"Why Robinson helicopters seem to have a bad habit of crashing"

[BigMike]

Interesting recent article from New Zealand.

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/social-issues/robinson-helicopters-why-seem-bad-habit-crashing/

[Marly Lite]

I've never flown teetering rotor, so I have no experience or knowledge on 'mast bumping'.

So, from my perspective, this design appears un-airworthy, if it is true that encountering turbulence can cause mast bumping leading to loss of control.

Can someone educate me?

[aa777888]

All two bladed, teetering designs are susceptible to mast bumping. UH-1, 206, R44, R22, makes no difference. Get into low or negative G's with these machines and those like them at your peril.

People like such machines because they are economical to build and operate, and require less storage space.

Clearly, being the smallest and lightest helicopters of this type, the R22 and R44 are going to be more susceptible to external conditions that could cause unwanted low-G conditions, i.e. it takes less turbulence to cause a problem in an R22 than in a 206 or UH-1. Similarly, the R22 and R44 will be more susceptible to ham handed pilots.


https://youtu.be/_QkOpH2e6tM

[FL020]

Robbie bashing in 3-2-1 here we go again :ugh:

[tartare]

Innocent question from fixed wing PPL who has had the odd pole around in an R-22 and even made a miserable attempt or two at hovering.
Is it possible to have a non-teetering two bladed main rotor?
If so, if Robinson wanted to change to that kind of rotor - would it require a fundamental re-design of the aircraft?
Rather than them simply being ****e - I thought the high rate of crashes in Robbies was due to a machine that was originally designed pretty much for point to point commuter type flying - being used by pilots in quite aggressive flight regimes - like hunting or stock herding at low level - which it's not suited to.
Low G flight, hard sharp turns or rapid reversals of direction etc.

[Robbiee]

Its the Indian, not the arrow.

[aa777888]

Innocent question from fixed wing PPL who has had the odd pole around in an R-22 and even made a miserable attempt or two at hovering.
Is it possible to have a non-teetering two bladed main rotor?
Not as far as I know. See also this explanation. (http://www.copters.com/mech/mr_semi.html)
If so, if Robinson wanted to change to that kind of rotor - would it require a fundamental re-design of the aircraft?
People have often postulated a three-bladed, fully articulated Robinson rotor head. It would be a major redesign.
Rather than them simply being ****e - I thought the high rate of crashes in Robbies was due to a machine that was originally designed pretty much for point to point commuter type flying - being used by pilots in quite aggressive flight regimes - like hunting or stock herding at low level - which it's not suited to. Low G flight, hard sharp turns or rapid reversals of direction etc.Only the low-g stuff is a problem. Other than that the machine is quite agile and really very fun to fly without ever putting it into a low-g state. Again, it's an issue of someone putting the machine into a situation that allows it to be in a low-g state. Don't do it advertently. As the article cited above said, use the right tool for the job. When it's 30 gust 50 out a two-bladed machine is probably not the best tool, and a lightweight two-bladed machine is an even worse choice. It's the inadvertent scenario which is the nightmare, say a sudden penetration into unexpected severe turbulence at speeds around max. cruise. Such scenarios are more likely in mountainous, windy conditions. Under such circumstances one must fly conservatively, with a good understanding of mountain winds, and be ready to slow down instantly in the event of turbulence.

[Ascend Charlie]

would it require a fundamental re-design of the aircraft?

Yes. The Robinsons were built to a price point, originally intended to cost $22,000.

The teetering head is hugely successful in the Robinsons and Bells. It can be sturdy, and is the simplest way to get a rotor head onto a helicopter. If you wanted to make it non-teetering, the price will rise considerably, mainly for the complexity and testing. It cannot have any movement in the lead/lag plane or the imbalance would tear it apart. It can have flapping freedom, and of course feathering. But in the decades of rotorhead development, nobody has made one successfully. Stick with the teeter and the wee-waa and the desire to stay alive with positive g.

This thread is named for the propensity for low-time pilots to take the R22 and others out of their design envelope, with resultant tears and gnashing of teeth.

[Bell_ringer]

When it comes to 2-bladed helicopters, there is only one that continues to blame pilots for in-flight breakups, especially inexperienced pilots, yet many accidents have included people that don't fit the profile.
There is only one that puts notes in flight manuals to significantly reduce speed in turbulence.
One that publishes safety notices to remove controls so pax can't bump them and to shift blame to the pilot.
One that requires extra training to deal with the safety nuances.

They can be flown safely but the ability to leave the safe zone seems far too easy and doesn't end well.
When you build to a price you can't engineer out problems and the target market seem willing to accept the compromises mainly because they believe that accidents only happen to other people.
Will take an old JetBanger any day ahead of the alternative.

[meleagertoo]

Will take an old JetBanger any day ahead of the alternative.

What? Even with it's dangerous mast-bumping teetering head...?

Methinks there is more to Robbo accidents than the head design, somehow.

[SASless]

Lets put an end to this "Mast Bumping" is a Mortal Sin thing.....it is an issue for sure but then so is any number of other issues for other designs.

Take one look at the number of flight hours for the Bell 47, 204, 205, 212,214, including Military models all. using that style Rotor Head system....and I would suggest Mast Bumping is one of the least notable causes of accidents.

Yes...you can do yourself in if you allow the factors that cause Mast Bumping to occur....but there lies the central issue....the PILOT!

Robbies do the Mast Bumping thing because the tolerances are so much smaller than that on a Huey....and the same is true for the Bell 47 compared to the 212 or 214.

That tells me that one has to be far more judicious in choosing the conditions and manner one flies the Robbie than the larger better built aircraft.



Note: The US Army fleet of UH-1's accumulated almost Eight Million Flight Hours during the Vietnam War....and many of those same Huey's are still flying today in the Civilian Market.

Add the other militaries in the USA and around the world, and civilian operators and the total fleet hours are well beyond Ten Million Hours and counting.



That is not Robbie Bashing....that is just the plain ol' truth.

Since I am even thinking about Robbies....I shall go have a couple of double Cheeseburgers with a large order Fries (Chips) and a large Chocolate Milkshake.....to ensure I cannot fit through the door of a Robbie.


https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/50-52HueybyFardinkSO162.pdf

[paco]

And wasn't the 206 the safest single-engined aircraft in the world at one time?

[SASless]

It was....and that included airplanes as well as helicopters.

[[email protected]]

And although other helicopters can experience mast-bumping, only the Robbie has pitch horns that break under the strains of the flapping - that's if the blades haven't impacted the tail boom or the cockpit before that happens.

[Bell_ringer]

Adding the coning hinge for a little extra flapability was also a stroke of genius :}

[aa777888]

From 2006 to 2016, looking at US data only, the NTSB (https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx) records 67 fatals in Bells of all types, 66 fatals in Robinsons of all types. And we know that the fleet sizes are nearly equal in the US between the two makes. We don't know exactly how many hours each fleet does each year (but I would like to). So absent any reliable fleet hour data, if you are flying in the US it really doesn't matter if the name on the side starts with a "B" or an "R", except that it costs twice as much per hour to operate even the least expensive turbine machine, R66's included, and much more than that to operate something with at least four seats and at least three main rotor blades. At that level of cost differential, whether it's wholesale or retail, people will happily accept more risk to get in the sky in a helicopter. Except that the stat's say there really isn't any more risk one way or the other.

Now if you are flying in a country with a name that starts with "N" or "B", all bets are off! ;)

[Bell_ringer]

a7&8, you keep raising this as means of a justification, and like I have pointed out previously, when those Robbies are flying HEMS, fire, police, agriculture and many of the other high risk activities then you may have a point.
Until then, Joe Soap flying from A to B and some occasional news coptering won't account for the similar fatalties, not withstanding the vast difference in seating capacity of the types.
Just waive the white flag and admit it is what it is - tin foil and some rivets held together with duct tape and bubblegum :E

[aa777888]

Not giving in, BR. The same points could be made about the high risks of primary training and high risks of carrying around low time pilots, both primary missions for Robinsons. The case can be made that both fleets are engaged in higher risk activities, each unique to themselves.

And I still want to see some trustworthy fleet hour data. I'm beginning to suspect those numbers are either closely guarded secrets or just nobody is bothering to track them. If someone can show in a verifiable way that the Bell fleet is flying twice the hours of the Robinson fleet, then I'll go slink home with my tailboom between my legs. But not until then.

[SASless]

From 2006 to 2016, looking at US data only, the NTSB (https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/index.aspx) records 67 fatals in Bells of all types, 66 fatals in Robinsons of all types.

A simple quote of a factoid is of zero value in any analysis or discussion.

Let me ask a few questions then you get back with us.

How many Robinson crashes occurred while doing EMS flights at night?

How many Robinson crashes occurred at Night doing Air Taxi flights?

How many Robinson crashes were pilot error in daylight operations within sight of the home airport (like training, etc.).

How many Robinson crashes occurred while carrying underslung loads to include Fire Fighting?

If you are going to throw out a simple number....that will not buttress your argument much at all.

[Robbiee]

The R44 is the best selling helicopter in the world, why? Because its more affordable (and has a back seat) to more people. Why is it more affordable? Because its light. The lighter the aircraft the more delicate you must handle it. Either accept this limitation, or go fly something else,...but stop your bitching! :ugh:

[Bell_ringer]

The best selling vehicle in the world is (was?) the Honda super cub scooter.
While that is a wonderful accolade I wouldn't want to be on one bolting down the local highway.
Best is a rather variable moniker.

[SASless]

I just looked on Controller for Jet Box's and R-44's....twice as many Robinsons for sale as Bells.....and the prices for a newer Robinson is not far off from that for a upper middle priced Jet Box.

That answers any question I might have had on which would be spending my money upon.....beginning with Piston versus Turbiine and overall robustness.

If you are all about cheap then I suppose you would see it differently than I do.

[aa777888]

I didn't do your homework assignment exactly as requested SAS because I simply don't have the time. I do understand, I think, that you are trying to make a point that the work the Bell fleet is doing is far more dangerous, complex and risky than the Robinson fleet. I don't agree with that assessment. Carrying low-time/part-time pilots is a risky business all by itself, as is instruction. Nevertheless, thanks to the highly organized NTSB database I was willing to peel the onion a little bit. As you can see from the table, many of the NTSB categories are comparable. The ones that are not I highlighted. Draw whatever conclusions you like. I've drawn mine, as noted above, and have not had my mind changed yet.

