Robinson Main Rotor Blade AD

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Geico
Okay, so I have been getting into the helo market, and just learned the FAA just lowered the calendar time on Robinson main rotor blades from 12 years to 5.5 years. That's $5 grand a year for the R-22 if you never leave the ground. :eek:

If the blades at defective (a fairly important part of a helo) why doesn't the company replace them free, or at least on a prorated basis? :dunno:

Can you imagine replacing the prop every 5 years on a fixed wing at a cost of $25k? :hairraise:

Schweizer is looking pretty damn good. :yes:

Maybe even an experimental. :yes:

Can I sue my CFI for getting me hooked on helos? Seriously, its like crack!
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Okay, so I have been getting into the helo market, and just learned the FAA just lowered the calendar time on Robinson main rotor blades from 12 years to 5.5 years. That's $5 grand a year for the R-22 if you never leave the ground. :eek:

If the blades at defective (a fairly important part of a helo) why doesn't the company replace them free, or at least on a prorated basis? :dunno:

Can you imagine replacing the prop every 5 years on a fixed wing at a cost of $25k? :hairraise:

Schweizer is looking pretty damn good. :yes:

Maybe even an experimental. :yes:

Can I sue my CFI for getting me hooked on helos? Seriously, its like crack!
Click to expand...

Like crack... Any addiction can kill you.....

Be careful Larry.... I don't want to fly to Nebraska for your funeral...:no:..:sad::sad::sad:
 
Look at it this way, it's only $13.69 per day. Or ~$0.50 per hour. Every hour, every day. Sorry.
 
If you're referring to the AD that became effective in January, it's only a certain model of the blades that has that 5 year limit. It's not something you have to do every 5 years.
 
I think it's a one time on a run of blades they suspect may have issues due to a pretty serious cracking issue identified on one, and is suspect to be involved in a couple other losses. I haven't really studied it, but the overview gist of it that I got is that the AD is one of those, "If you have one of these specific rotor sets, you can't have them in service past xxx" deals. I'm pretty sure that once they are replaced, the AD is no longer in affect. I get my opinion from reading a synopsis though, so I may be wrong on that.
 
Henning said:
I think it's a one time on a run of blades they suspect may have issues due to a pretty serious cracking issue identified on one, and is suspect to be involved in a couple other losses. I haven't really studied it, but the overview gist of it that I got is that the AD is one of those, "If you have one of these specific rotor sets, you can't have them in service past xxx" deals. I'm pretty sure that once they are replaced, the AD is no longer in affect. I get my opinion from reading a synopsis though, so I may be wrong on that.
Click to expand...

And this is what happens.
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/two-dead-in-queenstown-helicopter-crash-2015021917#axzz3UKVeYVfl
James, the boy who died, was the son of a good friend of mine Louisa 'Choppy' Patterson who I flew with in my Notar back home in NZ. We are all devastated by his untimely death.
The NZ CAA took immediate action but it was too little too late to save this young life.
ATTN: ALL R44 OPERATORS WITH DASH 7 BLADES
Yesterday here in NZ there was an R44 accident that killed two people. Based on what they have found there is an emergency airworthiness directive coming out from the NZ CAA in the next couple of hours immediately grounding ALL R44s that are flying with the Dash 7 blades. If you know an operator in NZ that has an R44 please make them aware of this. We will be posting the AD as soon as we get it and we have been asked by NZ CAA to spread the word.
Click to expand...
Stephen.
 
I believe it was determined that the blade failure in that accident was post-crash.
 
There is still that one where the blade did not come apart and the guy got it on the ground. That blade had a bad crack growing out of the corner in the blade edge step. That was ugly looking.
 
Schweitzer is a good trainer but expensive maintenance. Also they only make 6 (Six) a year. Had to wait eight weeks for an oil dipstick once.

You should have been there for the fuel bladder AD with the R44.$$$$$
 
Probably the cheapest safest thing to get into is a Bell 47 D1 model. Did a lot of my training in a D1 and have also flown the G3, G5, and G3B1 turbo. Great machines, solid as a tank. Took many laps around Mount Rushmore in Bell 47 and easily survived two engine failures in a Bell 47 with no damage to machine, other than what happened - autos like a dream.
 
Are the UH-11s still around and flying? Those had some onerous ADs as well.
 
OverTQ said:
If you're referring to the AD that became effective in January, it's only a certain model of the blades that has that 5 year limit. It's not something you have to do every 5 years.
Click to expand...

It sure seems Robinson has a lot of issues with blades. This might be a one time thing, but then again the blades time out after 12 years requardless. Just seems weird to be that they have a calenfer time limit on blades, and now this. :dunno:

One article I read said it will cost owners over $120 million. :eek:
 
Keep in mind this sort of thing isn't unprecedented, Larry. Lots of old Hartzell props have tons of ADs on them. The props on that 55 310 I was involved with had an AD that required to be torn down and inspected every 250 hours or 5 years. For me that would be a big problem and require almost a yearly inspection. Only $1-2k (each) but then you've got the month or more wait for sending off, inspection, return.
 
