Aerobatics in a 407 (Incl. video)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StevieTerrier: I'm using windows media player 8, it automatically downloaded the codec for that file format when I played the video.
Check your player settings to allow or update codecs.
Check your player settings to allow or update codecs.
Grandpa Aerotart
What I find interesting is the roll....on his run in it appears as if he is about to do a nice gentle + G barrel roll and then he does, for want of a better term, a slow roll...fling wing equivalent anyway with some definate - G.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What scares me, is the fact that other pilots with hindsight and the benefit of all the collective wisdom of the previous participants still discuss this type of thing i.e. how it should be done, how they would do it, in other words, still consider such madness. Same thing happened when two Jetty's were tied to each other at the Waterfront a few years back. How do you measure a good pilot? I think it all starts in the mind, as someone said before, any machine could become a widow maker, it all depends who flies it.
Please people, let sanity prevail.
Please people, let sanity prevail.
Chimbu,
Yep, I thought the same thing. The barrel roll looked like a moment of indecision to me. It actually gave me a chill to watch it.
The loop was ho hum really. You all need to watch some agricultural work or mustering some time..
Blender is correct: the strap packs are just as likely to be damaged on Sceismic as they are buy a loop on a 500...
AND for the sake of arguement"
I seriously doubt that this is the first civilian helo looped. Too many blokes own up to the 500 attempt, Joe Keeling died doing it in NZ and another good friend of mine admitted to doing a loop in a H300.
Believe it or NOT.
Yep, I thought the same thing. The barrel roll looked like a moment of indecision to me. It actually gave me a chill to watch it.
The loop was ho hum really. You all need to watch some agricultural work or mustering some time..
Blender is correct: the strap packs are just as likely to be damaged on Sceismic as they are buy a loop on a 500...
AND for the sake of arguement"
I seriously doubt that this is the first civilian helo looped. Too many blokes own up to the 500 attempt, Joe Keeling died doing it in NZ and another good friend of mine admitted to doing a loop in a H300.
Believe it or NOT.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles
If you are talking about what used to be called the Bankstown Airshow, the pilot you are talking about was me. For the record, it was an MD500E prior to the "no aerobatic flight" limitation in the RFM. The CAA had approved a full aerobatic show, to include multiple loops, in advance. I had been performing the proposed routine all around the world for several years. I had asked for rolls but the request was declined before coming to OZ. After the validation flight of the CAA Approved routine, the airshow director, who may have been associated with the CAA, decided not to allow the loop. He gave no reason for his decision. After considerable negotiation, and the involvment of several TV news interviews with me and the CAA (interesting experience) I was allowed to do an off-set loop. The watered down show was not that much different than what Chris Townsend was performing in the R-22 at the same show. The aircraft used was a company demonstrator with a US special airworthiness certificate.
B Sousa you are correct. When chaps earlier in the thread were stating 'first even civvy chopper looped/rolled'..or words to that effect..I was thinking about the MD500E (from memory) that was looped and rolled on the practice day at an Oz airshow about 25 odd years ago. The Oz CAA guy went ballistic and the MD Factory Test Pilot was absolutely forbidden from performing those manouvers during the airshow.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich, I read that the MD was trying to certify the 500 as an aerobatic helicopter but in the end just went for the standard certification.
Is that true? And if it is why did they choose not to? to hard to get the FAA to agree?
Is that true? And if it is why did they choose not to? to hard to get the FAA to agree?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu chuckles You are absolutely correct, it was the Schofield Airshow. I do not remember seeing the LR35 do the roll but that is not surprising as I could not even remember the name of the show!
Spaced Hughes, MD and Boeing had a running dogfight with the FAA over the issue of helicopter aerobatics for several years. It would take a very long time to provide you with all the details. The bottom line is that the FAA could never agree what exactly were helicopter aerobatic maneuvers. When the MD520N was being tested for certification, aerobatic maneuvers such as loops, rolls, hammerheads, Split-S and several other maneuvers were flown with the intention of adding them to the certification. The maneuvers were flown during handling qualities and flight strain survey. The FAA could not decide what would be required for certification of those selected maneuvers and the delay in response was holding up final certification of the aircraft so the decision was made to not press the point.
