R22 Corner
Cool as a moosp
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
From: Mostly Hong Kong
Charlie, I have to agree with you. There are many operators and schools that are still teaching things that Frank took out of the POH several years ago.
Robinson are pretty good compared to some manufacturers on their amendments, they don't come through every few weeks like some I can think of.
I have seen some schools around the world that do the amendments then continue teaching the old way. Or some instructors change and some don't. Or some chief pilots say "I don't agree with that, do it my way."
This is in contrast to the commercial organisations which will get an operations procedure change from the manufacturer, decide on a date, and from that point on everybody does it the new way.
It is very frustrating to be told that a procedure that has worked well for many years is now redundant, but that is what professionalism is all about. What concerns the thinking pilot is Why?
Often I have found in my day job that an operational procedure changes simply because a new manager has taken over and he puts his own preference on the methods. When said manager has just started shaving, it is doubly frustrating.
Robinson are pretty good compared to some manufacturers on their amendments, they don't come through every few weeks like some I can think of.
I have seen some schools around the world that do the amendments then continue teaching the old way. Or some instructors change and some don't. Or some chief pilots say "I don't agree with that, do it my way."
This is in contrast to the commercial organisations which will get an operations procedure change from the manufacturer, decide on a date, and from that point on everybody does it the new way.
It is very frustrating to be told that a procedure that has worked well for many years is now redundant, but that is what professionalism is all about. What concerns the thinking pilot is Why?
Often I have found in my day job that an operational procedure changes simply because a new manager has taken over and he puts his own preference on the methods. When said manager has just started shaving, it is doubly frustrating.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: NYC
My school has the new checklist and they continue to use/teach the old method of Governor off until your ready to roll up to 102-104%.
I flip the governor in one fluid motion when I'm ready to roll up the throttle. As I'm rolling on the throttle and get to about 100%, I use my index finger to flip the switch and let the governor take over the rest of the way. This way I cant accidentally roll it beyond 104%.
I flip the governor in one fluid motion when I'm ready to roll up the throttle. As I'm rolling on the throttle and get to about 100%, I use my index finger to flip the switch and let the governor take over the rest of the way. This way I cant accidentally roll it beyond 104%.
PPRuNe Enigma
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Thanks csc for getting the full scoop.
OK, but the checklist already contains an item to check that the throttle is fully closed before engine start. So the assumption is that someone will miss that item but remember the governor ?
I remain to be convinced that if someone starts the engine with the throttle wide open that the governor will be able to respond quick enough to prevent an overspeed anyway. Always been puzzled why they don't just fit a rev limiter.
I worked through the new list myself this afternoon, and the thing that bothers me is that the governor is now supposed to be on during mag checks at 75% - so if a student inadvertently lets the rpm drift up to 80% at this stage the governor will cut in and crank it all the way up to 104% unexpectedly. Not a desirable situation.
OK, but the checklist already contains an item to check that the throttle is fully closed before engine start. So the assumption is that someone will miss that item but remember the governor ?
I remain to be convinced that if someone starts the engine with the throttle wide open that the governor will be able to respond quick enough to prevent an overspeed anyway. Always been puzzled why they don't just fit a rev limiter.
I worked through the new list myself this afternoon, and the thing that bothers me is that the governor is now supposed to be on during mag checks at 75% - so if a student inadvertently lets the rpm drift up to 80% at this stage the governor will cut in and crank it all the way up to 104% unexpectedly. Not a desirable situation.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: Murica.
horn check
I have always checked that the governor works properly by engaging it below 80%, and then smoothly roll it up...
If it is supposed to come on at 80, I'd like to see it do just that...
As for the horn check....the people at Robinson has gone through many different % settings for when it is supposed to come on, or so they said at the factory course. What is the use then in just setting the RPM to the mid 90 as suggested in an earlier post, and see if the horn works. I have alway gotten the RPM to operating range, lifted the collective a bit, and rolled the RPM down to the % where it is supposed to come on....
Again, if it is supposed to come on at a certain setting, I'd like it to do just that....
Just my 2cents worth..if that much
If it is supposed to come on at 80, I'd like to see it do just that...
