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

R44 Cineflex Nosemount

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

R44 Cineflex Nosemount

Old 23rd Mar 2013, 16:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: europe
Age: 35
Posts: 47
R44 Cineflex Nosemount

Just talked to a guy from a Belgium company who told me that there is an EASA Certified Cineflex Nosemount for the R44. He said its brand new and on the market for only a month. Tried google but couldnt find it.
Does anyone has more information on this ?
helimo is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 17:30
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 68
Posts: 280
Nose mounts

Helimo,
Send a pm to TRC, he's forgotten more about camera mounts than many people ever learn! - VFR
vfr440 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 18:11
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,723
I understand that there is an offset forward mount, rather than a nose mount.
Hasn't been listed on EASA STC so far.

Some background info for reference, a larger gimbal can't replace the existing gimbal on the R44 news nose hard mount due to weight and balance.
R44 is very sensitive to nose payloads. It is a near thing but a V14 gimbal adapter plate would need to be located a few more inches rearward from the existing R44 news gimbal mount, but the pedals get in the way of such a mod.

If I recall, the new mount places the camera more rearward by positioning it on the side of the nose.

An obvious point that should not be overlooked on the R44 is balancing aircraft laterally.
One R44 crash crash involved pilot, cameraman and camera equipment all on one side, which was (possibly coincidentally or not) the side it rolled toward from a hover.


Numerous accidents have been caused by the requirement to fly so as to accommodate a cameraman shooting from a side door, so a new certified bracket that will encourage use of stabilised gimbals is fine by me

Some operators using the Tyler R44 gimbal side mount will only fly with pilot and camera op and no director to increase safety margins, so be cautious about making a business plan based on carrying a director or producer until you've fully explored the weight, balance and handling implications...


Mickjoebill

Last edited by mickjoebill; 23rd Mar 2013 at 18:33.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 18:18
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IRELAND
Posts: 10
World’s First and Only Approved CineFlex R44 Nose Mount ZatzWorks Inc.- Alaska Cineflex Aerial HD Video Production and Stock Footage

Check this out.
paddy.pilot is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2013, 18:34
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,723
Yeah, thats the one I've seen.
Carl M is working on this one for 15lb payloads.
Community Forum - Robinson Helicopter Owners Group

Mickjoebill

Last edited by mickjoebill; 23rd Mar 2013 at 18:38.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2013, 10:40
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: europe
Age: 35
Posts: 47
Question from a newbie. What means STC ?
Is it possible to shoot 180 in flying direction without having the nose of the helicopter in the picture when using a side-nose-mount like the one on the pictures from Zatzworks inc. ?
helimo is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2013, 10:54
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Land of the Krauts
Posts: 308
STC?

This is your answer to the first question:

Supplemental Type Certificates
eivissa is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2013, 16:09
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,368
Helimo,

Further to Eivissa's post, the STC is a US FAA approval. To use it in Europe you need an EASA equivalent. Except the EASA equivalent usually takes 5 times longer to get and costs way more. The price of over-bureaucratic regulation.....

Given that the manufacturer is likely to sell 10 times more of anything in the aviation land of the free, guess why they start there?
Helinut is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2013, 20:22
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 919
To use it in Europe you need an EASA equivalent
Even on a FAA registered machine operating in Europe?
chopjock is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2013, 09:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,723
Is it possible to shoot 180 in flying direction without having the nose of the helicopter in the picture when using a side-nose-mount like the one on the pictures from Zatzworks inc.
This position can be described as an offset nose mount.
I haven't used it, but it looks like it will give you a good straight ahead view on a fairly wide lens without nose or left skid creeping into shot. A million percent better than the side mount.

In respect to 180 degrees it can pan from straight ahead to the right a fair way, but not to the left, unless tilted downwards.
Obviously the aircraft nose can be crabbed a little to the left with pedals to creep it out of shot.

I wonder how well the floats would perform with such a weight outboard and forward of the frame? just asking

Most of the shots show a right hand orbit, regardless of which side the gimbal is on, we know that pilots prefer to do it clockwise



Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2013, 11:43
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 444
I can't ever see this getting an EASA STC.
(1) The cost of proving it
(2) One of the reasons that RHC didn't put a V14 onto the nose of an R44 is because the V14 (when powered down) drops its snout and creates a "tripping" problem in EOL over water. They tested that and realised it was a danger.
(3) They never certified the 44 ENG (V12) with floats, for a similar reason.
(4) Hanging a V14 off the nose of an R44 is "like hanging one of my kids off it" according to Kurt Robinson. W&B becomes a real problem.

Skid height/ground clearance on the 66 isn't any better.

Last edited by JimBall; 27th Mar 2013 at 11:44.
JimBall is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 11:07
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: europe
Age: 35
Posts: 47
The guy i talked to works for WIM ROBBERRECHTS&CO a Belgium Aerial filming Company. After asking via email if there really is a mount for the Cineflex on the market they answer was NO, but someone is working on it.

Ive worked on only very few filming jobs, but it was enough to see that their is lots of customer interest for a solution to put the cineflex onto a cheeper helicopter.

