Is the Robinson R44 A SAFE HELICOPTER

I walk you through 3 steps to find out if the Robinson R44 is a safe helicopter. First is the Evolution of Helicopters. Second is How they are flown. And third is who is flying them. I break apart some helicopter accidents and why they happen. Ultimately I give you my opinion on whether or not it is a safe helicopter.
The music is from Epidemic Sound:
www.epidemicso...
If you are interested in the flight training we offer you can visit our website:
www.bchelicopt...
You should follow us on the socials:
Instagram @bchelicopters
TikTok @bchelicopters

[@hornplayer1228]

A New Zealand Coroner has just determined that due to a design flaw in the rotor head the Robinson is not suited to the turbulent mountainous terrain in New Zealand. A crash investigator has seen numerous Robinson crash remains with perspex bubble scratches on the leading edges of the blades and the accompanying blade impacted control column. Robinson refused to participate in the inquiry and also refused to comment on the findings. The conclusion is that over correction in turbulence results in the blades instantly losing all semblance of normal tracking and flailing away at the fuselage - in mid air.

[@mickeybowmeister1944]

I just watched the documentary on the crash of a Robinson which killed both pilot and son of famous NZ woman choppa pilot. Rotar blades completly failed. Id rather go up in a hot air balloon than one of these death traps.

[@AUNZAnon]

Anyone thinking of flying in or piloting a Robinson helicopter should watch this first. Robinson are in denial about a serious design flaw in their helicopters.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqa7daeQn9aVh9k

[@AUNZAnon]

Another Robinson mast bump fatal accident.. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l53TeICgeL9rabs

[@quackgarage9551]

@@mickeybowmeister1944 Pretty much this. As a pilot myself, i've never gotten anywhere near a Robinson. They're total garbage. Most folks in aviation know this but they turn a blind eye when it comes to that matter or just try to relativize it.

[@MightyRob1]

@@mickeybowmeister1944 I’m trying not to have confirmation bias, but after I saw that same documentary I am now seeing many reports of Robinson crashes and “mishaps”. Wasn’t previously aware of this but now paying attention.

[@chrisfarr9494]

In NZ we have a very high accident rate with this chopper , they make up 25 % of choppers in NZ , and also make up 50% of crashes , basically the fall apart in mid air , mast bump due to tri hinge main rotor design . If they are used , then best on flat ground & low altitude , NOT good in mountains , or high and speed kept to 70 or lower . There are a lot of them around , and its all to do with the low price , not because they are good .

[@aileronhelicopters]

I think it's because of mountains

[@adotintheshark4848]

Bottom line, know how to fly them-good advice that works in any aircraft.

[@r44pilot19]

I got my helicopter add-on a little over three years ago in a R22. Since then, I've flown mostly in the R44 especially in the last year or so. Yes, they have their drawbacks due to the rotor system, however they ARE quite safe IF you fly them correctly...as you said. Here in the states we must have special training per SFAR 73 prior to flying in the Robinsons. SFAR 73 covers the special quirks to know and avoid to fly them safely. With proper maintenance and training, the Robinsons are safe, reliable, and lots of fun to fly, especially the R44. It would be great to have the better rotor system, but I'm not holding my breath for that one any time soon. Thanks for the informative video Mischa!

[@samueljohnclark]

I’ve flown Bell, Westland, Sikorsky and Aerospatiale helicopters. All solid, robust and safe helos with no sig dangerous flying qualities other than mast bump limitations with the older Iroquois and jet rangers. All my family are banned from ever going in a Robinson. John from Australia

[@johnmarshall4442]

I have worked on helicopters for 26 years. I have never liked Robbinson helicopters. I won't fly on one .

[@craigwall9536]

You notice that the military won't touch one? That's a clue....

[@stevehawkes1691]

I don't even like them flying close to me,

[@dicdicd1767]

Robinson helicopters are not only unsafe, they look ridiculous and ugly.

[@gordonwhitlock9697]

Also note that no New Zealand government employee is allowed to fly in a R44-it's considered an unnecessary risk.

[@currentfaves65]

From the New Zealand coroner's inquiry, the Robison cannot handle anything more than moderate turbulance due the rotor head design. While most helicopters might get a slight wobble in turbulance, the Robinson can cut its tail off or cut into the cockpit.

[@les8518]

The rotor head was the problem.

[@rogerbartels5223]

Frank Robinson would have been intelligent to consider the same problem that the Bell 47 had with their exploding and burning fuel tanks in a crash. You are very correct. Over controlling ANY aircraft is always a problem, especially in a helicopter. ALWAYS move the controls slowly and gently. You are absolutely correct in your description of how to handle the controls. Flailing the controls around on a helicopter will always exceed the rotor blade limits at some point. Except under some circumstances when landing; IF the passengers can see that you are moving the controls on either a helicopter or an airplane, you are making too much movement!!! MANY flight instructors are VERY ignorant about how to actually operate the controls on aircraft, especially helicopters. They believe that "controlling an aircraft" means moving the controls. ALL machines are dangerous when operated improperly. My favorite helicopter is a Hughes (MD) 530FF. Except for the initial investment, it costs about the same as operating a Robinson R-44. The Hughes (MD) 530FF is an awesome machine!!!

