Parking lot full….

[DS_HMMR]

https://vimeo.com/56217352

 

Scroll forward to the 8:00 mark, you'll get a good laugh.

 

Flew out to one of the local businesses that welcome Pilots. Never have I arrived to see another Helo, unless it was part of our group. Instead I find a 500E departing, an Enstrom, and an EC 145 taking up the whole LZ.

 

It does illustrate the point: never take for granted you are "out there" alone.

[RagMan]

Neat video. Regardless, sure do fly a lot of NOE for not being a military pilot and/or aircraft. Sure hope you don't lose an engine down there, otherwise you're toast.

 

Safe flying.

Edited January 9, 2013 by RagMan

[Cineron]

There is no better aircraft for NOE then a BO105 IMHO. As long as he only loses one engine he should be ok.

 

Our 105 is almost ready for some low level pie runs

[DS_HMMR]

Neat video. Regardless, sure do fly a lot of NOE for not being a military pilot and/or aircraft. Sure hope you don't lose both engines down there, otherwise you're toast.

 

Safe flying.

 

 

fixed it for ya.

[ridethisbike]

Nice video for sure, but uh.... what's NOE?

[RagMan]

fixed it for ya.

 

So theres no reduced performance capability with the loss of one of the engines then? Correct? Theres no airspeed requirement for maintaining flight should one of the engines fail? If so, how much altitude can you expect to lose in the event that one of the engines does fail before establishing that single engine airspeed?

 

I'm just curious.

 

 

Nice video for sure, but uh.... what's NOE?

 

Nap of the Earth. It's a flying technique derived from the military back in Vietnam. Basically you fly as low to the ground as you possibly can to avoid detection by the enemy.

[Goldy]

https://vimeo.com/56217352

 

Instead I find a 500E departing, an Enstrom, and an EC 145 taking up the whole LZ.

 

Hmmm, maybe Richard and the guys from SD?

 

Love the video...

[DS_HMMR]

Hmmm, maybe Richard and the guys from SD?

 

most likely, but I could not see into the back seats to see if it was full of camping gear, so……..

 

Love the video...

There is no better aircraft for NOE then a BO105 IMHO. As long as he only loses one engine he should be ok.

 

Our 105 is almost ready for some low level pie runs

Looking forward to seeing it, I have the feeling its going to be a Gorgeous Bird.

[Flying Pig]

Your chick didnt barf. Id say shes a keeper!

[Gomer Pylot]

The BO105 is a pig single-engine. Several went into the water offshore after a single engine failure, because they couldn't maintain altitude even at Vy while single-engine. As long as both engines are operating it's fine, but lose one and you have your hands full.

[DS_HMMR]

The BO105 is a pig single-engine. Several went into the water offshore after a single engine failure, because they couldn't maintain altitude even at Vy while single-engine. As long as both engines are operating it's fine, but lose one and you have your hands full.

 

Gomer, You seem to have a lot of details about crashes in the Gulf that I was not aware of, nor am I finding any reports that are in any way similar to your post above.

 

Which 105's were those? A tail number or SN would be greatly appreciated. All I could find anywhere near "the Gulf" were either no where near the water, and none of those were involving engine failure. The ones I did find that involved "the gulf" are listed below, and even THOSE dont have anything to do with what you wrote above.

 

I'm not alleging you are uniformed, I'm sure I just havent found the facts that support your claim. please help me out, thanks!

 

 

 

 

NI31EH Mechanic error

 

The rod ends were replaced with new ones and reinstalled in the helicopter;

however, the investigation revealed that the mechanic had inadvertently switched the two control

tubes during reassembly. This resulted in an out of rig condition in the cyclic control system.

 

N126EH Pilot error / IIMC

No premishap discrepancies were observed. Deformation signatures throughout the structure and dynamic components of the helicopter showed evidence that the aircraft impacted the water with a high rate of airspeed, near level pitch attitude, and slightly right skid down.

 

 

N916SH Pilot Error

 

Post crash examination of the helicopter showed no evidence of precrash mechanical failure or

malfunction of the helicopter structure, flight control system, electrical system, hydraulic system, main rotor system and transmission,

tail rotor system, and powerplants and drive shafts.

 

 

 

[SBuzzkill]

I've always wondered how much power you have in those. Typically with a 2 person load and normal weather what do you see for hover TQ vs max TQ available?

[DS_HMMR]

I've always wondered how much power you have in those. Typically with a 2 person load and normal weather what do you see for hover TQ vs max TQ available?

