|
Robinson R44
I received the following email from Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB:
Dear Mr. Zuckerman: The page from the R44 Pilot's Operating Handbook that you are referring to resulted from Safety Board recommendations A-94-143 and A-95-1 through -7 to the Federal Aviation Administration. As a result, the FAA issued Priority Letter Airworthiness Directive 95-02-03. This AD required operators to insert an update page in the end of the Normal Procedures section of the POH. This update page contained information intended to prevent loss of main rotor control. The AD was sent to all owners, operators, and pilots for compliance. The Robinson Helicopter Company did not publish the page, so it would not have a page number in the Robinson Helicopter Company POH. Since the issuance of the recommendations, there have been two additional Robinson Helicopter accidents in the U.S. involving main rotor loss of control. On October 26, 1998, an R22 crashed in Littlerock, California, and on August 18, 2000, another R22 crashed in Watsonville, California. In addition, there have been four similar accidents outside the U.S. and the possibility that a recent accident in Denmark that may be related. The Safety Board will send a representative to assist in that investigation later this month. In light of these events, we will be reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective action taken by the FAA and other airworthiness authorities. Additional recommendations may be forthcoming. Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. -----Original Message----- From: Lu Zuckerman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Follow up to email regarding page from Robinson Helicopters POH Dear Mr. Hall, About a month age I sent you a copy of a report I had submitted to the NTSB in 1996. This was several days after a Robinson helicopter lost its' rotor in an accident in California. A day or so later you sent me an email telling me that you had turned the report over to four of your investigators whom I assume were assigned to the California accident. The page I sent in the email preceding this one comes from a Robinson R44 Pilots' Operating Handbook. Contrary to FAA procedures the page is unnumbered and there is no indication of it being a part of the book as indicated in the LOG OF PAGES APPROVED BY FAA TYPE CERTIFICATE NO. H10WE. This is mandatory as it indicates what the FAA has signed off as the operating instructions for the helicopter. The same situation exists in the R22 POH. I have been participating in a forum called Pprune or, Professional Pilots Rumour Network which has a subset called Rotorheads. In the Rotorhead forum I have offered the report to interested helicopter pilots. About 60 of them requested the report and after an appropriate period I started getting feed back. Most of the pilots told me that the page I sent you was not in their POHs for the R22 and the R44. A lot of them indicated that they quite often flew outside of the restricted envelope referenced in the unnumbered page and some from Australia stated that in mustering cattle they almost always flew outside of the restricted envelope. Now I am getting feedback that the restrictions are only suggestions and have no weight because they are not indicated as a warning. Not following the specific instructions can lead to high flapping loads resulting in mast separation . This is especially true for flying out of trim and sideslipping the helicopter. The wording is such that the pilots that do have the page don't pay any attention and those that do not have the page just keep on trucking until the have an accident. I would think that the FAA should take the necessary action to have the page properly registered as an approved page and that the page be numbered and included in the Normal Procedures section (4) of the two POHs. As it stands now, the page is unnumbered and is placed as the last page of section 4 of the POH. The UK CAA has requested the report and have indicated that they are checking why this page is not included in the POHs of UK registered Robinson Helicopters. One of the respondents to my postings in the forum indicated that he specifically asked the Robinson Pilot who was instructing a safety seminar in the UK about the restrictions relative to side slip and out of trim flight and the Robinson pilot told the student that there were no such restrictions. I honestly think the NTSB is missing the boat on the Robinson problems. The highway safety board is having a field day because of defective tires. There have been 32 Robinson helicopters lost due to rotor separation and many more lost for unexplained reasons. Both types of failures are covered in my report. Speaking about the report, I have made several additions to include a diagram that will help explain several points made in the body of the report. I have added two comments/notes and they are easy to recognize as they are in bold type. I am sending you a copy of the amended report. With warm regards, S L Zuckerman RMS Engineering Dear Mr. Hall, Thank you for your recent email regarding the unnumbered page in the R22 and R44 Pilots Operating Handbook. Robinson did in fact publish the contents of the FAA Priority Letter dated 13, January 95. In