EC135 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Heliport

17th May 2001, 10:32

Pratt & Whitney Canada
Press Release: <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">The Bavarian Police have decided to outfit their nine EC135 helicopters with PW206B2 engines, starting in September 2001.
This represents the first engine retrofit program for the Eurocopter EC135.

Karlheinz Maier, Technical Director for the Bavarian Police, said "We have extensive experience with Pratt & Whitney Canada and trust that the PW206B2 engine will bring added capability to our aircraft."

The P&WC-powered EC135 helicopters were delivered to the Bavarian Police in 1997. They are used for 24-hour police and EMS duties, which include special winch, night flying, FLIR, camera and night vision goggles training in the Bavarian Alpine region.
In March 2001, the fleet collectively reached 10,000 flight hours.

The PW206B2 is the latest growth variant of the PW200 engine family. Thermodynamically rated at 708 SHP continuous OEI (One-Engine Inoperative) and 816 SHP 30 second OEI, the PW206B2 engine will enable the EC135 to operate at higher Category "A" take-off weights, namely 2.835 tonnes up to 25 degrees C at sea level (ISA +10 degrees C conditions).

The PW200 engine family powered over 70 per cent of all new light-twin helicopter deliveries in the year 2000, making P&WC the market leader in this segment.

P&WC, based in Longueuil, Quebec, is a world leader in aviation engines powering business and regional aircraft and helicopters."</font>

[This message has been edited by Heliport (edited 17 May 2001).]

FLIR

18th May 2001, 01:59

Heliport,
Is the PW 206B2 the same as the PW 207E ??? I seem to remember that the numbers for the PW range for the MD 902 and the EC 135 are the same engine with different names. The need for better hot/high perf A limits being the main reason, but Eurocopter seem to be bent on using a different name for the same engine????

Marco

18th May 2001, 14:42

The PW 206B2 is a flat rated 207 especially for the EC135. I believe you'll find it has a 30 second OEI as will have the TM 2B2.

This is not the case with the latest 902's fitted with PW 207E. I believe it is the PW 207D which has the 30 second OEI capability, which is not fitted to the UK Explorer fleet.

CTD

18th May 2001, 15:16

To Flir: They are all essentially the same engine, but the reason for the A,B,C,D and E designations has to do with the type of fuel control (Fuel Management Module or Fuel Metering Unit), output shaft speed and angle, type of engine management (Data Collection Unit or Q and MGT Trim Boxes), etc. Eurocopter's engines will always be different for the 135 because the output shaft is at 26º in that ship.

Application and takeoff Horse Power is as follows:

206A 621 HP MD900
FMU type fuel control
MGT and Q trim boxes

206B 431 HP EC 135
Similar to 206A with
FMM fuel system
DCU instead of trim boxes
26º angled output drive for EC application
Lower output shaft speed
Fire detection and engine indicating hardware supplied by Pratt

206C 561 HP A109, Kazan Ansat
Similar to 206A with
FMM Fuel Control
DCU

207D 710 HP B427
FMM and DCU
Shrouded FMM
Engine indicating hardware supplied by Pratt.

206E 646 HP MD902
Similar to 206A with
FMU
DCU
Upgraded fuel pump
FCU shroud.

This list is a couple of years old so there will certainly be changes now, but you get the picture.

FLIR

20th May 2001, 01:25

To marco and CTD,
Thanks for the figures gentlemen, it now makes some sense - although I wonder if the aircraft makers could ever agree to use the same numbers???

Heliport

21st Aug 2001, 16:40

Press Release
Longueuil, Quebec, August 20, 2001
Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. is pleased to announce that the first Eurocopter EC135 helicopter powered by its new PW206B2 engine was delivered to the Swedish National Police at a ceremony held at Tullinge Airport in Stockholm on August 10.

"We are delighted to see the first PW206B2 engine enter into active service," said Eric Gizard, Vice President, Turboshaft Engines, P&WC. "The PW206B2 is the first growth engine designed for the EC135 helicopter and will further reinforce P&WC’s position as the leader in the light-twin helicopter market."

The EC135 delivery ceremony was attended by Sten Heckscher and Lars Nylen, Chief of Police and Chief of Investigation, respectively, of the Swedish National Police, Dr. Siegfried Sobotta, Executive Vice President, Eurocopter, and Werner Kantsperger, P&WC Manager, Customer Service Center (CSC)-Ludwigsfelde, Germany. It was followed by a flying display of the new helicopter.

The PW206B2-powered EC135 helicopter was granted LBA certification on July 10; full Category "A" certification is expected in October. The Swedish National Police are scheduled to receive another six EC135 helicopters powered by the PW206B2 engine over the next two years.

The PW206B2 engine is built from the PW207 engine series power section, coupled with an angled reduction gearbox of the existing PW206B engine. It introduces a new 30-seconds One Engine Inoperative thermodynamic power rating at 608kW (816shp), an increase of 11 per cent over the PW206B engine. As a result, the EC135 will be able to operate at higher Category "A" take-off weights.

The PW200 family of engines also powers the Agusta A109E Power, the Bell M427, the MDHI MD Explorer, as well as the Kazan Ansat. As of the second quarter 2001, 230 PW200-powered helicopters operated in 34 countries around the world, with over 345,000 hours of operating time. Key segments include the Emergency Medical Services (EMS), law enforcement and corporate markets. In 2000, PW200 engines powered over 70 per cent of new light-twin helicopters deliveries, making P&WC’s PW200 engine the market leader in this segment.

P&WC provides operators with a Total Customer Support program. This plan was developed over the years in support of P&WC’s fleet of gas turbine engines worldwide. It comprises a network of field support representatives, factory-based technical support, a 24-hour help line for spares and logistics support, dedicated customer training centres, and a worldwide service network.

P&WC, based in Longueuil, Quebec, is a world leader in aviation engines powering business and regional aircraft and helicopters. The company also offers advanced engines for industrial applications. P&WC’s operations and service network span the globe. In 2000, sales were in excess of $2.4 billion Cdn. P&WC is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, a high-technology company based in Hartford, Connecticut.

MightyGem

21st Jan 2002, 15:26

Any ideas why the rotor goes the wrong way (for a French helicopter that is)?. .Just curious.. .http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/3flypigs.gif

widgeon

21st Jan 2002, 15:40

This has been the subject if many threads is the past . The most logical if i recall correctly is to do with the direction of rotation of the Engine. One of the most interesting was the story that after the war the allies took bits of the twin rotor German helicopter and the French got the blades that went the opposite way to the ones the US got.

Sorry if the question was directly related to the EC135 , it is German helicopter with a French tail , started out as the Bo108 and gained a fenestron after the merger.

[ 21 January 2002: Message edited by: widgeon ]</p>

MightyGem

24th Jan 2002, 01:04

Thanks for that. The German connection would seem to fit the bill, as the BK 117 and Bo 105 go the same way.

Nick Lappos

24th Jan 2002, 09:04

Widgeon's version is the one cited in texts. The FW lateral twin rotor helicopter was available, and the French got half of one with the clockwise rotor (trivia, but I think that was the left hand rotor?) The EC-135 is a fenestron-ed BO-108, so the German forward half met the French rearward half. I wonder if the fan is an upside down (reverse thrust) one from another product??

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

ROCKY2

25th Jan 2002, 21:57

Because France is in the northern hemisphere - dimbo :)

MightyGem

26th Jan 2002, 00:17

Rocky, Hi. .Thanks for that, but then again so is the US!!. . :)

Skycop9

17th Apr 2002, 18:48

The police deaprtment that I fly for is looking to add another aircraft to the fleet. We like the characteristics of the EC135 and would appreciate any comments from people who fly them.

Interested in how long it takes for parts to arrive, product support, doc, and any characteristics that you do not like about the aircraft would also be appreciated.

Skycop9

"Never let your education interfere with your learning"

Thomas coupling

18th Apr 2002, 08:08

Skycop9:

We've operated a 135 for 3 years in the police/HEMS role and love it to bits.

http://www.helionline.de/ecpoll08.jpg

If you want to know more, let me know and I'll e-mail you.

Marco

18th Apr 2002, 08:55

In the UK the Police have set up a EC 135 User Group who have a wealth of experience and knowledge operating this aircraft.

Helinut

18th Apr 2002, 21:57

There is no doubt that for the UK Police Role it is the lead new type (closely followed by the MD 902) - just look at the numbers and the number of additional EC 135s to go into Police Service in the UK this year. However the best choice of machine is affected by the rules you have to operate to and the local conditions. For us the UK CAA requirements dictate twins and increasing pressure towards IFR approved - this is not necessarily the case in other more aviation friendly parts. UK police carry a lot of mission kit, pilot + 2 observers (usually) which is a heavy payload so in the UK you need a helicopter that can cope with this.

I fly it and I think it is great for police work - it has its idiosyncracies like any other type.

I too would be happy to give you more detailed thoughts if you like to contact me by email.

The EC 135 User Group is best contacted through N Wales Air Support Unit.

md 600 driver

19th Apr 2002, 11:41

helinut
do you know how many ec135 are flying in uk also how many 902

no axe to grind just wondered

steve

Skycop9

19th Apr 2002, 13:11

Helinut.

I tried to e-mail you but the system will not let me send you e-mail.

What address can I e-mail you at? I can be contacted at the following e-mail address:

[email protected]

Thanks

Helinut

19th Apr 2002, 13:26

Steve,

Just done a quick run through the ones I know of on the Uk register. I believe the numbers are something like this:

Police/EMS/AOC/Private
CURRENT NEW SOON
EC135 7/2+/1/2 4/Some/?/1+
902 4/2/?/? 1?/??/?/?

As you can see my knowledge of the 902s is less complete than 135. Bond have an order book for EMS aircraft but I do not know when delivery is due. I have probably missed some too.

Anybody who wants to know excatly could spend some money with the CAA register.

widgeon

19th Apr 2002, 16:19

http://www.alea.org/pan/pan_feb_02.pdf

See page 14 for tail numbers and hrs for Md900 Uk fleet.

Willl add EC135 figures when I find em.

Acc to Landings database( maybe out of date ) 13 ec135 on UK register 1 reg to Eurocopter and one to Harrods , all other Law or EMS

Bearintheair

20th Apr 2002, 09:25

Just for info there are 10 MD 902s in use by the Emergency Services in UK.
5 are dedicated police units, 2 are joint Police / HEMS units and 3 are dedicated HEMS units. As far as I know there are no firm orders for any more at this stage but possibly 1 police and 2 HEMS units are very keen to purchase.
The biggest problem is the price difference between the 135 and the 902 as they are both good aircraft.
:)

Vfrpilotpb

10th May 2002, 21:35

I read of late that our local Bears in the Air are soon(November) to have a brand new EC 135, based at Warton, described in the local rag as super quiet this will enable the Air born brigade to creep up on all the bad guys, will it be so quiet, and if it is will we no longer hear the blade slap of the old twin Sqirrel, as they make there way across our local ghetto's, will it carry more weight, or go faster, and really does our local Constabulary need to spend £3.5m on a new chariot such as this, when the old(?) Squirrel still has a lot of life left in it! Will this be value for money, or just keeping up with the race to have super dooper kit ?

If our local Chief of police has this sort of spend power, why not offer the old Sqirrel to the Blackpool Air Ambulance, who's sponsorship with the AA ends this month, after all, it is money provided from the public purse.

ShyTorque

10th May 2002, 21:38

I think you'll find that an important part of the deal is that the old Squirrel goes in part exchange!;)

PANews

10th May 2002, 22:36

Yes there is plenty of life in the old machine [it is quite a youth when compared with the Chiltern AS355F1 that was sold on May 1] but like all the older generation aircraft it is gasping to carry the role load. In addition it is now also covering Cumbria [shared with North East] so the speed and additional range will make their interventions more meaningful.

Come back in five years and we can probably discuss the delivery of the first police EC145 [or even a Merlin!] .... it is only a matter of time before the EC135 is also gasping to carry the ever increasing load.

As for 'super quiet' ...... we are talking about a helicopter arn't we ...?

Hoverman

10th May 2002, 22:39

HAZARD :eek: HAZARD :eek: HAZARD :eek: HAZARD :eek: HAZARD :eek: HAZARD :eek:

Will somebody please warn them that Flying Lawyer's "Police Pilot" client is unfortunately still on the loose, and will probably be paying them a visit when it arrives!!!

