R22 Corner
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dun Laoghaire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marc,
I spoke to an instructor about the issue of doing mag checks at 100% with friction on. He made the distinct difference between control locks (no movement posible) and control frictions (posible, just more force needed). So his point of view was that, yes the machine is 'live' so to speak, but in the unlikely case of the machine wanting to do something on its own, that pilot control is there, albeit with much larger control forces. He believed that if there was any real problem on this point, then it would need to be clearly stated in the POH not to perform mag checks at 100% with frictions on (although also recognising that POHs are not perfect). In fact one of his students once took off with frictions on and after putting in an order for new underwear, safely landed the machine, something that would have been impossible with control locks.
Also as an aside, he thought that doing a Mag check at 75% has the added advantage in that if something is wrong with the engine, you get a chance to discover it a lower RPM and thus may potentially damage the engine less than discovering it at 100%. He didn't want to give it too much importance, considering it an unlikely scenario. The important thing was to do the mag check properly whichever RPM you decided to do it at.
So my conclusion to all of this is that I will continue to do a mag check at 75%, not too much to do while the engine is warming up anyway (asuming one has done one's homework already) and do another one at 100% to double check.
Cheers!
Irlandés
I spoke to an instructor about the issue of doing mag checks at 100% with friction on. He made the distinct difference between control locks (no movement posible) and control frictions (posible, just more force needed). So his point of view was that, yes the machine is 'live' so to speak, but in the unlikely case of the machine wanting to do something on its own, that pilot control is there, albeit with much larger control forces. He believed that if there was any real problem on this point, then it would need to be clearly stated in the POH not to perform mag checks at 100% with frictions on (although also recognising that POHs are not perfect). In fact one of his students once took off with frictions on and after putting in an order for new underwear, safely landed the machine, something that would have been impossible with control locks.
Also as an aside, he thought that doing a Mag check at 75% has the added advantage in that if something is wrong with the engine, you get a chance to discover it a lower RPM and thus may potentially damage the engine less than discovering it at 100%. He didn't want to give it too much importance, considering it an unlikely scenario. The important thing was to do the mag check properly whichever RPM you decided to do it at.
So my conclusion to all of this is that I will continue to do a mag check at 75%, not too much to do while the engine is warming up anyway (asuming one has done one's homework already) and do another one at 100% to double check.
Cheers!
Irlandés
Last edited by Irlandés; 14th Jun 2002 at 01:56.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: W Mids
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Start up / Shutdowns. When I first started to fly, my instructor (many 1000's hrs on type), insisted that even with frictions on, the left hand covered the collective and the cyclic was gripped between the knees, when doing checks with the right hand. It did not seem to difficult to achieve with my stature and build and maybe it won't work for everyone, but I still use that precaution today until I am ready to release frictions and fly. Certainly, it should avoid the cyclic flopping around with high rpm levels.
well....just a thought anyway
well....just a thought anyway
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlybird,
I also wish to thank you for letting us know about your little mishap, I bow my head.
We have to tell eachother what we have learned during our flying so we can all enjoy our flying and not have to regret it.
Now enjoy your flying.
Cheers
I also wish to thank you for letting us know about your little mishap, I bow my head.
We have to tell eachother what we have learned during our flying so we can all enjoy our flying and not have to regret it.
Now enjoy your flying.
Cheers
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi KMS,
I ve flown R22's quiet often, however first impressions were, that the thing fits me, it felt tighter than a Super 7 and sat alongside my Fi, I had grave doubts that it would take off, but wonders of wonders it did, along with 16gals of lotion and 34 stones of tissue and calicium. But even today after I have lost a bit of beef, it still feels tight with a Pax sat in with me!
I ve flown R22's quiet often, however first impressions were, that the thing fits me, it felt tighter than a Super 7 and sat alongside my Fi, I had grave doubts that it would take off, but wonders of wonders it did, along with 16gals of lotion and 34 stones of tissue and calicium. But even today after I have lost a bit of beef, it still feels tight with a Pax sat in with me!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the robbie
The Robbie( R-22, for you heathens..sp) is a FINE machine!!!!!
A REAL MAN'S MACHINE!!!!!!!
I learned to fly in them like many others on a budget. Not all of us can buy all turbine time.