doing so, it became a permanent entry into the handbook and as such (per FAA regs) should have a number and be noted in The LOG OF PAGES APPROVED BY FAA TYPE CERTIFICATE NO XXXXX (R22 AND R44). Even if it was not a requirement to number the page the problem still exists that this information was not promulgated very well outside of the United States. I had email contacts with around fifty pilots in the UK and Australia that indicated that they had never seen the page nor, were they aware of the FAA Priority Letter that set the operational restrictions in place. When I made reference to the restrictions I was told that they operated the helicopters outside of the restrictions on just about every flight. The page was published on the internet and the pilots were advised to check it out. They then argued that since the wording did not specifically state that sideslip and out of trim flight were forbidden that they said there was no weight behind the recommendations. I contacted the UK CAA safety office and they stated that they were looking into why the page was not included in all POHs for the R22 and R44 helicopters registered in the UK. The CAA is also presently investigating the large number of small helicopter accidents including those involving R22s and R44s and I assume they will see if there is any relation of these accidents to the material covered in my report. I can't emphasize this point too much. There is a problem with the Robinson rotorhead design that can cause these accidents. There is also a major problem with the rigging procedure of the R22 and R44 that can lead to blade stall and mechanical binding in the flight control system. The above attached report is the same one I sent to you but I have added a diagram and two passages in BOLD TYPE. Finally, if your investigators do not consider the points I made in my report I will guarantee that they will never get to the bottom of the problem. In saying that, I will make you an offer. I normally get paid for my services but if your organization will bring me down to your facilities in Washington and pay the transportation and living expenses for two days I will explain to your investigators exactly what they should be looking for. At the same time I will go through my report and explain why the R22 and R44 should have never been certificated. With warm regards, S L Zuckerman RMS Engineering ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).] [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).] See also ..... Robinson Technical Questions |
Keep up the good work - You do have some supporters!
|
I received this message via email:
Posted Oct 15th, 2,ooo A helicopter plunged 50 feet and crashed onto busy Pines Boulevard in Pembroke Pines on Saturday, killing the two people aboard and terrifying dozens of motorists. The pilot, 46-year-old Barbara McKinley of Pembroke Pines, died en route to a hospital, and a passenger in the helicopter, 50-year-old Brian Auerbach, also of Pembroke Pines, died on impact. McKinley was an experienced pilot who had flown corporate planes for Burdines, said her fiancé, Ken Michaelis. He said she took Auerbach, a neighbor, up for his first helicopter flight Saturday. Michaelis said she called right before taking off and told him to stay home because she was going to fly over his home in Southwest Ranches. Michaelis went outside with his two daughters a little later and waved to McKinley as she circled. "She buzzed about four or five times, waving at us, and then headed to Miami,'' Michaelis said. "We were going to get together later in the day.'' Witnesses said the chopper, a Robinson R22 Beta, swayed back and forth minutes before dropping onto Pines Boulevard about noon, narrowly missing motorists. "I could tell it was in trouble by the way it sounded. It didn't seem like he had any power -- he was definitely having some kind of mechanical problems,'' said David Mayer, who was jogging along Pines Boulevard when the crash occurred. "I was sitting at the intersection on the phone and heard a helicopter really low,'' said Kristi Krueger, an anchor with WPLG-ABC 10 who lives in Pines. "I saw it listing from side to side and said to my mom, `Oh, my God, I'm going to get hit! ' then it swerved down south on Pines Boulevard and crashed.'' The red and white two-seater helicopter took off from Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport at about 11:30 p.m., said Corky Smith, senior investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board, who was at the scene Saturday. The helicopter is owned by Volar Helicopters at the airport. Smith said the pilot was a certified instructor and it was a "routine flight.'' FLYING LOW Witnesses told Smith the chopper approached Pines Boulevard, flying south at a low altitude. The chopper was swaying back and forth and, at the intersection of Pines Boulevard and Northwest 155th Avenue, yawed to the left and headed east, Smith said. Seconds later, the helicopter dropped from the sky and crashed. "I saw the helicopter coming and it looked like it was in trouble. It was swerving all over the place and it seemed like the tail flipped,'' said Andy Gonzalez, owner of an Exxon gas station at the intersection. "He was really flying low and it looked like she was trying to