Lu rides his hobby horse and rides and rides, closed mind, closed eyes.

It is sometimes not at all amusing how little he knows, and how much he posts. :mad:

Lu, I think your obsession with the R22 is that you don't understand it. The problem is, the more you dig in your position, the less likely you are to accept facts and continue your rhetoric. Be very careful using statistics to support your view. Statistics can turn against you very quickly. Two different Actuaries will use the same statistics to provide a different outcome.

Hey Lu,

I suppose its an age thing, but I tend to listen/read and absorb most of what people say and write, I then seem to follow my own instinct, but with a mind to what others have said.
Now then if you are ever able to drop off at Mnachester (UK), I'll come and pick you up and give you a couple of hours flying around the gently rolling hills of Lancashire, in a nearly new R22, I am by no means classed as a high timer, but I am very safety aware, I think in a normal flight you would be pleasantly supprised to see that unless you actually do something silly, the little R22 is quiet a good little bird, sure it has had accidents, but so have far more sophisticated birds, my attitude is that accident's will happen, it is down to the pilot of the craft to fly in the most correct way possible to mitigate any possibility's of an accident occurring to his flight, obviously you cannot know when mechanical failure is going to happen, but if you do all your pre-flights and checks, and observe the weather and where you are going to fly I feel that you have a more than fair chance of returning to whence you left, in a completly controlled manner.
I enjoy reading the posts from the members of Pprune and find that a lot of information written on these various threads in Rotorheads is first class and works in real life, but I feel that you may not have actually flown in the R22, so hence my offer, please feel free to E me if you do not want to make open comments to my offer it won't cost you a cent I'll pay! All you need to do is get here!

My Regards

PeterB :D

HI GUYS,

do we have Lu up and roaring again?

Well I don´t know what you call hightime Robbie driver. Does about 3800 in Robbies count?

Lu, "correct me" if I am wrong:

If I remember right, Robinson uses an old Army-video in their (excellent!) Safetycourse. This video is about mastbumbing and loss of the rotor as a result, on Hueys... of all the big iron!! According to this report people did not really know what was going on, until further research showed, that pilots were not aware of the dangers of low g, as saveing ones butt was more important, and therefor they pushed the aircraft right over the hills to stay low, resulting...sometimes... in mastbumbing.

Now I do not have the insight in the very details of every helicopterdesign, but common sense I am able to use....sometimes...
About the droopstops Lu is complaining on the Robbie. Well they are fixed, so what, so are the ones on any other helicopter once the machine is running. I understand that most models use moveable stops (personally I know only the systems on B-47 and 206) to limit movement on the stopped or very slow rotor on runup or shutdown. Maybe it slipped Lu that the Robbies use FRICTION in their heads and quite a bit (AND it works beautifully!!), so when the rotor is slow or stopped the blades hardly flapp at all. Once very slow or stopped they seat on stops to avoid to much droop in the CONINGHINGES. So you would have to move the rotor by hand to move the head all the way to the flapp stops.

I was lucky to get a low g recovery demonstrated by the very Testpilot who did all the prototyp testing for the R-22. The gentleman not only likes the R-22 but to level things, has several 1000 hours in Hueys,Jet Rangers, CoastGuard Dolphines. Actually he is a Checkpilot for that CG-Equipment. So if someone would be biased to heavy iron, he should be.
Well to the low g: All it takes is proper training and flying with some brains. You will probably never encounter low g if you do not provoke it by pushing over to hard.
Besides the low or zero g is not the problem anyway - IT IS THE WRONG REACTION OF THE POORLY TRAINED PILOT - but of course we can always blame it on the design.
It seems in the US people have sometimes trouble to adapt to lightweight designs: I remember there was a big campaign by some ignorant "Specialists" to kill the Suzuki Samurai 4x4, because, supposedly, it flipped over to easy. Well if some braindead jerk thinks he can defy gravity and highschool physics, of course a light design will start to fly as it is at its max rather quick. However no one thinks about that it is built tot be light, and still people whant to carry the same stuff they just took out of thei Suburban!
How come however that the Zuki still maintains a side angle equal or better than other 4x4 offroad vehicles? (I drive a Toyota HiLux by the way...)

