Robinson R22 and R44 Helicopters

[Mike Nelson]

I'm not sure if there is a lot of interest in the R22 or R44, so I thought I would start this thread and see. As with any aircraft, I have seen my share of incorrect info regarding the "Robbies". If you have a question or comment, post it here and we will discuss.

Mike Nelson

[brett s]

Seems like most of the helicopter pilots that really slam the R22 in particular have never flown one. To me it's a pretty amazing thing Frank managed to accomplish with the design compared to what was out there at the time :)

If I was buying a personal 2 seat helicopter the R22 would win hands-down. I liked flying Bell 47's better, but the fuel burn is about double & the amount of maintenance required is even worse!

[Chuck Roberg]

I've only flown the R-22 so I can't comment on any other type. But if I wanted another helicopter, just for myself. I think I would give the Brantly a real good look.

[Mike Nelson]

Brett,
I have a lot of time in the R22 (and a lot of other makes and models) and the only thing I do not like is the low inertia blades. The low maintenance, high cruise speed, good fuel economy, auto RPM control, etc are the best features.
Mike

[birdy]

incorrect info regarding the "Robbies"

If your refer'n to the things I'v said bout Robbos Mike,I think they are in a class of their own,in most flight situations.
Most of wot I'v said was in comparison to a well built and powered gyro,do'n a peticular job,and they'er like apples n oranges.

Horses for courses ,right?

[Mike Nelson]

David,

Nope I guess I missed your post. I would like to just let folks put Robbie info on the table and discuss fact verses fiction. I've stated before that many comments about aircraft are from folks who have not owned or flown the model they are offering an opinion on. Thus I'd like to give those that have questions some factual information from a R22 and R44 owner pilot.

Mike

[brett s]

Brett,
I have a lot of time in the R22 (and a lot of other makes and models) and the only thing I do not like is the low inertia blades. The low maintenance, high cruise speed, good fuel economy, auto RPM control, etc are the best features.
Mike

I'll agree with all of the above :)
I haven't flown an R22 since 1989 & only have 45 hours in them, went on to other things after getting my PPL(H). Had to pretty much learn throttle control when I started flying Bell 47's, the R22 even pre-governor was awful good compared to them.

[arlenj]

David,

Nope I guess I missed your post. I would like to just let folks put Robbie info on the table and discuss fact verses fiction. I've stated before that many comments about aircraft are from folks who have not owned or flown the model they are offering an opinion on. Thus I'd like to give those that have questions some factual information from a R22 and R44 owner pilot.

Mike

I am an R22 owner/pilot with 700 hours. I have a factory rebuilt 1989 R22 Beta. I love it!! If anyone has any questions about R22s, I'd be happy to try to answer them for you.

[tcamiga]

The R22 is a great machine - if it's flown as per Frank's design parameters.

If I can help anyone with info or mentoring - just call.

Tc

[jolly467]

I only have about an hour's worth of flight time in an R22 - about 5 years ago. I was impressed with the governor system in place for a piston helo....but I was definately NOT impressed with the cyclic setup...I come from a Huey / HH60-G background, and the center mounted - "teeter - totter" cyclic used in the Robinsons simply doesn't feel right to me at all. Probably akin to a "overhead" vs floor mount cyclic in gyros - they both work fine, just not exactly the same way!

Given the other problems out there with their low inertia blades and some AD's on said blades, I probably wouldn't get into one.....If I had the money, I would rather be in a MD500.....

[tcamiga]

I only have about an hour's worth of flight time in an R22 - about 5 years ago. I was impressed with the governor system in place for a piston helo....but I was definately NOT impressed with the cyclic setup...I come from a Huey / HH60-G background, and the center mounted - "teeter - totter" cyclic used in the Robinsons simply doesn't feel right to me at all. Probably akin to a "overhead" vs floor mount cyclic in gyros - they both work fine, just not exactly the same way!