 

460PAX and Full fuel, 58% and 64% observed during my last flight (ige/oge)

 

But keep in mind, there are several variants of the 105, and their performance varies greatly.

[SBuzzkill]

With 100% available? That's awesome.

[DS_HMMR]

With 100% available? That's awesome.

 

man, I wish.

 

no, we are only allowed 105%/95% on OEI.

the EOL's are transmission limited, we TL at 86%. and TL at 779 C.

[Dedicated Helicopters Inc]

Hey! I know where your 'LZ' is! I used to go in there all the time to get those delicious pies...I would always park toward the fence, just in case some one else flew in. Nice vid!

[Wally]

NOE is Russian roulette. Ask the Riverton WY Classic Lifeguard crew about last November 15. I don't think the pilot works there anymore. Wires are every-freaking where, power failures don't make me nearly as nervous.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Wally

[Gomer Pylot]

I don't have the NTSB report available, and I'm not sure there were any. The last one I recall was in the early 90s, a PHI ship IIRC, which lost an engine and eventually was put into the water under power, because the pilot couldn't maintain level flight OEI. It wasn't catastrophic, he inflated the floats and put it down gently, in fairly calm seas. It wasn't technically an accident, so I doubt there was an NTSB report. They haven't been used much since about that time, they started being phased out again. They came and went offshore, depending on the current tastes of the customers. Sometimes everyone wanted one, sometimes you couldn't give them away. The customers hated riding in them, because of the vibration on final, and because of the uncomfortable seating & nose-down attitude.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Gomer Pylot

[DS_HMMR]

I don't have the NTSB report available, and I'm not sure there were any. The last one I recall was in the early 90s, a PHI ship IIRC, which lost an engine and eventually was put into the water under power, because the pilot couldn't maintain level flight OEI. It wasn't catastrophic, he inflated the floats and put it down gently, in fairly calm seas. It wasn't technically an accident, so I doubt there was an NTSB report. They haven't been used much since about that time, they started being phased out again. They came and went offshore, depending on the current tastes of the customers. Sometimes everyone wanted one, sometimes you couldn't give them away. The customers hated riding in them, because of the vibration on final, and because of the uncomfortable seating & nose-down attitude.

 

Well, I suppose anything can happen if your'e improperly trained, or stupid, or just plain lazy.

 

1. We fixed our seating position with new contoured foam from the local aircraft interior shop. …Wasn't rocket science.

2. The only reason a 105 "vibrates on final", is due to Pilot error / being a lazy-ass. It's so easy to fix, you'll laugh.

 

As far as being "a pig", I've never met an actual 105 pilot who though so. Now, I've READ on the interwebs a few people's stories about how they were high time 105 pilots and what they disliked about the 105, but to me I offer this example.

 

On the day of delivery of our bird, I was talking with the pilot who had flown our bird for the previous 10 years. As he spoke about not being able to fly her any more, his face got red as he was having a controlled, but emotional response. And, that was good enough for me.

 

If you are more of a "numbers" guy: the performance is nearly identical to the 500-E. Let's compare!

 

 

 

 

BO 105 Crew 1 Pilot 5 Passengers Rotor Diameter 32.27 Ft

Overall height to top of Rotor head 9.84 Ft Cabin Dimension: - -

Length 38.90 Ft

Height 9.84 Ft

Width 5.18 Ft WEIGHT VALUES Pounds

Empty Weight 2807.2 lbs

Take-off Weight 5500 lbs

Maximum Cargo 1 520.2 lbs ENGINES

Number of Engines 2

Type of Engines Allison 250-C20B

Power 313kW/420shp PERFORMANCE

Maximum Speed 150 kts

Cruise Speed 134 kts

Range on Internal Fuel 310 nm

Endurance on Internal Fuel 2 Hrs 10 min

Range with Auxiliry Fuel Tanks 600 nm Endurance with Auxiliary Fuel Tanks 4 Hrs 15 Min

Hover Ceiling IGE 2 560 M

Service Ceiling 16 990 Ft

 

 

MD500D

Crew: 1-2

• Capacity: 5 total
  
• Length: 30 ft 10 in (9.4 m)
  
• Rotor diameter: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
  
• Height: 8 ft 2 in (2.48 m)
  
• Empty weight: 1,088 lb (493 kg)
  
• Max takeoff weight: 2,250 lb (1,157 kg)
  
• Powerplant: 1× Allison 250-C20 Turboshaft, 278 hp (207 kW)
  

Performance

• Maximum speed: 152 knots (175 mph, 282 km/h)
  
• Cruise speed: 125 kn (144 mph, 232 km/h)
  
• Range: 375 mi (605 km)
  
• Service ceiling: 16,000 ft (4,875 m)
  
• Rate of climb: 1,700 ft/min (8.6 m/s)
  

Edited January 9, 2013 by DS_HMMR

[500F]

Is 2807 a typical empty weight or has your 105 been on Jenny Craig?