veer to the left and land in the lake but she couldn't make it. It's amazing no one was killed and that she missed the traffic lights.'' The chopper hit the road with a resounding boom, sending pieces of the tail across several lanes. Some were found up to 50 feet away. The windshield shattered and the blades of the rotor were bent and twisted underneath the mangled frame. Fuel began leaking across the highway. According to the R22 Pilot and Owners Association, the Robinson R22 is one of the most popular training helicopters in the world. In 1995, the NTSB recommended that R22s be grounded because of 26 fatal accidents in which the main rotor hit the airframe during flight. Those were the total fatal accidents involving the R22 since its inception in 1979. (NOTE: This statement is misleading as it addresses only rotor loss and rotor incursion accidents and even then the figure is wrong. The correct figure at last count is 32). (LuZ) As a result of the NTSB recommendations, the Federal Aviation Administration issued revised airworthiness directives for the R22. Those directives are the operating procedures required by the FAA. Among other things, the FAA required R22 pilots to avoid high and low air speeds and maintain maximum power on RPM. `STEEP DESCENT' "It had to have been a steep descent because it went under the traffic lines,'' said Armando Orraca, a commercial pilot who lives in the Towngate subdivision on the north side of Pines Boulevard. "It's amazing it didn't burst into flames, really amazing.'' Cars headed east minutes after the wreck swerved off the road to avoid hitting the debris. Passersby jumped from their vehicles and ran to try to help the two people strapped inside. Auerbach was dead. The pilot, McKinley, was moving and breathing, witnesses said. They unstrapped her, pulled her out and Mayer began administering CPR until medics arrived. She was rushed to Memorial Hospital West but was pronounced dead on arrival. "It flew over my head at about 50 feet and then crashed,'' said Mayer, a lieutenant colonel with the Southern Command in Miami. "I ran over there and both passengers were still strapped inside.'' The westbound lanes of Pines Boulevard from Interstate 75 to Northwest 155th Avenue were closed for more than four hours while NTSB investigators inspected the wreckage and questioned witnesses. At about 5 p.m., the aircraft was hauled away and the road opened. "All of us who work around here call this intersection the `intersection of death,' '' Gonzalez said. "There's always wrecks at this corner and someone dying. We've never had a helicopter crash before, though.'' I read this news on sunday miami herald.. __________________________________________________ [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).] |
R44 enquiry
as a total helo novice, what is the R44 like as a machine
i believe they are supposed to be cheap and reliable any comments and a price in aussie dollars (or otherwise)is appreciated also if many people have dual fixed/rotary licenses and their opinion on the differences i'm one of those fixed wing chappies |
hi huntsman,
If you want lots of info on the R44 go to www.robinsonheli.com . There you'll find everything you want to know. I must say though, i got a flight in a new R44 Raven today, and (as everyone else says) the hydraulics make such a difference. im not too sure about the price but it should tell you on the website. Hope this helps a little bit http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif *Update*: I've just checked and the basic price for an R44 Raven is US$294,000 [This message has been edited by piloteddy (edited 21 October 2000).] |
Sure the R44 Raven feels better with hydraulic boost. Now you don't get the vibratory feedback, However, the feedback forces are still there but they are prevented from getting into the control system by the servos. If in redesigning the flight control system to incorporate the boost cylinders, they did not compensate for the trapped vibratory (push-pull loads) by beefing up the upper controls, that will be their next set of problems. At the least, wear on the push pull bearings and on the pitch link bearings will be accelerated and at the worst, one of the linkage elements can fail. It can also effect the monoball in the swash plate by accelerating wear and cause it to fail or at least have to be replaced due to excessive wear.
Here is a suggestion for those of you that fly or work on the R44 Raven. Check the part numbers of all of the elements above the servos. Swashplate,Pitch links and pitch horns. If they are different from those on the R44 Basic then I stand corrected. If they are the same then look for problems down the line. Also, check to see if the attaching structure for the bottom end of the servos has been modified to take the pounding loads transmitted through the fixed servo. They had similar problems when they put servos on the Bell 47 and replaced the irreversibles in the flight control system. :rolleyes: ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).] [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).] |
Dont let Lu put you off. Robbo's are great machines. Unfortunately he has a grudge against them, and i think that he is trying to get everyone else on his bandwagon too.