Given the other problems out there with their low inertia blades and some AD's on said blades, I probably wouldn't get into one.....If I had the money, I would rather be in a MD500.....

Hi Steve

I guess its horses for courses. Like you I've been around a bit on different machines.

The R22, when used as a two seat machine for cattle mustering, is great to operate.

I can slide in without stepping around the cyclic and its response rate down around the trees is just right. Combine that with a reliable engine, real low fuel consumption (Fuel come in drums only where I operate) and it fits the bill.

I prefer a B206L if I have to go point to point, but my all time favourite is the Hiller 12E.

Safe flying
Tc

[mrford61]

R22,s have carried out literally hundreds of thousands of hours mustering (rounding up) cattle in the North of Australia and I would say they are flown in a manner that I would imagine to horrify Frank Robinson.
They have proven an excellent machine and are a huge and integral part of the cattle industry.

[tcamiga]

R22,s have carried out literally hundreds of thousands of hours mustering (rounding up) cattle in the North of Australia and I would say they are flown in a manner that I would imagine to horrify Frank Robinson.
They have proven an excellent machine and are a huge and integral part of the cattle industry.

I think one thing that helps any problem is acknowolging that it's there.

I know that Frank used to quote that 10 % of his product was in Australia but that was were 90% of the R22 Problems where.

It used to be like the wild west of the USA - but times are changing.

If anyone is interested in what happened - read "the Robinson Chronicles" on my web site.

here's the link: http://brumbyhelicopters.com.au/
safe flying

TC

[Rotor-Head]

I think they are great machines. I use them for aerial camera work every so often. The only thing I don't like is the sound of the engine starting. (maybe I've been in too many turbine helicopters).

[Hognose]

I just got back from HAI. The daily convention paper there had a nice interview with Frank Robinson. In it, he said that if he had known his ship was going to become the top training helicopter, he never would have designed it the way he did -- he designed it to be a fun-to-fly personal helicopter.

If it had been intended to be a trainer, he said, he'd have worried less about making it speedy, and he'd have used higher-inertia blades.

I haven't flown helicopters so I am agnostic on this issue. I know that some guys say a high-inertia ship like a Bell or 300C is better to learn in; others say a Robbie is better.

Somebody mentioned the Hiller H-12. They are currently being overhauled by a company named United Helicopters. You can also get a factory reman from Hiller, even though they are not building new machines now. Each of those is less than the cost of a new Robbie and it might be less to operate (the Franklin engine is much cheaper than the Lyc to overhaul).

If you guys like, I'll start a thread on what I saw at HAI. Basically, though, the very-high-dollar end of the industry is in good shape, and apart from Robinson, the piston guys are sucking air. Schweitzer is OK because Sikorsky bought them for their UAV program. Enstrom got a kick in the teeth when the Border Patrol contract went to Eurocopter, but they're still hanging on. MDHI was on the ropes, stiffing all their creditors; Boeing bailed them out rather dramatically mid-show. And Erickson Air Crane has started production of new-build S-64s, having run out of Sikorsky Skycranes to refurbish and resell.

I believe Robinson made all but 91 of the piston helicopters delivered worldwide in 2004. I'll have to check my numbers.

cheers

-=K=-

[brett s]

A Hiller 12 will cost a bunch more to operate than an R22 - they are a lot more maintenance intensive, burn more fuel, have a far shorter overhaul interval as well (1200 hours vs 2200) & a few reoccuring AD's that are a pain.

