Can an EC135 do a roll or loop

[Brentd2183]

With the rotor head on the 135 having no flapping hinge per say but a flexbeam that is outboard of the rotor mast I'd say it has enough authority to do a roll. It will probably create massive stress loads and not something you would want to do more than once before putting the aircraft in the scrap pile but it theory can it be done? Or does anyone have knowledge of airbus flight testing showing that it could or could not be done. This is referencing the crash in Drexel Hill PA with the EC135 and crew reports the aircraft did 2 barrel rolls while on autopilot.

[LRP]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/370x480/a1_4149370858078102800f0438b714da123b26e1a5.jpg

You can roll anything...just sayin'.

[Agile]

I was lucky enough in the late 80s to see the AS565 panther do a loop at the factory in Marignane and It was one of the 1st time it was executed live at airshow.
The maneuver was slightly underwhelming as we were all expecting to see a nice round loop, and instead it was basically falling on its tail and recovering.

The point is: in oposition to the BO105 solid machined titaninum head or the lynx all metal head, the AS565 (loop pioneer of the time) is a starflex not as away from the EC 135 flex beams design.

[RVDT]

Looping - probably not a big issue - the 135 has a big hinge offset - watch the mast moment as you fly around and do manoeuvres - nothing much happens compared to the loads you can get on the ground unless you pay attention.

Rolling - Think about the resultant forces - the BO105 suffers in the tail rotor and subsequently i would have my concerns with the EC135 in the area of the ring frame.

Get back to us. I'll put the popcorn on.

[as350nut]

can't you roll anything once?

[[email protected]]

Looping and rolling a helicopter puts high stresses on the tail boom and drive shaft - the TR gearbox and hub are big lumps of metal on a long moment arm from the aircraft C of G. Without a g-meter fitted you have little idea what you are doing to the rest of the aircraft.

Could it do it? Sure.

Should it? ........

[treadigraph]

I seem to recall Alan Bristow claimed to have looped an FH1100 at Redhill after someone joked "if you loop it, I'll buy one". He did - just - and they didn't... Hope it wasn't the one that crashed at the Paris Airshow...

[ShyTorque]

Years ago I displayed the Puma HC1. I was encouraged from above to make it a “dynamic” one, rather than previously where displays had consisted of not much more than a series of wing overs, backwards flight and spot turns. As part of my work up I was required to fly with the previous display pilot, who had not displayed for a few years and he showed me manoeuvres that had been developed by himself and others. We subsequently began to explore the capabilities of the aircraft and got to the point where he became slightly nauseous. After that I was left to it.

Shortly afterwards I attended a very interesting brief given by Westlands, who were developing the Lynx and trying hard to impress potential buyers. With a semi rigid head it was a lot more manoeuvrable than my old Puma and it was being “officially” looped and rolled during displays, all very impressive.

However, the Westlands rep stressed that their display aircraft was being very carefully monitored and major components such as main and tail gearboxes were frequently being changed because of the extra stresses put on them. He made it quite clear that a squadron aircraft should definitely not be flown in this way. I realised right then that above all I needed to be gentle and careful with my aircraft to avoid flying it in a way that was potentially more damaging than it was designed for.

Edit: Good advice because with helicopters it’s relatively easy to get into flight regimes that haven’t been taken into account with regard to component fatigue life calculations.

[[email protected]]

I realised right then that above all I needed to be very gentle and careful with my aircraft to avoid flying it in a way that was potentially more damaging than it was designed for. Unlike some other Puma pilots I have heard tales about:)

[PlasticCabDriver]

…and absolutely not scoring the tail boom with the tail rotor blades….

[PlasticCabDriver]

EC225 looping:

https://youtu.be/61BgeQG0Fjc

that absolutely wasn’t flown by the Test Pilot on his last ever flight before retirement, as part of a fly past, in front of the customer whose aircraft it was about to become….

[ShyTorque]

…and absolutely not scoring the tail boom with the tail rotor blades….

PCD,

Definitely not me….and no names mentioned.

[casper64]

Asking for a friend?

[T54A]

I can't imagine a more pointless maneuver for a chopper to do.

[Mogwi]

If God had meant helos to fly upside down, he would have put the rotor blades underneath!

