I’ve flown Bell, Westland, Sikorsky and Aerospatiale helicopters. All solid, robust and safe helos with no sig dangerous flying qualities other than mast bump limitations with the older Iroquois and jet rangers. All my family are banned from ever going in a Robinson. John from Australia
One of my former Army Reserve pilots had over 45,000 flight hours in just about everything you could think of from about 1966 in Virtnam to around 2000 when I lost track of him. He adamantly refused to get in a Robinson. He said you get no second chance with those things.
Dave Stutesman, don't you confuse anything with the number of hours? This is a very large figure and not realistic for such a period of time. I am writing this to you as a former pilot who has flown about the same number of years.
one went down immediately after take off out of Broome couple years back; didn't make any sense - looked awfully suss re maintenance or whatever. another sad day.
@@sarahann530Numerous, well trained, competent pilots have died in Robinsons. There are situations that occur in flying aircraft sometimes, that the very best of us can't control.
A New Zealand Coroner has just determined that due to a design flaw in the rotor head the Robinson is not suited to the turbulent mountainous terrain in New Zealand. A crash investigator has seen numerous Robinson crash remains with perspex bubble scratches on the leading edges of the blades and the accompanying blade impacted control column. Robinson refused to participate in the inquiry and also refused to comment on the findings. The conclusion is that over correction in turbulence results in the blades instantly losing all semblance of normal tracking and flailing away at the fuselage - in mid air.
I just watched the documentary on the crash of a Robinson which killed both pilot and son of famous NZ woman choppa pilot. Rotar blades completly failed. Id rather go up in a hot air balloon than one of these death traps.
Anyone thinking of flying in or piloting a Robinson helicopter should watch this first. Robinson are in denial about a serious design flaw in their helicopters.. ua-cam.com/video/XuXDtZjqbQw/v-deo.html
@@mickeybowmeister1944 Pretty much this. As a pilot myself, i've never gotten anywhere near a Robinson. They're total garbage. Most folks in aviation know this but they turn a blind eye when it comes to that matter or just try to relativize it.
@@mickeybowmeister1944 I’m trying not to have confirmation bias, but after I saw that same documentary I am now seeing many reports of Robinson crashes and “mishaps”. Wasn’t previously aware of this but now paying attention.
I appreciate someone speaking intelligently about the Robinson. I just watched a video of a fairly serious R44 crash. It was a catastrophic engine failure over a wooded area with no good place to put down, but it did look as though it was survivable. Then, I read the typical comments - "Robinsons are flying coffins," "Flying a Robinson will eventually get you killed," blah, blah, blah. Can Robinsons be dangerous? Yep, but so can walking if you screw it up. The first R22 was sold in 1979, and Robinson sold its 13,000th. machine (R22's, 44's, and 66's combined) in 2022, I believe it was. Much of the bad rap Robinsons get, and I can guarantee you that there are many of those comments under this video, are from keyboard "pilots" that have never flown a helicopter, and those that, if they are pilots, probably know little about Robinson from firsthand experience. It's just 'popular' to crap on Robinsons online. It's a 'thing.' Anyone remember "Planking?" That was a 'thing,' too. The new R44's have a symmetrical stabilizer on the tailcone. It's also available for older R44's as a retrofit kit. It's designed to improve the safety and performance by enhancing roll stability and reducing the tendency to roll to the right. Of course, it also minimizes the chances of a _mast bump._ A well-trained, experienced pilot, flying a well-maintained Robinson as it should be flown, is very safe. I'll be buying a helicopter, probably in the next 1 - 2 years, and it will most likely be an R44 or maybe even an R66. I *really* like the Cabri G2, but I want a 4-pace. I'll probably wait and see how the Hill HX50 presents, too. Ideally, I'd love to see Guimbal produce a Cabri G4 with the same fully articulated rotor system that the G2 has.
There was an amendment to the r44 stating in turbulence slow down to help keep the disc loaded. Doesn’t matter what machine you’re flying, don’t fight the wind. That leads to a tense pilot and over correction. Relax and the helicopter relaxes, just accept its a bumpy ride. If it gets too much, put it down and wait it out.
It was very good advice too. I used it when flying through the Welsh mountains and it was getting a bit all over the place. Perhaps pull it back to 70 or so and enjoy the beautiful scenery for a little longer.
Firstly is any aircraft safe? Define “safe”....i fly R22 and R44 in probably the most dangerous flying there is....game capture (always flying in the dead mans curve, flying under wires and trees etc.), i fly in mountains, rain, high wind and have never had a problem with them. They are extremely safe helicopters if flown correctly and within your envelope (the pilots personal envelope as the helicopter can do a lot more than what the poh limits you to). Bladder tanks in a R44 is a must, i agree. Frank Robinson is a legend and without him most of us would not have been able to fly helicopters. All these more modern helicopters have learned from past incidents and accidents on other helicopter makes and models, therefore they cannot claim to be praised like they are. Give me a Robinson helicopter for any task anyday....in wind, rain, mountains no problem. Hats off to Mr Robinson , thank you Sit for a great machine.
I agree, he gave us a great helicopter... now make it better. Change the rotor system. 3 blade would be safer and a phenomenal improvement that I would welcome.
also try enstrom, nearly the same price.......better performance.....can take three adult & cargo compartment on piston......Handling, autorotation you will be surprised.......try new piston enstrom............
Hey man, I'm a ppl holder currently working on cpl and I am very interested in game capture flying. How did you get into it? What do they look for? Thanks
@@jasondick4756 It would be more expensive, yes. But not much more. And I would think the safety would attract more people to learn to fly, as they know they couldn't kill themselves by inadvertently chopping off their tail. Not killing people is more important than the little bit of money they are saving with a cheaper but flawed design. My opinion, of course.
From the New Zealand coroner's inquiry, the Robison cannot handle anything more than moderate turbulance due the rotor head design. While most helicopters might get a slight wobble in turbulance, the Robinson can cut its tail off or cut into the cockpit.
In NZ we have a very high accident rate with this chopper , they make up 25 % of choppers in NZ , and also make up 50% of crashes , basically the fall apart in mid air , mast bump due to tri hinge main rotor design . If they are used , then best on flat ground & low altitude , NOT good in mountains , or high and speed kept to 70 or lower . There are a lot of them around , and its all to do with the low price , not because they are good .
The design limitations of the R-44 are much easier to exceed due to the design itself and I just find it hard to put my faith in them, the risk far outweighs the reward in my book and flying "timidly" and constantly having to remind myself of limitations is not my idea of fun so I chose to stay away from them. The recent accident in Texas is all the reassurance I need was a training flight and there is no reason mast bumping should be occuring in training flights with the CFI in control.
I'm not a pilot but I see a lot of comments on here claiming that having an experienced pilot would stop that, but that seems like a super poor excuse for a helicopter being cable to chop it's own fucking tail off lol. I feel like that just shouldn't be possible
@@brock83196831 Well, as you said, you are not a pilot. If you were a helicopter pilot, you would have learned about the dangers of low-g flight in any two bladed teetering rotor system.
Frank Robinson would have been intelligent to consider the same problem that the Bell 47 had with their exploding and burning fuel tanks in a crash. You are very correct. Over controlling ANY aircraft is always a problem, especially in a helicopter. ALWAYS move the controls slowly and gently. You are absolutely correct in your description of how to handle the controls. Flailing the controls around on a helicopter will always exceed the rotor blade limits at some point. Except under some circumstances when landing; IF the passengers can see that you are moving the controls on either a helicopter or an airplane, you are making too much movement!!! MANY flight instructors are VERY ignorant about how to actually operate the controls on aircraft, especially helicopters. They believe that "controlling an aircraft" means moving the controls. ALL machines are dangerous when operated improperly. My favorite helicopter is a Hughes (MD) 530FF. Except for the initial investment, it costs about the same as operating a Robinson R-44. The Hughes (MD) 530FF is an awesome machine!!!
The investigation report about the crash of the R44 that killed the owner of the helicopter Stephane Roy (Savoura Sagami) and his son Justin during summer 2019 in Québec just came out. The cause is an undetected gradual rotor blade delamination wich is also apparently a popular issue on the R44.
I have an observation. Since a lot of the training aircraft are R22's and R44's, they may be getting more abuse than you realize. The stress fractures can't be seen by the naked eye so you have no way of knowing you are renting a damaged craft. Unless you own the helicopter, you are just praying it hasn't had a severe mast bump in it's recent history that has not reached the point of causing total failure but is on its way.
MrOlddave, you may find this Australian ATSB report of interest: AO-2020-061. It does discuss the indicator as to evidence of mast bumping. I may ask further at my local Robinson service agent.
Excellent video,very informative easy to understand,perfect for a student . Much better then most r22 instructors ive seen. Yes r22 are dangerous ,but so is every other helicopter, i do agree it shouldnt be a beginner trainer ,but at same time once u master it ,there are very few other helicopters u cant fly and well. And 1 million percent correct its who is behind the controls ,i had a friend taught here on long island ,moved back to cali was teaching part time while waiting for another job he had 700 hrs approx and was flying with a student a bit over 10 hours while taking off in a r22 ,about 200 ft, a turkey vulture ,came across and tore off tail rotor, bird had a 6 ft wing span, with a lot f luck and a excellent pilot auto down keeping skids straight and level, when he landed, skids bowed some but made it down safely. Also helped end of that runway lead over a golf course ,so no house ,buildings . So as u say its who flys them that ultimately can make all the difference in the world
I'm currently training for my CFI in both the R22 and R44. I agree with pretty much everything said, but a few other points I would add would be for a pilot to really understand the SFAR 73, and how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly. Also I would recommend to anyone who's wanting to fly or is flying the r22/r44 to take the Robinson Safety Course. They go through all the most important things you should know and even show you around their manufacturing facility (which after talking about the dangers for hours really makes you understand the complexity and sophistication involved in building these helicopters which in turn makes you more confident about their safety).
@@valentinexavier9278 That's all helicopters homie. It's just because it weighs less so there is less inertia so it has less time in comparison to other helicopters.
Great videos as always! Key items in turbulence: Slow down; gentle aft cyclic as needed to keep rotor loaded; Cyclic friction added; avoid the word “gusting” in the forecast; set down and wait it out! The R44, when you slow down and keep the rotor loaded, it will “just fly through” most light to moderate turbulence if you just leave the controls inputs alone. When flying in (more likely getting “caught in”) even light to moderate turbulence, I always think “No matter what attitude is presented, I must slow down, use aft cyclic as needed to fully load the rotor before ANY attempt is made to address the attitude.
Thanks for the excellent laymans description on how the rotor blades operate and how a mast bump happens! There is so much stuff needed to keep those things spinning, unlike a propeller on a plane. Way to much stuff that will cause catastrophic failure if one piece breaks for me to go fly on one!
Many years ago in FLYING magazine there was an article about a guy who analyzed both fixed and rotary wing crashes of single engine aircraft, taking into account all risks and situations, to come up with the flying machine, both fixed and rotary with the lowest overall risk of death. And the winner was... Bell 206. Anyway, in the late 80s I was chatting with an insurance broker about hull premiums and we were going through the range, something like 2% for recip landplanes, 3% for recip floatplanes, 4% for amphibious floatplanes, and 5% for recip helicopters (at the time) and when I said, "Why is the piston helicopter insurance so expensive?", he responded instantly, "Cuz they all crash!!!!". He then laughed and said it was mainly because recip machines in those days were used very heavily for training and Ag work (wire strikes).
I remember when the R22 first came out, and an acquaintance with the FAA said they weren't safe in his opinion. He was an inspector and an Army rotor pilot with lots of experience. I trusted his judgement as well. Then I followed the accident history on the NTSB website.
I took my first heli lesson this past week and the heli was a 53 hrs new r44. Instructor point #1, keep the disk loaded or fall out of the sky. Instructor point #2, keep rotation at 100, if you stall the blades they will get over loaded, snap, and you'll fall out of the sky. So there you have it.
Arthur Young designed the Bell 47 with a teetering rotor that could not mast bump. Its hub was provided sufficient teetering clearance that the rotor would hit the tail before hitting the mast. Spring-loaded droop stops (rabbit ears) fell into place at low rotor rpm and limited the teetering angle to prohibit the rotor from hitting the tail when the helicopter was on the ground. In flight the pilot could mishandle the cyclic to make the rotor hit the tail but this took a determined effort. The Bell 47 hub was also initially fitted with cables that limited the teetering angle and fed back into the control system if the rotor was reaching its teetering limits. These cables were removed in the late 1970s because the rotor system was determined to remain safe without them. Bell apparently modified Young’s design for later teetering rotor helicopters to remove the spring-loaded droop stops and reduce hub teetering clearance so a blade root could rest against the mast to eliminate tail boom strikes when the rotor was stationary on the ground. Pilot awareness and training were emphasized to manage the rotor and avoid mast bump inflight. Excluding the early Jet Rangers which had a Bell 47-type hub, the Bell Jet Ranger/Long Ranger/Huey/Cobra series all have a history of mast bump accidents. There are no records (as far as I know) of accidents due to mast bump with the Bell 47; conversely, the contemporary Hiller UH-12, fitted with a rotor the hub of which rests against the shaft when not turning, has a history of accidents due to mast bump. Robinson made the mast bump problem worse by designing a teetering rotor with low inertia, the hub of which also rests against the shaft when not turning. I consider that a teetering rotor, the hub of which rests against the shaft when not turning, is designed to mast bump. I would ban teetering rotors if I had my way.
