R66 in Flight

[specialized]

I have some pictures of the R66 and posted to the R66 forum- The R66 looks a bit more "mean" than the R44 from these pictures.

R66 Flight pic

[Galadrium]

I'll save everyone the trouble of having to register on that forum to see the pics.

[specialized]

I'll save everyone the trouble of having to register on that forum to see the pics.

Works now as a guest!!!

[Voluptuary5]

Thanks Galadrium!

 

It's interesting, that is the same tail number as the thread Rotor91 started with significantly more body work. Doesn't look too bad.

 

 

-V5

[Goldy]

Thanks Galadrium!

 

It's interesting, that is the same tail number as the thread Rotor91 started with significantly more body work. Doesn't look too bad.

 

 

-V5

 

I love seeing the turbine heat trail behind the 66. Looks like maybe Doug flying it? It does look better with the body on it, I sure dont like the look of that extra tall mast though. I understand why its there...just aesthetically speaking I'm not fond of it.

 

You know how a loaded 44 takes off very nose heavy? How is the 66 going to handle 5 people in front of the mast with an engine that is even lighter behind it ? Me thinks you need to add a 20 pound weight in the tail ! Just wait until HAI in 2009...14 months from now...I bet it gets its certificate by then.

 

Goldy

[Sparker]

Thanks Specialized!

 

Is that your website/forum? Just curious...

[Voluptuary5]

I sure dont like the look of that extra tall mast though. I understand why its there...just aesthetically speaking I'm not fond of it.

 

Goldy,

 

I didn't notice it until you pointed it out. Does look a bit goofy. Pardon my ignorance but why did they have to lengthen it?

 

 

-V5

[specialized]

Thanks Specialized!

 

Is that your website/forum? Just curious...

Yes it is,

Good comments above- the weight and balance is going to be interesting- With the extra luggage area mostly behind the mast and also all that extra fuel on board for turbine ops, i'm sure things will be balanced at takeoff but what about low fuel and no luggage with passengers ? I'm sure RHC figured for 5 - 175lb passengers and full fuel at sea level for the normal operation.

Extra mast hight is ugly but you would have to make a preety good jump shot to reach the blades, not mention the pre-flight check of the rotor system, good luck without a latter !!

[Goldy]

Goldy,

Pardon my ignorance but why did they have to lengthen it?

 

-V5

 

I had the pleasure of talking to Frank when I was at the factory last January. He told me they had to make the mast even higher on the 66 to give them more flexibility on W&B issues. I thought it was just to keep the main rotor from chopping off the tail....but thats just my opinion.

 

Sure doesnt hurt the safety of walking under a spinning rotor though.

 

Goldy

[Voluptuary5]

I had the pleasure of talking to Frank when I was at the factory last January. He told me they had to make the mast even higher on the 66 to give them more flexibility on W&B issues. I thought it was just to keep the main rotor from chopping off the tail....but thats just my opinion.

 

Sure doesnt hurt the safety of walking under a spinning rotor though.

 

Goldy

 

Thanks Goldy, that's what I figured. Like you said, with more weight up front, less weight in the back, part of the compromise would have to be the taller mast.

 

As I'm sure with all of Frank's helicopters, the new look will probably grown on us eventually.

 

 

-V5

[Future206Pilot]

It kinda looks like a dragonfly

 

I love the raw shaped sheet-metal over the engine

[Witch]

I'm wondering if it has a T-bar or a conventional cyclic? I mean, if it has a T-bar, it may not be acceptable to those who haven't flown with a T-bar, like military.

 

Later

[EC120AV8R]

I'm wondering if it has a T-bar or a conventional cyclic? I mean, if it has a T-bar, it may not be acceptable to those who haven't flown with a T-bar, like military.

 

Later

 

 

From what I've read, it's going to have the t-bar like the other Robinson products. I was never very fond of that set-up.

[Goldy]

I'm wondering if it has a T-bar or a conventional cyclic? I mean, if it has a T-bar, it may not be acceptable to those who haven't flown with a T-bar, like military.

 

Later

 

 

It's a T bar, if you dont like it, dont fly it...thats the designers opinion.

 

Give em another 10 years of production and there will be more T bars than the other kind.

[EC120AV8R]

It's a T bar, if you dont like it, dont fly it...thats the designers opinion.