[@yoitstupidTV]

I'm currently training for my CFI in both the R22 and R44. I agree with pretty much everything said, but a few other points I would add would be for a pilot to really understand the SFAR 73, and how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly. Also I would recommend to anyone who's wanting to fly or is flying the r22/r44 to take the Robinson Safety Course. They go through all the most important things you should know and even show you around their manufacturing facility (which after talking about the dangers for hours really makes you understand the complexity and sophistication involved in building these helicopters which in turn makes you more confident about their safety).

[@valentinexavier9278]

"how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly." that sounds like an unsafe helicopter

[@WhyitJellyDonut]

@@valentinexavier9278 That's all helicopters homie. It's just because it weighs less so there is less inertia so it has less time in comparison to other helicopters.

[@adamlinamen9720]

@@WhyitJellyDonut The Cabri in comparison has nearly twice the rotor inertia of a R22.

[@WhyitJellyDonut]

@@adamlinamen9720 Where did you find that info?

[@Intrepid175a]

I really appreciate your comments in this video. I think I kind of knew some of the points you were going to make when I read the subject line. I figured you would talk about mast bumping but you made some other great points too. Your comments about "right aircraft, right conditions, and right pilot" are dead on, and they also apply to every aircraft that's ever been built. The pilot has to be fully aware of the aircrafts capabilities and limitations. He/she has to do their homework in terms of what kind of conditions they are likely to be flying into and what their mission is on any particular flight, and, I think, most importantly, he/she needs to be fully honest with themselves about their own capabilities and limitations at any given time. I think that's the hardest part of all. I've seen too many reports of relatively high time pilots who got themselves in trouble because they had the experience and were maybe just a little too confident in themselves with unfortunate consequences. As for helicopter safety, I was remembering an article I saw in an aviation magazine back in the mid to late 70's I think. The cover story was on the Bell 206 (which you mentioned in this video) and the headline was that the 206 was, for that year, the "safest single engine aircraft" in the United States. Note that they didn't say, "safest single engine helicopter," but safest single engine "aircraft," which included single engine fixed wing airplanes! At the time, I thought that was pretty impressive, especially for a helicopter considering how mechanically complex they are. On a slightly different, but related subject, could you talk about ground resonance issues on multi bladed rotor systems? There are so many videos out there of A-Stars and it's various iterations and Schweitzer/Hughs 300's tearing themselves to bits because of this phenomenon. What causes it and how does the pilot avoid it? There's one video I've seen of a 300 that's just being run up on the ground after a maintenance cycle. It's fine for a couple of minutes and then the resonance just starts and the helicopter destroys itself right there? Fortunately, no one got hurt. I imagine there was something else going on that we're not told about but it's certainly an eye opener. Are there design parameters that make one model more prone to this than others and since I'm asking the question, where does the Cabri G2 potentially fit in this situation? I love your videos, Mischa! Keep em coming!

[@MrOlddave]

I have an observation. Since a lot of the training aircraft are R22's and R44's, they may be getting more abuse than you realize. The stress fractures can't be seen by the naked eye so you have no way of knowing you are renting a damaged craft. Unless you own the helicopter, you are just praying it hasn't had a severe mast bump in it's recent history that has not reached the point of causing total failure but is on its way.

[@planesounds]

MrOlddave, you may find this Australian ATSB report of interest: AO-2020-061. It does discuss the indicator as to evidence of mast bumping. I may ask further at my local Robinson service agent.

[@57Jimmy]

Thanks for the excellent laymans description on how the rotor blades operate and how a mast bump happens! There is so much stuff needed to keep those things spinning, unlike a propeller on a plane. Way to much stuff that will cause catastrophic failure if one piece breaks for me to go fly on one!

[@brianfitzgerald6142]

Thanks, Mischa! I have long heard of the safety issues surrounding Robinson helicopters and you're the first to objectively address this. I have two questions... How does the life cycle (with respect to these safety issues) compare between the B206 and the R44? Secondly, how does the R22 compare?

[@SkyCoreLLC]

They do it completely differently. Robinson's have a complete overhaul time limit which is 2200 hours or 12 years and the whole thing needs to go in for months for a massive overhaul and basically come out a brand new helicopter where Bell and everybody else has component times that things need to be replaced or overhauled.

[@fabiolorrez6181]

You are a blessing to the helicopter community.

