I'm currently teaching in the R22, just under 700 total hours. I did my private in the 300cb. Would I rather have a job instructing in the MD500 or a Jetranger... yes, does that mean the R22 isn't a good training machine, no.

I think its an excellent training machine, if you understand its limitations. Every helicopter has individual quirks, some may be better than the R22.

For the cost and the reliability the R22 is a hands down winner as a trainer. If it wasn't you wouldn't see so many successful schools using them over the long term. I would rather fly the R22 than the 300cb. I could never have afforded the loans for an R44, not the way the industry is currently structured in the US.

Should "low time" pilots even be giving instruction.... maybe not, but thats not how the industry in the US is structured, so its a moot point. Can 'low time" CFI's give safe and accurate instruction in the R22, you bet they can. Some people aren't cut out to be instructors, but would it really matter what ship they were in? I don't personally think it would...

just my .02

Good post Aclark79. Totally agree about the 22 being a good training machine in the right hands. :D

JOHO

Agree with the learning not to fly into cloud.... , but not with no insrument instruction pre solo. A student has to do the 5 hours before the end of the course anyway, so why not a manditory 1 or 2 hours pre 1st solo?
This would at least allow a student unlucky enough to find himself in IMC the ability to stay straight and level and open up his options for getting home.

Surely it's got to be totally irresponsible of the instructor to allow a student on his 1st, 2nd or 10th solo flight up in conditions where there is even a remote possibility of IMC.

Flight into IMC for any pilot without an IR and associated a/craft must not be allowed to happen. If the cloudbase/viz is too low the student doesn't go up. If the student's control of the a/craft isn't good enough to remain clear of say 2,000ft cloudbase in the circuit they shouldn't be up.

I understand that sometimes there may be a sudden and unforecast deterioration in weather on a solo cross country, but student should be briefed to land if neccessary.

To be going IMC weather intentionally or not on 3rd solo is a massive cock up and the supervising instructor should have been held to account on that!

Hear, hear, jemax. :D:D:D


@Ivey44: There's enough to be dealing with pre-solo without encouraging the 'eyes in the cockpit' discipline of IF. :=

Ivey. .

As above - but surely you now know flying with foggles and an instructor is a million miles from actually flying in cloud solo.

Interesting to note when they (JAA) first introduced 'instrument appreciation' on the PPL(H) course it was with a blackout panel over the canopy at the students feet. This was very swiftly changed as too many students/instructors got into difficulty.

I personally feel most of the fatalities in the 22 in recent years have been aided by this 'instrument appreciation' and the belief that you can fly a 22 for a short time in cloud with very low hours.

Dont even think about it. . .:=

Johe02

"I personally feel most of the fatalities in the 22 in recent years have been aided by this 'instrument appreciation' and the belief that you can fly a 22 for a short time in cloud with very low hours".

Can you elaborate i.e. what is so different between froggles and IMC that would cause accidents ?

I don't have the experience to say you are wrong - I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

To be clear I am a 130hr R22 PPL (I know I'm in the wrong place as this is a professional pilots website - but it is an excellent "real life" resource). To be even clearer I have never flow solo in IMC nor do I ever intend to.

Ian

I can elaborate...from experience.

With foggles, you get a fair amount of visual information around the edges. You may not even realise it's happening, but it is. When I was doing the instrument flying for my CPL(H), I was flying with foggles, felt as though I was just using the instruments, and I was getting on fine. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, I got a severe case of "the leans". In case you don't know what this is, it's when you feel as though you're in an unusual attitude, even though your instruments tell you you're flying straight and level. It can be VERY intense and disorientating. In my case, I felt as though I was in a spiralling right hand turn. It was so intense that I began to feel very nauseous, and told my instructor that if it got any worse I wouldn't be able to continue flying. Then, just as suddenly, the spiralling sensations stopped. And according to my instructor, they'd corresponded exactly with us flying through a very small cloud. I'd had no idea...but my body and senses knew the difference. And if it had been for real, and I'd had to do a 180 degree turn and make decisions, while feeling severely ill.....

Well, I think you get the point.

Thank you

I suppose there is nothing you can do to prepare your self for this eventuality - except stay out of clouds !!!!

Ian

IMC v Foggles 10 million miles apart. Instrument appreciation which i have been teaching since it came in around 1999 is a complete waste of time and fools the student in to believing he could handle a bit of IMC. He can't and never will be able too. I do not hold an IR but have thousands of hours instructing Please can a IR pilot confirm that the R22 is impossible to maintain IMC for any length of time.

