Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Rotorway Corner

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Rotorway Corner

Reply

Old 1st Jan 2001, 00:28
  #1 (permalink)  
chips_with_everything
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Rotorway Corner

Since you folk seem to love critical discussion of Robbies so much...

Why not digress to a little comparison with the Rotorway?

Obviously the Rotorway has zero use in professional aviation, so let's stay away from that angle.

But it is another 2 seat model with similar speed, and is at the low end of the price range.

From the strictly technical perspective how about talking about the merits of the design differences, incident rates, pilot training practices and defect management?
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 00:32
  #2 (permalink)  
HeliEng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lightbulb

O.K, again, talking from my experience. I have never seen let alone worked on a Rotorway Exec so that puts me at a little disadvantage. (O.K, a rather big disadvantage!)

From an accident point of view, the Rotorway's that I have seen, have crashed and burned literally, whereas the Robinsons seem to hold up a little more to the impact!

I would be interested to hear from an engineer who has worked on both!
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 01:36
  #3 (permalink)  
hover lover
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Here's what I know about Rotorways + why I stay away from them - their tail rotor is powered by a series of linked rubber drive belts - same kind as turns the fan behind the radiator in your auto!! Can't say for sure what system Robinson uses, but for my money a series of rubber v-belts linked by a series of pulleys is a REALLY low-cost and possibly dangerous) solution to the power transmission problem.
- hover lover
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 03:14
  #4 (permalink)  
HeliEng
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

On a Robinson R22 there is a set of 2 drive belts from Engine to MRGB - T/R etc..
The T/R is driven on a single piece, single support shaft running the length of the tailcone.

I must look into this Rotorway system, sounds very curious!
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 07:59
  #5 (permalink)  
recurry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Guys, Below is a post I made to rec.aviation.rotorcraft about two years ago. The data has not changed for the most part. I will add a couple of things though:

A. There is NO DOUBT that the R-22 is a more robust aircraft.

B. The "rubber" belts that someone spoke of in a previous comment is inaccurate. They are made of kevlar and perhaps one of the most reliable aspects of the aircraft.

C. The biggest issue with this aircraft is not so much the design of it but the lack of formally documented AD's and problem reports since Rotorway doesn't publish such things and all the "IA's" are the home builders themselves.

D. The only way one can be successful with a Rotorway is if you are dedicated to building and maintaining it. If that's not for you then you should buy an R-22 or other ship.

Reprint of my August'98 rec.aviation.rotorcraft post...

I'm a SEL, instrument rated private pilot with a fresh rotorcraft rating and in the market for a personal helicopter. I have owned two previous airplanes over the last 20 years and currently own a Piper Turbo Arrow.

I've been doing a lot of research on Robinson R-22's and Rotorway as an alternative to the R-22. I thought I would share what I have found and some of my own opinions with the group. The information I was looking for fell into several areas:

- Cost to purchase an R-22 vs. Exec
- Handling characteristics of R-22 vs. Exec
- Resale value of Exec
- True cost of building and completion an Exec
- True effort and time to build vs. claimed 300 hrs
- Real maintenance cost of the Exec
- Maintenance time vs. flying time
- Engine reliability/TBO
- Airframe, rotor, rotor head, drive train, and tail rotor reliability/TBO's
- Crash history
- Real performance vs. claimed
- Insurance costs

I've been pulling data from many sources:

- Trade-a-plane plus other aircraft for sale sources
- Owners Web sites about Rotorway Execs
- Dejanews searches of old newsgroup posts
- Discussions with 6 Current Exec owners several of which have >200 hrs on their machines
- Approx. 10 owner/builders who are currently selling their Execs
- Owners/former owners of R-22's
- Discussions with R-22 A&P's
- NTSB records back through 1989 (I'm only interested in Execs and mostly in 162f's so didn't bother with Scorpions)
- A visit to the Rotorway factory and a test flight
- A visit to the Robinson factory plus about 10 hrs in an R-22

So here's what I've found:


- Cost to purchase a used R-22 vs. a new kit or used Exec.
R-22's basically range from around $40k-$50 for a late '80's/early 90' run out aircraft to around $115k for a freshly overhauled one. There are also lots of low time older R-22's that are close to the 10yr TBO that are priced way to high considering that a 5-6 year old aircraft with 300 hours on it is probably worth less then a 3 year old one with 1300 hours on.