And, to touch on your other post, the capital cost of the helicopter is NOT the issue. It is the OPERATING cost that drives the business, or personal business, model. Hell, I thought about going in with one or two others on a used 206 or R66. But it just doesn't make economic sense. I put my own 44 to work about 150 hours last year (lease to a local school) and that paid for my insurance which substantially reduced the cost of my personal flying. There is NO way I could do that with a 206 or R66. Nobody would rent it or lease it for enough hours to matter. That market is flooded with way too many machines already and being worked by larger concerns who would have no interest in adding my machine to the stable. And since I can't afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot" but still want to fly, I MUST accept the Robinson as a solution or simply not fly at all. As for the lot of you who CAN afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot", or are full-time turbine helicopter pilots, I don't begrudge you your success. But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/690x541/capture_286ecde3427b2f6049f8ca4857c6e05189e5e1e8.jpg

[[email protected]]

But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago. But expecting the authorities to do something when there is a clear economic benefit from jobs and the supporting industry is naive - even if there is s clear proble.

You can't ban guns in the US because of the economic drivers (and apparent assault on rights) even though they are inherently dangerous, especially in the wrong hands, and kill thousands of people a year.

[WillyPete]

Methinks there is more to Robbo accidents than the head design, somehow.

Typically all the accidents not caused by pilot input, are lack of power.

[cattletruck]

A Robbi isn't much of a problem to an experienced handler, the only concern with it due to its less robust design is what did the previous pilot who flew it do with it.

Although this is true with all machines, an overstressed Robbi will invariably bite back harder than slowly exhibit a problem.

Since I am even thinking about Robbies....I shall go have a couple of double Cheeseburgers with a large order Fries (Chips) and a large Chocolate Milkshake.....to ensure I cannot fit through the door of a Robbie.

I got into one last year after a long absence and was surprised to find it hovered right skid low. Should have written that up in the maintenance release.

[SASless]

Airbus encountered a small problem with the 225 and yet it still is operated in a few countries.

The 350 has non-crashworthy fuel cells as does the Robbie and they continue to operate.

Do not think for a second the "authorities" care to permanently ground any aircraft that was properly "certified" in the past.

The FAA did ground the Robbie over some blade delaminations and also required special training for the R-22 which some 16,000+ pilots have undergone since the FAA Ruling.

[Hot and Hi]

a7&8, you keep raising this as means of a justification, and like I have pointed out previously, when those Robbies are flying HEMS, fire, police, agriculture and many of the other high risk activities then you may have a point.
Until then, Joe Soap flying from A to B and some occasional news coptering won't account for the similar fatalties, not withstanding the vast difference in seating capacity of the types.
This is the most absurd perversion of common sense I have seen in a long time: That commercial work is inherently more dangerous than private piloting and that one therefore most expect a significantly higher rate of fatalities in commercial work - all other things, like type of helicopter, being equal - than in private flying. :ugh:

If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.

There is a number of videos on the 'net showing unprofessional pilots loading their new toy to the rim with friends and then going on to show them what a hell-of-a guy they are. It often is in a Robbie, and often ends in disaster. But that hardly is proof of a causal link between the two.

[Robbiee]

You can't ban guns in the US because of the economic drivers (and apparent assault on rights) even though they are inherently dangerous, especially in the wrong hands, and kill thousands of people a year.

So are cars, and cigarettes,...and bacon double cheeseburgers:rolleyes:

[Bell_ringer]

This is the most absurd perversion of common sense I have seen in a long time: That commercial work is inherently more dangerous than private piloting and that one therefore most expect a significantly higher rate of fatalities in commercial work - all other things, like type of helicopter, being equal - than in private flying. :ugh:

If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.


You have the wrong end of the stick.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.

These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.

If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.

[Robbiee]

You have the wrong end of the stick.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.

These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.

If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.

There is a school in Arizona (Quantum Helicopters I believe) that has three 22's each with over 20,000 hours on them. Why don't you call them and ask how many times those three have had accidents?

[Thomas coupling]

In the right hands, a Robbo is as safe as any other cheap end chopper.
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?

[Bell_ringer]

There is a school in Arizona (Quantum Helicopters I believe) that has three 22's each with over 20,000 hours on them. Why don't you call them and ask how many times those three have had accidents?

Well, this one came up 19627 hours short
Kathryn's Report: Robinson R22 Beta,k N7041X, operated by Quantum Helicopters Inc: Incident occurred December 29, 2014 near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (KIWA), Phoenix, Arizona (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/12/robinson-r22-beta-n7041x-incident.html?m=1)

[Robbiee]

Well, this one came up 19627 hours short
Kathryn's Report: Robinson R22 Beta,k N7041X, operated by Quantum Helicopters Inc: Incident occurred December 29, 2014 near Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (KIWA), Phoenix, Arizona (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2014/12/robinson-r22-beta-n7041x-incident.html?m=1)

Yes, new things can break too. The question was in the ones who have been flying for 20,000 hours how many accidents did they have?

[Bell_ringer]

Yes, new things can break too. The question was in the ones who have been flying for 20,000 hours how many accidents did they have?

So we must exclude the ones that have problems and focus on the ones that don't?

[aa777888]

The FAA did ground the Robbie over some blade delaminations and also required special training for the R-22 which some 16,000+ pilots have undergone since the FAA Ruling.Actually, SFAR 73 applies to both the R22 and R44. Interestingly, it does not apply to the R66, which is a) a bit odd and perhaps a bad oversight because it has the same basic flying qualities as the R44, b) or the FAA figures that the problem is mostly associated with training of which there is little in the R66, c) or the FAA figures that anyone getting into an R66 will already be more experienced and therefore not require the additional training associated with SFAR 73.

You have the wrong end of the stick.It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.This latter point is untrue. You simply assumed that was the case. However, to clarify: the stat's I posted above represent the total number of events with fatalities, not the total number of fatalities. I.e., the 66 Robinson events with fatalities actually resulted in more than 66 fatalities, and, as you point out, that is not a good way of looking at things.

Again, someone show us all the hours from a reasonably unimpeachable source. If the Bell fleet is significantly more hours than the Robinson fleet, I will gladly bow to that statistic. Still not seeing the data, though. I did find one news article that showed some fleet hours, but every other fact check I did on that article showed it to be badly wrong, so I don't trust the hours quoted in that article.

[Robbiee]

So we must exclude the ones that have problems and focus on the ones that don't?
:ugh::ugh:

[Bell_ringer]

:ugh::ugh:

The topic drifted to accidents and hours PER YEAR.
So let's assume that there are aircraft that are accident free with over 20k hours, over what period did that happen?
Rudimentary maths would indicate that would be roughly 10 rebuilds and would equate to the better part of 30 months on the ground, not including the standard maintenance to get that far.
This would seem to indicate a rather signifiant amount of time would be required to achieve those stats.

Getting back to your question, the NTSB database shows 5 accidents on different 22's at that school (training related as you'd expect). The database doesn't provide the age of the aircraft but looking up the serial numbers they appear to be between 2000 and 2003 (apart from the new one that broke in 2014).

[Hot and Hi]

In the right hands, a Robbo is as safe as any other cheap end chopper.
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?
I think the flaw of the whole debate is that you guys compare a civilian, consumer product against military hardware. It should come at no surprise that a Sherman tank has better off-road capabilities than a Corolla, and also would provide better survivability if you run into a tree. You are not stating more than the obvious.

I suspect that most who make condescending remarks about those cheap, cheap, cheap Corollas are themselves lowly paid bus drivers, and would never have the money to buy their own car. I have yet to see a true oligarch who owns a twin for his private transport making mocking remarks about the masses who can only afford to drive around in a small sedan.

On a different note: While a proper turbine single might be four times the price of a R44, at USD 500k a Robbie is far from accessible to the masses. Maybe the last time you checked the RHC pricelist was in the eighties? In most countries, given the income structures and the cost of borrowing, only top level executive managers, or a few successful enterpreneurs, can afford to buy and maintain their own piston helicopter next to running their family.

[Bell_ringer]

a different note: While a proper turbine single might be four times the price of a R44, at USD 500k a Robbie is far from accessible to the masses. Maybe the last time you checked the RHC pricelist was in the eighties? In most countries, given the income structures and the cost of borrowing, only top level executive managers, or a few successful enterpreneurs, can afford to buy and maintain their own piston helicopter next to running their family.

Freshly rebuilt aircraft, or those with fewer hours remaining, are far less than that and quite affordable, relatively speaking.
Fractional ownership is also fairly common.
You can pick up an older Jetbanger for a bit of a premium relative to a fresh out of rebuild 44, but the gap isn't huge.

In any case, no one is disputing that a Robinson can't be flown or operated safely but like any safety discussion the whole landscape must be considered.
They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.
The robbie faithful don't seem to share the philosophy that the aircraft is what it is, they seem to hold it in very high regard, blaming problems on those that fly them and never at what the factory could have done better.
In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile :}

[SASless]

In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Just saying.....If you are a Republican from the Deep South trying to discuss politics with a Yankee Democrat is much the same as arguing with Robbie folks.....after all the situation is much the same....when your opponent's party is being run by a Barista who garnered 16,000 Votes and has scant knowledge or experience that allows for a basis to discuss the issues.

If all one has flown is a Robbie of some sort....how does one begin to understand the difference between a Robbie and a Helicopter?

[aa777888]

Freshly rebuilt aircraft, or those with fewer hours remaining, are far less than that and quite affordable, relatively speaking.As an R44 owner I can tell you this really isn't entirely correct. True, you can buy a used ship that is halfway through the Big Overhaul cycle for half the money. Indeed, I found a very good deal on a Clipper II with A/C like that. But unless it is your intent to basically throw it away as a run-out on controller.com when it times or calendars out you will, eventually, put $400K into it, just not all up front, which is definitely an improvement on your cash flow situation.

Fractional ownership is also fairly common.I have not found this to be true either, at least not in my neck of the woods. The R44 owner demographic around here is driven by the R44 pilot demographic, which divides itself into two distinct groups. The first group is comprised of young pilots who want to fly helicopters and are willing to live in some ****hole or their parent's basement, work three jobs, and put every cent towards the dream. These folks fly the ships owned by the schools. The schools can keep them moving 500+ hours a year, which is good enough to pay for MX and the loan, plus a small profit. The second group tends to be wealthy folks who can afford the training without breaking a financial sweat. Folks who can do that also tend to be wealthy enough to simply buy a new machine, not share it with anyone, and fly it 80 hours a year. I tried for two years to find a partner or two and found that the guys who were renting and not buying were forever going to be "dabblers". The "dabblers" are a distinct group, but a very TINY group. Those who were buying were buying brand new ships as sole owners. The jump from one level to the other is significant. I'm not saying partnerships don't happen, but they are more rare than I would have liked. In fact I know of a three-owner partnership in a beautiful EC120B. But that is exceedingly rare.

You can pick up an older Jetbanger for a bit of a premium relative to a fresh out of rebuild 44, but the gap isn't huge.Absolutely agree, from a capital cost perspective. But the leap in operating cost is a factor of 2, mostly insurance driven. This becomes a huge turn-off for the wealthy, "gentleman owner", since they are only flying a few hours a year. They don't want to pay $20K a year or worse for something that gathers dust most of the time. And a lot of venues they want to fly to (casinos, racetracks, etc.) often require $2M or even $3M in liability coverage for turbine helicopters.