It seems to be the same problem with the R-22:

Well it is a small package and for that, limited in some areas - like the rotormass - but you can work around it, mainly with using the brain when flying. It is a very responsive machine and if you can work with it, size does not matter or better said it does matter: where I go with a R-22 no one else will go!!!

I learned to fly on Franklin powered B-47s. So I have an idea what you talk about pistonpowered reputation.
The Robbies do not fit that cliche at all.
Lu you still need to find a turbine chopper that has a faster reacting governor than either Robbie!!
Pleeeeease do not come back with carb icing problems they had in the beginning - that´s solved. ....so are the cracks in the tailrotor driveshaft couplings - and then they only had trouble with that when cattle herding in the outback - if you ever saw a R-22 in action like that, you´ll understand

-well maybe not.......

2 more points:

Of my total of about 5800 hrs I have only about 400 in turbine. The two times I got in non selfinduced trouble was in turbines (One time the first stage of the compressor in a 206 failed on me about 30 ft in the air on final with max gross weight. It took out the whole axial part of the Allison-compressor - we made it allright - long live high rotor inertia!!!
The other was a leaking fuel line in a EC120 - no sweat.. but could have been, with gallons of fuel departing the aircraft from the enginedeck drain......)

Never anything like that in Robbies I flew....

The other was a crashed R-44 (Student froze on the controls and what I can tell from the site and the reports of the instructor and student, the ship went upside down on takeoff and wound itself around a tree after chopping of a one foot branche of another tree - well at some time rotorblades give up and depart -
What I found in the wreckage was amazing: Parts that should be broken merly deformed extremely, but would not let go, least the rotorhead or mast. After seeing what this helicopter can take before giving up I will always choose a Robinson over any other helicopter if it is capable to do the job on hand - and it can do a lot of them a 206 can´t!!.....tested

Anyway Lu, why don´t you get a couple of hours in a R-22 some time, but watch out!

.......You migh like it!!


3top :)

Try these stats, from an NTSB report dated 1996 regarding R22 loss of rotor control accidents. While the chart focuses on "LOC" accidents, it also provides overall accident rates for various types in the years covered.

The report is located at the following link, and the table was taken from page 12 (pdf page 20) of the report.
www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf

Table 1-U.S. Loss of control 1 (LOC), non-loss of control (non-LOC), and all fatal
helicopter accidents, flight hours, and corresponding accident rates for the years
1981-1994. by helicopter model.

Fatal Accidents -------------------------- Fatal Accidents per 100,000 flight hours
Helicopter Model a LOC non-LOC All --- Total Flight hours b LOC non-LOC All

Bell 206 - 2 119 121 --- 13,369,702 - 0.015 0.890 0.905
Hughes 369 - 2 38 40 --- 3,00,236(sic) - 0.067 1.267 1.333
Hiller UH12 - 1 13 14 --- 987,796 - 0.101 1.316 1.417
Enstrom F28 - 1 16 17 --- 845,032 - 0.118 1.893 2.012
MBB BO 105 - 1 12 13 --- 806,750 - 0.124 1.487 1.611
Bell 212 - 1 3 4 --- 497,129 - 0.201 0.603 0.805
Hughes 269 - 5 28 33 --- 1,992,301 - 0.251 1.405 1.656
Bell 47 - 6 44 50 --- 2,343,215 - 0.256 1.878 2.134
Bell 204 - 1 2 3 --- 227,683 - 0.439 0.878 1.318
Robinson R22 - 23 39 62 --- 1,524,483 - 1.509 2.558 4.067

Fatal Accident Totals 43 314 357

1 LOSS of control (LOC) accidents, involved an in flight: loss of main rotor control; structural failure of the main rotor blade that did not involve pre-existing fatigue of rotor blade materials; or, loss of aircraft control or collision with terrain for unknown reasons, in the absence of structural failure, encounter with instrument meteorological conditions, or pilot impairment due to drugs or alcohol. a Accidents involving Fairchild Hiller FH1100 (two fatal LOC accidents) and Brantly B2 (one fatal LOC accident) helicopters were excluded because reliable utilization data were not available. b General Aviation Activity and Avionics Survey, Federal Aviation Administration: Washington, D.C. 1980-1992. Nine missing data values were imputed by linear interpolation. General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity and Avionics Survey, Federal Aviation Administration: Washington, D.C., 1993. Preliminary 1994 data from Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.

