Disclaimer: All information contained herein are the OPINIONS of various owners and participants of the Rotorway Owners Forum. They are not necessarily the opinion of Rotorway.Org or of it's management. The information presented is not guaranteed to be accurate.
Author Topic: Safe Ship?
Bill O'Keefe
Member # 135
posted July 27, 2001 12:40 PM
Hi guys. I try to read most of the posts from different subjects and one
thought keeps popping up. I'll try to explain it, but I may not be very
successful.
At almost every juncture, there seems to be a problem or issue with the design,
material or function of something. As a relatively new homebuilder (4 months),
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what I should upgrade, modify, replace etc. Things
like the secondary unit, clutch, tail rotor slider, cyclic stick grips and a
thousand other things. I guess what I'm really asking is, if a builder stays
pretty much stock with RotorWay parts, will he have a SAFE ship?
I know I'll get some good feedback. You guys are terrific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted July 27, 2001 01:57 PM
Bill,
You ask the million dollar question!
"Safe" is a relative term and the definition of it is dependent on what your
tolerance for risk is and what your reference point for "safe" is as well as how
you manage risk. In otherwords, your definition of "safe" will likely be
different from mine or anyone else for that matter.
For example, is your reference point driving the family car on the highway as a
safe activity? If so, flying a Rotorway is definitely not "safe". Odds are at
least an order of magnitude higher that you'll get killed in a Rotorway than in
the family car.
Another reference point could be fixed wing flying. Statistically, fixed wing is
much safer than piston helicopter flying from the perspective of fatalities per
100,000 flight hours and although there are no fleet records for RW's it's quite
certain that the fatality/accident rate is much higher that even experimental
fixed wing.
Another, even closer, reference point might be RW relative to R-22 helicopters.
Statistically speaking the R-22 is by far more mechanically reliable than the RW.
Only 13% of all R-22 accidents are caused by mechanical failure whereas 50% of
RW accidents are from mechanical failure. On the otherhand you are about 5% more
likely to die in an R-22 crash than an RW crash.
Of course, you must interpret the statistics not just take them as black and
white. The reason the fatality rate is a bit higher in the R-22 is these ships
are used for serious flying for all kinds of missions and over all kinds of
terrain whereas most of the RW crashes are roll-overs and failures close to
airports and the ground. It's also logical to note that virtually ALL R-22's
with N numbers are actually flying whereas many RW's with N numbers aren't even
completed yet - that skews the numbers.
Your definition of "safe" and risk tolerance may also be different from what
your insurance company. I don't know of any life insurance companies that will
pay if you get killed flying an experimental helicopters.
Safety also depends a lot on the pilot and his/her judgement. If all you ever do
is hover around your yard or airport - there is a very low probability of
getting hurt. If plan to fly your RW over terrain where you cannot safely
autorotate or consistantly at low altitudes and low speed you will not be so
"safe".
So here's my safety/risk strategy based on MY reference points:
- Flying an RW helicopter over rough terrain or densely populated areas is
pretty high risk due to the likelyhood of a mechanical failure and I will take a
great effort to avoid this.
- The RW is not designed to accepted and proven aviation engineering standards
nor does it use aviation quality materials throughout so I will work to reduce
the risk of mechanical failure by doing comprehensive pre-flight inspections and
frequent inspection tear-downs and component monitoring.
- All helicopter flying is inherently high risk. Therefore I will make sure I am
current with the best training and am proficient and well practiced at
autorotations and emergency procedures prior to flying my RW whether it be the
first time or the thousanth time (or any helicopter for that matter)
- Lastly, although I am willingly taking informed risk by flying my RW with the
knowledge that it is an experimental aircraft and all that goes with that. I
will not expose my friends or family to that risk without first ensuring they
are also fully informed and then only on a very limited and controlled basis.
That said do I feel more confident flying an R-22 or a Schweizer than a RW?
Absolutely! Will I still have fun in my RW? Sure, but I'll always remember it's
an EXPERIMENTAL and my flying will comprehend that. I won't be doing the same
things I would do in an R-22 or a Schweizer so as to manage the risk.
