Get over the battle
Guest
Posts: n/a
Get over the battle
People, get finally over the battle. Robbos are great little flying machines and have become the most popular training aircraft for no stupid reasons.
Lu, if you are interested in an article, go to a place called flightsafety.org (on-line) and check their bulletin from NOV/DEC 1997 on helicopters. I believe it answers a lot of the points you try to critizize.
Lu, if you are interested in an article, go to a place called flightsafety.org (on-line) and check their bulletin from NOV/DEC 1997 on helicopters. I believe it answers a lot of the points you try to critizize.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Tilt,
The report you referred to was taken directly from an NTSB report that I have in front of me at this very moment. I referenced this report I believe when I stated that I had contacted Mr. Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB. In My email to him which included a copy of my report I told him that his engineers didn't get it right.
As a result of his reading the report he contacted me and stated that he turned the report over to four of his investigators. One of the investigators was the man I originally addressed the report to in 1996.
I sent the report to Mr. Hall two days after a Robinson R22 lost its' main rotor in California. The NTSB report skirts around the certification issue and the problems with the main rotor design and it didn't even address the rigging procedure that can possibly introduce excessive pitch and the rotor design that can introduce even greater pitch settings. Add the increase of pitch when setting autorotation speed and you have a potential for blade stall. In every case the findings of the NTSB in their investigations of the 31 crashes ended up as pilot error. The reasons that the accident rate dropped to zero (until the last rotor separation described above) was that the FAA ammended the operational envelope and restricted the helicopters from being side slipped and flown out of trim.
I honestly don't know what else to say other than the helicopters should not have been certified and since they are in fact certified the FAA has restricted the flight envelope to the point that the R22 and R44 do not meet the certification requirements of the FAA.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
The report you referred to was taken directly from an NTSB report that I have in front of me at this very moment. I referenced this report I believe when I stated that I had contacted Mr. Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB. In My email to him which included a copy of my report I told him that his engineers didn't get it right.
As a result of his reading the report he contacted me and stated that he turned the report over to four of his investigators. One of the investigators was the man I originally addressed the report to in 1996.
I sent the report to Mr. Hall two days after a Robinson R22 lost its' main rotor in California. The NTSB report skirts around the certification issue and the problems with the main rotor design and it didn't even address the rigging procedure that can possibly introduce excessive pitch and the rotor design that can introduce even greater pitch settings. Add the increase of pitch when setting autorotation speed and you have a potential for blade stall. In every case the findings of the NTSB in their investigations of the 31 crashes ended up as pilot error. The reasons that the accident rate dropped to zero (until the last rotor separation described above) was that the FAA ammended the operational envelope and restricted the helicopters from being side slipped and flown out of trim.
I honestly don't know what else to say other than the helicopters should not have been certified and since they are in fact certified the FAA has restricted the flight envelope to the point that the R22 and R44 do not meet the certification requirements of the FAA.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu,
You know, i think somewhere down the line you may have a valid point. I am sure that you have your stuff squared away, but what do you think you will be able to achieve?
The FAA will not change their opinion, neither will Robinson stop production or re-certify, not with that low accident rate.
And why it has such a low accident rate, I suppose people don't really care.
You know, i think somewhere down the line you may have a valid point. I am sure that you have your stuff squared away, but what do you think you will be able to achieve?
The FAA will not change their opinion, neither will Robinson stop production or re-certify, not with that low accident rate.
And why it has such a low accident rate, I suppose people don't really care.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I will reply in this thread rather than spool the other one down 3 pages.
Last weekend I went to the UK Robinson Safety course run by Tim Tucker from Robinson. I asked him specifically if there was any prohibition in the R22 POH on sideslipping or flying out of trim. He replied that there was not, and that many users like cattle musterers in Australia spent most of their flight time in this part of the envelope.
Last weekend I went to the UK Robinson Safety course run by Tim Tucker from Robinson. I asked him specifically if there was any prohibition in the R22 POH on sideslipping or flying out of trim. He replied that there was not, and that many users like cattle musterers in Australia spent most of their flight time in this part of the envelope.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Muff,
Just wait. Keep your eyes on the Rotorheads
Forum.
It appears that this page is not in the UK POHs for the R22 and the R44. However, it is in the POHs carried in the R22s and R44s licensed in the USA. Does that mean that US pilots lives are more valuable than pilots in the UK or other areas outside of the US?
Does it mean that Mr. Tucker is keeping something from you and your fellow UK Robbo pilots?
Did Mr. Tucker address recovery from a zero G situation and if he did, what did he say you should do in recovery relative to how you should move the cyclic? Did he say anything about adding a "Tad" of left cyclic?