To my knowledge, in over 25 years of aerobatic displays in the 500 series aircraft (I have never flown aerobatics in the MD600N as they have not been tested in that aircraft) I have never had a strap pack laminate break nor has any damage been attributed to maneuvers performed during the show. The aircraft never sees g-loads outside the approved envelope of 3.5 to 0.5 G. Transient power limits are not required. No exceedances have ever been documented. I have held an Airshow Competency Card with no altitude restriction and with series loops and rolls part of the approved sequence.
Spaced Hughes, MD and Boeing had a running dogfight with the FAA over the issue of helicopter aerobatics for several years. It would take a very long time to provide you with all the details. The bottom line is that the FAA could never agree what exactly were helicopter aerobatic maneuvers. When the MD520N was being tested for certification, aerobatic maneuvers such as loops, rolls, hammerheads, Split-S and several other maneuvers were flown with the intention of adding them to the certification. The maneuvers were flown during handling qualities and flight strain survey. The FAA could not decide what would be required for certification of those selected maneuvers and the delay in response was holding up final certification of the aircraft so the decision was made to not press the point.
To my knowledge, in over 25 years of aerobatic displays in the 500 series aircraft (I have never flown aerobatics in the MD600N as they have not been tested in that aircraft) I have never had a strap pack laminate break nor has any damage been attributed to maneuvers performed during the show. The aircraft never sees g-loads outside the approved envelope of 3.5 to 0.5 G. Transient power limits are not required. No exceedances have ever been documented. I have held an Airshow Competency Card with no altitude restriction and with series loops and rolls part of the approved sequence.
Rich Lee:
Maybe not tested but certainly tried. Once. Unsuccessfully. Recall a certain Mr. Ruben Rivero, renown coke dealer/ENG pilot in Miami, Florida and his infamous, "Watch this!" to the impressionable R-44 pilot flying formation with him. Oops. Hey Ruben, ya sure don't get much Coanda Effect from that Notar with the tailboom severed, do ya!
It is interesting that amid all the hand-wringing and tongue-clucking and tsk-tsk'ing going on over the 407 loopyroll, some helicopters have had a careerful of aerobatics. The aforementioned 500-series being one of them, the other being the (drumroll, please) lowly Enstrom F-28! that is dissected in another thread. Enstrom test-pilot Mott Stanchfield perfected the loop, which was later demonstrated routinely by routine demonstration pilot Mike Meager (for those of us old enough to remember the 1970's). How times have changed.
To my knowledge, in over 25 years of aerobatic displays in the 500 series aircraft (I have never flown aerobatics in the MD600N as they have not been tested in that aircraft)...
It is interesting that amid all the hand-wringing and tongue-clucking and tsk-tsk'ing going on over the 407 loopyroll, some helicopters have had a careerful of aerobatics. The aforementioned 500-series being one of them, the other being the (drumroll, please) lowly Enstrom F-28! that is dissected in another thread. Enstrom test-pilot Mott Stanchfield perfected the loop, which was later demonstrated routinely by routine demonstration pilot Mike Meager (for those of us old enough to remember the 1970's). How times have changed.
Rich,
A bit of trivia from that Schofields Airshow. Did you know that Chris had a "slab" of Fosters" under the L/H seat to balance the Robbo up a bit?
I enjoyed your demo too ...
A bit of trivia from that Schofields Airshow. Did you know that Chris had a "slab" of Fosters" under the L/H seat to balance the Robbo up a bit?
I enjoyed your demo too ...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topic Review (Newest First) No, I did not know that he had a 'slab' under his seat, but whatever he had under there, it must have helped because he certainly put on a fantastic show! When I would tell people in those days about Chris in the U.S. few would believe me. He was the first I had ever seen doing a really interesting show with the R-22 and I stopped to watch him fly every day. Do you know what he is doing now?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that's getting interesting!!
On one hand we have the "Never outside the manual"-crowd
on the other hand the "Making a living (...and seems legally) that way" gang!
Rich, not that I am on the way to take up Helo-acros, but it would still be interesting to find out, HOW someone gets an "Airshow Competency Card" or "Helicopter Aerobatics Authorization" or anything that authorizes one, to do it.
