Taken from: http://www.robinsonheli.com/BetaII.htm

Hope it helps.

I have no concern as to differing standards in the UK, tighter is better as far as training is concerned. However I will concede that the robbie manual in the US is terrible, I see a few contradictions here and there, and would like some other figures included. Perhaps you could rewrite/proof it? (meant not as a jibe.)

You have missed the point entirely. And many have tried to point this to you.

Suggestion or restriction, those two points of slideslip and low G are irrevelant to your discussion, for if you got yourself into those conditions to begin with, you were not flying the aircraft in the first place.

And I already say again (and others have as well): If you fly with just half a brain of common sense, you will NOT get into those dire circumstances you worry about so much.

Period.

As for >>Therefore the suggestions can be ignored. <<

Then please do not equate these suggestions again as to being mandatory restrictions. (although I found the topic of the sideways quick stop interesting (and not something I would do) then technically ones performed are not violating any restriction placed in the POH, only a suggestion.)

As far as most pilots will be concerned, if ANY teetering head heli gets into a mast bumping situation, it is likely due to pilot error in getting there, or improper recovery from low G.

Others have repeatedly told you, move the cyclic back to correct low G (or add collective) and there is none of that offset you predict.

PPRuNer's can debate theory and forces all year long, but it still comes down to what has been outlined before. It's being used as a trainer, you have to be on top of it, and if you fly it as you are supposed to, it is fine, etc. etc. high timers who haven't logged time in it react differently and lose it, low timers like myself could place ourselves into an unrecoverable situation. there is your supposed high death rate. I don't feel the need to repeat what has been said time and time again.

I get a distinct pleasure in actively flying such a perported "dangerous machine", I do feel a great satisfaction when I accomplish another step in my learning, or just setting down in a spot I thought I would not be able to do yet. either way, I know that if I master this bird, I CAN fly anything else out there, that still holds true for the most part. I am due to take my first R-44 flight in Jan, and look forward to trying it with hydraulics. My CFI states he thinks it flies better than the 206.

If you saw my other thread, you can see even in my training, I can make mistakes, which led to a full down auto on Nov 29th. the difference between me landing and not being a mishap is that I still knew what to do and what not to do in a particular situation, and while I got caught, I did the right thing, and that is what it's about.

Vfrpilotpb has offered to come and get you to take you up in a robbie, I recommend that you take him up on it and all of this can be resolved within an hour or so.

Jeez Lu, it's been three years, round and round.

Go get in the robinson, you really cannot expect to retan any sembalance of credibility otherwise for discussing it without touching it, crawling over it, or flying it. reguardless of whatever other qualifications you wish to produce.

You can argue theory all you want, but your basic one hour student is going to know when you pull aft cyclic, you get just that. because they are there.

Well, off my pedastal.

And back to flying ...

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]

Carb icing... a fact of life (or the other). But I don't believe fuel injection is the answer. Injection systems are much more complex. As a wise instructor once said to me, if fuel injection had been invented first the carburettor would have been acclaimed as a great technological leap forward - compared with the complexity of fuel injection, carbs are straightforward, simple, and... foolproof? Regrettably not. I believe the carb heat assist systems have a counter-productive aspect. People come to take them for granted. The only solution is for pilots to get obsessive about carb heat, keep that needle up at 12 - 15 degrees.

With respect, I would really dispute the complexity of fuel injection systems in aviation engines.

They are bulletproof and incredibly simple, utilizing a degree of technology that is decades behind automotive engine technology.

They are a simple and effective way of removing one of the most significant causes of engine failure and power loss.

Let me throw something else into the ring.

Firstly please note though that I have never flown a Robinson machine. That is my choice based on a lot of reasons. One being the physical size of the machine another being the interior fit and build. I don't choose to drive a Mini car therefore I don't choose to fly a Robinson.

Anyway my point is in relation to the governor system. A low time pilot who has been trained on a Robinson will instinctively know that to increase power in the rotor system you PULL collective. I would suggest that the instinctive reaction of some low time pilots, may NOT be to use the throttle to help recover a low RRPM situation.
:eek:

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Jed A1 ]

To: RW-1

It is you who have missed the point. In order to certificate the Robinson design or for that matter any helicopter design the aircraft must accomplish certain test goals. Two of these goals are to demonstrate sideslip and out of trim flight at a specific speed and for a specific period.

In 1994 it was discovered that if you were to attempt either of these two maneuvers you would encounter severe flapping with attendant mast bumping or rotor incursion. The AD was written and Robinson entered a part of the AD in the POH on an unnumbered and therefore unofficial page.

