'Junk'? - R22 Debate Looms

[fatnlazy]

I did a lot of thinking today about this thread, and have come to the conclusion that I may have been out of line, my opinion hasn't changed, I simply did not intend to cause such a rukus, originaly I did not intend to get personal or for the conversation to become so heated, so I do apoligize and will try to bite my tongue in the future when the Robbie topic again arises, I am not here to cause hate and/or discontent.

 

Guy

[67november]

Hello Guy, It's good of you to admit fault. It means your a better man today than yesterday.

the heated debates of opinions on subjects can get to be just that HEATED and alot of the information that comes out in those discussions can and is a valuable source of information to others here.

As long as things progress in the right direction everyone learns something.

 

let the debates continue, in a civil manner

 

P.S. FNL, I too am an old huey man and if I can break away and join you in the flyers seat of the beloved 205 then we have a huge common bond. THE CADILLAC OF HELICOPTERS

Edited January 30, 2007 by 67november

[vertrefadmin]

Nice to see civility return to my forum. I thought I was reading the "other forum".

 

Please state your opinions but do so in a professional manner. We all paid a lot (not just financially) to become professional helicopter pilots. Let us act like professionals.

 

-Rey

[joker]

Rey,

 

I admit when I started this thread the R22 issue was not the main purpose. It was genuinely intended to draw the heat off the first thread, which I saw going sour quickly. It was also to 'test' the waters with FNL, to give him a fair chance - after reading other forums and his posts here...to see how he would respond. I may have come over a little harsh in doing so. I know we have mods to do this sort of thing, so I'm sorry if this wasn't the right way to do that.

 

However, I am plesed to read FNLs last post. To that end, maybe some good has come out of this thread. I hope we see more of FNL, as I am sure he has a lot to offer. I hope he sees this forum as having a different ethos to what maybe he's seen elsewhere, and will continue to join in.

 

Linc, I read that article (300 and R22 Training at HAI) and enjoyed it. I am amazed that it is the same author. Thanks for joining in this thread too. I can see you measure what you say carefully. Much of what you type I agree wholeheartedly with. I think we are closer in our thinking than it might appear!

 

Joker

Edited January 30, 2007 by joker

[Linc]

joker,

 

I enjoyed the exchange and discussion! I agree that we are probably a lot closer in our thinking on this, as you said. Thanks again.

[joker]

Linc,

 

Regarding that article (R22 Vs 300CBi) http://www.flymidwest.com/TrainingBirds.html , I was actually there when they took the pictures, and when Stephane took the author up in the helis. (I was actully gutted I couldn't fly myself, but I think I had a student that day!) I have flown 35.2 hrs in 20699 (the CBi) and 42.5 hrs in 7508W!

 

I know all the pilots in the pictures too!

 

Funny, its a small world! Does that make me famous too!

 

Joker

Edited January 31, 2007 by joker

[500E]

Do you need to ask, Joker of course a legend

[Kc135Delta]

I haven't flown in a R22 before I but I have a whopping 2 hours in an r44 and I will admit I allways managed to screw up with that T-bar and usually scared myself into handing it over to the instructor about once ever 10 or 15 minutes. It got to the point that it scared the hell out of me, so props to all of you that have tamed it. I just went back to my MD-530 which I started on (friend owns it and has his CFI).

 

I think it's pretty extreme to come out and call the robinson a piece of crap, it's just somthing i'm not comfortable in. Allthough I will say that I hope the (R-66???) will have center sticks.

 

Just my opinion.

[nsdqjr]

This arguement is right up there with a couple of 15 1/2 yr old kids, with learners permits, trying to figure out whose car is better: The mid 80's AMC Eagle or the MG Midget....

Edited February 2, 2007 by nsdqjr

[Lance Turbue]

here's an article I picked up somewhere else in this forum (with my due regards to all "vertically" and "ambiguously" challenged out there )

 

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/HAI/...icsr22pg20.html

 

Cheers,

Lance

Edited February 5, 2007 by Lance Turbue

[volition]

There you go!!! That settles that!!

[zcat]

[delete post]

Edited February 10, 2007 by zcat

[Linc]

here's an article I picked up somewhere else in this forum (with my due regards to all "vertically" and "ambiguously" challenged out there )

 

http://www.ainonline.com/Publications/HAI/...icsr22pg20.html

 

Cheers,

Lance

Lance,

 

Not sure how you intended to present the article, but as far as I can tell it is an incomplete presentation of the statistics. How many hours were flown by each and by all types over the 15 years. Lots of percentages that are presented with hour totals that may as well have been plucked from thin air. 6.7% of fatal accidents comes out to 1 fatality in 15 years for the 269, which implies that the hours flown on 269 airframes is 30,939 hours. That is a low total for 15 years, which implies a very small fleet size and oddly enough isn't afforded the same treatment as the "insignificantly" and obviously dismissable fatality experienced in the AStar during that same timeframe.