Thanks for discussing. For many years, without researching the issues, I've created a mental block about Robinson helicopters. This was in my mind when watching your channel, but saw that you weren't scared of them. Thank for explaining the issues head-on.
I think an important point you could have emphasized more, in fairness to Robinson because someone watching this could possibly assume the mast bumping problem is a Robinson-only problem, is the fact that the same teetering semi-rigid rotor was used on thousands of Bell machines since the '47, it was always a problem on those machines too, and the whole phenomenon really wasn't understood until the 60s following the US Army's investigation of a number of nap-of-the-earth Huey crashes.
Great video. Thank you for all your hard work and effort put into educating other people. To many of us it's so crucial to get your opinion, as we're not into position to build ours over time. Moreover we trust, that being a skilled pilot and aviation fan, you're giving us the most honest, professional and up to date information. Keep up the good work! GREATLY APPRECIATED
Been doing a lot of reading lately about the R44, and your video really sums up what the reality is. Basically - and you and several of the commenters here have said - The R44 ain't an MD530, or a Kamov Black Shark, or an MBB105, so don't try to fly it like one.
I got my helicopter add-on a little over three years ago in a R22. Since then, I've flown mostly in the R44 especially in the last year or so. Yes, they have their drawbacks due to the rotor system, however they ARE quite safe IF you fly them correctly...as you said. Here in the states we must have special training per SFAR 73 prior to flying in the Robinsons. SFAR 73 covers the special quirks to know and avoid to fly them safely. With proper maintenance and training, the Robinsons are safe, reliable, and lots of fun to fly, especially the R44. It would be great to have the better rotor system, but I'm not holding my breath for that one any time soon. Thanks for the informative video Mischa!
I have around 5800 hrs on a R44 and around the same in a R22. They are really safe if the pilot is safe. The reason that more Robbies are involved in accidents is simply that many more of them are flown than any other make and mainly in low level ops and training. Would be interesting to know how many accidents were training or wildlife related. No piston is really suitable for serious mountain flying especially in turbulence.
Thank you for your video I’m considering starting a career as heli pilot and the r44 would be my only option right now. The video is really clear. What type of heli do you suggest for PPH course ? Tks
I remember a Robinson dealer telling me when I was doing my training in Australia in the mid 90's that Frank Robinson hated Australian (mainly mustering industry) and New Zealand Robinson users because of the way they operated the machines (lot of low rotor RPM accidents) and especially in New Zealand that they were not recording the actual time on the machine, 1 in every 3-5 hours I was told and I also remember an article about a business selling time expired parts. I recall a few main rotor blades with small fractures at the main rotor trim tab rivet if I'm not mistaken or at one end of the trim tab and quite a few had delaminating issues as well. But overall an enjoyable machine to fly.
My dad trained in the RNZAF in1938/9,he remarked once that turbulence used to make flying interesting.Told me to avoid the new fangled light weight aircraft.
@@geraldperyman6535 only time I’ve been nervous flying in turbulence was going into Coffs Harbour on the NSW coast in a Kawasaki KH4 at 3000ft that actually scared me it was so violent. Then after about another 10 flying hours on that machine we found the transmission and rotor mast pretty much destroyed and CASA after inspecting the transmission said we were lucky to have been able to tell the story as most fail in flight with the rotor separating from the aircraft.
Micah great explanation on low G push overs! Very clear and concise as always! A Robbie recently went down in Rowlett Texas Southeast of Dallas. Im guessing Main Rotor Tail Strike after seeing the video. My take on the whole Robbie thing is. SFAR says it all! I aint flying one, EVER! One skid low brother!
The question is what causes the main rotor tail strike. The assumption is abrupt pilot input or turbulence. The problem is that there are cases where it happened without abrupt pilot input and without turbulence.
Mast bumping can be better explained: in semi rigid rotor technology, the rotor must be loaded in order to control the helicopter, meaning that the fuselage is behaving pretty much the same that a load would behave under a sling. If there is slack in your sling, you can turn left or right, your load will fly straight. The same is happening in a low g situation: because there is still a torque produced by the engine, the tail rotor has still a lateral thrust which occurs above the center of mass (the more nose up or nose down situation, the worse the result). Then the ship will tilt to the right (up to 100 degrees / second bank rate). The natural reaction of the pilot is to counter this bank with a left cyclic input, which has no effect because the fuselage is no more “hanging” under the rotor due to the low g situation. You are right: semi rigid rotor systems are simple, not expensive to build, but are inherently dangerous if the pilot has not a full awareness of how it works.
It's been a round for a long time it's called the Astar or with the Fenston the Eco star. Gimbal has a major connection with Airbus (Eurocopter) and i don't think you will ever see anything but the Cabri. I would love to see a turbine Capri.
@@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006 Guimbal has mentioned they've received worldwide interest in a larger Cabri and they are keeping an open mind about it (paraphrased so as not to imply anything).
I think they will desgin a 4 seater sooner or later. For the time, they are busy with UAV (VSR-700) but I am sure they will develop a 4 seater. We have to stay tuned! ;-)
Thanks, Mischa! I have long heard of the safety issues surrounding Robinson helicopters and you're the first to objectively address this. I have two questions... How does the life cycle (with respect to these safety issues) compare between the B206 and the R44? Secondly, how does the R22 compare?
They do it completely differently. Robinson's have a complete overhaul time limit which is 2200 hours or 12 years and the whole thing needs to go in for months for a massive overhaul and basically come out a brand new helicopter where Bell and everybody else has component times that things need to be replaced or overhauled.
Excellent summary. Too many pilots fight the wind because they haven’t learnt to visualize the air they’re flying through. I’ve always taught that when you’re in a strong tailwind situation, to NOT rush it by trying to get it over with by pushing the cyclic forward but to imagine you’re a gorilla banging his chest. Not literally of course but just saying ‘Gorilla!’ reminds you to pull back on that cyclic and ride it out calmly. Like they say, “better late than dead on time” ...
I like the R44. The more hours I get the less I like two bladed helicopters because of the danger presented by low G pushovers. I also don't like the T bar cyclic. It's poor ergonomics. The T bar cyclic makes it more difficult to get to the console. One of my ideas for a helicopter is to remove the console but have flat screens closer to the pilots. The view outside would be improved, the instruments would be more readable, and the avionics controls more easily reached.
I really appreciate your comments in this video. I think I kind of knew some of the points you were going to make when I read the subject line. I figured you would talk about mast bumping but you made some other great points too. Your comments about "right aircraft, right conditions, and right pilot" are dead on, and they also apply to every aircraft that's ever been built. The pilot has to be fully aware of the aircrafts capabilities and limitations. He/she has to do their homework in terms of what kind of conditions they are likely to be flying into and what their mission is on any particular flight, and, I think, most importantly, he/she needs to be fully honest with themselves about their own capabilities and limitations at any given time. I think that's the hardest part of all. I've seen too many reports of relatively high time pilots who got themselves in trouble because they had the experience and were maybe just a little too confident in themselves with unfortunate consequences. As for helicopter safety, I was remembering an article I saw in an aviation magazine back in the mid to late 70's I think. The cover story was on the Bell 206 (which you mentioned in this video) and the headline was that the 206 was, for that year, the "safest single engine aircraft" in the United States. Note that they didn't say, "safest single engine helicopter," but safest single engine "aircraft," which included single engine fixed wing airplanes! At the time, I thought that was pretty impressive, especially for a helicopter considering how mechanically complex they are. On a slightly different, but related subject, could you talk about ground resonance issues on multi bladed rotor systems? There are so many videos out there of A-Stars and it's various iterations and Schweitzer/Hughs 300's tearing themselves to bits because of this phenomenon. What causes it and how does the pilot avoid it? There's one video I've seen of a 300 that's just being run up on the ground after a maintenance cycle. It's fine for a couple of minutes and then the resonance just starts and the helicopter destroys itself right there? Fortunately, no one got hurt. I imagine there was something else going on that we're not told about but it's certainly an eye opener. Are there design parameters that make one model more prone to this than others and since I'm asking the question, where does the Cabri G2 potentially fit in this situation? I love your videos, Mischa! Keep em coming!
Another R22 crashed with a double fatality in Western Australian on October 2nd 2022 when returning from a Royal Areo Club cross country event. The pilot, Adrian Thomas, was a very experienced private pilot and club champion many times. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating.
I agree with what you stated. I also think pilots need more constant training, fly more hours than just 50 hours per year. Training , training and training. Even if is through reading material, actual flying or going to local airports (or-online today )and discussing a personal experience in the past.
I am agree, the pilots neeed to know this machines need constant training and they need to study the POH and learn everthing to this helicopter can do, I think if you have constant training and you are consent of the emergency to can happen you don´t will have problems with R-44 and other kind of helicopters and airplanes
Ask this question today and you may get some different answers. Those two pilots in Texas are dead because the Robinson chopped of it's own tail. They had no chance. Now, it may have been pilot error, but any machine that has that capability for catastrophic failure just for routine training isn't airworthy in my opinion. To my knowledge I can never remember another helicopter cutting off it's own tailboom. Just saying.
@@robslade2571 Exactly my point. If it's even POSSIBLE to self destruct with something so simple and routine, shut it down and fix it. That would be like buying a new car and the dealer says "oh, by the way, don't hit the brakes if you're on a side slope and over 30 mph. The wheels will come off". WTF? Uh...here's the keys back, can you get me a cab home?
André Botes I’ve heard of that as a method but the fact still remains that before a lateral cyclic control is made you need to load the rotor disk with gentle aft cyclic. The pedal is just putting a bandaid on the issue. You still need to resolve the real issue which is the Low G.
I started my PPL in an R22 many years ago. At the time, the mixture and heater knobs were right next to each other. Pull one and the cabin gets warm, pull the other and the cabin goes quiet. It's it still like that?
It would be very difficult to accidentally pull mixture these days; there is now a hard plastic sheath around the mixture which has to be removed first. It's a simple but surprisingly effective solution.
Yes, all two bladed helicopters can have mast bumps even the Huey but the 22 and 44 are a little more susceptible to them most likely due to less mass.
The primary factor in preventing mast bumping is training. Training people on what not to do in flight (low g push overs, overcontrolling) and what not do pre-flight (planning to fly in unsuitable conditions) is a very effective way of preventing such incidents.
I have taught flying in Robinsons for over 4000 hrs. I really love the heli especially the R-44. Good training and awareness of their limitations as with all machinery is vital. Frank Robinson has made the heli and its magic of flight in reach of so many!
I wouldn't be flying helicopters if it weren't for the R22/44. My question would really be "is the R44 pilot a safe pilot?" and that's just about training.
@@mustangflyer6878 LOOK at the stats? Aren't these mostly fixed-wing pilots transitioning to helos? Can't used those old habits on a low inertia blade like on a R22/44 etc
All aircraft including both models of Robinsons are perfectly safe if operated within their design limitations. No aircraft are safe the instant you take it outside of its design limitations .
I was working on my 24th hour of training when I flew through moderate turbulence. I just froze and smashed my arm into my leg, jammed my elbow behind the seat, and rode it out until my instructor could grab the controls. It felt like an ongoing car crash. After landing my instructor told me it was the worst turbulence he had ever encountered. We were both shaking. But I did the right thing somehow and I'm here today. Praise our Father in Heaven because I shouldn't be here.
@@SkyCoreLLC Yes, I think fear automatically made me slightly pull aft to slow down and reload the rotor. The Father was certainly with me. I had plenty of time to kill us had I done the wrong thing.
I'm not a helo pilot but am a former USAF pilot and kinda love helicopters ever since my first amazing canyon ride in Bell-47 at 16 -- Yellow Pilot's comments regarding hitting turbulence in a helo and not overacting w/ control inputs is something I've seen most flyers do instinctively -- even so, from a safety of flight perspective, it's important to affirm this behavior for new and expienced pilots alike. Doesn't Robinson have in their flight manual re encountering turbulence and averting rotor assembly damage?
Great video! You mentioned to hold the controls fixed during turbulence. I was wondering, if you have a co-pilot, would it work if co-pilot adds cyclic friction while the pilot holds on to the controls - or is it better to just hold on to the controls for dear life?
Just answering my own question here, haha. I found this video by Robinson which recommends a small amount of cyclic friction. ua-cam.com/video/qY4Ln8Kbhr4/v-deo.html
Or if you have a newer 44 or 66 with auto-pilot just let it handle it...... the solution is to do nothing. It's the control inputs that you think you need to do are what get you killed.
You’re definitely thinking about it correctly...In light to moderate turbulence, I think the main issue is some added friction on the cyclic; gentle aft cyclic when needed to keep the rotor loaded; Slow Down; if possible, set it down and wait it out! When in turbulence I always think to myself “no matter what attitude I’m presented with, it is Always Aft Cyclic first” and then, and only then, once the rotor is loaded, begin to address the attitude AND finally, if there is the word “gusting” in the forecasted winds, it’s a no-go for me.
Awesome instructions about the high turbulence situations i.e. don't overcompensate the controls, just hold them steady, let the heli roll through the turbulent conditions. Your instructions and videos are really useful and valuable. Thanks for your works!!!
