EC135 [Archive] - Page 4

RVDT

22nd Oct 2011, 07:49

P2i upgrade (i = improved?)

Subscribe to EC T.I.P.I.(Technical Information Publication on Internet)

Download SB EC135-71-033 Power Plant – Version EC135 T2 and EC135 P2 – Retrofit to Version EC135 T2+ and EC135 P2+

You will have to go through the SB and compare your aircraft specification with what is required to accomplish the SB.

Main requirements are -

Mast with integrated drive link
Titanium Torque Struts
X-Y Fittings
Cat A switch conversion to High NR
FADEC software to allow High NR
Main Gearbox model and reduction and/or application of finite lives
VEMD Software
CAD Software
ADC 2 installed
FLM and all maintenance documentation is changed

All of the above depends on your current status.

"i" will then give you -

MTOW 2910 kg (although CAT A still 2835 kg)

– AEO TOP from 2 x 75% to 2 x 78% (6% increase in TOP)
– AEO Transient from 2 x 80% to 2 x 82%
– OEI MCP from 1 x 86% to 1 x 89.5%

The "price" also reflects the economics of the possibility of affecting sales of new aircraft.

Contact your local friendly EC Tech Rep and be sitting down when you get the quote!

zorab64

23rd Oct 2011, 16:07

zami - Three or four years ago, the cost of converting a T2 to T2+ (it seems the nomenclature changes depending on whether the aircraft comes out of the factory as a P/T2i, or is retrofitted to make it a "+" designation) started at £130k - at which the members of the User Group, to which the announcement was made, all took sharp intakes of breath.

I'd be surprised if the figure is now much different, & doubt there would be much difference between a T or P conversion. RVDT correctly mentions a long list of modifications but, in effect, the real changes are the X-Y fittings (which may have been done already, but it's a comprehensive man-power job) and a different XMSN - if both are required, they're best accomplished at the same time, of course. The rest of it is mainly software changes and box change for VEMDs etc.

I've also heard from a colleague that, if you're looking at a Police role-equipped aircraft, you may have to consider some weight on the tail (approx 5kg, I believe) if you wish to maximise the AUM increase, from a foreward C of G point of view.

victor papa

23rd Oct 2011, 20:21

havoc, did you solve your problem yet? What was the cause? Always interesting to know.

zami

26th Oct 2011, 13:41

Thanks in all two for the explanation
miza

havoc

27th Oct 2011, 12:09

Thanks for the information so far, we still have the YAW SAS issue.

ILblog

10th Nov 2011, 19:45

Hi

Eurocopter Germany just retrofited my chopper with aux fuel tank, that is placed in cargo area and has capacity 173kg of fuel.

As soon as I did some W and B calculations, I have doscovered, that unless I will have really fatty co-pilot, or two pax that are willing to sit whole time in opposite facing fron seats, I am behind rear limit of CG.

Since I fly usually myself, I am trying to figure out what to do, to be safe and legal. Anyone has experince, how to ballance this situation?

Phoinix

10th Nov 2011, 19:59

You can get the balancing (trim) weights in the front (or rear) section. I don't have the manual handy but its in the M&B section of the FLM.

ILblog

11th Nov 2011, 05:30

Well I have not found anything about ballance weigths in FLM. Just checked.

RVDT

11th Nov 2011, 10:09

RFM Section 6.6 TRIM WEIGHT INSTALLATION (OPTIONAL)

EC135 Maintenance Manual

IPC

L858M0002101 INST. TRIM WEIGHT - FIXED PARTS (FRONT)

L858M0003101 INST. TRIM WEIGHT - DETACHABLE PARTS (FRONT)

Effectivity: Trim system

85-80-00,*2*Location - Trim System

Trim System, Nose Cover

The trim system, nose cover is installed in the forward part of the cabin structure in the area of the nose cover.

The trim system, nose cover can be accessed through the nose cover. The weight mounting can be removed as assy through it.
If necessary, the trim weights can also be individually removed (Note: applies only if the original configuration is re-established
during installation).

Trim System, Rear Structure

The trim system, rear structure is installed on the aft section of the rear structure in the area of the upper tail skid neck.
The trim system, rear structure can be accessed through a cover. The number of the trim weights can be individually determined
and can be checked from the outside via a sight glass in the cover.

Note: These are both 85.00.00 Optional equipment and NOT fitted to standard aircraft.

ILblog

11th Nov 2011, 16:33

RVDT

Thanks a lot. Your help is highlly appreciated.

BIT

12th Nov 2011, 16:11

Available for hire, stout:) pilot, 135 rating expired but about to renew, good with CG charts!

I did some CG calcs for potential aux tank fitments some time ago and came to the same conclusion.

Eat more pie.

WLM

13th Nov 2011, 04:58

ILblog: that is quite a good point to mention as we are waiting ourselves for our retrofit Aux tank. It concerns me that ECD would have done your retrofit but not mentioned/installed the optional trims in place???

By the way, what did ECD charge you for the retrofit? ECM (Eurocopter Malaysia) is charging Euros175K for the complete retrofit.... When we queried the high cost, they replied that ECD had never performed an Aux tank retrofit before??? and we had to pay for all the SB, approvals and so forth....

Rgds
WLM

RVDT

13th Nov 2011, 06:37

WLM,

That would be correct as there is NO SB currently for the AUX Tank installation.

Keep in mind the difference between retrofit and manufacture. If the tank was installed by ECD it was probably done under a manufacturers design approval. If it is done by EC Malaysia then technically they are not the manufacturer.

There has been a concerted effort over the last few years by ECD to include SB's to cover retrofits and they have obviously been completed with the items of highest demand first.

For the AUX Tank SB EC135-28-017 -
Compliance:
By way of this Service Bulletin no work can be accomplished on the helicopter. It is for mere information
purposes about a possible retrofit only. The Service Bulletin may only be accomplished by ECD, an
ECD service station or a service station authorized by ECD.
Upon return of the reply form sheet (the last page of this Service Bulletin) ECD verifies the authorization
of the given service station and makes an offer.
After the order has been received, a helicopter–specific, simple Service Bulletin (cover SB) will be
created which only applies to the given service station and to the given S/N. This helicopter–specific
Service Bulletin is attributed with the same number as this Service Bulletin has plus an addition after
the issue sequence number (/01)

So the claims made by EC Malaysia are probably correct.

The above issue is even significant within ECD as there is a definite line on the ground beween manufacture and MRO.

I have raised this point that more support is needed in this area many times after going through extensive mods on a 135 when virtually none of the optional equipment installation was covered by SB. Wire Strike, Floats, SMD68, etc etc.

You would think that as there are now ~ 1000 of these aircraft in service this would be addressed by now. Sometimes I wonder about ECD's knowledge of it's own market.

ILblog

13th Nov 2011, 20:44

Well I am not sure if only ECD can do retrofit? When I have asked for pricing the ECD offered, that I can do retrofit in ECD or I can do retrofit in my local maintenance organization. The price is same as above.

traicar

4th Mar 2012, 07:47

Performing Cat A vertical ops helicopter stays exposed to forced landing in case of tail rotor failure, all the way up until reaching safe speed.
Does anyone have figures about failure probabilities of engine and tail rotor in order to evaluate the exposure risk?

JimL

4th Mar 2012, 10:46

traicar,

These are different failure modes addressed in different ways. My suggestion would be that they continue to be so.

A tail rotor failure before a safety speed has been reached in a CAT A helicopter, in any type of departure, will (likely) result in a poor outcome.

A CAT A helicopter relies upon certification standards for avoidance of single-point-of-failure component accidents; yes the tail rotor and its drive system are weak points - that is why there are proposals to monitor their health.

These emergencies should be addressed as independent events. The probability of an engine failure is (about) 1:100,000 flight hours. The tail rotor should have a failure rate better than that. The evidence that I have seen appears to show that tail-rotor failures are a more common event on non-CAT A helicopters.

Jim

Brilliant Stuff

4th Mar 2012, 13:27

There was that Japanese 135 which had a tail-rotor-driveshaft/control failure IIRC.

The important bit I remember was that it was a 135 which had no Autopilot fitted and the bit in the tail which gets replaced with another bit which allows the Autopilot to control the Fenestron had failed. So as long as you have the Autopilot fitted to the aircraft that particular failure shouldn't happen.

Does that make sense?

skadi

4th Mar 2012, 13:48

And there was another one, which lost the T/R driveshaft somewhere near Manching airfield. It was a ECD testpilot, who encountered this experience in the early days of the 135 ( Problems with T/R driveshaft bearings ).
The japanese H/C had a broken fenestron pitch link due to a blocked bearing (?), after that, EC changed the design.
I know of at least two complete enginefailures ...

skadi

Brilliant Stuff

4th Mar 2012, 14:19

Do tell. Complete engine failures??

skadi

4th Mar 2012, 14:27

One was a engine-fuelpump driveshaft failure and the otherone also a mechanical failure in the engine gearbox, but I do not remember exactly what it was. Both engines stopped working, but no problem, cause the otherone did;)

skadi

Brilliant Stuff

5th Mar 2012, 09:58

So it wasn't both engines on the same aircraft decided to stop working at the same time.....

skadi

5th Mar 2012, 10:24

So it wasn't both engines on the same aircraft decided to stop working at the same time.....

Thats correct! Two cases on two different H/C. With "complete" I meant total loss of that particular engine, not only loss of power or so. One was sudden failure without preceeding warnings right after passing TDP, the other one failed very short after ENG CHIP indication during cruiseflight.

skadi

Jet Ranger

5th Mar 2012, 10:50

@Skadi...

It was PT-6 or Turbomeca Arriel?

skadi

5th Mar 2012, 12:21

It was PT-6 or Turbomeca Arriel? PT6 on a 135? Would be nice;) and powerful.

I do not remember very well, but i think, the fuelpump issue was on a T1 and the other one was a P2 ( PW 206 ).

skadi

Jet Ranger

5th Mar 2012, 12:40

P2 (PW206) :ok:

skadi

5th Mar 2012, 14:14

Eurocopter is obviously testing a new design for the oilcooler air inlets:

Helionline.de (http://www.helionline.net/756-727413-482027/photogallery///33852.html)

skadi

RVDT

5th Mar 2012, 16:27

Looks like a T2+ or e.

With the IBF fitted there is no longer any engine air going in the front of the cowling. The oil cooler exhaust is ducted up to the top rear of the upper cowling (gear cover) so it is not ingested into the engine from the normal outlet via the IBF. When the IBF is in bypass there is probably enough air available from the area of the mast and swashplate opening.

They may all end up looking like this in the future?

Brilliant Stuff

6th Mar 2012, 15:25

What I would like to know is how those particular flights finish after having lost an engine...I mean did the pilot scare himself or did he just take this bit of info in and land back on?

