EC145

[Larry]

Pics of the new EC-145.
I'm surprised it doesnt have a fenstron.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/EC145_1.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/EC145_2.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/EC145_3.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/EC145_4.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/EC145_5.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/EC145_6-1.jpg




Photographer Cedric Michel

[Pac Rotors]

I understand it is the replacement for the BK-117. I also thought they would have put a Fenestrom on it. Just been flying around in some EC-135s and the new tail is a great addition.

[leading edge]

It doesn't have a fenestron because il est un BK avec some new bits sans un new tail which is pure BK. It is designed to keep down the development costs but to refresh the now ageing BK. Should be good but with a price kept lower because of the lower development costs.

LE

[RW-1]

Larry,

BSO's new bird has returned to the air, saw it this morning... as sson as I can grab a digital camera I can get some pics.

[Thomas coupling]

I often wonder if they still have the original aerospatiale (Gazelle / EC135) and MBB (Bolkow / MB 117 / EC145) design engineers in suspended animation and bring them out for a new design concept, now and again.


Beautiful piccies...




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

[Pac Rotors]

RW-1

What are they using the EC135 for and is it painted in the same colours as the other machines.

PR http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[RW-1]

PAC:

Same mission, Sherriff and local law enforcement backup, SAR/EMS duties.

Scheme is similar as the previous heli, but of course this one is nicer! :)



------------------
Marc

[rotorque]

Are the engines on the EC145 LTS's.? From the picture it seems as if its a smaller airframe. The one thing about the BK117 is that it is built like a brick 5hit house. Thats always a nice feeling.

[This message has been edited by rotorque (edited 01 March 2001).]

[Larry]

Rotorque:
Arent all the BK-117s being built these days (and the last few years) all powered
by Turbomeca ? I think so...BK-117C-1.
I bet the EC-145 are Turbomeca also.

[This message has been edited by Larry (edited 01 March 2001).]

[rotorque]

Thanks Larry,

To be honest I wouldn't know. Most of the BK's in Australia including the one we operate have lycoming's. I am yet to see a 'new' BK over here, but look forward to it.

Thanks for your help.

[Dynamic Component]

I have heard that the EC145 is a NEW AGE BK 117. Does anybody know if they have actualy taken the BK fusalarge and worked around it or if they desinged it from scratch?

And what is it like to fly?Does the fusalarge leak when it flies through rain like claimed on the EC155?

I ask these Questions as I am doing some research on which Medium helicopter is the most suitable for long distance SPIFR.This includes time spent in Maintenance and speed.Preferably 140kts+.

[Autorotate]

DC

From what I saw at Heli Expo the 145 has a larger cabin than the BK-117. I know that Westpac here in Auckland is looking at buying one next year to replace their BK, so will try and get their feedback.

Autorotate.

[widgeon]

Ok
EC135 + Bk117 = EC145
EC120 + AS350 = EC130
AS365n3 + new fuselage = EC155.

I have not heard much about EC135 leaking so I assume the EC145 would not.

[Flare Dammit!]

Helicopter = leaks in rain.

If I ever find one that doesn't, I'll think I've died and gone to heaven.

[TeeS]

So now you know why MBB, Sikorsky, Bell etc. never went in for submarine building!!!!!!

[Thomas coupling]

EC135 doesn't leak:D

[tecpilot]

I haven't flown EC 145 in rain, but i never met a really dry helo. But Flare Dammit! it would be clever, :eek: to make a time or rain-intensity specification!
May be on a virgin ship, rain stays out for a couple of hours :D :D :D

@ Dynamic Component

EC 145 cabin is 1,5 ft longer and 30 inch wider than aboard the BK117. Floor is flat and long awaited :) without any center or door posts. On both sides is an aditionally window. That means 2 seats more than BK on a 3-2-3 seats arrangement (club seating). Clamshell and lateral outsize doors like the BK. New age pilot area, very good pilot view, glass cockpit (no more right sliding on approach for better view!!! ), including SPIFR AP. MR blades of new design and some other improvements should decrease vibrations and noise level and adds some pounds more gross weight (now 7830 lbs). Usable fuel (standard configuration) is 1525 lbs + 396 lbs long range fuel. According to the payload/range chart, up to 1800 lbs payload + 1 pilot, the ship can reach 360 NM standard and 440 NM long range. Cruising speed is 130-135 kt. VNE on max. gross weight 145 kt. If you like BK's handling and characteristics, (rigid rotor) the new ship could be right for you. At least i like the craft. EC 155 (deicing is coming) is an other class or take a view to Ft. Worth. A109 Power is faster but on max. fuel you have to fly alone with your boss. But you know, comparing helos is impossible. There are so much point of views and i get my money for flying! :rolleyes:

[widgeon]

I was quite impressed with the external noise level on the 145 probably about the same as the 155 which has benefit of the fenestron at higher GW. Those tapered blades make a huge difference.

