Gazelle: Flying, operating, buying

[engineoff]

I would be interested to know peoples' opinions relating to civilian gazelle operations/operating costs. It seems after reading some of the previous published flight tests, the operating / purchase costs are not much higher than the Jetranger. So, why are there so few? Is it due purely to availability or does it involve certification problems to Public cat? Any opinions or ideas would be much appreciated.

[FIXED N' ROTOR]

A friend who operates a Gazelle confirms that the operating costs are little more than a JetRanger.
However, if you are thinking of buying, do some research before buying an ex-military Gazelle. The cost of converting an ex-military machine to Public Transport spec is apparently quite considerable and ultimately means that the ex-military price is not such a bargain as it first appears. (Not so expensive if a Permit to Fly is sufficient for your purposes.)
This is all second-hand so no guarantee as to accuracy. There's a firm at Stapleford airfield which specialises in maintaining the Gazelle. They have a very good reputation, might be worth speaking to them. (Sorry, don't know the name but shouldn't be too difficult for you to find out - Stapleford's not very big.)

The Gazelle is more sensitive on the controls than the JetRanger (Gazelle has a fully articulated head) but it's more fun to throw around. It's also significantly faster in the cruise.
The JetRanger is an excellent limo - the Gazelle is more of a "Porsche". Unlike the Hughes 500,which is also "sporty", the Gazelle gives all passengers (front and back) excellent visibility.
The Gazelle comes in standard and "stretched" versions. Only a few inches more but significantly improves comfort in the back. (I think all/most ex-military machines are standard not stretched.)
It also comes in two engine versions. The more powerful version is not much faster, is less economical (which reduces range) and, in my opinion, is not worth the extra costs involved. The smaller version carries 5 and bags with no problem.
Different considerations might apply if you intend to make regular trips with a full load to high altitude ski resorts!

Hope this is some help to start you off. http://www.iim.co.uk/fca/images/helifly.gif

[Pete O'Tewbe]

Further to the above, I understand that ex-mil Gazelles will never hold a CofA and will only therefore be flown on a Permit.

------------------
Never Pass Gas.....

[greenarrow]

The operation at Stapleford is run by a chap called Martin Wood and they do wonders with the machines, just read the articals in the flyer magazine.
They have an ex AAC instructor.
Al Gwilt doing the conversions and looking after the airtesting.
Give them a ring they might help.(01708-688115)
PS. stay clear of the ex military machines they will not get even a permit to fly!

[Larry]

Im looking for a SA-341G in the USA and would like to learn as much as possible about the Aircraft.

Such as:

Flying qualities

Operational costs

Any known problems with the drivetrain and airframe.

"Fenstron stall" , what causes it
and how to prevent it.

Id like to talk to any Military or
Civil pilots with hours in the Gazelle
and their opinions about it.

Also would like to talk to any mechanics
who know the Aircraft and have opinions about maintaining it.

Anything else of interest.

Ive heard the Helicopter is very reliable but is very "french" (electrical problems) and might be tough to maintain the SA-341G in the USA.

Thanks for your help.

Larry
California USA.

[PurplePitot]

Hi Larry, I have a relatively low 1500hrs in the 341 and I think it's a great little helicopter. There are plenty of military pilots with more time than me who will be able to offer you the advice you are after.

There was a thread on here not so long ago with reference to fenestron stall which is well worth reading - the long and the short of it is that it does not exist.. Buy one and enjoy it!

[Cyclic Hotline]

I think that most commercial operators in North America dumped them once an engine overhaul was required.

The cost of a major repair or overhaul, would fund the purchase of a replacement helicopter.

For this reason, there were a number of "cheap" Gazelle's for sale in North America, requiring motors.

Don't know the current status on them however.

[Larry]

Cyclic sez:
<I think that most commercial operators in North America dumped them once an engine overhaul was required.>

I don`t think any USA commercial operators
fly the Gazelle any longer. The last one i knew of was operated by CH-2 news in Los Angeles till 1992.It flew everyday so must of been reliable.

Im looking for a Gazelle for personal use only.


<The cost of a major repair or overhaul, would fund the purchase of a replacement helicopter.>

About $200,000 for a overhauled Turbomeca engine is what they told me. The two cleanest Gazelles in the USA are worth about $400,000 with mid-time parts.Both are unavalible at this time.
Ive heard the overhaul and parts prices
have jumped in the last 5 years.

<For this reason, there were a number of "cheap" Gazelle's for sale in North America, requiring motors>.

There are very few Gazelles in any condition
avalible in the USA.And yes the "cheaper" ones are very rough and potential money pits.

Im under the impression the Gazelle is no more to operate than a AS-350B. Its not like the military Gazelles will retire for another 15-20 years so Eurocpter will continue to support them.

And Eurocopter USA told me they can get any part within a week or two (they will come from france). Prices didnt seem outrageous
compared to a AS-350.(and its not cheap !!)
Main blade avalibility are no problem and the fenstron is unlimited life so it shouldnt be a big problem.

Question: If Eurocopter is making parts for the Military Gazelles , can these be bought for Civil versions or do those parts need to be cetified on their own ?

From my info there were 170 Civil SA-341Gs built....a low number compared to the AS-350B
but including the Military versions over 1300 Gazelles were produced. The last was delivered during the late 1980s.

[floppyjock]

Hi Larry I have just left the british army after flying them for 8 years without a problem. I believe the MOD are selling some off at the momment. If you need someone one with an FAA commercial to fly them mail me.

[stopachoppa]

Hi Larry,

I can put you in touch with a guy in the U.K. who will be able to answer any possible questions that you may have on the Gazelle for private / commercial operations.

Mail me direct and I'll pass his details on to you.

[Randy_g]

There are 4 Gazelles operating in Canada. You could try getting in touch with one of the following:

SUNWEST HELICOPTERS LTD
Address 582 PANORAMA PL
PARKSVILLE British Columbia
V9P 1A4
Phone: (250)752-0707


TIMBERLAND HELICOPTERS INC
BOX 3623
COURTENAY British Columbia
V9N 6Z8
Phone: (250)703-0234

AUTO MEILLEUR LTEE
1776 BL ALBINY PAQUETTE
MONT-LAURIER Quebec
J9L 1N1
Phone: (819)623-4099


TERCIER MOTORS LTD.
BOX 7204
BONNYVILLE Alberta
T9N 2H5
Phone: (780)826-3301

One of these guy should be able to help you out with some of your questions.

Cheers

Randy_G

If you can't stand the heat...

then turn up the airconditioner !!! :)



[This message has been edited by Randy_g (edited 05 January 2001).]

[I.P Stop]

I have no very little exp. on the gazelle( 500hrs) but it seems to me that the general crew room banter is that it is extremely reliable; and I have heard quotes of: "its never had an eng. failure in 20 years"
The British Mil be be flogging off a load soon I'm sure.
Good luck

[eden]

Larry - I have 2500+ on Gazelle, Ex-Royal Navy QHI and "Sharks". I can give you a comprehensive run through all the questions you are asking, email me direct and I will put together some info for you.

I have several contacts who are selling these machines and contacts regarding maintaining them. I am also in possession of a full suite of technical notes.

They are superb helicopters, a touch noisy, but an excellent sports machine.

Oh yeah and .......
I have always wanted to visit California!

[greenarrow]

It might be worth speaking to Martin Wood M.W.Helicopters. UK 0044 1708 688115
He is now looking after 34 341/342 Gazelles.


Long live the whistling Chicken Leg...

[Mrs Doris Hot]

1400 hrs mil Gazelle. one total loss of engine oil, requiring engine shut-down(IMC).One power turbine bearing collapse(on ground before take-off).Otherwise no problems.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Phillips, the auctioneers, are selling off 10 Gazelles, 2 wessex and an assortment of 24 Buldogs plus allsorts of nice bits such as engines and spare, this is happening on the 24th May 2001.All the flying things are on show at RAF Shawbury, Just thought some of you chaps with deep pockets may like to know that!, I would be happy to go halfs at a Gazelle! **
28th April, I now have the official list of A/c and Helio's that are available, if any one wishes to know any more, E mail me, and I'll try to help!, By the way Thank you all for you reply's , esp the picture site.

**After permission from She who shall be obeyed !:EEK:

[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb (edited 25 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb
(edited 28 April 2001).]

What is SAS( no, not the big hairy type) Stick Augmentation System, app the RAF Gaz have it the Army ones don't, Why, anybody?

[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb (edited 30 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb (edited 30 April 2001).]

[talkturn]

How easy/expensive is it to convert ex mil. Gazelles to Transport (passenger) cat?
Is it just permit to fly at the moment?

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

RE: Converting Gazelle (Mil) to CAA Public Transport-Passenger.
Excuse the vagueness of this but I believe there is an operation in the UK which buys up Gazelles and refits and certifies them for public transport. Also then supplying the buyer with service history and POH/Flight Manuals.
I was told this by an ex-mil pilot flying said type Gazelle out of Battersea last year and I think from memory the operator was located northeast of London.
Try contacting Battersea to see who operates the Gazelle (Maroon colour-sorry no reg') Or contact Gatwick for registration and refits of Gazelles. I was also led to believe that the operation will purchase on behalf of a client-so if interested you should track this guy down...hope that helps

[Pinger]

I believe that due to mil using engines of a different mark to the civy ones you will NOT get your Gaz on a C of A unless you obtain a civil certified Astazou (3N?). Mil engines are not certificated, and there are either no civvy Astazous left, or if available cost more than the machine is worth (£100K or so!!!)

Last I heard ex Mil Gazelles are destined for Permit to Fly only. Hope I'm wrong!

Anyway, the Gaz is a lousy commercial or charter machine, noisy, cramped & crude inside and desperately expensive to run, DOC said to be same as Twin Squirrel - 'nuff said?

[mitten]

All,

Be careful with this one. The military Gazelles can be converted to a public cat C of A but it is VERY expensive.

A chap bought 2 A/C 18 months ago and has only just got them a PERMIT let alone anything else.

If anyone is interested in forming a group I would be interested and am fairly happy that the people who put my Wasp on the permit would do the Gazelle as well.

Email me on [email protected]

------------------
If you fly too close to the ground at too slow speed, the earth will rise up and smite thee.

[Flying Lawyer]

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.

[Fr O'Blivien]

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!

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

FL. Cave.

[This message has been edited by Fr O'Blivien (edited 26 April 2001).]

[Flying Lawyer]

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).]

[Vfrpilotpb]

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!

[HeliEng]

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!'

[JP5A]

The gazelle in Lancs.is based at HELLI 2000(Brian Seedle Helicopters)at Blackpool.I saw it there a couple of months ago and it looked fantastic.Very quick to by all accounts.
Can I have one Santa??

[oldbeefer]

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!

[Vfrpilotpb]

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.

[hoverbover]

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

[Vfrpilotpb]

Thanks HB, I'll have a look see. My Regards

[hoverbover]

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!

[Heliport]

Vfrpilotpb

I think this must be the pic hoverbover had in mind. Click on http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum11/HTML/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.

[Fr O'Blivien]

Flying Lawyer, forgive me if I gave offense, the remarks I made were not directed at you.

[hoverbover]

Heliport

Yes thats the one,thanks for sorting the link, I guess thats why youre were you are and I'm were I am !

Cheers

HoverBover

[StevieTerrier]

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!!

[Fr O'Blivien]

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).]

[Skycop]

Interesting theory about the military Gazelle not being an SA341.

I passed an 1179 in one a good few years ago and my licence says SA341G on it. So what did I fly then?

[Vfrpilotpb]

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

[Fr O'Blivien]

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!

[StevieTerrier]

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?

[Skycop]

Who said I was knocking it - and who said I had a pension?

[oldbeefer]

VFRetc
I was on a QHI course years ago. My instructor had read his guide on how to demonstrate jackstall in a descending turn. Unfortunately, he read "left", but remembered "right". 140kts in a 60degree banked turn to the right and he pulled several G. The beast did "exactly what it says on the tin" and pitched up and rolled RIGHT. My selections of chinagraphs and Newport Shrops were above me as we went round the complete roll. I asked for (and got) an instructor change the next day!

[StevieTerrier]

Heads up guys for some answers to the Gazelle mystery! Firstly - the differences between mil and civ. The mil puts lots of kit in (armoured seats etc) which meant poor old Gazelle could not hack it. The FCU was altered as stated earlier by somebody else (sorry cant remember who) to increase the engine output from (I think) 600 to 750 hp. The 342 version has even more. In addition there was beefing up of the gearbox an rotorhead to match, and the fenestron is different. The mil also arbitrarily upped the MAUW from 1800 to 1900kg. The CAA said this is no longer a 341, thank you, not certified for civvy life.

The ex-mil machines coming on the market are resticted to permit to fly. Restrictions are : no more than 4 people on board, ALL OF WHOM MUST BE REQUIRED FOR THE FLIGHT, no flying at night, no flying over water, no flying over built-up areas.

In other words, unless things change, a waste of money. Buy yourself a nice R22, and a yacht with the change.

[Heliport]

It's often said there's never been a Gazelle engine failure.
Does anyone know of that's true?
(I've heard there was one possible, but unconfirmed and strongly suspected to be pilot error.)

[Thomas coupling]

Chris McBean on finals to Predannack airfield, Cornwall, 1991, I think.
A beautiful EOL into a sloping field with minor damage.


Thats cooking with...Gaz!


[Getting closer, earwig...]

------------------
Thermal runaway.

[Heliport]

I asked on another thread ..... <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">It's often said there's never been a Gazelle engine failure. Does anyone know if that's true?
(I've heard there was one possible, but unconfirmed and strongly suspected to be pilot error.)</font>

Thomas coupling replied ..... <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Chris McBean on finals to Predannack airfield, Cornwall, 1991, I think.
A beautiful EOL into a sloping field with minor damage.
Thats cooking with...Gaz!</font>

Does anyone know of any other confirmed incidents?

Even if the claim is a myth, is the engine's excellent reputation justified?

[This message has been edited by Heliport (edited 08 May 2001).]

[Fortyodd]

I seem to recall that a Royal Marine crew had one, somewhere in the South West of England, in about 97-98. I'm sure there was an article about it in the RN flight safety magazine.

[notarmy]

i seem to remember steve someone had one fail about 10 feet off the ground in Detmold 8 or 9 years ago....nobody hurt

[MightyGem]

Yes, I remember that one. I also know a civilian pilot involved in the filming of "Soldier, Soldier" who had one and went IMC during the initial flare.

