Red Bull B0-105

[shadey]

Excuse my ignorance, but are all BO-105 helicopters capable of doing the kind of aerobatics that you can see the Red Bull B0-105 doing on the uTube videos?

Obviously the pilot is highly skilled and you wouldn't catch me doing anything like that anytime soon.

I have only flown Robbies and clearly you would kill yourself even trying the things the pilot does in these videos, it looks like a masterpiece of engineering in the hands of a very skilled pilot to me.

I thought perhaps there is some special modification done to the machine.

Are there any other types capable of such manouvers?

[HOGE]

As I recall, the UK register flight manual states that aerobatic manoeuvres are prohibited. The aircraft is very agile, but flying upside down in a helicopter is not on my to-do list!

[skadi]

More about this Red Bull BO 105 on their website:

http://www.redbullusa.com/en/ArticlePage.1165622311204-62961151/htmlArticlePage.action#page=ArticlePage.1165622311204-62961151.0

Click Button THE LOWDOWN

These aerobatics are fully certified for Red Bull in cooperation with Eurocopter. Generally all BOs could do these maneuvers, but not all pilots.....;)
Therefore the FM forbids these aerobatics. ( And it was no part in the certification process )
As I know, these BOs were also slightly modified with some parts of the military version to cope with the higher G-Forces ( certified for + 3.1 G ).
Naturally a more intensive as usual inspection after these flights is done...

skadi

[shadey]

Thanks for the details on the Red Bull helicopter, I don't know why I did not think of going to their website first.

I can't imagine that 'Chuck' is the first guy to do this. I suspect the Germans showed him a think or two. Does anyone know of any other types that may be able to do this, including military types? I am sure there are some stories out there :)!!

[Helipoc]

Indeed, the pilot is highly skilled. Rainer Wilke has logged over 7500 hours in the BO-105 ...

[Oogle]

As I know, these BOs were also slightly modified with some parts of the military version to cope with the higher G-Forces ( certified for + 3.1 G ).

The BO105 rotorhead is certified to +3.5g but more interesting is that it is certified down to -1g! Really capable and strong rotor system.

[GoodGrief]

As far as I remember the helicopters we fly are certified in the "mormal" category which is up to +3.3G.

Mind you already have +2G in a 60deg bank.
Isn't a barrel roll just a 1G manoeuvre ?

GG

[212man]

"Isn't a barrel roll just a 1G manoeuvre ?"

This has always struck me as one of those urban myths: if anyone can explain to me how it is possible to recover from a diving manoeuvre (1st and 4th quarters of the roll) to climbing and level flight (respectively), without experiencing more than 1 g, I'd be grateful to hear it. Gentle it can be, 1g I don't see how (and I've done one or two.)

[greenthumb]

I would like to know how it was possible to mix military parts with the approved civil ship and parts??? The mil parts not having a BO105 civ partnumber and no civ ticket. Over the last 20 years it was impossible to use one single screw from the mil ships on civ registered. Germany phased out so many BOs from mil service. To get very cheap. But EC prohibited strictly the use of ex-mil ships and any parts. Very strictly!

And if it was no part in the certification process aerobatics couldn`t be approved on my sight for a civil registered helicopter according to the present rules. But with the power and money of REDBULL...

[skadi]

At least both of the US-registered BOs are registered as "Experimental" Aircraft, so they could go beyond the certified flight envelope.
Additional, the pilot C. Wilke is certified as FI for helicopter aerobatics, I think, at the time the only one in the world..

[Brilliant Stuff]

http://www.flyingbulls.at

Shows that they have two German registered B0-105 which also do aerobatics so this would make their fleet 3.

[greenthumb]

For the US it seems ok with "experimental". But in Europe the BO is german registered.

Never heard about a "FI helicopter aerobatics" in the JAA rules.

But thats only theoretical questions. The show is superb. Good for aviation!

[dogpaddy]

Anyone in Vienna this weekend can see the Red Bull BO-105 and Rainer Wilke performing at the Donauinselfest on Saturday at 15.00 above the Wien-Energie stage.

dp

[MarcK]

The US Red Bull, flown by Chuck Aaron, performed at Hiller Museum's Vertical Challenge airshow this last weekend. Even after you see it done, it's hard to believe you saw it correctly.

[sorath5]

I remember an instructor at AEC (Larry) who said the M/R head was the only thing that was intact after some of the retaining bolts sheared off and caused a crash somewhere in South America. I have also seen what is left of one after an aircraft caught fire and was destroyed. Again, it was still intact! Truly amazing!:D

[maxtork]

When I was at school at AEC I asked what the price tag was on the rotor head (I figured it would be pretty spendy being made out of a big block of titanium). The reply was something like...who cares? if you do something bad enough to hurt the head the rest of the aircraft will surely be destroyed and you'll get a new head with the new aircraft!

Max

[cptjim]

Interesting article here....

Web Exclusives: Beyond the Thrill Ride, by Brent Bergen (http://www.verticalmag.com/exclusives/redbull/)

Enjoy! :ok:

[Lt.Fubar]

Does anyone know of any other types that may be able to do this, including military types?Old question. But better late than never.

Nick Lappos could provide some answers about details, 9 years ago at rec.aviation.rotorcraft newsgroup, he wrote some good stuff on that subject (helicopter A-A combat, and aerobatics - especially loops). Apparently what you need is strong, rigid machine, with lots of spare power and good speed. Although Nick wrote that even the S-51 was capable of performing a loop - low-G maneuvers would probably be a problem though.