As for the horn check....the people at Robinson has gone through many different % settings for when it is supposed to come on, or so they said at the factory course. What is the use then in just setting the RPM to the mid 90 as suggested in an earlier post, and see if the horn works. I have alway gotten the RPM to operating range, lifted the collective a bit, and rolled the RPM down to the % where it is supposed to come on....
Again, if it is supposed to come on at a certain setting, I'd like it to do just that....
Just my 2cents worth..if that much
PPRuNe Enigma
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
. . . mid 90 as suggested in an earlier post . . .
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Why is this thread only appearing now?!
Jeez,
Pilots: Don't you guys keep uptodate with Manufacture's POH updates. $10 a year is all you need as a pilot.
Owners / Operators, also bear in mind that if you are not changing the POH in your aircraft you are not airworthy! Read 91.9(b) and note the word 'current'
Students: Go an look in the POH (in aircraft that you next fly) and see if there are updates from Feb 23 2004. If not ask your instructor what's going on and refuse to fly!!! (Just stirring!)
For those instructors out there, who didn't know about these updates until now...what sort of role model behaviour is that for your students?
The 'Govenor On' change is part of the Feb 2004 updates, which includes a total of 50 pages! I suggest you go through your old POH carefully and compare them to a new one. Or better still, buy a new one then subscribe for updates.
Anyway, enough stirring.
According to a Robbie representative (I called to ask the same question), the govenor on is put there as they didn't see much of a drop in overspeed cases during initial pickup, cause people simply for got to switch it on. Read Safety Notice SN36.
NOTE also in the 'Shutdown Procedure' there is no 'govenor off'! For the same reason. Frank obviously wants us to keep it on continously.
As for practical implication of this...the warm up and mag checks is at 75% so there is no reason why not to have the govenor on. It kicks in at 80% as mentioned before. Same with shut down...no problem.
There are a whole load of other changes...which I was going to mention, but can't be bothered now.
GO GET THE UPDATES!
regards..
Pilots: Don't you guys keep uptodate with Manufacture's POH updates. $10 a year is all you need as a pilot.
Owners / Operators, also bear in mind that if you are not changing the POH in your aircraft you are not airworthy! Read 91.9(b) and note the word 'current'
Students: Go an look in the POH (in aircraft that you next fly) and see if there are updates from Feb 23 2004. If not ask your instructor what's going on and refuse to fly!!! (Just stirring!)
For those instructors out there, who didn't know about these updates until now...what sort of role model behaviour is that for your students?
The 'Govenor On' change is part of the Feb 2004 updates, which includes a total of 50 pages! I suggest you go through your old POH carefully and compare them to a new one. Or better still, buy a new one then subscribe for updates.
Anyway, enough stirring.
According to a Robbie representative (I called to ask the same question), the govenor on is put there as they didn't see much of a drop in overspeed cases during initial pickup, cause people simply for got to switch it on. Read Safety Notice SN36.
NOTE also in the 'Shutdown Procedure' there is no 'govenor off'! For the same reason. Frank obviously wants us to keep it on continously.
As for practical implication of this...the warm up and mag checks is at 75% so there is no reason why not to have the govenor on. It kicks in at 80% as mentioned before. Same with shut down...no problem.
There are a whole load of other changes...which I was going to mention, but can't be bothered now.
GO GET THE UPDATES!
regards..
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Charlie S Charlie,
Must admit, that was a harsh title to my previous post...but deliberatly so.
I thank you for bringing it up on this forum...some pilots / operators most likely will never had known about the changes if you hadn't.
I wasn't really getting at you. Judging from your posts in this thread (and in this forum generally), I believe you to be a concientious, thinking pilot...the sort I'd fly with anyday.
My comments were really meant to alert the many operators and pilots who might just think they carry the POH to satisfy the law...and nothing more. Some pilots I talk to, couldn't even tell you the general layout of a POH, much less anything important contained therein.
As for the debate as to whether the govenor would stop a 'throttle-open-at-startup' overspeed, I agree in that I don't think it would. The reply I got when I rang RHC was that the Govenor On is to ensure control of the RPM when up at 102%. Anytime the collective is raised from flat pitch (horn check or liftoff), there is a rise in RPM. This has obviously caught unwary pilots out before. Again SN-36.