[greenarrow]

The engine failure, followed by the standard flare which at 120kts will induce the Gaz to climb at least 300ft with the lever fully down. From a start height of around 500ft agl with a cloud base of 700ft sure will put you in cloud. Then followed by a variety of May muck panday calls to Honington, who I must say did allow the situation to settle before asking if help was required, they were then told to stand by while I get this bast**d on the ground. No further damage and apologies to those who showed concern.
This was the result of the Oil feed return pipe snapping at the olive joint on the cooler. (over tightened!) To finish this I then phoned the company and explained the situation, the reaction "Does this mean you cannot fly to Germany the do the job"!.

[Vulture]

I personally had an engine failure but it was caused by contam fuel; 1979, Ballykelly, Kangaw Flt, 3 Cdo Bde Air Sqn RM. Night sun task. Had just woken up for a 'scramble'. Got the ac ready to go but just before lifting I decided to select a different VHF AM freq. As I turned the freq selector the engine died. Realising it shouldn't do that I reselected the original frequency (presumably to get the engine going again). It took a few long seconds before I realised that things were really not quite right. Got in a different ac and flew for 2 hours on a gloomy night and returned to BallyK to be told that the ac I had just been flying was refuelled from the same source at around the same time.

Had a wholesome respect for single engine failures in twin engined aircraft since then.

[mrfish]

forty odd is correct 1997, 847NAS Gaz-piece, mixed crew RM and RN somewhere near Chard I think.

Little dit in cockpit about a year back.

[MightyGem]

greenarrow, g'day DB 669 Sqn, 84-86

Vulture, Hi. How's the new job?

[Airmech II]

Hello Fr O'Blivien, as this is a free country and we are all entitled to our own opinions, re:Gazelle maintenance. I work for "One of the others " whom you have no trust in, we maintain 20+ Gazelles and to date not only have Mac's ringing up for the odd bit of advice but Eurocopter have now started giving our name out to their customers when it comes to Gazelle probs. Between just 3 of the 10 engineers there we have 45 years experience on type, and 12 of those were personally in the Mil, if you are under the impression that Mil servicing is safer than the civil side then I'm afraid that you are wholly misinformed and obviously have never worked as an engineer in both.
Ps. the civil and mil machines have different engines (if you need the full details e.mail my profile address) and they will be given a Permit but any hope of a C of A for commercial work is in vain I'm afraid.

[blind pue]

I dont know if anyone remembers, but there was a warning in the FRC's Stating
"WARNING: Pressing the warning lights test button may stop the engine; do not press the button in flight."
I beleive this was based on an actaul incident in the late 70's
There have been more incidents of the engine not shutting down, than there have of engine failures over the past 20 odd years.

[neverinbalance]

The 97/98 847 Gazelle EOL occurred in Cornwall. The aircraft was returning to VL from Culdrose. The Booty NCO pilot received a green endorsement and a commission in the RAF! 3 BAS (as it was then) also had an engine fail on route to the FI at Ascension. The A/C was offshore returning to the ship when the donkey stopped. The pilot got it back to a beach without damage. He also got a green endorsement, but with a posting to Soest. He was an AAC NCO!

[Hoverman]

I'm not sure whether that makes four or five, plus one caused by fuel contamination.

Seems like (almost) never an engine failure.
Quite a record.
Is there any other donkey with such a good record?

[JP5A]

What are the pro's and con's on buying an ex.military gazelle?
The initial purchase price seems very good value.What is the least one would have to spend to get it flying.
Lastly would a syndicate to buy and operate one of these from BPL be of any interest to anyone?



======================



See also Buying/Owning a Gazelle - Civvy Gazelle Ops Click here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160829)


Heliport

[Heliport]

Pro: You save about £100k
Con: The CAA (for no sensible reason) will only issue a Permit to Fly, not a C of A. The Permit has restrictions, which I've heard include:
No passengers except crew. (This includes ground handling crew of course!)
Day VFR only. Not a big problem for most PPLs
No flights in Class D airspace
(Unconfirmed) problems getting insurance.

If you're seriously interested, I suggest you contact MW Helicopters at Stapleford airfield. Tel: 01708 88115.

MW Helicopters are the Gazelle experts. They've sold lots, and maintain about 40.
Speak to Martin Wood who'll be able to answer all your questions.

[Floppy Link]

and if anybody has any pilot's notes / frc lying about,
[email protected] would like to hear from you

[JP5A]

Heliport

Thanks for the info.
I have spoken to Martin at Helitech and I intend to whizz down to Stapleford in the near future to look at the gazelle's there.

Thanks again

[floppyjock]

Floppy Link. Check your mail.

Floppyjock

[Thomas coupling]

Also try Kev Brigden who is selling quite a few refurbished Gazelles, on:
South West Aviation Services, at:
01872 225854 or [email protected].

He has reupholstered them, blanked off the mil comm/nav aspects and repainted them, new carpets etc.
Permit to fly also doesn't allow you to fly over built up areas so no flights to london!

You can "train" your passengers to be ground crew in a few minutes to get round this aspect of it.

Reliability of spares is another issue you might want to consider.

But at £145,000 each....they're a snip..aren't they Kev? :D

[Vfrpilotpb]

Hi TC,
Might be alittle high for only a Permit to fly, BUUUTTT what a peach to handle, its the sort of Heli that wet dreams are made of!!
In My humble Op
My Regards

[Heliport]

TC
Do you mean 'reliability' of spares?
What's the problem?

Or did you mean to say 'availability'?
I've taken this up with my Gazelle contact and am informed that used to be a problem, but MW Helicopters have bought up an enormous supply of spares. Says they've never let him down yet.

The Permit restrictions can be a nuisance, depending where you live, where you want to fly etc.
Isn't it stupid of the CAA to refuse to issue a full CofA?

But, in these days of seemingly nothing but bad news for aviation, maybe some good news.
At Helitech, I saw that MW Helicopters can supply ex-mil Gazelles on a foreign register with a full CofA ie no restrictions.
It might not suit some egotist who needs a 'G' for his 'personal' reg (G-EOFF, G-ERRY etc :rolleyes: ), but it's an option. I've noticed that quite a few UK Gazelle owners seem to leave them on the 'F' register at the moment.

So the potential purchaser may now have a choice: CAA Permit with restrictions, or foreign CofA without - at the same price.

[Heliport]

Vfrpilotpb
Tell us more about your Gazelle trip.
Is it yours?
Who supplied it?
What's the after sales service like?
Is it a civvy or ex-mil?
G-reg or foreign Reg?
Utility of one of the luxury versions?
Have you (of the owner if not you) experienced any difficulty with maintenance/spares?
Are you/the owner happy with it?
Would you/he recommend a Gazelle?
etc etc
:)

[ppheli]

and MW's latest preference is the Swaziland register! There was one at Helitech for a couple of days with a 3D- prefix and look out for more of those - they reckon five by Christmas with 3D registrations!

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good morning Heliport,
Gaz belongs to a friend of mine, super guy who was converted from R22 to the Gaz by a well known converter from Shawbury!
Purchashed from MW heli's and is on Frog Register, The A/c has always been civvie, and is a superb piece of kit, it is decked out just like the highest ( no pun) spec Limo ,
We tried last week (Wednesday) to get down to Dux, but after two attempts the farthest we got was to just south of Stoke, we tried high and low but "No Go", we had with us a very experienced pilot, and it was only his expertise that got us down that far, the Gaz cover so much ground so quickley, but obviously at a price for those of you who dont know it burns about 40 /50 galls per hour, but it is a small price to pay for such performance.
My pal who owns it has no problem with the service side , and says MW helis are brilliant, spare are no Prob at all.
All round it is a very good heli , one that most pilots should try to fly, just to see how our Government has looked after our Mil pilots in the Past!!
Hope that helps,

My Regards ;)

[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: Vfrpilotpb ]

[Heliport]

Thanks for the input.
I agree 40/50 gph wouldn't be bad - Jet A1 is cheap, and you get a 135 kt cruise.
But I thought fuel burn was nearer 30 gph. :confused:

I know what you mean about the interiors. I saw them at Helitech - magnolia hide, matching trim, etc, looked like they'd been kitted out by Ferrari. :)

[ 04 October 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]

[jellycopter]

Gaz fuel burn is a little less than 2.5kg per minute flat out - don't know what that is in gals/hr.

A freind has just bought a civvy Gaz for £180K'ish. Can carry 5 without restrictions so makes £145K for an ex-mil '2-seater' seem expensive.

Also, watch out for component times. A new engine / MRH are serious £££.

However, you don't usually find Ferrari owners complaining about fuel economy or servicing costs! In helicopter terms, the Gaz definitely performs like a Ferrari!

[JP5A]

What would you call decent component times and what would be satisfactory if you were buying one?

[ppheli]

Reports in the UK today of the fact that MW Helicopters are being told by the UK CAA to stop flying 3D- (Swaziland) registered Gazelles until they can prove their airworthiness. These are all ex UK military Gazelles as referred to in posts around Helitech time.

Anyone know any more or can confirm this?

[VSI]

Yes, apparently they are grounded until further paper work is sorted? Sounds like the swazi reg wasn't such a short cut after all.

[Heliport]

What sad news, if it's true.
And a predictable fit of pique by the petty minded penpushers at the CAA.

Trouble is that, as most people find out when they have to deal with the CAA, logical arguments are no match for stubborn attitudes.
This is the British ego at its embarrassing worst. But it's no surprise. As the CAA doesn't even accept that the FAA knows how to run aviation, a small African country stands no chance even though they are full members of ICAO.

The ex-mil Gazelles are off the same production line as the civvy versions, with a different engine which has proved itself to be one of the most reliable heli engines ever produced.

I hope MW Helicopters eventually win the battle, although with the CAA holding all the Aces it's going to be difficult.
They've established themselves as the leading Gazelle experts, turn out stunning refurbished helicopters as anyone who has flown their Gazelles will vouch for, and they deserve to win.

Good Luck, MW Helicopters.

[jiffni]

A few questions:

Why do they have to be registered in Swazi, and not by the CAA. They were good enough to be flown by UK mil PLC and have well documented service history. Why are they all of a sudden not fit to fly. Why only a permit to fly?

When are the next batch of Gazelles being sold and where will the auction be?

Anyone have any info?

[Hoverman]

jiffni

The answer to your question is because that's what the CAA have decided.
I can only assume that you've never had to deal with the Campaign. There are aviators, and there are CAA pen-pushers.
Unfortunately, experience shows that logical, rational arguments like yours cut no ice at all with the pen-pushers, but the pen-pushers have all the power. :rolleyes:

[ppheli]

Others are better qualified than me on this, but the CAA restrictions include max 4POB for starters (and if memory serves, some odd clause about no kids under 16??). Hence the need to look elsewhere to get 5POB in a machine made for 5POB....

The main difference is that the ending is a different engine - the ex-mil ones having an Astazou III while the SA341G civil model has the Astazou XIV. Even odder is that the CAA do not allow the SA342J/L models which have a marginally longer cabin and the same XIV engine that they are happy with in the 341G model. :confused:

With MW involved in five French registered Gazelles in the UK (and that interest dating back to May 98), I am also wondering why the option of putting these ex-mil helicopters on the F register has seemingly been rejected.

Even more interesting, the first ex-UK-mil Gazelle has now appeared on the FAA register.... and the FAA regaards the type of helicopter as having 5 seats (check landings.com for reg N911XW if you like..)

[greenarrow]

Well it seems that the CAA have lost the plot and thrown their teddys out of the cot.
They have tried invoking article 33 annex 8 off the ICAO convention.
Regarding type certification by member states. Otherwise they are saying that the Swaziland CAA are not up to it and they will have to prove certification as the UK CAA regard the ex mil aircraft as a different type of gazelle. ie as the 206L is different to the 206B. Tosh! they are upset that MW have got the upperhand and found away of promoting the aircraft. They are also inferring that the aircraft were built to a different standard at Westlands, even though the civilian machines were plucked from the military production line. Regarding engine types: The basic 341G civil has an astazou 111A/B engine which is the same as the original 111N military engine. The 342 version has the astazou XIV engine, whilst the retrofitted military machines have the astazou 111N2 which is a UK only engine type.For this reason the Aircraft cannot be registered in France along with laws regarding the use of ex-mil machines.
So it will now be down to the Swaziland CAA to prove that they are happy with the aircraft (which they have already done!)but forgot to ask for permission from those that know!! and the UK CAA to accept this without loss of face!.

[Cyclic Hotline]

I am very interested in the "N" registered ex UK-military Gazelle in the States.

Does anyone know what category it is certified under, as I would imagine it is an experimental category.

[nushooz]

There is a stretched 342 Gazelle at Bristol with French registration - it's burghundy red with tan interior and I think its reg is F-GGTJ. Perhaps the engine was upgraded recently. Looks the biz, even if it's noisier than BA's Embraers. Dream machine.

[ppheli]

Cyclic hotline - the N reg one is currently listed as airworthiness type "not specified" :confused: - see http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi?pass=40445969&ref=-&mtd=41&cgi=%2Fcgi-bin%2Fnph-search_nnr&var=0&buf=66&src=_landings %2Fpages%2Fsearch_nnr.html&nnumber=911XW

[Vfrpilotpb]

Flying just of late with my friend who owns a Gazelle, I was in the LH seat and was invited to fly the machine, but I found the cyclic appeared to be biased in its mounting, in other words the stick was cranked towards my left leg, now this made it very uncomfortable to control the craft, but when I tried it with my left hand it was set just right for that, the owner said he didn't know why it was this way, but it struck me that it may be possible to control the main collective with my right hand, and the cyclic with my left hand, is this so , or could it be that the LH cyclic is adjusted and mounted incorrectly, I hope some of you Gazelle pilots can help, for the machine is going in for a yearly and if this can be altered,then is the appropriate time to do it.

