The Rotary Nostalgia Thread
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ross-on-Wye
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull down servicing platform
Forgive me Savoia ... perhaps the old memory cells are fading, but I'd bet a dollar to ten cents that the version I flew at Henderson, had a full-length servicing platform directly adjacent to the engine compartment. You pic shows the platform to be smaller and in a lower location. But brain cells being what they are ..... DRK
The FH110 seems to be one of the classic designs that didn't enjoy the success it probably deserved. Allison test pilot Jack Schweibold had the opportunity to fly all three contenders in the LOH competition back in the early sixties and he reckoned the Hiller design, which became the FH1100, was the pick of the bunch and should have won the LOH contest!
500 Fan.
500 Fan.
Last edited by 500 Fan; 12th Mar 2013 at 16:01.
DK:
Dennis, the hinged work platforms (actually just access doors for the electrics, oil tanks and various under-engine bits) were only about 14" wide throughout the life of the machine. You're probably remembering standing right on the engine deck (which you could do), which indeed ran from the back of the cabin all the way back to the tail boom attach points.
People might assume that the 1100 flew like a 206, but they do not. Hiller and Bell had very different philosophies on control and stability. Many 1100's came through with a very crude, analog SAS which worked okay up to a point, I guess, although it was no autopilot.
All 1100s have a rudimentary force-trim system on the cyclic that makes that control quite stiff. There is no cyclic friction adjustment.
The problem is that with no forward tilt to the mast, at cruise speed of 120 mph the aircraft assumes a very nose-down attitude. This does terrible things to the stability and it is quite squirrely at that speed (compared to a 206 which drones along nicely at 120 mph). If you back off the power and cruise around at 90 or 100 mph it's really nice - but who wants to fly that slow? (Answer: The designers who obviously only saw the helicopter as a low-speed aircraft.) Then again, a 206 is rock solid, hands-off fun at 100 mph too.
With dual hydraulic systems and no possibility of shutting both off simultaneously, there was no anticipated need to practice hydraulics-off situations in the 1100. Because of this, the 1100 has a tiny little, short-coupled cyclic. Bells always have really long cyclics to give the pilot leverage to fly the thing with the power steering out.
Not only that, but the 1100 had a very tall transmission that was quite rigidly mounted to the airframe, unlike the "loosey-goosey" way the (relatively) low-profile 206 trans mounts to the top deck. 206 trans moves around a *LOT* more than an 1100 trans, and this translates into comparatively sloppy controls in the 206. (And I've got about 8,000 hours in 206's so I'm qualified to have that opinion.)
Thus, the 1100 has a more "sporty" feel than a 206 (if any semi-rigid, underslung rotor can be called that). I've had Hughes 500 pilots comment on how "sensitive" the 1100 is, especially in roll.
Eh- every helicopter is different and takes some getting used to. It's just strange that the 1100 and 206 do fly so differently given how close they are in configuration. The differences in the philosophies of the design teams are striking.
Finally- When Stan Hiller thought he'd won the LOH contract, he sold the California-based helicopter company to Fairchild Industries, an airplane manufacturer on the east coast. Not good.
As we all know, Howard Hughes wanted that contract more. And got it. Fairchild was severely disillusioned at the loss (and Stan was already gone). Industry-wide, nobody really saw a market for a civilian five-seat light turbine helicopter in 1966 (except for a few forward-thinkers at Bell).
So Fairchild never really got behind the 1100 as a civilian ship - they weren't really a helicopter company in the first place! They built 254 of them between 1967 and 1972, ironically calling it quits just as the market segment was exploding. Bell had already redesigned the fugly OH-4 into the 206, had a better-funded marketing department, and were better positioned to take advantage of the way the world was moving.
The rest is history.
In the ensuing years, efforts to revive the 1100 have not been successful.
Forgive me Savoia ... perhaps the old memory cells are fading, but I'd bet a dollar to ten cents that the version I flew at Henderson, had a full-length servicing platform directly adjacent to the engine compartment. You pic shows the platform to be smaller and in a lower location. But brain cells being what they are ..... DRK
People might assume that the 1100 flew like a 206, but they do not. Hiller and Bell had very different philosophies on control and stability. Many 1100's came through with a very crude, analog SAS which worked okay up to a point, I guess, although it was no autopilot.
