The Bristol Belvedere 192

The Bristol Type 192 Belvedere is a British twin-engine, tandem rotor military helicopter built by the Bristol Aeroplane Company. It was designed by Raoul Hafner for a variety of transport roles including troop transport, supply dropping and casualty evacuation. It was operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF) from 1961 to 1969. The Belvedere was Britain's only tandem rotor helicopter to enter production, and one of the few not built by Boeing or Piasecki. As with the Sycamore, Westland became responsible for all in-service support until the type was withdrawn from service in 1969.
Aircraft Type: Belvedere 192
Circa: 1964

[@josephinebennington7247]

I still have a Dinky Bristol 173 from childhood, (now 7 decades away)

[@derekstocker6661]

Brilliant old documentary, the music and the narration was from a bygone age but such a wonderful bit of Brit engineering when Britain was really "great".

[@BritishHelicoptersHistory]

Thank you for watching, glad you enjoyed it!

[@nathonhamilton4524]

what wonderful aircraft britain used to make.

[@KENKENNIFF]

I bet the chap who flew this was a ruddy good bloke

[@stejac51]

.... had a work mate who flew these with the RAF .. told me the controls were by and large cable runs that used to flex alarmingly and needed constant adjustments ... SCARY !!

[@paulchapman7169]

When I joined WHL Future Projects in '84 I shared an office with John Jupe. John had been the previous HoFP at WHL although he had been at Bristols and had worked with Hafner on the development of the Belvedere and 173. When the thing had the initial V-tail it suffered from a nose down pitch during transition. John did the analysis and came up with the inverse elliptic anhedral tail which provided the cure and which was adopted in various guises. John also sorted out the ground resonance problem....he was a genius!

[@morgandude2]

Lots of Airfix Vintage Classics here, SRN-1 at 6.32....Bristol Bloodhound at 7.18.

[@petermallia558]

This would've been a great success if successive governments didn't bow down to US pressure because of our debts from WWII through lend lease, this aircraft would been continually upgraded and redesigned right through until today, but as I said US pressure to buy US military equipment at a cut price based on our special relationship, which in many occasions have caused the UK economy to suffer because of it, same with the TSR-2 being cancelled in favour of the lesser F111 Aardvark from General Dynamics although the acquisition of that aircraft was also cancelled for a joint program for the Panavia Tornado, an awesome aircraft, could've had a better radar for the ADV though, a new one instead and of developing a ground attack optimised radar in to an air defense, air to air radar. Another Very good old look at British technology history, when we were at the forefront of it all, leading the world, we will again. 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[@Hoverfiles]

Nice video, the best one on the Belvedere thus far

[@ritchienegrea5779]

One scary machine unpredictable... those pilots where true heroes

[@elephantcompany6061]

I wouldn't call them heroes just cause they can fly a helicopter.

[@kingofaesthetics9407]

​@@elephantcompany6061They're more heroic than you'll ever be.

[@oxcart4172]

There was an article about these in a Flypast from a year or 2 ago by a former pilot. He asked another pilot if he had flown one- he replied: "flown one? I wouldn't walk underneath one!"

[@thecorbies]

And presumably he WOULD have walked under a Chinook?

[@user-rc1ke1ef3t]

Lovely video. Thanks.

[@ditzydoo4378]

the film makes the claim to being the first true twin turbine engine tandem helicopter. It flew first in July of 1958, but it was the CH46 SeaKnight made by Boeing Vertol, first flight was 22 April 1958 (V-107) that was the first twin turbine/twin tandem rotor to fly.

[@CaptainBuzzBee]

Great content. Thanks for putting jt up.

[@BritishHelicoptersHistory]

Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!

[@drmoss_ca]

Oh, I miss those days!

[@GilbertdeClare0704]

me too, when being proud was OK

[@jonathanj.7344]

When we were sure if we were male or female and didn't need a face mask to go shopping.

[@bobingram6912]

Often wondered how these things stayed aloft, let alone lift anything, they never looked "beefy" enough and stick thin. At the time e.g. Farnborough, they were a thrilling sight and British!!!

[@myperspective5091]

That is one that I have not seen before 👍

[@davidchristensen2970]

I sometimes wonder how successful a design such as the Bristol shown in this video could be if updated with modern power and materials.

[@nipponhouseplayer]

They were all made to last and were strong! We destroy our resources! It has to be greed!