If you find yourself in cloud lower the lever all this 180 stuff is b*ll*cks. I've done it a thousand times as soon as the student sees the white stuff on the window he always leans back / pulls back on the stick and up he goes.

IMC frightens me to death (in an R22)

I have only flown in cloud (for any lenght of time) in a 22 with instructors who have 8,000 + (one has 30,000) and I could tell they were still twitchy. . So it can be done but certainly should not be attempted by a student.

When I had c.200 hrs I was in a 44 in cloud (with instructor) and got the feeling I was doing a spot turn! Instruments were not moving and told me I was straight and level and I was convinced for a moment they had jammed! Instructor found this "interesting".

There is no real reason why you should accidently fly in to a cloud unless you are not in proper control of the a/c.

The sooner the JAA remove the foggles the better. . !

Ok, details of the 3rd solo IMC incident.

A long time ago but as I remember it.....

Downwind LH at the heli circuit height 800'. Large bank of cloud moved very rapidly from my right and enveloped the aircraft. Dispite my tender hours my reaction was to revert to instruments, probably because there was nothing else to look at.....! I saw the ASI hit zero and altimeter heading for 1200' :eek: (fixed wing circuit 1000' !).
I clearly had to get some speed on and lose height (which seemed to take forever...) but eventually came out the bottom with probably 70knts BUT with (luckily only) around 15deg roll left.

This is my point, had I had a little experience with the AH I would have run less risk of rolling into an unrecoverable situation. I can see no point in reserving training, that is a requirement for the licence anyway, until the latter part of the course when it would add safety if taught pre solo.

In the instructors defence forcast cloudbase was 1600'. I always remind him of the event when I see him......

Up till solo it is absolute nonsense that any form of IF training should be conducted.

Most at that stage are confused about many different things. a clear instruction from the instructor to LOOK for and DEVIATE around cloud removes doubt and would help remove confusion for the student.

It also allows the student to demonstrate some responsibility in following a clear instruction.

it's a bit like a real case I heard about recently when a truck had been run over by a train at a level crossing.

The local senior copper was being interviewed on the pm news. He was referring to the stop sign at the level xing and said. "Which part of the english word STOP do you not understand?"

Top end, I agree.

Better still have no artificial Horizon.

In addition to which it is the instructors responsibility to be supervising the solo, which includes monitoring the cloudbase and relaying a message to the student via atc if neccessary.

We had a case where a student was due to have an outbound track of 270, had brain fade and tracked 170 believing he was on track, the instuctor picked this up, got an immediate message to him via atc. He was just about to enter controlled airspace.

Allowing a student to get themselves into IMC at that stage is inexcusable, Ivey thankfully you were fortunate. I hope the instructor was beating himself up.

You can always LAND a helicopter, even in the circuit if you have to. It's a lot safer than messing around in IMC.

Mmmm.....
Well i've only been qualified as an Instrument instructor since 1979 .... so i prob don't know as much as most here ...
BUT in my opinion unless you are flying in a proper helicopter set up for IMC flight I would suggest nobody F**ks about with IMC flight unless they know very well what they are doing!
It will only end in tears or smelly pants. :{ :eek: and thats if your lucky :ooh:

:*

= I didn't notice I was flying right towards a cloud.

R-66 Turbine Powered
 

One more time Franck Robinson is surfing the curl....but!

One more time he forgot to proper develop his project:

- 300HP for a 5 seater is greater less that the old good HO-6 & OH-58 which were already underpowered with the C18.

- Just have a ride at the controls of a B 206 III at full PAX load and fuel, you'll see that the 420HP are not in excess to lift the bird...even at low density altitude!

- A two blade rotor is still a non sense (especially for a so called new helicopter) and remains still dangerous.

- One more time Robinson is only slightly improving a design coming from the R-22 which came from the Hugues 300, which was developed in the 50'.... what an improvement!

- One more time the first customers will pay for an underpowered helicopter, in the waiting of a new version….which will be powered by a 350-400HP turbine engine.

So by now we have:

- A Heavy design.
- A Non crashworthy structure / tanks for sure.
- A Very low payload
- A full set of very poor performances at mid load.

One more crap!

A newly developed chopper should:

• Be light weight built with advanced materials
• Be Crashworthy (fuselage, seats, landing gears & tanks)
• Be no more subject to mast bumping issues
• Be able to carry full Pax load and fuel to authorize a landing OGE (ISA) at 6’000Ft
• Be fitted with a FADEC system.
• This liste should only be the minimum requirements for calling a machine a new helicopter.

