Robinson Helicopters, 3 Weird Reasons Why They Are HATED
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ย. 2022
- Patreon-
patreon.com/PilotDevin?...
Hey! In this video we talk about the weird reasons why so many people hate Robinson Helicopters. There are some decent reasons why pilots may not like robinsons but the vast majority of the critiques are not entirely true. As a helicopter pilot who went the civillion route, Robinson helicopters were the only way for me to get training like many people in flight school. And they flew great the entire time I was in them!
What do you think?
If you have any questions leave them down below!
Don’t Forget To Like And Subscribe!
Follow me on Instagram and Facebook for more!
Pateron - patreon.com/PilotDevin
Facebook - / devin.bowen.946
Instagram - / pilot_devin - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![แม่กลองสองใจ - ซีแกรม โตเกียว มิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GSQfVjcr_f4/mqdefault.jpg)
I'll put it simply: If I had to choose between walking 100 miles in the hot sun and flying in a Robinson, I'd walk.
Exactly. And everyone knows it. Like the elephant in the room.
A coroners inquiry in New Zealand has found that the unique 3 hinge articulation system in Robinson heli's are significantly more prone to mast bump than other fully articulating designs.
Robinson heli's make up 1/4 of our national heli fleet, but account for over half of all fatal heli crashes. The coroners recommendation (made in conjunction with aviation engineering experts) recommends that Robinson helicopters are not flown at all in high winds, and not flown above 70 knots in mountainous terrain, or anywhere else turbulence may be encountered.
The last Robinson I flew in, fatally crashed due to mast bump from unexpected turbulence less than a month later, on exactly the same route & conditions, so it easily could have taken my life too. The pilot it killed was one of the best in the country.
I’d just add that a cyclic pushover is not the only way that you can get into a low G condition. Another main cause of low G conditions is turbulence. If you are flying close to the VNE and hit unexpected turbulence you could find yourself in a world of trouble pretty quick. Robinson Helicopters are awesome for what they are, but are definitely not built to be flown at or near the limit. Thanks for the videos🤙
The first argument is false. Getting into turbulence can cause a low-g condition. You don't have to f*** up as a pilot to get yourself killed in a Robinson. I got my helicopter add-on in an R22, then I stepped up to an Enstrom and now I fly an EC120, and every time I get into turbulence, I'm glad I'm not flying a Robinson.
Yeah, I`m about 180 hours into my career and had quite a few situations where i was glad that i choose the Cabri G2 over the R22 to do my license.
@@noahpfeifer6931The Robbie’s aren’t so bad. I fly a 22 for my training and have been in winds of 25kts gusting 35kts and just kept airspeed 70 or less. End of the day they’re a small and light helicopter. Check the weather and don’t put yourself in those situations.
I've ended up flying the r22 in some pretty bad turbulence and it's been more than forgiving. You'd have to get into some really awful conditions before low-g mast bumping becomes a problem; and at that point it is pilot error, you're flying in conditions you shouldn't be.
In the 80’s the engineer whose job I was taking over, was going into consulting and had been learning to fly in a Robinson R22. He had earned his certificate and took me up in a rented R22 to fly us around the Bay Area mountains to show me our company’s communications sites. It was really cool. A month or so later he was flying over one of our Oakland sites and the report was the gearbox had a failure and he dropped straight down to his death! Shook me up thinking I could have been with him.
Many years ago I had the money to buy an R-22 that was at Buchanan Field in Concord. It was going to be a lease back venture and a possible avenue into getting my rotary wing license. Then I got a call saying that it crashed. It landed flat on its skids at some impossible sink rate and flattened itself out like a pumpkin run over by a school bus. I saw the photos. My Engineering business took a good turn and I never had the time to learn how to fly helicopters.
Well, as a fixed wing instructor, I have looked at a lot of training helicopters with the idea of eventually adding a commercial helicopter to my ticket. The first red flag was that the Robinson has its own SFAR. The second red flag was seeing more than one accident where the main rotor cut off the tail boom of the helicopter. I didn’t go looking for a third red flag.
Each helicopter has its own issues. Most likely, you'll either get your add-on in an R22, R44, Schweizer S300, or Enstrom. Arguably the Enstrom is the safest, but also the most expensive and most difficult to find a school with one. The Schweizer ( Hughes ) is the 2nd safest, but most expensive / rare ( and getting rarer ), with the Robinsons... all over the place.
The SFAR is difficult to discuss in a short comment, but should probably be a red flag for you about the same as training in an airplane prohibited from spins... The SFAR addresses some issues germain to any 2 bladed helicopter, and some that arguably apply to any helicopter trainer.
Frankly, you're probably better to worry about the instructor than the aircraft type. All helicopters can bite hard if they aren't treated with respect, much more so in my opinion than fixed wing trainers...
( 39 years teaching in Robinson, Bell, and Enstrom helicopters ).
@@paulcantrell01451 Well, I'm an old guy, and I remember when mast bumping came to light during the Vietnam era with the Huey Iroquois. A good instructor can certainly help prevent a separation due to mast bumping... but when I saw that Robinson cut off its tail and fall helplessly to the ground with an instructor on board, it gave me a great deal of pause.
