Goldy Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 There has been a ton of discussion on the pro's and cons of each bird. So, as a pilot, what features would you add or change to make each bird safer or easier to fly? I have a long list for the R22, not the least of which is add fuel injection...or maybe move the landing light over onto the collective so I can turn it on and off without dropping a control just as I am descending to land. It would also be easier to "flash" it when another aircraft is looking for you in the air Whats your ideas ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helo-Pilot Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 I would change the maintenance and aquisition cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted July 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 I would change the maintenance and aquisition cost. Obviously you are a 269/300 fan(your pix)....a new R 22 is what ?? 185-200K or so ? And with 2200 hour TBO's....I thought it was one of the cheaper birds to operate. Is your experience different? I've always paid a lot more to fly anything other than a 22, I assumed that was because the acquisition and maintenance costs were lower..not more. Goldy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rookie101 Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 I have a long list for the R22, not the least of which is add fuel injection. Hey Goldy, I don't know if you have seen this thread (or remember it) but they do talk about fuel injection for the robbies, post #20 deals specificly with fuel injection. http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/helicopterfor...=Frank+robinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA Pilot Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 1. A real cyclic stick. 2. Electric cyclic trim instead of bungee. 3. Some of the stuff like they did in the Raven II like moving the starter switch to where it's actually possible to use it. But... that stuff all adds weight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Dont know much about the 22, 'cept that it is tiny & i dont have enough time in one to agree that "one gets used to that cyclic after time" Oh, i never worked on one either, but ppl say they can do a complete 100 hour in a day. Now for the 300? I have owned mine for over 15 years & really like everything about it. Except all the bearings it has that need constant maintenance ! The thing is really a maintenance hound ! ( But then again? i do quite a few annuals on them a year & i charge by the hour) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flingwing206 Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 R22: New rotor system - sorry, but that low inertia, coning-hinged semi-rigid-in-plane teetering flimsy-bladed thingy is wrong. Two blades is fine, but at least give then the proven design of the Bell. Fuel Injection - no explanation needed. Wider cabin - Even two average-sized people are pretty tight in the R22 Cyclic - for a personal helicopter, the T-stick is fine, but I'd like to see a better trim system - the bungee cord thing is silly at best. For a trainer, the T-stick is inappropriate at best and hazardous at worst. Useful load - again, no explanation needed 300CBi: Maintenance - take a page from the Robinson book, and see where design changes might simplify and reduce maintenance work, especially in the rotorhead. Seating/cabin - especially in the nose-low cruise, being a passenger in the 300CBi can get tiring after awhile. Not sure what to do about it though... Collective/throttle - better friction system. While I like the completely free collective for maneuvering work, the frictions on the throttle and collective are crude and unreliable in cruise - often meaning a pilot applies too much collective friction in cruise flight, creating a real hazard in the event of an engine failure. What I really want is a wider-cabin R22 fuse and tail rotor with the controls, engine, drivetrain, main rotor and landing gear of the 300CBi. Now yer talkin'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Here is MY idea, ya take 2 300's, remove the tail rotor from 1 of 'em, & the entire tailboom & assy from the other,,,,,,,now ya bolt the tailboomless one to the back of the tailboom of the other. now what you have is: 6 seats twin engines AND? eliminated tail rotor failures/maintenance ingenious huh? PLUS as an added bonus? ya never have to back it in/out of the hangar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C of G Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 R22 Conventional cyclic. 300 Rotor brake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 300 Rotor break Oh YES ! i forgot about the missing rotor brake, i have many times thought of designing & getting an STC for one,,,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldy Posted July 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Hey Goldy, I don't know if you have seen this thread (or remember it) but they do talk about fuel injection for the robbies, post #20 deals specificly with fuel injection. http://helicopterforum.verticalreference.com/helicopterfor...=Frank+robinson Hey Rookie- I do remember that thread now, I was sorta hoping to forget the whole 20 foot hover auto debacle !..anyway..They have now figured out the issues with the Raven II and fuel injection, so you would think it would be a good time to come out with a R22i- fuel injected version....maybe the R&D guys are just too busy working on the turbine model to bother with fuel injection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhotoFlyer Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 I think R&D guys are busy trying to come up with a helicopter to replace the R22. I have been hearing rumors that Frank wants to get rid of the 22... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rookie101 Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 I think R&D guys are busy trying to come up with a helicopter to replace the R22. I have been hearing rumors that Frank wants to get rid of the 22... I don't know about that, I've never heard that rumor, but that same topic i posted does talk about Frank trying to remove the 22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