Regarding whether it is difficult to control the RPM at 75% during mag. checks and warm-up....
a) I started doing this as per new POH and have found no problems with this. Our students are going to be pilots! If they can't control RPM on warmup, what makes us think they'll be able to control RPM in a 180 auto! As instructors, same applies. If we can't monitor a warmup close enough to stop RPM creeping up, maybe we should hang up our cyclics and try another proffession!
b) If we don't startup according to the POH (i.e. take our own decision as to what's best rather than follow what the manufacturer has decided is best), what sort of role model behaviour does that show to students.
c) Is there a legal implication to disregarding the procedures in the POH.
Lastly, regarding all the other weird and wonderful startup procedures I have heard of and witnessed....
...I cannot see any reason not to start up as per POH. It seems safe and logical to me.
Anyway, thanks for your reply...again, not really meant at you...
CL12PV2S
Must admit, that was a harsh title to my previous post...but deliberatly so.
I thank you for bringing it up on this forum...some pilots / operators most likely will never had known about the changes if you hadn't.
I wasn't really getting at you. Judging from your posts in this thread (and in this forum generally), I believe you to be a concientious, thinking pilot...the sort I'd fly with anyday.
My comments were really meant to alert the many operators and pilots who might just think they carry the POH to satisfy the law...and nothing more. Some pilots I talk to, couldn't even tell you the general layout of a POH, much less anything important contained therein.
As for the debate as to whether the govenor would stop a 'throttle-open-at-startup' overspeed, I agree in that I don't think it would. The reply I got when I rang RHC was that the Govenor On is to ensure control of the RPM when up at 102%. Anytime the collective is raised from flat pitch (horn check or liftoff), there is a rise in RPM. This has obviously caught unwary pilots out before. Again SN-36.
Regarding whether it is difficult to control the RPM at 75% during mag. checks and warm-up....
a) I started doing this as per new POH and have found no problems with this. Our students are going to be pilots! If they can't control RPM on warmup, what makes us think they'll be able to control RPM in a 180 auto! As instructors, same applies. If we can't monitor a warmup close enough to stop RPM creeping up, maybe we should hang up our cyclics and try another proffession!
b) If we don't startup according to the POH (i.e. take our own decision as to what's best rather than follow what the manufacturer has decided is best), what sort of role model behaviour does that show to students.
c) Is there a legal implication to disregarding the procedures in the POH.
Lastly, regarding all the other weird and wonderful startup procedures I have heard of and witnessed....
...I cannot see any reason not to start up as per POH. It seems safe and logical to me.
Anyway, thanks for your reply...again, not really meant at you...
CL12PV2S
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: ----------
CL10PV2S you have a point some operators although appear to be both efficient and on the case are actually behind the times and giving little feed back.
Take my cleint in london the machine purchased from a renown operator. then the machine went in for its first oil change the A/C came back with a revised check list and no information given to my cleint that it had been changed and no reason for the revised list.
when going for first start after the A/C returned it was assumed that it was a printing error.
I think this thread has highlighted the decrepancies in operators but the good thing for me as freelance is that i am mailing franks mob and getting the sups and updates direct to myself at least that way i can say that i am on the case rather than look blank when asked.
well done charlie dont panic about putting threads up if you dont know
the thing about this site is you get the info you want when you want it
Sincerely
Andy
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Just looking at the form which one is the one you would go for.
I think the class B updates and info but what would you guys recomend as i dont have the maintainance manuals ( it is always usefull) but do robinson only supply udates to existing manuals
or when you subscribe you get the lot.
B99 AJB
Take my cleint in london the machine purchased from a renown operator. then the machine went in for its first oil change the A/C came back with a revised check list and no information given to my cleint that it had been changed and no reason for the revised list.
when going for first start after the A/C returned it was assumed that it was a printing error.
I think this thread has highlighted the decrepancies in operators but the good thing for me as freelance is that i am mailing franks mob and getting the sups and updates direct to myself at least that way i can say that i am on the case rather than look blank when asked.
well done charlie dont panic about putting threads up if you dont know
the thing about this site is you get the info you want when you want it
Sincerely
Andy
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Just looking at the form which one is the one you would go for.
