Robinson cyclic
 

A little late in the day to be asking but - What other registered/licenced helicopter uses the shared Cyclic system ?
also who knows where Spunk might be ? - please to both Qs. Michael G

1. None
2. Spunk is alive and kicking. He has better things do do in life than hanging around on the net.

a broken handlebar, stolen from a crashed bicycle = the (so called) cyclic from a Krapinson, the perfect fit :ugh:

I always wonder if the pilots of the Beavers, Otter, Twin Otter consider those designs substandard to the ‘’real’’ flight controls of other types in the same way as pilots have such hate against the Robinsons cyclic design?

Although the Robinsons are not my favourite by far (for a number of other reasons) fact is that despite this design, they are one of the most sold helicopters in the world….

In my hours in them, I can’t remember any instance that I blame on the cyclic design. Actually it makes entry and exit a lot easier than any of the types I’ve flown.

I Agree. From a physics or ergonomics perspective, it makes zero difference even if it followed the form a “children’s silly straw” shape from cockpit attachment point to your hand.

This seems to only be of concern to psychologically insecure pilots on web forums.

Pilots may hate the design, but my plums certainly appreciate it. :ooh:

It's interesting. The cyclic setup never bothered me, but I did have one event that made me think a bit about whether it was appropriate. One of my best students ever was a digger driver who had absolutely no problem separating hands and feet, which as we all know is a core skill for drummers, organists and helicopter drivers as well. We were in the circuit in a 22 with about five hours total on the clock and he was doing stunningly well. A gust caught us and we rolled to the left. He completely caught me by surprise by pulling the cyclic towards his knees rather than to the right laterally, and as a result he exacerbated the left roll. I wondered at the time whether such actions might have explained some mast bumping experiences in Robinsons.

Sorry , I don’t get the layout reference? Why would his reaction be different with a conventional cyclic stick?

It's an awful design, I hate it,

It never worried me, very quickly got used to holding it with my arm in the air and student following through with hand resting on leg.

Sometimes I would "sidestick" by using the central prong and let the handlebars flop around. My long legs appreciated not having to clamber around the floor-mounted cyclic of other choppers.

Well it's got a degree of freedom that normal cyclics don't have.

That T config was an abomination, the perfect blend of fugly and cheapness.
It always just felt a bit weird, maybe it was the central pivot that did that.
A cherry on a design that was never going to win any beauty contests.
Don't get me wrong, without it, the barrier to rotary flying would have remained too high for many, but it was happy days to graduate onto something a bit more conventional.

there are vastly more important considerations over; 'ease of egress'

As an instructor having your hand some 9 inches off your leg is awful, one of the many reasons the 300 is a considerably better teaching helicopter

Do tell, on topic.

Although the models have been vastly used for training, the intention was not as a training helicopter. If this had been such a selling point for the H300/S300, we would probably seen bigger numbers of them, and Robinson reconsidering it’s design, no?? It’s a technique as and instructor, which is not that hard to get used to, and you do not hold your hand in that position throughout the students training program.

There was an STC (SR9BO) developed by a company called Altair (not longer in business) for modifying the R-22 to a conventional cyclic setup which looked like the MD900 design. Never made it to the R44 and did not become a sales hit in the R22 either.

As I said in my previous post, the Robinson products are far from my favourite, but I find this specific discussion straight out silly.

https://helicopterforum.verticalrefe...er-cyclic-mod/

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d088430957.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....91ea5e4cdf.png

I do wonder if not being able to follow through on the controls closely (either with your arm in the air or holding the centre upright) has been a factor when mast bumping has destroyed the aircraft during autos and PFLs when converting FW pilots to RW - an engine failure in a FW normally elicits a forward control movement in a FW, not what you want in a teetering head RW when the lever is dumped.

I'm not sure that's too much of a factor, TBH. You can follow through perfectly well with the Robinson style cyclic, and the input is the critical thing. The instinctive "forward stick" needs training out of any FW pilot going to RW, irrespective of the rotor head design. I do agree that a teetering head makes that initial reaction a lot more critical to maintain RRPM and avoid low g.

Yep, that’s the one. Only seen one machine with it installed, and the owner trading it in at the factory late 90’s for a new R44 resulting a 15k USD cut in the pre-agreed trade-in price, due to the installation.

I am more concerned about the MR head design, where instead of one teetering hinge like on the Bell and Hiller models, you have 3 that can cause the 2 blades to flop around independently from the MR main hinge in a low G setting such as turbulence.

Having had the questionable pleasure of training an ex F104 pilot in the R22, I know how close you want to be on the controls and how low the RRPM actually can get without ending up as a black mark. Thankfully many years ago….

Yep, the first one was to keep the weight down, and the other to make the cyclic less sensitive by allowing more travel for the stick itself than it would have in between your legs.

When a 10,000 hour Robison instructor is killed by a student doing exactly that manoeuvre (near Bournemouth in the 90s) you have to wonder if the cyclic position played a part.

If that's G-PUDD in 1994, then the instructor had 7,170 hours on helicopters and 5,200 on type flying with a a 4,000 hour FW, 40 hours gyroplane and 22 hours on type ATPL. And we don't know from the report who had hands on, but I'd expect an FI with that many hours on type to be well ahead of the game.

I used to fly this miracle, back when I was doing the "All of the fun, none of the guilt" Episcopalian trip. I could also fly a Bell 206 LR, but not as well as Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor! 5,130 pipes. When I kicked in the Celestials, I would weep for the beauty of the sound...

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7f7ef67d8c.jpg


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8e7141672a.jpg


- Ed

Well if you are going to show your organ on social media, better make it a big one:)

yes you would, but it still killed him and convinced me not to pursue any further forays into civ instruction on the R22.

I haven't been in an R22 / R44 cabin for quite some years (as an enthusiast), but all this discussion made me curious why the Robinson T-bar cyclic isn't well liked. It seems the main issue is that the cyclic grip of the non-flying pilot is high above their knees when the grip of the flying pilot is at knee level during training flights: In this video of Maria Langer practicing autos and CFI Trevor Hale monitoring, I see that during the autos, he always raises his hand to be ready to grip the cyclic quickly if anything starts to go wrong (see from 7:00 onwards and then again for each subsequent practice auto). But holding arm up would become tiring if doing so for a whole day while flying with less experienced pilots in control than in this case:
Aside from the STC modification images shared by hargreaves99, wouldn't it have been fairly straightforward to have a T-bar cyclic that is actual a "T" shape rather than the "Y" of the R22/44? That could at least have been done for any machines routinely used for training. Even an adjustable "T-bar" cross-bar wouldn't add much weight or complexity if further height adjustment was needed for long or short legs on either side. Then the grip could be at knee level for both pilots. The grip would still be able to flop up and down (the extra DOF that Wide_Moth_Frog noted), but is that an issue once the arms of both pilots can comfortably rest on their knees?