Robinson R44
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: london
Age: 62
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blade TAPE
I have an R44 and have just returned from the desert and unfortunately my blades have been scrapped . I am doing some more flying in africa early next year and am considering putting blade tape from Airwolf ( made by 3m) - they have an easa and faa approval - on my new blades to give them some protection. Does anyone have and experiance with the airwolf blade tape?
Thanks
Thanks
By David Collogan
The epoxy tape application process developed by Airwolf Aerospace LLC to help prevent de-bonding of the stainless steel rotor blades on Robinson Helicopter R22 and R44 models has been purchased by some 300 Robinson operators, officials say, and that number is likely to increase in the wake of an FAA AD early this year and a series of safety recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board this month (BA, June 16/272).
The stainless steel blades on both models of Robinson helicopters have a stated service life of 2,200 hours time in service. But following its investigation of a number of rotor blade delamination accidents, NTSB said FAA should require non destructive testing of all Robinson rotor blades "at intervals appropriately less than 596 hours time in service...to evaluate the bond joints between the skin and spar at the tip of the main rotor blade..."
Airwolf began working on developing a fix for the Robinson blade delamination problem a couple of years ago. John Kochy, director of engineering for Airwolf, said he and other company officials sought help from 3M, which had developed an epoxy tape erosion barrier for use on military helicopters operating in the Mideast. During Operation Desert Storm, Kochy said the military was being forced to replace blades on its large transport helicopters every 20 hours because of sand damage. After some experimentation, 3M developed a tape for those helicopter blades that extended the life to approximately 200 hours.
"3M was very, very nice to us" when Airwolf officials approached the company for help in addressing the Robinson blade problem, Kochy told BA in a telephone interview last week. There was considerable effort to find a material that had the properties to protect the blade, but which was light enough not to affect the performance of the helicopter. Kochy is a fixed- and rotary-wing pilot and Airwolf has R22 Serial No. 12, which it has operated for years. Kochy did much of the flight testing that led FAA to issue Airwolf a Supplemental Type Certificate late last year. Installation of the STC fix is approved as an Alternate Method of Compliance for the AD the agency issued Jan. 18, 2008.
Technically, FAA regulations permit an operator to apply the specialized tape that 3M custom manufactures for Airwolf, Kochy said. But he strongly recommends that Robinson owners who buy the blade tape kit employ the services of a licensed Airframe & Powerplant mechanic to perform the installation. "A lot of people underestimate how complicated it is," he told BA. "It's not as simple as 'just send me some tape.'"
It is possible to apply the epoxy tape while the rotor blades are still attached to the helicopter. But that is "a miserable job" that requires standing on a ladder while attempting to place the tape in precisely the right area, a task that Kochy says he "would not wish on my worst enemy." Airwolf advises operators to have the rotor blades removed - which requires an A&P - so tape application can be accomplished more easily and accurately on a stable work surface.
We use 3M tape on all our 500s &300 saves a lot of damage buy it by the role,
If I remember the kit is very expensive, must make sure no air under tapes, don't know if they supply mastic for edges as well.
3M make a fair no of tapes for leading edges
Erosion Protection
3M? Polyurethane Protective Tape 8681HS Transparent, 1 in x 36 yd, 9 per case, Non-Skip Slit
go to documentation lots of useful tips on removing, repairs &installing
Tapes will affect lift, especially noticeable in hot & high conditions.
The epoxy tape application process developed by Airwolf Aerospace LLC to help prevent de-bonding of the stainless steel rotor blades on Robinson Helicopter R22 and R44 models has been purchased by some 300 Robinson operators, officials say, and that number is likely to increase in the wake of an FAA AD early this year and a series of safety recommendations by the National Transportation Safety Board this month (BA, June 16/272).
The stainless steel blades on both models of Robinson helicopters have a stated service life of 2,200 hours time in service. But following its investigation of a number of rotor blade delamination accidents, NTSB said FAA should require non destructive testing of all Robinson rotor blades "at intervals appropriately less than 596 hours time in service...to evaluate the bond joints between the skin and spar at the tip of the main rotor blade..."
Airwolf began working on developing a fix for the Robinson blade delamination problem a couple of years ago. John Kochy, director of engineering for Airwolf, said he and other company officials sought help from 3M, which had developed an epoxy tape erosion barrier for use on military helicopters operating in the Mideast. During Operation Desert Storm, Kochy said the military was being forced to replace blades on its large transport helicopters every 20 hours because of sand damage. After some experimentation, 3M developed a tape for those helicopter blades that extended the life to approximately 200 hours.
