212Man, I just watched a show on the Comanche, and one of the test beds was what looked like a 76, but it had a version of the Comanche's fan tail. They showed it doing rolls and looping, as well as showing the 53 doing a roll. That is what I call impressive !! :)

As for any civilian ships doing any of those maneuvers, well only heard rumours. Most of them including the 500. Can't think of any operational need for doing either, except for that one-in-a-million emergency.

Oh well that's my 2 cents worth.

Cheers !!!

Randy_G

BTW Ewan, my tip on learning aerobatics; go find a reputable seized rotor (uh fixed wing I think they might also be called :)) aerobatic flight school, and go up with a qualified instructor. Learn in something designed for it, and with someone trained to instruct aerobatics as well.


If you can't stand the heat...

then turn up the airconditioner !!! :)


[This message has been edited by Randy_g (edited 07 January 2001).]

Yes, Sikorsky did trial a fenestron version of the 76, I think it was going to be called the 'D' (but don't quote me). The film I have seen was of a standard 76, but in military trim (some forces use them eg Phillipines) and it was doing all manner of things.

I agree Dennis Kenyon has a spectacular show, but how prudent some of his manouevres are is a moot point I think.

------------------
Another day in paradise

widgeon - yup, you're right about a Westlands test pilot bending a Lynx during a slow roll - must have been late '72 or very early '73. He didn't continue in that employment(!) and I ended up working for him in '73 on a new offshore operation. He later went on to work for a rather well known Gas exploration company in a senior aviation role.

I must agree with the remarks about Dennis Kenyon - I have never seen a helicopter display like it and have to admit turning away during some of the manoeuvres as I hate seeing helicopters crash - but he always seem to pull it off.

Larry, here goes.

I'd say handling and agility are similar, though with hydraulic controls the Gazelle is perhaps a bit easier to fling around. Both are smooth in the cruise and vibs only go up when you try to go too fast. Neither will realistically cruise over 120Kt.

Both have stacks of power, but you'd have to look at manufacturers figures to see how much fuel you can carry with all seats full.

Regarding full seats, the Gaz has a decent sized cargo compartment even for 4 people's luggage, the H500 has none. Not even room for a toothbrush. Also rear pax have a pretty grim time in the Hughes. Its cramped, noisy and vis is poor. If you want to carry 4/5 people it has to be the Gaz, 3 in front in the Hughes is too cosy. The 'one cabin' layout of the Gaz is far better for pax, it also scores with easy access due low floor hight, getting into a H500 even on "low" skids is a three step climb, high skids makes it mountaineering. That said the Gaz is a lousy charter machine as the seating is still very military and the cabin nowhere near the comfort levels of even a JetRanger.

Gaz loses heavily on it's engine. The Astazou is a fine engine and far more robust than the Alison, but it time-exs at 2200hrs if memory serves and the cost of a recon one (if you can find one) is egual to the total value of the machine, so the economics just dont stack up. Parts may be a problem with the Gaz, few were made for civvy street and there may be certification/compatability problems on some items. DOC of the Gaz is said to be as high as a Twin Squirrel, H500 is pretty cheap to run (no hudraulics and good spares availability)

I always liked the ability of the Gaz to stop the rotor with the engine running, the disk is too low for rotors-running changes anyway. Fenestron is safer than a tail rotor and the ogre of fenestron stall is much overplayed as it is extremely rare even when provoked.

If I had enough money to buy a helicopter I would not have either, a Single Squirrel is leagues ahead in every respect. For practicality I think a B206 beats both too.

However if I had to chose I would prefer the Gaz, cos if I was that rich the cost of a new engine would not matter too much!

Does that answer the question?

Oh, and if you ever get one, can I come for a ride?

To 212MAN:
Yes ,Sikorsky built a Fantail(Fenstron)
equipped S-76B but it was only a test bed for the commanche program. Nick Lappos (Sikorsky Test Pilot) said they needed to put put a couple hundred pounds of weight in the nose to keep it within CG.I don`t think Sikorsky expected to put a Fantail S-76 into production. As a matter of fact there`s
a new "quiet" tail rotor design that`s supposed to be incorporated into the S-76 in the (near)future.At least thats what some Sikorsky people told me.
Ive seen a photo from about 1995 of a Bell 230 with a prototype "Fenstron".
Ive also seen a AS-350 with a fenstron ,
i didnt know about it till i saw a picture
(if anyone wants to see the pic let me know and ill post a link).
Finally ive heard about a Puma testing a Fenstron but havent seen a picture but i have seen a artists rendering of a Super Puma with a Fenstron.From what i understand the weight penalty and power requirements of a Fenstron in this large a helicopter is to high to be economical.