The point about how the HC is being flown interests me a lot. The military in the US and Australia enforces a structural integrity program that is designed to pick up deviations from the design usage spectrum/profile (% of time spent in different flight phases and hence load cases leading to fatigue life consumption). The OEM would publish life limits in flight hours which are derived from the design usage spectrum. E.g., it was assumed 1.5 ground/air/ground cycles per flight hour. The design is then safe to be used if the HC over its life if the actual GAG cycle rate is at or below 1.5 per FH. If, however, the GAG rate is say 3 per FH over the life, the part most impacted by fatigue loading due to GAG cycles is likely to fail earlier than the published limits in the maintenance manual. Hence, the structural integrity program is monitoring actual use vs design use, so that these trends could be picked up and life limits adjusted accordingly. I am always curious to what extent operators of the GA HC types know how they are being flown compared to the design assumptions. I believe the grounding in NZ and Aus was, as you indicate, related to this issue. Given the R philosophy to overhaul of critical components all at the same airframe time (as you outlined in your video re operating cost), and given the variability in usage across the fleet, safety factors in the design combined with the prescribed regular inspections of critical parts are the primary protection against premature failure due to usage deviating from the design assumptions. But this can only protect to some extent.
Great video Micah. I appreciate your frankness & honesty. I realize you don’t like the R22, hence; your reason for not mentioning it. Over the years I have tried to avoid the R22, but an Army assignment to a remote base in Louisiana left me no option, but the R22 to train in for my Commercial Helicopter Certificate. I had previously trained in Enstroms & Schweizer 300C’s. With 16 hours in the R22, a substitute CFI had me do my first solo in type at night. An hour after doing approaches after terminating at a hover over the numbers, just as I was about to take off, the helicopter inexplicably violently spun out of control. The wind was almost straight down the runway & I applied full left pedal, but the helicopter violently spun faster & faster with my headset shooting off my head & the helicopter wanting to flip over. It resulted in a hard spinning landing with the helicopter spinning & sliding down the runway. The owner & insurance company couldn’t find any mechanical malfunctions & ultimately blamed LTE. I finished my Commercial Rating in R22’s, but promised myself to never fly an R22 again. I later got checked out in the R44 which seems more substantial than the R22, with the hope of getting a tour job. I rented this R44 for 22 hours & I never had any problems with it. I like that they spin the tail rotor the right way (clockwise) to make it more effective. On my last flight my CFI talked me out of taking a ballast as I had on my other solo flights & it was a windy day. On my way back to the airport with the wind & turbulence I was nervous about mast bumping, so I slowed down to 75 knots & tried not to move the cyclic. I was going to train in the R44 to get my Helicopter Instrument Add On Rating, but after seeing the recent fatal R44 crash where it broke up in flight over Texas, I am having second thoughts about training in the R44. There are a lot of experienced pilots who have tragically been killed in Robinson helicopters. I think a 3 or 4 bladed rotor system will be a major breakthrough for Robinson. www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-robinson-helicopters/
I’m a low time inst/comm rotorwing pilot. I’ve no intention of flying a Robinson helicopter for many of the reasons listed in this video. In my opinion Robinson helicopters are on the quality level of most ultralight helicopters. You kinda get what you pay for.
Making it a 3 or 4 blade helicopter may help to stabilize it better to prevent the tail from getting chopped off, when one goes low g causing a bank to the right followed by the pilot pushing the cyclic to the left causing a blade impact with the tail boom.
Thanks for a very informative video. I'm 76 years old and flown many types of airplanes and flight simulators over the years. I recently decided to get some time in a helicopter for fun. Took some instruction in an R44 and found that it is totally different from an airplane and very very sensitive on the controls. I did get to where I could even hover after a few attempts. Probably won't spend the money to get fully checked out but was extremely fun. If I were continuing I would definitely rethink what helicopter I would use.
I've been flying for eight years almost exclusively in Robinsons (all three): they are absolutely safe aircraft as long as their operating limitations are understood and respected. Avoid low-G maneuvers (should be second-nature to anyone flying any two-blade machine), and slow down in turbulence / areas where you're highly likely to encounter turbulence. I've been many times through places famous for their high winds and turbulence and have had plenty of uncomfortable moments, but as long as you slow down (I'll sometimes drop to ~80kts in the 44/66) and don't over-control the aircraft you'll be just fine. Think of it as being on a boat: you wouldn't expect a boat not to move around when there's waves-- just let it ride. One thing I'd add to that your points about understanding of semi-rigid rotor systems' limitations is for people to have some understanding of where you'll find turbulence. You can often avoid much of the turbulence even on very windy days if you take the time to consider the terrain and where you're going to place the aircraft. There's no shame in re-routing your flight or changing altitudes to utilize updrafting air and/or avoid flying in the lee of spikey terrain where possible. Keeping an eye on the environment and the conditions and adjusting your flying accordingly will really minimize the drama. Sometimes those awkward places are explicitly where the client wants to go, but many other times the nasty bits can simply be bypassed by deviating a bit from a direct course.
Damn sure it is... Us Aussie mustering pilots seem to break them (with surprising regularity) and we do! We break them so often, Robinson WILL NOT warranty a helicopter if it is used for mustering in Australia! We've been known to do crazy shit like whacking the blade tips into the small branches to make noise (which we know will scare that bullock out from his cover), hover in UNDER a tree's canopy for the same reason. We sometimes mast bump (and pray the rotor head doesn't separate which has killed or seriously injured fellow muster pilots) with our sudden departures from a "normal" (read BORING!!) flight paths to chase that errant bull or cow (I've turned the chopper on its side at speed to get the rotor disc to fit between two trees chasing a cow back to the herd). We "hot seat" refuel or change pilots (or even whole aircraft if the one we are flying needs a 100 hourly inspection). Fuck, we even use them to "hellifish" (attach a fishing line with bait/lure to the skid, hover over a good Barra spot and then "reel in" the fish when it bites by climbing high enough to pull it out of the water to dump on the bank for a mate to retrieve. Don't tell the boss though, ok?). Love 'em!! P.S. I wonder how the R66 will handle what we will throw at it?
Neil Cutten Spot on Sir. As per my post above (or below). I am a game capture pilot in Africa and as you say we fly those helicopters way outside their designed criteria. I will take Robbies any day first time when doing this type of flying.
The one thing you didn’t mention is the low inertia of the Robinson two blades which means you have to be really alert for engine problems. You have a very short time to get the collective down and establish a good speed for autogiro. A comment on Robinson, they are very safety conscious. There was an R22 in New zeland I think that had a corrosion problem because he lived near salt water. Mr Robinson knew I lived right on the Chesapeake Bay. One afternoon I got home from work and a big wooden box arrived from Robinson. New stainless Steel blades. No charge. My service center installed them the next day. I’m sure Robinson paid them for their work. That was really impressive for the company to do something like that. I flew my R22 for 8 years and put 1200 hours on it in total an since it had 800 hours on in when I purchased it. I got caught in turbulence several times but just making no fast moves it performed great. Each time I did and the service center carefully checked the places supports and found everything is good condition. Maybe it was the stainless steel blades but I was happy with the helicopter. I have to say the saddest day of my life was having to sell it to pay some health bill for my wife. I’m currently looking for another helicopter.
Mischa, Have you have seen some of the aussie outback helicopter pilots mustering cattle in R22s, some of them make the R22 look like the safest most agile helicopter in existance.
jbm Neil Cutten Spot on Sir. As per my post above (or below). I am a game capture pilot in Africa and as you say we fly those helicopters way outside their designed criteria. I will take Robbies any day first time when doing this type of flying.
Are you sure that is the word he was hunting for? You DO know that synonyms exist, right? You seem so sure of what was going on in his brain, yet you appear to be unaware of how your own is working. Maybe think about cleaning your own porch first?
Hi Mischa, I fly both the R22 and R44 and I don’t think we should be blaming the design of the aircraft when people are pushing them beyond there design limits. You talk about the Jetranger. Which is one of the safest helicopters on the market, but if pilots flew the Jetranger the way Robinson helicopters are flown then they would crash equally as much. It doesn’t matter what type of aircraft you fly whether that be a helicopter or a plane, if you disrespect your aircraft then you are going to get hurt or killed. With respect to both the R22 and R44 the pilots operating handbook states that the helicopter should not be flown in winds greater than 25knots and moderate turbulence by pilots with less than 200 hours on helicopters or 50 hours on type. If you watch some of the videos I’ve seen on UA-cam, some pilots do some very stupid things with both the R22 and R44 and it’s unfair to blame the design for that. You are correct in saying that pilots have to be taught how to fly them correctly and to know the aircrafts limitations but that is the same for any aircraft you fly. I’ve personally found both the R22 and R44 to be absolutely delightful aircraft you fly. I am currently learning to fly the Cabri G2 and it to has limitation with the fenestron but just like the Robinson helicopters if flown correctly it to is a lovely aircraft to fly as well. If a car crashes we don’t blame the design of the car we look at the way the driver drives the car. Why do we do it with helicopters?
Comparing cars with aircraft is like apples and oranges. Cars don’t crash and kill due to mechanical failures, helicopters do. Robinson helicopters are not the best build and if you knew a little bit about the company, they are all about making money .. I know several people working there btw. Just look at the statistics instead of speculating on imaginary facts. Most pilots are flying carefully as their lives count on it. I said
@@ab687 can you explain the difference between the robinson and the Jet ranger? Is it because more robinsons are sold than jet rangers or is the rotor system slightly different so there are less mast bumping issues with one compared to the other? I fly a Cabri G2 as well and I want to fly a robinson....There are so many out there but I am doing research as well.
The point is the R-44s design limitations are much easier to exceed due to the design itself. I just find it extremely difficult to put my faith in them and don't like the idea of flying on eggshells perse or having to constantly remind myself of procedures causing one to feel timid with the flight controls. I just stay away from them altogether.
Great video. Just one comment, as an experienced failure analysis expert, although not one versed in aircraft. No engineering component should be designed in such a way that it is possible for it to undergo fatigue cracking. They are a few isolated exceptions to this, some of those being in the aircraft industry, But in those cases the fatigue cracking is well known, well understood, well monitored and not dangerous because the component is intentionally replaced prior to its failure.
Having had an interest in aviation all my life, I have heard many stories and read many articles. Most of these involve military aircraft, and many of these have "is the ____ safe?". And virtually all of those claim that with proper training and the right mind-set, they CAN be very safe. I'm thinking of the F-100 "sabre dance" and the F-104 "widow maker". These are aircraft that had major, MAJOR design flaws, and killed many people, and yet the people who learned to tame them (i.e., avoid the situations and apply "what the surviving pilots learned"), almost to a person, say, "yes, they CAN be very safe." Which, just to be clear, is plain BS. I'm not a helicopter pilot, but I've read FAA documents that make exceptions of the Robinsons, that in my recollections amount to, "you need special training to be safe in a Robinson."
I learned on a Robinson R22, at the now defunct Pompano Helicopters in Florida. It always seemed strange to me that the Robinson was the ‘go to’ trainer, as it was such a sensitive machine. A Cessna 150 pretty much flies it’s self, you have to do something to it to make it manoeuvre, so it’s an ideal trainer machine…However, if you learn on a Robinson, everything else seems pretty docile afterwards. I couldn’t believe how easy a Bell 206 L3 was to fly in comparison. So from that point of view, the Robinson is a great trainer as it ( hopefully) teaches the new flyer how to be sympathetic to the machine.
a 4 bladed R44... yes please. that would be sweet. ive had some gnarly updrafts in a 44 but my instructors always emphasised to just let the helicopter do whatever it wants mostly and do not try to counteract in those conditions so thats how i fly. currently getting IFR rated with 150ish hours in a 44.
I've been flying Robby's since 2012 and Airbus EC120 since 2015. It's been said before but the Robby's are outdated and the manufacturer is as stubborn as they come. They're of the "if it ain't broke and no one died" mindset. That stubbornness to continuously improve and innovate will only hinder the industry, Robinson, and the pilots that fly them. I understand their niche and why they do what they do, but they could seriously improve safety and performance with a few modernizations.
"They're of the "if it ain't broke and no one died" mindset" - 262 dead people would argue that Robinson doesn't give a flying F if their customers die or not.
I have 7000 of helicopter time. FAA CFI, and was an Army Maintenance Test pilot. I was flying the OH58A (Bell 206). There developed a tail rotor hanger bearing problem. It was supposed to be sealed not requiring lubrication. A few locked up eating the tail rotor drive shaft resulting in loss of tail rotor thrust. I had this hanger bearing failure 5 miles north of Kunsan AFB in 1971. The army started lubing the bearings with a hypodermic syringe filled with oil. Bell Helicopter redesigned the bearings and put a cover over the shaft to protect it from the elements. There were some engine flame outs due to flying in heavy rain, related heavy snow clogging the inlet filters. The Army put in an auto relight system as a temporary fix and told us not to fly in heavy snow. Bell Helicopter designed a reverse flow inlet and fixed the problem. Tail booms were getting into a wild vibration on completion of autorotation and doing severe damage. The Army banned all training of autorotations for 2 years. Bell Helicopter researched the problems found where the harmonic vibrations where caused, put in a yellow caution range on the rotor RMP tac. The Army changed our autorotation procedures, it was easy to avoid this condition. We started taking the OH58 out for a spin during Viet Nam and discovered Loss of Tail Roter Effectiveness. The Army working Bell Helicopter and everyone else came up with mind numbing charts of wind azimuths and power requirements that basically said keep your nose pointed into the wind when you are hovering or very slow. The point. Robinson, stop blaming pilots and fix your damn problems.
