Jump to content

Hovering with 4 adults on 2 seat turbo Rotorway helicopter


Recommended Posts

Back In 2005, then Eurocopter test pilot Didier Delsalle landed an AS350 on top of Mt. Everest. Since that time, no AS350 has landed there again…. So what was the point? The helicopter can go where no one can take it? To land on Everest just because it was there? A dangerous way to prove a meaningless point. Yes, I understand it was a Marketing gimmick to sell helicopters, but, don’t you want to sell helicopters to people who are intelligent enough to understand the specifications of the machine without all the drama? And, BTW, the 350 I fly, can’t even meet those spec's so again, what was the point?

 

In this case, while the product is innovative, technical information should’ve enough to generate interest in the invention. However, I’d suggest to those who need to increase the power of their Rotorway in order to carry 4 people, to simply purchase a more powerful 4 place helicopter….

 

Why would anyone climb Everest? It's not like we can do anything useful up there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for the first time I have to disagree with Spike (partially). Landing on Everest with the Astar was proving to the highest degree that they are far and away the best at building the high altitude leader in the helicopter business. 10 years later Bell is bragging about landing a 407 at base camp some 20k'......so I have to say I think it proves a very relevant point by landing there.

 

Additionally, putting 2 folks on the skids of your rotorway and probing it can HIGE at 2500' or whatever is entirely different and honestly really stupid.

 

And as Forest Gump said "that's all I have to say about that"

 

By first appearances, you’d think it was an achievement. However, that 350 wasn’t your everyday 350… It was modified to perform the task…. Again, what’s the point? To sell helicopters, right? But not “that” helicopter. At least, not until they put some of the parts back on….. And, with the bucket on, 100 degrees Fahrenheit at 2000 ft DA, our B3 struggles. How does landing on Everest prove the B3 is a high altitude machine?

 

Apparently, the 407 landing at 20K was an “off the line”, non-modified, machine. Okay, so Bell and AIRBUS seem to have a Johnson comparison contest going on…. So what.. I’d rather they concentrate on reducing the DOC’s of their machines, parts, products, training or whatever and not attempt to compete in a high altitude circus contest….

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure glad AvBug wasn't around when these guys were...we wouldn't ever even have helicopters...

 

 

A lot of dangerous activities were done in the early years of aviation, in large part because no one knew better, and no better ways of experimentation were known. Today, we know better.

 

The individuals in your video didn't do it for a photo opportunity.

 

Today we act based on a careful, safe approach to any activity, including flight test. We do not do things for the sake of being seen, when a better, safer way can still achieve the same result. "I didn't think you'd believe me" is a piss poor reason for undertaking any flight activity, second only to "here, hold my beer, I want to try something."

 

 

Why would anyone climb Everest? It's not like we can do anything useful up there...

 

Everest has largely become a tourist activity that caters to the rich, and it still sees a number of fatalities that occur for no good reason.

 

Originally it was climbed "because it was there." It's been done. It's been proven. Today, of course, we don't undertake aeronautical activities simply for a photo op, simply to be believed, and without better, empirical bookwork preceding the act, followed, by a safe, graduated cautious approach with a fully written test program. The proof, and the data that is to be delivered, comes from the workup to the test cards, the cards themselves, and the finished data. Not a couple of unsecured kids hanging off the side of a helicopter.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By first appearances, you’d think it was an achievement. However, that 350 wasn’t your everyday 350… It was modified to perform the task…. Again, what’s the point? To sell helicopters, right? But not “that” helicopter. At least, not until they put some of the parts back on….. And, with the bucket on, 100 degrees Fahrenheit at 2000 ft DA, our B3 struggles. How does landing on Everest prove the B3 is a high altitude machine?

 

Apparently, the 407 landing at 20K was an “off the line”, non-modified, machine. Okay, so Bell and AIRBUS seem to have a Johnson comparison contest going on…. So what.. I’d rather they concentrate on reducing the DOC’s of their machines, parts, products, training or whatever and not attempt to compete in a high altitude circus contest….

 

 

I'm not sure how "landing on Everest" doesn't prove the B3 is a high altitude machine! I would be willing to bet my next paycheck that if Bell could find enough parts to strip off that machine so that they could land on the summit they would have! Plus, don't forget, that was a straight B3….they have come up with the E model since then.

 

I'm sure you're right though….it's a measuring contest…but the Astar B2/3 has been rescuing people up there for 25+ years so it's not much of a contest. I would just be impressed if the 407 could fit a full grown man with a helmet on…maybe they should start there?

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bell hater. I'm just very unimpressed with their light machines across the board. That being said, the 205's are in a class all their own :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By first appearances, you’d think it was an achievement. However, that 350 wasn’t your everyday 350… It was modified to perform the task…. Again, what’s the point? To sell helicopters, right? But not “that” helicopter. At least, not until they put some of the parts back on….. And, with the bucket on, 100 degrees Fahrenheit at 2000 ft DA, our B3 struggles. How does landing on Everest prove the B3 is a high altitude machine?

