird-r44-things-partial-clutch-activation/)

[ifresh21]

Hi,

If the engine fails in an R22, the pilot has to react instantaneously to lower the collective in order to avoid complete rotor stall.

Would the pilot generally have some type of warning in advance that something is going wrong, so that they can at least somewhat reduce power before a complete failure? If so, are there situations (that happen in realistic numbers), where there is no warning whatsoever? I believe (more like hope) that there would be a warning, but I am not sure. How different are turbine engines?

Thanks a lot in advance!

[Art of flight]

Of course if you're in the ground effect hover/hover taxi don't lower the lever, correct the yaw and cushion the touchdown by applying collective and maintain attitude with cyclic.

With modern engines it's a very unlikely event, as with any aero engine, oil pressure and temp are the main warnings, then warning lights. If it's instant failure on the 22 then yaw may be the first thing you'll notice, followed rapidly by rotor horn.

[Hughes500]

OK
I have had a number of rough running engines almost always to do with plug leading or magneto failure
Both will get your attention very quickly, basically a lot of vibration and an obvious missfiring of the engine. However it will normally keep flying under protest.
Had a double mag failure had to do a run on landing as the engine hadnt stopped but as soon as you pulled power ( loaded the mags) they shorted out, not very funny at 30 kts 100 ft coming into land when you suddenly realise there is no power to arrest the sink rate :eek:
For an engine to stop completely you will normally find that it has run out of fuel.
Only time temp and pressure gague has alerted me was a student not putting the dipstick back in. Temp fine but pressure gone down by about 20 psi over where it was normally.
Brings me on to a more important point, never say t's and p's in the green. Get used to the machines you should be trend monitoring, if there is no apparant environmental reason why the ac is pulling another 2" of MP you have to ask your self is there a problem and not just acceept it. Look at your fuel gague not in quantity but in time, do you have enough time in fuel to COMFORTABLY get to your next fuel stop.
Sorry got to go fly now !

[Thomas coupling]

C'mon Ifresh. Do you drive a car? If the answer is yes then you already know the answer to your slightly naive question.
:=

[stringfellow]

cmon thomas thats possibly the most legitimate, life saving question to ask with some really useful answers... give the guy and us all a break stop being intimidating because its clearly putting people off asking some really good questions.

[What Limits]

I agree, TC - a bit harsh.

This could go two ways

Warning or non-warning.

Although we do not record the warning signs in a power loss event, my hypothesis is that a non-warning event is rare.

This is why we should do our best to know the technical aspects of our aircraft but also to understand what the warning signs are.

[Airmotive]

An engine failing is a lot like a woman leaving you.
Looking back, all the signs were there, you just didn't recognize them for what they were. That little puff of smoke on start up. That tiny hesitation when you roll on the throttle. That little dip in oil pressure. That new collection of thong underwear.

As for the engine...who knows.:confused:

[Rocket2]

"That new collection of thong underwear.."
Thanks Airmotive, choked on that comment & splattered strawberry yoghurt over my computer screen :\

[uniformkilo]

I had an engine failure in a JetRanger. (FCU failure :eek:). There was no warning. The first symptom, instantaneous, was a jolt earthwards as the lift component provided by the engine was eliminated. Yaw was a little slower to happen, as was reduction in airspeed.

I don't have any experience of failures in a Robinson.

I think a piston engine will often give you some clues in advance, but I'm guessing probably events at the actual moment of failure will be just as quick as a turbine in most cases.

Being current in PFLs certainly saved my life.