R22 Corner
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nunya
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picky, picky, picky,
Yes, somewhat sarcastic.
Thanks for pointing out the typo, I fixed it.
Yes, some lucky 20 hour students have soloed in turbines with low entretia but in general, no.
No, I'm not going to name everything that would warrant an auto so I only gave a couple of examples. I figure the readers here are smart enough to catch my drift.
Yes, somewhat sarcastic.
Thanks for pointing out the typo, I fixed it.
Yes, some lucky 20 hour students have soloed in turbines with low entretia but in general, no.
No, I'm not going to name everything that would warrant an auto so I only gave a couple of examples. I figure the readers here are smart enough to catch my drift.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinson, Nr decay, Autorotation & Governor
The rapid loss of rotor speed in the R-22 is a subject that has come up again. In addition, everyone seems to agree that an 'engine governor' in the Robinson is a good thing. The Robinson R-22 is the most popular helicopter for training pilots and it is probably the one most flown by low time pilots. Therefor, would it not be advantageous to include a 'rotor governor' in conjunction with the 'engine governor'?
The 'engine governor' adjusts the engine and thus the energy being delivered to the rotor; to maintain a specific Nr. The 'rotor governor' adjusts the collective pitch and thus the energy being removed from the rotor; to maintain a specific Nr. A rotor governor will therefor assures that there can never be a critical loose of rotor speed ~ unless it is intentionally overridden by the pilot.
It has been argued that a 'rotor governor' could result in the craft loosing lift at a critical time. At elevation, what is wrong with the collective pitch lowering instead of the Nr decaying. At heights close to the ground should not the pilots hand always be on the collective? If there was a loss of power the collective would want to lower and this would serve as an additional indicator to the pilot. The pilot can, of course, override the slight increase in the collective's downward pull.
A 'rotor governor' is not unrealistic. The world's first production helicopter, 60 years ago, came equipped with one. In fact, "Dr. Hohenemser had planned a barometrically controlled governor to take care of large ranges of altitude, but it was never constructed, as the ceiling of the machine was not sufficiently high to justify it."
Just a thought. Any others?
The 'engine governor' adjusts the engine and thus the energy being delivered to the rotor; to maintain a specific Nr. The 'rotor governor' adjusts the collective pitch and thus the energy being removed from the rotor; to maintain a specific Nr. A rotor governor will therefor assures that there can never be a critical loose of rotor speed ~ unless it is intentionally overridden by the pilot.
It has been argued that a 'rotor governor' could result in the craft loosing lift at a critical time. At elevation, what is wrong with the collective pitch lowering instead of the Nr decaying. At heights close to the ground should not the pilots hand always be on the collective? If there was a loss of power the collective would want to lower and this would serve as an additional indicator to the pilot. The pilot can, of course, override the slight increase in the collective's downward pull.
A 'rotor governor' is not unrealistic. The world's first production helicopter, 60 years ago, came equipped with one. In fact, "Dr. Hohenemser had planned a barometrically controlled governor to take care of large ranges of altitude, but it was never constructed, as the ceiling of the machine was not sufficiently high to justify it."
Just a thought. Any others?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
havent we already been here, i am advised that the early R22 governors did in fact move the lever, although I never saw one myself.
I am also advised that the current system which rolls throttle only is much better in the opinion of a couple of people who have used both.
therefore I would be inclined based on anecdotal evidence to disagree with your theory.
sound like "reinventing a not very good wheel" to me when the one you have works fine !
I am also advised that the current system which rolls throttle only is much better in the opinion of a couple of people who have used both.
therefore I would be inclined based on anecdotal evidence to disagree with your theory.
sound like "reinventing a not very good wheel" to me when the one you have works fine !
Do you need to lower the lever BEFORE an engine failure???
All this conjecture about the R22! If you lose the donk, believe it or not, you have more than a poofteenth of a nanosecond to get the lever down to conserve NR. No need to be scared - just prepared.
The nay-sayers should try auto's in an R22 - you might (shock, horror) actually enjoy the experience. As in any machine, you should be prepared for a possible engine failure, and as in any single engined machine, be prepared to lower the freakin' lever!!
