Robinson cyclic

[Michael Gee]

A little late in the day to be asking but - What other registered/licenced helicopter uses the shared Cyclic system ?
also who knows where Spunk might be ? - please to both Qs. Michael G

[In India]

1. None
2. Spunk is alive and kicking. He has better things do do in life than hanging around on the net.

[RotorKraft]

a broken handlebar, stolen from a crashed bicycle = the (so called) cyclic from a Krapinson, the perfect fit

[Nubian]

Originally Posted by RotorKraft

a broken handlebar from a crashed bicycle = the (so called) cyclic from a Krapinson, the perfect fit

I always wonder if the pilots of the Beavers, Otter, Twin Otter consider those designs substandard to the ‘’real’’ flight controls of other types in the same way as pilots have such hate against the Robinsons cyclic design?

Although the Robinsons are not my favourite by far (for a number of other reasons) fact is that despite this design, they are one of the most sold helicopters in the world….

In my hours in them, I can’t remember any instance that I blame on the cyclic design. Actually it makes entry and exit a lot easier than any of the types I’ve flown.

[RMK]

Originally Posted by Nubian

I always wonder if the pilots of the Beavers, Otter, Twin Otter consider those designs substandard to the ‘’real’’ flight controls of other types in the same way as pilots have such hate against the Robinsons cyclic design?
.

I Agree. From a physics or ergonomics perspective, it makes zero difference even if it followed the form a “children’s silly straw” shape from cockpit attachment point to your hand.

This seems to only be of concern to psychologically insecure pilots on web forums.

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by Nubian

I always wonder if the pilots of the Beavers, Otter, Twin Otter consider those designs substandard to the ‘’real’’ flight controls of other types in the same way as pilots have such hate against the Robinsons cyclic design?
.

Pilots may hate the design, but my plums certainly appreciate it.

[Wide Mouth Frog]

It's interesting. The cyclic setup never bothered me, but I did have one event that made me think a bit about whether it was appropriate. One of my best students ever was a digger driver who had absolutely no problem separating hands and feet, which as we all know is a core skill for drummers, organists and helicopter drivers as well. We were in the circuit in a 22 with about five hours total on the clock and he was doing stunningly well. A gust caught us and we rolled to the left. He completely caught me by surprise by pulling the cyclic towards his knees rather than to the right laterally, and as a result he exacerbated the left roll. I wondered at the time whether such actions might have explained some mast bumping experiences in Robinsons.

[212man]

Originally Posted by Wide Mouth Frog

It's interesting. The cyclic setup never bothered me, but I did have one event that made me think a bit about whether it was appropriate. One of my best students ever was a digger driver who had absolutely no problem separating hands and feet, which as we all know is a core skill for drummers, organists and helicopter drivers as well. We were in the circuit in a 22 with about five hours total on the clock and he was doing stunningly well. A gust caught us and we rolled to the left. He completely caught me by surprise by pulling the cyclic towards his knees rather than to the right laterally, and as a result he exacerbated the left roll. I wondered at the time whether such actions might have explained some mast bumping experiences in Robinsons.

Sorry , I don’t get the layout reference? Why would his reaction be different with a conventional cyclic stick?

[PPRuNeUser469990]

It's an awful design, I hate it,

[Ascend Charlie]

It never worried me, very quickly got used to holding it with my arm in the air and student following through with hand resting on leg.

Sometimes I would "sidestick" by using the central prong and let the handlebars flop around. My long legs appreciated not having to clamber around the floor-mounted cyclic of other choppers.

[Wide Mouth Frog]

Well it's got a degree of freedom that normal cyclics don't have.

[Bell_ringer]

That T config was an abomination, the perfect blend of fugly and cheapness.
It always just felt a bit weird, maybe it was the central pivot that did that.
A cherry on a design that was never going to win any beauty contests.
Don't get me wrong, without it, the barrier to rotary flying would have remained too high for many, but it was happy days to graduate onto something a bit more conventional.