Mog

[HPilot145]

Search on YouTube:
Swiss air force: 20 helicopters in the air
5:30 should be a proof good enough:)

I am not allowed to post the link :)

[sablatnic]

You have probably seen this old video - I wouldn't like being the next up in that one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4xZIg6NNkw

[JimEli]

...
This is referencing the crash in Drexel Hill PA with the EC135 and crew reports the aircraft did 2 barrel rolls while on autopilot.

can you cite a source for this statement?

[Two's in]

The Army Air Corps were looping Gazelles at displays for a number of years before somebody thought to check on whatever passed for the Release To Service in those days. Even the POH clearly stated not to exceed 90 degrees in pitch or roll, but hey, the POH is just like a suggestion, right? I can't remember the exact fallout, but it was quite the task to track down all the airframes that had been looped, and then do the subsequent engineering tear downs to establish how many were bent, buckled or scored. All very embarrassing and quite avoidable. There was also a well known photograph of a Gazelle fully inverted (probably following a roll) against the backdrop of a large TV mast south east of Detmold in Germany, everyone admired it, but nobody ever thought to challenge the how and the why.

[MightyGem]

There was also a well known photograph of a Gazelle fully inverted (probably following a roll) against the backdrop of a large TV mast south east of Detmold
I remember seeing one of a Lynx in that position, but not a Gazelle.

[[email protected]]

An AAC QHI did as many loops in a minute as possible in a Gazelle for a Matthew Kelly TV prog back in the 80s ISTR.

[Arnie Madsen]

.

There is an early video (1950's ??) of a Sikorsky (S-52 I think) doing a complete loop above the factory property .

.

[Bravo73]

Search on YouTube:
Swiss air force: 20 helicopters in the air
5:30 should be a proof good enough:)

I am not allowed to post the link :)

https://youtu.be/mjpTFxmGkus

[handysnaks]

I’m pretty sure that Sid S@#£&3r spent a fair proportion of his gazelle time upside down.

[OldLurker]

Please forgive an ignorant question – I know very little of the subtleties of rotary flying – but if it's possible to do a 1G barrel roll in a fixed-wing, isn't it possible to do a 1G barrel roll in a helicopter without stressing either the airframe or the moving parts?

[Mogwi]

You have probably seen this old video - I wouldn't like being the next up in that one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4xZIg6NNkw

Marginally more gutsy than my Basingstoke Carnival display in 1973!

Mog

[212man]

Please forgive an ignorant question – I know very little of the subtleties of rotary flying – but if it's possible to do a 1G barrel roll in a fixed-wing, isn't it possible to do a 1G barrel roll in a helicopter without stressing either the airframe or the moving parts?
It isn't possible to do a 1 g barrel roll in a FW - it's a myth that is perpetuated, and defies the basic laws of physics and motion!

[[email protected]]

Please forgive an ignorant question – I know very little of the subtleties of rotary flying – but if it's possible to do a 1g barrel roll in a fixed-wing, isn't it possible to do a 1G barrel roll in a helicopter without stressing either the airframe or the moving parts? You keep positive g throughout the manoeuvre and acceleration towards the centre of the manoeuvre but it goes more and less than 1g but not into negative figures (unless you cock it up):)

[RVDT]

It isn't possible to do a 1 g barrel roll in a FW - it's a myth that is perpetuated, and defies the basic laws of physics and motion!

You can "attempt" a 1g barrel roll though - just won't turn out what you expected!

Aero's in a helicopter can be done "within limits" - the issue is Joe Pilot doesn't know what they are as the manufacturer or certification authority does not publish them.

Test pilots are called "test pilots" for a reason and they come in different flavours - Production and Experimental. Production Test are pretty much average Joe and Experimental Test live a bit closer to God than most!

Helicopters mostly if any do not have a large enough thrust margin to create high g loadings. They will just mush or wash off speed.

It's the other bits that most people don't think about that are the issue that maybe cannot keep up with what the aircraft "could do".

i.e. precession loads on the TR, feedback to the MR PCL's, Low or prolonged -ve g on lube, fuel and HYD systems and the list goes on.

For example - everybody knows about HYD "jack stall" in an AS350. Why is it that way? It is to give you a built in warning that you are approaching the feedback limits of the PCL's on the MR.

Dual HYD models have a LIMIT light as the warning as they will not "stall". What happens if you go past the "LIMIT"?. You probably will start bending and breaking stuff.

Operating outside the approved envelope is the territory of ETP's. Joe Pilot doing this stuff proves what exactly? You get away with it once, you get away with twice you get away with it...................................?