So why not purchasing an old good B-206II or III instead of a new bugged one?


Excellent, forecast for Eurocopter sales!


Cyril (R-22 - R-44 - B206II - EC-120 - EC 135 pilot)

Cyril,

got up with the wrong foot?
Boss bad with you?
Where did you get all that "info" for the R-66 from???

Do some math will you?
The R-44-II has 280hp - FR is not a fool, why would he plan on a R-66 with 300 hp??

Before you dump a load you should verify your data and were you put it!!

Never mind I like EC too, but you are not very objective with your post!!

·top :cool:

not sure if this should be in the R22 section but in reply to the discussion on the R66 engine a search of RR300 engine and prdomain.com. Shows an anouncement from RR that they ARE to supply frank with a roll out of 300shp RR300 engines starting 2008. Definetley states R66 and 5 seat, so that should mean 2 up front and three in back. Think about it you wouldn't need to tweak the width in the back much to fit a third in. I have now flown for 22 yrs in heli and if it wasn't for Frank I would have never got a start so to all the nockers out there why not wait till you see what they put up.

Quote : One more time Robinson is only slightly improving a design coming from the R-22 which came from the Hugues 300, which was developed in the 50'.... what an improvement!

Have you ever lifted the cowl on a Robbie?
The R22 is nothing like the H300!! The 300 is overcomplicated, the R22 is the most successful due to its simplicity...........

Someone please correct me if I am wrong about this: THe R22 and R44 are uncertifiable as instrument ships in the US. Yes you can train in them, no you can't go IFR in them.

There is simply no excuse for going into a cloud as a student, if its so bad out they can't avoid them, they shouldn't be flying.

While I wouldn't take an R22 or R44 into actual IMC I have no qualsm about flying them daily for work, excellent machines, well built, well engineered and if I was to buy a personal helicopter the R44 would be my number one choice...

Negative G Recovery... lower collective?
 

Does anyone know the latest on Negative G recovery?
As well as the "aft cyclic to load the disc" method, I learnt to drop the collective in New Zealand: It certainly seemed to work.. removing the yaw that lifts the fuselage.. but I haven't come across anyone who seems to have heard of this in UK.... I would like confirmation of my recollection of the theory involved - it was quite a mental overload going through it at the time!!:eek:
Anyone care to comment if it is taught where you are? What's the official line from across the pond and Frank Robinson?

Thanks for the diag... but
 

I can't see how windage alone can lift 1000+lbs at 30 knots sidewind.... well not more than a few degrees whence the windage will be reduced. Plus the fuselage seems to lift more as the speed comes off, not the opposite.
Humour me for a moment: What about these suggestions for the melting pot as other causes of the fuselage lifting:
1:Perhaps: The precessed centrifugal force of the tail rotor on the tailboom due to (perhaps) changing asymetry of lift across the tail rotor as the forward speed reduces (transient change) - this force might seem to twist the tailboom/ fuselage only laterally (once precessed) but.. as the nose of the fuselage is coming up it may have a component with twisting affect on the fuselage upward?
2: Or: As load comes off the main rotor, drag is reduced altering balance of torque. Now..focussing on the rotating driving units below the hub like the mast and in the gear box... as the nose of the fuselage lifts upward a 90 degree force might be precessed on these rotating parts, thus lifting the leftside of the fuselage upward. (anticlockwise main rotor)
I feel theory 2 has some potential....
Any thoughts from the wiser grey matter? ? NickL?

K48. The problem is not much to do with lifting force. It is simply as the diagrams show.A two bladed helicopter with a gymbal head hangs underneath the rotor and the only forces that keep the fuselage in the correct relationship to the rotor is gravity (plus centrifugal force in a turn). Remove the gravity by pushing over and the fuselage is free to adopt attitudes under the influence of other forces, in this case tailrotor thrust which is above the vertical C of G causing the right roll. Stick to the recommended recovery, it works. We used to routinely demonstrate it to students and have them practice it, before some people got a bit carried away and took the demo too far.
Incidentally all two bladers do it, just a bit more slowly than the R22.

Rotorfossil
 

Thanks, I agree, stick to what you were taught. Or better don't go there at all! (make note to the longtime fixed winger above...:eek:)
But for discussion:8, I was taught both methods in NZ and wish to discuss it further globally as outlined above.:) The lowering collective method was simpler, very effective indeed and purportedly less error prone as no cyclic input is required thus eliminating a premature left cyclic input.