If he did, he was giving you good advice as this left cyclic compensates for the 18 degree offset in the flight control system.
However, in giving this advice, if he did, it is in direct conflict with the POH which does not take into consideration the 18 degree offset and tells you to pull straight back and not to add in left cyclic to combat the right roll developed by the tail rotor. If in fact you follow the POH and pull straight back you will introduce a right roll component because of the 18 degree offset. The instructions in the POH state that it is extremely dangerous to introduce a right roll when countering a zero G condition.
I think I'll stop for now to see what kind of response I get from this posting.
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
Just wait. Keep your eyes on the Rotorheads
Forum.
It appears that this page is not in the UK POHs for the R22 and the R44. However, it is in the POHs carried in the R22s and R44s licensed in the USA. Does that mean that US pilots lives are more valuable than pilots in the UK or other areas outside of the US?
Does it mean that Mr. Tucker is keeping something from you and your fellow UK Robbo pilots?
Did Mr. Tucker address recovery from a zero G situation and if he did, what did he say you should do in recovery relative to how you should move the cyclic? Did he say anything about adding a "Tad" of left cyclic?
If he did, he was giving you good advice as this left cyclic compensates for the 18 degree offset in the flight control system.
However, in giving this advice, if he did, it is in direct conflict with the POH which does not take into consideration the 18 degree offset and tells you to pull straight back and not to add in left cyclic to combat the right roll developed by the tail rotor. If in fact you follow the POH and pull straight back you will introduce a right roll component because of the 18 degree offset. The instructions in the POH state that it is extremely dangerous to introduce a right roll when countering a zero G condition.
I think I'll stop for now to see what kind of response I get from this posting.
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Muff,
Please check out Helidrivers post which now leads the Rotorheads forum. That is what I wanted you to look at.
Regards,
Lu Zuckerman
[email protected]
------------------
The Cat
Please check out Helidrivers post which now leads the Rotorheads forum. That is what I wanted you to look at.
Regards,
Lu Zuckerman
[email protected]
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Muffin,
I am waiting for your reply to the above postings and, I want to know your response to the posting made by Helidrvr. If JoePilot is looking in I would appreciate hearing from him as well.
Will appreciate your feedback.
Cheers.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
I am waiting for your reply to the above postings and, I want to know your response to the posting made by Helidrvr. If JoePilot is looking in I would appreciate hearing from him as well.
Will appreciate your feedback.
Cheers.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu :
Ref the page you refer to not being in UK R22 POH - it's in both mine (long story), one purchased in the UK and one in the US.
I get the sense you like bashing your head against a brick wall, and even when someone tells you its a bit silly you keep on doing it !!
Ref the page you refer to not being in UK R22 POH - it's in both mine (long story), one purchased in the UK and one in the US.
I get the sense you like bashing your head against a brick wall, and even when someone tells you its a bit silly you keep on doing it !!
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the pages are in your POHs and they contain the admonition against flying out of trim (balance) and the avoidance of sideslip then how do you explain what Tim Tucker told Muffin about there being no such restrictions on the R22 and the R44. Further, he told Muffin that the Wizards of OZ fly in that envelope all the time while mustering cattle. In your reference to "both mine" are you referring to two POHs, one purchased in the UK and one purchased in the US. is there a possibility that the organization you purchaced the UK POH from got it directly from Robinson. I would advise you to check a manual that was delivered with an R22 or R44 in the UK. I could be wrong but several respondents to my postings have stated that the page was not in their POHs.
The CAA is looking to this matter as we "speak". Please respond.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
The CAA is looking to this matter as we "speak". Please respond.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 06 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu
I flew R22's as a student and instructer 95/96,at a school which had previously suffered 2 fatal accidents classed as 'unexplained'.In my initial training ,subsequent Robinson factory course and 2 years of dealing with FAA examiners,flying the aircraft out of trim was never raised as an issue.Students of course were always taught to fly the aircraft in trim ,but the flight training standards document produced at the time required that in order to pass a Certified Flight Instructors Licence/Certificate you had to demonstrate stuck control procedures,which entailed flying the aircraft out of trim (stuck pedal).This ,I presume is still part of the syllabus.
Robinson produces a purpose built R44 ENG aircraft equipped with a ball mounted camera this type of operation requires the aircraft to be positioned out of trim on a regular basis to get the 'right shot'.
The only time side slip was ever mentioned was at the Robinson factory course concerning the Mariner and its adverse roll/negative dihedral effect.
[This message has been edited by arm the floats (edited 06 October 2000).]
