FAA mandates replacement of R22 & R44 main rotorblades
What a strange thread
13
Read the tech paper why should the Author summarize it for you, then you might understand (there are pictures to).
Regarding auto manufacturers, yes millions of cars vans lorry's etc, but the cost is per unit.
They have to coordinate recalls, loan customers cars, pay dealers to do repair + there is wide condemnation, Also there are a host of other makers looking to capitalize on their misfortune.
We as owners & pilots are being taken for mugs, with poor spares delivery, abysmal customer support & prices escalating at a rate that is beyond reason after starting at astronomic levels.
Warranty don't even go there! gearbox rebuilt 3 times would not release until paid every time, they have you over a barrel. blades erosion strips dis-bonding in 70 hours, send them back says manufacturer, not we will have them collected & shipped USA.
As a pilot & owner with an engineering\electronics background the reliability is poor to say the least.
Most of the manufacturers seem to think the customer is a nuisance so we will ignore them.
It is a shame that Cabri did not have the B***s to pay labour warranty, especially as I was told by them how little there was going to be, if true? at least 3 machine sales lost
13
Read the tech paper why should the Author summarize it for you, then you might understand (there are pictures to).
Regarding auto manufacturers, yes millions of cars vans lorry's etc, but the cost is per unit.
They have to coordinate recalls, loan customers cars, pay dealers to do repair + there is wide condemnation, Also there are a host of other makers looking to capitalize on their misfortune.
We as owners & pilots are being taken for mugs, with poor spares delivery, abysmal customer support & prices escalating at a rate that is beyond reason after starting at astronomic levels.
Warranty don't even go there! gearbox rebuilt 3 times would not release until paid every time, they have you over a barrel. blades erosion strips dis-bonding in 70 hours, send them back says manufacturer, not we will have them collected & shipped USA.
As a pilot & owner with an engineering\electronics background the reliability is poor to say the least.
Most of the manufacturers seem to think the customer is a nuisance so we will ignore them.
It is a shame that Cabri did not have the B***s to pay labour warranty, especially as I was told by them how little there was going to be, if true? at least 3 machine sales lost
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Langley, B.C. Canada
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just finished reading your posted link on your article blakmax....very in depth, concise and informative article. As you wrote this back in 2011, and the information was made available to RHC, the FAA, and other manufactures, have you had any feed back from any of them undertaking and implementing changes in their adhesive bonding procedures? I would like to think with any deficiencies and quality control in their processes, that they would have made improvements.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Helilog. I have heard along the grape vine that RHC has changed some practices, but you will never get told directly for commercial and legal reasons. The FAA has taken my comments on board and have raised the priority on adhesive bonded structures as a direct result.
13 Snoopy, I will try to summarise the paper soon, but at present I am flat-out like a lizard drinking, writing a further paper on a related subject for an NDI conference in Brisbane in May.
Regards
Blakmax
13 Snoopy, I will try to summarise the paper soon, but at present I am flat-out like a lizard drinking, writing a further paper on a related subject for an NDI conference in Brisbane in May.
Regards
Blakmax
Blackhawk Blade Event
max, are you doing a paper on rotary wings and bonding?
Not sure if you saw the thread on this forum about the National Guard UH-60 Blackhawk that had a rotor blade suffer what looks like a dis-bond inflight. Emergency landing was successful.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/552...tor-blade.html
Not sure if you saw the thread on this forum about the National Guard UH-60 Blackhawk that had a rotor blade suffer what looks like a dis-bond inflight. Emergency landing was successful.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/552...tor-blade.html
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Feb 2015 at 15:16. Reason: picture update and link update
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughes500,
No. You are wrong.
Are you aware of how much a typical aviation manufacturer pays and must put aside for lawsuits????? Check that out and then come back here and tell us.
A Toyota issue crops up and usually the car stops working. An aircraft issue crops up and the ship usually falls from the sky.
Does that sound remotely the same to you???