My Regards

[Hezbollah]

Take it from me - dont ever try to hover the aircraft with your hands on the opposite controls -I did it as a demo with a QHI a few years ago for him to show me why you dont do it. I must have maintained control for about 3 seconds!
The feel is definitely different in the LHS. I cant remember, because it is a while since I flew a whistling chicken leg but maybe because of tail rotor roll it hovers left wing low, so the cyclic may be biased to give a disc tilt to the right with the stick central in the hover, which would require left cyclic in fwd flight when TRR is no longer a snag

[Nick Lappos]

Could this effect be a contributer, Vfrpilot:
The lateral thrust of the tail rotor makes us have to compensate with some bank angle in a hoverto keep from translating laterally. Typical helicopters with high tail rotors need about 3 degrees of bank in a hover to compensate. Using the French clockwise main rotor rotation convention, the side thrust of the fenestron requires about 5 degrees of right roll (and the concurrent right cyclic position) to balance, because the fenestron is low, on the roll axis of the aircraft. If the fenestron were significntly above the roll axis of the machine, the roll moment of the fenestron thrust would help reduce that bank angle to the more typical 3 degrees. In OGE hover, where the fan thrust is even higher, the roll is 6 or 6.5 degrees.

This larger roll angle creates the noticible right lateral stick motion that you see, Vfrpilot. Where you are used to some left stick in a typical helicopter, you see even more right stick in the Gazelle, and the diference is quite obvious.

We faced this issue when we layed out Comanche, and we decided that the 5 to 6 degrees of roll in a hover was OK. The Fly By Wire stick made it easy to hide any stick trim issues, of course.

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Nick Lappos ]</p>

[RW-1]

I don't know where I saw this, Nick, but is it true or a fallocy?:

The Comanche has no pedals; Tail is controlled by rotating the cyclic grip.

I would think with FBW that could be possible, if the mechanical setup of the stick could be achieved.

[Flying Lawyer]

VFR
If you can hover a Gazelle (safely) left handed, you're a better man than I am! (Unless you're left handed or ambidextrous of course!!)

[Jeep]

The bloke who taught me to fly helicopters crashed a Gazelle on Andover airfield demonstrating the LHS right hand hold the collective gag - and he had thousands of hours. My advice is not to.

I think the real reason the cyclic is offset, is to give you a bad back. Or perhaps you have a bent left cyclic. Or perhaps to give your right leg more room as you can only move your left leg outwards.

My money is on the bad back, it works so well.

[Nick Lappos]

RW-1,
It is true, the FBW controls on Comanche use a twist of the cyclic to control yaw. The stick is a sort of joystick from a video game, with triplex sensors to pick up cyclic, collective and yaw controls. There is also an electric collective stick for the left hand.

Regarding the question about left handed flying, when I was in flight school, I flew the OH-13E and G (basically Bell 47's). From the left seat of that aircraft, it was easy to grasp the right seat collective with the right hand and the cyclic with the left. I did three traffic patterns with friends watching, on a bet, with reversed hands. The only issue I had was working the twist grip throttle as I raised the collective.

[RW-1]

Ahh Thanks Nick! :)

(Sorry Peter, don't mean to hijack the topic ....)

That seems to me that it will feel more "Natural" in a bird (cyclic twist). Does the flight control software also assist in maintaining trim in changing flight conditions (such as pulling in lots of collective, dropping, etc.) or just when (I'm assuming) in a steady state condition, such as established in cruise?

I only ask for I could see subtle twitches of ones cyclic hand being transferred ...

You must tell us more about it. (At least, what you are allowed to tell us about it).
Please feel free to open another thread on this fabulous machine. (I got to see it fly by on the way to Ft. Lauderdale Beach for a display a while back :) )

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: RW-1 ]</p>

[greenarrow]

From the LH seat the cyclic is off set to the left slightly. This will allow more room for your right leg along side the Instrument panel. It will also allow room for the roof sight control unit to be positioned in the military aircraft. Remember it is a military designed machine.

[Lu Zuckerman]

When we went on deployment and only one pilot was responsible to fly the machine I would be asked to adjust the position of the cyclic to make it more comfortable for him to fly the helicopter. Of course the amount of displacement of the cyclic was limited by the adjustment of the hard stops as well as the control limits.

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]</p>

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good Morning ppruner's,

Flying Lawyer, I have no intention of trying that, I was only wondering if that was one possibility, the most likly explanation to the way it is cranked,is to allow for the sighting periscope in the original military design,and leg room, as pointed out by Greenarrow( was there Pacific class steam loco of that name?), but it is most uncomfortable whatever it was done for.
My Regards to all
Peter B

[Davey Emcee]

Try this for the right size.
If the left hand cyclic control was not "cranked" slightly to the left, there would be a distinct possibility that there would be a problem for a pilot in the right hand seat landing right skid up slope running out of right cyclic as the left cyclic control jams up against the left hand pilots right leg.---------got it ?? "leff right leff right leff right leff" !!
QHI's come in handy some times don't they ? ex 137

[Thomas coupling]

I'd heard rumours that Gazelles were grounded ufn because of the accident involving a snapped tie bar? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Up & Away]

Please confirm Gazelle in question is civil built! not stretched nor recent ex mil. I can only remember very small offset on civil built.

Does any one remember the Dragonfly wasit I was told many moons back that there was only one collective could be fitted and that the Instructor was taught to fly left hand cyclic all the time!!! Lucky chap

topilot or to pprune
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[md 600 driver]

there is a ad. but only on certain part nos of t bars there is still lots of 341/2 flying all over the world

[Hone22]

HI all,

As to the flying with hands reversed, not a good idea. I know of one incident where a well experienced pilot rolled a R22 showing this very thing to the chap in the R/H seat.

It's funny how one's own brain can sabotage one at times.

fly safe
Hone

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good morning Ppruner's,

The Gaz I refer to is, I belive a Civvie built 341/2, and was completly rebuilt at AM last year, with most componants new, as far as the recent warning (tie rods) it is ok.. .I may have phrased my original post badly , but all I was doing was enquiring about the possibility of changing hands and flying from the Lhs, I was only wondering about this because of the lhs cranked cyclic control! I thank you all for you obviouse concern that I was about to try something that would have ended in tears(or worse) <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[ACORN]

The Gazelle was never equipped with a roof sight when it originally entered military service. The reason is purely to allow right cyclic input without fouling the left hand occupants right leg due to the proximity of the centre console.

[LOOSE NUT]

I learnt to fly heli's in R22's then progressed to R44's,still low time I thought of buying my own. .R44 Astro,then one day I saw an advert in an aviation magazine about an aution of MOD Aircraft and Engines, I promptly sent off for the catalogue(£10.00)and then spoke to the CAA about registering an ex-mil Gazelle, they basically told me it would only be given a Permit to Fly and only then after the history could be established and then verified and also a complete strip down would be necessary.I would not have had the slightest clue how to research for that information so I put that idea to bed and had a look at an old Jet Ranger that was at the top end of my budget,I was hugely disappointed with the interior/exterior condition although the times seemed good,however I wanted to own a heli I could be proud of so that idea was dropped as well,so it looked like my first heli was to be one of Frank's fine machines,that was until I saw the July(2001)edition of Pilot magazine in which there was a lengthy aritcle about ex-military Gazelles.. .At the begining of Febuary I first saw the heli I was to own and yes it was Love at first sight but my head over come these emotions and set to work checking times and history etc,then with a flight in the heli my heart kicked in again,but when we touched down my head took over once more and I thought that I should give it careful consideration with regards to the cost of running a gazelle which is more expensive than a B206 etc.. .After careful deliberations with my financial adviser(wife)it was agreed quite quickly that I should purchase the Gazelle, which I did before she changed her mind,I think she liked the luxury red carpets and cream leather seats that perfectly match(in my opinion)the bare metal respray in metallic burgundy with slight gold and silver stripes.. .Thats the story so far, I am due to do the conversion soon so when I have anyone who can read a map is welcome for a ride.I shall be using the heli for personnal transport ie business and pleasure so the Permit to fly should not restrict me to much (VFR only no night flying etc).. .I will let you know of any pitfalls when I find them,so has anyone got any questions,observations or advice because as with anything involving heli's I am all ears or eyes when Ppruneing.. .This is my first thread so be gentle with me.. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 11:33: Message edited by: Heliport ]</small>

[TeeS]

Well I am Jealous for a kick off. Have fun with it.

[jellycopter]

Loose Nut, many congrats on your Gazelle purchase, in my opinion, if you don't need to carry pax or rent it out, you've made the right choice. . .I too went through this loop last year but decided the best way forward was a 'genuine' civil variant as it posed no artificial CAA restrictions for its intended use.. .Ref your conversion, make sure they give you an in-depth explanation of Fenestron Stall/Yaw Divergence/Loss of T/R Authority (I've heard it called all 3) as it's caused the destruction of several helicopters by the unwary. Another gotcha is Jack Stall which is a high-speed phenomenon; you should have this demonstrated to you - but a few TRTOs don't. Again, ask for a thorough explanation. Finally, it's your first turbine so take time to do a thorough technical course, the Gaz has several quirks you need to know about to ensure safe and 'inexpensive' operation.. .Hope this helps, and most importantly, enjoy it; it's an expensive toy but it beats the *&^% out of flying one of Franks machines! J. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 10:58: Message edited by: Heliport ]</small>

[Special 25]

There is an outfit based at Stapleford Aerodrome (M25 / M11) area called MW Helicopters (01708 688115). While I'm sure they are not just there to offer advice and information, they are regarded as the Gazelle experts and looking at the work they do with ex military machines, they really have a passion and love for these excellent helicopters. Worth giving them a try and I'm sure if you need work done on your gazelle it would be well worth building up a rapport with them.

p.s. You seem to have done a bit of research while buying your aircraft, I'd love to know what the basic hourly rates worked out as for Gazelle, 206, R44 - All inclusive.

[Thomas coupling]

Loose Nut, are you the MD of TLC by any chance? Sound like an familiar story. . .There was a thread on thisa very subject about 4 monbths ago. Check it out under the search option.. .I was also a Gaz QHI with 3000hrs on type.. .. .I wouldn't recommend the fenestron stall demo unless the instructor has either (a) experienced it himself before, or (b) he is an ex mil beefer.. .If it goes wrong you've got egg on face. It's a benign manoeuvre but a most unforgettable experience and not for the faint hearted.. .Your main hassle will be running costs, you have to have a mini bowser attached to the fuel intake!. .Permit to fly can be workable without breaking the rules, but you'll learn all about the pro's and con's of that from the latest thread on the subject.. .If u r the MD of TLC we can chat when you next visit us!!. .No jack stalling now <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 12 March 2002, 11:35: Message edited by: Heliport ]</small>

[jellycopter]

TC, I don't know of anyone who's daft enough to try to demo Fenestron Stall, do you? Hence my recommendation that he gets a 'thorough explanation'. Jackstall is a different kettle of fish, just needs to be demo'd at height and with empathy for the machine. J

[Heliport]

Loose Not. .Thanks for taking up my suggestion to tell us about your new acquisition. Great post.

I still fly Gazelles occasionally and if I was in a position to buy my own helicopter, it would be my first choice.

As Special 25 says, MW Helicopters at Stapleford specialise in Gazelles and are the established leaders in the field - well worth speaking to about maintenance or if you have any problems.

SW at Redhill may also be good (your man's an ex- RN Observer I think) but I think you are their first customer - that sounds bad, I didn't mean it to! :) )

I wish you many hours of happy and safe flying - and look forward to more contribtions to Rotorheads.

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>

[staticdroop]

You are a lucky man, the gazelle is the MG of the skys and is just great fun to fly. All the problems discussed should not cause any problem whatsoever just make sure you have been briefed on the possible problems. Apart from that enjoy it, it is a fantastic aircraft to fly.

[ravenx]

What is the reason behind the restriction on taking passengers. Surely either the aircraft is fit for civil use or it isn't. does this mean you can only fly either solo or with an instructor / examiner

[CyclicRick]

Dear all. This Fenestron stall business worries me. I managed about 450 hours on type in the AAC and loved ebvery minute of it(apart from the seats). A good friend of mine (serving QHI 4000hrs+) said that Fenestron stall is a myth concucted up by someone many moons ago who probably lost tail rotor authority withwind from right rear which we all know the Gazelle doesn't like. According to him, while at Boscome Down they tried all sorts of nasty things to induce it and nothing happened. Has anyone out there actually experienced it? I never did.. .PS. Nice buy though, lovely to fly and quick, many congrats to the lucky new Gazelle jockey

[[email protected]]

Loose Nut - don't fret over the Fenestron Stall bit, there isn't a demo for it anyway. The demo that is given to AAC Gazelle drivers is about running out of tail rotor authority in a high hover over Belfast, at night, downwind and with a dodgy geezer in the other seat trying to keep an eye on the bad boys. The Army Gazelles are operated at very high AUM and don't have a huge amount of spare performance. . .. .Jacque Stall, that well known Frenchman, is a sort of advanced warning of retreating blade stall - the hydraulic jacks are not man enough for the job (aerospatiale claimed it was a design feature) so when the areodynamic back loads are high (high speed, high disc loading) the jacks give up the struggle temporarily and the aircraft pitches nose up and rolls to the right. Lowering the lever and unloading with the cyclic will rectify the situation quite quickly. In your day to day flying you will never get close to jackstall as long as you don't try to dive to VL at MPS and pull hard.. .Aerospatiale released a video of a French Test Pilot and a UK mil pilot recovering from sustained yaw rates of 120 deg/second, so Fenestron stall doesn't exist in the way it is alleged to either.. .Enjoy your Gazelle, I loved flying it and only wish I could afford one too!

[LOOSE NUT]

Thanks to everybody who replied for which I am much the wiser, it sounds like the Gazelle is just like one my cars - fast,thirsty,exspensive to maintian and will bite if you get cocky. Its half the price of a civvy model so at least I have a head start, I will let you know how it transpires and its great to know I have some more contacts if needed.. .Cheers.