A few used Exec 90's and a few used 162F's seem to be around and in the $35k-$60k price range and most of these have less than 100 hours. The new kit is $62.3k. Every one of the Execs I've looked at are absolutely cherry. Virtually all of the really low time aircraft (like 0-10 hrs) are builders who don't have their rotorcraft rating. Most of ships I've found with more than 100 hrs are owned guys who had their rating prior to building the Exec.


- Handling characteristics of R-22 vs. Exec
Having flown both (but much more time in the R-22) I'd have to say the Exec is much more stable than the R-22. It hovers much easier and autos are extremely docile. The R-22 is very responsive (some might say twitchy) and seems to react almost instantly to the slightest cyclic input while the Exec 162F is far less sensitive and has more delay from cyclic input to aircraft reaction. The T-bar cyclic on the R-22 is very cheesy but, at the same time, you rap your knuckles lowering the collective all the way on the Exec. A key safety consideration is that Rotorway helicopter rotors spin clockwise like the Europeans - remember it's LEFT pedal on those autorotation entries! I could say a lot more here but I think they are both solid aircraft from a handling standpoint although I prefer the Exec a tad just because it's a little less twitchy. I could be a bit biased since I got my rating in the Schweizer 300CB which is really slow handling and has a similar control configuration to the Exec.

- Resale value of Exec
This is somewhat of a concern to me since the Exec is not certificated. My observation is it will be a lot harder to sell an Exec than an R-22 if for no other reason then the fact it is a homebuilt experimental. I expect Exec 90's and 162F's to hold their value better than other kit helicopters simply because they are a bit closer to a certificated helicopter in construction and there seems to be a reasonable support network. If I buy an Exec though, I'm going to assume I won't get my investment back though even if I sell it with low time.

- True cost of building and completing an Exec
All indicators are that Rotorway has put together a very complete kit. Virtually every builder I talked to said it didn't cost much more than the cost of the kit + avionics except for new parts they had to order due to their own building mistakes. Seems as though you should count on $65k-$70k when done.

- True effort and time to build vs. claimed 300 hrs
Consensus seems to be this is more like 400-600hrs for the very mechanically experienced and inclined. Longer if you "are just a pilot". It is not "bolt together". A lot of precision holes to be drilled, there is sheet metal fabrication, machining of parts, fiberglass work, and bunch of finishing on the cockpit are necessary. Rigging the aircraft so it will fly safely and reliably is complex enough that most builders I've talked have someone experienced help them.


- Real maintenance cost of the Exec
I poked and prodded on this one real hard especially with the guys who had more than 100 hrs on their machines. Seems the Rotorway guys are real conservative on component life limits so they recommend changing a number of components on a frequent basis. They recommend changing the rotor drive chain ( a triple wide #65 roller chain in an enclosed oil bath) every 100 hrs although several owners told me they believe this should be changed to at least 200hrs and maybe more. These are about $200 and supposedly easy to change.

I haven't quite tracked down all the details here but have some data on other major items. For the Exec162F: rotor blades/head 1500hrs (new blades, rotor head parts ~$3500), engine 1000hrs (factory OH ~$6000). There are some other relatively low cost life limited components in the drive train as well: main drive chain 100hrs (as above), tail rotor drive belts 200hrs (don't recall exact price - relatively cheap).

On the other hand the entire R-22 aircraft has a life limit of 2000hrs which could mean a lot of relatively low maintenance hours. I don't have enough data on this to comment on how many components really reach this. R-22 2000hr OH is $66k minimum as quoted from Robinson. Several owners I've talked to say this is typically in the $75k range. You will have to pay about $1800/year for annual inspections.

(Update: See the Exec162F Operating Cost web page. The Exec162F effectively has a life limit of 2000hrs as well. Most of the aircraft structural components are recommended by Rotorway for change out at 2000hrs. In fact, many major components get replaced or overhauled at 1000 and 1500hrs. The cumulative cost of Exec162F replacement components seems to be about a wash with the cumulative cost of R-22 annuals however, assuming your own labor is free)
- Maintenance time vs. flying time
I heard a horror story from a post I found in Dejanews about "fly 1 hour, fix 3 hours" for the Exec90. Owners I've talked to say it's just like any other helicopter but it's more like the other way around - the difference is you can't be "just a pilot". You must do it yourself after getting trained by Rotorway and having done the construction. The high time Rotorway owners ("high-time" for Rotorway pilots seems to be in the 250-500 hour range) told me they typically go 20 hours with no other maintenance necessary than thorough preflight.

