"28 weeks later" - Gazelle - questions

[thecontroller]

3 questions

- i didn't know the US military used Gazelles?

- since you can't have a Gazelle on an AOC in the UK, where did they get one from?

- in the big set piece (filmed on hampstead heath?) where the heli slices up the zombies; do you think this is possible in reality

[g-mady]

Why cant you get a Gazelle oan AOC in the UK?

[Floppy Link]

since you can't have a Gazelle on an AOC in the UK

why not? :confused:

[thecontroller]

i dunno the exact details, but i seem to remember you can only get a "permit to fly" for private use. although that may be only for ex-mil ones.

can anyone enlighten me to the facts?

[Floppy Link]

Exactly!

Not all UK registered Gazelles are ex-military. Non ex-military ones will be on a CofA. No problem getting a AOC using a CofA machine.

I think

[[email protected]]

Controller - 3 answers:

1. They don't but it wasn't the real US Military - it was a film remember:)

2. See previous answers above re CofA - they just used a non ex mil one.

3. The tip speed of a gazelle blade is circa 400 kts so yes it will chop through people but it might not fly so well afterwards.

Remember, films aren't real and are mostly CGI nowadays.:)

[happyjack]

Military Gazelles are quite different from the original civie version. When they become ex-mil they are treated the same as any other ex-mil aircraft and are allowed to operate on a permit to fly only. Number of restrictions including how many pax and what it can be used for. Essentially only private use.:hmm:

[thecontroller]

why cant ex-mil helis get a c of a? whats the reasoning behind that?

[[email protected]]

Because they are not the same aircraft, they have different engines and the civilian ones have a slightly longer fuselage to give better back seat space.

[thecontroller]

ok, so they are different. but why cant they get a c of a? are they deemed 'unsafe' or 'uncertified'?

[[email protected]]

No, someone would have to pay a shedload of money to get the aircraft certified as a new type - the sort of thing only manufacturers can afford to do because they want to sell loads of them and recover the outlay. The mil Gazelle was given it's Military Aircraft Release by Boscombe Down for mil pilots to use under mil rules.

[thecontroller]

ah i see. thanks crab.

i dont doubt that any heli blade would slice someone up, i was just curious if you could actually get the disk so close to the ground and still remain in control.

[[email protected]]

I haven't seen the film myself but a rotor disc can get very close to the ground, especially during startup/shutdown when the Nr is low. Certainly a Gazelle blade, even at normal Nr, can be made to go low enough to take someone off at the waist.

Unfortunately film directors have to take things past the bounds of reality - one of the James Bond films had a Squirrel flying slowly up a shanty town street with about 50 degrees nose down, just so that the blades could destroy everything in their path.

[thecontroller]

yeah, in "28 weeks" it looked relatively believable.

maybe the pilot they used is here on pprune? care to enlighten us?!

[md 600 driver]

ex uk military gazelles on permit are allowed to do public exhibition /demonstration flying
it says this on the the conditions of permit to fly

[BossEyed]

The mil Gazelle was given it's Military Aircraft Release by Boscombe Down

Pointless pedantry: It was Controller Aircraft (CA) Release at the time, and Boscombe only recommended it: MOD(PE) - or one of its predecessors - gave it.

Eh? What's that you say? Get a life, and go out to the flicks?

[ericferret]

A main rotor blade might look blunt, but at speed the effect is like a sythe.
I was involved in the recovery of a crashed Gazelle from a corn field.
Where you might have expected the rotating blades to flatten the corn, they had cut through it like it razor.

You could see the exact angle the blade had been at when it touched the corn.

Numerous heads and bits and pieces have been hacked off over the years by main blades. I suspect that it is entirely possible to cut someone in half
but the aircraft would also suffer.

The military Gazelle had the same cabin space as the standard civil Gazelle.
The stretched cabin was an American civil modification. You can tell them apart by the vertical stabilisers. The stretched cabin aircraft uses reduced size vertical stabs.

[ericferret]

The refusal of the CAA to issue a c of a for ex military Gazelles has always seemed strange to me.