Droopy

11th May 2002, 08:31

The following are all in the public domain:- it's £2.9m not £3.5m; one third of that comes from the sale of the old aircraft and one third as a grant from the UK Home Office. Of the remainder, half is a saving in reduced scheduled maintenance/warrantied items/relief aircraft rental etc so the force only has to find one sixth of the acquisition cost. All this was thrashed out at the relevant police authority approval for purchase.

It's not really for me to comment on the question of two emergency services aircraft separately funded and based just a few miles apart....

VFR; why not speak to your jolly friendly local air support unit?

md 600 driver

11th May 2002, 08:52

droopy
£966,666 for your second hand 355 seems a bit high is that correct the others that have been sold circa £300,000

any way marvelous news hope you all enjoy it and it gives good service keep chasing the twokers and robbers
steve

Helinut

11th May 2002, 20:35

md600,

The Lancs machine is a teenage AS355N (relatively speaking); most of the other AS355s being replaced are 355Fs with Zimmer Frames and worth much less on the secondhand market.

Vfrpilotpb

16th May 2002, 19:21

Thank you indeed for all your replies, as ever well worth the read, however I do feel that £1.00m seems an awful lot of bread for a well used although still youngish Squirril,

Droopy , I have in the past contacted the ASU at Warton, but seemed to get the "Thanks, but no thanks" sort of reply from them in responce to my questions,... but Merseyside are a much friendlier crew and invited me to visit which I did, along with the West Midlands ASU ( who also have some nice Tie tacks), I live in hope of a vistit to Warton, but despite several phone calls over the past 2 years I am still waiting for any sort of a reply!!

They probably dont like amateur flyers.

:(

Droopy

17th May 2002, 08:26

VFR; email me, you'll be surprised what can be done when you speak to the right person.;)

RotorHorn

17th May 2002, 13:24

As someone who's already in the process of organising a trip to Warton, thanks to a certain kind PPRuNer, I'm happy to arrange to include you as well if you like, VFR. ("Its not what you know, etc"...)

Due to holidays etc., it'll be a saturday morning sometime in July.

If anyone else is interested, just email me.

I'll confirm with 'our friend in the know' maximum numbers allowed - and allocate places on a 'first come first served' basis - getting there will be the individuals responsibility.

When's that new 'copter being delivered did you say... :D :D

Might also be a good excuse to get a few rotorheads together 'on the lash' in the evening - we could take in the Blackpool sights - like the new "Funny Girls" venue...!!

[edited to suggest a p!ss-up].

Bell427

9th Jun 2002, 20:30

Im planing to built Helo-simulator at my home and after realy long time of thinking wich helicopter cockpit should i use for simulator. i decidet to do EC-135(its ergonomic,well designed,and it cost me less for building it:)
but here comes a problem,i dont have any dimentions,i only have pics from net. So i'm asking you if you have any exra pics,of EC-135 cockpit,or tech publicatons with dimensions for it.
thank you for your effort.

PETER

widgeon

9th Jun 2002, 22:36

http://www.thales-avionics.com/jrun_avionics2/docs/sextant/eng/dco/index1.jsp

Try here there are PDF data sheets for the major display elements ( currently unavailable for some reason).

http://www.thales-avionics.com/jrun_avionics2/docs/sextant/eng/dco/pdf/vemd_qxd1.pdf

Here has dimms of VEMD

Neil

Bell427

10th Jun 2002, 12:47

thaNK YOU!

Floppy Link

4th Jul 2002, 19:54

Hi folks

what does ARIS stand for?

cheers
FL

widgeon

5th Jul 2002, 00:25

active rotor isolation system ?

anti resonance isolation system is official version.

Heliport

29th Oct 2002, 17:06

Eurocopter Press Release

http://www.eurocopter.com/nws/img/img00193.jpg

Eurocopter has handed over its 250th EC 135 to the Spanish helicopter operator CoyotAir. Spain is a major growth market in Europe. CoyotAir, which already operates seven Eurocopter helicopters, will use this EC 135 as an emergency rescue helicopter.
The EC 135 one of the most widely used primary rescue helicopters provides room for up to four crewmembers, a swivel seat for the accompanying physician and up to two patients on stretchers.
Eurocopter, the world's largest helicopter manufacturer, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EADS whose leading brands include Airbus and is also the biggest partner in the Eurofighter consortium.

Thomas coupling

30th Oct 2002, 00:27

MD600 driver: eat your heart out:D :p :D

How many MD600's out there?

ppheli

30th Oct 2002, 05:35

TC - an independent answer for you on MD600s.....

- highest MSN registered by MD = #67
- highest MSN verified delivery by MD = #58 in May 2001

Of these, 11 are in the UK (including one no longer active ie written off). And of these 11, at least two are for sale, one due to death of owner, one due to high increases in charges and hassle at a certain London heliport, previously a frequent destination for the owner.

So this suggests #59 to #67 are "white tails" at the factory - I have just checked and confirm all are registered in MD's name. I note that #59 is on the FAA register as a 2000 build.

widgeon

30th Oct 2002, 09:26

Didn't they just win the contract to supply DEA several per year for up to 5 years ?

http://www.mdhelicopters.com/News/_Current_News/Drug%20Enforcement%20Administration%20Selects%20MD%20Explore r.htm

But I am talking of MD902 not MD600 , Oh no not another single vs twin debate tee hee.

Notar fan

30th Oct 2002, 18:26

Descrepancies in s/ns may be due to the fact there are about 10 600s presently being kitted at the factory for delivery to the Turkish Police next year.

PANews

30th Oct 2002, 19:34

That DEA contract is unclear but is currently seen as a lease of UP TO nine aircraft for UP TO five years.

MD have not queried that interpretation, not have they announced clarification of certain other deliveries that have been lost in the gloom like that Turkish 600 contract.

Notar fan

30th Oct 2002, 19:43

PANews, I think it is a purchase, not a lease, and there is no limit on aircraft numbers.

lost in the gloom

What do you mean by this?

ppheli

31st Oct 2002, 05:06

MD select the words in their press releases very carefully to make you think that the truth is rosier than it is......

* Case 1 - DEA - if they had made a sale, they wouldn't use the words "has selected" instead of "has placed an order for" , Then, it clearly states "a base year and four one-year options" - noone buys on that basis. Notar Fan - there is only one conclusion, it has to be a lease.

* Case 2 - they put out a press release for "Serial Number 100 MD Explorer". Fine, but it was merely serial number 100, not the 100th off the line! They have smoke-screened again because serial numbers 1,3,4,5,6,7 and 9 were ground test rigs, and ships 48 to 51 never existed!!! So the flag waving #100 was actually the 89th off the line, and they still haven't produced the 100th ship (the Chinese one they put out a PR on yesterday is #109 ie the 98th).

* Case 3 - In Feb 2001, they put out a press release to say that the Dutch Police have bought 8 Explorers and the first two will be delivered November 2001. In May 2002 another release follows to say the first two "heavily equipped" Explorers will be delivered in June 2002. Check when (or if...) these became operational...

Just how long have they been talking about a Turkish MD600N order....? Is it for real?

Notar fan

31st Oct 2002, 13:55

ppheli,

Case 1: I can't provide you proof, but it is a sale, of that I am sure. MD were burned on one goverment lease already.

Case 2: No arguments here, you are 100% correct.

Case 3: The Dutch Police aircraft program is optimistic to say the least. Engineering, configuration issues. I hear they did give the Dutch 2 loaner aircraft. As of today, no deliveries.

I think MD do get a little ahead of themselves with their press releases, especially when dealing with goverment sales, there can be all kinds of hiccups. The Turkish 600s are licensed and are being kitted.

ppheli

31st Oct 2002, 18:30

Hmm, that's made me think/research further. That Chinese one is #109 and six of the eight Dutch ones are serial numbers earlier than that ie #86, 87, 94, 95, 103 and 104 (the other two will be 111, 112), so the Chinese delivery is not the 98th but the 92nd...... That's not to stop other earlier numbers not having reached the stage of being delivered... The "delivered" figure may be back in the 80s...

Yes, the Dutch guys do have a couple of loan N-reg Explorers, #41 and #42

Thomas coupling

31st Oct 2002, 22:15

Perhaps MD have accountants for sales directors:)

Can I ask:
Are we talking about the 900 series ships?
Are we talking about the Holland MD that bought the 900 line off MD Mesa?

Thanks.

Notar fan

1st Nov 2002, 12:44

TC, the truth be told I think MD's problem is the other way round, they have sales directors for accountants (or business managers). But I won't get into that.
Yes, we are talking about the MD900. I think MD is a subsidary of RDM holdings, a Dutch company.

JKnife

31st Mar 2003, 01:57

Hi

What is the difference between an EC-135T1 and T2? Is it just a different engine or something else?

Ta

widgeon

31st Mar 2003, 03:16

http://www.turbomeca.com/public/en/societe/turbines_detail.php?gamme=arrius&w=home

Arius 2b2 engine gives better OEI performance as I recall.
ALso P2 version with inproved P and W 's.

Giovanni Cento Nove

3rd Mar 2004, 23:26

Was just recovering from the shock of the amount poor understanding by some............. and now it's gone!!

Heliport

4th Mar 2004, 01:06

Presumably the person who started the thread.

Letsby Avenue

4th Mar 2004, 09:04

What shock is that then Giovanni? Do tell us all you know...:rolleyes:

Giovanni Cento Nove

4th Mar 2004, 18:28

According to my information there are no "flapper valves" in this fuel system. As for "outer" tanks, if you are referring to the Supply tanks they are immediately behind the Main tank and share the same hull form shape.

There are a total of 3 tanks, 1 Main tank, and 2 Supply tanks.

In a standard (i.e. not self sealing and prior to aircraft serial number 250) configuration the Main tank contains 565 litres or 452 kgs and the Supply tanks hold 115 litres or 92 kgs. The Supply tanks or divided lengthways by a fence and the RH one has a structural channel running through the bottom that reduces it capacity by 5 litres or 4 kg. In fact part of the Main tank capacity (72 kg ) is physically in the upper space of the Supply tanks and connected by "overflow" channels.

If the transfer pumps were not activated or failed, with simultaneous use the RH engine will stop first and the LH will stop 3-4 minutes later.

The fuel from the Main tank is fed by 2 transfer pumps Forward and Aft in the Main tank to the Supply tanks. This fuel is fed through flex lines which pass through the "overflow channels" to exit into the lower part of the Supply tanks. The "overflow channels" are approximately 50 mm in diameter and the transfer hoses maybe 15 mm. The fuel from the Supply tanks when the quantity is above 92 kg runs through the "overflow channels" back into the Main Tank until it is empty. Each transfer pump is capable of 6.6 litres per minute or about 315 kg/hour or more than 150% of cruise fuel flow. When the fuel level in the Main tank is below the level of where these pumps can pick up they should be selected OFF.

This is detected by the caution indication "F PUMP AFT" or "F PUMP FWD" and is completely normal per the FLM.

Failure of the FWD pump can result in an unusable quantity of as much as 59 kg if above 80 KIAS and is 3.6 kg if below which is effectively the same as normal unusable fuel in this cell.

Failure of the AFT pump can result in as much as 71 kg in the hover reducing to 7.5 kg above 80 KIAS increasing the unusable by 4 kgs.

With a little arithmetic the maximum increase in unusable at the failure of BOTH pumps could be as much as 215 kg in the level attitude. This would be the maximum that you couldn't get to by being a little bit cunning. This of course depends on when both pumps become inactive.

If the fuel is no longer being transferred to the Supply tanks by either gravity or pumps there is 92 kgs remaining of which 86.7 is usable. Due to the shape of the tanks Engine 2 will stop after approximately 23 minutes and then engine 1 after 27 minutes. The "LOW FUEL 1" and "LOW FUEL 2" Warning indications come on at the minimum of 24kg per cell. Hence the procedure "Land within 8 minutes."

The above is based on manufacturer's fuel flow data of 65% Q at SL ISA - give or take.

The Supply tanks are fitted with priming pumps which are only used for starting, the engines do not require boost pumps. Incidentally these pumps are identical to the transfer pumps.

The comment about a dual pump failure is interesting, as granted it has consequences but seems highly unlikely.

When operating at different speeds with low fuel quantity betwen hover and cruise the FUEL PUMP lights will come on and off which is normal and also depends on the location of the C of G.

Subsequent to CPDS Software Version V2100B there is the FUEL caption in the MISC indications if the fuel level in the SUPPLY tanks is below a certain value with fuel remaining in the MAIN tank. (read - Check Transfer pumps ON)

Letsby - Sorry about the bits left out.