67november Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 rumor has it the 44 will take over the duties of the 22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witch Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Oh great, higher cost. I CAN'T AFFORD IT AS IT IS !!!!!!! Later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superman Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 I was just at the factory for the safety course. When Frank came in and gave us his little talk, he did say that he wanted to replace the 22 with the 44 Raven 1 as the primary trainer. He was working with the insurance companies and larger schools to try and make it happen. I don't know that he plans to quit producing the 22, but there just aren't that many being produced now, the R44 has taken over. When we toured the factory there were 44's as far as you could see and maybe ten 22's being built. As far as improvements, well, Fling has covered that well. I think that Robinson has made the improvements to the 22..............Its called a 44!! The Schweizer, I think Maintenance (Rotor head and engine) and the nose low cruise could probably be fixed with a little reengineering. My two cents worthClark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehh Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 I was just at the factory for the safety course. When Frank came in and gave us his little talk, he did say that he wanted to replace the 22 with the 44 Raven 1 as the primary trainer. Frank can want anything, but making it happen is another matter... Fuel, capital cost, and insurance, are the three major things that cause a R-44 to cost almost twice the price to rent vs. a R-22. If you take a stripped down R-44, you're looking at $100K more than a R-22, and more than 50% higher overhaul costs. Fuel burn is not quite twice as much, and insurance is at least 50% higher. Helicopter training is already expensive, doing it all in a R-44 would make it even more so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delorean Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 Before the Raven came out and the big R44 sales boom started, one of the guys out at the factory told me about the R22 Delta model that was in the design stages. It was a hybrid of the 22 & 44--still two seats, but it had a wider cabin and larger stainless steel blades. I believe they were having trouble getting enough power out of a 4 cylinder engine though. I'm sure the plans for this thing went way down the drain once the R44 caught on. Oh well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helo-Pilot Posted July 2, 2006 Report Share Posted July 2, 2006 See, it all comes back to $$$$. I don't care if it's a 22 or a 300, if it spins, it's expensive, that's all I meant by my post. I have been looking high and low, and will probably buy something soon, but aquisition and maintenance costs give me the heebee jeebees' ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelliBoy Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 My uncle bought a 1984 300c a year ago with less than 1,000hrs on it for less than $100,000. Two tanks, 4hr range, and more power than the 22 ever had in its best wet dream. True the 300 has its hangar queen issues, the lead-lag dampers are the biggest money pit and need to be redesigned to take the side loads that centrifugal forces create, but completely rebuilding a helicopter at a magic number makes me nervous. Plus the 22 really shouldnt be an initial training heli in my opinion, you shouldnt have to instruct in a heli in which you expect to be afraid of your student wrecking. Frank might be the Henry Ford of light helis but the model T was a piece of junk 25 years after its debut, I dont care how much you church it up. Also, a good mechanic can make a schwiezer collective and throttle stay put like a robbie. And the T-bar cyclic is the worst idea since unsliced bread. rant over. keep the dirty side down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehh Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 Your uncle got a deal on that 300c, if it was in decent condition. Maintenance is the biggest problem of the 300 series, if they could get that under control, it would be more competitive with the R-22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted July 3, 2006 Report Share Posted July 3, 2006 How about a redesign of the Instrument panel on the 300 thinking about it on most helios. Leaning down to adj squark and radios (6ft 4ins) is real pain .Still prefer the 300 the head does not give us to meany problems, people will spray the rose joints with WD40 it is NOT a lubricant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Still prefer the 300 the head does not give us to meany problems, people will spray the rose joints with WD40 it is NOT a lubricant what's a rose joint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 what's a rose joint? Rod end bearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted July 4, 2006 Report Share Posted July 4, 2006 Rod end bearing. AHhh of korse ! --- i just never heard 'em called that B4, but noticing that you are from UK, that also 'splains why the rotor on your 500 is spinning the wrong way. Are you sure WD40 is compatable w/ the bearing surfaces of the "rose joint". I never put ANYTHING on mine as i recall they have some kind of teflon OR fiber lining that oil/solvents will destroy. Some of the older ones required grease ( aeroshell 14, i think AND had a built in grease fitting/hole), but those are ancient and had no "modern materials" as a bearing surface. I would check your HMI again AND W/Schweizer if you dont find answer in book. The rotor head of the 300 is NOT the worst part of the maintenance, 'cept to get to that M/R thrust bearing. Its that belt drive transmission ! AND those drive splines in the short shaft & T/R driveshaft. Altho i HATE greasing those pitch-change & flapping bearings & its a messy job,,,, the M/R of the 300 is NOT that bad to take care of. I would like to see those flapping hinge bearings the same as the lead/lag bearings tho,,,, ever wonder why they changed the lead/lag from a needle bearing to a fibre/teflon bearing & never bothered w/ the flapping hinge? ( seems to me that the load/movement of both is pretty much the same,,, no?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.