Pinger
Thank you very much for your thoughts.
every thing you said is pretty much what i thought. Really the best bet is a Jetranger because its almost like owning a Ford ,
easy to get parts and everybody can fix it.
The Squirel (or as we call it ASTAR , unless it powered by the Lycoming 101 then its called an Exploding Star !!))
is actually very popular in the Los Angeles area as LA City Police fly them and all the
TV Stations fly AS-350s for ENG. There are
also many used for Private/commercial use.
Finding people to repair the AS-350 and
obtaining parts is quite easy.
The Gazelle has always been exotic around here and is getting more so.Parts are not impossible to find but can take time to receive. Its not a good commercial machine but im looking for one for private use with the intention of flying about 150 hours a year. With this usage an engine with 750 hours remaining will last 5 years. (the overhaul time on the Civil 341Gs engine is
1750 hours). I hear the engines are near bullet proof and go to TBO if not abused.

The 500 series is extremely popular with
police operations in Southern California and id say 80 percent of Police Helicopters are
either 500Es or the Notar( the 520 NOTAR is
terribly underpowered considering tempratures
stay between 70-80degrees during the year and
90-105 degrees during the summer). A few Depts fly the 530F and it has performance to spare even during summer and desert operations.
Parts and maintenance on a 500E is no problem around here.The Cockpit is a bit tight and sitting in the back is not fun nor comfortable.
But the 500E is much more sporty then a 206B and is much faster.

Its looking more and more like the Jetranger is the most resonable machine for
personal use.
But the Gazelle has it all , Beauty ,
, speed ,power ,decent cabin and is very exotic but i believe im about 15 years late for it to be resonable to own without breaking the bank.
The AS-350 would be of interest but the prices are just to high , as is the Bell 407.
Both would be at the top of my list if they were more affordable.

Here is the AS350Z, with the fenestron. It just so happens that our Eurocopter rep e-mailed this picture the other day!
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lionel.lapor...euil/fwgmq.jpg

Sikorsky also installed a fenestron to a modified S-67 Blackhawk. The machine was configured with S61 components, so the tail looked abnormally long and skinny, but was flown successfully.



[This message has been edited by Cyclic Hotline (edited 07 January 2001).]

Ewan - getting back to the original thread - don't even think of trying it yourself - yes some helicopters can be looped and rolled but unlike a fixed wing aircraft the fatigue penalties on the airframe are impossible to calculate without having a fully instrumented aircraft. You might survive a loop or 2 but what happens when the next guy gets in and the intermediate gearbox seizes or the tail rotor fails? Helicopters are not designed to operate in this manner even though some, like the Lynx are particularly good at it (try finding another helicopter that can backflip from 1000').
As someone else suggested - try a fixed wing if you want to aerobat.

Larry

Sikorsky are indeed coming out with a new "quiet" tail rotor on the S76 in the near future. It seems that they need to be able to compete with the 139 and the 155 with the S76 which is now well over 20 years old (and a very fine helicopter)

Latest product briefings have outlined several improvements including the quiet tail rotor, sensible move, as I believe that environmental and noise concerns are one of the biggest hurdles to be overcome by helicopters if we are all to have a long term viable and sustainable industry.

Cyclic
Do you know when the Fenstron was tested
on the AS-350Z and will it be incorporated
into the new EC-130/AS-350 ?
I saw a EC-120 operated by the San Bernardino Sheriffs Dept.a few months ago and was VERY impressed with the quietness of the helicopter itself and the fenstron in particular.
I was expecting to hear a AS-365 howl or a Gazelles whine but instead it was as quiet as the MD-520N "Notar" taking off beside it.
If Eurocopter can do the same with the AS-350/EC-130 they`ll have another helicopter perfect for the Law enforcement , ENG ,Tour
and other markets requiring low noise levels.

Now if Bell can quiet down the 407 !! That is one annoying Police helicopter when it circles your house at 2am......LAPD had four
for 4 years.....now replaced with the slightly quieter AS-350B-2 ASTARs.

To: Larry

Speaking of quiet helicopters, when I worked on the Apache program Hughes was developing a “Quiet helicopter for DARPA (a scientific government organization). They took an H-500 and mounted it on a framework. They had the capability of cutting the rotor drive and tail rotor drive and connect them into a dynamometer. They could also run it as a conventional helicopter running both the main and tail rotor pulling pitch in both. The purpose of these tests was to determine what generated noise and at what amplitude and frequency.

After collecting these data they incorporated fixes on the airframe so it would not vibrate and broadcast the vibrations at the various frequencies into the surrounding air. They incorporated a five-blade rotor head and incorporated an X tail rotor, which allowed them to cut the rotational speed of the rotor and tail rotor. They then put a muffler on the engine exhaust and started to fly it.