All 1100s have a rudimentary force-trim system on the cyclic that makes that control quite stiff. There is no cyclic friction adjustment.
The problem is that with no forward tilt to the mast, at cruise speed of 120 mph the aircraft assumes a very nose-down attitude. This does terrible things to the stability and it is quite squirrely at that speed (compared to a 206 which drones along nicely at 120 mph). If you back off the power and cruise around at 90 or 100 mph it's really nice - but who wants to fly that slow? (Answer: The designers who obviously only saw the helicopter as a low-speed aircraft.) Then again, a 206 is rock solid, hands-off fun at 100 mph too.
With dual hydraulic systems and no possibility of shutting both off simultaneously, there was no anticipated need to practice hydraulics-off situations in the 1100. Because of this, the 1100 has a tiny little, short-coupled cyclic. Bells always have really long cyclics to give the pilot leverage to fly the thing with the power steering out.
Not only that, but the 1100 had a very tall transmission that was quite rigidly mounted to the airframe, unlike the "loosey-goosey" way the (relatively) low-profile 206 trans mounts to the top deck. 206 trans moves around a *LOT* more than an 1100 trans, and this translates into comparatively sloppy controls in the 206. (And I've got about 8,000 hours in 206's so I'm qualified to have that opinion.)
Thus, the 1100 has a more "sporty" feel than a 206 (if any semi-rigid, underslung rotor can be called that). I've had Hughes 500 pilots comment on how "sensitive" the 1100 is, especially in roll.
Eh- every helicopter is different and takes some getting used to. It's just strange that the 1100 and 206 do fly so differently given how close they are in configuration. The differences in the philosophies of the design teams are striking.
Finally- When Stan Hiller thought he'd won the LOH contract, he sold the California-based helicopter company to Fairchild Industries, an airplane manufacturer on the east coast. Not good.
As we all know, Howard Hughes wanted that contract more. And got it. Fairchild was severely disillusioned at the loss (and Stan was already gone). Industry-wide, nobody really saw a market for a civilian five-seat light turbine helicopter in 1966 (except for a few forward-thinkers at Bell).
So Fairchild never really got behind the 1100 as a civilian ship - they weren't really a helicopter company in the first place! They built 254 of them between 1967 and 1972, ironically calling it quits just as the market segment was exploding. Bell had already redesigned the fugly OH-4 into the 206, had a better-funded marketing department, and were better positioned to take advantage of the way the world was moving.
The rest is history.
In the ensuing years, efforts to revive the 1100 have not been successful.
Thread Starter
More 1100 ..
500 Fan: I must say that this is most interesting in that while I can imagine that Hiller's effort may have out-performed Bell's entrant, I find it hard to believe that (performance wise) it would have beaten the little egg. Even the four-bladed 500 (ie. the 'C' model or its early military variant) was still a nimble ship and 'must' (one would have thought) have out-performed (at least in terms of manoeuverability) the other two?
FH1100: For once you get to write about the craft who's name you carry! Lol. Fascinating stuff, many thanks!
I don't think it was any secret that Hughes Aircraft wanted the LOH contract but .. as stated above .. I think they had a winner in anycase. Perhaps not in terms of accommodation but at least in terms of basic performance.
~ ~ ~
In the early 80's my godfather was approached by the Brasilian Police to assist in the disposal of a number of FH1100's which had become surplus to requirement when the 'Esquilo' was introduced. I'm not sure what the outcome was but I do recall visiting the police heliport in Rio di Janeiro:
Brasilian Police (Policia Civil) FH1100 in Rio de Janeiro
Policia Civil FH1100 conducting a surf rescue
The Colonel (in casual attire) with Policia Civil air wing chief (and his wife) at the Policia Rio de Janeiro heliport in 1982
Your dollar is safe Denissimo .. thanks to William Sheridan who graciously gave his permission for us to post his photo (below):
FH1100 EI-ART in the SRS Hangar at Shannon Airport between 1965-68 (Photo: Bill Sheridan)
Although the lighting is not fantastic .. you can just make out a second platform (above the small one present in my earlier photo) and which is at the same level as the engine bay. So Denissimo .. your memory serves you well!
At the time of this photo EI-ART was owned by the US Ambassador to Ireland, Raymond Guest.