Great video, I think that you do a great service to aviation in general by bring these issues to the forefront so that they can be examined and discussed in a educational form where we has pilots can discuss and learn how to be safer .
I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how the R22 or R44 compares to the Schweitzer 300 from a safety standpoint. Additionally, would you recommend one over the other for a new student pilot to train in and why? Thanks for the videos!
Well, 'safe' is a relative term. Inherently, the Robinson can be considered safe or it wouldn't be sold. However, it's how the helicopters are being used that puts the term 'safe' into question. In this area, helicopters are used extensively in the forestry and mining fields. For years, the mainstay machine was the Bell 206 Jet Ranger. Then came the 206R Long Ranger. That stayed around for a few years until the Aerospatiale A350 AStar came along. Most of the operators went with the AStar due to its ability to lift heavier loads. With all of these machines, operating cost was critical factor. Then, back in about the late 1990's, a company showed up with a Robinson R22. They touted it as a much cheaper way to go on reconnaissance flights that required only one passenger plus a pilot. Nothing wrong with that. Then, this same company brought in an R44, saying they could ferry entire crews much cheaper that either the Bell 206 or the A350. This idea was acceptable to the various industries and the R44 became more popular. However, due mainly to operating cost, companies started to use the R44 for, what I call, a "poor man's Bell 206". They were observed on many occasions slinging loads that were obviously too heavy for the machine and, as a result, started occurring more downtime hours for maintenance. A few also crashed. Some outfits still used them but I won't fly in one.
I'm curious about what you said about the design flaws of the Bell 206.I can think of one real quick, the early 62 inch tail rotor which was increased to 65 inches.I started flying the 206A in 1971 and I am pretty sure that they all had the bladder type fuel cells.Besides the rotor system on the R44,I think that that the angled crossover cyclic is a poor design.I have never flown one but it looks like it is very unconventional .
The NTSB recently completed their investigation into the 2019 Hawaii crash of N808NV. Yes, the pilot was low time, but he was certified and had a few hundred hours in an R44. Per the NTSB report: The helicopter’s encounter with a strong downdraft or outflow boundary while operating at a higher than recommended airspeed in turbulence which resulted in a low-G condition, excessive main rotor flapping, and an in-flight breakup when the main rotor contacted the cabin area. Yes, it's pilot error flying into weather, too much airspeed, and turning to evade the weather. Having said that, if it's that easy to beat your aircraft to pieces, there's a design flaw. The entire world grounded the 737Max because the non-US carriers purchased planes with a single point of failure and their pilots did not know how to disable an automated system.
It would be nice if you could out timestamps in the description so I could listen to specific topics rather than having to skip around and try to find the section I want.
The significally less inertia on the light R22 rotor in comparison to the R44 might be a significant factor; you have to be lighting fast to initiate autorotation on those and, a contributing factor early on, that the engine governor was an optional item and thus, not always installed
@@MrDIAMONDCOR I don't completely agree. You have to compare the rotor disk loading. Comparing a R22 with a Cabri tells you that thanks to the 3-blade rotor system, the cabri as much better autorotation capabilities compared to the R22. Juste compare the green arc of both machine and you will see the difference. Having flown both of them, I can confirm that. I had the chance to fly the Cabri with one of the company pilot and he demonstrated me the capability of the Cabri to stay in the air even with the RRPM under the yellow arc (about 430 rpm). I would never try this with an R22.
I learnt on a R22 and R44. My instructor was mike Smith in the UK. The training is THE most important thing in my mind and I found the Robinson to be a great helicopter. I still believe that to be the case. Anything in the wrong hands becomes a problem. Your point about the Robinson being affordable is a great point. I saw lots of the guys I trained with buy a Robinson, the truth from my point of view is that I wouldn’t ride a bike with these guys let alone a helicopter. Rich boys toys and even less respect for the machine. I find it a little sad that the Robinson gets bad press, and I know quite a few guys that would never fly them. But I love them and I’ll take one any day. Good video. Thanks
@@montymontgomery2471 I remember hearing about Mary watching an R44 spinning around on the pad outside her office window. The guy was there for an LPC and was told "go out and start it up" 😂
The question to ask is: Why does a Robinson have SFAR 73? In other words, one can solo any other light helicopter (or airplane) with any amount of dual instruction, but not the Robinson. The Robinson takes a minimum of 20 hours of dual before a solo can be done. You can solo any Bell, Schweizer, Airbus, Enstrom, and many others, but not the Robinson… That alone, should be evidence that they are death traps. As an instructor, I have 250 hours in each, the 22 and the 44, but I stopped flying them in 2007. I would never fly in one again for any reason or purpose. Literally, the second one pulls pitch in a Robinson, your life is over, unless the thing works perfectly.
Have you tried the Aerofly FS2 R22? How realistic is the flight model? I have heard it is right now the best helicopter flight model in a sim, but a R44 instructor like you could evaluate this sim a lot more qualified than simmers and engineers like me. And does it make sense to train certain manouvers or procedures with sims such as Aerofly FS2, X-Plane or in the future FS2020?
On another sidenote on the topic of the video: The biggest limitation I see so far in most flight simming is weather. I haven't yet seen any turbulence that feels realistic. And yes I have flown the R22 in moderate turbs with my flight instructor ;)
It is important to note that trim tab is adjusted by a mechanic during blading tracking. The trim tab is bent a specific number of degrees up or down during blade tracking procedures to reduce vibration and improve flight characteristics.
Nice job Misha, to be honest with you I was a little hesitant to watch because of your bias for Robinson but was pleasantly surprised. You hit the nail right on the head, and still I may have mentioned the low rotor rpm problem in the 44. Again, beautiful job and looking forward to the next one. Fly safe 🚁🇨🇦
Thank you for posting this My brother was killed in an R22. The NTSB noted a climb and reduced airspeed before the abrupt rapid descent (while turning). Seems consistent with your description. He was a relatively new pilot. Is there any planned regs to limit sale of Robinson helicopters to experienced pilots w excessive hrs and frequency? I was trained on single engine fixed wing and had to do hood time even though I was vfr. Is that required for helicopter license? Should it be? Thank you again. ❤
I got 2.800 commercial hours on five different R44 II's over a 13 year career on them. Of those five, three had before their 12-year lifespan an engine failure resulting in auto- or hover auto, one with substantial damage beyond repair in a river in Italy (none of them with me, but two of them with post-resale buyers at the controls and one with my other pilot). I am aware that a 66% engine failure within 12 years lifespan is in no mean representative for all R44's, but made me worry because its still five (5) different R44's, so I did a survey last summer after the last engine failure (that still awaits results from the investigation, though we have an idea what it is). Looking through 897 R44 reports I could find online and compared to 69 Airbus H120 reports, the risk of an engine failure is 1,3% in the R44 vs. 0,8% in the H120 during the engines lifespan. Having said that, beside the piston engine, Robinson helicopters when flown within the limits of the POH is a safe helicopter. I have seen one turned into a "low-rider" after a very hard landing (100% pilot error), you couldn't get the tow cart in underneath without tilting the tail down first, where the lover half inch left side of the rotor mast cowling was partially bend approx. 80 degrees sideways, meaning with the space between the cowling and the cabin it touched, the mast really had to be forced sideways A LOT. And the frame itself incl. tail had not sustained any damage, just the landing gear. One would think they must have included rubber in that metal alloy, since it could take that much beating without cracks, fatigue or permanent bended metal. Robinson is usually very good to support their customers, but if or when there is a technical- or design issue, it would suit them well to recognize it for what it is and not for example with the bladder tanks retrofit before they made them available, start out with Safety Notice 40. It just make them look stupid even suggesting what that did, instead of taking the "Bull by the horns" and solve it in a proper way. Had the same experience with a lack of recognition, when a R44 was trying to tear itself apart in mid-air with me and two pax during a descending turn for landing, when the flaw was bad manufactured rubber mountings the main gearbox sits on made of apparently a slightly wrong rubber compound, responding like: "Yeah we had experienced that with new R44's while test flying them, but over time the rubber hardens so it will not do it when it has flown some hours" - Gee, thanks a lot, let me be a test pilot for those few hundred hours before that rubber hardens so the risk of those extreme oscillations is gone. They have since I believe made sure the rubber mountings are of a proper compound that doesn't risk letting the main gearbox at certain M&B and power settings start to oscillate beyond certain limits, especially beyond limits the pilot can't counteract with different inputs. Just my five cents on the R44 :-)
Is 1.3% and 0.8% the probability of that type of accident happening out of all accidents that occurred, or the probability that an engine failure event will happen any time you lift the helicopter off the ground?
In total, there have been more than 1,600 accidents or incidents involving Robinson Helicopter aircraft, more than 425 of them fatal accidents resulting in more than 700 deaths do you think they are safe.I feel safer in a RAF 2000 gyrocopter than a Robinson helicopter
Did you happen to come across any data that reflects how many accidents Robinson’s have as a percentage of how many are in use? I know they’re inexpensive so I’m assuming there’s a ton of them out there compared to other brands. Just wondering if their accident count is so much higher just due to the high volume in usage out there. Thanks for sharing this!
I’ve flown Bell, Westland, Sikorsky and Aerospatiale helicopters. All solid, robust and safe helos with no sig dangerous flying qualities other than mast bump limitations with the older Iroquois and jet rangers. All my family are banned from ever going in a Robinson. John from Australia
I have worked on helicopters for 26 years. I have never liked Robbinson helicopters. I won't fly on one .
You notice that the military won't touch one? That's a clue....
I don't even like them flying close to me,
Robinson helicopters are not only unsafe, they look ridiculous and ugly.
Also note that no New Zealand government employee is allowed to fly in a R44-it's considered an unnecessary risk.
One of my former Army Reserve pilots had over 45,000 flight hours in just about everything you could think of from about 1966 in Virtnam to around 2000 when I lost track of him. He adamantly refused to get in a Robinson. He said you get no second chance with those things.
Dave Stutesman, don't you confuse anything with the number of hours? This is a very large figure and not realistic for such a period of time. I am writing this to you as a former pilot who has flown about the same number of years.
one went down immediately after take off out of Broome couple years back; didn't make any sense - looked awfully suss re maintenance or whatever. another sad day.
Your friend is wise. As a 31 year pilot, I've refused to ever fly a Robinson. Their design is too unforgiving.
@@garycook5125 They require a competent well trained pilot . Obviously you know your limits .
@@sarahann530Numerous, well trained, competent pilots have died in
Robinsons. There are situations that occur in flying aircraft sometimes, that the very best of us can't control.
A New Zealand Coroner has just determined that due to a design flaw in the rotor head the Robinson is not suited to the turbulent mountainous terrain in New Zealand. A crash investigator has seen numerous Robinson crash remains with perspex bubble scratches on the leading edges of the blades and the accompanying blade impacted control column. Robinson refused to participate in the inquiry and also refused to comment on the findings. The conclusion is that over correction in turbulence results in the blades instantly losing all semblance of normal tracking and flailing away at the fuselage - in mid air.
I just watched the documentary on the crash of a Robinson which killed both pilot and son of famous NZ woman choppa pilot. Rotar blades completly failed. Id rather go up in a hot air balloon than one of these death traps.
Anyone thinking of flying in or piloting a Robinson helicopter should watch this first. Robinson are in denial about a serious design flaw in their helicopters..
ua-cam.com/video/XuXDtZjqbQw/v-deo.html
Another Robinson mast bump fatal accident.. ua-cam.com/video/alpGMjCZ83Y/v-deo.html
@@mickeybowmeister1944 Pretty much this. As a pilot myself, i've never gotten anywhere near a Robinson. They're total garbage. Most folks in aviation know this but they turn a blind eye when it comes to that matter or just try to relativize it.
@@mickeybowmeister1944 I’m trying not to have confirmation bias, but after I saw that same documentary I am now seeing many reports of Robinson crashes and “mishaps”. Wasn’t previously aware of this but now paying attention.
I appreciate someone speaking intelligently about the Robinson. I just watched a video of a fairly serious R44 crash. It was a catastrophic engine failure over a wooded area with no good place to put down, but it did look as though it was survivable. Then, I read the typical comments - "Robinsons are flying coffins," "Flying a Robinson will eventually get you killed," blah, blah, blah. Can Robinsons be dangerous? Yep, but so can walking if you screw it up.
The first R22 was sold in 1979, and Robinson sold its 13,000th. machine (R22's, 44's, and 66's combined) in 2022, I believe it was. Much of the bad rap Robinsons get, and I can guarantee you that there are many of those comments under this video, are from keyboard "pilots" that have never flown a helicopter, and those that, if they are pilots, probably know little about Robinson from firsthand experience. It's just 'popular' to crap on Robinsons online. It's a 'thing.' Anyone remember "Planking?" That was a 'thing,' too.