I think a nose mount like the one for a 206 with a moving counterweight would work for the R44 as well.
helimo is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 05:39
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,723
I think a nose mount like the one for a 206 with a moving counterweight would work for the R44 as well.
There are a few new players in the gimbal market, some showing their new wares in a few weeks time, most are offering similar size gimbals to the cinelfex at perhaps afew kgs less weight as well as gimbals slightly larger.

The cutest and best compact gimbal for the nose of a R44 is the one made by Robinson themselves, for the R44 news!


Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 06:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 48
Posts: 394
quote "Numerous accidents have been caused by the requirement to fly so as to accommodate a cameraman shooting from a side door, so a new certified bracket that will encourage use of stabilised gimbals is fine by me"

Mick, i think that you will find that the accidents that have happened have been caused by the cameraman/producer/pilot/helicopter operator using the wrong helicopter and pilot for the job, not from the requirement to film from an open door.

if in any of the accidents that have happened, you simply increased the aircraft size/category, ie move from 44 to JR, JR to LR/350, 350B to B3/BK/427/429, BK to 139, etc then very few of the accidents would have occurred. While you will say that some of the accidents may well have happened, then i doubt that filming from the side was the cause, more like pilot error, all the rest of the side door filming accidents are caused from a helicopter being flown outside of the aircraft limits.

If the customer had been prepared to pay for a larger helicopter, or the operator/pilot had put their foot down and limited the number of people taken on the helicopter, then the accidents wouldn't have happened, as the majority have been pilots flying a perfectly good helicopter into the ground. And yes i do agree that the cameraman is in a really bad position in an accident, especially if he is still hanging out the door when they hit the ground.
SuperF is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 02:20
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,723
hile you will say that some of the accidents may well have happened, then i doubt that filming from the side was the cause, more like pilot error, all the rest of the side door filming accidents are caused from a helicopter being flown outside of the aircraft limits.
I don't disagree, taking a door off and taking direction from a cameraman or photographer shouldn't affect flight saftey.

As you say larger aircraft generally have a better record but are not immume, two jet rangers have crashed this year whilst open door filming, one fatal. (Not to mention two other cameraman killed in microlights in the last two months.)


A common factor for open door fatalities is that the pilot is a one man band without a senior pilot or management to oversight of the flight.
A coincidental but positive factor in using stabilised mounts is that due to the relative high cost of renting the equipment there is usually a considered plan!
Also time taken to rig gives a pilot more time to get their act together and often there is an engineer looking over the installation.

The USA feature film industry has a solid planning process where one man heli bands do have a good record, I suggest due to the planning procedure.

Without hard stats we can only go on what appears to be the obvious and rational.



Mickjoebill

Last edited by mickjoebill; 30th Mar 2013 at 05:37.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 11:51
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,368
SuperF,

I am sure you are correct that problems occur when the wrong helicopter is used. However, I am not sure it is fair to blame the customer. Of the 2 parties involved shouldn't it be the helicopter operator who knows most about helicopters and their limitations and advises the customer accordingly? (Of course, it works best when the operator knows about filming and the filming guys are familiar with Heles too).
Helinut is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 02:13
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,723
Large media companies have a check list that does nothing more than ensure they are ring fenced against liability. This list is assumed by even highly experienced production managers further down the food chain to be adequate due diligence for planning a safe flight.

So when the one man band owner says he is experienced insured and legal the due diligence is done.

And even under conflicting advice from camera crew they will say, well we have cleared it with "legal department" and we think it is ok....or if they don't have a legal department they assume we are being difficult, too arty or precious.

Whilst many a pilot may reccommend a AS350 sitting on the pad, he won't lose the job by saying that a R44 is not suitable, rather he'll say it is "not as capable".


Mickjoebill
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2013, 05:42
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 48
Posts: 394
Helinut,

i totally agree with you, and it should be the helicopter operator/pilot that puts their foot down, or has the final say on the flying part of any aerial filming/photography operation. I dont have any idea what happens in Europe, but in NZ and Oz, we have hundreds of helicopters, and operators on every hill.

With our large number of helicopters per head of population, everyone either knows a helicopter pilot, or is related to one, or has been in a helicopter. The saying "a little bit of knowledge can be more dangerous than no knowledge" is often used at our work, as we are dealing with self proclaimed experts all the time wanting to tell us how the other guy could do this, and how they can go down the road and get someone else to do the job and he has a smaller helicopter, therefore its cheaper, etc.

So while the Helicopter Pilot has ultimate responsibility for the safty of the operation, the other pressure that is put on them by the client can often be such that they will end up doing things that they wouldn't otherwise do.

We have done numerous ad hoc filming/photography jobs, and apart from 2 or 3 very experienced photographers, every other time some filming is needed to be done, the number of people "required" for the job is always as many as the helicopter has seats. R22, photographer, he can manage by himself. R44, we really need 3 people to go. JR well there is 4 people that have to be onboard. AS350, um yeah we have to take a couple of land owners to show us what we want, so we need 5 people...... And on it goes, they are the client, they tell you what they require, you have to try to work with it.

Very few non helicopter pilots understand that just because a helicopter can carry 5 people that it cant hover OGE with 5 onboard, and they have no idea about wind, temp, etc.

And you will never educate them, as there is always another new helicopter operator down the road thats just started up and needs all the work that they can get, so they will do anything to get it...
SuperF is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.