MightyGem

4th Mar 2004, 19:17

Well, well. Now tell us something that we don't know. We certainly
knew all of that. What we still don't know, and even you haven't
given the answer, is at what fuel in the main tank is unusable if
both transfer pumps fail at the same time. If by 215 kgs with a bit
of cunning, you mean pulling nose up to slosh some fuel through the
overflow ports, that's not what we were after.

As I said, even the Eurocopter System Description books don't give
the main tank fuel level at the ports. Going by the schematic
diagram of the fuel tank on the CAD, it would seem to be about 300kg,
with resorting to aerobatics to squeeze out the last drops.

Head Turner

4th Mar 2004, 21:23

I think GCN's response is quite clear - 215 kg.

However, the only way you will really know is to carry out a calibration refuel with the airframe in the attitude for your required answer. Meaning that if you want the data for cruise situation, then the airframe must be levelled at that attitude before the calibration starts.
Fill the tank, litre by litre and observe the point at which the fuel flows into the supply tanks through the ports. This will provide you the answer.
Or off course you could do a calibrated defuel at the required attitude and take out the fuel from the suppy tanks until no more fuel can be exracted and see what's left in the tank.

Thomas coupling

4th Mar 2004, 23:41

Letsby:

Why have you pulled the thread, Cinquo cento conker has now spent hours repeating what I just said???

What the bloody hell's going on.

Smoke me a kipper skipper............

Giovanni Cento Nove

5th Mar 2004, 00:18

Farts actually stink only for the benefit of the deaf.....

ATA 28-10-00 General Description Fuel System

Supply tanks = 92 kgs

Main tank = 452 kgs

72 kgs of the Main tank capacity is actually in the upper undivided part of the Supply tanks above the "overflow channels". Granted this data is not in the cyclic attendants blurb.

92 + 72 = 164

522 - 164 = 358

92 = 56% of 164 which is where the fuel would be level with the bottom of the overflow channels.

Therefore 56% of 358 is 200 kgs. This would only be valid in the level position. 215 as quoted was a rough guess for Granny.

That's twice now MG or would you rather take HT's way and get the tools out and see for real?

chopper dave

5th Mar 2004, 02:21

Has anybody dumped the autopilot inadvertantly on the EC135? I've heard it is possible to do and can be exciting when IMC!

Thomas coupling

5th Mar 2004, 05:05

Cinquecento: I'll have some of that - agreed!
QED:8

Giovanni Cento Nove

5th Mar 2004, 15:21

Granted, as on most aircraft it is possible to do. Part of the issue may be the SAS/AP DCPL switch being on the cyclic ( At the top, furtherest Left) and on other aircraft the SAS disengagement is somewhere else. You probably wouldn't want to do that in IMC. This will dump EVERYTHING - Yaw SAS, P/R SAS and Pitch Damper and of course the AP will go off in sympathy as it needs it's friends. APMD DCPL is the correct one to use which is right down the bottom on the left. This will cancel all upper AUTOPILOT MODES.

The AUTOPILOT on the 135 can be used ALL the time even in the hover and is normal procedure. The control functions provide much improvement over the standard Y P/R and P. If you wish to turn the AP OFF you should use the switch on the APMS.

One EC135 has come to grief in the UK because the AP did exactly what it was told and the operator was not familiar with the system.

The Nr Fairy

5th Mar 2004, 16:35

GCN:

Do you know where the EC135 report is available ? Or even a few more details of when/where it happened ? I don'#t recall anything in the AAIB bulletins, or the occurrence reports about that.

Giovanni Cento Nove

5th Mar 2004, 16:43

EC135T1 G-SPAU (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_023427.hcsp)

Probably answers most questions on this thread as it tells you how it all works.

chopper dave

5th Mar 2004, 16:43

I believe the accident is the Strathclyde Police 135 that came down in bad weather in February 2002. Tail # is G-SPAU and is covered by AAIB report EW/C2002/2/4 Bulletin # 8/2003.

Droopy

5th Mar 2004, 17:28

Not very scientific, but....

Sat in an extended hover, 5deg nose up; switched off both pumps at about 230kg, supply tanks started to show a reduction at 206kg mains. Then tried the zoom climb at about 20deg nose up - it didn't seem to slop any into the supplies.

Giovanni Cento Nove

5th Mar 2004, 18:15

Probably agrees with the statement that the indications can vary by as much as 6% full tanks to 4% near empty. The fuel indication system does compensate for attitude.

Can't understand the zoom climb thing either. Try flying around with a cup of coffee on the floor. Unless it's turbulent in virtually all manoeuvres you won't spill a drop!

MightyGem

5th Mar 2004, 23:39

The AP on our 135 occasionally dumps itself, along with all the SAS.
Not a problem in VMC, but would probably increase your workload a
bitin IMC, :eek: but nothing that should cause too much trouble
to an experienced IFR pilot.

Giovanni Cento Nove

6th Mar 2004, 00:10

Why don't you fix it? Don't tell me you fly around with it like this! Probably operate with a transfer pump U/S as well do you?

You say an experienced IFR pilot would have too much trouble - what about an inexperienced one?

Talk about links in a chain.

Can see the ad now:

Wanted Police Helicopter Pilot

XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
Must be experienced in inadvertent and constant autopilot failures.

Those not meeting the above requirement need not apply.

PPRUNE FAN#1

6th Mar 2004, 07:35

Giovanni:Can't understand the zoom climb thing either. Try flying around with a cup of coffee on the floor. Unless it's turbulent in virtually all manoeuvres you won't spill a drop!The EC 135 sounds as if it has a similar fuel system to the BO105. In the case of the BO, the supply tanks are in front of the main, and they are of equal size so that if the transfer pumps fail both engines will quit within seconds of each other.

When checking out in the BO, we were told of a tall pilot who left his transfer pumps off and subsequently had a dual engine failure because the glareshield of that particular ship blocked his view of the "FUEL LOW" caption. We were told that you might have approx. 20 minutes to flameout in such a case. (I might add here that I remember thinking the requisite "Oh, that'll never happen to ME!") As a hedge against such a brain fart, I got into the habit of always without fail leaving the transfer pump switches on and NEVER shutting them off.

One day, I was shut down, showing another pilot the avionics suite in my ship. To save battery power I had turned the transfer pumps off. You guessed it, I forgot to turn them on at startup next time. I had been airborne for fifteen or twenty minutes, cruising along, fat dumb and happy when I began idly looking around the cabin for no specific reason. When my eyes spied the transfer pump switches, I about had a heart attack. YIKES! The "FUEL LOW" light was not on, and my supply tank quantity gage still showed full. What the...?

Apparently, the ten-degree nose-down attitude of the BO in cruise flight kept enough fuel gravity-feeding from the Main into the Supplies. Or something like that. Whatever, it worked I became forever grateful for that rigid rotor and uncomfortable cruise attitude that I had previously cursed.

Long way of saying, I guess, that a full cup of coffee will spill in a BO105, and that there are ways of getting fuel to transfer other than electronically-assisted.

MightyGem

6th Mar 2004, 16:02

It only happens about once a fortnight, it's not a great problem, it's only a minor inconvenience, it re-engages straight away, we only fly VMC, it's intermittant, it takes time and money to experiment replacing bits, it's the only aircraft we've got, they think it's the gyro, it will be replaced when convenient, we don't go inadvertant. :ok:

PS. The transfer pumps work fine. Thanks for your answer on that. It's always nice to find the answer to something your not sure of.

[email protected]

6th Mar 2004, 20:11

Great statement MightyGem "we don't go inadvertent" - how can you plan not to do something you didn't intend to do?????

MightyGem

6th Mar 2004, 20:26

Just when you thought it was safe to go out! First day back at work since this really got going. Took off with 266 in the main, transfer pumps off. Settled down in the cruise, supply tanks were showing a decrease at just under 260. I've now got 294 in the mains and will try again on the next trip(if we get one)! ;)

Letsby Avenue

7th Mar 2004, 19:13

Actually Giovanni we can fly with one Tx pump inop iaw the guidance in our MEL - Hence my thread on 135 Tx pumps (which you so kindly resurrected):uhoh:

MightyGem

7th Mar 2004, 19:20

By not intending to do it. ;)

Letsby Avenue

9th Mar 2004, 23:59

Thanks for all the info - I carried out a check flight today with the pumps off and noted the following.

Contents in the main decreased quite happily from 320kgs until 245 kgs

The main tank contents were unuseable below 245kgs

The supply tanks' red 'low' captions (on CDS) came on at around 28kgs

Giovanni Cento Nove

10th Mar 2004, 00:26

MG and LA,

Don't forget about the aircraft attitude in these measurements. My calculations were based on a level attitude. In the cruise with forward C of G it will be worse and vice versa. You do have control over this to some extent and naturally it can vary but could possibly be no worse than the figures I quoted.

MightyGem

10th Mar 2004, 10:53

Obviously attitude is important. I'm consistently getting supply tank reduction at around 260kgs in the cruise(130kts, 5 deg nosedown, with pitch adjustment at zero). I hover at around 7 degrees nose up, so that would probably give me something similar to Droopy's 205kgs.

However, the higher figure is the important one, because as soon as you decide to scoot for home, anything below this and the supply tanks are emptying, and you've got about 15 mins to Low Fuel lights. Not to mention Minimum Landing Allowances. :uhoh:

Thomas coupling

10th Mar 2004, 23:25

Letsby: My presumption is that your check flight was conducted ad hoc and that you are not a test pilot or the trip wasn't as a result of a dedicated maintenance ride.
That being the case, then you will be putting in a MOR for flying below your MLA????
That should make some interesting reading................

"flew the aircraft down to its minimum's and below, to identify the accuracy of the system" :ooh:

Still wondering why you pulled the original thread? Have you read your PM?

MightyGem

10th Mar 2004, 23:45

Hmmm, TC. Couldn't all that have been said in a PM?

Thomas coupling

11th Mar 2004, 02:56

MG: believe me, I have tried most avenues to talk to him behind the scenes.
Not only does he not respond, but he then pulls all his previous posts from the thread....weird:suspect:

He did it with the original thread (pulled the lot!)

See above....he's done it again. :mad:

Letsby...talk to me, hellooooooo r u there?

Letsby Avenue

11th Mar 2004, 03:29

It's precisely because of the MLA issue MG that I thought to investigate this issue further - Initial informed advice given to us about 18 months ago was that the main tank contents would be available to just below 100kgs - clearly this is not the case! And I must thank those people who have posted informative, helpful and non-vituperative replies for their efforts. In the light of this however, I do wonder though why the MEL allows the Ac to fly with one Tx pump U/S?

Letsby Avenue

11th Mar 2004, 05:29

Giovanni and MG check PMs

MightyGem

12th Mar 2004, 00:50

Probably because one can supply enough for both Supply Tanks. Our
remaining one did when the other failed a few months back.

TeeS

12th Mar 2004, 21:30

Our MEL allows for flight with one transfer pump u/s but only Day VMC. This is limited to a maximum of three days.

Seems like a sensible balance to me but I might turn down that trip to Jersey!!!

TeeS

Giovanni Cento Nove

13th Mar 2004, 03:02

Let's not confuse legality and safety ( unless your Australian, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, you work it out, I can't). The MEL is normally issued by the authority in the country of registry. The FAA one certainly does allow it. Part 27 only requires the failure of ONE pump, hence the conditions in the RFM.

My personal opinion to remedy the perceived situation would be to fit an ejector pump (jet pump for US folk) or similar arrangement driven by each of the PRIME pumps. They are identical to the transfer pumps and serve nothing more than to prime the engine driven pumps for start and then turned off. The excess fuel driving the jet pumps would only serve to transfer fuel to the supply tanks.

Flight manual then says "Failure of both fuel transfer pumps - select BOTH PRIME PUMPS TO ON".

It does go to show that we have here an "electrically powered fuel system". If one pump fails there are consequences which are described in the RFM. If BOTH pumps fail, as a failure of the pump or their electrical supply there is no information published in the RFM nor is there any requirement to. An additional in the unapproved manufacturers data might be nice but then again. "Caveat Emptor" The axiom or principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for assessing the quality of a purchase before buying.

We have a picture of evolution in which life strives for, and tends to get closer and closer to, perfection. Perhaps a better picture might sometimes be one in which life manages to get by on whatever can be botched together just well enough to work.

