Red Bull B0-105
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Africa
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread jack but.....
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.
HF
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.
HF
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
CH-53A Aerobatics
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
"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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Africa
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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. 
rf
rf
CH-53A Aerobatics
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
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
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
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.
CH-46As Breaking up in Flight!!! - NOTAM Board
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.
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
Skadi
Red Bull Energy Drink - USA - Red Bull Bo-105 CBS Helicopter - Schedule
Skadi
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
..... 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.
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
skadi
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Jurg Fleischmann flying the BO-105, HB-ZHS photo - Luis Rosa photos at pbase.com
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
... 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