Next point: Obviously the SA 407 seems to be scrap in the eyes of Bell (unless they accept a total rebuild...).
I understand your 500 experience, as it was mostly for testing/display for a helicopter that was planned to be certified for acros.
BUT, how do Chris T. and all the others doing acros in R-22, F-28, S-300's get away with it? I doubt that Frank Robinson EVER would authorize a loop or roll, etc. Obviously these guys do it routinely and even if the insurance says no to hull insurance, I doubt they would be able to fly anywhere without liability.
Now as far as insurance goes, they "normally" say NO to anything outside the POH limitations. loops, backwards autos to the ground, etc. are definitely NOT in the Robinson R-22 POH!!
We heared a lot pro-con on the helo aerobatic topic and whatever ones view on it or at a particular show, I still would like to know how I can get around the POH and still perform legally on an airshow?
Never mind the SA-407 driver, who seems didn't have all the legal stuff sorted out up front.......bad move there!
3top
On one hand we have the "Never outside the manual"-crowd
on the other hand the "Making a living (...and seems legally) that way" gang!
Rich, not that I am on the way to take up Helo-acros, but it would still be interesting to find out, HOW someone gets an "Airshow Competency Card" or "Helicopter Aerobatics Authorization" or anything that authorizes one, to do it.
Next point: Obviously the SA 407 seems to be scrap in the eyes of Bell (unless they accept a total rebuild...).
I understand your 500 experience, as it was mostly for testing/display for a helicopter that was planned to be certified for acros.
BUT, how do Chris T. and all the others doing acros in R-22, F-28, S-300's get away with it? I doubt that Frank Robinson EVER would authorize a loop or roll, etc. Obviously these guys do it routinely and even if the insurance says no to hull insurance, I doubt they would be able to fly anywhere without liability.
Now as far as insurance goes, they "normally" say NO to anything outside the POH limitations. loops, backwards autos to the ground, etc. are definitely NOT in the Robinson R-22 POH!!
We heared a lot pro-con on the helo aerobatic topic and whatever ones view on it or at a particular show, I still would like to know how I can get around the POH and still perform legally on an airshow?
Never mind the SA-407 driver, who seems didn't have all the legal stuff sorted out up front.......bad move there!
3top
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3top I cannot speak for other pilots, or the rules in countries outside of the US. I can only tell you about my own experience.
The first point I will address is that of aircraft. Until the early eighties it was legal to do aerobatics in helicopters in the US as long as there was no "prohibition" or "restriction" from doing so by the manufacturer of the helicopter. The theory was if it was not forbidden or prohibited, you could do it.
Later the FAA took the position that it was not legal do any maneuver that was not included in the certification process and proven safe even if the maneuver or maneuvers were not "prohibited" or "restricted" by the manufacturer of the helicopter. The theory was could only be done if proven safe and approved by certification.
To my knowledge (which may be a bit dated) there is no civil helicopter certificated in the U.S. for which aerobatic maneuvers are allowed by certification.
It is possible to receive a special airworthiness certificate which will allow aerobatic maneuvers. To return the aircraft to a normal certificate requires that the owner prove to the FAA that no damage or reduction of life to componants occured during any aerobatic operation (nearly impossible), or replacement of nearly all the rotating or moving componants (prohibitively expensive). Once an aircraft is used legally for aerobatic flight it almost always stays that way because of the cost of returning it to normal category.
Many manufactuers have actually conducted extensive-but not FAA approved- testing that shows there is no loss of componant life or damage to componants during certain aerobatic type maneuvers. Others have conducted no testing whatsoever so don't have a clue what damage or loss of life has occurred.
Military and public aircraft operate under their own rules and approvals.
In the United States the current rules to obtain a Statement of Airshow Competency card require a practical test before an Aerobatic Competency Evaluator (ACE). These are experienced airshow pilots approved by the International Council of Airshows (ICAS) under authority from the FAA. A new pilot will have to demonstrate knowledge of airshow rules, regulations and safety. They will need to discuss their routine and fly the routine at the altitudes and in the order of the proposed show. If successful they will be allowed a safe, high altitude first and as they get experience and demonstrate competence they are allowed lower and lower floors. It takes a lot of time and demonstrated competence to receive an unrestricted Airshow Competency. Military pilots do not require a Statement of Airshow Competency-only government approval.