In any case, no one is disputing that a Robinson can't be flown or operated safely but like any safety discussion the whole landscape must be considered. They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.Absolutely agree. Hell, I'm a case in point, totally cost driven. It's fly the 44 or don't fly. And, as an owner, I need a ship I can put to work at least part time. The 44 is the only easy way to do that.

The robbie faithful don't seem to share the philosophy that the aircraft is what it is, they seem to hold it in very high regard, blaming problems on those that fly them and never at what the factory could have done better.
In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile :}Ah, but you must look in the mirror when you say that! Right back at you, others, and big-city, northeastern shiny-eyed social justice warriors ;) And don't forget that I agreed with your last point above, so not everyone is living in a "Robinson dream world". More seriously, we should all hold the design in high regard. No, really. Forget private owners. The economics of Robinson helicopters have made it possible for nearly anyone with the skills and the desire to become a professional helicopter pilot (I suppose some ex-MIL types might not like that!) And the economics of Robinson helicopters have allowed many people to experience the joys of rotary wing flight who otherwise could not afford it. And they are not at all "flimsy" machines. Just spend a week instructing hover autos at a school, or a weekend at a fairground flying a dozen loads an hour for eight hours straight each day. These things are reasonably rugged workhorses and survive such conditions with aplomb. But, no, I would not fly one when it is gusting 40KN out. From that perspective they are "flimsy", if you must use that word. However, everything is relative. You don't see the USCG headed out into a gale with a Jetranger or a Squirrel. Does that make them "flimsy". Of course not!

If all one has flown is a Robbie of some sort....how does one begin to understand the difference between a Robbie and a Helicopter?That's a little disingenuous, isn't it? Anything in approx. the same performance class is going to be nearly identical in all ways. Form follows function. For example, R22 vs. G2. Is the G2 a "real helicopter"? I did not find them to be all that different. Compared to the 22 I found the G2 be plusher, less sporty handling-wise, a little under-powered, and much easier to auto. Oh, and half again more expensive to rent. There is nothing comparable in the niche the 44 lives in. You can compare the 66, 505 and 206 more easily. Sadly I have no turbine time to speak of so can't legitimately make that comparison.

"Hi, my name is aa777888 and I have a Robinson helicopter problem. That is to say, I have a wallet problem that forces me to fly a Robinson helicopter if I want to fly." So, helicopter twelve-steppers, what's the next step? Quit flying?

[Bell_ringer]

A7's & 8's, you're a good sport :ok:

[SASless]

"AA" also understands the issues and can rationally and reasonably discuss them.

The 44 is far more than just a 22 times 2. Having no knowledge of the 66 I can safely assume it is more than just a 22 times 2.

Helicopters are expensive no matter which one you dump your money into....and it all gets down to return on investment.

Sometimes it might be rather abstract....like what is gaining a Commercial License worth in today's employment environment or in rental/charter revenue.

[Thomas coupling]

Hot and Hi.

Smell the coffee sunshine:

All of these are the same price as a range of car prices most people with a reasonable salary can afford.
They see it as a route to getting airborne on the cheap and mixing with everyone else "up there".
Problem is - aviation isn't straight forward, requires lateral thinking and very careful planning.

People who are desperate to drive will buy the cheapest car possible with an MoT for next to nothing and then join the rest of us on the motorway in all weather! It isn't going to end well is it?

Those who do their research properly and wish to committ aviation properly, complete the proper training, stay current and buy the right equipment for the right circumstances before they let loose.......

https://www.aircraft24.co.uk/helicopter/robinson/r22-beta-ii--xi131074.htm?fbacklink=r22--xm1253.htm
https://www.heliair.com/store/used-glass-cockpit-robinson-r22-beta-ii-2014/
https://www.heliair.com/store/used-robinson-r22-beta-i-1988-hull/

A neighbour of mine came into some serious money a few years ago (Millions). Prior to this he was a builder with his brother. Before he was a builder, he was a bouncer! He was 20 stone atleast and loved partying.
One day he said to me (because he knew my background).... "I'm joining you pal". I've bought a chopper now and I'll be up there with you before you know it. He bought a R22 for £90k. He got his PPL (god knows how!) 50hrs total. Didn't ask for any advice.
Clocked up 6hrs on type before he realised the damn cab couldn't fly him and his 25 stone brother at the same time!!!!
Sold it back to the broker. Never flown since. Told me recently that it was all too difficult "sticking to the rules"?????

So I say again - nothing wrong with the chopper in the right hnads. What Frank hasn't dwelled on, is that his designs can and most definitely will bite you if they are manhandled in awkward situations. He has left this to training schools to point out.......and there's the rub!

[paco]

...and it wasn't meant to be a training machine anyway....

[cattletruck]

He was 20 stone atleast
That's 127kg, the seat rating of an R22 is I believe 109kg.

He got his PPL (god knows how!) 50hrs total.
That's quite impressive for someone with no prior aviation skill and no interest beforehand. I got my ticket (double endorsement too R22 and H300) in just a little over 30hrs and I thought that was very impressive, but had loads of plank time beforehand which made it easier to just focus on the handling side (autos, confined areas, slope landings, limited power, tail rotor failures, etc), also fortunate to be with a great school at the time which would never would have allowed a 20 stone person in an R22.

Clocked up 6hrs on type .... Never flown since.
Brown pants moment perhaps. Reality does have a sense of creeping up on folk.

Mind you the R22 is extremely benign in fair weather which is really misleading because if you throw in a few air bumps it then become a challenging machine to fly well.

[gator2]

Just wondering if there is any regression data relating hrs-required-to-PPL and propensity to crash. I've heard a number of stories about dead fixed wing guys that go something like: "He took twice as many hours to get his instrument rating as he should have, and in fact switched instructors when the first one said "no mas", so its no surprise he killed himself IFR". Also know a guy in town who is over 70 hrs and still can't get signed off, and wonder if in that situation a student should be washed out.

[aa777888]

A7's & 8's, you're a good sport :ok:

"AA" also understands the issues and can quit rationally and reasonably discuss them.
That is indeed high praise in this forum, thank you, gentlemen!

[aa777888]

What Frank hasn't dwelled on, is that his designs can and most definitely will bite you if they are manhandled in awkward situations. He has left this to training schools to point out.......and there's the rub!Do you really think that is the case? More than a few times folks here have pointed out the rather extraordinary safety bulletins that form part of the POH. Not to mention the rather blunt, no excuses stuff they teach at the factory Robinson Safety Course. And their total support of SFAR 73.

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Wow....I am loving this debate!!

Here's me. Just approaching my Skills Test in the UK, for issue of my EASA (YUK!!! Bloody bureaucrats...) PPL H. I will do the Commercial Add on to my FAA Plank Wing ATP at some point.

My issue is this......I learned in the Cabri. A GENIUS little helicopter that thinks its a Squirrel (or A Star if you prefer) / EC120 (only because of the Fenestron). It has an abundance of power, a massive RRPM band in Auto, modern systems, fully articulated rotor head (which is an amazing thing to behold....engineering excellence) and numerous other great qualities. Stick 100 litres in it, 2 grown men and go off on a hot day for some in field hover work without worrying too much. It's genuinely brilliant and must go some way to me being ready for the Skills Test in the bare minimum allowed time (including the max 6 hours under the min 45 for non pilots).

PROBLEM!! I will pass my skills test (despite the UK weather Examiner availability, helicopter availability and permanent standby Jet Jockey job trying to mess me up!) and will want to fly the most valuable thing in the Whole World....my family. Sure, my wonderful wife can come with me and we can drop into Pub's and restaurants for lunch and overnights, in the Cabri and it will be perfect for the job, not least because it has a decent baggage bay and 100kts Cruise when you wind it up (I'm not paying extra for extra fuel!)....BUT, if I want to fly my 2 kids as well and drop into a friends paddock....what can I rent to do it in, that doesnt cost even MORE ridiculous amounts of money per hour to rent? It HAS to be an R44....and THEREIN lies my issue. Theres no doubt that with my thousands of hours in fixed wings (from 2 seat pistons to 3 engine, multi crew jets of different sizes), that the Cabri forgives some of my slightly crap handling at times whereas, I'm not sure the R44 would and I'm not exactly ham fisted either, but I do find the whole mast bumping thing, a bit of a concern.

In the UK, the cost of a turbine like a 206 (YES, I know they have teetering heads too...but having been in one, more than once, with an ex RAF Test Pilot, who really could make it dance, I'm confident that I'd struggle to break the thing up) is at least £200 per HOUR more to hire and yet, are NOT that much more to operate and could even be less given the 12 year / 2200 overhaul...same applies to similar Eurocopter (I know this for fact....I've been in the aviation game in various roles for 20+years). Remember that we pay $3.75 (£2.88) per USG for Jet A1 and $8.45 (£6.50) per USG for AvGas (yes...really!!) in the UK as an average. So an R44 at 15 USG per hour is $126.75 (£97.50) and a JetBanger is about $104.83 (£80.64), based on 28 USG per hour...which is on the heavy side and usually a bit less in my limited experience. Even with notable parts in the turbine and hydraulic actuators and the dreaded TT straps etc, the cost is NOT ($260) £200 per flight hour more. Especially when you consider that an R44, flying its 2200 hours off entirely, costs $150 (£115) per hour in fund/depreciation for rebuild, if you factor it in. Get through HALF of those hours and you are looking at double per hour. So, why is it SO expensive to fly a Turbine here? Insurance covers ham fisted people, cooking engines on start up (which are not THAT regular if the training was any good!) and in fact, given more power and better handling qualities in Auto etc (I mean, how GOOD is a 206 in AR....amazing). It's mental. I have almost no choice but to rent an R44....206 is too much....H500 is too much....Enstrom 480B isn't available/too rare and would be similar cost (and they have very few lifed parts) and group ownership appears to be a complete non starter!!

I'm actually worried that, until I can buy my own machine for a realistic cost (Alouette anyone?!!)....that I will be reluctant at best, to fly the R44 and surely, that isn't the right mindset to have before even getting in one. I'd be worried about every bump and unloading the disc. Of course, I would get to choose the days I fly....and can bin it on days that aren't entirely to my liking...

So, here is the crux of it. The Robbo debate is divided straight down the middle. Those that say they are fine and are brilliant and smell of roses and those that think that if you start at one on the ramp, the rotor will break the mast and disappear over the horizon. Which is it...who is right...are they safe enough for me....or are they most definitely not and should i fly a third less per year (surely not safe) and try to find a Turbine, within 200 miles of me, that I can hire?!

