Robinson Helicopters: Tin-Lizzie Whirlybirds

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit) 12/22/2013 at 10:46 • Filed to: Planeopnik, Helicopters, Robinson Helicopters, R-22, R-44, R-66, Bell 206, MD 500, Eurocopter, Hughes, Boeing

18

29

Helicopters can do some pretty amazing things: they can !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . They've been at the center at some pretty impressive YouTube videos (or have filmed such videos) but what belies behind-the-scenes is a machine that delivers on a promise of simplicity and low-operating costs without sacrificing utility: the Robinson line of helicopters and in particular the workhorse R-44 series.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Entry-level option

When Frank Robinson first formed his helicopter company in the early 70s, the most popular turbine utility helicopters on the market at the time were the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , both of which were derived from U.S. Army designs (and in fact designed to the same U.S. Army requirement). Both types proved very versatile in civilian roles and gave municipal governments unprecedented access to air-lift, especially for police use and as air ambulances. The secret to their success was also their Achilles' heel: the turbine engine spat out gobs and gobs of power but was very thirsty in doing so. Popular very light utility and training helicopters at the time included the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! of M*A*S*H fame and the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , a practically identical helicopter down to the Korean War M*A*S*H role. Many (if not the vast majority) of these were ex-military stock and were starting to show their age. The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! (a design that eventually passed through many hands), another popular training and very light utility option was of the same vintage, and Frank Robinson (who himself was a designer from both Bell and Hughes) believed that a market existed for a new, low-cost entry-level helicopter taking advantage of technological advancements made since the Eisenhower administration.

The resulting helicopter, which entered production at the very end of the 70s, is fairly described as egg-shaped, with a big glass front affording a high degree of visibility. The Robinson R-22 Beta is pretty much as simple as it looks. The helicopter's very lightweight, two-blade rotor has low inertial resistance making precise control possible (these things are very popular for use in "aerial ranching" where helicopters are used to wrangle cattle instead of horses) though control input is consequently overly sensitive compared to other training helicopters. Rather than a detriment, the input sensitivity means student pilots are better-equipped to "graduate" to larger helicopters upon demonstrating proficiency (it also means pilots must get a type-specific endorsement for the R-22). It's powered by a Lycoming O-320 (akin to a 320-cubic inch displacement version of a Volkswagon air-cooled, hence "O[pposed]-320") which can be found in practically anything, including a very large number of entry-level fixed-wing aircraft. Being a lightweight four-cylinder design that's seen continuous updates, the O-320 by itself represents a significant improvement over the six-cylinder Franklins ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ) found in the older Bell 47 and Hiller UH-12 designs. To keep the design simple, the engine is naturally-aspirated; what looks like an STi-worthy turbo is actually a cooling fan. The design was also kept intentionally small so it could land almost anywhere (not incidentally, a few smaller navies use it as a training helicopter).

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

The R-22 proved to be a near-immediate massive hit and a direct bullseye at the training and entry-level/very light utility market and even scoring a significant cameo in the James Bond movie Goldeneye (it's the little helicopter Sean Bean and Famke Janssen escape from the train in). That said, the same qualities that made the R-22 a smash hit were also keeping it back. The O-320 is simple and cheap, but its small power output (160 HP - yes, that's right, 160 HP from an engine bigger than what's in many body-on-frame SUVs; and you thought the Malaise era was bad) limited its high-altitude performance (and marketability in high-altitude locations like Denver, Colorado). The low inertia rotor may have given the R-22 precise handling, but in addition to the control sensitivity issue it limited the R-22's payload capability. Most importantly, with only about enough room for an instructor and student, the R-22 was starting to look like a one-trick pony. To really capture the utility helicopter market, a larger design was needed that actually, offered, you know, utility .

Rotor-Wing Suburban

Enter the R-44 Astro, which as the name implies is more or less twice the R-22 in one machine. The most significant changes are the doubling of the cabin, stretched to fit an extra row of seats, and an upgrade to the Lycoming IO-540 engine. The output of the IO-540 is around 250 HP, nearly identical to the 3.3 liter engine in my Hyundai Santa Fe; but when the whole machine weighs little more than a Lotus Exige, that's nothing to sneeze at and certainly a massive improvement over the O-320. Just as important, the "I" in IO-540 indicates that the engine is fuel-injected, meaning no more pesky carbs (or carb icing at altitude). The R-44 Astro was eventually replaced by the R-44 Raven, which introduced a slightly revised control scheme, and the R-44 Raven II which introduced larger rotor blades to further improve lift payload. There's also a corresponding R-44 Clipper and Clipper II which is nothing more but a Raven with inflatable flotation aids attached to the skids. As it turns out, the R-44 might have something more in common with Ferraris than Suburbans; as cited in this !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the gas tank had a tendency to rupture and cause fires in certain crash conditions, prompting the replacement of the culprit tank with a more puncture-proof bladder.