[Hone22]

:D

Ahah!............ I always wondered what blade tape was for.


........Putting it on ya blades gives ya tapered baldes:D :D


Less noise ....... better performance......................Cool!!

[Dynamic Component]

Thank you all for the info.It's greatly appreciated.

The Dauphin was a option, but they seem to need alot of maintenance.
Any stats out there on the running cost of the EC145 and Dauphin?

Autorotate:
That would be greatly appreciated.

[SASless]

Best agrument for the 145 instead of the 155 is the 155 itself as I hear. Next best agrument is the lack of support to the owner/operator by the French side of Eurocopter......and yes....wear your wellies and carry a brolly in rainy season if you fly the 155.

[Autorotate]

Heard that Shell Nigeria arent too happy with their new purchases according to some little birdies from that area. ;)

Maybe some of our African visitors can elaborate on that one a little more.

DC - Talk to Childflight also as they have an N2 I think and are having some teething problems with it. Seems they added a lot of mods to it and now there is a pain in the ass vibration that wont go away. That info is not firsthand but worth looking at. Terry M would be the best person to give you first hand info.

On the other hand Vic Pol seem to be very happy with their N3s.

Autorotate.

[Dynamic Component]

Autorotate,

I know the one you're talking about.I've seen Childflights Dauphin on the ground more than in the air.I've spoken to Eurocopter and what you say is apparently exactly the problem.Vibrations in flight.The first problem was to do with the yaw system on the autopilot.

Apparently it is a awesome machine though.It can do 160 kts with 2 onboard and half fuel.

[soggyboxers]

The Dauphin is a good helicopter for medium range SPIFR. It is reliable and cheap to maintain. The cruise speed would depend on what part of the world you would be operating and what weight you wanted to operate it at (N. Europe around 140 knots, tropics around 130 knots realistically speaking).
Shell have been having some problems with their EC 155s in Nigeria. From what I hear a lot of them are no different from the teething problems almost any new type has in its early days. The main complaint is probably to do with actual single-engine performance as opposed to claimed single-engine performance. The Arriel 2C1 is basically pretty much the same engine as the Arriel 2S1 as fitted in the S76C+ and most operators of the latter type in hot climates have been having a lot of problems with engines failing power assurance. Supposedly the Arriel 2C2/2S2 will address most of these problems, but that remains to be seen.
I've yet to fly a helicopter that doesn't leak in the rain.

[Grey Area]

The EC145 is certified as the BK117 C2. This allowed Eurocopter/Kawasaki to keep the certification costs to a minimum. You might be interested to note that as a result of this EC were able to use the large screen by applying the regulations in force at the time of the certification of the BK117, the screen does NOT conform to birdstrike criteria in force at the time of the certification of the C2; this has been a sticky point with the CAA.

As an aside, the choice of a plank wing IFR FMS for a helo destined for a lot of SAR and police work was not wise. Try it and see.......

[Nomads]

The EC 120 doesn't leak either:D :D :D

www.eurocopter.com

Nomads;)

[John Eacott]

I'd love to trade my 117 for a 145, the improvements all appear to be the result of listening to the customer. Difficult to believe Eurocopter would be capable of such a move :rolleyes:

At the risk of spooking the weather gods, in 5+ years operation my 117 has yet to leak in the rain, in flight or on the ground. And all the panels still go back in the right place without persuasion; German and Japanese standards at their highest, IMHO.

I remember the astonishment shown many years ago, when the VicPol introduced new radios and we asked for motorcycle control heads for the Dauphin, since they were already waterproofed. The radio techs actually thought we were joking :cool:

[Chuck K]

Eurocopter has sold its first EC 145 in the United States to the Lee County Division of Public Safety/EMS.
Lee County, which lies along the west coast of Florida, includes the city of Fort Myers and 652,000 acres of coastal area and barrier islands.
The EMS is responsible for providing advanced life support for out-of-hospital emergencies and primary health care and also responds to personnel searches, mass casualty incidents, and missing or downed aircraft reports.
They've been operating helicopters since 1978, and currently fly a B0-105. Delivery of the EC 145 to Lee County is slated for early 2004.