Oh, one last thing. If safety were my overriding concern I would have never
purchased a experimental helicopter. There were other factors in my purchase
decision besides safety. Also, I never expected an experimental that costs only
$62k to be as high quality as a certified helicopter - that would be naive.
However, I did expect RW to be a bit more honest about informing us when they
find safety issues and to have a greater sense of urgency fixing them.
Sorry for the long winded response. Hope it helps.
Cheers,
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yule
Master Tech Guru
3/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 7
posted July 27, 2001 06:22 PM
Well said Ron.
Just to stir up the pot a little, I'm not that impressed with the safety of the
R22's rotor design. Tho' I love that little tractor engine, and how it plugs
away all day long, it's awfully damn easy to roll one of those suckers over.
I've heard for years about the good handling characteristics of the RW, and now
that I've flown both, I see the point.
As for the overall safety issue, I see things all over the map. For example,
there are guys out there flying ships with no temp gauges on the secondary, and
no idea what the proper temp limitations are. That's a pretty good defiinition
of unsafe-the pilot, not the ship.
If you take to heart the standard CFI's advice, which I find very few actually
do, you'll practice autos until they feel routine-even boring. Then you'll be
quite safe, secondary or no secondary. So look inward first for safety, then to
the ship.
That said, use common sense and things should be OK. This forum is a great place
to get a sense of what's important and what's just the latest cool mod.
Anyway, to answer your short question with a short answer, I would say yes with
the exception of the chain. I just cannot get comfortable with that one. All the
rest is useful/cool/important-in-cold-weather-maybe, or just us wanting to do
something original (which is fine).
Enjoy yourself!
C
Chris Yule
Newton Center, MA
cyule@rcn.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted July 27, 2001 06:43 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chris Yule:
For example, there are guys out there flying ships with no temp gauges on the
secondary, and no idea what the proper temp limitations are. That's a pretty
good defiinition of unsafe-the pilot, not the ship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But.... you shouldn't have to have temp gauges on the secondary and monitor them
like a hawk!!!!
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Geliot
Participant
*
Member # 119
posted July 28, 2001 02:59 AM
Chris,
I have absolutely agonized over that R22 rotor system, and spent many many hours
researching the issues. I actually got very concerned indeed about these issues
during my PPL training, to the point of looking for a Bell 47 substitute.
Some question marks have been well and truly put to rest- notably the 18 degree
offset. I'm convinced that if you adhere to the limitations the R22 won't hurt
you.
Ignore them and you invite the worst. No mysteries, and you can stay safe in an
R22 even doing some fairly spirited low-level maneuvring. Expect a bit more
inertia in the R22 delta when that eventually comes out, maybe not as much as
you get in your RW though.
As for dynamic rollover- yes real easy to do, thankfully not a killer usually.
Been very impressed in my training with what can be done, lots of work on the
skids at up to 35kt and plenty of hovering autos involving turning touchdowns /
failed tail rotor.
I think dynamic rollover is not a problem with good training and good piloting.
I have no fear of controlled sliding on appropriate surfaces.
Pot stirred. Not shaken though. As this is an RW forum I'll refrain from a
discourse on bendy-blade flap, coning hinges, delta 3. In any case it will make
my head hurt!
More volts, Igor!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Selig
Master Tech Guru
5/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 46
posted July 28, 2001 03:02 AM
The R22 will definitely bite you if you do not understand it completely. I
have had no quelms paying $40/hour to get additional time with an excellent
instructor. Most do not develope their skills, or get into more advanced
procedures as I am told.
As far as stability on landing, The skid width is about a ft and a half wider
than the RW. The RW is about 5 ft or so, it fits on my standard trailer while
the R22 does not.
The R22 with the governer I believe has a much better safety record. You also
have to remember that these ships are like tractor trailers where the engines
rarely get shut down. They run these things constantly all day long, with
students that do all kinds of things to them.
--Just to stir up the pot a little, I'm not that impressed with the safety of
the R22's rotor design. Tho' I love that little tractor engine, and how it plugs
away all day long, it's awfully damn easy to roll one of those suckers over.
I've heard for years about the good handling characteristics of the RW, and now
that I've flown both, I see the point
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yule
Master Tech Guru
3/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 7
posted July 28, 2001 07:03 AM
Martin--
That's a nice synopsis of my considerations about the R22, and also its
benefits. All in all, worth having, but somehow hard to get excited about. I
expect to use one on longer XC, where my RW may not be appropriate.
