Robinson R44

[Sid447]

I know of a Bell 407 that did a loop and roll at an air show in South Africa.
See http://hagar.up.ac.za/christo/Bell407Loop.wmv
Far as I know, the aircraft has been grounded ever since

That is an example of a very poorly executed roll.

[NickLappos]

Having planned the engineering tests for and then flown the rolls loops and splt S maneuvers for several helicopters, I can assure you that anyone who tries these things in a teetering rotor helo is suicidal.

The margins between "success" and breakup of the aircraft is near nil, anything out of the ordinary will lead to loss of control, rotor contact with the fuselage and catastrophe.

That 407 shown maneuvering is a far piece better in rotor control power than a Robinson, but still considerably less capable than a Boelkow. The roll to the left invokes a strong yaw at the 270 degree point (I have seen thast in other helos, too) and that is what got away from the pilot in the clip.

Most helo aerobatic maneuvers are good for bar talk, but of little use in operations.

[choppersafari]

Looking for comments on being caught in uncomfortable turbulence in the R44 and/or B206.

The other day I had to do a photo shoot and survey in an R44. I collected the pax from a city airfield situated in a bowl bordered around the South to NW by a high ridge, rising to 1000' above the airfield. Wind at the airfield was NW steady 6 knots. As I climbed through 1000' AGL to get over the ridge, and still 2 miles out from it, I suddenly found myself in severe turbulence. Glancing at the GPS I had 35Kts groundspeed, with approx 80Kts indicated.
There was no prior indication of the strong wind coming over the ridge, and Met had given a 10 to 15kt N to NW forecast for the day.
We bounced around horrifically while still over the city with a couple of miles to go to get clear of the built up area.
I slowed to 65 to 70Kts, climbed and eventually cleared the ridge.
Had to return to the airfield after a couple of hours to refuel and change pax, and ATC had me route from the West to the airfield. This time I had to descend through the turbulence with the wind from behind - no other way to get to the ground or the airfield.
Also very unpleasant!

The flight manual says don't fly in severe turbulence - but what about during the time where you are trying to get out of it when caught unawares or where the task at hand means flying in uncomfortable turbulence for a while.

What are the margins for safety or how great is the danger (before possible mast bumping or overstressing etc.) - especially with the wind from behind (as in for example taking the shortest route away from a built up area?)

I also had a similar experience recently flying the B206 in uncomfortable low level turbulence doing heli tours along a beachfront - wind tumbling off a coastal ridge and through high rise beachfront buildings!

Can anyone with regular experience of flying R44's or B206's in rough winds and turbulence comment on the safety of working in these conditions. The two bladed systems don't give a feeling of security!

Look forward to learning from some of your experiences ...:ok:

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

Good post I fly the R44 alot and don't like taking it out when it's realy windy the R22 is better,as mast bumping and low G can be a kiler in the R44.You did the right thing in slowing down the only advice I could give is try and fly routes where your less likely to hit turbulance,and keep ATC informed of your reguirments.

[delta3]

Flying a lot in the south-east france (the mistral area), I have been a lot in very windy and gusty weather. Many times it happened that wind suddenly and unpredicted by Met goes to over 50 knts at low altitude (25 knots would be a calm day). I always managed to fly through it, but a few times I got kicked around so badly that I swore not to get caught in that again. In the case of a 'flying' 65 knots storm between Cannes and Marseille, I wisely back tracked even though ATC advised to continue., still landed with 45 knts.

What I learned

- avoid turbulence. Especially in mountainous areas you should be able to read where the vortices are, how big they will be etc. If you feel you can not do this, stay away. I do not know the particulars quoted by choppersafari, but 2 miles away can be far too little in some cases. Yesterday, departing from Le Castellet, gusting 35 knots I prefered to climb to FL55 (even though I was at MTOW) to be clear of St Baume mountain (3600ft), because to wind was coming from an unusual direction, so that I was not shure where the severe turbulence would be even though I think I know the area well.

- mountain flying techniques are very help full, look for laminar flow areas. These are sometimes also close to the ground, but for that you need to know the technique and the area well

- big vortices near mountain ridges need special attention. Sudden down drafts, especially if preceded by heavy updrafts, create low-G conditions. I always do a moderate flair into does : reducing speed from 105 to 80 and making shure the tail is low enough.

- if you are caught in an updraft and conditions permit, let it take you up. There will be a downdraft later in which you do not want to enter nose down at high speed.

- you also get sudden horizontal changes : for instance tail wind on top of a vortex projects you later in a windless area : this can create overspeed situations (going from 105 to 135 IAS in a few seconds) dangerous again if not anticipated

- if you are caught do not oversteer, reduce speed. This is particularly difficult, especially if you are badly kicked around and it appears the machine is not coming back by it self. Remember that the yawing creates side slip, in side slip you are supposed to steer the cyclic into the wind and not away from the wind which happens if you let your sence of equilibrium take over, exposing you to mast bumping. So it is perhaps better not to steer as indicated in the manual.

- avoid very low weights (for instance just pilot, with minimum fuel)

Delta3

[choppersafari]

Outstanding replies – always good to learn from others experience – thanks guys.

On a similar note, I got caught in a ‘south westerly buster’ a little while ago along our south coast, again in an R44 and this time while instructing a student pilot on a cross country flight.

Fortunately I took control and slowed to 65Kts as we went under the cloud at 800’ AGL (cloud base was approx 1500’ – a churning angry mass of grey black turbulent cloud underneath which only became evident approx half a mile out from it).

I have photos which I could post later – scary!

As we hit the microburst IAS went instantly from 65Kts to 125Kts, and we were thrown around violently for a few seconds. A terrifying initial experience, and then had to sit in 45Kt gusting headwind for nearly half and hour trying to get to the airfield. No chance of landing in those conditions along the coast on route and sweated it out, eventually getting back to the airfield safely – just had to be gentle with the aircraft and ride with the turbulence as much as possible, coaxing the aircraft through it - lessons learned again!

Delta3 – You have obviously been in some severe conditions fairly regularly – thanks for the excellent practical info, and good to see you mention “…I swore not to get caught in that again…” – It never feels safe in the B206 or R44 with their teetering head systems in those conditions – and yet it is easy to find yourself caught there unawares if you don’t know what to look for, or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Thanks for the good practical advice and informative posts … :ok:

[gadgetguru]

seem to recall a tale (thought i'd read it here, but couldn't locate any threads on it) of someone in a R44 coming back across the Blue Mountains in severe turbulence, when he finally got back to Bankstown it was discovered that the nylon 'pads' on the mast had been creased (& i think cracked), pretty sure it was grabbed by heliflite & sent back to 'the States' for examination, as no one had ever seen one (mast bump in a Robby) that hadn't ended in catastrophe. :\

lucky fellow

there may be someone lurking in the forums that might be able to confirm &/or clarify the details as i don't have any (it was a 2nd hand story).

[choppersafari]

I remember reading of a pilot telling how an instructor demonstrated a low G pushover in an R22 to him (against common sense and the FM!) - apparently there was a loud thump and bang as he recovered from the attitude changes - the instructor continued the flight saying no worries, all was fine ...

On landing an inspection revealed a crease in the mast [might have some details wrong - I will look through my stuff and see if I can find the printout - I seem to recall it being from one of these forums ...]

Has anyone out there had close calls with mast bumping in 22, 44 or 206's, and survived!?

I'm interested to know how violent the pitch and roll is and how much chance/time there is to load the disc again while it is rolling etc. - This could be a reality when caught in turbulence or updraught/downdraught windsheer ...

Would it help to 'ride with the right roll' while loading the disc with aft cyclic, or is the onset too quick and violent for this reaction?

[Obviously the 'intinctive' reaction would be to counter the roll with opposite cyclic, which accentuates the problem and accelerates the bumping potential - and the instinct will be more quickly applied with the speed of the onset of roll etc. especially if caught unawares! - and you want to be able to go against instinct to survive.]

[bladewashout]

From Safety Notice SN-11 in the R22 POH:

... if you do have a feeling of weightlessness dueing a maneuver, gently bring the cyclic aft to regain main rotor thrust before (underlined in POH) applying lateral cyclic.

Ride that roll until the rotor disc is re-loaded!

[delta3]

to bladewashout

The theory is simple and correct, but in turbulent weather it does not come like "...a feeling of weightlessness during a maneuver...", YOU are not maneuvering, 'IT' is maneuvering, anticipation is key.

When I get the hitchy feeling I am about to hit an important down-draft, I start sort of a flare, that is well before I get weigthless.

By doing this

You have the tail down,
You anticipate the descent,
You (can) reduce some speed
You have the cyclic aft and can keep the disk loaded without big chocks.

Delta3

[The Rotordog]

I know there's a wealth of information on this board (as opposed to the chaff on some *others*), so I wonder if anyone could give me an idea of what kind of fuel consumption an R-44 pilot would really see. Specifics are not really important- a general number for flight planning purposes will do as long as it's in the ballpark. I'm putting a comparison chart together for a customer and I want to be as...(ahem) "fair and accurate" as possible.

Thanks.

[Watchoutbelow]

For a RavenII about 16 gallons

[helicopter-redeye]

16 USG per hour for the recip. engine O580. as trip fuel

Declines marginally with full carb heat on full all the time.

Watch out for :-

a. Ground burn time (taxi fuel usage) to account for part of the full fuel load

b. Asking for full tanks and the fueler not topping off to full both sides. Reduces fuel load by about 4USG and reduces available trip fuel plus contingency amount. Can be an issue if near range limitation.

[delta3]

Depends (of course on) Temp/Hight and map setting.

'Forcing' (=max continuous) will increase consumption a lot and need at least 16 USG
Being more economic even by reducing to 100 knts IAS, and not being at MTOW would more go towards 15 USG

Mixing with work such as pipelines can push it down to 14.

So the general range I see is 14-16 USG.


I have seen on different threads that this would be marginally higher for the RII

delta3

[Chairmanofthebored]

The best option is to full the tank incrementally and make yourself a dipstick. Each piston aircraft will burn at a different fuel rate for a lot of different reasons. Fill the tank, mark the broomstick at each different level and then go flying. Time VS fuel not in the tank = fuel burn.
Or you can guess at 16gallons or rely on the guage and try explaining that to the boss when you have the old orange light illuminate.

[delta3]

I have to plan long distance more than half of the flights, so its not the boss I worry about.

And I think its red not orange...


Delta3

[R405]

i plan for 60 litres/hr = 15.8 of your gallons (i think!) in a hydraulic astro at sea level
i usually get 58 litres/hr in cruise (fuel flow meter, which seems pretty accurate based on how much it thinks i will have to put in to refuel)
this increases with hovering, carby heat, air conditioning, pax, altitude, etc

[delta3]

58 liters would also be my overall average

d3

[Billywizz]

A Raven II can burn about 18US gals per hr if you are flying around at max power for long periods.

[delta3]

Billywizz

As the Raven I will in the next weeks be replaced by a R44 II, that concerns me a little. You suggest a 16 to 18 USG difference that is more than 10%.

Under same performance requirements, that is same TOW, same cruising speed, same temp etc, do you have an idea what differences to expect ?

d3

[Steve76]

D3, you are asking people to decide your fuel burn for you. Nobody can tell you how much fuel your R44 is going to burn because the variables are so many. That is why Frank doesn't publish the numbers.
Just plan at 60ltrs and do a fuel burn calculation.
Did they not teach you this in your training?

[helicopter-redeye]

As the Raven I will in the next weeks be replaced by a R44 II

I kinda missed this as a press release. Are RIs being discontinued ??

h-r

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

I fly both the Astro/raven 1 and the Raven 2 and find that the 1's burn 14 galls and hr and the 2's 16 galls an hr.

[Bravo73]

I kinda missed this as a press release. Are RIs being discontinued ??

Oh. My. God. Not this ol' chestnut again... :{




:ok: :cool:

[delta3]

Interesting

some guys make you feel ridiculus, explain what to do, but dont answer the question

Maybe I should add : this is your captain speaking, I am not certain if we will get there, but be reassured, i know how to add even how to divide, and i have brought a spare broomstick with me, so not to worry...

some guys answer


thanks guys who answered, the tendency is clear lets worry about the decimals later.

d3

[vorticey]

all companies that i know of use 60ltrs per hr but the current one uses 65 for float equipped heli's. i cant understand why u would use more fuel when its float equipped as you still only pull the same mp, more fuel per mile but wont be more fuel per hour i dont recon??:ok:

[helicopter-redeye]

Depends if floats inflated or not, h-r

[Billywizz]

Delta3

I was giving you the worst fuel burn rate that I knew about from a raven II. As Steve76 said , it will depend on your particular aircraft. I base my calc's on 16 gals.

[delta3]

Billywizz

After some more research I decided to have my 58 l/hr R44-I planning rate increased to 62 for the R44-II in the same circumstances, so slightly above 16, for a typical 3 POB flight.
I'll find out soon what the consumptions are. Of course I agree with those ppruners that state that consumption depends on lots of things, but in the 1600 hrs I did with the R44-I, 58 for my 'flying style', that is keeping between 21 and 22" worked out all right. That sometimes also implied going to FL 65 at max power and consuming more, but this being offset by higher ground speeds, so that actual flight time was shorter. My R44-I in fact kind of liked flying there if nice laminar air (or is it the pilot..).