Well whadya know!

[ppheli]

Yes, they announced that on 23rd September. Full story is here (http://webinfo.eurocopterusa.com/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.asp?PressReleaseID=95)

[Heliport]

Well I hadn't seen it.
Thanks for posting the news item Chuck, and welcome to Rotorheads.

Heliport

[touareg]

Calling EC145 operators worldwide

It fits my mission profile from the persepctive of size and carrying capacity.

Any body got any feed back on this helicopter from the handling characteristics perspective.

I have heard particualrly from the French that the helicopter does not handle well in confined areas, lack of tail rotor authority, very rigid ride, not good in the mountains. OK, So its not an Allouette III.

I am also very interested to know how the mainteance load is viewed for technicains and its suitability to remote operations.

Is the current lack of FADEC control a real issue.

Would it be OK for VIP passenger transport, does it roll like a pig in the wind. The flights are always short hops.

Thanks.

[Flytest]

Talk to REGA Swiss Air Ambulance who operate these aircraft in the very role you describe.

[spinningwings]

Interesting question/ topic....... I thought that the EC145 was really just a growth version of the BK117 ...and as such would have EXCELLENT confined area handelling qualities ...( but maybe not at 10,000ft !!) ..... certainly the BK does ...must watch what is said closely ...



:D

[Droopy]

Are the CAA the only regulatory authority concerned about the fact that the 145's controls run through flexicables up the central front windscreen frame? I know they've expressed reservations about birdstrike resilience.

[PANews]

I have asked about the rumours that the flying qualities of the EC145 were being 'knocked' by French pilots newly introduced to it.

The standard reply [albeit suspect because it is an EC source] is that the high time pilots are comparing their long experience with such as Alouettes ['seat of the pants flying'] with the high tech new technology 145. The difference between the two is vast. It is an age old observation - the same as expressed by those in open cockpit bi-planes transferring to enclosed monoplanes I guess.

The most likely exponent might be someone with BK117 experience apreciating the added value of the upgrades machine. The same type of criticism was heard from those moving from the Lama to the AS350B3 ....... but it sells.

[John Eacott]

I can only comment on the handling of the BK, but I'd love to be able to afford/justify the upgrade to a 145 ;)

With the C model tail rotor blades, the "lack of tail rotor authority" is almost a none event. At max. gross, high DA, it will need a bit of care as would most other machines, but the TR thrust is there, and effective.

Rigid ride? Well, it is a rigid rotor design, and certainly handles the turbulence more like a fixed wing than a "conventional" articulated head helicopter, but you can use that ability to fly in areas that you just wouldn't take a "conventional" machine. Not if you want to fly out in one piece, that is!

Confined areas? The 117 is superb, if you can fit in a Squirrel, you'll land a BK, often with more confidence and safety. High tail rotor, two donks, small rotor diameter, good power reserves.

High altitude: the 145 has better engines & performance, so I'd expect it to outperform the 117-B2 that I have, which we use to land at 6000ft on a daily basis, with 8 skiers and their equipment. The roof top pad we have is a gridded deck, with no ground cushion as a result, but the BK handles that well.

FADEC: nice to have, but not exactly critical to the machine's capability, surely?

Maintenance: we have surged through remote fire operations up to 12 hours/day, and kept going with commendable reliability.

VIP transport: the short tail boom can induce a semi Dutch roll, if not handled well. CSAS will help against this, or a boot full of opposite yaw to stop the PIO :ok: The enlarged door opening of the 145 should make VIP passenger access easier than the 117, which has a relatively small sliding door, and subsequent difficulty with entry around VIP seats.

The French have a degree of difficulty with the 145, since it slots into the sales market against the 365N/155. As the "home grown" machine will naturally be considered superior, a degree of parochialism may need to be allowed for ;)

Hope that helps....

[Autorotate]

I spent a day with the Lausanne based Rega 145 and according to Laurent Racine, who I spent some time talking to, it is a great machine. He said it is very smooth and even though it doesnt have the FADEC system it is still the same to manage as the BK, in fact it is easier.

Some of the areas they go into are confined and he said that they have had no handling issues with it, and he compares it the same to the BK, with the added advantage of new cockpit, moving maps etc etc. The only negative thing he said was when it was in a high alt hover with a lot of wind it did get kicked around a bit more than a BK, but having never flown one cant really say much more than that.

I have plenty of images of the insides of it if you want them posted here, including panel shots with everything up and running.

