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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

Thanks for discussing. For many years, without researching the issues, I've created a mental block about Robinson helicopters. This was in my mind when watching your channel, but saw that you weren't scared of them. Thank for explaining the issues head-on.

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.

Firstly is any aircraft safe? Define “safe”....i fly R22 and R44 in probably the most dangerous flying there is....game capture (always flying in the dead mans curve, flying under wires and trees etc.), i fly in mountains, rain, high wind and have never had a problem with them. They are extremely safe helicopters if flown correctly and within your envelope (the pilots personal envelope as the helicopter can do a lot more than what the poh limits you to). Bladder tanks in a R44 is a must, i agree. Frank Robinson is a legend and without him most of us would not have been able to fly helicopters. All these more modern helicopters have learned from past incidents and accidents on other helicopter makes and models, therefore they cannot claim to be praised like they are. Give me a Robinson helicopter for any task anyday....in wind, rain, mountains no problem. Hats off to Mr Robinson , thank you Sit for a great machine.

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.

Thanks again for stepping up for honesty and fairness.

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

You are a blessing to the helicopter community.

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 .

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.

Difficult to express how much I have learned from this guy... Excellent presentation... THANK YOU

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!

Many years ago in FLYING magazine there was an article about a guy who analyzed both fixed and rotary wing crashes of single engine aircraft, taking into account all risks and situations, to come up with the flying machine, both fixed and rotary with the lowest overall risk of death. And the winner was... Bell 206. Anyway, in the late 80s I was chatting with an insurance broker about hull premiums and we were going through the range, something like 2% for recip landplanes, 3% for recip floatplanes, 4% for amphibious floatplanes, and 5% for recip helicopters (at the time) and when I said, "Why is the piston helicopter insurance so expensive?", he responded instantly, "Cuz they all crash!!!!". He then laughed and said it was mainly because recip machines in those days were used very heavily for training and Ag work (wire strikes).

Great videos as always! Key items in turbulence: Slow down; gentle aft cyclic as needed to keep rotor loaded; Cyclic friction added; avoid the word “gusting” in the forecast; set down and wait it out! The R44, when you slow down and keep the rotor loaded, it will “just fly through” most light to moderate turbulence if you just leave the controls inputs alone. When flying in (more likely getting “caught in”) even light to moderate turbulence, I always think “No matter what attitude is presented, I must slow down, use aft cyclic as needed to fully load the rotor before ANY attempt is made to address the attitude.

I am no pilot,but watching this video made me feel like an experienced pilot.So thank you for the exerted effort to keep pilots up there safe.

I think an important point you could have emphasized more, in fairness to Robinson because someone watching this could possibly assume the mast bumping problem is a Robinson-only problem, is the fact that the same teetering semi-rigid rotor was used on thousands of Bell machines since the '47, it was always a problem on those machines too, and the whole phenomenon really wasn't understood until the 60s following the US Army's investigation of a number of nap-of-the-earth Huey crashes.

Great video!! I always teach this content to my students! 😁

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!!!

Excellent summary. Too many pilots fight the wind because they haven’t learnt to visualize the air they’re flying through. I’ve always taught that when you’re in a strong tailwind situation, to NOT rush it by trying to get it over with by pushing the cyclic forward but to imagine you’re a gorilla banging his chest. Not literally of course but just saying ‘Gorilla!’ reminds you to pull back on that cyclic and ride it out calmly. Like they say, “better late than dead on time” ...

Hey, Misha. Love this video and your channel. 🤘

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!

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

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!

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.

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).

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.

What a great video! I certainly learnt some new things here.

Loving the content Mischa!

Great video Mischa. Thank you

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

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?

Would be very interested in a follow up regarding the safety of the R22 (as compared to the R44 and Cabri)

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.

Thanks, I had heard the Robinson's had some safety concerns but didn't understand what they were until now.

I fly a Hughes 269A. I love my 3 blade system. I just wish I had a little more speed and passenger space.