I'am consulting now some official Lycoming performance and consumption charts. I also found out that some local operators warned their CPL's to take greater provisions with the R44-II, because apparently some had chairman of the bored experiences and didn't quite make it to the planned destinations, to the unliking of the passengers (and the boss..).

As an engineer I am surprised of this higher consumption : slightly heavier, more average cord or injection. The latter would really disappoint me if you see what common rail direct injection can achieve (not really the same, but still..)

d3

[Heli-Ice]

Well, I don't fly the R44 but this got me thinking. Does this really matter for you because of the 100lbs increase in MTOW in the R44II over the R44I and therefore you should be able to carry a little more fuel and some more happy paying load?

As I said I don't fly the R44 and haven't seen the W&B for it.

I realize that 2 USG/hr adds to the cost but does it matter that much?

This reminds me of a friend of mine who a few years back was buying a Rolls Royce and since he is from an Icelandic farm and very curious he asked the Rolls dealer how much fuel it consumes. The dealer told my friend that if he had to worry about the fuel consumption he wouldn't have anything to do with having a Rolls :D

[delta3]

What matters for me is max range, both machines can always be fully topped with my payloads (3-4 POB not all heavy, plus luggage). In a number of flights (in the 500NM range) the difference may require extra refueling stops . Alternatively you could slow down and go for max efficiency, but this doesn't work well with headwinds (max efficiency speed goes up again)

In the Alps on the otherhand the II will be able to carry full loads (4 instead of 3 POB), which the R44-I couldn't with some long range fuel amount on board.

d3

[Heli-Ice]

I'm with you delta3.

Does anyone here know why the R44 manual doesn't have any fuel tables?



p.s. I just had to put my friends Rolls story in there to put a smile on your face. ;)

[oldrotorhead]

Can anybody give us a reasonable comparison between these two ships from a practical operational point of view? Does anyone have realistic experience on operating costs, idiosyncracies, performance differences, etc, that are different from the "sales figures" or the Flight Manual?

Thanks.....

[helicopter-redeye]

The R44 POH states

CAUTION
Inflight leaning with engine mixture control is not recommended. Engine stoppage may result as there is no propellor to keep engine turning should overleaning occur.

Fair comment. The fixed wing population have some advantages here with the prop connected to the engine.

However, I read Jennifer Murray's book (Now Solo) about flying the R44 around the world last night and there were several mentions of flying the engine "lean".

What experience do members of the panel have of leaning the O-540 (normally aspirated) engine on the R44 and should this practice be encouraged in controlled situations?

h-r

[Revolutionary]

The problem with leaning the engine in an R44 is, I think, the lack of a vernier style (screw) fuel control to finetune the mixture. Early models of the R22 did have a vernier mixture and pilots could and would lean the engine. I guess the potential for liability made Frank Robinson change to the push/pull style mixture and the admonition in the POH not to lean in flight. However, it still can be done, provided one is very careful.

[tcamiga]

The R44 is a slightly different kettle of fish than the R22 when discussing leaning procedures as the R22 is considered a low power engine.

However - both engines can be leaned - from rich to normal - prior to flight.

I flew R22's using this procedure for quite a few K hours.

This procedure usually gave me at least another inch of MAP safety margin up my sleeve by reducing the power required for a particular task.

Please read my link to the R22 procedure and then maybe some one can follow it up for the R44.

http://brumbyhelicopters.com.au/lean2normal.htm

Tc

[Gaseous]

To lean in a controlled way it is best to have a vernier mixture adjustment and a multicylinder engine monitor such as the JPI or EI instruments. It is very doubtful that a carburettor Lycoming can be efficiently leaned as the mixture distribution to each cylinder is appalling. The risk is that it is possible to push the leanest cylinder into overheating. Robinsons only have one head temp probe which may not be on the hottest/leanest cylinder. It is possible to cause damage by overheating without detonation. 400 deg F should be considered a practical maximum cruising head temp and it is easy to exceed this by leaning.

Injected engines are a bit better but unless the injector nozzles are matched to provide the correct flow for each cylinder, overheating one or more cylinders is still possible unless all the head temps are monitored.

Leaning is permitted with Enstroms and I always lean aggressively. It is possible to drop the fuel consumption from 14 gph to 10 and run with lower cylinder head temps. I generally run the hottest head at 350-360 deg F. I use the techniques described by John Deakin. (see below)

With a properly set up injection system it is possible to lean safely and efficiently. It is almost impossible to stop an engine by overleaning as the power drop off alerts the pilot in good time.

Leaning is also demanding of pilot attention to do it correctly.

The risk is the brainstorm when returning to full rich, when one pulls the knob instead of pushing it. I know - I have done it. The engine stops.


Robinsons are not equipped for leaning and to do so without the appropriate instrument/control is fraught with pitfalls. The Raven2 could be modified for safe and successful in flight leaning but unless it was, I wouldn't do it.

I would think a properly modified, leaned Raven 2 would cruise on 12 U.S. gallons per hour. Was Jennifer Murrays aircraft modified?


John Deakin has written lots on this subject and before anyone considers leaning a Robbie, a bit of time reading these articles is recommended.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182544-1.html

[helicopter-redeye]

No specific reference in the book but I think it was a standard Astro (and standard Clipper - float packs) following. They quote 9USG/Hr figures when lean.:\

[Gaseous]

Redeye,
Its some time since I flew an Astro but 9GPH sounds a bit low, but possible. Do you know what speed she was flying at? The best I can get in terms of fuel saving on a really well set up Enstrom is a fuel saving of about 30% from full rich. I should think if you lean a carb 540 to that extent it will get very rough. I have seen 7.5gph in an Enstrom, P1 only at 50mph with minimum weight. 10gph gives me a reasonable cruising speed of 80 and an endurance of 2.5 hours.

[helicopter-redeye]

From memory from the book they were flying at the 'speed of the slowest man' which would have been the Microlight, so around 60kts IAS.

I guess the air was quite cold as well in Mid Greenland so this may have contributed to good performance.

[Bravo73]

H-R,

Gaseous and I were briefly discussing a similar point 'off-forum' a few weeks ago and I know that this refers to the injected version of the 540 but, for the record, the current version of the RII POH states:


On page 7-9, under Systems Description, Engine Controls (page date 3 Oct 2002) it states:

CAUTION
In-flight leaning with engine mixture control is not allowed. Mixture must be full rich during flight.


So, I guess that Frank must've changed his mind enough for it to go from 'not recommended' to 'not allowed'.


Regards,

B73


PS This is in the 'Systems' section rather than the 'Limitations' section of the POH so I guess you could argue that it's still advice rather than an order but I know what I would (or, more importantly, wouldn't) do in flight...

[Gaseous]

Both the R44 and 22 are on the approved model list for the JPI EDM700, and the FAA flight manual update exists, and it is STC'd, so it is theoretically possible to fit this instrument to Robinsons. You may have a job convincing your local CAA man it is a justifiable mod but it is possible. It would probably be easier in the States. It would be even more difficult to convince him that a vernier was justified.

As B73 says, Robbies as supplied should not be leaned on a whim.

I'd love to have a go in a modified, properly certificated one though. Are you up for it H-R?

[helicopter-redeye]

Rule one in software use "never be the first to try it"

But I guess there has been unofficial use for some years as noted in That Book.

[imabell]

the fan of this r44 came adrift in flight, and over water too.

they had popouts but made it to shore.




http://www.bluetonguehelicopters.com.au/pprune/scage.jpg

:eek:

[mustering guru]

Congrats to the pilot!!

I bet his or her arse was puckered up for that!

It's happend on the R22 but i havent heard it on the R44...whats next the main blades??

[Grainger]

Phew - wotta mess !

Hey, at least on an R22 it could just fly out the back - The R44 is more enclosed and it looks as though that's helped this one to do a whole load of damage !

There's a big nut with a retaining pin though it that holds the fan to the shaft. The pin is supposed to line up with witness marks on the fan itself. I always check this on my walkround. One time I noticed that the pin wasn't lined up with the marks - and decided not to fly until it had been checked. Glad I did now !!!

Be interesting to find out in due course what the cause of this one was - it looks well shredded.

[Vfrpilotpb]

That pilot did very well, and helped himself to a whole load of future life!.

Like most others I was also told to check the pin the paint marks and look for cracks.

It gives me the shivers when you think about the amount of damage that a out of balance fan could cause to the Monocoque tail of the R44.

Well done R44 Pilot!!

PeterR-B
Vfr

[4ero]

Is that where the drive shaft ended up? It's not usually down there even when sheave at lowest point is it?

The flex plate doesn't look damaged, but did they lose tr drive shaft also?

And that bit of the frame at the bottom, snapped in flight? did the tr ds go through it?

[Auscan]

The nut slipping on the fan is usually caused by the engine being started with the throttle wide open. If this occurs be sure to check that witness stripe and dont fly it if they dont line up. Just my 2 cents.

[HeliEng]

Can anyone advise the overspeed inspection criteria for an R44?

Thanx in advance

[cyclicpushover]

I recall hearing the cooling fan nut coming loose on some 22's & 44's after overspeeding.Perhaps it might be wise to make sure torque stripes line up with the pin. :suspect:

[HeliEng]

Thanks for the answers.

Does anyone know what the criteria is above 112/117% (i.e: Off the calibrated bit of the tacho?)

Thanks again

[TIMTS]

Just had a look in the MX manual, only thing I can find is 90%-108% power off and 99%-102% power on, so nothing new...and question not answered.

[helicopter-redeye]

How do you know you have had an overspeed ????

[puntosaurus]

Once off the scale, you need all Mr. Selfish items plus a complete engine strip. Costs about £15-£20,000 in total retail depending on what needs to be replaced. From the outside an overspeed sounds dramatically different to the normal engine noise, high pitched, almost screaming. Hull insurance should cover it (minus the excess) but expect your premiums to go up by a couple of thou next year.

[HeliEng]

I'm sorry I have been a little inspecific.

I am curious about in flight overspeeds.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Helieng,

Hi how are you, I must suggest caution, if any overspeed has been flagged, one little ditty is always with me on this,

If in doubt, throw it out!!


Don't want anyone to go up in a machine like I once did!!!.


Peter R-B
Vfr

[HeliEng]

Vfrpilotpb,

I am well thanks! And yourself?

This is all hypothetical! (Thank goodness)

I am oh so aware of the dangers of flying in aircraft that have undergone such stresses, it is just that I don't have access to R44 tech manuals anymore!

Hopefully someone can have a quick read and post the info here for me!

Cheers guys

[SEL]

Hi

You may already know this but there are a few in Helidata:

http://www.helidata.rotor.com/forsale.htm

[UwantME2landWHERE!]

You could always try here:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8198854561&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1


If you do buy a R44, I'll be happy to deliver it anywhere in the UK, for a small fee of course...:ok:

This seller also had a Raven for sale a couple of weeks ago, it might be worth sending them a mail.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

That ebay 44 looks really nice - anyone know the machine?

[Jonp]

Hi

My R44 astro is for sale currently. You can see the details and a picture at www.helideals.co.uk

In brief it now has about 1550 TT and was built October 1994. She is always hangared and I have spent a considerable amount on her. She had new MR blades and spindles just over a year ago. No accident history.

All of the usual avionics, with the exception of a VOR. Blue/Silver with Blue Leather interior and integral colour GPS. Night kit fitted. No Decals on airframe.

Price includes a Jara Aviation Helimover.

I will accept £79,000 minimum +VAT.

I am happy to fly to wherever you are if you are serious

Jon P ([email protected]) - PM me if you need phone numbers

[Johe02]

Mike Smith at Heliair would know where to get one or two . .

01789 470476

[float test]

I know of an excellent machine about 980ttsn, 1997 private owner plus me and a couple of others fly it.

Silver.

New machine arriving august time

Price around 110+ vat sterling

[UwantME2landWHERE!]

kissmysquirrel, I can't see the problem with buying an aircraft from ebay, in fact it would probably be much safer than buying a car through them, and that happens all the time. At least you'd get a survey..!

I wouldn't suggest just placing a bid, or in this particular case, 'Buying it Now', then sending off your cheque, waiting the obligatory 5 - 7 days for it to clear, then popping down to what ever dark and dusty corner of England it happens to be stored and flying off.
You would obviously get it checked, just the same as if you had met a guy in the local pub and he had happened to ask "Hey, YOU don't want to buy a helicopter, do you?.
Which incidentally was the way I bought my last heli. :ok:

If you don't want to be associated with such a vulgar practice as bidding on ebay, give me the cash and I'll do it for you.......honest :=




:E :E :cool:

[The Flashing Blade]

Look on the Heliscott website. G-RFUN Raven 1. Flew it last week, very nice. Has about 500ish hours.

www.heliscott.co.uk

By the way, nothing to do with heliscott so nothing to gain out of the sale.

FB

[13snoopy]

We are perplexed as to how we can possibly make a Robinson R44 look a little sleeker. (Don't laugh)
Does anybody have any photos of great paint jobs on any R44's??
I appreciate any help here!
Thank you in advance for a reply.

