R22 Corner
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave/Lu
Choose a keyword - "GIRDER" for example.
Select 'Rotorheads' and hit the Search button.
It took 5 secs to find your post, using broadband.
"BMEP" took the same time.
Heliport
Choose a keyword - "GIRDER" for example.
Select 'Rotorheads' and hit the Search button.
It took 5 secs to find your post, using broadband.
"BMEP" took the same time.
Heliport
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3top said:
Hmmm. I think Newton might have been thinking slightly differently.
What you interpret as low "G" when you rapidly lower collective is in fact only that the helicopter starts down before you do. Lowering the collective won't cause the helicopter to experience any significant low "g". In the R22 the blades do not go into negative pitch with a full-down collective, so the airframe will continue to pull down on the disk. More importantly, if the helicopter is accellerating downward rapidly enough to make you feel light in the seat, the airflow is also more rapidly reversing. This is one significant difference between dropping the collective and a cyclic pushover. Believe me, the faster you get the collective down, the less Nr decay you will have.
Next, the rate at which Nr decays is directly related to the amount of blade pitch being pulled just before the power goes away. This is only somewhat related to airspeed - if you are in a 500'/min rate of descent at 70kt, Nr will decay much less. But I'm splitting hairs on this one.
However, the rate that an object FALLS is not affected by its horizontal velocity. A bullet shot from a gun over a level surface will hit the ground at the same time as another bullet dropped simultaniously from the same height (aerodynamic effects aside). Inertia is relative to velocity, but velocity is a vector quantity, so in the vertical plane, a helicopter at 70kt has no more inertia than a helicopter at 0kt.
c) "Slamming down the collective!" This is a no-no!!
Slamming/snapping down the collective does nothing good - it will only get you towards a low-g situation (which in an auto is not as bad as in a regular push-over, but....).
All you will do is go nearly through the roof!
Correct action is to lower the collective SMOOTH and QUICK, but please don't slam it. Give the rotor some time to change the airflow!
back to b) The faster you fly when 0-power hits, the faster Nr will decay. Worse yet the faster you fly the more inertia the helicopter will have (the whole machine, NOT the blades!), which means it will not want to really start to decend, but keep going straight (I think that Newton-guy found that out some time ago...)
Slamming/snapping down the collective does nothing good - it will only get you towards a low-g situation (which in an auto is not as bad as in a regular push-over, but....).
All you will do is go nearly through the roof!
Correct action is to lower the collective SMOOTH and QUICK, but please don't slam it. Give the rotor some time to change the airflow!
back to b) The faster you fly when 0-power hits, the faster Nr will decay. Worse yet the faster you fly the more inertia the helicopter will have (the whole machine, NOT the blades!), which means it will not want to really start to decend, but keep going straight (I think that Newton-guy found that out some time ago...)
What you interpret as low "G" when you rapidly lower collective is in fact only that the helicopter starts down before you do. Lowering the collective won't cause the helicopter to experience any significant low "g". In the R22 the blades do not go into negative pitch with a full-down collective, so the airframe will continue to pull down on the disk. More importantly, if the helicopter is accellerating downward rapidly enough to make you feel light in the seat, the airflow is also more rapidly reversing. This is one significant difference between dropping the collective and a cyclic pushover. Believe me, the faster you get the collective down, the less Nr decay you will have.
Next, the rate at which Nr decays is directly related to the amount of blade pitch being pulled just before the power goes away. This is only somewhat related to airspeed - if you are in a 500'/min rate of descent at 70kt, Nr will decay much less. But I'm splitting hairs on this one.
However, the rate that an object FALLS is not affected by its horizontal velocity. A bullet shot from a gun over a level surface will hit the ground at the same time as another bullet dropped simultaniously from the same height (aerodynamic effects aside). Inertia is relative to velocity, but velocity is a vector quantity, so in the vertical plane, a helicopter at 70kt has no more inertia than a helicopter at 0kt.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu.
Thanks for getting your usual fast response from Heliport.
If you could do one more small favor, would you please thank Heliport for me and tell him that stupid me had not been clicking on 'Show results as posts'.
Dave
Thanks for getting your usual fast response from Heliport.
If you could do one more small favor, would you please thank Heliport for me and tell him that stupid me had not been clicking on 'Show results as posts'.
Dave
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: WPB, FL
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the coyote writes:
"And yes, I'm as concerned as you are that someone might take this speculation on board somehow and in confusion deviate from what they have been trained to do when the blood is pumping.
Stick to the training! Pprune is a great source of info, ideas, and increased awareness. How people choose to interpret that and what course of action they ultimately take is up to them eh?"
I agree. I hope that what I've put forward is simply accepted as my theory of what's going on, not to be tested by someone in no reasonable position to do so safely. The RFM and manufacturer's instruction should be trusted. Unless there is an unforseen problem (jammed/misrigged controls) the collective should simply be lowered and NR allowed to slowly come back up. It's just my nature to look at the other 'what if's', and consider what's actually going on physically. Perhaps this isn't the place to do it. But if not here, where?
Flingwing207 says:
"This is one significant difference between dropping the collective and a cyclic pushover. Believe me, the faster you get the collective down, the less Nr decay you will have."
To a point...
I think it's been said before that dumping the collective too quickly will actually slow the NR more than a less hasty reduction. Consider that when in regular lifting flight air comes down through the rotor disk at a decent clip. If you instantly reduce collective to zero and at portions of the blade the blade angle becomes negative, the air coming down on the blade will cause a quite substantial drag with negative lift (negative angle of attack). Why would you want more drag and negative lift (possible zero-g)? By more gradually reducing collective the blades don't end up pushing up at the air. You allow the airflow through the disk to change direction as the blades do, perhaps maintaining a small constant angle of attack or simply zero angle of attack, rather than a large negative one.
You also say, "In the R22 the blades do not go into negative pitch with a full-down collective, so the airframe will continue to pull down on the disk."
If this were true than what would cause the rotor to keep turning in an auto despite the drag acting along the span? The type specific info in the back of "Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control" by Prouty states that the collective range on the R-22 is +1.5 to +14.5deg. This is likely the root angle. The twist is -7deg, which means that at less than 21% span the local blade angle is positive, but beyond that it's negative (-5.5deg at the tip).
Gaseous says:
"Cyclic input alters the plane of rotation. NOT the angle of attack. (Bailey, principles of flight, p40)."
and
"forget the red herring of cyclic affecting pitch. do not confuse pitch with angle of attack. forward cyclic will not increase angle of attack on retreating blade"
I think you are over generalizing Bailey's statement. Think of what happens when you're in a hover and push forward cyclic to commence forward flight. Sure, your forward cyclic will cause the plane of rotation to tilt forward, but how? If the angle of attack doesn't change then the lift in that quadrant is unchanged and the disk won't respond.
Also consider fast forward flight. You know that the blade has a larger angle of attack on the retreating side than the advancing side because the relative airspeed acting on the blade is different. To yield the same lift on each side the higher relative airspeed on the one side (advancing) is offset by the higher angle of attack (and higher blade angle) on the other. This is due to your forward cyclic input. If the angle of attack was the same on each side the lower lift due to the slower relative airspeed on the retreating side would cause the disk to tilt back and you'd slow down. If you brought the cyclic back to center, the blade angle and also the angle of attack on the retreating side would similarly be reduced and the disk would come down over the tail as a result. The steady state final condition would put you back in a hover.
What I think he meant was simply that the average blade angle as the blade revolves does not change, and thus the average angle of attack does not change.
Going back to my earlier calculation... You are right in your statement that blade angle does not equal angle of attack. However, they are strongly related, especially when we discuss transients. In my earlier post I made the point that I was making broad assumptions and this was one, but I stand by my earlier position that for illustrative purposes and especially for maneuvering, this is fair. It looks like my non-standard text didn't come across correctly. I'll fix that.
The change in angle of attack is exactly equal to the change in blade angle for a moment before the airflow has a chance to respond. As time goes by the angle of attack finds a new equilibrium, but for a short while their changes are the same.
"And yes, I'm as concerned as you are that someone might take this speculation on board somehow and in confusion deviate from what they have been trained to do when the blood is pumping.
Stick to the training! Pprune is a great source of info, ideas, and increased awareness. How people choose to interpret that and what course of action they ultimately take is up to them eh?"
I agree. I hope that what I've put forward is simply accepted as my theory of what's going on, not to be tested by someone in no reasonable position to do so safely. The RFM and manufacturer's instruction should be trusted. Unless there is an unforseen problem (jammed/misrigged controls) the collective should simply be lowered and NR allowed to slowly come back up. It's just my nature to look at the other 'what if's', and consider what's actually going on physically. Perhaps this isn't the place to do it. But if not here, where?
Flingwing207 says:
"This is one significant difference between dropping the collective and a cyclic pushover. Believe me, the faster you get the collective down, the less Nr decay you will have."
To a point...
I think it's been said before that dumping the collective too quickly will actually slow the NR more than a less hasty reduction. Consider that when in regular lifting flight air comes down through the rotor disk at a decent clip. If you instantly reduce collective to zero and at portions of the blade the blade angle becomes negative, the air coming down on the blade will cause a quite substantial drag with negative lift (negative angle of attack). Why would you want more drag and negative lift (possible zero-g)? By more gradually reducing collective the blades don't end up pushing up at the air. You allow the airflow through the disk to change direction as the blades do, perhaps maintaining a small constant angle of attack or simply zero angle of attack, rather than a large negative one.
You also say, "In the R22 the blades do not go into negative pitch with a full-down collective, so the airframe will continue to pull down on the disk."
If this were true than what would cause the rotor to keep turning in an auto despite the drag acting along the span? The type specific info in the back of "Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control" by Prouty states that the collective range on the R-22 is +1.5 to +14.5deg. This is likely the root angle. The twist is -7deg, which means that at less than 21% span the local blade angle is positive, but beyond that it's negative (-5.5deg at the tip).
Gaseous says:
"Cyclic input alters the plane of rotation. NOT the angle of attack. (Bailey, principles of flight, p40)."
and
"forget the red herring of cyclic affecting pitch. do not confuse pitch with angle of attack. forward cyclic will not increase angle of attack on retreating blade"
I think you are over generalizing Bailey's statement. Think of what happens when you're in a hover and push forward cyclic to commence forward flight. Sure, your forward cyclic will cause the plane of rotation to tilt forward, but how? If the angle of attack doesn't change then the lift in that quadrant is unchanged and the disk won't respond.
Also consider fast forward flight. You know that the blade has a larger angle of attack on the retreating side than the advancing side because the relative airspeed acting on the blade is different. To yield the same lift on each side the higher relative airspeed on the one side (advancing) is offset by the higher angle of attack (and higher blade angle) on the other. This is due to your forward cyclic input. If the angle of attack was the same on each side the lower lift due to the slower relative airspeed on the retreating side would cause the disk to tilt back and you'd slow down. If you brought the cyclic back to center, the blade angle and also the angle of attack on the retreating side would similarly be reduced and the disk would come down over the tail as a result. The steady state final condition would put you back in a hover.
What I think he meant was simply that the average blade angle as the blade revolves does not change, and thus the average angle of attack does not change.
Going back to my earlier calculation... You are right in your statement that blade angle does not equal angle of attack. However, they are strongly related, especially when we discuss transients. In my earlier post I made the point that I was making broad assumptions and this was one, but I stand by my earlier position that for illustrative purposes and especially for maneuvering, this is fair. It looks like my non-standard text didn't come across correctly. I'll fix that.
The change in angle of attack is exactly equal to the change in blade angle for a moment before the airflow has a chance to respond. As time goes by the angle of attack finds a new equilibrium, but for a short while their changes are the same.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening all, Sorry if this intellectual chess is boring some of you. Perhaps Heliport would put this all in a new thread which you could avoid.
Krylian, you said,
Quote: I think you are over generalizing Bailey's statement. Think of what happens when you're in a hover and push forward cyclic to commence forward flight. Sure, your forward cyclic will cause the plane of rotation to tilt forward, but how? If the angle of attack doesn't change then the lift in that quadrant is unchanged and the disk won't respond.
I don't have access to books at present so someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't forget flapping to equality.
i.e. If cyclic pitch is applied the blade will flap to maintain the angle of attack.
If cyclic pitch is increased the blade will flap up, reducing pitch. It is the flapping that alters the plane of rotation. There is a lag due to the inertia of the blade in the vertical plane but this is small. so in practical terms the angle of attack does not change much unless you make rapid cyclic movements. All flapping in one direction occurs within 1/2 revolution. I seem to remember reading in an NTSB document that stall develops over several revolutions.
I had a discussion with another pilot today and this came up.
Why is aft cyclic good at high RRPM but bad at low?
The answer is this. At high Nr aft cyclic increases the angle of attack, moving the autorotative region outward along the blade and increasing its efficiency. This decreases the area and drag of the end, driven section. Lovely, RRPM goes up just like we were told it would. The inboard stalled section of the blade is small and irrelevant.
As Nr falls, more of the inner section of the blade stalls, so drag here becomes relevant, but no matter, aft cyclic increases the AOA, the autorotative bit is still up to the job. As it moves out along the blade it still reduces the drag of the end bit of the blade and overpowers the extra drag of the stalled section. RRPM goes up. Still OK
Nr falls more The stalled section at the root is now big and its drag is in equilibrium with the autorotative force. The drag at the end of the blade is small in comparison. Recovery may be possible if you dont muck it up. Any increase in angle of attack will push the stalled region outward so that the drag overpowers the autorotative force. RRPM goes down and the rotor stalls. Aft cyclic doesnt look so good here. I am guessing we are in the low 70s% area, but don't really know.
Aft cyclic is great at high RRPM but you can have too much of a good thing at low RRPM.
If you dont want to call it forward cyclic you could always call it less aft cyclic.
I believe that there must be some warning of impending stall, probably left roll and pitch down. At this point you are not far off doomed as stated in R22 SN24 (which I read today, comparison to fixed wing not so ridiculous eh, snoop?). I suggest you all read SN24 before making your mind up what action if any is worth taking at this point in your life.
I do not suggest you do anything other than you were trained to do.
Krylian, you said,
Quote: I think you are over generalizing Bailey's statement. Think of what happens when you're in a hover and push forward cyclic to commence forward flight. Sure, your forward cyclic will cause the plane of rotation to tilt forward, but how? If the angle of attack doesn't change then the lift in that quadrant is unchanged and the disk won't respond.
I don't have access to books at present so someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't forget flapping to equality.
i.e. If cyclic pitch is applied the blade will flap to maintain the angle of attack.
If cyclic pitch is increased the blade will flap up, reducing pitch. It is the flapping that alters the plane of rotation. There is a lag due to the inertia of the blade in the vertical plane but this is small. so in practical terms the angle of attack does not change much unless you make rapid cyclic movements. All flapping in one direction occurs within 1/2 revolution. I seem to remember reading in an NTSB document that stall develops over several revolutions.
I had a discussion with another pilot today and this came up.
Why is aft cyclic good at high RRPM but bad at low?
The answer is this. At high Nr aft cyclic increases the angle of attack, moving the autorotative region outward along the blade and increasing its efficiency. This decreases the area and drag of the end, driven section. Lovely, RRPM goes up just like we were told it would. The inboard stalled section of the blade is small and irrelevant.
As Nr falls, more of the inner section of the blade stalls, so drag here becomes relevant, but no matter, aft cyclic increases the AOA, the autorotative bit is still up to the job. As it moves out along the blade it still reduces the drag of the end bit of the blade and overpowers the extra drag of the stalled section. RRPM goes up. Still OK
Nr falls more The stalled section at the root is now big and its drag is in equilibrium with the autorotative force. The drag at the end of the blade is small in comparison. Recovery may be possible if you dont muck it up. Any increase in angle of attack will push the stalled region outward so that the drag overpowers the autorotative force. RRPM goes down and the rotor stalls. Aft cyclic doesnt look so good here. I am guessing we are in the low 70s% area, but don't really know.
Aft cyclic is great at high RRPM but you can have too much of a good thing at low RRPM.
If you dont want to call it forward cyclic you could always call it less aft cyclic.
I believe that there must be some warning of impending stall, probably left roll and pitch down. At this point you are not far off doomed as stated in R22 SN24 (which I read today, comparison to fixed wing not so ridiculous eh, snoop?). I suggest you all read SN24 before making your mind up what action if any is worth taking at this point in your life.
I do not suggest you do anything other than you were trained to do.
Last edited by Gaseous; 10th Jan 2005 at 21:25.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
Low intertia.
Solution
Keep practising.
EDIT
SOME POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED BEFORE THIS ONE WHICH MAKES THIS AND SOME OF THE FOLLOWING IRRELEVANT
Low intertia.
Solution
Keep practising.
EDIT
SOME POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED BEFORE THIS ONE WHICH MAKES THIS AND SOME OF THE FOLLOWING IRRELEVANT
Last edited by Gaseous; 4th Mar 2005 at 11:11.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Buy an R44, stop playing with autos and fly over good landing areas as much as possible, always fly at a good height so if or when you might be that unlucky 1 in a million that has an engine failure you have plenty of time to sort yourself out. If the horn aint screaming you raise the collective a little more. Your probably staring at the RRPM guage too much, attitude, wait assess, and in between that look for a nice flat spot. And remember if you turn a lot you have to work harder to control RRPM. Also read thread about R22s maybe coming to an end. I dont proclaim to be any good at it myself but in training there is a big emphasis on keeping the needles in the green but thats mainly to keep their aircraft in good nick, you will be glad of all that inertia in the blades at the bottom. Ive been will instructors in BiAnnuals who still balls it up after thousands of them.
Concentrate your efforts on to other things that will keep you alive longer like good planning and downwind ops, hot and heavy in that R22.
Concentrate your efforts on to other things that will keep you alive longer like good planning and downwind ops, hot and heavy in that R22.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Qld
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maaaate.......if you have to even ask that question, it speaks volumes to the quality of the basic training you received, and worse still to the quality of the training you received on the R22. For God's sake don't dick around with practice autos on your own until you at least get much more experience than you presently have, and even then, don't do them unless you have an experienced instructor with you.
In the meantime, go find an experienced R22 Instructor and get that life saving autorotation training you seem to have been denied to date..Take care & safe flying!
In the meantime, go find an experienced R22 Instructor and get that life saving autorotation training you seem to have been denied to date..Take care & safe flying!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Denver, CO and the GOM
Age: 63
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key is indeed in maintaining a consistant pitch attitude with the cyclic. If you are sawing the cyclic back and forth to maintain airspeed (common if you spend too much time looking inside at the airspeed indicator), you will have a very difficult time holding RRPM steady.
Try this - go up to 2,000' (or higher) AGL, 65 KT and just start smoothly lowering the collective while keeping your eyes outside and maintaining a 65 kt attitude. DON'T LOOK INSIDE until a few seconds after you have gotten the collective all the way down. Then take a very quick glance at the airspeed and RPM, then eyes back outside. Smoothly make whatever attitude adjustment you deem necessary, then HOLD THE CYCLIC STILL.
At the same time you are doing this, listen to the RPM. If it starts rising, raise the collective about 5mm. Wait, listen, if it holds steady, leave the collective alone. If the RPM starts going down, lower the collective 1/2 the distance you raised it.
Now here's the trick: every time you are going to move the cyclic aft or make a turn, nudge the collective up 5mm just before you make the cyclic movement. If you are moving the cyclic forward or rolling out of a turn, lower the collective first. The more you plan to go aft cyclic or turn, the more collective you raise in anticipation. Same for lowering collective.
As long as you anticipate the RPM changes caused by flaring and disk loading, autoing the R22 is not difficult!
Hope this helps - John
Try this - go up to 2,000' (or higher) AGL, 65 KT and just start smoothly lowering the collective while keeping your eyes outside and maintaining a 65 kt attitude. DON'T LOOK INSIDE until a few seconds after you have gotten the collective all the way down. Then take a very quick glance at the airspeed and RPM, then eyes back outside. Smoothly make whatever attitude adjustment you deem necessary, then HOLD THE CYCLIC STILL.
At the same time you are doing this, listen to the RPM. If it starts rising, raise the collective about 5mm. Wait, listen, if it holds steady, leave the collective alone. If the RPM starts going down, lower the collective 1/2 the distance you raised it.
Now here's the trick: every time you are going to move the cyclic aft or make a turn, nudge the collective up 5mm just before you make the cyclic movement. If you are moving the cyclic forward or rolling out of a turn, lower the collective first. The more you plan to go aft cyclic or turn, the more collective you raise in anticipation. Same for lowering collective.
As long as you anticipate the RPM changes caused by flaring and disk loading, autoing the R22 is not difficult!
Hope this helps - John
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flingwing207 has it right on. The problem with wandering rpm in autorotation is almost always that changes in the inflow of the rotor are making the rpm climb or drop. The cyclic can be as powerful as the collecive.
The way to make the rpm stay solid is to keep the pitch attitude of the aircraft steady, which keeps the disk at the same relative angle of attack. As Fling says, keeping the cyclic steady, which keeps the nose steady, is the key.
One thing to feel while you descend is the vertical G, which tells you exactly what the rpm is going to do. If you pull the nose up, to build a little load factor, and also increase the inflow. The inflow makes the rpm rise, and the loadfactor is your clue. After some practice, you can judge the collective up that is needed by feeling the load factor, so a slight increase in load factor calls for a slight increase in collective, and vice-versa. This load factor sense is also helpful in turns, as the load factor is what makes the rpm rise in turns. My experience is that most students are ok at triming up on collective on turn entry, but they plumb forget to lower the lever when they roll out of the turn.
The way to make the rpm stay solid is to keep the pitch attitude of the aircraft steady, which keeps the disk at the same relative angle of attack. As Fling says, keeping the cyclic steady, which keeps the nose steady, is the key.
One thing to feel while you descend is the vertical G, which tells you exactly what the rpm is going to do. If you pull the nose up, to build a little load factor, and also increase the inflow. The inflow makes the rpm rise, and the loadfactor is your clue. After some practice, you can judge the collective up that is needed by feeling the load factor, so a slight increase in load factor calls for a slight increase in collective, and vice-versa. This load factor sense is also helpful in turns, as the load factor is what makes the rpm rise in turns. My experience is that most students are ok at triming up on collective on turn entry, but they plumb forget to lower the lever when they roll out of the turn.
I agree with oldrotorhead as well.
It seems like you don't have a handle on it, let alone any confidence.
I suggest a change of attitude from "groan..." and $hitting yourself to being a bit more positive and practical:
"OK, I haven't got a handle on this yet, and I've just got to do as many as it takes until I do."
More training man, do as many as you have to. Everyone had a problem with autos at some stage.
It seems like you don't have a handle on it, let alone any confidence.
I suggest a change of attitude from "groan..." and $hitting yourself to being a bit more positive and practical:
"OK, I haven't got a handle on this yet, and I've just got to do as many as it takes until I do."
More training man, do as many as you have to. Everyone had a problem with autos at some stage.
How long. . .?
When I was doing my PPL (R22) one of my instructors taught told me to transition away and climb into the circuit. . Climbing through 200ft agl (23" 60kts) and just crossing the airfield boundary he said to me, 'have you got your headset volume correctly adjusted?'. So I reached up with my left hand to find the volume control on my headset. . .
Then this is what happened - He chopped the throttle and said (quickly) "Right, the engine has just failed what are you going to do about it?" I said, (slowly) "Errr. . . " and watched the RRPM fall to 80%
He said, "Too late" dropped the lever and threw it into a near 90deg banked turn and got back inside the airfield boundary. RRPM now about 90% with about 50ft to go. . another 90deg banked turn in the opposite direction to level us and the RRPM was up to 100% just in time for him to raise the lever and cushion the landing.
Going over this in my mind with a stopwatch it must have been about 4 seconds between 'engine failure' and the lever going down.
I guess it's not always 'who you know. . .'?
Then this is what happened - He chopped the throttle and said (quickly) "Right, the engine has just failed what are you going to do about it?" I said, (slowly) "Errr. . . " and watched the RRPM fall to 80%
He said, "Too late" dropped the lever and threw it into a near 90deg banked turn and got back inside the airfield boundary. RRPM now about 90% with about 50ft to go. . another 90deg banked turn in the opposite direction to level us and the RRPM was up to 100% just in time for him to raise the lever and cushion the landing.
Going over this in my mind with a stopwatch it must have been about 4 seconds between 'engine failure' and the lever going down.
I guess it's not always 'who you know. . .'?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R22 production line to close
R22 production line to close.
This came to me from outside of aviation and they seemed serious about this. I can't believe it but a reason was given which sounded plausable - product liability costs.
No timing was given so could be out and out speculation.
This came to me from outside of aviation and they seemed serious about this. I can't believe it but a reason was given which sounded plausable - product liability costs.
No timing was given so could be out and out speculation.
Not enough $$$ ...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinson’s 2004 Sales Soar Past 2003
Dontcha just love a Rumour Network?
Tue, Feb 1 2005
An Amazing Year: Robinson’s 2004 Sales Soar Past 2003
63% Increase Over Last Year!
Torrance, CA—Sales at Robinson Helicopter Company, once again, exceeded expectations. In 2004, Robinson produced 690 new helicopters, a 63% increase over the 422 helicopters produced in 2003. RHC shipped 234 R22s and 456 R44s, an all time high for the company, and has manufactured over 3,780 R22s and 2,100 R44s to date.
Moving forward in 2005, strong demand for both R22 and R44 helicopters has led to a large backlog of orders. In response, Robinson plans to increase production from 15 to 20 new helicopters per week. An additional 215,000 square foot new manufacturing building will help facilitate the increased production rate.
The worldwide increase in R22s and R44s also led to a record 1,011 pilots attending the Robinson three day safety course in 2004. The growing interest in the safety course prompted Robinson to create a new, larger training facility within the new building. Class size was expanded to 65 pilots and the class schedule increased from once to twice per month. RHC now has the ability to accommodate the 1,300 students expected to attend the safety course in 2005.
With all of the recent growth, Robinson has the capability to increase production beyond numbers that were achieved in 2004. Frank Robinson, President of RHC says that he expects “2005 to be as good as, or better than 2004.”
Robinson Helicopter Company is the world’s leading manufacturer of civil helicopters. For additional information about Robinson, visit the website at www.robinsonheli.com
Tue, Feb 1 2005
An Amazing Year: Robinson’s 2004 Sales Soar Past 2003
63% Increase Over Last Year!
Torrance, CA—Sales at Robinson Helicopter Company, once again, exceeded expectations. In 2004, Robinson produced 690 new helicopters, a 63% increase over the 422 helicopters produced in 2003. RHC shipped 234 R22s and 456 R44s, an all time high for the company, and has manufactured over 3,780 R22s and 2,100 R44s to date.
Moving forward in 2005, strong demand for both R22 and R44 helicopters has led to a large backlog of orders. In response, Robinson plans to increase production from 15 to 20 new helicopters per week. An additional 215,000 square foot new manufacturing building will help facilitate the increased production rate.
The worldwide increase in R22s and R44s also led to a record 1,011 pilots attending the Robinson three day safety course in 2004. The growing interest in the safety course prompted Robinson to create a new, larger training facility within the new building. Class size was expanded to 65 pilots and the class schedule increased from once to twice per month. RHC now has the ability to accommodate the 1,300 students expected to attend the safety course in 2005.
With all of the recent growth, Robinson has the capability to increase production beyond numbers that were achieved in 2004. Frank Robinson, President of RHC says that he expects “2005 to be as good as, or better than 2004.”
Robinson Helicopter Company is the world’s leading manufacturer of civil helicopters. For additional information about Robinson, visit the website at www.robinsonheli.com
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was a article in flight international in the last week or so, in which frank said they were in no hurry to build a bigger helicopter, but had long term plans for a 5 place helicopter but hadnt even chosen a powerplant yet, he didnt like the expense/fuel consumption of a C20, and had even thought about a diesel, but didnt like the weight.
he didnt say anything about stopping the R22 though.
regards
CF
he didnt say anything about stopping the R22 though.
regards
CF
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I interviewed Frank Robinson a year ago for a couple of UK magazines. The headline on the subsequent articles was "End of the line for the R22?"
Frank said he was considering stopping production of the R22 for several reasons. The model had been overdeveloped - it started out as 108 hp and now it's 180 hp with the same drive train, it's been blown out to 1370 lbs and you can't do any more with it. He'd already stopped making the Mariner and the instrument trainer, and his company's primary focus was on the R44, for which he was fighting off customers.
Furthermore, he believed the R44 Raven II would make the best trainer ever. Two up, it has massive reserves of power, it handles benignly and, he said, it would make the safest trainer ever built. It would be cheaper than a piston Enstrom, and cheaper than a Schweizer 269 with similar equipment.
Add to this the fact that the margins are greater on the larger machine, and that even with his new factory extension he's fighting hard to get the waiting list for the 44 down, while planning relatively big margin developments, and you can see his point.
Frank said he was considering stopping production of the R22 for several reasons. The model had been overdeveloped - it started out as 108 hp and now it's 180 hp with the same drive train, it's been blown out to 1370 lbs and you can't do any more with it. He'd already stopped making the Mariner and the instrument trainer, and his company's primary focus was on the R44, for which he was fighting off customers.
Furthermore, he believed the R44 Raven II would make the best trainer ever. Two up, it has massive reserves of power, it handles benignly and, he said, it would make the safest trainer ever built. It would be cheaper than a piston Enstrom, and cheaper than a Schweizer 269 with similar equipment.
Add to this the fact that the margins are greater on the larger machine, and that even with his new factory extension he's fighting hard to get the waiting list for the 44 down, while planning relatively big margin developments, and you can see his point.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinson R22 Corner
Some merged threads.
See also:
Robinson Tech Questions
Robinson Safety Course
Certification of Robinson Helicopters (incl post by Frank Robinson)
Robinson blades
Schweizer v Robinson
Please use the 'Search' function for Robinson and/or R22 to see if your question has already been answered, or if there's a thread on a related topic already running.
Note:
When using Search, you have the choice of choosing to search Thread titles or Entire posts.
The merged thread doesn't include news of accidents or subsequent reports.
Heliport
See also:
Robinson Tech Questions
Robinson Safety Course
Certification of Robinson Helicopters (incl post by Frank Robinson)
Robinson blades
Schweizer v Robinson
Please use the 'Search' function for Robinson and/or R22 to see if your question has already been answered, or if there's a thread on a related topic already running.
Note:
When using Search, you have the choice of choosing to search Thread titles or Entire posts.
The merged thread doesn't include news of accidents or subsequent reports.
Heliport
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi backender
try doing a search for r22 blades & you'll get plenty of hits
of particular interest might be this fairly recent one: here
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ght=r22+blades
i'm not aware of any definitive study on the topic , but surely someone here would have some good directions, particularly the anti-Rxx crowd who seem to be able to come up with all the technical data
try doing a search for r22 blades & you'll get plenty of hits
of particular interest might be this fairly recent one: here
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ght=r22+blades
i'm not aware of any definitive study on the topic , but surely someone here would have some good directions, particularly the anti-Rxx crowd who seem to be able to come up with all the technical data
R22
Have just joined the forums - interesting stuff.
Have a dekko here to see the busted R22 blades:
http://brumbyhelicopters.com.au/auspage1.htm
Have a dekko here to see the busted R22 blades:
http://brumbyhelicopters.com.au/auspage1.htm