The rules, forms and fees are published on the ICAS website. It is not easy for helicopter pilots to become qualified to perform an aerobatic display at airshows in the US. It is, however, relatively easy to fly "agility" demonstrations. These demonstrations can be more dramatic (and dangerous) than aerobatic displays but do not include the set of maneuvers the FAA considers aerobatic in a helicopter. They are loop, roll, hammerhead and split-s. Any other maneuver is almost always okay-even some that are way beyond normal. When an agility show is performed the helicopter can work to low speed show line very close to the crowd (an example of this was the Chinook demo at Farnborough which was not filed as aerobatic so could be closer and lower than the AH-64D).
At the Schofields Airshow I only did one proper loop for validation. When it was not approved for the show I did an offset loop which is a loop (or very large barrell roll), but not exactly a proper loop. Neither Chris nor eye performed classical airplane style aerobatics. We performed agility style maneuvers well within all the limitations of our aircraft. Whenever I have performed aerobatic maneuvers at a public display (over 1,000 to date) it has always been in an approved aircraft and with military or civil authority approval.
This in no way is meant to encourage pilots to do aerobatic flight without training or approval in an aircraft approved for those maneuvers. Many of the concerns in this thread are valid. Some are only emotional and based on ignorance.
Almost any helicopter is capable of some aerobatic flight as defined by the FAA when flown by a competent pilot. Done correctly, smooth control application with positive G within all limitations, the aircraft can fly right side up or up-side down (for brief periods). The real problem is that helicopters are extremely unforgiving of ANY mistake. Allow a helicopter to pitch couple during a low-level roll and you will be lucky to recover with your life and you will damage the aircraft or cause some loss of life.
Also liability is a huge issue in the US and for that reason alone, no manufacturer can condone aerobatic flight. As for the R-22, I am sure that Frank would never, ever condone aerobatic flight.
The first point I will address is that of aircraft. Until the early eighties it was legal to do aerobatics in helicopters in the US as long as there was no "prohibition" or "restriction" from doing so by the manufacturer of the helicopter. The theory was if it was not forbidden or prohibited, you could do it.
Later the FAA took the position that it was not legal do any maneuver that was not included in the certification process and proven safe even if the maneuver or maneuvers were not "prohibited" or "restricted" by the manufacturer of the helicopter. The theory was could only be done if proven safe and approved by certification.
To my knowledge (which may be a bit dated) there is no civil helicopter certificated in the U.S. for which aerobatic maneuvers are allowed by certification.
It is possible to receive a special airworthiness certificate which will allow aerobatic maneuvers. To return the aircraft to a normal certificate requires that the owner prove to the FAA that no damage or reduction of life to componants occured during any aerobatic operation (nearly impossible), or replacement of nearly all the rotating or moving componants (prohibitively expensive). Once an aircraft is used legally for aerobatic flight it almost always stays that way because of the cost of returning it to normal category.
Many manufactuers have actually conducted extensive-but not FAA approved- testing that shows there is no loss of componant life or damage to componants during certain aerobatic type maneuvers. Others have conducted no testing whatsoever so don't have a clue what damage or loss of life has occurred.
Military and public aircraft operate under their own rules and approvals.
In the United States the current rules to obtain a Statement of Airshow Competency card require a practical test before an Aerobatic Competency Evaluator (ACE). These are experienced airshow pilots approved by the International Council of Airshows (ICAS) under authority from the FAA. A new pilot will have to demonstrate knowledge of airshow rules, regulations and safety. They will need to discuss their routine and fly the routine at the altitudes and in the order of the proposed show. If successful they will be allowed a safe, high altitude first and as they get experience and demonstrate competence they are allowed lower and lower floors. It takes a lot of time and demonstrated competence to receive an unrestricted Airshow Competency. Military pilots do not require a Statement of Airshow Competency-only government approval.