Isn't that where the aircraft will show it's mettle as in how it deals with problems? Or am I being naive......

traicar

7th Mar 2012, 06:53

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } Does anyone know about tail rotor failure events?
What about tail failure rate?

Brilliant Stuff

7th Mar 2012, 08:50

It seems only one or two.

traicar

8th Mar 2012, 11:28

How many flight hours has reached EC135 till now?

skadi

8th Mar 2012, 13:09

What I would like to know is how those particular flights finish after having lost an engine...I mean did the pilot scare himself or did he just take this bit of info in and land back on?

Both incidents were finished by a normal OEI landing and as far as i know without replacement of underwear;)

skadi

Brilliant Stuff

8th Mar 2012, 19:46

Glad to hear it all ended textbook.

Worldwide flighthours of the 135?

Well there are 1000+ 135s each with 2000hrs on average = a lot.

Ian Corrigible

8th Mar 2012, 23:28

2,325,000 FH.

I/C

aegir

9th Mar 2012, 13:03

2.253.000 fh end 2011

Brilliant Stuff

9th Mar 2012, 19:49

In the UK there are at least 4 10.000FH airframes though two are waiting for new owners and one is hangared for when the rainy day comes....and the other is busily flying.

WLM

23rd Mar 2012, 04:37

Hi
Just completed a C of A on T2+ under the local Aviation Regulator guidelines and we had a strange FADEC/FLI event as follows:

While on ground, engine to be tested goes to Flight, other to idle
Engine to be tested goes to Manual mode selector
CAD say ENG Manual for engine in test
then u decrease fuel flow by twisting the correct engine grip
Check Low RPM light and audio
Twist grip back to Neutral, stabilize N1
Switch Off engine with selector
wait for N1 = 0%
Engine selector back to Normal (not Manual)
Fadec off
Fadec on
Restart the engine

Now that's where it goes pear shape: Both N1 needles on FLI will go up and down like crazy... pulling a bit of collective does not settle them..
Only way is to shut down both engines and restart as normal

When we checked the second engine as per the above description, we had the same problem and had to shut down both engines again

Since then no further issues, the C of A was completed without a hitch; I queried the EC engineers, but they only have experience on P&W engines, and never had this issue come up with a P&W.

Any ideas?:confused:

TeeS

23rd Mar 2012, 09:00

Hi WLM - are you sure line 6 of your procedure is correct? I am not at work at the moment but I think you shut the engine down with the manual throttle in the min flow position. I will check when I get in the office later.

Cheers

TeeS

CS-Hover

23rd Mar 2012, 10:40

It's the other engine still running? It's somewhere written that you shouldn't switch either FADEC off with an engine running so don't loose cross talk capabilitie...... Not written exactlyin this words, but generally idea, not enough time seating in one :(

On OEI conditoon, after safe engine shutdown (of "failed" engine), both FADEC stay in ON position, by the same reason....

Know of a problem in one FADEC (Eng 1 Fadec MInor), that was "only" a cable connection problem to the other engine (Eng 2) - lot's of "crosstalk" going on :O

TeeS

23rd Mar 2012, 11:23

Hi again WLM

Can you advise what the actual check is for? ie preference injector check, bleed air heating check etc. You also say this is being done under the local aviation regulator guidelines - is this check something they have made up, or is it in the manufacturer's maintenance manual?

Cheers

TeeS

WLM

24th Mar 2012, 06:07

Hi guys

Thanks for the reply; well it is a procedure written by the local Aviation Regulator (Eurocopter Malaysia) for performing a Certificate of Airworthiness on EC135T2+

This procedure say: Condition,engine to be tested in "flight, other to "idle"

I guess it is for injector check; but TeeS, I think you made the right point about the twist grip should be turned to "min" , stabilized, then Eng selector to Off

When I read the procedure again I think the mistake was made as follows in writing up the procedure:

Line 6 says Turn twist grip to Neutral (on my collective T2+, it means back to center mark or full fuel flow)

It should really say :turn twist grip to "minimum" to ensure no flame out?
Then switch engine selector to off?

I don't know; they have about 10-15 EC 135 P2 here, and nobody has ever said anything negative about the procedure;maybe I need to check the markings on the collective of a P2 powered 135?

:ugh:

RVDT

24th Mar 2012, 11:49

WLM,

Working from the approved manufacturers maintenance manual chapter 05-62-00,6-3 which is actually part of the Functional Check Flight but performed on the ground.

WARNING Please note that the current IETP is Rev 19.01 dtd 2012.03.05. The quoted information here is from Rev 18.

This procedure is done in sequence so read the previous part of the manual before proceeding.

It appears to be very different from a T1 and some of it is not as clear as it could be. There is actually a training course conducted by ECD to cover these procedures.

F. (20) Check MIN FUEL Flow and 97 %-RPM-warning on ground:

Engine main switches ENG I and ENG II -- switch to IDLE position

Twist grip ENG 1 and twist grip ENG 2 -- in neutral (N) position

Collective pitch -- full down (And collective lock on)

Control switch FADEC ENG I / II -- switch to ON position (it should read CHECK ON)

Engine main switch ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- switch to FLIGHT position

Engine main switch ENG I / II of the other engine ENG 1 / 2 -- switch to IDLE position

Twist grip ENG 1 / 2 of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- turn until NRo = 102 % -- 104 % to increase fuel flow (careful here no governing protection)

NOTE Wait until the engine is in stabilized condition.

CAD indications -- check TWIST GRIP, DEGRADE (TWIST GRIP because it is no longer in the correct position, DEGRADE because the FADEC is no longer in complete control)

Switch ENGINE MODE SEL ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- switch to MAN position (the one on the overhead)

CAD indication ENG MANUAL -- check

CAD indication DEGRADE -- check off

Twist grip ENG 1 / 2 of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- decelerate instantaneously to neutral (N) position to decrease fuel flow

CAUTION SHUT DOWN ENGINE ENG 1 / 2 USING THE ENGINE MAIN SWITCH ENG I / II, IF TOT RISES ABOVE 700 C.

N1, N2, TOT -- monitor during fuel flow decrease

LOW-RPM-WARNING -- record ( 97% - this is what you are checking here)

Warning light ROT. RPM -- check

Beeping tone (800 Hz) -- check

LOW-RPM-WARNING -- check, if reset possible (You should be able to)

NOTE Wait until the engine is in stabilized condition.

N1 -- record

NOTE The engine ENG 1 / 2 must not flame out in neutral (N) position. ENG OIL PRESS / ENG FAIL indication may appear

Engine main switch ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1/ 2 to be checked -- switch to OFF position

CAUTION DO NOT SWITCH ENG MODE SEL ENG I / II BACK TO NORM POSITION, BEFORE N1 IS ZERO (WAIT 16--20 SEC. ADDITIONALLY).

Switch ENGINE MODE SEL ENG I / II -- switch to NORM position of the engine ENG 1/ 2 to be checked

NOTE If the switch ENGINE MODE SEL ENG I / II is switched to NORM position, the CAD indication DEGRADE illuminates briefly.

CAD indication DEGRADE -- check, if illuminates

Control switch FADEC ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- switch to OFF position

Engine ENG 1 / 2 -- restart in accordance with FLM EC135 T2 (CPDS) / FLM EC135 T2+ (CPDS) as appropriate

When it comes to these procedures the TM and PW are a little different.

As always read this (http://www.internetis****.org/index.php) first.

212man

24th Mar 2012, 12:16

so nowhere "speaks" about switching FADEC off (at least on, if any engine is running....) ??????

Doesn't this say just that?

Control switch FADEC ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- switch to OFF position

Engine ENG 1 / 2 -- restart in accordance with FLM EC135 T2 (CPDS) / FLM EC135 T2+ (CPDS) as appropriate

RVDT

24th Mar 2012, 12:30

Engine main switch ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1/ 2 to be checked -- switch to OFF position

CAUTION DO NOT SWITCH ENG MODE SEL ENG I / II BACK TO NORM POSITION, BEFORE N1 IS ZERO (WAIT 16--20 SEC. ADDITIONALLY).

Is before

Control switch FADEC ENG I / II of the engine ENG 1 / 2 to be checked -- switch to OFF position

Engine ENG 1 / 2 -- restart in accordance with FLM EC135 T2 (CPDS) / FLM EC135 T2+ (CPDS) as appropriate

So therefore engine is stopped.

http://www.osimco.de/images/Switch_Panel/Switch%20Unit%20EC135.JPG
NOTE: Image for information purpose only. Configuration as seen is not normal.

Another precaution with the TM engines - DO NOT move Twistgrips without FADEC powered up!

WLM

25th Mar 2012, 03:33

Thanks RVDT

I have written to ECM about their procedure, asking for clarification; they will contact ECD lol before replying...
Rgds
:O

RVDT

25th Mar 2012, 16:29

Anybody had their sun visors in the front curl up in the sun and fall on their head in flight?

Certainly gets your attention!

Answers on the back of a postcard to............................

TeeS

25th Mar 2012, 20:33

They don't issue sun visors in Cork, just fog lights :-)

TeeS

Brilliant Stuff

28th Mar 2012, 10:02

Sun visors? You can't mean the solid plexiglas which are over your head....are they the cloth variety which pop on onto the frame over your feet which are glare shields due to the landing light?

Tell us more...

RVDT

28th Mar 2012, 12:45

BS,

The dark bits either side of the overhead. Granted they may not be so popular in the cooler climes!

http://img.fotocommunity.com/photos/16096306.jpg

Brilliant Stuff

29th Mar 2012, 11:04

Both our 135s got them, but they haven't come down in flight though I can appreciate that being a tad distracting.....

Thud_and_Blunder

29th Mar 2012, 17:35

Nice man from EC came out to Kuwait and fitted these to the 2 police a/c in 2004. It was only after he'd gone and we went to fly one of them that we found he'd sliced through the Lhs intercom lead.

Anyway, who needs sunvisors when you're wearing bonedomes like proper pilots should (says the bloke who's off to join the headset brigade any day now - sigh)?

TeeS

29th Mar 2012, 19:49

Don't worry Thud, I'm sure you will still be allowed to wear it in the bedroom :ok:

Cheers

TeeS

ILblog

4th May 2012, 12:41

Any experience how to put 40kg ballast on co-pilot empty seat?

How to secure it, to prevent possible interference with cyclic?

Fortyodd2

4th May 2012, 21:36

Make it 45 Kgs and strap it to the cabin floor behind the co-pilot seat.

.....just a thought.

ILblog

5th May 2012, 07:36

TXT

Doing it right now, but I would like to have it more fwd.

skadi

5th May 2012, 08:48

Take a crash-test-dummy and strap it in ;-)

Seriusly, in the automotive branch they use bodyshaped plastic structures filled with water, which they strap to the seats ( standart safety belts ) to simulate the weight during testdrives.