[@badmonkey2222]

The design limitations of the R-44 are much easier to exceed due to the design itself and I just find it hard to put my faith in them, the risk far outweighs the reward in my book and flying "timidly" and constantly having to remind myself of limitations is not my idea of fun so I chose to stay away from them. The recent accident in Texas is all the reassurance I need was a training flight and there is no reason mast bumping should be occuring in training flights with the CFI in control.

[@brock83196831]

I'm not a pilot but I see a lot of comments on here claiming that having an experienced pilot would stop that, but that seems like a super poor excuse for a helicopter being cable to chop it's own fucking tail off lol. I feel like that just shouldn't be possible

[@dcelectric6689]

I agree “Ok”

[@Jreb1865]

@@brock83196831 I agree 100% ...The "design feature" consisting of the ability to hack one's own aircraft's tail off, just defies reason...

[@m118lr]

..agreed.

[@marcusroulet4068]

@@brock83196831 Well, as you said, you are not a pilot. If you were a helicopter pilot, you would have learned about the dangers of low-g flight in any two bladed teetering rotor system.

[@michaelsimpson9779]

"Exacerbating" was the word you were hunting for, hard when you're doing a long monologue........ good material, I always enjoy your content.

[@bigwheel9132]

Are you sure that is the word he was hunting for? You DO know that synonyms exist, right? You seem so sure of what was going on in his brain, yet you appear to be unaware of how your own is working. Maybe think about cleaning your own porch first?

[@runthering]

Can't wait until Gimbal build a 4 seater Cabri. In my mind, Robo could learn a thing or two from the G2's rotor system.

[@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006]

It's been a round for a long time it's called the Astar or with the Fenston the Eco star. Gimbal has a major connection with Airbus (Eurocopter) and i don't think you will ever see anything but the Cabri. I would love to see a turbine Capri.

[@blueboar]

@@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006 Guimbal has mentioned they've received worldwide interest in a larger Cabri and they are keeping an open mind about it (paraphrased so as not to imply anything).

[@runthering]

I have a picture of a potential prototype however, its a fake :-( Turbine G2? that really would make it the most expensive 2 seater!!

[@Interco56]

I think they will desgin a 4 seater sooner or later. For the time, they are busy with UAV (VSR-700) but I am sure they will develop a 4 seater. We have to stay tuned! ;-)

[@naughtyUphillboy]

@@runthering No, there is already turbine italian 2 seater.......not very expensive

[@miketaylor3947]

I took my first heli lesson this past week and the heli was a 53 hrs new r44. Instructor point #1, keep the disk loaded or fall out of the sky. Instructor point #2, keep rotation at 100, if you stall the blades they will get over loaded, snap, and you'll fall out of the sky. So there you have it.

[@adm5618]

Doesn’t sound ideal

[@KaisTheFireWarrior]

​@@adm5618what's ideal? Let the helicopter fly itself? Only if

[@OneHoof]

Great video Micah. I appreciate your frankness & honesty. I realize you don’t like the R22, hence; your reason for not mentioning it. Over the years I have tried to avoid the R22, but an Army assignment to a remote base in Louisiana left me no option, but the R22 to train in for my Commercial Helicopter Certificate. I had previously trained in Enstroms & Schweizer 300C’s. With 16 hours in the R22, a substitute CFI had me do my first solo in type at night. An hour after doing approaches after terminating at a hover over the numbers, just as I was about to take off, the helicopter inexplicably violently spun out of control. The wind was almost straight down the runway & I applied full left pedal, but the helicopter violently spun faster & faster with my headset shooting off my head & the helicopter wanting to flip over. It resulted in a hard spinning landing with the helicopter spinning & sliding down the runway. The owner & insurance company couldn’t find any mechanical malfunctions & ultimately blamed LTE. I finished my Commercial Rating in R22’s, but promised myself to never fly an R22 again. I later got checked out in the R44 which seems more substantial than the R22, with the hope of getting a tour job. I rented this R44 for 22 hours & I never had any problems with it. I like that they spin the tail rotor the right way (clockwise) to make it more effective. On my last flight my CFI talked me out of taking a ballast as I had on my other solo flights & it was a windy day. On my way back to the airport with the wind & turbulence I was nervous about mast bumping, so I slowed down to 75 knots & tried not to move the cyclic. I was going to train in the R44 to get my Helicopter Instrument Add On Rating, but after seeing the recent fatal R44 crash where it broke up in flight over Texas, I am having second thoughts about training in the R44. There are a lot of experienced pilots who have tragically been killed in Robinson helicopters. I think a 3 or 4 bladed rotor system will be a major breakthrough for Robinson. www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-robinson-helicopters/

[@pieterdewaard2383]

