Helicopter Aerobatics
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter Aerobatics
I've not seen this vid before.
a few flickering red captions!
http://www.glumbert.com/media/aerobatics
a few flickering red captions!
http://www.glumbert.com/media/aerobatics
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That looks amazzzzing what is the best helicopter in the world to do these stunts bo105 gazzele lyxx looks like the military boys are good at it .
Last edited by levo; 1st Dec 2006 at 21:35. Reason: missed s of stunts its late speling .
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious as to the limitations of the Bo105. Is there anything he could have done that would have induced a damaging or hazardous condition? He most certainly demonstrated Cyclic control during inverted flight, but does the helicopter maintain the same controlability in low G?
Also does the Bo105 have a mast moment limitation that this pilot would have to watch out for?
Does the governor maintain RPM during all these maneuvers or did the pilot have to be careful to load up the blades sufficently so as to not see an excessive RPM increase during accelerated maneuvers?
Thanks
Also does the Bo105 have a mast moment limitation that this pilot would have to watch out for?
Does the governor maintain RPM during all these maneuvers or did the pilot have to be careful to load up the blades sufficently so as to not see an excessive RPM increase during accelerated maneuvers?
Thanks
This has been posted already some time ago:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=235061
There is a Mastmoment-Indicator, which should be watched carefully during such maneuvers, but if flown correctly, no problem. These Aerobatics were flown with the BO 105 since the late 70s.
skadi
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=235061
There is a Mastmoment-Indicator, which should be watched carefully during such maneuvers, but if flown correctly, no problem. These Aerobatics were flown with the BO 105 since the late 70s.
skadi
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Civil Registered MBB Bo 105 have a flight manual restriction as follows ......
ALL INTENTIONAL AEROBATIC MANAUVERS ARE PROHIBITED !!!!!!!
Note : Governors will maintain Nr BUT Engines (Allison C20/B) May not maintain Oil pressure sufficiant to prevent internal damage.
ALL INTENTIONAL AEROBATIC MANAUVERS ARE PROHIBITED !!!!!!!
Note : Governors will maintain Nr BUT Engines (Allison C20/B) May not maintain Oil pressure sufficiant to prevent internal damage.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Does the 500's manual explicitly prohibit aero's? What is the outcome of a display like this with clear full loops? Would the aircraft be grounded as it's gone outside it's flight envelope? I think that happened with the B407 that was looped and rolled at Virginia Airshow, South Africa in 2004/2005. Is there an EASA definition for heli aerobatics? I know similar has been had before here but just curious about all the G-REG civvy helicopters that display doing wingovers, stall turns, freestyle etc...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: AMSL
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's Gunther Zimmerman in his 500 there.
Sadly that man passed away with a low loop.. He would have survived if there was no fire. The 500 is a well built airframe and can take a lot of punishment; hence why it was well proven in vietnam. I'd say that you can loop the 500 any amount of times, just make sure you have height!
Sadly that man passed away with a low loop.. He would have survived if there was no fire. The 500 is a well built airframe and can take a lot of punishment; hence why it was well proven in vietnam. I'd say that you can loop the 500 any amount of times, just make sure you have height!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF to EC: the Puma Flight Manual says "no aerobatics", what does EC mean by 'aerobatic' exactly?
EC: "Manoeuvres in which the pilot has received special training etc etcetera etc"
RAF: "so if we "specially" trained a Puma pilot to do a loop, that would be OK?
EC: "No, because that would be aerobatic"
RAF: "what does EC mean by 'aerobatic' exactly?"
EC: ""Manoeuvres in which the pilot has received special training etc etcetera etc"
RAF: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhh!"
EC: "Manoeuvres in which the pilot has received special training etc etcetera etc"
RAF: "so if we "specially" trained a Puma pilot to do a loop, that would be OK?
EC: "No, because that would be aerobatic"
RAF: "what does EC mean by 'aerobatic' exactly?"
EC: ""Manoeuvres in which the pilot has received special training etc etcetera etc"
RAF: "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhh!"
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
It used to be universally understood on the squadrons that the aircraft should not be flown outside the envelope over which it had been tested. So if the test pilots hadn't done it, a squadron pilot shouldn't be doing it.
But then again, surely any less than 90 degrees nose up/down or 90 degrees isn't aerobatic....
My Puma HC1 display (where did those last two and a half decades go?) took the aircraft to slightly more than 90 degrees nose up and a bit more nose down. I'm certain I could have looped it because of the Puma's excellent pitch response. On the other hand, the aircraft was quite restricted in roll because of the shim box on the cyclic - you hit a physical stop in lateral movement. This also determined the lateral sloping ground limits because the aircraft could roll against full opposite cyclic on the ground.
But then again, surely any less than 90 degrees nose up/down or 90 degrees isn't aerobatic....
My Puma HC1 display (where did those last two and a half decades go?) took the aircraft to slightly more than 90 degrees nose up and a bit more nose down. I'm certain I could have looped it because of the Puma's excellent pitch response. On the other hand, the aircraft was quite restricted in roll because of the shim box on the cyclic - you hit a physical stop in lateral movement. This also determined the lateral sloping ground limits because the aircraft could roll against full opposite cyclic on the ground.
I believe the BO105 limitations are the same as the BK 117 :
Plus 3.5 g
Minus 1
Somewhat bigger than most helos at +2.7 and +0.5
The minus 1g is to cover big pushovers during terrain flight.
The German army used to regularly do a roll-over and pull-through from 2000' or less. May have even been 1000', it was hard to understand der Cherman Tezt Bilot ve vlew vit. But a -1g bunt raises a lot of dust off the floor and into the eyes - gotta keep a clean house.
Plus 3.5 g
Minus 1
Somewhat bigger than most helos at +2.7 and +0.5
The minus 1g is to cover big pushovers during terrain flight.
The German army used to regularly do a roll-over and pull-through from 2000' or less. May have even been 1000', it was hard to understand der Cherman Tezt Bilot ve vlew vit. But a -1g bunt raises a lot of dust off the floor and into the eyes - gotta keep a clean house.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque, you're not the chap who managed to score the tail pylon with the tail rotor blades by any chance?
Yes, 90 deg roll and pitch, it was in the RTS etc but ISTR that was the UK mil definition of aerobatic manoeuvres. The 330 RFM also contained the no aerobatics restriction and we were interested in what EC thought it was, and whether it was more restrictive than ours.
We gave up trying in the end, after all, it was about to go out of service...
Yes, 90 deg roll and pitch, it was in the RTS etc but ISTR that was the UK mil definition of aerobatic manoeuvres. The 330 RFM also contained the no aerobatics restriction and we were interested in what EC thought it was, and whether it was more restrictive than ours.
We gave up trying in the end, after all, it was about to go out of service...
Last edited by obnoxio f*ckwit; 11th Nov 2013 at 11:04. Reason: Spelling
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
ShyTorque, you're not the chap who managed to score the tail pylon with the rail rotor blades by any chance?
Somewhere, there is a video of the display with my commentary overdubbed for the AOC's perusal but it had mysteriously gone AWOL from Odiham before I could obtain a copy for myself.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
The OSLO made the tail rotor blades impact the pylon. Good display to watch 
I spoke to an EC senior engineer years ago and he said the Puma should not be bunted at all! He also said that the engine idle time for temp stabilisation should be minimum two minutes. EC reduced the time so that the customer would be happier.
I spoke to an EC senior engineer years ago and he said the Puma should not be bunted at all! He also said that the engine idle time for temp stabilisation should be minimum two minutes. EC reduced the time so that the customer would be happier.