The new R44's have a symmetrical stabilizer on the tailcone. It's also available for older R44's as a retrofit kit. It's designed to improve the safety and performance by enhancing roll stability and reducing the tendency to roll to the right. Of course, it also minimizes the chances of a _mast bump._
A well-trained, experienced pilot, flying a well-maintained Robinson as it should be flown, is very safe.
I'll be buying a helicopter, probably in the next 1 - 2 years, and it will most likely be an R44 or maybe even an R66. I *really* like the Cabri G2, but I want a 4-pace. I'll probably wait and see how the Hill HX50 presents, too. Ideally, I'd love to see Guimbal produce a Cabri G4 with the same fully articulated rotor system that the G2 has.
There was an amendment to the r44 stating in turbulence slow down to help keep the disc loaded. Doesn’t matter what machine you’re flying, don’t fight the wind. That leads to a tense pilot and over correction. Relax and the helicopter relaxes, just accept its a bumpy ride. If it gets too much, put it down and wait it out.
Very well said.
It was very good advice too. I used it when flying through the Welsh mountains and it was getting a bit all over the place. Perhaps pull it back to 70 or so and enjoy the beautiful scenery for a little longer.
Great advice
Do Bell helicopters also have the ability to mast bump?
Yes, all twin blade machines are susceptible. As a rule, low g is not advised in any helicopter, but two blade machines an absolute no.
Firstly is any aircraft safe? Define “safe”....i fly R22 and R44 in probably the most dangerous flying there is....game capture (always flying in the dead mans curve, flying under wires and trees etc.), i fly in mountains, rain, high wind and have never had a problem with them. They are extremely safe helicopters if flown correctly and within your envelope (the pilots personal envelope as the helicopter can do a lot more than what the poh limits you to). Bladder tanks in a R44 is a must, i agree. Frank Robinson is a legend and without him most of us would not have been able to fly helicopters. All these more modern helicopters have learned from past incidents and accidents on other helicopter makes and models, therefore they cannot claim to be praised like they are. Give me a Robinson helicopter for any task anyday....in wind, rain, mountains no problem. Hats off to Mr Robinson
, thank you Sit for a great machine.
I agree, he gave us a great helicopter... now make it better. Change the rotor system. 3 blade would be safer and a phenomenal improvement that I would welcome.
also try enstrom, nearly the same price.......better performance.....can take three adult & cargo compartment on piston......Handling, autorotation you will be surprised.......try new piston enstrom............
Hey man, I'm a ppl holder currently working on cpl and I am very interested in game capture flying. How did you get into it? What do they look for? Thanks
@@rustusandroid wouldn't making it 3 blades make it a lot more expensive, and hence turn some people away from flight training?
@@jasondick4756 It would be more expensive, yes. But not much more. And I would think the safety would attract more people to learn to fly, as they know they couldn't kill themselves by inadvertently chopping off their tail. Not killing people is more important than the little bit of money they are saving with a cheaper but flawed design. My opinion, of course.
From the New Zealand coroner's inquiry, the Robison cannot handle anything more than moderate turbulance due the rotor head design. While most helicopters might get a slight wobble in turbulance, the Robinson can cut its tail off or cut into the cockpit.
The rotor head was the problem.
In NZ we have a very high accident rate with this chopper , they make up 25 % of choppers in NZ , and also make up 50% of crashes , basically the fall apart in mid air , mast bump due to tri hinge main rotor design . If they are used , then best on flat ground & low altitude , NOT good in mountains , or high and speed kept to 70 or lower .
There are a lot of them around , and its all to do with the low price , not because they are good .
I think it's because of mountains
Bottom line, know how to fly them-good advice that works in any aircraft.
Why does it even have coning hinges?
Hueys, B206 etc. Fly Well without them, with only having an underslung (but pre coned) M/R ....
The design limitations of the R-44 are much easier to exceed due to the design itself and I just find it hard to put my faith in them, the risk far outweighs the reward in my book and flying "timidly" and constantly having to remind myself of limitations is not my idea of fun so I chose to stay away from them. The recent accident in Texas is all the reassurance I need was a training flight and there is no reason mast bumping should be occuring in training flights with the CFI in control.
I'm not a pilot but I see a lot of comments on here claiming that having an experienced pilot would stop that, but that seems like a super poor excuse for a helicopter being cable to chop it's own fucking tail off lol. I feel like that just shouldn't be possible
I agree “Ok”
@@brock83196831 I agree 100% ...The "design feature" consisting of the ability to hack one's own aircraft's tail off, just defies reason...
..agreed.
@@brock83196831 Well, as you said, you are not a pilot. If you were a helicopter pilot, you would have learned about the dangers of low-g flight in any two bladed teetering rotor system.
Frank Robinson would have been intelligent to consider the same problem that the Bell 47 had with their exploding and burning fuel tanks in a crash. You are very correct. Over controlling ANY aircraft is always a problem, especially in a helicopter. ALWAYS move the controls slowly and gently. You are absolutely correct in your description of how to handle the controls. Flailing the controls around on a helicopter will always exceed the rotor blade limits at some point. Except under some circumstances when landing; IF the passengers can see that you are moving the controls on either a helicopter or an airplane, you are making too much movement!!! MANY flight instructors are VERY ignorant about how to actually operate the controls on aircraft, especially helicopters. They believe that "controlling an aircraft" means moving the controls. ALL machines are dangerous when operated improperly. My favorite helicopter is a Hughes (MD) 530FF. Except for the initial investment, it costs about the same as operating a Robinson R-44. The Hughes (MD) 530FF is an awesome machine!!!
The investigation report about the crash of the R44 that killed the owner of the helicopter Stephane Roy (Savoura Sagami) and his son Justin during summer 2019 in Québec just came out. The cause is an undetected gradual rotor blade delamination wich is also apparently a popular issue on the R44.
I have an observation. Since a lot of the training aircraft are R22's and R44's, they may be getting more abuse than you realize. The stress fractures can't be seen by the naked eye so you have no way of knowing you are renting a damaged craft. Unless you own the helicopter, you are just praying it hasn't had a severe mast bump in it's recent history that has not reached the point of causing total failure but is on its way.
MrOlddave, you may find this Australian ATSB report of interest: AO-2020-061.
It does discuss the indicator as to evidence of mast bumping. I may ask further at my local Robinson service agent.
Excellent video,very informative easy to understand,perfect for a student . Much better then most r22 instructors ive seen. Yes r22 are dangerous ,but so is every other helicopter, i do agree it shouldnt be a beginner trainer ,but at same time once u master it ,there are very few other helicopters u cant fly and well. And 1 million percent correct its who is behind the controls ,i had a friend taught here on long island ,moved back to cali was teaching part time while waiting for another job he had 700 hrs approx and was flying with a student a bit over 10 hours while taking off in a r22 ,about 200 ft, a turkey vulture ,came across and tore off tail rotor, bird had a 6 ft wing span, with a lot f luck and a excellent pilot auto down keeping skids straight and level, when he landed, skids bowed some but made it down safely. Also helped end of that runway lead over a golf course ,so no house ,buildings . So as u say its who flys them that ultimately can make all the difference in the world
master it or die. i'll pass.
I'm currently training for my CFI in both the R22 and R44. I agree with pretty much everything said, but a few other points I would add would be for a pilot to really understand the SFAR 73, and how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly. Also I would recommend to anyone who's wanting to fly or is flying the r22/r44 to take the Robinson Safety Course. They go through all the most important things you should know and even show you around their manufacturing facility (which after talking about the dangers for hours really makes you understand the complexity and sophistication involved in building these helicopters which in turn makes you more confident about their safety).
"how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly." that sounds like an unsafe helicopter
@@valentinexavier9278 That's all helicopters homie. It's just because it weighs less so there is less inertia so it has less time in comparison to other helicopters.
@@WhyitJellyDonut The Cabri in comparison has nearly twice the rotor inertia of a R22.
@@adamlinamen9720 Where did you find that info?
The fact that Robinson, the manufacturer itself, has to conduct a safety course to make its own product safe, speaks for itself....!
Great videos as always! Key items in turbulence: Slow down; gentle aft cyclic as needed to keep rotor loaded; Cyclic friction added; avoid the word “gusting” in the forecast; set down and wait it out!
The R44, when you slow down and keep the rotor loaded, it will “just fly through” most light to moderate turbulence if you just leave the controls inputs alone. When flying in (more likely getting “caught in”) even light to moderate turbulence, I always think “No matter what attitude is presented, I must slow down, use aft cyclic as needed to fully load the rotor before ANY attempt is made to address the attitude.
or just worry free ................fly enstrom
@Rich McBride, well said..load FIRST..
I fly a Hughes 269A. I love my 3 blade system. I just wish I had a little more speed and passenger space.
I fly one, too Billy. My instructor called it a "tractor" LOL!
Buy a 66
Thanks for the excellent laymans description on how the rotor blades operate and how a mast bump happens! There is so much stuff needed to keep those things spinning, unlike a propeller on a plane.
Way to much stuff that will cause catastrophic failure if one piece breaks for me to go fly on one!
Many years ago in FLYING magazine there was an article about a guy who analyzed both fixed and rotary wing crashes of single engine aircraft, taking into account all risks and situations, to come up with the flying machine, both fixed and rotary with the lowest overall risk of death. And the winner was... Bell 206. Anyway, in the late 80s I was chatting with an insurance broker about hull premiums and we were going through the range, something like 2% for recip landplanes, 3% for recip floatplanes, 4% for amphibious floatplanes, and 5% for recip helicopters (at the time) and when I said, "Why is the piston helicopter insurance so expensive?", he responded instantly, "Cuz they all crash!!!!". He then laughed and said it was mainly because recip machines in those days were used very heavily for training and Ag work (wire strikes).
I think the 206 still has best safety rating for single engine aircraft.
I remember when the R22 first came out, and an acquaintance with the FAA said they weren't safe in his opinion. He was an inspector and an Army rotor pilot with lots of experience. I trusted his judgement as well. Then I followed the accident history on the NTSB website.
I took my first heli lesson this past week and the heli was a 53 hrs new r44. Instructor point #1, keep the disk loaded or fall out of the sky. Instructor point #2, keep rotation at 100, if you stall the blades they will get over loaded, snap, and you'll fall out of the sky. So there you have it.
Doesn’t sound ideal
@@adm5618what's ideal? Let the helicopter fly itself? Only if
Arthur Young designed the Bell 47 with a teetering rotor that could not mast bump. Its hub was provided sufficient teetering clearance that the rotor would hit the tail before hitting the mast. Spring-loaded droop stops (rabbit ears) fell into place at low rotor rpm and limited the teetering angle to prohibit the rotor from hitting the tail when the helicopter was on the ground. In flight the pilot could mishandle the cyclic to make the rotor hit the tail but this took a determined effort. The Bell 47 hub was also initially fitted with cables that limited the teetering angle and fed back into the control system if the rotor was reaching its teetering limits. These cables were removed in the late 1970s because the rotor system was determined to remain safe without them.
Bell apparently modified Young’s design for later teetering rotor helicopters to remove the spring-loaded droop stops and reduce hub teetering clearance so a blade root could rest against the mast to eliminate tail boom strikes when the rotor was stationary on the ground. Pilot awareness and training were emphasized to manage the rotor and avoid mast bump inflight. Excluding the early Jet Rangers which had a Bell 47-type hub, the Bell Jet Ranger/Long Ranger/Huey/Cobra series all have a history of mast bump accidents.
There are no records (as far as I know) of accidents due to mast bump with the Bell 47; conversely, the contemporary Hiller UH-12, fitted with a rotor the hub of which rests against the shaft when not turning, has a history of accidents due to mast bump.
Robinson made the mast bump problem worse by designing a teetering rotor with low inertia, the hub of which also rests against the shaft when not turning.
I consider that a teetering rotor, the hub of which rests against the shaft when not turning, is designed to mast bump.
I would ban teetering rotors if I had my way.
Thanks for discussing. For many years, without researching the issues, I've created a mental block about Robinson helicopters. This was in my mind when watching your channel, but saw that you weren't scared of them. Thank for explaining the issues head-on.
I am no pilot,but watching this video made me feel like an experienced pilot.So thank you for the exerted effort to keep pilots up there safe.
I think an important point you could have emphasized more, in fairness to Robinson because someone watching this could possibly assume the mast bumping problem is a Robinson-only problem, is the fact that the same teetering semi-rigid rotor was used on thousands of Bell machines since the '47, it was always a problem on those machines too, and the whole phenomenon really wasn't understood until the 60s following the US Army's investigation of a number of nap-of-the-earth Huey crashes.
I learned in a 47 at Ft Rucker
Great video. Thank you for all your hard work and effort put into educating other people. To many of us it's so crucial to get your opinion, as we're not into position to build ours over time. Moreover we trust, that being a skilled pilot and aviation fan, you're giving us the most honest, professional and up to date information. Keep up the good work! GREATLY APPRECIATED
Been doing a lot of reading lately about the R44, and your video really sums up what the reality is. Basically - and you and several of the commenters here have said - The R44 ain't an MD530, or a Kamov Black Shark, or an MBB105, so don't try to fly it like one.
