Probably A First For The R66

[errece]

Reading from some of the articles (in spanish) on internet about the accident there are different hypothesis...

 

The first one is that some witnesses saw the helicopter hitting a tree, the second one only says mechanical failure and the third one says that the Tail Rotor came off.

 

I guess we'll know when the investigation is concluded

[errece]

Here's a video with more images. It's in spanish...

 

http://www.lafm.com.co/noticias/orden-p-blico/12-07-11/dos-muertos-dej-accidente-de-helic-ptero-en-inmediaciones-de-flandes

[pilot5]

22,44,66. Not built and designed around pilot saftey and crashability. Agree with 56 and other posters.. Cheap crap designed to make vertical flight possible for pennies... I guess you get what you pay for.

 

P5

[chopper_guy]

Let's try to be a little objective about these machines. It is virtually guaranteed that most pilots on Robinsons will be lowtime commercial or private pilots. Private pilots especially will be lowtime and flying few hours and getting little followup instruction. Accidents are very likely and not all attributal to the helicopter.

[Zazu]

Let's try to be a little objective about these machines. It is virtually guaranteed that most pilots on Robinsons will be lowtime commercial or private pilots. Private pilots especially will be lowtime and flying few hours and getting little followup instruction. Accidents are very likely and not all attributal to the helicopter.

 

 

Absolutely agree. Don't know anything about the 66 but the 44 well that I really do like. Shame I can't make a living with one. Reliable engine when treated right,and maintained right. It's honest and doesn't lie to you. Fly it within it's approved flight envelope and your own abilities and it will do just fine. BTW...if you think Robinson doesn't take the inproper use of his helicopters very seriously you should take a gander at what I like to call " The Robinson Death Video"....He put it out personally. If that doesn't wake you up, find another line of work.

 

As for all those sick falling stars...well most of them got better eventually with a little love care and attention by Dr. FX

[RatDog]

Absolutely agree. Don't know anything about the 66 but the 44 well that I really do like. Shame I can't make a living with one. Reliable engine when treated right,and maintained right. It's honest and doesn't lie to you. Fly it within it's approved flight envelope and your own abilities and it will do just fine. BTW...if you think Robinson doesn't take the inproper use of his helicopters very seriously you should take a gander at what I like to call " The Robinson Death Video"....He put it out personally. If that doesn't wake you up, find another line of work.

 

As for all those sick falling stars...well most of them got better eventually with a little love care and attention by Dr. FX

Hey Zazu, not sure if you realise this or not but the reason that the 'fallig star' moniker came about was the original version of the Honeywell 101 was a piece of crap. Those Lycoming LTS101 were rushed into production wit some bad ideas built into them and created a bad name for the a/c. Customers ordered them instead of the Arriel, because of cost. Now the new updated 101 is really kicking butt. It wasn't really airframe issues, although there were a few, that created the name. Funny how things go full circle!

 

Btw, there may be a few other 'older' folks around here who fondly remember the 'Death Ranger'. It had enough growing pains/accidents/fataities the HAA wanted it banned. Look where the 206 is now, one of the best heli for its niche ever built.

 

Cheers

[Zazu]

Hey Zazu, not sure if you realise this or not but the reason that the 'fallig star' moniker came about was the original version of the Honeywell 101 was a piece of crap. Those Lycoming LTS101 were rushed into production wit some bad ideas built into them and created a bad name for the a/c. Customers ordered them instead of the Arriel, because of cost. Now the new updated 101 is really kicking butt. It wasn't really airframe issues, although there were a few, that created the name. Funny how things go full circle!

 

Btw, there may be a few other 'older' folks around here who fondly remember the 'Death Ranger'. It had enough growing pains/accidents/fataities the HAA wanted it banned. Look where the 206 is now, one of the best heli for its niche ever built.

 

Cheers

 

 

Understood. Me and one of those 101's had a "falling" out one time a while back. I just used the FX identifier because that is what we fly now with the 600/700 series engines. So yes, technically, it was an engine problem, and not an airframe problem. But I are just a pilot.