[casper64]

Operating outside the approved envelope is the territory of ETP's. Joe Pilot doing this stuff proves what exactly? You get away with it once, you get away with twice you get away with it...................................?

And don’t forget that those ETP’s operate dedicated , instrumented aircraft of which the critical parts can be monitored either in the cockpit or in a telemetry room full of engineers who can call “STOP” at any time during those tests…

[LRP]

Looks like 1G to me.

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

[Tango and Cash]

Bell 407 at an airshow in South Africa, circa 2004.
https://youtu.be/qRwSeb64Xj4

Bell permanently grounded the aircraft (and all components)

[lelebebbel]

Looks like 1G to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2-9BL7sllk
All you can tell from the Hoover video is that is positive G, but not how much. It is theoretically possible to maintain a minimum of 1G during the maneuver, but then you will have a maximum of well over 1G towards the end, as you will be in a rapid descent that needs to be arrested.

[212man]

All you can tell from the Hoover video is that is positive G, but not how much. It is theoretically possible to maintain a minimum of 1G during the maneuver, but then you will have a maximum of well over 1G towards the end, as you will be in a rapid descent that needs to be arrested.
Exactly. You can’t start and end with 1 g! Newton 2

[OldLurker]

212man and others - thanks for your helpful comments.

[JimEli]

Informative:

https://youtu.be/JFLUOilLD_A

The school. (https://chuckaaronaerobatics.com/)

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I thought this was a “Professional” Pilots rumour network?

Looping and rolling helicopters have no place or requirement when flying professionally. So any wannabes reading the ****e posted in this thread………just don’t!11!

All the warnings about rotor and airframe stress forgetting that if the positive g disappears all the fuel, oil and other juices necessary to keep the cab healthy end up in the wrong place.

Moronic Darwinian selection in action.

[[email protected]]

DB - do you know what the g limits for your helicopter are?

Is there a specific warning in the RFM about negative g? (other than for Robbies)

You can get negative g in turbulence - does all the fuel and oil disappear then?

No-one has suggested anyone tries this, it was a question worth asking and answering.

[Bell_ringer]

DB - do you know what the g limits for your helicopter are?

Is there a specific warning in the RFM about negative g? (other than for Robbies)

You can get negative g in turbulence - does all the fuel and oil disappear then?

No-one has suggested anyone tries this, it was a question worth asking and answering.

Most manuals will prohibit aerobatic maneuvers, they don't go into much more detail, it's not what civvie helicopters were designed to do.
It also looks quite dull, even with Chuck whatsisname in the 105, it's the wrong tool for that job.
If "pulling g" is the objective, choosing rotorcraft will prove disappointing.

[[email protected]]

I agree Bell_ringer, but DB getting on his high horse about a thread where no-one has suggested just going out and trying such manoeuvres seems rather OTT.

My point to DB was that less than 1g in a helicopter or even negative g doesn't lead to the instant mechanical failure he implied - you can get to negative g without aerobatic manoeuvres as you know.

[Blackhawk9]

CH-53 was rolled and looped from the factory with the approval of USMC for demonstration when the 53 was new , the UH-60 is quite capable of rolling and looping but unlike the 53 which was "owned" by the USMC the US Army which "Own" the UH-60 frown upon such maneuvers.

135 developed from the 105 so more than likely very capable of doing a role and loop but why would you.

[retoocs]

CH-53 was rolled and looped from the factory with the approval of USMC for demonstration when the 53 was new , the UH-60 is quite capable of rolling and looping but unlike the 53 which was "owned" by the USMC the US Army which "Own" the UH-60 frown upon such maneuvers.

135 developed from the 105 so more than likely very capable of doing a role and loop but why would you.
Here's the video of the 53.

VC2E8RJE3Jo

[Texas407]

can you cite a source for this statement?




From the report:
According to the witness, the helicopter was “in a nose down attitude… far less than 1,000 ft above the ground… [and] rotating around its longitudinal axis.”
Additionally from the report:
“The medic said that the helicopter rolled inverted, perhaps multiple times, and that he and the nurse were “pinned to the ceiling” and internal communication was lost.”


The National Transportation Safety Board traveled to the scene of this accident.