"3M was very, very nice to us" when Airwolf officials approached the company for help in addressing the Robinson blade problem, Kochy told BA in a telephone interview last week. There was considerable effort to find a material that had the properties to protect the blade, but which was light enough not to affect the performance of the helicopter. Kochy is a fixed- and rotary-wing pilot and Airwolf has R22 Serial No. 12, which it has operated for years. Kochy did much of the flight testing that led FAA to issue Airwolf a Supplemental Type Certificate late last year. Installation of the STC fix is approved as an Alternate Method of Compliance for the AD the agency issued Jan. 18, 2008.
Technically, FAA regulations permit an operator to apply the specialized tape that 3M custom manufactures for Airwolf, Kochy said. But he strongly recommends that Robinson owners who buy the blade tape kit employ the services of a licensed Airframe & Powerplant mechanic to perform the installation. "A lot of people underestimate how complicated it is," he told BA. "It's not as simple as 'just send me some tape.'"
It is possible to apply the epoxy tape while the rotor blades are still attached to the helicopter. But that is "a miserable job" that requires standing on a ladder while attempting to place the tape in precisely the right area, a task that Kochy says he "would not wish on my worst enemy." Airwolf advises operators to have the rotor blades removed - which requires an A&P - so tape application can be accomplished more easily and accurately on a stable work surface.
We use 3M tape on all our 500s &300 saves a lot of damage buy it by the role,
If I remember the kit is very expensive, must make sure no air under tapes, don't know if they supply mastic for edges as well.
3M make a fair no of tapes for leading edges
Erosion Protection
3M? Polyurethane Protective Tape 8681HS Transparent, 1 in x 36 yd, 9 per case, Non-Skip Slit
go to documentation lots of useful tips on removing, repairs &installing
Tapes will affect lift, especially noticeable in hot & high conditions.
Last edited by 500e; 8th Nov 2010 at 16:38.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: london
Age: 62
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blade tape
My understanding is that Robinson do not recommend the use of Blade Tape but i can'nt get a clear answer as to why. The airwolf tape is made by 3 m and they have an faa stc approval for its use to protect the blades - they also have easa approval. Has anyone out there used it?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Xmas Present from Robinson Helicopter
I had a nasty feeling this one was coming after the mod was made to the spec of new ships.
SB-78: All R44s with aluminium tanks are to be retro-fitted with bladder type tanks.
Kit to cost $6800 if ordered before Dec 2011 + 40 hours labour. Mod to be completed by Dec 2014. RHC say 'the retrofit requires substantial sheet-metal work and paint refinishing for aesthetics may be desired' - sounds like it makes a right mess of your machine.
Could have done without this expensive news the day before RHC go on their Christmas break.
I never understand the FAA/UK CAA logic (not RHC, that's obvious) behind these 'preferable but not essential and you can have four years to save up for it' mods. If more of us are likely to die in a fire flying around in our ali tank ships in the meantime, why give us so long? This mod is of questionable importance - four point harnesses, nomex suits and helmets would make more sense and prevent more injuries at far less cost - but we don't do any of these, because we're adults who can make up our mind about where we want to draw the line. Instead of which I assume insurers are behind this and again treating us as fools.
Any R44 without the mod that is currently for sale is also now worth a chunk less......
(incoming, from the pros who don't pay their own engineering costs....)
SB-78: All R44s with aluminium tanks are to be retro-fitted with bladder type tanks.
Kit to cost $6800 if ordered before Dec 2011 + 40 hours labour. Mod to be completed by Dec 2014. RHC say 'the retrofit requires substantial sheet-metal work and paint refinishing for aesthetics may be desired' - sounds like it makes a right mess of your machine.
Could have done without this expensive news the day before RHC go on their Christmas break.
I never understand the FAA/UK CAA logic (not RHC, that's obvious) behind these 'preferable but not essential and you can have four years to save up for it' mods. If more of us are likely to die in a fire flying around in our ali tank ships in the meantime, why give us so long? This mod is of questionable importance - four point harnesses, nomex suits and helmets would make more sense and prevent more injuries at far less cost - but we don't do any of these, because we're adults who can make up our mind about where we want to draw the line. Instead of which I assume insurers are behind this and again treating us as fools.
Any R44 without the mod that is currently for sale is also now worth a chunk less......
(incoming, from the pros who don't pay their own engineering costs....)
There are 2,064 R1 and 2,809 R2 out there. Of course you have to take off the ones where the crash was so severe for the tanks to burst but the occupants were untouched untill they burnt to death = Zero. But anyhow my calculator says 4954X $6,800 is $33,687,200 30% GP should give Frank JR an easy 10m extra in 2011. Of course the cost to us, the faithfull users of Robi's is a bit more, close to 78million when you add in paint, fitting at 40 hours, freight etc. Not a bad business model. Of course if you have a white paint job all is good, why can't they at least supply them painted, to your colour code. Oh, maybe not; the paint comes off anyway with no primer used, forgot that.I can't find the same requirement for the R22 which obviously has the same tank. Why don't RHC put a heavy steel plate on the inside of the tank next to the short shaft to the flex plate there's been a few of them come appart and flog there way through the tank?