Geico266 said:
It sure seems Robinson has a lot of issues with blades. This might be a one time thing, but then again the blades time out after 12 years requardless. Just seems weird to be that they have a calenfer time limit on blades, and now this. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yea, practically the entire helicopter is time limited to 12 years. When you hit 12 years (or 2200 hours) the whole thing is supposed to be overhauled. It's practically a brand new helicopter when you get it back.

This keeps the cost of maintenance really low. There are very few things that have to be replaced in between the 12 year overhauls. The overhaul isn't cheap, but if the owner flies regularly (more than, say, 180 hours a year), the costs broken down hourly, with maintenance and overhaul reserve built-in, will be less than almost any other certified helicopter.

http://www.robinsonheli.com/price_lists_eocs/r22_eoc.pdf
 
bqmassey said:
Yea, practically the entire helicopter is time limited to 12 years. When you hit 12 years (or 2200 hours) the whole thing is supposed to be overhauled. It's practically a brand new helicopter when you get it back.

This keeps the cost of maintenance really low. There are very few things that have to be replaced in between the 12 year overhauls. The overhaul isn't cheap, but if the owner flies regularly (more than, say, 180 hours a year), the costs broken down hourly, with maintenance and overhaul reserve built-in, will be less than almost any other certified helicopter.

http://www.robinsonheli.com/price_lists_eocs/r22_eoc.pdf
Click to expand...

Be careful here using logic. :rolleyes:
 
Hiller parts can be hard to come by at least with a 47 Scott's is making brand new parts
 
Just be thankful you don't have a problem with termites.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 69
Henning said:
Lol, what's the story behind that one? I sure as hell hope that wasn't an in flight failure, and if it was, holy crap that is one strong rig.:yikes:
Click to expand...

It was an in flight failure. SC NG bird flying at 6,000 ft when the failure occurred. Obviously extreme vibrations but they were able to set it down in a field. Blades removed, Chinook flew over and slung it back to base.

That failure occurred in December. Been two of those types of failures in recent years. Basically the fiberglass disbonding just aft of the spar.
 
Velocity173 said:
It was an in flight failure. SC NG bird flying at 6,000 ft when the failure occurred. Obviously extreme vibrations but they were able to set it down in a field. Blades removed, Chinook flew over and slung it back to base.

That failure occurred in December. Been two of those types of failures in recent years. Basically the fiberglass disbonding just aft of the spar.
Click to expand...

Yow, figured that had to be honeycomb, not wood, but for some reason I can't zoom on the pop up pics on the iPad.:( Extreme I would think a mild term even for what had to be going on, holy crap.

People keep saying that composites don't have a fatigue life. Now I haven't done any lab testing on it, but from 40 years experience building with, inspecting and fixing the stuff, that is not true in the field.

What I find is that in the real world, small impacts cause micro fractures that you can only find with a 70° ultrasound crystal and a good scope box. As soon as micro fractures develop, you now introduce an agent of fatigue as they grow at an unpredictable rate and lead to a failure of the plastic matrix.
 
Henning said:
Yow, figured that had to be honeycomb, not wood, but for some reason I can't zoom on the pop up pics on the iPad.:( Extreme I would think a mild term even for what had to be going on, holy crap.

People keep saying that composites don't have a fatigue life. Now I haven't done any lab testing on it, but from 40 years experience building with, inspecting and fixing the stuff, that is not true in the field.

What I find is that in the real world, small impacts cause micro fractures that you can only find with a 70° ultrasound crystal and a good scope box. As soon as micro fractures develop, you now introduce an agent of fatigue as they grow at an unpredictable rate and lead to a failure of the plastic matrix.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the description of the accident is a little sketchy from the Army Times article but apparently it failed on an instrument flight. Vibration was so bad that they couldn't sqk 7700; not that they needed to in that situation. Article stated they had an engine failure with it but the description made no sense. Possibly FOD, I don't know. Pilots executed an auto but doesn't say if it was taken to the ground or not. At any rate, a good recovery for a scary situation.

90K for one of those blades. You could buy a nice used R22 for that price.:D
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah, the description of the accident is a little sketchy from the Army Times article but apparently it failed on an instrument flight. Vibration was so bad that they couldn't sqk 7700; not that they needed to in that situation. Article stated they had an engine failure with it but the description made no sense. Possibly FOD, I don't know. Pilots executed an auto but doesn't say if it was taken to the ground or not. At any rate, a good recovery for a scary situation.

90K for one of those blades. You could buy a nice used R22 for that price.:D
Click to expand...

Yeah, he achieved an optimal outcome from a **** situation for sure. $90k, yow, looks like a complex blade though. What is the leading edge and end cap? Is that heated metal?
 
Velocity173 said:
Just be thankful you don't have a problem with termites.
Click to expand...

WOW....:yikes::yikes::hairraise::hairraise:..

Hard to believe the out of balance condition didn't shake the ENTIRE mast off that bird......