I got my helicopter add-on a little over three years ago in a R22. Since then, I've flown mostly in the R44 especially in the last year or so. Yes, they have their drawbacks due to the rotor system, however they ARE quite safe IF you fly them correctly...as you said. Here in the states we must have special training per SFAR 73 prior to flying in the Robinsons. SFAR 73 covers the special quirks to know and avoid to fly them safely. With proper maintenance and training, the Robinsons are safe, reliable, and lots of fun to fly, especially the R44. It would be great to have the better rotor system, but I'm not holding my breath for that one any time soon. Thanks for the informative video Mischa!
You are a blessing to the helicopter community.
I have around 5800 hrs on a R44 and around the same in a R22. They are really safe if the pilot is safe. The reason that more Robbies are involved in accidents is simply that many more of them are flown than any other make and mainly in low level ops and training. Would be interesting to know how many accidents were training or wildlife related. No piston is really suitable for serious mountain flying especially in turbulence.
"If" is a little word with a big meaning.
Thank you for your video I’m considering starting a career as heli pilot and the r44 would be my only option right now. The video is really clear. What type of heli do you suggest for PPH course ? Tks
Cabri g2
Would be very interested in a follow up regarding the safety of the R22 (as compared to the R44 and Cabri)
I remember a Robinson dealer telling me when I was doing my training in Australia in the mid 90's that Frank Robinson hated Australian (mainly mustering industry) and New Zealand Robinson users because of the way they operated the machines (lot of low rotor RPM accidents) and especially in New Zealand that they were not recording the actual time on the machine, 1 in every 3-5 hours I was told and I also remember an article about a business selling time expired parts. I recall a few main rotor blades with small fractures at the main rotor trim tab rivet if I'm not mistaken or at one end of the trim tab and quite a few had delaminating issues as well. But overall an enjoyable machine to fly.
or he was making excuses to cover his arse and shit engineering?
My dad trained in the RNZAF in1938/9,he remarked once that turbulence used to make flying interesting.Told me to avoid the new fangled light weight aircraft.
@@geraldperyman6535 only time I’ve been nervous flying in turbulence was going into Coffs Harbour on the NSW coast in a Kawasaki KH4 at 3000ft that actually scared me it was so violent. Then after about another 10 flying hours on that machine we found the transmission and rotor mast pretty much destroyed and CASA after inspecting the transmission said we were lucky to have been able to tell the story as most fail in flight with the rotor separating from the aircraft.
Micah great explanation on low G push overs! Very clear and concise as always! A Robbie recently went down in Rowlett Texas Southeast of Dallas. Im guessing Main Rotor Tail Strike after seeing the video. My take on the whole Robbie thing is. SFAR says it all! I aint flying one, EVER! One skid low brother!
ua-cam.com/video/WGKcmRX-IAY/v-deo.html
The question is what causes the main rotor tail strike. The assumption is abrupt pilot input or turbulence. The problem is that there are cases where it happened without abrupt pilot input and without turbulence.
Hi thanks that’s great information have you had any experience with rotorway are they any better or worse then Robinson
I flew them both and bought an R44 instead of a R162
Mast bumping can be better explained: in semi rigid rotor technology, the rotor must be loaded in order to control the helicopter, meaning that the fuselage is behaving pretty much the same that a load would behave under a sling. If there is slack in your sling, you can turn left or right, your load will fly straight. The same is happening in a low g situation: because there is still a torque produced by the engine, the tail rotor has still a lateral thrust which occurs above the center of mass (the more nose up or nose down situation, the worse the result). Then the ship will tilt to the right (up to 100 degrees / second bank rate). The natural reaction of the pilot is to counter this bank with a left cyclic input, which has no effect because the fuselage is no more “hanging” under the rotor due to the low g situation. You are right: semi rigid rotor systems are simple, not expensive to build, but are inherently dangerous if the pilot has not a full awareness of how it works.
Can't wait until Gimbal build a 4 seater Cabri. In my mind, Robo could learn a thing or two from the G2's rotor system.
It's been a round for a long time it's called the Astar or with the Fenston the Eco star. Gimbal has a major connection with Airbus (Eurocopter) and i don't think you will ever see anything but the Cabri. I would love to see a turbine Capri.
@@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006 Guimbal has mentioned they've received worldwide interest in a larger Cabri and they are keeping an open mind about it (paraphrased so as not to imply anything).
I have a picture of a potential prototype however, its a fake :-(
Turbine G2? that really would make it the most expensive 2 seater!!
I think they will desgin a 4 seater sooner or later. For the time, they are busy with UAV (VSR-700) but I am sure they will develop a 4 seater. We have to stay tuned! ;-)
@@runthering No, there is already turbine italian 2 seater.......not very expensive
Thanks, Mischa! I have long heard of the safety issues surrounding Robinson helicopters and you're the first to objectively address this. I have two questions... How does the life cycle (with respect to these safety issues) compare between the B206 and the R44? Secondly, how does the R22 compare?
They do it completely differently. Robinson's have a complete overhaul time limit which is 2200 hours or 12 years and the whole thing needs to go in for months for a massive overhaul and basically come out a brand new helicopter where Bell and everybody else has component times that things need to be replaced or overhauled.
The B206 is THE single most safe single-engined aircraft out there.....
I got my CPL on an R-22. Sitting at 147 hours today and am in the process of getting my R-44 rating now. Can’t wait!
Excellent summary. Too many pilots fight the wind because they haven’t learnt to visualize the air they’re flying through. I’ve always taught that when you’re in a strong tailwind situation, to NOT rush it by trying to get it over with by pushing the cyclic forward but to imagine you’re a gorilla banging his chest. Not literally of course but just saying ‘Gorilla!’ reminds you to pull back on that cyclic and ride it out calmly. Like they say, “better late than dead on time” ...
I like the R44. The more hours I get the less I like two bladed helicopters because of the danger presented by low G pushovers. I also don't like the T bar cyclic. It's poor ergonomics. The T bar cyclic makes it more difficult to get to the console. One of my ideas for a helicopter is to remove the console but have flat screens closer to the pilots. The view outside would be improved, the instruments would be more readable, and the avionics controls more easily reached.
I really appreciate your comments in this video. I think I kind of knew some of the points you were going to make when I read the subject line. I figured you would talk about mast bumping but you made some other great points too. Your comments about "right aircraft, right conditions, and right pilot" are dead on, and they also apply to every aircraft that's ever been built. The pilot has to be fully aware of the aircrafts capabilities and limitations. He/she has to do their homework in terms of what kind of conditions they are likely to be flying into and what their mission is on any particular flight, and, I think, most importantly, he/she needs to be fully honest with themselves about their own capabilities and limitations at any given time. I think that's the hardest part of all. I've seen too many reports of relatively high time pilots who got themselves in trouble because they had the experience and were maybe just a little too confident in themselves with unfortunate consequences.
As for helicopter safety, I was remembering an article I saw in an aviation magazine back in the mid to late 70's I think. The cover story was on the Bell 206 (which you mentioned in this video) and the headline was that the 206 was, for that year, the "safest single engine aircraft" in the United States. Note that they didn't say, "safest single engine helicopter," but safest single engine "aircraft," which included single engine fixed wing airplanes! At the time, I thought that was pretty impressive, especially for a helicopter considering how mechanically complex they are.
On a slightly different, but related subject, could you talk about ground resonance issues on multi bladed rotor systems? There are so many videos out there of A-Stars and it's various iterations and Schweitzer/Hughs 300's tearing themselves to bits because of this phenomenon. What causes it and how does the pilot avoid it? There's one video I've seen of a 300 that's just being run up on the ground after a maintenance cycle. It's fine for a couple of minutes and then the resonance just starts and the helicopter destroys itself right there? Fortunately, no one got hurt. I imagine there was something else going on that we're not told about but it's certainly an eye opener. Are there design parameters that make one model more prone to this than others and since I'm asking the question, where does the Cabri G2 potentially fit in this situation?
I love your videos, Mischa! Keep em coming!
Another R22 crashed with a double fatality in Western Australian on October 2nd 2022 when returning from a Royal Areo Club cross country event. The pilot, Adrian Thomas, was a very experienced private pilot and club champion many times. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating.
I agree with what you stated. I also think pilots need more constant training, fly more hours than just 50 hours per year. Training , training and training. Even if is through reading material, actual flying or going to local airports (or-online today )and discussing a personal experience in the past.
never stop training, study every accident, 50 full down autos per year and always carry a gun.
I am agree, the pilots neeed to know this machines need constant training and they need to study the POH and learn everthing to this helicopter can do, I think if you have constant training and you are consent of the emergency to can happen you don´t will have problems with R-44 and other kind of helicopters and airplanes
Ask this question today and you may get some different answers. Those two pilots in Texas are dead because the Robinson chopped of it's own tail. They had no chance. Now, it may have been pilot error, but any machine that has that capability for catastrophic failure just for routine training isn't airworthy in my opinion. To my knowledge I can never remember another helicopter cutting off it's own tailboom. Just saying.
the Russian hind attack chopper is well known for doing it but that is also a 3rd word countries engineering
Even if it was pilot error the aircraft should be able to withstand a certain amount of that.
@@robslade2571 Exactly my point. If it's even POSSIBLE to self destruct with something so simple and routine, shut it down and fix it. That would be like buying a new car and the dealer says "oh, by the way, don't hit the brakes if you're on a side slope and over 30 mph. The wheels will come off". WTF? Uh...here's the keys back, can you get me a cab home?
Hi. What’s your opinion on leveling the R44 using left pedal in a low G right roll attitude?
André Botes I’ve heard of that as a method but the fact still remains that before a lateral cyclic control is made you need to load the rotor disk with gentle aft cyclic. The pedal is just putting a bandaid on the issue. You still need to resolve the real issue which is the Low G.
Pilot Yellow I fully agree. Gently loading of the disk should be priority no 1. Thanks for the videos. Revs up!
I started my PPL in an R22 many years ago. At the time, the mixture and heater knobs were right next to each other. Pull one and the cabin gets warm, pull the other and the cabin goes quiet. It's it still like that?
It would be very difficult to accidentally pull mixture these days; there is now a hard plastic sheath around the mixture which has to be removed first. It's a simple but surprisingly effective solution.
I worked on Bell 206’s many years ago. I think they can also have mast-bump but I haven’t heard it being a common cause of crashes.
Yes, all two bladed helicopters can have mast bumps even the Huey but the 22 and 44 are a little more susceptible to them most likely due to less mass.
The primary factor in preventing mast bumping is training. Training people on what not to do in flight (low g push overs, overcontrolling) and what not do pre-flight (planning to fly in unsuitable conditions) is a very effective way of preventing such incidents.
I have taught flying in Robinsons for over 4000 hrs. I really love the heli especially the R-44. Good training and awareness of their limitations as with all machinery is vital. Frank Robinson has made the heli and its magic of flight in reach of so many!
I wouldn't be flying helicopters if it weren't for the R22/44. My question would really be "is the R44 pilot a safe pilot?" and that's just about training.
It's buried many also.
@@mustangflyer6878
LOOK at the stats? Aren't these mostly fixed-wing pilots transitioning to helos? Can't used those old habits on a low inertia blade like on a R22/44 etc
@@mustangflyer6878 That's true of most any aircraft...
All aircraft including both models of Robinsons are perfectly safe if operated within their design limitations. No aircraft are safe the instant you take it outside of its design limitations .
I was working on my 24th hour of training when I flew through moderate turbulence. I just froze and smashed my arm into my leg, jammed my elbow behind the seat, and rode it out until my instructor could grab the controls. It felt like an ongoing car crash. After landing my instructor told me it was the worst turbulence he had ever encountered. We were both shaking. But I did the right thing somehow and I'm here today. Praise our Father in Heaven because I shouldn't be here.
The key is to do nothing or slight aft cyclic when hitting turbulence.
@@SkyCoreLLC Yes, I think fear automatically made me slightly pull aft to slow down and reload the rotor. The Father was certainly with me. I had plenty of time to kill us had I done the wrong thing.
@@johnw.ryoniv8953
The turbulence was just a fart from your invisible sky daddy.
I'm not a helo pilot but am a former USAF pilot and kinda love helicopters ever since my first amazing canyon ride in Bell-47 at 16 -- Yellow Pilot's comments regarding hitting turbulence in a helo and not overacting w/ control inputs is something I've seen most flyers do instinctively -- even so, from a safety of flight perspective, it's important to affirm this behavior for new and expienced pilots alike. Doesn't Robinson have in their flight manual re encountering turbulence and averting rotor assembly damage?
Great video!
You mentioned to hold the controls fixed during turbulence. I was wondering, if you have a co-pilot, would it work if co-pilot adds cyclic friction while the pilot holds on to the controls - or is it better to just hold on to the controls for dear life?
Just answering my own question here, haha. I found this video by Robinson which recommends a small amount of cyclic friction.
ua-cam.com/video/qY4Ln8Kbhr4/v-deo.html
Or if you have a newer 44 or 66 with auto-pilot just let it handle it...... the solution is to do nothing. It's the control inputs that you think you need to do are what get you killed.
You’re definitely thinking about it correctly...In light to moderate turbulence, I think the main issue is some added friction on the cyclic; gentle aft cyclic when needed to keep the rotor loaded; Slow Down; if possible, set it down and wait it out! When in turbulence I always think to myself “no matter what attitude I’m presented with, it is Always Aft Cyclic first” and then, and only then, once the rotor is loaded, begin to address the attitude AND finally, if there is the word “gusting” in the forecasted winds, it’s a no-go for me.