For a bird to bang its face repeatedly against a tree looks like pretty dodgy behaviour, perhaps as dodgy as a mammal walking on its back legs while carrying things with its front legs. A woodpecker might get away with banging his head, just as I might get away with bipedalism. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was just as likely to get a headache as I am to get a bad back.
Richard Riscon , Canterbury Kent

Thomas coupling

13th Mar 2004, 03:52

Giovanni agricolarie: :confused:

PS: had a Fwd Fuel Tx pump failure last sortie:uhoh:

Now grounded all night!!!!!

Stranger things happen at sea...............

Autorotate

30th Mar 2004, 22:34

Just got a text message from contacts on the Gold Coast that Channel 9 has, or is going to order, three EC135s to replace their aircraft in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Anyone know anything.

Autorotate.

international hog driver

31st Mar 2004, 07:04

Has been rumoured for a while since there had been a couple IFSD on the 355’s:* :*

I was recently told that it had all been deferred for a while, to see what other options might be about.:{

ppheli

31st Mar 2004, 09:07

Australian Aerospace (ie Eurocopter Australia) said "no such sale is confirmed" quote, when I asked them. Not that that is confirmation either way, of course!

Giovanni Cento Nove

31st Mar 2004, 11:34

Patience Ned, all will be revealed in due course! Remember these things will have to last 30 years considering the current ones have done about 20!

Bomber ARIS

31st Mar 2004, 16:16

Out of interest, how many EC 135s are there in Australia?

I'd heard that there was just the one in Sydney, privately owned.

And who does the training and maintenance?

Also, is it true that there is just one Bolkow in Oz?

If so, for what role is it used?

Thanks

Autorotate

31st Mar 2004, 17:57

Bomber - There is one in Australia, owned by Richard Green in northern Sydney. He has it decked out with camera equipment and other goodies for his trips around Australia.

There is also one in New Zealand, owned by Trevor Farmer, a private owner in Auckland.

One more is due into Queensland later this year so apart from them thats it.

Autorotate.

Bomber ARIS

31st Mar 2004, 18:38

Thanks for that Nev (may we call you Nev?)

The one in NZ must be that good looking black beastie I´ve seen around.

Still curious as to who does the Bi-Annual checkrides (don't suppose there are many high-time 135 instructors downunder), maintenance, etc.

By the way, thanks for the latest mag. I admit to having a thing for the K-MAX, so any and all info on this much ignored machine is much appreciated. And as for the Mi-10K:eek: What a weapon!
(Still can't get used to the "Heli-Ops" title though - it just doesn't seem to do your publication justice).

Adios

Bomber

Autorotate

31st Mar 2004, 18:49

Bomber - I get called a lot of things here so feel free to chose one that fits :E

Eurocopter have a resident test/delivery/production pilot based at Bankstown Airport so would presume he would do the testing. Larry Bennet who flies the one in Kiwiland would have to be the highest time pilot since I see it flying most days.

Their original EC135 was a dark charcoal black but late last year they got a new T2 and it is a lighter grey with a nice looking silver stripe addition to it. Will try and take a pic when I see it again at Ardmore. Eurocopter do all the maint on both machines.

Kmax is a great aircraft and we have more coming on it. Do me a favour and dont say much about the mag on the forum as I get my backside kicked by the moderators, but do appreciate the comments.

Autorotate.

Giovanni Cento Nove

31st Mar 2004, 21:30

Details Ned Details.

There are 2 in NZ. P1 0058 ZK-HGF and P2 0195 ZK-ITF. The one in Aus is a T1 0103 VH-GKK. We operate P2 0193.

Autorotate

31st Mar 2004, 23:55

Giovanni - Sorry and yes you are correct but the old HGF is a hangar queen and since it was traded in hasnt moved an inch. In fact when I saw it last it was in pieces in the corner of the Eurocopter hangar.

Where is your P2 based at and what do you do with it, if you mind me asking.

Autorotate.

Giovanni Cento Nove

2nd Apr 2004, 00:03

Ned try here - 1st Unoffical EC135 page (http://www.helionline.de/ec135.htm)

Fairly accurate info and pics.

It won't tell you much about us though!

Heliport

2nd Jun 2004, 07:26

Derbyshire Police Press Release

The North Midlands Helicopter Support Unit, the Consortium of Police Forces of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, has now gone operational with the new EC135T2 helicopter.

http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/sei/s/845/23.jpg

The aircraft is one of the most advanced twin engine helicopters used by UK police forces. It is the 300th EC135 to come off Eurocopter's assembly line in Germany. The aircraft has full stabilisation and autopilot, features that become very important when operating at night in poor weather, especially over the Derbyshire Peaks.

The benefits of the new helicopter over the previous Aerospatial 355N model include:
 Flying to a maximum of 140 knots (150 mph), this is an increase of 10 mph.
 It has longer endurance, being able to stay in flight for around two hours.
 Reduced down time for servicing.
 Improved and advanced technology in police role equipment.
 Casualties can be carried easier, with a stretcher being permanently carried on board.
 Instrument landing systems, which allow the autopilot to guide the helicopter to an airfield in the event of inadvertent entry into cloud.

The helicopter cost just in excess of £3.1m. The Home Office assisted by providing a grant and with the sale of the old helicopter, each police force only had to fund around £750K.

The new police role equipment includes the latest FLIR Ultraforce 2 Plus airborne camera systems. This is three cameras fitted into a pod at the front of the helicopter. It boasts a broadcast quality colour TV camera with a 52 x zoom capability. A new innovative camera called a spotter scope supplements this. The spotter scope allows long-range observation with a 94 x zoom colour or black and white camera. The third camera is an improved thermal image camera, which has greater clarity and additional fields of view compared to its' predecessor. The images are extremely clear allowing the helicopter crew to more easily identify a heat source.

The aircraft has a new Skyforce Observer Mark 2 moving map system. The map shows a 'cone', which depicts exactly where the camera is pointing. A Tracker vehicle location system also interfaces with the moving map. A 'ladder' impression appears on the map, with coloured bars denoting the signal strength and direction. This has improved the speed in which stolen vehicles with Tracker can be located. Within the first week of operations with the new helicopter, the crew recovered a stolen generator and a high value BMW car.

The searchlight on the aircraft has gyroscopes allowing a much steadier beam. The light can be 'slaved' to the camera turret so both camera and searchlight are immediately observing the same target.

Although the police helicopter does not have a primary role to evacuate casualties, during the first six years of operations the old helicopter airlifted 42 casualties when an air ambulance was not available. The new helicopter has rear 'clamshell' doors allowing easier and quicker loading of the stretcher.
During the first few days of operation of the EC135, an injured man with life threatening head injuries was airlifted from Centre Parcs in Nottinghamshire to the Queens Medical Centre. There were grave concerns for his life and the police helicopter was asked to provide fast evacuation to hospital. The journey was completed in five minutes.

The old AS355N helicopter had come into service for the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Forces in April 1998. It was built in 1991 and had been used by the Dyfed Powys Police until it was bought by the Consortium with Home Office Grant. It had just less than 3000 hours on the airframe in 1998 and flew a further 5000 hours for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire attending to almost 15,000 tasks.
During that time the crews were involved in the direct arrests of 988 suspects for crime. These are incidents where had the helicopter not attended, it is believed the suspects would have escaped from the police officers on the ground.
There were a further 1139 suspects arrested for crime, which were recorded as assists. These were where the helicopter assisted the ground police officers to effect arrests.
The helicopter located an additional 1070 suspects but the police did not arrest them. In the majority of cases they were eliminated as suspects, saving valuable police time in negative enquiries.

"The aircraft is one of the most advanced twin engine helicopters used by UK police forces."

Is it?
If not, which is?

Thud_and_Blunder

2nd Jun 2004, 09:54

It is. Along with the other T2s, the MD902s and probably the A109. Or were you, in an un-moderator-like moment, attempting to provoke a "my-heli's-betterer-than-yours" mini-flame-war episode?:E ;)

keepin it in trim

3rd Jun 2004, 11:08

The 135 T2 is very nice and I'm sure they will be very pleased with it. One question, do North Midlands IR their pilots? I ask only because the blurb says "operating over the Peak district in the dark" and mentions the ILS and autopilot for recovery in the event of inadvertant IMC. The autopilot and the EFIS screens in the 135 are great BUT it is quite a complex little autopilot and you can easily tie yourself in knots unless you are very conversant with what it is doing, what you are asking it to do, and which bits are engaged/disengaged.

For what it's worth, I think if you are operating away from decent cultural lighting ie somewhere like the Peak District at night it makes it a whole lot safer to have an IR (this implies no criticism of the abilities of the guys at North Midlands, before anyone leaps on me, I just think if you have an aircraft that has the capability then you should be given the training to let you use it to the full to enhance the safety of the operation).

Skycop

3rd Jun 2004, 12:04

keepin it in trim (Shacklebomberpilot),

No, I think the pilots aren't IR'd at the moment although of course they do the mandatory instrument practice like everyone else. Nothing to say this might not change in future (£££).

Until recently they have managed the Peak District (yes it is heffin' dark) without even a stick trim on G-NMHS, the old Squirrel N, let alone an AP :ok:

Bomber ARIS

3rd Jun 2004, 15:46

I know it's not a state of the art machine, but did that 109 ever turn up for Dyfed-Powys Police last year:confused:

Paracab

4th Jun 2004, 02:05

Have flown on a brand new T2 air ambulance, although when it was initially delivered to the trust I work for, it had horrendous problems with recurring chip lights.

Before too long the gear box was changed... Not good considering they had just parted with £3,000,000 for it.

Feed back from the pilots has been extremely good since, and it is certainly easier to work on than the preceding BK105 in terms of space, versatility, reduced limitations improved H&S issues, conveying escorts and so on.

Autorotate

4th Jun 2004, 03:12

Bomber Aris - From what I understand they have taken delivery of the A109 and its working. Others here might have some more first hand knowledge of it.

Ned

Helinut

4th Jun 2004, 08:27

Re: the IRs, N Mids are no different than all other UK Police Units, except Devon & Cornwall (I believe they are the only ones). Whilst instrument flying experience is absolutely essential for lots of rural police flying, the nature of police flying (surface visual contact), the lack of necessary fuel reserves and the absence of let down aids in the right place prevent the use of full-blown IFR.

D-P have had their 109 for a month or two now

GameCube

6th Oct 2004, 15:54

Anybody done / doing any winching with an EC135 or 145?

Good? Bad? Indifferent?

Any info appreciated.

Helinut

6th Oct 2004, 21:06

Hi, GC

Can't help you I am afraid,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

but I am curious why you want to know - you don't work for the Met do you :) :)

What do the walk-on freight think about hanging from wires ................. :E :E

GameCube

7th Oct 2004, 11:13

A friend is putting together a presentation on general UK Police Air Support / HEMS / SAR and is expecting questions along the lines of 'Why don't Police / HEMS carry a winch?' 'What about the future?' etc.... He has the usual answers but is keen to be prepared and is interested in exploring the subject and gaining opinions.

I'm not Met but do I sense a story there?!

The Self Loading Cargo are keen to develop but are all aware that getting into something like that involves more than just strapping a few kilo's of wire to the side of the aircraft. General feeling is that it is unlikey to happen in UK HEMS / Police as the requirement is filled by current SAR resources.

There was some talk a few years ago about fixed line's which scared everyone to death!:sad:

Thomas coupling

7th Oct 2004, 13:00

Curious? Tell us more of what your friend knows:suspect:

We considered fitting a winch to our EC135 in 1997. So too did Dyfed Powys. Problem then was the CAA. They wanted to make the police officer a crew man with associated paperwork, medicals, FDP limits, log books etc!!
Eventually we were overtaken by events, in that it was discovered very soon that the EC135 in police role can't comply with CAA perf requirements to hover on 1 engine while winching. There were performance issues during training and the coup de grace was: weight and Cof G issues. A non starter I'm afraid for Uk police Ops. You'll need an EC145 and police observer crewpersons, I'm afraid.

tecpilot

7th Oct 2004, 14:42

@GameCube

Hi what do you want to know especially?

Most European Police EC 135/145 are winch equipped. Winching is absolutely normal compared with other ships. The new winch for the EC 135 with 90m cable is in use in North-Italia. In the HEMS business the winch is not so common because both ships needs an additionally winch operator and his weight added to the winch weight is needed for payload in greater altitude.