The point about how the HC is being flown interests me a lot. The military in the US and Australia enforces a structural integrity program that is designed to pick up deviations from the design usage spectrum/profile (% of time spent in different flight phases and hence load cases leading to fatigue life consumption). The OEM would publish life limits in flight hours which are derived from the design usage spectrum. E.g., it was assumed 1.5 ground/air/ground cycles per flight hour. The design is then safe to be used if the HC over its life if the actual GAG cycle rate is at or below 1.5 per FH. If, however, the GAG rate is say 3 per FH over the life, the part most impacted by fatigue loading due to GAG cycles is likely to fail earlier than the published limits in the maintenance manual. Hence, the structural integrity program is monitoring actual use vs design use, so that these trends could be picked up and life limits adjusted accordingly. I am always curious to what extent operators of the GA HC types know how they are being flown compared to the design assumptions. I believe the grounding in NZ and Aus was, as you indicate, related to this issue. Given the R philosophy to overhaul of critical components all at the same airframe time (as you outlined in your video re operating cost), and given the variability in usage across the fleet, safety factors in the design combined with the prescribed regular inspections of critical parts are the primary protection against premature failure due to usage deviating from the design assumptions. But this can only protect to some extent.

[@eknuds]

I like the R44. The more hours I get the less I like two bladed helicopters because of the danger presented by low G pushovers. I also don't like the T bar cyclic. It's poor ergonomics. The T bar cyclic makes it more difficult to get to the console. One of my ideas for a helicopter is to remove the console but have flat screens closer to the pilots. The view outside would be improved, the instruments would be more readable, and the avionics controls more easily reached.

[@maximusjoseppi5904]

a 4 bladed R44... yes please. that would be sweet. ive had some gnarly updrafts in a 44 but my instructors always emphasised to just let the helicopter do whatever it wants mostly and do not try to counteract in those conditions so thats how i fly. currently getting IFR rated with 150ish hours in a 44.

[@BALLERXD24]

Approximately how many hours did it take to get your license?

[@cessnapilot8656]

Great video, I think that you do a great service to aviation in general by bring these issues to the forefront so that they can be examined and discussed in a educational form where we has pilots can discuss and learn how to be safer .

[@SkyCoreLLC]

I wish Robinson would make some on condition composite blades like everybody else.

[@kenbrand8972]

I heard that there blades are finally made of fiberglass now

[@dtobler4638]

I’m a low time inst/comm rotorwing pilot. I’ve no intention of flying a Robinson helicopter for many of the reasons listed in this video. In my opinion Robinson helicopters are on the quality level of most ultralight helicopters. You kinda get what you pay for.

[@dawnfreedom2024]

Very important and informative video! thank you for sharing

[@HeliZero]

Your comment about Robinson making a update to the rotor-system is very interesting. My RC R22 has a rigid head.

[@bemontc]

Great video. Just one comment, as an experienced failure analysis expert, although not one versed in aircraft. No engineering component should be designed in such a way that it is possible for it to undergo fatigue cracking. They are a few isolated exceptions to this, some of those being in the aircraft industry, But in those cases the fatigue cracking is well known, well understood, well monitored and not dangerous because the component is intentionally replaced prior to its failure.

[@MissionaryBushPilot]

It would be nice if you could out timestamps in the description so I could listen to specific topics rather than having to skip around and try to find the section I want.

[@jpphoopha]

Arthur Young designed the Bell 47 with a teetering rotor that could not mast bump. Its hub was provided sufficient teetering clearance that the rotor would hit the tail before hitting the mast. Spring-loaded droop stops (rabbit ears) fell into place at low rotor rpm and limited the teetering angle to prohibit the rotor from hitting the tail when the helicopter was on the ground. In flight the pilot could mishandle the cyclic to make the rotor hit the tail but this took a determined effort. The Bell 47 hub was also initially fitted with cables that limited the teetering angle and fed back into the control system if the rotor was reaching its teetering limits. These cables were removed in the late 1970s because the rotor system was determined to remain safe without them. Bell apparently modified Young’s design for later teetering rotor helicopters to remove the spring-loaded droop stops and reduce hub teetering clearance so a blade root could rest against the mast to eliminate tail boom strikes when the rotor was stationary on the ground. Pilot awareness and training were emphasized to manage the rotor and avoid mast bump inflight. Excluding the early Jet Rangers which had a Bell 47-type hub, the Bell Jet Ranger/Long Ranger/Huey/Cobra series all have a history of mast bump accidents. There are no records (as far as I know) of accidents due to mast bump with the Bell 47; conversely, the contemporary Hiller UH-12, fitted with a rotor the hub of which rests against the shaft when not turning, has a history of accidents due to mast bump. Robinson made the mast bump problem worse by designing a teetering rotor with low inertia, the hub of which also rests against the shaft when not turning. I consider that a teetering rotor, the hub of which rests against the shaft when not turning, is designed to mast bump. I would ban teetering rotors if I had my way.

[@jdbaker82]

I don't know much about this stuff but I can tell this guy hit the nail on the head.

[@raymondfrank9202]

I believe when I was learning in a R-22 a low g push over was part of the training. During the training they decided no more low g push overs. This was a very interesting perspective. I'm probably lucky to be alive.But I was a very conservative pilot.