:E

P.S. The French Securitie Civil lost a 145 not long ago when it struck some rocks.

[tecpilot]

@ touareg

The EC 145 is approved as a new version of the proven BK 117. But differencies between the older BK 117 B2 or C1 and the new ship are much greater than on any other BK series.

At the moment not so much ships have really enough (real missions) flight hours for a final comment.


John Eacott :ok: describes the BK 117 B2 and C1 models and their handling and servicing characteristics very well. The differencies to the EC 145 are not so big.

What's now the EC 145:

1. We have the same engines like the C1. That means no FADEC and 2 min cooling time. But the new MTOW is now 3585kg/7,826lbs. :yuk:

2. We have an improved main rotor. Should provide a little more lift.

3. The greatest step forward is the new cockpit layout with the new "MEGHAS" glass cockpit. That's really the best on the ship (my opinion) because of the much more better pilots view outside. But the new glass cockpit could give so much indication possibilities, so much informations and require therefore much more knowlegde from the pilot. That's the big big difference to the older ships. On the differential training is the biggest point to teach the pilots the needed cockpit skills especially on emergencies. It's the first time in my pilots-life that i have heard from older pilots: that ship isn't the right thing for my last years, because of the complete new avionic and cockpit generation. Including a new very good autopilot (fully automatic ILS Approach up to 65ft), the ship should allways fly with the AP engaged.

4. More fuel and increased endurance (2,5h).

5. As said with the old engines and the new MTOW is especially the OEI performance not so good. :ugh: Short: the ship is nearly allways underpowered. To reach CAT "A" performance under operation conditions it seems impossible to take the advantage of the more payload and fuel.

6. The rear cabin is larger. (Really good)

7. A new hoist without the big older boom direct above the sliding doors. (booth sides possible) that means improved hoist capabilities.

The ship is very good to fly (of course a rigid rotor) and as good as the older BK's on confined areas. But absolutely shure it's not a hot and high helicopter. The "flexicables" working good and the ship is new for Eurocopter ships equipped with twist grips.
As a new ship with not so much flying time the maintenance load is difficult to describes. That's a question of the next 2-4 years.

And at last: the thing is really (maybe to) expensive to buy. :* I'm not shure if it is possible to buy and to fly the EC 145 on free market and business conditions at the moment worldwide. Have heard, you have to expect delivering times up to 2 years.

[212man]

Can't comment on the specific questions first made, but to follow up on the last remarks: I fly the EC-155 and have to say that the Avionique Nouvelle cockpit is superb. It is hard to imagine a more pilot friendly environment, especially for SPIFR.

[tecpilot]

I fully agree to 212man. The point is the pilot must be able to use the possibilities of the glass cockpit. And there are a lot of procedures in case of an indication or equipment failure.

[touareg]

Thank you to all who have contributed to the 145 discussion.

We are talking to Swiss Rega, German ADAC and Eurocopter. I will post how things fionbally develop down the line.

Thanks agian.

Touareg

[XEMS]

Anybody have any time in the EC-145? We are looking at potential aircraft, and am wondering how it would compare to a 109E. I'm sure the speed doesn't match up, but we are looking more at volume then speed. IFR is a must, as is a convertable interior from pax to light cargo. Also looking at an S-76, but am thinking it's overkill.

[Autorotate]

Drop me an email and will put you in touch with Laurent Racine who flies the Rega EC145 out of Lausanne, Switzerland. They have been flying it for some time now and swapped from an Agusta A109 K2 so he could possible give you a good comparison.

Autorotate.

[Head Turner]

Would you share the information on the EC145 that you got from Laurent Racine for I'm sure there are some of us who would like some insight into this machine.

[belly tank]

Heard from an aquaintance that Eurocopter have just rolled out a 145 at YSBK any one know who owns it. I heard a whisper that a company up in WA was thinking about one.

[John Eacott]

Dealt with a month or so ago: True North bought it, first of type in country.

Nice bit of kit, as I start dreaming and wishing.....:cool: ;)

[belly tank]

Cheers John!

I had an inckling but was'nt sure. Any advantages over a 135? apart from the obvious differences?

[John Eacott]

I suspect that is a major headache for Eurocopter, since they have produced in the 135, a competitor for the 145 (which is a development of the BK117C).

I'd still like to be able to justify one......:cool:

[Hippolite]

The EC 145 is really a BK117C with a 135 "front end" on it. EC did a great job in removing the control closet and running the controls through the centre winshield fairing.

