R22 versatility
 

The R22 is a little more versatile than some would have you beleive......

http://www.helicopterpilotsguide.com/Podspray.jpg

Is this a mod to help prevent rollover?

Well spotted! - Synonymous with the training wheels I had on my bike ('til last year, got a sidecar for xmas and now it can only fall over one way!) :)

Is it a hover training aid?

Oh I get it now. It's the aerial for the new FM immune radio.

Its the really BIG rubber band mod we've heard so much about?

Keep 'em coming...I'm enjoying the ingenuity that goes into these replies!

Anyone that wants to be put out of their misery (!) need only visit helicopterpilotsguide.com and go to the section on 'Unusual products/services' to get chapter and verse.

The info will be posted soon but don't want to spoil the fun!

Maybe the functional equivalent of a fixed-wing yaw damper? It sure looks like it would help me hold an R22 nose straighter :)

A hedgetrimmer that does both sides of the road simultaneously?

It's a R22 working out with the equivalent of bumdbells, trying to become a R44.

[This message has been edited by Jed A1 (edited 12 March 2001).]

Very Best use for the R22
 

The perfect use for the R22, and no I don't mean mountain flying by top models!

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/R22atWork.jpg

The Hughes 300 can too :=




http://www.helicopter.is/anna_thora.jpg

:D
Heliport

Is that Whirly advertising her new Mountain Flying course ? :D

Picture #1: Hey, Missus, Don't lean back on the helicopter! Oh drat, too late, it's gone - anyone got a rope?



Actually, I thought this thread was going to be a bit like that book called: "101 uses for a Dead Cat" ...... :E

Nice photo. Shame to spoil it with the 22...:p :p :p

Top model finds R-22 suppository 'somewhat unwieldy'.

Eclipsed by the moon
 

Hiller beat Robinson and Hughes by many "moons"

See below

http://209.196.171.35/images/jod5.jpg

:E :E :E

I knew it. Them hillers'd scare the pants off anyone

Robbo Jock,

Feel free to keep spreading these rumours. I don't mind everyone thinking I look like that. :D ;)

The best use for an R22 is clearly on display at Blackbushe airport in Hampshire - it's a gate guard!

Before anyone asks. Yes, I have flown in a couple of these machines, yes I know it is probably soley responsible for the civil market being as busy & buoyant as it has been over the last 23 years in the UK (albeit with a few peaks & troughs!), but you won't catch me in another one - ever!

I think I see a crack in one of the floats (!)

The very best use for an R22 is to recycle it into something completely unconnected with aviation!:ok:

Very Best use for the R22
 

It seems a lot of people are giving the R22 a bit of a bashing (in the verbal sense). Would those that are , please give more positive feedback as to why. Have you for example had some scaries we dont know about and should.

Aww C'mon MPR, come across the pond and we'll skim along the shoreline, soaking up the sun . . .


. . . And if you are really nice, I'll take you over the Top Model Nude Beach . . . :=

My opinion is based on quite simple mathematics.....

I have a database, a large complicated, but probably interesting database to most people in this forum, some numbers taken from this database that might amaze you.....


There have been 414 R22 variants imported to the UK & registered on the G- Reg, since G-BISI was registered on 07-04-1981 by Sloane H/c.

Of these 69 have been cancelled as destroyed. This equates to 16.666% of them, or in other words for every 6 that get registered - 1 crashes & is destroyed beyond economical repair.

I haven't counted those that have been rebuilt, re-used or exported as spares after crashes. In other words - I have been generous.


If you want details...
R22 x 23 (8 Destroyed)
R22A x 13 (4 Destroyed)
R22B x 272 (51 Destroyed)
R22B2 x 88 (4 Destroyed)
R22HP x 10 (1 Destroyed)
R22M x 8 (1 Destroyed)


I do understand that the R22 has made the world of rotary flight more accessible to more people, we should all be thankful for that.

However, buy a Ferrari, throw caution to the wind & drive it wildly you might get scare yourself (and get a big repair bill). Buy an R22 & fly it like driving a Ferrari badly, different ball game. You won't be around to get the repair bill.

You wanted to know what the verbal bashing of the R22 was based upon, now you know.

Any questions, please ask.

RW-1 - sounds an excellent idea! Maybe a Notar would be better suited? Less noise = get closer!