[Jeep]

ravenx - As the CAA will only issue a permit to fly, they can stipulate under what rules you may fly it. They will not issue a certificate of airworthiness because it is a different mark of Gazelle than the civilian variant. It was operated by the military on a Military Aircraft Release and alright for military pilots to fly, but once sold off they are treating it the same as an ex Vulcan Jet. Interestingly the CAA CAP document that defines Permit to Fly states that aircraft over 2730kgs are covered. The Gazelle weighs considerably less, but they have invoked the same restrictions. It will all be tested in the courts at some point, but not before the dear old Gazelle has been through a complete overhaul, amazingly increased in value from 30k - 120+k, and still you won't be able to fly your granny on her birthday without giving her a groundcrew certificate.. . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 23:26: Message edited by: Jeep ]</small>

[eden]

Loose Nut - the Gazelle is a sportscar and has, as you are aware, a sportscar price tag for the running of it. I would beg to differ on a demo regarding YAW DIVERGENCE, it is possible to demonstrate this characteristic and it is possible to do it in a low key manner that easily demonstrates the problem. 'Jacques Stall' is a simple characteristic to overcome but does need demonstrating incipiently. The beautiful machine needs a couple of other demos with regard to performance but best left out of this forums discussion lest I get spanked hard! If you wish to know more drop me an email? I am dead jealous and wish you every once of fun with your GAZPIECE.. .. .There's alot of experience out there on these beasts so you're likely to get some good info'. .. .eden(energy driven eccentric nirvana). .. .(ex- RN QHI and 'Shark')

[Reg C Elley]

WTF are you talking about, 'Yaw Divergence'?. .Please enlighten us all, I think that most Gazelle pilots probably haven't heard about such a phenomenon.. .Reaching the limit of effectiveness of the tail rotor(feneston), Yes. Yaw divergence???????????

[eden]

Reg 'conehead' - I'll tell U wot the F**K I'm talking about! If you perceive there to be anything other than this affecting the Gazelle performance then you are mistaken or content that your experience is different and I aint gonna argue with you. BUT - and it's a big BUT! . .. .History - all of the 3 UK services suffered several, ney multiple accidents involving low speed handling manoeuvres in turns to the left or in spot turns to the left. It boiled down to a consideration that the fenestron was causing the tail rotor to stall. Aerospatiale and the RN eventually got together to do some radical testing of the Gaz performance. It put the an Aerospatiale pilot in with Lt Cdr Paul Shawcross RN, who I believe, had not long before had just such an awkward flight. . .. .It demonstrated on video that in high rotational spot turns of increasing magnitude, and I can't recall the final rotation rate but it was in the order of 180 deg per second that the rotation was divergent or increased in amplitude upon application of pedal. When I say divergent - I mean that with 'X' amount of pedal the rotation to the left increased even though the pedal position remained constant. The rotation was however halted with the application of FULL opposite pedal, which provided a massive overtorque. This was all captured on video (as mentioned in an earlier post). . .. .The deduction was that due to the incidents/accidents that had occurred in the past. The PERCEPTION was that pilots had lost tail rotor authority, tail rotor effectiveness or that the tail rotor had stalled. It was assessed that in the extreme attitudes and high rotation that the pilots never achieved FULL opposite pedal deflection during any recovery action that they may have taken. . .. .The term 'fenestron stall' was erased, certainly the RN (and I think the other services also - happy to be corrected) replaced it with YAW DIVERGENCE - it was fairly late in the Gazelle miltary career that this evidence was brought to bear and therefore only fairly recent QHI's and Gazelle pilots were very familiar with this terminology. Furthermore, it was of great interest to me as a display pilot that i understood the implications of this problem and the recovery action should I end up being so hamfooted as to give myself a self induced enema manoeuvre. . .. .I did have occasion with a handful of students to exercise incipient recovery action to this effect . .. . I am satisfied that the explanation regarding Fenestron Stall - falls squarely in the seat of YAW DIVERGENCE with a reaction akin to...... '**** I've lost tailrotor control, hack the lever' without ever attempting to use the FULL opposite boot or something similar.. .. .I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from .....

[eden]

Apologies to Loose Nut for puttig this in your post ...... just realised I should have put it in BARANFINS ........ please accept my profound apology. .. .eden

[Rob_L]

There are two civil Gazelle accident reports involving loss of control on the AAIB web site.. .February 1998 Bulletin.

[LOOSE NUT]

Eden.. . No probs,Big respect.. .I am off to AAIB site, cheers Rob_L.. .Regards LOOSE NUT.

[MightyGem]

eden, Paul Shawcross was on my QHI course. Got best stude if I remember.. .Yaw divergence...been there, done that. Scary stuff. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[[email protected]]

eden, if I remember correctly, only those ac fitted with SAS (stability augmentation system) have ever suffered crashes/incidents that were alleged to have been caused by Fenestron stall. The French video, as you mentioned showed that even at rates of yaw to the left far in excess of those reported in the incidents could be halted by the full application of right pedal. The overtorque will happen in any helicopter you try this with, it is not peculiar to the Gazelle.. .The yaw channel in the SAS makes Gazelle pilots lazy at low speeds because it does some of the work for you, the problem come when it saturates - the required yaw pedal position is nowhere near where it needs to be and most pilots used to SAS are reluctant to apply the correct amount of pedal because they are not used to having the controls in that configuration and are very wary of overtorquing. A pilot in a non-SAS equipped Gaz is far more sensitive to the twitchiness in yaw, especially in the rear-right wind condition - if the rate of yaw increases he instinctively corrects with pedal and the rapid rate of yaw associated with "fenestron stall" never builds. I have flown extensively in RAF and AAC Gazelles and once you get used to not having SAS, the AAC version is better in the low speed environment.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Loose nut,. .. .I am green and rigid with envy, what a superb piece of kit you will be flying, so light and responsive , but as others are trying to tell you, be very careful , a very good friend of mine who has one of these beasts , has a copilot who very nearly went to Valhala a few weeks ago with the left spot turn,(about 12knts from right rear) I think only the person beyond the clouds saved the situation, so when you lift and are free of all ties to mother earth follow procedures, the Gazelles deserves its name, forget the MG THIS IS "The GAZELLE" in every way!. .Have fun and fly safe, . .. .My Regards

[eden]

Crab - sorry ..... I didn't appreciate that such pedal applications would cause overtorques in all helicopters! I really only thought the Gazelle could overtorque! . .. .Sarcasm over .... I agree the SAS issue and it probably (aint saying as a definite) played a significant role in the spin factor. I used to fly SAS out for this reason in displays, especially when doing 90 deg nose up pedal turns to the LEFT, Or when carrying out fully inverted spot turns to the left at the top of a loop. . .. .I agree the SASless machines gave the pilot a greater appreciation of YAW control and a such will probably have resulted in fewer prangs in the Army beast. However, I know the RAF had a few of these go off up at Shawbury or in that neck of the woods. This YAW problem is a general Gazelle issue and one I hope I never have to experience in real anger. . .. .eden - at peace with my pedal

[greenarrow]

The civil crashes would need looking at again as certainly in one of them the pilot involved took off with the Hydraulics off!!!! and ran out of idea's at the same time as running out of puff with the tail rotor control. The aircraft being at a low AUM and 8 degrees of pitch being close to being light on the skids(Gaz drivers will understand.). .. .You also might find that the incidents that involved the service aircraft could well be down to that fact that Army aircraft tend to operate at higher AUM so they require a greater input of pedal to counter the Tq required to get airbourne.ie, the pitch angle is greater and the airflow also greater through the hole in the back? just a thought!

[Rob_L]

There have been a few curious Gazelle accidents over the years. One of the first was an Army Gazelle that crashed killing three at Wallop in the early seventies. The pilot who survived said the cyclic froze and he was unable to recover from a manoevre. I believe it was put down to jack stall and later on the Army installed a hydraulic accumulator to help counteract the problem.. .. .About 1977 while a Gaz was under maintenance we discovered that a mis-manufacture of the discs at the base of the cyclic allowed the stick to jam solid and no amount of force would allow aft stick movement. A problem similar to that in the crash. The aircraft serial number was XW851 which was within 2 of the lost aircraft. Sadly the accident aircraft had long gone to the tip and it was not possible to say that this was the cause of the original accident. . .. .As no AD was ever issued it is possible that some of the very early civil Gaz's still have this as a dormant problem. About 5 years ago I wrote this up for the CAA, the silence is deafening!!!!!!!

[Thomas coupling]

Aren't these ex-military gazelles, all grounded until the torsion bars in the head are sorted? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" />

[Thomas coupling]

Crab: I think you'll find the opposite is true. Those gazelles without SAS suffer this phenomenon more so:. .. .AAIB 2002/1 the gazelle crash report states:. .. ."EUROCOPTER remind you that in some configurations (hover flight, flight at low speed in light wind etc), starting a turn to the left can induce a high-rate turn if the pilot does not apply quickly the suitable position to the yaw pedal. If the pilot attempts to counter this high-rate turn by applying the amount of right yaw pedal that corresponds only to hover flight control, this is not sufficient to start actual deceleration, thus allowing the pilot to regain his bearings. . .. .In this situation, right yaw pedal, and if necessary, full right yaw pedal, must be applied quickly, and held, to stop the turn to the left. Any delay in complying with this procedure will increase the time necessary to slow the helicopter. This effect is NORMAL and must not give rise to doubts as to the performance of the tail rotor. In all cases, the helicopter will stop turning. . .. .A reminder is also given that all turns to the left, in hover flight conditions or at slow speed, must be made applying moderate left rudder.' . .. .Additionally, the Ministry of Defence Gazelle (All Marks) Aircrew Manual, Advance Information Leaflet 1/93, contained the following information relating to loss of yaw control in the hover:. .. .'In light wind conditions, an extremely rapid build up of yaw rate can follow a relatively small left pedal application during low speed flight or in the hover, particularly with the ASE disengaged. In this event, immediate and positive application of right pedal, up to the maximum, should be applied and maintained to arrest the rate of yaw. Recovery action may be ineffective if the pedals are returned only to the hover position, and the yaw rate may initially continue to increase before deceleration and an eventual steady hover is established. Furthermore, if the pedals are not returned as far as the original hover position, a steady hover will never be achieved and the aircraft will stabilise at a particular rate of yaw which may be very high. Pilots may misinterpret this as a loss of yaw control. Be warned that any delay in applying corrective action will require progressively larger right pedal inputs to achieve a steady state hover and may lead the pilot to believe that he has lost control. Yaw rates of up to 165° per second to the left can rapidly be arrested by applying full right pedal without any discernable loss of fenestron performance. In the hover and at low forward speeds, ensure that pedal turns to the left are always made slowly and smoothly.' ". .. .Personally I put it down to the Army's size 15 boot <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[md 600 driver]

just a point about limitations on permit to fly 341 . .if you cant fly over built up areas how can you fly in southern england or come to think of it land at a airport .what is the caa defination of built up areas ?

[LOOSE NUT]

MD 600 driver,. .. . When I was training in R22's I was taught to always fly around a built up area so that landing clear would be possible, which I believe is safe flying and if it means flying longer that suits me, I believe my interpretation of this part of the permit should allow me to stay legal. I am very low time still so am I being over cautious and missing the piont of flying heli's ?? (advice needed & much appreciated).

[Heliport]

It depends upon the words of the restrictions in the Permit.. .. .There were lots of rumours going round not so long ago about daft restrictions which the CAA were intending to place on ex-mil Gazelles.. .No flying over built up areas. .No passengers except essential groundcrew. .Maximum of 4 pob. .etc. .Could you post the actual restrictions which the CAA put on the Permit to Fly?. . . . <small>[ 06 March 2002, 14:18: Message edited by: Heliport ]</small>

[RW-1]

Loose Nut,. .. .Congrats! Anyone who has the $$$ to own their own has me crying <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> . .. .You enjoy yourself, and stay safe. Being cautious never hurt anyone. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="smile.gif" />

[[email protected]]

TC, the warning about yaw rates with SAS off only highlights what I am saying - RAF and Navy Gazelles were flown for 90% of the time with SAS in so the pilots generally lacked the sensitivity to yaw control that non SAS pilots developed. Most NAvy and RAF Gaz drivers were ex Sea King or Wessex - the Sea King pilots were awful to convert to Gazelle on the QHI course as they tried to lead with pedal all the time and overcontrolled on the very light pedals (neck brace advisable).. .Eden - who cleared the Navy Gazelles for pedal turns to the left, loops and inverted pedal turns? it certainly wasn't the manufacturer or Westlands and it definitely wasn't Boscombe Down. Did someone in the FAA have massive balls and sign a Service Deviation or were people making it up as they went along? The Sharks always did a good display but I dont remember seeing any of the manoeuvres you describe.

[Shawn Coyle]

One of the things missing from the discussion on the loss of fenestron effectiveness / yaw divergence / whatever, is the effect that high yaw rates have on the governor, which in turn will affect the lift on the main rotor.. .When yawing to the left in the Gazelle, the governor will sense this as a higher-than-normal N2 speed, and will attempt to reduce fuel flow to get the N2 speed back to normal. At high rates of yaw, this will significantly affect the main rotor speed, (i.e. reducing it). . .If you don't believe this, try a pedal turn to the left in the hover without touching the collective- you will descend - best to try this starting with the wind on the left hand side so you end up into wind.. .Turning to the right in the hover, and you will climb. Works in every helicopter I've ever flown that has a governor - the only difference is due to the direction of rotation of the main rotor.. .So, in a high yaw rate to the left, not only will you be disorientated by the rate of turn, but you will proabably be descending without knowing it as well.... .Best regards to all, and the Gazelle is one of my favorite (or is it favourite) machines. Wish I had one...

[Capn Notarious]

A question for Shawn Coyle. .How does a Notar compare to a fenestrated tail rotor.

[John Eacott]

Shawn,. .. .Whilst I hear what you're saying, I have believed that the effects that you relate are caused by the unloading/loading of torque requirements to the tail rotor, not the Nr variation. ISTM that if you turning in the direction of the main rotor, less torque is required at the (anti torque) tail rotor, therefore with a fixed collective setting, more power transfers to the Main Rotor, thus more lift. And vice versa for turning against the main rotor.. .. .I would expect any variation in power demands due to Nr fluctuation to be quite minor in comparison.

[[email protected]]

Shaun, one of the oddities of the Gazelle is that it has a reset governor and does not experience static droop as a result of applying power. The Nr is tightly controlled at 380 +/- 2 so any descent or climb is due to variations in Tq not NR.

[I.P Stop]

Loose nut, nice thread -- dont listen to all the hoo ha about fen stall ( it just dont exist) I have been flying the A/C for a number of years and if you want someone who can read a map and is happy in either seat I AM YOUR MAN - you lucky lucky lucky Bstard. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="cool.gif" />. . . . <small>[ 07 March 2002, 20:09: Message edited by: I.P Stop ]</small>

[Shawn Coyle]

For those who don't believe the governor has an effect on height control in the hover- just try even slow to moderate rate turns in both directions without touching the collective. Turning in the opposite direction of rotation of the main rotor will cause the following to happen: The rotor RPM will initially increase as the pedal is applied (it needs a bit of a push on the pedal to get this effect- don't be too abrupt, but don't be too gentle either). The tail rotor is initially being unloaded, and this will cause the rotor RPM to rise. The governor will attempt to get the rotor RPM back to normal and the 'tighter' the governor, the more pronounced the effect - the Gazelle has a pretty tight governor. For free turbine helos, you'll see the N1 and TOT decrease, for the Gazelle, you'll see the TOT go down slightly. Once the rate of turn is developed, the helo will start to descend. Opposite will happen if you turn in the same direction of rotation as the main rotor. Never seen it not work.. .Tried it in a Bell 407 with the governor in manual mode (fixed fuel flow), and there was no height change. With the governor in automatic mode, there was a pronounced change in engine and height.. .Buy me a beer if it works...