Statistically speaking, the percentage of lawsuits filed against an aircraft company PER accident is in the order of a magnitude of at least one hundred compared to a similar auto accident.
The consequences of failure resulting in tragedy are thousands of times more likely in an aircraft accident versus a car accident.
Autos do occasionally have an issue that causes a death. On the other hand, an aircraft manufacturer that has a product failure nearly always results in fatalities. Big difference, mate. Big, big difference.
Stop typing and start thinking.
PS
I laugh if you own an aircraft company that buys stuff but you don't understand why aviation manufacturers MUST charge huge prices. Surely you aren't really as naive as you sound?!
No. You are wrong.
Are you aware of how much a typical aviation manufacturer pays and must put aside for lawsuits????? Check that out and then come back here and tell us.
A Toyota issue crops up and usually the car stops working. An aircraft issue crops up and the ship usually falls from the sky.
Does that sound remotely the same to you???
Statistically speaking, the percentage of lawsuits filed against an aircraft company PER accident is in the order of a magnitude of at least one hundred compared to a similar auto accident.
The consequences of failure resulting in tragedy are thousands of times more likely in an aircraft accident versus a car accident.
Autos do occasionally have an issue that causes a death. On the other hand, an aircraft manufacturer that has a product failure nearly always results in fatalities. Big difference, mate. Big, big difference.
Stop typing and start thinking.
PS
I laugh if you own an aircraft company that buys stuff but you don't understand why aviation manufacturers MUST charge huge prices. Surely you aren't really as naive as you sound?!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500e,
I asked blakmax for a summary so I would get to see him differentiate his "facts" from his "theory" on debonding. You do understand there is a vast difference, don't you?
I asked blakmax for a summary so I would get to see him differentiate his "facts" from his "theory" on debonding. You do understand there is a vast difference, don't you?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 Snoopy
I don't have to convince you of the theory, mate! Read the AD:
Tell me what part of my "theory" isn't supported by the FAA statement?
Even NASA agrees with my proposition that hydration drives bonds failures:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0080040188.pdf
Now before you start accusing me of Robbie bashing, I assure you that this problem exists for a lot of other manufacturers both in rotary and fixed wing. The reason that RHC has been bitten more than others is that their design involves an exceptionally short overlap length 0.4in for R22 and 0.5 in for R44. Any degradation at all is going to be exacerbated by the fact that there is negligible reserve strength in such short bonds.
If you really want to get into a technical discussion in an attempt to debunk my "theory", bring it on!
Kindest regards
Blakmax
I don't have to convince you of the theory, mate! Read the AD:
However, airworthiness cannot be assured long-term by reliance on continued repetitive inspections.
Even NASA agrees with my proposition that hydration drives bonds failures:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0080040188.pdf
Now before you start accusing me of Robbie bashing, I assure you that this problem exists for a lot of other manufacturers both in rotary and fixed wing. The reason that RHC has been bitten more than others is that their design involves an exceptionally short overlap length 0.4in for R22 and 0.5 in for R44. Any degradation at all is going to be exacerbated by the fact that there is negligible reserve strength in such short bonds.
If you really want to get into a technical discussion in an attempt to debunk my "theory", bring it on!
Kindest regards
Blakmax
13
Justify the price rises in the last 15 months From such a high start on parts.
Have not checked the 2015 price for this item clam shell door pin.
Why is the rate of reaching life times poor, if the quality is so high.
I do appreciate the difference in failure between car & helli but as said if a lot of equipment had such a poor life\ delivery of spares the Co would be out of business.
You cant stop the snide remarks (I laugh if you own an aircraft company that buys stuff)
Now back to the Robo problem
Justify the price rises in the last 15 months From such a high start on parts.
Have not checked the 2015 price for this item clam shell door pin.
Why is the rate of reaching life times poor, if the quality is so high.
I do appreciate the difference in failure between car & helli but as said if a lot of equipment had such a poor life\ delivery of spares the Co would be out of business.
