R44 crashed Alps
over some great secret hidden in some abstract paper I found on the internet, is considered "gash",...?
The answer to my question was - take the crosswind from the left (or the same side as your power pedal is). Why? Because weathercock effect (the desire for the aircraft to point into wind) will require non-power pedal to overcome, meaning a lower Tq demand and a reduction in power required (important at high AUM and high DA). If you take the wind from the non-power pedal side, you need more power pedal to stop the weathercock and therefore more Tq overall.
There, that wasn't too abstract was it?
Gash is an attitude of mind - it's the opposite of professional. A bit like a closed mind not willing to embrace new knowledge compared to one striving to learn and improve.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I think aa777888 found it and it is hardly abstract but you are too clever and knowledgeable to learn anything new....
The answer to my question was - take the crosswind from the left (or the same side as your power pedal is). Why? Because weathercock effect (the desire for the aircraft to point into wind) will require non-power pedal to overcome, meaning a lower Tq demand and a reduction in power required (important at high AUM and high DA). If you take the wind from the non-power pedal side, you need more power pedal to stop the weathercock and therefore more Tq overall.
There, that wasn't too abstract was it?
Gash is an attitude of mind - it's the opposite of professional. A bit like a closed mind not willing to embrace new knowledge compared to one striving to learn and improve.
The answer to my question was - take the crosswind from the left (or the same side as your power pedal is). Why? Because weathercock effect (the desire for the aircraft to point into wind) will require non-power pedal to overcome, meaning a lower Tq demand and a reduction in power required (important at high AUM and high DA). If you take the wind from the non-power pedal side, you need more power pedal to stop the weathercock and therefore more Tq overall.
There, that wasn't too abstract was it?
Gash is an attitude of mind - it's the opposite of professional. A bit like a closed mind not willing to embrace new knowledge compared to one striving to learn and improve.
Anyway, weathercocking is not a new phenomenon, nor is making decisions based on power limitations when hot, heavy, and high.
,..but thanks for the refresher.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I think aa777888 found it and it is hardly abstract but you are too clever and knowledgeable to learn anything new....
The answer to my question was - take the crosswind from the left (or the same side as your power pedal is). Why? Because weathercock effect (the desire for the aircraft to point into wind) will require non-power pedal to overcome, meaning a lower Tq demand and a reduction in power required (important at high AUM and high DA). If you take the wind from the non-power pedal side, you need more power pedal to stop the weathercock and therefore more Tq overall.
There, that wasn't too abstract was it?
Gash is an attitude of mind - it's the opposite of professional. A bit like a closed mind not willing to embrace new knowledge compared to one striving to learn and improve.
The answer to my question was - take the crosswind from the left (or the same side as your power pedal is). Why? Because weathercock effect (the desire for the aircraft to point into wind) will require non-power pedal to overcome, meaning a lower Tq demand and a reduction in power required (important at high AUM and high DA). If you take the wind from the non-power pedal side, you need more power pedal to stop the weathercock and therefore more Tq overall.
There, that wasn't too abstract was it?
Gash is an attitude of mind - it's the opposite of professional. A bit like a closed mind not willing to embrace new knowledge compared to one striving to learn and improve.
“The answer to my question was” paragraph .... at which point who knows what the 20 year experienced 5 minute tour flying pilot might respond with, we live in hope of something sensible....
Crab, the poor guy will take weeks to get his head around that, and after he figures out what “abstract “ really means he might want to contend with
“The answer to my question was” paragraph .... at which point who knows what the 20 year experienced 5 minute tour flying pilot might respond with, we live in hope of something sensible....
“The answer to my question was” paragraph .... at which point who knows what the 20 year experienced 5 minute tour flying pilot might respond with, we live in hope of something sensible....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: australia
Age: 60
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely John, the discussion has also encompassed criticism of Robinsons in general as being unsuitable for mountain flying by design and citing design as the main problem with Robinsons, as opposed to how they are sometimes flown. This discussion applies to all Robbies insofar as it‘s about people either flying an inappropriate design or poor airmanship being involved in many Robbie accidents.
I‘m in the poor airmanship camp.
I‘m in the poor airmanship camp.