I think the class B updates and info but what would you guys recomend as i dont have the maintainance manuals ( it is always usefull) but do robinson only supply udates to existing manuals
or when you subscribe you get the lot.
B99 AJB
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
'StartUp' Overspeed
Hmmm.
Starting the engine with the drive belts not-engagaed is a different type of overspeed. The massive torque on the lower driveshaft, which in a sense has not yet been secured by the drive belts will cause a destructive harmonic resonance. Imagine holding a 10 foot long thin peice of bamboo, and spinning it around in your hands....the free end will be all over the place. However, when you engage the clutch, you are secureing the free end, and the resonance is thus dampened. This is why, it is not an overspeed when you go from idle to full when the clutch system is engaged (as in a autorotation power recovery). The point is, this kind of overspeed occurs way before the engine has got to normal operating RPM. Thus, I don't think a govenor can help here.
Disclaimer: Now, I'm not a mechanic and have based that last paragraph on my understanding of the 300CB 'startup' overspeed. The 300CB POH specifically sets paramaters for what is an overspeed or not. I would love someone with more understanding to help out here and confirm whether the case is similar for R22.
I would be most interested to hear what RHC have to say about this.
CL
Starting the engine with the drive belts not-engagaed is a different type of overspeed. The massive torque on the lower driveshaft, which in a sense has not yet been secured by the drive belts will cause a destructive harmonic resonance. Imagine holding a 10 foot long thin peice of bamboo, and spinning it around in your hands....the free end will be all over the place. However, when you engage the clutch, you are secureing the free end, and the resonance is thus dampened. This is why, it is not an overspeed when you go from idle to full when the clutch system is engaged (as in a autorotation power recovery). The point is, this kind of overspeed occurs way before the engine has got to normal operating RPM. Thus, I don't think a govenor can help here.
Disclaimer: Now, I'm not a mechanic and have based that last paragraph on my understanding of the 300CB 'startup' overspeed. The 300CB POH specifically sets paramaters for what is an overspeed or not. I would love someone with more understanding to help out here and confirm whether the case is similar for R22.
I would be most interested to hear what RHC have to say about this.
CL
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
End of the road for the R22?
Note the question mark.
All AOPA UK members will have their June issue of General Aviation magazine by now, so I thought I'd post the substance of an interview in the magazine with Frank Robinson, who is clearly weighing the merits of shutting down the R22 production line to concentrate on the R44 and future projects.
The story says, in part:
The topic came up as we were discussing the max gross of the R22, which has remained at 1,370 lbs while the empty weight has crept inexorably north with the addition of safety and comfort devices like the auxiliary tank, rotor brake and governor. “The 22 has grown pretty much beyond its limits,” Frank says. “It started out at 108hp, now it’s 180 and we’ve still got the same systems, gearbox, drive train. You can’t get that 1,370 pounds up without pretty much starting again from scratch.
“We’ve backed off on a number of things on the 22. We no longer make the Mariner (the float-equipped model) or the instrument trainer. For several reasons, our emphasis has shifted towards the larger helicopter.”
Without an apparent vector change in his thought pattern, he goes on: “I think in many respects the Raven I would make a really good trainer. It has very good flying characteristics. Flown as a two-place in training, it would have big advantages in performance, autotorational capabilities… with the hydraulics it handles really well.
“Look at Cessna – if you want to learn on a new Cessna it’s the 172, right? The four-place. You can’t get the 152 any more. How much is a 172?” I confess to having no idea and venture $180,000, and he scratches his chin. “The Raven I would be a much nicer trainer than any helicopter ever – better than the Bell 47, the Hiller… and safer than any helicopter flying, even in training.”
The article goes on to point out that concentrating on the 44 would make good business sense because the larger margins are on the bigger machine and RHC has a backlog of 44 orders past Christmas, but that the safety argument is foremost in Robinson's mind. While the safety record of the R22 is now better than most fixed-wings, the R44's safety record is impeccable.