The airframes came off the same production lines as the civil aircraft.

This might be compared with the Westland built Siouxs (Bell 47 G3B1).
Westlands never built this as a civil aircraft yet there was no problem getting them certified. The engines were overhauled by Alvis on a military contract and I do not believe they has a civil approval.

The engine issue could be resolved by fitting the comparable civil version of the Astazou.

I believe that the refusal to certify had a lot to do with politics and little to do with airworthiness.

I am sure that someone who actually tried to get them certified could tell us more.

[muffin]

There is an excellent description in "Chickenhawk" of a deliberate ascent under fire out of a jungle clearing using the MR blades to chop off the branches on the way up.

[996]

I was informed that the reason for difficulty is simply due to the incompatibility of servicing logs. The military do it one way and civilians another and the differences are unable to be resolved to comply with legislation. Also the military either cannot or will not release servicing history. Dunno if this is right or not.

There are many instances when a passenger or other has been killed after getting hit by the main rotor blade as a consequence of attempting to enter the disc when the aircraft has been landed on sloping ground. During rotor close and following rotor brake application, the MR disc will come down to chest height and lower in windy conditions.

Each blade has a tip cap which is deformed/other if there is a strike.

[Wizzard]

I don't wish to get a name as a pedantic sh!t but I feel that the Gazelle could not have cut the zombies in half because ZOMBIES DON'T EXIST!
sorry:bored:


I'll get me coat

[ericferret]

In my experience the military record keeping is far more detailed than the civil paperwork.

The same situation applied to the Siouxs.
In fact one Sioux was resurrected from it's crushed cabin and the form 700
which was found lying on the seat pan.

It is not uncommon for civil aircraft to change hands with only the current log books being available. In other words no long term history.

I have a feeling that commercial interests had a hand in this, with no one wanting to disturb the market place by dumping a lot of ex military aircraft
into it.

Certification issues in the differences between military and civil versions of the same aircraft probably do play a part.

A number of years ago Bell produced a number of 205A's using aluminium rivets (military specification) in an area where monel rivets were specified in the civil spec. They were fined $100,000 per aircraft (ouch!!!)

American ex military aircraft were affected by the breakout programm where the military owned the drawings and had parts manufactured by companies not approved by the design organisation.

I do not believe that anything similar happened to the Gazelle.

[ericferret]

Wizzard

If you don't think zombies exist you've never worked as a contractor on permanent nights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rushes]

The market never seems to get flooded with ex-mil machines, the last wave of Gazelles came around 5 or so years ago, these were the ex-navy Shark machines, I was under the impression that there were ex-army ones waiting to go to shortly after, but the commercial timing wouldn't be right.....

Or am I just cynical....

I was also aware of the statement that they can only be issued with permits to fly, due to the military engine variant having not been monitored by the CAA. I guess the fact that the military have knocked out over a million hours is not enough!! :D

[havick]

In AUS, a couple of years ago a bunch of Navy squirells were sold. Some of them ended up being re-fitted and are now doing charter work, some other people as far as I am aware bought a couple from the same batch and were unable to get them on the register for charter category because all aircraft were sold 'as is' and some came with the books and others didn't.

[lartsa]

a helicopter without books isnt worth anything anyway i cant understand anyone buying one to make it fly again

the ex mil uk gazelles had full paperwork a lot more than the civil ones have

[spinwing]

Mmmmm.....

I believe those Aussie Squirrells started life as Civvy machines ....but were extensivly modified for the Military .... one of the mods being a "twist Grip" throttle being fitted ..... as this was not part of the Civil Certification for the AS350 it might be part of the reason they could not be civil certified ....

...quite happy for someone who know better to correct me.

Cheers :hmm:

[Flying Lawyer]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/GazelleFrenchArmy.jpg
(Not my picture.)


happyjack Military Gazelles are quite different from the original civie version. :confused:
Surely slightly diffferent would be more accurate?

The airframes (short and long) came off the same production lines - most (all?) Mil customers opted for the short..