The rules, forms and fees are published on the ICAS website. It is not easy for helicopter pilots to become qualified to perform an aerobatic display at airshows in the US. It is, however, relatively easy to fly "agility" demonstrations. These demonstrations can be more dramatic (and dangerous) than aerobatic displays but do not include the set of maneuvers the FAA considers aerobatic in a helicopter. They are loop, roll, hammerhead and split-s. Any other maneuver is almost always okay-even some that are way beyond normal. When an agility show is performed the helicopter can work to low speed show line very close to the crowd (an example of this was the Chinook demo at Farnborough which was not filed as aerobatic so could be closer and lower than the AH-64D).
At the Schofields Airshow I only did one proper loop for validation. When it was not approved for the show I did an offset loop which is a loop (or very large barrell roll), but not exactly a proper loop. Neither Chris nor eye performed classical airplane style aerobatics. We performed agility style maneuvers well within all the limitations of our aircraft. Whenever I have performed aerobatic maneuvers at a public display (over 1,000 to date) it has always been in an approved aircraft and with military or civil authority approval.
This in no way is meant to encourage pilots to do aerobatic flight without training or approval in an aircraft approved for those maneuvers. Many of the concerns in this thread are valid. Some are only emotional and based on ignorance.
Almost any helicopter is capable of some aerobatic flight as defined by the FAA when flown by a competent pilot. Done correctly, smooth control application with positive G within all limitations, the aircraft can fly right side up or up-side down (for brief periods). The real problem is that helicopters are extremely unforgiving of ANY mistake. Allow a helicopter to pitch couple during a low-level roll and you will be lucky to recover with your life and you will damage the aircraft or cause some loss of life.
Also liability is a huge issue in the US and for that reason alone, no manufacturer can condone aerobatic flight. As for the R-22, I am sure that Frank would never, ever condone aerobatic flight.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich,
thanks for the last post, very interesting!
You are certainly right about Frank R. and the R-22! (or R-44 for that matter...)
I still don't get it though, as according to the POH's nearly always limits are set, as to max bank and pitch attitudes.
Even if one would do a "offset loop" you are still way beyond any limits in the POH.
Just looked at the video of Dennis Kenyon, linked somewhere on PPRUNE. At some time it seems he just lets the tail fall away and kind of backflips the Schweizer-300. Seems rather smooth and fairly slow, but in no way is any pitch attitude of that maneuver approved in the POH.
You mentioned that one can get (at least in the USA) a special certification for the machine.
To get this, do I have to recertify the machine completetly again or would this be more like a demonstration of ability/agility with post exam in the shop to proof the machine can take it?
This would be a moot discussion, but my interest is in the possibility of getting some "advanced" training, if I ever can afford it!
I know, most will say, don't get in "the situation" in the first place, but I sure would love to have some experience to get out of it, IF it ever happens!
Just to make the point, most POH will prohibit backwards flight - though no mention of backwards hover....
Now I guess everyone got a demo from his instructor how to autorotate backwards or at least vertical. It is way outside the POH for the backwards part, but nevertheless a good lesson that any helicopter can do it without a problem...provided smooth control of the machine...!
Same for my Robinson Helicopter Safety Course. I got told and shown some rather amazing things about helicopters and Robinsons specifically, that you would not learn in a regular school, nor would you find it in the POH.
I was told there must (unfortunately) be some rather stringent limits published in the POH, to keep those " who shouldn't fly helicopters in the first place" alive - also those that don't have the concept of common sense...
So here we go and write the "rules" for them...limiting all of the rest too.
Still would like to engage in some "advanced" training!
3top
Hi all again,
request to those that are close to the chap who "started" this thread and/or the machine he used!
Please keep us posted what happens or happened to him and the 407! Would be very interesting!
Especially in light of the change of attitude in the aeronautical agencies:
If it is not prohibited it must be legal/allowed - versus - If it is not specifically allowed it must be prohibited!
Sounds like flying Rotorcraft (civilian anyway) goes the Airline route down the drain....all limits, all autopilot.
Before I catch fire from the "safety police" on this thread, I am not rolling the "Wild West Freedom" Drum, but if I am in the mountains with job, I can\'t just always stop, because the weather gets a little interesting.