Now, flying 76's, I still appreciate basic helicopter handling that the robbie taught. Piston engine control/ rpm, manifold pressure limitations, lack of power, etc.... all the basics.
Sometimes we get lost in the advanced technology of the more complex machines and miss out on the pure enjoyment of a helicopter.
LONG LIVE THE ROBBIE!!!!!!!
hehehehe!!!!!!
D.K.
A REAL MAN'S MACHINE!!!!!!!
I learned to fly in them like many others on a budget. Not all of us can buy all turbine time.
Now, flying 76's, I still appreciate basic helicopter handling that the robbie taught. Piston engine control/ rpm, manifold pressure limitations, lack of power, etc.... all the basics.
Sometimes we get lost in the advanced technology of the more complex machines and miss out on the pure enjoyment of a helicopter.
LONG LIVE THE ROBBIE!!!!!!!
hehehehe!!!!!!
D.K.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Out Back
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Donut King,
I think a lot of us forget where we started, and for those of us who didn't want to join the military a R22 was the only affordable option.
I've since moved on to bigger and better things but I still enjoy a run in the R22 (ignorance is bliss).
At the end of the it's a helicopter that has sold very well so it can't be all that bad.
I've heard a lot of people bag B206's but like the R22 they do the job they were designed for.
Kissmysquirrel, take one for fly I think you will enjoy.
I think a lot of us forget where we started, and for those of us who didn't want to join the military a R22 was the only affordable option.
I've since moved on to bigger and better things but I still enjoy a run in the R22 (ignorance is bliss).
At the end of the it's a helicopter that has sold very well so it can't be all that bad.
I've heard a lot of people bag B206's but like the R22 they do the job they were designed for.
Kissmysquirrel, take one for fly I think you will enjoy.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Blackpool, UK
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KMS, R22 good machine for on your own. Does the job. Bit skittish and you have to be quick to get into the auto as there's very little momentum in the rotor system.
R44 much better. Less skittish, lots more power (especially on your own) , lot more energy in the rotor system for autos, so arguably safer.
Can even work out cheaper than R22 on occasion as the datcon only ticks over when you pull power, whereas the R22's cost money as soon as the engine turns. Add to that the faster cruise speed and there's not much in it cost wise.
Like the R22 but I'd take the R44 anyday.
R44 much better. Less skittish, lots more power (especially on your own
) , lot more energy in the rotor system for autos, so arguably safer.Can even work out cheaper than R22 on occasion as the datcon only ticks over when you pull power, whereas the R22's cost money as soon as the engine turns. Add to that the faster cruise speed and there's not much in it cost wise.
Like the R22 but I'd take the R44 anyday.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both the 22 and 44 are great ships.
DK hit all the nice stuff, it prepares you well for flying other birds later on.
Nick, ride is offered if you ever get down to Ft. Laud.
DK hit all the nice stuff, it prepares you well for flying other birds later on.
Nick, ride is offered if you ever get down to Ft. Laud.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it an illusion or does the wind pressing on the front really make the doors gape even more than usual over about 60 KTS?
Compared to R44 and Enstrom the R22 feels flimsy to me. Lovely to fly solo. Like Rotorhorn, I too have found R44 doesn't cost much, if any more for SFH - so I haven't flown a 22 for a while.
Compared to R44 and Enstrom the R22 feels flimsy to me. Lovely to fly solo. Like Rotorhorn, I too have found R44 doesn't cost much, if any more for SFH - so I haven't flown a 22 for a while.
Last edited by Gaseous; 23rd Jun 2002 at 01:28.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel-injected Robinson
Someone was inquiring after news of a fuel-injected Robinson a short while ago... I don't know if curiosity was satisfied, I've been away on me hols (motorcycling in the Alps, very nice, since you ask). I return to the following handout from Robinson:
"RHC has announced that it will now accept orders for its new R44 Raven II. The aircraft has more power, a higher gross weight, 28-volt electrical system and increased altitude performance. The Raven II is currently completing FAA certification testing and Robinson expects to receive the FAA type certificate in late August or early September 2002. Robinson has announced a base price of dlrs335,000, just dlrs28,000 higher than the current R44 Raven. Optional avionics and equipment will be priced the same as the current model."