I'm curious how you fix the shudder on approach. I've flown in BO-105s but never flown one.

 

I think Gomer said they are a pig on one engine.

Load that 500D to 5000-5500lbs. and I bet she will be a pig as well!

 

Where did those 500D weight #s come from.

Max Takeoff weight on a 500D is 3000 internal or 3550 (external)

Empty weight should be in the ballpark of 1600-1800 depending on configuration

[Wally]

BO 105 seem to be very polarizing, you either love them or hate them. I never flew'em, but lots of time in Twinstars (12 years and 5000 hours). I remember well being told that a heavy Twinstar (AS 355F1) would get you to the beach OEI at cruise altitudes, if you had fuel, but only relatively light 105 would do so.

Harry agreed, and he should know. RIP, Harry.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Wally

[DS_HMMR]

Is 2807 a typical empty weight or has your 105 been on Jenny Craig?

I'm curious how you fix the shudder on approach. I've flown in BO-105s but never flown one.

 

I think Gomer said they are a pig on one engine.

Load that 500D to 5000-5500lbs. and I bet she will be a pig as well!

 

Where did those 500D weight #s come from.

Max Takeoff weight on a 500D is 3000 internal or 3550 (external)

Empty weight should be in the ballpark of 1600-1800 depending on configuration

 

I couldnt say what is typical, ours is pretty decked out, but we dont have what we dont need.

 

But yes, I suppose 180fpm/OEI isnt "spirited performance", but its also not "cant maintain altitude".

 

re. the 500 figures. yeah, those dont look right to me either. It's probably "c" model specs. let me look for D or E specs.

 

E specs

Edited January 10, 2013 by DS_HMMR

[Nearly Retired]

With about 2,500 hours in 105's I can speak to this issue.

 

But yes, I suppose 180fpm/OEI isnt "spirited performance", but its also not "cant maintain altitude".

 

 

No, 180 fpm up isn't much. And it can *easily* turn into 180 fpm down. Depends on the motor that stays running. Bolkows run hot. The TOT limits for the C-20B's in them are higher than THE EXACT SAME ENGINE when mounted in a 206B. I asked PHI's training department about this once. I said, "Could we run our 206B's at these temps?" The light-ship instructor looked at me, shrugged, and said, "I guess we could..."

 

So you lose an engine in a Bolkow and pull the good one up to a redline. Probably the TOT redline if it's summertime. That *may* or *may not* give you your max OEI torque. Or maybe it gives you "this close" to it "plus or minus." Maybe the engine is just tired enough that the promised 180 fpm up doesn't exist. The way the intake plenum on the Bolkow is designed, you don't get any reduction in TOT as you increase airspeed like you do in a 206.

 

We 105 pilots knew that above certain AUW (all-up weights) and above certain OAT's, the best you could hope for was about a 180 fpm descent. Fortunately, OAT's in the GOM usually...*usually* I say, didn't get up that high (from memory I'm thinking it had to be above, like, 35C but don't quote me). And although we often flew around heavy, you really had to be above like 5,200 pounds (again, don't quote me - it's been a while) for an engine failure to be a problem. I don't remember the exact numbers, but what I *do* remember is knowing that unless I was really heavy and it was really hot out, I could be fairly assured of being able to maintain S&L.

 

I vowed to myself that if push came to shove and an engine quit at the worst possible time, I'd pull the good engine until I got N1 topping even if it meant horrendously overtemping it. Then I'd reduce power once I had some altitude and 60 knots. At least, that was the fantasy.

 

With an engine out you had to be super-accurate on the airspeed. 58 knots was the number, actually, period. A couple high or a couple low and you were going down. And once it was started downhill you probably weren't gonna get much of it back.

 

Wally is correct about Bolkows that wouldn't maintain on one engine. It didn't always result in an NTSB reportable accident.

 

On a lighter note....

 

While I loved flying the 105, it had some flaws. The 10 to 12-degree nose-down attitude in cruise, for one thing. Hated that. And nothing you can do to the seat cushions will change it. My neck still hurts.