 

Give em another 10 years of production and there will be more T bars than the other kind.

 

The whole t-bar seemed goofy to me at first, but once I got used to it, it was fine. From a design and manufacturing standpoint, it has to make for easier rigging.

[Goldy]

The whole t-bar seemed goofy to me at first, but once I got used to it, it was fine. From a design and manufacturing standpoint, it has to make for easier rigging.

 

OK, were way off topic here...nothing new for me. The big advantage of the T Bar is it gives the designer a larger range of effective motion. Thus, I can control the rotor easier. Lets look at a full left bank, lets say the R22 can do a left bank of 70 degrees..(I happen to know thats possible because I was in the pilot seat at the time)....70 degrees spread across say 7 inches of stick movement to go from center to full left would be about 10 degrees per inch.

 

In a conventional cyclic how much space do you have between your knees ? Maybe 8 inches? so you have 4 inches from center of stick to full left deployment. So the same math of 70 degrees into 4 inches gives you about 17.5 degrees per inch.

 

The numbers are not accurate, they are not meant to be. Its the concept that is important.

 

The fact that the T bar weighs much less is just a side benefit. You can bet money that the R66 has a T bar.

 

EC 120- kinda funny we responded to Witch's post at the EXACT same time !

 

(BTW , isnt the EC 120 a little under powered on a hot day?)

 

Goldy

Edited December 23, 2007 by Goldy

[Hawkdriver]

OK, were way off topic here...nothing new for me. The big advantage of the T Bar is it gives the designer a larger range of effective motion. Thus, I can control the rotor easier. Lets look at a full left bank, lets say the R22 can do a left bank of 70 degrees..(I happen to know thats possible because I was in the pilot seat at the time)....70 degrees spread across say 7 inches of stick movement to go from center to full left would be about 10 degrees per inch.

 

In a conventional cyclic how much space do you have between your knees ? Maybe 8 inches? so you have 4 inches from center of stick to full left deployment. So the same math of 70 degrees into 4 inches gives you about 17.5 degrees per inch.

 

The numbers are not accurate, they are not meant to be. Its the concept that is important.

 

The fact that the T bar weighs much less is just a side benefit. You can bet money that the R66 has a T bar.

 

EC 120- kinda funny we responded to Witch's post at the EXACT same time !

 

(BTW , isnt the EC 120 a little under powered on a hot day?)

 

Goldy

 

 

I dont get the math. I can roll a UH-60 with an inch of cyclic if I wanted too.

 

The T bar is obvious because it is simple, saves weight and engineering. I still dont think the R22(series type) is an acceptable helicopter for training because of the T-bar.

 

I don't/won't fly them anyway so the point is moot really for me.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Hawkdriver

[Goldy]

I dont get the math. I can roll a UH-60 with an inch of cyclic if I wanted too.

 

The T bar is obvious because it is simple, saves weight and engineering. I still dont think the R22(series type) is an acceptable helicopter for training because of the T-bar.

 

I don't/won't fly them anyway so the point is moot really for me.

 

No actually, you do get the math. The space available between your legs is so small that the rotor can make major movements with a very small cyclic input from you. In an R 22 those movements have to be much larger to get the same rotor impact.

 

As far as the TBar I have to say, I enjoy flying a Bell 47, I really enjoyed when I got some time in a B206, every ship is different to fly, yet you as a pilot rely on the same basic principles to fly them. And I, like many others, learned those basics in an R22...with a T Cyclic....at one third the cost of a 206.

 

If you have never flown an R44 Raven you dont know what your missing...and thats fine too....smoothest 150 MPH I have ever flown...without spending millions of dollars. There is a reason it is the most popular bird sold.

 

Goldy

[Hawkdriver]

No actually, you do get the math. The space available between your legs is so small that the rotor can make major movements with a very small cyclic input from you. In an R 22 those movements have to be much larger to get the same rotor impact.

 

As far as the TBar I have to say, I enjoy flying a Bell 47, I really enjoyed when I got some time in a B206, every ship is different to fly, yet you as a pilot rely on the same basic principles to fly them. And I, like many others, learned those basics in an R22...with a T Cyclic....at one third the cost of a 206.

 

If you have never flown an R44 Raven you dont know what your missing...and thats fine too....smoothest 150 MPH I have ever flown...without spending millions of dollars. There is a reason it is the most popular bird sold.