(Update: The maintenance schedule for the Exec162F is very aggressive. You will spend a lot of time working on your Rotorway if you follow the schedule but no one I can find agrees with the "fly 1, fix 3" claim.)

- Engine reliability
The NTSB data I found shows only one 162F crash due to real engine failure (not fuel starvation stupidity) unless I missed some. Even that one was due to a guy installing the wrong size hose in the coolant system which subsequently came off in flight. On the other hand in the early 90's there were a number of Exec 90's forced landings due to stuck valves. Apparently this was fixed by Rotorway in later Exec 90's and all 162Fs with different valves/valve guides or the like. It's unclear however, what percentage of Rotorway incidents don't get reported to the NTSB given the nature of homebuilders/homebuilt aircraft.

It seems a number of R-22BII's have valve sticking problems. Apparently, the IO-360 runs pretty hot in the R-22 configuration and you have to be real careful to follow the shutdown procedure exactly. Also, we had a Schweizer drop a valve in flight the other day at the school I get commercial instruction at. It uses an IO-320. Seems certificated engines have their share of problems as well.

(Update: Exec162F engine reliability seems to be largely dependent on the quality of the construction - routing of hoses, drive train alignment, etc. Sources indicate the new engine in the 162F is quite good.)

- Airframe, rotor, rotor head, drive train, and tail rotor reliability
I've asked MANY questions here about airframe cracks, rotor blade failures, rotor head failures, drive train and tail rotor failures. From owners and NTSB reports it appears there are no failures of the airframe or rotor blades or heads in the US. I did learn of a rotor blade delamination in Sri-Lanka on a Exec90 which caused a non-fatal crash. This was apparently due to the owner using some sort of solvent to strip paint from the blade which got under the lamination and dissolved the adhesive. The guy then tried to glue the blade with superglue and it delaminated in the initial hover! I've been told there are others but these are not documented anywhere.

I do have some reservations about the tail rotor drive however. It is a belt drive and when I first heard this I concluded I wouldn't even consider buying this aircraft for that reason. Later, after inspecting the mechanism in detail on several machines at the airport I'm based at I changed my mind. I'm told that if you follow the book on assembly and maintenance there are few problems however. I would still rather have a shaft. Apparently, there has been at least one in-flight tail rotor failure on an early Exec90 due to improper belt tension. Rotorway has since gone to a different kind of belt and has made a tension check part of the pre-flight checklist. There was also another tail rotor failure on a 162f due to the owner over torquing the tail rotor shaft attach bolts (NTSB report) but this is clearly "operator error"

(Update: After talking to a lot of other owners I quite convinced now that the belt driven tail rotor is quite good - despite the negative comments it receives.)
WRT the R-22, it seems these are pretty bullet proof except for main transmission seals leaking which require the whole rotor assembly to be removed. I have to tell you though there are more than a few components on the R-22 that look pretty weak though. Those flex couplings on the tail rotor shaft are the wimpiest things I have ever seen - take a look some time before you fly. You'll see what I mean.

- Real performance vs. claimed
My experience with the R-22 is it delivers claimed performance (not true on the 300CB however). Feedback from Exec owners says mostly the same. The magazine articles and my own test flight at Rotorway confirm that at least in Phoenix Arizona the Rotorway delivers the book performance.

- Insurance costs
Haven't received all the details yet here but I expect the Rotorway to be significantly cheaper for the following reason: If I purchase an R-22 I'll probably have to get a loan and the lender will require full hull coverage in addition to liability. I estimate this to be between $6k and $10k. If I purchase an Exec162F I'll pay cash and just get liability and self insure the hull which should be at least half of what the R-22 requires. This is a personal choice. Otherwise I would expect the R-22 to be cheaper due to it's certification status.

Initial conclusions:
- The R-22 is a neat little helicopter with good performance. Although you have to admit it's construction is similar to the Exec in some ways (in some cases better and in others not as good), it's certificated and that feels good but it's more expensive to own and maintain because it requires an A&P for maintenance, Robinson/Lycoming parts are expensive and, probably the most damning issue is it becomes run out after 10 years even if the Hobbs time is low. It has its share of mechanical reliability problems but they seem to be few and the statistics show it's very reliable if maintained properly. It is held in high esteem by many and holds a predictable resale value based on age and Hobbs time.