First helicopter to perform full aerobatic display was CH-53, therefore many helicopters since the 60's can perform full aerobatics, although its not that simple as on the planks. For example a loop in a plank is fairly easy, all you need is enough speed to be above stall in the highest point. With helicopter, you need to hit a sweet spot: to little - and you wont make it to the top, to much - and you overspeed and stall main rotor on the recovery.

Helicopters that will do those maneuvers for fact are Bo-105, Bell 407, MD500, Lynx, Apache, NH-90 - those shown that capability already, look on youtube, and you may find videos. As far as others - probably most western machines can, and its mostly a question of pilot skill - seen S-58T do some nice maneuvers, AS365 also can achieve some insane roll and pitch rates... But probably non of the Russian helicopters can do that kind of flying, except the Mil Mi-28, they are just to fragile and one may say that they fall off the sky above bank angle of 45deg. Numerous Mi-8, Mi-24, and Mi-2 were lost because some pilots got to cocky.

As for the European pilots goes - Rainer Wilke is pretty much one of the best known helicopter stunt pilots, ex-military, Eurocopter test pilot instructor, was doing the aerial work for German "Clown" TV series, he (and Sigi Schwarz) fly the Red Bull '105 in Europe, and he was the one who shown Chuck Aaron, what Bo-105 is capable of.

[InducedDrag]

Have you ever seen this?

Perfect 1G Barrel Roll in Airplane - Truveo Video Search (http://www.truveo.com/Perfect-1G-Barrel-Roll-in-Airplane/id/793805035)

Also here is an explanation off a site I copied:


Imagine your in space. A 1G roll would be a perfect circle with a
constant 1G acceleration.

Now bring that path into the Earth's gravity well. Now the 1G roll is
all messed up by the Earth's 1G. How can we fix that? Just like the
Vomit Comet does, by accelerating down at 9.8m/s^2. Superimpose a roll
on top of a parabolic descent and you have the path of a theoretical
airplane in a 1G roll.

[JohnDixson]

Actually the following clip is a copy of a movie that was made at Sikorsky long before my time, but which is still shown there every now and then:

xhRUGKa_ImY

Mr. Thompson visited the factory in Stratford in the early 1990's and for all of his memorable exploits, was a very quiet, self-effacing gentleman. Also very, very intelligent and technically curious about all of the technology in the newer machines.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[MOLWillie]

The BO-105 having a rigid rotor head made from a titanium forging can take high stress loads, hence aerobatic manoeuvers.

[lelebebbel]

there is an article about Chuck Aarons Red Bull 105 in the newest issue of vertical mag (read it online for free at verticalmag.com, need to sign up though).

Apparently his machine is modified quite a bit. According to the article, it has stiffer blades, running at "very high RPM", a pressurized fuel system for negative G maneuvers, and a far forward CG, to make it easier to recover from unusual attitudes.

[HELOFAN]

This clip talks about some info your looking for.

The G's pulled are not all that crazy in fact less G's than a very steep bank.
27000lbs,
Entry 1150 ft & 158 knots.
Top of loop, 1865 ft 81 kts. 1.1 g
Leveling out max of 2.65 G's 920 ft 130 knots

Rigid systems only???

Its an awesome clip all the same demonstrating the helicopters ability.

The interesting part is it was for studies of rotor system dynamics & maneuverability characteristics for safety, survivability & for getting in & out of confined areas!!

I want to see someone do a confined area with this sort of entry.
"Now the trick Johnson is clearing the tail in the flare and not spilling my coffee"

I know pilots that were being shot at had to be a little inventive in approaches and departures to hot LZ's but I am sure this isn't what was meant LOL.

VC2E8RJE3Jo&NR=1

HF

[Lt.Fubar]

As long as the maneuver gives positive Gs on the machine, the type of rotor don't really matter. It matters when the Gs drop near, or below zero - doing Push Over, or Tail Slide in Robbies would result in loosing some parts (tail or main rotor), with fully articulated rotors - it would depend on the centrifugal force on the rotor - conning, or extensive flap, can result in blades colliding with tail, or other blades (co-axial in Kamovs). For example CH-53 should do fine in negative G, while Mi-8 will probably chop his tail off. At least that's what math say ;)

[JohnDixson]

Helofan, you wrote:

"The interesting part is it was for studies of rotor system dynamics & maneuverability characteristics for safety, survivability & for getting in & out of confined areas!!"

That was, err..... well at least one way to put it. The USMC pilot in the photos was a Major Robert Guay, and he was the NAVAIR class desk officer for the 53A program. Bob was absolutely convinced that the USMC should employ the 53A in the combat assault role, which at the time had transitioned from the UH-34D to the CH-46. Bob had run up against seniors within the USMC who opined that the CH-46 was much more manueverable, and thus safer and more effective, as the combat assault vehicle. Bob's answer was to showcase the superior manueverability of the 53A, so that, having put aside that objection, the tactical advantage of the 53A in getting a lot more troops quickly into the LZ would win the argument. But it didn't happen, for a number of other reasons.

Byron Graham, the Sikorsky pilot( our Chief Experimental Pilot at the time ) told me that they had flown a number of other manuevers, for example cuban eights, but they had trouble making them look standardized, so they were not filmed.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[HELOFAN]

Hi John.