Raymond Guest was born on 25th November 1907 in Manhattan to Frederick Edward Guest, a British Cabinet minister and his American wife, Amy Phipps, daughter of Henry Phipps, Jr. He was the great-grandson of the seventh Duke of Marlborough and was Winston Churchill's second cousin.
During World War II he served with the United States Navy on mine sweepers and ended-up as head of the Navy section of the Office of Strategic Services in London. By the time he left the military in 1946, he had risen to the rank of Commander. He was awarded the Bronze Star and a Legion of Merit, both with combat devices; the Croix de Guerre with star; the Order of the British Empire; the Norwegian Cross, and the Danish Defense Medal.
After the war Guest went on to become a diplomat, businessman, thoroughbred race horse owner and polo player. He was the United States Ambassador to Ireland from 1965 to 1968.
Guest twice won the US Open as part of the Templeton team and was posthumously inducted into the polo Hall of Fame in 2006. In 1968 he became the British flat racing Champion Owner. Among Guest's successful horses were Larkspur, winner of the 1962 Epsom Derby and Sir Ivor, winner of the 1968 2,000 Guineas, Epsom Derby and the Washington DC International. Guest also owned steeplechase racers. His most outstanding was L'Escargot, a National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame inductee who was voted the 1969 US Steeplechase Horse of the Year and who went on to race in England where he won the Cheltenham Gold Cup in 1970 and 1971 and the Grand National in 1975.
FH1100: For once you get to write about the craft who's name you carry! Lol. Fascinating stuff, many thanks!
I don't think it was any secret that Hughes Aircraft wanted the LOH contract but .. as stated above .. I think they had a winner in anycase. Perhaps not in terms of accommodation but at least in terms of basic performance.~ ~ ~
In the early 80's my godfather was approached by the Brasilian Police to assist in the disposal of a number of FH1100's which had become surplus to requirement when the 'Esquilo' was introduced. I'm not sure what the outcome was but I do recall visiting the police heliport in Rio di Janeiro:
Brasilian Police (Policia Civil) FH1100 in Rio de Janeiro
Policia Civil FH1100 conducting a surf rescue
The Colonel (in casual attire) with Policia Civil air wing chief (and his wife) at the Policia Rio de Janeiro heliport in 1982
.. I'd bet a dollar to ten cents that the version I flew at Henderson, had a full-length servicing platform directly adjacent to the engine compartment.
FH1100 EI-ART in the SRS Hangar at Shannon Airport between 1965-68 (Photo: Bill Sheridan)
Although the lighting is not fantastic .. you can just make out a second platform (above the small one present in my earlier photo) and which is at the same level as the engine bay. So Denissimo .. your memory serves you well!
At the time of this photo EI-ART was owned by the US Ambassador to Ireland, Raymond Guest.
Raymond Guest was born on 25th November 1907 in Manhattan to Frederick Edward Guest, a British Cabinet minister and his American wife, Amy Phipps, daughter of Henry Phipps, Jr. He was the great-grandson of the seventh Duke of Marlborough and was Winston Churchill's second cousin.
During World War II he served with the United States Navy on mine sweepers and ended-up as head of the Navy section of the Office of Strategic Services in London. By the time he left the military in 1946, he had risen to the rank of Commander. He was awarded the Bronze Star and a Legion of Merit, both with combat devices; the Croix de Guerre with star; the Order of the British Empire; the Norwegian Cross, and the Danish Defense Medal.
After the war Guest went on to become a diplomat, businessman, thoroughbred race horse owner and polo player. He was the United States Ambassador to Ireland from 1965 to 1968.
Guest twice won the US Open as part of the Templeton team and was posthumously inducted into the polo Hall of Fame in 2006. In 1968 he became the British flat racing Champion Owner. Among Guest's successful horses were Larkspur, winner of the 1962 Epsom Derby and Sir Ivor, winner of the 1968 2,000 Guineas, Epsom Derby and the Washington DC International. Guest also owned steeplechase racers. His most outstanding was L'Escargot, a National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame inductee who was voted the 1969 US Steeplechase Horse of the Year and who went on to race in England where he won the Cheltenham Gold Cup in 1970 and 1971 and the Grand National in 1975.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ross-on-Wye
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest ?