I flew R22's as a student and instructer 95/96,at a school which had previously suffered 2 fatal accidents classed as 'unexplained'.In my initial training ,subsequent Robinson factory course and 2 years of dealing with FAA examiners,flying the aircraft out of trim was never raised as an issue.Students of course were always taught to fly the aircraft in trim ,but the flight training standards document produced at the time required that in order to pass a Certified Flight Instructors Licence/Certificate you had to demonstrate stuck control procedures,which entailed flying the aircraft out of trim (stuck pedal).This ,I presume is still part of the syllabus.
Robinson produces a purpose built R44 ENG aircraft equipped with a ball mounted camera this type of operation requires the aircraft to be positioned out of trim on a regular basis to get the 'right shot'.
The only time side slip was ever mentioned was at the Robinson factory course concerning the Mariner and its adverse roll/negative dihedral effect.
[This message has been edited by arm the floats (edited 06 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I fail to see why people would be content with the findings of the above report.
I am concerned that a R22 flying at cruise speed/height can self destruct with a large input from a student. How near to a catastrophic failure have we been in the past without knowing?
I for one will be flying the R22 even more carefully in future.
Lu - Keep up the good work.
I am concerned that a R22 flying at cruise speed/height can self destruct with a large input from a student. How near to a catastrophic failure have we been in the past without knowing?
I for one will be flying the R22 even more carefully in future.
Lu - Keep up the good work.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For goodness sake..and for the enjoyment of others on this web site, will you keep this monotonous drivvle (on R22's / 44's), under the same heading, so that those of us who want to steer clear of it, can! Get a life lads.
------------------
TC
------------------
TC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thomas, even if you're not interested, that's unfair. This discussion has finally put some life into Rotorheads, which has often seemed to me to be in danger of dying out completely. I think we should be grateful to Lu for that at least.
Whirly
Whirly
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding the sideslip limitations, most other helicopters do also have entries in their POH/ Flight manual. No manual will specifically write that sideward flight above certain speeds is prohibited. Rather they state that successfull sideward flight has been demonstrated up to a certain speed.
To a previous posting by eurcocopter, no offense,but you probably don't know either how many times you have been close to something that could have killed you in any other type of helicopter.
To a previous posting by eurcocopter, no offense,but you probably don't know either how many times you have been close to something that could have killed you in any other type of helicopter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi guys,
Lu, I have always been under the impression that to try and put any left cyclic into a low or zero 'G' situation can be more detremental than just going with the right roll. I use to be a mustering pilot here in Australia. Alot of pilots early on when R22's took over from the majority of B47's found themselves in low g situations when they 'bunted' over from a steep pull up, either after 'hitting' some cattle or just coming up to have a look around. In this day and age it is a recognised sin, but back then it was the norm'. Anyway it was a common topic of discussion about how to avoid mast bumping in this situation. The way the whole thing was explained to me back then, was that when in a low or zero g situation, the rotor and the fuselage/tail rotor were two seperate systems independant of each other. Due to tail rotor roll the fuselage rolled right. Now if you were to put in left cyclic to correct the roll the inevitable mast contact would occur. Thats bad. For this reason we were told to simply put in the (in practice limited amount) aft cyclic and then hold the cyclic smack in the middle and let the hole ship take the roll to the right. The roll right is far more pronounced than the effect of aft cyclic by the way. This was demonstrated remarkably well when one of our students failed to lower the collective when the instructor rolled the throttle off, the desperated lowering of the collective by the instructor put the poor little helicopter in a vilant low g with the advertised right roll. The cyclic was centered as above - not only did they survive but were the first people to unofficially fly an R22 inverted (the story actualy includes oil on lower portion of main rotor blades). I am making light of the story but believe me it was deadly serious at the time and prompts me to write this. The point I want to make is that even an 18 degree input of left cyclic will put the rotor head that much closer to the mast in a low g situation. THAT should be avoided more so in my opinion than the right roll. Thats my own opinion and I take nothing away from the Robinson notices in the POH. If in fact they are 'teaching' that I would be very surprised.
The only other thing I should add is that in the mustering situation I describe above there is usually very little air speed at the top of the pull up, and the aircraft after rolling right was found to 'fall' out of the mess fairly quickly - it was then easy to load up the disc again.