Actually I was just quoting the narration given in the film. I would like to have seen the whole thing but regardless I figured it was what they wanted to explain to civvies.
I liked how the gent was saying what it was for.
An average civvie wouldnt know what a confined area was all about.

A little tongue in cheek dig at the 60's style narration.

The fully artic comment was aimed at someone who earlier stated that those types of maneuvers were only able to be performed in a heli that had a rigid type.....I chuckled then posted.

You wouldnt happen to know where the full film is available?

HF

[Lt.Fubar]

Bob's answer was to showcase the superior manueverability of the 53A, so that, having put aside that objection, the tactical advantage of the 53A in getting a lot more troops quickly into the LZ would win the argument. But it didn't happen, for a number of other reasons.I'm not familiar with the history of CH-46 and CH-53 in the 60's, I know only that the Knight was prone to disintegrate mid flight, and there were severe casualties related to on board fires, when fired upon on approach to LZs. Could you tell me what were the other reasons for Stalion not to take over the role of USMC main troop transport at that time?

[rotorfan]

I chatted with Chuck Aaron briefly at Oshkosh this past summer, where he was performing. I rarely watch the airshow while I'm there, just because there isn't much novel in airshows anymore. But, I stopped and watched slack-jawed with everyone else when the BO was up. :eek:

rf

[JohnDixson]

Helofan, the film that you saw is about all that I have ever seen while I was working.

There is another, really terrific film of Frank Tefft putting on an aerobatic and tactical demo ( including a lift of 125 Japanese infantry ) in a CH-53D, which includes cockpit coverage. I have that on tape somewhere, if I haven't sent it to my grandson.

Lt. Fubar, I never heard the behind the scenes story of why the 53A wasn't employed in the assault role. My personal guess is that they didn't want to risk that many Marines to a single shoot-down. As I recall the history of the CH-46 problems, it was one of those issues where the actual combat usage of the machine resulted in structural loads in the rear of the fuselage that were not included in the original fatigue damage spectrum*. Maybe someone closer to the CH-46 program can amplify on that subject. I "heard" that is was a GAG ( ground-air-ground cycle ) issue associated with landing loads, but cannot confirm that conclusion. I do recall from having flown the CH-47A early on that one could "plant the rear wheels on a tandem, without it feeling too bad up front. The cockpit doesn't get all of the vertical "G", because the fuselage rotates nose down when the rear wheels make contact.

* At the introduction of a new model, the US Gov't service and the manufacturer assess and agree upon a usage spectrum for the machine. A flight loads survey is then flown to obtain all of the load data associated with that spectrum. The data is good for that spectrum, period.

An small example of what can happen: After the Desert One disaster in Iran, the Army hurriedly formed up the forerunner of the TF-160 group at Ft. Campbell, Ky.
A few months thereafter I got a phone call from a highly concerned GE representative to that unit. ( He had been the GE Rep to Sikorsky during the Blackhawk development and was the best in the business ). He reported that he had sat in the back of a hawk that had just been flown from Nellis AFB ( Las Vegas ) back to Ft Campbell, Ky and the pilots flew it at the TIT limiter, that is at the 30 minute power rating, every minute of the way.

All of this confirms the validity of applying the technolgy now available to installing onboard fatigue damage measurement systems, with bar coded or similar technology applied to each fatigue loaded part/assembly.

Thanks,
John Dixson

[SASless]

For a discussion of the problems with the CH-46 Phrog where the aft pylon, aft transmission, and aft rotorhead and blades departed the aircraft in flight....and the subsequent fix with questions about the actual cause of the problem...hit this link.

CH-46As Breaking up in Flight!!! - NOTAM Board (http://www.popasmoke.com/notam2/showthread.php?p=8011)

On the CH-47A in Vietnam, we had two significant problems....one being an "incidence bolt" on the rotor blades failing....with catastrophic results, and flight control push-pull tubes coming apart at the riveted ends also resulting in the loss of the aircraft. The CH-47C model went through a phase where Power Turbines shattered and tried to cut the aircraft in half...always causing a hell of an inflight fire and loss of the aircraft.

[starflex3]

Can somebody tell me what model of BO-105 is used by Chuck Aaron for the Red Bull Helicopter?

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

I think it is a Bo105CBS 4 .....

...... of course you could consult the Red Bull web page ... perhaps that would be too easy!


:bored:

[spencer17]

It's a short version a BO 105 S.
The CBS versions are not so good for aerobatics.

[skadi]

Spencer17, thats not correct. Its the longer version ( additional small window, BO 105 CBS , S for "streched" ). look at the pictures:

Red Bull Energy Drink - USA - Red Bull Bo-105 CBS Helicopter - Schedule (http://www.redbullusa.com/en/ArticlePage.1165622311204-62961151.1/htmlArticlePage.action)

Skadi

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....

The American team have gone with the CBS version .... the Swiss with the CB the standard airframe.

Which is best .... I have no idea! (and I'm not sure I care).


:confused:

[skadi]

@spinwing
the Swiss with the CB the standard airframe.


They are from Austria... ;)

skadi

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ...


..... They are from Austria...


Skadi .... could be ... I know that the Red Bull team originate from Austria ... BUT when I got close to their 105s at Abu Dhabi airport a year or so ago the a/c were on the "HB-" register which I think is SWISS!