The story goes on:
The accidents really get to Frank Robinson. However safe he tried to make his machines, with more than 5,000 of them flying hundreds of thousands of hours a year, they’re going to happen. He has made matters worse for himself by getting personally involved in every fatal accident to an extraordinary degree, going to the scenes, watching videos, recreating the circumstances, going up and flying the same profiles as the accident aircraft, obsessing on getting to the root of every one. People he knew well have been killed in his machines, and he feels the responsibility deeply and personally. The downside of running an operation where you call all the shots is that you also carry the can. At the Robinson Safety Course he still delivers the same homily he’s been repeating since the start: “People used to say the most dangerous thing about flying was the drive to the airport. That is absolute nonsense. Flying a light aircraft or a helicopter is about the most dangerous thing you’re ever going to do. You can reckon that out of the people here (there are 60 on each course) two of you will be killed doing it. But almost all accidents are avoidable, if you develop the right attitude and put extra effort into flying defensively. If you’re not going to do that, then get out of the helicopter and go and do something else, because it’s not for you.”
In our interview, he continued the theme. “Fatal accidents have affected me a great deal. They’ve been a really unpleasant part of the business. It’s probably been a mistake to get so closely involved in them all. We used to have accidents when I was working at Bell, Cessna, and Hughes and we always felt bad about them, but there wasn’t the same sense of personal responsibility. It doesn’t change, it doesn’t get any easier.”
Now, what if he had just one model that had an unparalleled ability to protect pilots from the consequences of their own incapacity or rough luck? That’s the bottom line. So what, if it ceded ground to the opposition? “The Raven I would still be cheaper than a piston Enstrom. It would be less than the Schweitzer 300C with comparable equipment – some of the stuff the Raven has as standard like the governor and the rotor brake they don’t even offer as options. It would be a little more than the 300CB, and of course a lot more than the 22 – the capital cost is greater, and it uses more fuel, but the insurance rates for the Raven I could come down below those of the 22, even when it’s used in training. The 44 with just two people in it has a really good performance margin. You’d have a reduction in training accidents – fewer per hour flown. It would be a really good training helicopter."
The story says that as the sole shareholder in RHC Frank Robinson can do (and does) whatever it pleases him to do, "whatever the effect such a move would have on low-margin training and hire operations, impecunious owners, cattle musterers, fish spotters, short-pocketed wannabe pilots and Robinson’s struggling competitors."
Frank finishes off by saying: “You can say I don’t have any plans at the moment to stop making the 22, but anything is possible.”
All AOPA UK members will have their June issue of General Aviation magazine by now, so I thought I'd post the substance of an interview in the magazine with Frank Robinson, who is clearly weighing the merits of shutting down the R22 production line to concentrate on the R44 and future projects.
The story says, in part:
The topic came up as we were discussing the max gross of the R22, which has remained at 1,370 lbs while the empty weight has crept inexorably north with the addition of safety and comfort devices like the auxiliary tank, rotor brake and governor. “The 22 has grown pretty much beyond its limits,” Frank says. “It started out at 108hp, now it’s 180 and we’ve still got the same systems, gearbox, drive train. You can’t get that 1,370 pounds up without pretty much starting again from scratch.
“We’ve backed off on a number of things on the 22. We no longer make the Mariner (the float-equipped model) or the instrument trainer. For several reasons, our emphasis has shifted towards the larger helicopter.”
Without an apparent vector change in his thought pattern, he goes on: “I think in many respects the Raven I would make a really good trainer. It has very good flying characteristics. Flown as a two-place in training, it would have big advantages in performance, autotorational capabilities… with the hydraulics it handles really well.
“Look at Cessna – if you want to learn on a new Cessna it’s the 172, right? The four-place. You can’t get the 152 any more. How much is a 172?” I confess to having no idea and venture $180,000, and he scratches his chin. “The Raven I would be a much nicer trainer than any helicopter ever – better than the Bell 47, the Hiller… and safer than any helicopter flying, even in training.”
The article goes on to point out that concentrating on the 44 would make good business sense because the larger margins are on the bigger machine and RHC has a backlog of 44 orders past Christmas, but that the safety argument is foremost in Robinson's mind. While the safety record of the R22 is now better than most fixed-wings, the R44's safety record is impeccable.