The governor is an electric device that physically operates the throttle (i.e. you feel it move) in order to maintain engine rpm, and therefore rotor rpm in powered flight. Works fine. Don't ferk with it! QED.
And as far as "rotor governors" go...I can't even begin to gather my thoughts enough to type an adequate response.
The nay-sayers should try auto's in an R22 - you might (shock, horror) actually enjoy the experience. As in any machine, you should be prepared for a possible engine failure, and as in any single engined machine, be prepared to lower the freakin' lever!!
The governor is an electric device that physically operates the throttle (i.e. you feel it move) in order to maintain engine rpm, and therefore rotor rpm in powered flight. Works fine. Don't ferk with it! QED.
And as far as "rotor governors" go...I can't even begin to gather my thoughts enough to type an adequate response.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 78
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
the eddy current test has been held up temporarily. . watch out for blade life shortening from frank.
"australia has 10% of robbie sales and 90% of robbie problems", quote from robinson.
"australia has 10% of robbie sales and 90% of robbie problems", quote from robinson.
Yes, the early governors moved the collective to help control the revs. Rather dangerous when you have just landed, lowered the lever, and momentarily move your left hand to do something - along comes a puff of breeze, the RRPM want to rise, but the governor pulls up on the collective to stop it.
Oh, boy....
That's why there was a BIG warning that as soon as you touch the ground you turn off the governor.
I don't want TOO much machinery trying to make a helo idiot-proof - the machine can then think up all sorts of ways to give you a surprise.
Oh, boy....
That's why there was a BIG warning that as soon as you touch the ground you turn off the governor.
I don't want TOO much machinery trying to make a helo idiot-proof - the machine can then think up all sorts of ways to give you a surprise.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sprocket: Thanks for that info. I spoke with the LAME again yesterday and he says there is a meeting on either thursday or friday between Robinson's Oz reps (I think it's the guys from Heliflight in Sydney) and CASA and the question of the ADs may be sorted out then.
I still don't hold out much hope for my blades though as they are over 1500 hours (along with about 1/3 of the Oz fleet apparently)
I can see a big expense coming up!
I still don't hold out much hope for my blades though as they are over 1500 hours (along with about 1/3 of the Oz fleet apparently)
I can see a big expense coming up!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoke and mirrors works every time.
Shortening blade life to say 1500 hours from 2000-2200 is like the issuance of the restrictions from flying out of trim and from sideslipping the helicopter as well as the issuance of the SFAR. It is a way of protecting Robinson and it covers up the root cause for all of the problems.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
History repeats itself.
Many years ago Sikorsky tried such an idea where the collective would be automatically dropped upon loss of engine oil pressure. The idea sounded good but it was inadequately researched. The design was scrapped when it was discovered that in order for the actuator to compress the operating spring collective pitch would be raised when there were inadequate rotor RPMs and the blades would sail and stall out cutting off the tail cone.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 78
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
at 8.30am eastern standard time tomorrow (thursday) in australia there is going to be a tele-conference between a group of people, at least two of the group are casa and frank robinson. the recent blade failure involving an r22 and it's probable cause are to be discussed. we hope.
popular, (if i can use that word), opinion seems to be that under recording of hours is a contributing factor in this accident.
let's look at what we know perhaps of its history.
imported from japan quite a few years ago with about 500 hours on the clock, (the japs are good recorders), did an epic voyage i'm told with its first aussie owner, sold to a mustering company in the nt, sold to a flying school in northern nsw, finally sold to a private owner in sydney.
as far as times are concerned with this machine it was coming up for a lifed twelve yearly, (due to robinson extensions from ten years), in september, the machine had quite some hours left before it hit 2200 for its first rebuild.
the final owner of the machine was the uncle of the student who died in the in flight break up.
it's pretty sad that it takes a fatality in front of millions of people for casa to take an active interest in a helicopter crash.
the facts are that very few helicopter crashes are visited by either the atsb or casa, most investigators would not know how a helicopter worked. the atsb is undermanned as far as helicopter experts go and casa couldn't give a rats.