Perhaps that has changed.
:E

[skadi]

Red Bull in Salzburg/Austria have two BO 105 CB ( ex German Police S/N 126 and S/N 140 ). They are on a german registration: D-HDTM and D-HSDM and are flown by a german pilot ( Mr. Wilke ) and a austrian pilot ( Mr. Schwarz ).

skadi

[that chinese fella]

Hey Spin, you might have seen this Red Bull Air Race 105, operated by Swiss company Skymedia and flown on the RBAR circuit by Jurg Fleischmann. HB-ZHS.

Jurg Fleischmann flying the BO-105, HB-ZHS photo - Luis Rosa photos at pbase.com (http://www.pbase.com/airluis/image/85240280)

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

... Hey Spin, you might have seen this Red Bull Air Race 105, operated by Swiss company Skymedia and flown on the RBAR circuit by Jurg Fleischmann. HB-ZHS.


Yeah Mike .... that's the Camera ship that I saw ... started to think that the "Old Age" memory thing had got to me!

Thanks for the pic.

Cheers

[HeliHenri]

.
Aerobatic helicopter pilot Chuck Aaron performs loops and barrel rolls in advance of the Chicago Air and Water Show. :ok:

Fly upside down in Red Bull chopper - YouTube

.

[before landing check list]

All kidding aside, and the film was good, how does checking out the maneuverability of the machine by doing loops and rolls give insight to confined area characteristics?

[John Eacott]

And another offering :cool:

uYbx5H5e9Es

[Plank Cap]

Anybody know why all the rolling manoeuvres appear to be done to the left? Would it be aircraft control authority issues, or perhaps just pilot preference?

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

And some more....

Helicopters Just Should NOT Go Upside Down Like This (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/helicopter-aerobatic-tricks-will-make-you-nervous_n_5206804.html)

mQT26oxOG4c

[P6 Driver]

There's some terrific footage in those videos but particularly in the clip from "On The Top Bunk". At the end of it - enormous moustache, enormous watch, great helicopter - what's not to like?

[311kph]

... yawn...

[KNIEVEL77]

@r22butters Re ‘fun’ I’m not sure I want to do aerobatics in any machine.

[Flying Bull]

@r22butters Re ‘fun’ I’m not sure I want to do aerobatics in any machine.

you ˋre really missing something....
I had the joy of flying the Lynx - and it is fun directing a helicopter with its nose to the earth, when you know, what to do next ;-)
As well as zoom climbing, not only a few feet but transitioning 150 kts in altitude while pulling power at the same time ;-)
It is fun to do over the shoulder takeoffs, Fast stops downwind into wind, spiraling around a target in front of you playing with gravity and centrifugal forces - as long as you know, what you are doing and what to do, if things go wrong (and as long as you stay within limits from the bird and the regs)...
Would really like to have a ride in one of the RedBull Bo105s....

[whoknows idont]

Would really like to have a ride in one of the RedBull Bo105s....

You do realize they are 100% original, unmodified BO105?

[John Eacott]

You do realize they are 100% original, unmodified BO105?


I'm not at all sure that is correct?

[whoknows idont]

I'm not at all sure that is correct?

I'm just another guy on the internet so I guess you will have to take my word for it. Only difference is a drastically changed m/x regime, talking about things like the big lump of titanium up top being limited to 100h or so of aerobatics.
Think about it, the BO was designed for extreme maneuvers. No mods necessary. They only spread that myth to prevent imitators from trying the same. Typically it's being told as a heavily modified fuel system plus some other top secret mods. It's sticking surprisingly well.

[John Eacott]

Red Bull BO-105 (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/280684-red-bull-b0-105-a.html)


Beyond the Thrill (https://www.verticalmag.com/features/beyond-the-thrill-html/)


Aaron guards the secrets to his modifications closely, not to hide it, but to prevent people from trying it themselves. Said Aaron, “It’s not that I don’t want to share it. I want to share it, but I’m afraid. My attorneys have told me, ‘You tell anyone what you’ve done and how you did it, there will be people that do it, and they go out, and their wives will sue your asses off.’ “
From what he could tell “Vertical” the first step was selecting the Bo.105 because of its titanium gearbox and tail rotor shaft. Then, he used modified, composite main rotor blades, making them very stiff with a very high rotor speed. Next, he completely gutted the aircraft, removing the tail stinger and needless wiring, thereby reducing weight and shifting the center of gravity (CG) to the nose of the aircraft. Finally, he engineered a pressurized fuel system for safety reasons. Said Aaron, “That way we don’t ever get it upside down and flame it out.” The CG change was probably the most important, though, as it means he can put the helicopter into just about any attitude, center the controls, and the nose will just fall through.
These modifications weren’t easy. During one stage, Aaron changed the location of the battery to the nose of the aircraft. He took off on a practice run with the new configuration, rolled the ship, and, as he came out of the roll, unintentionally began an inverted loop, pulling negative g-forces and getting pushed out of his seat toward the windscreen. Aaron said it scared him to death, and, once again, he almost quit flying. But, being the tactician he is, he figured out what went wrong. By lifting the nose and reducing collective just before the roll, he could slam the cyclic to the left, hitting the stops, and wham, rolled it to perfection without getting into an inverted loop.

