R44 Blade - What to do??
 

Hi,
We have had to scrap one of our R44 blades due to a failed tiny piece of bonding just beside the tip cap - about 1/2 the size of your baby fingernail!!!

So as they are the C016-5 blades we can not get 1 new one from Robinson as they don't make they any more and have to replace with 2 of the newer C005-12R blades

The blades have 7 years used on them and under 500 hours!!!!


So 2 questions I have to ask

1 - If you have got stung with this already what sort of discount did you get form Robinson / your main dealer?

and
2 - Is the one usable good blade worth anything? and if so where could i sell it?

Thanks for your help

TJ

To someone in the same predicament as yourself maybe....that way at least one of you would have a pair.

Where did you send the blades for them to be scrapped ? If in Ireland did they go to Composite technology in UK ? I sent a 300 set of blades there they were scrapped sent them to RBi in the USA who repaired them for $ 3000 now work that out !:{

@Gordy

My thoughts exactly!!!! Is there anyone buying them up to re-sell or is it just a case of holding on to it hoping i can find someone it will match with?

@Hughes500
Blades are still on the Helicopter, its just sitting grounded in its MX base at the moment :-(

As per Robinson,
Subject blade is unserviceable in accordance with R44 SB-72A step 2

So doubt if they are repairable??

H500 - with respect your blades would have been deemed as un-repairable by the OEM, the fact that you sent them to RBI in the USA & they were repaired was probably because they used an FAA DER approval, something that a European company cannot do, even if they hold an FAA approval.
CTL does not touch Robinson blades.
I suggest you contact CTL if you were unhappy with the service rather than airing your grief here.
Cheers
R2

Firstly, I'm an outsider, not even a PPL !
Having said that, I did not construe the OP's post as having a go at CTL.
What I did get, is he's more tan a bit upset with Robbu bending him over and yet again inserting the rough end of a pineapple.

Of course, they will have a very strict "airworthiness" regime and repairability criteria.

As long as the authorities allow it, it's in Robinson's financial interest to scrap as many parts as they can, in order to sell replacements THEY ARE NOT IMPARTIAL (or objective) Fact is, there is a company who have the ability and the technology to make an airworthy repair.

If you were told your car was irrepairable, sold it for scrap-value, shelled out for a new replacement and then saw your old one had been repaired at well under , say, half the new one's price......wouldn't you be just a teeny bit upset?

Fact is, he was told the blades are scrap....that's a LIE
" They cannot be used in the UK, but a USA machine can use them , as an American Company can repair them, legally and safely"
There you go, an honest answer.

Whether the price he'd get, would be worth the paperwork, packing and shipping, is another issue....as , presumably, the original engineer, the UK Composite specialist, the US repairer and the vendor tothe end user, all make a profit on these "scrap" blades, I suspect it would be worthwhile to sell direct to the US repairer.

To the OP....have a look at the GUIMBAL thread......AFAIK, he doesn't give any warranty, but doesn't shaft you either!...everything points to Mr Guimbal being a man of high morals and ethics.
I'd buy one of his machines if I was in the marketplace!

CS - point taken, in fact company's lose a significant amount of money if it scraps a component - the disposal charges are not passed on & of course they lose out again by not getting the repair costs. Lastly the customer always has the option to have the component returned "as is" as I suggest H500 did. As to being a lie as you say, that is not the case, the statement to the customer would have said that the blade was scrap (or un-repairable) in accordance with the OEMs recommendation.
The issue is with Robbo blades that are flimsy & virtually irreparable, its why they're so cheap (& I use that term reservedly as nothing on a helicopter is cheap), 269 & 369 blades come in close if you have to rely on OEM approved repairs.

If you are still looking I have a 44 blade for sale with 3 years and 1200 hours remaining

Rocket 2
Blades can either be repaired or not, in my ( not my blades but a customers )case both companies have oem approval to repair. It is about time that both FAA and EASA get to grips with the quality of what oem's put out basically it is ****
EG Erosion strips, they use the wrong bonding agent.
Paint the matt black paint used on blades is porous so your blades start corroding under the paint !
Blades are not balanced and weighed set of blades came back from a certain repair station allegedly static balanced, we weighed them they were 248 grams difference which is more weight than an engineer is allowed to put on to a head to balance.
Blade chord balance, one oem supplier admitted they didn't bother, try tracking blades when the chord balance varies by so much it causes one blade to nose up 30mm from balance compared to another that noses down by 9 mm and that is on the same set with consecutive serial numbers.