[SASless]

a78 displays what I meant....upon reading his response I noticed auto-correct snuck into the conversation and injected "quit" when I meant "quite".

Thus...I did an edit and removed that word completely and produced a much more clear statement.

The amended sentence now reads..... "AA" also understands the issues and can rationally and reasonably discuss them.

[John R81]

TN8B
I learned on the R44, so did my daughter. I fly exclusively turbine these days, my EC120 and some time in a 206 L4. The R44 is more forgiving than a 22. Higher rotor energy and machine weight means that you don't have the same "skittish-ness" as the 22. Yes, the 120 is even better (and you would have no issues transitioning to the 120, having learned on the Cabri) but can you get SFH in one? I have no hesitation in taking my loved ones in an R44 (though it is daughter at the controls, as I let my type-rating laps).

[aa777888]

Wow....I am loving this debate!!
Triple Nickel 8 Ball Some of your perceptions might be a bit off.

With respect to the power of the G2, when I flew it, before the software change that allowed some extra horsepower, it was definitely not as powerful as the R22. Now perhaps they are more on par. Someone else will have to weigh in on that. But swinging all that extra inertia around, the physics suggest it won't be quite as powerful feeling as an R22 still. But that's just me being pedantic :)

More importantly, your math is probably just a bit off with respect to the cost of running the various machines. I can't speak to UK costs, but they should be similar to US costs. You can't get hung up on the 12 year/2200 hour cycle of the Robinsons. All that does is lump a bunch of maintenance together on the Robinson that is more distributed over time on other helicopters. At the end of the day it is still the equivalent amount of maintenance. As soon as you go from the piston world to the turbine world hourly operating costs double. This is a combination of more expensive engine maintenance and more expensive insurance, and more than offsets any differences in fuel costs. It doesn't matter if you bought a cheap Alouette, it'll cost you double to run it compared to an R44. Worse, you won't fly it that much and the insurance alone will be quite painful, as you will be paying it whether it flies or gathers dust. That insurance will more than offset any perceived savings of on-condition maintenance. Go get some insurance quotes if you would like to see for yourself.

Most important of all, that brings us to the issue of flying the R44 itself. My strong recommendation to you is to go get some time in the 44. You will find it is not, by ANY means, a China doll. Indeed, other than no pushovers being allowed, I think you will find it far sportier to fly than the G2, and after a few hover autos or full downs you'll see just how rugged it is. You will also see that it is not any bother at all to keep it out of low-G. Yes, the interior styling is not quite as plush, but until there is a G4 it's going to be a BIG leap, cost-wise, into a turbine. And a tatty old (but entirely airworthy, don't get me wrong) 206 is not going to be very plush, either ;) The only thing you will not like is how difficult the auto's are. Let there be no doubt, it is quite a bit more difficult to auto a 44, much less a 22, than a G2. So there will be some learning curve there. The up side to that is when you get back into the G2 the auto's will seem like they are unfolding in slow motion and that you hardly have to do anything :ok:

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Thanks John....appreciate the response. I guess I'm just after a bit of reassurance. I'm in the middle of finding an EC120 for a customer...PM me if you're selling yours anytime soon ;)

On a different note, I do understand what you're saying. I do feel a little spoiled by the Cabri, all be it for good reasons!! Maybe the 4 seat one will be along before I'm too old to enjoy it?!

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Triple Nickel 8 Ball Some of your perceptions might be a bit off.

With respect to the power of the G2, when I flew it, before the software change that allowed some extra horsepower, it was definitely not as powerful as the R22. Now perhaps they are more on par. Someone else will have to weigh in on that. But swinging all that extra inertia around, the physics suggest it won't be quite as powerful feeling as an R22 still. But that's just me being pedantic :)

More importantly, your math is probably just a bit off with respect to the cost of running the various machines. I can't speak to UK costs, but they should be similar to US costs. You can't get hung up on the 12 year/2200 hour cycle of the Robinsons. All that does is lump a bunch of maintenance together on the Robinson that is more distributed over time on other helicopters. At the end of the day it is still the equivalent amount of maintenance. As soon as you go from the piston world to the turbine world hourly operating costs double. This is a combination of more expensive engine maintenance and more expensive insurance, and more than offsets any differences in fuel costs. It doesn't matter if you bought a cheap Alouette, it'll cost you double to run it compared to an R44. Worse, you won't fly it that much and the insurance alone will be quite painful, as you will be paying it whether it flies or gathers dust. That insurance will more than offset any perceived savings of on-condition maintenance. Go get some insurance quotes if you would like to see for yourself.

Most important of all, that brings us to the issue of flying the R44 itself. My strong recommendation to you is to go get some time in the 44. You will find it is not, by ANY means, a China doll. Indeed, other than no pushovers being allowed, I think you will find it far sportier to fly than the G2, and after a few hover autos or full downs you'll see just how rugged it is. You will also see that it is not any bother at all to keep it out of low-G. Yes, the interior styling is not quite as plush, but until there is a G4 it's going to be a BIG leap, cost-wise, into a turbine. And a tatty old (but entirely airworthy, don't get me wrong) 206 is not going to be very plush, either ;) The only thing you will not like is how difficult the auto's are. Let there be no doubt, it is quite a bit more difficult to auto a 44, much less a 22, than a G2. So there will be some learning curve there. The up side to that is when you get back into the G2 the auto's will seem like they are unfolding in slow motion and that you hardly have to do anything :ok:

Thanks "AA" .....I appreciate the time you took to respond.

I think that, one of the things with an R44 is that, unless you buy it from new and get the benefit of the cost saving, then down the road, the next owner (and the one after that etc), until OH time, all take advantage until the machine is worth "not a lot". Compared to a Corporate Jet for example, if you buy one without any programs (i.e no money in the bank for engines and airframe), then the value has the crap knocked out of it. If you were buying into a machine that had a program type set up, it would retain a stack of value. In the UK, the cost of buying the kit from RHC is £210k plus VAT....add a decent paint and interior makeover, a few new bits of avionic magic, plus an engine overhaul and BOOM.....you've spent £250-£300k....PLUS, buying the machine in the first place. If you bought it at half life for even half the value new, you're looking at spending MORE than a new one will have cost in the first place.....so I just dont get it? It seems artificially cheap to me, because it isn't at all cheap. I also dont understand how Turbine costs double? Fuel per hour is cheaper, or say, equal to....insurance is a percentage of the hull value, plus pilot experience and guesstimated utilisation and, having had quotes, is very close. The engines have higher TBO's and even if you factor the added bits and bobs that need to be changed, the hourly cost is still not double and of course, the depreciation is NEARLY non existent compared to a Robbo and you have to factor that in. My pals 98 206 B3 is worth MORE now than when he bought it a few years ago. Yes, he has lavished some cash on things he wanted (avionics mostly and some other things), but he did so knowing he wouldn't really add value....he just wanted the mod cons. If he sold it tomorrow, he would get the cash back.

I'm pleased to hear that you rate the R44 and indeed, many do. I've flown a couple of hours in the R22 (and in fact, will have access to one for "cheap", once I'm licensed) and quite liked it....as it's a little more challenging and "Sporty". The R44 I have also had some time in (only as a pax...not to fly) and again, I liked it....but it was some time ago and the bad press they seem to receive (justifiably or not), has just leaked a little doubt in over time. As I say, I dont really feel like there is much of a choice for progress in types and seats for me right now.

I confess to being a little "tongue in cheek" when I mentioned the Alouette. I just love the fact that they will pull down a house, you can buy one with spare engine and blades for less than £100k and I can have a pal maintain it, with me passing him the tools and making the tea. It's a romantic notion that I will get one. Same as with a Westland Scout!!!!

Thanks again all.....love the Fling Wing World

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Erm....you have an EC120 of your own....?! FABULOUS!! Giss a go Mister :)

If you're ever in my neck of the woods (Berkshire/Oxfordshie border), then feel free to drop by for a cuppa and let me admire your heli!!!! I have a farm strip (well, my pal does, that I set up with him).

Again...thanks for the time!

[aa777888]

If you bought it at half life for even half the value new, you're looking at spending MORE than a new one will have cost in the first place.....so I just dont get it? It seems artificially cheap to me, because it isn't at all cheap. I also dont understand how Turbine costs double? Fuel per hour is cheaper, or say, equal to....insurance is a percentage of the hull value, plus pilot experience and guesstimated utilisation and, having had quotes, is very close. The engines have higher TBO's and even if you factor the added bits and bobs that need to be changed, the hourly cost is still not double and of course, the depreciation is NEARLY non existent compared to a Robbo and you have to factor that in. My pals 98 206 B3 is worth MORE now than when he bought it a few years ago. Yes, he has lavished some cash on things he wanted (avionics mostly and some other things), but he did so knowing he wouldn't really add value....he just wanted the mod cons. If he sold it tomorrow, he would get the cash back.
All I can say is that the market on your side of the pond must be very different than on our side. I bought a half life Clipper II and got a very good deal on it. Both the seller and I knew that the blades would have to be replaced in 2020 due to the AD against -5 blades and the ship was priced accordingly. I've never heard of anyone selling a 44 and including "program" funds. The only downside to this is that you better have the cash on hand to make up for the "program" not having caught up with the age of the ship. For instance, when I have to do the blades at the end of this year I estimate I'll still be down about $20K at the rate the ship flies. But that's OK, to me I simply deferred having to spend that $20K up front when I bought the machine. In the meantime I have a "program" account that continues to accrue the monies necessary to keep the ship maintained, and after I have owned it for a complete 12 year cycle it will have caught up.

For a nice snapshot of various direct operating costs options in the USA, read Phil Greenspun's article here:

https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/bell-505/review

Now that the 505 is a little more mature, perhaps some of the 505 discussion in that article has changed, but I'm just pointing out the sort of costs that we experience here in the US.

Note that my 44 flew only 180 hours last year, but I was able to almost do as well as what Robinson claims for DOC based on 500 hours/year. My insurance amortization was higher, but my maintenance and fuel were lower, so it all evened out quite nicely. I.e. what Robinson claims here is not just marketing BS:

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/r44_2_eoc.pdf

[Hot and Hi]

Triple Nickel, for a private pilot the key to being a safe pilot to your family is in flying often and regularly - every week, or every other week at least - in all weather and in the same type of helicopter you are going to use when taking up your family.

To only fly every other month, in a helicopter that you are not entirely familiar with, and only in weather that looked fair when you took off, is not safe.

[Robbiee]

Triple Nickel, for a private pilot the key to being a safe pilot to your family is in flying often and regularly - every week, or every other week at least - in all weather and in the same type of helicopter you are going to use when taking up your family.

To only fly every other month, in a helicopter that you are not entirely familiar with, and only in weather that looked fair when you took off, is not safe.

"All weather"? Yeah that'll get him killed. A private pilot flying his family (especially in an R44) should only go up when the weather is spectacular!