[whoknows idont]

Well I can only go by what the releasing staff from Salzburg told me first hand. And that seems a lot more plausible to me than what the guy with the big mustache told the press. Looking at pictures now it does appear like the US machine did really have the stinger removed. I seriously doubt it goes much further than that though. And he probably only did that because it looks cool. Moving the CG forward for aerobatics?
The first part about attorneys and asses potentially being sued off is already giving it away really. Interestingly, there is no mention of Mr. Chuck Aaron and his helicopter on the Flying Bulls homepage.
The fact is that the BO was designed to take a hell of a beating and to have all liquids where they need to be at all times.
"Then, he used modified, composite main rotor blades, making them very stiff with a very high rotor speed." :hmm:

But maybe we should get back to topic, and I don't mean the R22 but the actual topic of this thread.

[evil7]

Aaron did f... all to HIS Bo!!
It is owned by RB and he was taught flying it by Rainer Wilke!

[Rotorbee]

I chatted once with Rainer Wilke (the one who trained Chuck Aaron and Aaron Fitzgerald) and he said too, that the Flying Bulls BO105 are pretty much standard and the only civil helicopters certified in the aerobatic category and not experimental. That's why they are still on the German register.

I just wonder when some i... tries to roll and loop the G2.

[evil7]

There are two Bo105 certified for aerobatics by the authorities (LBA) which are on the German register. Another two are used as Experimental in the US but they are also okayed for aerobatics by Airbus as the two German ones.

[FLY 7]

I'm not at all sure that is correct?

See here

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chuck+red+bull+helicopter+modifications+you+tube&view=detail&mid=E9AF3399AF4DCC3E2ABAE9AF3399AF4DCC3E2ABA&FORM=VIRE

[KiwiNedNZ]

Hmmm so he "taught himself to do aerobatics" - := Think Rainer would tend to disagree on this statement.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Just got off the phone with someone directly involved with the Red Bull 105s and can confirm there there are no "special" mods made to the 105. The only thing done was the battery moved forward to move it more towards forward c of g and that there is actually an STC for this. Other than that there is nothing special done.

[whoknows idont]

Hmmm so he "taught himself to do aerobatics" - := Think Rainer would tend to disagree on this statement.

I think we can all agree that the guy who so elegantly pulls off the nomex flight suit / flip-flop combination is a very creative fabulist.

[southerncanuck]

Rainer took me on a practice run and did the display, the only thing he mentioned that was special was to always check the TRGB oil levels and top it up as it bled out under negative G.



https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_20140404_00289_539eac24dc4939d34ad38b4854ad8ffa30a6e4c0. jpg





https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_20140404_00288_5b51f3ec598ac6f6c639ab751cacab0c869aa19f. jpg

[Bell_ringer]

Chuck Aaron was quoted as saying the fuel system was modified to cater for inverted flight.

[KiwiNedNZ]

Not according to those operating them in the USA and in Germany

[212man]

I see it has a g-meter - is that standard or only fitted to the display aircraft?

[skadi]

I see it has a g-meter - is that standard or only fitted to the display aircraft?

Not standard.

skadi

[whoknows idont]

Chuck Aaron was quoted as saying the fuel system was modified to cater for inverted flight.

Chuck Aaron said that he converted the BO to a "rigid, single-piece titanium head [...] that has composite rotor blades coming off of it", that "the transmission is bolted down hard, hard-mounted to the airframe" and "so technically that's how I can do it, it's just from those modifications"...
:D

See here

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=chuck+red+bull+helicopter+modifications+you+tube&view=detail&mid=E9AF3399AF4DCC3E2ABAE9AF3399AF4DCC3E2ABA&FORM=VIRE

Converting a BO105 to a rigid rotor head and composite blades, now that's in one league with walking on water!

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

when i first saw that video of those claims, i knew he was a prima donna showboater. The mustache should have been a dead giveaway. And I laughed to myself at his ignorance to the industry professionals that would sure out him as a joke.
I have no respect for him other than he pulls off some nice manoeuvres most wouldn't do in an aircraft more than capable of doing it with or without him.
Bravo Chuck.

[heliguy61]

I see it has a g-meter - is that standard or only fitted to the display aircraft?

The gauge with the green/yellow/red markings? Yes, its called a mast moment indicator............and i worked on 16 different S/N BO105's and it was fitted to all of them.......

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

The gauge with the green/yellow/red markings? Yes, its called a mast moment indicator............and i worked on 16 different S/N BO105's and it was fitted to all of them.......

i think he is referering to the one 2 up, with the -2 to +5 range

[heliguy61]

i think he is referering to the one 2 up, with the -2 to +5 range

yes your correct, I was looking at original picture on small screen on phone and never noticed it there.
cheers!

[John Eacott]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_20140404_00288_5b51f3ec598ac6f6c639ab751cacab0c869aa19f. jpg

I'm intrigued that the MMI is still at the bottom of the green with about 1.8G showing :cool:

[EDML]

Mast moment has nothing to do with the g-load pulled.

High mast moments usually happen when in contact with the ground (e.g. slope landings or harsh checks of the cyclic when doing the hydraulics checks before T/O).

[Flying Bull]

Mast moment has nothing to do with the g-load pulled.

High mast moments usually happen when in contact with the ground (e.g. slope landings or harsh checks of the cyclic when doing the hydraulics checks before T/O).
Thats absolutly right, MM is an indicator for bending the Rotormast, not the load carried

[John Eacott]

Thats absolutly right, MM is an indicator for bending the Rotormast, not the load carried



However: as you said here (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/155918-rigid-head-sloping-ground.html#post2430157), Flying Bull:


You can also exceed the MMI-limit recovering from a dive - with a high power setting - important to know, when playing with the helicopter.
Better to reduce the collective, before pullong out and appling it then again - less stress for the mast and no lights ;-) Which was the point I was intending with my comment about the picture and the MMI being so low :ok:


EDML, same point applies.