Cheers!

Low G etc
 

So, lets take this discussioan a bit further. What kind of issues arise in a helicopter with a full articulated rotor in low G conditions? All the discussions seem to focus on teetering semi rigid rotors. The rough equivalent of mast bumping for a teetering rotor would seem to be droop stop pounding for the articulated rotor. Is there more, is low G with a fully articulated rotor dangerous, and are recovery methods similar? Cant seem to find much discussion of this topic in the usual training materials.

Thanks,

RB

Hi K48,

I drop the collective to correct this (have to allow a student to go as far as possible first) speed increases rapidly so there is a need to reduce it slowly to keep RRPM from going too high when you flare.

Don't remember being taught this it just seems to be the best thing to do in the situation given all the info. Eg. rotor close to tail etc. .

Rick, No restriction on neg G with Enstrom articulated head except 'no aerobatics' - Its a matter of degree. The limits are way beyond what a Robbie will tolerate, to the point That I think you would have to push really hard to get there. I have experienced neg G to the point where things float off the seat-with a very experienced instructor on board. It wasnt planned.:eek:
I tend to avoid it - I trained in a 22.
As you know the head is fixed to the mast with the blades being attached about 6 inches from the centre of rotation. This gives the blades positive control over the mast unlike a teerering head. This arrangement is fine for much more spirited flying than you could get away with in a Robbie but it does not have the same authority as a fixed head. Yes, theoretically, if you push it too far it will contact the bump stops but I think you would have to be seriously mad to do it. The Bolkow is more aerobatic.The blades are fixed to the mast rigidly so more authority. The ultimate extension is the model where the blades have enough authority over the mast and the whole lot is strong enough for it to hover upside down. To do this in full size would be a massive (impossible?) problem due to the huge forces involved.
The teetering head has minimal control over the mast.
Do you need diagrams of force couples on the head or does that explain it?

Low G
 

Gaseous,

Thanks for the reply. Are you able to direct me to web or other resources that treat this in greater detail?

Thanks,

RB

Yes Rick, Norman Baileys book, The helicopterpilots manual Vol 1, has a brief section on rotor head authority or as he correctly put it, Control power, page 61 on. I just edited my post above to avoid some flak from the more pedantic who stalk here.

Edited to add the word 'correctly' to keep 212man happy.

That's what it's called: it's not his 'name for it'.

Someone above said that one school tweeked the rrpm to the high end of the permissable band, I assume they did this when setting the auto rpm, (which is more than likely the problem with old mate's machine, the auto rpm that is). A lot of pilots I talk to would agree to this train of thought.
I have a lot of experience mustering in the 22 and it's worth thinking that if you were to have a power loss auto at low level, a high initial auto rpm is not nesseccarily a good thing. Up high probably not so critical as height is your friend, I think.
Consider the auto descent rate is 1500 ft per minute in a correctly rigged machine. Or that is what it states in the POH. If the rigging were set for a higher initial rpm, then when the collective is jammed to the floor in a low level auto, the machine will descend at a rate higher than 1500 feet pm, for instance lets say 1700 feet pm. Do we now have the time to reestablish 1500 feet pm before we collide with the ground. The machine is designed to arrest the rate in a properly executed auto of 1500 fpm but maybe not 1700 fpm.
Just food for thought before you start stuffing around with higher auto rpm's

I'm new to this gizmo and seem to have posted this to the wrong thread.
my apology's

Just food for thought before you start stuffing around with higher auto rpm's
 

Mate, I hope you never have an engine failure.

Why? please elaborate.

Wow, I never realised how dangerous Robinsons were until I read this thread - I think I'll stick to my geriatric Hughs tool works product :E

If its permissible by the book, thats OK.
I think entry RPM and ROD is more affected by the size of the flare than the rigging.
The rigging procedure is designed to maintain adequate RRPM in steady autorotation at minimum weight.
I used to fly a helicopter that was rigged with the auto rpm set too high. The problem was that at high power settings it used to bang on the stop at the high end! I got it sorted pretty quick. Running out of collective is not good.
There is only one way to rig. As it says in the book.

The issue with R22's in auto is that the rate of descent in auto is about 400 fpm greater if the rpm are towards the top of the band than if they are about in the green sector, increasing the ground rush impression. Also you then have an overspeed problem in the flare unless indulging in some fancy collective work. The best compromise we found was to have the auto rpm two up at normal training weight adjusted to 106%, lever fully down. However this meant readjusting them down a bit as the summer temperatures came in and then up again in the autumn.