[@johnmarshall4442]

I have worked on helicopters for 26 years. I don't like Robbinson helicopters. I won't fly on one.

[@KaisTheFireWarrior]

Low g pushover is for 2 bladed helis. Many have 2 blades not just Robinsons

[@zacharycarlito8130]

I’d be curious to hear your opinion on how the R22 or R44 compares to the Schweitzer 300 from a safety standpoint. Additionally, would you recommend one over the other for a new student pilot to train in and why? Thanks for the videos!

[@naughtyUphillboy]

S300 are safer than many turbines.........

[@ruftime]

Bladdered fuel tanks have a shorter service life......so that adds another super expensive mandatory service/maintenance expense. I’m sure that was an initial consideration by Robinson to lower the selling price and ongoing running costs. That’s how it works in my world of race cars. Ferrari f40 fuel tanks need to be replaced after 7-9 years at the cost of 12k usd.......whether you drive it or not😎

[@patricksmith8205]

What is your opinion of the rotorway helicopters

[@EricFB]

Also interested! Lets see an opinion video on kit helicopters. Rotorway, safari and composite fx (mosquito)

[@jpridie]

Aviation is only as safe as you want to make it. Good training is a must and respect the limitations of the helicopter and or aircraft. Respect the C of G, speed limitations etc. Read the flight manual! I have over 5k hours in Hiller UH12 and Bell 47 and R22 R44, Hiller FH1100 and found no problems.

[@Jerry10939]

The cost is one factor, but Robinson didn’t change their design to make it better. Every other helicopter company changed their design to make them better. They took a bad design of the R22 to a larger version with the R44 and the R66. The Bell 47 went through many versions. All better. Then when they went to a bigger helicopter. They didn’t make a larger version of it they came up with an entirely new design. The Bell 47 was built with their rotors so it can’t mast bump. Robinson worked for Bell but didn’t have the device to prevent mast bumping. When you have to have special training and an extra 10 hours and a special FAR for it. It’s a bad design. The R44 could have been a whole new design. But they didn’t. I know Army pilots who won’t fly it. My instructor said it’s a death trap. I also think the T-bar cyclic is also a bad idea. It shouldn’t be used by flight schools. It wasn’t designed as a flight trainer. I would rather fly a Schweitzer. Any flaws should be worked out of the design. For a four place helicopter, I would rather fly a MD500. It’s a better safe helicopter.

[@tommynajdovski8299]

Hi thanks that’s great information have you had any experience with rotorway are they any better or worse then Robinson

[@markwallis7199]

I flew them both and bought an R44 instead of a R162

[@stevenkilkenny24]

totally agree.

[@falcoperegrinus82]

I cannot help but be reminded of that Seinfeld episode when you talk about the fuel bladder. 😂

[@markweigel5129]

lol

[@in-motus]

Despite the fact of how much I admire helicopters as ingenious pieces of mechanical art, the second half of this episode from the mast bumping on summed it up very well and is indeed the main reason I still prefer fixed-wing aircraft as a safer option. Just way too many moving parts that are persistently trying to fly away from you and, in some cases, succeeding. Well explained flying through turbulence though. Same thing with fixed-wing aircrafts - just hold the still and let the air rock your wings a bit. The aircraft will eventually settle.

[@blackwatch6649]

I hate to break it to you, but there are many different types of helicopters and different rotor systems; mast-bumping is only applicable to teetering rotor systems. Attempting to paint all helicopters as susceptible to such factors is just asinine.

[@darreno1450]

I agree, even though statistics show helicopters to be safer than general aviation. Still, for the reasons you outlined, if I had to make a choice, I'd hop on the plane before the helicopter. And I marvel at the machine as well.

[@vichy7661]

Vid is spec on, great illustration of how, what, why of the Robinson's use, pilot experience, training, strict adherence to maintenance, aircraft specs as issued. You open a lot of light here!

[@Ozbird-72]

Come on... I trained in R 22 and we did all the fancy stuff back then: Low g, throttle chops, settling with power, retreading blade stall and a lot of autos... It was fun and safe. We just knew the limits.

[@indyjons321]

I want to know more about the new rotor design RHC might be coming up with.... would be cool if it was nearly a "drop in" system for the 22's and 44's

[@johnwhodat8135]

Don't hold your breath, it's not coming.

[@dobiedude7479]

I knew one of the pilots killed in AZ. They were flying a R66. Got into turbulence. I had some close calls in other helicopters. Maintenance check flights when things went south. And pilot error in a 222U. Low rotor RPM in flight at 120 knots. Redline and falling. I haven’t flown since, and will never get in a helicopter again. Yes I know that overall they’re safe.

[@fattyman9133]

Retrofitting bladder tanks on a R44 was a real hoot. No 2 Robinsons are alike. Each tank had to be custom fit. You would think that swapping out the tanks would be a simple procedure but nooooooo. Thanks Frank!