[Flying Lawyer]

Loose Nut

As a PPL, I'm slightly hesitant about offering any advice in the company of contributors who are obviously genuine experts on the Gazelle - I came to the Gazelle along a similar route to you (via R22 and B206).

My advice, for what it's worth, is to get your basic conversion finished, and then arrange a few hours more advanced instruction with an ex-mil instructor who still instructs on the Gazelle.

I don't know if Eden or Crab are still instructors or where they are based but, in the South East, I can strongly recommend Al Gwilt who's an ex AAC instructor/display pilot and still instructs on the Gazelle. I found it an enormous help.
Al Gwilt can be contacted through the MW Helicopters @ Stapleford or direct at [email protected].

Wishing you lots of enjoyment flying your Gazelle is almost superfluous - you can't not enjoy flying a Gazelle! :)



[ 08 March 2002, 01:07: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]

[MightyGem]

Crab, I was certainly in a non SAS a/c when I spun on my pilot's course. As was the basic stude who pirouetted out of dispersal at MW back in the early 90s. . .. .I thought perhaps you'd been posted as you've been quiet for a while. Mind you, once you crabs get your feet under the table at MW, it takes a very sharp pointy stick to winkle you out. I gather that Dave Griffiths is back.. . <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[[email protected]]

Mighty Gem, I'm not saying you can't embarrass yourself in a non SAS Gazelle, Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness or Yaw divergence is a very real problem in many helicopters. The term Fenestron Stall was supposed to cater for the case where in crosswinds from the right of more than 10 Kts, the laminar flow around the duct of the Fenestron (which allegedly produced a large percentage of the anti-torque thrust)broke down and caused the initial left yaw which started the whole pirouette thing. Many of us were never convinced by this but it was the official RAF and Navy view at the time and at Shawbury we spent a couple of years taxying sideways (crabs after all) into and out of dispersal at 10' which was far more dangerous than the percieved risk of Fenestron Stall.. .Shawn - you are correct of course that the climb descent will happen in any helo, I was only taking issue with your original post stating that it was due to Nr variations. PS thought your book was very good - got any free copies for an old QHI?

[ShyTorque]

Shawn,. .. .I agree with your explanation. This effect was first demonstrated to me during my QHI course when the aircraft was fairly new in RAF service.. .. .I showed it to students many times afterwards just for fun and to prove it wasn't a fluke and to get them thinking. . .. .I find it easier to understand if "Nr" is substituted for "N2".. .. .As the Nr is sensed relative to the fuselage, a left yaw fools the governor into thinking that the Nr is too high, which of course it isn't, it's not changed. The fuel flow is wrongly reduced by the governor, which means that the true Nr is now reduced (to match the rate of yaw). This results in a descent because at the same collective pitch setting, the rotor thrust has been reduced.. .. .All we need now is an explanation for the marked nose-down pitching when the aircraft is allowed to rotate to the left at a high rate.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[eden]

I 've had it with discussing cheddar tech' nonsense on your posting LOOSE NUT. I completely endorse FLYING LAWYERS comments. His advice is positive and very sound. I am always available for LHS guidance should you wish and live on the South Coast, a great place to fly- do call in. . .. .Just to dispell any confusion - Crab ..... I thought you'd get the joke!. .. .eden

[Thomas coupling]

t'aint natural, how is Kevin B fairing now re the grounding of all ex-mil gazelles re the torsion bar?

[Chicken Leg]

Loose Nut. .. .All of the above technical points are valid and MOST are quite accurate, but don't let them put you off. I fly, instruct on and display the Gazelle and it is 100% fun, but like any other helicopter it can bite. . .As far as Jack Stall is concerned, as long as you operate the machine in the way you intended when you bought it you SHOUDN'T experience the problem. If you do, once demonstrated and practised, it is not (normally) difficult to recover.. .As for fenestron Stall/Yaw Divergance/Loss of Tail Rotor Authority, call it what you will, operate within the published limititations and with sound airmanship and again you SHOULDN'T experience it.. .Enjoy your time with the aircraft, its a real cracker and bags of fun and don't let some of the above technical posts blind you into thinking anything else.. .. .EDEN. .I too would love to hear when and where you looped, inverted and pedal turned to the left in the Gazelle. And who cleared you and the aircraft to to it! I too have/do display the Gazelle, but I'm not allowed to fly any of the above.. .. .CRAB. .How are you mate? Devon keeping you well I hope!. .. .MM

[eden]

Chuck Leg - How hard do you all need your chain yanked? Cos I can just keep on pulling (more and more as I go over the top).. .. .I have enjoyed this but not as much as I have enjoyed flying the X-15 !. .. .eden

[[email protected]]

Chicken Leg, I reckon eden is another of Griff's nomes de prune!! Devon is great except we have to keep going out and rescuing people in sh** weather!. . . . <small>[ 10 March 2002, 14:17: Message edited by: [email protected] ]</small>

[Thomas coupling]

Eden, one born every day. I reckon he's a newbie in the mil. Young up and coming thruster who thinks no-one has done what he's doing now. Remember those days?. .. .More importantly, how's your health?. .. .Take care. .. .PS: The bit that scared me was when I was half way over the top and all the dust and s***t, china graphs, etc flew everywhere and half a dozen captions came on <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> . .. .LOOSE NUT: you still haven't answered me, are you T from TLC???. . . . <small>[ 10 March 2002, 18:01: Message edited by: Thomas coupling ]</small>

[eden]

TC - I is feeling good, awaiting some final nods and winks, so don't really know the score - how is you these days?. .. .I'm feeling benevolent - before we descend into the depths of RAF v RN and who has done this and flown that and who is going to scratch who's eyes out! I will end it here, Crab & ChuKK leg - I think you're great I'm sure you've been there and done that ...... just don't imagine that you're the only ones ...... .TC - the Chinagraphs .. yeah they used to hit me in the face and my FRC's use to end up wedged under m'little yellow and black wirelocked thinga-me. . .. .That is it LOOSE NUT - have fun in the machine I'd love to see a pic !. .. .eden

[sennadog]

I've seen this a/c down at Redhill - it rocks!. .. .If you see a Katana coming at you my advice is to move as it's probably me..... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . .. .Lucky sod. Have hours of fun in it!

[[email protected]]

Chicken Leg, no I'm wrong - Griff would have been funny and used wit to riposte rather than trying to cover up getting caught bullshi**ing civvies about derring do in the whistling sperm.

[Chicken Leg]

Eden. .. .So let me get this right. You were winding up a civvy guy who posted a valid and legitimate question regarding his very expensive new purchase and who probably has no concept of service/inter service banter. Yeah OK! Cos it couldn't have been me as that last post was my first and how could you have known?. Wow, I get it, you knew that I was going to read it and respond in a way that you and Thomas would find amusing. Jeez, you old timers really are good. . .. .PS. It's been a while since I've been described as YOUNG. A great big thruster maybe! (Joke!)

[LOOSE NUT]

Hey guys. .. .thanks for all your replies (each and every one),will reply in a few days been busy earning, hope you don't think I am being rude. keep it coming.. .. .LOOSE NUT.. .PS, TC no I am not your man from TLC

[Vfrpilotpb]

Hey Loose Nut,. .. .When you are in total charge of your pristine Gazelle, come up here to the North o England, I will be happy to accompany you all day(any day) around the bueti spots of the North, Ie Malham, Settle, Lake District, The Swan at Newby Bridge, The Whoop Hall, The De Tably at Ribchester, The Angel at Hetton, The Northcote Manor at Whalley, The Shireburn at Hurst Green, The Inn at Whitewell they are all available to be visited via the sky, so come on up, plenty of places to fuel up, send me an E and will arrange all! Also will intro you to a Dark matallic Blue and Dark Matallic Green Gazzer, if you so wish <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="biggrin.gif" />

[t'aint natural]

Thomas Coupling:. .Pardon the tardy reply to your post, I binnaway.. .Kevin B has not gone short of replacement torsion bars, having sourced some from friends in uniform and others from Eurocopter. His current problem would seem to be that the MoD have reconsidered their release programme for superannuated Gazelles, for various reasons, and you can't get them for love or money. Cramped his style a bit.. .He is, however, well.

[Heliport]

A gentle word of warning ...... .. .

In recent weeks, there have been a number of posts on different threads which, although dressed up as helpful recommendations in response to questions, are actually advertisements placed by people (often instructors) connected with particular flight schools / helicopter vendors.
Advertising revenue is important to PPRuNe and, for that reason, Moderators are instructed to delete any post which amounts to free advertisements for businesses that don't pay PPRuNe's (very modest) advertising charges.

Strictly, that includes even recommendations and in some forums the rule is applied very strictly. We allow a degree of latitude in this forum and, with some exceptions, Admin let us use our discretion and don't intervene.
Genuine independent personal recommendations are useful. I've made some myself, and I've followed recommendations made by others. But, if this is to continue, we need your cooperation.

We hope it won't become necessary to name names - you know who you are . . .

Please stop posting bogus 'recommendations' promoting flight schools/businesses with which you are connected.

It's not fair to the owners of PPRuNe - and it's not fair to con fellow Rotorheads into believing they are being offered independent advice when it's not.

A blanket ban on all recommendations would only spoil things for everybody.


We've edited some posts on this thread and deleted one entirely. Others appear to be genuine recommendations from neutral sources and remain as written.

The above comments don't apply to Loose Nut - thanks for starting an interesting discussion.. . . .


[ 12 March 2002, 12:13: Message edited by: Heliport ]

[Thomas coupling]

t'aint natural: thanks for that. Send him my regards, tell him it's WT.

[t'aint natural]

Heliport:. .I presume, since you've deleted my post, that it's me you're referring to.. .May I assure you that my recommendation of the man in question is entirely sincere, and that advertising has nothing to do with it. I believe if you talk to any ex-Bristow instructor, they will concur. I have no interest in the organisation for whom he works, although I have instructed there in the past.. .I would ask you to reinstate my post.

[Heliport]

t'aint natural. .. .Yes, you were one of the people I had in mind, but not the only one. Yours was the only post deleted, but others were edited. My comments were about 'recommendation' posts in general, not just yours, and not just this thread.. .Let's look at the facts.. .From the consistently excellent quality of your contributions, I thought you were probably an ATPL or an instructor, or both. But I also became very suspicious, again based on nothing but your own posts, that you weren't entirely independent when promoting the London Helicopter Centre. Think for example about the thread I deleted. People often say a particular school/instructor is very good -you went much further than that.. .And, let's be fair, my suspicions did turn out to be right.. .. .I explained in my earlier post why, if Moderators are to allow some flexibility of the strict PPRuNe rule, the recommendations have to be genuinely independent. I do not consider recommending a school where you instruct (or a fellow instructor at the school) to be an independent recommendation. . .That decision is final, subject only to being over-ruled by Danny - but I think you'll find his approach to this type of post rather less flexible than mine. (He pays the bills!). .. .Moderators have to take a view about 'recommendation' posts. eg If, as here (before the edits) a business that doesn't have an established history/reputation for supplying Gazelles and has only supplied a few (one or two?) is promoted, it's not unreasonable of the Moderators to be a little suspicious that the plugs may be from friends/associates of the proprietor. When satisfied customers pay compliments, that's a different matter.. .. .Recommendations and plugs are different animals.. .eg. .One contributor said he was a Gazelle instructor and included his CV with his offer of help - edited for obvious reasons.. .Another well-known ex-mil Gazelle expert and current civvy instructor(GreenArrow) contributed to the general discussion but didn't promote himself/his business at all - perfect, no problem.. .Another experienced Gazelle pilot (Eden) offered help, but not instruction for payment - again, no problem.. .. .I'm sure I'm not the only one who values your contributions to PPRuNe, and Rotorheads in particular. I am not prepared to reinstate your earlier post but, I suggest a compromise. If you give your recommendation again and limit it to his name, that he's an experienced ex-mil Gazelle instructor and where he teaches, it won't be deleted.. .. .I've gone into some detail out of respect for your valuable contributions. I hope it at least helps to explain where I'm coming from and, I hope, will satisfy you.. . . . <small>[ 13 March 2002, 23:00: Message edited by: Heliport ]</small>

[t'aint natural]

Heliport:. .You have made a mistake. You have access to my posts; on what do you base the inference that I am a serial advertiser?. .My recommendation to Loose Nut, and anyone else who wishes to fly Gazelles, was for Peter Abbott at LHC at Redhill. I have no personal interest in his business, but I know that he is an outstanding instructor, AAC-trained, with 2000 hours on Gazelles and an excellent reputation in the industry. I find his instruction to be uniquely useful and my recommendation of him was every bit as sincere and genuine as Tudor's of Al Gwilt; your arbitrary removal of my post was unwarranted.

[Hoverman]

t'ain't natural. .Relax, they weren't getting at you personally, and Heliport is obviously a fan of yours. Just a general warning to everybody.. .He didn't say you were a serial advertiser, just they figured out your connected with the LFC which means your recommendation isn't truly independant so it gets deleted. It's not a bad rule is it? How can they tell between 'sincere' posts and 'promotional' posts if people work for the company.. .At least you get proper eplanations on this forum - on some others you just get told to bog off if you don't like what they do!. . . . <small>[ 14 March 2002, 09:42: Message edited by: Hoverman ]</small>

[t'aint natural]

In reviewing my posts here, I find I'm probably blowing hard about very little. The outcome more than satisfies my concerns, which were perhaps overstated. Some people will take offence at anything. I know I do.

[Top Slice]

It seems that the "whistling chicken legs " have stopped whisting any news, what about the CAA approvals:confused:

[Hoverman]

This question has come up a few times. I think I've found out the answer.