Trained on the Bell 47 and transitioned to Huey family in the late 1960's. One circuit in a R22 was enough for me, lol. I'd met Frank Robinson in Australia. Nice man and all that. I'm quite happy I had other types to learn on. Thanks for the video.
Started out in Bell 47’s. I remember the first time I saw an R22 and thought to myself “God created the cyclic to be placed in between the pilot’s legs, that thing is ridiculous!” After three and a half thousand hours doing aerial photo work with one, I fully concur with this video. He’s spot on. It’s like firearms, if you don’t train properly and realize what’s in your hand you’re looking for a fatality. I recommend the naysayers watch a few videos of the blokes in Oz manoeuvring sheep in R22’s, now THAT’S how you fly one! Oh, and by the way, there’s a clear warning stuck on the cyclic crossbar that says: Low G Pushovers Prohibited. And the there are the “know-it-all” brigade …
They say if you don't have any thing good to say keep your mouth shut.
I will shut up now.
I have over 2000hrs in an RH44 on the west coast of Canada. Flying in probably some of the worst wind and mountain conditions possible. I've had some scary as hell situations but fortunately walked away. In 2004 a fellow pilot buddy wasn't so lucky. He suffered a massive blade deflection in extreme turbulence. Short of it was the Robinson had the main rotor hit the tail boom, killing him instantly from the report, and the machine basically lawn darted :(
My brother flew and twisted wrenches on helicopters for a career. He didn't like Robinson helicopters because as he told me: "The margin between flying and dying is way too small." He should know, his first job was flying an R22 which he did for a little over a year before going on to other choppers. He really didn't like that aircraft.
Some people have never flown without hydraulics and it shows haha
Or gyro stabilization
I love this comment. Bravo! 😂
it's like training in the gym using only Smiths machines
You nailed it 100%. I've been flying Robinsons for 40 years. They are safe and reliable. But they are terribly unforgiving if mishandled.
That unforgiving nature would indicate it's probably NOT the best choice to be teaching people to fly in, for the very reason spoken about in this video, that an instructor is at the mercy of a student getting them both killed.
People will defend these things to death.... litterily @@LeoH3L1
Also been flying/teaching for 39 years... As for NOT being the best choice for a teaching machine... Many of us would agree with that. However, the choice is because of economics... Students generally won't pay the premium to learn to fly in more forgiving machines. That extra $100/hr or more adds up, and people are usually already stretching their budget to fly helicopters.
The R22 wasn't designed to be a trainer, it was designed to be a personal helicopter. But the schools ( and the students ) could see the economic advantage. I couldn't have afforded to learn to fly in a Schweizer or Enstrom... The R22 was right at the price I could just barely afford... Lots of people are in that same situation.
I love how if someone doesn’t agree because they have far more experience that they are called a hater. I hope you live past 25 flying with that attitude.
Pretty fucking simple. The laws of Newtownian physics are immutable, at least into sub atomic quantum mechanics. Basically, Gyroscopic energy is dependent upon the tip mass of the circumference of the gyroscope. Bell 47 with 10# weighted blade tips, gives you 3 or 4 seconds to get that collective down. Robinson short non weighted blade gives you 1 second at best, or inertia sinks below recoverability. Same Teter head 2 blade design. One is casual, the other deadly. One conforms to the laws of inertial and gyroscopic physics. The other relies on voodoo that the pilot gets it all right in 1.5 seconds. The former keeps you alive, the latter kills you.
Just don't have an engine failure in the first place. Maintain the machine, check it before flight, use the carb heat. Don't rag the ass off it.
There's no question that a higher inertia rotor gives you more time to get the collective down. But that's not how people are getting killed in light helicopters. I've taught in all the Robinsons, the Enstroms, and Bell 206s... They each have their advantages. If I'm out flying around in rough terrain in the dark, the R22 is definitely not my first choice. But it's used because of economics... And that's mainly the student's choice ( perhaps partly due to lack of knowledge ). Go ahead and try to run a school with Bell 47s, competing with a school on field with R22s... You'll get clobbered because most of the students will select the school with the least expensive machine. ( Same reason you don't see more schools using the Guimbal Cabri G2 )...
Also, all R22s have had tip weights since the early 80's... You've got about 2 seconds to get the collective down ( and some aft cyclic ). It's not huge - hover autos from 5 feet start to be a little firm... But it's enough for most trained pilots to get the collective down in time.
If I was going to pick what I think is the biggest negative of the Robinsons, I think it's the T-bar cyclic...
The 5 fan belts that drive the main rotor did it for me. No way I'd fly in one. Plus. many Robinson owners try to use them as a poor man's Bell 206. Not a good idea.
I'll admit that as a prospective student, the ( then 4 ) v-belts had me wondering. But there's a reason Robinson, Hughes, and Enstrom all use v-belts ( for one, they give the drive system more longevity by smoothing out the impulses of a piston engine ). The machines like the Bell 47 that use a centrifugal clutch have some real negatives by comparison ).