My main point is if it was discovered in 1994 that mast bumping would be encountered if you did a sideslip or flew the helicopter out of trim then why wasn’t this discovered in the certification flight-testing. If a pilot wants to perform these maneuvers the helicopter is completely capable of doing so and this is demonstrated all the time by cattle musterers in Oz. It is a matter of self-protection for Robinson helicopters and if something happens when you do either of these maneuvers, it is pilot error.

That is why I continually state that if the Robinson design were presented for certification at this point in time and Frank told the FAA that his helicopter could not perform those maneuvers they would tell him to take a hike.

PS It is spelled pedestal.

[ 18 December 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

Nothing written in that unofficial page is out of the ordinary.

You still have missed the points made, and would prefer to dwell on things in the past, that you cannot change.

Next all here will hear from you how the FAA conspiracy entails that if they know about the 1994 discovery, why haven't they taken action?

Get back on track.

And schedule your robbie ride with Vfrpilotpb.

You must notice by now that your posts are ignored, the discussion is now on fuel injection and whether actuall in flight powerplant stoppage is like how it is practiced in training.

Since you haven't actively been flight training ....

It is already 3 years Lu is evading a ride in the best Helicopter in business?

Lu take a ride!
....or better do not.....we lose the last guy to bitch about the Robinson!!

RW-1: to the sideslip - the robinson-safty-course-instructor, I had the pleasure to fly with, told me he did, and I do it constantly on a specific filming-job: fly anywhere from straight to slightly past 90 degrees sideways all the way up to where you run out of pedal (normally around 40 kts - acc. to GPS)
I was told by the same man, that the POH for pretty much every flying machine (or any machine if I remember my cars manuals....)is written for the average pilot who flies an hour or two every two weekends.....
To keep these folks from killing themselves and their familie from suing the cr** out of the company, they have to put up "foolproof" POH´s.
Look at the military guys who perform rolls and loops all day long on airshows...I do not think their POH says anything about doing that!!!

The sideslip-issue is, not to slam the helicopter with huge inputs into these situations. It is fairly hard to get the R-44 into sidewaysflying when you have already some 35-40 kts. It is easier to lower to less than 25 and then speed up smoothly.Avoid any big controlmoves and you are fine....

To the 206: The same man mentioned above has thousands of hours in Bells and when he gets asked about the difference between a 206 and a R-44 he says: He never saw a R-44 that is so slow as a JetRanger!!(Lu, I guess he ment it as a joke!!)

T´Natural: Carb´s: Try Pressure-Carburators, they have hardly any icing problems (look at the Ellison-Throttlebody or carbs on old radial engines). The problem with these carbs is, as I understand, a fuelpump is necessary and of course they cost more!!(Lu?)

There is FAA-certified V-8 engine out there that is full FADEC, electronic everything, uses Mobil-1 synthetic engine-oil (specified!) and is based on a car-engine!!
I do not recall the holder of the typ-certificate, but the engine is a Toyota-V8!!
Based on the same engine as any big LEXUS.
Unfortunately no plans for production sofar - a shame with 350 takeoff and 325 continous hp, 2000 TBO.......when did your Toyota brake down last time with an engineproblem??


a last one to Jed A1:

The low rpm-recovery in a Robinson gets trained just like in every other helicopter.
However there is a specific to the Robinson (that´s why you get a checkout in every helicopter regardless of typ or brand...): On low rpm you roll on the throttle and then you lower the collective (Don´t take all day for that move!!), due to throttle-correlator-rigging.

If you never flew a good Robbie, you passed on at least half the fun there is in flying helicopters!


Fly safe,
3TOP :cool:

Hey 3Top,

I enjoyed your last post <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I may in the future become comfortable doing sideways flight in conjunction with specific job's (and sideways quick stop's as well) my conservative nature though tells me I have a long way to go before that however hehe...

I'm looking forward to the day I do go with a robbie test pilot/CFI at factory school, just to see it flown on the edge by someone used to it <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

But .. I have to disagree with your description of the Low Nr recovery in the robbie. (difference in training likely, not a dispute as to what is correct, read on ...)

You roll on throttle and lower collective at the same time, one (supposedly) as one fluid motion. Even FR in the SFAR safety video will point out, that both are needed (IHO), and that is how I have been taught.

I am aware of the correlator rigging, and you do have to be careful when lowering at high alt (mentioned in the POH) but for most circumstances, I am told (as I'm at sea Level), the important thing is to get that RPM back, hence both.

Of course, if I am doing both in that motion I describe, I may not be exceeding the limits as throttle ends up leading me on the collective... (The beauty of differing methods of instruction, isn't it great? :) What do our other robbie rotorheads have to say?)

T-N,

I have to keep it a secret at this time, but perhaps by end of 2002 I may be able to talk more about a retro fit of a small gas turbine powered R-22(Experimental) Now how's that for once, overpowered! :)

Hi again RW-1 on this lane!!

You are right about the rpm -recovery it is supposed to be simultaneous.....