let's go down the under recording path.
in the past it has been pointed out to casa that there is a problem in the helicopter industry, in australia, in massive under recording of hours in parts of the mustering industry. it has also been reported to casa, who has done the under recording, and where the under recording has taken place. casa has done nothing. casa's idea is "you get the proof and take them on", "it's a commercial problem, nothing to do with us", there was a token gesture a few years ago in the bush, there was a fine and an aoc cancellation but the company kept on working under a different aoc, didn't miss a beat. in fact the mutiple use of aoc's has been common practice. there are many solo operators in australia operating under someones elses aoc. some of the fleet don't even bother going that far. this keeps you unaccountable to scutiny from the regulator. there are, and have been, many people who operate without control in our industry.
under recording, do the sums:
sitting and listening to the parade of pilots that sit around the beer table talking about their job and what they do.
tired from a flat out year of over a thousand hours charge time mustering cattle (when you are ferrying the engine is not working), been at it for ten years, making a good living, thinking of becoming an instructor. done 15000, got six logged, might sell the machine next year, get a new one, this one's running out of hours. it's coming up for a ten yearly (then). i'll get a good price if it's got a few hours left on it.
or: conversation at the flying school; whathisface offered to sell me an r22 to get started, it's got no hours left. he'll pull it out of the shed and stick a battery in it, at least i'll get going. what do you reckon?
or: jo bloggs, wow what a pilot, he's done 17000 hours and going to buy his third machine, fantastic bloke. what does he charge?? oh, about $250 per hour.
you blokes cannot comprehend the enormity of our problem.
these incidents are not isolated. nor are they fiction.
there was a meeting held a few years ago in canberra, it was instigated by an article in australian flying magazine that pointed out to everyone that a problem exsisted with the under recording of hours in the helicopter industry. it was chaired i believe by the once dick, head of casa. mick was there also, albeit on the sidelines. it was explained to the multitudes that obvious problems exsisted and were getting worse, dick yawned, the room yawned, dick scratched his nuts as he slid off his chair, the room watched. the meeting was hijacked by dick lickers. a lot of time was wasted.
what has happened to our helicopter industry in australia is that what was once controllable with regulatory intervention, has now turned into a culture of its own, ( for very obviuous resons to a lot of us), it will be extremely hard to change it back now.
this accident is not the first of its type in this country to happen.
popular, (if i can use that word), opinion seems to be that under recording of hours is a contributing factor in this accident.
let's look at what we know perhaps of its history.
imported from japan quite a few years ago with about 500 hours on the clock, (the japs are good recorders), did an epic voyage i'm told with its first aussie owner, sold to a mustering company in the nt, sold to a flying school in northern nsw, finally sold to a private owner in sydney.
as far as times are concerned with this machine it was coming up for a lifed twelve yearly, (due to robinson extensions from ten years), in september, the machine had quite some hours left before it hit 2200 for its first rebuild.
the final owner of the machine was the uncle of the student who died in the in flight break up.
it's pretty sad that it takes a fatality in front of millions of people for casa to take an active interest in a helicopter crash.
the facts are that very few helicopter crashes are visited by either the atsb or casa, most investigators would not know how a helicopter worked. the atsb is undermanned as far as helicopter experts go and casa couldn't give a rats.
let's go down the under recording path.
in the past it has been pointed out to casa that there is a problem in the helicopter industry, in australia, in massive under recording of hours in parts of the mustering industry. it has also been reported to casa, who has done the under recording, and where the under recording has taken place. casa has done nothing. casa's idea is "you get the proof and take them on", "it's a commercial problem, nothing to do with us", there was a token gesture a few years ago in the bush, there was a fine and an aoc cancellation but the company kept on working under a different aoc, didn't miss a beat. in fact the mutiple use of aoc's has been common practice. there are many solo operators in australia operating under someones elses aoc. some of the fleet don't even bother going that far. this keeps you unaccountable to scutiny from the regulator. there are, and have been, many people who operate without control in our industry.