[HeliEng]

13snoopy,

I have seen so many attempts, and they just don't work. I have yet to see a 44 that looks better than any other!!

Sorry, IMHO it's a lost cause!!

[quichemech]

That's Tiger helicopters Hangar, give them a ring 01568708028 and ask for Garry.:ok:

[HeliEng]

How about this one?

I wouldn't say sleek, but it's better!

http://www.helispot.com/images/03749.jpg

[rotornut]

I vote for C-FBLA.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

This has to be the worst heli paint job of all time!
It looks like a flying tablecloth!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/376494.jpg

[13snoopy]

Why were they (Robinson) so intent on keeping the R44 looking like a blown-up version of the R22?? And to sort of cover the rear-sides of the engine with the extra cowling and then just chop it all off underneath that long skinny tailcone is hideous.
Suffice to say, almost any solid color looks bad.
I think this has to be the ugliest helicopter of the big companys.
Any more replys keep them coming. Thank you!

[Heli-Ice]

TFS

What do you mean??? My living room curtains look the same!!!
Are you telling me I'm a man with out taste for fashion? ;)

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

In response Heli-Ice and considering your Icelandic roots, I have just one word to say - Bjork !

[eoincarey]

Levitation is levitation, pure magic whatever helicopter you're in.

A Dreaming Hopeful

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

even in a Rotorway Exec bought off ebay?? :yuk:

[farmpilot]

Here are a few.......


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/farmpilot/CDOCUME1EmilLOCALS1TempP1010721.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/farmpilot/CDOCUME1EmilLOCALS1TempP1011081.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/farmpilot/CIMG0251_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/farmpilot/CIMG0738_1.jpg

[helicopter-redeye]

looks like a flying tablecloth


... and now, the "Gingham Helicopter" from Debenhams tableware dept ...
:yuk:

[eoincarey]

Flying Squirrel

Especially in a Rotorway. You have to savor those precious hovering moments, cause they could stop at any time in a rotorway!!

ETC

[rotorrookie]

Thats a good point FlyingSquirrel lol :p
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ak1.aka.eonline.com/7/1480/1218/0001/www.eonline.com/Features/Awards/Oscars2001/FashionPolice/Images/bjork.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.eonline.com/Features/Awards/Oscars2001/FashionPolice/index2.html&h=375&w=189&sz=15&tbnid=GpMmEwGZvAwJ:&tbnh=118&tbnw=59&hl=en&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbjork%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26sa%3DG just imagine how her R-44 would look like

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Quote
This has to be the worst heli paint job of all time!
It looks like a flying tablecloth!!

Look on the posative side with the table cloth you could play nought's & crosses while your waiting for your passengers.

[Heli-Ice]

HEY TFS!

Now that's kicking a man laying, thank you very much!

Me and Bjork have the same last name, and what do you know if she isn't my sister and the dress is my mothers handcraft? You kow Iceland is very small of a country. I think that her swandress is great and he who thinks otherwise shall have his head checked.

May I point out to you that Bjork is a delicate little flower with an angels.

And if you are going to express your self some more in a less positive way about our so very sophisticated taste for fashion, I will have to bring out my old viking ship, sail over, hunt you down and slap you around for a while!

O yeah and maybe I'll bring you back the ugly Brit biddies my ancesters took from you on their way over to Iceland, we kept them safely in remote place for you! :}

And this IKEA helicopter... ah well... Have to admit my curtains look better in this colour.

[Aesir]

This one has to be somewhere in the same "ugly" category..

Hypnotic R-44

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/MountainFlyers.jpg

Just think about all the work painting the helicopters like that and they are even uglier.

Sometimes simple is better ;)

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

So in other words Heli-Ice, you're a redneck? Or should I say blueneck?:O

[Heli-Ice]

TFS.

You spotted me! :ugh:

[13snoopy]

You know, the wild scheme about two posts before this one is crazy, but those hyper circles certainly do seem to make the ship look a little less bulky. If we could somehow use that "busy" configuration in a better scheme we may be onto something.

[Hairyplane]

I agonised over this myself but now await the arrival of my new Raven 2 in a boggo dark blue metallic with silver accents.

Why?

I think you need to consider the next owner.

What might look super cool to you could be the kiss of death when it comes to moving it on.

Boring I know.....

HP

[float test]

flying a r44 raven today at 115kt with a serious waddle, is this normal. thought the tail was about to fail. maybe i've been drinking to much never experienced this in a astro

[Gaseous]

Like the post above I can answer this in relation to the Enstrom. when in the cruise at about 85 in the Enstrom it develops a similar waddle with a frequency of about 1.5 Hz. It happens when flying in perfect trim and resonates so gradually gets more severe. The Engineer told me it was some sort of interaction between the TR and the vertical stabiliser. It disappears if the aircraft is flown ever so slightly out of trim. It doesn't matter which way. Just a hint of pedal. Make sure its not enough to cause extreme flapping problems in a Robbie though!!
Altering the speed will also damp it out so it would appear to be a resonance problem.

Edit:

I just remembered what he said. It went something like this.
the TR acts like a vertical fin when in forward flight, the angle of which is determined by the pitch on the blades. The waddle happens when the 2 'fins' (TR and real fin) are at slight, critical, different angles to the airflow. Vary the angle of one and the resonance stops.

[overpitched]

I have noticed a similar sensation on the jetranger if you push the nose over on decent. It feels a bit unstable once above about 120kts. I have heard other pilots comment on this as well in the 206. It is easily fixed with pedal input on the 206.

[moosp]

A governor that is pulsing can give this waddle too. (Nice word waddle ins't it?) Try switching off the governor in stable, straight and level flight and see if it still occurs. If not, you've found the problem.

A dodgey magneto can have the same effect. I'm sure your engineers favourite job is stripping and re-assembling a magneto :E

[Johe02]

Helo 44

What happened before/after failure - since close to new and during start up the starter motor would occaisonally fail to engage with the ring gear. this made a sound like high pitched whizz...

This can be a dry/faulty bendix on the starter, not throwing the starter gear into the ring gear. Hence the mashed ring gear. .

Also, on the Raven II people tend to hit the start button - engine fires - stops. . then they hit the start button again before the engine and starter have come to rest. . . this also mashes the ring gear (with an elongated shape)

Float Test

R44 waddles in very calm conditions when in balance, a little left/right pedal sorts it out . . I belive the flat back of the engine/fan cowl is the cause. . :8

[volrider]

I saw on the BBC news this morning one of the reporters flying over london in a R44 or 22, filming the lack of traffic after yesterdays attack. I had to smile as I could see the pilot working hard to trying to keep it stable and in the hover... I did like his military style flying suit complete with gold bars, bet he parks the Robbo "round the back" and has an Agusta key ring :E

[on21]

It was probably G-PIXX. See link below.

http://www.flyingtv.co.uk

[asara]

What do you think of this?

http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/pprune/r44%20paint.jpg

[helicopter-redeye]

.... a recent victim of urban graffitti tagging perhaps ? ....;)


h-r:)

[Lightning_Boy]

Looking at Aesir's picture, it must have taken one hell of a pilot to park that fixed wing in the hangar!


:ok:

[Aesir]

Hehe.. Lightning_Boy yeah didn´t notice that! Looks like a Bucker Jungmeister don´t it.

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

Or thomasthetankengine, after that heaving landing, chess, while waiting for the fire brigade !

[headsethair]

Mainly Astros and some Raven 1 - but no Raven 2.

400 helis out of about 2500 produced. It's a Lycoming thing......many many more fixed wings are affected.

See http://www.robinsonheli.com/servelib.htm

[goose boy]

one of the R44's that my company operates just missed the A.D by one serial number (Lucky ha)

Although saying that it makes up for all that bo**ocks we had to put up with when the AS350 A.D was issued

[moosp]

Heliringer,

It might look like a Bell 47 but what you have seen in the tourist industry up north is probably a Kawasaki. Think about the business model. One pilot one pax doesn't work too well. Cram in two pax and you may get figures in the black at the end of the month.

The problem with the Kawas is that the design concept came out of Kawasaki Japan, where at that time most Japanese were 60 kilos with a 34 inch hip measurement. (Sorry to mix the units here...) When you get the 2005 average Mr and Mrs Australia turning up for a flight, you find a 90 kilo big man and a sheila not far off. Even if you get off the ground, they will still grizzle at the space and tell their friends to avoid you.

R44 may work in areas of lower density altitudes, with half fuel you should be able to carry three big pax. (This is why tour operators like to employ 55 kilo pilots...)

That said there are still operators of the Kawas in NT, and if you are good with a grease gun and a sunny personality it might make an interesting change from mustering.

FWIW

[overpitched]

For tourist work the comparison would really be KH4 v R44. The KH4 is a great tourist machine. Slow and stable, great with the doors off although the middle seat is a bit of a disadvantage.

The R44 has more power, better tail rotor authority, all seats are window seats but is not as comfortable in turbulence, and with front doors off the rear pax mics need to be disconnected so as not to interfere with pilot commentary.

I don't know that there are many 47s or KH4s left out there though. Heliwork has upgraded all theirs for 44s although with the ad on the 44s that has grounded most of their fleet during peak season they may be regretting that. NAH may still have one in the gorge ?? don't know for sure, last time I was thru they still had one at Vic River roadhouse.

It's a shame the 47s are disapearing. With less power, less tail rotor authority and no governor I think that they taught pilots better basic handling skills than the much more forgiving 44.

[WLM]

Heliringer

Overpitch is very correct about his posting except NAH is no longer at the Gorge (Katherine). Last time I was in Oz (94) the Gorge contract had been awarded to another Katherine Operator with R44's. I think Helimuster may still use one at their Katherine road pad. Far North Helicopters in Darwin has one as well albeit not in full operation I think.
It's a shame operators are going away from B47 and KH4, but it is getting harder to get parts, and pilots that can fly them properly. It is a great flying machine but as mentioned before, you must love greasing it every 10 hours eheh
R44 's our days, is a better endorsement if you wish to pursue tourism flying in OZ, to clock up your hours.
Cheers ;)

[ground effect]

Has anyone out there in PPRUNE land got a R44 flight manual (any) as a PDF file they would be willing to email my way???

Please PM me if you are able to help out.

Thanks

[13snoopy]

Can anyone here please give the differences or improvements between the R44 Raven I and the older Astro, other than the hydraulic controls? Thank you in advance for any help.
Also, do these ships have the 10 year calendar limit or is it 12 year?

[MortenT]

The Astro fly like **** compared to the Raven...

But if you buy a Astro and then send it back to the overhaul you can add on the hydraulics!!:ok:

[chopperpug]

You might also find that they started mounting the battery in the nose. Bit more of a hassle when you want to jump start them though. Don't know if all Ravens had this nose mounted battery though. Makes quite a difference to the way that they fly, especially solo pilot wise, if you are only just over that minimum weight. The Astro is a bit more of a handful with just me in it going to some of our tight little bush pads. seems it always wants to slide backwards off that groundcushion, where the raven sits a little more level. I know the Clippers also have the battery in the nose, and with the floats they are a lot more nose heavy. The Astros have a 12 year life, with 2000 on the engine and 2200 on the airframe. You can get an extension over here for the engine, but the machine can only be used for Aerial work, not charter if it is running on the extension.
Oh..and give me an Astro any day.. except for that damn trim motor. The Astros are the work horse for a 44. That extra weight that you get with the Hydraulics does make a real difference when you at MAUW in ISA + 25 - 30 (Thats in *C) thats another few kilos that can make all the difference, and out in the bush its one less thing to worry about, and carry around fluid for.
But i wouldn't say no to a new Raven II if anybody is offering.........:D

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

To say the Astro fly’s like **** isn't fair. Our company operates 2 if the trim system is working 100% correctly then they fly well.

[heliduck]

The real advantage of the raven is the rotor disc stability, which is a direct result of the hydraulic actuators. One advantage of this is the convenience for the pilot in turbulent conditions as the feedback through the cyclic is reduced on the hydraulic models. The Astros are becoming known as the "stick shakers". If you can imagine a rotor blade flying through turbulent air, the the subsequent twisting of the rotor blade is transmitted down through the control rods direct to the cyclic. I've been in hot & heavy conditions in the Kimberly region of north west Australia & nearly had the cyclic ripped from my hands when flying through thermals. In the raven this force is transmitted through the flight controls down to the the point where the vertical swash plate control rod is connected to the hydraulic actuator. At this point the force is absorbed by the hydraulic actuator & transmitted to the airframe instead of the cyclic. Another advantage of the hydraulics is during sling load ops. The rotor disc on a raven is more stable during sling load ops due to the above mentioned aerodynamic forces. This allows a greater load to be lifted of the deck which gives the pilot the few seconds he needs to gain airspeed & translation. On any helicopter every time a cyclic input is made by the pilot in an attempt to keep the machine stable lift is "spilt" out the edge of the rotor disc. Keeping the disc as stable as possible greatly increases the lift available. Every R44 sling load I've done I've been competing against Jetrangers or Squirrels to get the work, so every little bit of lift is food in the family's stomach. I can't supply the figures to back up this statement, but in my experience the machine weight increase due to the hydraulic system is more than compensated by the lift advantage gained by the hydraulic flight controls for OGE ops. The Raven II has a 24Volt electrical system which turned me off. It's hard enough in the bush finding 1 x charged 12 volt battery to get your helicopter going on a cold morning let alone having to find 2! CHOPPERBUG summed it up nicely - the Astro is the work horse of the R44 family, but damn those ravens are nice to fly!!