Note: The total flight hours for the Hughes 369 cannot be right, even though what is shown is as the report reads.

(Edited to clean up the table's appearance)

[ 15 December 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]

To: 3top

“ About the droop stops Lu is complaining on the Robbie. Well they are fixed, so what, so are the ones on any other helicopter once the machine is running. I understand that most models use moveable stops (personally I know only the systems on B-47 and 206) to limit movement on the stopped or very slow rotor on run-up or shutdown. Maybe it slipped Lu that the Robbies use FRICTION in their heads and quite a bit (AND it works beautifully!), so when the rotor is slow or stopped the blades hardly flap at all. Once very slow or stopped they seat on stops to avoid too much droop in the CONING HINGES. So you would have to move the rotor by hand to move the head all the way to the flap stops”.

What you say about the Bell and Robinson droop stops is correct with one exception. The last two words in your paragraph above should read "teeter stops" as opposed to "flap stops". The point I was making was that with the fixed droop stops on the Robinson the blades could contact the stops during high flapping excursions. And, in doing so, the kinetic energy will turn the rotor system into a first class lever with the fulcrum at the teeter hinge and force the entire head down making contact with the mast. This flapping is very intense and occurs at a high frequency, which literally beats the head into the mast at a high rate causing mast separation. This in effect would turn that part of the Robinson head into one half of a Bell blade and head.

On other helicopters that are equipped with flapping capability they employ centrifugally operated or other devices such as used on the Hughes design that maintains the static droop angle but permits the blades to flap lower than the static angle during flight. Many of these helicopters also have limiting stops, which limit the maximum up and down flap of the blades. When the blades hit either of these stops during maneuvering the pilot will feel a heavy beat and then he will limit his cyclic input. The Robinson can not flap below the static droop limit of the blade.

Regarding the strength of the components on the crashed R-44 as demonstrated by what bent and what broke as the result of the crash the loads are distributed in a different manner in a crash. In the case of a mast separation the loads are repetitive and they are applied in a very concentrated area. Although the mast and head were not visibly or overly damaged as a result of the crash mast bumping would have been a different story.

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

Seeing all the posts on R22's prompts me to add my experiences. The commercial school that I was involved with established the principle that simulated engine failures would be demonstrated and regularly practiced to EOl's from all stages of flight. That is, hover, low transition up to 30kt, full power climb at 60kt/200ft, final approach to hover/200ft and level flight 50ft/60 - 70kt. Also demos and practices of low 'G' recoveries wre done until Robinson's ban on this demo.

Low transition - level the skids, pause, raise the lever as per hover. Once initiating the climb, then you can lower the lever, level the skids and cushion the touchdown.

In the climb 60kt/full power - SLAM THE LEVER DOWN (you cannot do it too quickly) and don't try to change the attitude while you are doing it. Unless you are very quick indeed (about half a second), the RRPM will decay below 90%. Even from 200 ft, full autorotation will not be established and a full flare only reduces the speed, not the R of D. Better to accept a gentle flare and run on. If on entry , the speed has decayed below 45kt, don't try to increase it, just accept the constant attitude technique.

On the approach, speed below 60kt, again GET THE LEVER DOWN. The RRPM decay is less marked due to the lower lever position. Again, a full flare to a low speed touchdown doesn't work, Gentle flare if above 50 kt, constant attitude if less.

In both the above, the lever has to be used in one quick application, as the RRPM is unlikely to have recovered to the normal figure.

In the 50ft/ high speed case (like when practising quickstops), you must start the flare first AND THEN LOWER THE LEVER. Vary the flare to maintain a descent and again accept a run-on EOL. This is the one occasion when lowering the lever first is the wrong move. You cannot get rid of the descent before the ground comes up.

Re 'Low G' situations. These were practised from a slightly nose high situation. It didn't take much of a pushover, and by the time the nose was just below the horizon, the roll to the right started and positive rearward cyclic was needed to counter it as per Pobinson POH advice. The situation that bothered me, was early students practising "effects of controls" and lowering the nose too quickly, which many did. Hence an early demo of why this wasn't a good idea!

Incidentally, after seeing the problem on the R22, I found that the same situation could be demonstrated on the Bell 47 and the Bell 206, it just happens slower.