Here I come again ... Would the gentleman by the name of Guest be a member of the great Guest family of the original GKN-multi national company. (Guest Keen & Nettlefold - they once made nails). I only ask because a couple of years back I met a certain Faith Guest in Atlanta who insisted she was one of the clan! If anyone will know it'll be Savoia! Dennis K.
Thread Starter
Sì Denissimo .. it is one and the same family for, as mentioned above, Raymond Guest was a cousin to the late great Sir Winston Churchill and was the son of Frederick Edward Guest who, in turn was the son of Ivor Guest (1873-1939) - see the last entry on the family tree on the lower left-hand side of the chart below:
As you can see .. Ivor Guest was directly related to John Guest (top of the tree) who worked as manager of the Dowlais Ironworks of Merthyr Tydfil in 1767. Under John's son Thomas, the Guest family's involvement in the works flourished with the works eventually becoming the largest iron rolling mill in the world (back when Britain was an industrial power).
There is a long (and interesting) history behind the family and .. in 1900 the mill and asociated businesses were formed into Guest, Keen and Co. - two years later becoming the Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds (GKN) to which you refer.
As you can see .. Ivor Guest was directly related to John Guest (top of the tree) who worked as manager of the Dowlais Ironworks of Merthyr Tydfil in 1767. Under John's son Thomas, the Guest family's involvement in the works flourished with the works eventually becoming the largest iron rolling mill in the world (back when Britain was an industrial power).
There is a long (and interesting) history behind the family and .. in 1900 the mill and asociated businesses were formed into Guest, Keen and Co. - two years later becoming the Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds (GKN) to which you refer.
Sav, I was also surprised by Jack Schweibold's assessment of the various LOH contenders. How could he not immediately fall in love with the little OH-6? It turns out the early YOH-6 had some serious vibration problems with the main rotor. Maybe Hiller had their machine dialled-in very early on in proceedings and it flew the best of the three at that time. Jack Schweibold went on to set one of the 23 world records that the OH-6 would claim in 1966. As the LOH contest progressed, the Bell OH-4 was eliminated quite quickly. At selection time, the Hiller and the Hughes were deemed to be both broadly equal in quality and it came down to the lowest bidder. Despite Howard Hughes' shenanigans in winning the LOH, perhaps the best helicopter at that time won and thankfully it spawned the large family of 500s that many love today. Sadly, it seems, the FH1100 was the big loser in the end.
Thanks as well for the information in relation to the heliborne American Ambassador to Ireland. Fascinating stuff.
500 Fan.
Thanks as well for the information in relation to the heliborne American Ambassador to Ireland. Fascinating stuff.
500 Fan.
Thread Starter
My apologies but .. the Guest family tree contains some patent anomalies in terms of dates, most notably Sir Winston who's longevity was framed by the dates 1874-1965. Thank you to the PPRuNer who kindly pointed this out to me!
500 Fan: If you would like to read some really fascinating stuff then how about this .. 'The Gulfstream that went racing!'
There I was believing that I possessed at least a basic awareness of corporate aviation in Ireland from the early 80's (especially in matters relating to turf) when I discovered on a plank thread (apostacy I know!) that instead of landing at the nearest airport and having her passengers helicoptered in to the racecouse .. a particular Gulfstream in Ireland in 1983 decided to land directly on the racecourse .. as in on the grass gallops!
Now that was a fasinating read, lol! Check it out here.
More Hiller .. of the non-turbine variety
Hiller UH-12E G-ATVN of the Central Electricity Generating Board at Southampton's Eastleigh Airport in August 1969 (Photo: Bary Friend)
ATVN began her service in the UK with United Helicopters of Redhill (who were they?) in 1966 being bought by the Central Electricity Generating Board the following year and then by Management Aviation in 1970.
ps: My thanks to Barry Friend for this photo; this being his first contribution to the thread.
pps: The roof of the building in this photo seems to be wearing a camouflage motif!
ppps: You would think that the CEGC would have been able to afford some weed-killer for their landing pad.
500 Fan: If you would like to read some really fascinating stuff then how about this .. 'The Gulfstream that went racing!'