Micah great explanation on low G push overs! Very clear and concise as always! A Robbie recently went down in Rowlett Texas Southeast of Dallas. Im guessing Main Rotor Tail Strike after seeing the video. My take on the whole Robbie thing is. SFAR says it all! I aint flying one, EVER! One skid low brother!

I remember when the R22 first came out, and an acquaintance with the FAA said they weren't safe in his opinion. He was an inspector and an Army rotor pilot with lots of experience. I trusted his judgement as well. Then I followed the accident history on the NTSB website.

Very well said and understanding of how to fly safely and understanding of limits in the type of rotor system use on this type of aircraft

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.

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.

Nice job Misha, to be honest with you I was a little hesitant to watch because of your bias for Robinson but was pleasantly surprised. You hit the nail right on the head, and still I may have mentioned the low rotor rpm problem in the 44. Again, beautiful job and looking forward to the next one. Fly safe 🚁🇨🇦

Thank you sir for your perspective

Excellent presentation..many thanks.

Good video it's amazing the aircraft is allowed to be produced or flown with that such critical limitations.

Really well thought out critical analysis!

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.

I remember a Robinson dealer telling me when I was doing my training in Australia in the mid 90's that Frank Robinson hated Australian (mainly mustering industry) and New Zealand Robinson users because of the way they operated the machines (lot of low rotor RPM accidents) and especially in New Zealand that they were not recording the actual time on the machine, 1 in every 3-5 hours I was told and I also remember an article about a business selling time expired parts. I recall a few main rotor blades with small fractures at the main rotor trim tab rivet if I'm not mistaken or at one end of the trim tab and quite a few had delaminating issues as well. But overall an enjoyable machine to fly.

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.

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

I agree with what you stated. I also think pilots need more constant training, fly more hours than just 50 hours per year. Training , training and training. Even if is through reading material, actual flying or going to local airports (or-online today )and discussing a personal experience in the past.

I have around 5800 hrs on a R44 and around the same in a R22. They are really safe if the pilot is safe. The reason that more Robbies are involved in accidents is simply that many more of them are flown than any other make and mainly in low level ops and training. Would be interesting to know how many accidents were training or wildlife related. No piston is really suitable for serious mountain flying especially in turbulence.

Absolutely Outstanding!

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

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!

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.

Thank you for your video I’m considering starting a career as heli pilot and the r44 would be my only option right now. The video is really clear. What type of heli do you suggest for PPH course ? Tks

Like how this vid is presented cheers. Nice to watch

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

Great video. Thank you for all your hard work and effort put into educating other people. To many of us it's so crucial to get your opinion, as we're not into position to build ours over time. Moreover we trust, that being a skilled pilot and aviation fan, you're giving us the most honest, professional and up to date information. Keep up the good work! GREATLY APPRECIATED

I have taught flying in Robinsons for over 4000 hrs. I really love the heli especially the R-44. Good training and awareness of their limitations as with all machinery is vital. Frank Robinson has made the heli and its magic of flight in reach of so many!

Review of the Enstrom, please!

What do you think about the McDonald Douglas 500d? Magnum PI just really turned me on to that helicopter and it looks really versatile.

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.

Fantastic job. Hands down.

Have you tried the Aerofly FS2 R22? How realistic is the flight model? I have heard it is right now the best helicopter flight model in a sim, but a R44 instructor like you could evaluate this sim a lot more qualified than simmers and engineers like me. And does it make sense to train certain manouvers or procedures with sims such as Aerofly FS2, X-Plane or in the future FS2020?

thanks for a great video

As a new guy looking to learn to fly and purchase the Robinson r44 This video just made me think 🤔 Which isn’t totally a negative.

very well done in the talk of the R44

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/

Great honest analysis. I think is true that pilots are often pushing the limits or just ignoring them. Thanks Mischa!