[@jmcfintona999]

Chinook is how. Even the US marine Sea Knight was superior Both are from the early 60s

[@nipponhouseplayer]

@@jmcfintona999 two different machines from two different cultures. Its turning 8 blades and no computer where the 46 flys like an angel until the flight computer is turned off.

[@jmcfintona999]

@@nipponhouseplayer ok but were they both not litteraly from a time before computers? To me it looks like a British competitor to the H21 when the US had already moved on to the Chinnock and sea Knight.

[@nipponhouseplayer]

@@jmcfintona999 i can only speak for the 46, it was a 1960 flight computer that was ahead of its time and now we are integrating digital components which actually have different functionality actions that the original pilots have to adapt to on the fly while re tuning the pilots muscle memory to be able to cope with the machines management behaviors . The idiosyncrasies of handling a lion in a caged circus show for example!

[@flybobbie1449]

Manchester science museum has one.

[@nacerkhamou3149]

great 💖💖💖

[@martiniv8924]

Randomly here, I seem to remember as a kid these had a bad reputation. I Also remember building the Airfix model 🤔

[@dandare2586]

Me too, I also made the Airfix Vertol 107, which seemed much more "military" than this!

[@bobingram6912]

Airfix kit nearly as spindly as the real thing!!! A trip to good old Woollies with saved up pocket money!!!

[@CrusaderSports250]

@@bobingram6912 that one came in a box! it had to be a special purchase, the two and six plastic bag jobs were our stock in trade, to be built on the bedroom floor, and maybe even painted, still have a glass paint pot from Airfix, (light stone, bought to paint my Hercules model), simpler times when flying cars and living on the moon would be at the start of the twenty first century.☺.

[@elephantcompany6061]

Oh those crazy britts

[@stallagiardino7877]

That, and the Sycamore have a very interesting, clean and compact rotor head design. I wonder why they never continued with it.

[@DavidSkertchly]

Britain was broke, the IMF loans required to keep Britain from going broke required Britain to cut its defence spending by buying American.

[@maxbodymass6288]

Fact that the entry and exit door being 12 feet of the ground and no ladder provided also no rear ramp door never mind the engineering, getting in or out was going to be interesting to say the least. Just a note one of my work colleagues was called Belvedere she was named after this aircraft.

[@voivod6871]

@@maxbodymass6288 I think was refering to just the rotor head design not the Belvedere itself.

[@tommcewan7936]

@@DavidSkertchly buying American unfortunately meant a nett flow of money out of the UK, instead of stimulating secondary growth by recirculating within the nation's own economy. Seemingly lower short-term costs that bled us out in the long-term.

[@benj5386]

Such a short service life.

[@andrewbirch5738]

They only had a air frame life of about 1600 hours, due to metal fatigue issues. And I get strong impression that the air crews weren't overly fond of them either.

[@flick22601]

I wonder how long those engines would last in the real world with those huge intakes just inches above the ground.

[@Alex-cc2sw]

So strange choice.

[@flick22601]

I must have been looking at it the wrong way at 2:56. Evidently it is the exhaust that exits under the fuselage. My bad.

[@user-xd8hm6jw7p]

Чинук по сей день летает и практически без катастроф.

[@guaporeturns9472]

Pre-dates the Chinook? Interesting. Cool video.

[@benters3509]

Back in the day when the British army HAD eighteen fully armed troops!

[@nicks4934]

Richard Baker narrates.

[@frostyfrost4094]

I can remember watching as a nipper these at Odiham.

[@Tinker1950]

Is that Richard Baker doing the voiceover?

[@wayinfront1]

Definitely.

[@AtheistOrphan]

Certainly sounds like it.

[@DrivermanO]

Sounds like it to me, but last time I said that I was wrong! It was Robert Dougal, but this time I think you're right!

[@thecorbies]

@pocketjohnson Could well have been Baker, but DEFINITELY not Baxter.

[@bigblue6917]

Apparently the worse place for vibration on this helicopter was right below the pilots seat. Which must have been fun.

[@leoncharlesworth8108]

We had these for transportation in Malaysia you had to hang on during takeoff or you would slide down to the cockpit, Lot better that bashing in the jungle but. Ex Sapper.