UK Mil Gazelles were supplied with the Astazou 111N engine (a variant of the Astazou 111A/B in the civvy 341G) and subsequently retrofitted with a 111N2 which is a UK only engine type. Neither of those was type certificated.
The civvy 342 has the Astazou XIV, which is more powerful than any of the above.

If a civvy (type certificated) engine was installed in an ex-Mil machine, in what respect(s) would it differ from a civvy Gazelle?


FL http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/MWgifresize.jpg

[lartsa]

FL
i thought the long[stretch airframes ]were only produced in america for civils
the 342 has 2 engines i know about the 14h [civil ]and 14m military
in the 341 range the 3a engine is civil but the 3b.3f is military but the yugo accept 3b as civil but the uk caa wont



i would also love to know if the uk caa would except a mil gaz with a 14h engine then it would be very nearly the same spec as the 342j the only difference i think would be the servo accunulators

[ericferret]

You may have hit the nail on the head by asking what the airframe differences are between civil and military Gazelles. What interest has Aerospat (Eurocopter) got in giving anyone this information when they are trying to sell Squirrels and EC 120's.

I will try to look up the stretch issue but I think it was a post production American mod. Maybe done by Aerospatiale USA.

[ericferret]

Eurocopter hold a number of American STC's relating to the fuselage stretch. See the FAA website for details. So as far as the SA 341 goes it seems to be a mod.

[md 600 driver]

it must be more than a stc mod as the caa allow stretched gazelles tobe on the british register
they dont normally allow usa mods /stc,s

[Flying Lawyer]

The first Gazelle prototype (manufactured by Sud Aviation) took to the skies from Marignane forty years ago, on 7 April 1967.


First prototype (SA340) with conventional tail rotor
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Gazelle_firstprototype.jpg


Second prototype (SA341) with fenestron http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Gazelle_2ndprototype.jpgNote the changed horizontal stabiliser
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/SA341_F-ZWRH.jpg





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/GazelleAAC.jpg





http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Israeli_gazelle.jpg



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Cpp_Gazelle.jpg

The larger cabin was not an American mod.
Google produced the following:

SA 340-01 - Prototype Designation

SA 341 - Second Protoype Designation; Larger cabin; Composite blades.

SA 341B Gazelle AH.1 - Initial Production Models (British Army).

SA 341C Gazelle HT.2 - Initial Production Models (British Navy).

SA 341D Gazelle HT.3 - Trainer Variant

SA 341E Gazelle HCC.4 - Transport model for the Royal Air Force.

SA 341F - Production version for the French Army. Upgraded engine to Astazou IIIC.

SA 341G - Civilian Variant

SA 341H - Military Export Model

SA 342J - Civilian Model

SA 342K - Armed SA 341F with upgraded 870-shp Astazou XIVH engine, mostly exported to the Middle East.

SA 342L - Final Export Military Model. Light attack variant with Astazou XIVM engine.

SA 342M - Final French Army Production Variant. Improved ground attack variant, similar to SA 342L, but with improved instrument panel, engine exhaust baffles to reduce IR signature, navigational systems, Doppler radar, and other night flying equipment. Fitted with Astral AAMs.

Soko H-42 - Yugoslav-produced variant of SA 341H model.

Soko H-45 - Yugoslav-produced variant of the SA 342L model.




FL

[ericferret]

MD 600 Driver

The UK CAA does not accept STC's automatically, however there are plenty of them approved for UK use e.g Chadwick tank in the Hughes 500 series.

So if it is a mod and particularly if it was introduced by the aircraft manufacturer then I would not expect any significant problems.
The STC is held by Eurocopter France and introduced a 200mm stretch forward of the aft (cabin?) bulkhead.

If as flying lawyer says the Gazelle were built with the stretch why would Aerospat have needed to raise an STC?????????? An ammendment to the original type certificate would have covered the stretch. Again I wonder if this was just for the American market. The FAA type cert would reflect the DGAC type cert. For some reason the French must have not wanted to change their certificate.. Maybe this mod was never DGAC approved and hence the need for an STC.