Beyond any mechanical problems, an aircraft is only as safe as the pilot flying it.

How many of those we're mechanical failure, pilot error, and (in it's own catagory as it's such a spectacular waste of an aircraft) full down auto's?

I'd imagine few fall into the mechanical failure.....??

I'd agree that if you don't follow the rules, the 22 will (in all probablility) bite you in the arse. So follow the rules.

S.

To: Sarik

To my knowledge there has been only one Robinson helicopter lost due to the failure of a component. This does not include losses due to overtime components. The Robinson designs are very reliable.

It is the design of the helicopter (read rotorhead) that gets pilots in trouble. But then again I have said this before.

:E :E

Very Best use for the R22
 

Lu Zuckerman. I see from previous threads that you have the ability to instigate argument at the raising of an eyebrow. It is not my intention to draw you in to another round. I am interested in your opinoins on the R22 design and its alleged limitations. I am attempting to aquire statistics relating to incidents regarding these particular machines any input you can provide would be appreciated. private message if necessary. Thanks Bug

Sick of R22 Bashers
 

In the 20 yrs that I have been flying R22/R44 I have always noted something about the people that knock the R22, they invariably fly for others, mostly larger types and turbines. They fly for someone else their whole career. They never put their hand in their own pocket to go flying. In fact they get paid (and whinge its not enough) to go flying. The guys who would never get in a Robi have never had to make the choice of fly a Robi or nothing!!
I know of dozens of guys who would never had a license or gone on to bigger helicopters if they hadn't got a start mustering a 1000 hrs in a Robi.
Well for the last 2,500 hrs Ive paid for every hour, in 14 different Robi's with never a problem. The problem with R22 accidents is that people can't read and stay within the boundaries of the flight manual, and or persist in doing stupid things like to the ground auto's. Have a look at the low accident rates for those who do the safety courses, its all to do with application of knowledge.

MPR
Interesting but unusable stats at present.

Do you have the same breakdown for other helicopters used for the same purposes:

For instance:

Hughes 300s/ hillers

While these figures look worrying they don't actually tell us if there is a problem with R22s. They may turn out to be less destroyed than other types when used for the same purposes.

If you can get them include hours used.
(Those figures have occurred over 23 years - that may be a huge amount of flying for what turns out to be very few accidents)

RR

Think you would have to get details of all other small choppers first to get a true indication.
In other words ,how many of the opposition are used in training.
A big percentage of R22,s would be used for that in Pomland i reckon.That is when the biggest chance of wrecking them is.

The percentage of mechanical failures causing crashes wouldnt be to high.There has been out of hours parts cause a few but most are pilot error.

That 1 in 6 figure sounds ok.
I usually write off 1 car in every 6 i own

Looks like the southern hemisphere is full of Robbo fans - sorry to have upset so many of you!

I will do the research - can't do hours, but I do agree that it may be a low number of crashes related to flying hours. I would suspect that the R22\Hughes 269 will be more of a comparison that the R22\Hiller. In the UK the Hiller was used extensively for lifting & crop spraying, both not comparible (in my humble opinion) to training - i.e. it's even more dangerous! (albeit with far more experienced pilots).

I haven't slated the R22 per say, I have drawn a concluson that it might be a victim of it's own success. People with enough money to buy a Ferrari or Aston or Maserati or Porsche etc.., can (and sometime do) buy R22's & fly them (in some cases) badly, resulting in accidents because those new pilots think they can treat an R22 (which is accessible to them) like a mode of transport they are used to dealing with - the car. Which is probably as far from reality as you can get.

My point was it IS personal preference, I won't fly in an R22. I don't have a PPL(H) yet through personal choice. I will embark on a PPL(H) in the next couple of years - it might well be in an R44, it might even be in a turbine.

Like the man said

" Its not that the Robbo's are dangerous ....its the people that fly them!!"

Have I missed something in my previous posts that is personally offensive?

Don't recall saying I hadn't ever flown anything...... Well, I have flown an R22 on a few occassions (as well as B206, B47, AS350 & H500).

I have been fascinated by these machines since I was a kid when the UK AAC used to use my parents house as a marker (big red roof at 51:12:45N, 1:26:10W). Any ex AAC pilots want to confirm my suspicions?