[Jonp]

My two penny's worth

I have an Astro, and have flown many Ravens, including clippers.

I think the Astro is a fine machine (I would say that), but a Raven is of course better, but you end up paying more.

The Astro needs to have the track and balance set up well, then she really flies well. I like, when possible to do this in conjunction with the engineers, and it typically takes a few hours to do properly. at £55 per hour, its worth investing in to get it right, and a 'OK' setup, compared with a 'well' setup machine makes them worlds apart. They fly really well when 'right'

The Electric cyclic trim also needs to be calibrated correctly, but again if done, you can get it pretty good. There is more feedback through the cyclic, and the is a slight sort of delay, over say an R22 or Hydraulic Raven, but you simply get used to it, like any difference in a machine. In normal forward flight, there are virtually no differences, and you spend more time doing this than anything else (unless you are Dennis Kenyon!). In the hover, and low level manouvering, like quickstops, pirouettes, etc, then the sligth heaviness, takes a little getting used to, especially in significant winds.

Having an Astro, you can tell the difference MAUW, which of course is slightly better. I haven't noticed the battery in the nose on the Raven that much and I weigh 75kg, which is quite light

Calendar over here in the UK is 2200 for both engine and airframe. There is an 'intermediate' 12 year calendar review you can do, which means stripping the whole machine apart, which I am led to believe is about £20-£25k, so if your TT hours are quite low, its worth doing.

Again, at the end of the day, its about finances. I couldn't afford a Raven, but was extremely happy with my Astro. If i had the money, of course I would go for the later machine, but then, I would also go for a turbine...

Set out your budget. Have a survey carried out and buy a good machine. ANY helicopter is wonderful, and buy within your price bracket.

The Astro is a very nice machine, if setup well.

Hope that helps.

Jonp

PS: If anyone wants a really nice Astro, mine is available today at £69,000 - that's cheaper than most R22's. ([email protected])

[andyhelo]

One main difference i find is, when the servos fail in the Astro, its a hard job to shift the cyclic. But when the hydraulics fail in the Raven, it becomes a nightmare! Its a small point, but valid i think!

[delta3]

I have flown the Astro / Raven I and now the II

As for as hydraulics is concerned the progress is noticable, and especially the Raven II flies really very smooth, and despite of some concerns (see other tracks), the II is faster AND more economic than the I, for the profiles I fly.

Of course does that make it worth the price difference, that will depend on the pricise differences and your priorities.

I agree that, without hydraulics things do not look so good. Recently a passenger hit the switch, and at first it really looks that controls are frozen.

The 24V, makes starting better, but as said creates some practical problems, even for some accesories that only work of 12V.

Finally as far as the battery location is concerned, I was told it depends on the instrument package and the resulting balance. Having it in the back makes jump starting a lot easier..

One other small point, flying light in turbulent weather in the II is more unpleasant, I think because of the greater rotor. That makes me take extra weight if relocating with little fuel and just 1 POB in turbulent weather (Mistral area).

d3

[VeeAny]

Andyhelo,

Having never flown any 44 other than an astro i don't know what the hydraulics are like, however i can confirm that a trim runaway at MAUW in an Astro makes for an interesting day. Trying to fly the cyclic with two hands is a bit disconcerting on finals.

Everyone i know who flys the hydraulic 44 loves them.

V.

[helicopter-redeye]

The original q was 'what is the difference between the Astro and the Raven'. Generally the answer is:-

1. Hydraulics (main)

2. Adjustable Rudder Pedals (RHS)

3. Cost (second)

4. Then for the Raven II, different engine, jump start points on the outside of the front console and some rotor variations to reduce noise.

However there were also hydraulic Astros ....

The Astro is also 'discontinued' so most will become Raven I series through rebuild by 2012.

I used to dislike the electric trim, but after 3 years solid flying the hydraulics, I flew a electric trim machine in Australia for a while and it didnt feel so different anymore.
#

h-r:)

[13snoopy]

Thank you to all the answers. Any more help/observations will be appreciated!

[wishtobflying]

You know, I was just thinking "Lu will jump in here any second ...... oh yeah" :( RIP Lu.

[rotorboater]

Calendar over here in the UK is 2200 for both engine and airframe. There is an 'intermediate' 12 year calendar review you can do, which means stripping the whole machine apart, which I am led to believe is about £20-£25k, so if your TT hours are quite low, its worth doing.

What sort of extension can you get? I can't find any details on Robinsons web site but would be interested to know more.

[anti-talk]

Johnp - can you pm me re your Astro please
Geoff

[jemax]

Hi all,

The 44 Astro I have been using was seeping a little of it's tail rotor gearbox oil, but nothing bad, had it checked and refilled yesterday and today it managed to vent nearly all the oil in 1.8 hours flying.

Engineers are a bit baffled, there is obviously a bit too much pressure in there for some reason, anyone experienced any similar problems?

Thanks

[jemax]

No definately not overfilled, yesterday, pre 1.8 hour flight and was refilled today and was still venting quite badly post 20 minute check flight, telatemp normal.

Also checked gearbox by hand post refill flight today and temp felt was normal.

Very little oil left post 1.8 hour flight even when the rear of the aircraft was lowered

Mystery continues?

[The Nr Fairy]

I can't help with the troubleshooting, but a critical component is leaking oil, and it's not known where the oil is going to. When will the aircraft next be flying, and will you be at the controls ?

[jemax]

Aircraft is at the engineering facility and won't be flown until this problem is thougly checked and resolved.

It's just that they have looked at it a couple of times and are a bit stumped and I wondered if anyone else had had a similar experience and could throw any light on the problem

[TiPwEiGhT]

Flew an Astro that other day for the first time in about 12 months, since then I have been flying a HYD Clipper.

To be honest I found no problems with it, jus the initial felling of the controls being "heavier".

Flown the R44 alot in the past few years and always enjoy it, the Raven's are great with the HYD's, but as previously mentioned they are a pain in the @rse without them, regular practice of HYD's off training is a good idea, just to be safe!

The R44 is a great machine 2 people up, with 4 (in a Clipper with the added bottle and cr@p) is becomes short on power and you got to be careful and not red line it!

Overall - I love it, use it every day and find it great for dotting my client around the country, next to the Jetranger!

Happy Flying,

TiP:cool:

[r44tropic]

Anyone out there have any ideas on this

I had a query by a client who spends alot of time in our 3 r44's regarding the doors and if we had to ditch or suffered a hard landing for whatever reason that the doors became jammed in some way can they be knocked out, (windows or breaking the hinges).

I hadn't though about it that much but the doors are flimsy particulary when you get clients even after they're breifed slamming them or putting to much weight on them.

cheers r44tropic

[Crieff-ite]

I was always taught that if you are going down over water, then one of your last drills was to open the latches, so you would not suffer this problem.
Nobody ever gave me an answer when I asked if you do the same over dry land and every auto to the ground that I have done, the doors have always remained closed.
Personally, over dry land, if it looked like it was going to be a pretty serious bump, then I have always thought that I would open the doors.

C.

[all stations sassie]

r44tropic, if you were over the water i would ensure to do a huet escape course...would be great insurance.

also r44tropic, i suppose clients never listen to what we say anyway on breifings....

[helicopter-redeye]

There's a bigger chance with a heavy landing of the damn things popping out than jamming ....

Have to be unlucky if all four jammed.

[r44tropic]

Actually the guy is huet trained and yeah he's heard all the breifings before, just ask him. A good point though is that the doors being flimsy enough would fail.

Creiff-ite i have also been taught that when ditching to unlatch doors, its in the manual, and i've never made a practice on opening the doors during an auto either

Im not considering getting myself into any situation that this could be a problem but the quesion was asked and why not put it out there for some feedback....

cheers

[bellfest]

As all stations said, do the huet, fact is it will save your life if you are ever unfortunate enough to need it. Overwater if I had the chance I would consider popping the door. Don't think I would over land though. A door on a gas strut in auto could open up other problems particularly if there are no split pins in an r22/44 door. The other thing to consider over water is the door damaging the floats on impact. Most other aircraft are a bit more solid in that area but I dont think an r22/44 door would stand in between me and the light to survival in an emergency.

[helimatt]

Dunno about you guys, but if I was in one of the front seats of a Robbo and I wanted out quick, my size 10 RM's would be kicking out that flimsy windscreen and I'd be straight out through the front. Push from the front, and the screens are as stong as you like, push from the inside and they pop straight out.

[bellfest]

Helimatt,
That depends on whether the engineers used silastic or proseal. I agree that neither would stop you though.

[helimatt]

Too true Bellfest

[belly tank]

We are looking at the possibility to purchase an Factory overhauled raven 1 , this particular machine used to be an astro. anyone had any experience with purchaseing factory overhauls compared to new.?..

we would be saving around $100k AUD this way, and im not really bothered if the machine doesnt have bubble windows or adjustable pedals etc.

we are flying punters around most of the time, with a bit of corporate and survey work as well.

any comments?

[chopperpug]

I can tell you from accidental experience that it doesn't take much to bust a side window on the 44. Only a size 9 shoe...not too much force..(Accidentally stepped on it once taken it off, got distracted by pax asking more of those dumb questions, had put it down to take other door off.....won't mention the fact that i was probably well past being adequately rested :) ) But just ask the engineers how much harder it is to put a new window in than bust the old one out... :} I wouldn't pop my doors in auto over land either....over water yes. Have also seen how easy the bubbles come out if given some encouragement.....
But since i spend all of my time with at least 2 of the 4 doors off, guess it doesn't really matter.... :p

[Hairyplane]

I know that this subject has been debated many times.

Whilst patiently waiting for my new R44 I have spent many hours researching this.

Accidents don't just happen to other people and I am well aware of my responsibilities to my innocent passengers, especially as the ink on my PPLH is still wet.

One report well worth reading is this one - a huge 115 pages.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf

Many of the accidents described find no reason why the main rotor struck the tail. One second everything is fine, the next...disaster and death.

Bird strikes have been mentioned and in one case bird debris has been found on a blade but still not cited as the most probable cause.

You don't need to be a scientist to understand that even a small bird hitting a rotor blade in the cruise will be a serious impact in view of the speeds involved.

The NTSB speak about wind tunnel testing. I can't find much on this specific subject.

Has this, for example ever involved the simulation of a heli in the cruise - possibly involving sets of run-out blades - and firing birds directly at the blades?

In the case of homicide, very sophisticated DNA technology is brought into play and positive results achieved with microscopic samples. I wonder if similar technology is used to examine rotor blades?

A bird strike could surely provide the very force necessary to distort a blade in such a sudden and devastating way, yet not necessarily leave evidence visible to the naked eye?

My guess is that this has all been specifically debated here many times but I am a relative newcomer.

Any help will be gratefully appreciated.

HP

[headsethair]

HP: some of your logic is a bit worrying. If a large bird hit the moving rotor of most light helicopters, the chances are that the damage to the rotor would end your day in any case - the tail strike would be supplementary.
Your worries are understandable - but think too deep and you'll question why you've bothered to order a helicopter.
Take the train of thought to its ultimate and realise that the human body was only ever designed to do 8 miles an hour.
What ? Leave the house ? Me?

Whilst you wait for your glorious machine, why not spend just a little more $$ by enrolling on the RHC safety course. Have a few days at Torrance. Do some great LA flying.

And relax.

"One second everything is fine, the next...disaster and death."....that's a bold statement to make. Are you sure that's what the evidence states ? Assuming these were non-survivable accidents, how could anyone possibly know what happened prior to the calamity ?

BTW: the report you've pointed us at is for R22 model.........I am not aware of any R44 tail strike NTSB reports.

[[email protected]]

Hairy - the usual reason the R22 blades hit the tail boom is due to negative (or just a sufficient reduction in positive) G.

A teetering head helicopter hangs underneath its rotor and tilting the rotor drags the fuselage along with it, be it in pitch or roll.

When the aircraft is subjected to negative (or reduced positive) G, the effective weight of the fuselage reduces (to zero at zero G) and the rotors can move wherever they like but the fuselage won't follow as the teetering head cannot exert any leverage on the fuselage (unlike on an articulated or semi-rigid rotor).

So the only thing producing any thrust that can affect the fuselage is the tail rotor. In a low G situation the pilot is more likely to make large cyclic control inputs (trying to control the attitude) which will have negligible effect until normal G is restored and this results in mast bumping or, in extremis blade contact with the tail boom.

And people wonder why I don't like Robinsons.

[The Nr Fairy]

crab:

Are you old enough to have trained on the Sioux ? Flown a Huey, or a Jet Ranger ?

Please - don't let your prejudice about one type colour your common sense about teetering heads - especially when it's not the aircraft, it is generally a low time pilot who comes to grief.

Good explanation, BTW.

[Gaseous]

the usual reason the R22 blades hit the tail boom is due to negative (or just a sufficient reduction in positive) G.

Don't forget low RRPM causing catastrophic 'blowback' of the rotor system after the carb ices up and the pilot doesn't get the pole down in time.

