Gazelle: Flying, operating, buying
Guest
Posts: n/a
To date, the CAA has been prepared to issue ex-mil Gazelles with only a restricted Permit to Fly. It is very unlikely that the CAA's stance will change.
Although it is theoretically possible to do the mods necessary to comply with the requirements of a C of A, the total cost would exceed the cost of simply buying a civvy model.
Provided the restrictions of the Permit won't be a problem, buying an ex-mil version gives you a superb helicopter at much less than the cost of a civvy model - but check the restrictions before you part with any money.
RAF and RN Gazelles have a stabilisation system (SAS) which makes the helicopter easier to fly - when you get used to it. Few Army Gazelles have SAS.
The Gazelle specialist North East of London mentioned by Fat Freddy's Cat is MW Helicopters at Stapleford. If you're seriously interested in buying a Gazelle (either civvy or ex-mil) Martin Woods is the man to whom you should speak.
Although it is theoretically possible to do the mods necessary to comply with the requirements of a C of A, the total cost would exceed the cost of simply buying a civvy model.
Provided the restrictions of the Permit won't be a problem, buying an ex-mil version gives you a superb helicopter at much less than the cost of a civvy model - but check the restrictions before you part with any money.
RAF and RN Gazelles have a stabilisation system (SAS) which makes the helicopter easier to fly - when you get used to it. Few Army Gazelles have SAS.
The Gazelle specialist North East of London mentioned by Fat Freddy's Cat is MW Helicopters at Stapleford. If you're seriously interested in buying a Gazelle (either civvy or ex-mil) Martin Woods is the man to whom you should speak.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Before you spend a single penny on Gazelles talk to the acredited (as opposed to the self appointed) experts, ie MacAlpines, about who to, and who not to deal with.
Please be warned!
FL. Cave.
[This message has been edited by Fr O'Blivien (edited 26 April 2001).]
Please be warned!
FL. Cave.
[This message has been edited by Fr O'Blivien (edited 26 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fr O'Blivien
Wow! That's rather an aggressive response.
I was not putting myself forward as an expert, "self-appointed" or otherwise, in recommending "who to, and who not to deal with". My expertise lies in a different field, as my username might suggest. I was relying upon the expertise and experience of others whose opinions I respect.
I know three people who bought their Gazelles from MW Helicopters:
All three are extremely shrewd and successful businessmen.
Two are experienced helicopter operators.
All three have nothing but the highest praise for Martin Woods.
All three continue to have their Gazelles maintained by MW Helicopters which has a close working relationship with the manufacturers.
All three highly recommended MW Helicopters.
That seemed (and still seems) to me to be a reasonably safe basis upon which to make a recommendation, and I stand by it.
[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 26 April 2001).]
Wow! That's rather an aggressive response.
I was not putting myself forward as an expert, "self-appointed" or otherwise, in recommending "who to, and who not to deal with". My expertise lies in a different field, as my username might suggest. I was relying upon the expertise and experience of others whose opinions I respect.
I know three people who bought their Gazelles from MW Helicopters:
All three are extremely shrewd and successful businessmen.
Two are experienced helicopter operators.
All three have nothing but the highest praise for Martin Woods.
All three continue to have their Gazelles maintained by MW Helicopters which has a close working relationship with the manufacturers.
All three highly recommended MW Helicopters.
That seemed (and still seems) to me to be a reasonably safe basis upon which to make a recommendation, and I stand by it.
[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 26 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To second the "Brief" a man in Lancashire has just taken delivery of one of the best finished helicopters that I have ever seen( a French Gazelle) all zero timed, it cost a packet, was deemed perfect enough for an RAF instructer to type rate this guy, it came from MW helicopter's!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The company at Battersea are First City Air and the Maroon Gazelle of which you talk is G - MANN, recently seen at Thruxton, not sure if it lives down there or what.
There is one guy who owns a private strip near Maidenhead, who has put in a very strange request to increase his current fixed wing movements to include helicopters. Not sure of the figures, but it is a very big increase. There is rumour circling that he may be buying them, and is pretty sure that he will get them. Anyone know anymore, as all I have is rumour.
'Some days you are the statue and some days you are the pigeon!'
There is one guy who owns a private strip near Maidenhead, who has put in a very strange request to increase his current fixed wing movements to include helicopters. Not sure of the figures, but it is a very big increase. There is rumour circling that he may be buying them, and is pretty sure that he will get them. Anyone know anymore, as all I have is rumour.