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

AA

I may have confused my point a little bit. I was saying that IF there was any kind of "program" or fund in place with an aircraft, then it would keep its fund up. But all too often, what you see is, people paying a years premium re insurance....paying their hangarage or WHY per month and the Mx bill as and when and just sloshing fuel in it. This means, the depreciation is never covered, if you use it personally and then you sell it, that hours flown have gone into the wind. I mean, your hourly cost isn't factored in "per hour" per se (!), you just lose the money when you sell....if that makes sense? The only people getting that back PLUS some, are schools and commercial operators.

The interesting thing for me as a lowly, 5000 hour "newbie" fling wing pilot, is that actually, I can almost rent one, wet, per hour, for the same as a Cabri....! There was a group near London that had non equity shares available and equity shares, that seemed to offer a decent hourly rate and were clearly building in a charge to pay for the overhaul. However, it seems to have dies a death and I cant figure out why? Maybe it was bought at too high a cost....so the utilisation didn't cover it....maybe the majority shareholder naffed off with the cash...or, who knows, but it seems that group ownership wasn't working....and I would love to know why? Lots of "possible" reasons....but nobody can tell me anything definitive?

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Hot and Hi

Sure...I understand this, probably better than most. I'm new to actually flying heli's, but been flying in little machines (including heli's) since I was a little boy and had a pilot licence for 23 years. I couldn't agree more with you actually....my reservation I think, comes from doing a "quick" TR and then taking them flying. My plan is to go and help positioning for maintenance and do a couple of trips with my instructor on board (and a mate of mine on occasion, who has flown more heli's than I have had hot dinners, in the military and in civvy street) and be really picky on the days i fly until I know more and feel more at ease with my own ability and more confident in the machine itself. I'm comfortable in my decision making and won't be hurrying into weather and situations, that I dont think i or the helicopter in question, can handle. I'm not proud and I have nothing to prove.

[SASless]

If you do all that.....you will live to be old as well as wise!:ok:

[CGameProgrammerr]

Mast bumping only occurs as a result of two things, both of which must happen: First you must enter low G, typically by being stupid and shoving the cyclic forward very suddenly, although it can also happen when flying fast through severe turbulence. When in low G, the nose will drop and the helicopter will roll to the right (with a counter-clockwise rotor). If, and only if, you respond to the roll with left cyclic while still in low G, then mast bumping may occur in which case you die.

However that only happens if you apply left cyclic while in low G. If you either avoid low G (the correct thing to do) or you apply gentle aft cyclic to recover from low G without trying to correct the roll first, then everything will be fine. But keep in mind that when the uncommanded roll to the right occurs, the nose will be down, because if it is not then you won't roll at all.

And besides, just look at statistics. There are over 6000 R-44s, compared to a bit over 7000 206s. They are extremely popular and flown all the time all over the world. It is not a death trap!

But I did fly the G2 once and it has a much more upscale interior; everything seems much more modern and refined. Controls are heavier although it has a good electric trim, and it's not as fast.

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

If you do all that.....you will live to be old as well as wise!:ok:
Well, thats the plan!! I fly for a living and have thousands of hours....but just not in Heli's. It does mean though, as I say, I don't have anything to prove and I don't suffer from "Get-home-itis" and am not susceptible to operational pressures from outside influences. I've done plenty of daft sh** in aircraft over the years....when I was younger and did have something to prove. I look back on it and think "Wow...just....wow!". DOnt feel any need to do silly things anymore. When it comes to Helicopters, I recognise that 'm a beginner....my only real advantage is that I am used to being in the air and have decent situational awareness. Add a sparkling of good weather and a healthy dose of recognising my inexperience and I am hoping I can build my experience at a steady pace and not get overconfident. Thanks for the reply

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Mast bumping only occurs as a result of two things, both of which must happen: First you must enter low G, typically by being stupid and shoving the cyclic forward very suddenly, although it can also happen when flying fast through severe turbulence. When in low G, the nose will drop and the helicopter will roll to the right (with a counter-clockwise rotor). If, and only if, you respond to the roll with left cyclic while still in low G, then mast bumping may occur in which case you die.

However that only happens if you apply left cyclic while in low G. If you either avoid low G (the correct thing to do) or you apply gentle aft cyclic to recover from low G without trying to correct the roll first, then everything will be fine. But keep in mind that when the uncommanded roll to the right occurs, the nose will be down, because if it is not then you won't roll at all.

And besides, just look at statistics. There are over 6000 R-44s, compared to a bit over 7000 206s. They are extremely popular and flown all the time all over the world. It is not a death trap!

But I did fly the G2 once and it has a much more upscale interior; everything seems much more modern and refined. Controls are heavier although it has a good electric trim, and it's not as fast.
Thanks for this!!

I think that you have effectively, highlighted my biggest concern. Not 'mast bumping" so much as how I react to it. I think my concern is that in those situations, I might roll left and BANG! End. However, I do soak up training and focus on the type I am in (at one point, I was rated in 3 aircraft and flew all 3 in a day that resulted in a rejected take off on the last flight, after my co jo read an item off the checklist and didn't actually carry out the item....a story for another time). The thing was, there was a striking similarity between 2 alerting systems....and it caught us out. After that, I absolutely got my head into each type, each time and didn't get caught out by any differences again, until the one of the 2 similar types was sold. I'm saying, that if I'm in an R44 or B206, I will consciously make a note of it in my own mind and will always have it in the back of my mind, with the hope that if I'm expecting a Low G uncommanded roll right, that I will already have programmed myself to gently apply aft cyclic/correctly recover.

Again, I don't think I will fly in conditions or areas, that are likely to be overly turbulent and, I know full well to slow down in turbulence (unlike a lot of Plank Wing pilots!). I think I may end up, over cautious and actually, not fly on days that are probably, perfectly safe to fly....as I think it will be difficult to gauge where the limit is. Would experienced R44 pilots fly happily on a day with 15 knot winds, Gusting 20 for example....or more....or less?? Some days, the weather is beautiful, but convective/thermal activity can make it a bit bumpy in places....again, is this a go or no go? Very difficult to judge for people in my shoes....

Thanks again for the reply

[paco]

If it helps, I think it's worth pointing out that the only force for sideways movement in a teetering head (or, more technically, zero offset) is the horizontal component of TRT, meaning that if you have no thrust/lift or whatever you want to call it, you cannot move the helicopter anyway. That's the inherent danger mentioned above. Hence, keep the disc loaded.

Phil

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

If it helps, I think it's worth pointing out that the only force for sideways movement in a teetering head (or, more technically, zero offset) is the horizontal component of TRT, meaning that if you have no thrust/lift or whatever you want to call it, you cannot move the helicopter anyway. That's the inherent danger mentioned above. Hence, keep the disc loaded.

Phil
I.E You end up moving the disc, but not the fuselage?

[Robbiee]

..as I think it will be difficult to gauge where the limit is. Would experienced R44 pilots fly happily on a day with 15 knot winds, Gusting 20 for example....or more....or less?? Some days, the weather is beautiful, but convective/thermal activity can make it a bit bumpy in places....again, is this a go or no go? Very difficult to judge for people in my shoes....


Robbie can handle 15 gusting 20 no problem.

You however, until you have 200 hours in helicopters, 50 in the 44, you will be limited to surface winds of 25kts and a surface to gust spread not to exceed 15kts. Plus continued flight in even moderate turbulace will be prohibited, as per the poh,...if that is, they still put that page in?

[gator2]

TN8, I think I am pretty close to your prototypical private flyer. I learned to fly 7 yrs ago in a 22, switched to a 44 10 hrs before I got PPL. I've got 300 hrs now. I fly my family, I fly my buddies and dogs on bird hunting trips, I fly for business, and I fly to ski tournaments. I have some time in a 206, and some time in an Astar. From my vantage point, the 206 is a slower, mushier, more expensive version of the 44 that costs me twice as much to lease, and carries one more guy. Its easier to fly than the 44 if you get used to the mushiness, which I did in about 15 minutes. The Astar is a bullet proof rocketship that a) would be 3 times the cost to lease, b) is not available to lease, and c) is a different animal altogether to fly. If I had the money, I'd never be in anything but the Astar. But I don't and I love to fly. So. 44 is it. I wouldn't get back in a 22 unless I was a cattle musterer in OZ. Need 4 seats.

I didn't intend to, but I once got into turbulence at the limit of the 44's capability. I flew it from Spokane to Calgary, and back. On the way home, I hit a front on the eastern slope of the mountains. We were getting tossed around so bad I had to wedge myself against the door to avoid unintentional control inputs. I slowed down to 60, and every time my butt got light I nudged the cyclic back. Tried to land in a clearing, but it was gusting so bad once I slowed through 20 I couldn't convince myself I could hover it, and didn't want to try a run on in the woods. Going back or continuing seemed about the same, so I just kept flying at 60, and kept trying to keep my butt heavy in the seat. After about 10 minutes of that, we were through and it calmed down.

After that experience, I don't really understand how people mast bump the thing and die. I guess if I were flying along in smooth air, and some massive down draft appeared out of nowhere I might freak out and try to roll back level. I hope not. Seems like the accidents I've researched all have crap weather with some warning, not a rogue downdraft.

I do think its possible, and pretty easy, to get the cyclic knocked out of your hand by a passenger waving his hands around, or taking photos. BIG difference in the odds of that based on the stupid center stick ungarded by your knees. I have had a close call with that, and think the POH and instructors should stress the odds of that happening.

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

TN8, I think I am pretty close to your prototypical private flyer. I learned to fly 7 yrs ago in a 22, switched to a 44 10 hrs before I got PPL. I've got 300 hrs now. I fly my family, I fly my buddies and dogs on bird hunting trips, I fly for business, and I fly to ski tournaments. I have some time in a 206, and some time in an Astar. From my vantage point, the 206 is a slower, mushier, more expensive version of the 44 that costs me twice as much to lease, and carries one more guy. Its easier to fly than the 44 if you get used to the mushiness, which I did in about 15 minutes. The Astar is a bullet proof rocketship that a) would be 3 times the cost to lease, b) is not available to lease, and c) is a different animal altogether to fly. If I had the money, I'd never be in anything but the Astar. But I don't and I love to fly. So. 44 is it. I wouldn't get back in a 22 unless I was a cattle musterer in OZ. Need 4 seats.

I didn't intend to, but I once got into turbulence at the limit of the 44's capability. I flew it from Spokane to Calgary, and back. On the way home, I hit a front on the eastern slope of the mountains. We were getting tossed around so bad I had to wedge myself against the door to avoid unintentional control inputs. I slowed down to 60, and every time my butt got light I nudged the cyclic back. Tried to land in a clearing, but it was gusting so bad once I slowed through 20 I couldn't convince myself I could hover it, and didn't want to try a run on in the woods. Going back or continuing seemed about the same, so I just kept flying at 60, and kept trying to keep my butt heavy in the seat. After about 10 minutes of that, we were through and it calmed down.