"RHC has announced that it will now accept orders for its new R44 Raven II. The aircraft has more power, a higher gross weight, 28-volt electrical system and increased altitude performance. The Raven II is currently completing FAA certification testing and Robinson expects to receive the FAA type certificate in late August or early September 2002. Robinson has announced a base price of dlrs335,000, just dlrs28,000 higher than the current R44 Raven. Optional avionics and equipment will be priced the same as the current model."
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another great advantage of this aircraft will be no carb icing! Although I have over 2,000 hours in Robbos in the UK I was reminded of that hazard when I read a recent article by Dick Sanford about carb icing with particular reference to R22/R44 - It is not peculiar to Robbos of course, but the article reminded me how scared all of us should be who fly piston engine carb helicopters, especially in Western Europe.
I think that people who design and fly helicopters in California can forget how easy carb icing is elsewhere.
I think that people who design and fly helicopters in California can forget how easy carb icing is elsewhere.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the other America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the next logical step???????
Frank, please put fuel injection in the ol 22'.
I'm sure the benefits will outweigh the negs & if he continues to built several 1000 of the beasties per year..........the cost increase minor.
BTW, I love how salespeople use the word JUST.
eg; The Raven 2 with fuel injection at JUST $28,000 above the standard model
That's a fairly substantial JUST
Frank, please put fuel injection in the ol 22'.
I'm sure the benefits will outweigh the negs & if he continues to built several 1000 of the beasties per year..........the cost increase minor.
BTW, I love how salespeople use the word JUST.
eg; The Raven 2 with fuel injection at JUST $28,000 above the standard model
That's a fairly substantial JUST
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to t'aint natural, RHC reports:
"RHC has announced that it will now accept orders for its new R44 Raven II. The aircraft has more power, a higher gross weight, 28-volt electrical system and increased altitude performance. The Raven II is currently completing FAA certification testing and Robinson expects to receive the FAA type certificate in late August or early September 2002. Robinson has announced a base price of dlrs335,000, just dlrs28,000 higher than the current R44 Raven. Optional avionics and equipment will be priced the same as the current model."
Umm, I may be a bit dense (just ask me two ex-wives or me mum) but just where does it say that the Raven II will be fuel-injected? Sure, it's supposedly got extra power, but could that come from less of a derating of the Lycoming 540 or perhaps turbocharging it? How would the simple act of adding FI allow them to up the MGW?
I'm cornfused.
"RHC has announced that it will now accept orders for its new R44 Raven II. The aircraft has more power, a higher gross weight, 28-volt electrical system and increased altitude performance. The Raven II is currently completing FAA certification testing and Robinson expects to receive the FAA type certificate in late August or early September 2002. Robinson has announced a base price of dlrs335,000, just dlrs28,000 higher than the current R44 Raven. Optional avionics and equipment will be priced the same as the current model."
Umm, I may be a bit dense (just ask me two ex-wives or me mum) but just where does it say that the Raven II will be fuel-injected? Sure, it's supposedly got extra power, but could that come from less of a derating of the Lycoming 540 or perhaps turbocharging it? How would the simple act of adding FI allow them to up the MGW?
I'm cornfused.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: by the seaside
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you should try here
Did notice something fairly interesting. Raven II, an increase in Max gross weight of 100 lbs over earlier models giving 2500lb. Weight of aircraft w/standard equipment 1500lb. Payload 1000lb.
Anyone look at the old model, Raven, max gross 2400lbs and an empty weight of 1442lb. Payload 958lb.
$28,000 for an increase payload of 42lb....
Doesn't seem like that great a deal!!!!
Did notice something fairly interesting. Raven II, an increase in Max gross weight of 100 lbs over earlier models giving 2500lb. Weight of aircraft w/standard equipment 1500lb. Payload 1000lb.
Anyone look at the old model, Raven, max gross 2400lbs and an empty weight of 1442lb. Payload 958lb.
$28,000 for an increase payload of 42lb....
Doesn't seem like that great a deal!!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, it was late at night when I posted... the interesting bit is, of course, in the numbers at the bottom, where we find:
Powerplant: Lycoming IO-540 fuel injected, angle valve, tuned induction.
Powerplant: Lycoming IO-540 fuel injected, angle valve, tuned induction.