Belvedere HC1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belvedere HC1
Why did the Belvedere HC1 have such a pronounced high front undercarriage compared to rear, thus sitting on ground with such a pronounced fuselage angle?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: East Ecosse
Age: 71
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Copied from a Piasecki HRP-1/ H-21 which was shaped so that
The HRP-1 was nicknamed the "flying banana" because of the upward angle of the aft fuselage that ensured the large rotors did not hit each other in flight.
Copied from a Piasecki HRP-1/ H-21 which was shaped so that
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lincoln, England
Age: 80
Posts: 54
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to "Bristol Aircraft since 1910" by C.H.Barnes (page 369 in my copy), the front of the fuselage was higher than the rear for loading of a ventral weapon bay. The preceding civilian Type 173 had its fuselage horizontal, so there may be some truth in that statement.
IIRC the Belvedere was originally designed as a naval ac, and the high front undercarriage was meant to facilitate the loading of torpedos / depth bombs.
It also caused a number of broken ankles from pilots leaping out if the avpin starter caught fire....one of the donks being directly behind the RHS.
It also caused a number of broken ankles from pilots leaping out if the avpin starter caught fire....one of the donks being directly behind the RHS.
the Belvedere was originally designed as a naval ac, and the high front undercarriage was meant to facilitate the loading of torpedos / depth bombs.
No straps, doors open and the ladders in place until the front engine was started.
At least one was a cut & shut from two and when they scrapped them at Seleter they found that the war reserve in the MU had the same serial number as one on the squadron.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, as Fareastdriver says, the Belvedere was originally intended for the Royal Navy as a torpedo carrier and the nose-high attitude on the ground was to facilitate arming and re-arming, it also kept the front of the foreward rotor disc at a safe height above the people performing these tasks. But - as explained to me by an old ex-Navy man - the physical size of the helicopter and the absence of rotor blade folding capability for deployment on ships had the Royal Navy staff rolling on the ground holding their stomachs at first sight of it! So it was 'offered' to the Royal Air Force.
The nose-high attitude on the ground did indeed pose several problems, the first was the height of the cockpit above the ground and the propensity of the avpin starter to explode on start-up. The avpin 'initiator' was a three-cartridge breech giving, in theory, three starts before it had to be replenished. But all too often all three cartridges would go off together producing a helluva bang and usually an avpin fire (avpin is a monofuel so spcial fire fighting equipment and trained personnel were a pre-requisite to Belvedere operations). The first thing you were told on a Belvedere unit was never, never stand in line with the starter exhaust. The starter system for the front engine was right behind the pilots back and, as fareastdriver says, the access ladder was left in place and the cockpit window open for all starts - just in case.
The other problem associated with the nose-high attitude on the ground was that access to the cabin was via a similar, but slightly shorter, ladder. This made rapid troop embarkation/disembarkation almost impossible.
Nevertheless, the Belvedere was good as an external lifter and cargo hauler and performed excellent work in the far east during Confrontation. But it was a bugger to maintain and it is often said that it required 33 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.
The nose-high attitude on the ground did indeed pose several problems, the first was the height of the cockpit above the ground and the propensity of the avpin starter to explode on start-up. The avpin 'initiator' was a three-cartridge breech giving, in theory, three starts before it had to be replenished. But all too often all three cartridges would go off together producing a helluva bang and usually an avpin fire (avpin is a monofuel so spcial fire fighting equipment and trained personnel were a pre-requisite to Belvedere operations). The first thing you were told on a Belvedere unit was never, never stand in line with the starter exhaust. The starter system for the front engine was right behind the pilots back and, as fareastdriver says, the access ladder was left in place and the cockpit window open for all starts - just in case.
The other problem associated with the nose-high attitude on the ground was that access to the cabin was via a similar, but slightly shorter, ladder. This made rapid troop embarkation/disembarkation almost impossible.
Nevertheless, the Belvedere was good as an external lifter and cargo hauler and performed excellent work in the far east during Confrontation. But it was a bugger to maintain and it is often said that it required 33 maintenance man-hours per flight hour.
Belvedere helicopter
The Belvedere development designs went right up to a twin Gnome version with the engines mounted at the back driving both rotors like the Chinook. Unfortunately widening the fuselage to a container shape like Vertol did would have been beyond the imagination of Westlands.
Fareastdriver,
As a Chinook driver, I found the Belvedere a fascinating creature when the RAF Museum let me crawl around their example a few years back. That step for the pax/troops must have been a hinderence (a ramp is so much easier..) and wriggling past the engine from the cabin to behind the LHS was a feat of dexterity that doesn't bear thinking about in the humidity of the Far East. Hats off to all of you guys who flew her, and set an enduring example.