[@devengudinas1649]

It is now

[@benargee]

Did Robinson never use CNC cut aluminum and welding jigs to build the tanks?

[@nwanchorcertification]

So when are they going to fix the mast bumping ?

[@timarnold9969]

The question to ask is: Why does a Robinson have SFAR 73? In other words, one can solo any other light helicopter (or airplane) with any amount of dual instruction, but not the Robinson. The Robinson takes a minimum of 20 hours of dual before a solo can be done. You can solo any Bell, Schweizer, Airbus, Enstrom, and many others, but not the Robinson… That alone, should be evidence that they are death traps. As an instructor, I have 250 hours in each, the 22 and the 44, but I stopped flying them in 2007. I would never fly in one again for any reason or purpose. Literally, the second one pulls pitch in a Robinson, your life is over, unless the thing works perfectly.

[@endtimeawakening5557]

Awesome explanation of the rotor operation. Very professionally done! Great job!

[@nks9694]

Another great video. I also think a 3 blade Robinson will be fantastic!

[@pimlican]

A two bladed helicopter is very economical to hangar. This is a very good reason why it is two blades and not three or four.

[@BegudMaximan-zp2tc]

Know your limitations, fly to suit the machines abilities and be very wary of going beyond the manufacturers set out specified limitations. The thought of mast bumping and chopping off your tail boom, doesn't impress one bit, so stay safe. 🚁👍

[@carlosdanger947]

It needs to come with an add on parachute

[@mountainflyhigh]

Just did a quick search of mast bumping accidents. Zero listed for S300 - MANY listed for R44. I worked on my Private in an S300 (20,000 hour retired airline pilot), and thought its design made sense and it seemed strongly built. It only took one look at an R44 to realize it was designed to overcome its many design flaws. Whenever an aircraft has issues, the designers always blame it on the pilots not flying it properly. If that is truly the issue, then it wasn't designed properly in the 1st place.

[@andrewbello983]

Great point! I am lucky enough to fly a Bell-206 these days and have about 18hrs in Robbies from early in my career. I didn't like em' then, and I sure won't fly one now that I have years of experience and hands on knowledge.

[@samrapheal1828]

Exactamundo.

[@Afrocanuk]

Seems I never hear anything about the Hughes OH-6 Cayuse.

[@defyent]

I always liken robinsons as the dinghys of the aviation world. You don't take a dinghy out into a storm or bad weather, or try to race one at 200mph, same goes for a robinson. Treat it as it should be treated and you'll be just fine.

[@georgej7077]

Really well thought out critical analysis!

[@flyinbrianewing]

Will the next VLOG be about the R-22? Isn't this a typical "entry level" machine? I have been debating on which inexpensive machine to buy but I have heard a lot of talk both pro and con. Great video here today, thanks.

[@jbm8444]

If you were really buying a helicopter you would know a bit more about the the R22, unless you are thinking of getting a RC helicopter.

[@2WildRazn]

I can’t afford any of the Robinson but I am looking at a rotorway what’s ur thoughts on those

[@TheBeingReal]

Have you flown an Enstrom?

[@walterthorne4819]

Excellent presentation..many thanks.

[@m118lr]

..and how many Robinsons have gone down SINCE THIS vid..with a POST-crash fire? I started in a ‘22’ back in ‘03 (‘04..?), went on to the Schweizer 300 series (H269 initially..and both). I WOULDN’T get back in a Robinson..

[@mariano_tiburon]

6:00 " a big alarm bell sounded"

[@eduardothelizardman9327]

And do the other popular light helicopters - Bells, Airbuses, Hughes/MD/Schweizers et al - have the same limitations that the Robinsons do regarding mast-bumping and slicing off the tail rotor? There's your answer.

[@blacknickelfilms]

I’ve reached out via email about your school, I’d love to hear back from you!

[@jerryfraker377]

They look awfully dangerous 😳. Always were a parachute that way you can abandon ship if you need to.

[@KaisTheFireWarrior]

Tell me you you aren't a pilot without actually telling me

[@Charon58]

The question “Is it safe?” is not really the question. It isn’t a black and white answer and can’t be…safe or unsafe. An R-44 flown by an experienced pilot with R-44 time and a cautious hand is relatively safe. It probably isn’t as safe as other helicopters. An R-44 flown by an inexperienced CFI with a new student is probably relatively unsafe compared to other trainers and may present risks to the Instructor and Student that aren’t usually fully disclosed to the Student. When someone says “all you have to do is not this or that and you’ll be safe” are missing the point. The stats don’t really lie. I personally have lost two friends in Robinsons and both were careful and skilful pilots. If they can have it go wrong in a Robinson, then pretty much anyone can.

[@andrewbello983]

I agree completely! All the training in the world may not prevent that slight distraction that causes the best pilot to exceed an already slim aircraft's limitation!

