There are also rumours of a wheeled undercarriage four wheel drive version of the 44...

The R4x4

😜

Cran now I feel much safer:E

for additional design ideas for RHC, here is a (sadly) long forgotten thread that is full of brainwaves!

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/209...inson-r88.html

Landing light globe failures
 

I know that Robinson now offers LED-type landing lights. This question is about the traditional incandescent landing light globes (which in the case of a Raven II would be two 28V, 100W, General Electric GE4591 bulbs).

We feel that these globes fail too often. In all cases, the filament is 'gone', sometimes with, or sometimes without, black charring inside the glass. But never is the glass of the bulb imploded or cracked, nor does the circuit breaker ever trip.

I tried to search this Forum for advise but couldn't find any thread that has dealt with this matter. Hence my question: What is in your experience the typical failure rate of these globes in a R44? And has anybody identified specific operating conditions that cause those globes blow more often?

Fix wing people indeed report (in this Forum and elsewhere) frequently the same problem. Admittedly, a broken landing light seems to be a much bigger problem for a fix winger, during any night landing. Whereby arguably in a helicopter, landing lights are not needed for safe night operations, provided you operate to and from landing sites that are equipped with "night flying facilities", which again in many legislations is a minimum requirement for any night ops (however, in case of night autos a working landing light would be a great benefit ;) ).

We only started keeping accurate records of this 'routine' replacements recently. Over the past 300 flying hours (engine Hobbs) we had 11 blown bulbs, with any one globe failing between 20 and 120 HRS after its last replacement. This is flying time, and the actual time with lights ON would me much less, although the lights get switched ON once during daily preflight (with engine OFF) and occasionally during flight.

The average life of a given globe therefore is around 60 flying hours. Practically that means (as the a/c has two landing light globes) that in average every 30 HRS either one globe has to be changed. (Only once though we had that both globes were blown at the same time.)

Is that still normal? :ugh:

I was flying scenics out in central Australia and if left on they would blow after a few landings.

Engineer recommended turning them off on approach as they overheat in hot climates at low speeds.

The LED ones are loads better they should be standard fitment IMO.

Turn off the landing lights before setting the machine down. When hot, it seems that the filament is less able to withstand any shock from setting down with anything other than a feather-bed kiss of the ground.


Not limited to R44; OP notes fixed-wing comment and I fly EC120. I think the LED option is to be preferred.

...or get more practice at landing gently :E

Not possible with a machine used for initial training (R44) or one where you are not the only pilot (EC120 Charter work)

Hi john,
Is the led light not available for the 120 ?
Although £24 for the front light isn't the end of the world when u need one anyways....
Did you know the same light was fitted to the 1970,s masey furgesen tractor ........

Nelly

Nelly - totally off subject; but do you know which model Massey had the same bulb?

(My father in law is a tractor buff and is convinced helicopters are the work of the devil... be nice to show him a link!).

C.

John - surely a student would only need the landing lights on for landing once he/she had the experience to land gently?! And I don't see why different pilots in a 120 should make a difference :confused:


Re HID/LED landing for a 120; I'd be interested in one of those too!

May not be possible with the R44, however, in light airplanes, if the landing light is installed (rotated) so that the filament is vertical instead of horizontal, the life of the bulb is significantly extended.

Thanks EN48, will give this a try.

As you already said, this is not possible in the R44. The bulb has a nudge, and there is a matching gap in the fuselage. So there is only one orientation (which is exactly horizontal) the bulb can be installed.

Actually, Robinson doesn't offer LED landing lights. Even the latest R44's come out with High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps. LED is not an option, at least not on the RHC price list.

The conversion from incandescent to HID is possible, but it is not a 1-on-1 replacement, as an electronic ballast has to be installed.

Any experience how long those HID lasts in the field?

Try a Q4591 bulb. same bulb same size but is quartz halogen and has a flashlight type bulb inside the main glass...no flimsy filament to keep breaking. They are a lot more expensive (123.00 US Dollars) but they last for ever.

Edit: Its mfg by Whelen not G.E.

We had an engine overspeed on startup on R44 Raven2 ,normal cold start throttle closed,RPM went skyhigh .
Markings on fan nut out of line, technical intervention required.
Next on the same aircraft , cold engine starts the engine fires very good but when selecting clutch switch engine stops even before there is any movement of the blades.
Today on the same helicopter on warm start the RPM went very high again with throttle closed ,governor off,overspeed was just avoided.
Does anybody had simular experiences?

Sounds like you have some serious linkage problems on this one.
Better do a complete engine-throttle-mixture settings inspection.
Something moved there....

3top

Thanks, Paul, based on your feedback we shall now upgrade to HID. It is also exactly what Robinson replied a few days ago to my AMO on why they still don’t offer LED landing lights: They tested various LED lamps, none was as bright as the HID, and also they all were too hot.

I’d say, the latter is something to keep in mind when considering non-certified after-market LED upgrades.

Its funny when someone brings back a topic started almost twenty years ago. It makes me wonder what side I'd of been on if I had read it back then?

I know this page he speaks of, its in my POH, which I bought way back in 2002. Quite frankly it always seemed like common sense suggestions to me, but I started my training two years after this thread began, so,...?

I somtimes wonder though, if I'd feel any diferent about this issue, and my little buddy the R22, if I had begun my training in the 90's?

Sadly, Lu is no longer with us, but I have an autographed copy of his book "Finger Trouble", from his days as a rocket scientist.