Not a problem for your new 44.

You have gone for an injected one, haven't you?

[Dis-Mystery of Lift]

I know a Pilot who took a Gannet thru the rotor of a MD520.Bit of a vibration as said Bird turned into mist.Landed no problem with blades and everything checked out at maint.Pretty big bird not to have caused a real problem...food for thought!!!:ok:

[3top]

Hairyplane,

most if not all tail strikes on a Robinson are induced by the pilot!

Wrong reaction to something:

# low-g
# imminent bird strike (mostly imagined)
# botched full touch down auto
# extrem overcontrol

Crab:
How many hours (or minutes?) do you have in Robinsons?

Your statement about low-g is only partial correct:

Though the helicopter will not react to control inputs when in zero or low g, the rotor is NOT free to do what it wants!
If you keep the cyclic centered it will stay parallel to the body just fine, the swashplate will keep the pitch where the pilot selects it and centrifugal force (or was it centripedal force?) keeps the blades in check with the mast.

Low g by itself is not the great killer either, it is actually (relatively) harmless, IF the pilot knows how to react when it is encountered.
The tail rotor induced roll is what makes non-aware pilots push to the left (in Robinsons and Bells), then, because of the low g nothing happens and they push, fast, hard to the limit - bang, mast bumping!
Roll to the right is just the start, it will also get the nose rather very low, of course now we are already scared ****less and smack the cyclic aft until it bends over the rear stop, just in time to have the rotor flex down enough to cut the tailboom!

Guess where they found out about it the first time:
Vientnam, with the all time favorite Huey!!
... when the Cobras came around they had allready figured out what the ***k is going on and how to avoid that part!!

So don't blame the R, just because you don't like it!
By the way there are a lot of Bell's getting trashed lately with LTE - speak " to weak a tail rotor on the bells!"
Also once you get Mast bumping on the Bell you don't worry about cutting your tail, you won't have a rotor to do that!
I'd rather take my chance in a Robinson!!

And yes I have time in R's (plenty!) and in Jet Rangers ( scant 60 hrs, but it was enough to show me its limits)

By the way the explanation of the low-g and teetering rotor movement didn't grow on my grey hair, but was shamelessly copied from THE man that teaches the Robinson Safety Course all over the world! (The man has around 16000 hours split between Bells, incl Hueys and Robinsons, he knows what he talks about!)

Hairyplane:

To the bird strike on the R-44.
We see them occasionally, mainly vultures and it is NO fun!
Never got one in the TR, lucky me!
Killed a couple of them with the MR though:

Worst case you have a shallow dent (no problem) somewhere on the blade. Generally the Robinson blade is VERY hard on the leading edge and takes the bird apart - tissue all over the helicopter, but that is it.

Vultures will take evasive action IF they feel/see you coming. Observe them and choose a course that will avoid impact, IF you can do so WITHOUT BIG INPUTS!!!
This will get you in big trouble, generally without even hitting the bird!!
IF you cannot avoid the bird, try to get the rotor between him and you, but again WITHOUT BIG INPUTS!!

The worst case is always if you don't see the birds and the strike comes through the bubble and hits you.
I saw this 2 times on the same helicopter (...most likely distracted pilot....), but he was lucky and he only got some vulture guts on his business suite and a new bubbles fixed the R-44.

Another guy in a Bell 206 was not that lucky 5 years ago, he got killed by the bird on impact and the 206 crashed, however most of the passengers survived with bruises and scratches.

Generally, just watch them, most birds never get close enough to do harm.
Most dangerous situations ( low g, extreme overcontrol) are caused by NOT necessary evasive manaeuvers!


You will be very happy with your 44!
Just do yourself a favor and afford a good high time instructor every now and then and have him do emergency training and advanced maneuvers with you!!

3top :cool:

[Hairyplane]

Hi Gaseous,

Yes it is injected.

Thank you all for useful and reassuring posts, especially HSH and 3T.

The R44 is a very impressive flying machine and I am indeed looking forward to flying my own machine very much.

I'm certainly not frightened to leave the house ( fixed wing pilot for 30 years etc.). However, life is full of risk. In the case of understanding and accepting the risks for ones innocent passengers I felt it prudent to study as hard as possible in order to make the best decisions.

In the case of the Robinson, so many accidents remain unexplained. This is the conclusion reached so many times by the NTSB for one.

Where else but on Forums such as these can I enjoy such a frank exchange with all that experience?!

Thanks a lot guys, it is appreciated. I hope more pilots will contribute too.

Hairyplane

[helicopter-redeye]

so many accidents remain unexplained

But can you locate any 44 accidents in the UK that end up 'unexplained'?

The primary cause has been (since '94) pilot error and especially I-IMC (incl at night and poor weather).

"The man (or woman) who masters met, masters life"

h-r:)

[C of G]

As a former full time flight instructor, I took a large interest in this publication, as the school I worked at was listed in two of the fatals. I had the opportunity to talk with the owner of the school about the incidents, as I was not employed at the time of the accidents. What was brought about in my talking has been shared very little and is obviously opinion, but does seem to make sense. I encourage any Robinson pilot to become familiar with this report and learn from it.

I hear a lot of discussion about the safety record of the Robinson and believe most accidents post '95 are more than likely due to pilot error, but the ones in this report are probably not, hence the need for the investigation. It has been argued that since the SFAR73 that the fatality rate has decreased significantly, which is true, but possibly misleading. At the same time it was found necessary by the FAA to issue AD 95-06-03. This may be the reason for the decrease in MR blade divergence. The info put out in the Safety course was not new by any stretch, and was being presented for years up to that point. Simply making it mandatory should not have the effect that most perpetuate. As any manufacturer would like you to believe, their product is not defective, and the problems associated must be with the operator, and residing in the US one could not accept blame and continue to do business what with all the lawyers around. As shown in the NTSB report, pilot error could not continue to be sited once there was audio recording that showed no obvious error in pilotage. It may be possible that the mast bolts being improperly installed could have caused an in-flight condition that would result in a negative pitch in the blades that would in turn, have the same result as a blade stall either coming through the cockpit or severing the tail boom. As a manufacturer it would not be prudent to point out a potential design flaw if you wanted to keep manufacturing helicopters or live in a house any longer.

Just my two cents.

[bladewashout]

I read the report last night. you can't see all those incidents without it raising concerns!

The report with the tape recording doesn't eliminate the possibility of an abrupt control input, eg. student reacts to a bird, rotors can impact in less than 2 revolutions, instructor is helpless.

The report does still allows for the possibility of a number of different scenarios adding up - a few low RPM stall with reaction times not quite met, a few turbulence or low-G, a few abrupt inputs.

The improved safety awareness by RHC has improved the safety massively which, to me, indicates that some of the incidents must have been due to these causes.

However, a few of the incidents were high time pilots in good conditions. As a low time pilot, it makes sobering reading, and I find it hard to believe that all 31 incidents were down to the pilot's actions (or inactions), but thousands of hours of research by accident have failed to turn up any fundamental problem.

It has to be a possibility that there is a flaw there, but far brighter minds than mine haven't turned it up.

BW

[[email protected]]

Nr Fairy - no, not that old and I don't have a blanket dislike of teetering head helis - just the Robinson.

3Top - 13 hours and one rollover in R22. No the rotor can't do what it wants - I meant to imply that it would go where the pilot put it in an attempt to control the attitude and to highlight that the fuselage will not respond until normal G is resumed.

A few years ago the R22 claimed the life of a guy who I believe had 9000 hours on them so I figured if it could do for him then I would just leave them alone

[3top]

Crab,

I am sorry about your friend. Any hint which accident that was?
Causes?
In case it was in an "unknown" helicopter, remember there are still plenty of "cowboy-R22s" out there with who knows how many hours!

"I meant to imply that it would go where the pilot put it in an attempt to control the attitude and to highlight that the fuselage will not respond until normal G is resumed."

That's why you have to keep the rotor (cylic) centered - you keep it with the body until the body is positve again, so it can react....

I am sorry for your experience in the R-22, but 13 hrs is not enough in a R-22. It is problably the one helicopter where you don't get away with a 5 hrs check-out.

It took me about 25 hrs until I got the autos down well....

Why your roll-over?

3top
:cool:

[[email protected]]

3top - I didn't know the guy who crashed but it was in Southern UK in the mid 90s operating out of Bournemouth if memory serves and it was an instructional sortie with a FW pilot who was converting to helis. Theirs was a tail boom strike (again if memory serves) and suspected to be negative G related.

Your suggested technique for centering the cyclic is a good one but I don't supoose there are many instructors willing to demonstrate it so few R22 students are likely to find out about it until it is too late.

As for the rollover, I re-learned a basic instructional lesson that it is always the best student that tries to kill you once you have relaxed - lowering the lever smartly when the Nr horn goes off is a good thing unless you are in a 5' hover over tussocky moorland which can trap a skid. Dynamic rollover here we come! It is the one occasion I have been thankful for a low-inertia rotor as the blades and engine stopped on impact.

I found the autos and EOLs straightforward using the same technique as on the Gazelle, just much quicker with a lower start height for the flare.

[DennisK]

As an aside to the very worthwhile contributions above, I'd have to say that there are very few recorded mast separations/boom strikes on the other piston types.

Certainly not a single one on the Enstrom marque in thrity-five years. It seems the consensus of pprune opinion is poor Robinson piloting.

One might ask why all these sub standard pilots are only queuing up to fly the Robinson type.

The Bournemouth fatal involved a major south coast operator and a highly type experienced instructor and good friend of mine. most of us know.

The Robinson safety course does seem to have broken the back of the early problems, but sadly, they are still occurring.

Going back to the other types, it hasn't yet been necessary to offer a specific safety course to keep them flying safely.

Can Dick Sanford offer us some sage words please.

Dennis Kenyon.

[Bosbefok]

The suggestion to maintain centred cyclic position in a low-G condition is dangerous and could, due to the extremely quick fuselage roll that develops, have catastrophic consequences. See Robinson Safety Notice SN-11 (issued Oct 82, Rev: Nov 00) in the back of the pilot's operating handbook, or follow this link.

http://www.helicopteros.com.br/sn11box.htm

[delta3]

This got to be a classic.

The topic of low G especially in connection with R22 has been many times covered. From a scientific view point I posted several months ago the results of a very deep mathematical model that shows what happens if G comes below 0,5 on a R44-I.
My conclusion : Trust the safety notice : first load the disk by the collective to give it any 'inertial' authority on the body before attempting to do anything with the cyclic.
My suggestion : avoid any low G in theetering rotors. Simple if that means to avoid pilot introduced low-G. A bit more complicated to deal with down-draft induced low-G's.

d3

[bladewashout]

Hopefully its just a typing error in the above:

first load the rotor disc using gentle aft cyclic (not collective), avoiding large cyclic movements.

the issue over low-G has been underlined to me since I started in R22 training, so any sensation of low G has immediate alarm bells ringing even if it's just a downdraft.

BW

[delta3]

I guess I was a little careless.

Loading the disk can be done in many ways. In case of a push over gentle aft cyclic if perhaps the best move (also stated in Robinson notices).
In the case of down draft it depends on what happened before an how it is anticipated. If I sense a down-draft (alarm bells as you say) I will have flared gently before with collective lowered (in updraft) this gives extra possibility to take collective up in the subsequent downdraft. No aft cyclic is needed in that case because of the previous flaring.

Low G happens in a number of patterns and may require different actions.

d3

[Gaseous]

My suggestion : avoid any low G in theetering rotors. Simple if that means to avoid pilot introduced low-G. A bit more complicated to deal with down-draft induced low-G's.

That's not very reassuring is it?

I don't do 'complicated', particularly when the consequences of getting it wrong are dire.

My Suggestion: Buy an articulated head with the rest of your aircraft.

[delta3]

Gaseous

I agree and while we are at it, not one of those good weather IFR machines but one with two engines and rotor de-ice etc... But then again we may not have the budget.

I did not do the math, but by numbers I thought theetering heads are in the majority, so we would have to do away with a lot of machines.


d3

[3top]

Certainly it is correct to apply SLIGHT aft cyclic, according to the POH of the Robinson.
Problem is this STILL will not do anything until the Helo gets some G-loading again in some way.
So if you have the witts NOT to move the cyclic erraticly from one extrem to the other, you should be able to hold the cyclic, SLIGHTLY aft of center.
Once the right roll starts, the disc will also roll right.
Once you have some angle there your rotor will be able to pull some load in the resulting turn, THATS where the SLIGHT aft cyclic starts to work!
However if you kept pulling constantly this might also result in some impressively high RRPM, when recovering from the rather steep dive!
Remember that tail is still rising above you by inertia!

As mentioned before, best to avoid the whole thing, which implies that you know what you do in the first place!

You still can wring out the R brand (having fun, in other words), just know what you do.
I was lucky as THE man from the Safety Course had mercy with me and showed me a Low-g roll! Generally this was abandoned, as some low-time instructors ( being generally happy to stay in the air at all....) started to"demo" low-g on their first time out with a student after the Safety Course and didn't "do it right" - ending up mostly dead!
Actually no low-g is no big deal, once you know it!
Just like retreading blade stall, BUT you must know what you can expect when you approach these limits!
NEVER practise zero-g myself, nor do I show it to students. I do approachLOW-g though very carefully, but abort when I start to feel the G's disappearing!
Never let that nose go low!! BUT this serves to show how to avoid it by turning, thinking ahead, getting familiar with the feels when you approach the damn thing!