Apparently the UK CAA refuses to recognise the CofA's issued by the Swaziland CAA to the ex-mil Gazelles.
This is so stupid.

The ex-mil Gazelles were produced on the same production line and to the same standards as the civvy machines. Customers were offered three variants of the engine. (ie it was the same engine in all Gazelles, slightly different specs). Only two of the variants were type certificated at the time - the one chosen by the mil didn't need to be.

The Swaziland reg came about because one of MW Helicopters was exported there. The Swazi CAA treated it as a variant of a certificated engine.
They looked at its long established impeccable safety record, confirmed that the mil engines had been maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, confirmed there was full manufacturers back-up and, very sensibly, issued a C of A for the ex-mil Gazelle.
MW Helicopters then put some of their ex-mil's on the Swazi register.

The UK CAA, in their infinite wisdom :rolleyes: , refuse to recognise the Swazi certificates (even though it's an ICAO country), will not allow Swazi registered Gazelles to fly in UK airspace, and will only issue a Permit with silly, irational and completely unnecessary restrictions.

Typical of our (in)famous Campaign Against Aviation. :mad:

Well done to MW Helicopters at Stapleford for trying to help.

[Heliport]

Thanks for the post.
The question has come up every now and again since the Swazi-Reg machines were seen at Helitech.
I agree it's completely stupid, but wish I could say I was surprised!
From what everyone says, what MW Helicopters don't know about restoring and maintaining Gazelles isn't worth knowing, it's a shame the CAA didn't attach more weight to MW's experience and judgement.

I wonder why it is that common sense never seems to influence CAA decisions on this sort of thing.

Does anyone know exactly what restrictions the CAA put on the Permits for Gazelles?
And why?

[StevieTerrier]

While lots of people are getting hot under the collar about the CAA not accepting these Gazelles on the UK register without restrictions, it should hardly be unexpected. Don't the ex-Mil machines in the US generally end up on the Restricted / Experimental category? This restricts the usage and the people you can have on board (only crew necessary for the operation I think, but I'm sure some of our American cousins can clarify).

Another point to consider (though I'm sure the CAA didn't) is what about the people who have paid out pots of cash for a "pukka" Gazelle costing twice the price of these Swazi-reg ones? Is it fair on them that there is suddenly a flood of cheap machines on the market?

[Top Slice]

So much sunshine So may questions and no answers come MW whats the word we can only hold are breath for so long:(

[The Nr Fairy]

Steve T :

That's life, I'm afraid.

[md 600 driver]

stevie terrier
no the americans put ex mil helis that were made to the same specs as civvy ships on normal cat cofa
however ex mil hueys go on restricted because of they are not 205,s
ex usa hillers ,b47.some oh6, ect. all can go on normal certs.

[Heliport]

Stevie
People are hot under the collar because of the CAA's intransigent attitude. I agree it's 'hardly unexpected' - it's exactly what anyone with experience of the UK CAA would expect.

But Hoverman's point was a different one.
The UK CAA refuses to recognise CofA's granted by the Swaziland CAA - even though both countries belong to ICAO - and won't let Swazi registered Gazelles fly in UK airspace.

Top Slice
What don't you understand?
MW Helicopters' superb efforts help people who've bought or are thinking of buying an ex-mil have been thwarted by the CAA's decision.
End of story.
It's back to Permits with restrictions.

[StevieTerrier]

MD600 Driver. You posted "the americans put ex mil helis that were made to the same specs as civvy ships on normal cat cofa"

Isn't that the problem with our ex-Mil Gazelles? They are not the same spec as the civvy ones?

Heliport - Yes the refusal to allow the Swazi-reg machines to fly in the UK is completely out of order. (Especially when you can fly a home-built Rotorway without being sectioned into a mental home.) What reasoning have they given for it?

How about a compromise solution? If all the prospective owners of these Gazelles pony up another £20K, could MW not get them certified as a new type? Probably not, but I thought I should ask!

[Cyclic Hotline]

This is an interesting problem, but also one with a defined and common history.

Ex-military aircraft were part of the foundation of each and every part of the Aviation business, be it pax, cargo or utility. It continues today, and has the potential to become an even more significant aspect of military aircraft selection in future, as the cost benefits of operating a shared commercial/military model, where appropriate, are significant. Additionally, the residual value of an aircraft with direct commercial application is significantly higher - as there is likely to exist a demand for these products.

Every regulatory authority has tackled this problem in its own way. Some have permitted ex-military aircraft that have an identical civil counterpart to be conformed to the civil Type Certificate in a process and manner that ensures the two products are indeed identical (think DC-3 here). Others have permitted the product to be modified, sometimes significantly, to allow conformity to a civil type certificate.

Then comes the issue of ex-military aircraft which either do not conform to an existing TC, or for which no TC exists. In this arena the authorities head in a multitude of directions, each with it's own solution and definition of the issue. This is the area where each authority maintains the right to define it's own certification process and the recognition (or not) of another authorities process.

I do not know the specifics of the Gazelle production and certification, but in order for the aircraft to be conformed to the existing TC, it will have to either conform entirely, or specify an approved exemption for the variance to the TC. In the instance of these Gazelle's, you have the additional problem that the engine does not (apparently?) conform to any existing TC, so you have to address the issues entirely and in the correct sequence.

This process is the same no matter which authority you are certifying them under. If you are unable to provide conformity to this TC, then many (but not all) authorities may permit certification to a limited Airworthiness Certification, with specific restrictions applied to the aircraft. This is the current status for the Gazelle as I understand it.

IMHO the CAA is not really being unreasonable, as they are simply holding the aircraft to the identical certification standard that any other aircraft that wishes to claim identicality to the product identified in the TC. This issue would be identical under most Airworthiness Authorities, including the FAA.

The solution is to either create a new TC for the ex-mil Gazelles (prohibitively expensive); or to modify the the engine TC to include the military variant (potentially prohibitively expensive). Either way, there are certification issues involved, and both will include the manufacturer (as the TC holder).

Perhaps the CAA position regarding the Swazi registration is really not that surprising, considering the CAA knowledge of the product concerned and the lack of the same by the country of registration, and probably the ability to make a reasonable determination - this is similar to the Flags of Convenience in the shipping industry. Tough issue.

Question: If you install a commercial variant engine in these ex-mil Gazelles, do they conform to the existing TC?

I can't offer the definitive solution to this problem, but it will cost MONEY.

The issue of FAA certification is also somewhat confusing to many. The FAA will allow ex-military aircraft to be operated under a variety of certifications, each with it's own limitations and restrictions.

Standard Category - an aircraft that conforms to an existing TC, or to a new TC created for that product - unlimited use. This includes aircraft previously used by foreign military operators.

Restricted Category - provides for the use of ex-US military aircraft only, with specific limitations on application and use, but can be used in commercial aviation (no pax operations). Some manufacturers hold Restricted TC,s, but the vast majority are created and maintained by individual companies (sometimes dozens of TC's for the same basic product).

Experimental - very limited and restricted in non-commercial application.

A thread here some time ago, noted that there was an ex UK-mil Gazelle, in the States. It would be limited to Experimental category; ineligible for Restricted Category (foreign military); but could be certified in Standard Category if it were able to conform to the TC.

Although there may be similarities, an OH-6 is not a 500; an OH-58 not a B206, a UH-1H not a B205, a CH-54 not a Skycrane. The majority of certification authorities recognise these issues and deal accordingly. The last big ex-mil civil project in the UK was the S58T programme, where ex German (round-motor) military aircraft were concverted into a CAA certified product.

In the last decade, Worldwide, there have been some significant issues concerning foreign registrations, foreign manufacture and certification, bilateral agreements, regulatory oversight of products operated outside the country of certification and many others. One that immediately springs to mind is the Canadian certification of the Kamox KA-32 and the conflict that was created within Canada, as well as outside!

The proliferation of military operators (and Government agencies) utilising exact commercial products offers an interesting perspective. Many foreign military users bypassed various trade restrictions by purchasing commercial aircraft rather than the military variants - now years later these same products are eagerly sought by the commercial sector to be reconfigured and returned to commercial service!

The recent Government agency purchases in the US, of A-stars for example, will eventually allow significant residual resale value when the aircraft return to the commercial marketplace.

Perhaps one of the greatest investments the Military (or Government agencies) could make today, would be to specify the products they buy (where appropriate) are delivered conformed to a commercial TC, so that when there useful military life is completed, they can be sold along with parts and tools, and gain a useful resale value as part of the overall deal! There are a couple of Heads of State who probably wish they had taken that into consideration when they purchased helicopters then tried to sell them back into the commercial marketplace and found the inability to ever reclaim the value, even though there was an active demand for the identical civil product in commercial operation.

[virgin]

Interesting response Cyclic.
We'll have to disagree over whether the CAA is being unreasonable!
I know and concede that if someone takes a 'jobsworth/rules is rules' approach to the issue, then strictly, the CAA is correct not to issue Gazelles on the UK Register with a full CofA.
However, the difference between the spec of the three variants of the same engine is so marginal that a pragmatic and sensible approach from the CAA would have been a welcome breath of fresh air.
The CAA had the perfect opportunity to allow the problem to resolve itself given to them on a plate, but they went out of their way not to take it. Even if the CAA felt it would compromise its own principles too much to issue a full CofA itself, all they had to do was nothing. Instead, they decided to take a positive (and unusual) step of questioning, and then refusing to recognise, the Private Category CofA issued by another ICAO member state.
That is where I think they are being unreasonable. They weren't asked to do anything. They aren't required to do anything. They just chose to take the active step.

The restrictions attached to the UK Permit are also unreasonable.
Just two examples I've heard are
*Essential crew only, including ground handling crew: Getting around that one is not exactly rocket science.
*Maximum of four pob: If the machine is safe enough to be flying around with 4 pob, what could possibly be the safety reasoning behind refusing to allow 5. :rolleyes:

[md 600 driver]

virgin

possibly the worst restriction is no flight over built up areas i dont know how any one could legally fly in the south of england

[virgin]

I agree. And there's no logic.
If the CAA genuinely thought the Gazelle with the mil engine was so unsafe it shouldn't fly over built up areas, they wouldn't let it fly at all, let alone with 4 pob.
But when did logical arguments ever carry any weight with the CAA?
The CAA know as well as the Swazis and anyone else who's been in helicopters, is that the Gazelle engine has an impeccable safety record, civil and mil variants.
The truth I suspect is that their arrogant noses were put out of joint by MW Helicopters finding a solution to the problem. True it was probably a 'flag of convenience' as Cyclic suggests in his post, but it was a very sensible one.
The CAA couldn't possibly allow such a sensible solution to survive. :rolleyes:

[Hughes500]

I think you will find on the permit that an ex mil gazelle is not allowed to spin ? Sounds like a fixed wing permit with the CAA doing a cut and paste on a PC.

Shows the amount of work and effort put in by the staff at the Belgano, pity Mrs T didnt sort it!!:D

[NigD]

A Gazelle, reg G-UZEL, flew into Chester (Hawarden) airfield today, lovely dark blue (I think) colour scheme and a rare sight for me to see.

Anyone know who flies it or has flown it themselves? Does it fly as good as it looks?

It was also followed by a couple of Pumas (Hawarden being quite near to Shawbury and Valley, Mil a/c are quite common). Top day for drooling at the office window, though my boss tends to roll his eyes every time an "egg whisk" approaches and mutters 'what pay rise' these days.

Not much point to this thread really just had a good day gawping at the big uns!!!!!

NigD

[t'aint natural]

I've seen G-UZEL a lot at Redhill. I think it's just out of a rebuild after a heavy landing on the Isle of Man. Don't know who owns it though. Pretty machine.

[Harpooner]

Flies like dream, interior is the full leather with lots of sound eating carpeting. I can't remember if is a plugged (extended) version. Last flew her 4-5 years ago.

[HeliEng]

You can easily find out who owns it using the G-INFO section of the CAA Safety Regulation Group website!





"Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"

[RotorHorn]

To save you looking...
according to G-INFO :-

Registered Owners

MCC LTD
MAIN ROAD
KIRK MICHAEL
IM6 1AD
UNITED KINGDOM

[Flying Lawyer]

NigD
If you like Gazelles, and your rotary travels bring take you anywhere near Stapleford, you'll see some beautiful examples at MW Helicopters - only a few minutes walk from the Tower.
MW maintain most of the Gazelles in the UK, so there are always a few around. The way they completely transform old and/or ex-mil Gazelles has to be seen to be believed. The one I fly (sadly not mine) is Aston Martin metallic green, cream magnolia hide etc.
Buying one may not fit too well with saving up to do your CPL, but looking (and drooling) is free!
:)
There are usually some A109s and Twin Squirrels in for checks if you like those.

[feelforit]

I think this machine sits at Blackpool

[RotorHorn]

There is a dark blue gazelle hangared at Heli2000 at Blackpool, but its French registered (F-xxxx). Haven't seen G-UZEL there... but thats not to say it aint!

[SKYWOLF]

Hi all.
Has anyone come across a black and yellow Gazelle with the registration, HA-PPY?

It is registered in Hungary and has been based in the UK since at least early 1999.

If anyone has seen it, or knows' anything about it, i.e, the pilot please reply to this post.

[md 600 driver]

yes it belongs to a friend of mine in yorkshire
its having a annual now

[JP5A]

G-UZEL is owned by MCC fro Kirkby Michael,Isle of Man.
Serial no 1413
type SA341G
IST REG 21/11/89

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I am interested in getting a Gazelle rating.

Can anyone let me know where, if anywhere in the midlands/northwest England can I find an aircraft to train on?

Also what are the hourly costs of flying one?

Thanks for your help.

[Flying Lawyer]

Unless anybody from the Midlands/NorthWest responds with a better idea, I suggest you contact either Martin Woods at MW Helicopters (01708 688115) or Capt Al Gwilt at Excel Charter (01708 688110)

Although MW Helicopters is based at Stapleford, they supply/maintain virtually all the Gazelles in the UK. Martin Woods will be able to tell you if there any in your area used for training.

Al Gwilt (ex AAC Display pilot) is a Gazelle Instructor, CAA Examiner, and still flies Gazelles in the TA. I'd strongly recommend him. If that's not practical, I'm sure he could recommend someone nearer to you.
It's obviously personal choice, but I think quality training is much more important in the long-term than short-term convenience. You could do it all in a couple of days if the wx is good, and one night's B&B won't cost a fortune near Stapleford.

