Dave:

Can't argue economics either! :)

Spot on.

Hmmm, quality made mass produced heli's for everyone! (Well, those little ones in the toy store are grand, but not enough power, and they don't have enough room .... :) )

T'aint Natural

Re throttle chops(a few days back). In my experience ok to chop the throttle when simulating real engine failures with the following provisos:

1) Don't do it during the first 10 to 15 minutes of flight as the oil will not have warmed up and this can lead to carb icing

2) Correct handling of carb heat prior to throttle chop ie full CH

3) Not reccommended to do it too ofen as the engine is going from full power to idle and will cool rapidly leading to cracking problems

Further info. As a result of an accident, I investigated partial engine failure situations in full power climb, simulating stuck valve. Somewhat to my surprise, this led to almost as quick a rotor rpm rundown as in complete engine failure.

Speaking of throttle chops, here is something new.....

R44 - SERVICE BULLETIN #41


DATE: 01 August 2001

TO: All R44 Owners, Operators, and Service Centers

SUBJECT: Tail Rotor Rigging

ROTORCRAFT AFFECTED: R44 Helicopters

TIME OF COMPLIANCE: Within next 25 flight hours or by 15 September 2001,
whichever occurs first.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent abrupt application of full left pedal by the student during
a simulated power failure could result in excessive flapping of the tail rotor and
possible tail rotor blade contact with the tailcone. To reduce the possibility of that
occurring, Safety Notice SN-27 Sudden Power Chops Can Be Deadly has been
reissued as a Safety Alert. In addition, this Service Bulletin requires re-rigging the
tail rotor to reduce maximum blade angle at the left pedal stop and also requires
installation of a harder teeter bumper.

To: rotormatic

Why wasn’t this discovered during the certification trial when full left and right pedal were used in accordance with the certification requirements.

Fossil:
May I add to your list...
4) Do it on somebody else's helicopter.
Lu: The reason that something that has never happened (but possibly might) was not discovered at the certification stage is because Frank Robinson is involved in a widespread international conspiracy involving the FAA, the NTSB, NASA, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, me, Nick Lappos and persons too numerous to mention to pass off this patently unsafe helicopter on a gullible public. Luckily we've got people around like you to spot the plot. Now go away.

The main reason I have not flown a Robinson product is that not one of the Robinson pilots (many of which are instructors) in my area have shown me that they can fly the helicopter safely and responsibly.

Safety lies in the hands of the pilot, regardless of the type of aircraft.

yxcapt :

With respect, I think you're looking in the wrong place, or you have EXTREMELY high standards (not such a bad thing ).

I flew in the US a few weeks ago with instructors I'd trust implicitly, and if you come to the UK, there's plenty here who can show you the limits of the machine in a predictable and safe manner.

For what it is worth, a close friend and excellent test pilot for Sikorsky left the company several years back to get closer to general aviation. He is an excellent engineer, and was a scrupulously safe test pilot (he regularly flew the XH-59A/S-69 ABC experimental aircraft). I flew with him hundreds of times. He started a helicopter flight school, using Robinsons, and is doing quite well.

Many of his students are engineers for Kaman and Sikorsky.

One can infer something about Robinson from this, I think. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">

Nr: I do have very high standards and I realize that not all R22/44 operators operate their equipment in the same fasion. Unfortunatly, from my experaince here, I can see why the Robinson has a controversial reputation.

Keep the RPM up!

Nick:

What is the name of his school? Where is he located?

Thanks

yxcapt,
email me for the specifics. I am sensitive about not being an advertising agent for him! :)

I learned to fly helicopters in a civilian school at the hands of serving British military pilots who were moonlighting from day jobs flying Pumas, Chinooks and other such hardware at RAF Odiham, outside London. Almost all of them looked askance at the R22 when they arrived, having heard the kind of negative stories which are often rehearsed in this forum, but soon grew to trust and even love the machine once they had experience of it.
I recently had an opportunity to take two Aerospatiale pilots, over here to demo the EC130, for flights in the R22. They were particularly surprised at the excellent correlation (governor out) and by the efficacy of the governor.
I don't know of a single accomplished helicopter pilot who has had his prejudices about the R22 reinforced by experience of the machine.

From article 'Designing Rotor Blades' by Martin Hollmann in Dec 2001 ~ Jan 2002 issue of Rotorcraft.

&gt;"Another not often known secret in rotor blade design is to incorporate a small amount of tip weight into the blades. In the Sportster blades I use a 2.6 lb steel rod. This tip weight does wonders.

It reduces the coning angle, which increases the performance of a helicopter or gyro.