Or take a big backpack, filled with sandbags and/or waterbags. It also could be easily and safely secured with the standard seatbelts.

skadi

RVDT

5th May 2012, 08:58

Hmmmm,

If you are having to put that much weight up forward I am assuming you have removed some equipment fitted forward i.e. Nightsun or FLIR etc.

If this is the case you may find there are trim weights you can remove in the tail to solve your problem. Have a look in the panel below the ground handling fittings on the rear of the fenestron housing.

SilsoeSid

5th May 2012, 09:05

Or take the seat out and strap the 40kg, plus a weight equivelant to the seat, to the floor in its place.

RVDT

5th May 2012, 09:58

Or take 10 kg out of the tail trim (if its installed) to achieve a more FWD result and be 50 kgs better off! :p

SilsoeSid

5th May 2012, 11:18

Or find yourself a model / actress to take along for the ride :E
Problem solved, friends jealous, ego boosted and who knows after dinner à deux, it might be more than adieu :ok:

The Height and Weight of 10 "Hot" Female Celebrities Revealed! | Fitness Black Book (http://fitnessblackbook.com/fitness-babes/the-height-and-weight-of-10-hot-female-celebrities-revealed/)

ILblog

5th May 2012, 19:40

I have just installed aux fuel tank, that mobes CG rearward.

It os impossible to legally unistall fenestron trim weight. I suppose they also,solve some vibration issues.

RVDT

6th May 2012, 06:25

OK,

Now we have the "real story" to work with.

Looking back through your previous posts the AUX tank fixed parts were fitted by EC or someone else?

There is a "trim weight" kit that can/should be fitted in this case.........

The trim weights are fitted in the nose and in the rear of the fenestron structure.

(No they are not dynamic balance weights)

The trim weights are designed to be fitted/removed wihout special tools as required.

Granted there is an AUX tank for 135 and 145 but if you do the numbers and research, neither system is very practical.

ILblog

6th May 2012, 08:28

Granted there is an AUX tank for 135 and 145 but if you do the numbers and research, neither system is very practical.

You tell me :-))) But you now, these choppers does not fly so well without fuel.

I will look in the fenestron structure if there is something, and try to order nose trim weight. Cooperation with Eurocopter is disaster. It took me several months just to ORDER aux fuel tank instalation. The company reminds me of Franz Kafka book Castle.

RVDT

6th May 2012, 10:28

Cooperation with Eurocopter is disaster. It took me several months just to ORDER aux fuel tank instalation. The company reminds me of Franz Kafka book Castle.

Of that I have no doubt! There is a lot of room for improvement. If you are a big customer you tend to have direct connections to the right people! Otherwise...........................

Even the information regarding the kit is very vague in details.

OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT

85-80 Trim System

85-81 Trim Weight - Front - Part No. L858M0001051 (NP) Not procurable!
85-85 Trim Weight - Aft - NO NUMBER

Your only option will be to contact ECD as to whether you can do the installation in the field if there is no SB. (I checked TIPI and cant see anything)

An issue with ECD is the retrofit to aircraft in the field of Optional Equipment. If there is no SB it must be done "in house" through their manufacturing and modification approvals.

ILblog

6th May 2012, 17:03

Of that I have no doubt! There is a lot of room for improvement. If you are a big customer you tend to have direct connections to the right people! Otherwise...........................
Yes that is my case. I am just poor owner of two small Eurocopter machines.

I have checked two inspection covers in the fenestrom, and there is no optional weight installed.

I know, that there is not SB to install front weight, so ECD should do it again. That means another gray hairs in my head and 6 months of emailing :-(((

ECD did a proper weighting after aux fuel tank modification so at least I have a lot of numbers I can play with in Excel table and figure out how to fly inside envelope. 120kg of water ballast instead front seats do the job well, but do you want to carry 120kg of uselles ballast?

So whateever I could put safelly on co-pilots seat is good for me.

ILblog

2nd Jun 2012, 09:59

Guys

It happened twice to me.

I am flying EC135P2 with AP, SAS and all goodies, and after aprox one hour of flight I have realized, that when I press FTR, the forces in cyclic are more stiff than before. You probablly know the feeling, that if you press FTR there are no forces in cyclic, and cyclic feels light like nothing. But after hour of flight or so I have realized that the forces start to feel more hard, like if rubber was inside control box - I mean acutator bellow floor. I have landed, checked both hyd system. Nothing seemed to be wrong. Called maintenance. They told me that as soon as both hyd systems are ok I am safe and should observe. After two days the same problem. First hours of flight normal, after that more stiff forces in cyclic after I press FTR.

Does anyone had the same problem in the past?

WLM

5th Jun 2012, 14:26

ECD did a proper weighting after aux fuel tank modification so at least I have a lot of numbers I can play with in Excel table and figure out how to fly inside envelope. 120kg of water ballast instead front seats do the job well, but do you want to carry 120kg of useless ballast?

Really 120KGs? I am about to have the retrofit aux tank done on our EC135T2 and ECD never said 120kgs ballast required in the front.... they said 40kgs max after I queried them on the C of G as I have my weather radar in the nose and unable to use the Front Trim Weight kit... AND they never said anything about an aft trim kit in the Fenestron...

Am I in for a shock once I fill up the Aux tank?

WhirlwindIII

5th Jun 2012, 20:07

If ballast isn't allowed due to the radar perhaps a wire strike kit installation would help - the blades are heavy - not cheap, but a thought.

Aucky

5th Jun 2012, 21:23

does anyone have experience with a Cineflex system on a 135? I see Meeker aviation (http://www.meekeraviation.com/whatsnew.htm) do the utility step mount that's EASA cert'd, capable of mounting it, and easy to install, as do HDSkyCam (http://www.hd-skycam.tv/en/hd-skycam/image-gallery/helicopters/) but is the camera more limited in view than the typical installation on an AS350/355? It looks like being somewhat more in-line with the skids (which are also bulkier, and protrude further forwards than a 350) would restrict any rearward facing shots significantly.

If anyone has any experience with this, or the typical counterbalance weights used (if any) with this type of system i'd be very keen to hear more.

Thanks.

P.s. if you want to try out a Cineflex as CG ballast on the front i'd be more than happy to give it a go for you :)

southerncanuck

7th Jun 2012, 19:22

sir, send us a email, will help with any questions. also the HD skycam mount is ours as well
thanks
cal
[email protected]

Aucky

7th Jun 2012, 20:02

Hi Cal, thanks, you replied by email the other day with respect to pricing and lead times. I'm hoping for any operational experience from an operators point of view, with regards to flexibility (for example rearwards facing shots with the camera more inline with the skids in the 135).

Any advice much appreciated. PM or email ([email protected]) if preferred if this is a thread drift. Thanks

southerncanuck

9th Jun 2012, 17:10

sir, you might try and contact Coyotair, as they have both our mounts for the 135 and 355.
there is no counterbalance needed on the 135, if using cameras in the Cineflex / UMHD type
cal

Brilliant Stuff

10th Jun 2012, 13:47

Are you aware that the 135 has a speed limit of 60 kts with the door open?
There is a mod which allows higher speeds but I can't remember the limit.

Helinut

10th Jun 2012, 17:26

Aucky,

I appreciate your desire to make use of the opportunity you have. Re: the EC135 (apart from police machines with dedictaed systems), the EC135 is not a normal filiming machine. By comparison, the AS355 is standard kit where a twin is needed. All the mods and kit are already cleared and available.

The main problem is that EC135s will be shiny and new, and their owners not wanting to risk the paint job for a utility job.

Because it is not used much in the role many of the wrinkles have not been worked through here in UK/EASA land. An example is BS's issue about Vne with door's open (assuming you will need the doors open), I am trying to remember what the kit consists of. I think it was a sort of leading edge kit for the front of the opening where the door normally goes. My guess is that it would be expensive and you would have to buy it and get it fitted.

Aucky

10th Jun 2012, 17:57

Helinut - Thanks for the input, I have read the relevant parts of the manuals, spoken to a handful of operators, and generally have a positive response. Their machines are new and shiny, but most also see a nice opportunity for some interesting work with one of their trusted pilots onboard. The mounts that i've found so far are simply a replacement side step with bolts, no mod required. The hardest problem if finding the one most suited to the task, as I have a willing agreement in place for a T2+, but it does't have the door locks in place for doors open flight. Your correct there is an optional extra required for the rear door (a lock) to enable doors open flight, limited to 60kts, but 110Kts or VNE (which ever's slower) with the hinge/spoiler mod.

http://s19.postimage.org/7nqoalu0j/Screen_Shot_2012_06_10_at_18_44_47.png.

I appreciate that the AS350/AS355 is more usually used for this purpose, however with the payload requirements even the N is on the limit, especially from restricted sites, at warmer temperatures, and they're not so easy to come by either. In either case finding one that ticks all the boxes is the part thats tricky, but thats why i'm working months ahead, and it's all worth investigating :ok: The AS355N alternative will suffice but be more restrictive with regards to MTOW for helipads that aren't clear area. I'm investigating all the options at the moment in an ideal world, and then filtering to those which are feasible with whats available. Thanks for the input - it's useful to hear things that I may not have considered :ok:

WLM

13th Jun 2012, 15:00

I have the hinge/lock installed on the right door as we purchased a T2+ cancelled order from the Spanish Rescue services

Having done filming with the right door opened and locked, I can tell you that the wind sound above 60 knots is absolutely horrible; sounds like being in a loud live concert with the drums being the major player.... The only slight relief from it is to open both front sliding windows to equalize of some sort, but really not my preferred filming ship and the filming crew hate it

How they reckon you can fly up to 110 knots like that is beyond me....

Phoinix

27th Jun 2012, 14:13

Having a quick look at the latest revision I noticed Cyclic Trim System Check was withdrawn from normal procedures checklist (4.4.1.3 System checks).

Any idea on the background?

Fortyodd2

27th Jun 2012, 20:42

Probably a typo which gives them something to put in Rev.10 :E

handysnaks

27th Jun 2012, 20:46

Or a way of avoiding the sort of stress on the main rotor head that may lead to cracks appearing......

Phoinix

27th Jun 2012, 20:52

I doubt this, the revision was approved more than 3 months ago, before the cracks.

SilsoeSid

27th Jun 2012, 21:04

Or a way of avoiding the sort of stress on the main rotor head that may lead to cracks appearing......

Do you think the cyclic trim check was more stressful than the hydraulic checks?

handysnaks

28th Jun 2012, 01:46

No. Just thought I'd throw it in there. Any objections?

SilsoeSid

28th Jun 2012, 07:30

Any objections?