[@CopterpilotLA]

It’s a very nice Helicopter that needs to be treated with respect.

[@BayAreaCowboy]

Makes you wonder why Robinson does not listen to instructors like you develop a better system rotor system? Cost?

[@samrapheal1828]

"Legal beagles"..........

[@ngamokonikora708]

The Robinson R44 is a very safe helicopter if operated within the manufacturer’s perimeters. In New Zealand there was a spate of helicopter accidents in the 1980’s and 1990’s and most were linked to the Robinson helicopter. When the NZ CAA investigated they found almost unanimously that accidents attributed to the Robinson helicopter were because operators were flying them way beyond the safety limits set by the manufacturer.

[@ormjo940]

Sweeping inaccurate statement about NZ crashes

[@you2tooyou2too]

re 7:25 isn't turbine blade separation an iconic catastrophic failure? re 9:38 NDT (Non-Destructive Testing) is like dye penetrant, X-ray, magnaflux, or even surface microscopy, are some NDT fracture detection technologies. Destructive testing is like 'sectioning' or 'acid reveal etching' are usually only used after a crash. By microscopic, he is referring to the separation of the 'crystalline structures' of the metal where it has been deformed beyond its structural strain limits. Good stuff!

[@bdaileron]

So, Frank Robinson's design is relatively dangerous? If not for Robinson helicopters, consider how many less Heli pilots would be around. Mischa, would you be a Heli pilot, if not for Robinsons? I’d really like to have a 407, but can only afford a Raven II. I hear accounting is really safe.

[@Glidescube]

Why not an MD500 over a Robinson?

[@samrapheal1828]

$eriou$ uptick in price.

[@dr.wilfriedhitzler1885]

The guy who flew the bride and her brother 12/4/2016 in Sao Paulo to her wedding, should have had seen this video. A big tragedy.

[@ianmangham4570]

Sad very sad.

[@naughtyUphillboy]

He kept on flying fast, rather carelessly .........without any consideration, actually he was scared (not bad), but he needed to be cautious & slowed down . Very SAD......however.

[@planespotter4494]

The R22 and R66 have the same low mass teetering rotor system. Why only mention the R44?

[@cameronshultz6105]

Mast bumping: 11 strikes per second when in this phenomenon, 22 strikes to failure.

[@jerryferguson5461]

Well presented. Thank you. Past military rotary wing pilot here. I will not get in a Robinson. I don't even want to be under one when it is flying overhead. Sure, it appeals to the ones with no other options and the relatively ignorant. They are the ones for whom my heart aches.

[@pwatom22]

So where does that mean for the r22?

[@guyglot]

We just had one crash last week at the Best in the Desert Silver state 300 off road race around 6000 foot elevation they said it lost lift and they chopped some firewood and thank good all 3 walked away and the camera guy was sitting with open door I believe

[@agujadriver7209]

can you tell me what is the best 2 seats helicopter so far for you?

[@danscoltock1180]

There is a saying in new Zealand, if you want to own a robby buy a paddock and wait

[@filipkranjec2749]

What do you have to do with the cyclic and the collective when the air mass lifts helicopter nose?

[@ben3989]

Wouldn’t more blades lower the inertia even more? (Smaller disc diameter)

[@davidberger5784]

Excellent video, Mischa. Any flying machine which requires superior piloting not to disintegrate in frequently encountered conditions is not a machine for me. Relying on the meatware to get it right every time is a fundamental design flaw and therefore a recipe for disaster, which has been proven time and time again.

[@sammirdattani2694]

Hi! I would really request you to do a similar video for the R66 Hope to see it soon. Thanks !!

[@naughtyUphillboy]

R66 has killed many...........in short time......bad expansion of poor design........

[@abrahamklutsey8094]

I like it because the engine is not overhead. If you go down with it the engine will not crash on you and killing you.

[@davehermel5317]

Well done!

[@pwatom22]

What about the R22 and time to react after engine failure.

[@Interco56]

About 1 to 1,5 second before catastrophic RRPM drop occurs. It depends on altitude too. The limit ist 80% rrpm + 1% per 1'000ft altitude.

[@josephking6515]

@@Interco56 Is that due to the composite blades being so lightweight (contain stuff all mass) that they don't maintain their momentum, or rather the momentum dies very quickly. I remember reading that the UH-1 could be sitting on the ground (don't remember at what power setting) when you could turn the noise off and be able to pull the collective and do a full peddle turn and put it back down again. It seems that those blades could maintain a good _safety momentum_ if you were forced into an autorotate.

[@kojack635]

The only thing I like about semi rigid rotors is the sound

[@drbarry7381]

Good Info

[@markgoodley2450]

Last Question: Negative G correction?... as i understand your "solution", the response you teach should be zero input... ? Aft cyclic and raised collective seem to be more typical training. Your thoughts on each ?