- The Exec162F is also a neat little helicopter with good performance. My personal opinion is it looks much better than the R-22. In some areas it's construction is a bit more hi-tech than the R-22 in others it is not and it is not certificated. Although the data seems to say it CAN be very reliable it has a somewhat unconventional drive train which makes some folks nervous and, of course, this is greatly influenced by the quality of the assembly so the results vary greatly depending on the skill and diligence of the builder. It doesn't have a built-in 10 year depreciation like the R-22 but does have a number of expensive life limited components less than 2000hrs and since it's not certificated and there aren't many A&P's who will work on them it will probably be difficult to sell. On the upside you can replace the whole helicopter for less than the price of the R-22 overhaul.

(Update: I've found that in general, Rotorways are used as personal aircraft meaning they seldom get more than 50-100 hours/year. I've heard of Rotorways with more than 500 hours on them but have yet to confirm any specifics. R-22's, on the other hand, are frequently used for commercial purposes and get a lot of time on them. I've personally flown an R-22 with more than 5000 hours on it - it's been overhauled twice.)
- On a cost basis the Exec162F could be less expensive way to fly helicopters and that it is at least as good as the R-22 in terms of usability and handling. But you have to be willing to work on it.

- Safety, the overriding consideration for me is safety. If you want to just fly helicopters and don't mind the maintenance cost and depreciation there is no doubt, the R-22 could be the best choice if you can find an A&P you can trust. Your A&P will keep it safe and you just need to pre-flight and remember to take it into the shop. There seem to be lots of dealers who can work on them. On the other hand, if you like to work on your own aircraft and are reasonably skilled, disciplined, and patient and you conform to the Rotorway maintenance recommendations it seems the Exec162F can be safe and reliable as well. The issue is there is a wide variation of the above skills in owners since anybody with $60k can buy and build an Exec162f in his barn, and then try to fly it around the pasture and the NTSB reports bear this out.

Finally, I have an observation of why you see a number of Execs up for sale prior to being completed shortly after they are built.

#1. These are complex machines to build and it seems that more than a few of the owners of the unfinished machines under-estimated the time and commitment required to complete the aircraft and want to salvage part of their initial investment. Frequently, the process takes so long that their interests or financial situation changes as well.

#2. I found that with many of <20hr Exec's for sale I inquired about the owner was not a certificated helicopter pilot. Most of them seemed to be the kind of guys who liked to build things like R/C planes, construction projects, auto restoration etc. and decided to try their hand at helicopters. The general thread was "I always wanted a helicopter so I bought a Rotorway. I just completed it and did some test hovering but now I think I want to get an airplane now". The impression I got was that these guys where convinced how great it would be to have their own helicopter but grossly underestimated how challenging it is to maintain them and learn fly them. Make sure you go in with your eyes wide open!

Ultimately, I determined that there wasn't that much cost difference (both initial cost and operating costs) between a used, mid-time R-22 and a new Exec162F to make it the deciding factor (yes there is SOME difference). The Exec162F is a dream or a nightmare, depending on whether you have the skills and enjoy the maintenance aspect or not. I decided to go with the Exec162F.

Email me if you want to know after two years if I would still make the same decision....

--
Ron Curry





------------------
Ron Curry
[email protected]
www.rotorway.org

[This message has been edited by recurry (edited 01 January 2001).]
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 16:02
  #6 (permalink)  
Whirlybird
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

recurry,

Many thanks for that comprehensive comparison. I've been trying to find out about Rotorway Execs for ages, more for general interest than anything else, as I know a couple of people who've built them. I'd heard points both for and against, but the summary of your research on it is really interesting.

------------------
Whirly

To fly is human, to hover, divine.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 20:11
  #7 (permalink)  
hover lover
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Ron -
Congradulations on doing a thorough job of comparing the various points of a 162 vs a R22. Dam* you are thorough, don't think there was a single aspect you overlooked. Great job!
- hover lover
 
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2001, 23:15
  #8 (permalink)  
muffin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Thanks Ron and a Happy New Year to you. I rmember reading that post ages ago and have been trying to find it again. Thanks for reposting it.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2001, 17:08
  #9 (permalink)  
SPS
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Nothing new to add (although I have only flashed thru' the thread) but I'll just say this;

I really like the looks and most of the design of the Rotorway. Its stylish and affordable. It flies well by all accounts.

