Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 10423415)
If you treat a Robinson properly, and stay within its envelope, preferably as far from the edges as you can, it does its job superbly.
Get to the edges and it can slip over the side fairly rapidly, and that is where the low-timers and the doctors come unstuck. I first encountered the R22 after 7000 turbine rotary hours, and after the first flight I was feeling a bit deflated, this little flimsicopter was a real challenge with its twitchiness and speedy responses to inputs. But I had a couple of refreshing fizzy drinks that night, and the next day I wrung its little neck and it behaved for me forever after that. Well, not really forever, I stopped flying them back in 08. |
TN8B: go fly the darn thing, already! Then let us know what you think.
|
Originally Posted by paco
(Post 10410449)
And wasn't the 206 the safest single-engined aircraft in the world at one time?
|
With the odd exception, relating to the specific operation of a low-inertia piston single rotary type, I would hope to Christ any helicopter pilot is more than familiar with most of these "Safety Notices" before they ever consider committing serious aviation. These are Airmanship 101, not Safety Notices.
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10420655)
I found this at the Robinson Web Site and found the List of Contents rather interesting.
... SAFETY NOTICE TITLE SN-1 Inadvertent Actuation of Mixture Control in Flight
|
Originally Posted by Two's in
(Post 10447564)
With the odd exception, relating to the specific operation of a low-inertia piston single rotary type, I would hope to Christ any helicopter pilot is more than familiar with most of these "Safety Notices" before they ever consider committing serious aviation. These are Airmanship 101, not Safety Notices.
Correct, much like all SFAR 73 really does is reinforce knowledge we all should already have! :ok: |
From a recent Australian perspective, it is likely that the 6 occupants who perished in fairly low energy landing or takeoff phase R44 crashes would still be alive, had the craft been fitted with the (subsequently introduced) new fuel cell. Let’s hope the survivability figures improve. mjb |
Originally Posted by mickjoebill
(Post 10448443)
From a recent Australian perspective, it is likely that the 6 occupants who perished in fairly low energy landing or takeoff phase R44 crashes would still be alive, had the craft been fitted with the (subsequently introduced) new fuel cell. Let’s hope the survivability figures improve. mjb |
Originally Posted by mickjoebill
(Post 10448443)
From a recent Australian perspective, it is likely that the 6 occupants who perished in fairly low energy landing or takeoff phase R44 crashes would still be alive, had the craft been fitted with the (subsequently introduced) new fuel cell. Let’s hope the survivability figures improve. mjb |
6 in a 4-seater helicopter?
Doesn't sound like the problem was bladder tanks. |
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 10448696)
6 in a 4-seater helicopter?
Doesn't sound like the problem was bladder tanks. |
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 10423415)
If you treat a Robinson properly, and stay within its envelope, preferably as far from the edges as you can, it does its job superbly.
Get to the edges and it can slip over the side fairly rapidly, and that is where the low-timers and the doctors come unstuck. I first encountered the R22 after 7000 turbine rotary hours, and after the first flight I was feeling a bit deflated, this little flimsicopter was a real challenge with its twitchiness and speedy responses to inputs. But I had a couple of refreshing fizzy drinks that night, and the next day I wrung its little neck and it behaved for me forever after that. Well, not really forever, I stopped flying them back in 08. I think first of if you're talking about the R22 I definitely agree with you. It's not at all a forgiving machine, and is tossable and agile to a fault. The 44 and 66 are much more forgiving, but of course there are still parts of the envelope you should probably not play with! When I first start teaching in the R22 in the mid 80s most of the FAA examiners were ex-Vietnam guys and I never met any of them that liked doing a checkride in the R22... Since these were almost exclusively CFI (instructor) rides, it invariably involved a touchdown auto as part of the test, and these guys were mostly Huey drivers. They really didn't like the R22 in the hands of a soon to be brand new instructor. They were afraid of hitting hard and injuring their back. And, I would say probably with good reason! The R22 is difficult to touchdown, especially if you don't want to slide 100 feet... The difference between a really sweet touchdown and a hard hit is measured in the difference of 1 or 2 feet of altitude. Compare that to a R44 or R66 which will do a 30 foot hovering auto at the end of a touchdown (with the RPM starting in the upper yellow).
Originally Posted by Triple Nickel 8 Ball
(Post 10422245)
It's also the reason why an R22 went from the planned $40k - $50k USD or something for a new one that you threw away after 12 years (the plan), to the price they are at now. Because they were getting sued by people that used them for reasons they weren't designed for, or just weren't trained properly on....all of them getting killed or maimed and blaming the heli. That put the Robinson liability insurance premiums through the roof for the factory
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10422181)
"for unknown reasons, the rotor diverged from its normal plane of rotation and struck the side of the helicopter"...far too frequently seen in Robinson accident reports..a former Army acquaintance of mine who was considering getting involved in a flight school flew a demo flight in one...this guy with several tours in "Nam, and more as an instructor at FT Rucker...his assessment..."thats probably the worst helicopter a beginner could get his hands on"
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 10420824)
So Robinson has the inside scoop on Airplane Pilots do they?
Or....should Robinson have considered the training those Airplane Pilots are getting when being taught to be Helicopter Pilots? I don't see a safety notice for Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists, and Wall Street Bankers being high risk when flying Heliicopters. So why....pick on our Fixed Wing Brethren?
Originally Posted by CGameProgrammerr
(Post 10418938)
Mast bumping only occurs as a result of two things, both of which must happen: First you must enter low G, typically by being stupid and shoving the cyclic forward very suddenly, although it can also happen when flying fast through severe turbulence. When in low G, the nose will drop and the helicopter will roll to the right (with a counter-clockwise rotor). If, and only if, you respond to the roll with left cyclic while still in low G, then mast bumping may occur in which case you die.
However that only happens if you apply left cyclic while in low G. If you either avoid low G (the correct thing to do) or you apply gentle aft cyclic to recover from low G without trying to correct the roll first, then everything will be fine. But keep in mind that when the uncommanded roll to the right occurs, the nose will be down, because if it is not then you won't roll at all.
Originally Posted by aa777888
(Post 10415426)
Do you really think that is the case? More than a few times folks here have pointed out the rather extraordinary safety bulletins that form part of the POH. Not to mention the rather blunt, no excuses stuff they teach at the factory Robinson Safety Course. And their total support of SFAR 73.
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 10413396)
They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.
|
Well that certainly was a long post for the internet! I must say having met a few private R44 owners I must agree. They do seem to be in a category all their own. As for me, I've been flying Robbies recreationally for almost 2 decades and having since flown the 2 other helicopters used for training back then (Enstrom and Schweizer) I'm glad I learned how to fly in an R22, and that has nothing to do with price! $100 bucks more for an R44 though? Yeah, I'll still pick the R22. Thing is, I flew an R22 just the other night and after all these years I still love flying the little guy!
,...and that's all that really matters! Oh yeah, and "tossable and agile"? Those are 2 qualities that make it so much more fun to fly! |
A long post but a good one Paul:ok:
I still have no intention of getting back into one or renewing it on my licence but it is good to hear from someone with a lot of experience on it and a good sense of perspective. |
Great stuff, Paul, thank you! :) :ok:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.