under recording, do the sums:
sitting and listening to the parade of pilots that sit around the beer table talking about their job and what they do.
tired from a flat out year of over a thousand hours charge time mustering cattle (when you are ferrying the engine is not working), been at it for ten years, making a good living, thinking of becoming an instructor. done 15000, got six logged, might sell the machine next year, get a new one, this one's running out of hours. it's coming up for a ten yearly (then). i'll get a good price if it's got a few hours left on it.
or: conversation at the flying school; whathisface offered to sell me an r22 to get started, it's got no hours left. he'll pull it out of the shed and stick a battery in it, at least i'll get going. what do you reckon?
or: jo bloggs, wow what a pilot, he's done 17000 hours and going to buy his third machine, fantastic bloke. what does he charge?? oh, about $250 per hour.
you blokes cannot comprehend the enormity of our problem.
these incidents are not isolated. nor are they fiction.
there was a meeting held a few years ago in canberra, it was instigated by an article in australian flying magazine that pointed out to everyone that a problem exsisted with the under recording of hours in the helicopter industry. it was chaired i believe by the once dick, head of casa. mick was there also, albeit on the sidelines. it was explained to the multitudes that obvious problems exsisted and were getting worse, dick yawned, the room yawned, dick scratched his nuts as he slid off his chair, the room watched. the meeting was hijacked by dick lickers. a lot of time was wasted.
what has happened to our helicopter industry in australia is that what was once controllable with regulatory intervention, has now turned into a culture of its own, ( for very obviuous resons to a lot of us), it will be extremely hard to change it back now.
this accident is not the first of its type in this country to happen.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent synopsis Imabell.
Congratulations on so accurately describing the problem.
I would also add that these machines are being flown HARD. Not just occasionally but all the time.
The ex-ringer types are just brutal on the R22 and G-load constantly while completely ignoring the little redline on the engine. Even with honest recording of the hours the machines have been "ridden hard and put away wet"
I once saw a 20000hr mustering pilot (of great repute) bring in a 22 for a 2200hr overhaul that absolutely blew my mind. It was his own machine that he left on the end of the airstrip in all manner of weather without doors etc. The mast seal had been leaking for who knows how long and had spread oil all over the aircraft. Combining this with the NTs weather and conditions there was absolutely no way the you could see out the bubble. It hadn't been cleaned forever. The blades were wrinkled with numerous dents and sagged probably 5 inches lower than they should've. Nicks and dents in the TR etc.... I am sure you understand.
I have seen HQ utes driven by our national brethren in better nick than this aircraft. I only wish I had had my camera.....its hard to describe the state of this machine.
You will never take the cowboy out of the territory but I do think it is time to take the cowboy out of the R22.
Congratulations on so accurately describing the problem.
I would also add that these machines are being flown HARD. Not just occasionally but all the time.
The ex-ringer types are just brutal on the R22 and G-load constantly while completely ignoring the little redline on the engine. Even with honest recording of the hours the machines have been "ridden hard and put away wet"
I once saw a 20000hr mustering pilot (of great repute) bring in a 22 for a 2200hr overhaul that absolutely blew my mind. It was his own machine that he left on the end of the airstrip in all manner of weather without doors etc. The mast seal had been leaking for who knows how long and had spread oil all over the aircraft. Combining this with the NTs weather and conditions there was absolutely no way the you could see out the bubble. It hadn't been cleaned forever. The blades were wrinkled with numerous dents and sagged probably 5 inches lower than they should've. Nicks and dents in the TR etc.... I am sure you understand.
I have seen HQ utes driven by our national brethren in better nick than this aircraft. I only wish I had had my camera.....its hard to describe the state of this machine.
You will never take the cowboy out of the territory but I do think it is time to take the cowboy out of the R22.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes things break and, why they break.
To: Mr. Selfish
First a lesson in aircraft design. This is a basic lesson because I’m not qualified to go beyond the basics. When an aircraft is designed the engineers will build in a safety factor. This safety factor is predicated on normal operations. The safety factor is usually 1.5 times the stress level expected in normal operations. If you go beyond the 1.5 safety level there is a possibility that parts will yield under stress and beyond that yield point the parts will fail.