Good Video, I have 500 hours in R22 Bell 47 & Schweizers and one other thing I really dislike about the r22 is the dual cyclic arrangement it's really lame for dual instruction . When flown safely Helicopters are very safe the only problem with them is there a rich mans toy. Im fly fixed wing now (:
People need to stop defending Robinson Helicopters because they clearly have safety issues. Robinson will never redesign them to be safer unless they’re forced to. They should not be certified to have paying commercial passengers on them. If you want to buy/fly one, it should be at your own risk.
Most of the "low g" failures in New Zealand have been in wind shear conditions in mountain flying. Not 1000% pilot error.
Funny thing.. My first flight in a helicopter, the instructor demonstrated zero g or slightly negative g by pushing over abruptly for the thrill effect. I came right out of my seat. It was in a Robinson. I didn't know anything about helicopters at the time. I was wondering if that was kosher or not.
Sounds more like they lowered the collective purposefully.
I'm curious when this was... Prior to 1995 we were required to demonstrate low gee to students. The more prudent of us made that a very gentle demonstration. The SFAR at first required us to do a much more aggressive demonstration, inducing right rolls. After a few people died, the SFAR training was changed, and the SFAR then restricted pilots from flying low gee. By the way, lots of people assume low gee means "practically zero gee", but you can bump the mast / chop the tailboom at around 1/4-1/2 gee ( there was at least one Canadian (Australian?) accident where the accident review mentioned the gee where the accident occurred ).
As for low gee from slamming the collective down, one of the other students at the first factory course I attended asked Frank Robinson ( who taught some of the course back then ) whether that was dangerous, and Frank thought for a few seconds and said "not a problem". My own opinion is "not a problem as long as you keep it in trim with proper right pedal"... Still, if you do that, you WILL give your instructor a heart attack!
No way I would ever fly in a Robinson. I prefer life.
I bought a Schweizer 300CB after getting my training in one. I can't fly in the R22 due to the single-seat weight limit. Also, I'm not thrilled to fly in an aircraft that gives me less than 2 seconds to enter an autorotation on engine failure.
Less than 2 seconds, are you serious 😮
I received my private rating in an old HP R22 it was number 46 off of the line. I had originally went to this school at the time to learn in the bell 47 but unfortunately it was still packed in shipping crates.The 1979 R22 hp was available and luckily had been well maintained with the barest of minimums to keep it in the air. After paying up front and receiving a 2500 discount for their accelerated program I was stuck....
The R44 has the highest fatality rate per 100kh of any helicopter model, all you need to know.
Exactly..fly these things at your peril.
I am a licensed Helicopter and commercial licensed fixed wing pilot. I fly Robinson R22s and R44s. If you have trained with Robinson then you know the capabilities and limitations of these Helicopters. Before I trained in them I said uninformed stuff about the aircraft. Every 2 bladed semirigid underslung tittering rotor helicopter is intolerant of low G maneuvers Period. Low G Push overs and crappy technique in turbulence account for almost all Mast bumping accidents. Robinson are flown by lots of low time pilots. SFAR 73 exists to help mitigate the mistakes that can bite you in a Robinson. I love flying the R22 is handles like a sports car. I like flying the R44 because it is like flying an nice sedan. If you don’t like them by all means don’t fly them. My brother worked at Robinson In the early days of the R22A. The R22 Beta II and the R44 Raven II are much better aircraft. I happened to have the chance to talk to Frank Robinson at length about Design trade offs of various helicopters. The guy knows his stuff. I was a Docent and tour guide at a Helicopter Museum and I asked him a question that I got asked frequently. How is it that Robinson’s don’t have stabilizers bars like the early Bell Helicopters… He pointed out the answer the Rotor is much higher above the center of mass in a Bell Jet Ranger (no Stabilizer bar) and all Robinsons. The natural frequency of the pendulum is lower with the higher mast so no stabilizer bars are needed. Simple to the point. I have seen endless videos about the perils of 2 bladed rotors, but usually no one says any thing about the ground resonance problems of fully articulated rotors. Flying comes with risks, training helps, proper maintenance helps. Fly Safe.
Which brings me to the simile: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people …
In fact, it's a little over twice the fatal accident rate than the R22. As someone who has taught about 20 years in R22s, and then 20 years in R44s, I think the R44 is the more forgiving aircraft... Of course, the fatal per 100,000 hours numbers might be skewed a bit just because of the seating capacity of the 44 vs 22. Also, the higher speed of the 44 ( generally cruising at 110 knots versus 85-90 in the 22 ) doesn't help with low gee / turbulence issues. And, these days, the 44 is the choice for many / most private owners who are often low time and very rusty ( in my experience having given a jillion flight reviews ).
The R22 is much more nimble, but I think it's more prone to bite the unaware pilot... The 44 has a lot more excess power to get you out of tight spots, and a moderately high inertia rotor system which should make engine failures relatively simple for the average pilot. But of course, it's not engine failures killing most of those pilots...
As for the "fly these at your peril" comment... I think that goes for most helicopters - the biggest safety variable is the pilot, not the machine... An experienced and careful pilot flying an R22 is safer than an inexperienced hot dog in any helicopter you might name.