Excellent commentary

I was working on my 24th hour of training when I flew through moderate turbulence. I just froze and smashed my arm into my leg, jammed my elbow behind the seat, and rode it out until my instructor could grab the controls. It felt like an ongoing car crash. After landing my instructor told me it was the worst turbulence he had ever encountered. We were both shaking. But I did the right thing somehow and I'm here today. Praise our Father in Heaven because I shouldn't be here.

I learned on a Robinson R22, at the now defunct Pompano Helicopters in Florida. It always seemed strange to me that the Robinson was the ‘go to’ trainer, as it was such a sensitive machine. A Cessna 150 pretty much flies it’s self, you have to do something to it to make it manoeuvre, so it’s an ideal trainer machine…However, if you learn on a Robinson, everything else seems pretty docile afterwards. I couldn’t believe how easy a Bell 206 L3 was to fly in comparison. So from that point of view, the Robinson is a great trainer as it ( hopefully) teaches the new flyer how to be sympathetic to the machine.

Damn sure it is... Us Aussie mustering pilots seem to break them (with surprising regularity) and we do! We break them so often, Robinson WILL NOT warranty a helicopter if it is used for mustering in Australia! We've been known to do crazy shit like whacking the blade tips into the small branches to make noise (which we know will scare that bullock out from his cover), hover in UNDER a tree's canopy for the same reason. We sometimes mast bump (and pray the rotor head doesn't separate which has killed or seriously injured fellow muster pilots) with our sudden departures from a "normal" (read BORING!!) flight paths to chase that errant bull or cow (I've turned the chopper on its side at speed to get the rotor disc to fit between two trees chasing a cow back to the herd). We "hot seat" refuel or change pilots (or even whole aircraft if the one we are flying needs a 100 hourly inspection). Fuck, we even use them to "hellifish" (attach a fishing line with bait/lure to the skid, hover over a good Barra spot and then "reel in" the fish when it bites by climbing high enough to pull it out of the water to dump on the bank for a mate to retrieve. Don't tell the boss though, ok?). Love 'em!! P.S. I wonder how the R66 will handle what we will throw at it?

I've never flew or have been in a chopper but after watching your video I feel that I've been a pilot your years.

I got my CPL on an R-22. Sitting at 147 hours today and am in the process of getting my R-44 rating now. Can’t wait!

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

Making it a 3 or 4 blade helicopter may help to stabilize it better to prevent the tail from getting chopped off, when one goes low g causing a bank to the right followed by the pilot pushing the cyclic to the left causing a blade impact with the tail boom.

Thanks for a very informative video. I'm 76 years old and flown many types of airplanes and flight simulators over the years. I recently decided to get some time in a helicopter for fun. Took some instruction in an R44 and found that it is totally different from an airplane and very very sensitive on the controls. I did get to where I could even hover after a few attempts. Probably won't spend the money to get fully checked out but was extremely fun. If I were continuing I would definitely rethink what helicopter I would use.

I'd love to see you do a similar video, but instead on the R22;)

I think its a very safe helicopter, if it stays on the ground!

Mast bumping can be better explained: in semi rigid rotor technology, the rotor must be loaded in order to control the helicopter, meaning that the fuselage is behaving pretty much the same that a load would behave under a sling. If there is slack in your sling, you can turn left or right, your load will fly straight. The same is happening in a low g situation: because there is still a torque produced by the engine, the tail rotor has still a lateral thrust which occurs above the center of mass (the more nose up or nose down situation, the worse the result). Then the ship will tilt to the right (up to 100 degrees / second bank rate). The natural reaction of the pilot is to counter this bank with a left cyclic input, which has no effect because the fuselage is no more “hanging” under the rotor due to the low g situation. You are right: semi rigid rotor systems are simple, not expensive to build, but are inherently dangerous if the pilot has not a full awareness of how it works.