[Senior Pilot]

Not as a Mod; rumour has it that Chuck had a T/R failure at a very low height this week. No one hurt, wait for more details.

[ericferret]

Chuck Aaron said that he converted the BO to a "rigid, single-piece titanium head [...] that has composite rotor blades coming off of it", that "the transmission is bolted down hard, hard-mounted to the airframe" and "so technically that's how I can do it, it's just from those modifications"...
:D



Converting a BO105 to a rigid rotor head and composite blades, now that's in one league with walking on water!

Modifications, thats standard.!!!!!!

[widgeon]

Modifications, thats standard.!!!!!!
I worked with the LS version for 5 years and confirm all he describes is standard build. Transmission is mounted to the helicopter floor by 4 struts about 1 m long ( if i think long enough I may remember the part number 105-1xxxxxx4. I cannot think of any other way that transmission could be secured to the deck .

I think Ziggy Hoffman may have been the first to demonstrate the rolls and loops .

[widgeon]

Also If i recall correctly neither the gearbox nor driveshaft were titanium . The rotor head was and was a work of art IMHO

[[email protected]]

The rotor head was and was a work of art IMHO Just like the Lynx

[SASless]

Having had the sheer pleasure of flying BO' and BK's.....and the occasion to be left alone to my temptations.....I could never bring myself to roll or loop them.....I always chickened out first.

Far too many years of flying Bell Products I suppose.

Sikorsky 53's and 97's used to do those maneuvers and some have been on video.

A Bristow 58T went inverted coming off a Platform one night (based upon the Cabin Attendant's comment about walking on the overhead)...and the Pilot not knowing the actual attitude of the aircraft....but the Pitch Change Link knuckles on the Swash Plate gave evidence to the Jury to confirm something interesting happened.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ7pVjQ5Y5g

[ericferret]

The head was titanium, the mast steel.

My question is on the fuel system.
I cannot see how the standard system would work in any prolonged negative G or inverted flight.

[[email protected]]

You can be inverted, briefly, without negative g and he doesn't fly it along upside down like a fixed wing could.

[[email protected]]

Someone asked a question earlier in the thread about why he rolls left - ISTR the Germans lost a few 105s early on because, like the Lynx, there is a pronounced pitch/roll couple to the right.

This is noticeable when performing back flips and loops and can be demonstrated in a steep turn to the right. Opposite cyclic is needed to stop it rolling further.

I suspect therefore that he does the rolls to the left to give the best control margin for recovery.

On the other hand it may be to reduce the twisting loads on the tail boom/TR.

[Rotorbee]

I cannot see how the standard system would work in any prolonged negative G or inverted flight.
If I remember right, somebody told me, could have been Rainer Wilke, that there are two small feeder tanks close to the engine which solve that problem.
I asked Rainer how he does his very tight rolls - not the barrel rolls - without loosing altitude, well he does, he is flying kind of an arc and is falling down. There is the zero g. The upside down pedal turn would also be zero g or low negative g (actually wouldn't that be high, since it is negative). And it never lasts for very long, since you can not have negative pitch.

[ericferret]

If I remember right, somebody told me, could have been Rainer Wilke, that there are two small feeder tanks close to the engine which solve that problem.
I asked Rainer how he does his very tight rolls - not the barrel rolls - without loosing altitude, well he does, he is flying kind of an arc and is falling down. There is the zero g. The upside down pedal turn would also be zero g or low negative g (actually wouldn't that be high, since it is negative). And it never lasts for very long, since you can not have negative pitch.

In the 105 the feeder tank that can be one or two compartment is located under the passenger cabin floor.
Booster pumps are mounted on the tank floor.
Seems to me that the standard system would be prone to sucking air if the aircraft enterred zero G.
I recollect that minimum pitch on the 105 is 4 degrees 15 min. Interesting effects if you rig it to less!!!!

[212man]

I have looked at one of the many displays on YT, and I'm not convinced there is any negative g. Being upside down doesn't mean you have to be zero or negative. Apart from early FW Aerobatics, I spent some time in 2001 with the Eurocopter Flight Test Dept pilots looking at the EC155, and a couple of manouevres they demonstrated, and I subsequently flew, were a) slow down to less than 40 KIAS in level flight, then roll inverted and pull through, and b) bunt 90 degrees nose down, then roll 180 degrees and pull through. Neither was anything less than positive g throughout, although short periods of less than 1 g.

[[email protected]]

Agreed 212 man:ok:

[JohnDixson]

I’ve been out of touch on this sort of detail, but US military helos test specs for the structural demonstration series of maneuvers always included demo to -0.5 G*. ( and no, I don’t know how the Bell guys accomplished this data point with a teetering rotor,, but God bless ‘em, they must have found a way )
For the US Army UTTAS competition the Boeing and Sikorsky competitors had an additional maneuver requirement added, which in part required holding 0.0 G for two seconds.
*As measured at the aircraft center of gravity, thus the cockpit Nz would be lower ( due to the pitch rate ) esp. in larger machines.

