Robinson: Greatest Helicopter of all time

[The Night Owl]

Dear All,

With the much awaited arrival of the R66 will RHC not become one of the prestigious manufacturers of all time??

Having accomplished the feat of providing reliable machines for beginners and first time owners they now seem set to establish themselves as the 'full package' by producing a turbine A/C that will leave it's competitors in it's wake.

If the new arrival lives up to the traits of the previous models through price, reliability and convenience i am sure that this new arrival in the market place will leave any existing competition miles behind.

Who (as a private owner rather than operator) would want a squirrel / enstrom sat in a hangar mounting up maintenance bills for 3 months of the year when the Robinson owners are all out flying and enjoying themselves for less cost??

Some may wish to comment on the accident's incurred by the R22's and R44's but this is also attributable the percentage of the marketplace that Robinson hold and the role (i.e. training etc..) that they currently carry out in the UK and abroad

Any comments?

Night Owl

[HillerBee]

With the much awaited arrival of the R66 will RHC not become one of the prestigious manufacturers of all time??

No.

There's nothing prestigious about Robinsons, the simple fact they put a Turbine in a R44 doesn't mean it's prestigious.

Robinson produces cheap helicopters in mass, but that's all they are cheap mass produced helicopters. You can't compare a Fiat Panda with a BMW 7 series.

I do really like the R44 and can't wait for the R66 to come along and fly it, but it will never be a prestigious brand.

[Boslandew]

I'm always wary of that word 'greatest' because it doesn't actually mean very much. Fastest, biggest, heaviest, most reliable, cheapest, most economic, OK.

But Greatest?? What's it supposed to mean? How is the Robinson 'greater' than the Bell Huey, the Chinook, the SeaKing/S61 or several others?

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....


......will RHC not become one of the prestigious manufacturers of all time?? .....

Cripes ..... What HAVE you been smoking? :eek:

[chopjock]

With the much awaited arrival of the R66 will RHC not become one of the prestigious manufacturers of all time?? Yes, I agree with that, RHC will not become one of the prestigious manufacturers of all time. :}

[Gordy]

Look at the market share Toyota has in the US vehicle market....

If the same recall standards for safety were applied to Robinsons as are applied in the car industry, I suspect that Robinsons would have been grounded many years ago.

Night Owl---maybe you were unaware that the NTSB tried to ground the Robinson....

[SilsoeSid]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/tombstone.jpg

[Hughes500]

Nightowl
Perhaps you should consider that most machines dont spend 3 months on maintainence every year Owned 12 different machines worst in time was 3 weeks for an annual. Let me see I dont need to " throw away" any of my machines once they have done 12 years !

[s1lverback]

"Having accomplished the feat of providing reliable machines for beginners and first time owners they now seem set to establish themselves as the 'full package' by producing a turbine A/C that will leave it's competitors in it's wake"

Only my opnion, but H269 (Schweizer) is better all round package than R22.

Will the R66 leave competitors in it's wake?

If you were going to spend that sort of $ on an R66, surely you'd look at a previously cherished H500...I know I would.:}

[Ian Corrigible]

Interesting quote from Robinson Jr. in the latest Rotorhub mag which reflects that comment:

"The nice thing about [the R66] is that I will then have a turbine, where we can say: 'If you have to have a turbine, here you go.' Obviously there are some markets where they have altitude or a specific reason for a turbine. But in a lot of these other markets you don’t need it. And if you don’t need it, why spend the money? And that will work for us, because I would rather have somebody go out and fly more often with the right piece of equipment than sell them a higher-priced piece of equipment that they can’t use as much."

So RHC seems to recognize that it may have limited appeal (by the company's own standards), esp. if the current efforts to find an environmentally acceptable replacement for 100LL succeed (as it now appears will happen). Frank himself has said he foresees demand for 'up to' 150-200 units/yr.

I/C

[bolkow]

and apart from anything else, what is this thing about needeing to change the tail cone during a rebuild? Do they wear out or something?

[BlenderPilot]

Please Define "Greatest" and "Prestigious" . . . . . . I'm confused . . . . . Are we talking about the same helicopter manufacturer?

[AdamFrisch]

I never did like flying the R22 much, but I'd have to say that I agree with the original poster. They've contributed more to the helicopter industry than any one else I can think of. One could even go so far as to say that there is a helicopter industry pretty much thanks to Robinson. It would certainly not be a big as it is today had they not existed, that's for sure.

It doesn't qualify them as prestigious, but surely greatest.

Now if they could just get rid of the tethering 2-blade rotor, build them less paper thin and get proper cyclics in there, we'd be in business.

[jeepys]

The 22/44 and no doubt the 66 are good helicopters in their own right but they do have limitations just like any other helicopter. I don't think you could compare a AS350 or even Enstrom with a 66. They are totally different machines.
Unfortunately those that think the robinsons go for 2200 hrs without anything going wrong are mistaken. They still go through the usual consumables like pitch links, fuel pumps, regulators etc.

As for the greatest, well, I agree they have done a good job getting the average joe into flying helicopters and continue to do so but you could say that Bell is the greatest for building the Huey which saved so many lives in the Vietnam war, many of which are still in service today. Why not stop there, how about Sikorsky S61/Westland Seaking for the SAR efforts or the Scout/Wasp for their efforts during the Falklands?

You see how 'greatest' can be hard to attribute.

[FLY 7]

I've found that few topics divide opinion more than Robinson helicopters.

To his credit, you can't fault Frank's business model. He gave us a cheap entry level/trainer (although not everyone's cup of tea) and followed it up with the R44 - the default option if you need a 4-seat piston. And, in fairness, the Raven II is their best yet with good performance, lots of loyal owners and a proven sales record.

The R66 will no doubt appeal to traditional Robinson buyers, but the wider market will want to see how it performs in service. It carries over many of the Robinson design features that are not universally popular.

So, more of a 'curate's egg' than the greatest helicopter of all time (IMO).

[Vertical Freedom]

Oh my God what drugs are you on???? The Robinson helicopter(s) happens to be the dodgiest bucket of crap or should I say death trap machine ever built. Its the helicopter that has killed more pilots than any other machine on the planet, some blades de-laminate even in the box prior to installation, sad & very scary. Many young (time wise) pilots blindly worship them as if they were the best thing since a trusty ole' Jetbox, 47, 350, or..or..or sadly though the wrecks of machines & wrecked families lives paint a different story. Ask an honest LAME who has worked on a variety of machines for a few years for their true appraisal of a Robinson airframe. If we all got together boycotted flying these rickety hazardous contraptions, maybe, just maybe Mr Robinson may build something descant.
Robinson -RIP :mad:

[ADRidge]

Most of my time to date is in Robinson products, and they're not bad ships. Sure, the R-22 isn't the most ideal trainer... I think that award would have to go to the TH-55/269/300. But the R-22 can be a sporty, cheap machine and it's definitely got its advantages. I think the R-44 Raven II, as someone previously said, is the best thing to happen to Robinson ever. It's a blast to fly. I'm not incredibly experienced... only 220 hours total, but even I've managed to fly it from sea-level to 10,000' MSL with no problems and little discomfort.