.........oooooo.........
Ooooo...........ooooo!

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/les-dawson.jpg

Silsoe & Handy - Gossiping Over Tea

handysnaks

28th Jun 2012, 16:17

Snarl!:}:*;)

sherpa

2nd Jul 2012, 14:54

Word on the streets has it; EC is working on an upgraded Transmission and Engines (1000hp each) for the EC 135 suppose to improve the hot/high performance. It’s not the EC135 i, +, or e upgrade. Like I said, I heard it thru the grapevine.
Anybody in the know what they’re up to?

Thanks,

RVDT

3rd Jul 2012, 11:36

I did notice on the CS lists on the PWC e-portal reference to a PW206B3 engine but who knows?

Aucky

4th Aug 2012, 08:18

Does anyone know whether the EC135 is suitable for aerial photography (as a secondary role) in the standard configuration without the sliding door & locks. Is there a reasonable sized sliding window in most? or the possibility of 'popping out' a window thats easily replaceable after the flight like in the AS355?

RVDT

4th Aug 2012, 08:40

Sliding window in some. Too small I would say.

Rear door window is retained the same as the 355 and is part of Emergency
Exit.

Problem would be FM Supplement - Flight with rear sliding door window removed.

Not aware of it on 135 or 355 for that matter which is not to say it doesn't exist
as a local approval.

Brilliant Stuff

4th Aug 2012, 09:55

I see Bond have the first e in country as G-HEMN for East Anglia. I wonder how that will feel..

MightyGem

4th Aug 2012, 21:33

The 135s that I'm associated with have a sliding window in the rear cabin door that we use for photography.

zorab64

5th Aug 2012, 09:26

Aucky - Have a look at photos of quite a few of the UK Police aircraft, as mentioned by MG. Many of them have a sliding window (mostly left hand, although it can be fitted either side) which opens, without speed restriction, to provide a clear area of 18" high by 10" fore/aft. (480X320mm)
I don't know the make I'm afraid and, whilst it's not big, it's as large as the window can fit. :ok:

Helitech - a couple of years ago:
. . . sorry - tried to embed photo but can't, for some reason - try this link Photograph of Aircraft G-SUFK (http://www.caa.co.uk/applicationmodules/ginfo/ginfo_photo.aspx?regmark=G-SUFK&imgname=G-SUFK001&imgtype=jpg)

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/GImages/G-SUFK001.jpg

SilsoeSid

5th Aug 2012, 10:20

Zorab64's described window from the inside.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8156/7141982291_8ef7e65654_z.jpg

Helicopter Cockpit (Rear Seat) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/westmidlandspolice/7141982291/in/photostream/)
:ok:

Brilliant Stuff

5th Aug 2012, 13:31

Tech Tools Plastics make them and the part number is:

EC135 - 1006-01

Aucky

6th Aug 2012, 00:13

Thanks to Mighty, Zorab & Silsoe, does that swap with the window of the sliding door of any 135 with relative ease? It looks perfect as a preference over the hassle of sliding door locks, spoilers & VNE restrictions, and safer too :ok: I know the photographer would be more restricted than no door, but the stills are not the primary role. Thanks again, this is very interesting :O

SilsoeSid

6th Aug 2012, 19:46

Aucky,
I guess the next step is talking to someone at Tech Tools/EC/Bond directly. As you can see from this pic, the sliding window is simply an adaptation to the standard window that fits in the hole. Much like ordering a bubble type window, an add on accessory.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/d54dc537.jpg

RotaryWingB2

6th Aug 2012, 19:47

Why not submit a RFI (request for information) to EC UK, they have fitted many of these to UK aircraft.

pm me if you would like a specific email address.

zorab64

8th Aug 2012, 00:23

Aucky - to your question "does that swap with the window?", the answer is effectively "yes", although the "with ease" bit may be more of a challenge. It's effectively a one for one swap, just the skill of the engineer that dictates how long it takes them to get the rubber strip back in, as either window tend to be a bit of a b**tard to re-fit.

Just beware that if you intend to practice an emergency push out of a sliding door window, and you have the choice, use the one without the sliding insert. I heard on the (good authority) grapevine that someone tried pushing out one with the insert but, owing to the small amount of original plastic (frame) around the sliding insert, one good thump split the plastic and effectively wrote off the window! :eek: Didn't learn if the insert was able to be re-used?

Brilliant Stuff

8th Aug 2012, 16:38

Ah another u/s Skyquest screen.........

RotaryWingB2

8th Aug 2012, 16:52

Ah another u/s Skyquest screen.........

You sound surprised...

RVDT

9th Aug 2012, 07:42

ASB62-029 MAIN ROTOR SYSTEM – Main Rotor Hub-Shaft - Visual inspection of the upper and lower hub-shaft flange for cracks - Rev3

With Revision 3 of this Alert Service Bulletin Part 3 of the Alert Service Bulletin is no longer required. :D

Part 3 being (a) Accomplish the visual inspection in the area of the blade bolts i.a.w. Section 3.B. Part 3 within the next 10 fh after receipt of this Alert Service Bulletin and repeat every 10 fh.

Note: The preflight visual still remains

That removes a serious logistics headache for now at least!

RotaryWingB2

9th Aug 2012, 10:05

Still a requirement for the engineer to visit every 10fh, just no removal of the nuts necessary.

It's a step in the right direction though.

Brilliant Stuff

9th Aug 2012, 12:18

Rotary Wing,
my sarcasm didn't come across me thinks.

Amazing how well they work.Not.

We have made sure the arm on which the screen is bolted on to is taken out as well when the screen is u/s because you couldn't really call it safe in case of an incident......

Phoinix

14th Aug 2012, 16:11

Does anybody fly their 135 with cargo net fitted in the rear?

What is the part number of the net and approx. price?

Any problems installing the net beside flir guts?

WLM

5th Oct 2012, 11:01

Phoinix, I was quoted EUR3000 for that cargo net, in South East Asia... Part number is L850M4807053 from IPC EC135 :(

WLM

5th Oct 2012, 11:08

Hi,

Can you recommend a supplier for a simple stretcher kit that would fit in the internal cabin rails? we are not a medevac operator, but a private timber operator in the South East Asian jungle.

I need to be able to do a quick change from a rear 4 seats corporate cabin interior to only keeping 2 rear seats and a stretcher whenever there is an emergency evacuation required

Rgds
WLM

Phoinix

5th Oct 2012, 12:05

Thank you WLM!

Brilliant Stuff

5th Oct 2012, 13:05

We use the Bucher stretcher which folds in half when stowed and uses the rails to secure itself.

RotaryWingB2

5th Oct 2012, 13:40

Bucher Leichtbau AG

Air rescue / Police equipment - Bucher Leichtbau AG, Bucher Aerospace, Galleys, Stowages, Catering Carts, Trolleys, Aircraft Parts, Cabin Interior Equipment, Emergency Medical Systems, Aircraft Stretchers, Air Rescue Equipment, Video Arms, Video Depl (http://www.bucher-group.com/en/products/medical-systems/air-rescue-police-equipment/)

Same products used in UK Police Aircraft.

RVDT

5th Oct 2012, 14:18

http://apps.singaporeairshow.com/storage/data/exhibitorimgs/10477.jpeg is another (http://www.airambulancetechnology.com/) option as well.

Phoinix

5th Oct 2012, 17:32

A question for which TM didn't have an answer. On Pratt, you get a fadec fail at very low power setting. With twistgrip in neutral you flip out the pins and rotate the twistgrip past neutral to high setting. Doest the rate of twistgrip ensure that even at very low power fadec fail, the twistgrip can still deliver max power if needed?
These fadec/twistgrip governing ranges are a bit unclear to me.

echelipilot

5th Oct 2012, 20:02

Hi WLM,
we also use the foldable Bucher-stretcher which works very well for as as we fly transports of injured persons only occasionally.
Sent you a PM.

Kind regards

Tom

RVDT

5th Oct 2012, 23:31

Phoinix,

From what has been shown to me if you set the offending engine at ~ .7 VEMD or thereabouts you can fly the full flight envelope without the other good engine exceeding OEI limits.

The training policy at ECD these days is you can chase numbers all over the place yet the reality is you don't need to.

Apparently you do not get "FULL" power in manual. Whatever FULL means.

And you will not get it on a Bell 205 or 212 or 412 either so....................:eek:

WLM

6th Oct 2012, 03:56

Thank you for the replies concerning the stretcher, I will check them all
Regards
WLM

Phoinix

9th Nov 2012, 11:56

Just a feedback from a ECD test pilot... twist grips give you twice the range needed, so if FADEC is stuck in minimum position, you are able to get the whole twist for full power if needed.

And a really serious question I couldn't find a solution for on T.I.P.I.

The modification for tail mounted balancing weights. Where can we (our company) get the modification done (Other than ECD).

Is the modification really an airframe modification, or is it just "light upgrade work". - I'm not up to maintenance phraseology.

Dragstay

9th Nov 2012, 17:28

Hi Phoinix,
If your company is situated in Slovenia.
You can look if some big operator in Germany (ALT, DRF...) can perform this modification for you.

I think you can call this a modification because the aft structure of the fenestrone body is modified with a mounting bracket, weights and an access panel. Also your weight and balance is affected.
Its not an afternoons job...

Some of my own experience. We have the weights also installed but the brackets tend to crack after time. We received the upgraded brackets which are from thicker material but also these have cracks reported.

Hope you can use this info.

zorab64

10th Nov 2012, 01:16

Dragstay & Phoinix - you may wish to contact EC(UK), as they have a mod which mounts 5.6kgs onto the handling bracket on the rear of the fenestron. It was fitted to most of the early UK Police machines to correct the forward C of G of the "pod" system - I believe it's also fitted to a few of the newer machines too.

WLM - you may like to also consider a MIBS (Multi Integrated Bodysplint Stretcher), as this rolls up and is very lightweight. The strength to carry a patient is derived from rolling it (the other way) round the patient. This link should give you some idea - there are a number of variants, depending on use:Medical Stretcher (http://www.rescue.com.hk/eng/medical/medical_stretcher01.htm#1)

RVDT - just to question your comment about you can fly the full flight envelope without the other good engine exceeding OEI limits - if you meant that you could pull power on the good engine above the AEO limits, I think you'll find that you should not use the OEI range unless actually OEI. To do so would be regarded as an over-torque by your maintenance organisation. For example, Note 2 of the FADEC FAIL caution clearly states "Do not exceed N1/Tq value of normal engine and aaeo limits"

Phoinix

14th Nov 2012, 05:16

Thank you! You have PM.

skadi

1st Mar 2013, 18:07

EC 135 Upgrade?
A german helicopter forum ( helionline.de :: Login (http://forum.helionline.net/viewtopic.php?t=7979) ) mentioned today, that according to an article in Rotor&Wing Eurocopter will introduce a new variant of the 135 at the HAI in Vegas next week.