Hourly costs?
Usually a little more than a B206. Not cheap - but worth every penny! The Gazelle is a superb helicopter. :)
Good Luck, whichever route you take to your rating.

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Thanks FL, all the info I need there.

I have no problem with going further afield but was just trying to see if there was the opportunity close by.

I will probably take a week off and do it all in one go.

I have heard so much about what a dream this aircraft is to fly I thought I may as well go and see for myself.

I beleive you have a few hours in it?

Thanks again

[JohnJ]

I think Hields aviation at Sherburn-in-Elmett (nr Leeds) have one. Not sure of costs etc.

[ppheli]

London Helicopter Centres at Redhill have just registered THIRTEEN ex military Gazelles onto the G- register (go check G-CBSA to CBSK on the CAA's G-INFO register site if you are sceptical!). Obviously no triskaidekaphobics at Redhill then...

[Palma]

I believe that these ex-military Gazelles were not sold at public auction but were sold to a "MOD disposal company." If this is correct, does anyone know why?

[Jed A1]

All ex military airframes are normally sold via designated disposal companies.

It was only recently that certain airframes (Bulldog's, Gazelles etc) were sold via auction so the MoD could realise premium prices for them. Now the public is deemed to have given up paying premium prices, the airframes are being sold at fixed prices.

I believe that the Gazelles in question were purchased over a year ago.

[Heliport]

All part of the world-famous Rotorheads information service!

Recommend us to your friends.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/jump.gif

[eowyn]

These Gazelles will be on the market when the permits to fly are obtained. They have some of the ex Navy Sharks display team helicopters which look really great. I was allowed 5 minutes flying one on my flight and the SAS system and IPS made it great for me as a fairly new fixed wing pilot to fly. I am trying to write my first ever article for a magazine on these and why people want one and how they are going to use them, if you don't mind would you get in contact about it. If not, enjoy the helicopter - it was great fun!

[Thomas coupling]

PPheli: the november (?) 2001 issue of "PILOT" has a write up on civvy Gazelles. South West Aviation was the company I believe.

Don't buy ZA 485 It's been barrell rolled and too may EOL's:D :D :D

[Autorotate]

There is an operator here downunder, Bruce O'Malley (same one that had a Wessex crash on logging and kill the pilot last year) that has a couple already in Kiwiland and trying to flog them off. He also has another Wessex or two here.

[Bronx]

Genuine question, I'm not about to do a Lu Zuckermann here.

Don't see many Gazeles in the US but I've alwasy thought it was a hot helo, maybe cause all the ex British mil pilots I've ever met told me it is. ;) But reading through some old threads on rotorheads, the Gazelles sold off by your mil haven't done too well in private hands. Two have them have been crashed, one at Hicksteed and one this past weekend. No fatals, but 2 in a short time.

Whatsup? :confused:

[Bronx]

Just looked again. Both helos crashed taking off.

:confused:

[FIESTA]

Interesting thought Bronx; I've only got 100 hours Gazelle time on a 200 hour total time in helos.

My experience is that the Gazelle is beautifully behaved, a delight to fly and certainly in the probably boring envelope that I fly in hasn't yet shown up a serious vice.

My own machine is a civilian C of A and has a slightly different engine from the millitary version.

In my few hours, I've flown about 20 on an ex mil (Swaziland reg before the CAA grounded us) and I can't say I can tell the difference. On the plus side, the mil machines had SAS and stick feel which was very nice.

I don't know why there have been these problems with the ex mil Gazelles; it would certainly be interesting to find out.

[Flying Lawyer]

I agree with Fiesta.
The Gazelle is a joy to fly and, probably because I'm not a sufficiently experienced pilot to push it to the limits of its envelope, I've not found any vices.
It's a very responsive machine and need more cautious pedal input than, for example, a B206. Because the blades turn the opposite way to most helicopters, that is an aspect which can catch out the 'newly converted' and has to be taken into account. I still do!
I don't think the (very slightly) different engine in the ex-mil Gazelles makes any difference at all to the handling - or, if it does, I haven't noticed.
SAS, which few civvy Gazelles seem to have, makes things even easier in a helicopter which is a delight to fly even without it.
I'm only a PPL but, for what my opinion's worth, I think the key with any new type (especially for a PPL) is thorough training for the type rating.
Fiesta mentions the Swazi-reg Gazelle - which must mean MW Helicopters at Stapleford. I know MW insist anyone who buys a Gazelle from them has thorough training, and a demanding checkride with Al Gwilt an ex AAC display pilot who still flies Gazelles in the TA. Although the basic CAA requirement is 5 hours, I think they insist on 10 hours minimum training and a successful flight test for anyone who hasn't flown turbines before.
MW are obviously in a strong position to sell only on their terms, but I don't think their strict approach to safety is unreasonable. The basic 5 hours isn't enough if you've only flown R22s previously.
Anyone can have bad luck (and we don't know if these two accidents were mechanical failure or pilot error) but the MW approach seems to have worked so far.

Tudor Owen

[ClearBlueWater]

I don't fly Gazelles and have heard nothing but praise for them by those that do but I've also heard that if you do a downwind quick stop, flaring as you go round, if you let the nose drop to face into the ground then you will surely follow in that direction with little chance to recover. Is this true and if so why?

[greenarrow]

This to me should be an easy question to answer.
The Gazelle is a performer without a doubt. It has it's vices but so do most other helicopters. There is 27 in this country on various reg all civil built. Some are 341 models with the astazou 111A/B engine similar to the original 111N military engine and some are 342 fitted with the 14H engine which out performs both the early engines and that of the updated military fit. There is only a few ex military machines flying at present and they are no more difficult to fly than the civil built machines, if any thing they are easier as they have a SAS and Stick feel system. The owners of these machines have enjoyed (touch wood) so far accident free flying.(I cant say if it is incedent free though). They are regularly checked (LPC) which generally last in the region of 1.2-1.5 hours depending on their requests. It would be wrong of me to comment on the training package but they do come back for more.

Just remember you would not put your foot down going around a roundabout in the wet in a 3 litre Ford Capri. Fly it as you see it and not as you think it.;)

[StevieTerrier]

Greenarrow says -

"Just remember you would not put your foot down going around a roundabout in the wet in a 3 litre Ford Capri"

Try telling that to Bodie and Doyle....

[[email protected]]

ClearBluewater - I don't know who told you that cobblers but if you point the nose at the ground in any helo during a downwind quickstop you will be in for an interesting ride. The Gazelle is great - every home should have one. Certainly a damn sight safer in inexperienced hands than Uncle Frank's machine!

[Moneyshot]

I suppose the key to safety in the Gazelle is not to get too cocky with it. I did my BFT and an instructors course in the Gazelle and yes, it was quite easy and a delight to fly. It was also monstrously powerful, fast and manouevrable, maybe too much so for a beginner. Like any fast piece of kit (even a capri), you've just got to take it in stages.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

My five cents...

Allowing the nose to drop in a turn and flare manoeuvre while close to the ground is very dangerous in any machine (balance, balance!!). The Australian Army lost an S-70 during a similar turn a few years back. (Nick, your five cents for the high tech stuff?). Do the same (i.e. drop the nose) in a f/w at low level and watch the ground come up!

I'd love to fly a Gazelle (are there any in Aust? - not that I've seen), and it would be a shame if people were put of by rumour and innuendo (if that is the case) regarding its handling.

[Vfrpilotpb]

A very good friend of mine owned a 1998 R22, that he used for business, but got very tired of trying to get home from business meets with mainly Northerly winds blowing against him, obviously this meant he would be better of by car, so he looked round for some thing that would be better and slightly bigger, what did he plump for but a 342 Gazelle, he purchased a absolutly brilliant machine from MW, at MWs insistance he did the extended conversion from R22 to 342, then he hired the tutor( Ex Raf Shawbury) to give him some more, now he flies all over Gt Britain with the speed of a swift arrow, having been with him a time or two I can confirm the Gazzer is a real performer and has so much power available, cross country speed is similar to that achieved by any sports car when driven flat out down hanger straight, comfort is superb, and handling is a dream, But beware of the pedal inputs at low speed when hovering, things tend to happen so fast.
Having paid a little tax in the past, I am extremly pi££ed off, that all you mil types have had this Helo as your private transport FROM NEW, what about us civvies!!;)

[syd_rapac]

Squuiffy,

there is one in OZ owned now ( I think ) by a photographer called Green. Think it lives somewhere just north of Melbourne. Ask Uncle Richard the ABC pilot in SYD as he had an engine licence and knew where it lives. Richard used to fly the NPWS machines.

Lovely machine, two were owned by National Parks in NSW but both severely damaged. One while working in Kosi and the other in Warrumbungles.


Syd

[Hone22]

I remember seeing the Aus Gazele on the cover of Heli-news a few years back (complete with story of the purchase, re-build, re-engine and general guff).

A bit after that it was up for sale as the Photographer owner (Green?) was upgrading to a EC135.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Syd and Hone, thanks for the info. A photographer with some spare cash, I take it...

How do they compare to a Squirrel?

[John Eacott]

Mr Green is an ex Pom, who bought his Gazelle about 1989 or 90, IIRC. PMA looked after it for him at Bankstown, where little expense was spared. Having sold his Convention Marketing company back in UK for a disgusting amount of money, he has the money & leisure to enjoy himself :cool: Since upgraded to another of EIP's machines.

VH-ONE is currently another (the only?) Gazelle in Australia, owned by a local businessman who has had a number of helicopters. Very nicely finished, it is kept at Moorabbin and looked after by PHS.

[jayteeto]

I have 800 hours on type (mostly instructional) and would like to say it's a delight to fly and is perfect to learn in. The only reason they were retired was the cost to run became high. I now fly squirrel which is reliable beyond comparison but nowhere near as much fun. If you normally use a 206, try a Gazelle and have a nice day.

[claytona]

The cost of these ex mil Gazelles has presented my with an idea for missionary type work in Mexico.
Could the Gazelle carry a simple litter in the cabin? It has been some time since I saw one and I remember it as quite small. But could it work? I am not talking of a multi million dollar EMS ship but something simple to replace the pickup truck beds sometimes used now.
Thanks
Clayton

[widgeon]

There are 10 AUssie 350 Ba's up for auction soon ( complete with twist grip throttle) , could set up a good medevac system with them/

[Thomas coupling]

Only for pigmy's,amputees or contorsionist casualties:D

[claytona]

I meant to ask about doing this with the front and rear seats removed to get access to the area behind the seat that the feet could fit into. ???
Clayton

[Roundagain]

Yes you can. As you say it requires removal of the co-pilots seat and the rear seat cover to gain access to the boot compartment (for the patients legs, not head)! I don't think it was designed with casevac in mind but I have seen it used as such. I've tried to sleep in a gazelle like that on exercise and it is bloody uncomfortable.

[flygunz]

I've done a few casevacs in the Gazelle, it can be done but very cramped.
RA is correct and the LH seat has to come out for a prone cas but a normal stretcher wont fit, the newer inflatables would probably work ok. There is only just enough room for a small PM in the back doing the funky stuff. In Mexico check out the DA for operations as you may find a limit in payload/range for the old girl.
Otherwise its quick and dependable.

[verticalgyro]

I have used Gazelles in Kenya for Casevac, and you dont get much hotter and higher... one problem, you can only get one geezer in it, but the bonus is that it is racing bike technology and as such you will get many hours flying/maint.
go for it ;)

[timex]

Would be a good choice if you are trying to keep costs down. it is more than capable. AAC/RM used it for just that role in Belize (It is also a dream to fly ):D

[latecomer]

You say ex-mil, won't that be a problem given that these only have a 'Permit to Fly' ? Not sure you could take it abroad...

[sunnysideup]

Rumour has it that a couple of Gazelle owners have now gone down the road of getting their ex-military Gazelle's onto a proper CofA.

I have (someone elses) cheque book in my hands at the mo and sniffing around for a Public Cat model. With the big price difference, it would be foolish to go for a Public Cat machine if an ex-military job is now capable of getting on the register properly with just a few thousand spent on it.

Anyone heard or know any more on this??

[Flying Lawyer]

"Rumour has it that a couple of Gazelle owners have now gone down the road of getting their ex-military Gazelle's onto a proper CofA."


No and Yes!

No, as far as I'm aware, the UK CAA has not issued a C of A to an ex-Mil Gazelle and has said that it will not do so.
The Gazelle engine has three variants. Only two were type certificated - the Mil variant was not. The CAA refuses to accept that the mil version is simply a variant and will not issue a C of A because (technically) the engine has not been type certificated.
The only way I think an ex-Mil Gazelle could be issued with a UK C of A is by fitting one of the two engine variants which were certified - Mil and civvy Gazelles are are identical in every respect except for the minor variations in engine performance.

Yes, a full C of A has been issued by another ICAO aviation authority which took a more practical view. It accepted they were simply three variants of the same engine, took into account the outstanding safety record of each variant, and issued a C of A. Unfortunately, the UK CAA refused to recognise the foreign C of A, and served notices prohibiting them from flying in UK airspace. I believe that, faced with that obstacle, and the cost of challenging the CAA's decision, the UK owners transferred them to the UK Register and were granted Permits to Fly.

If you are seriously interested, you should speak to Martin Wood of MW Helicopters at Stapleford (01708 688115). MW are the Gazelle specialists and maintain virtually all the Gazelles flying in the UK. Martin Wood has an excellent reputation, and will give you honest advice. Their refurbished Gazelles are absolutely stunning - worth a visit just to see them!

[t'aint natural]

The commonality between the mil engines and the civilian versions is about 98 per cent. The major difference is that while the civilian variant has a 1750hr TBO, the military version is good for 2500 hours.
I am in the process of evaluating one of the 12 military Gazelles currently for sale at London Helicopter Centres at Redhill. I think that notwithstanding Martin Wood's attempts to dance around the CAA with African registrations, it is unlikely that the CAA will see sense and issue Cs of A any time soon. But one day it might happen.
A more pressing indirect question is what happens to the price of the military variant when the Army releases its Gazelles onto the civilian market. This is supposed to begin happening in two or three years. As far as I can gather they have about 100, although how many are whole and flyable I don't know. The pongos will presumably have thrashed seven bells out of them.
The RAF and Navy models at Redhill all have the SAS system (which the Army thought was too limp-wristed) and I suspect they're in better nick than the green ones. But I'd love to be able to see five years into the future.

