Man your amount of knowledge on these are wonderful, and helpful I would love to be able to buy myself a helicopter, you would the first person to go with me, for you help make sure I'm not screwing myself, and buying a piece of junk
The reason for the Robinsons elevated rotor is to prevent mast bumping; since they all use a semi-rigid rotor assemble, and this has happened before. Usually occurred by a low hour student pilot after either getting into a low-G situation or fighting with turbulence instead of just letting the heli pendulum back to being stable. This is another reason why many CFI don't think the R22 is a good trainer. It's just relatively inexpensive to buy and operate, so gets used as a trainer anyway. The are excellent aircraft for the right pilot in the right conditions, you just need proper training, understand the risks or the rotor type, and pay it some respect.
Nonsense, the rotor head is mounted so high because it uses very lightweight blades subject to flexing which can strike the tail mast under extreme movements.
I agree the Robinson's have a bad reputation because of the low cost and primary trainer. A well trained pilot should be able to avoid the mast bumping issue. As to why the main rotors are high..i think it's specifically to reduce mast bumping... Even though lower would improve performance performance.
Robinsons are extremely reliable. I was just reading the statistics today, and engine failures were 1/2 to 1/3 as frequent as the Schweizer 300 and Bell 47... Enstrom didn't show up, probably because the sample size is too small, but I can tell you from experience that Enstroms eat piston engines like they're going out of style. The IO360 redline in the airplane I'm familiar with is 2750, putting out 180 horsepower. But in the Enstrom the redline is 3,000 to 3,100 to get the horsepower up to 205 hp and beyond. If you know piston aircraft engines, you know they hate turning fast... By comparison, the R22 derates that engine to 124 hp, 131 for 5 minutes. And voila! They're really reliable in the R22... And the accident rate from mechanical problems other than engines were even lower... That's simply not the reason people crash them... Robinson has no grease fittings... It's all Thomas couplings and Teflon bearings. Which are reliable as hell. And while there have been missteps on the blades, they're pretty rugged... Met one pilot doing agricultural application in Saudi Arabia, and the Robinson blades were the only ones that could withstand the sand there. Knew another R22 pilot who chopped a tree branch the diameter of your thumb, and barely creased the rotor. The problem with the R22 isn't because they're poorly designed, poorly built, or not dependable. It's because it's a nimble-to-a-fault aircraft with some very hard edges to the envelope. Teach students to fly in Extra-300s and let me know how that works out. Robison had some early ( fatal ) blade delaminations when the outside company building the blades allowed the adhesive to be compromised. To this day, Robinson is extremely vertically integrated, making almost everything in house, so that they can control the quality of their components. Robinsons crash, I'm trying to remember the statistic I read today, something like 78% of the time from pilot errors. As someone who has given a zillion flight reviews, I can tell you there are a lot of rusty, inexperienced, pilots flying these machines, and that, not mechanical issues, accounts for the bulk of the hull losses... Is Robinson perfect? Heck no. But they actually are quite well designed, built, and compared to the average helicopter, are reliable as hell. They probably aren't the best machine for training, and unfortunately their low price point makes them extremely popular for exactly that... Sorry for the long reply 🤓
I would rather get a used Bell Jetranger than a R44. Better safer helicopter. If I were to get a good four seat helicopter, it’s a safer helicopter. You don’t need to worry about the special FAR. To fly it, or the extra hours to fly it.
Yes video on the Hummingbird.
I Like your music intro better now. Your Helicopter research is rite on, Great Video
You forgot about a safari helicopter company, and rotorway helicopters both are adorable and really nice birds
The tall mass is used to avoid tail strikes.
Man your amount of knowledge on these are wonderful, and helpful I would love to be able to buy myself a helicopter, you would the first person to go with me, for you help make sure I'm not screwing myself, and buying a piece of junk
Thanks! ☺️
Another nifty Experimental Helicopter was the "HeliCycle" by Eagle R&D/RotorWay...
Yes! Thanks for the heads up, that is a cool one! I plan on doing a video on it when i get into turbine heli's =D
@@RelativeMotionCC ...you're welcome...
The reason for the Robinsons elevated rotor is to prevent mast bumping; since they all use a semi-rigid rotor assemble, and this has happened before. Usually occurred by a low hour student pilot after either getting into a low-G situation or fighting with turbulence instead of just letting the heli pendulum back to being stable. This is another reason why many CFI don't think the R22 is a good trainer. It's just relatively inexpensive to buy and operate, so gets used as a trainer anyway. The are excellent aircraft for the right pilot in the right conditions, you just need proper training, understand the risks or the rotor type, and pay it some respect.
That makes sense! thanks for the info!
Nonsense, the rotor head is mounted so high because it uses very lightweight blades subject to flexing which can strike the tail mast under extreme movements.
The higher your rotor head is, the broader C of G envelope for fore/aft limits.
I agree the Robinson's have a bad reputation because of the low cost and primary trainer. A well trained pilot should be able to avoid the mast bumping issue. As to why the main rotors are high..i think it's specifically to reduce mast bumping... Even though lower would improve performance performance.
Corolla's are well designed, well built and dependable. Not phrases usually associated with Robinsons.
Robinsons are extremely reliable. I was just reading the statistics today, and engine failures were 1/2 to 1/3 as frequent as the Schweizer 300 and Bell 47... Enstrom didn't show up, probably because the sample size is too small, but I can tell you from experience that Enstroms eat piston engines like they're going out of style. The IO360 redline in the airplane I'm familiar with is 2750, putting out 180 horsepower. But in the Enstrom the redline is 3,000 to 3,100 to get the horsepower up to 205 hp and beyond. If you know piston aircraft engines, you know they hate turning fast...
By comparison, the R22 derates that engine to 124 hp, 131 for 5 minutes. And voila! They're really reliable in the R22... And the accident rate from mechanical problems other than engines were even lower... That's simply not the reason people crash them...
Robinson has no grease fittings... It's all Thomas couplings and Teflon bearings. Which are reliable as hell. And while there have been missteps on the blades, they're pretty rugged... Met one pilot doing agricultural application in Saudi Arabia, and the Robinson blades were the only ones that could withstand the sand there. Knew another R22 pilot who chopped a tree branch the diameter of your thumb, and barely creased the rotor.
The problem with the R22 isn't because they're poorly designed, poorly built, or not dependable. It's because it's a nimble-to-a-fault aircraft with some very hard edges to the envelope. Teach students to fly in Extra-300s and let me know how that works out.
Robison had some early ( fatal ) blade delaminations when the outside company building the blades allowed the adhesive to be compromised. To this day, Robinson is extremely vertically integrated, making almost everything in house, so that they can control the quality of their components.
Robinsons crash, I'm trying to remember the statistic I read today, something like 78% of the time from pilot errors. As someone who has given a zillion flight reviews, I can tell you there are a lot of rusty, inexperienced, pilots flying these machines, and that, not mechanical issues, accounts for the bulk of the hull losses...
Is Robinson perfect? Heck no. But they actually are quite well designed, built, and compared to the average helicopter, are reliable as hell. They probably aren't the best machine for training, and unfortunately their low price point makes them extremely popular for exactly that...
Sorry for the long reply 🤓
Check out the Safari's...
a helicopter. Boat 4:00
I would rather get a used Bell Jetranger than a R44. Better safer helicopter. If I were to get a good four seat helicopter, it’s a safer helicopter. You don’t need to worry about the special FAR. To fly it, or the extra hours to fly it.
Mast Bumping …just saying.
Toyotas dont cut their own rear end off.