There was a well-documented main rotor blade
delamination in UK (fatal)some 3-4 yrs ago but I think it unfair to blame blade design or construction. Apparently the Heli had been left outside during the winter and flown with less regard for ice melt/expansion damage than was prudent. However, Rotorway made blade mods. as a reaction.

The report should still be on the UK CAA
site, if you don't have the address it can be reached through my website.

It has been said to be a pig to build PROPERLY and that put me off a little.
I would never consider flying one built by someone else so buying a completed one is a non starter for me.

I dislike the idea of a chain driven gearbox.

What really finished off my aspiration to build one (I'm an ex-motor engineer) is that awful, ill concieved relay belt to belt to belt to belt contrivance of a tail rotor drive system. It belongs in an 18th century textile mill. I could never fly it and feel safe. The chance of one of the many throwing its toys out of its pram is just too much.

The earlier model, The 'Scorpion' is simliar but unclothed, no skin around the tail. All of that friction causing, power sapping rubbery stuff was on show for all to see. NOT good to watch!

One of my friends bought one and tried to convince me that I should teach him to fly it. My phone went out of order for weeks... He sold it and bought an R22.

Rotorway, when you bin that belt system and use a shaft you will regain my interest.
When the chain goes after it I'll likely buy one.

I still like the look of it, I just won't buy it or fly it.

F.R. does need a little challenge now and then, it,s healthy, good for him and all of us in turn. Why don't you go for it Rotorway?
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 06:06
  #10 (permalink)  
helisphere
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow

Good job on the rotorway research recurry. I only disagree with the flight characteristics portion.

I have some experience with the Rotorway. I worked for the factory as a flight instructor for 4 months, and flew about 165 hrs on it. I left Rotorway (although a great company to work for, not a good product in my opinion) to go instruct in R22s. A lot of people have a lot of bad to say about the R22 but in my opinion it is 10 times the helicopter the rotorway is. The main reason I say this is Flight characteristics.

One of the things I like about an R22 is it's ability to handle x-winds and tailwinds and to fly sideways. You can fly an R22 at 55 knots and do a slow, totally controlled, pirouette, all the while maintaining 55 sideways and backwards pausing to hold any azimuth desired. And you can maintain 90 degree sideward flight up to approx. 65 knots, and enter sideward flight from as high as 85 knots. I know all this because I've done it with a pace helicopter flying along side reading off airspeeds to me. Many turbine helicopters cannot make that claim.

OK, now the rotorway. Well, it is really quite pathetic. At 40 mph, pedal deflection at best will get you 45 degrees yaw. And you feel like you are going to lose control of the aircraft. Hovering in as little as a 10-15 mph tailwind you will hit the aft cyclic stop and the nose will still drop and you will not be able to maintain position over the ground. I realize that this type of maneuver may not be necessary for normal flying so it may not be relavent to some. As long as you know about it you can deal with it.

Another thing is the tail rotor. They use kevlar belts now for the tail drive and they are pretty reliable from my experience and what I've heard. But I still don't like them because even though they don't break, they do slip occasionally resulting in a loss of t/r authority. I experienced it twice, spun around a couple times before recovering. I've never experienced that in an R22.

The engine has half the displacement of a Lycombing like in the R22 or Schweitzer. It still produces nearly the same HP so of course that means it has to turn twice the RPM, 4350 rpm. The result is, it doesn't have the torque to recover from a low RPM situation.

One more thing is the cyclic. An R22 has aprox. 21,22,maybe 23 degrees of total fore aft cyclic travel and laterally I think it has at least 15 degrees. I don't know the exact numbers but I've heard them before and these are pretty close. Another example is a bell 206. They have 20 deg total in both long and lat. Most certified helicopters are in these ranges. But not the rotorway, it has 10 deg total, that means that from center, the cyclic can only go 5 deg in any direction. Nearly half of what most helicopters have. That is why it runs out of cyclic with just wee tailwind. And also why it is less sensitive than an R22. Also it can't land on much of slope.

One more thing that may seem trivial, but it really can be a big deal depending on your situation. R22s have a nice size baggage compartment (considering the size of the R22 it is good size), the rotorway has none.