I flew one a while ago and actually preferred it to the EC155. 8 pax and a totally move around and flexible interior make it an excellent small offshore, big EMS type machine. Almost a 412 competitor in my opinion. Cost is about $5mUS with SPIFR package fitted.

HH :cool:

[Blackhawk9]

Hippolite, at least you said almost a 412 replacement, still stuff all payload , power , range and room compared to a 412EP and the Eurotrash don't like high ambient temps /hot high (not european hot ie: 25oC) real hot high 35-45 oC like Mid East and Australia

[noooby]

Blackhawk9,

You might wanna compare BK117 with S-76 at Karratha. Last time I was there, BK would leave 76 for dead during summer (A while back I must admit). Well known that even the older LTS101 BK's have more than enough power, let alone the newer Arriel 2 powered versions!! Not all European helicopters are anaemic, and not all yank tanks have power to spare. Horses for courses.

[Hippolite]

blackhawk 9

Aa nooby says, horses for courses. I don't think that the 412EP would be any better even in your hot climate than the 145.
FYI, I am not in Europe.

The cabin in the 145 is more versatile than the 412EP although not quite as big. Remenber, the 145 is a smaller helicopter but for SOME missions, it would be a 412 EP competitor.

The 412 was good in its day but let's face it, its an old machine now with a limited life.

I think that you will see more 145s in your country, some even replacing or taking work from old 412s where the "voluminous" cabin of the 412 is not really being used to its full capacity.

HH:cool:

[407 too]

we are going through the process of deciding whether this machine warrants further consideration from us. (read as spending money to actually go to a different country to test fly)

i would like to ask you ec-145 drivers what you feel are the good/bad points with this machine

the numbers look fine for our utility type missions, BUT, what is the ride like for exec transport ?? My understanding is that EC has changed the blade design to help quiet and smooth the ride, and added a vibration dampner. is the translational buffeting anything i should be concerned about (exec transport) ??

what REAL numbers are you getting at say 7200 lbs for airspeed ??

what is the stability like in gusty 10 - 25 kt winds, bags all around required ??

we are now flying a 407, so the ride/speed issue may play a great part in our decision


and no, we are not relying on these responses to make a final decision, just to get some feedback from people actually flying the bird :ok:

[Eurobolkow]

Its a 117 in disguise!!!!

No seriously just beware that its a utility aircraft that is not capable of producing the soothing cabin ride, environment or speed of an AB139 or Agusta Grand (to name but two).

Also no FADEC is a concern to many potential operators.

[Brasky]

Is the EC145 certified for doors-off flight?

I'm hearing that the doors must be kept closed as they are critical to the cabin structural integrity ... especially in relation to crashworthiness.

Anyone know?

Thanks for your help!

Brasky

[SawThe Light]

Brasky,

The 145 FM Supplement Section 9.1-2 permits operations with a mix of crew and cabin doors open or removed subject to the usual limitations such as sideslip etc and your crosswind limit is reduced to 30 Kts. All seems pretty much standard.

STL

[metric]

I am aware that the front-crew doors have a semi-open position of say 100mm which provides a wind-break/spoiler action over the open main-cabin doors.

It would appear that the design team have been attentive to the needs of a demanding first customer or two - the French MOD and the Civil Rescue Authorities.

:D

[Thomas coupling]

This might be relevant:
the EC135 cannot fly Class 1 (Cat A) with the doors opened.

Much the same reason I would assume - integrety of the cabin.

[helmet fire]

tc,
I am guessing that the doors will not restrict CAT A due to any structural reasons, but rather from excess drag causing reduced climb and acceleration performance. For example, the BK117 actually reduces it's climb performance by a staggering 250 ft per minute for doors open, so if you are heavy and OEI, taking 250 fpm off you is likely to be severley embarassing, and thus its a good thing to remember for rescue crews who have a donk failure: close the doors as quick as you can!

[Thomas coupling]

It also relates to the rear sliding doors!!!

No resistance there?

[helmet fire]

tc,
yep, that also relates to the rear sliding doors. The airflow disturbance around the fuselage caused by the big open hole is enough to incur the climb penalty.

hf

[Thomas coupling]

Who told you that?

[helmet fire]

Think it was the flight manual.
Will check on Sunday and let you know. Or let you know how embarassed I am!!

[tecpilot]

helmet fire is right. There are some aerodynamic causes limiting the airspeed and the performance. Greater airspeeds with removed doors could go up to problems controlling the bank of the a/c. Due to the greater drag and the influence of the changed airstreams to the main AND tailrotor, the performance isn't as good as with doors closed.
Cat A with opened / removed doors is also not certified on BK 117 and EC 135.