There I was believing that I possessed at least a basic awareness of corporate aviation in Ireland from the early 80's (especially in matters relating to turf) when I discovered on a plank thread (apostacy I know!) that instead of landing at the nearest airport and having her passengers helicoptered in to the racecouse .. a particular Gulfstream in Ireland in 1983 decided to land directly on the racecourse .. as in on the grass gallops!
Now that was a fasinating read, lol! Check it out here.More Hiller .. of the non-turbine variety
Hiller UH-12E G-ATVN of the Central Electricity Generating Board at Southampton's Eastleigh Airport in August 1969 (Photo: Bary Friend)
ATVN began her service in the UK with United Helicopters of Redhill (who were they?) in 1966 being bought by the Central Electricity Generating Board the following year and then by Management Aviation in 1970.
ps: My thanks to Barry Friend for this photo; this being his first contribution to the thread.
pps: The roof of the building in this photo seems to be wearing a camouflage motif!
ppps: You would think that the CEGC would have been able to afford some weed-killer for their landing pad.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,599
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
United Helicopters of Redhill (who were they?)
Thread Starter
Hopefully someone will be able to confirm the details. Perhaps Bristows were at one point supporting Hiller sales through this company as part of the JV?
For Nigel 'Ozzy' Osborn:
Nigel: From your era ..
Helicopter Utilities FH1100 VH-UTZ at Sydney's Mascot Airport on 5th April 1969 (Photo: Greg Banfield)
Evidently this craft flew in Fifi for a time (as DQ-FBZ) but was eventually destroyed or substantially damaged on 10th February 1977 at Hoxton Park.
I am assuming that Rosemary Arnold (Australia's first woman helicopter pilot) must have been a friend of yours given that she was flying at around the same time as you!
Rosemary Arnold with FH1100 N420FH in 1968 (most likely during one of her Stateside visits)
For Nigel 'Ozzy' Osborn:
Nigel: From your era ..
Helicopter Utilities FH1100 VH-UTZ at Sydney's Mascot Airport on 5th April 1969 (Photo: Greg Banfield)
Evidently this craft flew in Fifi for a time (as DQ-FBZ) but was eventually destroyed or substantially damaged on 10th February 1977 at Hoxton Park.
I am assuming that Rosemary Arnold (Australia's first woman helicopter pilot) must have been a friend of yours given that she was flying at around the same time as you!
Rosemary Arnold with FH1100 N420FH in 1968 (most likely during one of her Stateside visits)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rosemary was a remarkable woman, very attractive even after 4 children! She was very aviation driven & paid for her flying training with her own money, so her husband couldn't complain. Started on little planks then qualified on helicopters in 1967 or so. Met her twice at Bankstown Airport when she had a Bell 47J2A. As you would expect she had great trouble finding commercial work as no one wanted a woman pilot in those days! She is still involved although nowadays she does more lecturing than flying being in her 70s.
Enjoyed a few hours in UTZ!
Enjoyed a few hours in UTZ!
Last edited by Nigel Osborn; 17th Mar 2013 at 21:05.
Here are two photos of Utilities' FH1100s on Antarctic duty. They are fitted with some heavy-duty cargo racks.
All sizes | Up and away | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Leaving Mawson #2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
500 Fan.
All sizes | Up and away | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Leaving Mawson #2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
500 Fan.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel the odd one out! Having flown about 20 different types, I have to say I never really liked the 500. Too cramped, no luggage space, too little endurance, silly rudder pedals that pulled to one side when you took your feet off! Maybe I didn't have enough hours on type to get to love it...< 100 hours only.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, depends on what you wanted it for. I look back on the '500 as the best fun of my helo time - even more than the Gaz, but then I didn't need to carry baggage on pipeline patrols and never felt the position of yaw pedals when parked to be worthy of notice.
As a charter pax I'd hate it. As a powerline observer in the back ditto. As the pilot I'd not be at all happy in that role either (I wasn't). But for getting from a to b without bags or 2 up with bags it was just the tops.
In most respects (finances and support aside of which I know little) the Gaz had it way way better - declutched rotor at idle - a HUGE benefit, baggage and space even if the back seats were uncomfortable - an easily fixed design glitch.
From a purely practical view in that era the JetRanger was surely tops, simple, safe, spacious, big boot, got there 5 minutes after the Gaz on a 2 hr trip with pax still able to walk (unlike the poor sods in the back of the '500)
Just a smaller grin on the face of the pilot and the finance broker.