 

Goldy

 

I get your point now of what you are saying.

 

There isnt a whole lot of room when I fly because Im fat! Ask Chamerican!

 

I have no doubt that it is a great flying helicopter in its class, however I dont think it was designed as a trainer and the T bar is a fact of that.

 

Ive seen people do some pretty jacked up things in a helicopter. I know as an IP in some cases I want to be next to the controls. Additionally, I have found that having my students ghost me on the controls has aided in them learning a technique I was trying to instruct or demonstrate.

 

I also think it is the most popular helicopter in it's class becuase of the price. We all know that lift is second to money on what makes an aircraft fly.

 

I will even reach as I have no written proof handy that Mr. Robinson himself said he didn't design the helicopter to be a trainer.

 

 

Let me be clear on one thing. I am not a Robinson hater. It is what it is. I just find that helicopters are just to expensive to rent for my free time. If I am not getting paid to fly it then chances are I am not going to fly it. Ill rent a plane at 1/3 the price. On a windy day I can get a 152 to hover! I do prefer to fly helicopters.

[Goldy]

I get your point now of what you are saying.

 

There isnt a whole lot of room when I fly because Im fat! Ask Chamerican!

 

I have no doubt that it is a great flying helicopter in its class, however I dont think it was designed as a trainer and the T bar is a fact of that.

 

Your right there. Frank designed the R22 to be an affordable transportation alternative for the average Joe..not a trainer.

 

As far as being fat, stay out of the 22, but I've seen 300 pound guys flying the 44, I'm 6-5 245 pounds and I fit just fine.

 

Fly safe.. Goldy

[Voyager11]

Here is a picture of the R66 taken on January 17th 2008. I was picking up a new R44 Raven II and happened to see the R66. Frank was flying the R66 for the first time. At least thats what his staff told us. Here is the picture. It sounds just like a 206 and if you didn't see it thats what you would swear it was. The main rotor blades are from the R44 and if you look at the newer R44 rotor blades they are stamped R66. If you look at the cabin it has lower raked windows. Where the fan scroll would have been it is further extended out with the exhaust high up.

 

High Resolution Pictures: http://web.mac.com/buckleym/Michael_Buckle...SNEAK_PEAK.html

[R44_PILOT]

Here is a picture of the R66 taken on January 17th 2008. I was picking up a new R44 Raven II and happened to see the R66. Frank was flying the R66 for the first time. At least thats what his staff told us. Here is the picture. It sounds just like a 206 and if you didn't see it thats what you would swear it was. The main rotor blades are from the R44 and if you look at the newer R44 rotor blades they are stamped R66. If you look at the cabin it has lower raked windows. Where the fan scroll would have been it is further extended out with the exhaust high up.

 

High Resolution Pictures: http://web.mac.com/buckleym/Michael_Buckle...SNEAK_PEAK.html

 

 

Great pics, I dont think the 8 inch taller mast makes it look odd, the whole thing looks slightly bigger than the 44 but seems to be in proportion, the one thing I really like is the front screen lining up with the door windows, thats made it look modern.

Cant say i'm not a bit disapointed they didnt just make a whole new desighn of the helicopter, its basically a 44 on steroids!

Dont get me wrong I love the 22 and 44 and the only heli's im rated on but for such a big leap for Robinson they could of made something entirely new!

 

If I had a choice between owning or being payed to fly something in its class it would be the EC120. I think its years ahead in terms of style and looks. It makes the Jetranger look a bit dated, I know I know its probably the best in its class but just on the looks side of things....Fashion and style have unfortunately become part of everything in the modern world.

 

Look at Bell and the 429 it looks great, thats a whole new Helicopter for them as is the R66 for Robinson, so if it was me i would of radically changed the design. Hey just my opinion though. Oh and its still going to be prone to mast bumping??!!! Why oh why would they not look at that issue considering the amount of accidents theres been relating to it.

[Tweedles]

Voyager11,

 

Nice pics. The second picture with the aircraft labeled does not include an R66. The one labeled as such has registration no. N831H, an R44 II. It also has a stripe, the door windows do not line up with the windscreen, the tailcone/fuselage interface is not faired, and it appears to have a forward mounted camera.

 

I believe the vents you mention are actually the air intakes for the engine.

 

Tweedles