@@richmcbride413 Good advice, thank you for your reply!
What do you think about the McDonald Douglas 500d? Magnum PI just really turned me on to that helicopter and it looks really versatile.
What is your opinion of the rotorway helicopters
Also interested! Lets see an opinion video on kit helicopters. Rotorway, safari and composite
fx (mosquito)
Thanks, I had heard the Robinson's had some safety concerns but didn't understand what they were until now.
Awesome instructions about the high turbulence situations i.e. don't overcompensate the controls, just hold them steady, let the heli roll through the turbulent conditions. Your instructions and videos are really useful and valuable. Thanks for your works!!!
The point about how the HC is being flown interests me a lot. The military in the US and Australia enforces a structural integrity program that is designed to pick up deviations from the design usage spectrum/profile (% of time spent in different flight phases and hence load cases leading to fatigue life consumption). The OEM would publish life limits in flight hours which are derived from the design usage spectrum. E.g., it was assumed 1.5 ground/air/ground cycles per flight hour. The design is then safe to be used if the HC over its life if the actual GAG cycle rate is at or below 1.5 per FH. If, however, the GAG rate is say 3 per FH over the life, the part most impacted by fatigue loading due to GAG cycles is likely to fail earlier than the published limits in the maintenance manual.
Hence, the structural integrity program is monitoring actual use vs design use, so that these trends could be picked up and life limits adjusted accordingly.
I am always curious to what extent operators of the GA HC types know how they are being flown compared to the design assumptions. I believe the grounding in NZ and Aus was, as you indicate, related to this issue.
Given the R philosophy to overhaul of critical components all at the same airframe time (as you outlined in your video re operating cost), and given the variability in usage across the fleet, safety factors in the design combined with the prescribed regular inspections of critical parts are the primary protection against premature failure due to usage deviating from the design assumptions. But this can only protect to some extent.
Great video Micah. I appreciate your frankness & honesty. I realize you don’t like the R22, hence; your reason for not mentioning it. Over the years I have tried to avoid the R22, but an Army assignment to a remote base in Louisiana left me no option, but the R22 to train in for my Commercial Helicopter Certificate. I had previously trained in Enstroms & Schweizer 300C’s.
With 16 hours in the R22, a substitute CFI had me do my first solo in type at night. An hour after doing approaches after terminating at a hover over the numbers, just as I was about to take off, the helicopter inexplicably violently spun out of control. The wind was almost straight down the runway & I applied full left pedal, but the helicopter violently spun faster & faster with my headset shooting off my head & the helicopter wanting to flip over. It resulted in a hard spinning landing with the helicopter spinning & sliding down the runway. The owner & insurance company couldn’t find any mechanical malfunctions & ultimately blamed LTE. I finished my Commercial Rating in R22’s, but promised myself to never fly an R22 again.
I later got checked out in the R44 which seems more substantial than the R22, with the hope of getting a tour job. I rented this R44 for 22 hours & I never had any problems with it. I like that they spin the tail rotor the right way (clockwise) to make it more effective.
On my last flight my CFI talked me out of taking a ballast as I had on my other solo flights & it was a windy day. On my way back to the airport with the wind & turbulence I was nervous about mast bumping, so I slowed down to 75 knots & tried not to move the cyclic.
I was going to train in the R44 to get my Helicopter Instrument Add On Rating, but after seeing the recent fatal R44 crash where it broke up in flight over Texas, I am having second thoughts about training in the R44. There are a lot of experienced pilots who have tragically been killed in Robinson helicopters. I think a 3 or 4 bladed rotor system will be a major breakthrough for Robinson.
www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-robinson-helicopters/
I’m a low time inst/comm rotorwing pilot. I’ve no intention of flying a Robinson helicopter for many of the reasons listed in this video. In my opinion Robinson helicopters are on the quality level of most ultralight helicopters. You kinda get what you pay for.
Making it a 3 or 4 blade helicopter may help to stabilize it better to prevent the tail from getting chopped off, when one goes low g causing a bank to the right followed by the pilot pushing the cyclic to the left causing a blade impact with the tail boom.
Thanks for a very informative video. I'm 76 years old and flown many types of airplanes and flight simulators over the years. I recently decided to get some time in a helicopter for fun. Took some instruction in an R44 and found that it is totally different from an airplane and very very sensitive on the controls. I did get to where I could even hover after a few attempts. Probably won't spend the money to get fully checked out but was extremely fun. If I were continuing I would definitely rethink what helicopter I would use.
I've been flying for eight years almost exclusively in Robinsons (all three): they are absolutely safe aircraft as long as their operating limitations are understood and respected. Avoid low-G maneuvers (should be second-nature to anyone flying any two-blade machine), and slow down in turbulence / areas where you're highly likely to encounter turbulence. I've been many times through places famous for their high winds and turbulence and have had plenty of uncomfortable moments, but as long as you slow down (I'll sometimes drop to ~80kts in the 44/66) and don't over-control the aircraft you'll be just fine. Think of it as being on a boat: you wouldn't expect a boat not to move around when there's waves-- just let it ride.
One thing I'd add to that your points about understanding of semi-rigid rotor systems' limitations is for people to have some understanding of where you'll find turbulence. You can often avoid much of the turbulence even on very windy days if you take the time to consider the terrain and where you're going to place the aircraft. There's no shame in re-routing your flight or changing altitudes to utilize updrafting air and/or avoid flying in the lee of spikey terrain where possible. Keeping an eye on the environment and the conditions and adjusting your flying accordingly will really minimize the drama. Sometimes those awkward places are explicitly where the client wants to go, but many other times the nasty bits can simply be bypassed by deviating a bit from a direct course.
Great post. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
Over control appears to be the main issue.
@@bubbsy2002
Yup, probably. Transitioning from fixed wing to rotary in a light weight, low inertia blade type platform ...
Thanks again for stepping up for honesty and fairness.
Damn sure it is...
Us Aussie mustering pilots seem to break them (with surprising regularity) and we do! We break them so often, Robinson WILL NOT warranty a helicopter if it is used for mustering in Australia!
We've been known to do crazy shit like whacking the blade tips into the small branches to make noise (which we know will scare that bullock out from his cover), hover in UNDER a tree's canopy for the same reason. We sometimes mast bump (and pray the rotor head doesn't separate which has killed or seriously injured fellow muster pilots) with our sudden departures from a "normal" (read BORING!!) flight paths to chase that errant bull or cow (I've turned the chopper on its side at speed to get the rotor disc to fit between two trees chasing a cow back to the herd).
We "hot seat" refuel or change pilots (or even whole aircraft if the one we are flying needs a 100 hourly inspection).
Fuck, we even use them to "hellifish" (attach a fishing line with bait/lure to the skid, hover over a good Barra spot and then "reel in" the fish when it bites by climbing high enough to pull it out of the water to dump on the bank for a mate to retrieve. Don't tell the boss though, ok?).
Love 'em!!
P.S. I wonder how the R66 will handle what we will throw at it?
Neil Cutten Spot on Sir. As per my post above (or below). I am a game capture pilot in Africa and as you say we fly those helicopters way outside their designed criteria. I will take Robbies any day first time when doing this type of flying.
The one thing you didn’t mention is the low inertia of the Robinson two blades which means you have to be really alert for engine problems. You have a very short time to get the collective down and establish a good speed for autogiro.
A comment on Robinson, they are very safety conscious. There was an R22 in New zeland I think that had a corrosion problem because he lived near salt water. Mr Robinson knew I lived right on the Chesapeake Bay. One afternoon I got home from work and a big wooden box arrived from Robinson. New stainless Steel blades. No charge. My service center installed them the next day. I’m sure Robinson paid them for their work. That was really impressive for the company to do something like that. I flew my R22 for 8 years and put 1200 hours on it in total an since it had 800 hours on in when I purchased it. I got caught in turbulence several times but just making no fast moves it performed great. Each time I did and the service center carefully checked the places supports and found everything is good condition. Maybe it was the stainless steel blades but I was happy with the helicopter. I have to say the saddest day of my life was having to sell it to pay some health bill for my wife. I’m currently looking for another helicopter.
Mischa, Have you have seen some of the aussie outback helicopter pilots mustering cattle in R22s, some of them make the R22 look like the safest most agile helicopter in existance.
jbm Neil Cutten Spot on Sir. As per my post above (or below). I am a game capture pilot in Africa and as you say we fly those helicopters way outside their designed criteria. I will take Robbies any day first time when doing this type of flying.
I think that the video was spot on. It said it all. Bravo, and many thanks
Lot many crashes also.........
Good video it's amazing the aircraft is allowed to be produced or flown with that such critical limitations.
"Exacerbating" was the word you were hunting for, hard when you're doing a long monologue........ good material, I always enjoy your content.
Are you sure that is the word he was hunting for? You DO know that synonyms exist, right? You seem so sure of what was going on in his brain, yet you appear to be unaware of how your own is working. Maybe think about cleaning your own porch first?
Your comment about Robinson making a update to the rotor-system is very interesting. My RC R22 has a rigid head.
Hi Mischa, I fly both the R22 and R44 and I don’t think we should be blaming the design of the aircraft when people are pushing them beyond there design limits. You talk about the Jetranger. Which is one of the safest helicopters on the market, but if pilots flew the Jetranger the way Robinson helicopters are flown then they would crash equally as much. It doesn’t matter what type of aircraft you fly whether that be a helicopter or a plane, if you disrespect your aircraft then you are going to get hurt or killed.
With respect to both the R22 and R44 the pilots operating handbook states that the helicopter should not be flown in winds greater than 25knots and moderate turbulence by pilots with less than 200 hours on helicopters or 50 hours on type. If you watch some of the videos I’ve seen on UA-cam, some pilots do some very stupid things with both the R22 and R44 and it’s unfair to blame the design for that. You are correct in saying that pilots have to be taught how to fly them correctly and to know the aircrafts limitations but that is the same for any aircraft you fly. I’ve personally found both the R22 and R44 to be absolutely delightful aircraft you fly. I am currently learning to fly the Cabri G2 and it to has limitation with the fenestron but just like the Robinson helicopters if flown correctly it to is a lovely aircraft to fly as well. If a car crashes we don’t blame the design of the car we look at the way the driver drives the car. Why do we do it with helicopters?
Comparing cars with aircraft is like apples and oranges. Cars don’t crash and kill due to mechanical failures, helicopters do. Robinson helicopters are not the best build and if you knew a little bit about the company, they are all about making money .. I know several people working there btw. Just look at the statistics instead of speculating on imaginary facts. Most pilots are flying carefully as their lives count on it. I said
@@ab687 can you explain the difference between the robinson and the Jet ranger? Is it because more robinsons are sold than jet rangers or is the rotor system slightly different so there are less mast bumping issues with one compared to the other? I fly a Cabri G2 as well and I want to fly a robinson....There are so many out there but I am doing research as well.
The point is the R-44s design limitations are much easier to exceed due to the design itself. I just find it extremely difficult to put my faith in them and don't like the idea of flying on eggshells perse or having to constantly remind myself of procedures causing one to feel timid with the flight controls. I just stay away from them altogether.
Great video.
Just one comment, as an experienced failure analysis expert, although not one versed in aircraft.
No engineering component should be designed in such a way that it is possible for it to undergo fatigue cracking.
They are a few isolated exceptions to this, some of those being in the aircraft industry, But in those cases the fatigue cracking is well known, well understood, well monitored and not dangerous because the component is intentionally replaced prior to its failure.
An R44 crashed in Rowlett, Texas recently. A cell phone video shows exactly what you described. Thanks for the explanation of what caused this event.
they are barely more than scrap metal kept together by paperclips
@@itellyouforfree7238 Exactamundo.
There is an old video of this describing the recent accident identically
Having had an interest in aviation all my life, I have heard many stories and read many articles. Most of these involve military aircraft, and many of these have "is the ____ safe?". And virtually all of those claim that with proper training and the right mind-set, they CAN be very safe. I'm thinking of the F-100 "sabre dance" and the F-104 "widow maker". These are aircraft that had major, MAJOR design flaws, and killed many people, and yet the people who learned to tame them (i.e., avoid the situations and apply "what the surviving pilots learned"), almost to a person, say, "yes, they CAN be very safe." Which, just to be clear, is plain BS.
I'm not a helicopter pilot, but I've read FAA documents that make exceptions of the Robinsons, that in my recollections amount to, "you need special training to be safe in a Robinson."
I learned on a Robinson R22, at the now defunct Pompano Helicopters in Florida. It always seemed strange to me that the Robinson was the ‘go to’ trainer, as it was such a sensitive machine. A Cessna 150 pretty much flies it’s self, you have to do something to it to make it manoeuvre, so it’s an ideal trainer machine…However, if you learn on a Robinson, everything else seems pretty docile afterwards. I couldn’t believe how easy a Bell 206 L3 was to fly in comparison. So from that point of view, the Robinson is a great trainer as it ( hopefully) teaches the new flyer how to be sympathetic to the machine.