You cant stop the snide remarks (I laugh if you own an aircraft company that buys stuff)
Now back to the Robo problem
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blakhawk blade
Sorry Lone wolf, I got wrapped up in the other debate and forgot to respond.
I had seen the article and it certainly looks interesting from a composites perspective, but without close up photos I would only be guessing.
Regards
Blakmax
I had seen the article and it certainly looks interesting from a composites perspective, but without close up photos I would only be guessing.
Regards
Blakmax
13
You must live on a different planet or work for a manufacturer. There IS NO difference when it comes to safety. Tell me when Robinson for instance last recalled their machines due to a perceived safety problem, certainly didn't over bladder tanks, let alone pay for it. It waves 2 fingers at owners when they build crap blades and then get owners to pay for their incompetence.
My son just had is Ford Fiesta recalled due to a problem with the fuel system, there was a small chance it could catch fire. Ford recalled everyone just in case, what has Robinson done about its fuel problem ( fuel bladders), told owners to pay $12500 to change their machines. Please please explain to me which company is doing the right thing and obviously running a robust/working SMS
. While you are at it please explain to me ( I am obviously thick ) why a manufacturer triples the price of a pitch link. Before you answer that, it is not cost of manufacture as a PMA company makes a pitch link for a 369 which is the same as a 269 ( you are no longer allowed to fit them) for $ 350 presumably they are making a profit, so why does Sikorsky put the price up from $ 375 to over $ 1200 ???.
You must live on a different planet or work for a manufacturer. There IS NO difference when it comes to safety. Tell me when Robinson for instance last recalled their machines due to a perceived safety problem, certainly didn't over bladder tanks, let alone pay for it. It waves 2 fingers at owners when they build crap blades and then get owners to pay for their incompetence.
My son just had is Ford Fiesta recalled due to a problem with the fuel system, there was a small chance it could catch fire. Ford recalled everyone just in case, what has Robinson done about its fuel problem ( fuel bladders), told owners to pay $12500 to change their machines. Please please explain to me which company is doing the right thing and obviously running a robust/working SMS
. While you are at it please explain to me ( I am obviously thick ) why a manufacturer triples the price of a pitch link. Before you answer that, it is not cost of manufacture as a PMA company makes a pitch link for a 369 which is the same as a 269 ( you are no longer allowed to fit them) for $ 350 presumably they are making a profit, so why does Sikorsky put the price up from $ 375 to over $ 1200 ???.
so why does Sikorsky put the price up from $ 375 to over $ 1200 ???.
Which doesnt make sense for sikorsky since a) they still appear to be offering the good old 269 and b) dont offer anything else in the same segment. Ergo they are kind of sawing on the branch they are sitting on. Somehow it seems to me that once someone in the siko management thought it would be a great idea to buy the 269 to expand their portfolio, now someone else figured that it wasnt that brilliant after all and decided to try and undo it somehow.
I agree with snoopy that the comparison automotive vs rotary industry is not a really good one. Extremely high costs for certification and what not, extremely low unit numbers. The circumstances as well as the markets themselves are totally different in so many ways.
Although i certainly also agree with the other side, saying that the helicopter manufacturers treat their customers like garbage. Out of the big players, only one makes an honest attempt at decent customer service for civilian customers. On the monetary side they certainly play the same game like the others.
I think this whole situation is a lack of real competition in the market. Todays battles of the industries are mostly fought by the marketing departments, you will find that to be true in so many different industries.
IMHO, the manufacturers decided a long time ago to happily team up on us and got perfectly comfortable with shamelessly milking the cash cow, to put it in pub talk terms.
This seems like a great opportunity for new manufacturers, but in the end of the day they are all prone to yield the temptation sooner or later...
There is a difference of scale but there is also a difference of life, car 7\10 years & reducing, helicopter our 500 was built in 1974 so there is a lot more bights at the cherry + we have to spend & in the main with the manufacturer, where as the automotive Co. have after market Co like flees.