If I was going to own a machine of that era as a private owner I'd be torn between the slinkiness of the Gaz and a '500E but I think I'd end up with a 206L III...
As a charter pax I'd hate it. As a powerline observer in the back ditto. As the pilot I'd not be at all happy in that role either (I wasn't). But for getting from a to b without bags or 2 up with bags it was just the tops.
In most respects (finances and support aside of which I know little) the Gaz had it way way better - declutched rotor at idle - a HUGE benefit, baggage and space even if the back seats were uncomfortable - an easily fixed design glitch.
From a purely practical view in that era the JetRanger was surely tops, simple, safe, spacious, big boot, got there 5 minutes after the Gaz on a 2 hr trip with pax still able to walk (unlike the poor sods in the back of the '500)
Just a smaller grin on the face of the pilot and the finance broker.
If I was going to own a machine of that era as a private owner I'd be torn between the slinkiness of the Gaz and a '500E but I think I'd end up with a 206L III...
I remember speaking to the managing director of Holborn helicopters about 20 years ago, they had just replaced a 206 with a 500C (G-LINC?).
He said the most noticeable difference between the two aircraft was that he now received maintenance bills that had less than 4 digits.
A credit to the aircraft and the Sywell based maintenace organisation.
He said the most noticeable difference between the two aircraft was that he now received maintenance bills that had less than 4 digits.
A credit to the aircraft and the Sywell based maintenace organisation.
Thread Starter
500 Fan: Great shots. One wonders how the 1100 coped with these 'luggage racks', power wise?
Nigel: I was sure she had come across your radar at some point!
Agaricus: When I first encountered the 500 I had been flying the 206L and the 500 (for me) didn't really 'hit the spot'. But, my introduction had been through training exercises and when some years later I got to put her through her paces in an operational contect .. I was most impressed. For the work we were performing she was ideal, I would venture to say .. untouchable! If the LIII is on your 'wish list' .. why not go a couple of digits higher and opt for the 407 which, as it happens, has some '500-esque' handling qualities!
Hiller 12E (above): Barry Friend (who photographed th Hiller 12E above) has written to say that the camouflage roof was a left over from the second world war and that the craft had landed upon the signal square which was no longer in use (hence the tufts of grass!).
Eric: The 'C' model with its C18 was probably more economical than the 206 but .. they still like to be fed with fuel!
Hughes 500C (369HS) G-LINC as seen at Cranfield on 3rd July 1994 (Photo: Malcolm Clarke)
LINC had an 'incident' at Sywell on 2nd January 2006 a summary of which reads:
Initially, the pilot flew 16 nm from Sywell to Catthorpe, near Rugby in Warwckshre, in order to pick up hs passenger. After landing, the pilot kept the engine running while his passenger boarded. They then flew to Folkestone Race Course (3 nm point-to-point) where they spent the day. The helicopter was not refuelled at Folkestone because no fuel was available.
The flight back to Sywell was uneventful until just north of Luton Airport. At this point the FUEL LOW caution light flickered once or twice. The pilot was not concerned as this had occurred to him before with a low fuel state. He attributed the flickering caption to the fuel moving around in the tank as a result of air turbulence. Prior to this, the pilot had not made a fuel burn check while en route.
At approxmately 10 nm from Sywell the FUEL LOW caution light came on permanently. He was not too worried by this because his GPS indcated he was 6 mins from Sywell. He believed that when the FUEL LOW caution light came on, he still had 15 mins flying time available.
Due to a number of microlight aircraft in the circuit at Sywell, the pilot elected to join the circuit at the end of the downwind leg rather than fly a straight-in approach. Whilst on final approach, at 400 ft agl, the engine flamed out. The pilot commenced an autorotation and landed firmly short of the threshold of Runway 23. He did not recall what hs cyclic control inputs were durng the touchdown. The pilot and his passenger vacated the helicopter uninjured.
Full report here.
I'm not sure whether the AAIB report author intended to be humorous in his compilation of this summary but .. his litany of events and the driver's responses (underlined) does have the effect of tickling the corners of one's mouth!
Nigel: I was sure she had come across your radar at some point!
