RE: the R-22
 

I don’t know if I’m the guy you’re asking for What-ho, but for these five minutes until someone more qualified responds, I’ll tell you what I think.

I’m not going to bore you with my full CV only the relevants: I did my initial training in the r-22 in the eighties, gave 2,500 or so hours of instruction in them and then moved on through a dozen or so other types.

I think the r-22 is a fine machine. Can it be a dangerous machine? Yes, without question. The things I learned how to do in an r-22 have helped me on every flight in every other aircraft I have ever flown. It demands a delicate touch that translates perfectly into Instrument flying as well as high altitude and precision long-line. The R-22 teaches you things about power and rpm management that a turbine-trained pilot may never know. I never operated it outside its envelope.

When I taught in the r-22, we used the Robinson curriculum which required us to demonstrate and teach the low-g recovery technique. R-22 instructors performed the low-g maneuver thousands and thousands of times without incident, to the benefit of the students they were training. Today I believe the maneuver can only be verbally discussed. I think that was a knee jerk reaction by the FAA to the University study, believing they had to respond.

After reading the study, by Georgia Tech I believe, I noticed one commonality on many of the flights. Regardless of the experience of the PIC, you’ll notice that the person in the other seat was taking a demo flight.......or was going for his first helicopter ride with his friend........or words to the effect that the person at the controls may have been flying for the first time.

My opinion is that the person flying made large, sudden and unexpected control movements that exceeded the PIC’s ability to correct. I believe the aircraft attitude was way beyond normal or even aggressive maneuvers and even beyond what we experienced in the low-g recovery technique, closer to acrobatic. The R-22 is extremely controllable and as a result, very unstable. The rotor system will do exactly what you command it to do, and will do it immediately. I think it produced attitude changes or more correctly rates of attitude changes that even the experienced PICs hadn’t seen before. I think that it would be possible to cut off your own tail or even the left side of the fuselage while accidently entering the low-g regime and then responding with large and incorrect responses. Read the report, see what you think. Anyway, it’s just my opinion.

I have flown on R-22 150 flight hours. Not so much to be an "robbo" expert, but enough to made my own picture of the helicopter. Compared to the other (10) different types of helicopters i'am rated, it's not the "easycopter". And i would like to say from flight handling, concentration to flight controls and to hold anything inside "green" it's a very demanding, challenging helo.
In my opinion only from the view out of the flightcharacteristics and not costs, it's not the starting helicopter for our new pilots. The "green" range is very small and the possibilities to recover safe conditions are limited. May be that on the other side pilots, who are able to fly that thing safe, are really helicopter qualified. But loosing good guys under the known circumstances is allways very sadly. Robinson have made some design changes, improvements and awareness courses, but mostly after deadly accidents and under the pressure of insurances, authorities, pilots and owners. I' was able to meet Mr. Robinson after an deadly accident. Two of my longyear friends, professional pilots died in an R-44 crash. Same time to the funeral was the official date. What causes the crash was at the time absolutely unclear. Authority wished to ground all the robbos in country up to new informations but Mr.Robinson and his lawyer was able to make to much pressure. "My helicopters are safe under all conditions and if accidents happens, it's a pilots problem". Shure it's a pilot problem if he is not in line with the flight manual. But it's easy to write in a flight manual avoid this and avoid that... . If you are a line dancer 30 ft above the ground, simple! hold your center of gravity above the line! If you are injured on the ground - have you read the manual? It's a dancer problem... Simple hold the center... :)
We couldn't solve the robbo question but we can discuss and talk about. But TC and t ain't leave the guns at home.

This (thread) is very interesting. Out of interest, is there a consensus about WHAT small 2 person helicopters are good for training in/the first-time newly "solo"-ed flyer (which are available in Europe/cheap to run/good to service).

Inthegreen
 

Thanks for your post. 2,500 hrs instructional - I would think you know your way around a Robbo!

Your view seems logical, and in line with the opinion I am forming on the machine, having read through lots of info on the web (here and other places). I am about to get endorsed on the machine, so am very keen to get some balanced views from experienced aviators. So, thanks for taking the time to respond.

By the way, where can I see this University Report?

Tecpilot
 

Thanks for your reply also.

You say it is challenging, then quote about an R44 crash that killed your friends - does this make you think there is something sinister about the machine, or are you referring to the fact that it is sometimes a difficult helicopter to fly?

I must say that I totally agree with 'in the green'. I flew more than 1200 hours ab-initio instruction in the R22 with no problems, nor did anyone else at the commercial training school where I was working have any problems with the aircraft. I had been instructing on Bell 47s before and was very much against the Robinson, but once I started flying it and instructing in it my views changed. From the way I felt before flying it I can understand how other pilots who have not flown it may feel, but all I can say is that they should try it and gain some experience on it and see if it changes their views. The R22 is one of 14 types I have flown commercially and I believe it to be a good training aircraft because its rather unforgiving characteristics teach pilots sound helicopter piloting techniques. The point has been made time and time again that as long as the R22 is operated in accordance with the procedures laid down by Robinson it is unlikely to cause a problem. It does, however, require good instruction from experienced instructors not, as has been said, someone with a fixed wing instructor rating and 50 hours helicopter setting himself up to teach others something he is barely competent to fly, let alone instruct on.......waits to get shot down in flames!!:cool:

Soggyboxers, how does the R22 compare to the '47 when it comes to ab-initio flying? Chalk and cheese?