About the R-22 with a turbine.......don´t tell Frank about it!!

There was a "turbine" R-22 in a movie once (One of the James Bond flicks) where one would take off from a train, I guess it was only a Studio-turbine (haa its so easy to play with Sound!!)

Another post to look up experimental-turbo-helos:

The helicycle, check why they do not recommend a APU-turbine-conversion. Check on the page on a
CH-7 with one who did it anyway:
Go to <a href="http://www.helicyle.com" target="_blank">www.helicyle.com</a> and check FAQ
Search for CH-7 Angel and reduce search to turbine

You´ll like it!!


3top
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

RW-1

The following page may be of interest to you. It is a collection of information related to turbine powered small helicopters.

<a href="http://www.UniCopter.com/Turbine.html" target="_blank">http://www.UniCopter.com/Turbine.html</a>

That is a cool site Dave!

I'm not sure that when they try the turbine here that it will be an APU mod, and I wouldn't want to use that type anyway. But when I hear more about the project, I'll let everyone know... won't be for a while yet anyway.

Ahh, all this talk, I'm going to have to see if there's a block open on Sat morning to grab a bird now, I'm pumped :)

High again RW-1!!

On the site mentioned above you also find the link to the turbine CH-7 Angel.

Did you check on the arguments against APU´s onthe helicylce site ?

3top <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

3top

Thanks for mentioning the turbine web page on the Helicycle site.

It will be interesting to see what engine is recommended for installation in the Helicycle. The engine in the prototype is a water-cooled, two-stroke Rotax for snowmobiles. In addition, Rotax disallows the use its engines in rotorcraft and that includes their certified engines.

Hi 3Top,

The helicycle site I couldn't reach, must have been a routing issue. Will try later.

I believe the design they are looking at will be one of a free turbine design, compact, but still a neat thing. This eliminates the start loads upon the engine, however whether that addresses the power requirements issue and the possibility of the engine lagging I wouldn't know.

Reminds me of the CH-53E, which is 3 engines, with the rotor system driven by any of the 3 free turbine's. You can have all of them (engines) ran up to 100%, then release the rotor brake and set the rotor system spooling up.

You have to admit it's facinating though, that the power transfer comes from the thrust turning the free turbines eh? No physical connection <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 20 December 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]</p>

Hi Dave,

I did not know that Rotax does not endorse their engines for Helicopters!
Anyway I know they can be very reliable, but I do not know how to treat them. My personal bet would rather be a converted Suzuki -engine or one of the Honda conversions (all Car-engines...)

Comparing the info available for the Experimentals, what´s your idea about the builtup APU´s for the single seaters?

Did you check out the JAG-100 heli? <a href="http://www.jaghelicopter.com/" target="_blank">www.jaghelicopter.com/</a>

Check there proposed engine!! Do you know who builts it?

3TOP
<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

3top

&gt;"Comparing the info available for the Experimentals, what´s your idea about the builtup APU´s for the single seaters?"&lt;

It appears that no current turbine engine is viable for use in a small helicopter, even for experimental helicopters. A couple of reasons are the almost mandatory requirement for a two-stage turbine and that most current small turbines are intended for short duration operation. Another reason is that turbine engine is fuel greedy and the smaller the turbine the greedier it is.

The Jag is a good-looking helicopter. It uses the Allison 250-C18, 317 SHP. Ref: <a href="http://avonaero.com/allison.htm" target="_blank">http://avonaero.com/allison.htm</a> I think that this is the smallest conventional turbine engine available for helicopters. The option of a multiple choice of blades is interesting. Lets hope that it's not another Mini-500; good looking but .........

Dave,

When I went home from Florida, it was up to michigan, and I went by to see it up close.
(Because i believe I or someone else posted the ANN article here in rotorheads earlier this year)

It does look fairly solid up close, if the Allison can hold the load, then I think it has wonderful possibilities (many options for the head, number of blades, etc. Whatever one can afford hehe ...)

But I still withhold final judgement too, as it's still a kit, builder skill will play a factor, and like the mini-500 I'm sure we will be looking to see the quality of parts manufacture as well.

But we can hope ... <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

There has been talk for some time that Frank Robinson is planning to build a new engine to replace the Lycoming. Is there anyone out there who can confirm this, or otherwise?
It won't be a turbine, but might be compression-ignition... diesel, or kerosene.

RW-1 re: Jag helicopter


&gt;"I'm sure we will be looking to see the quality of parts manufacture as well."&lt;

That's the dilemma.

For a reliable yet economical helicopter, there must be mass production.

For mass production, there must be a large demand.

For a large demand, there must be economical pilots licenses.

For economical pilots licenses, there must be 'helicopters' that are much easier to fly.

However, that's another story, for another thread, at another time. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">