Agaricus: When I first encountered the 500 I had been flying the 206L and the 500 (for me) didn't really 'hit the spot'. But, my introduction had been through training exercises and when some years later I got to put her through her paces in an operational contect .. I was most impressed. For the work we were performing she was ideal, I would venture to say .. untouchable! If the LIII is on your 'wish list' .. why not go a couple of digits higher and opt for the 407 which, as it happens, has some '500-esque' handling qualities!
Hiller 12E (above): Barry Friend (who photographed th Hiller 12E above) has written to say that the camouflage roof was a left over from the second world war and that the craft had landed upon the signal square which was no longer in use (hence the tufts of grass!).
Eric: The 'C' model with its C18 was probably more economical than the 206 but .. they still like to be fed with fuel!
Hughes 500C (369HS) G-LINC as seen at Cranfield on 3rd July 1994 (Photo: Malcolm Clarke)
LINC had an 'incident' at Sywell on 2nd January 2006 a summary of which reads:
Initially, the pilot flew 16 nm from Sywell to Catthorpe, near Rugby in Warwckshre, in order to pick up hs passenger. After landing, the pilot kept the engine running while his passenger boarded. They then flew to Folkestone Race Course (3 nm point-to-point) where they spent the day. The helicopter was not refuelled at Folkestone because no fuel was available.
The flight back to Sywell was uneventful until just north of Luton Airport. At this point the FUEL LOW caution light flickered once or twice. The pilot was not concerned as this had occurred to him before with a low fuel state. He attributed the flickering caption to the fuel moving around in the tank as a result of air turbulence. Prior to this, the pilot had not made a fuel burn check while en route.
At approxmately 10 nm from Sywell the FUEL LOW caution light came on permanently. He was not too worried by this because his GPS indcated he was 6 mins from Sywell. He believed that when the FUEL LOW caution light came on, he still had 15 mins flying time available.
Due to a number of microlight aircraft in the circuit at Sywell, the pilot elected to join the circuit at the end of the downwind leg rather than fly a straight-in approach. Whilst on final approach, at 400 ft agl, the engine flamed out. The pilot commenced an autorotation and landed firmly short of the threshold of Runway 23. He did not recall what hs cyclic control inputs were durng the touchdown. The pilot and his passenger vacated the helicopter uninjured.
Full report here.
I'm not sure whether the AAIB report author intended to be humorous in his compilation of this summary but .. his litany of events and the driver's responses (underlined) does have the effect of tickling the corners of one's mouth!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sav
Another remarkable female pilot was Yvonne Butler in Brisbane. She suffered the usual prejudices but fixed that by forming her own company! Ppruner Peter Manktelow used to fly for her, so knows her much better than I do! I had the pleasure of making up a foursome for dinner, thanks to Herbie Ray & wife, a wonderful one armed engineer! Herbie had an ulterior motive which never happened!
Another remarkable female pilot was Yvonne Butler in Brisbane. She suffered the usual prejudices but fixed that by forming her own company! Ppruner Peter Manktelow used to fly for her, so knows her much better than I do! I had the pleasure of making up a foursome for dinner, thanks to Herbie Ray & wife, a wonderful one armed engineer! Herbie had an ulterior motive which never happened!
I suspect the United Helicopters mentioned earlier was indeed a Bristow affiliation....they also hadS-55s registered at one point on oil work. The UH-12 illustrated is in the same colours as the ones used by Bristow on the Middle Wallop training contract,and the one in the Helicopter Museum.
Which reminds me.....anyone got any wooden or metal Hiller main blades suitable for static display ?
Which reminds me.....anyone got any wooden or metal Hiller main blades suitable for static display ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Dublin
Age: 46
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH-1100 (OH-5) FIRST FLIGHT by Jack Schweibold
Hiller Air Museum located in San Mateo, California, announced it will again host the Vertical Challenge Helicopter Air Show June 16th, 10am to 4pm. (1) This comprehensive showcase of rotorcraft brings back memories of my first flights in the predecessor of the Fairchild Hiller FH-1100, the YOH-5 some 50 years ago. I had just completed fifty hours of required flight on the new Allison YT63 Turbine Engine, now the Rolls-Royce/Allison 250. Prototype engines were then released to Hiller, Bell and Hughes for their respective helicopters designed and built for the Army’s Light Observation Helicopter Competition. Our engine test aircraft at Allison was a Bell 47-J dressed in Navy colors. The Navy used this model as an anti-submarine Torpedo Helicopter.