I learnt on a R22 and R44. My instructor was mike Smith in the UK. The training is THE most important thing in my mind and I found the Robinson to be a great helicopter. I still believe that to be the case. Anything in the wrong hands becomes a problem. Your point about the Robinson being affordable is a great point. I saw lots of the guys I trained with buy a Robinson, the truth from my point of view is that I wouldn’t ride a bike with these guys let alone a helicopter. Rich boys toys and even less respect for the machine. I find it a little sad that the Robinson gets bad press, and I know quite a few guys that would never fly them. But I love them and I’ll take one any day. Good video. Thanks

An R44 crashed in Rowlett, Texas recently. A cell phone video shows exactly what you described. Thanks for the explanation of what caused this event.

Great video! You mentioned to hold the controls fixed during turbulence. I was wondering, if you have a co-pilot, would it work if co-pilot adds cyclic friction while the pilot holds on to the controls - or is it better to just hold on to the controls for dear life?

I'm curious about what you said about the design flaws of the Bell 206.I can think of one real quick, the early 62 inch tail rotor which was increased to 65 inches.I started flying the 206A in 1971 and I am pretty sure that they all had the bladder type fuel cells.Besides the rotor system on the R44,I think that that the angled crossover cyclic is a poor design.I have never flown one but it looks like it is very unconventional .

Hi Mischa, great video. About the rotor head, why there is not a two blade rigid rotor system? Thank you!

Mischa, Have you have seen some of the aussie outback helicopter pilots mustering cattle in R22s, some of them make the R22 look like the safest most agile helicopter in existance.

Having had an interest in aviation all my life, I have heard many stories and read many articles. Most of these involve military aircraft, and many of these have "is the ____ safe?". And virtually all of those claim that with proper training and the right mind-set, they CAN be very safe. I'm thinking of the F-100 "sabre dance" and the F-104 "widow maker". These are aircraft that had major, MAJOR design flaws, and killed many people, and yet the people who learned to tame them (i.e., avoid the situations and apply "what the surviving pilots learned"), almost to a person, say, "yes, they CAN be very safe." Which, just to be clear, is plain BS. I'm not a helicopter pilot, but I've read FAA documents that make exceptions of the Robinsons, that in my recollections amount to, "you need special training to be safe in a Robinson."

Growing Grey Hair,,,thx for such of info ,, we flown the R-66 in Florida and it was Amazing

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.

Thank you for posting this My brother was killed in an R22. The NTSB noted a climb and reduced airspeed before the abrupt rapid descent (while turning). Seems consistent with your description. He was a relatively new pilot. Is there any planned regs to limit sale of Robinson helicopters to experienced pilots w excessive hrs and frequency? I was trained on single engine fixed wing and had to do hood time even though I was vfr. Is that required for helicopter license? Should it be? Thank you again. ❤

Perfect!

4:21 bell has much better rotor head 206/505, bell redesigned their rotor-head for mast bumping issues. Robinson has similar design but NOT SAME.

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.

Well, 'safe' is a relative term. Inherently, the Robinson can be considered safe or it wouldn't be sold. However, it's how the helicopters are being used that puts the term 'safe' into question. In this area, helicopters are used extensively in the forestry and mining fields. For years, the mainstay machine was the Bell 206 Jet Ranger. Then came the 206R Long Ranger. That stayed around for a few years until the Aerospatiale A350 AStar came along. Most of the operators went with the AStar due to its ability to lift heavier loads. With all of these machines, operating cost was critical factor. Then, back in about the late 1990's, a company showed up with a Robinson R22. They touted it as a much cheaper way to go on reconnaissance flights that required only one passenger plus a pilot. Nothing wrong with that. Then, this same company brought in an R44, saying they could ferry entire crews much cheaper that either the Bell 206 or the A350. This idea was acceptable to the various industries and the R44 became more popular. However, due mainly to operating cost, companies started to use the R44 for, what I call, a "poor man's Bell 206". They were observed on many occasions slinging loads that were obviously too heavy for the machine and, as a result, started occurring more downtime hours for maintenance. A few also crashed. Some outfits still used them but I won't fly in one.