I firmly believe that more attention should be given in training to getting into auto rotation quickly, rather than the EOL. Unless skill is maintained in EOL's by constant practice, the chances of pulling off a successful one in real situations is low. However, if you get into autorotation and don't do anything else, the chances of walking away from the wreck are pretty good.

It is my experience of doing checkrides in R22's, that in spite of being carefully briefed that at sometime in the sortie, the throttle would be closed without warning, few lowered the lever quickly enough and some not at all, even in the cruise. This is all about mindset unfortunately: "It is never going to happen to me". Unless you have the thought in your mind that if it all goes a bit quiet, what do I do first, then any problem such as carb icing, (which I don't think has been completely solved by the carb heat assist), or partial or complete engine failure is likely to result in the "low RRPM, rotor blowback, chop tail off scenario.

To finish off this ramble, perhaps I should mention that I have been involved in three real helicopter engine failures (not Robinsons) with qualified pilots flying them, and none of them lowered the lever until prompted - forcefully.

Rotorfossil,
Good morning, would be kind enough to just expand a little on the full power climb situation, this is the one area that I have most wanted to try out, but my Cfi says that it is not allowed because of the possibility of bending metal, I practise Autos about every 4/6 weeks and feel very happy about what to do, but its that area of initial climb out at full power that seems to elude my experiance, are you saying that the RRPM will decrease to 90% in less than .5 secs at the onset of failure or, that you must in this instance get he lever down in less than .5sec's, and then level up, to skids level, or to stay at the inclined attitude and level gradually as you steady yourself for the run on?
My regards

Vfrpilotpb from rotorfossil

Hi.

When it all goes quiet, or the nasty guy in the other seat closes the throttle, you have about half a second to get the lever down. the RRPM will normally drop to 90%. any hesitation at all and they will go lower. THIS IS MOT GOOD NEWS although 87% is recoverable but definitely not recommended.

The reason for not trying to change the attitude during the entry is that the 'G' is very low for a short while until auto is established. The possibility of mast bumping exists therefore if large control inputs were made. If after you have succesfully got into auto and the IAS has reduced below 50 kt, trying to get the speed back from a 200ft entry just results in a higher rate of descent with no attendant benefit. I can understand your CFI's reluctance to demonstrate if he has not been introduced to the techniques, the potential for error is considerable, and for training purposes, entries should not be contemplated below 200ft. If you haven't been shown a simulated engine failure from a full power climb/60kt at a safe height(say 1500ft), this might be a suggestion to him. Watch and remember the rapid RRPM decay.

It appears that Frank Robinson may have borrowed his rotor head concept, of twin hinges and delta-3, from the Weir W-6.

To keep Lu motivated :), the attached web page is provocatively submitted. http://www.UniCopter.com/temporary/weir.html

Trivia:

The test pilot of this craft, Mr Raymond Pullin, was the first Englishman to have his pilot's license endorsed for helicopter flying.

[ 16 December 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]

Fossil: Spot on about the entry into autorotations. I was out today doing practise EOLs in the R22, with a nice strong easterly and ten gallons... we tried some unexpected simulated engine failures, but these were gentle throttle roll-offs, not at all like the real thing. Robinson strongly advises against throttle chops. Some pilots believe that R22 engines rarely stop dead, so you'd get a bit of warning. But the two most common causes of engine failure, running out of fuel and carb ice, will cause the engine to stop suddenly and completely. The question is, how can this be simulated without counter-productive levels of risk?

It seems to me that there is a lot of prejudice about the R22. I like them but with one small exception.

A quick wander through the UK AAIB reports of the last five years reveals that there are arguably two main causes of bent R22s.
1) Students, predominantly at low altidude, which is understandable, and not the fault of the machine. I doubt the statistics would be much different for this group whatever machine was used. They happen to fly R22's 'cos they are cheap and the schools have them.

2) mast bumping, tail chopping and rotor stall. All predominantly (arguably) caused by low rotor RPM.

I think all the theory about rigging, swashplate design etc. is almost irrelevant. After all, even low time pilots can fly a 22 with great precision - with the proviso that the rotor is attached and turning in the green.

OK, lets think about what stops the rotors.