Just to show how big a change can be accomodated on one type certificate. The 330 Puma and 332 Super Puma are on the same type cert. The SA 365C, 365N and the EC155 are also covered by one certificate.

If you go to the CAA web site and go to the register search there is a nice photo of G-CDJT which shows the 200 mm wider rear cabin door and the reduced height vertical fins which are the main external differences identifying the stretch.

The CAA issued AAN (AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL NOTE) 17988 which refers directly to STC SH2379SW and SH1858SW both of which cover the stretch mod. If there had been a European approval why would they refer to an American STC.

My computer is refusing to open PDF's so I can't check the type certs at the moment. I will have another go tomorrow.

In the mean time answers on a postcard to ...............

[Tickle]

Nice photos there, FL. I heard there was also a prototype with wings. Do you have a photo of that by any chance?

[idle stop]

UK military aircraft, including the Gazelle, were, historically, maintained to a Schedule peculiar to the UK military, and thus trying to transfer these aircraft to the civil register (other than on a Permit) is, at best, very difficult and prohibitively expensive.
The rational behind COMR (Contractor Owned, Military Registered) is that such aircraft are maintained according to EASA requirements, with monitoring contracts between MoD and the CAA. Thus the aircraft can be taken off the miltiary register and put back on the civil register with a full CofA. The benefit of this to MoD and the Contractor is that the through-life cost of the aircraft is lower, because at the end of the contract the aircraft will have a definable residual value: well above the comparable value had it only been maintained to the military spec.
BTW, the twist grip throttle on the (eg Australian and DHFS) AS350 was an official AS(EC) Mod, not a special military mod. A near identical assembly is used as standard on the EC120.

[ericferret]

Idle Stop

Your comments on the mil to civvy situation are an accurate view of the current position.

However the military servicing regime was never a problem in the past. In fact it was gererally accepted that UK military aircraft were in fact
"over serviced" relative to their civilian equivalents.

As an example Alouette 2 G-BSFS ex army XR378 had a public transport
c of a.

Again the Sioux to Bell 47 conversions were never a problem.
The company I worked for converted abou 20 ex army Sioux. Most ended up crop spraying, however they had transport cat c of a's.

There was a policy change in the CAA and I believe the Gazelle was the first aircraft to suffer from it.
It might be that there was a case for not giving it a c of a but the seating restriction (2 only???) is unnecessary. It just makes the ex mil Gazelle unattractive compared with a 120, 206 e.t.c

Back to my conspiracy theory that the CAA were pressured into refusing the aircraft a c of a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ericferret]

The Squirrel throttle mod reminds me of a story we were told at the Turbomeca factory.

We asked why the engine starting technique had changed from the SA 365C
to the 365N. As the engines were basically the same we could see no reason for the change.

365C Throttle into the idle gate and then press start.
365N Press start then open the throttle.

The answer was this was nothing to do with the Dauphin!!!!!!!

The French said they had to changed the technique to mirror the Bell 206 start sequence as the Australians had pilots going from the Squirrel to the 206 and then opening the throttle and pressing the start button, resulting in hot starts.

[ericferret]

Just for info I looked at the ex RAF SAL Bulldog's. Given that they operated in a training and aerobatic regime they have been given c of a's not permits.
I wonder if they had stress meters fitted?

[idle stop]

Erci:
Yes, you're right. I occasionally instruct in an ex RN Bulldog and it has a proper CofA. Had forgotten that.
It's back to the paper trail for Permit vs Full CofA for the Gazelle.
It seems that a few UK Permit Gazelles are going onto the Hungarian reg, since the Hungarians are more accommodating over full Cs of A. So much for a common JAR/EASA standard!
Throttles:
EC120: set at Index mark, then engage start, modulate T4 A/R
AS350 Floor Mounted Throttle Lever: engage start, throttle at 10%, modulate A/R
AS350 TWT GRP Throttle: set at Index mark, then engage start, modulate T4 A/R

[Pandalet]

I believe there were a number of people registering Gazelles in Swaziland a while back, to get around the c of a issue. I seem to remember the CAA stamping down on that?

[MPR]

Yes, 3 Gazelle's have had a brief spell on the Swaziland register...