[RotorKraft]

Originally Posted by Nubian

I always wonder if the pilots of the Beavers, Otter, Twin Otter consider those designs substandard to the ‘’real’’ flight controls of other types in the same way as pilots have such hate against the Robinsons cyclic design?

Although the Robinsons are not my favourite by far (for a number of other reasons) fact is that despite this design, they are one of the most sold helicopters in the world….

In my hours in them, I can’t remember any instance that I blame on the cyclic design. Actually it makes entry and exit a lot easier than any of the types I’ve flown.

there are vastly more important considerations over; 'ease of egress'

[Hughes500]

As an instructor having your hand some 9 inches off your leg is awful, one of the many reasons the 300 is a considerably better teaching helicopter

[Nubian]

there are vastly more important considerations over; 'ease of egress

Do tell, on topic.

Originally Posted by Hughes500

As an instructor having your hand some 9 inches off your leg is awful, one of the many reasons the 300 is a considerably better teaching helicopter

Although the models have been vastly used for training, the intention was not as a training helicopter. If this had been such a selling point for the H300/S300, we would probably seen bigger numbers of them, and Robinson reconsidering it’s design, no?? It’s a technique as and instructor, which is not that hard to get used to, and you do not hold your hand in that position throughout the students training program.

There was an STC (SR9BO) developed by a company called Altair (not longer in business) for modifying the R-22 to a conventional cyclic setup which looked like the MD900 design. Never made it to the R44 and did not become a sales hit in the R22 either.

As I said in my previous post, the Robinson products are far from my favourite, but I find this specific discussion straight out silly.

[PPRuNeUser469990]

https://helicopterforum.verticalrefe...er-cyclic-mod/

[[email protected]]

I do wonder if not being able to follow through on the controls closely (either with your arm in the air or holding the centre upright) has been a factor when mast bumping has destroyed the aircraft during autos and PFLs when converting FW pilots to RW - an engine failure in a FW normally elicits a forward control movement in a FW, not what you want in a teetering head RW when the lever is dumped.

[The Nr Fairy]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I do wonder if not being able to follow through on the controls closely (either with your arm in the air or holding the centre upright) has been a factor when mast bumping has destroyed the aircraft during autos and PFLs when converting FW pilots to RW - an engine failure in a FW normally elicits a forward control movement in a FW, not what you want in a teetering head RW when the lever is dumped.

I'm not sure that's too much of a factor, TBH. You can follow through perfectly well with the Robinson style cyclic, and the input is the critical thing. The instinctive "forward stick" needs training out of any FW pilot going to RW, irrespective of the rotor head design. I do agree that a teetering head makes that initial reaction a lot more critical to maintain RRPM and avoid low g.

[Nubian]

Originally Posted by hargreaves99

https://helicopterforum.verticalrefe...er-cyclic-mod/

Yep, that’s the one. Only seen one machine with it installed, and the owner trading it in at the factory late 90’s for a new R44 resulting a 15k USD cut in the pre-agreed trade-in price, due to the installation.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I do wonder if not being able to follow through on the controls closely (either with your arm in the air or holding the centre upright) has been a factor when mast bumping has destroyed the aircraft during autos and PFLs when converting FW pilots to RW - an engine failure in a FW normally elicits a forward control movement in a FW, not what you want in a teetering head RW when the lever is dumped.

I am more concerned about the MR head design, where instead of one teetering hinge like on the Bell and Hiller models, you have 3 that can cause the 2 blades to flop around independently from the MR main hinge in a low G setting such as turbulence.

Having had the questionable pleasure of training an ex F104 pilot in the R22, I know how close you want to be on the controls and how low the RRPM actually can get without ending up as a black mark. Thankfully many years ago….

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by RotorKraft

there are vastly more important considerations over; 'ease of egress'

Yep, the first one was to keep the weight down, and the other to make the cyclic less sensitive by allowing more travel for the stick itself than it would have in between your legs.