It increases the inertia of the rotor for better autorotation. The early Robinson R22 helicopter did not have tip weights and pilots complained about poor autorotation (2 seconds to put down the collective for autorotation when the engine stopped) and high control sensitivity. I met Frank Robinson one day and told him about rotor tip weights and asked him why he did not use them on his little helicopter. He said that he simply did not think of it. Two weeks later a bulletin from the Robinson Helicopter Co. came out announcing that all R22 blades would be retrofitted with tip weights."&lt;

Tain't:
If 'fossil is who I think he is, then I can think of few better qualified to have investigated throttle chops as he did, which I suspect was in response to the need to find more about the cause of a tragic accident.
I agree with your observation of respect for the R22. I have flown a variety of helicopters from trainers through to CH47, including the R22. I think it is an excellent cost-effective machine: and I respect it. Not to do so invites the old adage: 'All aircraft bite fools'.
Low inertia rotor systems require careful handling and AFM limits are just that. Beyond that, all pilots have personal limits. Ignorance of these AFM and personal limits sometimes has very sad consequences.
I think I have said before on a previous R22 thread that it is inevitable that a machine as 'accessible' as the R22 will have a highish accident rate, since many of those flying it will be relatively inexperienced, or private pilots who may not fly as often as they would like to.
Going back to the starting point of the thread, it's an interesting and perhaps encouraging statistic that the R22 accident rate looks quite favourable.

(Edit for spelling and to say that yes, I can think of better ways to spend Christmas Day than ppruning, but some of us are at work! Happy Christmas to you all.)

[ 25 December 2001: Message edited by: Multp ]</p>

T'aint natural,

Actually, there are some of us ex-mil beefers about who don't like the R-22. I was given the opportunity of instructing on it (moonlighting), some 15 years ago. I had no pre-conceived ideas, no axe to grind and had something to gain by flying it (at the time I was very keen to earn extra cash because of our 3 young children and a 14% mortgage rate).

However, having done a walkround and flown the aircraft once, I politely declined the job offer.
I have looked at the aircraft a few times since but I still agree with Frank Robinson, who said some years back that it wasn't conceived as a training aircraft.

Just my opinion and my choice. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

What Shy Torque stated about Frank Robinson’s comment about the R-22 not being conceived as a trainer is true yet his firm lays claim to having the highest unit sales for a given helicopter in the world. Most likely 90% of Robinson’s sales are to training facilities. Tell me if there is something wrong with this picture.

Merry Christmas and a Happy and safe New Year from Quebec.

I learned in a Bell 47 (OH-13E), which was not conceived as a trainer.

Is there any helicopter made that was conceived as a trainer? Even the US Army primary trainer is a re-treaded observation helicopter.

It is my assumption that the H-13 which was a derivative of the original Bell 47 which was the first US Certified helicopter also carried as a part of its’ certification an application as a trainer. Even if this were not true when the H-13 entered US Military service it was classified as a utility aircraft which also qualifies it in the trainer roll. If the H-13 never existed the US Army would not have a trainer available until they purchased the Hughes 269 or they would have used the H-23 which they most likely did.

Uh-ho.

Looks like I started something.

Nick, you are probably correct. I trained in the Whirlwind HAR-10, an RAF variant of the S-55 which definitely wasn't conceived as a trainer - it was an ex SAR aircraft, as I am sure you will recall.

It was unstabilised but it was forgiving (we were required to fly solo engine-offs to the ground as basic students), and it was a big aircraft with a lot of metal between the ground and one's personal parts. The Nr control was not a problem either, 80 kts and 190 Nr rings a bell for a range auto (in that configuration you could see the individual blades going round from inside). It made a very good basic trainer. It could also be used for USLs and winching, all of which was included in the basic course.

I was unhappy with the R22 because it seemed very small and delicate in comparison to the other helicopters I had operated, even down to the Gazelle which I had instructed on and particularly so in relation to the Wessex, Puma, Huey, Hughes 500 etc that I also had experience of by then.

During the early to mid 1980s the R22 had a dubious reputation in UK. There had been a lot of sudden engine failures and coupled with the low rotor inertia there had been problems....

When I got close to one and flew it I realised how lightly built it was, alarm bells rang for me so I stayed out after one flight. Put bluntly, I don't like to fly anything where I sense a risk of using my ar$e as an undercarriage.

I am very much aware of the improvements in the engine governor, engine reliability, and rotor inertia etc but I still don't want to fly one again.

It does have to be said that some very experienced pilots have had accidents in this type, some of them not satisfacorily explained.

I can't comment on the line that Lu Z follows about incorrect rigging and excess flapping with sideslip etc; my decision was already made long ago for these other reasons.

Frank R was quoted in an interview some years back with one of the rotary magazines as saying he had intended the aircraft to be used like a car by experienced pilots. I had to agree. However, it was inevitable that flying training outfits would use it because of the low costs.

Undeniably, the safety record of this type has improved markedly over the last few years, but it's still not for me.

I woud just like to make it quite clear that I have nothing personal against this manufacturer, As I said on a previous thread, most aircraft have had serious problems at some stage or other.

I will run the following for several days in order to solicit comments from contributors to this forum and then I will remove it as it takes a lot of memory.

[Article deleted]


No, you won't Lu.
Anyone interested in reading this 'scare story' by some reporter can email you for the reference.

You've had unlimited space on many occasions to air your anti-Robinson obsession /conspiracy theories on Rotorheads. We even got Frank Robinson to post on Rotorheads answering your allegations. His replies seemed to satisfy most people, although not you as I recall.

Please:
* Keep your posts to a reasonable length
* Avoid saying (or repeating) anything which might be defamatory.

Edited by Heliport
Moderator

[ 26 December 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>