The improvements meant greater versatility beyond the training and personal transport markets, perhaps beyond even Robinson's own reasonably optimistic hopes. The improved lift made it a viable option for 21st century police departments who needed something less antiquated than (or even as a replacement for) the Vietnam-era Bell 206 or Hughes (now MD Helicopters) 500 or found their successors, the Bell 407 and MD Helicopters 500E/520N to be too much of a hotrod (or simply unaffordable). Local news affiliates have found the R-44 to be a far more efficient alternative to the turbine-powered competition as well, especially at a time when HD cameras have shrunk to lightweight and compact packages (as seen in the image above). Many operators in the utility helicopter business have traded in their 206s and early-mark 500s for these little things, and quite a few more have been able to spring up because of how affordable things things are. The R-44's low operating costs have turned sticking a GoPro onto the side of one and filming extreme athletes in remote locations a sensible business option.

The IO-540 is absolutely central to the R-44's success - compared to the turbine helicopters, they simply burn less fuel. The piston engine also allows the R-44 to be cheaper upfront (no more expensive than a fixed-wing aircraft equipped with the same engine as opposed to a new 407 or 500E at a million plus). Being a very common aero-engine, support is not an issue. But as with the R-22, the IO-540 also holds the R-44 back. A turbine engine makes up for its fuel burn in its simplicity; in comparison, the IO-540 is a labyrinth of pushrods and valve heads. The IO-540 is also stuck using low-lead content aviation petrol which is not only pricey but currently being phased out, leaving tens of thousands of piston aircraft owners and operators potentially stuck between a rock and a hard place. And turbines are just great at making gobs and gobs of power. No matter how lightweight a Lotus Exige is, it's still no Corvette Stingray. The R-44 may be a global success story, but it also opened the door for Robinson to compete against the 407 and 500E head-on . And there's only one way to do that.

Breathes in kerosene, spits out flames

At the turn of the decade, Robinson introduced its newest offering, the R-66. Functionally, it's an R-44 with a jet turbine engine in it, and it certainly looks the part (the differences are almost invisible in all but close-in detail photographs, save for a series of vents at the base of the boom that feed air into the engine). A host of other improvements are introduced into the frame, but the most appreciable ones come as a direct result of the Rolls Royce R300 powerplant, a version of the same engine found in the competition re-engineered especially for the R-66. Part of that re-engineering includes bringing the price point down to be more competitive with piston engines, allowing the R-66 to come in well under a million. The R-66's dead weight decreases too (the R300 is a good deal smaller and lighter than the IO-540) while payload independently goes up (HP goes up to 300 now). Fuel burn also goes up, but the turbine's simplicity helps check rising operating costs. People who buy the R-66 as personal transportation will also appreciate the turbine's greater reliability, which translates to a decreased chance of sudden in-flight engine failure. Especially important for a helicopter.

The R-66 has only been on sale for a few years, and it faces stiff competition not only from more established players but from its own older brother. But the combination of a proven and reliable frame with low entry and operational costs is almost guaranteed to be a winning one.

Images - if they work (thanks Kinja!) come courtesy of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! where much of this information comes from (along with Wikipedia because, hey, I'm lazy).

Jayhawk Jake > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:04

4

Great write up!

Richard Hammond owns an R44 by the way

graham > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:25

2

FYI, this phrase makes no sense "what belies behind-the-scenes...".

f86sabre > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:31

3

Very nice write up. The Robinson line has done good things for the industry. The R66 is priced at about $860K and I suppose you could option up to $1m. From what I gather the line has relatively low overhaul thresholds, but I'm not sure how out of norm it is for helicopters.

One of my friends is certified on the R22. Due to her maybe weighing 100 lbs soaking wet means that her flight school asked if she would help ferry the chopper from San Diego to Robinson's overhaul facility in Tennessee or one of the other southern states.

Prophet of hoon > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:32

1

great article, I learned a lot... thanks

rotundapig > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:32

1

I've been to their production facility in Torrance a few times to service some equipment. My contact there is an engineer that sometimes fills in as a test pilot and the whole time I was there, I was just hoping to get a ride. Never worked out, but it was neat to see how they are all assembled by hand.

HowardRoark > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:43

5

The lesson I've learned from the decades of aviation history and a prior decade working in aviation is that you should never allow someone you care about to fly in an aircraft that burns AVGAS.

There is simply no comparison between aircraft that have reciprocating engines and turbine engines. Turbine powered aircraft are at least an order of magnitude safer than piston-powered birds.

PHfactor > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:55

2

rr300 or more specifically a model 250-c300/A1 is the correct engine name for the r66. #corrections

source: I worked on the rr300/rr500 aftermarket program in Indianapolis.

FCV-8311 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 11:59

1

I always have liked the looks of the Robinson helicopters; one could argue that they're the Model T of choppers - bringing the helicopter to the [albeit somewhat affluent] masses.

Racescort666 > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 12:25

2

Thanks for a great write up. As soon as I saw that helicopter hockey video show up I started investigating what kind of helicopter they were using.