GameCube

7th Oct 2004, 14:58

TC

Thanks for that. I'm sure there's a pretty high headache factor when it comes to starting something like this and your experience has confirmed it.

I don't think think anything particular has prompted the question. Police and HEMS units are often asked 'Why?' when they have to request SAR when a winch is required and he wants to show he's looked into it when he answers.

Also, winching a stretchered patient into a 135 looks like it would be a little tight (that's before looking at the performance limitations) and we were wondering how people got on.

Thanks for your post Tech. The Italians were featured on some of the 135 winching images you see on the Eurocopter bumpf. I'd imagine the extra weight of the winch would be a pain even at low altitudes (Hot day, roof-top pad, big patient, medical escort.....how do I unbolt this winch?!!!)

Bomber ARIS

7th Oct 2004, 16:11

Ask Autorotate

I seem to remember he did an article on a French marine pilot transfer unit that used a winch equipped 135. He's probably still got the pictures

Eurobolkow

7th Oct 2004, 17:36

Gamecube: 'A friend is putting together a presentation on general UK Police Air Support / HEMS / SAR and is expecting questions along the lines of 'Why don't Police / HEMS carry a winch?'

Why only ask for the capability of winch work with 135/145? To complete the picture you shouldhave asked for info on the 902 and 109 also bearing in mind that no one uses the 145 in the UK for Police/HEMS or SAR work.

Also the Agusta Grand could be ideal for winch work with its performance capabilities and 1.4m sliding cabin door.

Woolf

7th Oct 2004, 18:06

Evening,

There was some talk a few years ago about fixed line's which scared everyone to death!

Not so scary at all. This technique is used quite succesfully on the continent (Europe) on EC135's. Especially in the mountains, operators cannot afford the weight and space penalty of a winch operator. If necessary the Paramedic and Emergency Physician are flown in as "underslung Load". They stabilize the patient and put him into the stretcher. Helicopter picks them up and lands at a suitable location nearby where the patient is treated further and transferred into the inside.

This is even done with variable lenght line where the paramedic can abseil down from a 10m fixed line at his "leisure" for another 80m without having to move the helicopter (used for ravines or very steep slopes).

Takes a bit of extra time to rig up the line and to transfer the patient inside but certainly not a bad solution.

http://www.oeamtc.at/netautor/data/christophorus/webuse/AAA_Taubergung8_2.jpg

Regards,

Woolf

tecpilot

7th Oct 2004, 20:01

Also, winching a stretchered patient into a 135 looks like it would be a little tight (that's before looking at the performance limitations) and we were wondering how people got on.

You are right, it's a tricky operation but possible. But don't forget the 135 is a small twin and nearly all small twins have that problem. Therefore the crew decides if the helicopter have to turn to the next usable landing site or if the stretcher have to come into the cabin. And ... the procedure depends on the cabin interior. Most police and HEMS ships have a lot of interior like racks, seats, ... .

Woolf is absolutely right. Fixed line is a safe and proven procedure! Have made hundreds of fixed lines including really rescue missions. Most civil HEMS operators don't have so much rescue missions with the need of a winch. They don't need a winch, the additionally winch weight, the weight of the winch operator and his monthly costs. The police units doesn't have the same problem. Normally they have enough paid personal like technicians, FLIR operators or other missions specialists ready to arm the winch.
Austria is the leading EC 135 country with more than 20 ships in this small country. They tested the winch in the Alps but use today only the fixed line.
Air Zermatt in Switzerland holds a EC 135 with winch. But the ships is nearly empty for winch ops.

Short haul in tricky area is much cheaper with more possible performance, but needs much more pilot (crew) skills compared to winch ops. Therefore the operators have more training costs.
One other advantage is the greater load on the fixed line. In the Alps they lift up to 6 persons at once with the EC 135 (partial fuel)and fixed line for example on skilift evacuations.

GameCube

9th Oct 2004, 09:46

Not suggesting fixed line is dangerous and irresponsible!!!! Just that the 'underslung loads' themselves were a little wary. You've got to feel a little isolated down there!

I asked about 135 / 145 as they are currently seen as the units future and therefore what we should reasonably be expecteed to know about....But you're right, info on any aircraft would be important.

The big question has got to be 'Is it worth it?' Police or HEMS units would have to make some compromises that would affect their core operations. Should they stick to those core op's and leave the winching to SAR or would the public be receiving a better service if we were all winch equipped?

Cheers for the info so far,

Game

NickLappos

9th Oct 2004, 10:09

Fixed lines certainly work, guys, and the ability to do fast extractions should be part of every helo's emergency kit (along with a way to quickly cut those lines, of course.)

The idea that single engine hover is a CAA constraint on a rarely performed emergency operation is an example of over-regulation, for sure. "Sorry mister drowning man, you can't be lifted because you might get hurt if my engine quits while I am hosting you, so just tread water for another half hour!"

Look at the heroic rescue of those folks from the Air Florida crash in Washington DC to realize what a great help a well-flown helo can be in emergencies.

Here is an example of routine fixed string operations - a McGuire rig extraction of an Army Ranger patrol in Vietnam:

The pickup:

http://www.s-92heliport.com/rig1.jpg

The ride home starts:

http://www.s-92heliport.com/rig2.jpg

The site is one maintained by a friend, Mike Gustin, here is the home page, see the photos there, dozens of great ones of helos at work:
http://www.dtroop.com

[email protected]

9th Oct 2004, 10:29

Gamecube- a civilian SAR operation is being set up in Jersey and has bought a 145 for the job - they do not need to comply with CAA regs and will winch and have NVG.

JimL

9th Oct 2004, 15:24

Nick et al:

There is no requirement for single-engine hover for operational lifts in HEMS or SAR. Specifically for HEMS this is spelled out in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) in the following paragraphs:(a)(6) HEMS operating site. A site selected by the commander during a HEMS flight for HHO, landing and take off (See ACJ to Appendix 1 to 3.005(d), sub-paragraph 7); and

(c)(2)(i)(B) Helicopters conducting operations to/from a HEMS operating site located in a hostile environment shall as far as possible be operated in accordance with Subpart G (Performance Class 1). The commander shall make every reasonable effort to minimise the period during which there would be danger to helicopter occupants and persons on the surface in the event of failure of a power unit (See ACJ to Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d) sub-paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B)).

tecpilot

9th Oct 2004, 19:57

The big question has got to be 'Is it worth it?' Police or HEMS units would have to make some compromises that would affect their core operations. Should they stick to those core op's and leave the winching to SAR or would the public be receiving a better service if we were all winch equipped?

It's a question to your goverment or your officials! Situation isn't the same in every country. We have countries in Europe with "specialised" HEMS and Police Units and we have Police units doing the cop job and the ambulance or HEMS missions.

In the most european countries it seems to me that the cops today and especially in the future will do the special "law and order" jobs. The most of the new delivered ships are special equipped with FLIR, NVG, lasersystems, radios, link and transmitting systems and so on. They could be used for HEMS jobs but the ships are heavy (the new german border guard EC 135 have more than 17km wire inside for all possible equipment) and it needs time to remove the specials. That makes no sense in a country good covered with civil HEMS operators and army SAR units.

Compromises could be possible but with compromises you can't get the absolutely best results.

Rumour going on the short haul should be described in JAR-OPS 4 as HHEC (Helicopter Human External Cargo).

MightyGem

10th Oct 2004, 21:13

Eurocopter are intending to scrap the 50 and 100 hour servicing on the 135. This means that the engineers will only get their hands on the aircraft every 400 hours, apart from two checks that still need to be done every 100.

Is this a good thing? I'm sure that they've done their research, but every 400 hours seems a long time to go without engineers getting a good look at the aircraft.

Marco

11th Oct 2004, 00:30

That is phase one of the maintenance reduction programme. What you haven't mentioned is that phase three has plans to scrap the 400 hour.

MightyGem

11th Oct 2004, 01:44

Ah...that wasn't mentioned in the newsletter, nor was what "Phase 2" is.

Thomas coupling

11th Oct 2004, 08:59

It was mentioned in the User Group meeting last month. Minutes are imminent!
I'm looking at it from a pragmatic viewpoint (perhaps naively).
On the one hand, ECD want to show to the world what this a/c is capable of. I.e. that she can run and run with minimum maintenance - a great PR puller.
On the other hand, the engineers and pilots who operate the a/c perhaps need to consider a new mind set, in that these relatively new generation a/c are technologically streets ahead of the wessex/seaking/lynx's/squirrels/206's of this world in terms of maintenance! However, there is a need for frequent maintenace windows.
And somewhere in between lies the optimum solution.;)

psyclic

11th Oct 2004, 11:18

At least it should sharpen up some pilots daily checks!

One the other hand, considering the rate that things go u/s, the engineers will still be round every few days.

Ring spanner

12th Oct 2004, 10:06

I heard that ZF who make the transmissions and M/R masts have had a slight hic up in the plant. Have had to recall ALL EC135 masts and a couple of BK117 masts due to calibration/preload problems. Know of one mast changed allready before next flight.

RichiePAO

12th Oct 2004, 20:57

I am some EC135 self loading freight.
I am little concerned at this proposal. The operation I work for operation flys around fifty hours every two weeks, which makes an eight hundred hour service approximately every thirty two weeks..............
Six or so months.
Call me old fashioned but thats a big jump from a good look around by an engineer every couple of weeks.
We are lucky in that we have a dedicated engineer that looks after our aircraft and from that has a excellant grasp of the aircafts history and quirks.
I would not feel so confident if that was not the case no matter how much our Continental Friends attempt to reassure us.

MightyGem

13th Oct 2004, 15:55

Ring Spanner, when was this recall sent out? I can't recall hearing
about it over here in the UK. Seems fairly important.

Winnie

13th Oct 2004, 17:04

Almost off topic i suppose, but extending the maintenance was the direct cause of the Alaska Airlines MD-80 crash off the california coast.:(

sprocket

13th Oct 2004, 20:08

Winnie, dont worry the MD 80 crash was just the reason for the yet un-announced 800hr (phase two) extension bid. It should ensure that by the time an engineer/mechanic gets to do some maintenance on it he would have forgotten what to do.

hotzenplotz

10th Dec 2004, 17:24

I heard that there is a restriction from EUROCOPTER that no autorotations with ground contact ara allowed.

1. Is this true?
2. If so, why?
3. You EC-135 pilots, how do you train your emergency procedures?

regards

Thomas coupling

10th Dec 2004, 17:28

Sometimes there is slight confusion when one talks of 'full autos to the deck'. Do they mean "with engines running" or a proper engines off situation?

I'll assume you mean (in this instance) a power on recovery to the deck. In this case, NO we in the emergency services only do them to the hover with engines running. We do occasionally run it on, but never with engines OFF.

Might be something to do with the 'frange' clipping the ground?

hotzenplotz

10th Dec 2004, 17:49

Yes, I do mean "a power on recovery to the deck".

I heard that the German Army doesn't do them because of the danger of cracks in the main rotorblades. Is it true that the POH says that AR's have to be recovered in a hover?

Camp Freddie

10th Dec 2004, 17:54

I have flown AS332L. AS355 and S76 and have never done autos terminating in ground contact ever. we always finish to a power recovery in hover unless we go-around before of course.

I cannot imagine why anyone would do a touchdown auto with the throttles back in a twin, whats the point, high risk for low return, how many double engine failures are you going to get anyway, not very many

When I was flying singles we did them all the time for obvious reasons. but never even seen someone do a full down in a twin.

didnt think I was out of line with the norm here, or am I ?

regards

CF

drakkar

10th Dec 2004, 19:07

I agree, that 's the reason why Army has a full flight simulator in Le Luc. Some failures like the loss of tail rotor are easy to demonstrate, the replay mode is an amazing training device too.
Why risking to destroy a 4 millions dollars or more ship by doing a full autorotation for training purpose!!!! A FFS authorizes a much better training.
In France, only the test pilot have the right to perform full autorotation with twin engines like puma, super puma , twinstar etc...

SawThe Light

10th Dec 2004, 19:34

It would be interesting to see what other manufacturers dictate in their POH's.

Let's hear it guys, how many twin manufacturers permit full autos to the ground?

Sorry EH 101 drivers, forgot to mention triples. Better include them too.

STL

tecpilot

10th Dec 2004, 21:04

At first, of course it's possible to autorotate the EC 135 successful to the ground, also with engines still running in flight idle.
2. Yes it's true EC doesn't support AR without power recovery.
3. Yes the german army prohibited AR without power recovery.