As a Chinook driver, I found the Belvedere a fascinating creature when the RAF Museum let me crawl around their example a few years back. That step for the pax/troops must have been a hinderence (a ramp is so much easier..) and wriggling past the engine from the cabin to behind the LHS was a feat of dexterity that doesn't bear thinking about in the humidity of the Far East. Hats off to all of you guys who flew her, and set an enduring example.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record, I believe the last Belvedere flights in the UK were those of XG455 in February/March 1967. This aircraft had been damaged whilst on the OCU (SRCU, the Short Range Conversion Unit) at RAF Odiham, and was in 2nd Line undergoing a lengthy repair when I inherited it in 1966. By February 67 it was ready for flight test, and one bemused Wessex instructor (and former Belvedere operator) was given a special Transport Command category to fly it. Muggins ("Graham, I am not flying that bl***y thing unless you come with me") went as flight test observer on its first post-repair flight on 15 February 1967, and again on 3 March to swing its compass and cover a few remaining flight test points. It behaved magnificently and shortly afterwards flew to Marchwood military port near Southampton for shipping to the Far East.
Apparently No 66 Squadron at RAF Seletar, the last to operate the Belvedere, was disbanded the day before the aircraft arrived in Singapore, and it was scrapped there without ever flying again.
Apparently No 66 Squadron at RAF Seletar, the last to operate the Belvedere, was disbanded the day before the aircraft arrived in Singapore, and it was scrapped there without ever flying again.
I have a vague recollection of seeing a TV programme many years ago which included a segment about the construction of Liverpool (?) Cathedral. I'm sure that I saw a Belvedere used to lower the spire into place, and somebody talking on the radio using 'posh words and accents' to instruct the pilot.
Ring any bells with anybody?
Ring any bells with anybody?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In "BIG SKY".
Age: 84
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,
If you thought the version of the Belvedere that was issued to the squadrons was bad, you should have tried the development version!!!
I went from Northolt in a Sycamore of the Met' Comm Sqdn. to Odiham where the development flight had just been set up. We were invited to fly the beast and that version had wooden blades, al la Sycamore, and no power controls, only bungees!! 20mins was about all you could take before giving the beast to the other guy.
This was about the time that Westlands and Bristol were merging and I believe Westlands/Sikorsky had the power control issue tied up in patents.
The later ones were easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Speedbird 48.
If you thought the version of the Belvedere that was issued to the squadrons was bad, you should have tried the development version!!!
I went from Northolt in a Sycamore of the Met' Comm Sqdn. to Odiham where the development flight had just been set up. We were invited to fly the beast and that version had wooden blades, al la Sycamore, and no power controls, only bungees!! 20mins was about all you could take before giving the beast to the other guy.
This was about the time that Westlands and Bristol were merging and I believe Westlands/Sikorsky had the power control issue tied up in patents.
The later ones were easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Speedbird 48.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speechless Two - Re mass flypast
All the effort rebuilding the Belevere at Odiham, (I remember watching the ground runs with windsocks on the blades) was rewarded with it going into the MU at Seletar as the war reserve.
The final flypast was in March 1969. The above post is correct and I have one taken of them taken from Changi as they toured the Island.
Immediately after the flypast the were all scrapped including the war reserve which joined a sister aircraft with the same serial number, probably XG455.
The final flypast was in March 1969. The above post is correct and I have one taken of them taken from Changi as they toured the Island.
Immediately after the flypast the were all scrapped including the war reserve which joined a sister aircraft with the same serial number, probably XG455.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Immediately after the flypast the were all scrapped ....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,930
Received 2,849 Likes
on
1,218 Posts
We used to have one of them in the hangar on the OCU, that and the Sycamore sitting out front.
I remember our Flight Sergeant who worked on them regailing of an incident on a display when one crashed, from what he told me it was doing a display and was carrying Gurkas, unfortunately in the rush during it's performance the Gurkas were never strapped in as they boarded and as they did a tactical flare all the Gurkas went sliding down the back resulting in a sever lack out of balance trim and the rear rotors hitting the ground and it all ending in tears.....
Whether it is true or not I do not know, but it was one of those things I always remembered.
I remember our Flight Sergeant who worked on them regailing of an incident on a display when one crashed, from what he told me it was doing a display and was carrying Gurkas, unfortunately in the rush during it's performance the Gurkas were never strapped in as they boarded and as they did a tactical flare all the Gurkas went sliding down the back resulting in a sever lack out of balance trim and the rear rotors hitting the ground and it all ending in tears.....
Whether it is true or not I do not know, but it was one of those things I always remembered.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Fareastdriver for the correction on XG455's fate. All our efforts at Odiham were not quite as futile as I had been led to believe. For years in the RAF Museum, in front of the Belvedere exhibit there was a photograph of XG455 in its first hover after the Odiham repair, taken by the station photographer Cpl Hurrell. Unfortunately it is Crown Copyright so I cannot post it here.
This was not a celebratory photograph, it was organised by some cynic who wanted photographic evidence of the accident for the Board of Inquiry! In fact the aircraft flew beautifully, a slight one/per at 60kts according to my notes, but otherwise very smooth. Before it had gone into ASF, its vibration was such that it used to remove teeth fillings.
Speechless Two hasn't come back yet, but when he does I think he may have been driving one of those RN Wessex 5s in the Youtube clip!
This was not a celebratory photograph, it was organised by some cynic who wanted photographic evidence of the accident for the Board of Inquiry! In fact the aircraft flew beautifully, a slight one/per at 60kts according to my notes, but otherwise very smooth. Before it had gone into ASF, its vibration was such that it used to remove teeth fillings.
Speechless Two hasn't come back yet, but when he does I think he may have been driving one of those RN Wessex 5s in the Youtube clip!