:mad: |
To: PilotEddy
32 years as a senior Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Engineer and an involvement with helicopters since 1949 when your father was a small boy allow me to make comments like those above. I don't have a grudge against Robinson Helicopters, I am a supporter of flight safety. If you had ever logged onto the Just Helicopters website you would know that I have made some really bad comments about Bell, Boeing and Hughes Helicopters (AH-64). All of those comments were made from having worked on those programs and for most of the major builders of helicopters. I have never worked on or flown in a Robinson Helicopter but my technical background gives me the authority to make the statements that I have made in this forum and in the Just Helicopters forum. From where I sit you are defending the Robinson Line out of some sort of loyalty and not from an understanding of what I said in my above posting. ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).] |
Well, I may not have flown R22/ R44s in 1949, but after flying both types quite extensively, I have to say that not once did I have trouble (well, that's not quite true, I had a flat battery once).
Lu, there is one question I already wanted to ask you previously. It seems that you are very much after Robinson and the FAA for certifying the aircraft- you consider it a huge mistake. How come that other contries, incl. Canada, the UK, etc. etc. have certified the same basic design without any significant differences in the flight envelope? Just curious. According to you they all should be corrected then. |
Dear Tilt,
Read my posting titled The missing page, R22 and R44, A view from the top. As I type this posting the problem as to why the page did not appear in POHs in the UK and OZ is being investigated by the CAA and the NTSB. According to the message to me from Jim Hall chairman of the NTSB, the FAA and Robinson were required to notify all owners and operators of the material on the so called "missing page" and the information was to be entered into the POHs for the R22 and the R44. As far as the certification by Canada, The UK and Australia is concerned If the helicopter is certified by the FAA the other certification authorities will in most cases rubber stamp the certification for use in their respective countries. If they don't rubber stamp it they may run a few performance tests to verify operational limits or performance characteristics but not much more. The real problem is why the information about the restrictions in the performance characteristics was never widely circulated when the FAA required Robinson to do it. ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).] |
Unless someone acknowledges reading this post I'll never know if anyone is reading it or for that matter is even interested in the contents of the post.
------------------ The Cat |
Lu,
I have been quietly following your threads. There is undoubtedly more than a little truth in what you say with regard to the safety of these machines. Like I said before, I flew one (just once) in the mid-1980's when I was asked to help set up a small flying school. I decided not to continue as I did not feel that the aircraft was suitable as a training aircraft. Frank Robinson himself later said the same. Looks like I made a good decision. Many of the pilots lost to these aircraft have been very experienced. I am not really surprised by the loyalty to the R-22 shown by some pilots on this forum. It's quite normal for a pilot to consider the aircraft he flies to be the best thing in the skies, especially if he has little experience of anything else, more so if it hasn't bitten him yet. |
Lu
Keep up the postings, I rejected a flight in an R22 many years ago out of a gut feeling that it just doesn't look right! and I have never felt the need to get in one since. Keep at it... |
Lu, I disagree, I would rather say that the real question here also is that if the design really is so terrible wrong, I say again, WHY WAS THE AIRCRAFT CERTIFIED IN MANY COUNTRIES WITHOUT QUESTIONS ASK?