The reasons are: Due to the light main rotor it isn't easy to control the RPM, also on the AR glide, any EC 135 pilot knows about this problem.
Yes, the blade and the rotorhub have technical problems with very high cone angles. As any helicopter pilot should be know, is the cone angle rising higher and higher if you try to get lift on the blades with a lowering rpm. But such a risk exists on AR's without power recovering. Yes, there are some expensive harms on ships after such power off AR. The german army use the EC 135 for the newbie training.

There are no problems with power off ARs on EC's BK 117, BO 105 and AS 355 Twins.

Giovanni Cento Nove

12th Dec 2004, 08:50

There are several little "issues".

The Nr indicator is very small and may be difficult to interpret exactly where the RPM is.

Nr is not displayed on the VEMD.

The blades do not like LOW Nr repetitively and were never designed to be subjected to LOW Nr.

Depending on the technique if the throttles are rolled on entry you better be sure that when you return the engines to NORMAL that the throttles are not moved past the N position.

Only a rumour but I heard that the German Army managed to get one to 124% Nr recently.

Why would you want to use a 135 for training in the first place - there are so many things you just could not demonstrate to a student.

Spunk

12th Dec 2004, 09:18

Why would you want to use a 135 for training in the first place

... for political reasons I guess Giovanni Cento Nove. Those things happen if the helicopters are produced in Bavaria and the
Minister of Finance (at that time) is from that very same region.:E

Helinut

12th Dec 2004, 17:42

I only have an FM for an AS355 to hand, but this prohibits voluntary AR to the deck. It strikes me as being a risk-based issue. Given the high cost of twin engine heles and the fairly low frequency of needing to deal with double engine failures, the risk of training to the ground is not worth the benefit.

It is interesting to compare the situation for twins with SE. I would be unhappy to fly a single without being current on FULL EOLs (i.e. to the deck), but I am reasonably comfortable with the idea of not doing them for twins, as long as the entry and glide are practised and current.

As to whether there are more problems with autos on an EC135, I am not sure. The NR is certainly lively.

SIMs certainly sound like the answer, so long as they are a reasonable simulation of the real thing and aren't prohibitively expensive. Does anyone know whether the sim to be operated by Bond at Gloucester will be able to do this sort of thing like the real machine?? My guess is that it was mainly directed towards IFR training.

BlenderPilot

12th Dec 2004, 18:24

Wierd!

If you ever come to Acapulco Mexico you will see 212's and being autorotated to the ground everyday, and sometimes 412's also.

A few years back you could see S76's being autorotated to ground everyday in Ciudad del Carmen which is the city where all the offshore helicopters are located.

When I got my very first 212 training I had about 300 hours total and the IP rolled both throttles to idle as I was taking off and had a about 40 ft. and 20 knots, he just wanted to know how I reacted, I was really impressed that you could land a twin so smoothly in those conditions, of course he took over after I just sat there thinking I was going to crash.

My point is I have seen twins being autorotated to the ground for years as part of regular training, some companies prefer not to risk it and send you to the simulator, but if they can't send you to FSI or whatever, then you must practice this in the aircraft.

I know the chance of dual engine failure is very slim, but there are many other reasons for autorotating like TR falilure.

jayteeto

12th Dec 2004, 19:35

It may not be the reason, but for those of you who dont know:
The EC135 basically does not have a rotor head as such. The 355 has a starflex and others have articulated heads. The 135 blades are bolted solidly to the mast with no seperate flexible or moving parts. This means all flapping, feathering and dragging is done by the advanced composite blades. I would imagine that they wouldnt take kindly to low RPM coning angles associated with messed up EOLs.
Also, the head is SOOOOOOO lively; during autos you hardly ever get the lever fully down. Not suprised at a 124% already. That said, it is still a twitchy delight to fly. The germans may have had political influence, but the servicability rate is fantastic. Important at a FT school.

PS... Mr Eurocopter, please PM me to give you the address to send the cheque :p

Hueymeister

12th Dec 2004, 19:51

Just something from a chap who regularly autos his UH 1D (with composite blades on a teetering head), it's not just engine failiures that will require a full blown auto.....what about MRGB failiure/driveshaft failiure....now I know these things are these days thankfully rare and cost of training is always going to be the winner, but we do need to show our FNB's what it's like early on...so we need either a) a f****ing good sim to demo it, or b) keep a cheap/simple chopper to practice on

tacks

12th Dec 2004, 20:41

The problem here are the so called `control-cuffs`.
These cuffs meassure approx. 6 ft in length and start at the blade root . At the outer point there are attached to the composite blade. They are responsible to transfer control inputs to the bearingless blade.
They can be easily overstressed during autos with low rpm
(e.g. cushion touchdown) due to the coning of the rotor.

SASless

13th Dec 2004, 02:17

212's are a hoot to autorotate to the ground.....just a two throttled Huey! Never done a 412 though.....

Being an ex-US Army Vietnam era pilot....I was fortunate enough to have been allowed to do thousands of the things....practice does make perfect.

The real key is the cost of insurance....and replacing broken bits if you do goof.....and with low inertia rotor systems....goofs happen quick and easy... not so with high inertia rotor systems. (the presence of inertia in the rotor system mitigates uh-oh's)

Hueymeister

13th Dec 2004, 09:21

SASless....I couldn't agree more..the Huey is a hoot and roar..and you can play with the NR due to the inertia in the head..even with the new composite blades we fly with. What's the way ahead to teach new pilots?

SASless

13th Dec 2004, 17:03

The way ahead?

Lots of questions showing up in the various helicopter web sites around the globe pertaining to that very question. New thread coming up!

TheFlyingSquirrel

7th Mar 2005, 11:43

FI just dropped through the door - Bond's new EC135 sim - is it based up at Aberdeen? Anyone know prices yet?

TeeS

7th Mar 2005, 12:09

Hi FlyingSquirrel

It's not on site yet but will be based at Staverton, no prices at the moment - I suspect it will be very busy initially with a backlog of IF training.

TeeS

quichemech

7th Mar 2005, 13:04

Give them a ring, 01452 856007. The building is nearly finished and I'm sure they wil be happy to hear from you.:ok:

Head Turner

18th Mar 2005, 11:07

Of you who fly and operate EC135's I would like to know your views on the fitting of an auxillery fuel tank. I understand that it is attached directly to the floor and has quick release connections for fuel and power and can be removed easily by two persons.
Any advice welcomed.

Head Turner

21st Mar 2005, 10:14

So I guess that from the nil replies that there are no auxillery tanks fitted to EC135's as such and we could be the first.

Helinut

21st Mar 2005, 10:36

I think you will find that many/most operators of EC135s in the UK can only dream about the idea of extending fuel endurance beyond the standard full tank. Many police operators, for example, struggle to get more than 1.5 hours usable fuel endurance, so the standard tanks can never be filled anyway. Perhaps the private/commercial operators have a different view.

jayteeto

21st Mar 2005, 11:30

With the camera and pod fitted, we can only get about 310 Kg in the main tank before MAUW. The more slimline crews like Mighty Gems can get a bit more in, but full tanks???? No chance

EjectEject

21st Mar 2005, 20:44

420 in the main with three crew on a Police role equipped T1.;)

widgeon

21st Mar 2005, 20:57

AS I recall the 105 had dual LR tanks but most operators only installed one as there was little available load with all the extra fuel ( never mind no usable space ) . Not sure how much increased endurance you got ( any one got a flight manual ?).

jayteeto

21st Mar 2005, 23:19

420 in the main!! What is your role equipment? A disposable camera???

Eurobolkow

22nd Mar 2005, 09:52

If you get 310kg or 420kg fuel what range or endurance would these respective figures give you for normal police ops?

skydriller

22nd Mar 2005, 10:15

Hi all,

Please excuse a stupid question, I dont fly Helcopters, just GA 'planks'.

I was interested to read that a police EC135 has an endurance of less than 1 1/2 Hrs (is that including or excluding a diversion safety margin?) and cannot be filled up with full tanks of fuel. What is the equipment carried that eats into the wieght limits? Does this not affect your role capabilities? What is the load/fuel endurance ratio like with a standard EC135 in comparison?

Thanks in advance,

SD..

What Limits

22nd Mar 2005, 10:46

Most Police 135's in this country could go to full fuel and fly for more than 2 hours before reaching MLA. We work on around 200 kg per hour which I believe is standard for the 135 series.

Most of the time we choose to keep the fuel lower than maximum to give us the flexibility to carry out a helipad approach. Some forces have to do this on departure from base anyway.

Certainly I have not heard of a long range tank for the 135, but I guess anything is possible.

Often its not the role equipment that causes weight and C of G issues, its the SLC.

Droopy

22nd Mar 2005, 10:52

UK police aircaft are invariably very heavy, with an empty weight in the lower seventies as a percentage of the maximum weight. This will typically allow a three person crew and around 2 1/2 hours endurance to dry tanks [it varies a bit if you have, say, the older, lighter version of the EC135]. Take out a 30-minute reserve and there should be the capability of flying for 1 1/2 hours with either a fourth person or the option of topping up to two hours. MG's figure does seem a little low, perhaps with an extra seat fitted and an unusually heavy crew.

Eurobolkow

22nd Mar 2005, 10:54

What limits, you may have to excuse my ignorance on this one but if the average fuel burn is 200kg per hour and you have 60kg MLA then surely you would need 460kg to achieve 2 hours endurance?

From your post the inference seems to be that you cannot carry out a Helipad profile at MGW in the 135, is this the case? and if so what are the limiting factors?

What Limits

22nd Mar 2005, 11:14

Eurobolkow, your figures are correct, but there is also the supply tanks which hold 88 kg (possibly) as well as the main tank which may hold up to 452 kg.

On our aircraft, helipad at MGW, MTOW, MTWA, MGM (et al) is only possible in very limited circumstances.

Head Turner

22nd Mar 2005, 11:29

I have heard a rumour that following on from the trend initiated by Agusta that Eurocopter are to increase the MAUM of the EC135. Is there any truth in this? Anyone heard anything?

Bomber ARIS

22nd Mar 2005, 11:38

It's very clearly a 3 tonne machine, so I'd expect an increase sooner rather than later.

Eurobolkow

22nd Mar 2005, 12:58

Thanks for the good info What Limits.

When you say that your aircraft is capable of helipad profile in very limited cases is that because it is a T1? If so is the situation improved on the T2?

Anyone know what the typical useable payload of a 135 T2 is?

semirigid rotor

22nd Mar 2005, 15:24

I believe it is going up to 2910Kg. It will require a software upgrade, by all accounts the transmission and engines are up to it; not much else needed apart from the all the relevant paperwork.

How do ppruner's feel about ECD deleting the 50 and 100Hr servicing on the 135? There is a possibility that the 400Hr will be considerably reduced as well :\

Now wether the new servicing schedule will apply to the increased MAUW 135 I do not know, but in principle increasing the MAUW / power output of the engines and decreasing the servicing doesn't sound like a good idea to me :confused:

Giovanni Cento Nove

22nd Mar 2005, 15:38

Semi,
Why not? Care to put forward your concerns.

Head Turner

22nd Mar 2005, 16:25

Semiridigrotor's concerns are probable based upon the fact that all three things are occurring at the same time and venturing into uncharted territory. Usually upgrades are based on a wealth of historic evidence.

To answer an earlier question, the possible basic weight of a corporate T2 is 1865kg giving 970kg payload to be shared between fuel and pax and freight (sandwiches and beer).

Should the 2910kg come to fruition then there's and extra 75kg available.

semirigid rotor

22nd Mar 2005, 17:32

Head Turner: Spot on - my concern is all of these events taking place within a short time frame. Upgrading the MAUW is normal practice for any flying machine, and from 2835Kg to 2910Kg is not that bigger jump in the scheme of things, but combine that with a reduction in servicing and it goes against everthing I have learnt in 32 years.

If all of ECD's data is based on the current 2835 gross weight, why not delete the 50hr and see how service experience goes? If all goes well reduce the 100Hr in stages, meanwhile gathering as much data from as many different operators flying as many different roles as possible. That sounds sensible to me. :)

We all know the bean counters will jump on this as a way of reducing costs :\ That really worries me.

SASless

22nd Mar 2005, 18:12

Why not do away with all PM's....and merely record what breaks. Ensure a good daily inspection gets done leave PM's only for the purposes of oil changes and lubrications if any. Except for replacing lubricants...go to a "on condition only" kind of maintenance standard. That would make the bean counters happy.