The story goes on:
The accidents really get to Frank Robinson. However safe he tried to make his machines, with more than 5,000 of them flying hundreds of thousands of hours a year, they’re going to happen. He has made matters worse for himself by getting personally involved in every fatal accident to an extraordinary degree, going to the scenes, watching videos, recreating the circumstances, going up and flying the same profiles as the accident aircraft, obsessing on getting to the root of every one. People he knew well have been killed in his machines, and he feels the responsibility deeply and personally. The downside of running an operation where you call all the shots is that you also carry the can. At the Robinson Safety Course he still delivers the same homily he’s been repeating since the start: “People used to say the most dangerous thing about flying was the drive to the airport. That is absolute nonsense. Flying a light aircraft or a helicopter is about the most dangerous thing you’re ever going to do. You can reckon that out of the people here (there are 60 on each course) two of you will be killed doing it. But almost all accidents are avoidable, if you develop the right attitude and put extra effort into flying defensively. If you’re not going to do that, then get out of the helicopter and go and do something else, because it’s not for you.”
In our interview, he continued the theme. “Fatal accidents have affected me a great deal. They’ve been a really unpleasant part of the business. It’s probably been a mistake to get so closely involved in them all. We used to have accidents when I was working at Bell, Cessna, and Hughes and we always felt bad about them, but there wasn’t the same sense of personal responsibility. It doesn’t change, it doesn’t get any easier.”
Now, what if he had just one model that had an unparalleled ability to protect pilots from the consequences of their own incapacity or rough luck? That’s the bottom line. So what, if it ceded ground to the opposition? “The Raven I would still be cheaper than a piston Enstrom. It would be less than the Schweitzer 300C with comparable equipment – some of the stuff the Raven has as standard like the governor and the rotor brake they don’t even offer as options. It would be a little more than the 300CB, and of course a lot more than the 22 – the capital cost is greater, and it uses more fuel, but the insurance rates for the Raven I could come down below those of the 22, even when it’s used in training. The 44 with just two people in it has a really good performance margin. You’d have a reduction in training accidents – fewer per hour flown. It would be a really good training helicopter."
The story says that as the sole shareholder in RHC Frank Robinson can do (and does) whatever it pleases him to do, "whatever the effect such a move would have on low-margin training and hire operations, impecunious owners, cattle musterers, fish spotters, short-pocketed wannabe pilots and Robinson’s struggling competitors."
Frank finishes off by saying: “You can say I don’t have any plans at the moment to stop making the 22, but anything is possible.”
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
An option
Substitute lighter weight materials or components, which have the same reliability.
This increases the payload and/or decreases the gross weight, for a nominal increase in price.
This increases the payload and/or decreases the gross weight, for a nominal increase in price.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
The writing has been on the wall for a long time...
With higher margins on R44's and increased demand, he can afford to loose that niche market. He's not going to make ANY changes to the R22, even if they are simple. For example, they don't have plans to put the rounded end-caps for blades on the R22 like they did for the R44.
There hasn't been any technological "leaps" in small rotorcraft design in the last 20-30 years. For example, Frank's design has changed very little since it's inception. It won't happen this year and probably won't happen next year, but I predict that Frank WILL NOT accept any new R22 orders after December 31, 2005.
Does anybody want to place that bet?
New composites, materials, and design improvements have been suggested over and over again. However, to implement most of these changes would require a completely new design. What's more likely... that Frank will choose to develop a completely new helicopter from scratch OR will he market the Raven I as a better training platform?
(Pat, thanks for posting this information!)
There hasn't been any technological "leaps" in small rotorcraft design in the last 20-30 years. For example, Frank's design has changed very little since it's inception. It won't happen this year and probably won't happen next year, but I predict that Frank WILL NOT accept any new R22 orders after December 31, 2005.
Does anybody want to place that bet?
New composites, materials, and design improvements have been suggested over and over again. However, to implement most of these changes would require a completely new design. What's more likely... that Frank will choose to develop a completely new helicopter from scratch OR will he market the Raven I as a better training platform?