I know the rubber stamping procedures, but according to all your details it just doesn't sound right. |
Dear tilt,
Check the POH on page ii and you will see that the certification signoff for the R22 and by definition the R44 was granted by the Manager, Flight Test Branch of the Transport Airplane Directorate which is based in Seattle. I ask you, what the hell do these people know about helicopters? The helicopter certification branch is in Fort Worth, Texas. Most certification Authorities have a lot of tallented people that are technically qualified to do their jobs. On the other hand they have a lot of technical dim bulbs that are not qualified for their positions but governments being what they are these people stay on. First of all, Frank Robinson was the DER for some time during certification. This is against FAA regs and both the FAA and NTSB were aware of it. Could it be that he, being the great persuader, convinced the FAA that all of the tests were done and in doing so proved to the FAA that his design was certifiable. Nobody knows and nobody is talking. All of the players have a vested interest in keeping quiet. The FAA can't admit that there are problems in the design as to do so they would have to admit to making a major error in granting certification. And Robinson Helicopters certainly not going to admit anything. This in legal terms is called conflict of interest and would make the participants legally culpable. Now I want to give you a practical illustration of the calibre of the technical capabilities of members of the CAA, DGCA and the LBA. The following took place in the eighties. The following was a post I made on the Tech Log thread I was visiting the IASA web site and read several articles dealing with the incompetence of FAA personnel and how they didn’t let that incompetence stop them from forcing an airline out of business. I had an experience with similar incompetence when I worked on the Airbus program. As senior RMS engineer for a German company that was the lead contractor on the flap / slat drive system design I had to attend a design review meeting at the home facility of our English design partner. The purpose of the meeting was to make a final determination about the run of the hydraulic lines that powered the wing tip brakes. Another part of the design review was to determine if it was necessary to incorporate anti flail guards on the slat drive system. The Integration contractor from Germany and the English wing designer were in favor of running the lines along the front spar as this would simplify the tubing run and it would be cheaper. To prove their design philosophy they had the English partner of the German firm conduct a test. The test consisted of an electrical drive motor connected to a Hook’s joint that was attached to a short section of the slat drive shaft. This short shaft was supported by a live center to allow shaft rotation and the live center could also be disconnected to allow the shaft to fall as if it suffered a mechanical disconnect. They filmed the entire test and presented it to the meeting attendees. In attendance were representatives of the CAA, the LBA and the DGCA. In the film, the shaft was brought up to design speed of about 1400 RPM. When the shaft was disconnected the shaft fell to an angle of about 20 to 30 degrees off of the drive line center. The shaft continued to rotate and it did not flail. They showed several tests filmed from different angles and each time the shaft fell and continued to rotate with out flailing. With that the certification authorities along with the wing designer and the integration contractor stated that it was not necessary to provide anti flail guards and that the hydraulic lines could be routed along the front spar. Case closed. Or, was it. After the presentation I asked my English counterpart to step out side. I asked him if he thought there was something wrong with the test and he agreed with me that the shaft should have started to flail after dropping several degrees off drive center due to lock –up of the hooks joint. We went back into the meeting room and every one was congratulating each other. We asked the test engineer to come outside with us. In the hall, we asked him about the test and why the Hooks joint didn’t lock up. He stated that he didn’t use a Hooks joint because the German design firm would not provide one due to a shortage and that they were behind in their delivery schedule to the integration contractor. We asked him what he had used in place of the Hooks joint and he told us that he had used a shaft and coupling from (If I remember correctly) a BAC 111 which used constant velocity joints. If my counterpart and I were not in that meeting the A310 would have the hydraulic lines routed along the front spar and there would be no anti flail guards. If in that configuration a shaft had separated the A310 would lose all three hydraulic systems which would make the aircraft a bit difficult to control. The test was rerun using the correct Hooks joint and shaft resulting in the lines being run in front of the front spar and behind the rear spar and anti flail devices were incorporated. The integration contractor and the wing designer in their zeal to be proven correct didn’t catch it and the certification authorities didn’t have a clue. There is one person that could shed a great deal of light on this subject but to do so would jeopardize his position. That person is Tim Tucker who performed all of the flight testing for certification. This is how it works the other way: I was aware of several severe design deficiencies on the A310 wing and I made these facts known to my supervisors. It was their contention that if they were to bring the problems up to Airbus they (the German firm) would have to absorb the cost of the change. I jacked it up one level to the Integration contractor. They said the same thing. I then went to the top which was BAe who designed the wing. They told me that they were sympathetic to my problem but they couldn't help me. It should be noted that problems that effect reliability, maintainability or safety must immediately be brought to the attention of Airbus Industrie. It was never done. When the A310 was certified in the United States the FAA took the word of the JAA and only performed a few tests to verify operating costs and block times. Later I notified the FAA about the problems and when they contacted the DGCA they stated that the problems were solved. I contacted a good friend and he told me that the design was not changed. I again notified the FAA and this time they acted. As a result the VP and the program manager at the German firm were fired. The design however was never changed. I aasume because of a cost benefit analysis performed by the FAA and the using airlines. The whole process sucks and people like you are flying in aircraft certificated by people like them. Your only salvation is people like me. ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).] |
Lu, good listing there. It was quite interesting to read some of the newspaper articles. However, with the information gathered out of the witness statements and the rotor blades bent underneath the aircraft it very much sounds like a rotor stall rather then mast bumping. But that's only a suggestion based on similar occurences. It will be very interesting to see any further progress you are making. Just out of curiosity, have you ever been threatened with a lawsuit?