Overpitching with a servicable engine.
Yes, but having just lifted the lever one's mind and hand is already on the lever and the engine will still help you out if you lower it some. Coincidently tried this last week with CFI whilst doing 44 conversion. Drop the lever a bit - no problem.

Engine stoppage. big problem in the wrong circumstances and not tried it.

causes

1) fuel - no I'm not too likely to run out. Far to conscientious.
2)Mechanical breakdown. - not too likely as the old Lycoming is considered bombproof by people who know better than I.
3) Accidently leaning? - no, I think Frank's thought of that one.
4)Switching off the mags. - get real.

Picture this scenario. Temp 7 dewpoint 6. visible moisure all over the place. A typical UK day in other words. Flying into a difficult hotel. Not been before. Brand new PPL(H). Wife feeling sick, microlights all over the place. ATC busy. Watch those wires. Perhaps a bit too high and a bit too close as well for good measure. Airspeed a bit low. OK. dump the lever to lose some height. Get down to a reasonable level to drop neatly into the tight confined area - but you forgot the carb heat!. You pull power and there is none 'cos the manifold is full of ice. You have 1.1 seconds to dig yourself out before its all over and someone else has to. There are trees under you and the throttle doesn't work but you twist it anyway. By the time you have worked out what is going on the tail is passing you by.

All because you forgot to pull the carb heat.

Implausible? I welcome comments.

Agreed, it would be crap airmanship to get in this position but if you had remembered the carb heat you would have lived to face your next licence proficiency check.

If the R22 and 44 have a problem, in my opinion this is it. Quite simply, carb ice should not be possible and it is unacceptable that aircraft are lost because of it. The automotive industry had banished the problem by the 1960's.

Why do we have to rely on our memories when a simple mechanical system would do the job?

Carb heat assist as in the later R44 I flew last week does not eliminate this problem, in fact it seems to me it makes it worse.

Why is the Carb heat gauge not effective under 18" MP? Is the sensor in the wrong place? We should be told and more importantly it should be fixed. And is an ice alarm beyond Lycoming or Robinson?

If the above is rubbish, tell me why. I am willing to learn.

(By the way, the above scenario is entirely imaginary!!)

Hello Gang,

to LU:
- thanks for correcting, yes I meant Teeterstops.
- Lu, I don´t know wether you ever went up close to a Robinson with someone who understands the priciples of the machine.
It took me a long time flying and being around a Robinson, have it go thru some parts changes and inspections to understand some of the features.
Again: The Robinson in a ready to fly maintenance status does not need static droop stops for the head. There is only stops for the blades so they do not go past limits in the coning hinges. As soon as the rotor starts to turn they fly of the stops and then all there is is the teeterstop.

After flying about 2000 hrs in Robinson and before that about 1400 in Bell-47 I got checked out in a Bell 206. After about 60 hrs I hit the limits of the 206 and was quite disappointed. There is a lot of things you can not do in a 206 you can very much in a R-44.
Now to the integrity of the head-mast-assembly: Once you start to hit the teeterstop in normal flight (incl. moderate to severe turbulence) the pilot put the machine way beyond limits. If you take of the rotor or just rip out the mast of the transmision does not really bother me anymore.
As I mentioned in my last post, the video Robinson uses in his safety courses is from the Army and states these problems from Hueys and Co. So it is not a Robinson problem only. Actually it comes down do the same problem: Back when the Army had the trouble it was a generally unknown problem and therefore nobody was trained to avoid or recover correctly - which finally was investigated and solved.
Most of the Robinson accidents where due to poor training received or pilot overconfidence (mor then 95% of these with pilots of less than 130 hrs - poor training or just around 800 hrs - a typical overconfidence time..).
But why so many Robinsons?
There is no other helicopter out there a typical lowtimer could rent (be it the rental price or the insurance). If lets say a Bell 206 could readily be rented like a Robinson, the lowtimer accident rate for this model and typ of accident would be just as bad.

Another word to the teeterstops:
In the Robinson just like in the Bell you will have a hard time to get the blades to flapp so bad that they hit the stops if you fly with some brain. Even if you try to fly as heavy, fast and high as possible the blades will not hit the stops (most likely you run out of power before that or if you are pushing speed in a descend you will run in retreading blade stall). If the pilot is brainless and makes full travel cyclic inputs probably both Helos will lose the head and/or the mast. Remember, most of the cases happened during wrong inputs under low g.
I guess a low time pilot will have a hard time to get to fly a 206 alone. Once an instructor is on board the chances are getting very small that the low timer gets to practise hard push overs!