This mod does reduce fuel capacity by a few liters (litres). Someone mentioned to me that this might actually violate the certification requirements for the aircraft...
Only in aviation can a company issue what is effectively a mandatory, safety related product-recall and then make the customers pay for it.
Didn't Ford have a similiar situation with the "Pinto" in the seventies? Imagine them trying to make the customers pay for the fix, that would've been interesting...
Only in aviation can a company issue what is effectively a mandatory, safety related product-recall and then make the customers pay for it.
Didn't Ford have a similiar situation with the "Pinto" in the seventies? Imagine them trying to make the customers pay for the fix, that would've been interesting...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over Africa
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally know of at least 4 people in 2 separate accidents in Robbies that would have walked away from crashes were it not for the tank rupturing after impact causing post crash fires. It is sad that Robinson came out with this SB so late and also appear to be adding a nice profit margin onto the mod.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Warwick
Age: 42
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't that depend on the regulatory regime and the type of use? I think if you are using it for Part 135 under FAA rules then the SB is mandatory. Not sure what EASA / CAA do?
Except that IF your machine happens to be involved in an accident, and IF there is a post crash fire with injuries to the occupants...
-> lawsuit...
"neglicience" or whatever they call it these days...
trying to prove that you had no opportunity to complete the mod "As soon as practical, but no later than 31 December 2014", as it says in the SB...
-> lawsuit...
"neglicience" or whatever they call it these days...
trying to prove that you had no opportunity to complete the mod "As soon as practical, but no later than 31 December 2014", as it says in the SB...
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks and a bit more.
Thanks for the link...here's an addendum that I didn't want to post on my blog.
The first year I owned the helicopter, my hourly cost of operations was $220US/hour. This past year, my sixth year of ownership, the cost has risen to $320US/hour. That's about a 30% increase.
Those costs include just fuel, oil, maintenance, repairs, insurance, and reserve for overhaul on my R44 Raven II. I fly approximately 200 hours a year.
This is a far cry from Robinson's claim of only $185US/hour.
The first year I owned the helicopter, my hourly cost of operations was $220US/hour. This past year, my sixth year of ownership, the cost has risen to $320US/hour. That's about a 30% increase.
Those costs include just fuel, oil, maintenance, repairs, insurance, and reserve for overhaul on my R44 Raven II. I fly approximately 200 hours a year.
This is a far cry from Robinson's claim of only $185US/hour.
As Topbottom pointed out this is a SB (SB-78), but it will become an AD, and the wording is very plain, change the tanks, 4 years to do it. I think it is the need to stagger the building of tanks to meet the demand that warrants the time delay. As the owner of a 2009 model I approached the factory to get this done under warranty although it was just out of warranty and the factory agreed to do it. But only after a lot of discussion
As said before if you had a safety issue with a fuel tank in any vehicle made today it would be fixed, no cost , no question. Surely some of the big operators with 10 or 20 machines will get together for a class action.
As said before if you had a safety issue with a fuel tank in any vehicle made today it would be fixed, no cost , no question. Surely some of the big operators with 10 or 20 machines will get together for a class action.
Robbie Owners,
Welcome to reality.
On larger aircraft I could show you 50 SB's just like this.
The wording of SB's is written by a lawyer to avoid admission there is normally a problem. "may" "could" "possibly" "to increase the reliability" "in certain circumstances" blah blah etc are a few of the gems used.
If something does go wrong they can say "we told you so" without admission of responsibility.
Depending on your type of operation and the way your aircraft is maintained, SB's of course may or may not be mandatory.
Keep in mind that SB's are part of the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (ICA's) and are part of the Type Certificate requirements.
Normally ASB's (Alert Service Bulletins) are mandatory and will probably but not in all cases be accompanied by an AD. Normal SB's need to be interpreted with their compliance requirement which can also be mandatory.
Manufacturers sometimes will offer the required parts FOC depending on how silly the problem makes them appear. If it is not a real safety but reliability issue they will just make you eat it.
You are correct if it was a car it would be fixed with a recall or somesuch. If manufacturers of helicopters operated this way I doubt there would be any still in the civil business.
Welcome to reality.
On larger aircraft I could show you 50 SB's just like this.
The wording of SB's is written by a lawyer to avoid admission there is normally a problem. "may" "could" "possibly" "to increase the reliability" "in certain circumstances" blah blah etc are a few of the gems used.
If something does go wrong they can say "we told you so" without admission of responsibility.