After that experience, I don't really understand how people mast bump the thing and die. I guess if I were flying along in smooth air, and some massive down draft appeared out of nowhere I might freak out and try to roll back level. I hope not. Seems like the accidents I've researched all have crap weather with some warning, not a rogue downdraft.

I do think its possible, and pretty easy, to get the cyclic knocked out of your hand by a passenger waving his hands around, or taking photos. BIG difference in the odds of that based on the stupid center stick ungarded by your knees. I have had a close call with that, and think the POH and instructors should stress the odds of that happening.

Gator....thanks for this.

The centre stick (effectively), does pose an interesting threat to flight safety if you ask me. I appreciate the honesty of your story and especially how you handle going light in your seat.....seems like decent enough advice to me.

The A Star (Squirrel in Europe) is a great machine. Done a few hours in these myself and also, the underpowered EC130 (the original variant) and think they are brilliant....but for me, a non starter unless I have some REALLY fortunate business dealings come my way.

I'm feeling better about the 44....it's nice to hear some more positive things said of it.

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Robbie can handle 15 gusting 20 no problem.

You however, until you have 200 hours in helicopters, 50 in the 44, you will be limited to surface winds of 25kts and a surface to gust spread not to exceed 15kts. Plus continued flight in even moderate turbulace will be prohibited, as per the poh,...if that is, they still put that page in?

Didn't know this would be in the handbook. I look forward to getting my hands on a copy. Thanks Robbiee

[aa777888]

Thanks for this!! I think that you have effectively, highlighted my biggest concern. Not 'mast bumping" so much as how I react to it. I think my concern is that in those situations, I might roll left and BANG! End.
TN8B: I think this has already been conveyed by others, but let me pile on here and say that things are not nearly so hair trigger as all that. Flying around in 15 gust 25 winds are a piece of cake with a bit of practice and training (and Robinson tail rotor authority is quite good, too). Mild turbulence is not really an issue, either. You've really got to let things get pretty crazy before you start to see any rolling tendency. Moderate turbulence is attention getting, and the natural reaction is (or should be) to slow down, which invariably means some aft cyclic as well. My stomping grounds include the White Mountains of New Hampshire, an area known for its dynamic weather and significant winds (Mount Washington once held the record for highest wind velocity recorded on Earth, only recently eclipsed by just a few knots by some annoying Aussie typhoon). With a little bit of mountain experience you can generally predict and plan speeds for approaching, crossing and departing ridge lines, no different than flying any other helicopter. Again, Robinson helicopters are not China dolls, constantly on the edge of disaster. There is, or should be if you are flying appropriately, plenty of warning and opportunity to select appropriate airspeeds. The only time I got worried so far was being surprised by a medium twin who was making no radio calls as we both approached an uncontrolled airfield at right angles to each other. I saw him (he never saw me) and I reflexively fell back on my plank skills for just a second or two with the beginnings of a cyclic pushover, but quickly came to my senses and bottomed the collective and back to aft cyclic to descend in a more appropriate manner for a two-bladed, teetering main rotor machine. I haven't made that mistake since!

Again, I would encourage you to get some time in a 44 and make your own assessment. That is what is most important. And make certain to get up with an instructor when it is a little gusty and turbulent (as if those conditions are hard to find in the UK ;)), so as to make your own assessment under more challenging (or normal for UK!) conditions as well. Ha ha, I remember when I was visiting your neck of the woods and it was exactly that as I tried to make friends for the first time with a G2 fenestron :}

[megan]

Flying around in 15 gust 25 winds are a piece of cake with a bit of practice and trainingHere is a Bell 47 fatal accident where the surface wind speed was estimated to be around 15 to 20 kts with frequent gusts in the range 25 to 30 kts, a cautionary tale about turbulence in the lee of mountains, pilot was an Australian singer of some fame - .Graeme (Shirley) Strachan, lead singer of the band "Skyhooks".

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200104092.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfLNjDSfkcY

[rotorfossil]

We acquired R22’s for a commercial school back when there was no prohibition on demonstration of the low G’ roll of phenomenon. It was apparent that you had to push over for a significant time before the roll off occurred. It is not a instant occurrence. Thereafter the instructors demonstrated the low ‘G’ problem, the correct recovery and the students practised it, dual only of course. I think that this was a better policy than the build up of the myth and legend since the prohibition.
I always thought that a more likely scenario for unexplained R22 accidents was lack of attention to correct carb heating technique. Unfortunately carb heat assist doesn’t guarantee no carb icing as you need carb heat BEFORE power is reduced. Carb icing is disguised by the governor until the engine stops. Then you have to lower the lever damned quick, If you don’t, the rotor rpm decay is very rapid, followed by rotor stall and blow back. I think that this is more of a hazard than low ‘G’ mast bumping.
Roll off occurs even slower in the R44 and slower still in the B206, but it can happen as it can to all gimbal head helicoprers

[Nubian]

Robbie can handle 15 gusting 20 no problem.

You however, until you have 200 hours in helicopters, 50 in the 44, you will be limited to surface winds of 25kts and a surface to gust spread not to exceed 15kts. Plus continued flight in even moderate turbulace will be prohibited, as per the poh,...if that is, they still put that page in?

It's a limitation, not a safety notice.

Didn't know this would be in the handbook. I look forward to getting my hands on a copy

Section 2: limitations.

You can access the POH's for all models online on Robinson's homepage. Good luck!

[SASless]

I found this at the Robinson Web Site and found the List of Contents rather interesting.


The following Safety Notices have been issued by Robinson Helicopter Company as a result of various accidents and incidents. Studying the mistakes made by other pilots will help you avoid making the same errors. Safety Notices are available on the RHC website: www.robinsonheli.com.

SAFETY
NOTICE TITLE

SN-1 Inadvertent Actuation of Mixture Control in Flight

SN-9 Many Accidents Involve Dynamic Rollover

SN-10 Fatal Accidents Caused by Low RPM Rotor Stall

SN-11 Low-G Pushovers - Extremely Dangerous


SN-13 Do Not Attach Items to the Skids

SN-15 Fuel Exhaustion Can Be Fatal

SN-16 Power Lines Are Deadly

SN-17 Never Exit Helicopter with Engine Running

Hold Controls When Boarding Passengers

Never Land in Tall Dry Grass

SN-18 Loss of Visibility Can Be Fatal

Overconfidence Prevails in Accidents

SN-19 Flying Low Over Water is Very Hazardous

SN-20 Beware of Demonstration or Initial Training Flights



SN-22 Vortex Ring State Catches Many Pilots By Surprise

SN-23 Walking into Tail Rotor Can Be Fatal

SN-24 Low RPM Rotor Stall Can Be Fatal

SN-25 Carburetor Ice

SN-26 Night Flight Plus Bad Weather Can Be Deadly

SN-27 Surprise Throttle Chops Can Be Deadly

SN-28 Listen for Impending Bearing Failure

Clutch Light Warning

SN-29 Airplane Pilots High Risk When Flying Helicopters

SN-30 Loose Objects Can Be Fatal

SN-31 Governor Can Mask Carb Ice

SN-32 High Winds or Turbulence

SN-33 Drive Belt Slack

SN-34 Aerial Survey and Photo Flights - Very High Risk

SN-35 Flying Near Broadcast Towers

SN-36 Overspeeds During Liftoff

SN-37 Exceeding Approved Limitations Can Be Fatal

SN-38 Practice Autorotations Cause Many Training Accidents

SN-39 Unusual Vibration Can Indicate a Main Rotor Blade Crack

SN-40 Post-Crash Fires

SN-41 Pilot Distractions

SN-42 Unanticipated Yaw

SN-43 Use Extra Caution During Post-Maintenance Flights

SN-44 Carrying Passengers


REVISED: 7 MAY 2018 10-6

[/QUOTE]

[aa777888]

Robbie can handle 15 gusting 20 no problem.

You however, until you have 200 hours in helicopters, 50 in the 44, you will be limited to surface winds of 25kts and a surface to gust spread not to exceed 15kts. Plus continued flight in even moderate turbulace will be prohibited, as per the poh,...if that is, they still put that page in?
That is incorrect with respect to the 44. The 44 POH contains no such limitation. It is, however, in the 22 POH as a limitation, the very last page of Section 2.

That said, when winds get above 25, and the gust spread gets above 15, it does get a little sporty in the 44, and one should try to use common sense and an appropriate set of personal limits. My own personal limits in both the 22 and 44 don't exceed those numbers by very much :ok:

[Robbiee]

That is incorrect with respect to the 44. The 44 POH contains no such limitation. It is, however, in the 22 POH as a limitation, the very last page of Section 2.

That said, when winds get above 25, and the gust spread gets above 15, it does get a little sporty in the 44, and one should try to use common sense and an appropriate set of personal limits. My own personal limits in both the 22 and 44 don't exceed those numbers by very much :ok:

That information is correct and in my R44 poh, on the last page of the Limitations section (I'm looking at it right now). If it is not in yours then its as I already said, maybe they don't put it in anymore?

There is also a note at the end of my Normal Proceedures section regarding Main Rotor Stall and Mast Bumping, that I've heard is no longer there? :(

[aa777888]

That information is correct and in my R44 poh, on the last page of the Limitations section (I'm looking at it right now). If it is not in yours then its as I already said, maybe they don't put it in anymore?

There is also a note at the end of my Normal Proceedures section regarding Main Rotor Stall and Mast Bumping, that I've heard is no longer there? :(
The latest US versions of the POH are always on the Robinson website. The latest POH for both the Raven and Raven II do not include the information you reference in either the limitations or normal procedures sections. The latest POH is always the most correct version unless perhaps you have not complied with an AD.

Having an up to date POH can be important. Keeping up to date on one's knowledge of POH changes can be important. You may want to order up the latest from Robinson.

[Robbiee]

The latest US versions of the POH are always on the Robinson website. The latest POH for both the Raven and Raven II do not include the information you reference in either the limitations or normal procedures sections. The latest POH is always the most correct version unless perhaps you have not complied with an AD.

Having an up to date POH can be important. Keeping up to date on one's knowledge of POH changes can be important. You may want to order up the latest from Robinson.

So that note's not there anymore. Too bad, its a good note.

[Hot and Hi]

I found this at the Robinson Web Site and found the List of Contents rather interesting.
Have you ever checked the safety notices that came with your new toaster?

[aa777888]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1310x737/cautionhot_coffee_d74063aaca5c92190cd65e298770a31a4b300977.j pg

[SASless]

SN-29 Airplane Pilots High Risk When Flying Helicopters

So Robinson has the inside scoop on Airplane Pilots do they?