To Rotorfossil:

I agree that you will have to respond to the Robinson a bit faster than to the rest of the worlds helos, but even if you are slow and climbing, you can ALLWAYS apply a little backpressure and that should help to keep the rotorspeed from going into the basement AND it should give you some 2 seconds to get the collective where it belongs in that situation. To slam the collective will just introduce some bad yawing motions as your feet most likely to not have the coordination to get the pedals moved in accordance to all the rest.

In training you are prepared and alert, even if the instructor will chop the throttle without warning, its training.

Whether you will react correct and automatic you will only see when it happens (hopefully never!!). I was lucky that I did the right thing at the right time. And I mean lucky, because I do not remember to have been thinking about what to do. After analizing the facts (Compressor failure-engineout on approach in a 206), I was not expecting anything, I still did the right thing, but it was automatic. I am glad about it, as this tells me I might have gotten the correct reactions into my "system".

I frequently do a gradual, not
anounced "enginefailure" (not even a throttle chop, just rolling the throttle off very slowly, as not to let the student know what is coming, sometimes talking about other things to distract, and just enough to have the low rpm warning come on...) on progress checks and pre checkride checks.
It is amazing how many students and licenced pilots will actually RAISE the collective (as in "Oh my god!" - hands rising to clapp overhead) and curiously PUSH the cyclic forward! Maybe this is a natural reaction. Try it out: Scare someone and observe what the arms and hands do at the moment....

However to get a helo pilot to do the right thing in a real surprise situation is a hard thing, more a personal setting of mind. An instructor can hardly do anything about that, other to tell the student about it.

I hope I did not bore anyone to death with this, just experience.........tested.

3TOP

A short one to Gaseous:

Yes it is a positioning problem of the temp probe and a recertification-cost problem so it is cheaper to just placard the machine and put the resposibility on the pilot.
The Robinson-22 got developed on 2 main principles (after design and safety of course): price and weight. Find the cheapest way to do it and/or the lightest one too.

If you look carefully: in the R-44 you only have to apply carb-heat when in conditions conducive to icing and only to keep the needle out of the yellow.
You are in England? You better get used to scan the carb-temp-gauge permanently!!!!
I fly in Central America in a place with average temp of 25 deg centigrade day/night year around. If it rains or gets "cool" or foggy I watch it. No way to forget about.

I do agree:

I want:
-electronic fuel injection
-electronic timing and ignition
-electronic temperature controls
Magnetos got out of cars in 1928....

3TOP

Unfortunately as it looks like pilots are the next thing getting eliminated from aircraft.........seeing all this automatic and/or remote controlled aircraft going online these days......... :cool:

Two points about carb heat, specifically on the R22 which is where 99% of my low heli time is.

1. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but it's not the gauge which is ineffective under 18" MP - the power settings are low enough that the butterfly is closed enough to present a MUCH larger risk of icing. I seem to remember from the safety course that a stude and instructor had an engine fail while doing a practice EOL during flight, and successfully put down. The Chief Pilot was just as surprised when his engine quit just after he started his descent to the field the other helicopter was in. So - Carb ice below 18", and although it's not in the book, plan to apply it well before you lower the lever.

2. When I learnt in Oz, carb heat wasn't a real risk. I wasn't taught even to include carb heat in the checks as a "point to consider" - this puts me at a huge disadvantage as it's not instinctive to think about it, although it is getting better. Anyone found my post-it which I've left on the MP gauge after I've flown it ? This is a big issue for me - last thing I want is to kill myself because of an omission by thew guys who taught me.

Yet another R22 Question
 

Hi all,

Anyone out there have fuel burn figures for the R22 Beta 2?

Is it too much to ask manufacturers to include a fuel burn graph?

The H300 has a very useful one that gives burn rates at different power settings but, I have yet to find any mention of Fuel burn in the robbie manual (am i looking in the wrong place).

Cheers & fly safe

Hone.