Droopy

22nd Mar 2005, 20:02

If you call it disposable load [ie/ you decide if it's fuel or payload/pax] then for the average police fit it's 800kg as near as dammit; that's with 3 seats [pilot plus 2]. Obviously if you start fitting the quick detach extra seats it reduces slightly.

The T2 series can go at CAT A helipad or otherwise up to temps in the mid 30s.

GoodGrief

22nd Mar 2005, 21:27

It is supposed to go up to 3000 and some, 3040kg if I remember correctly.

tecpilot

23rd Mar 2005, 06:32

Generally the EC 135 shows a good empty mass / payload ratio. The average emptyweight of a series "2" normal VFR 135 is 1650kg, means a payload from round about 1185 kg (P2). 710l or 568kg fuel is the full fuel load, allowing a rest of 617kg in a normal Pax variant. If you count 100kg bagage, enough to transport 5 persons full range. The max gross 2835kg allows full Cat A (VTOL) in 30° OAT in a pressure alt. up to 1000ft or reduced to 2700kg at 2000ft.

The aux tank (217l, 173kg fuel) extends the range and there are some customers using this can, operating the ship with a 2-3 crew.

The problem is that some special customers have a lot of additional equipment mounted or included in the a/c.

Special cabin floor, mounts, racks, sx-16, FLIR, weather radar, AP, air condition, hoist, video/TV/data link systems, cargo hook or dual hook systems, high skid ,... ,... ,... ,...

The EC 135 fullfills absolutely the performance described by ECD or in the FM. It seems to me a little bit unfair, if operators are now discussing about performance and range, but have installed sometimes more than 500kg equipment in and out the ship bringing the takeoff weight without crew and fuel up to more than 2300kg, a problem sure, especially in the older series. Asking ECD why the f*** i can't transport more than 3 persons on board having empty pax seats, but the ship seems ready to win the next starwar by G.Lucas. ECD built ships with more than 20km wire onboard, allowing the customer to change the wished equipment in short time and the same customer is wondering about the higher empty weight. And the onboard installations are naturally allways onboard even if the sx-16 isn't outboard mounted.

Air condition is nice, AP is nice, high skid is safe, SX-16, FLIR, data-links are necessary,... hoists and hooks needed,...

Some operators as example in the Alps using the EC 135 and have their role and their equipment and they seems very lucky with the ship. But if i want a rescue hoist, operating the ship in 8000ft it's wise to cancel the AP or the aircondition.
If a police customer wants an long range observation helicopter with no IR certified pilots onboard, why he need the ship IFR? Why needs an VFR day rescue helicopter an AP, is on primary EMS with flights not more than 15 min an air condition needed? That are questions decided from the customer. There are papers showing the weight and the limitations of the wished equipment.
Unfortunately it's nearly impossible on this world to get anything on any place...

Look at this EC 135 aux fuel tank
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/tecpi/auxfuel.jpg

Giovanni Cento Nove

23rd Mar 2005, 07:21

Semi,

My feeling from your comments is you may not be familiar with the EC135.

As the aircraft stands at the moment the 50 hour and 100 hour are "checks" not periodic inspections.

The 50 hour includes 2 items: Check the tapes on the blade cuff covers and check the friction pads of the rotor brake. Most people run without the blade cuff covers now so that is more likely only one item.

The 100 hour adds 2 more items: Check the skid shoes and check the blade cuff vent holes.

The "periodic" inspection at the moment stands at 800 hours or 12 months with an intermediate inspection at 400 hours.

I fail to see how the 50 and 100 checks would detect any major defects involved with an increase in MAUW.

The "checks" can be carried out by a pilot depending on how your specific authority views it.

If you have PW engines (not familiar with TM's) the periodic inspection is 800 and 12 months with the only oil change requirement being calendar time.

Technically speaking a release to service could be issued for 800 hours or 12 months as this is the periodic inspection interval.

Servicing includes -
Change HYD fluid 800/12
Grease S/Plate 400/12
MGB Oil 600/12
TRGB Mineral Oil used 400/12
TRGB Synthetic Oil used 1200/36
Rotor Brake Fluid 800/12

There are of course supplementary inspections which are not specific to the whole fleet and depend on the mod status of the aircraft.

We operate a P2 and I do have factory training on the 135 in Germany and also the Pratt engine.

The aircraft here in .de are operated and mainained in this way and it seems to work.

It would not surprise me if the BGS and some other operators are already operating at these limits.

I'm afraid I don't share your concerns.

Giovanni Cento Nove

23rd Mar 2005, 07:54

Tecpilot hits the nail.

We have a P2 which is 1932kg EEW.

Equipment list.

Emergency floats
Air Con (not ECD)
WSPS
MEGHAS 2 x 45 1 x 68
AP SPIFR
FM UHF VHF Hi and Lo
Iridium Satcom

Covers our requirements well.

semirigid rotor

23rd Mar 2005, 08:01

GCN: I have about 1000hrs on the 135, and have been flying a CDS and CPDS T2 for the last 2 1/2 years or so. In addition I was an engineer for about 18 years before I went flying full time.

In the UK (without putting the full maintenance schedule here) a 50hr insp. takes about 2-3 hours a 100hr takes 6-7 assuming nothing is found to be wrong. We also have a 400hr insp taking about a week to complete, the 800hr takes a day and a night shift a good week to finish. Now that may be a lot of servicing to you, but our engineers do a spectacular job, our aircraft is immaculate (given its hours and some of my landings:O ) and we have little or no unscheduled down time.

I now understand that some of the component times are being extended. Some of the gearbox's that would have been removed for overhaul will now have a boroscope inspection and their life extended. On top of everything else I feel this is all too much in one go. At best operators my find themselves with a lot more unscheduled down time, at worst :\

Now I love the 135, it is the best helicopter in it's class and easy to see why it is selling so well. I just want to see its well deserved reputation maintained.

Head Turner

23rd Mar 2005, 08:49

The basic weight of a corporate 135T2 is close to 1865kg. This gives a payload of 970kg at the present 2835kg MAUM, or more depending on the increase in MAUM that is anticipated. If a full complement of POB is carried @90kg each = 630kg that would give 1 hours flight time with a sensible reserve or 1.5 to the low fuel warning.

Eurobolkow

23rd Mar 2005, 09:53

Head Turner : Is 1865kg the manufacturers figure for basic empty weight of a corporate machine or based on an actual aircraft?

Tec-Pilot: I dont think it is unfair to ask any of our Police 135 operating colleagues to give an idea of their equipped empty weight and therefore payload. After all the 135 is used far more extensively in the UK in the Police Role than any other.

Droopy: Thanks for the operator info rather than the sales pitch.

tecpilot

23rd Mar 2005, 10:16

@Head Turner
I understand that it is attached directly to the floor and has quick release connections for fuel and power and can be removed easily by two persons.

This is correct.

@Eurobolkow

As you can read it's not unfair to ask operators why they ordered a special configuration setting limits to the operational use of the a/c. I know police units on this world using IFR Twins, in an area without a single airfield with IFR approach, fully police equipped including hoist / hoist provisions, to firefighting and discussing about the waterload.

I know sometimes, often because of financial pressure, especially in the public sector, they dont interested in a single role, not in a multi role a/c. They will have the ALL ROLE a/c but only to the price and costs of the other (limited) classes. If they have the need of so much equipment, endurance and hot'n high performance they need a ship from a greater class. Naturally more expensive.

Life is a compromise!

Eurobolkow

23rd Mar 2005, 10:29

Tec-Pilot:

I think you are missing the point. Eurocopter specifically market the 135 (and now the ECBK11745!!) as Police Helicopters designed to meet the requirements of UK operators. The Police Operators in the UK are restricted as to what they can order by the PAOC, CAA regualtions and of course funding so you may not agree that a fully IFR, Class One, Twin is required to do the job but unfortunataly such is life.

With the above in mind I dont see how it can possibly be an unfair question to ask Police Operators their views on an aircraft targetted by the manufacturer at this market.

Head Turner

23rd Mar 2005, 11:44

tecpilot

1863 kg is the EEW of an actual UK corporate ship. Many thanks for the instalation info and photo. It certainly bulks out the baggage area but that will not be a problem to us as the tank would be removed once on station. The BIG problem is the exhorbitant cost for what in reality is a alloy tank. I have to justify to my boss the cost benefits and that is causing me alot of problems. The reduction of landing fees and a quicker transit time I can quote and is known but when I rate a landing fee of 80 Euros then the sums are very much tipped against the Aux Tank.
Time saving would account for at least 2 hours per day not spent on an airfield apron which has more sway.
Anyone any other suggestions of the tactics that I can employ to get this aux tank?

Thomas coupling

23rd Mar 2005, 13:00

The EC135 comes with a full IFR suite as standard. Whether you want it or not!
Our additional equipment is a necessity. The average APS is around about 1900 ish for T1's and 2000+ for T2's.
The MAUM for helipad is 2835kg. Every police EC135 is helipad capable right up to its Max weight.
It is very competent at its job, particularly the T1 with an endurance (with full fuel) of 2.5+ hrs.
We normally fly with less than full fuel for reasons mentioned earlier.
We would enjoy an aux fuel tank but it is not top of the priority list.
The EC145 is too big currently for 'most' forces.

There is a mod in the pipeline to upgrade the MAUM of the EC135 to 2900+kg.

Thomas coupling

23rd Mar 2005, 13:28

Whoa there guys. Lets look at facts and not presumptions:

ECD the aircraft manufacturer have been in deliberation with one of the fleets busiest users (german border police) and compiled a database of enormous statistical complexity. Those Germans haven't missed a trick historically with regard to this a/c's performances.
Tens of thousands of hours of operational data has resulted in a very confident statement from ECD regarding the MRP (maintenance reduction programme). As per the ORIGINAL advertisement accompanying this 'new generation' aircraft, it has now matured sufficiently such that it no longer requires any scheduled maintenance until the 400hr. The whole programme is based on flight safety - it has to be, in this litigious world that we live in!

The boroscope check for the MGB is a belts and braces check to support ongoing efficiency measures regarding the longevity of the MGB. It has always had the capacity to fly for (currently) 3200hrs between checks and it will soon go up to 4000hrs.
This 'upgrade' has taken 7 years so far...so I don't think they have "rushed" anything thru!

The MGB is (as in most helos) the weakest link for the transfer of power to the head. A MAUM upgrade to 2900+ (?) comes about after another very long term trial monitoring the S African EC635 (mil 135) flying around at 2900+ for ages!

All these 'benefits' have now cascaded down to the every day user....it just so happens that these 3 particular issues have coincided.

[How they plan to upgrade to 2900 concerns me a little, in that a 'software' upgrade would suggest that the original performance of this a/c has been slugged on purpose to give it a degree of redundancy. Adjustments to the FADEC would mean new torquemeters (or indications) and new HMU's etc. I can't believe it is a simple tweak to a computer programme!!!!!].
Only the T2 can be upgraded, I believe].

ECD will never upgrade to >3000kg, because of the erroneous costs of it then being in the 'medium twin class'. FDR's / CVR's
C of A costs etc etc would prove cost prohibitive.

Eurobolkow

23rd Mar 2005, 13:54

TC: As usual a very infomative post however I think you will find that the upper limit before the aircraft has to have CVR etc is increased to 3,175kg MAUM which interestingly enough is the MAUM of the New Agusta Grand!!!

Giovanni Cento Nove

23rd Mar 2005, 14:31

TC,

I think you will find it IS only a software tweak. It will probably only apply to CPDS P2 and T2. Therefore via software you just make all the limits different. I can't see the engines needing anything as the PW206B2 is a 207 as it is now. Don't know about TM's.

Thomas coupling

23rd Mar 2005, 14:49

Euro: quite correct, 7000lbs is now the upper limit, I stand corrected.

GCN: that presumes therefore, that the MGB has, since inception, been underrated?
We are still limited to 2835kg @ ISA + 15. How will software allow us to pull more power (to make use of the 2900+) without the MGB being physically uprated?

semirigid rotor

23rd Mar 2005, 15:17

TC: The software tweek will just change the limits on the FLI and a few new numbers will have to be learned. Benefits of having a CPDS machine. As for the CDS - no idea. Most gearbox's are overrated from day one, but that does not mean that they do not need looking at periodically, otherwise we would rely on the chip plug to tell us when to service the box:\

I'm sure ECD have lots of data to back up the MRP, but to keep that warm and fuzzy feeling that I get flying a 135 it would be nice if ECD published to operators the parameters of the study and why they have come to the conclusions, that they are about to impliment. It would give operators a bit more confidence, IMHO

If the MRP was not carried on aircraft with operators operating at the new gross weight (whatever it will be) then I think someone should take a broad overview of the whole plan. Of course that used to be the CAA's job but now they just rubber stamp anything from EASA :mad:

MightyGem

23rd Mar 2005, 18:40

The Eurocopter rep I heard speak on this subject recently, said that
the only real problem left to achieve this upgrade, was finding a
newgearbox oil that could take the extra loads where the gears
intermesh.