I don't think the R-66 will be the greatest thing since sliced bread and never have, although I know a few people who do think that. Robbies are what they are, and they're not bad for flight training and inexpensive commercial ops. But I absolutely cannot wait until I get the chance to get my grubby little paws on a "real" ship like the 500.

Greatest of all time? Not even in the top ten. Attainable for mere mortals and fun to fly? You bet your certificates.

[Hedge36]

For two-seat puttering around, I'll keep my slow and pricey 300CBi, thank you. I don't mind the Robinson, but it's certainly not my favorite...

Greatest helicopter of all time? Not by a long shot. Prolific, yes. Great? No.

[paco]

Greatest Helicopter? Possibly you really mean "most classic"? Bell 47 or 212 IMHO.

Phil

[outofwhack]

Robinson: I would own/fly one if all other helicopter types ceased to
exist and nobody I wanted to impress was watching. Like asking would i own/drive a Lada?

[Vertical Freedom]

Blah Robinson's yetch,

Fast - yes
Looks - damn ugly, butt ugly in fact
Stability - hopeless
Safety - what safety? killed more men than any other machines, now thats impressive, flimsy fragile airframe, that's what it is.
Reliability - look at the blade de-laminations, air-frame failures etc. reliable NOT
Price - cheep & very nasty
Looks - yep UGLY, didn't I just stay that? OK I say again F'N UGLY
Comfort - crappy cramped child like seating,
Controls - awkward bogus controls :ugh:

Glad I don't fly one, once the low hour pilots who worship the Robinson false God step into a real Helicopter then they too will see the light & not want to look back into the eyes of hell.

Robinson - RIP :mad:

[oldbeefer]

I've flown over 40 types in the last 45 years. Guess which is my least favorite - by a LONG WAY!

[parabellum]

contributed more to the helicopter industry than any one else I can think of.


Adam - Does that mean that you haven't thought of Sikorsky and Bell, to name but two?

[topendtorque]

Very clever bit of thinking there Night Owl. you were bound to get some responses rather than be left on the wood heap of despair.

Now I've only flown these "R" things for, oh about eighteen years, and due to my very strong preferences elswhere, no I don't have any more than about 9K hours in them. I now fly them because I have to.

With great respect, 'the greatest helicopter', that's BS and total rubbish.

There is one very good thing about them that others could have and many nowadays spend heaps in designing to try to emulate. That is the way the critical instruments that are required to be scanned, are right there, in the edge of your eyeline as you you go past the panel on the peretual scan for cattle, more cattle and more again.

But great? after a long day, when I have to drag myself to the fence to stand upright, then quaff iunnumerable 'relaxants' to ease my bloody neck, well i'll give you a tip.
Use them for an end, but learn how to fly properly where it is easier and perhaps better to do so and move on.

M, i dips me fedora to a certain 61, 205, but mostly a 47.

Apart from that I am quite happy to go free to air to point out techniques that I am well practised in, that may save or help others.
cheers tet

[biggles99]

this is turning into yet another Robbie bashing thread.

It's so unecessary.

We are all entitled to our opinions and preferences, so why not leave it at that?

For some, the Robinson range of helicopters is horrid, for a whole number of reasons. Very little is going to change their minds.

For others, the Robinson range of helicopters are the best machines there are, for a whole number of reasons. Very little is going to change their minds.

For everyone else, start with the facts.

The statistics on numbers sold, number of accidents by hours flown, number of fatalities, number of pilots who trained in a Robinson are available to those who are interested.

I for one would like to know how many current helicopter pilots there are now compared to how many there were in 1975, so if anyone knows please post the answer.

And if you believe that helicopter flying should be more than the preserve of those paid to learn by me, the tax payer, and of those who are millionaires, then the Robinson range of helicopters has opened up the skies to thousands of pilots who otherwise would be grounded.

Big Ls.

[kevin_mayes]

Maybe the Robbo should be the best, I learnt on a 44, then purchased a Bell-47, so it got me into flying. I would look at it like this, most people learn to drive in a cheap car, once they pass then they strive for the Aston Martin.

I know that they are cheap, unstable etc. etc. but I would not have got into flying if I had not chartered one to take me somewhere and gotten the bug...

I'll get my coat...

Kev.

[Nubian]

For the ones with time enough, using the Ntsb's accident database will give you an idea of the numbers of accidents and also the prelim/factual reports.(ie. the causes)

Just as an example, I did a quick search on fatal accidents from 01.01.1980 to date on the Bell 206 series came up with 241 records and for Robinson 202 records. I don't have time to total up all the fatalities, so the ones interessted can do and come up with their own conclusion.
I don't say that this means the 206 is worse than the Robbiefamily, as you must take all factors into considerations to come up with a conclusion.

My experience, is that the people that bashes the diffrent helicopters (in this case the Robbies) usually don't have experience in them, and therefore I couldn't care less what they may have as an opinion.

[Vertical Freedom]

The statistics don't show the true nature of the work being done, also most stats are adjusted for their total numbers.

Nubian I have done just around 120 hours in each the 22 & 44 as well as Instructing in both those machines so can honestly say YES they are crap.

I have lost 2 Pilot friends to Robbie crashes & my LAME friend once pointed out just how flimsy the sub-standard air-frame really is, hence the crash survivability is frighteningly low. I had another friend an ATP(H) & Examiner have a 44 blade de-bond in flight at around 400 hours but it was at the bottom of an auto & 'thank God' they both survived. There is at least one other fatal being investigated in Australia right now due to an in-flight break up most likely caused by yet another de-bonding (surprise, surprise) well done Frank You can be proud of Your accident to death rate, the worst in Rotory history.

I did my first 50 hours of training in a 47 till my Instructor passed away due cancer, then finished my CPL on a R22std. Not surprisingly I learnt more in the 47 because at the slower pace one is able to learn & actually absorb so hence replicate exactly the task at hand, with the R22 the Instructor is rarely game to take his hands of the end of any emergency & does a lot of tidying up albeit unconsciously for the unsuspecting student. So less REAL learning for the student.

Give me a Squirrel any day, You can really do work in that sweet baby or a 214 umfff

[biggles99]

Blimy, VF, I wish I had your level of confidence to damn a particular type of helicopter with such venom after just 120 hours TT on type.

And I find it offensive for you to be so personal about a designer and constructor of helicopters. Shame on you. :=

Big Ls.

[zlocko2002]

some years ago (10yrs) one of my flight instructors (previously flying gazelle, mi-8/17, bell206 ) retired, and started flying r44 for private owner.
when i asked him whats the difference between bell 206 and r44, he answered:
''bell is a helicopter'' :8

[Vertical Freedom]

Biggles99 please kindly mention my (so called) offence to Frank to my 2 dead exR22 Pilot friends; wives. I am sure they will chat with You much differently to me. With over 8,400 hours Rotory time in long-lining, mountain work, ag work, IF, Instructing & Examiner I feel I have a fair handle on a machine after 100 hours in each & can appraise it reasonably well thank You :ugh:

[AdamFrisch]

Adam - Does that mean that you haven't thought of Sikorsky and Bell, to name but two?

Nah, you're right of course.

But except perhaps for Bell, none of them spread them to the masses in the way Robinson did, made it grow. I mean Sikorsky has a rather patchy civilian helicopter history at best and still has. Bell laid the groundwork for the civilian market and Robinson expanded it beyond anything.

[Nubian]

VF,
No, accident-statistics don't tell youthe true nature of the work being done What I was referring to was the actual number of fatal accidents and if you read the causes in the diffrent reports, you'll find that mechanical failures is not the main cause of accidents.

Funny you mention the 350, as you trust it with your life you might read the thread with the ENG helicopter in Brazil. Now, that is the second ENG helicopter with t/r failure I have seen on film.
Yes, I too like the 350, but I do question the number of accidents/incidents involving the 350's hyd system and tail-rotor drive/control.

[ShyTorque]

With the much awaited arrival of the R66 will RHC not become one of the prestigious manufacturers of all time??Just like Reliant, who with the much awaited arrival of the Scimitar became one of the most prestigious car manufacturers of all time.

http://www.motoring.co.uk/images/newsImages/80d2ad18-bad4-11dd-9330-001ec9bb95bb.jpg

[alouette]

The greatest helicopter of all time?!? Pfffffffffffffffffff!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO!!!! LAMA SA315B - that is what I call a helicopter. Not that Mattel Messerschmitt.:ok:

[biggles99]

VF, I respect your experience and I can sense that you are raw as hell about your dead friends.

I sympathise with you: I too have several dead friends, especially from my microlighting and hang-gliding days.

Some of these deaths were from designs that didn't have enough safety margin (these was in the 70s and early 80s) some of these deaths were caused by us pilots putting them together wrongly or modifying a design, but even then most accidents were from inexperience, flying in conditions beyond the ability of the pilot or just plain bad luck.

I don't think that any Robinson model has ever been grounded by the FAA or CAA, despite all the ADs and SBs that have been applied over the years. The only certified rotary aircraft I can recall being grounded in recent years was an Air Command Gyrocopter. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be put right.

So this must say something about the Robinson? Never grounded, thousands sold, millions of hours flown, and hundreds of improvements made over the past 35 years.

One last thing: I completely agree with you about the AS350 -- its a great aircraft and very capable in all respects.

Big Ls.

[birrddog]

Shy, you just proved yourself wrong... look at how popular and loved that car is! ;)

[Hughes500]

B99

The NTSB tried to ground it but came up against some rather strong politics from The FAA. I have been told by friends in the States and I m not sure how true it is the R22 would not pass todays certification requirements. Mind you the S92 shouldnt have passed either and looked what happened to its gearbox due to Skiorksy finding a way round the certification

[ShyTorque]

birddog,

The old Reliant Regal was, and is, loved by some (bearing in mind that they were designed to be driven by folks who didn't have a car drivers' licence or couldn't afford a real car).

But prestigious? :p When parked in the street they regularly get tipped over by "appreciative" locals on their way back from the pub; that is, the ones not already tipped over accidentally by over-enthusiastic driving.

[B47]

Perspective please, guys.

As an enthusiastic R44 owner I would be the first to agree that even given its superb commercial success, the R44 can’t be described in any sense as the greatest helicopter. As a former B47 owner (hence my old username..) I replaced that glorious machine with an R44. Why? Because a 47 is not a method of transport for getting you any distance. A sniff of a headwind often meant you were battling with a 40kt groundspeed!

Best helicopter? Best for what purpose? That’s as pointless as arguing a Range Rover is better than a Ferrari 430. Depends what you want to do with it.

Frank is a genius for what he has achieved in producing the best selling machine that enables people like me, who pay their own bills, to fly. Those who sneer and are flying turbines at other people’s expense really miss the point and frankly the Robbie bashing from that quarter is a boring broken record. If it’s your own money you get the best you can afford and for most of us that’s a piston machine with four seats that gets you there at 110kts and safely.

The R44 has an excellent safety record re. total fleet hours flown. Yes it’s built to be light so can be easily insulted as ‘flimsy’. Good aviation design is not wasting fuel on weight. Are you suggesting Frank should have made it heavier (slower and thirstier) to make you feel happier with more metal around you because you’re used to a turbine with three times the horsepower? Chalk and cheese my friends. To see how far light helicopter design has come in forty years, compare my old B47 with the R44 – similar horsepower, same fuel consumption, half the speed and fewer seats. For its time the 47 was a fabulous machine, but is incredibly inefficient compared to the 44’s design. Most fatalities are CFIT, weather and wires, so being flimsy by comparison to a heavier turbine isn’t going to make any difference to most fatal accidents.

Yes, of course I’d prefer a B2, but Frank’s genius with the 44 means I can afford to leave the ground.

[61 Lafite]

Most fatalities are CFIT, weather and wires, so being flimsy by comparison to a heavier turbine isn’t going to make any difference to most fatal accidents

An analysis of Robinson accidents (fatal or fatal+Injury) with an informed view taken on whether the helicopter type was of any great significance in the accident would make fascinating reading.

The arguments would rage about whether allocation of individual incidents was type-specific, but I'd love to see the numbers. Maybe someone can commission it for a student to study.

As pointed out, Weather, CFIT, Wires, Night (my addition) could in many cases be said to be non-type-specific. If you ignore training accidents maybe the above would help end the Robbie-bashing!

Lafite

[Bondu121]

B47 has hit the nail on the head, I'd say :ok:

[Lewycasino]

Who (as a private owner rather than operator) would want a squirrel / enstrom sat in a hangar mounting up maintenance bills for 3 months of the year when the Robinson owners are all out flying and enjoying themselves for less cost??


B47 has hit the nail on the head, I'd say http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Agreed, whilst the 480 may be regarded as the "Ford Mondeo Estate" of the helicopter world, the comparisons to the R66 in both price , performance and running costs should leave it trailing in it's wake.

[toptobottom]

In my experience the vast majority of those who criticise Robinsons couldn't afford to buy one themselves - they're usually flying somebody else's kit instead. However, unless these people are complete snobs, that shouldn't influence their views on what makes a 'great' helicopter.

As a Robbie owner, I agree they are damn ugly, sound agricultural and have the bare minimum of equipment. On the other hand, they are good value for money, very reliable, reasonably fast and economical. In the right hands, they are also very safe. A large number of incidents involving type (which are not disproportionately high) are due inexperienced or foolish pilots.

'Great' is very subjective, so I wouldn't necessarily agree that even Bell's 47 is 'great', nor is a huey - despite the emotional attachment from times when people's lives depended on these machines. The Robbies are aimed at a certain market - and Frank has executed brilliantly in penetrating that market with a product that has soundly beaten its competition. Great job.

[toptobottom]

[from diethelm - i too once owned a turbine] Some humor.

I previously owned a turbine. One time when flying up the river, we smelled something akin to smoke. Hmmm we wondered. So we set down and took a look. An oil line had started leaking. We shut down, talked to the sheriff who showed up and called the shop. Four hours later, our new part had arrived in nothing other than an R44. Out of it stepped a friend and the first thing he handed to me was a brochure and a quote for a new R44......told me they where dependable.

If I had my preference, I would own a nice big twin, but that is not how life works. The R44 is a perfectly good aircraft for its intended uses and it is very reasonably priced. Greatest, best, revolutionary are all subjective adjectives. Objectively, flown appropriately, the R44 is a perfectly reasonable aircraft and is a bargain per hour compared to others. Put another way, it beats taking a bus.

[EN48]

R66 empty weight with oil/avionics = 1280 lb
206/480B empty weight with oil/avionics ~ 1940 lbs (+/-)
Difference ~ 660 lbs (= 52% of R66 empty weight)

Discuss. :E

[bvgs]

Here here B47! The Robbie bashing really is getting boring. What should be asked is how many Robbie owners are happy with their helicopter, I would think most and that says it all. The same happens in the boating world where the cheaper "Bayliner" constantly gets referred to as "binliner" but it has got alot of people into the boating market and some have stuck with them, others have moved up. The Robbie is exactly the same.

With regard to EN48 and the weight difference, my comment would be "so what!" I would rather have a lighter machine, better fuel consumption and if applicable a faster top speed. Lets face it, none of them are built like Volvo's so.........

[toptobottom]

Earl - highly amusing. I can hardly breath, I'm laughing so hard. Tell me, do you actually own a helicopter? Or do you just like collecting pictures of Gazelles?
TTB

[toptobottom]

Well a couple of years ago, when the dollar was $1.99 to the £, a Robinson would have been a great investment, not to mention a lot of fun. I'm not sure could say that about Spanish villas; I suspect it'll be a loooooong time after you've retired that you'll see your Marbella purchase price reflected in a valuation :}

Good luck to you; I hope you enjoy looking at your chum's Gazzer when it arrives :ok:

[ecureilx]

EoR: I got a more sexier picture of the same Robbie - :E with a cute PIC in bikini - Not sure if she is qualified or not :E

[ecureilx]

http://angelesbeachclubhotel.com/fade_img/helicopter/heli1.jpg

http://angelesbeachclubhotel.com/images/helicopter_page/helicopter.png

There you go .. :E :mad: :mad:

Apologies if this has been posted before .. ..

Courtesy : Abc Hotel | Helicopter Service (http://angelesbeachclubhotel.com/helicopter.php)

[ecureilx]

Hi EoR:

I shall say nothing that can incriminate me .. :E :E :E











PS: A hidden clue ..

her 'location' is in the URL for the owner of the R44 !!!

[topendtorque]

anyone dabbling in both the nutrition and petroleums world might think that the relationship of Margarine is to polyethylene differs by maybe one molecule or less. Uggghhh.

In the Pommy R22 Helicopter haters club, the same relationship might be seen between the "earl" and our friend "Nigel h"

watchout earl, he's on your doorstep:{ butane is also not far away.
tet

[Tarman]

So Earl, You like shapely women and dislike ugly helicopters ?
In days gone by it was different . . . . . . . . .
LARGE GIRLS CLUB - British Pathe (http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=822)

Tarman http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/mpangel.gif

[moscovite]

You are funny man earl Rochester and I Like.

Here, I help you with this-

Did you know Mil factori we plan to buy large number Robertson helicopters, yes, it is real!

Because we talk with EASA about Mi26 and EASE say pilot must check tail rotors and main rotors close vizual inspecton before flying - so Mil, we come up with system!

Yes - now for Europe delivery of Mi26 we include one Robertson helicopter with each Mi26 !!!

Pilot fly Robertson around Mi26 for pre flying inspecton wile co pilot is making the inspecton of tail rotors and also flying beside main rotors to check condition.

After this Robertson is stored inside behind cockpit where it fitting easy and take little space!

Thank you....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/230/521369095_4c7c8bae00_z.jpg

[krypton_john]

Fire the load master. Looks like he stacked all the vodka in the tail.

[500e]

Head & Parapet come to mind KJ :E

[Earl of Rochester]

- Moscovite!

Thank you for this news regarding Mil's decision to buy Robinson R22's.

I marvel at Mil's masterful measurement of the Robinson's capability and concur that this contraption may well be suited as a pre-flight inspection vehicle for the Mi-26.

I was also thinking that you could ask Robinson to place a number of hand and foot holds along the R22 so that it could be used as an emergency external flight deck access/egress for the crew - for I see that the Robinson's mast just about reaches the Mil's cockpit!

Earl ;)

[kevin_mayes]

Once you have finished the flight in the Mil, you could park the 22 nose in the Mil's exhaust port instead of having to fight with a cover... (once it had cooled down of course) :suspect:

[Vertical Freedom]

that sounds scary..................flyin' any Robinson that is

[EddieHeli]

that sounds scary..................flyin' any Robinson that is

What a stupid remark

[mustering guru]

I have over 6000 hrs in Robbies and they never let me down.....Wait for the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Robinsons are a great helicopter and like most other makes and models they have their problems. Show me a helicopter that hasn't!

Don't be hating!

And I agree with Eddie Heli

MG

[meloni]

yes.... I can't see anything wrong on flying a Robinson.

What a stupid comment.

and just for information I'm not flying only Robinson helicopters, but some light twin too (109 family and 135... they have problems too) .

[John R81]

VF - well done:D:D

You found a few "raw nerves" there!:ok: Just the thread to throw in the Robbo "verbal handgrenade".



Just gotta love the sport of "baiting":E

[topendtorque]

Just the thread to throw in the Robbo "verbal handgrenade".


possibly more applicable in the AW 139 thread at the moment, not healthy flying around thinking about losing yer tail.

done quite some hours in Robinson's too, had our moments we have but only less than a handful, far far fewer proportionally than with 47's.

[herman the crab]

I would suggest that maybe more pilots have killed pilots (and passengers) than faulty Robinson products...

HTC

[Coconutty]

Robinson needs to be sued for this accident.... or why not sue the owner of the tree for letting it grow so tall ? :ugh:

[Flying Foxhunter]

Surely more pilots and passengers have been killed in recent years in Robinsons is due to the very high percentage of such machines in the private and VFR corporate market. With several thousand hours and many years in them as an owner and operator, they seem to do just what it says on the instructions. But they cannot be abused, they must be flown and maintained in accord with the regs. If you fly in poor vis in the dark or you hit a tree with your tail rotor there is a fairly good chance that the result will be expensive tragic or both. Surely that is the same for most machines.

[Arrrj]

FF,

Well said. :D

Does anyone have a list of SALES of all helicopters ?

I suspect that (for example) R44's have been sold in greater numbers than any other type - 206 Jetranger (s) being the only machine I can think of that could have been sold in greater numbers, mainly due to the great length of time they were in production.

Arrrj

[FLY 7]

Robinson products certainly divide opinion.

However, I believe there was a time when the number of R22/R44 accidents was disproportionately high, measured against other a/c on a per hour flown comparison. Not seen more recent figures though, but would suspect this has improved.

[SilsoeSid]

A great site here;

Griffin Helicopters | Home Page (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk)

With some amazing stats;

Griffin Helicopters | Accident Statistics (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/accidentstatindex.asp#url%23)



Griffin Helicopters (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/accidentstatssingletype.asp?ACType=R22)
Robinson R22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_R22)

R22 - As at end 2007, 1131 accidents out of a total production of 4000 at the time.

Does that mean that a quarter that have been produced have had an accident ? :eek:

[topendtorque]

possibly more applicable in the AW 139 thread at the moment, not healthy flying around thinking about losing yer tail.



Please take that with a grain of salt after reading the latest on that thread, hate to see anyone get hurt after a glib comment.



Does that mean that a quarter that have been produced have had an accident ?


Possibly Sid or many less have had quite some each, which we all know is often the case.

I tried to decipher the Hiller stats, looks like 793 out of 3,000. Almost the same percentage. Having the smarter military types on them for training would mean a slightly lower %, I say as a coat grabbing statement.

I know of company in OZ quite some moons ago, that started a year with 5 of them and finished the year with minus 7. How's that pretty good, eh? Hillers that is.

Regards
tet

[JimBall]

Over 90% of all light helicopter accidents, fatal or otherwise, are due to pilot error.

End of.

It strikes me that Robinson haters fall into 3 categories:

1 People who've never flown them and keep repeating something they once heard.

2 People who've flown them and struggle. Let's not call them "pilots".

3 People who've only ever flown much heavier and more expensive machinery, normally supplied by A N Other-Deeppockets or the taxpayer.

For those of us who adore them and have over 3000hrs experience in actually paying the bills by doing successful work, these 3 groups are to be ignored.

[Unhinged]

Does that mean that a quarter that have been produced have had an accident ?

No, of course not.

Got plenty of time in the R66 now. They're a bloody good aircraft. Happy to trust my life to them, and frequently do so

[SilsoeSid]

Over 90% of all light helicopter accidents, fatal or otherwise, are due to pilot error.

End of.

Have you a link to that data Jim?

[toptobottom]

JB
Over 90% of all light helicopter accidents, fatal or otherwise, are due to pilot error.

End of.

It strikes me that Robinson haters fall into 3 categories:

1 People who've never flown them and keep repeating something they once heard.

2 People who've flown them and struggle. Let's not call them "pilots".

3 People who've only ever flown much heavier and more expensive machinery, normally supplied by A N Other-Deeppockets or the taxpayer.

For those of us who adore them and have over 3000hrs experience in actually paying the bills by doing successful work, these 3 groups are to be ignored.

I'm not sure I 'adore' them, but very well said. Robinson products are built to a budget and appeal to a lot of private owners and training schools because they're more affordable than most other helicopters. As a result, they also tend be flown more by low-timers than other types and, at the risk of getting flamed, most of the owners I've met are 'type A' entrepreneurs and successful in their own industry.

Robinson helicopters are not dangerous per se or they wouldn't have approval to leave the ground, but given the above, it's not surprising that there may be proportionately more accidents in Robinsons than other types. I've lost several mates over the years flying in AS355, AS350, SA341, B206, R44 or R22. Only one accident was definitely not due to pilot error (the twin); the others either certainly were, or almost certainly were.

Without exception, every individual I know who enjoys criticising Robinson products have big egos, small dicks and an empty bank account, yet seem determined to behave as though the exact opposite was true. Is that the definition of a snob or just an inferiority complex?!

[Flyting]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Well said JB & T2B............

[heliboy999]

Again well said.

If it wasnt for the R22 there would be a lot less pilots coming through due to rising costs and insurance requirements on other machines.

As for crash stats, its a bit like saying the Ford Fiesta or similar is a death trap but who drives them? Learners, low experience drivers love them because they are cheap to buy, run and insure (sound familiar?)

I have been lucky to learn on one then move on to other machines but what I did learn on the R22 has helped in future years with working within tight power margins etc.

Agreed that the power margins can catch people out as does the lightness of the aircraft in some conditions but the machine doesnt get you into that situation in the first place the pilot does.

I was lucky enough to shake Franks hand some years ago and I siad thankyou. Without his little invention I would still be saving up to do my next hour or course.

:ok:

[JimBall]

Siloe SId "Have you a link to that data Jim?"

Dear Sid,
The data acquired by my own reading of every UK helicopter accident report since 1988, drizzled with the accurate stats held by the FAA. If you're a "data" fan, then it's more reliable than trying to get stats from our own CAA - they are fixated with fatals and the heli data is lost in "GA".
90% is probably a low figure. Talk to experienced civilian instructors and CPL/ATPL(H) as I do every day and you will soon get the picture. There aren't many accidents at all - but when they happen they tend to be pilot error (or instructor error - most R22 incidents have an instructor onboard according to RHC and the FAA)
The RHC safety course is another good source - they plainly have a constant stream of data from the FAA and many other aviation bodies worldwide, seeing as they are the world's largest manufacturer by volume. The figure they give out is never below 90% - and that's just the fatals.

[SilsoeSid]

I'll take that as a No then :rolleyes:

Having also read a lot of reports, although I could never claim to have read every report since 1988, I totally agree that the vast majority of all light helicopter accidents are caused by the actions of the handling pilot.

However in the case of R22/44's one of the common things I see and therefore you must also have noticed, is the phrase 'Low Rotor RPM sounded'.... resulting in the incident.

Just a small observation, but if the setting was designed so that it warned the pilot of this seemingly common situation of low rrpm earlier, then a vital second or 2 might be enough time to allow corrective action to be effective.

I'm sure that if a 'learner type' car was designed so that the brakes weren't effective until a second after application, and that type of car had a lot of 'incidents, the issue would be addressed pretty sharpish!


Yes the R22 is a cheap training aircraft used by many an inexperienced pilot after getting the license, but it seems to be called a learner aircraft simply by virtue of its price and not by ease of use and handling!

[Jarvy]

So if the R22 is not the best trainer, what other small helicopter could be used instead. I have only 250 hours in R22 & R44 and am currently doing some training in a S300 CB and I'm having trouble with the aircraft, throttle work is pants and only yesterday got the start of ground resonance. Normal landing on a well maintained machine, luckily RPM still good so just picked it up.
Just my thoughts, 250 hours in Robbos never felt unsafe, 11 hours in a S300 and had a number of moments.

[FLY 7]

As I understand, the R22 was never designed to be a trainer.

However the H269 (300) was specifically designed for training - the US Army apparrently trained 30,000 pilots and 3,000,000 hrs on the military version TH-55.

Hughes TH-55 Osage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_TH-55_Osage)

These days, I think the 300C is probably the best basic trainer in terms of design, performance, and safety. The Guimbal G2 may be better, but it is currently rather new, rare and expensive.

[SilsoeSid]

So if the R22 is not the best trainer, what other small helicopter could be used instead. I have only 250 hours in R22 & R44 and am currently doing some training in a S300 CB and I'm having trouble with the aircraft, throttle work is pants and only yesterday got the start of ground resonance. Normal landing on a well maintained machine, luckily RPM still good so just picked it up.
Just my thoughts, 250 hours in Robbos never felt unsafe, 11 hours in a S300 and had a number of moments.


So you take your driving lessons in a Ford Fiesta. Lovely car, cheap to run and the choice of many a driver shortly after passing their test for a first car, why? Because they are cheap to run. One day your lesson is in a Mini, a little different, shorter gear shift, different feeling clutch, more responsive throttle and the steerings a bit more 'tight'. Don't feel unsafe in the Fiesta, but the mini makes driving around a bit different and you have a few 'moments'.

Which is better? Perhaps you'd be completely opposite if you had 250 hours on the S300 and the 11 was on the Robbo !
Silly way of comparing training aircraft wasn't it?

R22 cheap to train on and run, it's as simple as that!

[SilsoeSid]

Robinson helicopters are not dangerous per se ....
...agreed, however;


http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/Screenshot2011-07-16at221257.png

http://flightsafety.org/hs/hs_nov_dec97.pdf


Interpreting SFAR 73 in the UK
Griffin Helicopters | Interpreting SFAR 73 in the UK. (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/note/sfar73.asp)

[lelebebbel]

Note that the stats are from 1981-1994

SFAR 73 was introduced in 1995 because of this.
The AD that required all R22s to be fitted with RPM Governors, and to change the Low RRPM warning to activate at 97% was issued in 1995 or 1996 I believe.

I'd like to see the same stats for more recent years. My guess would be that LOC accidents will still be slightly higher than average, as R22s are commonly flown by low time pilots and in flight training.
It'll be very hard to prove that the R22 is dangerous by design since there is no other helicopter being used in the same role by even remotely the same number of pilots.
Also, I think this discussion has been on here a hundred times, always with the same result (none).

[toptobottom]

SS
However in the case of R22/44's one of the common things I see and therefore you must also have noticed, is the phrase 'Low Rotor RPM sounded'.... resulting in the incident.

"Do you have a link to that data?" I'm not saying I disagree, but it's not a theme I've noticed. What I have noticed is low-time pilots forgetting carb heat, panicking or getting caught out in gusty wind/poor vis or IMC - all manifestations of low experience, which is exactly my point.

On your other posts, it looks as though we're in violent agreement. The chart is interesting too; although I'd like to see one that was more up to date, given that Robinson has sold rather a lot af machines in the last 17 years and its safety record has improved somewhat during that period :ok:. 23 LOC fatals is high by several orders of magnitude, but I assume most of these are CFITs due IMC? If so, the report is confusing; is it saying that 39 non-LOC fatals were due to structural failure other than 'MR blade[s] that did not involve pre-existing fatigue of rotor blade materials'?
Anyone got some accurate data for the last 15 years?

[toptobottom]

VF
I fly 'em too, but only when I have to, sure they are crisp & precise to fly (well don't mention the cyclic shhhh its like the war, mums the word) but given unlimited choice; NEVER

Of course we all have preferences and, in spite of the advantages, I think that cyclic looks like something from a kid's meccano set, but that doesn't make a Robinson 'dangerous' or 'scary'.

Re choice, most owners don't have 'unlimited choice' if they want to get into a helicopter - the Robinson makes helicopter ownership affordable for some that would otherwise still be saving.

[Aucky]

However in the case of R22/44's one of the common things I see and therefore you must also have noticed, is the phrase 'Low Rotor RPM sounded'.... resulting in the incident.

If you consider the typical types of accident a low-hour ppl, or any other for that matter, is likely to make whilst out there consolidating principles they were taught, they would probably be things like, too much fuel - low power margins, accidental/unaware out of wind transitions, downwind approaches, settling with power on approach leading to vortex ring, and V.ring whilst trying to maintain HOGE. I believe there were a number of accidents due to the low hour pilots ppl/cpl undertaking photography jobs, low and slow, finding themselves in vortex ring etc... (leading to the release of a safety bulletin on the issue) the one common point i'm trying to suggest is that if they don't react correctly to the early symptoms they will probably pull an armpit full of collective in attempt to resolve the problem, and the light & horn will come one.

This is the thing that they will remember after the wreckage, and it's more likely that a passenger will remember the horn coming on than the wind direction, speed and ROD.... I would expect that many of these accidents, although not being as a result OF low rpm, may result IN low rpm....?