I have every sympathy as oem's and repair stations ( I have loads of other examples if you are interested including mor's that the authorities care to do nothing about either ) don't have a clue or are trying to rip owners off

Repair disbonds?
 

This defect is a disbond. I just hope that they were not "repaired" using injected liquid adhesive.

I have been involved in an R44 crash investigation which was determined to be most probably due to blade failure due to disbonding.

Let me explain what is happening and why the repair by injection is futile and dangerous. Adhesive bonds depend directly on chemical bonds formed at the interface between the adhesive and the metal and these bonds are formed at the time of manufacture. The bonds form between the adhesive primer material and the metal oxides and hydroxides formed during the preparation process prior to bonding at the factory. Many metal oxides have an affinity to form a hydrated oxide (for example Al2O3 forms AL2O3.2H2O). In this case the steels probably form ferric or ferrous oxides. The moisture comes from the fact that epoxy materials absorb water from the atmosphere which eventually will migrate to the interface as the epoxy saturates. When oxide hydration occurs the chemical bonds between the primer or adhesive and the metal will dissociate to enable the hydration to occur. That results directly in interfacial disbonding and when the disbond is large enough, it may be detected using the tap test.

The disbond near the blade tip (in fact anywhere) is a strong indication that the bond interface is degrading and without any doubt whatsoever the disbond will continue to propagate until bond failure would occur because the adhesive is water saturated and the interface is already hydrating. Despite the AD to maintain paint quality, paint only slows down moisture diffusion- it does not prevent it.

Now to the repair aspect. Adhesion reactions require that the surface to be bonded is not only clean, but must also be chemically reactive. For long-term bond durability (the heart of this current problem) there should also be a step incorporated which will provide resistance to hydration of the oxide layers. It must be clearly understood that having a clean surface is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to enable adhesion to occur. In the case where disbonds are "repaired" by injecting liquid adhesive into the disbond, it is common to flush the disbond with solvent, dry it and inject fresh adhesive. Such a process can neverprovide a chemically active surface so the adhesive simply does not bond to the old surface. All that happens is that the air gap caused by the disbond is filled so that it taps out OK. IT IS NOT BONDED.

If there are DERs out there signing off on these repairs then I suggest they read http://www.adhesionassociates.com/pa...d%20Joints.doc

If Tiny J wants to read this then he may undestand why for this blade design, a disbond so small is really unacceptable.

Regards

Blakmax

C016-5
 

To start with, Sorry for pulling this thread up again.


I am looking for a C016-5 Blade, can anyone help??
Obviously either new with paperwork or serviceable (EASA).


Just trying before telling the owner he needs a new set!!!!

R44 blade
 

Hi Tinyjohnson,

In the process of going through the exercise myself -

As I understand it - If your blades are less than 8 years old, have less than 1800 hours on them and are airworthy(!), you will get a 50% rebate on a new set from RHC.

My blades are 7 years old and sub 600hrs and are perfectly good. However, RHC will only give you the rebate on production of the sawn off roots, with data plates.

Shame to scrap serviceable blades but the AD wasn't issued without good reason. Whilst I have the option to continue with the existing inspection regime for the next 4 1/2 years, you don't unfortunately.

My advice is therefore to buy new blades.

Golden rule with any flying machine - 'Take out your wallet and repeat after me 'help yourself'.

All the best

HP

'Take out your wallet and repeat after me 'help yourself'. :{ Aint that the truth

Hairyplane & 500E
 

Hi Guys,


I pulled this thread up instead of starting a new, this one ended last year and isnt current, only my question at the end, does anyone have a serviceable blade for the 44, C016-5.


Again, sorry guys for the confusion


Regards
Keepitup