The next question is the R44!!
C
Chris Yule
Newton Center, MA
cyule@rcn.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Geliot
Participant
*
Member # 119
posted July 28, 2001 02:02 PM
Well steered Ron!
To get closure on the original intent of the thread I'd like to understand
whether the Rotorway design is inherently safer than that other thing, if we
were to have a reliable tractor engine and no chance of secondary troubles.
Clearly mast bumping / rotor impact / disc divergence is possible in a RW, but
thanks to higher inertia and somewhat limited control authority (and a real
cyclic) I see it as much less likely.
Anyone care to add hard data?
How does RW cope with moderate turbulence (i.e. what happens to the disc /
flap)?
How tolerant is the RW of inappropriate application of forward cyclic?
What are the values for rotor flap angle during normal flight at various
airspeeds, and what are the limits?
At what RRPM does the RW become likely to either quit flying or suffer a rotor
system failure?
Agree with the sentiment that a stock RW is not appropriate for use over tiger
country (which kind of rules it out for me, until the chance the power-loss is
hugely reduced).
More volts, Igor!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Smith
Occasional Participant
Member # 143
posted July 29, 2001 02:26 AM
Bill,
To get back to your original question: I finished my 162F 2 years ago and have
170 hrs on it. It is pretty much stock standard and I have had no big
problems..at least not with any of the items you mentioned.
I considered the belt drive at one stage, mainly for weight and noise reduction,
but choose to stay ont he fence for two reasons..1/ no real problems with chain,
2/ statistics seem to show belt drives and secondary failures are more common
per unit than chain/secondary failures..this assumes that there are still a lot
more chains than belts flying.
For safety I would recommend at least these two things...A/ a good digital
secondary temp gauge with high temp memory and B/ well developed autorotation
skills...
The thing with RW's, is that some ships are a lot safer than others, a lot
depends on how well they are built, maintained and flown...
Dennis Smith
Perth Western Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted July 29, 2001 09:09 AM
Hi Dennis,
I tend to agree with you. A lot of the safety problems can be dealt with by
proper building and maintenance. I think what we are beginning to understand
better though is that many of the problems we are seeing that are not builder
skill related are due to quality control or cost saving measures at RW. Some of
the secondary failures, clutch arm breakages, etc. fall into this camp.
The challenge for us builders is to identify all these so we can do something
about them - either better inspections/preflights, preventative replacement,
etc. If we can get everybody working together to document this stuff then we can
redesign some of the obvious things (like clutch swing arsm) as well as build
ourselves a checklist for inspections and pre-flight areas to keep a special eye
on. That will go a long way in making the RW a more reliable machine.
The challenge however, is that we, the RW owners, must do this ourselves. If we can get enough contributions to hints and tips and to the safety
section to make it useful I can eventually turn it into a printed document that
can be made available to all owners. I'm sure John P. would work with me to make
that happen - but we have to get the info first.
Cheers,
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill O'Keefe
Occasional Participant
Member # 135
posted July 29, 2001 01:34 PM
Ron, thanks for THREE times bringing the topic back to what I was looing for.
It seemed to drift over to R22's very quickly. Also to you, Dennis, as that's
how I see me finishing my ship. I have reasonably good building skills, but that
may not be sufficient enough if there are design or material problems. And I
heartily agree with Chris's idea of practicing autos till you're bored silly.
When I was skydiving, every time I threw out my pilot chute, I got ready for a
malfunction. When I finally had one, it was exactly like I had practiced. That's
what I intend to do in practicing autos.
I was a little dismayed when I read Ron's comment about not flying over rough
terrain or densely populated areas. It's not that I don't think it's wise, but
if your ship is built well and you do the best you can learning how to fly it
properly, you should be able to fly it most anywhere. It's a little tough to get
away from populated area here in L.A.
I think the idea of a printed document that contains our safety concers culled
from all of the knowlegeable people in the group is the way to go. Then an
individual can go through it and make his own decisions on how to proceed.