In the case of the lifed blades on the Robinson I would assume that the engineers selected the 2000-hour level based on a safety factor of 1.5 which means that at 3000 hours they would expect yield and eventual loss of the blades.
Now a basic lesson in aeromechanics. The Robinson head is semi-articulated meaning that the blades are free to flap relative to the rotorhead. When the blades flap in relation to the rotorhead the laws of conservation of angular momentum kick in and the blades will lead and lag. However on the Robinson head there is no provision for lead and lag so the blades will flex in plane. The in plane flexing is first reacted by the blade root structure, then to the cone hinges to the rotorhead and eventually through the mast and into the fuselage via the transmission.
Let us assume that the Robinson engineers in the rotor system design process took all of these things into consideration in the establishment of the design life of the blades. Let’s assume they felt under normal operations the 2000-hour life could be met without encountering cracking problems. The operative word is normal and mustering flying is far from normal. They fly out of trim and they fly in a sideslip both conditions have been restricted by Robinson as causing high flapping loads and they have frequent cyclic changes, which cause flapping with the attendant lead and lag.
Exceeding the blade operating life may have played a big part of the cracking problem on the subject helicopter but add in the operating and flying environment and there is a possibility that both conditions had the effect of exceeding the design life of the blades.
It is my opinion that blade life will be reduced, which will run up the operating costs for the R-22. And, eventually Robinson will restrict the R-22 from mustering. In every fatal crash of an R-22 Frank Robinson would say that it was not designed as a trainer. Will a time come when he will say that the R-22 was never designed for mustering?
First a lesson in aircraft design. This is a basic lesson because I’m not qualified to go beyond the basics. When an aircraft is designed the engineers will build in a safety factor. This safety factor is predicated on normal operations. The safety factor is usually 1.5 times the stress level expected in normal operations. If you go beyond the 1.5 safety level there is a possibility that parts will yield under stress and beyond that yield point the parts will fail.
In the case of the lifed blades on the Robinson I would assume that the engineers selected the 2000-hour level based on a safety factor of 1.5 which means that at 3000 hours they would expect yield and eventual loss of the blades.
Now a basic lesson in aeromechanics. The Robinson head is semi-articulated meaning that the blades are free to flap relative to the rotorhead. When the blades flap in relation to the rotorhead the laws of conservation of angular momentum kick in and the blades will lead and lag. However on the Robinson head there is no provision for lead and lag so the blades will flex in plane. The in plane flexing is first reacted by the blade root structure, then to the cone hinges to the rotorhead and eventually through the mast and into the fuselage via the transmission.
Let us assume that the Robinson engineers in the rotor system design process took all of these things into consideration in the establishment of the design life of the blades. Let’s assume they felt under normal operations the 2000-hour life could be met without encountering cracking problems. The operative word is normal and mustering flying is far from normal. They fly out of trim and they fly in a sideslip both conditions have been restricted by Robinson as causing high flapping loads and they have frequent cyclic changes, which cause flapping with the attendant lead and lag.
Exceeding the blade operating life may have played a big part of the cracking problem on the subject helicopter but add in the operating and flying environment and there is a possibility that both conditions had the effect of exceeding the design life of the blades.
It is my opinion that blade life will be reduced, which will run up the operating costs for the R-22. And, eventually Robinson will restrict the R-22 from mustering. In every fatal crash of an R-22 Frank Robinson would say that it was not designed as a trainer. Will a time come when he will say that the R-22 was never designed for mustering?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The idea needs to be considered, however strange it may seem. In fact, the certification FARS make mention of such a device, if I'm not mistaken.
The problem is defining the criteria that would make the system work - do you use a force sensor on the collective to over-ride the system if you think you know better than the 'governor'.
What logic would be used for the governor? Would there be redundant sensors (hate to have it say there was an engine failure based only on the rotor speed sensor failing...)
And then the question is - why do we need this? Proper training should obviate the need for such a device.