Them are some lucky sums a *******......:yes:
 
Henning said:
Yeah, he achieved an optimal outcome from a **** situation for sure. $90k, yow, looks like a complex blade though. What is the leading edge and end cap? Is that heated metal?
Click to expand...

These are older style blades. Basically 1970s design. They're fiberglass skins and Nomex honeycomb core with a nitrogen filled titanium spar. The leading edge is titanium and nickel with a de-icing mat behind it. Wanna say they have an 11,000 hr limit. I'd have to look that up to be sure.

The new "Mike" blades are cheaper to construct. It's an all carbon spar replacing the titanium one. From what I've read, they have no life limit.
 
Velocity173 said:
These are older style blades. Basically 1970s design. They're fiberglass skins and Nomex honeycomb core with a nitrogen filled titanium spar. The leading edge is titanium and nickel with a de-icing mat behind it. Wanna say they have an 11,000 hr limit. I'd have to look that up to be sure.

The new "Mike" blades are cheaper to construct. It's an all carbon spar replacing the titanium one. From what I've read, they have no life limit.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know their inspection protocol on the new blades. The mass of that titanium is likely what saved their lives.

I was wondering if the engine shut down was automatic to limit vibration?:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I'd be interested to know their inspection protocol on the new blades. The mass of that titanium is likely what saved their lives.

I was wondering if the engine shut down was automatic to limit vibration?:dunno:
Click to expand...

The article said that the "motor had died." Like I said, kind of confusing and doesn't mention whether the blade FOD'd the engine or not.

Securing the engine really wouldn't do them any good unless that's where the vibration was coming from. Still gonna have 100 % Nr with one engine running so the vibration would continue anyway.
 
Velocity173 said:
The article said that the "motor had died." Like I said, kind of confusing and doesn't mention whether the blade FOD'd the engine or not.

Securing the engine really wouldn't do them any good unless that's where the vibration was coming from. Still gonna have 100 % Nr with one engine running so the vibration would continue anyway.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so even though they lost an engine, they didn't lose power at the rotor?
 
Henning said:
Interesting, so even though they lost an engine, they didn't lose power at the rotor?
Click to expand...

Depends. I can imagine this blade was producing some pretty good profile drag. Whether the other engine could pick up the load and maintain level flight remains to be seen since they immediately entered an auto. Obviously with the rotor off loaded and using the up flow off air during the auto, the other engine probably wasn't working very hard to maintain 100 %. If the engine simply failed with no blade separation, the other engine, whether it's a GE 700 or 701C could maintain a decent SE speed at this altitude. Based on a 15,000 lb aircraft, you're probably looking at min & max of 30-100 KIAS. So, it all depends on how much drag that thing was producing. Personally I think they could've maintained level flight on the other engine but now way I'd stick around that long to test that theory; immediately auto.

Another thing that was said that doesn't make sense. They said they lost that 6,000 ft in less than a minute. That's a pretty extrem descent rate considering a normal auto in a 60 is around 2,000-2,300 FPM. I can understand in this case a higher ROD based on the lack of lift on one blade but 6,000 ft to the ground in less than a minute doesn't add up. Just like GA, a lot of times in these articles they don't get all the facts straight.
 
N801BH said:
Twin engine... Using a sprag clutch...:confused::dunno:
Click to expand...

Correct. While both engines are operating the sprag clutch is engaged on both sides or input modules. When an engine fails on one side, the output shaft from the engine slows and the clutch or freewheeling unit continues to spin freely. The other good engine picks up the load.

If you're cruising along at 100 kts and say 45 % TRQ a side and an engine fails, the other engine automatically goes to 90 % TRQ and you keep trucking along like nothing happened. Maybe a bit of yaw but the flight path stabilization computer will pick it up and keep you heading in a straight line.
 
Velocity173 said:
Depends. I can imagine this blade was producing some pretty good profile drag. Whether the other engine could pick up the load and maintain level flight remains to be seen since they immediately entered an auto. Obviously with the rotor off loaded and using the up flow off air during the auto, the other engine probably wasn't working very hard to maintain 100 %. If the engine simply failed with no blade separation, the other engine, whether it's a GE 700 or 701C could maintain a decent SE speed at this altitude. Based on a 15,000 lb aircraft, you're probably looking at min & max of 30-100 KIAS. So, it all depends on how much drag that thing was producing. Personally I think they could've maintained level flight on the other engine but now way I'd stick around that long to test that theory; immediately auto.

Another thing that was said that doesn't make sense. They said they lost that 6,000 ft in less than a minute. That's a pretty extrem descent rate considering a normal auto in a 60 is around 2,000-2,300 FPM. I can understand in this case a higher ROD based on the lack of lift on one blade but 6,000 ft to the ground in less than a minute doesn't add up. Just like GA, a lot of times in these articles they don't get all the facts straight.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about power available at the rotor shaft, not translated to flight. If the loss of the engine reduced the power available at the shaft, it would reduce the destructive force available regardless RPM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top