Oh yeah, c'mon, you have to move a ballast weight to carry a passenger.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 17:36
  #11 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: Helisphere


HELISPHERE SAID:

One of the things I like about an R22 is its’ ability to handle x-winds and tailwinds and to fly sideways. You can fly an R22 at 55 knots and do a slow, totally controlled, pirouette, all the while maintaining 55 sideways and backwards pausing to hold any azimuth desired. And you can maintain 90-degree sideward flight up to approx. 65 knots, and enter sideward flight from as high as 85 knots. I know all this because I've done it with a pace helicopter flying along side reading off airspeeds to me. Many turbine helicopters cannot make that claim.

THE FAA SAYS:

In performing the above maneuvers you are in violation of FAA Airworthiness directive AD 95-26-04



------------------
The Cat
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 18:48
  #12 (permalink)  
RW-1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

I used to think he was beaten on the playground as a child.

His last post has removed all doubt.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 19:44
  #13 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: RW-1

Have you read the Airworthiness Directive referenced above? It has been synopsized on the last page of section 4 of your R22 POH. It states avoid sideslip during flight and fly in trim at all times.

The reason for the AD was to minimize the possibility of generating high flapping loads resulting in mast bumping. I am not saying that the Robinson is not capable of doing the things that Helisphere said he did but the POH says not to do them under direction of the FAA AD 95-26-04.

The way you stick up for Helisphere can only be attributed to your common love of the Robinson Helicopters and a common dislike for me. If that is not the case, then you must be related.

If you want to see the difference in how the UK CAA looks at the FAA AD then log onto this website: http://205467.homestead.com/caa.html Where the FAA directive only suggests, the CAA will make it mandatory.

Always remember this axiom, “If you violate the restrictions or the safety notices in the POH and you get dead then Frank Robinson will instantly become your survivors worst enemy”.


------------------
The Cat
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 21:37
  #14 (permalink)  
RW-1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Actually, when he speaks he removes doubts about a lot of things the group collectively thinks about him.

You will miss the point in this, as you have the previous post.

I haven't stuck up for anyone. As for disliking you, I don't know you, but I'll hold to my theory about the playground

------------------
Marc
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 21:53
  #15 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: RW-1

You have a knack for avoiding the point in your postings about me and my theories. Why don't you respond to the point of my post above in that Helispher was in violation of an FAA Airworthiness Directive and he also violated the cautionary notes in the POH.

These are the points of this thread that you have yet to respond to.

Also, tell me what your opinion is if you or one of your colleagues ever comes up dead and their/your survivors file a law suit against Robinson Helicopters. Will Robinson offer millions for their pain and suffering? I think not.

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 17 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 17 January 2001).]
 
Reply With Quote
Old 17th Jan 2001, 22:52
  #16 (permalink)  
RW-1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

As I predicted, you completely missed the point.

Congradulate yourself for having your head up your butt so far, that you can't see daylight.

As for the AD, any PILOT can see that most of that is common sense to begin with (maintain max NR, which is mute if governor is on and working, stay in trim), do you believe we love to fly out of trim all frigging day long? And since they are ADVISORY, your Robbie Police are not going to do anything, I might fly all my approaches out of trim tomorrow just for the hell of it. You are a very sad case, get a life.

>>Always remember this axiom, “If you violate the restrictions or the safety notices in the POH and you get dead then Frank Robinson will instantly become your survivors worst enemy”.

Also, tell me what your opinion is if you or one of your colleagues ever comes up dead and their/your survivors file a law suit against Robinson Helicopters. Will Robinson offer millions for their pain and suffering? I think not.<<

Two other blatent baiting attempts, which do nothing but LOWER your credibility here, you know what? I DON'T CARE! I'd be dead remember? And likely haunting your sorry butt for kicks.

There is your answer, take it for what it is, since you missed the point of my post it won't matter what answer is given.

My comments had nothing to do with the thread topic (hint: neither did yours). I'm not going to explain it to you either, an 11 year old could figure out what I meant, find one and he/she can explain it to you.



[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 17 January 2001).]
 
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jan 2001, 01:29
  #17 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down


To: RW-1

You said, “Also, tell me what your opinion is if you or one of your colleagues ever comes up dead and their/your survivors file a law suit against Robinson Helicopters. Will Robinson offer millions for their pain and suffering? I think not”.