 

For the R22, the article mentions 99K+ hours flown in 1995 and 197K+ hours flown in 2000 (296,969 hours), yet the accident rate of 1 every 115K+ hours for 3 fatal accidents over 15 years yields a total time of 345,639 hours. I guess the UK pilots hangared the aircraft for most of the other 13 years, which would certainly make any aircraft "safer". Maybe what they meant to say was that those were the accumulated hours by 1995 and by 2000? They also stated that the 269 by comparison, "flew fewer than one-tenth as many hours as the R22". 30,939 is definitely fewer than one-tenth of 345,639 (34,564). Plainly stated, the R22 numbers in the article don't gibe.

 

15 fatal accidents are claimed, but only 10 accounted for (5 B206, 3 R22, 1 269, 1 AStar). This article has a glaring lack of accounting for all the data, switches presentation of the statistics so that they can't easily be compared to each other in order to arrive at its conclusion. Its almost as if they were picking which stats to use to paint a picture...

[mrose]

I did a lot of thinking today about this thread, and have come to the conclusion that I may have been out of line, my opinion hasn't changed, I simply did not intend to cause such a rukus, originaly I did not intend to get personal or for the conversation to become so heated, so I do apoligize and will try to bite my tongue in the future when the Robbie topic again arises, I am not here to cause hate and/or discontent.

 

Guy

 

Guy,

 

I have read with interest this forum. I was present on the ramp when Mr. Robinson brought out the then flying prototype of the R-22 to Heliexpo 1976(about) at Anahiem. A few of us rough bush mechanics from Alaska were standing there as we were down to Gazelle school (Texas) and the boss let us go to HAI. It was a wild landing. When the dust cleared and it looked safe to get near it, one of the bold ones lead us over. We were all seasoned field grease monkeys, and a few were also pilots. (We operated Alouettes) After 10 minutes a vote was taken. 100% ageed this thing would kill a lot of people.

 

Read Section 10 of the POH - It has. I have spoke to FAA and some have not fiquired out how it was certified. I have a 100 hrs in the little ship. I believe with the current level of training and CFI's that have had the BENEFIT of all the accident findings and suceeding modifications to both ship and training, the R22 has now become a safe ship if, if, if.(like most helicopters) These younger folks did not see those days. The ship still has some soft spots if misused it think. If the motor keeps running and you do your job it will bring you home. I should note 1 weak spot. According to the Robinson training course HP/stored energy plots you have 1.1 seconds to get the collective down if you have an engine failure in a climb.

 

I would fly one if I knew who was perviously flying and servicing it.

 

Kind regards

 

Mark

Edited February 22, 2007 by mrose

[helonorth]

Good points: Faster than a 300(but what isnt?)

Nimble

Throttle governor

 

Bad points: Rotor system that will kill you if not careful

Low gross weight

T- bar cyclic that sucks except for getting in and out

Looks like its made out of tin foil and PVC

Need for ridiculous SFARs that probably arent restrictive enough

Can overspeed during autorotation in a heartbeat

2200 hour time out

 

I am with fatnlazy completly on this. Not only are they junk, but theyre dangerous. R44 is not a bad machine.

[West Coaster]

I agree with Mrose. Though I've never flown an R22 HP, after looking at the design (and lack of design) you couldn't pay me to ever get into one. The Beta and Beta II and far more superior machines and both are a dream to fly.

 

The only point that comes from the anti-R22 camp which has any merit is the low rotor inertia. However these people take that fact and spin it to their own purpose. They say this rotor system kills those who aren't carefull with it. I challenge them to point out a rotor system employed today that won't. Good luck!

 

An R22 is a perfectly safe aircraft regardless of anyone's opinion. It's current FAA certification is proof. Like it or hate it, no one cares.

 

Going back to the low inertia rotor... if the stove quits the R22 is still fully capable of a controlled landing just like any helicopter. And just like any other helicopter the only variable that makes the difference here is the person at the controls, their experience level and previous training.

[fatnlazy]

Quote from west coaster.

(An R22 is a perfectly safe aircraft regardless of anyone's opinion. It's current FAA certification is proof. Like it or hate it, no one cares.)

 

Proof ? the SFAR 73 is proof that its NOT as safe as other training helicopters !!!! I'TS NOT SAFE AT ALL, just read the latest R-22 NTSB crash report.

 

Sorry Joker I couldn't help myself.

 

Guy

Edited February 27, 2007 by fatnlazy

[PA Pilot]

Going back to the low inertia rotor... if the stove quits the R22 is still fully capable of a controlled landing just like any helicopter. And just like any other helicopter the only variable that makes the difference here is the person at the controls, their experience level and previous training.

I would add one thing. The Blackhawk (with a composite main rotor blades) has a lot lower rotor inertia than an R22. So much so that the Army doesn't allow practice autos in one. I've met a couple of Blackhawk pilots (Iraq vets) who have told me thay've never done a successful auto in a sim! So which is safer?

[67november]

I would add one thing. The Blackhawk (with a composite main rotor blades) has a lot lower rotor inertia than an R22. So much so that the Army doesn't allow practice autos in one. I've met a couple of Blackhawk pilots (Iraq vets) who have told me thay've never done a successful auto in a sim! So which is safer?