Or....should Robinson have considered the training those Airplane Pilots are getting when being taught to be Helicopter Pilots?

I don't see a safety notice for Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists, and Wall Street Bankers being high risk when flying Heliicopters.

So why....pick on our Fixed Wing Brethren?

[Flying Bull]

So Robinson has the inside scoop on Airplane Pilots do they?

Or....should Robinson have considered the training those Airplane Pilots are getting when being taught to be Helicopter Pilots?

I don't see a safety notice for Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists, and Wall Street Bankers being high risk when flying Heliicopters.

So why....pick on our Fixed Wing Brethren?

It is possible to find the reasons, why airplane pilots are at risk, when you have experiences in both - or read Chickenhawk, the part, where jet pilots got a ride in a helicopter and started to sweat and get pale, when the helicopter reduced speed - or just read the appropriate part from robinson
https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/rhc_sn29.pdf

[SASless]

"Chickenhawk" as a reference.......oh come on....pull the other one will you!


.

[evil7]

SASless,

As you are one of the guys with the „greatest knowledge“ on this forum you should be able to answer your own question about the plank pilots.
As for the list - you could use it on all other helicopters as well, as it only points out that often the problem is between the headset!

[cattletruck]

I recall my very first 3 hrs (dual) in an R22 fondly - steady 20kt winds - my first hover turn ended up somewhere far, far away from where it was initiated. Even flew them solo 25-30 gust 35 winds but they felt like they were going fall apart so I would just try not to stress the machine and mostly bob along uncomfortably. At the time also enjoyed windsurfing (the board and sail variety) and figured this helped - it certainly did with the plank. As I mentioned previously, the R22 is a doddle in fair weather but add a few bumps and it becomes a handful to fly but not impossible for the experienced (I guess now it is since they changed the rules).

After a number of years flying helicopters I went back and tried a plank and found I had a tendency to let the IAS drop off on short finals - but after 2 circuits I had that sorted and have never had that sensation ever again. It's no big deal.

[Bell_ringer]

As for the list - you could use it on all other helicopters as well

You could but the manufacturers don't see the need to cover the cockpit with safety stickers.
Perhaps airline pilots are just more comfortable in a Bell, airbus or similar. :E

[SASless]

Evil.....I have no monopoly on knowledge and experience as there is plenty of that amongst the many who attend this Forum.

I do enjoy asking questions to see if it might lead to a discussion that benefits those who might be benefited by that discussion.

Care to give us your view of why it is Robinson that has what appears to be an odd approach in the topics they choose for their Safety Notices?

I recall Bell did something similar when they invented the "LTE" thing when they were producing Helicopters with tail rotors that provided too little thrust.

Sikorsky did something similar when the S-58T had a thing called "Tail Rotor Buzz".

Airbus had done something about the Hydraulic system on the 350 as I recall.

But in those cases.....those "Safety Notices" applied to a single topic that was narrowly focused upon one thing.

Why does Robinson appear to be trying to imitate a Flight Safety Organization's scope of Safety Notices?

Did they see a need based upon incidents that occurred in their Helicopters.....or are they just trying to be proactive in advancing helicopter flight safety in general?

[megan]

Did they see a need based upon incidents that occurred in their Helicopters.....or are they just trying to be proactive in advancing helicopter flight safety in general?SAS, I'd say the two are linked. The pilots generally are at the bottom end in the experience ladder and naturally prone to having undesirable events, Frank has responded by being proactive in acknowledging their lack of experience. I see it as similar to the "Lycoming Flyer", which educates pilots/maintenance on their engines.

[rotorfossil]

Many years ago I attended one of the early safety courses. It was apparent that that Frank was between a rock and a hard place. Before the R22, helicopters were too expensive for the average private pilot, and the ones that could afford were taught by mainly experienced ex military instructors. Suddenly, the R22 appeared and the users were low time pilots, training schools with low experience instructors, cattle herders, deer cullers and the like. This pretty much guaranteed a high accident rate and Frank was being sued left right and centre. The result was the safety courses and a blizzard of safety notices for survival of the company.

[evil7]

SAS,

I never said you have a monopoly, I most of the time admire your experience. Itˋs only that sometimes you seem to forget your first sentence above yourself��. But I also often like your provocative responses. ��

As for the response - Megan beat me to it. But I would also add that it is the combination of the R construction with the lack of experience. I used to have ratings for the 22&44 and have flown them both commercially, by the way. If somebody asks me about Robbies I always respond - EVERY helicopter can be flown safely within its „frame“, but the Robbinson frame is far too small for me, nowadays!

Regarding the plank pilots I think what R means is that they have a tendency to dive away when you need to avoid something which means a pushover that is not healthy in Robbies.

[ironbutt57]

"for unknown reasons, the rotor diverged from its normal plane of rotation and struck the side of the helicopter"...far too frequently seen in Robinson accident reports..a former Army acquaintance of mine who was considering getting involved in a flight school flew a demo flight in one...this guy with several tours in "Nam, and more as an instructor at FT Rucker...his assessment..."thats probably the worst helicopter a beginner could get his hands on"

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Many years ago I attended one of the early safety courses. It was apparent that that Frank was between a rock and a hard place. Before the R22, helicopters were too expensive for the average private pilot, and the ones that could afford were taught by mainly experienced ex military instructors. Suddenly, the R22 appeared and the users were low time pilots, training schools with low experience instructors, cattle herders, deer cullers and the like. This pretty much guaranteed a high accident rate and Frank was being sued left right and centre. The result was the safety courses and a blizzard of safety notices for survival of the company.

It's also the reason why an R22 went from the planned $40k - $50k USD or something for a new one that you threw away after 12 years (the plan), to the price they are at now. Because they were getting sued by people that used them for reasons they weren't designed for, or just weren't trained properly on....all of them getting killed or maimed and blaming the heli. That put the Robinson liability insurance premiums through the roof for the factory

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

"for unknown reasons, the rotor diverged from its normal plane of rotation and struck the side of the helicopter"...far too frequently seen in Robinson accident reports..a former Army acquaintance of mine who was considering getting involved in a flight school flew a demo flight in one...this guy with several tours in "Nam, and more as an instructor at FT Rucker...his assessment..."thats probably the worst helicopter a beginner could get his hands on"

From my point of view....as a plank pilot of many years....I actually quite liked the idea of learning in the R22 after a couple of flights, as it was clearly a bit of a bugger to get to grips with and would make other helicopters seem quite easy to fly. However, I was also very aware that the time to react to a loss of power, could be the difference between an autorotation to whatever end and a lump of metal falling out of the sky with slowly rotating rotors! I am also a believer in using equipment for what it was designed for.....and the R22 was never designed as a training helicopter. It doesn't cope well with ham fisted flying.

[rrekn]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/555x450/2wb4vt_eaefeb0ed049f9457ab01443abacca8a8a519277.jpg

[SASless]

So can most helicopters but not as frequently as does the Robinson variety......some like to remove the cockpit.

[rrekn]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/684x500/2wb6wn_d7a3b08bc721e35979d4a8788f59eb3d0a05fc3b.jpg

[Ascend Charlie]

If you treat a Robinson properly, and stay within its envelope, preferably as far from the edges as you can, it does its job superbly.

Get to the edges and it can slip over the side fairly rapidly, and that is where the low-timers and the doctors come unstuck.

I first encountered the R22 after 7000 turbine rotary hours, and after the first flight I was feeling a bit deflated, this little flimsicopter was a real challenge with its twitchiness and speedy responses to inputs. But I had a couple of refreshing fizzy drinks that night, and the next day I wrung its little neck and it behaved for me forever after that. Well, not really forever, I stopped flying them back in 08.

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

If you treat a Robinson properly, and stay within its envelope, preferably as far from the edges as you can, it does its job superbly.

Get to the edges and it can slip over the side fairly rapidly, and that is where the low-timers and the doctors come unstuck.

I first encountered the R22 after 7000 turbine rotary hours, and after the first flight I was feeling a bit deflated, this little flimsicopter was a real challenge with its twitchiness and speedy responses to inputs. But I had a couple of refreshing fizzy drinks that night, and the next day I wrung its little neck and it behaved for me forever after that. Well, not really forever, I stopped flying them back in 08.
I fond this kind of stuff encouraging. I would intend to only fly the machine well within it's envelope....and my own!!

[aa777888]

TN8B: go fly the darn thing, already! Then let us know what you think.

[ATPMBA]

And wasn't the 206 the safest single-engined aircraft in the world at one time?
Yes, I heard that fact around year 2000. At that time I also heard from an insurance broker the wanted a B206 PIC to have 2,000 hours of helicopter time to issue the policy and probably have been through Bell school.

[Two's in]

With the odd exception, relating to the specific operation of a low-inertia piston single rotary type, I would hope to Christ any helicopter pilot is more than familiar with most of these "Safety Notices" before they ever consider committing serious aviation. These are Airmanship 101, not Safety Notices.

I found this at the Robinson Web Site and found the List of Contents rather interesting.

... SAFETY
NOTICE TITLE

SN-1 Inadvertent Actuation of Mixture Control in Flight

SN-9 Many Accidents Involve Dynamic Rollover
SN-10 Fatal Accidents Caused by Low RPM Rotor Stall
SN-11 Low-G Pushovers - Extremely Dangerous

SN-13 Do Not Attach Items to the Skids

SN-15 Fuel Exhaustion Can Be Fatal
SN-16 Power Lines Are Deadly
SN-17 Never Exit Helicopter with Engine Running

Hold Controls When Boarding Passengers

Never Land in Tall Dry Grass
SN-18 Loss of Visibility Can Be Fatal

Overconfidence Prevails in Accidents
SN-19 Flying Low Over Water is Very Hazardous
SN-20 Beware of Demonstration or Initial Training Flights


SN-22 Vortex Ring State Catches Many Pilots By Surprise
SN-23 Walking into Tail Rotor Can Be Fatal
SN-24 Low RPM Rotor Stall Can Be Fatal
SN-25 Carburetor Ice
SN-26 Night Flight Plus Bad Weather Can Be Deadly
SN-27 Surprise Throttle Chops Can Be Deadly
SN-28 Listen for Impending Bearing Failure

Clutch Light Warning
SN-29 Airplane Pilots High Risk When Flying Helicopters
SN-30 Loose Objects Can Be Fatal
SN-31 Governor Can Mask Carb Ice
SN-32 High Winds or Turbulence
SN-33 Drive Belt Slack
SN-34 Aerial Survey and Photo Flights - Very High Risk
SN-35 Flying Near Broadcast Towers
SN-36 Overspeeds During Liftoff
SN-37 Exceeding Approved Limitations Can Be Fatal
SN-38 Practice Autorotations Cause Many Training Accidents
SN-39 Unusual Vibration Can Indicate a Main Rotor Blade Crack
SN-40 Post-Crash Fires
SN-41 Pilot Distractions
SN-42 Unanticipated Yaw
SN-43 Use Extra Caution During Post-Maintenance Flights
SN-44 Carrying Passengers

REVISED: 7 MAY 2018 10-6



[/QUOTE]

[Robbiee]

With the odd exception, relating to the specific operation of a low-inertia piston single rotary type, I would hope to Christ any helicopter pilot is more than familiar with most of these "Safety Notices" before they ever consider committing serious aviation. These are Airmanship 101, not Safety Notices.