[SilsoeSid]

"Do you have a link to that data?"

Yes I do, in fact I have two.
If you read my post properly, it is my reading of incident reports and the fact that the common phrase 'Low RRPM' has associated itself with type, that leads me to my opinion that this is a problem area...or by looking at the R22/44 service bulletins, is at least ongoing!

Anyway, the links;

R22 Accident Data (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/accidents.asp?actype=R22)
and
R44 Accident Data (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/accidents.asp?actype=R44)

Surely by virtue of the fact that this subject is still being discussed, means that there are still concerns with this type. :

[SilsoeSid]

:...as for the next generation;

http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r66sb01.pdf

R66 SERVICE BULLETIN SB-01

RHC received a report of binding in a power turbine governor (PTG) control linkage. This bulletin requires lubricating the D333-13 fitting and cleaning the PTG input lever bore.
.
.
3. Apply light coat of A257-1 grease (ref. MM § 20-78) to flutes of a 0.2500-inch diameter reamer, and hand-ream PTG input lever bore to remove any debris. Clean lever and bore using a lint-free cloth.

4. Visually inspect cylindrical mating surface of D333-13 fitting. Remove any high spots using a dressing stone or 220-grit or finer wet-or-dry aluminum oxide abrasive paper. Clean fitting using a lint-free cloth.

Lubricate, Remove any high spots!
Shouldn't this have been a quality control check?

[SilsoeSid]

Bottom line for me is that although I have flown an R22, contrary to popular belief, (There is photo evidence being held tightly under wraps ;) ) I will not fly in one again.
Not just because of my size := , but because in my opinion it's not safe.

"In my opinion"
'In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts.'

[topendtorque]

Sid

Anytime you would like to see an objective and sedentary (rather than subjective) approach to the joys and practacalities of this particular aircraft type, please drop by.

Admittedly we still have some issues with blades and belts, but each can be flown around in complete safety with planning and the following of AD's.

Oh, and no cameras here.

cheers tet

[787-1]

Interesting thread - I was reading Biggles99 posts on page 2, he was always the first to defend the R22, I completely agreed with him up until last year when he was killed....in a R22. Many happy hours spent buzzing around with him.

Anyway, I know the R22 is mainly used as a training machine, but I find the following statistics shocking:
1975 to 2007 - 4000 22's manufactured - out of those 4000 over 1100 have had an accident, that's over a 1/4.
I don't care how they are used, it's beyond me how people can say they are safe when looking at the above.

Even if you fly them within limits they can still catch you out - blade delamination is a good example !

[JimBall]

Aucky: you've hit on something with LRRPM being the result of a bad reaction by the handling pilot. I know someone who did that , nearly 25 years ago as a low hours pilot, and ended up in the bushes with an R22.
The result, after AAIB, was a review of how much power the engine lost with carb heat and the various actions since. There was also a review and changes made to the UK PPL(H) training syllabus - particularly in confined area training. It was a long time ago.

I truly believe that the 21st C R22s are better machines than the 1980s versions. I have no idea if that can be said about the training.

Of course what we all need is some focused, up-to-date data. Looking at 17 year old figures is a waste of time.

Now I've finished this one.

Until the next time it comes up :bored:

[tecpilot]

Interesting thread - I was reading Biggles99 posts on page 2, he was always the first to defend the R22, I completely agreed with him up until last year when he was killed....in a R22.
Due to the wide use of uncle Franks toys all over the world, all over the world mostly newbies and operators and their employees will allways defend the machines and shrinking and playing down the accidents, incidents and problems. For one side it's the cheapest way to get a licence, they are so hot and inexperienced and the other side invested a lot of money in their business and grounding the Robinsons means a immediately bankruptcy for the most with many unemployed pilots.

It will allways be the same and any more selled Robinson means some defenders more.

BTW, i lost 3 good friends, all in a R-44, all very experienced pilots, but some day the rotor flew away and broke down the tail. Up to that moment they talked only the best about their ships, especially in public :} , accidents happens only to dumbasses and amateurs.

I feel the Robinsons are generally safe, but the small green range of safe operation is to small for the tricky all days business (allways under pressure) and the wide range of pilots, with their bad days and their human failures, and the wide field of operations. Small price, small margins, small safety.

[JamesTCrouse]

I understand the basis for the comment, but I do think it is a bit of an over-simplification to say that 90% of all helicopter crashes are caused by "pilot error." Without on-board recording devices (ie "black boxes") we are still in the relative dark ages of accident investigation when it comes to smaller aircraft such as helicopters. Frequently, the finding of "pilot error" is one of default rather than of affirmative finding.

I do think that it is correct to say that a majority of helicopter crashes are the result of "operational error," by which I mean that it is the totality of the circumstances that come together--dispatch, flight monitoring, weather--sudden and unforecast, weather, and the environment--night, low level, trees. wires, etc, that combine to make this the prominent cause.

For more on the causes of helicopter crashes see the IHST's website www.ihst.org/ (http://www.ihst.org/) and see several articles on the subject at n Aviation Safety Blog — Dedicated to Enhancing Aviation Safety (http://aviationsafetyblog.com).

[Thomas coupling]

James: I would have to disagree with you on all of the above.
I wouldn't go to the extent that 90% of accidents are pilot error, but atleast 70% are.
Now the error made by the pilot doesn't rely on whether it is a large or small aircraft, it still causes the crash:ugh: Your inference regarding helicopters, investigations and the dark ages is crass in the extreme:

we are still in the relative dark ages of accident investigation when it comes to smaller aircraft such as helicopters.

Do not be sidetracked / detracted by thinking despatch (???) and wires for example cause crashes:= People cause crashes - and it is either the engineer who built/fixed the aircraft, or the pilot. Nothing else.

[JimL]

I think you are about right James.

A pity Thomas took your remark out of context to 'quote' it; what he omitted (and the basis of your comment) was the lead-in that alluded to the absence of recorded data (as in FDR) for smaller aircraft.

Jim

[JamesTCrouse]

It seems we now have a discussion similar to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" debate in the US. Of course, the pilot is always the first one at the scene of the accident and absent any other clear finding, the pilot will get the blame. My point is simply that over forty years of flying and thirty years of investigating air crashes of all types, I have never found pilots to be suicidal. I have seen many acts of carelessness, some I still have trouble believing some of what I have seen, but...

All risk managers and risk analyzers know that almost every accident is the culmination of several factors that produce the result. It is too easy and too often the fact that the one individual at the end of that sequence gets he blame. I want to start with analyzing the entire chain and see what needs to be removed and what should be corrected. In order to do that most effectively, we need SMS and all of the training we can muster, but we also need the on board recording devices.