Thanks for all the input. Everyones response was appreciated.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted July 29, 2001 04:14 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill O'Keefe:
I was a little dismayed when I read Ron's comment about not flying over rough
terrain or densely populated areas. It's not that I don't think it's wise, but
if your ship is built well and you do the best you can learning how to fly it
properly, you should be able to fly it most anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill,
Goes back to how your personal "risk-o-meter" is calculated Bill. With 50% of
all RW crashes caused by mechancial failure and having actually experienced a
secondary failure in flight myself I have a strong motivation to try and stay
away from places that aren't conducive to a safe autorotation.
BTW, just to throw some fuel on the flames anyone have any data about how many
times RW factory ships had to do emergency set-downs last year due to mechanical
failures? I know of seven or eight for the 3-4 ships they fly - and only 9
months/year. For comparison, the school I got my rotorcraft rating at had 12
Schweizers and 12 R-22's that flew 12 hours/day/365days/year - they had three
for the year.
Cheers,
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Charniak
Participant
6/01 Diamond Contributor
Member # 5
posted July 30, 2001 07:51 PM
Hi guys,
If 50% crash from mechanical failure, the other 50% crash from pilot error,
right? from my experience around heavy machinery that will eat you alive and
keep running with a smile the ratio of proven and factual evidence is that for
every 600 near misses there is one accident! some of the near misses that are
experienced are documented and corrective action is taken. I can believe this
reduces the number of accidents.
All in all there are alot of "signs" that will lead to a failure, but some sneak
up from behind.
Clear minds and skys help alot also
This Web site is a very exellent pro-active result of dedicated individuals
helping to make a safe ship!!
Just post a near miss and the others will watchout for these problems!!
preventive maintenece and training, real hands on training will go a long way.
DON CHARNIAK
CHASE, WISCONSIN
RW162F, N7492D
DMC7492@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted August 07, 2001 10:58 PM
Bill,
Since we never really answered your original question I decided I play loach
pilot and risk drawing some fire.
The major component risk failure factors seem to be the secondary unit and
engine support systems (FADEC, coolant system, etc) and now the clutch swingarm.
Aside from that everything else is fairly robust especially the M/R head and
blades and even the belt drive T/R seems pretty reliable.
Aside from those at risk items safety of an RW is more of a function on how well
it's built and maintained and the skill level and aviation judgement of the
pilot.
I already had a rotorcraft rating from a good school before I had even heard of
RW and have been a pilot for over twenty years so aside from recurrent training
that was taken care of. However, in light of the technical concerns I had I
opted to build my ship to certified aircraft standards as much as possible.
IMHO it would take nearly a complete redesign of much of the ship to completely
build it like a certified ship though. For instance, there is no way to install
an effective firewall without some significant changes to the controls and the
electrical mounting and adding significant weight. Why is that important? Think
about being at altitude and getting an engine fire. Will you be able to put it
on the ground before it burns through 3/32" of fiberglass? Maybe, if you are
only a few hundred feet high.
IMHO, there is almost no way a Rotorway will ever be as reliable and robust as
an R-22 or any other certified helicopter (or even a Safari) It's basic
construction is just completely different from what is needed to conform to
those tried and true standards and you can't just add all the things an R-22 or
a Schweizer or Enstrom has to make it safer because the RW wouldn't be able to
get off the ground with the engine it has.
Anyway, enough of that. I'm in the same mindset you are so here's what I have
added/changed in my ship and the reasoning behind each:
- Spurling Cog Belt - No sold on this one. Too close of a relationship between
this and the many secondary breaks. I wouldn't use a cog belt without a 35mm
shaft and am in fact considering putting the chain back on. The belt can be had from Gates (part number 8M-1792-62) as can the small
sprocket. Spurling has the big sprocket made special though but there are
several other vendors who make these now.
- Al Behunchek coolant bypass unit - reduces the pressure in the cooling system
so less likely to pop a hose
- Waitman M/R blades - Provide more lift with less power (less stress on the
engine and drive train) and reduces the autorotation descent rate by 40%
- Upgraded to the 35mm 2 bearing shaft (for now) - Nothing has been shown to be
better yet but I did add a bearing temp gauge to monitor the bearing/shaft
health.