Additional Participating Entities:
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Airbus Helicopters; Grand Prairie, Texas
Air Methods; Greenwood Village, Colorado
German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation; Braunschweig

LifeNet
Air

Location: Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania
Accident Number: ERA22FA105
Date and Time: January 11, 2022, 12:55 Local
Registration: N531LN
Aircraft: EUROCOPTER DEUTSCHLAND GMBH EC 135 P2+
Injuries: 1 Minor, 3 None
Flight Conducted Under: Part 135: Air taxi and commuter - Non-scheduled - Air Medical (Medical emergency)

On January 11, 2022, about 1255 eastern standard time, a Eurocopter EC-135 P2+, N531LN, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. The airline transport pilot was seriously injured. The two medical crewmembers and the patient were not injured. The helicopter was operated by Air Methods Corporation as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 135 air ambulance flight.

Preliminary Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) data revealed that the helicopter departed Chambersburg Hospital Heliport (PA60) about 1205 and was destined for Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Heliport (9PN2), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The track showed the helicopter in a cruise profile on an easterly track about 3,500 ft mean sea level (msl). About 1243, the helicopter descended and then leveled about 2,800 ft msl, then subsequently descended and leveled at 1,500 ft msl, tracking directly toward 9PN2. At 1253:11, the helicopter track depicted a series of heading and altitude excursions. The plots depicted altitudes between 1,700 ft msl and 1,250 ft msl before the target disappeared at 12:53:17.

In a written statement, a witness whose home was directly beneath the helicopter’s flight path said that he was an aviation enthusiast and was familiar with the many helicopters flying to and from area hospitals. He said that his attention was drawn to the accident helicopter because it was “very low and louder than normal” and that the “tone” of the rotors was unfamiliar. According to the witness, the helicopter was “in a nose down attitude… far less than 1,000 ft above the ground… [and] rotating around its longitudinal axis.”

A doorbell camera about 1 mile from the accident site, and approximately beneath the helicopter’s flight path, captured both audio and video of the helicopter’s initial descent from its cruise altitude. The sound could be heard before the helicopter entered the frame. The helicopter’s departure from controlled flight was not captured, as it was blocked by a porch awning on the front of the house. A high-pitched whine was heard, increasing in volume and pitch before the helicopter appeared beneath the awning above the camera in a near vertical, nose-down descent. The helicopter’s angle of descent shallowed as it disappeared behind a tree line. The volume and pitch of the sound continued to increase for a time after the helicopter disappeared and before the sound ultimately faded.

A second witness nearby said that he saw a helicopter “very low…very loud…banked right and left out of control, then appeared to straighten…” before it disappeared from view.

Brief video clips from open-source media outlets showed the helicopter upright, in a steep descent, exhibiting small but rapid changes in each axis (pitch, roll, yaw). A home doorbell camera captured the last second of flight as the helicopter appeared level in the frame, in a slight nose-up attitude, as it impacted the ground, separating the tailboom, then disappeared from view.

The pilot made himself available for interview, but the interview was postponed due to his medical condition.

The flight nurse and flight medic were interviewed by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation safety inspector. According to the flight medic, the flight was routine, and they were within 10 minutes of landing at 9PN2. He and the flight nurse were out of their seats treating the patient when a loud “bang” was heard, and the helicopter banked sharply right and continued into a right roll. The medic said that the helicopter rolled inverted, perhaps multiple times, and that he and the nurse were “pinned to the ceiling” and internal communication was lost. The helicopter was leveled, the patient was secured, the crewmembers secured themselves in their seats, and they braced for landing.

Following the accident, the flight nurse evacuated the patient, then evacuated the pilot while the medic shut down both engines. The nurse travelled with the patient while the medic travelled with the pilot to area hospitals.

The pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane multiengine land and rotorcraft-helicopter, with private pilot privileges for airplane single engine. The pilot’s most recent second-class FAA medical certificate was issued on August 26, 2021.

The operator reported that the pilot had accrued 4,123 total hours of flight experience of which 3,400 hours were in helicopters and 185 hours were in the accident helicopter make and model.

The helicopter was examined at the accident site and all major components were accounted for at the scene. The was a strong odor of fuel and evidence of fuel spillage. The wreckage path was oriented about 150° magnetic and measured about 108 ft long. The initial impact point was in a tree about 40 ft tall, and pieces of freshly broken and cut wood were found beneath it.