[Hoverman]

Good point about the values of ex-mil Gazelles falling when the Army release theirs. The civvy machines will keep their value. And there's no chance of the CAA admittiing they were wrong and issuing C of A's to the mil machines.

The LHC aren't Gazelle specialists and they haven't got a proven track record. The guy who bought them is an ex-RN observer who bought a load of Gazelles very cheap, but he's only managed to sell two at the most. (Both of them have crashed but maybe that's just a coincidence)
But I'm not surprised he can't sell them. They're way way over-priced for what they are. I looked at them on behalf of a potential buyer. They've had a quick basic make-over and are now on sale for 3 or 4 times what they were bought for at the auction. I advised my client to talk to Martin Wood at MW Helis. No, I don't work for them and I havben't bought one from them, but I know four people who've bought restored civvy models from them. They're all very happy and all recommend MW - probably because they haven't had to spend a penny on them apart from 50 hour checks.

The cheapest way to get yourself a good ex-mil Gazelle is to buy one yourself at the auction (with advice from someone who knows Gazelles) and then get MW Helicopters to do the necessary to get it on the civil register.
The next best way if you don't want to wait too long is to see when MW can supply one.

Best of all, if you've got the money, one of MW's restored civvy machines is the way to go - they're the dogs bollox.
You probably won't get SAS because not many civvy machines had it fitted as an option. But. let's be honest, if you're the sort of pilot who likes Gazelles, you're not going to be bothered about SAS unless you plan to do a lot of instrument flying.

t ain't natural
I know you used to instruct part-time at LHC Redhill so maybe you can get a special deal, but be very careful. Get someone who really knows Gazelles to look at it before you part with your money.

[t'aint natural]

Hoverman: I have to tell you you are misinformed and wholly wrong about London Helicopter Centres. In fact the 12 Gazelles they have were passed to them by the MoD's disposals company JMC Disposals after a period of evaluation of potential outlets which left several other Gazelle dealers disgruntled.
LHC was chosen by the MoD because it was the first company in the UK to get a Permit to Fly for an ex-military Gazelle and has put more such machines on permits than all other UK operators combined. It has been maintaining Gazelles, civilian and military, for more than a decade, and its chief executive, chief engineer and several other engineers are AAC trained. Its chief pilot has thousands of hours as an AAC and civilian Gazelle instructor and four more of its instructors are experienced on type.
I have instructed there is the past and continue to do so on occasion. I have kept my own helicopter there, and I share the MoD's confidence in the company. I let it go when Flying Lawyer mentioned another operator, but your disparaging remarks cannot go unchallenged. Your statement: 'The LHC aren't Gazelle specialists and they haven't got a proven track record,' is the antithesis of the truth. There is no 'guy who bought them' and there are no more auctions, and MW will find it difficult to obtain any more in the near future. Thanks for the advice, but rest assured, I know someone who 'really knows Gazelles'.

[ppheli]

Passing swiftly by the Swazi examples, MW have also been involved in bringing in Gazelles from France - we have six F- ones based in the UK - remember the burgundy one at Duxford? Is there something to be learnt here and what benefits does this have (now or in the future) - JAA certification?

Other people have brought in ones from Eastern Europe - all built in the old Yugoslav SOKO factory and not in France. We have one on a Hungarian HA- reg imported privately (I think) and MD600 driver will know who maintains it as he's mentioned this machine on Rotorheads before now. There are also and two or three on Serbian YU- reg's imported by a guy at Biggin and MW are involved in maintaining at least two of those. We all know these have no hope of a CofA, but what about the purchase cost?

Flightworks imported one from the US and MW took it through to UK CofA stage. Now they've just imported a second N-reg one as well. Not sure whether the intention is to get this through CAA (likely) or keep it on the N reg like lots of other people in the UK.

How do prices compare on these? What other catches are there?

What about the engines? If you put a "good" engine in an ex-mil airframe, would the CAA accept it? Is there a market in these engines?

Wouldn't it be easy for the CAA to just slap the 1750TBO on the military engine and be done with it? Don't go there!

[Hoverman]

taint natural
Don't be so testy. The bit I added to you was just trying to help you.
The part about the ex-RN observer guy is the only part which is heresay - it's what I remember from an article in Pilot mag which my client brought along. There was lots of stuff about this guy who is ex-RN and then worked for the Fisheries Board or something.

I stand by everything else I said. I think the Redhill Gazelles are way over-priced for what you get. I don't know who first put an ex-mil Gazelle on a Permit and I don't doubt LHC are competent, but MW have sold more Gazelles than anybody else, and they maintain almost every Gazelle in the UK. I think that's a good indication, though all their customers could be wrong I suppose.

Anyway I didn't mean to start a MW Helicopters v LHC debate. Sunnysideup asked for views and I gave the ones I honestly hold. He's free to reject my advice and follow yours.
But it is a fact that despite massive publicity and sales promotion events LHC can't sell theirs. And it is a fact that they've only sold two. Perhaps you'll make it three. ;)

Good Luck whatever way you go. :)

[t'aint natural]

Hoverman:
That's not testy. Someday I'll show you testy.
I know about the Pilot magazine article, having written it. I know the ex-RN observer and I know how much he paid, and how much he sold on for. I know the prices of each 'overpriced' Gazelle currently with LHC (do you?). I don't want to do MW down, but don't do LHC down either. Your accusation that they're incapable of selling these machines is just tosh. The sale is nothing to do with LHC - it's entirely down to JCM. LHC was chosen for their expertise and track record with military Gazelles. Very little of what you told your client would seem to hold water.

[Hoverman]

Blimey! I was trying to be conciliatory. :eek:

I only know the prices of the Gazelles my client was considering. They were over-priced. Perhaps they had some other ones that were better value for money that they didn't offer him. Seems odd, but anything's possible.
If you're saying LHC have sold/maintained as many Gazelles as MW then that's baloney.
I can't see the problem.
You're connected with LHC and think their Gazelles are good value for money. I'm not connected in any way shape or form with them, and I don't. I went as an independent adviser.
You're connected with LHC and think they are good. I'm not and I think they're OK, but I think MW Helicopters with which I'm not connected offer better machines and better value for money.
We disagree - no big deal.
You think what I've said is tosh. Fine. That's your right.
I'm only glad the many clients I've advised about heli purchases over many years don't think I talk tosh. They come back again, and send other people to me for advice.
It's up to you whether you think it's significant that MW Helicopters always gets rave reviews on the forum and everywhere else. They seem to be recommended by everybody. Having been there, seen their set-up and their Gazelles, and met Martin Woods, I can see why MW has such a good reputation.
But it's only a point of view and,l as you say, may be tosh.

This will probably make you testy, but you do seem to have an axe to grind for LHC. I don't for anyone and tell it like I see it.

[Jed A1]

Maybe the CAA are actually doing us all a favor here!

200 public transport C of A, five place, single turbine machines hitting the market at rock bottom prices in the space of a few years, would certainly dent the value of your lovingly (read: expensively) maintained Jetranger or Hughes 500! How many people would that please?

A multitude of newly formed and equipped charter operators would certainly wreak havoc throughout the established charter industry.

Sales of new and used turbine machines from other manufacturers could just about stop overnight.

Maybe the ex mil. Gazelles are better kept as a niche toy for those who can afford to fly them just for pleasure.
;)

[claytona]

Can anyone tell me the main transmission input rpm? Or the reverse I guess would be the engine output rpm? Thanks.

[rotormatic]

CA....

The transmission input speed is around 6180 RPM.

For info on the engine speed and engine reduction gearbox ratio, see:

http://www2.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/D8317FE023670EE58525670E0063412F?OpenDocument

[t'aint natural]

Hoverman: Have a quick glance at your previous posts. Your assertions are uninformed and false, and the idea that you should be dispensing advice, based on such manifest ignorance, is deeply disquieting.
You're clearly confusing Kevin Brigden's Gazelles with those offered by JCM. You ought to know the difference. Are you really telling people that 'LHC have no track record with Gazelles', when the MoD's decision to use them was based on their track record?
Are you really telling your clients that 'the cheapest way to get yourself a good ex-mil Gazelle is to buy one yourself at auction'? No such auctions exist.
How can you say LHC 'can't sell theirs despite massive promotion' when LHC aren't selling them and they've only been on offer by JCM for a little over a month?
Are you really loudly proclaiming that they're overpriced when you have no idea how much they cost?
I am aware that MW are excellent in every respect, and those Gazelle owners I know who bought there are in the main highly satisfied. But too often we see boosterism coupled with casual denigration of others. The kind of sneering you do, as in 'both of them have crashed but maybe that's just a coincidence' (don't you know? If not, find out) is useless.

[claytona]

Thanks Rotormatic.
You other guys have me scratching my head. I have a pretty good BS meter but this long distance clouds it, I guess.
I did email MW and they never replied. Are they out of ex-mil machines now? Thanks,
Clayton

[Thomas coupling]

T'aint, whats Kev Brigden doing these days. Is he still selling helos or has he moved onto other wheeling dealing schemes?

There was a time when........

[sunnysideup]

Wow.

I thought that this was a simple question. I didn't mean to start a sla&&ing match between supporters of MW and LHC.

Reading through to the pertanent points, I thank you for your views on my real concern. ie. Getting a Public cat one now, for use by a TRTO for training and charter, only to find I've lost the investors money because the CAA suddenly see sense (unlikely, I know) and allow ex-mil machines to go on public cat.

For the record, Martin at MW has been extremely helpful and prompt with his replies to my queries. I have more information from him than I normally get from fixed-wing people selling aircraft.

I just learnt a long time ago not to rely solely on the advice of the people actually selling an aircraft. No slur on the character of the vendors involved.

Flightworks have also proved extremely useful in their knowledge, experience and advice.

I've yet to talk to LHC, so I can't comment.

[Heliport]

sunnysideup

I don't think the CAA will ever issue C of A's for the ex-mil Gazelles. They've already said they won't be doing so because the engine variant in the mil versions wasn't type certificated. Technically (extremely technically) that is correct and the CAA has made it's final decision on the point. Stopping the Swazi C of A machines flying in UK airspace was harsh (and very petty in many people's view) but it's a clear indication they are not open to argument/discussion.

As you've seen, there's more than one source of Gazelles and more than one opinion. I agree independent recommendations are very useful because all retailers claim their deal is best.
Advice about buying Gazelles is a frequent topic on Rotorheads. If it's any help to you, I've not seen anything bad about any of the dealers, but it's fair to say MW Helicopters consistently gets the most enthusiastic recommendations not only for the quality of their Gazelles but for maintenance, customer support and training.

Heliport

[md 600 driver]

in reply to the earlier post

the ha reg gazelle in the uk is maintained by a hungarian engineer who flys over to maintain it

[ppheli]

Thanks, SA

[nushooz]

Hi - Found some great Gazelle Movie clips here for downloading:

http://www.rotorleasing.com/Movies.htm

awsome sound

:)

[Barannfin]

Those are quite the demo's there. impressive!:eek:

[jstr4753]

I recently heard that it is, as yet, unknown for the gazelle (model as operated by the AAC) to have an engine failure. Can anyone confirm or deny this, and if it is true, considering its extensive use in the AAC and RNavy, is this not relatively impressive???

[Thomas coupling]

I can think of 3 in the RN in the last 10 years!!!
There was a thread on this about 10-12 months ago, I think. Do a search on it.

[CRAN]

Can somebody in the know please confirm for me that the Gazzelle has a single shaft engine and a clutch?

Any links to cutaway drawings or data would also be helpful?

Cheers
CRAN

[Shawn Coyle]

GAzelle has a single shaft engine (Astazou III) and a clutch, as you surmise.
The reliability of the engine has until now (apparently) been exceptional. Once started, they need something pretty unusual to make them quit - the only failures of this type of engine that I know of involved someone forgetting to put oil in the engine, or forgetting to put the fuel cap on and sucking raw fuel into the intake, or water in the fuel tank (in an Alouette in Romania).
Otherwise, pretty reliable engines. Once you get them started....

[Rob_L]

The recent AAIB accident report on G-BZDW (restriction of aft cyclic movement believed to be caused by contact between pilots stick and harness buckle) reminded me of a similar incident in the 70's. Although I believe this could not apply to DW as this aircraft had SAS.

In 1972? an Army Gazelle crashed killing three pax when it failed to recover from a dive. Pilot reported a control restriction in aft cyclic which jammed the stick. No fault was found but the accident was put down to jack stall.

1976/8 (Cant remember the year) XW 851 sister ship to the accident aircraft was on major inspection. While carrying out a control functional check the cyclic jammed solid while travelling aft. The cause was the sliding discs at the bottom of the stick, the lowest had distorted in contact with the floor, the second disc had then jammed into the distortion. The only way to free the stick was to push forward and then pull back again. Not a natural act in a dive!!!!!!

My point is that although the military checked their aircraft as far as I know the civil fleet was never checked and this is very much dormant fault. The first time it happened it took an hour to reproduce the problem.

It is my believe that the cause of the problem was either that the lowest disc diameters either internal or external were incorrect or the diameter of the next disc up was to small. Possibly a combination of the above.

I often wonder if anyone ever told the pilot of the first crash about this or if he has just carried on through the years believing he was possibly at fault.

[Shawn Coyle]

Very interesting point.
The real questions -
a) why did you need full aft stick in the first place. This should never happen in either civil or military use- the certification should show that there is adequate control margin for all conditions of weight, CG, airspeed, etc.
b) what would you do after recovering from the control jam? I don't mean inflight - I mean after the flight is over. This should be reported to the necessary authorities. Most militaries have flight safety systems to report this stuff, but in the civil world, what do you do? Most civil authorities have an SDR (Service Difficulty Reporting) system that tracks mostly maintenance-related difficulties. The authorities use this to track problems and possibly issue Airworthiness Directives based on what is reported. But it has to be reported!
I would suggest that an SDR would be in order - I don't think you need to be a maintenance person to report anything.

[Rob_L]

I'm not sure that in the case of the recent crash that full aft cyclic was involved. In the 1970's incident the cyclic jammed a long way forward of full aft.

As to the reporting side I think the lack of interface between the military and the civil side has been well documented and I believe that as far as the UK is concerned major improvements to the transfer of information were implemented a number of years ago.

On a personal level, I wrote up this whole saga with some rather artistic drawings a number of years ago which I submitted to
the CAA via GASIL. No one ever got back to me on that one so its probably lining a drawer somewhere.