Now my weatherlimits may be way below/above of someone elses, but if you make it law, that I can\'t fly above the limits of a fresh private ticket, I am out of business.
On the other hand if the private ticket just follows me straight into the mountains, he might get himself killed right there.
I don\'t believe that a more restrictive legal flying environment will prevent any stupid from dying.
What I would rather like to see is more on pressure "decisionmaking" - teaching and training. If you allow someone to fly in the first place, teach/train/show him how to make the right decision for his level of experience.
Not even starting on todays liability-burdened legal environment...
3top
thanks for the last post, very interesting!
You are certainly right about Frank R. and the R-22! (or R-44 for that matter...)
I still don't get it though, as according to the POH's nearly always limits are set, as to max bank and pitch attitudes.
Even if one would do a "offset loop" you are still way beyond any limits in the POH.
Just looked at the video of Dennis Kenyon, linked somewhere on PPRUNE. At some time it seems he just lets the tail fall away and kind of backflips the Schweizer-300. Seems rather smooth and fairly slow, but in no way is any pitch attitude of that maneuver approved in the POH.
You mentioned that one can get (at least in the USA) a special certification for the machine.
To get this, do I have to recertify the machine completetly again or would this be more like a demonstration of ability/agility with post exam in the shop to proof the machine can take it?
This would be a moot discussion, but my interest is in the possibility of getting some "advanced" training, if I ever can afford it!
I know, most will say, don't get in "the situation" in the first place, but I sure would love to have some experience to get out of it, IF it ever happens!
Just to make the point, most POH will prohibit backwards flight - though no mention of backwards hover....
Now I guess everyone got a demo from his instructor how to autorotate backwards or at least vertical. It is way outside the POH for the backwards part, but nevertheless a good lesson that any helicopter can do it without a problem...provided smooth control of the machine...!
Same for my Robinson Helicopter Safety Course. I got told and shown some rather amazing things about helicopters and Robinsons specifically, that you would not learn in a regular school, nor would you find it in the POH.
I was told there must (unfortunately) be some rather stringent limits published in the POH, to keep those " who shouldn't fly helicopters in the first place" alive - also those that don't have the concept of common sense...
So here we go and write the "rules" for them...limiting all of the rest too.
Still would like to engage in some "advanced" training!
3top
Hi all again,
request to those that are close to the chap who "started" this thread and/or the machine he used!
Please keep us posted what happens or happened to him and the 407! Would be very interesting!
Especially in light of the change of attitude in the aeronautical agencies:
If it is not prohibited it must be legal/allowed - versus - If it is not specifically allowed it must be prohibited!
Sounds like flying Rotorcraft (civilian anyway) goes the Airline route down the drain....all limits, all autopilot.
Before I catch fire from the "safety police" on this thread, I am not rolling the "Wild West Freedom" Drum, but if I am in the mountains with job, I can\'t just always stop, because the weather gets a little interesting.
Now my weatherlimits may be way below/above of someone elses, but if you make it law, that I can\'t fly above the limits of a fresh private ticket, I am out of business.
On the other hand if the private ticket just follows me straight into the mountains, he might get himself killed right there.
I don\'t believe that a more restrictive legal flying environment will prevent any stupid from dying.
What I would rather like to see is more on pressure "decisionmaking" - teaching and training. If you allow someone to fly in the first place, teach/train/show him how to make the right decision for his level of experience.
Not even starting on todays liability-burdened legal environment...
3top
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shawn Coyle mentions a looping Gazelle in the UK some years ago. Let me assure him it was a full blown loop with no AOB on at all. Entry was at 140 knots with 1G pulled throughout. Tq whilst inverted was never greater than 10%, when done well the exit height was greater than the entry height!! Best demo was 5 loops in under 90 seconds, longest was 11 in a row.
Best loop was the flick loop, the Gazelle was pulled to 90 degs nose up and when Airspeed fell to zero, the gazelle was flicked over for a full loop.
All genuine its on video!!
Any chance you could post the video?
Heliport
Best loop was the flick loop, the Gazelle was pulled to 90 degs nose up and when Airspeed fell to zero, the gazelle was flicked over for a full loop.
All genuine its on video!!
Any chance you could post the video?
Heliport