The T3/P3 version provides a significant performance improvement in hot and high conditions, and for many operators, an impressive improvement in payload capabilities. The main rotor blades have been extended by nearly four inches, and the avionics suite includes optimized FADEC (full-authority digital engine control) software. Maximum takeoff weight also got a 66-lb. boost to a new figure of approximately 6,579 lbs. The aircraft’s range was also lengthened, thanks to a new external auxiliary fuel tank.Surprisingly the article was edited a short time after and the above mentioned news were removed. But "Eurocopter-to-Bring-EC175-EC135-T3P3-to-Las-Vegas" is still part of the web adress below :E
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Eurocopter to Bring EC175 to Las Vegas (http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/Eurocopter-to-Bring-EC175-EC135-T3P3-to-Las-Vegas_78571.html#.UTD7sTeS_Xh)

skadi

PANews

1st Mar 2013, 19:59

Looks like Eurocopter is waving its big advertising stick at Rotor and Wing!

But the stor 'e' is out!

zami

3rd Mar 2013, 20:38

what is the approximate cost of a used rescue hoist and a double rescue cargo hook for the 135?

Thomas coupling

3rd Mar 2013, 21:02

£13.95p plus VAT

RVDT

3rd Mar 2013, 21:04

Been eating kryptonite again TC? :D :p

Brilliant Stuff

6th Mar 2013, 17:24

Fantastic news about the EC135T/P3 !!!!

Anyone have any pictures of the new cockpit??

What a PR failure not to have any anywhere not even on the company website???

Fly_For_Fun

7th Mar 2013, 10:19

Eurocopter launches the EC135T3 and EC135P3 | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/03/06/eurocopter-launches-the-ec135t3-and-ec135p3/)

tigerfish

7th Mar 2013, 23:38

I have been connected with the EC135 from a Police perspective since about 1996. For my money it has always had the potential to be the finest Police Helicopter in the world.

It is about the right size. It is twin engined and has a cabin large enough to carry a Pilot and two additional Police Air observers and all their associated kit etc. And it permits excellent observation facilities for its crew.

The cabin built to the latest standards of Crashworthyness has already proved its value and the machine has gained an excellant reputation for reliability and relative ease of maintenance.

But it has always carried with it one slight disadvantage which Eurocopter have never addressed and even now refuse to accept.

It has consistently lagged behind in max take of weight, and as all Police aircraft generally operate at around their maximum permitted weight the endurance has suffered because of the inability to carry sufficient fuel and still remain within Cat A.

I was always given the excuse that the machine has just about reached the point of maximum development, "so don't expect much more, because that would require stronger gearbox and transmission".

My response to that was " Then for heavens sake get on and do it!" This new version the t/p3 is clearly a step in the right direction but it is not enough! It needs to go well over 3,000 Kg,s

Eurocopter please listen! The EC135 is a fine Police Machine but it could be so much better! Please have more confidence in your own product and give it a real upgrade. Stronger Engines and more importantly a stronger transmission. Then it really will be unbeatable.

EC have always pointed towards the EC145 as being the answer to those who wanted more weight and power. But it is a very different machine and not so suitable for the high speed pursuit and manouverability offered by the 135. It also uses much more fuel. very important to cash strapped Police Forces.

I have posted this report from a Policing perspective and I am sure that many pilots will tell me that I am talking rubbish. But that is my view. I will now don battle bowler and retreat to my bunker!;)

tigerfish.

Brilliant Stuff

8th Mar 2013, 10:08

Tigerfish, all I am going to say is that sadly that once LCD screens came on to the scene a bobby decided he needed now two screens in the back which has for some strange reason become the norm. My fellow colleagues asked why that was neccessary but they got shouted down. Couple this with the interesting design of the work station in the cabin makes for lots of wasted weight IMHO.
On top of that there is quite a bit of extra kit on the mini tender aircraft which isn't being used (uplink anyone) all this means reduced fuel loads. In the real world though we have gained 15 minutes of extra fuel this could have been stretched to 30 minutes if a cool head with common sense had designed the work station. IMHO.

Devon & Cornwall at least resisted and had one landscape monitor fitted which can be split in two and a little monitor folds out on the right hand side but it still has that monstrosity of a stand on which it is bolted to.

tigerfish

8th Mar 2013, 14:17

BS

You make a good point, and it was true that the crews often wanted more & more kit. There is no doubt that that tendency did have a weight penalty.

My point was that the EC135 was/is a bloody fine aircraft, but for a variety of reasons, it was always operating at or near the top end of its weight category.

To my regret, I am no longer deeply involved, but still feel that the 135 has years left in it. However, to me it seems that it is now being threatened by two or three of the newer breeds of helicopter. They on 1st sight, may appear more capable. Yet the 135 if beefed up a bit, has the pedigree and robustness to remain at the head of the game. For me it will always be the finest Police A/C of its day. I just want to extend that day a little, - say another 20 years!

tigerfish:)

Brilliant Stuff

10th Mar 2013, 11:09

If you were to ask me what is the trump card of the EC135 I would say it has no Gotchas wether on the ground or in the air.

Yes there is that minor issue of the 4 rotorhead cracks but curiously there have only been 4....

Right donning hard-hat....and closing the lid on the tiger.

MightyGem

10th Mar 2013, 21:39

In the real world though we have gained 15 minutes of extra fuel this could have been stretched to 30 minutes
We fly a P2 at 2910kg and usually fly with 1h40m ish of fuel with the capacity to load about another 30m if required. 2h10m in the air is quite long enough. :O

PANews

10th Mar 2013, 22:37

I spoke with the management last week at a press conference and they were pretty dismissive on the matter of the head cracks. They were unable to find a common link between the four and they were a while back now so I think they are watching for number 5 and assuming that the others were just a glitch.

The new EC135T3 displayed at the Heli-Expo shows that not a great deal has changed with the new airframe. Inside they have revised the ergonomics up to preferred modern standards but if you did not fit in the back seat before you still will not. Police role fits in the Uk use up a lot of 'boot space' and that area is no larger either so other than the kit getting smaller there is no gain beyond an ability to carry it conferred by the engine and rotor boost.

There was some talk about external/conformal fuel tanks but that is it seems no more than EC asking the customers whether they want them. The plan, as far as it goes is to bulge the top step in a similar manner to that exhibited on the Heli-Expo aircraft for housing the emergency floatation gear.

Older ppruners may recall the Conformal fuel tanks on the first Devon & Cornwall BK117C1 G-DCPA - they never made it past the launch photo-shoot as it was found that the police role fit with nose mounted camera shifted the C of G far too forwards. They sold them off to someone without a sensor pod. So it looks like this may be a HEMS or utility option if it ever happens.

As for the threat to the 135 from newer types that may be an illusion. The 145 may be threatened by the AW169 but not the 135. The old threats are the best! There are no plans to replace the 109 just yet so if you did not like it before you will not like it now.

Which leaves the 902 and the 429. The former is now relaunched by a very robust Lynn Tilton but her new baby and its new avionics from Universal are not expected before 2015 and the latter remains in the hands of arguments between Bell and the FAA/EASA over raising limits. Many voiced an opinion that it is only a matter of time before the certification authorities give in.....

Meanwhile the 135 continues to sell. A generally held opinion is that the 135 itself is too big for the task of police patrol and observation. The perfect type for the task is the AS350 ..... Now that is another argument.

MightyGem

11th Mar 2013, 16:21

The perfect type for the task is the AS350
Not with only one engine it won't be. :)

Ian Corrigible

11th Mar 2013, 18:35

Anyone have any pictures of the new cockpit??
It turned out that Eurocopter is certifying the P3/T3 in two flavors: MEGHAS and Helionix, the thinking behind the former being that existing P2/T2 (/+/e) operators will want to upgrade.

So we'll probably see the new Helionix cockpit in Anaheim next year. Would expect it to look similar to the EC145 T2 layout:

http://www.nordicrotors.com/images_2/display_2/MOCKUP-1452011-10-18_13:58:56_display_4809.jpg

I/C

handysnaks

11th Mar 2013, 19:56

That'll be the new three crew EC 145 with the re-instated Flight engineers position on the LHS then?:p

PANews

11th Mar 2013, 22:08

The panel in Vegas on the T3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10932568/2013-03-06EC135T3cockpit.jpg

Brilliant Stuff

14th Mar 2013, 13:06

The Helionyx cockpit would excellent.

The CAA will probably require a analogue rad alt to be fitted in order to stay safe though..............

Ian Corrigible

14th Mar 2013, 15:04

http://i.imgur.com/l39glJJ.jpg (http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Documents/IESI_Helico_-_2010/)

I/C

Brilliant Stuff

16th Mar 2013, 01:39

Like it!:D:D

jayteeto

16th Mar 2013, 07:48

Anyone out there having problems with the new 'auto restart' software for Turbomeca engines? Particularly first start of the day being a 'double start' every time?

WLM

29th May 2013, 07:37

skadi

29th May 2013, 10:53

Any1 had issues with the EMB's (Electrical Master Box)?

EMB1 just failed, causing the Starter 1 caution light to remain on;pinpointed to a relay issue but you need to change the complete EMB.... $$$$$ and only 2 months out of new aircraft warranty with less than 250 hours TT..WTH

They are sensitive to water. Be careful when washing the ship, dont point the waterhose direct to the "exhaust" on both sides of the mainframe.
I had once a similar problem, GEN 1 out of action... Also EMB had to be replaced due to water damage.

skadi

WLM

30th May 2013, 02:24

Tks Skadi for the tip

But really how does the water leaks inside the frame where the EMB is installed is beyond me... What about flying in the rain lol

ECD is now trying to source a replacement EMB either on standard exchange or new... hate to think about the price... :ooh:

Cheers

Brilliant Stuff

31st May 2013, 21:31

From what I have learned it's where the wiring loom feeds from the engine through the decking into the aircraft is where the water gets in. If you just use a hose and sponge and no pressure washer you should be alright.

Sadly the EMBs seem to be a weak point, the aircraft I used to fly went through several but those wasn't down to washing.

MightyGem

3rd Jun 2013, 21:58

From what I have learned it's where the wiring loom feeds from the engine through the decking into the aircraft is where the water gets in.
That's where the problem is. Thought that had been sorted ages ago.

WLM

4th Jun 2013, 01:08

Thanks guys
Well I always used a pressure wash, hate to think I contributed to the defect :(
We managed to secure a standard exchange EMB from the USA for USD20K, damn surprising so cheap compared to the horror price stories I had heard...
To be cont....:eek:

zorab64

5th Jun 2013, 13:25

There was an ECD Information Notice a few years ago reminding users not to squirt water into the EMB "exhausts/vents" on either side of the aircraft - that's the oval shaped grille about 150mm below the forward engine cowl clip on each side.