Forgot Robos only last how long before you are into big re build.
If some on can answer H500 question regarding PMA pitch link question (other than greed) why was it ok & now it is not
Forgot Robos only last how long before you are into big re build.
If some on can answer H500 question regarding PMA pitch link question (other than greed) why was it ok & now it is not
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is it so hard for some people here to grasp the fact that aircraft manufacturers and their parts suppliers have to charge tremendously for their products just to satisfy their costs in the result of a huge lawsuit.
Go look up what a jury verdict against Avco that resulted in a 26 MILLION DOLLAR judgement.
Stop the crazy lawsuits and unlimited jury awards and see the price of aviation come down.
Engine Maker Hit With $26M Verdict Over 2008 Plane Crash - Law360
Go look up what a jury verdict against Avco that resulted in a 26 MILLION DOLLAR judgement.
Stop the crazy lawsuits and unlimited jury awards and see the price of aviation come down.
Engine Maker Hit With $26M Verdict Over 2008 Plane Crash - Law360
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Langley, B.C. Canada
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find here that the comparison of automotive to helicopter manufacturing similar to comparing apples to say, rocks. Automotive has the luxury of high tech robotic assembley line fabrication, build and assembly far advanced, than the antiquated and dated ways of how helicopters are constructed. Just think how many Toyota Corollas role off the line in a day verses say 76's????!!!
The cost of parts and their increases, do not require a degree in physics to under stand die, tooling, fabrication, and assembly costs to both sides....automotive has massive volume out the door and must compete against aftermarket corporations that may build their replacement parts cheaper...don't see too much of that in our industry other than some innovative accessories like cargo baskets. Also labour costs in stocking and shipping with low volume adds to that cost. How about R and D costs, destructive testing, certification requirements, tracking and traceability, flight testing, etc, etc. that we are faced with?
Trying to construct something as light as possible and defy gravity and still maintain structural integrity and safety under some pretty harse operating conditions, is a tough challenge for any manufacturer. All those brilliant engineers that design these....we manage to take them into the field and show them what they did wrong....
The cost of parts and their increases, do not require a degree in physics to under stand die, tooling, fabrication, and assembly costs to both sides....automotive has massive volume out the door and must compete against aftermarket corporations that may build their replacement parts cheaper...don't see too much of that in our industry other than some innovative accessories like cargo baskets. Also labour costs in stocking and shipping with low volume adds to that cost. How about R and D costs, destructive testing, certification requirements, tracking and traceability, flight testing, etc, etc. that we are faced with?
Trying to construct something as light as possible and defy gravity and still maintain structural integrity and safety under some pretty harse operating conditions, is a tough challenge for any manufacturer. All those brilliant engineers that design these....we manage to take them into the field and show them what they did wrong....
Helilog yup I agree with some of what you are saying but a load of designs are years old and not really rocket science. Look at bearings these are generally normal industrial bearings but with aviation paperwork put on them.
Most of the older designs were R and D by the military, 269,369,206,105 to name a few
All of you defending the industry can't answer why 269 pitch links have trebled in price, come on Snoopy answer the question.
Have you seen some of the law suits against car manufacturers ?You seem to think there should be a different level between the auto motive industry and the aviation industry in terms of proactive safety ? Aviation has only just started to have SMS where the automotive boys have had it for over 25 years ! Mind you that is obvious as they recall stuff when there is a doubt on it. What does aviation do, it will be all right, just look at Super puma gearboxes in the North Sea. Things are only done when people die, the automotive boys SMS tries to stop this because they are frightened of huge law suits .
Most of the older designs were R and D by the military, 269,369,206,105 to name a few
All of you defending the industry can't answer why 269 pitch links have trebled in price, come on Snoopy answer the question.