The helicopter came to rest on its left side, nearly inverted, against a stone wall. The tailboom was separated at the fuselage and rested between the helicopter and the wall. The fenestron was intact inside its shroud. Fenestron drive and control continuity was confirmed through several breaks which appeared due to overload. The fenestron flexball cable was found wrapped around the main rotor mast. The landing gear was destroyed by impact and the windscreen and chin bubble on the copilot’s (left) side were destroyed; the airframe and cockpit and cabin floors displayed impact fractures, but the cockpit, instrument panel, and cabin area remained largely intact. The cockpit controls were connected and intact. While the yaw control pedals remained attached to their respective control tubes, the floor structure that contained each pedal assembly mount was fractured. The engines and main transmission were secure in their mounts, the main rotor hub was attached to the mast, and the root ends of all four main rotor blades were secure in the hub. Two main rotor blades were wrapped around the mast, one was straight with a chordwise fracture, and the fourth was separated from the hub during recovery. Later, all four blades were cut near their root to facilitate further examination.

The wreckage was recovered to an aircraft recovery facility in Clayton, Delaware, for further examination.

The engines and main transmission were secure in their mounts. Continuity was confirmed from the main rotor head, through the transmission, to the #1 and #2 high speed shafts. The functionality of the freewheeling unit was confirmed.

Cyclic and collective control continuity were confirmed from the controls to the main rotor system. The blue pitch-change link was fractured due to overload, and the yellow link was impact damaged.

Data downloaded from each engine revealed nominal engine performance consistent with the mission profile across the duration of the flight.

Components from the cockpit warning system, electrical and hydraulic components from the autopilot and flight control system, as well as fluid samples, were retained for further examination.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I agree Bell_ringer, but DB getting on his high horse about a thread where no-one has suggested just going out and trying such manoeuvres seems rather OTT.

My point to DB was that less than 1g in a helicopter or even negative g doesn't lead to the instant mechanical failure he implied - you can get to negative g without aerobatic manoeuvres as you know.

Mr Crab! its been a while since we locked horns however, I like my high horse! You know well that the design certification process will accommodate any turbulence induced negative G. However, as stated by other posters here, Aerobatic manoeuvres are prohibited in all the FMs I have ever looked at. The fuselage is designed to dangle below the rotor in positive G...generally. Stick to the rules and limits because they are there for a reason. As an ex RAF SAR Hero Type I know you love to feel aligned with any form of exciting flying to get your juices flowing. However, I like my helicopter the right way up, compliant and within the limits and I balk at any suggestions of excitement or thrills that are primarily getting derived from chucking the helicopter around the sky with a scant regard for the designers limitations he set in place to keep us safe. Willy can be waved. Chest puffed out and beers downed while the lamp swings but it cuts no ice when the next poor unfortunate pilot inherits an airframe that has been stressed and damaged by morons seeking cheap thrills for fun. Like I said, this is a professional pilots rumour network. Operating beyond the limits in the FM is just not professional. Take care Mr Crab over which side of the line you want to be seen to be! I am ex Army so we are not as bright as your Brill cream Types and thus....we trust and stick to the rules cos our little green brains can't operate outside the box in nasty dangerous parts of the flight enevelope.

[albatross]

Geez Guys: Play nice.

[[email protected]]

DB doesn't play nice albatross and, like most people who post bolleaux, reverts to attacking their critic when they are called out on it.

This was an interesting thread up to his post.

For interest DB, I served for 7 years on exchange with the AAC at Middle Wallop instructing on the Lynx and flew with a number of the Blue Eagles display pilots (since I worked alongside them) - I was also allowed to do a display work-up of my own flying loops, rolls, back flips et al - all perfectly legally and above board.

If you are going to argue a point, at least have some knowledge and experience of it first.

[212man]

I served for 7 years on exchange with the AAC at Middle Wallop
Your username rather gives that away! :ok:

[Agile]

Can an EC135 do a roll or loop? Maybe one time to save your life, if you are unlucky enough to end up in that unusual attitude.
Can an R44 do a roll or loop?..... well, never mind ... isn't it that in the end The most important factor remains the rigid rotor head with offset flapping hinges.

[[email protected]]

Your username rather gives that away! https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif Clearly not to everyone:):ok:

[gipsymagpie]

Can an EC135 do a roll or loop? Maybe one time to save your life, if you are unlucky enough to end up in that unusual attitude.
Can an R44 do a roll or loop?..... well, never mind ... isn't it that in the end The most important factor remains the rigid rotor head with offset flapping hinges.
Which the CH53 doesn't have. And with my pedant hat on, a rigid rotor doesn't have a flapping hinge at all (see post #1). Just a very high equivalent virtual hinge. But you are right - a rigid head is the best option.