- Swapped out the mechanical '57 Chevy oil pressure gauge for an electrical one
- keeps the oil in the engine where it should be, not running around the cockpit
in plastic hoses.
- Added Al's T/R stabilization kit - Beefs up the T/R hub bearings and makes
them last a lot longer
- Replaced RW's T/R slider with Al's - works smoother and has no risk of
disengaging the slider key at full travel like RW's.
- Got professional help installing/aligning the drive train(Homer Bell) - All
that alignment stuff is real important as you've read here on the forum and with
Homer's help I feel confident it's done right and I learned enough from him to
have complete confidence to do it myself.
- Used aircraft quality (AN) nuts, bolts, clamps, hoses, etc - My experience is
cheap automotive stuff WILL bite you when you least expect it.
- Used "accepted" aircraft construction methods for wiring, instrument panel,
sheet metal work, used firesleeve on all hoses, adel clamps everywhere needed,
etc. etc. - VERY, VERY, important IMHO. All the aviation "accepted" methods come
from years and years of aviation knowledge and are well documented by the FAA.
- Redesigned the switch and fuse panel to use quality switches and real aviation
circuit breakers - Imagine changing a fuse while in flight?
- Got a dynamic balancer - Having a low vibration, properly balanced ship will
increase the reliability considerably and lower maintenence.
- Installing fully enclosed header heat shields - helps prevent engine fire from
coolant, oil, or anything else touching the hot headers (wrapped headers can
soak up oil and burn like a wick - some ships have been lost this way). Also
reduces heat in the engine compartment for higher reliability of hoses, etc.
- Keep my rotorcraft flying skills current, especially autos. - Concluded I WILL
have to do an emergency landing in this thing sooner or later so I better be
good at it.
I've added other things like lights, electric clutch, etc but they are only
marginally related to safety.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Mark Wolf
Master Tech Guru
*
Member # 36
posted August 08, 2001 05:23 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ron Curry:
Bill,
Since we never really answered your original question I decided I play loach
pilot and risk of drawing fire.
The major component risk failure factors seem to be the secondary unit and
engine support systems (FADEC, coolant system, etc) and now the clutch swingarm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A friend of mine in Detroit, who is building a 162F talked to Al Behuncek
recently. Apparently Al thinks he has a "geometry" solution to the breaking
clutch idler arms. I didn't talk to him so I don't know what it is.
I'm going to buy a couple of his after-market items, and will call him soon, but
anyone wanting to know sooner should call him.
Regards, J. Mark Wolf
Pinckney, Michigan
Exec 162F N1955Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yule
Master Tech Guru
3/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 7
posted August 08, 2001 05:31 AM
The only thing I could add to that very complete list is some insulation
material I added on the back side of the seatback. It's 3/16" thick, and
aluminum backed, similar to the gas tank shielding. (I bought it from Db
Engineering.) It's primarily sold for sound insulation on aircraft and heavy
machinery. I used it on the entire seatback, including the underside of the
seats. It's reasonably inexpensive, and adds only a nominal weight increase.
Plus it reduces sound levels.
I work in renovating buildings, where fire safety is a big issue. There,
different materials are installed together in rated systems, like plywood and
sheetrock, which have a combined fire resistance which can be deceptively
effective.
An in flight fire only needs to be kept out of the cabin for a few minutes to
greatly increase the chances of getting to the ground safely and walking away
(running may be a better word). In this case, the extra layer makes it much
harder to ignite the fiberglass.
To me, this is purely a life safety issue- losing the ship in a serious fire is
a given.
[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Yule ]
Chris Yule
Newton Center, MA
cyule@rcn.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Smith
Occasional Participant
Member # 143
posted August 08, 2001 09:21 AM
With regard to fire protection... in Australia the original Amateur Built
certification for the RW required specific fire protection. Various materials
were tested by CAA engineers resulting in approved fire protection specified in
the Supplementary Construction Manual for RW machines.
1/ The whole seat back is covered in a 12mm thick 100kg/mt3 ceramic blanket.
This is bonded to the seat back with sprayable contact adhesive. The ceramic
material is then covered with Mylar 19um metalized polyester. This is held in
position using same spray adhesive.
2/ The fuel tanks are enclosed in the same treatment.
3/ Cyclic and tail rotor control cables are covered by silicon fibre glass fire
sleeve.