The R22 is almost certainly not the best trainer... It gets used for that role because of economics. The average student won't pay the extra $100-$300/ hour to learn in a more forgiving helicopter. I personally much prefer teaching in the R44... But notice that the Cadet sales aren't what some people were hoping for... Schools are generally going to use whatever is the most economical.
I would still rather fly a Hughes 500 or Schweizer 300 only because i reckon they are the best looking helicopters & ive been flying around in the 300 since i 12yrs old,..i'm 50 now so thats along time haha...but you do sound like a salesman for Robinson,here in NZ they are well known mast bumpers & journalist rung Robinson on live TV to talk about the design fault that causes mast bumping & Robinson hung up,couldnt even answer a simple question
Robinson has a little-known history of paying off the victoms of said aircraft "mishaps".
I really don't understand why they allow it to be a trainer and/or used in the commercial sector. Throw out the cost factor, it just isn't worth it.
I learned in a Hughes 269, and would love to own one. And I've flown many, many types of helicopters in my lifetime (including the CH-47) but love the little 269. I don't really trust the R22 to try one.
Agreed. I learned in a Hughes 300C. If you would rather save money than live, go with a Robinson. Otherwise, fly a ship with a fully articulated rotor system
great info. Hughes 269 is a great, safe trainer. Robinson is a good trainer if properly handled.
Thaml you Henry! I seriously appreciate you so much! Hope everything is goung so well!
I agree the 269/300 is a great initial trainer. Very little control lag. First time up I did a 90/ 90 180/ 360 hovering pedal turn perfectly. First flight in R22, upon his hover landing, gave me controls and told me to taxi 70 feet forward. It went forward but ignored back collective, so I pitched it back alittle and got screamed at. Basically 269 more stable and less lag ship. Robinson. "If you can fly it, you can fly anything" as the saying goes. But leaving out the contextual antithesis: If you can't fly it, you're dead. That's a shit design IMHO
#1 I dont want to bet my life on a rubber band... I dont even like interference engines with timing belts :)
Hey great videos sir..
How do I get in touch with you? To go over a few questions I have.
Thanks
I got my commercial in a R22 and did experience disc unload in hot turbulence, simply gently pull back and reload, regain heading and that's it.
Never pull back just lower collective and stay level.
Oh there are many, many reasons i wont fly one. 10 years in aviation.
1200+ hours, most in helos: TH-57B, TH-57C, SH-60B, UH-60L/M. Zero chance you'd ever catch me in a Robinson given that one encounter with moderate clear air turbulence can be a death sentence. I also don't think it's a great trainer: the piston engine gives it different throttle response than a turbine, but more importantly, the weird "wobble stick" cyclics require new pilots to adjust to something else when they move to something less primitive / weird. You're much better off learning in something that doesn't require as much adjustment when you move on to something else (i.e. a helicopter more representative of helicopters in general). Yes, turbine training is expensive, but I keep coming back to the whole, "Die horribly in moderate clear air turbulence" as a pretty good reason not to ever get in one. FWIW: I think the Cabri G2 is a significant improvement that will better prepare new pilots for moving into the AS350.
Edit: in flight school I hit clear air turbulence in a T-34C that smacked my pocket checklist up into the canopy several times in a row and over-G'd the aircraft (+6.5/ -2.4) badly. I'd be dead if I were in a Robinson when that happened.
A lot of good information in this comment. I still believe the robinson platform is safe and can be operated safely but there are absolutely better training aircraft on the market. The Cabri g2 is much better in almost all aspects!
Military pilots have disliked the R22 since the start... It's so small and so nimble, and so unforgiving compared to a UH1 or 60... The throttle response is so much quicker than a turbine, it does give the instructor some options you don't have in turbine aircraft. ( In an R22 at the bottom of an auto with the RPM at some ungodly low value, you can get it back in a jiffy ). You also have what some would say is an advantage of not having to worry about torque or temp limits... ( At least in the 22 and 44 ). I'm not sure how often military students overtorque at the bottom of an auto, but I think it's safe to say that for all the civilian schools out there it's a big advantage... And you know, no hot starts either... My thumb is permanently bent from mashing down on 206 student's fingers while they start the machine!
On the subject of the T-bar cyclic, I 100% agree. If you haven't taught with one, while they are fantastic for slope landings, I think they're pretty dangerous. If your student slams the cyclic around on you, it's a 3 dimension problem trying to get your hand back on the stick... With a conventional stick it's kind of 1.5 dimensions, since your legs constrain where the stick can go. I would like to see the R44 and 66 have a conventional cyclic. Sadly, there simply isn't room in the 22 for one.
As for your turbulence encounter... I had one student slam the stick all the way forward in a 22, so hard that it popped out of my hand. We didn't bump the mast, although my knees were knocking pretty damn hard I was so scared. My point is, that while certainly risky, it's not a 100% death sentence. There was a 22 on floats that did a complete forward tumble 360° tail over nose inverted from a practice throttle chop at VNE... They did bump the mast, and that incident got the VNE for float equipped R22s reduced to 95 knots, but they did land and walk away from it.