[@wiehahngeldenhuys2859]

Can you please give us your appinoin on the alloute 2 helicopter

[@turbolevo8703]

Ok!

[@guymerritt4860]

"...thye're burning alive because they can't get ooot" - this guy has to be Canadian.

[@rexmasters1541]

Robinson Death machines.

[@donjohnson2639]

Hmmmm.... I don’t think I want to fly in an aircraft that might cut off its own tail in flight when it encounters turbulence or heavy input on controls. 😱

[@cliftonwilliams766]

It has been said many times in many places that all helicopters can experience "mast bumping"? Not true? The Hughes 500, and it's later versions, rotor hub is attached directly to the airframe which prevents mast bumping. This design should be required on all new designs henceforth!

[@OlJarhead]

One of my former Army Reserve pilots had over 45,000 flight hours in just about everything you could think of from about 1966 in Virtnam to around 2000 when I lost track of him. He adamantly refused to get in a Robinson. He said you get no second chance with those things.

[@tvhelcap6122]

Dave Stutesman, don't you confuse anything with the number of hours? This is a very large figure and not realistic for such a period of time. I am writing this to you as a former pilot who has flown about the same number of years.

[@jordymaas565]

one went down immediately after take off out of Broome couple years back; didn't make any sense - looked awfully suss re maintenance or whatever. another sad day.

[@garycook5125]

Your friend is wise. As a 31 year pilot, I've refused to ever fly a Robinson. Their design is too unforgiving.

[@sarahann530]

@@garycook5125 They require a competent well trained pilot . Obviously you know your limits .

[@garycook5125]

@@sarahann530Numerous, well trained, competent pilots have died in Robinsons. There are situations that occur in flying aircraft sometimes, that the very best of us can't control.

[@jacquesraymond6892]

The investigation report about the crash of the R44 that killed the owner of the helicopter Stephane Roy (Savoura Sagami) and his son Justin during summer 2019 in Québec just came out. The cause is an undetected gradual rotor blade delamination wich is also apparently a popular issue on the R44.

[@helimad100]

There was an amendment to the r44 stating in turbulence slow down to help keep the disc loaded. Doesn’t matter what machine you’re flying, don’t fight the wind. That leads to a tense pilot and over correction. Relax and the helicopter relaxes, just accept its a bumpy ride. If it gets too much, put it down and wait it out.

[@jazzman5598]

Very well said.

[@markwallis7199]

It was very good advice too. I used it when flying through the Welsh mountains and it was getting a bit all over the place. Perhaps pull it back to 70 or so and enjoy the beautiful scenery for a little longer.

[@Freefalldave]

Great advice

[@shademe]

Do Bell helicopters also have the ability to mast bump?

[@helimad100]

Yes, all twin blade machines are susceptible. As a rule, low g is not advised in any helicopter, but two blade machines an absolute no.

[@goapebilly]

Excellent video,very informative easy to understand,perfect for a student . Much better then most r22 instructors ive seen. Yes r22 are dangerous ,but so is every other helicopter, i do agree it shouldnt be a beginner trainer ,but at same time once u master it ,there are very few other helicopters u cant fly and well. And 1 million percent correct its who is behind the controls ,i had a friend taught here on long island ,moved back to cali was teaching part time while waiting for another job he had 700 hrs approx and was flying with a student a bit over 10 hours while taking off in a r22 ,about 200 ft, a turkey vulture ,came across and tore off tail rotor, bird had a 6 ft wing span, with a lot f luck and a excellent pilot auto down keeping skids straight and level, when he landed, skids bowed some but made it down safely. Also helped end of that runway lead over a golf course ,so no house ,buildings . So as u say its who flys them that ultimately can make all the difference in the world

[@valentinexavier9278]

master it or die. i'll pass.

[@elvenblalock6116]

Been doing a lot of reading lately about the R44, and your video really sums up what the reality is. Basically - and you and several of the commenters here have said - The R44 ain't an MD530, or a Kamov Black Shark, or an MBB105, so don't try to fly it like one.

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

Ask this question today and you may get some different answers. Those two pilots in Texas are dead because the Robinson chopped of it's own tail. They had no chance. Now, it may have been pilot error, but any machine that has that capability for catastrophic failure just for routine training isn't airworthy in my opinion. To my knowledge I can never remember another helicopter cutting off it's own tailboom. Just saying.

[@Mega747400]

the Russian hind attack chopper is well known for doing it but that is also a 3rd word countries engineering

[@robslade2571]

Even if it was pilot error the aircraft should be able to withstand a certain amount of that.

[@valuedhumanoid6574]

@@robslade2571 Exactly my point. If it's even POSSIBLE to self destruct with something so simple and routine, shut it down and fix it. That would be like buying a new car and the dealer says "oh, by the way, don't hit the brakes if you're on a side slope and over 30 mph. The wheels will come off". WTF? Uh...here's the keys back, can you get me a cab home?