Have you seen some of the law suits against car manufacturers ?You seem to think there should be a different level between the auto motive industry and the aviation industry in terms of proactive safety ? Aviation has only just started to have SMS where the automotive boys have had it for over 25 years ! Mind you that is obvious as they recall stuff when there is a doubt on it. What does aviation do, it will be all right, just look at Super puma gearboxes in the North Sea. Things are only done when people die, the automotive boys SMS tries to stop this because they are frightened of huge law suits .
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Uk
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about the way it's sold.....
It's all about the marketing, chaps.
The majority of argument on this thread seems to fall into two camps; those owners and operators who believe that the auto industry has a better record of paying for customer-safety recalls and directives than aircraft manufacturers, and those that don't think this is a valid comparison.
The fact is that certain helicopter manufacturers actively promote comparisons between operating a helicopter and a car, so it's hardly surprising that wider comparisons are made.
The subject of this thread, Robinson Helicopter are an example of this. For every model, they publish an estimated operating costs page. This suggests hourly reserves they feel appropriate for unscheduled maintenance and also compare the cost per mile flown with that cost per driven mile in a car.
Consider the Raven 2 estimated operating costs published by RHC. The reserve for unscheduled maintenance is suggested as $9:72 per hour. Over 2200 hours, this adds up to $21,384 total. Peekay4 at the very start of this thread writes that the estimated cost of the mandatory blade replacement is $30k-$100k per aircraft depending on the model. RHC could revise their publications to take account of the AD costs like blade replacements, etc, if they chose to do so. So the Robbo owner who put his faith in the RHC publication is going to inevitably feel disappointed.
Robinson opened up the market to privateers like me who couldn't have otherwise contemplated getting into the air. But when the marketing material encourages comparisons with car costs, I don't think owners and operators can be blamed for feeling sore when the components don't reach their advertised life limit, but it's the owner that is left to pick up the bill.
I've walked away from the idea of an R66 purchase simply because of the spectre of unscheduled maintenance based on the frequency of the Blade revisions. The 44 has been around a long time now, and they've changed their minds on the MR Blades often enough to for me to question whether the same thing is going to happen to the 66. I don't question who would have to foot the bill if it did.
The majority of argument on this thread seems to fall into two camps; those owners and operators who believe that the auto industry has a better record of paying for customer-safety recalls and directives than aircraft manufacturers, and those that don't think this is a valid comparison.
The fact is that certain helicopter manufacturers actively promote comparisons between operating a helicopter and a car, so it's hardly surprising that wider comparisons are made.
The subject of this thread, Robinson Helicopter are an example of this. For every model, they publish an estimated operating costs page. This suggests hourly reserves they feel appropriate for unscheduled maintenance and also compare the cost per mile flown with that cost per driven mile in a car.
Consider the Raven 2 estimated operating costs published by RHC. The reserve for unscheduled maintenance is suggested as $9:72 per hour. Over 2200 hours, this adds up to $21,384 total. Peekay4 at the very start of this thread writes that the estimated cost of the mandatory blade replacement is $30k-$100k per aircraft depending on the model. RHC could revise their publications to take account of the AD costs like blade replacements, etc, if they chose to do so. So the Robbo owner who put his faith in the RHC publication is going to inevitably feel disappointed.
Robinson opened up the market to privateers like me who couldn't have otherwise contemplated getting into the air. But when the marketing material encourages comparisons with car costs, I don't think owners and operators can be blamed for feeling sore when the components don't reach their advertised life limit, but it's the owner that is left to pick up the bill.
I've walked away from the idea of an R66 purchase simply because of the spectre of unscheduled maintenance based on the frequency of the Blade revisions. The 44 has been around a long time now, and they've changed their minds on the MR Blades often enough to for me to question whether the same thing is going to happen to the 66. I don't question who would have to foot the bill if it did.
Well reasoned post EWD, the last comment is the one I think others have missed or chose to ignore.
Other manufacturers have their own ways of distorting costs.
Other manufacturers have their own ways of distorting costs.