The 300 killed plenty of Vietnam trainees ( at least according to the much discredited Robert Mason ) from the -300 tuck... My only point that most helicopters have some pretty strict envelope edges / issues. I had a buddy who flew CH47s in Vietnam. One day I asked him how much he trusted those machines and he said NOT AT ALL. Also flew with a crew chief whos unit lost a 47 ( and crew ) from a tool ( screwdriver? ) being left in the synchronization shaft tunnel... Which doesn't make the Robinson safe, but does illustrate that lots of helicopters have these sorts of issues...
By far the biggest issue with the R22 in the early days ( at least according to the factory ) was that a lot of the instructors were ex-vietnam guys who treated it like a toy because of its size. The R22 is a remarkable machine, but one thing it is not, is a toy. Or, it's a very dangerous toy when not used properly... In any case, fun to read your experiences...
Cheers!
Crashing and falling to your death does not seem to me to be a "weird" reason.
Great video Devin.. on the day that the world says goodbye to Mr Frank Robinson.. what a legend that made flight possible for millions of people 🚁
RIP Mr. Frank D. Robinson
He just passed away?!
@@VictoryAviation jip yesterday 😔
@@danieduplooy4406 I googled after I saw your comment and saw Robinson’s website with the statement. Definitely sad, especially for his family. I’m actually on my way to the airport to fly a R44 in a bit. I’ll be thinking of his family.
@@VictoryAviation Mr Robinson was a man that lived well ahead of his time..
Big loss for the aviation industry.
Have a good flight and enjoy every bit of it🚁
@@danieduplooy4406 Unfortunately the nose seal on the engine was leaking oil, so I wasn’t able to fly. That’s a lycoming problem, not a Robinson problem though.
The first two seconds 😅😂 omg
But on a serious note, Robinsons are the only class of chopper I've flown so far because like you said, it's a low barrier entry point into the industry. I'm glad I get to work on my skills in a small craft before I move onto a larger one.
IYO, what's the easiest to fly?
I mean all small helicopter are a bit challening to fly, A bell 407 is quite easy to fly, becuase most turbines are easy to fly, but I mean with enough experince all helicopters are "easy." Keep crushing it Rebecca. Love seeing your name pop up! Hope everything is going so good!
I`d throw in the Cabri G2. I don`t have a lot of experience on other types, but just the fact that, if you pull to much power, all you have to do is notice that the RPM drop and lower the collective again, makes it hard to damage the aircraft inflight. If you pull to much in the 206, it`s gonna be expensive.
There two kinds of Robinson pilots, those who have crashed and those who are going to crash…
As an outsider, the small one looks like a toy to me.
I've flown the R-22 and R-44. Great training birds but that's about it. I wouldn't use one for any commercial program.
to think when I was trained we did low g maneuvers. I glad i'm alive
Everywhere I've been, the R22/R44 are the entry points for commercial helicopter pilots. I think I've heard of 1 or 2 schools that use Enstrom or Schweizer helicopters... How does one, that's not independently wealthy, begin flying with anything else? Seems like a rare case. Just like most fixed wing pilots learned on a C-172/152 or a PA-28 series at one point... I guess now you have Cirrus aircraft; but those are usually the expensive way to earn your ticket... You still have to do your multi in a Travelair, Seneca, or something similar. Rotor pilots have a more $$$ entry; but for the most part you can do all your training in R-22s and R-44s and get a CFI job or dry cherries (thought it was a joke when I first heard it) to make up the hours for the big leagues.
I'm too fat to fly in an R-22.
"1000% pilot caused" ... it's that sort of exaggerated statement that completely undermines your credibility as a source of experience or expertise. DIAL IT DOWN if you wish to be taken seriously. Turbulence could lead you into a low G condition - it's NOT always "1000% pilot caused".
I agree mate. - This character communicates like a ten year old. He was beginning to lose me with his teenage pronouncements of 'you get killed then you die. - The End.' The 1000 per cent pilot error ended it for me. - Couldn't watch any more - even up to the part when his mommy comes into his bedroom with a hot chocolate for her 'clever little boy!' - Spare me! 😵💫
9 times out of 10 it's operator error though
That’s why you don’t want to fly a Robinson! Want to start flying helicopters joint the Army, you start on a TH-72 and fly it through the whole course, contact, instruments, and combat skills,(basic war fighting) before moving on to your assigned helicopters. When you get out of the Army you can get a job flying much safer helicopters than a Robinson. Even if you did decide to fly a Robinson you’d have since enough to fly them in the very best weather conditions. 3600hrs in RW and 10,000 in fixed wing. No accidents, thanks Army, and Airlines!
Here in Brazil, recently, 14 days ago, four people died in São Paulo in an hely accident. The model ? Robinson R44. Always Robinsons.
Do you have any opinions on the rotorway brand of helicopters?
Your question should be: do you have a opinion on experimental ( FYI rotorway is exp )
@@gilkennedy7638 there are many experimental helicopters. I am speaking specifically of the design and engineering of this brand
Do you want to just hover and taxi in ground effect below 500 feet DA, or actually f)y cross country? You cant do the latter if your engine and design doesn't have the balls.