My answer would be no, and the reason for that is that Frank Robinson on paper is a pauper. He keeps his money in offshore accounts and all of the equipment including his manufacturing facility is leased. The reason I keep making these dire predictions is based on personal knowledge of two lawsuits bought against Robinson where the jury found for the plaintiff in both cases and awarded them millions of dollars. Did they collect any thing? No. The reason for that is stated above.

“As for the AD, any PILOT can see that most of that is common sense to begin with (maintain max NR, which is mute if governor is on and working, stay in trim), do you believe we love to fly out of trim all FRIGGING day long? And since they are ADVISORY, your Robbie Police are not going to do anything, I might fly all my approaches out of trim tomorrow just for the hell of it. You are a very sad case, get a life”.

What the “Robbie Police” will do in the event of an accident would be to do everything in their power to prove that you as a pilot violated the POH and in doing so the crash will be listed as pilot error. That is what the “Robbie Police” will do and your families’ lawyers will do everything to prove otherwise. There is an old saying that if you screw with the bull you will get the horn. One of these days, you will confront a bull. Any violation of the POH even if it is not mandatory will result in pilot error as the cause. This is Robinsons' shield against lawsuits and they can get the NTSB to back them up. Learn something from these dialogs. You are not always right.

Why do you think the UK CAA is going to make these advisories mandatory? They realize the importance of the AD and they will put teeth into it. Just wait until the CAA issues the update on the Robinson GASIL. The UK pilots will scream.

By the way, do you know the meaning of ”Frigging”??



------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 17 January 2001).]
 
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jan 2001, 01:39
  #18 (permalink)  
RW-1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

As you have just proven again, you don't read anything posted to you.

The post above: I didn't say that, I quoted you and replied. and my reply was that I don't care.

Look, then read before thee speak......
 
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2001, 09:16
  #19 (permalink)  
helisphere
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I was flying the R22 long before that AD was issued, in fact it was 1992 when I performed those maneuvers with another helicopter pacing me. If I was flying one today I would not hesitate to do those maneuvers again.

One thing for Lu. This is just for your information, because I did not think of it earlier and I don't think you have considered it. I will not however be arguing back and forth with you about it.

It takes us back to the "massive pitch coupling" problem that you say the R22 would have if flown with a 90 deg pitch horn.

Have you considered the rotor system on the AH-1 huey cobra? It is really quite similar to the Robinson rotorhead design. It is a two blade teetering rotor and the blades are also FREE TO CONE. They are free to cone via a flexible hub design instead of the coning hinges on the Robinson. The dynamic results are the same though. I am not sure though if it has a 90 deg pitch horn, or some other. If it is 90 degrees, that means that when the blades on a cobra, cone, they will also increase pitch. This of course happens because the pitch horn is not inline with the theoretical axis of coning. This is exactly like the R22. So, why is the Hueycobra able to fly just fine with out a "massive pitch coupling" problem?

If the cobra has a different lead angle on the pitch horn then this would make it more similar to the way an R22 actually is.

Either way it seems to me that you should be writing all kinds of letters to Bell, the Army, National Guard, and Marine corps warning them of the inherent danger in flying this rotor system.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jan 2001, 16:22
  #20 (permalink)  
Lu Zuckerman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

To: Helisphere

Once again you have let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird butt.

It is true that the Bell rotor system cones but the coning is in the form of blade bending and on the newer rotorheads used on the 214,the Cobra and the modified HU1s the flexibility of the plate. On some Bell rotorheads the plate is preconed to minimize the bending of the blades. These respective rotorheads have a 90-degree pitch horn, which terminates at the teeter hinge so that when the blades bend there might be some small degree of pitch coupling. The greatest degree of pitch coupling occurs when the blade system moves or flaps in relation to the swashplate. Normally once the pilot has input cyclic control the blades will fly parallel to the swashplate. Any deviation from the respective parallel paths will result in pitch coupling. That is why I have not sent letters to the Marines, the Army, and the National Guard or to Bell.


The reason that the Bell helicopters can fly with a 90-degree pitch horn and the Robinson can’t is because the Bell does not have cone hinges and the Robinson does. On the Bell the pitch horn terminates at or about the teeter hinge while on the Robinson the pitch horns terminate at or about the cone hinge. If the Robinson pitch horn passed beyond the cone hinge you would not be able to control the helicopter and redesigning the control system would have no effect on this massive pitch coupling. If you would eliminate the cone hinge it would work but with the present blades it might work for five minutes until the blades broke off the rotorhead.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 19 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 January 2001).]
 
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service