Hiller’s maiden flight in the YOH-5 (FH-1100) was January, 21st 1963 with Bell and Hughes launching their models in the same period. Competition among the manufacturers was brutal and the secrecy requirements were ferocious. I was the Allison test pilot commissioned by the Army to be the first to fly and evaluate the three aircraft. Confidentiality was especially tight for those of us working with the engine as it powered all three contenders. Sworn to secrecy by signing “Thou Shall Not Tell” documents, I was dispatched from Indianapolis to the various manufacturers. I was amazed at the quality of design, performance and workmanship in the Hiller machine. While I couldn’t offer comparative remarks during the two week trip, it looked like the winner. Effectively, it highlighted state-of-the art construction. I valued the attention given to its serviceability. Battlefield maintenance of engine and related components could be easily addressed by merely sliding a clamshell cowling rearward on horizontal tracks along the tail boom.
My initial test flights confirmed earlier OEM engineering assessments that the engine needed quicker responsiveness when recovering from an aborted autorotation touchdown. Otherwise, the little engine pumping out an awesome 318hp, at half the weight of a reciprocating engine, performed extraordinarily well. After some modification to the fuel control, the Allison 250 with reduced acceleration time made an excellent performance pairing in all these light helicopters with the added benefit of modular construction that facilitated a new era for field serviceability. The YOH-5 did not win or maybe even ever had a chance to compete. In a competition that featured the initial winner, Hughes - as in Howard, being brought before a congressional investigation for tampering with the selection process that eventually resulted in the bulk of the production contract going to Bell. Hiller had elected to drop from the military contest and instead built over 250 civil FH-1100’s. Much like the venerable DC-3, this helicopter remains in certified service almost fifty years later. Currently serviced by FH-1100 Manufacturing Corporation (2), recent reports (3) indicate its manufacture may continue into the future through agreements with China … it’s hard to keep a good old girl down!
Hiller’s maiden flight in the YOH-5 (FH-1100) was January, 21st 1963 with Bell and Hughes launching their models in the same period. Competition among the manufacturers was brutal and the secrecy requirements were ferocious. I was the Allison test pilot commissioned by the Army to be the first to fly and evaluate the three aircraft. Confidentiality was especially tight for those of us working with the engine as it powered all three contenders. Sworn to secrecy by signing “Thou Shall Not Tell” documents, I was dispatched from Indianapolis to the various manufacturers. I was amazed at the quality of design, performance and workmanship in the Hiller machine. While I couldn’t offer comparative remarks during the two week trip, it looked like the winner. Effectively, it highlighted state-of-the art construction. I valued the attention given to its serviceability. Battlefield maintenance of engine and related components could be easily addressed by merely sliding a clamshell cowling rearward on horizontal tracks along the tail boom.
My initial test flights confirmed earlier OEM engineering assessments that the engine needed quicker responsiveness when recovering from an aborted autorotation touchdown. Otherwise, the little engine pumping out an awesome 318hp, at half the weight of a reciprocating engine, performed extraordinarily well. After some modification to the fuel control, the Allison 250 with reduced acceleration time made an excellent performance pairing in all these light helicopters with the added benefit of modular construction that facilitated a new era for field serviceability. The YOH-5 did not win or maybe even ever had a chance to compete. In a competition that featured the initial winner, Hughes - as in Howard, being brought before a congressional investigation for tampering with the selection process that eventually resulted in the bulk of the production contract going to Bell. Hiller had elected to drop from the military contest and instead built over 250 civil FH-1100’s. Much like the venerable DC-3, this helicopter remains in certified service almost fifty years later. Currently serviced by FH-1100 Manufacturing Corporation (2), recent reports (3) indicate its manufacture may continue into the future through agreements with China … it’s hard to keep a good old girl down!
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - we used it for parts to rebuild G-BAFD which had been dismantled and shoved into the corner by BCal. G-BAFD did some good work for us in general charter, being one of very few twin-engined helicopters available at that time. The company passed out of our hands but struggled and died under the new owners.