 

Funny you mentioned the 206 history because I thought about bringing that up as well, but didn't want to convolute the thread considering we were working on R66 then Robinson, R44 and somehow ended up on A-Stars...

[pilot5]

Understood. Me and one of those 101's had a "falling" out one time a while back. I just used the FX identifier because that is what we fly now with the 600/700 series engines. So yes, technically, it was an engine problem, and not an airframe problem. But I are just a pilot.

 

Funny you mentioned the 206 history because I thought about bringing that up as well, but didn't want to convolute the thread considering we were working on R66 then Robinson, R44 and somehow ended up on A-Stars...

 

 

R22,R44,R66 were unlike other helicopters build strickly to cater to the cheapo vertical flight market. Not originally designed for military and crew survivablity... Example HU500. Designed to roll and protect pilot.

 

Evere flown a Kamov.?.. yet another example of built around crash survivability..

 

R22,R44,R66 no such consideration or the bare minimum... Increase in weight =increase in power= increase in cost...

 

Only point trying to make...= Crap!

 

 

P5

[49 Merc]

R22,R44,R66 were unlike other helicopters build strickly to cater to the cheapo vertical flight market. Not originally designed for military and crew survivablity... Example HU500. Designed to roll and protect pilot.

 

Evere flown a Kamov.?.. yet another example of built around crash survivability..

 

R22,R44,R66 no such consideration or the bare minimum... Increase in weight =increase in power= increase in cost...

 

Only point trying to make...= Crap!

 

 

P5

 

How can you compare aircraft build, and designed for military contracts, that were considered to be disposable aircraft because they had low survivability rates, to an aircraft that was designed to be a reasonable inexpensive means of vertical flight for the masses? More so, wealthier business men trying to minimize there commute to work.

 

Oh, and by the way,your posts sound very juvenile.

[Zazu]

R22,R44,R66 were unlike other helicopters build strickly to cater to the cheapo vertical flight market. Not originally designed for military and crew survivablity... Example HU500. Designed to roll and protect pilot.

 

Evere flown a Kamov.?.. yet another example of built around crash survivability..

 

R22,R44,R66 no such consideration or the bare minimum... Increase in weight =increase in power= increase in cost...

 

Only point trying to make...= Crap!

 

-500 was built to military specs for a specific job...ie getting shot at.

-Kamaov...never flown one but did log under one for quite a while...most models, if I recall correctly only have single hydraulics...Other than that, one tough mother of a machine, like all things Russian. But again, it was designed to take a beating ie Bullets.

 

-R22, R44 were designed with the idea of bringing vertical flight to the masses where bullets were not an issue. While the R22 does auto like a rock, I have heard the same thing about the 500. The R44 is very manageable providing you fly it within the envelope as described within the POH....same as any other a/c.

 

-The R44 doesn't like overgross weights...and if you pay attention it will talk to you. It doesn't really like high winds. It doesn't like low G maneuvers...neither does the 206 (also designed for the military) If you are flying an older model with Carb Heat well...it doesn't like that either just like alot of older excavators, cars, lawnmowers, snowmobiles etc etc.,

it definately doesn't like acrabatics. But they tell you all that in the POH and they are really quite honest about it.... and again, it wasn't designed with any of these things in mind. If you try to fly in any of those scenarios it could very well take a very personal dislike to you and will hurt you....again just like any other machine.

 

 

-The A-Star which I fly, is used by a variety of military organizations and yet the frame, in all it's varients is essentially the same...alot of windows with two forks forward of the firewall, held together with fiberglass...and it isn't cheap either.

 

-other machines designed for the military like the 204/205/212/214 are now venerable icons in the Canadian utility industry but all had problems learned the hard way...ie pylon rock, collective bounce, bad autos with blades giving you a head-ache, tail booms failing, low G maneuvers that take the tailboom off, not to mention blade sailing.

 

-Learn to fly it properly, take it seriously, get recurrent training (which alot of private guys don't do) and it will serve you well. The R44 has, like most helicopters introduced in Canada, done alot more than what it was designed for...not to mention the emergency procedures are very simplistic and work very well.

 

All this was written off the top of my head, so if any of you ole timers feel the need to correct me, feel free. I just might learn something.