G-CBJZ - originally XZ932 then onto 3D-HGW, then onto G-

G-BZDW - originally ZB626, onto the G- for a year, then 3D-HVW from July 2001 until Feb 2002, then back to G-BZDW.

G-BZDV - originally XW884, onto the G- for a year, then 3D-HXL from July 2001 until Feb 2002, then back to G-BZDW.

I wonder if the new Isle of Man register will take permit aircraft? and if so, whether this will be a route for this type of aircraft?

Also, not a 100% sure fire way of identification, you can usually spot a civilian built Gazelle by the fact that it normally has a cover over the tail rotor drive shaft & the military built ones do not.

[ericferret]

The CAA AAN seems to shed some light on the stretched Gazelle.

It appears that there are actually two versions of the stretched Gaz!!!!!!

Firstly there is an Aerospatiale mod 341.MR.0480. This is acceptable to the CAA.

Secondly there is the American stc which is said to be "similar" to the french mod. However to be acceptable to the CAA this has to be shown to be in compliance with the French mod.

How many came off the production line like this and how many were modified in the field I do not know.

[md 600 driver]

idle stop
your post
[It seems that a few UK Permit Gazelles are going onto the Hungarian reg, since the Hungarians are more accommodating over full Cs of A. So much for a common JAR/EASA standard!]
incorrect reports like yours can cause problems with the uk caa[like mws swaziland register gazelles ]There are no ex uk military permit gazelles on the hungarian register and there will never be the hungarians will not allow them
if you know of any [which there isnt anyway ]please post the serial /reg numbers or pm me and i will post with the owners permission
to make things easy for you there are 3 ha reg gazelles in the uk
halfm
halfq
happy
there are some allo 2s as well
also The yugoslavians dont accept ex uk permit military gazelles either but they will give full c of a to there own manufactured gazelles after overhaul

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/HELICOPTER_album/DSC_0256.jpg
picture of HA-LFQ 342


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/HELICOPTER_album/nigelspicsofbreighton026.jpg
picture of HA-LFM 341

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/HELICOPTER_album/DSC_0270.jpg
picture of HA-LFZ


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u104/HELICOPTER_album/DSCN1253.jpg
HA-PPC and HA-LFQ

sorry no pics of HA-PPY 341 on digital camera just photos

[tbtstt]

yeah, in "28 weeks" it looked relatively believable.

maybe the pilot they used is here on pprune? care to enlighten us?!
From what I recall of that scene in the film, it looked nearly all composite (CG) to me, so I daresay finding the pilot could be difficult!

I'm not sure of the specifics of the Gazelle/Ex-military C of A deal, but I do know that the vast majority of private Gazelles that I have seen recently have all been flying on Yugoslav registrations.

And yes, as a general rule, the use of helicopters in films tends to be in utterly implausible situations, especially if the film in question is a Bond movie!

[idle stop]

md600:
Paranoid, are we?
I did see a Hungarian Reg Gazelle a month or so ago at a South Eastern UK airfield and am only passing on in this Forum what a reputable source told me about some ex UK mil machines.
I do not, however, know exactly the provenance of the Gazelle I actually saw, so I will not comment further.

[estepo]

Idle Stop

I wouldn't call MD 600 paranoid. He's one of the most well informed and experienced Gazelle owner/operators in the UK.

He simply stated the facts.

[idle stop]

Re the 'paranoia' and keeping the CAA off Gazelle owners backs: I think the super large text in md600's post speaks for itself.
I repeat, I had previously no reason to doubt the information I was given, since that came from a very reputable source. However, I am happy to accept what md600 says. That is what discussion in these pages is all about: being better informed.
The Gazelle is a great aircraft. I have about 1100 hours on type, mostly instructing, and a long time ago now. It is a shame that the Permit limitations on ex UK mil Gazelles are as they are. If another ICAO State is willing to register one of these aircraft with a full CofA, then that is their prerogative.

[happybiker]

For an aircraft to be issued with a C of A it has to be included on the Civil Type Certificate. The UK Military Gazelle variants are not included on the TC therefore cannot qualify for a C of A hence the only option is a Permit.