The critical factor is the ability to develop and sustain enough g to get you round (loop) or the ability to survive the inverted position in a roll (hence teetering head fails).

[diginagain]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1398x958/10560271_10202400004988838_3358709095256019563_o_bc30720621a 84799124c8808cb34f577c5d2d4a1.jpg
This one?

[Doors Off]

Looping a helicopter is a bit of a pants activity. Pointless, rather silly when we think about the mechanics and aerodynamics and, no tactical application whatsoever. In fact, they aren’t even a loop as such. Dive for speed, pitch and a back flip.

I’ve only done one in a helicopter, under tuition from a manufacturer’s test pilot. Was it fun? Kind of. Was it worthwhile? Not really.

You can “loop” any flying machine - once! The ability to maintain energy, SA, and bring weapons to target whilst manouevring said chopper is far more impressive than a “loop” in a helicopter.

As for a 135, Lynx, CH53, Blackhawk, Seahawk, Puma 407 or such doing a loop - why? They are LiftTard platforms. Why deliver the only weapon you have (The soldiers (or paying passengers)) covered in vomit? Time for some to appreciate hovering or go fly a fixed wing designed to loop. Too many frustrated/failed wanna be Knuckleheads?

[Hot and Hi]

… says the one who has done it!

[[email protected]]

I don't think anyone has suggested that such a manoeuvre is anything but a display manoeuvre or sales pitch to emphasise agility of the airframe.

[wrench1]

I don't think anyone has suggested that such a manoeuvre is anything but a display manoeuvre or sales pitch to emphasise agility of the airframe.
And I believe Tommy Thompson with his S-52 loop and Tex Johnson with his Dash 80 roll would agree 100%. Matter of fact, I think when the Boeing CEO asked Tex what was he thinking of when he rolled a "707" in front of industry leaders over Lake Washington, Tex replied, "Selling airplanes." Always enjoyed Charly Zimmerman's sales pitch in his BO105 as well.

[JohnDixson]

One of our pilots joined with a flight test engineer to buy an S-52, refurbish it, get it painted as it was at first, a USMC machine flown in the Korean War. Before they flew it, he called Mr. Thompson asking for information as to what to watch out for. That led to asking about the famous roll. I don’t recall what he said about why he did it, but Thompson said that upon landing, someone came up to him and told him that Mr. Sikorsky wanted to see him-NOW. He told our pilot that he thought that Igor was about to fire him. Went on up to Igor’s office worried that he had blown it. Walked in to the office ready to say he was sorry, but Igor began the conversation, asking “ Are you the pilot who just looped the S-52 out there? “. Thompson said yes. Igor then said, “ Can you do it again-I want to get movies of it ?“.

[MightyGem]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1398x958/10560271_10202400004988838_3358709095256019563_o_bc30720621a 84799124c8808cb34f577c5d2d4a1.jpg
This one?

George Carnell?

[wrench1]

Can you do it again-I want to get movies of it ?“.

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

[Arnie Madsen]

.

Thanks wrench1 .... that 1949 helicopter loop is the one I referred to earlier.

.

[212man]

.

Thanks wrench1 .... that 1949 helicopter loop is the one I referred to earlier.

.
I looked him up out of interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Thompson

he is credited with teaching Pat Randy - the first woman to fly a helicopter solo. Clearly whoever wrote that hasn’t heard of Hannah Reitsch!

[diginagain]

George Carnell?
Not certain on this occasion, although George performed a disorientation sortie for the benefit of myself & two other ACM(O) once. The reaction of the bloke in the LHS when he was invited to open his eyes half way round was interesting.....

[[email protected]]

he is credited with teaching Pat Randy What a great name:) was she popular with the boys?

[MightyGem]

The reaction of the bloke in the LHS when he was invited to open his eyes half way round was interesting.
I bet it was! :eek::eek:

[diginagain]

I bet it was! :eek::eek:
Leaving the duals in where Campbell could grab them may have been a mistake..............

[MightyGem]

"Leaving the duals in where Campbell could grab them may have been a mistake............."
😂😂😂😂😂😂