[helipilot]

Glad to see a thread sticking up for Robinsons, I agree with the comment that most of the complaints come from people who haven't flown them. In a perfect world more inertia in the rotor would help but as an overall package I think it is unbeatable. My R22 HP has done over 6000 hrs, is fresh out of its 3rd rebuild and is doing 7 gal US an hour - cheapest heli I've ever heard of.
I know some people find the teeter stick difficult at first but it is a lot easier to get into and, in the unfortunate event that you do crash, as the seat strokes down you are not going to be impaled on the cylic.
Getting back to reputations, the reason Robinsons have had "so many" accidents is that there are so many about. I read a statistic the other day stating that Robinsons produced approcx 455 machines last year and the next nearest (either Bell or Sikorsky) produced 35! When you are producing 70% of US output (in terms of number of machines) and lots of your product is going to the training and low hour self-fly hire market you are bound to see a higher number of accidents. However, when you look at the rate of accidents per flying hour, the rate for R22s is way lower than anything else so maybe it is the safest machine! (lies, damn lies and statistics)

[animal]

I'm not sure if there is a lot of interest in the R22 or R44, so I thought I would start this thread and see. As with any aircraft, I have seen my share of incorrect info regarding the "Robbies". If you have a question or comment, post it here and we will discuss.

Mike Nelson
well I never have liked the Robbies much, rode in an R 22 a few years ago,and it did not impress me at all. Rode in an R-44 at this weeks airshow. I was suprised how smooth it was for a 2 bladed systems also had good power. only thing concerned me was the pilot was showing off and doing a fast running take off with a steep pull up,where he pointed the nose towards the sky,that part did not bother me but he climbed to about 600 feet that way then did a pushover the top back into a dive and leveled off at 300. fun ride while doing it, but made me wonder how close we come to haveing the blades slap the tail boom on that push over, it was a good 2 G negitive.
what happened is i got drafted to be a rides loading crew,but since the shuttle buses stoped after the show,the pilot flew me back to the high school parking lot where they had everybody park this year. so anyway I was ground crew.it was a hot day, and that machine preformed a lot better then i would have thought for piston power, what are the specs on the R-44?
so all in all the airshow pretty much sucked they didn't even get a low level waiver, but the Free R-44 ride back to the parking lot made my day.
I have a pic from the back seat, but i have to resize it. Oh btw when we did the climb out i asked the pilot what the rate of climb was on that bird and he said in excess of 1,500 f.p.m. and ya know what, the way he climbed out i believe it.
oh also was suprised that it had more room in the back then the hughes 500 D I rode in along time ago.
now if they will just put conventional sticks in the thing I would really like it..lol

Tim H.

[helipilot]

Sounds like you had a cowboy pilot. Low-g pushovers are specifically prohibited with all sorts of dire warnings about mast-bumping and catastophic failures. A Raven 2 will get near 1500 fpm, pretty fast on acceleration too.

[brett s]

One thing for sure though, you didn't hit -2 g's - if you even get close to zero you'll get a nice uncommanded roll in the Robinson's (from the tail rotor thrust - tail rotor is higher than the vertical CG) until you load the rotor again. They used to demo it before a student soloed in the R22, but quit years ago as there isn't much margin for error...now they just tell you "don't do that"!

Any pilot screwing around with low g manuevers in a teetering rotor helicopter isn't very bright, especially carrying passengers. Mast bumping tends to be fatal most of the time.

[animal]

Any pilot screwing around with low g manuevers in a teetering rotor helicopter isn't very bright, especially carrying passengers. Mast bumping tends to be fatal most of the time.

yeah thats what I thought when I saw the guy do it with a load of passengers.I know one thing I did get light in my seat. I don't mind airobatics in a fixed wing.but after we landed and I was driveing home and got to thinking about it. I do know when he pushed over it kind of rolled to the right,but he may have done that as we had to make a right turn.I do know if we had had a tail strike, we would have gone into the tops of the hangers as he pulled up mid feild. but all in all after he leveled out that was a smooth ride.
whats the H.P. of the R-44 raven?

Tim H.

[oreillyj]

I fly mainly gliders, but had a heli licence for a few years, learning in an R22. I know it comes in for a lot of criticism but I loved the R22, very light and essentially the only way I ever would have been able to fly rotary. Just treat it carefully!!