[ericferret]

There is an interesting piece in the American type cert for the Alouette 2

If you wish to apply for a c of a in the USA after 2004 and the aircraft has a military history you have to supply documentary proof that the aircraft conformed to a civil standard at the time of delivery to the military.

Try finding a record of that.
So it isnt just here that there is a clamp on ex military aircraft.

It is true that there is no type cert for the SA341B (Army Gazelle).
I reckon the only way would be to apply for a major mod to convert the 341B to a 341G, not impossible, but the cost would be prohibative.

I believe the best way forward is to put pressure on to have some of the operating restrictions lifted. The aircraft would not be useable commercially
but at least you could make better use of it privately.

[ericferret]

None of the Gazelles quoted by MD 600 were built in Hungary.

LFM was an Aerospat built 341G used by the Yugoslavian police.
LFQ was an Aerospat built 342L supplied to the Irish Army Air Corps.
PPY was a Sokol built 341H supplied to the Yugoslav Air Force that appears to have been converted to a 341G.

There were at least another 6 ex Yugoslav Airforce 341H apparently converted to 341G on the Hungarian register.

341H also show up on the Slovenian, Bosnian, and Serbian registers.

[md 600 driver]

eric
correct give the man a cigar

in fact no gazelles were ever made in hungary halfm was the loan/training heli from aerospat to the yugos police while they were starting their own production line it then came back to the uk where it was on the uk reg for 20 plus years one of its uk owners was the test pilot school [ at cranfield ?] i did think it was a westland machine but if you say its aerospat i wouldnt argue

ive had several ex uk military gazelles on permit the permit restrictions are not too onerous for private use but improvements would be better

the ex uk mil gazelle has found its way onto a quite few registers on permits some i know about are usa,ukraine,southafrica,australia,new zealand,and they also reside on the uk g reg in a few countrys germany ,spain,france,holland in fact there are possibly more ex uk gazelles flying elsewhere than there is in the uk

thats why there is not very many for sale in the uk at the moment i know only of 2 actively for sale in the uk and 1 in the states complete with its glass cockpit

but all are permit or experimental i dont know of one that has a full cof a but eric you seem very knowelgeable may be you could find one, then we could get a copy of the type data cert used and use EASA to register it in the uk

steve

[Heliport]

Maybe the pilot they used is here on pprune?

I'm told the pilot was Al Gwilt, who does post here.
Hopefully Al will see this thread and tell us more about the filming.



idle stop If another ICAO State is willing to register one of these aircraft with a full CofA, then that is their prerogative.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help UK owners. The UK CAA refuses to recognise a full CofA issued by another ICAO state.
If what I was told is true, they even threatened to prosecute people for flying ex UK-mil Gazelles with foreign issued CofAs in UK airspace a few years ago.

H.

[havick]

Spinwing,
re; the aussie ex mil squirrels that are now doing Chtr ops. The one that I have seen flying around VIC still has the mod twist grip throttle (from memory VH-ALP)
I'm pretty sure the one's that aren't flying had something to do with the books not showing up or coming with the aircraft as some of the others did.

[Tightly Wound]

Have also seen the one of the Ex -Mil Aussie squirrels floating around QLD. Pretty sure it also still had the twist grip throttle.

[ericferret]

Aerospat and Westlands used the same construction number sequence. The Westland aircraft numbers being prefixed WA/.

HA-LFM is 1301 so should be Aerospat built. The Yugoslav aircraft had a separate sequence of their own.

What is interesting is if the 341H have actually been converted to 341G standard how was it done.

I wonder if this all happened before Hungary joined EASA (assuming they are in EASA!!!).

Could be these aircraft have grandfather rights. What is for certain is they are not listed on the engineers EASA 66 type rating list. However the helicopter section of that list is probably only about 90% accurate and is still being ammended.

The Brasov built Alouette 3's and Puma's are also not listed.

[md 600 driver]

eric
hugary has some of its own data certificates the best known is the one for yak aircraft