[@waltermitty5883]

Malaya

[@nicky331]

Chinook followed, it looks so similar

[@calistusebere1770]

Yes 👍 you are correct

[@calistusebere1770]

Yes 👍 you are correct

[@mh53j]

Other than the fact it has the two rotor assemblies on top, it's not at all like a Chinook. Engine arrangement, crew/cargo doors (especially the rear cargo door on Chinook), cockpit not accessible from the main cabin, landing gear arrangement, low stance of Chinook to allow easier loading vs high stance of the Belvedere requiring a ladder to get in....

[@andriandrason1318]

The Chinook stems from Piasecki HRP-1 "flying banana", this one looks very similar.

[@VaucluseVanguard]

The Mark A Chinook was a contemporary - it flew faster, higher, carried twice as much and had the big rear ramp. No competition really. That's why 26 Belvededes were built an currently over 1,400 CH47. A refelection of the US tendency to think big and the UK's to think too small!

[@uingaeoc3905]

Can anyone explain just why the front landing gear was higher than that at the rear - it seems impractical not to match them?

[@hackerwaffle]

because when the helicopter is fully level there’s a slight natural forward motion that occurs due to the rear rotor being higher than the front rotor. taking off at this slight backwards angle allows for a fully vertical liftoff as opposed to a slow forward moving one which is a lot more practical for landing in limited spaces.

[@mrtomdorn]

No stairs to get in.

[@sgtg4600]

What has happened to us and our country?

[@abbush2921]

Greed of our political , economic and social elites .

[@magna4100]

Who have YOU been voting for, then?

[@paulsky54]

Very interesting. What were its shortcomings that it only served for 8 years and was built in relatively small numbers?

[@sandemike]

Was hated by its pilots and nearly caused a mutiny with RAF pilots in the Far East.

[@andrewbirch5738]

They only had a air frame life of about 1600 hours, due to metal fatigue issues.

[@EuroScot2023]

Basically a poorly engineered design. They shook themselves to pieces.

[@dandare2586]

Lasted 8 years only, because American counter parts were much better. Same with the Beverly, which was in service until 67, unlike its US counterpart the Lockheed Hercules........you know the rest 😞

[@naughtyUphillboy]

I wonder little we have progressed in terms of helicopter in past 50-60 years......

[@wolfmanradio]

Yes, humanity has seemingly plateaued technologically, and perhaps regressed mentally and socially. Most everything now is simply minor improvements on existing 1950s-1960s technology.

[@naughtyUphillboy]

@@wolfmanradio YES, advances in electronics are appreciable.........but rocket , aircrafts......I mean mechanical systems.........even cars......all seems to be very minor..........fastest helicopter, fastest aircraft ................everything is in past

[@stallagiardino7877]

@@wolfmanradio It can’t be denied that there was an amazing confidence back then, anything seemed possible and they were happy to try out something new. The leap in technology between 1940 and 1970 was simply huge, we have seen nothing like it since. I’m that old that I can remember seeing these and the Fairey Rotodyne flying!

[@thedave7760]

What are you talking about? We now have sliding doors on helicopters. lol

[@andriandrason1318]

I do believe the emergence of drones has kick started a new era.

[@chris-vn6sw]

I wonder were the US took the idea from for the chinook 🤔🤔

[@Dick_Kickem69]

The US was testing tandem rotor helicopters in 1945 and adopted one in 1947 from Piasecki, the same company that would eventually become Boeing-Vertol and make the Chinook. By comparison the Belvedere was adopted in 1961 and based on a prototype that first flew in 1952. So actually, the britbongs are the ones that stole this idea from America. lmao @ yuropoors.

[@thecorbies]

@@Dick_Kickem69 Hmmm, maybe, but did you ever hear of the shared technology program between Britain and the US? We gave them all the info WE had, and they gave us bugger all. Check out Miles M52 which Britain designed, and compare it to the Bell X1. Here's a snippet from Wiki on the subject. Design and development Parallel development XLR-11 rocket engine In 1942, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Aviation began a top secret project with Miles Aircraft to develop the world's first aircraft capable of breaking the sound barrier. The project resulted in the development of the prototype turbojet-powered Miles M.52, designed to reach 1,000 miles per hour (870 kn; 1,600 km/h) (over twice the existing airspeed record) in level flight, and to climb to an altitude of 36,000 ft (11 km) in 1 min and 30 sec. By 1944, design of the M.52 was 90% complete and Miles was told to go ahead with the construction of three prototypes. Later that year, the Air Ministry signed an agreement with the United States to exchange high-speed research and data. Miles' Chief Aerodynamicist Dennis Bancroft stated that Bell Aircraft personnel visited Miles later in 1944, and were given access to the drawings and research on the M.52,[2] but the U.S. reneged on the agreement and no data was forthcoming in return.[3] Unknown to Miles, Bell had already started construction of a rocket-powered supersonic design of their own, with a conventional horizontal tail. Bell was battling the problem of pitch control due to "blanking" the elevators.[4][5] A variable-incidence tail appeared to be the most promising solution; and having already decided on it for the M.52, the Miles and RAE tests supported this.[6]