And what if it isn't working- is the helicopter now unserviceable?
And so on.
Good idea, but lots of questions need to be asked / answered before we cut metal / program chips to make such a device.
The problem is defining the criteria that would make the system work - do you use a force sensor on the collective to over-ride the system if you think you know better than the 'governor'.
What logic would be used for the governor? Would there be redundant sensors (hate to have it say there was an engine failure based only on the rotor speed sensor failing...)
And then the question is - why do we need this? Proper training should obviate the need for such a device.
And what if it isn't working- is the helicopter now unserviceable?
And so on.
Good idea, but lots of questions need to be asked / answered before we cut metal / program chips to make such a device.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why didn't we think of that?
The answer to the above question is that you will never see such a device on a Robinson helicopter. First of all it increases the complexity of an already simple control system and this will result in increased purchase price and increase maintenance as well as adding to the price of repair replacement parts.
As Shawn stated above why not simply depend on pilot training. This is the operational philosophy of Robinson. We will train the pilot and if anything goes wrong it is his fault.
I just had to add that last bit.
As Shawn stated above why not simply depend on pilot training. This is the operational philosophy of Robinson. We will train the pilot and if anything goes wrong it is his fault.
I just had to add that last bit.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the information.
Camp Freddie,
Yes, this subject has been brought up before, but I find the application of a rotor governor appealing for specific applications. It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that if a person can fly a Robinson, they are well prepared for other craft. This doesn't sound like a 'learning curve', to me.
A rotor governor may be of little or no value to the professional pilot, but (in conjunction with other features) it may make things a lot easier, faster, and safer for the novice to achieve basic vertical flight.
What-ho Squiffy!
"Do you need to lower the lever BEFORE an engine failure??? "
It appears that the Flettner governor only decreased the collective pitch after a minimum Nr had been reached. In fact, the article mentions that they initially set the minimum value too low.
Ascend Charlie,
Thanks for the information. Can you mention the name of the craft that had the overspeed rotor governor?
The rotor governor on the Flettner was only used for low Nr. I assume that Dr. Hohenemser had planned the barometrically controlled governor to reduce the risk of overspeed at altitude.
Lu,
I don't fully understand the description of operation. It sounds is if the problem was not the idea of having a rotor governor, but the design of the specific governor. Are you able to elaborate a little on the governor's description of operation?
Yes, this subject has been brought up before, but I find the application of a rotor governor appealing for specific applications. It has been mentioned on numerous occasions that if a person can fly a Robinson, they are well prepared for other craft. This doesn't sound like a 'learning curve', to me.
A rotor governor may be of little or no value to the professional pilot, but (in conjunction with other features) it may make things a lot easier, faster, and safer for the novice to achieve basic vertical flight.
What-ho Squiffy!
"Do you need to lower the lever BEFORE an engine failure??? "
It appears that the Flettner governor only decreased the collective pitch after a minimum Nr had been reached. In fact, the article mentions that they initially set the minimum value too low.
Ascend Charlie,
Thanks for the information. Can you mention the name of the craft that had the overspeed rotor governor?
The rotor governor on the Flettner was only used for low Nr. I assume that Dr. Hohenemser had planned the barometrically controlled governor to reduce the risk of overspeed at altitude.
Lu,
I don't fully understand the description of operation. It sounds is if the problem was not the idea of having a rotor governor, but the design of the specific governor. Are you able to elaborate a little on the governor's description of operation?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinson piltos have a built in (or at least they should have) RRPM governor. When that Low RRPM buzzer goes, left arm reaches for the ground - fast. My governor saved my life once. It is amazing what seeing 83% RRPM on the clock does to ones sphinkter.
Keep the Robby simple and therefore fun to fly. Save the new generation Nr governors for the next generation of a/c - the ones where pilots are optional or simply renamed passengers.
Keep the Robby simple and therefore fun to fly. Save the new generation Nr governors for the next generation of a/c - the ones where pilots are optional or simply renamed passengers.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave-jackson et all
I bet you like other sensible aviators are appalled at the accident rate of light helicopters, but I think that trying to protect these people from a mechanical mishap catching them unawares is covering up the core problem.