(Pat, thanks for posting this information!)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: ----------
It would be a shame, but i have to say that as a well built chap (ex fireman not a fat git) and now an instructor wieght is a constant nag in the back of my mind i have never been able to date to get more the full main when flying in the winter and 15 galls in the summer so i would have to say that as you guys rightly say unless frank is going to redesign from scratch, which i think we all would agree that he will not.
then there is not really an option. it would be a shame but pratically i can see where he is coming from,
Similar centiments pat thanks for the information
Sincerely
Bravo 99 (AJB)
then there is not really an option. it would be a shame but pratically i can see where he is coming from,
Similar centiments pat thanks for the information
Sincerely
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Last edited by Bravo 99 (AJB); 30th May 2004 at 20:48.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: ----------
Thanks charlie when the boys go back to ther mum tomorrow i will get on it with robinson thanks
You have put up soom interesting senarios there and yep hope it would never get to a situation like it.
I will have a chat by pm later in the week when i get some more info as we discussed,
Sincerly
Andy
Bravo 99 (AJB)
You have put up soom interesting senarios there and yep hope it would never get to a situation like it.
I will have a chat by pm later in the week when i get some more info as we discussed,
Sincerly
Andy
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO and the GOM
Hi cl12pv2s,
The Robinson doesn't have a lower coupling shaft like the Schweizer - the lower pully is bolted directly to the engine. However, a damaging engine overspeed is much more likely in a no-load situation, as there is little inertia to prevent mega-RPM transients.
I too am curious about the reason for the governor on change. I was trained to switch the governor on prior to rolling the throttle up past 80% during final run-up. The governor then takes the RPM to 104% Oh well, I'll be psyched to hear a solid explanation from a RHC factory guru!
Keep the big fan spinning, gang.
The Robinson doesn't have a lower coupling shaft like the Schweizer - the lower pully is bolted directly to the engine. However, a damaging engine overspeed is much more likely in a no-load situation, as there is little inertia to prevent mega-RPM transients.
I too am curious about the reason for the governor on change. I was trained to switch the governor on prior to rolling the throttle up past 80% during final run-up. The governor then takes the RPM to 104% Oh well, I'll be psyched to hear a solid explanation from a RHC factory guru!
Keep the big fan spinning, gang.
Last edited by Flingwing207; 1st June 2004 at 01:37.
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: ----------
I have to say that reading the feed back so far (forgeting the issue of the updates) it seems to me that the general feeling is that the govenor should go on in the final stage of thottle up to flight idle before final check ready for flight. that is how i feel personally anyway.
Would it not be an idea to forward a further email to frank and the gang asking them to read the forum and then post a reply as to his full reasoning for this change so as all us instructors and r22 drivers can have it from the horses mouth so to speak,
It is clear that a lot of us disaprove not for any other reason at the momment than non clarification of the true reason for this change or our misunderstanding of it. all be it i think some of our arguments are quite correct in thinking.
Just an idea but, I am extreamly curious as to why such a strange change should occur
Sincerely
Andy
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Would it not be an idea to forward a further email to frank and the gang asking them to read the forum and then post a reply as to his full reasoning for this change so as all us instructors and r22 drivers can have it from the horses mouth so to speak,
It is clear that a lot of us disaprove not for any other reason at the momment than non clarification of the true reason for this change or our misunderstanding of it. all be it i think some of our arguments are quite correct in thinking.
Just an idea but, I am extreamly curious as to why such a strange change should occur
Sincerely
Andy
Bravo 99 (AJB)
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
Gaseous: Sorry about that. They went out last Tuesday.
Send your email address to [email protected] and I'll email you a low-res PDF.
Pat
Send your email address to [email protected] and I'll email you a low-res PDF.
Pat
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: In my skin, strapped to my Helo...
I must say, if the end of the 22 is in sight, it will have quite an impact on helicopter training in S.A. As it is, the 22 go for about $340 per hour, and the 44 (Raven 2) at about $490 per hour.
I find it to be a great trainer (nothing wrong with the 44) but am concerned as to what it will do to our market.
I find it to be a great trainer (nothing wrong with the 44) but am concerned as to what it will do to our market.