To SkyCop: What machines are you flying then? Keep in mind that there are people out there that are very experienced in all kind of types of helicopters. E.g. I am currently flying as a Capt. on 412s offshore, have flown most of the Bell single and twin range and other types like 500s/ 520s, etc. but I still love to have a go in the R22/ R44 and play. Keep in mind that nowadays many commerical pilots are not so fortunate to be military trained and when you have to pay for your own training- well, the whole thing looks different. |
Lu,
Thanks for filling me in, quite interesting story. I suppose that like in any other government branch paperwork takes over from actual practice- so do you think you will be successful in achieving your goal? I personally always loved flying the R22/ R44 but if it is your goal to get the design changed, I wish you good luck and hope that you will come to your destination. |
interesting points made and just the info a novice looks for before spending $$$$.
Lu, amend the system or can the Robbos outright. as i said before i heard the R22/44 are okay to fly but you don't want to get dead doing it. are they a good scenic helo? |
To: Tiltrotor:
Dear Tilt, Regarding your question on another thread about being sued. Not yet. Regarding my being successful in achieving my goals I don't know. Will I give up? Probably not. What the hell, I'll be 70 years old in December and aside from an occasional consulting job what else do I have to do. My one big joy in life is that I sell models when I'm not on assignment. Check out Model Masters, Inc on the internet If they would put a rotorhead similar to that used on the Schweizer 300C on the R22 and R44 and adjusted the rigging procedures to acommodate that new rotor system I would close up shop and look for other mountains to conquer. With those modifications the two helicopters would be fantastic machines and 99% of their problems would go away. ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).] [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).] |
Mais non !!
Do I finally detect a 'raprochement' between you two hotheads? Cheers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif |
Lu,
Regarding your 10/23 message that you have only the occasional consulting job to keep you occupied, have you given any thought to contacting Bill the owner of Just Helicopters,and finding out if his web site is still for sale? Hover Lover |
To: Hover Lover,
Thanks but no thanks. If you have followed my postings on Just Helicopters under the name Poonette you would know that I was torn to pieces. Bill had to come to my aid on several occasions. When Bill first closed the site prior to entering the hospital he severely chastized the individuals that spouted so much venom towards me and many other participants. I don't think I have the patience to try to monitor and control that environment. It was Helidriver that suggested that I start my own forum which I did. However, I had to purge my computer of the love bug and in the process of uploading Windows 98 I lost the web address for that forum. It was then that I came over to PPruNe. Helidriver stated I would be treated much better here. He was right in spades. True there have been a lot of disagreements but that is expected but there were no attacks or name calling. Now after that confession I'll tell you the real reason I don't want to buy Just Helicopters. My wife would shoot me. She is constantly on my case for spending so much time on the computer. What with writing technical reports and running my model business most of my time is spent doing exactly what I am doing right now. ------------------ The Cat [This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).] |
I think Lu's efforts are entirely laudable and he is obviously devoting a lot of time and effort in his quest. I do feel though, that he is arguing more than one point at a time which is clouding his original intention. What does the crash mentioned above have to do with his report? Why splah the names of two dead people all over the internet? Generally, wazzing around at very low level when inexperienced, is a bad thing. They may very well have had the same outcome whilst flying a Schweizer or Enstrom.