The helicopter flew about five hundred feet above the other onlookers and me and it was just like Airwolf. All you could hear was whoosh. No blade noise, no tail rotor noise and no engine noise.


------------------
The Cat

larry..........> ec130???

Whatsarunway:

EC-130 is the new designation for the
AS-350 and is supposed to be unveiled in february at the HAI Helicopter show in Anahiem Calif.Im not sure what will be new about the helicopter but im going to the show and will post what i learn ASAP.

Might it have a Fenstron ????

Larry

Greetings gents,

W.r.t. the thread...the only machines that I have personally seen doing any form of aerobatics where back in S.A where I saw my instructor do consecutive roll's in a BK117 and on another occasion I was witness to the ROOIVALK doing a barrel roll followed by a loop.This is part of it's demo that it does at airshows all over the world. Also included in it's demo is a 60 -70 knot climb out..backwards !!! and a demo of sideways flight at the same speed...

Not to shabby huh ?

Interesting thread by the way.

Cheers.

------------------
** To hover is devine but to MOO is bovine **

Using the thought process of:

"Well we might aswell show you this because you'd only kill yourself if you tried it first..."
Once you were Combat Ready in NI, you were dragged off and shown what Walter was actually capable off...quite an eye opener (all of them)! Needless-to-say - no one is going to admit to looping a non-rigid-anything RAF helicopter but it could pass the time of day when you're waiting for Uncle Dermot's Rifles to finish their cup of tea at the local farmhouse!

The S-52 was the first sikorsky to loop. It was in 1949, and the pilot was Harold "Tommy" thompson, he's still alive and has footage the loops. Funny thing, the FAA (then CAA) didn't like what he did and they took his license away, but only for a few days.

I have also read that a Piasecki tandem looped successfully sometime in the late 40s due to a mechanical malfuction.

As for gyros, I've seen old black and white footage of the old gyros with wings tail and fabric covered blades doing consecutive loops at low level.

If any of you has ever seen a good model helicopter pilot fly, then you know that a helicopter is capable of almost any maneuver you can think of if the aircraft is properly designed and rigged. Obviously none of the people out there designing and building full size helicopters seem to find it of much value or they would have built something by now.

It is not illegal to do aerobatics in all helicopters. You can do anything you want if you certify the aircraft in the experimental category.

It seems to me that people in the helicopter industry shy away from this aerobatic stuff. Just look at all of the responses on this forum. I'm not saying anyone should go do aerobatics, the aircraft just aren't designed for it. But what if this same subject was brought up concerning fixed wing? We'd be talking about Pitts specials, extras, eagles, sukois and all kinds of homebuilts. And all of the maneuvers we've done and techniques. The fact is fixed wing aerobatics aren't anymore useful or easier to make happen than rotory winged aerobatics. The only reason we rotorheads are not out flying upside down is that no one makes any helicopter equivilants to a pitts or an extra.

[This message has been edited by helisphere (edited 14 January 2001).]

Just heresay but someone told me that the EC-130 was supposed to be much faster, like 150kt cruise. I guess they wanna outrun the 407.

there was a joke going around that the mod kit for the 407 AD included a blanking decal to blank out the 0 in the 407 as the performance after the AD was close to the old 47.

In answer to the original question. I have looped and barrel rolled Lynx.

My advice? If you want to do it, find a way of doing it legally and with someone who has proper experience of the manoeuvres. I would strongly recommend you do not do it without the above, otherwise check your life insurance and don't make any holiday plans.

I used to display a military (7.4 tonne green plastic) helicopter. My brief was that aerobatics were anything more than 90 degrees of pitch or roll and were not to be done. Some of the manoeuvres we worked up to were quite a bit more than those limits, but the display was cleared by the hierarchy). It was obvious to me that the aircraft was quite capable of looping but rolling was less certain because of physical limits to lateral cyclic movement; on some manoeuvres I used to hit the lateral stops. After I moved on my sequence was used by other pilots. The display was banned after two pilots had nasties with the tail rotor hitting the tail cone (not theoretically possible due to hinge limits). That confirmed we had taken things as far as they could go with that aircraft. People said it looked good from the ground anyway.

After I had moved on to more aerobatic fixed-wing things I was invited to attend a display flight safety briefing at fixed wing CFS. A Westlands video of a Lynx looping and rolling was well received BUT! The Westlands rep stood up and pointed out that the aircraft had suffered gearbox damage as a result. He strongly stated that the Lynx aircraft should NOT be flown like this without factory supervision as damage would occur.