[AAKEE]

In the 105 the feeder tank that can be one or two compartment is located under the passenger cabin floor.
Booster pumps are mounted on the tank floor.
Seems to me that the standard system would be prone to sucking air if the aircraft enterred zero G.
I recollect that minimum pitch on the 105 is 4 degrees 15 min. Interesting effects if you rig it to less!!!!

you do not need negative pitch to get negative G.
Just push the cyclic stick slightly forward. The same is valid for Reiner Wilkes nice rolls.

Negative G on the Bo105 will cause the engine oil pressure to go to zero immediately. From my memory the MGB was not affected like this.

The feeder tank is always full as long as there is fuel in the main tank, with the surplus from the transfer fuel pumps flow poring back into the main tank. There is no time limit for the negative G for fuel purpose but the total time on the minus side will nit be long.

[SASless]

Was Charly Zimmerman the start of the BO-105 aerobatic flying?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93zy3OqXMPw




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSQ_-SB0gVQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93zy3OqXMPw)

[JohnDixson]

SAS, I think the origination started with Siegfried Hoffman, a test pilot at MBB. By 1982 at the Hanover airshow, world aerobatic ( helicopters ) champion Hauptman Karl Zimmerman* was doing the most impressive and choreographed aerobatic displays in the BO-105. Had the pleasure of watching him daily, and then giving he, his spouse and children a ride in our UH-60A, chaperoned by Sergei Sikorsky. Siegfried Hoffman was also there,with his new BK-117 ( with SAS, no less ) and was invited to trade rides with him. ( having done a flight evaluation of the BO-105 in the days prior to the UTTAS fly-off, the BK was certainly a step forward, not to take anything away from the maneuver capability of the 105 in the right hands ).
*Karl told us that back in his anti-tank helicopter unit he practiced the aerobatics daily, and his show certainly reflected that resulting excellence.

[Hot and Hi]

I have looked at one of the many displays on YT, and I'm not convinced there is any negative g. Being upside down doesn't mean you have to be zero or negative. Apart from early FW Aerobatics, I spent some time in 2001 with the Eurocopter Flight Test Dept pilots looking at the EC155, and a couple of manouevres they demonstrated, and I subsequently flew, were a) slow down to less than 40 KIAS in level flight, then roll inverted and pull through, and b) bunt 90 degrees nose down, then roll 180 degrees and pull through. Neither was anything less than positive g throughout, although short periods of less than 1 g.

As Chuck Aaron ably demonstrates here (go to 33:00 min)
https://youtu.be/BNeVnxGGMmc

However, here is a clip with pilot Rainer Wilke where (very occasionally) the wig of his passenger flies up under negative G (check 6:15 min)

https://youtu.be/hPnVjeCrm68

[casper64]

Excuse my ignorance, but are all BO-105 helicopters capable of doing the kind of aerobatics that you can see the Red Bull B0-105 doing on the uTube videos?

Obviously the pilot is highly skilled and you wouldn't catch me doing anything like that anytime soon.

I have only flown Robbies and clearly you would kill yourself even trying the things the pilot does in these videos, it looks like a masterpiece of engineering in the hands of a very skilled pilot to me.

I thought perhaps there is some special modification done to the machine.

Are there any other types capable of such manouvers?

EVERY BO105 is capable of these manoevers…

[SASless]

His mention of Bob Hoover......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2-9BL7sllk

[[email protected]]

Just push the cyclic stick slightly forward No you need a lot more than that for negative g.

You can get a slight reduction from purely forward cyclic but for negative you need a zoom climb followed by a bunt - ie lower the lever a bit as you push the cyclic forward.

Most engines and gearboxes can cope with that for short periods.

So as we probably all know, Chick talks a good fight but didn't invent the manoeuvres, teach himself them nor modify the aircraft in the ways he clamed.

Not saying he is a bad pilot just a self-promoter.

[AAKEE]

No you need a lot more than that for negative g.

You dont need a zoom climb for that. It can be a good idea if you like to have room for a longer negative G (well, less short anyway).

For the negative G part, if you have speed just push the stick forward. And before you do it, secure any loose object and clean the floor from things otherways will hit the roof.
The standard in the handheld GPS times was surplus batteries put in some opening in the frame caming loose and flying around in the cockpit before they first stuck in the roof and then fell down to the floor when getting positive G again.

Most engines and gearboxes can cope with that for short periods.

Yup. We had the -1G limit but no set time limit for that, just the natural limitation that it would not last for long time anyway.


So as we probably all know, Chick talks a good fight but didn't invent the manoeuvres, teach himself them nor modify the aircraft in the ways he clamed.

Not saying he is a bad pilot just a self-promoter.

Exactly!

Some of the talking about very advanced modification (” changing the CoG”) involved moving the battery to the position that I think most military BO105 already had.

[Nubian]

So as we probably all know, Chick talks a good fight but didn't invent the manoeuvres, teach himself them nor modify the aircraft in the ways he clamed.
Not saying he is a bad pilot just a self-promoter.

He was trained by Rainer Wilke, as was the other 3 current Red Bull BO105 display pilots including Aaron Fitzgerald.... But it is always great to take the credit.....

Is there any news about the alleged tail rotor failure which led to the restart of this thread after 4 years?

[Nubian]

His mention of Bob Hoover......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2-9BL7sllk

Watched him perform in 1998 (at the age of 76!!) a year before he retired from displaying. Same display as in the clip, minus the ice-tea part... A true master!

[RVDT]

Is there any news about the alleged tail rotor failure which led to the restart of this thread after 4 years?