[@CrusaderSports250]

@@thecorbies look at the development of the BAC 111 airliner and the Boing 727, very similar story unfortunately, but that's how it goes, we sold all our rocketry to the French because the Americans would launch our space stuff, they were never that keen and the French produced the rocket and called it Ariane, the list of things we have developed only to have our government cut the legs from under it is woefully long.

[@wor53lg50]

​@@Dick_Kickem69thats not what wiki says, its says the first twin rota helicopter was german called a Dracon or something that the Brits had captured and made the pilot fly it across the channel to study it, and after the Brits got all the info they needed from it pass it on to the yankees to test and study it, but yankees being the bigheaded egotistical thick idiots they are crashed it on first flight...

[@user-tm4rz2jp8z]

Мне показалось, или это Як-24?

[@timsweet3224]

he says type 192first twin engine in the world .(around 1minutes41).up above the helicopter very faint a cigar shape goes across .

[@thecorbies]

And?

[@timsweet3224]

@@thecorbies has fingers dunnit ? end of your wrist .

[@timsweet3224]

is that a ufo on the 192footage ? ,just afterhe passes building,2plus minutes in .above the whirlygig is a cigar shape in the clouds .

[@timsweet3224]

@@IntrospectorGeneral when he says the type 192can operate on one engine just after the start there it be could be a tower flying in the wind going to OZ with dorothy or cigar haha it is odd tho .

[@timsweet3224]

@@IntrospectorGeneral or it could be at an air show and thatsa a vanguard or vc10cas back then it was just british stuff at fart farnboro.

[@skunkjobb]

Do you mean exactly at 2:00 and directly above the helicopter? The white blob that is not in the clouds but touches the ground in the background? I would guess it's a domed radar in that case.

[@timsweet3224]

@@skunkjobb dunno could be ,but on this pad looks like its flyin ???

[@AtheistOrphan]

Clearly a water tower.

[@user-ee3qu2mk4p]

(TO)Soytong?

[@jjmcrosbie]

That's Piasecki - became Vertol - taken over by Boeing.

[@skunkjobb]

No it's not, it's a Bristol type 192 Belvedere just like the title says and the narrator says several times in the video. It's not the same as anything built by Piasecki.

[@jjmcrosbie]

@@skunkjobb Sir, thank you for your reply. I was correcting the sequence of companies given by the narrator. The "Flying banana" was a Piasecki type. Piasecki became Vertol, and Boeing took over Vertol to create Boeing Vertol. I'm sure we agree on that. The 192 Belvedere was the developed type 173, re-engined with Napier turboshafts.

[@wor53lg50]

​​@@jjmcrosbiewhat are you on about?, it looks nothing like the flying banana, and all the data for a twin rotor came from the germans and from one single craft that was left which British had captured near the end of the war and brought back to study...

[@sammygirlie345]

No rearr ramp there's your problem

[@Daimo83]

>Boeing has entered the chat

[@peterdavy6110]

It's payload was too small and, having originally been designed for the Navy wasn't really that good as a ground transport. The doors are 4 feet off the ground. Look at the guys having to jump or use ladders to get into the thing. The US helicopters could carry more and having their engines above the cargo space could include a loading ramp.

[@thecorbies]

I'm certain that these 'issues' could/would have been evolved out.

[@abn8726]

Design Inglês de TUDO é sempre horrível!

[@magna4100]

C'mon then, who's first to tell us how much better it is to lick Uncle Sam's boots close down our once highly capable aircraft industry and spend countless billions buying US aircraft?

[@bobingram6912]

Often wondered how these things stayed aloft, let alone lift anything, they never looked "beefy" enough and stick thin. At the time e.g. Farnborough, they were a thrilling sight and British!!!