3top:cool:

[chopperpilot47]

Mast bumping has been mentioned as almost generic to teetering rotors. I really don't think so. Look at the yoke on a Bell 47 for example. It is so large that there is no way it could possibly touch the mast. You simply don't hear of mast bumping in anything but the Robinson.
Regards,

Chopperpilot 47

[The Nr Fairy]

I think the point is that ALL teetering heads are susceptible to mast bumping, given the right conditions.

An AAIB report from 1997 (here (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_500156.pdf) ) which was inconclusive, but pointed to mast bumping, the head and blades having separated from the mast.

[rotorfossil]

Years of teaching and examining in Robinsons convinces me that whereas tailboom strikes have undoubtedly occurred due to the low 'g' scenario, and in two cases, probably when the phenomenon was being demonstrated, this is not the main initiator. In my view the sequence is almost invariably- loss of power, "what the hell is that", lowering the collective far too late (if at all) and too slowly. Result - rotor stall, rotor blowback, chop tail off - die. I am further convinced that the main reason for the loss of power (and the lack of evidence) is almost always down to carb icing due to incorrect handling of the carb heat. Under pressure, this aspect of handling seems to be the item that is most neglected, exacerbated by over reliance on the carb heat assist, the governor masking the power loss and the fact that helicopter engines without the benefit of a prop, quit running more suddenly and with less warning. Answer - GET THE LEVER DOWN BLOODY QUICK if it all goes quiet. If you wait to say "O Christ", you can't lower it too quickly.

[killahertz]

hi,
a group of us are about to place an order for a rob 44 raven 2 very soon,its for private use only. any advice on what (if any) extra's to load the ship with? there are plenty to choose from on the options list.am sure there are many expierenced piots/operators that would have some CONSTRUCTIVE advice.

thanks,
kh

[float test]

go an order one from mike smith at heliair, he will tell you everything you will need to know

[blave]

Having just flown a Raven I across the US, I found the GNS530 to be a tremendous help. It's hard to consult a paper map all of the time while sticking a helo around, and just having the various types of airspace (military, restricted, etc.) represented on the screen was very handy.

The 530 *is* a bit of overkill since it's an IFR approach GPS, but (if you get the full IFR panel) then the ship could be used for GPS approach training.

I personally also think that a helicopter should have an attitude indicator, just in case things go pear-shaped wx-wize too quickly. The high-timers might disagree with this assertion, but if I'm ever fortunate enough to buy my own ship I'll be looking for one with an AI, or else put one in.

Dave Blevins

[helicopter-redeye]

Order the machine with a ten hole panel (these can be fitted to standard machines now) 'just in case' you want more holes later.

Garmin 430 (nav/ com) + a Bendix King KX165 with glideslope (just in case for later). This gives you two radios and two sets of nav boxes for NDB and VOR/LOC/ GS.

If you feel like spending money fit a Bendix King HSI for radio navigation use. If getting a VOR/LOC to go with the KX165 get a VOR/LOC/GS indicator instead (just in case)

As a backup and etc fit a Skymap IIIC Topo on the panel top.

Fit an ELT for overwater use out of Eire ...

.. and four point front belts for the harness.

.. and a spare eyeball (to spot jets) and monkey chow (sorry, dropped into Buzz Lightyear speak then, you have to know the film to appreciate the point) ...

h-r:)

[killahertz]

folks,
thanks for the help, lots there to consider but all very usefull.

thanks again.
kh

[Hairyplane]

The onset of carb icing is likley to be masked initially by the governor compensating for power loss by automatically opening the throttle.

The flywheel effect achieved with a propeller bolted to the engine will give you plenty of warning of ice-induced power loss. The prop will also continue to turn the engine for you while you finally decide what has happened, pull the carb heat out, leave it out and hope that the think will pick up again.In the heli we dont have this comfort, it will likely quit without warning.

I enjoyed the R22 and found myself using more heat than necessary. However, I would rather suffer a slight power loss and excessive fuel consumption than risk engine failure through carb icing.

I have found the contributions here very useful indeed thank you and feel more confident as a result.

I hope to be flying my new Raven 2 within the next couple of weeks and plan to be very, very careful with it.

HP

[bladewashout]

With your nice R44 raven II, you have fuel injection and no carb icing to worry about (unless you are very unlucky and get inlet icing!)

I am lightweight, 135lbs and find that solo I am often pulling only about 19" MAP. I tend to keep the carb heat on most of the time unless I know I am going to be cruising fast.

I am also paranoid and am trying to keep ingrained a habit of reaching down to pull up more heat every time I am making speed or power changes downwards, or look at the gauge and see it at sub 20".

I did read once that excessive use of carb heat can cause detonation, but I'm not sure that it is a problem in UK temperatures.

BW

[muffin]

Most of my rotary flying has been in R22 Betas without carb heat assist. Since I got my Beta 2 a few months ago, I have found the heat assist to be a nuisance. I monitor the temp very closely and always keep it over 10 deg. However, I find that with the assist function I am always having to pull the heat out some more. I know that you can flick the catch over and lock it out but have not done so. Increased fuel consumption is a very small negative considering the amount of money we are all burning anyway.

Could some of the experts comment on the benefits/disadvantages of leaving the heat full on all the time?

I also have a small Rotax engined kitplane which has its cooling water ducted round a jacket on the carb throat, thus heating the carb body all the time. This works a treat. No hot water in an R22 unfortunately!

[Gaseous]

Hi Muff.

The detonation thing is a myth.
Probably put about by the ill informed thinking that hotter induction means hotter combustion.
Not so. According to Lycoming, hot air will push the mixture even richer than it normally is which will lower the combustion temperature, pushing the engine away from the detonation zone. Your Robbie runs a mile away from detonation anyway unless you run on mogas or mess with the mixture which I know you dont, dont worry about it. The only downside to too much carb heat is the lowering of maximum available power. According to Lycoming, 15% power loss using full carb heat is possible. This may be a problem in your R22 with a fat pax and lots of fuel.
Keep working that carb heat knob.
Incidently, I agree. The Carb heat assist is worse than useless.

Cheers,

Phil

Edit: Lycoming do warn about detonation when using carb heat on LEANED engines.

They also say that in the cruise using full carb heat and a suitably monitored engine, detonation was never detected in their flight tests.

[Hairyplane]

I was very nervous of the carb heat assist on some of my training 22's and tended to pull more.

I can't imagine a problem with excessive carb heat other than coming into the hover at high weights/ Density Altitude and forgetting to push the heat back in.

I was taught to push it in at around 300ft but felt more comfortable doing so much later, for reasons that should seem obvious to any operator of normaly aspirated engines.

Constant hot air is nothing new - I have Gipsy powered vintage fixed wing machines that operate in hot air at all throttle settings other than fully open - never a carb ice problem or even consideration in normal use.

Mixture - I cant imagine anyone leaning the mixture on a heli and feeling happy about it.

To lean an engine properly requires the pilot to find the 'lean of peak' setting. Whilst this will cause an engine driving a propeller to just splutter and cough it will stop a Robbo engine dead.

Touching the mixture is therefore tempting fate?

Happy with my choice of injected Raven 2 (despite not really needing the extra performance and having to cough up an extra $50k over the Raven 1...)

Hairyplane.

[Gaseous]

Hi H,
I have written loads on mixture/leaning in the past.

Mixture adjustment is standard procedure on suitably equipped Enstroms and I always lean. Usually to 80-90 degrees lean of peak. Although this degree of leaning is outside the POH advisory limit, it it the best way to run a Lycoming. The injection system on my aircraft had to have a lot of work to get it to run smoothly at this mixture but it is now dead smooth to 100 degrees lean. If you go too far there is an increasing roughness and power loss way before the engine cuts dead - and yes I have done it.

On the contrary I don't feel happy running full rich. it wastes fuel, makes the engine run hot and clogs up the valve guides with crap. Cockpit carbon monoxide levels drop from 30 ppm to zero when lean. (I carry a digital detector) Fuel consumption drops from 14 to 10 usg/hour. A useful increase in range.

Running a carb Robbie lean is not possible as the mixture distribution is too poor. The injected Raven is ideal to run lean but unfortunately is not suitably equipped and you aren't going to get approval to modify it. You have no choice but to run full rich.

The risk with leaning is the brainstorm that makes you pull the knob when you want to go full rich. The silence is such a surprise and yes, I have done that as well, followed by an airborne restart.

Proper leaning and engine management of a piston heli is certainly possible but is not for the feint hearted or inexperienced.

Get it wrong and you will destroy your engine. Get it right and it turns the Lycoming into just about the most fuel efficient gasoline piston engine on the planet including modern automotive designs.

Quite a few Ppruners have flown with me and non have asked to get out when I do the lean bit.

[Hairyplane]

Hi Gaseous,

Interesting stuff.

Without any reliable method to find 'lean of peak' I'll leave well alone and guess that most heli pilots will do the same.

The prospect of wrecking the engine ( at least) just to save a few quid doesn't gel with me. Also, whilst I accept that these engines run too rich I dont believe that there is any risk of long term damage to anything other than the plugs

I have an EDM700 in my Robin 180 ( Lycoming 360) with a 'lean find' mode. In the early days I used to go through the 'lean find' exercise only to find that the optimum setting for anything below 5000ft was pretty much full rich anyway so I dont bother now.

At 500 hours from new the engine is as sweet as the day I took delivery of the aircraft.

I am also very happy with the 40 litres per hour it burns. 'Saving a tenner' on a long trip has too many downsides for me. The heli is a whole new ball game with sudden engine failure likely to be the first indication that you pulled the knob out too far.

Happy to accept your reasons and logic - it just isnt for me ( especially with only 46 hours tt in my heli logbook).

All the best and thanks again for the fascinating posts. As a newbie I have found them extremely helpful.


Hairyplane

[Gaseous]

Hi H,
Enstroms are equipped with graphic engine monitors with EGT sensors which make it feasable to run lean. You are quite right that without this, and vernier mixture adjustment, and experience, and training leaning should not be attempted.

In terms of engine life, Enstroms seldom make TBO as most pilots do not run them at optimum mixtures. (in my opinion). Often they do not make more than 400 hours without a top end overhaul!!

A correctly managed engine will last longer than one thats run full rich all the time. As likely as not it will do 1500 lean hours no problem.

Full rich, valve gear is usually first to fail due to stem fouling. Bearing loads are higher when full rich and oil contamination is worse. Temperatures are hotter. All these things shorten engine life.

All that said, without the right equipment, training and experience, DO NOT mess with the mixture.

I wouldn't lean a Robbie either.

Your Robin lean find technique is probably not ideal. You need to be on the other side of peak. Check out John Deakins 'Pelicans perch' writings on AVweb. Maybe your Robin's mixture distribution is too poor to run lean. That can happen, even with injection.

Its not just about saving a tenner. It also allows my helicopter a 30% increase in range or an increase in payload by not needing extra fuel, which is worth more than money, as well as all the other benefits.

Sudden engine engine failure is not an issue with a vernier mixture adjustment as if you do go too far, the heli will warn you in good time by increasing roughness and gradual power loss with yaw. You just bang the mixture back to rich and do it again.

Cheers

Phil

[qwerty300]

A pilot reports a governor runaway on a R44.
During the resulting overspeed inspections, no damage was found (thankfully!). However, when the magnetos were stripped several of the points on the right-hand magneto were in a very sorry state, one in particular, and so have been replaced.

Question is, would this have caused the governor overspeed? :confused:

[bladewashout]

As I understand it, the governor works off the magneto so if it detects a lower rate of output signals than it expects, it will increase the throttle to compensate.

A faulty magneto contact may not generate a signal, hence yes, it could be the cause.

BW

[Mongrel Dog]

qwerty: Yep both mags have two sets of points. The second set in the LH mag retards the timing for starting and the RH mag has the tacho points which is one of the inputs into the governer controller. If these points close up the gov won't work.

quindici: I've never seen anyone try to repair a damaged stabilizer, but I expect a decent sheety would be able to give it a good dab. Easier to replace in my opinion. The upper and lower vertical stabs unbolt and remove and the horizontal one can be replaced individually. Expect to pay a rediculous price. Can look it up on Monday if you like and let you know.

[helicopter-redeye]

It will be a while before its looked at, in the meantime to satisfy depressive curiosity are these generally non-repairable parts

Correct, it is non repairable (if you want to buy a bust one I have one in the garage ...)

The whole Horizontal tail stab to replace in the UK is :-

To Remove Stabiliser Assy, Dismantle, Inspect and Reassemble with New Horizontal Stabiliser £ 170.00
To Paint Strip Crack, Check and Repaint as Required £ 170.00

Time Spent to Travel to Sheffield Airport and Inspect & Return

2 Hrs + 50 miles @ .42p/mile £ 106.00

Cost of new Stabilizer & Hardware £ 1,495.88

This includes and engineer driving 40 miles rtd to inspect and patch up the ripped end before the machine was flown into maintenance.