C150 is stable, forgiving and cheap to run. R22 is only cheap to run
a 4 bladed R44... yes please. that would be sweet.
ive had some gnarly updrafts in a 44 but my instructors always emphasised to just let the helicopter do whatever it wants mostly and do not try to counteract in those conditions so thats how i fly. currently getting IFR rated with 150ish hours in a 44.
Approximately how many hours did it take to get your license?
I've been flying Robby's since 2012 and Airbus EC120 since 2015. It's been said before but the Robby's are outdated and the manufacturer is as stubborn as they come. They're of the "if it ain't broke and no one died" mindset. That stubbornness to continuously improve and innovate will only hinder the industry, Robinson, and the pilots that fly them. I understand their niche and why they do what they do, but they could seriously improve safety and performance with a few modernizations.
call the co and tell em sir
Dg 27 Perfectly said. Everyone on UA-cam has the solution for every problem in the history of ever. It’s odd af.
@Jesse Mitchell It is hilarious 99% of the time; the remaining 1% is terrifying realization of them being in control of our collective future.
"They're of the "if it ain't broke and no one died" mindset" - 262 dead people would argue that Robinson doesn't give a flying F if their customers die or not.
@@Ziggy_Moonglow 100% agree with you.
I wish Robinson would make some on condition composite blades like everybody else.
I heard that there blades are finally made of fiberglass now
I see them being used for ag spraying and we have one or two crashes every summer in my state alone
I have 7000 of helicopter time. FAA CFI, and was an Army Maintenance Test pilot. I was flying the OH58A (Bell 206). There developed a tail rotor hanger bearing problem. It was supposed to be sealed not requiring lubrication. A few locked up eating the tail rotor drive shaft resulting in loss of tail rotor thrust. I had this hanger bearing failure 5 miles north of Kunsan AFB in 1971. The army started lubing the bearings with a hypodermic syringe filled with oil. Bell Helicopter redesigned the bearings and put a cover over the shaft to protect it from the elements. There were some engine flame outs due to flying in heavy rain, related heavy snow clogging the inlet filters. The Army put in an auto relight system as a temporary fix and told us not to fly in heavy snow. Bell Helicopter designed a reverse flow inlet and fixed the problem. Tail booms were getting into a wild vibration on completion of autorotation and doing severe damage. The Army banned all training of autorotations for 2 years. Bell Helicopter researched the problems found where the harmonic vibrations where caused, put in a yellow caution range on the rotor RMP tac. The Army changed our autorotation procedures, it was easy to avoid this condition. We started taking the OH58 out for a spin during Viet Nam and discovered Loss of Tail Roter Effectiveness. The Army working Bell Helicopter and everyone else came up with mind numbing charts of wind azimuths and power requirements that basically said keep your nose pointed into the wind when you are hovering or very slow.
The point. Robinson, stop blaming pilots and fix your damn problems.
Great video, I think that you do a great service to aviation in general by bring these issues to the forefront so that they can be examined and discussed in a educational form where we has pilots can discuss and learn how to be safer .
I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how the R22 or R44 compares to the Schweitzer 300 from a safety standpoint. Additionally, would you recommend one over the other for a new student pilot to train in and why? Thanks for the videos!
S300 are safer than many turbines.........
Well, 'safe' is a relative term. Inherently, the Robinson can be considered safe or it wouldn't be sold. However, it's how the helicopters are being used that puts the term 'safe' into question. In this area, helicopters are used extensively in the forestry and mining fields. For years, the mainstay machine was the Bell 206 Jet Ranger. Then came the 206R Long Ranger. That stayed around for a few years until the Aerospatiale A350 AStar came along. Most of the operators went with the AStar due to its ability to lift heavier loads. With all of these machines, operating cost was critical factor. Then, back in about the late 1990's, a company showed up with a Robinson R22. They touted it as a much cheaper way to go on reconnaissance flights that required only one passenger plus a pilot. Nothing wrong with that. Then, this same company brought in an R44, saying they could ferry entire crews much cheaper that either the Bell 206 or the A350. This idea was acceptable to the various industries and the R44 became more popular. However, due mainly to operating cost, companies started to use the R44 for, what I call, a "poor man's Bell 206". They were observed on many occasions slinging loads that were obviously too heavy for the machine and, as a result, started occurring more downtime hours for maintenance. A few also crashed. Some outfits still used them but I won't fly in one.
I'm curious about what you said about the design flaws of the Bell 206.I can think of one real quick, the early 62 inch tail rotor which was increased to 65 inches.I started flying the 206A in 1971 and I am pretty sure that they all had the bladder type fuel cells.Besides the rotor system on the R44,I think that that the angled crossover cyclic is a poor design.I have never flown one but it looks like it is very unconventional .
Difficult to express how much I have learned from this guy... Excellent presentation... THANK YOU
The NTSB recently completed their investigation into the 2019 Hawaii crash of N808NV. Yes, the pilot was low time, but he was certified and had a few hundred hours in an R44. Per the NTSB report:
The helicopter’s encounter with a strong downdraft or outflow boundary while operating at a higher than recommended airspeed in turbulence which resulted in a low-G condition, excessive main rotor flapping, and an in-flight breakup when the main rotor contacted the cabin area.
Yes, it's pilot error flying into weather, too much airspeed, and turning to evade the weather. Having said that, if it's that easy to beat your aircraft to pieces, there's a design flaw. The entire world grounded the 737Max because the non-US carriers purchased planes with a single point of failure and their pilots did not know how to disable an automated system.
What better Cabri G2 or Robinson 44?
I don't know much about this stuff but I can tell this guy hit the nail on the head.
Very important and informative video! thank you for sharing
I can’t afford any of the Robinson but I am looking at a rotorway what’s ur thoughts on those
Is this the potential as to why the Rowlett, Tx heli crash happened recently?
See "Probable Cause by Dan Gryder".
It would be nice if you could out timestamps in the description so I could listen to specific topics rather than having to skip around and try to find the section I want.
I heard from a friend of mine that owns an R44, that the R22 isn’t as safe. I believe he said it had to do with the rotor system. Is this true?
The significally less inertia on the light R22 rotor in comparison to the R44 might be a significant factor; you have to be lighting fast to initiate autorotation on those and, a contributing factor early on, that the engine governor was an optional item and thus, not always installed
Arnau Torné as is the case in ANY small lightweight helicopter.
@@MrDIAMONDCOR I don't completely agree. You have to compare the rotor disk loading. Comparing a R22 with a Cabri tells you that thanks to the 3-blade rotor system, the cabri as much better autorotation capabilities compared to the R22. Juste compare the green arc of both machine and you will see the difference. Having flown both of them, I can confirm that. I had the chance to fly the Cabri with one of the company pilot and he demonstrated me the capability of the Cabri to stay in the air even with the RRPM under the yellow arc (about 430 rpm). I would never try this with an R22.
im not a pilot but ive see a few accident becouse of the low rpm but what happend with the rpm governor??
As a new guy looking to learn to fly and purchase the Robinson r44
This video just made me think 🤔
Which isn’t totally a negative.
I learnt on a R22 and R44. My instructor was mike Smith in the UK. The training is THE most important thing in my mind and I found the Robinson to be a great helicopter. I still believe that to be the case.
Anything in the wrong hands becomes a problem. Your point about the Robinson being affordable is a great point. I saw lots of the guys I trained with buy a Robinson, the truth from my point of view is that I wouldn’t ride a bike with these guys let alone a helicopter. Rich boys toys and even less respect for the machine.
I find it a little sad that the Robinson gets bad press, and I know quite a few guys that would never fly them. But I love them and I’ll take one any day.
Good video. Thanks
Try Enstrom.......cheap but soo good......
I was also trained by Mike Smith (and Harry Knapp and Alan Gwilt).
That must have been a while ago, I only met Mike & Mary once. Q was my examiner.
@@markwallis7199 Thanks for reminding me of my age 😂
Mike was a great instructor and examiner. Q is superb.
@@montymontgomery2471 I remember hearing about Mary watching an R44 spinning around on the pad outside her office window. The guy was there for an LPC and was told "go out and start it up" 😂
The question to ask is: Why does a Robinson have SFAR 73? In other words, one can solo any other light helicopter (or airplane) with any amount of dual instruction, but not the Robinson. The Robinson takes a minimum of 20 hours of dual before a solo can be done. You can solo any Bell, Schweizer, Airbus, Enstrom, and many others, but not the Robinson… That alone, should be evidence that they are death traps. As an instructor, I have 250 hours in each, the 22 and the 44, but I stopped flying them in 2007. I would never fly in one again for any reason or purpose. Literally, the second one pulls pitch in a Robinson, your life is over, unless the thing works perfectly.
Have you tried the Aerofly FS2 R22? How realistic is the flight model? I have heard it is right now the best helicopter flight model in a sim, but a R44 instructor like you could evaluate this sim a lot more qualified than simmers and engineers like me. And does it make sense to train certain manouvers or procedures with sims such as Aerofly FS2, X-Plane or in the future FS2020?
On another sidenote on the topic of the video: The biggest limitation I see so far in most flight simming is weather. I haven't yet seen any turbulence that feels realistic. And yes I have flown the R22 in moderate turbs with my flight instructor ;)
Bell should make a smaller and lighter , piston powered version of the 206 model to compete with the r44 lol
Maybe Bell doesn’t want to compete in that market.
Where is the Trim Tab on the rotor blade please ?
it's that little flap looking thing on the back side of the blade about 10% from the tip of the blade.
It is important to note that trim tab is adjusted by a mechanic during blading tracking. The trim tab is bent a specific number of degrees up or down during blade tracking procedures to reduce vibration and improve flight characteristics.
Nice job Misha, to be honest with you I was a little hesitant to watch because of your bias for Robinson but was pleasantly surprised. You hit the nail right on the head, and still I may have mentioned the low rotor rpm problem in the 44. Again, beautiful job and looking forward to the next one. Fly safe 🚁🇨🇦
Thank you for posting this My brother was killed in an R22. The NTSB noted a climb and reduced airspeed before the abrupt rapid descent (while turning). Seems consistent with your description. He was a relatively new pilot. Is there any planned regs to limit sale of Robinson helicopters to experienced pilots w excessive hrs and frequency? I was trained on single engine fixed wing and had to do hood time even though I was vfr. Is that required for helicopter license? Should it be? Thank you again. ❤
I got 2.800 commercial hours on five different R44 II's over a 13 year career on them. Of those five, three had before their 12-year lifespan an engine failure resulting in auto- or hover auto, one with substantial damage beyond repair in a river in Italy (none of them with me, but two of them with post-resale buyers at the controls and one with my other pilot).
I am aware that a 66% engine failure within 12 years lifespan is in no mean representative for all R44's, but made me worry because its still five (5) different R44's, so I did a survey last summer after the last engine failure (that still awaits results from the investigation, though we have an idea what it is). Looking through 897 R44 reports I could find online and compared to 69 Airbus H120 reports, the risk of an engine failure is 1,3% in the R44 vs. 0,8% in the H120 during the engines lifespan.
Having said that, beside the piston engine, Robinson helicopters when flown within the limits of the POH is a safe helicopter. I have seen one turned into a "low-rider" after a very hard landing (100% pilot error), you couldn't get the tow cart in underneath without tilting the tail down first, where the lover half inch left side of the rotor mast cowling was partially bend approx. 80 degrees sideways, meaning with the space between the cowling and the cabin it touched, the mast really had to be forced sideways A LOT. And the frame itself incl. tail had not sustained any damage, just the landing gear. One would think they must have included rubber in that metal alloy, since it could take that much beating without cracks, fatigue or permanent bended metal.
Robinson is usually very good to support their customers, but if or when there is a technical- or design issue, it would suit them well to recognize it for what it is and not for example with the bladder tanks retrofit before they made them available, start out with Safety Notice 40. It just make them look stupid even suggesting what that did, instead of taking the "Bull by the horns" and solve it in a proper way.
Had the same experience with a lack of recognition, when a R44 was trying to tear itself apart in mid-air with me and two pax during a descending turn for landing, when the flaw was bad manufactured rubber mountings the main gearbox sits on made of apparently a slightly wrong rubber compound, responding like: "Yeah we had experienced that with new R44's while test flying them, but over time the rubber hardens so it will not do it when it has flown some hours" - Gee, thanks a lot, let me be a test pilot for those few hundred hours before that rubber hardens so the risk of those extreme oscillations is gone. They have since I believe made sure the rubber mountings are of a proper compound that doesn't risk letting the main gearbox at certain M&B and power settings start to oscillate beyond certain limits, especially beyond limits the pilot can't counteract with different inputs.
Just my five cents on the R44 :-)
1.3% !?! Holy shit that’s high! Even 0.8% is high!
Is 1.3% and 0.8% the probability of that type of accident happening out of all accidents that occurred, or the probability that an engine failure event will happen any time you lift the helicopter off the ground?
In total, there have been more than 1,600 accidents or incidents involving Robinson Helicopter aircraft, more than 425 of them fatal accidents resulting in more than 700 deaths do you think they are safe.I feel safer in a RAF 2000 gyrocopter than a Robinson helicopter
Did you happen to come across any data that reflects how many accidents Robinson’s have as a percentage of how many are in use? I know they’re inexpensive so I’m assuming there’s a ton of them out there compared to other brands. Just wondering if their accident count is so much higher just due to the high volume in usage out there. Thanks for sharing this!