PS in flight two things keep you alive in an emergency. Power to achieve altitude. And Altitude to figure out what to do next, when somethin' f**ks up. Flying is not like driving a car. Someting goes wrong, you pull to the shoulder. Flying, you step out of the aerodynamic balance for just a few seconds, and you stall and fall, and die.
Basically if one can't comprehend the complex physics of flight, just buy yourself an airline ticket. Because otherwise your lack of understanding flight physics will quickly kill you and anybody with you. That's just the reality of flight. You either get it and keep aerodynamics in balance. Or it kills you.
In regards to mast bumping of the Robinson R-xx series, I can see where this can be initiated by some high winds conditions.
Robert sons are just unsafe you know it as well as I do.
Just read the FAA fatality rate vs. flight hours.....
What is a Robert son ?
100% on point👌🏻
Seems like gravity is the main reason these birds are hated.
I learned to fly in low-power R22 HPs back in the day and low-g awareness and recovery was part of our training from day one. After 2000 hours as CFI on those and R44 I never had a single occurrence of low-g issues. You just know what to do: Go slow at high turbulence conditions, if you get low g, pull back, load the disc and fly on. As an instructor, I see a decline in the quality of student pilots though. A helicopter is not a jet-ski or toy. Flying helicopters is a pretty dangerous thing and not a "5 hours a year" rich kid thing.
This seems like a problem that can happen in any type of rotor system, yet, I only hear of 2-bladed rotors being at risk of mast bumping. Is there any particular reason why this is so?
All rotor blades need to flap (up and down). On a rigid or fully articulating this is done by the blades themselves. On a semi articulating system (2 blades) the entire head teeters like a teeter totter in a play ground. Mast bumping is when the head reaches the end of the teetering and strikes/bumps the mast. Most all 2 bladed have droop stops so when the inertia of the rotors slows down these stops engage to prevent the mast from teetering (blade flapping) and striking the tail during startup/shutdown. All rotor head designs can strike the tail boom in very extreme low g maneuvers.
With more blades, they don't have to be as long, so don't suffer from as much droop.
Mast bumping is really a two bladed issue. Articulated systems also have issues at low gee ( pounding the droop stops ), but that happens at a lower gee, so less likely to happen unintentionally.
Rigid ( hingeless ) rotors ( like the BO105, BK117, EC135 etc) can be fully aerobatic ( think Red Bull ).
The thing is, each of these have advantages and disadvantages. You can fit about 5 R22 in the same space as an Enstrom articulated rotor machine. 2 bladed is more efficient than 3, 4, 5 bladed machines, so arguably better for a small machine with a less powerful engine.
Even hingeless rotors have some drawbacks. Believe me, rotor design is an incredibly complicated business. Fixed wing aerodynamicists have nightmares about rotor system's 😮
As for the person who commented about droop: that really doesn't apply in flight...
The thing I see most people complain about is the tbar I guess.
Of all the tings out there that you should not go for the cheapest one : "Helicopter" might be at the top of the list.
That's quite an easy point to make when you have a million dollars/pounds/euros in your bank account.
Robinsons might be classed as "cheaper" - but that doesn't mean low quality. They are manufactured to the Highest standard, and performance is perfectly safe if the POH is followed - just like any other aircraft.
In a perfect world, we would all be flying expensive turbines - but it's not a perfect world.
@@paulward4268 agreed. And in an imperfect world, settling for a far less than perfect ship gets you killed. Same for ocean going vessels. Designing on the extreme edge of the laws of physics, has it's lethal penalties. Headroom in electro/ audio physics is always best rational, rather than self destructive design
@@jakerabinz9411 Those are fair comments. I know nothing about maritime matters, although I appreciate that standards must be equally high. For myself, I've been involved in aviation since 1989, & I've flown the R22 in the UK since gaining my licence in 1995. in that time, I personally have only had one electrical failure. And thankfully, other pilots that I have met over the years, have all had good training, and dealt with any issues that arose, properly. The problem comes with irresponsibility - there are many who gain their qualifications, and then go on to fly outside the limits of the POH - or their own ability. Either one can lead to a fatal accident very quickly. I see the problem as similar to driving - anyone can gain a licence, but we all know that there are people out there who shouldn't be behind the wheel - nevermind actually being let out onto the road.
The Robinson is a sound design almost 50 years old, but it does not tolerate a lax attitude or stupidity - and when accidents do occur - 90% of the time, the aircraft unfairly gets the blame. Back in the early years when the first underpowered models came onto the market, if the machine had been found to be as lethal as some say, then it's certification would have been withdrawn then, but it wasn't.
There are many types of aircraft, both fixed wing & rotary, that require careful handling, and the Robinson is just another one of them.
Basically you have to be on your game big time and not fly in turbulence as flying in turbulence you can’t see what’s coming so there is no built in safety factor ..yeah nah I’ll take the bus !
In the early 80’s I trained in a Hiller H 12 3 seater helicopter as a rotary wing add-on to my PPL SEL certificate. Great experience, great memories. I enjoyed you expressing your support of Robinson products with the proper training- executed properly they are as safe as any other helicopter.
Thank You and Well Done Young Man.
Great job!
Thank you! Cheers!