4/ Fuel and oil hoses are totally covered with same fire sleeve.
I have this fire protection on my ship, and I think the total weight was around
8lbs. See photoes below
Dennis Smith
Perth Western Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Epperson
Sr. Tech Guru
4/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 11
posted August 08, 2001 01:00 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dennis Smith:
Supplementary Construction Manual for RW machines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What all does the supplementary manual contain? Is it something that could be
'glimpsed-at' here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted August 08, 2001 02:57 PM
The "supplementary manual is something that several of us have asked Tom for
on several occassions and he has refused to provide. It is the changes that the
Austrailian government required for safety prior to allowing RW to sell ships
there. They do not put these items on ships sold in the US
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill O'Keefe
Occasional Participant
Member # 135
posted August 08, 2001 03:07 PM
One of the advantages of this forum is to hear the same recommendations by a
number of people. After awhile, you get a better feeling on what to upgrade,
change or leave alone. Ron's upgrades and reasons were very helpful
But I learned a little bit more from each comment. Too bad RW doesn't put as
much passion into their product as the guys on this site! They'd have a better
product and maybe even a safer one.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted August 08, 2001 03:55 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill O'Keefe:
Too bad RW doesn't put as much passion into their product as the guys on this
site! They'd have a better product and maybe even a safer one.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill,
I think it's just a business to them. I've heard that none of the senior
management flys Rotorways. Someone told me (Spurling, John P., Rocky, I
don't remember) that they have some sort of policy that no company officer can
fly in one of their ships.
Cheers,
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
michael ledingham
Sr. Participant
*
Member # 92
posted August 09, 2001 02:45 AM
Hi Guys,
I'm pleased to see that the issue of "fire onboard" has come up and to read
Dennis's comments and actions taken. I have been very concerned about fire and
am in my rebuild incorporating a full measure of firewall protection into my
ship A friend of mine had a nasty accident, when the ship he was test flying
caught fire at altitude - and to cut a lond story short, he was dragged
unconcious from his burning RW with his jeans on fire! - he survived and
recovered. The craft was a total loss.!
Rons comments on the "Items to change" list is very good.(August 07 below) -
especially in respect of fire - the mechanical oil pressure gauge and relavant
plumbing. This together with dennis's changes should be something we all should
be considering.
BTW Ron, we discussed the inclusion of a rotor pitch gauge elseware on the forum
but i will add another reason for having it is that if you are heavily loaded,
besides the "feel" of the craft, you can immediately see if you have a degree or
two of pitch left in the hover, before you take off and attempt to go through
transition! if not - don't go. we talking safety here.
Regards,
Michael.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill O'Keefe
Occasional Participant
Member # 135
posted August 11, 2001 09:18 PM
Hi guys. I started this thread and I like to give one last observation. The
original question was if a builder followed RW's instructions and used their
parts, would he have a safe ship? After reading all the great input, my
impression is that the answer is.........probably not
Having said that, I'd also like to say that it CAN be made safer There's just
too much information that's been gathered by the guys in this group not to help
somehow. The question is where to draw the line on every conceivable after
market upgrade. It's my contention that RW should have been listening a long
time ago and incorporate known improvements to their ships and a modest charge
for upgrades to existing ships.
Unfortunately, at this time, I feel that even adding appropriate safety upgrades
will not let me relax for a moment while flying and enjoy my ship. I'll probably
be looking for something to go wrong and a place to land. Not looking to put a
damper on things. It's just the feeling I'm getting.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yule
Master Tech Guru
3/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 7
posted August 12, 2001 02:25 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill O'Keefe:
1. There's just too much information that's been gathered by the guys in this
group not to help somehow.....
2. It's my contention that RW should have been listening a long time ago and
incorporate known improvements to their ships and a modest charge for upgrades
to existing ships....
3. I feel that even adding appropriate safety upgrades will not let me relax for
a moment while flying and enjoy my ship. I'll probably be looking for something
to go wrong and a place to land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some thoughts on these points:
This forum exists mainly for these reasons (plus the social yuk it up stuff,
which is very nice!), but making it safer is what its all about, and RW has made
it plain that their intentions here are limited. (We can argue about the reasons
later.)
