FAA mandates replacement of R22 & R44 main rotorblades
 

After a long discussion period, the decision has been made. All stainless steel MR blades must be replaced within 5 years. Estimated cost of replacement from $30k to > $100k per helicopter, depending on the affected model.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/1c99426cc73ec86886257da5004f4e10/$FILE/2014-23-16.pdf

Robinson Blade AD redux
 

From the FAA document:

Although I personally hate flying Astros I don't think it's fair to make Astro owners upgrade to hydraulics, and certainly I don't believe it's cool that Robinson reserve the right to upgrade any component on the helicopter to latest revision without an AD or SB. It totally seems unfair that due to Robinson's inability to produce a reliable rotor blade (though they've been trying unsuccessfully for 30 years) that an Astro owner might also have to replace other components unrelated to the rotor system while trying to keep his aircraft airworthy.

I'm not sure why Robinson won't allow the blades to be installed on an Astro without hydraulics. Is it simply that they want to avoid the cost of flight test on that airframe? Given that it is their bad blade design that is behind this AD it seems quite reasonable for them to have to go the extra mile to keep the Astros flying without requiring upgrade to hydraulics. And finally, if there really were no way to avoid that, then at least they should be limited to changing only those components on the helicopter related to mounting the hydraulics, and not be allowed to change unrelated components on the helicopter as part of the upgrade.

R44 Rotorblades
 

I have until June 2016 to take advantage of the 50% discount offered by RHC to change my blades on my June 08 Raven2. I have ordered them now simply because (a) Its a safety related item. (b) If I ding my blades between now and then, or they fail an inspection, the discount is not applicable. AFAIAA it only relates to sub 8yr/ 1800hr airworthy blades.(c) The waiting time is less than a month currently. This is bound to increase IMO. (d) The inspection requirement has just been increased and, IMO , might be increased yet further, perhaps risking protracted down-time.

Its a big hit but what price safety? As with the fuel bladders it is a small price to pay for your head or, more important, those of your innocent passengers.

Just my opinion.

HP

And how many more "as with" AD's before the substantial sums involved mean it was false economy to not buy a better-quality Helicopter in the first place?

I'll bet there was a very good reason that Denis Kenyon stuck with Enstrom
:hmm:, and so many Ex-Robbo owners have not bought another.
It is, what it is, -a very cheap entry to Rotary flightbut the hidden cost of lifting the safety-level to an acceptable level, means you may as well have enjoyed the safety, security and comfort of a more airworthy aircraft from the get-go.....and before anyone argues about the Robbo's airworthiness, why are you wasting money on bladders and blades and...... if the thing is serviceable anyway?
Never flown in one and no intention to.

Interesting to note...many manufacturers have gone through airworthiness problems in the past. I remember when Astars were so bad they were nicknamed Falling Stars. So does that make it an inferior aircraft also that is unsafe to fly? Opininions are like a$$holes....everybody has one....:E

Helilog. That title only referred to the early N American and Canadian A Stars fitted with the problematic Lycoming engines fitted to please that market. Rest of the world machines with Turbomeca engines were superb. My 30 year old A Star still has original main rotor blades.!!

That was engine related and I believe only on the twins . I have to say I would prefer to take my chances with a dodgy engine than have blades fall off !!!
I don't think you can in any way compare the two ..... The Astar is a fantastic reliable and powerful machine and the Robinson is .... Well it's a Robinson .
Why anyone would chose a Robbo over an Enstrom is beyond me !!!

Nigel. Agree with everything in your post. Except however the problematic Lycoming engine i refer to was never fitted to the twin. It was only in the early N.American 350 called the "D" Model. Interestingly had i been flying a Robbo for that 30 years i would probably have gone through about 6 set of blades ie £200,000 -- economical flying?

Robbo or Enstrom
 

I couldn't agree more Nigel ... but the simple fact is, that over the years for every buyer who opted for an Enstrom model ... around ten went for the Robinson. That surely tells us something! Fly safe. Dennis K. Oh ... and a happy and good flying year in 2015 to all pps.

What it shows is Robinson has done an excellent job of emphasizing the initial purchase cost differential while simultaneously minimizing the ability of the purchaser to learn before purchase the long-term ownership/safety costs.

Everything I've seen on all the R-XX threads has convinced me to never buy a Robby rotortoy.

claudia, I think you'll find the very first prototype AS350 flew with an LTS engine as the Ariel wasn't certified yet. So, while the D was marketed towards North America, it wasn't the only time an AS350 flew with the LTS.

Sorry for the thread drift, back to the Robbo's!

Noooby. Maybe, but at no time on this thread were we discussing or comparing prototypes Robbo AS350 Enstrom or otherwise. Thanks.

Memories....let me think! Astar also had tail rotor blade strikes on tail boom, servo transparency is still a reality, Bell 407 tail rotor blade strikes on tail boom also, Allison C-28 engine issues in Longrangers (before the C-30 came out), FH100 short shaft failures, Hughes 369D main rotor head blade grip failures, Bell 214 main rotor blade failures (metal blades), (anyone care to add to the list?)....and there are many, many, more where the manufacturer's had to issue countless A.D.'s, S.B.'s and A.W.D's to rectify design shortcomings......point is, Robinson is far from the only one....:}

Helilog, Your memory is letting you down, 350 never suffered from tail rotor hitting boom. The 407 did. AS350 servo issue like Robbo mast bumping- pilot issue but with the 350 lower the lever a little and it is gone, with the robbo low g issue the main rotor head is gone.!! But yes you are correct Robinson is not the only manufacturer with major issues.-- blade ADs etc.

How is the Rob low g issue is gone? In my opinion this issue isn't gone.
The only thing to avoid the low g issue is pilot training and the resulting awareness of low g situations?

Matt. Read my post. I did not say the Robbo low g issue was gone. I said get into a low g situation and the main rotor HEAD is gone.(in a Robbo that is)

Sorry Matt...but I remember two distinct incidences in North America where there was tail boom contact.....hence why Aerospatialle extended the output shaft on the Astars....back in 81 or 82 I believe..????!!?!

Helilog. Dont want to dwell on this as it is too much thread drift but you are wrong about the 350 T/R . Thanks.

Helilog is right, Aerospat issued a longer T/R output shaft in the early 80s due to a few blade / boom contacts.

Hi Claudia, sorry I misunderstood this.