Another thread deals with low Nr in autorotation, which many respondents have suggested may be due to excessive flat pitch and may need checking. That's pretty nomal stuff which applies equally to the 212 (all types of course), so why does Lu need to imply that those who made that suggestion are being hypocritical after responding to his other thread about the design 'flaws'? What is the problem he is espousing? the 18 degrees of right cyclic in the cruise, the excessive flapping that results from sideslip, the collective rigging procedures, mixing flapping hinges with a teetering head or the mast bumping that can happen (hardly uniquely) under low g? I agree that the R22 is less than forgiving but hope this is not a crusade driven by obsession. How many Cessnas and Pipers crash every month with broken nose wheel struts after heavy/bounced landings? A hell of a lot, does that mean they have a design flaw? Anyway, full marks for perserverance and I hope you get a satisfactory answer from the NTSB. ------------------ Another day in paradise |
Tiltrotor,
Nothing driven by rubber bands - and preferably a twin these days. Each to his own, eh? Sorry you think your day job is so boring. :) [This message has been edited by Skycop (edited 23 October 2000).] |
Skycop-
Gotta give you credit you got the boring side right, but then again don't we all do whatever pays? Keep it up a bit of stir on these forums doesn't hurt. Safe flying |
Magneto drop on the R44
Does anybody know why the mag. drop on the R44 is done @ only 75 % RPM ?
Tally o |
The springs in the clutchactuator get into a little "frenzy" at flight idle on the ground and breaks the little microswitches (that can only be replaced at you guessed it RHC. So to aviod having people sit on the ground at 102% for long periods the check should be done at 75%.
PS: I would much rather fly a R22\44 than the AS 365 I'm stuck in now. when it comes down (to it) small things selfdestruct with much less ferocity. |
I actually havn't flown an R44, but on discussion with fellow R22 drivers a few years back, a comment came out about the cooling fan cracking at full RPM if there is any decent vibration involved with the mag check. It was not uncommon to find cracks in the fans and the comment seemed to have some merrit to.
Having said all that I don't know how true it all was. P.S. I like the springy idea above. Sounds like he actually knows what he is talking about - where as everything I have learnt usualy involves a lot of alcohol and tall stories. Cheers |
R44 governor disengagement
Has anyone ever experienced this? A friend flew over a nest of high - power RF transmission antennas recently, and, the way he describes it, heard "organ - like sounds" over the headset. He then had an immediate low rrpm warning, lowered the collective and the discovered that he had a lot of throttle movement available - the governor had disengaged. He was told that there has been mention of this happening before. Very interesting. Any comments?
(I don't have precise details of the type of transmission energy of the antennas) ------------------ |
The robinson POH has a safety notice for flying near broadcast towers.
It says that early indications of a high power radio field include strong interference with the intercom system and radio receivers. Then it says that increasing field strength can cause random illumination of warning lights and erratic governor and tachometer operation. This sounds exactly like what your friend flew into. The POH also warns that many pilots are caught tuning the radios trying to get rid of the interference when the governor goes nuts. [This message has been edited by baranfin (edited 01 July 2001).] |
How many Robbies are used in power line patrol?
------------------ The Cat |
Helicat,Good Morning to you
Here in the UK we are taught never to fly near or over HT.VHF,RT mast,s . beside that Radio waves are totally NO NO for your Testiculare's, not to mention the old grey stuff!! Lu, as far as I can see most line checks here in UK are by B206 and Squirrel's. My Regrads |
Lu and all,
Slight confusion here - the original post refered to high power RF antenna, whereas high voltage power lines are something completely different. Although, there will be a reasonable magnetic field around power lines and some low power RF interference, generally power lines are not much of a problem (except if you run into them!!!). RF transmitting antenna on the other hand, do emit substantial amounts of radio energy that can easily overwhelm sensitive electronics. A couple of years ago in an R22 I flew within sight of but not near a load of aerials on the way to Carlisle from Leeds in the UK and some strange broadcasts were picked up very clearly by my radio (over powering anything else). Nothing else was affected. I have also routed past Emley Moor UHF TV transmitter (which is at least a 1MegaWatt) in R22 and R44 but nothing affected - it very much depends on what frequencies are being transmitted, how and what power output, but the general advice to stay well clear is very good advice. PS I find the clutch motor on the R22 interfers (whines) like mad on the radio |
Rotor Nut,
On a little flight into Leeds from Egnh, whilst passing over the outskirts of Keighly leading into Baildon two of us each in a R22 I was acting as radio man and leading when something happened to both my radio and at the same time the compass went walkabout and left me guessing for the direction( not good viz) after about 2 mins everything was back to normal but left me feeling a little twitchy flying into Leeds airspace. Tech chaps did not know why and could not find anything wrong with the equipment on the R22, I also have heard the clutch on the Rad. Safe Landings |
R44 Raven
Look, I love it. Best Robinson ever and an astoundingly great machine in its class. One point : there is no type conversion. Yet there are some major differences between the Astro and the Raven. For instance, the Raven has a hydraulics on/off switch above the pistol grip, adjacent to the frequency changer. Not easy to see - and very easy to move without realising it. Also, the hydraulic circuit-breaker doesn't actually operate the hydraulics. It provides power to the system which controls the hydraulics. This gave me an interesting wake-up call recently. The controls (cyclic and collective) went stiff.