The cost of the parts and labour were not the issue. It was the month it took to get the parts from RHC during peak flying time (total revenue loss £5800) and then the time spent arguing with a certain airport to get them to pay up for the damage they caused.

In the end we reclaimed the cost of the work and parts, and consequential loss and recalimed all based charges paid while out of action and off site (all thanks to AOPA who helped).

So if you bust it you have the cost. If somebody else did it then you know the drill ....

h-r :)

[WLM]

We have a Raven I with 900 hours TT. I got a new canopy cover made about 6 months ago using the old one as original pattern. A few weeks ago I noticed a few spots (small bubble type) showing up on the bottom of the doors. Now it is all over the front and side of the aircraft, looking like a type of white chicken pox... Pierced one bubble expecting to see water maybe but nothing. SO is this a result of high condensation under the canopy cover (Tropical Moonson weather) or simply a case of faulty factory painting? Has anybody else experienced it?:(

[Gaseous]

I have seen this before . Usually due to contamination of the prepared surface before the paint is applied.(see the dirty blade thread about the evils of silicone polish) Occasionally it is due to incompatible paint chemistry but this should not be a problem with a new aircraft!

Is it just paint or is the gel coat blistered? I have also seen this happen and is again a production fault.

Covering paint with a canopy will not harm it if it is properly applied, however hot, wet or cold it is.

You imply it has not been resprayed so Robinson is responsible. I bet they try to blame you though.

[eurorobell]

Has anyone experienced their R44 Clipper ( pop out equipped ) go through periods of smooth to buppy flight (vertical bounce) this is the second clipper I have had experienced with and they both seem to change considerably with weight, if the ship is tracked at a certain weight it seems to be way out at the opposite weight. From what others say it seems to be the floats as the only cause. Any thoughts?:)

[headsethair]

Most Raven IIs have an 80 kt flutter....it can be tuned out to beyond your speed range on a clipper. Ask your maint people to do a track and balance and shift the vibration up to 120kts. A clipper never sees that speed.

[WLM]

Gaseous
No it has not been re sprayed and from what I can see it is only the top layer of the paint that's bubbling. Yeah I don't think I'll get much joy from Robinson but I'll try.

The 80 Kt fluffer, well we have had this on our Raven I since new, despite numerous track n balance. It gets worse when heavy...

Cheers

[delta3]

A while ago, I stumbled over a weird condition/prediction of my R44-simulator.

When very light (f.ex. little fuel, 1POB), it takes more power to achieve high speeds.

Could be an error, but I can't seem to find it, so I tried to explain it.
I came up with the following possible explanation:

At light weight the trust vector is smaller. To achieve a speed, the drag forces are relatively unsensitive to weight, resulting in essentially the same needed forward force to achieve a speed.
In the case of light weight, and the resulting lower trust vector this requires the rotor disk to be tillted more forward than when heavy. At some point the forward tilt gets so great that it reduces rotor efficiency because transversal flow increases too much, requiring a lot of power to achieve this smaller trust. The rotary wing becomes an inefficient propeller so to speak.

I tried this out on a R44-I and II, and feel that with 2 POB, little fuel it is indeed faster than with 1 POB. Anyone care to comment ?


d3

[Hangar3]

Doesn't Induced Lift and Drag change with weight???

The induced drag curve moves to the right with increase weight and left with reduced weight. Parasite and Profile drag don´t change much in relation to weight. This will effect the Overall Power required curve, this will mean more power is requied for less weight at the same speed.........:ok:

[Wunper]

WLM

What you have described is a Chordwise mass discrepancy on your main rotor.

The twist of the blades as a function of power (blade coning) is controlled by chordwise mounted tip weights (tracking weights) if they are at odds you can only tune the rotor to be good for a narrow AUM range using pitch link and tab corrections.

If you want to cure it you may have to get the blades reweighed and checked for spanwise and especially chordwise CofG , there will be a tolerance on the figures and I suspect you will have two blades on opposite ends of the tolerance. Has one of your blades been repaired I wonder?

Here's a post I did earlier describing how the effect is used to control the track and vibes on a Bell 412

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1560419#post1560419


Cheers

W

[r44tropic]

Our company is looking at getting rid of our old hooks on our r44's for the latest and greatest on the market.

Any bad stories with with equipment or any recommendations would be much appreciated.

We've heard all the hype about Onboard systems so they must have a good product but outlaying for a few r44's adds up so all feedback adds up

cheers tropic

[WLM]

Wunper: Thanks for the info. I posted 2 days ago but for some reason it is showing up. Anyway will show your info to our engineers

R44Tropic: I asked the same question about 5 weeks ago but did not get any reply :confused: may be it is not a popular aircraft type to sling with in the Northern Hemisphere.... Let see what happens this time around

WLM

Oops typo error...meant to say posting did not show up :O

[r44tropic]

wlm cheers.

mate we have regular sling jobs here. we're actually prefered to our opposition cause they're using jetrangers.

Our clients would rather take a couple of trips slinging gear than using them mainly due to our personel with much smaller ego's

tropic

[WLM]

Gday mate
Now what sort of hook system you're using at the moment? any mirror installation on the R44 or just head out? What can you comfortably lift?
I did my sling endorsement in a B47 then slinged with the Jety but I don't have the big ego..... Been flying a R44 Raven for the last 2 years in the jungle, and need to reposition 44 gallons drums so I thought a hook and 1 drum at a time for short distance would be ok? 2 would be pushing it :p
Also the NZ company selling the R44 pods seemed to have a hook rep contact, but I'm still waiting
Cheers
WLM

[helicopter-redeye]

The poor CFI got a shock this morning with sudden significant vibration from the rotor head.

The description of the event is:-

Start and airtaxi, nothing out of the ordinary.

Significant vibration starts in the climb, occured intermittent downwind and to land. Continues in air taxi back to the stand.

Vibration felt throughout the aircraft but INTERMITTENT, and tending to occur during pitch changes (hence more during air taxi).

Described as "like flying in high wind condition" but wind was under 5kts.

Examiner who flew it last, describes slight mis tracking on the main blades.

Engineer has a view on potential cause.

Aircraft had annual 7hrs ago. No known defects and nothing obvious (or not obvious) in a visual and 'manual' inspection after the incident. No leaks, cracks in the blade, dents, loose transmission parts, tail rotor still attached.

H-R interested to hear if other people have experienced rotor head vibration in a 44 and the cause.

Discuss

h-r :{ (who has turned blue at the chill of the cost..)

[peachpilot]

it's up to you Mr Robinson, the Jesus bolt loves you more than you should know....la la la la.......;)

[float test]

Anybody interested in an R44 1/4 share based in Manchester area.

30K plus vat Astro with 1200 hours 5 years to run

If so PM me

[Flingwing207]

The poor CFI got a shock this morning with sudden significant vibration from the rotor head.
The description of the event is:-
Start and airtaxi, nothing out of the ordinary.
Significant vibration starts in the climb, occured intermittent downwind and to land. Continues in air taxi back to the stand.
Vibration felt throughout the aircraft but INTERMITTENT, and tending to occur during pitch changes (hence more during air taxi).
Described as "like flying in high wind condition" but wind was under 5kts.
Examiner who flew it last, describes slight mis tracking on the main blades.
Engineer has a view on potential cause.
Aircraft had annual 7hrs ago. No known defects and nothing obvious (or not obvious) in a visual and 'manual' inspection after the incident. No leaks, cracks in the blade, dents, loose transmission parts, tail rotor still attached.
H-R interested to hear if other people have experienced rotor head vibration in a 44 and the cause.
Discuss
h-r :{ (who has turned blue at the chill of the cost..)The most common cause in the Robinson for sudden new vibration as you describe is a rotor overspeed.

[bigruss]

R44 Airconditioning
Can anyone tell me how the Aircond. 44's perform. I wonder if the compressor cuts out under max power, that sort of thing and most importantly dose the air con work good.

[overpitched]

Redeye and 207.

If I was flying any Robinson that developed sudden rotor vibration I would be on the ground FAST. Have a read of the report...http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/AAIR/aair200302820.aspx

[Johe02]

Yep, aircon cuts out when max power required. .

[helicopter-redeye]

Overpitched.

The person flying was on the ground rather quick.

Was checked by certified engineers (note plural). Head de-ass. Blades off and checked; MR and TR tracked and balanced; hydraulics taken apart.

Nothing found.

May have been some ice build up as it was a cold day and early morning, but like all icematters, now we shall never know ..

[Bitmonx]

HR. I experienced such a vibration in an R44 some time ago. The cause was worn out teeter bearings. The journals that fit into the teflon couted bearings were also damaged since the journals grinded it way into the hub itself :uhoh: Unfortunately I was not flying this particular bird enough to catch the wear early on the bearings. I believe the bearings have since been changed by Robinson because this was a common problem from operators that are pulling lots of torque when slinging. Go to your helicopter and carefully inspect the teeter bolt trust washers. If there is any bearing material missing between the hub and the truet washers your M/R Hub need to have it's bearings changed including the journals....
Good luck

[Hairyplane]

Hi Flingwing,

I am an owner/ operator of a new Raven 2.

What damage is done in a rotor overspeed? What sort of cost is involved in putting it right?

Is the R44 designed to withstand the occasional mismanagement of the controls eg not being quick enough on the collective in the auto or mishandling the throttle?

My machine is not used for training or hire but I do expect to let others fly it occasionaly, hence the question. If the risks of accident/ high rectification costs are too great I'l keep it all to myself!

Hairyplane

[Bitmonx]

If your rotor overspeeds, there is danger of your T/R drive shaft beeing bent. The bearing inside of the tail boom can dampen only up to a certain RRPM. Unfortunately I have no longer access to a R44 Maintenance manual where everything would be explained in detail. I think up to a certain RRPM (I believe it is if your RRPM goes into the upper red arc of your rotor tach) overspeed all that has to be done is do a T/R drive shaft runout. Obvious there are limits on how much runout there can be and if too much the drive shaft will have to be replaced. In a major RRPM overspeed (I believe this is if the RRPM exceeds the upper red arc on your rotor tach) you will have to replace the T/R drive shaft. As i remember right, there is also in a major overspeed a requirement to dye check the rotor blade spindle for cracks and the M/R bolts have to be replaced as well. In a minor engine overspeed the A&P will have to drain all engine oil and check the sump filter and the sucktion screen filter for metal (I highly recommend an oil filter system from Airwolf, but Robinson offers that as well but I have not seen one nor do I know if it is just as good). In a major engine overspeed, send your Lycoming back for overhaul :ouch:
Hopefully this helps a little. The R44 is handling the rotor speed much better that the R22. The R44 gives a pilot more time to react to rotor speed climb and or decay.

Cheers,
Bitmonx

[Hairyplane]

Thanks for that.

Obviously these things dont always get reported do they?! Are checks for overspeed routinely done? At what intervals? Is the tail rotor shaft checked for runout at intervals? Has there ever been an R44 failure attributable to overspeed?

Hairyplane

[Flingwing207]

Thanks for that.
Obviously these things dont always get reported do they?!CorrectAre checks for overspeed routinely done? At what intervals? Is the tail rotor shaft checked for runout at intervals?That's up to the owner/operator, otherwise only at the 600-hour and/or Annual.Has there ever been an R44 failure attributable to overspeed?Not that I've read, but it could have happened.
In a rotor overspeed, one area of the Robinson rotorhead that takes damage is the spindles and bearings in the pitch housings - the centrifugal force causes the bearings to make "dents" in the spindle races, causing mistracking and vibration. It can also cause the aforementioned T/R driveshaft damage. If RRPM exceeds a certain percent, the main rotor blades must be replaced. If the engine is also involved, an overspeed might mean a mandatory engine rebuild (depending on how high the RPM went).
All this horror story stuff being said, generally the only way (outside of malfunction or blatent abuse) to get an overspeed is when practicing autorotations or performing rapid decelerations. Engine overspeeds are also possible on startup, but on the whole seem fairly rare, with overspeed-related engine failures rarer still.
To be honest, I'd be more worried about folks exceeding MP limits in cruise or exceeding max gross - both are easy to do, especially in the Raven II, which has plenty of power to allow both. Obviously, as soon as your helicopter is out of your sight, you can't know what is happening to it, but as long as the folks flying it can be trusted not to practice autorotations and quick-stops, and are well-trained in general, the aircraft should be fine.

[Hairyplane]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to explain it.

What sort of RRPM could be achieved with the lever flat to the floor immediately prior to take off and then opening the throttle further against the spring? ie the sort of thing somebody used to a manual throttle might inadvertently do?

My guess is that this sort of thing is done routinely on certification tests?

I'm thinking I should never let the thing out of my sight. My R44 will be the best one on the market in 3-4 years ish!

Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

Hairyplane

[tangovictor]

I wonder why the R44 / R22 don't have a warning light, to indicate RRPM, one that has to be reset by an authorised mechanic, I doubt it would cost much.
TV

[rotorboater]

R44 Share

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody interested in an R44 1/4 share based in Manchester area.

30K plus vat Astro with 1200 hours 5 years to run

If so PM me

FLOAT TEST - Send me a PM, I might be interested
Thanks

[rotorboater]

Sorry for posting this but the search isn't working again!