 

And the lack of *any* sort of stability in cruise flight was annoying. I timed it in most of the Bolkows I flew - perfectly trimmed up, the best I could get out of any of them was 7-seconds hands-off before it tried to turn itself upside down. Some were less than that. Made a 206 seem like it was riding on rails.

 

Der Bolkow became one of my favorite aircraft of all time - right up there with my beloved 206. Every 105 I ever flew (which was just about all of the ones PHI had at the time) did 120 knots at 80% torque with 10-degrees nose-down and a gallon-per-minute. You could take those numbers to the bank. Some pilots suggested flying at 70% torque on long flights, but I figured why prolong the agony?

 

Great bird. Tough bird. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

[iChris]

re. the 500 figures. yeah, those dont look right to me either. It's probably "c" model specs. let me look for D or E specs.

The early 500/500C with the 250-C18B/250-C20 had max gross int. 2,550 & max gross ext. 3,000

 

The 500D with the 250-C20B, max int 3,000 max ext. 3,550

 

Or by ser#

 

Maximum gross weight:

369HE/HS, S/N 0001 thru 0100:

Maximum gross weight is 2400 pounds.

 

369HE/HS, S/N 0101 and subs

Maximum gross weight is 2550 pounds.

Edited January 10, 2013 by iChris

[DS_HMMR]

With about 2,500 hours in 105's I can speak to this issue.

 

 

 

 

No, 180 fpm up isn't much. And it can *easily* turn into 180 fpm down. Depends on the motor that stays running. Bolkows run hot. The TOT limits for the C-20B's in them are higher than THE EXACT SAME ENGINE when mounted in a 206B. I asked PHI's training department about this once. I said, "Could we run our 206B's at these temps?" The light-ship instructor looked at me, shrugged, and said, "I guess we could..."

 

So you lose an engine in a Bolkow and pull the good one up to a redline. Probably the TOT redline if it's summertime. That *may* or *may not* give you your max OEI torque. Or maybe it gives you "this close" to it "plus or minus." Maybe the engine is just tired enough that the promised 180 fpm up doesn't exist. The way the intake plenum on the Bolkow is designed, you don't get any reduction in TOT as you increase airspeed like you do in a 206.

 

We 105 pilots knew that above certain AUW (all-up weights) and above certain OAT's, the best you could hope for was about a 180 fpm descent. Fortunately, OAT's in the GOM usually...*usually* I say, didn't get up that high (from memory I'm thinking it had to be above, like, 35C but don't quote me). And although we often flew around heavy, you really had to be above like 5,200 pounds (again, don't quote me - it's been a while) for an engine failure to be a problem. I don't remember the exact numbers, but what I *do* remember is knowing that unless I was really heavy and it was really hot out, I could be fairly assured of being able to maintain S&L.

 

I vowed to myself that if push came to shove and an engine quit at the worst possible time, I'd pull the good engine until I got N1 topping even if it meant horrendously overtemping it. Then I'd reduce power once I had some altitude and 60 knots. At least, that was the fantasy.

 

With an engine out you had to be super-accurate on the airspeed. 58 knots was the number, actually, period. A couple high or a couple low and you were going down. And once it was started downhill you probably weren't gonna get much of it back.

 

Wally is correct about Bolkows that wouldn't maintain on one engine. It didn't always result in an NTSB reportable accident.

 

On a lighter note....

 

While I loved flying the 105, it had some flaws. The 10 to 12-degree nose-down attitude in cruise, for one thing. Hated that. And nothing you can do to the seat cushions will change it. My neck still hurts.

 

And the lack of *any* sort of stability in cruise flight was annoying. I timed it in most of the Bolkows I flew - perfectly trimmed up, the best I could get out of any of them was 7-seconds hands-off before it tried to turn itself upside down. Some were less than that. Made a 206 seem like it was riding on rails.

 

Der Bolkow became one of my favorite aircraft of all time - right up there with my beloved 206. Every 105 I ever flew (which was just about all of the ones PHI had at the time) did 120 knots at 80% torque with 10-degrees nose-down and a gallon-per-minute. You could take those numbers to the bank. Some pilots suggested flying at 70% torque on long flights, but I figured why prolong the agony?

 

Great bird. Tough bird. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

 

great input, thank you!

 

Which 105's did you fly? Based on your record, it looks like you were in the CBS-4's

 

Did you get any time in the Super Five's or the LS's?