Integrity and chrashworthiness of the cabin is is abolutely given also with opened/removed doors. There is a carbon frame on EC 135/145 giving the structural integrity. The doors doesn't have structural influence.

[zorab64]

metric - for what it's worth, sounds like the same mod that's available to the 135, a new front door strut that (with a selector) restricts the door from opening fully, acting as a spoiler for the rear sliding door. In the case of the 135, your front door also gets re-inforced down the trailing edge but the overall package allows flight to 110kts, rather than the usual 60kt limit, with the sliding door open.

[helmet fire]

re my last post:

Sorry tc about the time delay.

the FM for the BK117 does include the climb rate issue. under Supplement 11-3, Operation with Doors removed, para 5.2 rate of Climb
"Subtract corection value as indicated below from the rate of climb obtained from the applicable performance chart of basic flight Manual.

Gross weight (kg): ...............ROC Correction (Ft/min):

1700 - 2200 .....................450

2200 - 2850 ......................350

2850 - 3350 .........................250"


As the doors open ROC correction reduces with GW, it consistent with aerodynamic reasons (actual ROC reduces with GW, and drag is exponential, therefore correction reduces accordingly).

The BK117 also has a statement in the CAT A supplement that with doors open/removed, the aircraft is not certificated for CAT A. Cat A is only available in the B2 to 2900 kg, so removing around 350 ft/min due drag of the open doors will cause the aircraft to fail to meet the CAT A profile.

I think!

[407 too]

heard from a friend who heard from an ec145 maint. engineer that the ec145's will SOON be delivered with fadec.

with the knowledge base of posters out there, can someone please confirm or deny the rumor

[tecpilot]

According to Turbomeca the Arriel 1E2 engines couldn't be upgraded with a FADEC and Turbomeca isn't interested in major modifications on this "old" engines. And FADEC-ing is the part of the engine manufacturers not ECD.

It's right there are plans to upgrade the EC 145 on the next development level with a 5-bladed rotor, new MR Gearbox and FADEC equipped engines.

Just ask the maint. engineer to definite the therm "soon" ...
;)

[metric]

Guess I'm a bit sad, but does anyone know what the EC145 list price is...the price that gets you a helicopter with nothing of any value at all - I think Eurocopter call that the Standard helicopter. And before someone offers me the UK police price, that is not the number I need!:cool:

[407 too]

just curious, what is the UK police price ??

[Eurobolkow]

Is that with or without FADEC???

As always asking a vague question will get a vague answer or in this case probably a misleading one. Take whatever figure you are given by the EC PR boys here and add at least 10% for anything like a half decent spec.

Then the real question is how much less is an Agusta Grand!!!;)

[Head Turner]

As Eurobolkow emphsises, your question is without substance.

You will need to contact your local Eurocopter dealer and thrash it through with them adding all the bits and peices that you require including paint and interior and expect a big cost difference between the basic spec (airframe, engine, transmission and basic instrumentation) and the final fly away cost. The Agusta looks more expensive initially but the end cost needs appreciating.

[Thomas coupling]

You really will need to draw up a spec list before asking general questions like:
how much is a lexus 300???

type of engines
level of IF suite
seating arrangements
overwater capability
etc etc

The absolute basic lada level is around 5,,500,000 euros.

[Heli-Ice]

I'll narrow it down.

How much does a Europian built helicopter cost? :D

[widgeon]

not where is is built that affects price but where is is sold.
BTW EC145 is only built in Germany.

[Berten]

Somebody with EC145 experience?? Actually I'm in progress for a PBH contract with EC, would like to list the components which are most suspected/deftuous. All info welcome.


Regards,
Bertrand

[ECdoesit]

Hello all,


okay, here it goes, "I know someone who knows someone" who plays with the idea to aquire a VIP/Corporate EC135. My interest is to get into this ship!
I do have the slight hope to get involved into the decision making process for the final-order-specs as well.
Knowing that VIP ships get rather heavy by the time they are done, I am entertaining the idea to suggest a EC145 instead, IF the requirements for transport go beyond the 4-seat VIP-135 version (4 in the back one on the co-pilot seat).

Money is always a question, but in this case it is secondary.
My concern is to be able to use full fuel at most all times, even thinking about the removable aux-tank (Long distance between available fuel stops).

Basic question is:

Are there ANY EC145 or BK117 out there in a VIP/Corporate configuration? I am talking leather/bar/satphone/pop-outs/etc.