So true. Hating from outside can't get in
No, bro. I'm not convinced about the Robbie death traps. Defend those forever but I'll still say, no. I'll pass. I've seen a couple in person, and they look so rinky-dink.
No mention of SFAR - 73?
Mast bumping also happens in turbulent air at speed. They had a lot of crashes in New Zealand, and they traced the crashes to the turbulent air and flying at fast speed in their mountainous country
So it’s not always the pilots fault. The Robby was designed as a personal helicopter, not as a training helicopter. They became popular trainer because they were cheap. I learned in a Bell 47 another two blade helicopter, but Bell 47s never had a mast bumping accident. Because they put a device on it to prevent it. Robinson worked for Bell but decided not to incorporate such a safety device in his design. I don’t like the t-bar cyclic. I guess it’s fine on the tiny cramped R-22 but when you upsize to the R-44 and 66 they should have gin to a standard cyclic stick. Any aircraft that you need a special FAR to fly it is not a good design. Too many crashes in Robbies. The Schweitzer was designed as a utility Trainer. It also has more room inside than the puny R-22. I went to get some more training. The R-22 is too small for me and it can’t handle my weight with an instructor. Therefore I would have to train in The R-44 thus negating the lower cost. The Schweitzer cost less than the R-44 to fly. You can love it all you want, you know it and you have a lot of time flying it. But I don’t like it . It doesn’t fit me well , I found it cramped and don’t like the feel of the controls. I think it’s a bad design and there are better helicopters out there. If you’re going to fly helicopters it’s going to cost a lot. So going cheap isn’t always better. Like all cheap stuff you get what you pay for. You won’t see the military flying Robbies. As trainers they used the Bell 47 and the Hiller Helicopter, then switched to the Schweitzer, then the Jetranger and now it’s the UH-72 Lakota.
Again, nobody is _trying_ to mast-bump...so we should be using helicopters that can't have this.
You missed out that the R22 has low rotor head Inertia and are very susceptible to to rotor slapping. The absolute worse thing is the Cyclic and its wobbly controls. Each pilot needs their own cyclic.
The R-22 was not designed as a training platform. It was an inexpensive entry for people who shouldn't be flying anything.
Flown Every Hughes 269 types, All R-22 types, R-44 Raven Bells 47 , 206, UH 1 ,212, Sikorsky, Hiller , Brantley and after 45+ years , I'm still here... Most low G accidents are pilots who just didn't know their limitations and maneuvered poorly
Omg, Brantley? Did it not kill you from embarrassment? Or perhaps decapitation from trying to crawl under a turning rotor? 😂
@@paulcantrell01451 Flying a Brantley's great , Like a little Hughes 500. - And it weeds out the Darwin pilots who don't pay attention . . . Frank D. almost met his maker walking up to a running B-2 , Scott pulled collective and coned the blades missing Franks melon you could see the hair on his head brushed by the blades - He ducked as the idling rotors lost lift and drooped back to the stops.... Flew one in Alaska
I've tried flying my car and you're right. It's definitely not safe 😂
I learned in a Hughes 300, mostly because my instructor (back in 1999-2000) Randy Mains - th-cam.com/users/bigbear3332 didn't feel comfortable in the R22 (that's all the school had at the time). He thought my weight 210 lbs. (former bodybuilder) and his ~190 lbs (he's tall) made the power available less than comfortable. He's a decorated Vietnam era pilot and trained the Oman military and currently is CRM/AMRM evangelist. --- Oh and I had a chance to fly the Hughes 500 once and it ruined me for the 300... The 500 felt so powerful and solid like a Porsche compared to a VW Bug (the 300).
I'd rather fly in a wheelbarrow than in an R22. Better flying characteristics.Much better in turbulence also. Steering more stable .
You got my like and earned my sub with the Chris Brown lyrics quote
Great video and couldnt be anymore accurate, biggest loud mouth keyboard commanders, haters, have never flown a robinson. They are enjoyable to fly, i know small cramped not much power,but if u can fly them well, nothing you couldnt fly, flying bigger ships does not translate at all downward to smaller .
EXACTLY!!!!
Not a pilot and I've never flown in a helicopter and I've personally banned myself from entering a Robinson
It's not Tail Rotor thrust that causes the roll it's the single horizontal stabilizer!
I wouldn’t call the Robbie “cheap,” it cost a few hundred thousand just to update it after 2500 hours! Mast bumping is a larger threat in a Robbie than most other piston or turbine models out there. Things you missed…the idiotic tilt cyclic…special FAA training to hit the autorotation gate…and occasionally questionable tail rotor strength. I have many, many hours in R44’s and I don’t like them. That said, there simply isn’t another four seat piston heli out there. For me, the Enstrom is the best (but still limited) piston ship out there.
Yeah, good point`s. Have you flown the Cabri G2? That`s my favourite piston helo, so lovely designed and easy but beautiful to fly. With heavy people on board or a lot of fuel you`ll run out of power, but on what helicopter is that not the case, except for the Astar B3 and a few others.
@@noahpfeifer6931 I have not flown the Cabri butI’d love too!
Huh? R22 has a pretty good tail rotor and the R44 has a great tail rotor... Not sure why you're saying that?