 

I'm not going to question your post, but I'll question the statement. the military would require a rate of survivability that would include an autorotation ability. I can not see why a hawk would not have the ability to auto safely. maybe I'm wrong but I have to doubt it.

[Linc]

I would add one thing. The Blackhawk (with a composite main rotor blades) has a lot lower rotor inertia than an R22. So much so that the Army doesn't allow practice autos in one. I've met a couple of Blackhawk pilots (Iraq vets) who have told me thay've never done a successful auto in a sim! So which is safer?

Let's not throw the comment, "Iraq vets," out there as if that was the quintessential qualification for your statement. Many "Iraq vets" are initial tour pilots who have yet to master the finer points of their aircraft much less the simulator. I'd recommend throwing out their other qualificatons like number of pilot hours and whether or not they've actually gained a pilot in command (aircraft commander) status in their airframe yet.

[PA Pilot]

Let's not throw the comment, "Iraq vets," out there as if that was the quintessential qualification for your statement. Many "Iraq vets" are initial tour pilots who have yet to master the finer points of their aircraft much less the simulator. I'd recommend throwing out their other qualificatons like number of pilot hours and whether or not they've actually gained a pilot in command (aircraft commander) status in their airframe yet.

The two guys I talked to were Delaware National Guard, and had thousands of hours each having transitioned from Hueys to Blackhawks -- both older, experienced pilots. A pilot I met at last year's Rotorfest at the Helicopter Museum confirmed that they only do autos on the sim, but did say that he was able to successfully do them on the sim.

[delorean]

Though I've never flown an R22 HP, after looking at the design (and lack of design) you couldn't pay me to ever get into one. The Beta and Beta II and far more superior machines and both are a dream to fly.

 

What are you talking about????? They're the SAME helicopter. Same blades, same frame, same transmission, same engine as a Beta.....

 

When RHC went from the HP to the Alpha (~1984), they:

 

-changed the angle of the tailboom

-moved the battery from the nose to under the engine

-added 7-hole instrument console from a 5-hole

 

When the Beta came out (~1986) they added:

 

-Aux fuel tank standard

-Rotorbrake

-Removeable pedals and cyclic damper weight in later models

-Upped the GW to 1370 from 1300 (70lbs=10gal+6lbs/gal+10 lb tank)

 

And the Beta II (~1996) got:

 

-O-360-J2A engine

-Trigger grip cylics

-Better intercom

-new T/R gearbox

-SS blades on later models

-and a few other available options

 

Feel free to add to this list, but the HP was a great helicopter. They were a lot easy to fly solo with that battery being up in the nose. Other than a few amenities, it was the same helicopter as a Beta even though it was different on the TCDS.

[West Coaster]

Really? My mistake, I was under the impression they had greater differences than that. Thanks for pointing it out Delorean. I appologise.

 

Proof ? the SFAR 73 is proof that its NOT as safe as other training helicopters !!!! I'TS NOT SAFE AT ALL, just read the latest R-22 NTSB crash report.

 

SFAR 73 proves nothing Guy. And NTSB reports only touch on single accidents which show either that pilot or that machine were unsafe at that time given those conditions on that specific day. Nothing more.

 

A few pages back you suggested that it's maybe the pilots who are the problem and I agree. You also stated that the 300 probably autos better... and it does (at least easier). It's main selling point is it's stability and ease to fly. The R22 is known for it's instability... also true. It does require more attention to fly, but this doesn't make it a danger. It's just easier for me to get myself in trouble in an R22 if I'm not 100% on the ball.

 

The R22 isn't likely to put it's pilot in danger. The pilot will almost always put the R22 into danger first.

[southernweyr]

I would add one thing. The Blackhawk (with a composite main rotor blades) has a lot lower rotor inertia than an R22. So much so that the Army doesn't allow practice autos in one. I've met a couple of Blackhawk pilots (Iraq vets) who have told me thay've never done a successful auto in a sim! So which is safer?

 

I was practicing for CFI stuff one day with a black hawk on the parrallel runway doing full down autos. He was out for over an hour and probably did about 8 or more full down autos. This was at a DA of over 6000 ft. You can call him if you want to know more.

[fatnlazy]

Really? My mistake, I was under the impression they had greater differences than that. Thanks for pointing it out Delorean. I appologise.

SFAR 73 proves nothing Guy. And NTSB reports only touch on single accidents which show either that pilot or that machine were unsafe at that time given those conditions on that specific day. Nothing more.

 

A few pages back you suggested that it's maybe the pilots who are the problem and I agree. You also stated that the 300 probably autos better... and it does (at least easier). It's main selling point is it's stability and ease to fly. The R22 is known for it's instability... also true. It does require more attention to fly, but this doesn't make it a danger. It's just easier for me to get myself in trouble in an R22 if I'm not 100% on the ball.

 

The R22 isn't likely to put it's pilot in danger. The pilot will almost always put the R22 into danger first.

 

Perhaps I mispoke again, what I should have said was that it proves to me that they are unsafe, not everybody see's things the way I do, like all the battered woman I met when I was a police officer, ya know the one's that refuse to admit that they are in a bad situation and refuse to press charges, they don't believe that they are in any real danger either. good day buddy!

 

Guy