Giovanni Cento Nove

24th Mar 2005, 08:13

There are actually 20 variants of the EC135.

P1 PW206B CDS Analog
P1 PW206B CDS EFIS
P1 PW206B CPDS
P1 PW206B CPDS FCDS

P2 PW206B2 (207) CPDS
P2 PW206B2 (207) CPDS FCDS

T1 Arrius 2B1 CDS Analog
T1 Arrius 2B1 CDS EFIS
T1 Arrius 2B1 CPDS
T1 Arrius 2B1 CPDS FCDS

All of the above can have the 2B1A or 2B1A1 fitted to make 12 variations.

T2 Arrius 2B2 CPDS
T2 Arrius 2B2 CPDS FCDS

Technically speaking although maybe not practical any P1 or T1 with CPDS can be upgraded to a P2 or T2. There has also been a few cases of swap from TM to PW. CDS aircraft cannot economically be upgraded.

Unofficially ECD have told me they would never offer 2 engine versions again.

It is interesting to note that MTOW is ALREADY 2900 kgs with a sling load.

EC135P2 FMS 9.2-19 LBA Approved 2900 OGE at SL +40C or 2500' PA +30C.

Can't understand the hellfire and brimstone.

My read between the lines and after talking to an ECD Engineer is the gear may be the issue. Rejected T/O's etc and the type of surface impose huge loads on the gear attach points. The dynamics are obviously up to it.

The cargo hook cycles refer to fatigue in the fuselage structure.

TC: 2835 at ISA +15???? A P2 will Hover OGE at 1000' at ISA +25.

I think there are very few P versions in the UK and now it is the engine of choice by about 70/30 over the TM if you look at global deliveries. They both have their good and bad points it's a case of what you perceive. The PW is very reliable and even though the FM data is the same it has a little more OEI at altitude where the TM runs out of NG. Conversely the PW is not as FOD resistant as the TM and runs a bit dirty, then again at least the FADEC works!

Semi: I have been flying and fixing helicopters now for 23 years and like you think the 135 is a choice piece of kit.

Thomas coupling

24th Mar 2005, 12:43

Spelling error: it is ISA+25 for the T2. At SL.

I think you'll find the worldfleet is engined in favour of TM by 70/30, or so the latest official comment was made at our User Gp meeting in the presence of ECD?

Of course this will change as the N American market bites.

Interesting note re, underslung AUM.

Thanks for that.

Head Turner

24th Mar 2005, 14:03

Is someone suggesting normal ops at 2900kg.

Are there any operators who have a higher MTOW limit approved by ECD? I do know Agusta would approved a higher MTOW under certain circumstances.

Giovanni Cento Nove

24th Mar 2005, 14:18

TC,

My data tells me that with current orders, or comparing P2's to T2's it is 70/30 in favour of Pratt.

In the early days it was a TM camp but the trend has reversed.

Droopy

24th Mar 2005, 16:30

The increase might not necessarily be much of an advantage; for us police operators, much of our time is spent in a high hover, often downwind, so unless we see an increase in max continuous torque its usefulness will mostly be confined to those like corporate operators who use the take-off rating to get en route and accept the knot or so lower IAS. Not to mention c of g probs as pretty much anything we would want to do would push it further forward.

Geoffersincornwall

28th Mar 2005, 06:07

Would appreciate any contributions that can shed some light on how well the EC 135 works in the offshore world. The decks are not big enough for a 365 so it has to be something smaller with a two pilot cockpit. Platforms are no more than 40 miles from base. MD902 is looking shaky right now but maybe the 109 is also in that 'how good will the after-sales support be' bracket. EC have not always enjoyed a good reputation in that area either but they look like they are the best of the bunch right now.

Anybody got any first hand experience with this size of machine offshore? What about Bell's products? :confused:

S92mech

28th Mar 2005, 09:15

Taylor Energy is using a SPIFR EC-135 in the GOM and I haven't heard much about it. PHI has several on order with the first few going to the EMS jobs and a few going to the GOM for Shell and/or BP.

Geoffersincornwall

28th Mar 2005, 11:23

S92Mech

Thanks for the info. Do you know if the Shell GOM a/c are SP or TP?

jayteeto

28th Mar 2005, 11:48

I love the 135 as a pilot machine and rave about it in public. One thing to consider though is engine reliability in high salt conditions. There are some questions you may want to ask about salt damage to engine stators. That said, power by the hour will cover this under the contract and the spares back up is super!!

zorab64

28th Mar 2005, 13:01

Fresh news from ECD a couple of weeks ago was part of their EC135 plans for 2005 included an "Offshore package" to consist of ADELT, vibro recording & anti-corrosion measures. They also have a corrosion manual in preparation.

Depends which engines you go for but, (no doubt the manufacturers will say), so long as they get washed frequently, you'll keep them fairly sweet :p - concur with JTT comments & questions, especially PBH as the sensible option. Interestingly, as Turbomeca regard the whole of the UK as a "saline environment", there are lots of people keeping an eye out for corrosion related issues, especially those near the coasts!

Geoffersincornwall

28th Mar 2005, 16:03

JayTee2/Zorab64

Just the kind of info I need - thanks. I'm surprised that I haven't been ambushed by the A109 fraternity - is it that bad?

Mars

28th Mar 2005, 16:46

Geoff:

The interesting part of zorab64's post is the reference to the additional equipment - no prizes for guessing who is leading the debate on that.

The interesting item will be VHM; will that be just tail rotor monitoring or the transmission as well. If a helicopter is already equipped with FDR, this is not such an issue - with a FAR/JAR 27 helicopter it looks like the start of a new era.

The main issue - if these are to be replacement helicopters - will be the footprint on the helideck. A large plus point for all of these small twins is that they can provide zero exposure operations from small GOM decks.

Hilife

28th Mar 2005, 18:24

Geoffersincornwall

A word of advice regarding engine corrosion. P&WC considers Corrosion; Erosion & Sulphidation etc. as damage due to environmental conditions beyond their control and therefore are NOT covered under the P&WC warranty scheme, just like lightning strikes, sudden stoppage etc.

There are a few exceptions to these rules on a case by case, like delivery corrosion or possibly ‘First Run Warranty’ claims but please beware.

widgeon

29th Mar 2005, 00:40

Has anyone heard how the Mexican navy MD's are doing in the offshore role ?.

oxi

30th Mar 2005, 00:32

I'd go the 109, great pilot friendly machine, comes standard as single pilot IFR and wx radar a delight to operate, we also fly in a salty enviroment and so far all is well.

We have been happy with customer support and warrantee issues.

Sounds like the grand may be a better machine for you with 12 or so extra inches, I believe you can set up to have all seats facing forwards.

Don't know about the 135 but the 109 also has emergency exits through the rear cabin windows, and front door jettison systems.

Geoffersincornwall

30th Mar 2005, 07:14

oxi

At last some input from the A109 fraternity. Much appreciated. As I mentioned at the start of this thread it would need to be operated 2 pilot IFR.
One thing that really concerns me about all these light twins is that by the time you have put dinghies, FDRs, IHUMS (or equivalent) ADELT, Floats (pop-outs), TAS, HEEL, HISL and any other goodies needed these days, how much weight do you have left for fuel/payload when you leave the beach in temps up to 35-40 deg C and arrive HOGE at the platform in say 30-35 deg C?

I'm not talking salesman figures here but real-life stuff.

How is the spares support for Agusta these days?

zorab64

31st Mar 2005, 19:48

Geoffers - some (very) rough 135 figures for you.

I reckon you should be able to get 2 pilots, 4 pax (all 90kgs) & 300kgs fuel (200 kg p.h.). Some extra goodies included, another 100kgs for those I'm not sure about!

With ECD seriously considering an increased MAUW to 2900 ish (extra 65kgs), and other weight reduction measures, you could have a little more to play with - and all at +40 deg (Clear Area).

frogspawn

1st Apr 2005, 04:51

have you considered EC145?

Geoffersincornwall

1st Apr 2005, 20:15

frogspawn/zorab 64

Thanks for the info. The decks are likely to have a weight limitation that would probably make the 145 less productive than a 135 methinks.

How far could I go with 300 kgs of fuel and JAROPS fuel plan?

oxi

1st Apr 2005, 23:22

If the decks are the issue then it kinda sounds like your stuck... Don't know much about the 135, we looked at them but at least with the 109 you will sit at 140 indicated generaly around 75-80%. It is possible to save considerable fuel by sitting at 5000 and achieving 160 tas.

The 109 is a little on the heavy side empty doesn't leave you with much, full fuel and 3 pob is a squeeze. The standard max t/o weight being 2850 kg, perhaps go for the 3 tonne kit that will make it a much better option, the machine will do it no problems...plenty to spare, just a bit exie for the mod.

The pratts have proven reliable and perform very well, generaly you don't touch em, just check the oil and wash off the soot.

Sorry don't know what floats add to the equation.

Thats it from me good luck.

P.S Shame that all that extra stuff is required.

Oh and 2 pilots and 4 pax, gives you 392 kg of fuel, 30 min res, and with a tas of 145kts you should cover 188nm.

Thats using a standard burn rate of 220kg/hr, I would imagine you could easily better those numbers on the day.

I think the grand is going to be around 3300 kgs mtow and would think not much heaviel that the power...better again.

Mars

2nd Apr 2005, 05:55

oxi:

The limit for a FAR/JAR 27 helicopter is 7000lbs (3175kg) - none of the small twins can go above that with their current certification.

Geoffersincornwall

2nd Apr 2005, 07:19

oxi Thanks for the info - time to do some more homework

TeeS

2nd Apr 2005, 07:47

Hi Oxi

I suspect he is not going to save that much by cruising at 160kts @ 5000' when the maximum sector is only 40 miles.

TeeS

Giovanni Cento Nove

7th Apr 2005, 06:08

Contrary to what has always been put forward ECD have now released an upgrade from CDS P1 or T1 to CPDS T2 or P2.

If you are coming up for engine overhaul this may be a good option.

Fortyodd

7th Apr 2005, 08:39

Giovani me old fruit, you're a bit behind the drag curve! I converted onto the T2 18 months ago - as did most of the UK Police operators! :cool:

Giovanni Cento Nove

7th Apr 2005, 10:27

I may be old but definitely not fruity.

T1 to T2 CPDS is old hat I know. The issue is CDS to CPDS. I was told by ECD 6 months ago it wouldn't happen. The advice of this conversion being available is fairly recent.

The issue is CDS 1 of any flavour cannot be modded to a 2 without change to CPDS.

Was your machine originally CDS?

Fortyodd

7th Apr 2005, 12:36

Takes foot out of mouth and reads post again! Sorry Giovani, you are quite correct - the CDS T1 to CPDS T2 is quite new.:O

zorab64

8th Apr 2005, 13:54

Discussion, just last month, with ECD included the possibility of converting T1 CDS to T2 CPDS, but that any consideration to upgrade the avionics to FCDS would certainly not be economical, and more than likely not possible at all.

On the servicing issue - it's interesting to note that the 355 (with appropriate mods) has not had a 50 hr for some time. Can't remember anyone being too worried about that? With the move to this next generation of aircraft, with a plethora of data being fed back from so many hi-time users worldwide, as TC points out, ECD are not short of adequate figures to substantiate their advice to reduce service intervals. I shall remain confident in the machine without a 50, but will continue to inspect diligently on a daily/flight basis!

I'd concur with TC that the AUM increase announcement is more co-incidental than deliberate - but don't forget that it's what ECD are "looking towards" and is not set in stone quite yet. They've already advised removal of the 50 & 100 INSPECTIONS so it's up to operators whether they delay the latter, until the former is officially announced, to ensure "co-incidence"!

[My understanding was also that the increase may well just mean a different type of oil, before changing the software to adjust the FLI limits - easy on a T2, not quite sure how they'll work it on the CDS?]