I suspected hydraulic failure and reached for the cb. Pulled it - and the hydraulics came back on! Pushed it back and the hydraulics went off again. Then I noticed that the hyd switch was off...... no warning light to tell me that. All this would be solved witha simple type conversion. In the meantime - be aware as you jump from a "manual" Robinson to a "God that's the smoothest thing I ever flew" one. Do car manufacturers provide switches for turning off power-assist steering? No. But if they did, there'd be a warning light. Why does a Robinson need a hydraulic on/off switch and why, when you have warning lights for everything, is there no hydraulic warning light ? Can you fly it with hydraulics off ? The answer is yes - I did - close to the ground. But you'd enjoy arm-wrestling a JCB more :D |
Don't even whisper an idea like that near the CAA!
The Raven is regarded as part of the R44 type. I believe that JAR-FCL does not regard it as a variant so formal difference training is not required. Do go and get some familiarisation training though. Having said that most of what you need to know is in the POH/Flight Manual. What you need is a ground review of the changes in the Raven, and a short training flight including simulated hydraulic failures. It would be worth getting your instructor to annotate the flight entry in your log book to confirm you had received the training. Many schools will want to see this, before hiring to you. It does fly much better than the Astro. |
At my school we do "differences training" for the Raven. Takes about an hour on the ground and about half an hour in the air.
I believe the CAA originally announced their intention of demanding that the helicopter be modified to include a hydraulics-off warning light, but were talked out of it. Let's not go back there. |
t'aint: yeah, same thing here - I did an hour's differences training followed by a checkride and we did enough hydraulics off to make you sure you want to check it each time !
Hovering is quite tricky at first: the time constant is much slower so you end up chasing until you get used to it. Still think that if I had a real hydraulics failure I'd prefer to run it on. I always assumed such training was mandatory, but sounds as though it's school-dependent. :eek: As for the light: well, if the hydraulics go off, you'll know about it anyway, so not sure what extra benefit there would be. A hydraulic pressure gauge would be more useful: might give some warning of an impending problem. |
The need for a hydraulics off switch is presumably for pending hydraulics failure where you may have intermittent hydraulics (maybe during fluid loss), and the last thing you want is to be putting some juice on the stick making an input and have the servos kick in on you. Better none than some here and some there. I found hydraulics off no real drama, similar to the 206, and if you don't get too tense and fight it you can land it with no real difficulty in the hover or more easily with a gentle run on. Because a loss of electrical power fails to hydraulics on (like the 206) I find it makes it easy to diagnose any hydraulics malfunction quickly between an electrical switching problem or an actual hydraulics failure.
If they are going to mod anything on it, I reckon it should be an external power plug so you don't have to jump it with the panel folded over. I just hope Mr Robinson has to jump start his a few times to realise its a bit of a pain!!! Otherwise I reckon they are beut to fly. |
headsethair,
The reason for the hydraulic switch is that it’s more common for one servo to fail than all of them at once; then it’ll be silky smooth in pitch and a gorilla in roll or something like that. Turn the hydraulics off and at least all controls act the same way in all axes! You’d need to be a 17-stone weightlifter of the non-sensitive type not to notice your hydraulics had gone south, so a warning light would just be something else to go wrong. During the transition training for my first a/c with hydraulic controls (B206) we were told that the first step in a hydraulic failure was to slow down to recommended speed, then check the hydraulics switch, then do the CB-pulling thing. Most hydraulic problems in the 206 are caused by pilots putting clipboards etc. on the switch. This, BTW, is exactly the procedure for hydraulic failure in the R44. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.