It you take a look at the orientation of the internal pipe, you'll see that it goes forward & up, before going down to the EMBs - designed specifically so that rain (which should never fall in that direction, either when the aircraft's grounded or airborne) will not get into the EMB. The advice (from memory) was to blank the exhausts when washing so as not to get water in them, although the problem really only occurs if you point a hose or jetwash at the exhausts from aft, such that the water goes UP the pipe.

Having washed the aircraft every week since the Info Notice; not blanked the exhausts, but ensured that the jetwash (used every time) is from the front or above only, we have not had any further instances of EMB failure. I'd therefore recommend this useful, logical and not difficult to follow advice, which appears to eliminate EMB failure due to water ingress. Not a design flaw, just too many bits of paper to read, possibly!

Whilst on the washing subject, especially when using a pressure washer, don't forget not to squirt water directly between the tail rotor drive shaft cover & tail boom, as it damages the TRDS bearings.
Also, dont point it into the fresh air intakes (just forward of the front skid cross tube) or it finds its way into the blower motor electrics which, unfortunately, are immediately underneath the fan that blows the air - rather than being mounted above or beside it! (Yes, sitting in the rain, or flying into it, may do the same, but no point in increasing the problem yourself? - although there's probably an aerodynamic reason why the rain doesn't act in quite the same way as a hose) :=

I believe all these are covered by Info Notices, or maybe hiding in the FLM by now, but they're worth remembering if you wish to keep costs down. :ok:

RVDT

6th Jun 2013, 05:49

Further to the "washing".

In the current short term covers there is a blanking cover for each of the rear structure vents. Depending on the conditions of where your aircraft may be parked the air will flow in one side and out the other. Not good near the beach!

When investigating the EMB failures if you look really close you can normally see the water tracks with a strong light.

ECD do not condone the use of a pressure washer in their Information Notice.

The forward lower vents have been removed in recent production aircraft and a single vent is now integrated into the lower forward inspection panel.

zorab64

6th Jun 2013, 23:34

RVDT - Thank you for the reminder & update.

Now that the memory is jogged, you're right that a jet wash is not condoned, but we tend to use it as a rapid / distant wetting method both pre wash & rinsing. Not to be used to blast the airframe (although muddy skids might get the high-pressure treatment), but to get things done quicker than just bucket or hose, as washing otherwise takes up too much operational time - we also have "putting-washing-kit-away-quickly-when-required" down to a "T" :ok:

Covers are, of course, a sensible precaution when parked cross-wind in damp / spray / salt environments but less useful when parked into wind, and also best not used when rapid deployment is part of the business.

Brilliant Stuff

8th Jun 2013, 15:10

RVDT
The forward lower vents have been removed in recent production aircraft and a single vent is now integrated into the lower forward inspection panel.

And that's why there is no more decent fresh air coming into the cab.....never mind fatiguing the pilot....

MightyGem

10th Jun 2013, 20:08

There was an ECD Information Notice a few years ago reminding users not to squirt water into the EMB "exhausts/vents"
Yes, we had that letter, but that was before the leak in the engine decking had been discovered. Since that area has been well sealed, we've had no further box failures.

WLM

11th Jun 2013, 11:28

Thank you guys for the excellent reminders, will follow that from now on:O

Yeah fresh air into the cabin, specially in Hot Tropical Climate is NIL...found out the hard way flying with 1 Gen off and no air con... Pulling the side console cable up for fresh air did ZERO.. opened the small side window and used my hand as deflector :sad:

WLM

15th Jun 2013, 02:54

Well well...

Got the replacement EMB today ( nearly 3 weeks), had 2 engineers for 2 days fitting it and guess what??? cleared the Start caution light but still failed the self test on the EMB itself...

Back to being AOG waiting for another EMB to arrive...:ugh:

havoc

20th Jun 2013, 20:25

Would anyone that understands the MM indicator (P1 aircraft) and Aris mounts PM me?

I'm trying to get beyond my OPS MEL: MMI is not required for flight except to reduce slope limits and an Aris Mount failure inflight.

Thanks, I will share the experience later.

Brilliant Stuff

23rd Jun 2013, 13:21

ARIS mount failure also gives you a speed limit of not above 100kts.

WLM

2nd Jul 2013, 11:12

Weird stuff today...

Had the EMB 1 finally replaced a few days ago, went test flying, all cool

Today ie 3 days later, get ready to start up engine 2 as first engine, and upon engaging starter button, loud and I mean loud bang bang noise..immediately close starter button. Get out , look at the engine, nothing special..
try a second time and same result... battery showing 26.4V

So decide to start up engine 1 instead, same bang once then starter engage and engine starts; try engine 2 and it starts as well..

Continue with all checks, but m not happy so shut down. check engine 2 again and this time I see fuel dripping from the metal piping into the collector box (bottom rear of engine)

Called Eurocopter support, told them the problem, and they say start up again and see if same issues :eek: Told them I had no intention to be Kentucky Fried Chicken and to send engineers over...

Have any of you guys had any similar events starting up and hearing this loud bang bang noise? Eurocopter says it is an igniter issue and fuel, man I flew Bells before and never heard igniters that loud lol

Steve76

2nd Jul 2013, 11:19

WLM, it's a long way to hitch hike in the heat... I have a few EC135 engineers on staff mate. Could ask the questions to help out an old friend?
[email protected]

WLM

2nd Jul 2013, 12:09

Thanks Cuzzy Bro appreciated ;)

RVDT

3rd Jul 2013, 04:34

WLM,

Sounds expensive!

Where was the noise from? The engine or the EMB? T model or P model?

Sounds like your starter contact. Fuel from aborted/failed start?

Loose connector not allowing enough current - contactor bouncing in and out?

Called Eurocopter support Where? ECD is the holy grail.

The 135 can be a little tricky to the uninitiated!

Anthony Supplebottom

3rd Jul 2013, 11:22

Igniters typically don't go "bang".

Please let us know what the issue is once you find out.

helicopterray

4th Jul 2013, 02:17

Sounds like there may have been residual fuel in the chamber on start up. The question would be, why?

QTG

4th Jul 2013, 11:36

Anybody know by how much (in Newtons?) the pedal forces increase following a number 2 hydraulic failure? Nothing in the RFM - it just says "significantly". CAA medical department issue following knee surgery.

RVDT

4th Jul 2013, 13:23

Pedal Forces

About the same as an EC130? No servo, same fenestron mirror image.

HYD System on the tail is only there for SAS/AP control.

Ask ECD?

Do NOT try to find out by turning "hydraulics off" in flight. :=

QTG

4th Jul 2013, 19:38

Thanks rvdt. Anybody got a sensible answer?

WLM

5th Jul 2013, 04:26

Hi Guys

Well when the EC engineers arrived, sure enough the problem would not repeat itself :confused:

Did every checks possible under the sun and still nothing.. so went for a short flight test and still nothing upon returning..

THEN it happened during the next start... the culprit was my external home made EPS using 2 x 12V + 1 6V batteries (30V) . We made that unit 2 years ago when we could not get a 28.5V StartPac locally. It always worked up to now, mainly running Avionics during ground tests

If using the aircraft battery or the 28,5V StartPac, no issue; but when using the home made cart, the bang bang started and a very slow starter spooling up

So that's what the engineers ascertained the problem to be:O

skadi

28th Dec 2013, 16:43

Recently I did the mandatory fuel system check and started the groundrun with about 180kg in the main tank. The transferpumps were switched off and the fuel level in the main tank was still reducing until reaching about 160kg and thereafter the fuel level in the supplytanks was getting lower. In the ASB EC is mentioning this fact to be normal. I do not understand, why the main fuel is reducing without the transferpumps?

skadi

RotaryWingB2

28th Dec 2013, 17:03

The transfer pumps supply fuel to the supply tanks via pipes, at a rate that is higher than the engines can suck it up, the excess fuel pores back into the main tank via 'holes' through which the transfer pipes run, above 160kg this means all tanks are essentially connected. Hence the fuel runs through the holes to the supply tank until this point.

At a certain flight attitude you can reduce the main tank further without transfer pumps.

Hard to explain without a diagram.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3640/135tank02.jpg

Phoinix

28th Dec 2013, 17:03

We had exactly the same; 159 till 139 after XFER pumps OFF, sucking at it for almost 15' before supply tank indication dropped.

I'm thinking the fuel flow of each pump being more than 12L per minute has some inertia to it before it stops flowing back from supply to main tank through overflow.

Brilliant Stuff

1st Jan 2014, 14:54

I did two runs yesterday on one we started with 100KG in the main and this burned off with the xfer pumps de-selected until 52kg only then the supply tanks started to show a reduction. We then did the second aircraft where we drained the main tank to 60kg before we started the test thinking it will take 10kg before we start to see the supply tanks dropping except we didn't. We had 12kg left in the main before the supply showed any signs of dropping.

The third aircraft the day before though started at 57kg.

skadi

1st Jan 2014, 17:41

PieChaser

3rd Jan 2014, 17:49

I am still waiting for an technical explanation for this "phenomenon", the overflow channels are way above these levels, so the answer from RWB2 doesnt satisfy me.

Skadi,

The transfer pipes run down to the bottom of the supply tanks, so you get a siphoning effect. Problem is a faulty NRV could in theory, let fuel flow the other way!!

skadi

3rd Jan 2014, 19:57

The transfer pipes run down to the bottom of the supply tanks, so you get a siphoning effect. Problem is a faulty NRV could in theory, let fuel flow the other way!!

So in every 135 the NRV is faulty? That makes no sense to me.

skadi

PieChaser

3rd Jan 2014, 20:16

Skadi,
Either I have misunderstood your question, or you have misunderstood my answer.
The transfer pipes run to the bottom of the supply tanks, this will cause a siphoning effect so fuel will continue to flow when txfr pumps are off which would account for your fuel anomalies. This is not a fault.
My comment about the NRV is an observation of what might happen if one were to fail.

RVDT

3rd Jan 2014, 23:45

The transfer pipes run to the bottom of the supply tanks, this will cause a siphoning effect so fuel will continue to flow when txfr pumps are off which would account for your fuel anomalies.

Bollix.

Does the "phenomena" spoken of coincide with ~ 3 minutes.

If so you will have to dig pretty deep for an answer.

EPAC

5th Jan 2014, 13:19

Skadi, post #947

If the main tank was indicating only 12 kg before the indicated levels of the supply tanks began to drop...the aircraft has at least one faulty level-detecting probe in its fuel system....that's no phenomenon, it's a fault.