Mostly a silent reader in the wings, I started teaching in R22s in 1998 with .7hrs in R22, that's right, point.7hrs, and 97 hours total helicopter time. Long before SFARs , and an add-on from FW requiring only 50hrs. in helos, 150TT. basically, a very low time pilot. With a wet CFI I manged to get a job where taught 320 hours in the left seat doing autos and other crazy stuff, before ever getting in the right seat which was actually for a photo flight. Now, I'm not the sharpest pilot out there, but I found that the R22 was a solid A/C to fly, even teaching in as long as it was Uber respected by the pilot. And over the last 33 years I have found that most of the accidents were indeed pilot error in some way. I did say most, as every model is in development in some way.

The R44 had a rough start. In 1994 I was the first CFI checked out from the factory with cert. "003" The checkout entailed little more than standing in the hanger with Doug D. going over a rough resemblance of a flight manual then going out and throwing the machine around the sky a bit to get the feel of it before repositioning it over to its new home at El monte airport with the owner and his son who were my students. Sadly, a couple of months later, the son, would succumb to his injuries along with his two young cousins when 50knts and 100 feet over the runway at EMT, the cyclic of their first production R44 would break from the floor sending them into a spiral dive onto the runway killing all thee instantly.

Because I can't post the link:Injuries:

3 Fatal

Flight Conducted Under:

Part 91: General Aviation - Personal

Analysis

THE PILOT AND TWO PASSENGERS DEPARTED IN THE HELICOPTER FROM THE APPROACH END OF RUNWAY 19. WITNESSES REPORTED THAT THE HELICOPTER ACCELERATED TO ABOUT 50 KNOTS AND CLIMBED TO BETWEEN 50 AND 100 FEET ABOVE THE RUNWAY. THEY SAID IT THEN SUDDENLY PITCHED DOWN, ROLLED TO THE RIGHT, AND CRASHED ON THE RUNWAY. AN EXAMINATION OF THE WRECKAGE DISCLOSED THAT IT HAD IMPACTED IN ABOUT A 35 DEGREE NOSE DOWN ATTITUDE AND A 30 DEGREE RIGHT BANK. THE HELICOPTER WAS DESTROYED BY IMPACT AND POST IMPACT FIRE; MANY OF THE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM COMPONENTS WERE FOUND FRACTURED AND/OR FIRE DAMAGED. THIS INCLUDED A FRACTURE AT THE LOWER END OF THE CYCLIC CONTROL (STICK) ASSEMBLY. METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION OF THIS FRACTURE REVEALED EVIDENCE OF FATIGUE. THE HELICOPTER, WHICH HAD BEEN CERTIFICATED IN DECEMBER 1992, HAD ACCUMULATED 174 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME SINCE BEING MANUFACTURED.
Location:

EL MONTE, CA

Accident Number:

LAX93FA311

Date & Time: 07/31/1993, 1349 PDT

Registration: N445RH

Aircraft: ROBINSON R44

Aircraft Damage: Destroyed

Defining Event:

Injuries: 3 Fatal

Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Personal

Analysis

THE PILOT AND TWO PASSENGERS DEPARTED IN THE HELICOPTER FROM THE APPROACH END OF RUNWAY 19. WITNESSES REPORTED THAT THE HELICOPTER ACCELERATED TO ABOUT 50 KNOTS AND CLIMBED TO BETWEEN 50 AND 100 FEET ABOVE THE RUNWAY. THEY SAID IT THEN SUDDENLY PITCHED DOWN, ROLLED TO THE RIGHT, AND CRASHED ON THE RUNWAY. AN EXAMINATION OF THE WRECKAGE DISCLOSED THAT IT HAD IMPACTED IN ABOUT A 35 DEGREE NOSE DOWN ATTITUDE AND A 30 DEGREE RIGHT BANK. THE HELICOPTER WAS DESTROYED BY IMPACT AND POST IMPACT FIRE; MANY OF THE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM COMPONENTS WERE FOUND FRACTURED AND/OR FIRE DAMAGED. THIS INCLUDED A FRACTURE AT THE LOWER END OF THE CYCLIC CONTROL (STICK) ASSEMBLY. METALLURGICAL EXAMINATION OF THIS FRACTURE REVEALED EVIDENCE OF FATIGUE. THE HELICOPTER, WHICH HAD BEEN CERTIFICATED IN DECEMBER 1992, HAD ACCUMULATED 174 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME SINCE BEING MANUFACTURED.

Probable Causeand Findings

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
FATIGUE FAILURE OF THE CYCLIC CONTROL (STICK) ASSEMBLY, WHICH RESULTED IN LOSS OF CYCLIC (PITCH & ROLL) CONTROL.

Rumors flew that it was pilot error due to his lack of experience as a pilot in general. Fortunately, the father with major tenacity and buttloads of money was able to prove his late son's innocence by making the NTSB complete their job. This machine was before hydraulics and beefing up the cyclic to that similar to a 206. After hating Frank Robinson for the neglect of his machine killing three young friends, I realized again, all models go through stages of development and for that, must be even more respected when flown. And especially when preflighting. If someone was to ask me my opinion about the R44 now after all it's revisions, I would say it's a good solid platform to fly, as many have proven long after me. The debate will on forever whether Robinson helicopters are safe or not, but the fact remains, 1000s have been sold and still fly successfully to this day, making helicopter flying more economical for many. As for the ongoing debate about them, don't ever stop. It's what keeps us safe and vigilant by continuing to talk about them..

Again, just another silent reader from the wings..

Safe flights always,

Kyle

FoF,

Excellent post.

If one stays in this industry long enough experiencing the loss of friends or those one knows well shall happen....helicopter flying as all of aviation involves risks and unforeseen problems that escape even the best engineers.