@What-ho Squiffy!

I wouldn't say R-helos are unsafe. Like any other a/c they have their limits und known or unknown bugs. By the time lot's of it are built, much flight time is logged. Therefore the problems are easy to see. Technical failure isn't a main problem. The main problem and you can count nearly all pilots errors in this category are flights, flightconditions or pilot inputs outside the limitations of the flight manual. That's the limited small "green" range. Within the "green" i'm shure it's a safe helicopter. But we have to think about: it's really alltimes possible to stay in green? Especially on commercial operations or unexperienced pilots? How easy is it to overload the a/c? Our R-22 were overweighted with simply 2 adults and the aux fuel tank filled. All you R pilots, you are the whole flight time so concentrated on the a/c as necessary? On our ship we missed the governor. Is gusting wind in the mountains so unusual? Up to 1995 we hadn't speed restrictions. Outside the straight and level flights the R needs an special eye on the RPM and the pilot inputs. The small "green" isn't only Mr. Robinsons problem. It's a question to operators, owners and pilots. The question is: is the Robinson really the ship you need for the mission and conditions? Or is it only the cheapest? My friends died on the starting phase of R-44 operations. They operated the a/c outside the limitations, after the first awareness courses. But to this time Mr. Robinson tells everyone R-44 is to compare with the light turbines. Fly and pay piston and feel like turbine. Mistake or PR? Low G, strength, performance and handling on Robinson isn't to compare with low G or the others on turbines... (of course the principles of low g are the same) In my opinion should Mr. Robinson first line think about his promotion campaigns. Business is ok but... It seems to me that a dangerous flight condition is faster to reach on Mr. Robinsons ships. Today any comparison between BH 206 or MD 500 and R-44 is a joke. But that view was deadly to get...

Head a fraction above the trench, using mirrors to see t'aint naturals position, seeing it's all quiet, creeps forward very slowly, very very quietly...looks over the top and spies t'aint, re-loading his foghorn:D
TC reaches for his 700 watt megaphone, points it squarely at t'aint and within 1 inch of his ear, and screams....

TOLD YOU SO..IT WAS NUMBER 3:eek: :eek: :p :p :p :p :p
then gets up and runs like f**k for cover:cool:

(very quietly)
Listen mush.
If indeed it was number three, consider this. When an R22 flies, it is number three (less quietly now) the majority of the time. This being so, the record of the machine is all the more notable.
BMWs are involved in more road accidents than Bristols, but only Lu Zuckerman would argue that the reason for this is a hidden (from everyone but Lu) defect in the design of the former.

What-ho Squiffy:

The linkR-22 loss of control report

It's a long and arduous read.

Best Regards.

Thanks inthegreen,

Yes, it does appear that way..
Cheers.

What ho Squiffy!

I guess the R22 and the Bell 47 are a bit chalk and cheese as you say, but I think that the R22 had more relevance in teaching people to fly a modern helicopter, as it has a low inertia rotor in common with many of the helicopters now flying in Europe. Despite the teetering rotor (which is also the cause of some of its handling problems) the offset hinges also give it quite good control power (waits to be shot down by a real expert here!!)which is also similar to many of the modern helicopters students would hope to go on to fly.
It has to be said that the reason the school where I was working at the time changed was purely for reasons of cost, (the other types being considered being Schwiezer 300 and Enstrom F28) but the R22 appeared to offer considerable cost savings over anything else. Most of our students went straight from the R22 to the AS332L or S76.

You are wrong because I am right. If you disagree with that I am taking my toys home
 

To: t'aint natural

There are no design defects in the Robinson rotor system. However there are effects relating to the design that cause the problems.

The head design is unique in that the downward force of the weight of the rotorblades on the down stops keeps the rotor in the neutral position when static on the ground. This function is similar to the stops on Bell heads. However, this feature also prevents the teetering of the rotor by the pilot or engineer while the helicopter is at rest as to do so could cause damage to the rotor head. These same down stops can be contacted during flight if the blades flap excessively resulting in rotor incursion or mast bumping. However the Bell teeter stops are not contacted during flight. Why do the blades flap excessively? Because they are free to flap on the cone hinges. Why don’t’ Bell blades flap excessively because the are not free to flap (on cone hinges) and it is for this reason that Bell helicopters are not restricted from flying out of trim or fly in a side slip. You made the comment about "Taking a lend” (I assume this means following) of the operating instructions and you will not have any problems. The operating instructions you are alluding to are in place because of the “EFFECT” of the rotor design as outlined above.