These people are rather set for EC, however I appreciate any and all suggestions (at this time you are only bringing ME up to speed in the VIP helicopter world!)

What is your take on the idea of a VIP-EC145?

I have all the EC-info on the 145, there is no VIP interior like the 135 available, so I also appreciate hints towards companies that could transform a basic 145 into a VIP-transport!

I do have some questions to the EC-135 in this role too, but I will start a new thread for that or hook on the existing 135/355 discussion. However first I would like to wait for your response to this here!

Thanks to all in advance!

ECdoesit:cool:

[widgeon]

Does the Ec-145 have the little spoiler under the clamshell doors like on the 105-ls ? I wuz told on the 105 it was something about the TR not being as effective if the air flow on the fuselage was allowed to stay attached too for back.

[skadi]

A 5-Blade-Rotor was tested o a EC 145 in April 2006 at Donauwörth, Germany. More on www.eurocopter.com (http://www.eurocopter.com) News. It looks like an improved rotorsystem of the EC 135

[widgeon]

INteresting trivia , there was a prototype 5 blade head for the BO105LS fabricated in the early 80's. I don't think it ever flew.

[quichemech]

When I did my 135 course I was told they had tested a 5 blade system for that as well,that was 3 years ago:confused:

[O27PMR]

Please forgive my complete ignorance and I apologise if this is a stupid question but what are the advantages/disadvantages of a 5 bladed rotor system over a 4 bladed system???

PR

[quichemech]

Roughly speaking more lift, hence higher MTWA

[NickLappos]

Frankly, there is no more lift or thrust in 5 vs 4 or 3 blades, as long as the total solidity of the rotor (total blade area divided by the total disk area) is the same. In other words, 4 skinny blades have no more lift than 3 somewhat wider blades. More blades usually weigh more, so that for the same solidity, a greater number of blades can reduce payload a bit, but the vibration is a bit smoother (especially when going from 2 to 3) with more blades.

[212man]

4 to 5 seems to make quite a difference too!

There must also be cost and maintenance issue involved; by definition a 5 bladed head must be more complex, cost more and the blades themselves will cost more, relative to a 4 bladed design.

[NickLappos]

Very true, and also the cost to make 1 blade is the sum of a fixed cost (inspection, paperwork, tooling, etc) and a variable cost (materials and labor) so that a 5 bladed head with blades must cost at least 20% more than a 4 blades head.

The vibration goes down by a ratio of the 2/3 power of the number of blades, so that the difference between 1 and 2 blades is enormous, 2 to 3 is big, 3 to 4 is less so, and so on. By the time you get to 7 vs 8 the number is too small to count.

[topendtorque]

"so that the difference between 1 and 2 blades is enormous"


Yep!

[semirigid rotor]

If I am reading this right, if the 5 blade option is too expensive / complex and little to be gained, could this be why ECD have gone for a "CAT A" switch on the EC135T2? Increase the RRPM by 3% for class 1 take off / landings and get the benefit of increased lift with a greatly reduced cost implication.

Now the EC145 comes with an automatic increase if RRPM at low speed (below 55Kts I believe), so why keep going down the extra blades route?

[quichemech]

Thanks nick, I should have gone a little more in depth with my answer, just trying to keep it simple.

[widgeon]

I have not had a close look at the 145 head , is it essentially the same as the Bk117 ?.

Just checked EC45 site ,it looks identical to BK117.

I think a key sentance in the press release is "sponsored by the German Ministry of Economics and Technology" The easy blade fold feature looks useful .

Back to Nicks earlier replies , why would any Sikorsky have more than 4 blades then ?.

And just to nit pick Nick missed out one element which is Non Recurring cost ( engineering and tooling ) this unit element will be reduced ( by a small amount ) per blade if you are making 20% more blades.

[NickLappos]

widgeon,
You seem to think that I say 4 blades is "better" than 5 blades, which is not true, at all! The 5 blades are more expensive, but could be a better mix when all design factors are considered. Obviously, Sikorsky thinks so,too. I have hundreds of hours in a 7 bladed monster!

semirigid,
You hit the nail on the head! Increasing rotor rpm is a way to add extra equivilent blade area without adding any blages. In effect, the rpm makes up for the lesser blade area, so that thrust is increased without any rotor head/blade change (as long as the CF can be tolerated.)
The peak thrust of a rotor is basically determined by the Ct/sigma (coefficient of thrust/solidity), where all rotors are limited to a set value of max Ct/Sigma (usually about 0.20). Ct is thrust/ [(air density) x (disk area0 x (tip speed squared)] and solidity is [(number of blades) x (chord) x (radius)]/ rotor disk area.