[/QUOTE]
Correct, much like all SFAR 73 really does is reinforce knowledge we all should already have! :ok:

[mickjoebill]

From a recent Australian perspective, it is likely that the 6 occupants who perished in fairly low energy landing or takeoff phase R44 crashes would still be alive, had the craft been fitted with the (subsequently introduced) new fuel cell.

Let’s hope the survivability figures improve.


mjb

[Robbiee]

From a recent Australian perspective, it is likely that the 6 occupants who perished in fairly low energy landing or takeoff phase R44 crashes would still be alive, had the craft been fitted with the (subsequently introduced) new fuel cell.

Let’s hope the survivability figures improve.


mjb

That's a very narrow minded way of looking at it.

[Evil Twin]

From a recent Australian perspective, it is likely that the 6 occupants who perished in fairly low energy landing or takeoff phase R44 crashes would still be alive, had the craft been fitted with the (subsequently introduced) new fuel cell.

Let’s hope the survivability figures improve.


mjb


I'd prefer to work on the active end of the issue and perhaps not crash in the first place

[Bell_ringer]

6 in a 4-seater helicopter?
Doesn't sound like the problem was bladder tanks.

[212man]

6 in a 4-seater helicopter?
Doesn't sound like the problem was bladder tanks.
he said ‘crashes’

[Paul Cantrell]

If you treat a Robinson properly, and stay within its envelope, preferably as far from the edges as you can, it does its job superbly.

Get to the edges and it can slip over the side fairly rapidly, and that is where the low-timers and the doctors come unstuck.

I first encountered the R22 after 7000 turbine rotary hours, and after the first flight I was feeling a bit deflated, this little flimsicopter was a real challenge with its twitchiness and speedy responses to inputs. But I had a couple of refreshing fizzy drinks that night, and the next day I wrung its little neck and it behaved for me forever after that. Well, not really forever, I stopped flying them back in 08.

Well, against my better judgement I'll jump in on a month old thread, and with one of my typical longs posts... :=

I think first of if you're talking about the R22 I definitely agree with you. It's not at all a forgiving machine, and is tossable and agile to a fault. The 44 and 66 are much more forgiving, but of course there are still parts of the envelope you should probably not play with! When I first start teaching in the R22 in the mid 80s most of the FAA examiners were ex-Vietnam guys and I never met any of them that liked doing a checkride in the R22... Since these were almost exclusively CFI (instructor) rides, it invariably involved a touchdown auto as part of the test, and these guys were mostly Huey drivers. They really didn't like the R22 in the hands of a soon to be brand new instructor. They were afraid of hitting hard and injuring their back. And, I would say probably with good reason! The R22 is difficult to touchdown, especially if you don't want to slide 100 feet... The difference between a really sweet touchdown and a hard hit is measured in the difference of 1 or 2 feet of altitude. Compare that to a R44 or R66 which will do a 30 foot hovering auto at the end of a touchdown (with the RPM starting in the upper yellow).

It's also the reason why an R22 went from the planned $40k - $50k USD or something for a new one that you threw away after 12 years (the plan), to the price they are at now. Because they were getting sued by people that used them for reasons they weren't designed for, or just weren't trained properly on....all of them getting killed or maimed and blaming the heli. That put the Robinson liability insurance premiums through the roof for the factory

Frank said multiple times that he would rather fight lawsuits than pay silly amounts for liability insurance (because the typical thing back then, and still today, was that people would sue for silly reasons and the insurance companies would just settle, inviting more lawsuits). He mentioned in my presence that if he had a couple really big settlements he would rather just close the doors than have to charge a lot for liability insurance. I believe at the time (when aircraft product liability was in the news) that 50% of the cost of a Cessna 172 was for the insurance. So, unless you have some information that I don't, I'm a little skeptical of your statement. When I first flew R22s they cost $85K. Using an inflation calculator that equates to $201K today. An R22 today is closer to $250K... But they have a lot more gear today... We didn't have attitude indicators (or any gyro gear), the engine was a little 150 hp O320, no GPS or Loran, no governor or rotor brake, no aux fuel tank, just a comm radio and some pitot static instruments. That more than explains a 25% increase in price over the years.

"for unknown reasons, the rotor diverged from its normal plane of rotation and struck the side of the helicopter"...far too frequently seen in Robinson accident reports..a former Army acquaintance of mine who was considering getting involved in a flight school flew a demo flight in one...this guy with several tours in "Nam, and more as an instructor at FT Rucker...his assessment..."thats probably the worst helicopter a beginner could get his hands on"

And I agree with him. It's a terrible machine for primary instruction. It's too agile, underpowered, not enough inertia, etc. etc. But... economics. We only teach in R44s but the extra $100/hr is simply too much for a lot of students... and they end up finding a school with R22s. I put myself through a flight school and I have to say I probably couldn't have afforded more than an R22 at the time...

So Robinson has the inside scoop on Airplane Pilots do they?

Or....should Robinson have considered the training those Airplane Pilots are getting when being taught to be Helicopter Pilots?

I don't see a safety notice for Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists, and Wall Street Bankers being high risk when flying Heliicopters.

So why....pick on our Fixed Wing Brethren?

Because that was in context of discussing low gee pushovers... and the idea was that lots of fixed wing pilots, when encountering a bird or other object in flight, might try to push the nose down to avoid a collision and end up inadvertent low gee. I was always skeptical that briefing people not to do something that is basically instinctive could help, but I was training a guy in Tennessee with 14,000 hours in jets and we had a very close encounter with a very large bird, and he told me afterward that he remembered not to do a cyclic push to avoid hitting the bird, so apparently there is some benefit to briefing airplane drivers on the risk of a cyclic pushover.

Mast bumping only occurs as a result of two things, both of which must happen: First you must enter low G, typically by being stupid and shoving the cyclic forward very suddenly, although it can also happen when flying fast through severe turbulence. When in low G, the nose will drop and the helicopter will roll to the right (with a counter-clockwise rotor). If, and only if, you respond to the roll with left cyclic while still in low G, then mast bumping may occur in which case you die.

However that only happens if you apply left cyclic while in low G. If you either avoid low G (the correct thing to do) or you apply gentle aft cyclic to recover from low G without trying to correct the roll first, then everything will be fine. But keep in mind that when the uncommanded roll to the right occurs, the nose will be down, because if it is not then you won't roll at all.

This is not correct. While adding left cyclic will make the situation worse, you can still bump the mast if you do not add left cyclic. When I first started going to the safety course Frank would actually teach some of the course himself. He mentioned at one point that the tail rotor on an R22 helicopter can induce a roll rate in excess of 100° per second. The R22 only has 12° of flapping clearance. It will happily bump the mast all by itself if you unload the head. I've probably done 1,000 cyclic pushes on R22s to get the right roll (because when SFAR 73 came out it was required, but we were teaching low gee avoidance and recovery well before SFAR 73)... Sometimes it rolls slow, sometimes it can snap on you. It depends on your forward speed, power setting, attitude, and amount of cyclic push. As for your statement that the nose has to be down to get the roll, this is a disagreement that Tim Tucker and I have had over the years. Certainly I've been able to make it roll to the right in a level attitude (by starting in a climb attitude and giving it a good push to a level attitude). While it's certainly easier to get the right roll coming over the top and pointing the nose down, in my experience it's not required. (it's an airspeed thing - it's hard to fly the necessary low gee profile at low speed because it's such a sharp curve, and when the nose is up an R22 (which isn't that fast to start with) it bleeds speed rapidly, requiring quite a push to get the roll.

Do you really think that is the case? More than a few times folks here have pointed out the rather extraordinary safety bulletins that form part of the POH. Not to mention the rather blunt, no excuses stuff they teach at the factory Robinson Safety Course. And their total support of SFAR 73.

It's an interesting course. In many ways it's a two function course. One is indoctrination (pistons can be as safe as turbines if you treat them right) and the other was "please stop crashing our helicopters". The indoctrination part shrunk in my opinion partly due to their success as a company (like, back when they were producing more aircraft than the rest of the aviation industry combined) and also probably partly because they now ship a turbine helicopter. There's no question in my mind that the the "please stop crashing our helicopters" part is useful. But it's a very different course than Bell Helicopters Training Academy, for instance. It's also a very good value (less than $1,000 compared to $10,000 for Bell School). When I go to Bell, I come away basically knowing what every nut and bolt on the aircraft does etc. etc. It's clearly intended for professional pilots. Unlike the early days of the Robinson Safety Course when you had to be an instructor to go, currently their student mix seems to be quite a few student/private pilots with their instructor, which is fine, just a very different mix and not surprisingly the course is tailored somewhat towards that level of experience pilot versus the almost all professional mix I tend to encounter at Bell.

They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.

That's certainly a part of the problem, and is of no surprise to anyone. The typical R22/R44 owner may have gotten his rating with between 60-100 hours. Most of them only fly 50 hours or less a year, and a fairly large percentage that I encounter don't fly with an instructor regularly so by the time they need a Flight Review they can be very rusty indeed. To some degree it's actually a testament to the reliability of the helicopter because a fair number of them won't even get the collective down for an engine failure, let alone dealing with something scary like a tail rotor failure. There are exceptions of course, I have a few guys that fly with me every few weeks to stay current, but I would say that's the minority of the private owners. So, they're low time and stay that way, with very little recurrent training, which is fine as long as nothing goes wrong.

[Robbiee]

Well that certainly was a long post for the internet! I must say having met a few private R44 owners I must agree. They do seem to be in a category all their own. As for me, I've been flying Robbies recreationally for almost 2 decades and having since flown the 2 other helicopters used for training back then (Enstrom and Schweizer) I'm glad I learned how to fly in an R22, and that has nothing to do with price! $100 bucks more for an R44 though? Yeah, I'll still pick the R22. Thing is, I flew an R22 just the other night and after all these years I still love flying the little guy!

,...and that's all that really matters!

Oh yeah, and "tossable and agile"? Those are 2 qualities that make it so much more fun to fly!

[[email protected]]

A long post but a good one Paul:ok:

I still have no intention of getting back into one or renewing it on my licence but it is good to hear from someone with a lot of experience on it and a good sense of perspective.

[aa777888]

Great stuff, Paul, thank you! :) :ok: