R22 Corner

[chopperpilot47]

I read somewhere (can't remember where) that Frank Robinson says the R22 is as far developed as it could be without major beefing up. I think the R22 will stay as it is until retired which probably won't be too long with the sales of the R44 and the proposed R66.

Chopperpilot 47

[Kangia]

Maybe a solution is to put in a lighter engine that produces the same power.

The old Lycomings are quite heavy for the power they produce but I guess that's why they are pretty reliable.

[Pat Malone]

Chopperpilot47:
That was an interview I did with Frank Robinson two years ago for various magazines in which he said he was considering stopping production of the R22 - it had been developed to its full potential and beyond. The drive train, he said, was fundamentally unchanged from the one that had been designed in the 1970s to take a 108hp engine.

[3top]

As far as I recall, this stc'd mod came from a brit company, it put everything under the seats ( no more worries about too much luggage, as there won't be any anymore!!).
Cyclic sticks coming out the in front of the seats, which of course also entailed to moce the breaker panel - if I recall correctly.

The whole thing weight in a bit and cost only 14 K in US$ - that took care of it!!

I think there are no more than 5 of these around.

FWIW,

3top

[Revolutionary]

I read they are going to use the Rolls Royce light turbine and add an extra seat in he back . .

..And call it the JetRanger!

[Gerhardt]

USAToday article

Nothing new, but it is interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/compan...robinson_x.htm

[Dave_Jackson]

Interesting statment.

His company goes without insurance from lawsuits — a risk all aircraft makers face — so it can call the shots on its own legal defense.

Could this imply that the actual operating company and its owner have no assets to lay claim against?

[rotornut]

No, it just means they are self insured for product liability lawsuits.

[Flying Lawyer]

"..... so it can call the shots on its own legal defense."

If an insurance company funds the defence, and is liable to pay any damages awarded, the insurance company calls the shots.
There can sometimes be a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured.
An insurance company takes a 'business' view when there's a claim. ie How much will it cost us to fight the claim compared with how much will it cost to to get rid of the problem by paying off the claimant - often regardless of the merits of the claim.
Even if the insurance company makes a payment expressly without admission of liability, it will almost inevitably be interpreted as an admission of liability by the manufacturer.
In contrast, the manufacturer will wish to protect its reputation and, not unreasonably, sees anything which will be interpreted as an admission of liability as damaging to future sales - often preferring to fight and lose rather than admit liability (except in clear cut cases.)

eg A few years ago, I represented a major 'household name' aviation equipment manufacturer in a claim by a small airline following the crash of a commuter airliner in which all crew and pax were killed. The claim, for the loss of the aircraft and loss of life of the crew, was £3-4 million. I considered the claim was ill-conceived and that our prospects of successfully defending it were good. However, the insurer took a 'business view' and instructed us to make the claimant a 'without prejudice' offer of £0.5 million. The manufacturer was extremely unhappy because of the potential long term (and unjustified) damage to its brand name but, because the insurer 'called the shots', had no control over the conduct of the defence.

In the event, all ended well because the claimant rejected the offer and we went on to win - with the claimant being ordered to pay the manufacturer's costs of defending the claim.

[Gerhardt]

and your invoice for defense was...3.4M pounds?

[Aesir]

Ahhh.. this is why manufacturers (or the insurance company) has paid settlements to claimants when they have run out of fuel or hit a vehicle on the runway.

I never could understand why settlements were paid for obvious pilots mistakes but I guess it´s sometimes cheaper.

[delta3]

Insurance

FL


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There can sometimes be a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In my experience (not as a lawyer), I would put it as : Manytimes there is a conflict...
This is why defendence should be separated from insurance, because the conflict is in mho systemic.


d3

[Pat Malone]

As we all know, the merit of the claim often has little bearing on the outcome of the lawsuit.
My favourite Robinson suit involved a shooter who was firing a rifle left-handed out of an R22 and knocked the fuel tap off with the butt. Robinson was held to be 50 percent responsible for the ensuing crash and was ordered to pay several million dollars in damages.
I'm sure people closer to the company would have a fund of stories like that.

[delta3]

Pat

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
a shooter who was firing a rifle left-handed out of an R22 and knocked the fuel tap off with the butt
--------------------------------------------------

After re-reading this a few times, can't figure out how to do/understand that...

d3

[Pat Malone]

Yeah, it takes a certain amount of genius, but he managed it.
People's inventiveness is beyond imagining. There's the chap who famously would not fly without his bible on the seat beside him. But he had the doors off. The bible went out and took off the tail rotor, and he was killed.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways...

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Wel I reckon they deserve that one - the fuel shut off on the Robbo, IMHO, is in a pretty troublesome position - I reckon they were asking for grief.

TFS

[cyclic flare]

The fuel shut of valve use to operate the other way round. Robinson changed it following this incident.

[diethelm]

The legal business is not about justice, right or wrong. It is about money. Any attempt to connect logic or fairness to the legal business is a waste of time.

[Langball]

There's the chap who famously would not fly without his bible on the seat beside him. But he had the doors off. The bible went out and took off the tail rotor, and he was killed.

A definite case for a 'Darwin Award' there. No doubt about it.

[RobboJon]

I was told the legal thing has more to do with insurance incentivising claims. After an incident, the first thing everyone does is check how much insurance is available. Based in California (the most litigous state in the most litigous country) Robinson took the view that if he fought and lost, the winner would get the keys to the company - a pretty strong disincentive to lawyers and corporate America.