I’d get in a 22 if I knew it’s history. Wouldn’t get me in another 44, I personally know 4 people who have lost their lives in those things,
but I thought that dude said that the trade-off of the left crosswind approach wasn't really as beneficial as those of you who prefer it think it is?
You can get caught out with a wind from the left if it is past the 9 o'clock position as the weathercock effect can push the nose round towards a downwind position - depends on the aircraft and its distribution of lateral surfaces fore and aft of the rotor mast.
The highest percentage of accidents are spinning right (US rotation) but not because of a left crosswind.
possibly, but if that’s the case they should not be used as a training aircraft or an aircraft for entry level pilots to build experience.
I’d get in a 22 if I knew it’s history. Wouldn’t get me in another 44, I personally know 4 people who have lost their lives in those things,
I’d get in a 22 if I knew it’s history. Wouldn’t get me in another 44, I personally know 4 people who have lost their lives in those things,
Robinson in fairness has the factory safety course, offered at a discount. And the SFAR73 regs require more time to qualify on the aircraft than equivalent types.There is nevertheless clearly a training deficit, as the kinds of accidents which befall R44s have a wearisome familiarity. As per previous posts, I believe more focus on performance and the flight envelope, together with targeted CRM could help.
For the record, I would prefer the R44 over an R22. It is a very capable aircraft and has much more energy in the rotor than the R22. Just be aware than when you fly at a higher TOM, the performance margins start to evaporate rapidly requiring good situational awareness.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, I would prefer the R44 over an R22. It is a very capable aircraft and has much more energy in the rotor than the R22.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I don't think that is what he says at all. There are some relative wind directions from the left where the MR vortex can be ingested by the TR and make heading control more difficult but otherwise left crosswind uses less pedal and less power than a right crosswind (US rotor rotation) as all their pedal curve graphs show.
You can get caught out with a wind from the left if it is past the 9 o'clock position as the weathercock effect can push the nose round towards a downwind position - depends on the aircraft and its distribution of lateral surfaces fore and aft of the rotor mast.
The highest percentage of accidents are spinning right (US rotation) but not because of a left crosswind.
You can get caught out with a wind from the left if it is past the 9 o'clock position as the weathercock effect can push the nose round towards a downwind position - depends on the aircraft and its distribution of lateral surfaces fore and aft of the rotor mast.
The highest percentage of accidents are spinning right (US rotation) but not because of a left crosswind.
Either way, the left crosswind preference seems more like a high altitude technique (which like lowering the carb heat on short final) just isn't necessary down here at sea level,...but then there are plenty of techniques which are best suited just for specific conditions.
I would agree that there are light helicopters better suited to training: the 269; Enstrom and G2, for example. But Robbies are inexpensive and ubiquitous, so they are going to be both used for training and bought for private use. That is the reality to be dealt with.
Robinson in fairness has the factory safety course, offered at a discount. And the SFAR73 regs require more time to qualify on the aircraft than equivalent types.There is nevertheless clearly a training deficit, as the kinds of accidents which befall R44s have a wearisome familiarity. As per previous posts, I believe more focus on performance and the flight envelope, together with targeted CRM could help.
For the record, I would prefer the R44 over an R22. It is a very capable aircraft and has much more energy in the rotor than the R22. Just be aware than when you fly at a higher TOM, the performance margins start to evaporate rapidly requiring good situational awareness.
Robinson in fairness has the factory safety course, offered at a discount. And the SFAR73 regs require more time to qualify on the aircraft than equivalent types.There is nevertheless clearly a training deficit, as the kinds of accidents which befall R44s have a wearisome familiarity. As per previous posts, I believe more focus on performance and the flight envelope, together with targeted CRM could help.
For the record, I would prefer the R44 over an R22. It is a very capable aircraft and has much more energy in the rotor than the R22. Just be aware than when you fly at a higher TOM, the performance margins start to evaporate rapidly requiring good situational awareness.
Having flown the Schweizer and Enstrom I can definitely agree that they are better suited for training (especially considering the R22 was not designed as a trainer). However, as a renter I am glad that I was able to rent an R22 all those years as it is far more fun to fly than any other small piston I have flown (including the R44).
I cannot speak of the Cabri as I cannot find justification in paying more for just another two seat piston Perhaps if it had air conditioning I'd pick it over the R22 (in the Summer) but come cooler weather I'd be right back in that cheaper (and tons of fun to fly solo) R22!