 

Apparently, the 407 landing at 20K was an “off the line”, non-modified, machine. Okay, so Bell and AIRBUS seem to have a Johnson comparison contest going on…. So what.. I’d rather they concentrate on reducing the DOC’s of their machines, parts, products, training or whatever and not attempt to compete in a high altitude circus contest….

The Everest AS350 B3 was a serial production aircraft, so regular Arriel 2B donk, gearboxes and airframe. Did they strip it to minimize weight? Of course! And they also picked an Arriel with strong pass-off margins, just as Bell does whenever it's demo'ing the 407 in the region (I've been involved with several of these tours). Nothing wrong with that.

 

The Everest landings at 29,000 ft (Delsalle performed two 2-minute landings on consecutive days, the second landing being an 'insurance' against the FAI finding any discrepancies with the first) were a significant achievement compared to the everyday operations which the dozen or so H125s in Nepal (Manang, Shree, Simrik, etc.) perform at 20,000 ft, not least due to the wind gusts at that altitude.

 

Good to see Bell engaging in Nepal once again (no 407s operated there right now, only a couple of Government 206Ls). If they do ever try to repeat Delsalle's feat, let's hope they remember to grease all the right palms, to avoid the 'It never happened!' claims that we initially witnessed in 2005.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Everest AS350 B3 was a serial production aircraft, so regular Arriel 2B donk, gearboxes and airframe. Did they strip it to minimize weight? Of course!

 

While I don’t know the airworthiness standards in Napal, that machine would not have met FAA or CAA airworthiness standards because of those “removed” parts. If it’s “modified”, what does it matter how much it’s modified? In short, they “cheated” to perform the stunt. And, IMHO, a stunt is all it was….

 

Kinda like car commercials advertising their product can go from 0 to 60 in 2.3 seconds or has a top speed of 210mph which have dire consequences if you dive them in the same way out in the real world…..

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While I dont know the airworthiness standards in Napal, that machine would not have met FAA or CAA airworthiness standards because of those removed parts. If its modified, what does it matter how much its modified? In short, they cheated to perform the stunt. And, IMHO, a stunt is all it was.

 

Kinda like car commercials advertising their product can go from 0 to 60 in 2.3 seconds or has a top speed of 210mph which have dire consequences if you dive them in the same way out in the real world..

What parts were removed that couldn't be covered by a 337 or an STC?

 

Or just stick it in the "restricted" category...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing parts for a record attempt is pretty standard - remember the altitude record in the Llama, he got to 40,000' before the engine flamed out, but because they had removed the starter motor and the battery after getting it going, he then carried out the world's longest autorotation to the ground.

 

Same with the "Streak Eagle" F-15 time to height record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot of people say it had a lot of parts removed…..literally not one of the people who said that to me knew what parts were removed. One of them actually said the pilot was flying on a milk crate lol (not true). By viewing the video you can see the springs from the skids were gone (not much weight), the china hat from the rotor head (pretty light), and the interior had the pilot seat as the only seat (not that much weight).

 

Also, their test pilot is a BIG dude! He has to be 6'6" and an easy 240 sooooooooo they could have gone and gotten a tiny pilot, would people say "But they had a tiny pilot!"

 

If you want to sell Chinooks over Sky Cranes wouldn't you just go pick up the heaviest thing you could find? Being able to pick 26,000 lbs and landing on Everes prove WHAT the aircraft is capable of….it's no stunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While I don’t know the airworthiness standards in Napal, that machine would not have met FAA or CAA airworthiness standards because of those “removed” parts. If it’s “modified”, what does it matter how much it’s modified? In short, they “cheated” to perform the stunt. And, IMHO, a stunt is all it was….

 

Kinda like car commercials advertising their product can go from 0 to 60 in 2.3 seconds or has a top speed of 210mph which have dire consequences if you dive them in the same way out in the real world…..

The only significant parts removed were the MR dampers, the co-pilot seat and the rear bench seat. OEW was 2,425 lb, i.e. 291 lb below the standard OEW (for that particular aircraft...yes, I know OEW varies from B3 to B3, depending on the exact variant, production line, regional fit, ad nauseum.).

 

Delsalle weighed 176 lb (with O2), and he flew with 231 lb of fuel. TOW was only 2,833 lb, vs. a MGW of 4,960 lb (for that particular aircraft).

 

Next time I see him I'll ask why he forgot to take a bambi with him. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, we all know what parts were removed because we were all there….. Not…

 

What we read and see on the internet and in advertising propaganda is always true… Not….

 

As previously mentioned, in 1972 the same manufacturer took a variant of an older machine to 40K ft… So therefore, Everest should be a piece of cake some 44 years later….. Yup…

 

Straight-n-level, our B3 won’t do VNE…. Nor did any of the e models I’ve flown…..

 

I like Chevys more than Fords but I drive a Toyota……

 

I guess some folks are easily impressed….

 

Maybe this conversation is a world’s record for the most nonsensical thread this site has ever had……

 

I’ll admit, the DVD of the event is cool…..

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Altitude records in helicopters are like speed records in supercars. I'm not paying $800k for a car that doesn't have air conditioning, a stereo, cup holder, or even upholstery, just so it can go 210 mph!

 

Didn't they take the skids off the 22 when they wanted to see how high it would go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...