'Some days you are the statue and some days you are the pigeon!'
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe most of the ex mil Gazales have in excess of 8k hours (they had to get extentions from the MOD). They were also maintained to mil regulations which, I believe, is where the problem arises for anything other than a permit to fly. Having said that, apart from a penchant for Jack Stall (I've been completely upside down in one) they are great fun to fly!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oldbeefer, good morning, we are normally taught to keep the greasy side down, but I for one would be very interested to hear of your U/s down trip, I have heard that Gazelles are the only one which are capable of this, have seen some Mil pilots do some strange things,but never actually seen one totally rolled ( in the air that is),or was it looped? you could E me, if this is not for the view of bright lights.
Guest
Posts: n/a
VFR
I think you will find quite a lot of machines with non teetering heads(fully articulated) have the ability to do loops and rolls, but you are not allowed to perform them (quite rightly so!), I know of an Enstrom 280 performing loops etc!!!!!.Somewhere on the forum is a picture and a thread with a A 350 inverted, cant remember the title though (think it was feb time)
regards
HoverBover
I think you will find quite a lot of machines with non teetering heads(fully articulated) have the ability to do loops and rolls, but you are not allowed to perform them (quite rightly so!), I know of an Enstrom 280 performing loops etc!!!!!.Somewhere on the forum is a picture and a thread with a A 350 inverted, cant remember the title though (think it was feb time)
regards
HoverBover
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi VFR,
The thread to search for is called;
Now here's something .......
originally posted by Roundout and last written to on 10th March 2001.
If I was smart I could give you the link, but Im not !!!!!!!!
Regards
HoverBover
PS
Sorry I didnt have time to find it before!
The thread to search for is called;
Now here's something .......
originally posted by Roundout and last written to on 10th March 2001.
If I was smart I could give you the link, but Im not !!!!!!!!
Regards
HoverBover
PS
Sorry I didnt have time to find it before!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vfrpilotpb
I think this must be the pic hoverbover had in mind. Click on http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/000851.html
If you like watching helicopters do 'aeros' try to see an AAC Lynx display.
The best civvy exponent (IMHO) is Dennis Kenyon in an Enstrom. He always displays at HeliTech which is held every two years. It's been at Redhill in the past, but is moving to Duxford this year. I don't know the dates, but usually September or thereabouts.
I think this must be the pic hoverbover had in mind. Click on http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/000851.html
If you like watching helicopters do 'aeros' try to see an AAC Lynx display.
The best civvy exponent (IMHO) is Dennis Kenyon in an Enstrom. He always displays at HeliTech which is held every two years. It's been at Redhill in the past, but is moving to Duxford this year. I don't know the dates, but usually September or thereabouts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My understanding is thus (but may be wrong of course!)The Uk ex-mil Gazelles were modified to such an extent from the original machine that they were no longer able to be classified as SA341's, hence not able to be put on the UK register (Only SA341 is CAA approved). There are a few French registered SA342's operating in the UK privately, which may have a similar spec. As for operating UK P.T. Category - don't hold your breath. Permit to fly may be the limit for these a/c.
As for buying / running one, rumours abound concerning spares from Eastern Europe, so take care. I have dealt with our Eastern European cousins, and they don't all share the Uk view on flight safety!!
As for buying / running one, rumours abound concerning spares from Eastern Europe, so take care. I have dealt with our Eastern European cousins, and they don't all share the Uk view on flight safety!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
ST, You may well be right, but my understanding was that the only problem was in the engine alone. Specifically that the engine was a different Mark to the civvy one - and the only difference was very small - a mod in the FCU/different FCU rings a bell??? That tiny difference results in a different Mark engine and so requres the telephone number cost of a total re-certification which is out of the question.
Either way, there is clearly no substantial difference between Mil and Civ Gazelles so the problem is merely a bureaucratic invention. Mil Gaz has been an extraordinarily safe and reliable helicopter so if the CAA chose to penalise it one has to wonder what on earth they are up to.
Still, I wouldnt want to fly in a Gaz that wasnt maintained by the Mil or Macs. I dont trust the others.
[This message has been edited by Fr O'Blivien (edited 27 April 2001).]
Either way, there is clearly no substantial difference between Mil and Civ Gazelles so the problem is merely a bureaucratic invention. Mil Gaz has been an extraordinarily safe and reliable helicopter so if the CAA chose to penalise it one has to wonder what on earth they are up to.