I heartily recommend The Grown Ups Book of Risk self-published in the UK by Omar Malik, and RAF and BA pilot with 12 years' experience in accident investigation.

I can email my review of that work in The Times of London Higher Education Magazine to anyone who wants it. Send request to [email protected].

[Airmotive]

Pilots also tend to not have the "deep pockets"...and so attorneys HATE to see them get the blame.
Sorry James. Genuinly sorry.
But your colleagues and predecessors have pretty much spoiled ANY chance of a plaintiff’s attorney being viewed as anything other than a charlatan when it comes to aviation safety.

[JamesTCrouse]

I appreciate Airmotive's comments but I would ask that he look at the content of the statement and the full background of the person making rather than judging by labels.
Having said that, I am not in love with attorneys either, and if you want to really know what also drives the litigation trian, look at the insurance defense industry, which must have litigation to sustain its food chain from partner, associate, paralegal, adjuster, underwriter, reinsurer, etc. I can't tell you how many times over 30 years I have had insurance defense lawyers say to me, "When are you going to sue my client? I need the business.

And their insurance company bosses, who control the litigation, don't mind. It is how they justify their jobs and get to play lawyer without having to take depositions, answer interrogatories, do research, etc.

For example, there are cases which should be settled but they won't be until the meter is run on the defense side for a while. I have had friends in insurance defense firms give me examples of where they reported to the person in charge that the case should be settled but the response was "not yet."

My interest is in aviation safety. My interest is in finding effective and accurate ways to find out what really happened so we can prevent it from happening again. I have seen too many tragedies. And, by the way, I was a pilot before I was a lawyer.

[Vertical Freedom]

I have had 2 friends killed in Robinson products, & another 1 near catastrophe from an in-flight blade delamination. I have 2 good engineer friends who have both expressed their concern to the way this product is made; its made to a price, cheep, very cheep & nasty. I have seen a blade with some delamination fresh from the box - NEVER FLOWN yet!!! :oh:

Are they safe? Look at the world wide safety record....they kill more Pilots than any other machine. Crash one & You will be lucky to walk away, if the fire does not get to You first. RIP :(

It seems most Robbie Lovers or rather worshipers are very narky about a negative word being uttered about their beloved Robbo, hey some hate Holden's (Holes Oil Leaks Dents & Engine Knocks) others love Fords (Fix Or Repair Daily, Found On Rubbish Dump) it seems OK to have a favorite model & a dislike, or knock another brand. Opinions are like A-holes (everyone's got one) with bikes, cars & about helicopters....... well except with Robbi's its like.... 'oh God don't mention the war, or Hitler' or..........or You'll burn in hell with the Robbi POH as the Prayer Operations Handyguidebook to send You cussed & damned to the fires of those big gas ovens for yer utterances. :yuk:

I fly 'em too, but only when I have to, sure they are crisp & precise to fly (well don't mention the cyclic shhhh its like the war, mums the word) but given unlimited choice; NEVER. :mad:

Happy Landings http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[Paul Cantrell]

Thanks for the real data Sid!

But the older I get the more I realize that even good factual data like this often doesn't really answer the questions we are trying to answer (is this a safe aircraft to fly).

The major problem with the statistics is the one people always mention: it doesn't take into account the experience of the pilot (or his attitude). That probably makes a LOT more difference than what kind of aircraft they fly.

I remember talking years ago with a guy who had 300 hours and was a police helicopter pilot. He was very offended when I mentioned that I thought 300 hours was too little to be doing night insertions onto confined rooftops with the local SWAT team. I'm sure at this point he looks back and is aghast at what he was doing with so little experience. But at the time he was confident in his abilities. Lots of low time people are that way - as instructors we don't spend all the time telling them just how incompetent they are - they need to have some confidence, but let's face it: all of us with thousands of hours; how safe were you at 40 hours with a private pilot license? I look back and shudder at how much I didn't know...

Some of the people who come to me for their flight reviews scare me. Some of them are diligent good sticks that pass my test (would I let them fly my family) and others you swear are being protected by the gods because only sheer luck has kept them from an accident.

We're all like that - most of the close calls I had were all at the beginning of my career, and I only scare myself (usually with a student pilot) once every couple years now :rolleyes:

All of the mechanical problems I've had have been in other types (including fixed wings). 22s and 44s have been totally reliable for me, whereas I've had gearbox problems in Bells, stuck controls and sick engines in Enstroms, and engine failures in Cessnas. So, which type am I actually safer in? It does scare me when ANY helicopter has a mechanical failure the pilot could not have prevented - the tail boom separation on the R44 back in 2006 happened the day after I was out at Robinson for recurrent training; he was an experienced pilot and probably none of us would have done any better, so that is sobering. On the other hand 407s have chopped off tailbooms, Eurocopters seem to have this hydraulics issue, S92 gearboxes seem a bit iffy... every type has issues.

There are certainly things I would like to see changed about the Robinsons. I would much prefer a normal cyclic in the 44 and 66, but it's probably a necessary evil in the 22 (there simply isn't room for a normal cyclic). And, I do think Frank should just contract with Enstrom to design his blades: it's been a problem the entire time he's been in business. I'm not sure I see other manufacturers having so much trouble building reliable blades.

I think each brand has their strengths... I love the LongRanger I fly, I really enjoyed the Enstrom (but that A model really needs more power!) but I have to say that the Robinson has been reliable and fun to fly and I think just as safe as any of the other types I've flown. Arguably the R44 is a safer trainer than the R22 (more inertia, more power available to get you out of trouble) but it's also a good $100-$200 more per hour which simply doesn't fit everybody's budget.

As others have also mentioned, if I hadn't had the inexpensive R22 to learn to fly in, I wouldn't have been enjoying helicopter flying for the last 25 years!

Fly Safe,

Paul

[SilsoeSid]

Thanks for the mention Paul :rolleyes:

If you don't like raw data, here's a fact for you.

The Lynx was/is called the 'Widow Maker'.
http://www.agraceproduction.com/projpopup.php?id=2

Funny how more people have been killed in Robinsons than Lynx, yet the nickname hasn't transferred over, perhaps it's time it did!

[toptobottom]

PC - best post I've read in years :ok:

[Arrrj]

PC :ok:

I agree with TTB...a well worded and properly thought out response. I suppose we shall never be able to persuade the Robbie haters that the machines are just as safe as many other types, and that it really depends on the "nut behind the stick" whether you have a bad situation or not.

For a bunch of guys who are supposed to fly these machines (various brands) a lot, it is hard read a lot of the rubbish that gets published.

Well done.

Arrrj :D