As for the R44, until another piston comes out with a back seat, it will remain the champion of the private market. That's just simple supply and demand.
I found the Schweizer to be rather sluggish in its control reponses,...not to mention its slow. I was only able to get them up to just over 70kts before hitting full throttle. These were CB and CBi models, so maybe the C is faster, but I doubt it would be any quicker.
The R22's instability (a fart can make it turn) may make training more difficult and hazardous, but when the training is over, that same instability makes it very responsive, quick, and agile.
In short, the Schweizer was like a paddleboat, the R22,..a jetski!
,...unless your idea of fun is mearly cruising at 70kts then diving the nose?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to back Robbie on this. My perspective is admittedly somewhat limited, I only have Cabri time to compare it to, but the Cabri is also relatively sluggish compared to the R22. The friction in the controls (Teflon sliders and all that), and the inertia in the main rotor disk, conspire to make the Cabri feel somewhat plodding. On the other hand, that's probably a good thing from a training perspective. I do very much enjoy having a sandwich during auto's in the G2 
With a very tiny bit of time in an EC130, it is easy to imagine that they wanted the G2 to feel a bit like that, also. So while pushovers in the G2 are fun, the R22 still feels much more sporty, flingable, faster, and motorcycle-like. Just keep those G's positive, and I would not recommend emulating any mustering pilot antics, either!
With a very tiny bit of time in an EC130, it is easy to imagine that they wanted the G2 to feel a bit like that, also. So while pushovers in the G2 are fun, the R22 still feels much more sporty, flingable, faster, and motorcycle-like. Just keep those G's positive, and I would not recommend emulating any mustering pilot antics, either!
The R22 may be faster and agile, and it also comes into balance easily. But the 269 needs more finesse to get properly in balance and fly nicely. Then it really is a joy to fly. The 269 also has a much broader safe envelope for flight exercises. There are many fundamental things that can be taught more effectively on it than on the Robbies making it a better trainer by a mile.
Either way, the left crosswind preference seems more like a high altitude technique
And it is just a choice to make your life easier rather than harder.
The R22 may be faster and agile, and it also comes into balance easily. But the 269 needs more finesse to get properly in balance and fly nicely. Then it really is a joy to fly. The 269 also has a much broader safe envelope for flight exercises. There are many fundamental things that can be taught more effectively on it than on the Robbies making it a better trainer by a mile.
,...and eventually you want to kick off the training wheels, and just have some fun! Which brings us back to the R22.
say what?
you need to spend more time in rigid head aircraft.
the muster guys also think its fun, but they’d prefer something safe AND fun, if the cost model permitted.
Hot and High the 22 is anything but fun. We never went much above 70kts, the vibration got a bit unpleasant from there onwards.
Still, we could at least get airborne, the Cabri could only manage one, light pilot and low fuel, that’s why they are limited to the coastal areas in these parts.
you need to spend more time in rigid head aircraft.
the muster guys also think its fun, but they’d prefer something safe AND fun, if the cost model permitted.
Hot and High the 22 is anything but fun. We never went much above 70kts, the vibration got a bit unpleasant from there onwards.
Still, we could at least get airborne, the Cabri could only manage one, light pilot and low fuel, that’s why they are limited to the coastal areas in these parts.
But the point I was making is that you can train in more depth on the 269 because the safe envelope is bigger. It is also much more fun to train on than an R22. I have quite a lot of instructional hours on both and there is simply no contest.
Robbies are easy to fly. And, of course, very easy to fly badly.
Last edited by Torquetalk; 7th Nov 2020 at 16:06.
For point-to-point flights and some light aerial work, the R22 is by some measure the better helicopter.
But the point I was making is that you can train in more depth on the 269 because the safe envelope is bigger. It is also much more fun to train on than an R22. I have quite a lot of instructional hours on both and there is simply no contest.
Robbies are easy to fly. And, of course, very easy to fly badly.
But the point I was making is that you can train in more depth on the 269 because the safe envelope is bigger. It is also much more fun to train on than an R22. I have quite a lot of instructional hours on both and there is simply no contest.
Robbies are easy to fly. And, of course, very easy to fly badly.
Train in more depth? How so?