I have been told to use 10gph for fuel computation. But I have never tried to figure out my own consumption average or anything.

I was told it is 8 GPH, of course that would be brand new ship, brand new engine hehe ....

Baranfin, I plan with 10-11 as well.

I am quite simply tired of your interpretation of a SUGGESTION in a POH being interpreted as a RESTRICTION is just bunk.

Heli's can and have been flown out of trim for some uses (mine in rain to get my CFI wet whilst I remain nice and dry :) )

Your false sense that if one gets out of trim slightly and remains there will be a kiss of death is just ludicrous.

In addition, no one wants to fly out of trim anyway, but you demonstrate consistantly that you believe all pilots just want to go out and do so.

Your Low G argument is valid, however no one goes out of their way to get into a low G situation in the first place as well.

As someone said referring to auto's and EOL's, it applies here:

If you fly with half a brain, you will not get into either situation that you predict would be the end of us ...

Geez ... the merry go round spins and spins ... and you haven't flown one yet have you? (You know, to get that data you sorely lack for those arguements...)

Ah, I'm back, and gone again ...

Taint,

I agree as well on time and the auto entry. I believe I have said it before, if I am uncertain about anything going on with the aircraft, my left arm begins a descent with collective in hand, nothing rapid, but I'm better prepared, etc.
It IS a mindset, and mine goes: Nr = Life.

But I wanted to ask, and those who have suffered failures and lived will have to tell us all, how often in real life does an actual piston engine just "fail" as we practice with athrottle chop?

Same thing you asked. great minds do think alike. :)

I would believe that you would always get some indications of something happening before that occurs, roughness, a loud bang, Needles splitting etc. (which IMO would also get my left arm descending ...)

I was thinking that the only way I could see the engine quitting on you like in practice, would be either ran out of gas (hard to miss the low fuel warning light eh?) or if one actually did lean the engine out in cruise and went too lean (not something I would do, but since you have no flywheel effect as witha prop, it would just stop,etc. in that situation) or carb icing, as you mentioned.

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

To: RW-1

Whether you or any other pilot fly a Robinson out of trim or in a sideslip is of no importance to me. However when I mention these recommendations as contained in the POH I am repeating those words and not words I constructed to warn any Robinson pilots out there. The inclusion of an unnumbered page in the POH even though it shows FAA approval means that technically that page is not a part of the POH as it does not appear in the amendments index in the POH. Therefore the suggestions can be ignored. However if the helicopter suffers mast bumping as a result of the violation of the recommendations then your ass is grass and Frank Robinson is the lawnmower.

The UK has taken an entirely different view relative to the AD that resulted in the inclusion of the unnumbered page in the POH.

Here is what the UK CAA Safety Regulation Group has to say.

With regards to your (my) comments about the Pilot’s Operating handbook for their R-22. The situation in the UK is as follows:

The notes on main Rotor stall and mast bumping that are contained in the “Normal Procedures” page that you claim are missing in from many POH in the UK were issued by Robinson to reflect the text in FAA AD 95-26-04. This page only covers part of the AD. The AD is mandatory for all UK registered R-22 helicopters and introduces additional MANDATORY information into the limitations section of the POH. The AD also includes advisory information for inclusion into the Normal Procedures and Emergency Procedures sections of the POH.

UK operators must have all three parts of the AD incorporated into their POH. The Robinson pages are not identified and are therefore uncontrolled and in their present form, are not considered by the UK CAA as an acceptable alternative means of compliance with the AD. The pages may be used as being additional to the AD.

The issue of the AD was promulgated in the UK General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet (GASIL) No. 2 of 1995.

In summary, it is not necessary to have the “Robinson” page in the POH as it only provides information additional to the AD.

The situation with AD 95-26-05 for the R-44 is similar.

We will be highlighting the AD and the requirement for the information to be in the POH in our next issue of the GASIL.

Yours sincerely
Garry Bissopp
Safety Data Unit
Dated 03 November 2000

In other words, Mr. Bissopp was indicating that UK Robinson pilots are held to a tighter restriction that US pilots. And he feels as I do that the unnumbered page although signed by the FAA is not fully effective as it does not truly reflect the AD that caused its’ issue.

This possibly might explain why there have only been 4-5 mast separations in the UK and so many more in the USA.

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">