See what you think. Cheers
Lu, I have always been under the impression that to try and put any left cyclic into a low or zero 'G' situation can be more detremental than just going with the right roll. I use to be a mustering pilot here in Australia. Alot of pilots early on when R22's took over from the majority of B47's found themselves in low g situations when they 'bunted' over from a steep pull up, either after 'hitting' some cattle or just coming up to have a look around. In this day and age it is a recognised sin, but back then it was the norm'. Anyway it was a common topic of discussion about how to avoid mast bumping in this situation. The way the whole thing was explained to me back then, was that when in a low or zero g situation, the rotor and the fuselage/tail rotor were two seperate systems independant of each other. Due to tail rotor roll the fuselage rolled right. Now if you were to put in left cyclic to correct the roll the inevitable mast contact would occur. Thats bad. For this reason we were told to simply put in the (in practice limited amount) aft cyclic and then hold the cyclic smack in the middle and let the hole ship take the roll to the right. The roll right is far more pronounced than the effect of aft cyclic by the way. This was demonstrated remarkably well when one of our students failed to lower the collective when the instructor rolled the throttle off, the desperated lowering of the collective by the instructor put the poor little helicopter in a vilant low g with the advertised right roll. The cyclic was centered as above - not only did they survive but were the first people to unofficially fly an R22 inverted (the story actualy includes oil on lower portion of main rotor blades). I am making light of the story but believe me it was deadly serious at the time and prompts me to write this. The point I want to make is that even an 18 degree input of left cyclic will put the rotor head that much closer to the mast in a low g situation. THAT should be avoided more so in my opinion than the right roll. Thats my own opinion and I take nothing away from the Robinson notices in the POH. If in fact they are 'teaching' that I would be very surprised.
The only other thing I should add is that in the mustering situation I describe above there is usually very little air speed at the top of the pull up, and the aircraft after rolling right was found to 'fall' out of the mess fairly quickly - it was then easy to load up the disc again.
See what you think. Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that we all have to remember that if we have a healthy respect for the good ole' Robbo then you should not encounter any problems. However the best policy is to know the ins and outs of your a/c should you experience any problems. Thanks for the address of the report, I am sure it will be very useful.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is in response to Both Rotorque and arm the floats:
If I understand you correctly, practical experience taught you and your fellow Robbo pilots that to combat zero G you should pull the cyclic back and then hold it in the center of its fore and aft travel. Then, you would ride out the right roll until you could gain positive control. If my assumption is correct then I will go from there. By pulling back to the neutral or centered position you would place the rotor system from a control standpoint in its’ neutral plane of rotation or as if you were in a hover.
You also stated that it was common theory at the time if you added in left cyclic you could cause mast bumping.
You have to understand how the eighteen-degree offset comes into play. Because of the 18 degree offset if you would pull straight back past the neutral position of the cyclic you would in effect put in a right roll component that would add into the right roll caused by the high mounted tail rotor.
In one of the previous posts, one individual stated that Tim Tucker, the Safety pilot that conducts the courses, told him that when you are countering a zero G condition that the pilot should pull the cyclic back while adding in a “Tad” of left cyclic. This is effect minimizes of not eliminates the right roll component introduced by the 18 degree offset.
Another point that I am not too clear on is that you stated that the cyclic was moved to the center. Now think hard about the word center. If you mean the rigged neutral center then the blades are in a hover position as described above. If you mean that the cyclic was moved to the neutral center in relation to the control stops then you are introducing a left roll input and this could exacerbate the control problem and quite possibly cause the mast bumping and resultant loss of both the helicopter and the pilot(s).
------------------
The Cat
If I understand you correctly, practical experience taught you and your fellow Robbo pilots that to combat zero G you should pull the cyclic back and then hold it in the center of its fore and aft travel. Then, you would ride out the right roll until you could gain positive control. If my assumption is correct then I will go from there. By pulling back to the neutral or centered position you would place the rotor system from a control standpoint in its’ neutral plane of rotation or as if you were in a hover.
You also stated that it was common theory at the time if you added in left cyclic you could cause mast bumping.
You have to understand how the eighteen-degree offset comes into play. Because of the 18 degree offset if you would pull straight back past the neutral position of the cyclic you would in effect put in a right roll component that would add into the right roll caused by the high mounted tail rotor.
In one of the previous posts, one individual stated that Tim Tucker, the Safety pilot that conducts the courses, told him that when you are countering a zero G condition that the pilot should pull the cyclic back while adding in a “Tad” of left cyclic. This is effect minimizes of not eliminates the right roll component introduced by the 18 degree offset.
Another point that I am not too clear on is that you stated that the cyclic was moved to the center. Now think hard about the word center. If you mean the rigged neutral center then the blades are in a hover position as described above. If you mean that the cyclic was moved to the neutral center in relation to the control stops then you are introducing a left roll input and this could exacerbate the control problem and quite possibly cause the mast bumping and resultant loss of both the helicopter and the pilot(s).
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can someone explain this "high mounted tail rotor" expression to me? All the R22s I've seen/flown haxe the TR sticking out of the end of the tail boom, whereas 76s, 212s etc have it mounted "high" up on a vertical fin. Are we referring to the TR being higher than the main rotor head when pitched nose down?
------------------
Another day in paradise
------------------
Another day in paradise