Were the transfer pump FWD and AFT illuminated when you started the check ?

Brilliant Stuff

5th Jan 2014, 13:38

EPAC please explain your thinking.

Why would there be a faulty probe? All that's happening is the main tank emptying itself due to the syphon effect with the xfer pumps switched off as per AD.

But I might be missing something...

TeeS

5th Jan 2014, 15:02

Would that be the well known 'uphill syphon effect'?

TeeS

PieChaser

5th Jan 2014, 17:18

Would that be the well known 'uphill syphon effect'?

Why would there be a faulty probe? All that's happening is the main tank emptying itself due to the syphon effect with the xfer pumps switched off as per AD.

At last Pilots that understand the architecture of the 135 fuel system!

SilsoeSid

5th Jan 2014, 21:20

Anyone have a cutaway pic of a transfer pump?

JimEli

5th Jan 2014, 23:34

This seems to violate JAR/FAR certification requirements:

“No engine or fuel pump can draw fuel from more than one tank at a time”

SilsoeSid

6th Jan 2014, 20:08

The saying goes, 'There's no such thing as a silly question", but I'll try my best :ok:

Even if the NRV was to fail and the pump was turned off or u/s, how does the fuel still flow through the pump? Surely someone at Airbus would have twigged that this wasn't quite right :confused:

RVDT

7th Jan 2014, 10:13

how does the fuel still flow through the pump?

Same way it flows through any other centrifugal pump.

But definitely not like the newly discovered "uphill" syphon (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphon).

Google it - listed with perpetual motion machines!

MightyGem

7th Jan 2014, 18:57

Surely someone at Airbus
Glad to see you're on the ball, as always Sid. :ok:

SilsoeSid

7th Jan 2014, 21:05

With my vast experience of goldfish bowl cleaning and having watched 'Finding Nemo' a couple of times, this reverse siphoning effect going on in the 135 fuel tank seems a bit far fetched. But I guess that's the stage at which we find ourselves.

The source has to be higher than destination. We have been told that the transfer pipes run to the bottom of the supply tanks, the same level as the transfer pump inlet, add a couple of obstructions to a smooth flow, such as faulty nrv, non operating pump, a couple of sharp turns or a pocket of air and syphoning simply can't occur either way.

Having said that, anyone know if the diameter of the tubes is constant or are there different sizes of tube in the transfer system?

Brilliant Stuff

8th Jan 2014, 19:24

How many of us have run the tanks dry whilst sitting on the pad before this ad?

I can only report what I saw.

Have I taken the fuel system apart and crawled around in it? No.

Where did the fuel go, I have no idea.

The collective opinion amongst my colleagues is it's syphoning.

Why would it be uphill????? Aircraft is parked level.

The nub of it all IMHO is where does the XFER pump deliver the fuel to? Does it pour into the supply tanks or does it deliver to the bottom of the supply ?

Brilliant Stuff

8th Jan 2014, 19:37

Well I found this slide.

It looks to me like the XFER pumps are delivering the fuel to the bottom of the supply tanks...

Click me for slide (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7n0tv5r7wc9e6zl/Fuel.pdf)

SilsoeSid

8th Jan 2014, 19:44

BS, not that I'm doubting your actions, however one solution is that you turned the prime pumps on and not the transfer pumps off!

When I did the check, after turning the transfer pumps off, the main tank contents remained at a figure over 200 kgs, which I assume is as it should be.

Did you get any feedback from Airbus/Bond after the paperwork was sent in, or have you questioned it outside of an internet forum, as this episode seems rather strange.

Where did the fuel go, I have no idea.
The collective opinion amongst my colleagues is it's syphoning.
Is there a collective opinion about where the fuel syphoned out to? :rolleyes:

It looks to me like the XFER pumps are delivering the fuel to the bottom of the supply tanks...
Therefore it can't be syphoning can it!

MightyGem

8th Jan 2014, 19:58

after turning the transfer pumps off, the main tank contents remained at a figure over 200 kgs
I tried this in the cruise, some years ago, to see what would happen with a double Transfer Pump failure as it didn't feature in the EC drills. There was 255kgs left in the main tank when the supply tanks started going down.

PieChaser

8th Jan 2014, 21:30

airbushelicopters.com (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/site/docs_wsw/RUB_1330/ASB_EC135-EC635-28-018-Rev0-EN.pdf)
I hesitate too make this post as too many people want to ridicule and scoff.
But here goes one more time, as a very average Pilot, but some would say a pretty good Engineer!:
If you take the time to read page 5 of the above link you will see that EC know very well about the anomaly of fuel transferring from main tank to supply tanks after transfer pumps have been switched off.
There is no magic or witchcraft at work, just simple fluid dynamics.
The flexible transfer pipes are about 15mm dia and are the [U]only[U]path between main and supply tanks once the fuel level is below the fence transfer ports.
If the head of fuel is large enough, then after the transfer pumps are selected off the syphoning effect will continue pulling fuel through (for want of a better word) a freewheeling pump for several minutes.
The 4 submersible pumps are identical apart from the main tank pumps have NRV fitted, the supply tank pumps do not. There is a very good reason for this, the supply tank feed to the engines is non critical in respect of fuel drain back, the transfer pumps however are critical hence the fitting of NRV/check valves.
Now for goodness sake don't take my word for it, go and ask your Chief Engineers!

SilsoeSid

8th Jan 2014, 21:58

But here goes one more time, as a very average Pilot, but some would say a pretty good Engineer!:
Not an IT engineer then, the link doesn't work :rolleyes: :suspect:

Surely the reason there isn't a NRV in the supply tank fuel line is because if there was, not only would we have to continuously have the prime pumps on, if it was to stick, the respective engine would cut off! Nothing to do with drain back!

PieChaser

9th Jan 2014, 07:34

The link works when I click on it Sid!

SilsoeSid

9th Jan 2014, 08:54

Thanks PC, it does now. Must have been caught in the rush!
You're missing a / before the U in the second box if you wanted to underline 'only' in your previous post ;)

Let me do a difficult engineering cut/paste;

"This can be explained by the fuel system architecture of the helicopter and is a normal behavior."

How can it possibly be syphoning if it is the same body of fluid?

yellowbird135

9th Jan 2014, 14:22

Surely the reason there isn't a NRV in the supply tank fuel line is because if there was, not only would we have to continuously have the prime pumps on, if it was to stick, the respective engine would cut off! Nothing to do with drain back!

???? I think this is nonsense; I should think that the main reason for no NRV is, that as long as the respective engine is running the engine driven fuel pumps are maintaining the fuel feed to the engine by means of suction...thats the reason why you switch the prime pumps off after the fuel flow has been well 'established' (engine started). Even if a NRV was installed in the feed line, the engine pumps need to 'suck' just a little harder to overcome the springload of the NRV. No need to do that.
So, NO, you wouldn't need the prime pumps continuously,
and suppose the NRV stuck in closed position....that can only happen in an engine off situation, and you wouldn't be able to start the engine......stuck in the open position.....you wouldn't notice the difference.

And also SS,... i've been reading a lot of posts of you lately, and also quite some replies to your posts, and I believe I've come across the word 'arrogance' more than once. Must be a reason for that:rolleyes:

....and as to why the main tank continues emptying into the supply tanks for some time after shutting off the XFER Pumps...I don't know, but witnessed it on two machines.

yellowbird135

9th Jan 2014, 14:56

Just thinking...The engines sucking in fuel via the inletport of the prime pump.....transfer pumps delivering the fuel from the main tank to the supplytank. Assuming the transfer fuel lines exits situated somewhere on/near the bottom of the supply tank...the fuel flow generated by the transferpumps is way larger than the suction flow to the engine. Is this creating some swirl effect in the supply tank.....when you suddenly stop the supply from the transfer pumps; the swirl will continue for a couple more minutes, creating static pressure drop at the exit of the fuel transfer line, and thus continue pulling fuel from the main tank. The swirl effect slows in time and after some minutes the static pressure drop ceases to exist and the engine starts sucking from the supply tank........
So I think a lot of sucking is involved:O

so if you did a similar check without switching on the transfer pumps at the beginning of the sequence....no swirl created,.... the supply tanks would start emptying rightaway. (assuming the main tank Qty level is below the overflow channels)

PieChaser

9th Jan 2014, 16:39

I should think that the main reason for no NRV is, that as long as the respective engine is running the engine driven fuel pumps are maintaining the fuel feed to the engine by means of suction...thats the reason why you switch the prime pumps off after the fuel flow has been well 'established' (engine started)

Spot on Yellowbird.

SilsoeSid

9th Jan 2014, 18:25

So yellowbird, what cracking pressure is needed in a non return valve?
I'm glad you told us why we turn the prime pumps off after engine start, do you know why we may need to turn them on in flight?
My statement merely highlights the questionable action of placing an obstruction such as a nrv in a crucial fuel line if it wasn't needed :ugh:

And also SS,... i've been reading a lot of posts of you lately, and also quite some replies to your posts, and I believe I've come across the word 'arrogance' more than once. Must be a reason for that :rolleyes:
Yep, because I question things :ok:

Such as, when you say;
Is this creating some swirl effect in the supply tank.....when you suddenly stop the supply from the transfer pumps; the swirl will continue for a couple more minutes, creating static pressure drop at the exit of the fuel transfer line, and thus continue pulling fuel from the main tank.

Do you consider it arrogant of me (expecting the obvious answer) to highlight an earlier post;

"Phoinix; We had exactly the same; 159 till 139 after XFER pumps OFF, sucking at it for almost 15' before supply tank indication dropped."

My, thats some swirl effect going on!

PieChaser

9th Jan 2014, 18:34

what cracking pressure is needed in a non return valve?

Virtually none, they are not spring loaded.

skadi

9th Jan 2014, 18:35

Just thinking...The engines sucking in fuel via the inletport of the prime pump.....transfer pumps delivering the fuel from the main tank to the supplytank. Assuming the transfer fuel lines exits situated somewhere on/near the bottom of the supply tank...the fuel flow generated by the transferpumps is way larger than the suction flow to the engine. Is this creating some swirl effect in the supply tank.....when you suddenly stop the supply from the transfer pumps; the swirl will continue for a couple more minutes, creating static pressure drop at the exit of the fuel transfer line, and thus continue pulling fuel from the main tank. The swirl effect slows in time and after some minutes the static pressure drop ceases to exist and the engine starts sucking from the supply tank........
So I think a lot of sucking is involvedhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

so if you did a similar check without switching on the transfer pumps at the beginning of the sequence....no swirl created,.... the supply tanks would start emptying rightaway. (assuming the main tank Qty level is below the overflow channels)

Yellowbird, I think thats the first plausible explanation since I started this long debate with my simple question... :E Thanks!

skadi

SilsoeSid

9th Jan 2014, 18:52

Sucking fuel for 15 minutes from the main tank to the supply through all that pipeage simply by the pressure difference caused by a swirl that can be reproduced by making a cup of tea …. if only we'd known about this effect before archimedes invented his screw :ok:

yellowbird135

9th Jan 2014, 21:09

. if only we'd known about this effect before archimedes invented his screw*

Are you really that old Sid?