Depending on your type of operation and the way your aircraft is maintained, SB's of course may or may not be mandatory.
Keep in mind that SB's are part of the Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (ICA's) and are part of the Type Certificate requirements.
Normally ASB's (Alert Service Bulletins) are mandatory and will probably but not in all cases be accompanied by an AD. Normal SB's need to be interpreted with their compliance requirement which can also be mandatory.
Manufacturers sometimes will offer the required parts FOC depending on how silly the problem makes them appear. If it is not a real safety but reliability issue they will just make you eat it.
You are correct if it was a car it would be fixed with a recall or somesuch. If manufacturers of helicopters operated this way I doubt there would be any still in the civil business.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Used to be north of the 26th Parallel, now South
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh I had a recall on a couple of Toyota 4X4's, took them in and all fixed & no charge ( not even labour ) You only get treated like a dick head when your a helicopter owner.
I was just working out how much this Fuel tank SB on my r44's is going to cost...then how much extra work I have to find to pay the bill....it's getting to be a bit of a joke.
I was just working out how much this Fuel tank SB on my r44's is going to cost...then how much extra work I have to find to pay the bill....it's getting to be a bit of a joke.
To follow up RVDT,
It's not only Robinson.
Just be happy that you guys DO operate the Robinson..... As, it is a fairly cheap helicopter to start out with, and you get a good ''bang for the buck', and even how annoying it may be to have to change parts due (A)SB or AD, they're relatively cheap. If you're upset about Robinson and it's prices, try a Eurocopter or Agusta guys...
D.O.C from the factory(any factory), will in most cases be stated a tad too low, so blindly believe in those numbers, I'm afraid is a little naive.
Now, how was the saying again?! If you want to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a big one...
When I say fairly and relatively above, I do mean: compared to similar-size helicopters on the market, capable of doing the same as the R-44/22
As for linking Toyota-recalls and helicopters being different, it all has to do with numbers built, unit-price(cost of spare's, production-tolerance etc.), amount of people using it daily and the fact that any moron can find his way into it and drive off after paying $12 for his license.... I don't say it is fair, but just how it is......
It's not only Robinson.
Just be happy that you guys DO operate the Robinson..... As, it is a fairly cheap helicopter to start out with, and you get a good ''bang for the buck', and even how annoying it may be to have to change parts due (A)SB or AD, they're relatively cheap. If you're upset about Robinson and it's prices, try a Eurocopter or Agusta guys...
D.O.C from the factory(any factory), will in most cases be stated a tad too low, so blindly believe in those numbers, I'm afraid is a little naive.
Now, how was the saying again?! If you want to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a big one...
When I say fairly and relatively above, I do mean: compared to similar-size helicopters on the market, capable of doing the same as the R-44/22
As for linking Toyota-recalls and helicopters being different, it all has to do with numbers built, unit-price(cost of spare's, production-tolerance etc.), amount of people using it daily and the fact that any moron can find his way into it and drive off after paying $12 for his license.... I don't say it is fair, but just how it is......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinson Helicopters - Bladder tanks
RHC have issued Service Bulletin no.78 requiring the retrofitting of bladder-type fuel tanks, with a 'time of compliance no later than 31st December 2014.'
In the case of the R44 the cost is, I am advised, likely to fall within the £12-£15k range, involving substantial sheet metal work, and will take approximately 40hrs exclusive of paint refinishing.
Its a lot of work involving significant downtime.
The result will of course be a safer machine. However, it will also be heavier and with a lower fuel capacity.
It remains to be seen whether or not the CAA issue an AD, rendering this work mandatory for G-Regd. aircraft.
The cynical amongst us might conclude that anything requiring compliance within the next four years and regardless of hours flown can't be that important from a flight safety perspective, and may have some commercial undertones.
In my opinion the work described in the Bulletin should be complied with, if at all, at the 12 year rebuild.
I would be interested in the views of other Robinson owners. My guess is that the views of maintenance organisations might not be totally impartial...?! Nice work if you can get it.
In the case of the R44 the cost is, I am advised, likely to fall within the £12-£15k range, involving substantial sheet metal work, and will take approximately 40hrs exclusive of paint refinishing.
Its a lot of work involving significant downtime.
The result will of course be a safer machine. However, it will also be heavier and with a lower fuel capacity.
It remains to be seen whether or not the CAA issue an AD, rendering this work mandatory for G-Regd. aircraft.
The cynical amongst us might conclude that anything requiring compliance within the next four years and regardless of hours flown can't be that important from a flight safety perspective, and may have some commercial undertones.
In my opinion the work described in the Bulletin should be complied with, if at all, at the 12 year rebuild.
I would be interested in the views of other Robinson owners. My guess is that the views of maintenance organisations might not be totally impartial...?! Nice work if you can get it.