I have seen thousands of aircraft doing lots of things all over the world. I have seen a lot of normal flights, take-offs & landings. I've also seen some terrible take-off's & even worse landings, I've even hidden behind large metallic or wooden objects to shield myself from impending doom & disaster on a few occassions!

But none of this experience or opinion counts because I don't have a license?

Dull world if people with a bit of related experience & knowledge can't share an opinion about a subject in which they are interested.

If all you deal with is facts, kiss this forum goodbye & go read your books & don't tell another soul what you have learnt - if you do beware - it might turn into a discussion in which people with less knowledge than you actually say something, or worse still, you might find someone who has MORE knowledge than you - amazing, but distinctly possible.

Next time I hear of an R22 crash in the UK I'll come & find you, maybe you can tell me what caused it? Seeing as you have flown an R22 more than me & you actually have a PPL(H), clearly you will know far more than a mere [pretentious] enthusiast like me.

As you are clearly several steps ahead of me, maybe you could tell me the Lotto numbers for next week so I can go buy a 120? :ok:

I own a helicopter school in the USA exclusively using Bell 47's. I could operate R22's much cheaper than the Bells. However, I am not convinced that a helicopter that requires extraordinary reaction times to lower the collective in the event of an engine failure, or that requires a special chapter in the CFR's or requires CFI's to have special training is completely safe. There are other reasons, my instructors and I are not slim. I say muscular and toned but the result is we are all about 200 - 230 lbs. We have no problem at all with weight with full fuel. In fact we have one or two students over 300 lbs and that is still within limits.

We routinely train our students full touchdown autorotations. I suppose our instructors do 5 to 20 full touchdowns a day. In 22 years doing this at my school never had a problem, never damaged anything.

If you think the R22 is safe, I'll make a bet with you. You fly alongside me in my Bell 47 in your R22 and we will chop the throttle together. I bet you drop the collective first by a long, long way! We'll do it in the climb to make it more interesting if you like.

We think the Bells are safe and we like them. They always cause a stir when we fly and I will operate them as long as I can but in any event we won't be operating the R22. My personal choice.

Good luck to you if you like the R22, that is your choice.

Regards,

Chopperpilot47

RE: If you think the R22 is safe, I'll make a bet with you. You fly alongside me in my Bell 47 in your R22 and we will chop the throttle together. I bet you drop the collective first by a long, long way! We'll do it in the climb to make it more interesting if you like.

By betting me "Who drops the collective first" proves what?

There is no question that the loading in B47 is greater than a R22, in the event of an engine failure, you'll be going the same way as me & it ain't up regardless of what type of helicopter you fly alongside me!

RE: Good luck to you if you like the R22, that is your choice.

My choice is my B206, however the Robinson helicopters have been good to me and 1000's more around the World...

I think the bottom line is here, it's all about choice!

Trouble with this debate (and each of the previous versions (of which there have been many) is they generate a lot of heat and not much light.

Chopperpilot47

If your pilot weights etc are as stated than there really isn't any need to debate further. Its "horses for courses" and no amount of other good and bad is relevent. It would be like debating whether a moped is better than a Ute (Pick-up truck to you USA'ers) and then saying you need to carry a half ton of bricks.

The response time for autos is quick but not really lightning-speed. Many of the height-velocity curve points were derived from hover with a one second delay. I grant you its faster than a 47 but in a 47 you could read a book and have a scratch before you even noticed you needed to auto. I wish the R22 was like it but it ain't.

The other side is the R22 goes further, faster, cheaper and (opinion only) looking much nicer ;)

MPR

I forgot to mention I know for a fact that at least two of those R22s lost were events which didn't occur because they were R22s - 2 wirestikes - I've seen the videos of the crashes taking place

I don't know how many (if any others) were wire strikes etc.

Since the early days robinson have changed the design and added tip weights and made governor use compulsory and that has supposedly removed some of the early problems. So in effect its a slightly different machine now.

RR

In reference to Lu Zuckermans posting above where he says there has only been one accident due to the failure of a part on the R-22. Either that was a sarcastic remark or he wasnt aware of Frasers accident in Sydney.

Anyone care to comment.

Autorotate.

Auto

Lu was refering to failures of components that had not exceded their life. I think the one in Sydney had?

Ok, fair enough.

Autorotate.