As usual with the capabilities of the 105 everybody focuses on the the Main Rotor and forgets about the poor old tail rotor.

Every helicopter has it's weakest point and the T/R on this model and the 117 has it's issues along with it's mounting points and mechanisms.

The head is the least of your problems as it is basically the same used right up to the H145D2 except the internals are a bit heavier, thats all.

[SASless]

Brother Dixson,

Were this you in the video?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIWyM4JBQME

[[email protected]]

For the negative G part, if you have speed just push the stick forward. The only problem is that doing that from the cruise, you very quickly end up pointing at the ground with rapidly increasing speed.

A combination of lowering the lever and cyclic forward 'bunt' is the 'safer' way - many military crewmen have been weightless briefly in the back of helicopters like that.:ok:

[Less Hair]

Reminds me of the old promotional film "BO-105 - The flying Tiger" by MBB. Note the desert camo.
https://youtu.be/kly8soer0hY

[AAKEE]

The only problem is that doing that from the cruise, you very quickly end up pointing at the ground with rapidly increasing speed.

A combination of lowering the lever and cyclic forward 'bunt' is the 'safer' way - many military crewmen have been weightless briefly in the back of helicopters like that.:ok:

Did that during 2K hrs on the BO during the 90’s and some years on in the anti tank role :). After a bunch of years on bigger ‘busses’, I now sit in the H145D3 after retirement from the Air force three days ago :-)
Somehow the burglar always return to the crime scene :-)

[skadi]

Or do it in rollercoaster style, even more fun at the top

skadi

[QTG]

Did my 105 course at the factory in 1978. The groundschool was delivered by a guy called von Englehardt - mate of aforementioned Herr Hoffman, and one of the original project pilots.

He told many stories about the flight test programme. A couple of exchanges will stay with me for ever -

“Ve climbed to 5000’ und ve svitched off ze tail rotor”.
”Why?”
”To see vot vould happen, of course!”

Apparently they built a clutch into the driveshaft for precisely that reason!

And……

”Is it possible to control the 105 without any hydraulics?”

”Ja. Von pilot mit both hands on ze cyclic, und von pilot mit both hands on ze collective.”

Respect. They don’t make ‘em like that any more!

[JohnDixson]

No, SAS, that was not me in that movie. Crew was Kurt Cannon Project Pilot on the 67 and Byron Graham, Ch. Engr. Pilot ( who had done the CH-53 loops/rolls movie with then Major Bob Guay, USMC ).
I was inducted into the 67 program just before the demo trip around the US in 1971 as the Project Pilot was unable to travel. Stayed with it after that and did the Europe/Iran demo trip in 1972, both with Byron. Byron was a gem. No matter who was on the schedule to receive a ride, he would fly a tank of fuel with whoever was scheduled, then I’d get the next tankful of front seaters. Got to fly some very interesting people: perhaps General Adolf Galland being the most noteworthy. He was amazing: showed him how to do a split s and a roll and then he did both and the aircraft didn’t know the difference. The picture of the S-67 flying on a sunny day with the Cologne Cathedral below in the background was with General Galland flying it from the front seat. Everyone got the same routine incl those maneuvers and a 3-4 second zero G parabolic push ( well, you know who the competition was at the time ).

[212man]

His mention of Bob Hoover......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2-9BL7sllk
The video that gets trotted out every time someone tries to push the '1g barrel roll' myth.......

[Bokyag]

Has anyone got a link to the video of the BO105 (or BK117) titanium rotor hub being manufactured in a hammer forge? I have seen it in the past but can't track it down.

[hoistop]

I would like to know how it was possible to mix military parts with the approved civil ship and parts??? The mil parts not having a BO105 civ partnumber and no civ ticket. Over the last 20 years it was impossible to use one single screw from the mil ships on civ registered. Germany phased out so many BOs from mil service. To get very cheap. But EC prohibited strictly the use of ex-mil ships and any parts. Very strictly!

And if it was no part in the certification process aerobatics couldn`t be approved on my sight for a civil registered helicopter according to the present rules. But with the power and money of REDBULL...

I spoke with the pilot and walked around one of two D- registered BO-105, used by Red Bull some years ago.
As I remember, he said that the helicopter (built in 1974(!) is basically serial helicopter with no significant modifications, apart from all non-essetial gear removed. Only maintenance is, of course, much more intensive with many inspections, etc. It is a simple fact, that BO-105 was the first serial helicopter with hingeless rotor, and Mr. Bolkow deliberatelly beefed up the titanium hub, as no one exactly knew, how this will work. The result was, that there is a big fudge factor in rotor design, that can withstand a lot of loads, plus the design, where excessive flapping, etc. is not such a problem.
I think that BK-117 has the same rotor hub, even it is much heavier.

[Flying Bull]

Mr. Bolkow deliberatelly beefed up the titanium hub, as no one exactly knew, how this will work. The result was, that there is a big fudge factor in rotor design, that can withstand a lot of loads, plus the design, where excessive flapping, etc. is not such a problem.
I think that BK-117 has the same rotor hub, even it is much heavier.

Yepp, but with the BK117D2 (H145) the head reached its limit. The bearings need replacements more often and the hub on top needed the screw holes drilled bigger...
Still, something designed for MTOW 2.5to still working on 3.7to is quite remarkable!
For the 3.8 to you now need the D3 with five blades ;-)