I didn't even realize until after doing some research that I have actually ridden in an R-22. Boy are they tiny but what a great piece of equipment. Miata may be the answer on the ground but R-22 has got to be the answer in the air.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > PHfactor 12/22/2013 at 12:34

0

Very cool. I'm an aero engine analyst working for a research & consulting company, and have followed the RR300 since launch. I keep hoping to see RR go ahead with the turboprop variant RR500, but the market is too soft for that right now.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > HowardRoark 12/22/2013 at 12:41

0

Turbine powered acft may be statistically more reliable, but that's not to say piston acft are unreliable. Proper maintenance (and good judgement) is the biggest factor in keeping them flying safely. Most of my 2,000 flying hours have been in piston singles and twins, with the last 150 or so in turboprops. Never had any engine-related issues in either, so I find your comment a bit hyperbolic.

JD Mattice > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 13:30

1

All this safety of engine type before failure issues go away with gliders. No engine to fail equals exceptional safety right?

LodestarRunner > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 14:08

1

Now I'm just dreaming of a Beetle powered by an O-320. Maybe with a turbo strapped on for good measure.

Steve in Manhattan > Jayhawk Jake 12/22/2013 at 14:13

0

I think it was on Crash Course - Hammond visited the factory and helped assemble an engine.

fauxrarri > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 14:34

1

Great article! My friend in high school had both an R22 and R44. We used to go cruise the beach after school with the doors off in the R22, those were the days! His mom was going to get the R66 when it came out but opted for an EC120 instead. Despite people harping on Robinson's for the mast-bumping issues they are fantastic helicopters.

Jayhawk Jake > Steve in Manhattan 12/22/2013 at 14:34

0

Yep, and he flew one on a test flight

davidj210 > LodestarRunner 12/22/2013 at 15:53

0

I hope you're okay with having to go to airports to fill that beetle's gas tank with 100 octane leaded fuel for $5.50-$6.00 per gallon!

StalePhish > fauxrarri 12/22/2013 at 17:22

1

Flying with the doors off is certainly an experience! My very first time flying a helicopter, which also happened to be my very first time in a helicopter, was in an R44 with the right door off (or maybe both?) for ventilation because it was a hot day.

StalePhish > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 17:23

1

I took flying lessons just for fun and we used an R44. It was a great experience!

FelixScout > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 17:55

2

A lovely write-up on a helicopter family I see every day living on a helicopter flightpath.

I will ask: aren't much of the safety issues regarding engine failure reduced in helicopters due to controlled autorotation allowing a safer landing? I'm not talking about floating like a leaf to the ground but something you can walk away from.

WadeMoeller > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 18:24

2

The O-320 is simple and cheap, but its small power output (160 HP - yes, that's right, 160 HP from an engine bigger than what's in many body-on-frame SUVs; and you thought the Malaise era was bad) limited its high-altitude performance (and marketability in high-altitude locations like Denver, Colorado).

Yes, only 160 hp in the form used by the R22. Up to 200 hp in other models. Max speed for a propeller is around 2600 RPM and since most engine are directly connected, that is the max speed of the engine. Plug those two figures into a torque calculator and you end up with 323 lb-ft. Not too shabby for a 50 year old 4 cylinder engine design.

LodestarRunner > davidj210 12/22/2013 at 18:39

0

That would be an inconvenience, but I do live 10 minutes from a general-aviation airport. My local Sunoco has a 100 octane unleaded pump as well, although I'm not sure how that engine would handle it.

FrostyRose > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 22:14

1

when i finally scrounge up the money cant wait to earn my pilot license for rotocrafts, robinsons are used at the flight school im looking at and enjoyed my time in one this past summer

ChrisFu > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all 12/22/2013 at 23:11

4

As someone who designs helicopters for a living, and has been doing so for quite some time, I would like to go on record saying that I would and will never set foot in a Robinson with its current rotor system and blades as currently designed and produced.

There is no exaggeration to this sentiment.

Brett > ChrisFu 12/23/2013 at 04:27

0

Can you elaborate on your comment, in laymans terms if required?

phuzz > Jayhawk Jake 12/23/2013 at 14:35

1

A mate of mine has just learnt to fly helicopters, and he took me up in an R-22 for a quick spin. Just across the road from the school he was flying with was the hanger Hammond keeps his chopper in, and as we were circling the airport (visibility was crap so we couldn't go anywhere that day) we saw it going for a flight (no idea if the hamster was at the controls though)

GREAT NEWS > Racescort666 12/24/2013 at 17:04

0

Nah, the answer is always MD500!

Joseph Shaul > f86sabre 01/04/2014 at 14:58

0

Have you had your friend soaking wet on a regular basis?

Thunder > phuzz 05/14/2014 at 12:08

0

That's one of the things I have to wonder about celebrity. I'm sure they get tired of people coming up to them all the time to talk about their celebrity... but would a shared activity, like flying, be the opening to actually talk like normal people?

Hammond as one example, but also John Travolta, Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood, Angelina Jolie, Michael Dorn, Dennis Quaid, Kurt Russell, Dr. Phil (who knew?)...