Yep, because I question things*

That's a good thing, so do I, that's the main reason why I decided to disagree with you on this issue....and await your condescending reply to it........and you didn't disappoint me.:ok:
(also looking forward to your reply on this one)

yellowbird135

9th Jan 2014, 21:42

Phoinix; We had exactly the same; 159 till 139 after XFER pumps OFF, sucking at it for almost 15' before supply tank indication dropped."

So, a 20kg decrease in that time....I observed the exact same behaveour in two out of two checks I did in our company. Only difference: we started at appr. 240kg in the main tank decreasing to appr 220 before the supply tank quantities started to decrease.(in about the same amount of time)

SilsoeSid

9th Jan 2014, 22:04

that's the main reason why I decided to disagree with you on this issue....

Interesting, surely in a discussion you either agree or disagree about something based on your own reasoning, knowledge, experience ... you don't decide to disagree.

p.s. Remember what Viper said about arrogance?

Viper (http://youtu.be/EbE-VS9N98k)

yellowbird135

9th Jan 2014, 22:22

.. you don't*decide*to disagree.

Sid, thanks, point taken......my only excuse is that english is not my native language, but I assume all native speakers already figured that out when reading my posts.

p.s. Remember what Viper said about arrogance?

You're right again......Viper rules..:ok: I'll try to remember that.

SilsoeSid

9th Jan 2014, 23:11

I must have missed that Y135, I guess we agree to disagree.
Perhaps there will be some more investigation into this phenomena :ok:

PieChaser

10th Jan 2014, 16:13

Yellowbird, I think thats the first plausible explanation since I started this long debate with my simple question... Thanks!

Very easy way to find out!

With transfer pumps off, Run the supply tanks down until red fuel warning.
Shut down the engines.
Turn on both transfer pumps, when supply tanks start filling, turn off transfer pumps and monitor the supply tank levels.

yellowbird135

10th Jan 2014, 16:49

PC,

yep...could be, but I'm not sure whether the suction of a running engine is needed to create this phenomena.
I'm not even sure if this actually is the explanation..........I just can't think of anything else.
To be honest, I know I have a creative imagination, but I would never have predicted this effect (if it's true) to continue for this long.
I think that the boys and girls from Donauwerth might have addressed the "couple of minutes" note in the ASB a little further.
I was about to shut down the thing after more than 10 minutes wittnessing the Main tank qty go down, thinking I must have done something wrong.:ugh:

Still, I'm almost certain now that this is exactly what happens.

Brilliant Stuff

10th Jan 2014, 20:08

Donauwörth :}:}

AnFI

10th Jan 2014, 22:56

6 pumps, 4 nrv, 3(4) fuel tanks - still no consensus on how it works - uphill swirl syphoning, I see! certifiable !

Robin400

12th Jan 2014, 13:04

Having read most of the posts regarding this tragic accident there seems to be a great deal of poor understanding of the fuel system.

May respectfully suggest that all crew go on a FACTORY training course ensuring that they fully and correctly understand the systems they are operating.

SilsoeSid

12th Jan 2014, 14:26

..cont from other thread.

I thought you might have been on about transfer pump failures/turned off, with a check valve failure.

Robin400

12th Jan 2014, 14:44

Normal flight ops......use of transfer pumps with low main tank fuel levels.

SilsoeSid

12th Jan 2014, 15:33

brought over from other thread..

AnFI
SS - The irony of your post is staggering - the first accident in the AAIB report, you point to, is a double engine stoppage of a twin cause by fuel exhaustion - given that that may also be the case here (and other complete power loss events) it is tempting to conclude that the mathematical assumptions concerning the safety of TWIN ENGINED helicopters is FLAWED - is the rarety of full power loss in twins actually 10^-9 per hour ?

Anfi, Sorry, I didn't produce the AAIB Bulletin :rolleyes:

Umm, if you care to read the first incident all the way to the end, you'll get to the bit that says, "no action was taken to select an alternative fuel source for the engines after their power loss."

Single or twin, if the crew don't switch tanks, the engine will stop :ugh:

AnFI

12th Jan 2014, 15:49

Agree SS

more complexity - more room for human error - more human errors

if you have 2 FCL then it is possible to retard the wrong one - if you don't it is not possible....

It is clear that if an 'internet room' full of experts can't work out how a fuel system works that it is probably too complicated - if a system is prone to human failure then it's not totally 'Kosher' to blame pilot's - it's a whole system deal

Stats don't support the theory

yellowbird135

12th Jan 2014, 16:29

I'm really surprised to hear that the fuel system (airframe) is considered complicated, I can imagine people having difficulties (before anyone starts asking......myself included) with the engine fuel system. But a bladder divided in 1 large, 2 small reservoirs, a couple of impeller pumps........how complicated can it be?

SilsoeSid

12th Jan 2014, 17:14

Human factor wise, how is the fuel system being considered complicated?

Lemain

12th Jan 2014, 17:49

yellowbird I'm really surprised to hear that the fuel system (airframe) is considered complicated, I can imagine people having difficulties (before anyone starts asking......myself included) with the engine fuel system. But a bladder divided in 1 large, 2 small reservoirs, a couple of impeller pumps........how complicated can it be? Doesn't look over-complicated to me, either. Clearly, without pilot intervention fuel should be automatically pumped and supplied to both engines until all fuel exhausted, other than in a leak or other malfunction when maybe one should shut down automatically.

I thought these are diaphragm not impeller pumps? I'm sure I read that and would seem to me to be the better choice with these low fuel flow rates.

Robin400

12th Jan 2014, 17:50

I total agree that the fuel system is not complicated.

How the system is managed with fuel levels below the weir is where l guess a certain procedure is required.

I have asked how you manage the TRANSFER PUMPS to ensure that one is submerged in fuel with the change in pitch attitude with no reply.

My understanding is the one pump may be above the fuel and switched off.

I thought these are diaphragm not impeller pumps? This is what worries me, if you operated a 135 you should know. Do you not do a tech refresher course.

Bladecrack

12th Jan 2014, 18:53

May respectfully suggest that all crew go on a FACTORY training course ensuring that they fully and correctly understand the systems they are operating.

Robin400 - I'm sure if I ask nicely my CP wont mind if I and the other 70 odd pilots nip over to Germany for a few days at the company's expense for a bit of fuel system training and sightseeing. God knows I could do with it this time of year... :}
BC

yellowbird135

12th Jan 2014, 18:59

I have a cross-section view of the pump from my training notes. It looks to me like an impeller type pump.

skadi

12th Jan 2014, 18:59

I have asked how you manage the TRANSFER PUMPS to ensure that one is submerged in fuel with the change in pitch attitude with no reply.

My understanding is the one pump may be above the fuel and switched off.

Thats the procedure according FLM. A dry running fuelpump gives a CAUTION and has to be switched off. So when in hover atttitude, the FWD pump will be the first when the main tank is coming to around 60 kg. In cruise flight ( nose low ) it will be the AFT pump. You have to consider it, when transitioning to cruise after long hover flight and low fuel in main tank -> AFT pump off and FWD pump ON again!!!

skadi

Agaricus bisporus

12th Jan 2014, 19:02

May respectfully suggest that all crew go on a FACTORY training course ensuring that they fully and correctly understand the systems they are operating.

This post clearly indicates that the poster believes that "all crew" don't "fully and correctly understand...".

Would he have the decency to explain the whys an wherefores of this extraordinary accusation, and what evidence he has to support it?

Or else perhaps to apologise fulsomely for such an unwarranted slur against
the Professionalism of those crew alluded to?

For shame.:ugh:

PieChaser

12th Jan 2014, 19:03

I thought these are diaphragm not impeller pumps? I'm sure I read that and would seem to me to be the better choice with these low fuel flow rates.

What utter rubbish, any 135 pilot or engineer would know that they are centrifugal pumps and why they have to be so!

Robin400

12th Jan 2014, 19:08

Robin400 - I'm sure if I ask nicely my CP wont mind if I and the other 70 odd pilots nip over to Germany for a few days at the company's expense for a bit of fuel system training and sightseeing. God knows I could do with it this time of year...

All part of the expense running a safe professional outfit.

Maybe the concern in Germany will pay the bill

Lemain

12th Jan 2014, 19:09

FFS, guys, why so confrontational?

Robin400

12th Jan 2014, 19:30

My posts are not intended to be a slur on all pilots involved in the operation of the 135, if you feel that that is the case I apologise unreservedly. I accept that all the posts on here are not from 135 pilots.

From the posts on here I am left with a sense of unease regarding the level of understanding.

Robin400

12th Jan 2014, 19:41

Thats the procedure according FLM. A dry running fuelpump gives a CAUTION and has to be switched off. So when in hover atttitude, the FWD pump will be the first when the main tank is coming to around 60 kg. In cruise flight ( nose low ) it will be the AFT pump. You have to consider it, when transitioning to cruise after long hover flight and low fuel in main tank -> AFT pump off and FWD pump ON again!!!

Skadi. :D Thank you very much. That is exactly as I imagined it would be.

Bladecrack

12th Jan 2014, 20:14

All part of the expense running a safe professional outfit

Robin400 - Much as I would relish the opportunity, unfortunately commercial practicalities would never allow it...

There seems to be a lot of concern about pilot familiarity and understanding of the 135 fuel system on this thread from non 135 people. The system hasn't changed markedly from when I was taught about it 7 years ago and I am still happy with how it operates practically day to day as a pilot. I don't feel I need further training and as to all the minute design intricacies etc. I am happy to leave that to the engineers and boffins in white coats.

BC

AnFI

12th Jan 2014, 21:49

10 pages of disagreements about how the fuel system works - uphill syphoning , swirl, pump types, CoG attitude changes, ltrs / kgs water in capacitive fuel senders, confusion about wether one engine should stop first or both might stop at about the same time - leads me to beleive that the understanding amongst the population of 135 pilots is clearly appropriate (not) - carry on.

Anyone with a clear understanding of the system care to explain what scenario leads to a double engine stoppage ? Just incase there is any 135 pilot out there who doesn't know..

What are the combinations of possible failure with 12 hoses 6 fuel pumps and 4(?) non-return valves - does the pilot need to understand that? No - not if it's all working properly i guess.

Remember the A109 in Wales because of the misunderstanding of a transfer pump failure?