Recently someone posted a formula for working out the value of a 44 & a 22 based on hours/years left and I would be very interested to see it again.

Whilst I am on, does anyone know a reasonable value for a time ex 44 and the rebuild cost?

Thanks RB

[havoc]

Stumbled upon this site, thought maybe it would be of interest here
http://www.showcopter.com/photo_gallery.htm

[jc1234]

I have been looking at this recently and can confirm what i have been told

R22 Hull value £20,000.00

Allow £40 per hour

So machine with 1000 hour left 40 x 1000 = £40k + £20K hull = £60k

R44 Hull Value £38,000.00

Allow £60 per hour

this is basically what a dealer with give you for the aircraft if your buying you will need to add a bit

[Hairyplane]

SO my 50 hour from new Raven 2 is worth IRO £180K?

Blimey, I should have bought a secondhand one....

Hairy

[rotorboater]

SO my 50 hour from new Raven 2 is worth IRO £180K?

I have just done a spreadshet of the costs of owning a new 44 and only doing 50 hrs a year and it comes out at £978 per hour if you have borrowed the money to buy it!

[Hairyplane]

It arrived on November 3rd 05........

I would have flown it more had I not set myself some fairly conservative weather limitations in line with the still-wet ink on my licence.

I cant imagine anybody buying a new heli, only to fly it for 50 hours a year.

For those who have yet to have a go in one - be prepared to want one very badly. If you do buy one, try and keep your backside out of it on a good day.

If anybody might want a 600 hour 'never used for training' machine in 08, I'll keep a note. I would probably look to trade it then for a new one.

Hairy

[WLM]

We have been trying to find a suitable HF for our R44 for over 12 months now without luck. Can other operators share their knowledge on this matter?
Thanks
WLM :)

[quickstop205]

A radio that my be suitable is the QMAC HF manufactured in Australia. They did have a version that was aviation approved. Look at www.qmac.com (http://www.qmac.com) for versions. Hope this helps

[up and go]

WLM ...would that be for use in SE Asia?
PM me ..

[MBJ]

King used to make a very good one which I used on a 350 but it had a wire antenna around the side and rear of the aircraft which is not a great idea if it breaks free. You couldn't certificate that arrangememnt in the UK but that may have changed with the EASA thing. However, I've never known one of the whip type antennas that stick out in front of the aircraft be much good because tuning was always an issue.

How about a small satphone as an alternative?

[chopperchav]

Just enquiring about what all you R44 owners out there would expect to pay for a 100 hour service. My bill was £2.5k 2 of which was on labour alone. This was on a R44 raven 2 with approx. seventy hours on clock.
Are my pants dangling around my ankles or is this fair value (if such a thing exists in the delightful world of helicopter ownership).

[22clipper]

Does anyone have any experience with range extender tanks for R44s? Especially interested in commercially avalailable gear as opposed to home brewed systems.

[Mikeb]

That bill sounds a bit excessive. Was it just a regular 100hr or were there problems with the machine?
I found the maintenance cost per hour on the 44 to be lower than the 22. Much less unscheduled maintenance on the 44. With only 70hrs on the clock I would of thought that any unscheduled work should be covered by warranty.

A lot of maintenance organisations publish a price guide on each job i.e. 50hr, 100hr and annual. I found that if I gave them a hard time and told them not to do any work above the price guide without my approval the bills seemed to get smaller. Also mentioning other maintenance companies seemed to control the bills.

I think your pants are well and truly around your ankles........

[cpt hobbs]

I am thinkning of buying a R44 Raven 2 to operate sight seeing tours, air taxi and photo trips (and power boat racing coverage). Temperatures will reach up to 50C !! altitude is sealevel. If you have experience in the 44 could you advise me on its performance and if it would be a good machine to do the job? is the 2 that much better than the 1 model? Thanks for your words in advance, all posts more than welcome. cheers.

[Bitmonx]

I believe this will be out of temp. range for most helicopters? It will definatly be hard to cool the oil in a recip. engine with 50 Deg. Cels. air.

[cpt hobbs]

good point, i have taken this over temp into consideration as the temp will be 40+ for 2-3 months of the year. I could ground the craft for this period and take the hit in loss of turnover. a 206 might be an option but was attracted by the lower running costs of the 44. keep posts comming, any ideas or thoughts are welcome.

[helicopter-redeye]

Raven II 100hr check (not annual/ non star) £722 + Vat (ex consumables).

Depends who you buy from ...

h-r;)

[rotorfossil]

From the earliest to the latest R44's, I can't say in the real world that I have noticed a great difference in performance. The good news is that the MAUW has gone up, but so has the empty weight. If you fit the pop out float kit, you take quite a hit on payload and it isn't realistically a four person helicopter any more over any sort of range. Offhand I think the performance graphs stop at 40degC. I think you can now get air con, but I hate to think what that would do to payload in addition to the pop outs. Good luck!

[i4iq]

ChopperChav

Why not post the itemised bill and ask others for an opinion based on that?

[Galapagos]

I have flown the Astro, Raven and Raven II and find that there is a big difference between the the two Ravens... big difference!

The II has different MR ant TR blades and is faster, smoother, quieter and will autorotate like a Long Ranger! The new fuel injected engine is far ahead of the carburated model especially when hot and high becomes a factor in terms of performance. Fuel efficiency is also better. Starts like a charm... way better in hot conditions when engine is warm and will not give you the same grief as the carb engine when the temp is in the minus... may be not a problem for you. Starter on collective to facilitate engine restart in flight... just in case!

A/C is available and is not that heavy. Definetly wouldn't use it for take off and landing so power available would not really be affected if only used in cruise or on the ground. I have flown in 42c between 2500' and 5000' for a day and the RRPM was as solid as can be and the machine felt like a turbine more than a piston. Oil temp was definitely at the higher end of the green but never had a problem. Didn't hover much, though.

The GW is 2500 instead of 2400... not negligeable for a light machine.

New 28v electrical system... finally!

It is definitely a better all around aircraft and think that it became what the 44 was meant to be.

Really nice aircraft to fly. I would advise you on getting the Raven II if you do get a 44. The difference in price is negligeable when you're behind the controls day in day out... believe me.

G

[cpt hobbs]

a big thank you Galapagos,
interesting hearing what you have to say about the differences and i will take it all into account. your reply is greatly appreciated. think the price difference is $50k which isnt much when split over 2200 hours considering the benefits of operating the 2. Think the A/C would be a must espescially approaching the hotter part of the year. the added speed would be a bonus as the power boats are approaching 130 mph these days!!\ if any one has any advice on operation of the 44 during taxi ops or filming please add comment. again thanks G and all the best.

[Head Turner]

Have you considered a FH1100

[Hangar3]

I think the Raven I is better. Raven II has better performance at altitude but if operating at low level not much in it. Raven II fuel burn is GREATER than Raven I in real life, although both are quoted around 14gph.
Although the MTOW is 2500 in the Raven II, compared to 2400 in a Raven I, the BEM is also higher by 65lbs so you don't get much increase payload options.
Raven II is 50k more, which is not a small amount!
Pop out floats are good, but remember they take around 3 seconds to fully inflate, not much help if your photographing boats low level, but great for pleasure flights, and I think you may have problems fitting pop outs and aircon on the same machine.
IMHO Boat photography doesn't tend to be around Vne but quite a bit slower, also you will be operating out of trim, hover OGE, and hovering backwards, for the shots. Also make sure you have a RAD ALT fitted if you're operating low level over the water.:ok:

[cpt hobbs]

Head turner, thanks, never considered a fh1100, they are pretty unique dont think there are many around and parts would be tricky to get hold of, but worth considering.

fair point about the increase in wieght on the raven 2, not much gain (35lbs difference) but there is the extra speed and new rotors being quieter, again does the whole package justify the $50 k extra? any opinions?. pop out floats i will consider and thanks for the radar alt, will add that to the list of extras, a valuable piece of kit.

is it better to find a low hour second hand R44 (2), which has eaten most of the depreciation? if so any ideas on good sites to search on?

this has been a great help so far, much appreciated. cheers.

[rotorfossil]

Try visiting www.helicopterflight.net/R44.htm for some more info which you may find useful.

[nervouspassenger]

Try the people at Heliair in Buckinghamshire - they sent a 44 round the world and I'm fairly certain it had extended tanks.

[cpt hobbs]

ok cheers just off to have a look at the site now. thanks.

[cpt hobbs]

Rotor fossil, thanks for that link, it is a great site with lots of info so i have a bit of reading to do. good comparison between the 44, 206 and md500. will let you know how i get on. Thanks and all the best.

[rotorfossil]

Perhaps for your mix of requirements, in particular the high temperatures you also ought to consider a Squirrel AS350B3.

[Heli-Ice]

CPT
Check this link: http://www.globalplanesearch.com/view/all/AllHE.htm
A lot to see in there
Remember though what mama said, son, don't spend all your money in one place! :D

[Airmech II]

£750.00 excl Consumables and VAT but does depend on your mainteance programme. The above is for a LAMS based programme which most operators use. Did they carry out the fuel upgrade? RHC quote 9 hrs for it but it takes almost double that !!!

[chopperchav]

Well labour was £2k inc. vat so 30 hrs of labour sounds about right then. I would love to know what they do which takes 30 hours. The fuel upgrade was done also so I am guessing I have to pay the labour on that even though it is warranty job. Some warranty.

[Airmech II]

It is about 15 hours for the inspection so the bill would appear about right and if I remember rightly the upgrade was optional but I stand to be corrected on that one........You're right the warranty is pump at best !

[Camp Freddie]

didnt they also lose one in water near antartica with a range extender and then refuse to cooperate with the AAIB about the amount of fuel carried on board yada yada yada !

regards

CF

[houndogjess]

I think what actually happened was that Q figured out that with three hours of fuel he could fly for four and a half and then set off to reach the pole and come home again. DOH!!!!

[nervouspassenger]

I remember something about a ditched 407 but non of the politics........I don't do politics! The two R44 trips (round the world and south pole) were both without serious incident. As far as I remember..........I don't do politics

[Camp Freddie]

I dont do politics either, just trying to recall the actual facts !

the 407 was a different incident that crashed on land in antartica.

1 of the pilots was jennifer murray who did the first round the world trip in a 44 with Q, no other connection I think

regards

CF

[headsethair]

Camp Freddie : didnt they also lose one in water near antartica with a range extender and then refuse to cooperate with the AAIB about the amount of fuel carried on board yada yada yada !


FACTS:

There is an STC'd range extender for R44 which will give up to 7 hrs duration. And yes - contact Heli Air Denham if you want more detail.

There were two successful RTW missions and two successful Pole landings. RTW 1 one R44 with 2 pilots, RTW 2 was 2 R44s with a pilot each. Both pilots were Jennifer Murray and Quentin Smith.

The Bell incident was a South Pole attempt by Jennifer Murray and Colin Bodill which failed with a white-out incident.

The successful North and South Pole landings were in an R44 piloted by Steve Brookes and Quentin Smith. G-NUDE for North, and Steve's "N" 44 for South

One South Pole attempt ended with a ditching after a gradual loss of power. G-NUDE carried the evidence to the bottom.
;)

[The Nr Fairy]

nervous:

AAIB report here (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_022844.pdf).

[Camp Freddie]

headsethair,

from the AAIB report page 2:

"The pilots would not provide details of the amount of fuel carried on board but reported that it was sufficient for the crossing. Their flight plan specified an endurance of 7 hours 30 minutes. An unmodified R44 fitted with an auxiliary fuel tank, carrying its maximum capacity of 185 litres of usable fuel would have given an endurance of just over 3 hours."

this sounds quite factual

regards

CF

[Grainger]

Er... but the endurance of an unmodified R44, whilst factual, would have little relevance to the incident in question ?

[headsethair]

Camp: Yes - it's very common for an R44 with standard tanks and an endurance of around 3 hrs to set-off on a non-stop journey that might take 7h 30m.......

I'm not certain what point you are trying to make in this discussion. As you say, "I don't do politics". So what are you doing ?

"I don't do politics" is that doubtful way of starting a sentence - along the lines of David Cameron recently saying "I believe in freedom of speech, but........."

[Camp Freddie]

headsethair,

your man 22clipper is being recomended to a company who set off with 7 hours 30 of fuel according to their flight plan (I estimate that to be 675lbs of fuel plus 2 guys plus APS weight), unless that was in jerry cans on the back seat with a tube to the tank, that would suggest a range extender was fitted.

grainger,

unmodified is relevant because details of any modifications eg range extenders appear not to have been supplied to the AAIB or they wouldnt have said:
"The pilots would not provide details of the amount of fuel carried on board but reported that it was sufficient for the crossing"

finally it was nervouspassenger who said "I dont do politics" I just agreed with him.
as far as I can see there is nothing I have written that is not true and in the public domain

regards

CF

[headsethair]

Camp: finally it was nervouspassenger who said "I dont do politics" I just agreed with him

So - that would mean you don't do politics ?

Methinks you do. And the above quote proves you are adept at double-speak. You should get into Parliament asap.

Now - about the original question......there is an STC'd range extender for the R44. It will give you 7+ hours and lose 2 seats.