I don’t remember if it was you that made the comment of me being a one-act pony but I would like to correct that statement. I am an equal opportunity Iconoclast in that I have criticized Bell products, Agusta products, Sikorsky products, Hughes products and Bell-Boeing products. Also if you have read my posts on the Tech Log Forum I openly criticized Airbus products. I don’t shoot from the hip as I make my criticisms as a result of having worked on the products in question in an engineering capacity. Any comments I made about the Robinson design stems from my past experience on the other designs listed above. This also holds true for my comments about gyroscopic precession and centrifugal force as well as rotor dynamics.

Don’t take this personally as it relates to many other members of this forum.

Rotorheads is a place where ideas can be exchanged between consenting adults. At times individuals can agree with the points being made and they can also disagree with the posters point of view and they can register their point of view in response.

However, first and foremost because the respondent disagrees with the ideas being presented does not mean that the original post and the poster are wrong simply because the respondent disagrees.

Cases in point:

1) Gyroscopic precession VS. Aerodynamic precession
2) Flapping to equality VS. Blowback or, Flapback
3) Centrifugal force VS. Centripetal force*

* Read the patent application for the Robinson rotor head design.

Wear in cone/flap hinges
 

Lu, you had a concern about wear in the cone/flap hinges of the R-22 head. The following bit of information should be of interest, and may be of interest to others.

I was talking to the director of maintenance for a large authorized Robinson maintenance company and I asked him about wear in the rotor head. He said that they maintained sixty R-22's. Many are used as logging company pickup trucks, and spend much time hovering, where the rotor torque is constantly changing. These helicopter have their teetering bearings changed every 300-500 hours, where as the regularly used ones have this bearing changed every 1000-1200 hours.

He said that they had never replaced a cone/flap bearing and that they appear to be good for the life of the helicopter.

Why do I rise to this? Lu, you've said it all before. It was crap then, and it's crap now. Like I say, all you have to do is build a better helicopter than Frank Robinson did. You can nick all the stuff he got right, add your own design of the stuff he got wrong, and presto! The Z22. Then instead of wasting your time bellyaching about something you know nothing about, you'll have made a real contribution to the industry.
If you have time to waste, why not learn to fly? Or take some lessons in basic design? That'd help.
PS I didn't say you were a one-trick pony. I said you were a fixated monomaniac with a fetish.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
 

To: t'aint natural

Quote: “Then instead of wasting your time bellyaching about something you know nothing about, you'll have made a real contribution to the industry.
If you have time to waste, why not learn to fly? Or take some lessons in basic design? That'd help”.

Regarding the first sentence above about knowing what I am talking about I alluded to my past experience, which is:

Eighteen factory technical schools on helicopters to include the P&W Twinpack and the Allison 250.
Fourteen month training program at Sikorsky.
Two military schools on aircraft, helicopters and engines.

Worked as a design analyst specializing in Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety on the following:

Agusta 129
Agusta-Westland EH 101
AH-64 Apache
AH-56 Cheyenne
Bell-Boeing V-22

Supervised the maintenance engineering department for Bell Helicopter International on the following:
AB 206
AB 205
Bell 214
Bell AH1-J
Agusta-Boeing CH-47
Agusta-Sikorsky SH3-D

I believe this gives me sufficient standing to be critical about anything related to helicopters that effect reliability, maintenance or safety.

Regarding my learning to fly. I did a lot of that in the service as a flight engineer or helicopter maintenance mechanic. There is a strong possibility that I was doing this before you were born.

It seems that you were attacking me but failing to respond to what I mentioned in my post above.

:)

Taint - now you've gone and done it!! We'll all have to hide on another thread until he goes away again!

An R22 is an impressive machine in the right (experienced hands) unfortunately the majority of owners and hirers are low time pilots who may also fly infrequently (skill fade). These are the sort of pilots making up the accident stats and it's not really their fault. It is widely recognised that continuity of flying experience is very important and getting airborne for an hour every couple of months just isn't enough to keep you on top of the Robbo.

PS Lu you forgot the argument you lost about pitch change rods and their varying rate of movement around a control orbit...

Oh Bugg*r now I've done it too......

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, everybody... I'm not answering now, I've got my fingers in my ears.... nana na na na na na...

Having worked for a company that had flown a couple hundred thousand commercial R22 and R44 hours without a single loss of control accident like that which worries Lu and the FAA so much, I'd like to make an observation.

The key to safe flying in these machines is currency and respect.

We have also noted that new-hire pilots who are very low-time and were trained on machines like the Bell47 have a difficult time adjusting to the low inertia rotor. They retain habits that are very inapplicable to the new type and tend to be slow to pick up the new skills.

I can't imagine hopping into a machine for a couple hours every couple months and feeling safe, let alone owning a helicopter and renting it out to someone like this! Its a serious business.