I've got a a fair bit of time in Enstrom helicopters and they are maintenance hogs ( which drives the hourly cost way up ). They have a good record in terms of the rotor system staying together ( still just that one fatal? ) but they just kill you slowly by bleeding you ( or your wallet ) to death...
@@paulcantrell01451 Robinson recommends that in the event of ‘continued operation until blades are replaced, additional pilot preflight inspection is required.’
The affected tail rotor blades were factory installed on:
R44 helicopters S/N 2,599 and 2,619
R44 II helicopters S/N 14,360-14,394, excluding 14,363
R44 Cadet helicopters S/N 30,064-30,068
R66 helicopters S/N1,035-1,090, excluding 1,039; 1,067; 1,076; 1,077 and 1,081.
@@paulcantrell01451 Don’t fib! You can buy every single life-limited component for an Enstrom at about $125,000. TT Straps (every 5 years) for about $9000. That still comes in less than an R44 12 year! The cost of annuals are no different between the ships and the engines are just about identical.
Pure junk. You have to send the whole thing back to the factory every 2000 hours for a complete overhaul. There are Bell 206's out there with 22,000 hours flying that haven't seen the factory since new. The cyclic is an instructor's nightmare. The rotor system is a gyro design, good for auto's unless you're in need a bit of inertia at the bottom. 50 hours of instruction to fly insurable. No thanks... JUNK but good for those that can't find a real helicopter to learn in. Good luck finding a job flying anything else with just Robby time. R66 will let you at least log some turbine time, but with just Robby time you are useless for most real jobs and you will be shown the door....
Great content. Profanity was unprofessional though
the most unforgiving helicopter out there.
Other two-bladed helicopters behave similarly from my knowledge. And statistics need to be interpreted intelligently.
The 22's had a crash rate that was ridiculous. Also rotors not in proper RPM's will hit the mast etc.👎☹
Big helo like an A Star, laughs the 53 guy...
There's ZERO resistance on the controls.
Wow, isn't great you won't every hit any mild turbulence and encounter *any* negative G.
Any reason you *MASSIVELY* exaggerate the pitch down condition? Are you doing aeros in the death machine?
Did Robinson ever fix the fuels tanks falling off, spliting open and bursting into flame during a hard landing?
I obtained my fixed wing CPL when the R22 first arrived on the scene and was going to obtain a commercial rotary add on but changed my mind after a little bit of reading about the linkage things. I also didn't have a very big watch so I would have been disqualified from becoming a _fling wing_ pilot. 🤦♂️
Interesting thing is all helicopters can be susceptible to low G tail strikes. A EC135 crashed years back where I live due to a tail boom strike. The grand daughter sitting on the pilots lap accidentally and abruptly pushed the cyclic fully forward in a rapid movement by kicking it or something of that nature.
The test pilots from Hélicoptéres Guimbal tried to get the Cabri`s blades close to the tail, but they did not get it close to striking. And I guess in the Astar it could be, at least close to, impossible as well.
Can't hit the tailboom by a pushover unless the pilot overreacted. I call BS. Articulated rotors are not the same beast.
You must be a Genius smarter than the NTSB. LOL. @@helicopterdriver
I prefer the Boeing AH-64 but that's just me. 😂😂😂
My only reason it's not a jet ranger body
I think they're odd looking with that tall mast. Couldn't they build in a guard to stop the cyclic being pushed forward too much.
That was not a long winded explanation
Nice kid I wish him the best.
Some good points.
i have 5,000+ hours in the R-22 if its flown within its limitations it will bring you home every time, do something stupid or careless it will eat your lunch...
Heh, this sounds kinda like how a motorcycle is more dangerous than a car, with cars having multiple airbags, seatbelts, crumple zone protection, stability control, Drivers assist systems, etc. None of that is on a motorcycle, so do something like high side a sport bike at 100 mph and it might launch you into the tree by the roadside🤔😳🙄😏
2:42 I don't even know if this is really a "good training" thing. Don't fly aerobatics in a Robinson feels like common sense but even if it's not... How many times do you need to be told "No low-g pushovers?" The real key is having the right temperament.
I had the honor of watching two men parish because of this cheap and flimsy design. No, there isn't enough money in this world to make me fly in one of these. I'd tow it on a trailer any day though.
Understandable, but why in the world a "cheap" helicopter has to be so freaking fugly???
i think the whole may cut its own tail off is a pretty big deal
These Robinsons going down make highly entertaining videos.
I'd like to ask the author of this video how many total flying hours he's got and how many are on helicopters.
The 12 years calendar sucks too!!
So what you're saying is that it would be unreasonable for me to expect to get a Bell 429 on the cheap? Dammit. I really want 4 Rogerson Kratos glass screens and weather radar!! Oh well.
R-22/ ROBINSON IS LITERALLY A COFFIN BOX.
Know your machine !
Bottom line- helicopters are nothing but a bunch of nuts and bolts trying to shake itself apart.
they are a crap chopper that has an abysmal safety record end or story
You can fly these all your lifetime and never have it happen.....but when you do have it happen... that's the end of your lifetime!