AND THAT IS POOR TRAINING
PPL (A and H),s are the poor relations when comes to the regulatory bodies in the Uk and many other countries the industry is left to police it,s self, This has led to Schools having thier own (pet) examiner who more often than not is to close to the company to be totaly objective There are two ways for a school to gain a high student pass rate and too many take the easy way out.
The USA system like many others is a joke, no longer should a newly qualified pilot be allowed to give instruction so as to enable them to gain Hours to become "experienced" themselves
It,s time for the Authorities to grab the nettle and fund examiners, thus removing any link when presented with a candidate for testing. the candidate should be graded on the test and this grade used by the authorities to determine the frequency of inspections thereby giving a incentive to the school to present a good quality candidate. All to often I have seen examineers turn up and rush tests as they have themselves other jobs to do, this results in making assumptions rather than sound judgement.
I have checked out pilots from many schools that wanted to self fly hire our a/c and the training shows up immediatly, and not just in the a/c.
I dont want to close this rant without saying that not all schools are like this, its been my experiance to work at a couple who enjoy a very good reputation in the industry but these are to few and therfore somthing should be done rather than constantly blaming the a/c.
"Crap in Crap out"
I bet you like other sensible aviators are appalled at the accident rate of light helicopters, but I think that trying to protect these people from a mechanical mishap catching them unawares is covering up the core problem.
AND THAT IS POOR TRAINING
PPL (A and H),s are the poor relations when comes to the regulatory bodies in the Uk and many other countries the industry is left to police it,s self, This has led to Schools having thier own (pet) examiner who more often than not is to close to the company to be totaly objective There are two ways for a school to gain a high student pass rate and too many take the easy way out.
The USA system like many others is a joke, no longer should a newly qualified pilot be allowed to give instruction so as to enable them to gain Hours to become "experienced" themselves
It,s time for the Authorities to grab the nettle and fund examiners, thus removing any link when presented with a candidate for testing. the candidate should be graded on the test and this grade used by the authorities to determine the frequency of inspections thereby giving a incentive to the school to present a good quality candidate. All to often I have seen examineers turn up and rush tests as they have themselves other jobs to do, this results in making assumptions rather than sound judgement.
I have checked out pilots from many schools that wanted to self fly hire our a/c and the training shows up immediatly, and not just in the a/c.
I dont want to close this rant without saying that not all schools are like this, its been my experiance to work at a couple who enjoy a very good reputation in the industry but these are to few and therfore somthing should be done rather than constantly blaming the a/c.
"Crap in Crap out"
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Back to the subject- a governor for the rotor, as opposed to the engine.
The real problem is that there are times when you will want to over-ride such a governor- say in an extended range autorotation when you want to stretch the glide and use the minimum NR. If the rotor governor were set to keep the minimum NR, then you'd be fighting it during this maneuver.
What happens when you want to use the rotor speed to cushion the touchdown - how do you really over-ride the governor then? How much force would be needed (and that is really the only way I could ever see anyone certifying something like this - having a switch to disconnect the rotor governor at the very critical time in an autorotative landing is not suitable).
And so on.
Sensors would need to be reliable, logic simple, and it would have to be very easy to over-ride.
Worth thinking about, perhaps.
But what about then going to fly a machine that didn't have one???
The real problem is that there are times when you will want to over-ride such a governor- say in an extended range autorotation when you want to stretch the glide and use the minimum NR. If the rotor governor were set to keep the minimum NR, then you'd be fighting it during this maneuver.
What happens when you want to use the rotor speed to cushion the touchdown - how do you really over-ride the governor then? How much force would be needed (and that is really the only way I could ever see anyone certifying something like this - having a switch to disconnect the rotor governor at the very critical time in an autorotative landing is not suitable).
And so on.
Sensors would need to be reliable, logic simple, and it would have to be very easy to over-ride.
Worth thinking about, perhaps.
But what about then going to fly a machine that didn't have one???