So, we either give up or plug on. For me, I see some significantly high time RW
ships out there, which gives me confidence, and I plug on.
As for #3., from what my high time pilot friends tell me, this is the best way
to stay awake and alive in this business. There are lots of serious accidents in
"high quality" "commercial" ships every year, btw. So, I try to find a way to
enjoy it while being vigilant. Not an easy task, but worthwhile.
IMHO, this group helps a lot-a whole lot.
Good luck, fly safe.
C
Chris Yule
Newton Center, MA
cyule@rcn.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Curry
Forum Manager
Administrator
Member # 1
posted August 12, 2001 05:47 PM
Bill,
Chris' advice is sound I think. I'll add a couple of other thoughts...
These are experimental homebuilt aircraft and unfortunately, Rotorway doesn't
fully explain exactly what the means and the ramifications of it to their buyers
which is a bit disingenuous of them. They show photos of people flying them out
to go fishing and talk about "dreams", etc. etc. but they don't market the
technical aspects or safety aspects. It's all used car sales tactics
unfortunately. No other experimental aircraft company that I know of uses the
kind of marketing tactics that Rotorway does (and stays in business). They also
don't explain why an RW kit costs less than half the new price of the lowest
priced certified ship (it ain't all labor costs ). The old axioms still hold
true - "If it sounds too good to be true it probably is" and "You get what you
pay for".
RW is very cost concious. I once asked Tom (or maybe Brent) why they don't put a
better Oil pressure gauge in, why they don't put better bearings in various
places, and several other obvious improvements they could make. He said it's to
keep the costs down. They believe that their customers buy Rotorway because of
the price and the good looks and that adding any costs which could increase the
price would reduce their sales. The theory (as explained to me by a former RW
employee) is that most of these ships will never be completed or do more than
hover or fly short hops around the farm field and that it's built sufficiently
designed for that.
However, I propose there is a different way to look at it relative to what you
describe in your last post Bill. I know all this talk about fixing things can be
kind of depressing because RW set much higher expectations with you when you
bought it but keep it in perspective. $62k for a real, new, 2 place helicopter
is a bargain! Even though it's not complete for that price (radios, paint, mods,
etc), and even though the RW has some significant deficiencies it's still a nice
ship AND YOU BUILT IT YOURSELF and, for the most part, you can correct most of
the deficiencies to a reasonable level and have a real nice hobby helicopter!
However, even if you must spend another $10k-$15k to add some additional safety
margin it's still a bargain and as long as you don't expect it to be the
equivalent of a certified ship you can get a lot of satisfaction out of your RW.
Now, if you're not into building and just looking for a cheap (relatively
speaking) helicopter you are better off to buy a used certified ship IMHO.
I personally feel that with the mods I've added and the care that I've given to
building mine I'll have a pretty good ship (as Rotorway's go) but only after I'm
confident that a reliable solution to the secondary issues is found . I'll still
not fly it the same as I would a certified ship though - but I'll still have
lots of fun.
My ship is FULLY assembled now, sans M/R blades in my garage and even though
I've already hovered it before (hovering doesn't count as flying in my book - or
the FAA's for that matter) I am EXTREMELY excited to get it to the airport for
my inspection and then do some real flying!
My recommendation is to keep plugging away, build it, and have a good time while
doing so. Most importantly don't subscribe to a "head in the sand" attitude
towards the facts. Some owners don't want to hear about the issues with these
ships but most of us do - so we can fix them or get RW to fix them. Be pragmatic
and acknowledge the RW's strengths and limitations and keep working with the
rest of us to not let RW off the hook until this secondary thing (and swing-arm
and a few other things ) is proven to be solved! - AND have fun!
Best regards,
Ron
Ron Curry
Rotorway Owners Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Selig
Master Tech Guru
5/01 Platinum Contributor
Member # 46
posted August 12, 2001 07:21 PM
Ron Good overview and perspective on the buying, assembly, mods and finishing
up.. I am interested to see where you go from here..
I am interested to see some real fixes to the problems, not just bandades. My
first major mod would be to get some hp at low rpm, so plenty of extra stuff can
be added to make it safe and reliable. Even the R22 has to work hard with 2
people on a hot day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------