Still, I wouldnt want to fly in a Gaz that wasnt maintained by the Mil or Macs. I dont trust the others.
[This message has been edited by Fr O'Blivien (edited 27 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heliport, Hoverbover, thanks for the picture site, quite something,in fact Awesome, me thinks however this is best left to to the mega, MEGA time jock's, I have now the full spec of all the sale Helio's including the hours left on such things as engines and blade's. if any one wants additional info E me and I'll try to help! The Gazelle at Blackpool is French registered, and is reputed to have been the private ex Toy of the Porch car family dynasty, hope you all have a nice weekend. my regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skycop, I dont think the Mil Gaz is a SA341 at all, as that is a purely civvy designator.
The Navy's were Gazelle HT 2 - I'm sure someone will come up with a designator for the Crab's and Teeny Weeny Airways' machines, but they certainly aint SA341s. The Astazou in the civil machine is a 3N if I remember correctly, and the Mil machines all used a different mark, hence the difficulty as this mark wwas never civil certified.
By this "logic" the CAA deny ex Mil machines a C of A.
And in complete contradiction of this, they then let Mil personnel take civil 1179s in military machines that are not actually the ones they are licensing you to fly!
The SeaKing is regularly the platform used to provide S61 check rides, and unlike the Gaz marks which are to all intents and purposes identical the SeaKing and S61 are very different aircraft - although for most ppractical purposes they are actually very similar.
Which begs the question; if the CAA can be flexible and practical regarding 1179s on 'similar' types why the heck cant they be flexible and practical with the same types when it comes to certification?
Or do you suppose they are protecting their rights to extort £umpty hundred thousand fees for the certification process?
These concessions have allowed an awful lot of Mil pilots their 1179s on service aircraft for the cost of just a few beers, so dont knock it!
The Navy's were Gazelle HT 2 - I'm sure someone will come up with a designator for the Crab's and Teeny Weeny Airways' machines, but they certainly aint SA341s. The Astazou in the civil machine is a 3N if I remember correctly, and the Mil machines all used a different mark, hence the difficulty as this mark wwas never civil certified.
By this "logic" the CAA deny ex Mil machines a C of A.
And in complete contradiction of this, they then let Mil personnel take civil 1179s in military machines that are not actually the ones they are licensing you to fly!
The SeaKing is regularly the platform used to provide S61 check rides, and unlike the Gaz marks which are to all intents and purposes identical the SeaKing and S61 are very different aircraft - although for most ppractical purposes they are actually very similar.
Which begs the question; if the CAA can be flexible and practical regarding 1179s on 'similar' types why the heck cant they be flexible and practical with the same types when it comes to certification?
Or do you suppose they are protecting their rights to extort £umpty hundred thousand fees for the certification process?
These concessions have allowed an awful lot of Mil pilots their 1179s on service aircraft for the cost of just a few beers, so dont knock it!
Guest
Posts: n/a
SkyCop - the nice gentlemen of the CAA allowed the military men to do the 1179 on the mil machines so you wouldn't have to break into your pension funds to finance it! In other words, a concession. or.....
Perhaps it is because they are so close to the SA341 as to make no difference - in the same way that the Bell 206 "JetRanger" 1179 allows you to fly the 206L "LongRanger" which has larger engine, larger cabin, larger blades, 2 more seats blahdy blahdy...
Now, what would be the chances of a civvy being allowed to do an SA341 rating in a mil machine????? Don't bother answering that one!!
As regards other differences, one obvious one is that civvy Gazelles have tail rotor drive shaft covers. I also thought the mils had larger blades, but I may be wrong on that one. And, if they have more power from the engine, wouldn't that have necessitated a larger (stronger) gearbox as engine output is usually restricted by the torque the g/box can handle?
Perhaps it is because they are so close to the SA341 as to make no difference - in the same way that the Bell 206 "JetRanger" 1179 allows you to fly the 206L "LongRanger" which has larger engine, larger cabin, larger blades, 2 more seats blahdy blahdy...
Now, what would be the chances of a civvy being allowed to do an SA341 rating in a mil machine????? Don't bother answering that one!!
As regards other differences, one obvious one is that civvy Gazelles have tail rotor drive shaft covers. I also thought the mils had larger blades, but I may be wrong on that one. And, if they have more power from the engine, wouldn't that have necessitated a larger (stronger) gearbox as engine output is usually restricted by the torque the g/box can handle?