Sounds complicated, but it is basically just like an airplane wing, where the wing stalls at a fixed coefficient of lift, so you need either more wing area (rotor solidity), or more forward speed (rotor tip speed).

[slowrotor]

Is an odd number of blades such as 5 better than 4?

[NickLappos]

slowrotor,
No not at all, the more the number of blades, the smaller the humps in lift each create, and the higher the frequency the N/rev vibration is. Both factors make the greater number of blades a better vibration case. If the rotor had infinite blades, there would be no vibration.

[212man]

I think that the notion that EC use an increased Nr for their vertical Cat A profile to increase lift is a slight misconception. Although not denying the facts as stated by Nick (obviously they are correct) in the case of such profiles the weights are so restricted that lift, per se, is not the issue; it's rotor energy.

EC us the high Nr to increase the rotor energy for both the rejected take off and continued take off cases. In the former case, it allows the high rates of descent, that develop from a reject close to TDP, to be arrested, and in the latter case it helps minimise the drop down following a failure immediately after TDP.

In the case of the EC-155 it is the rate of descent in the rejected take off that is limiting the maximum TDP to 100 ft and the RTOW (1000 ft/min is common).

By using the increased Nr, they are also able to modify the HV curve and this allowed them to develop the 'increased slope' (short field in plain English!) procedure, whereby the a/c is allowed to start climbing sooner than would be the case with normal Nr. Similarly, it helps bridge the 15 kt gap between TDP and Vtoss. It is also a requirement for the offshore PC2e procedures they were developing last year.

By way of an example of the difference, I used to demonstrate failures in a 6 ft hover with normal Nr vesus at 10 ft with increased Nr, with no collective input, to illustrate the benefit. In the first case the low Nr audio would sound before ground contact, in the second case it would only go off once collective was applied to cushion the touchdown.

[spinwing]

Perhaps they know that the "Old Lump of Titanium" has reached the end of its development life and there is a better way .... I think the present head design whilst great back in 1976 will not allow the A/C design to progress either due to retreating blade stall issues (read "cruise speed increases") or vibrations in flight ????

Cheers ;)

[semirigid rotor]

Thanks 212 man, I have been looking for an explanation for this modification to the T2 series for a while. Even the test pilot forum went very quiet when I mentioned it!

Having said all that, the RRPM increase is just 3%, does it really make that much difference? I suppose ECD thinks that it does, but it sure is a complicated method and not without controversy. I think we are back to Nick's old chestnut about "percieved risk" - take your hand off the collective to press a button, just incase you have an engine failure or leave you hand the collective just incase you mess up the approach.

If the engineering could take it, would it not have been better to have increased the mass of the blades and thereby slow down the rate of RRPM decay?

[NickLappos]

The stored enegry is proportional to the square of the rpm, so a 3% increase in rpm is actually a 6% increase in energy. It is not enormous, but it truly helps in Cat A and H-V engine cuts. For a hover cut, rotor energy is worth about 1/3 of the means to land, and engine power is worth about 2/3. So if we make a 6% increase on the 1/3, that would help increase Cat A weight by perhaps 2% total. For a 6000 lb machine, that is 120 lbs.

I think 212man has it right.

[slgrossman]

Nick,

Notwithstanding the weight gain, wouldn't the addition of a fifth blade allow all the blades to be made closer to the ideal shape for hovering (long and narrow), while preserving the solidity necessary for high-speed and maneuvering performance?

Additionally, wouldn't the addition of a fifth blade allow all blades to operate at a lower angle of attack, thus increasing the retreating blade stall margin?

As to the vibration, do additional blades actually reduce the energy of the vibration or just shift it to a frequency which is less objectionable?

-Stan-

[Aser]

I agree with 212man , we have the 102% switch on the collective for Cat A in the 139 and you are required to put 103% rrpm manually in the 412 for Cat A.

[NickLappos]

Stan, your basic premise is just a little off - remember, it is not the number of blades that determines the total thrust, it is the solidity. All the virtues you list are attainable by controlling solidity. An additional blade is one way to get more solidity, another path is to provide the original number but with somewhat wider blades.

Regarding the vibration, the basic energy (actually the root shear forces) are very much reduced when you have more blades, and the reduction is much faster than linear, so it really helps to reduce vibration by adding blades.

[semirigid rotor]

Thanks Nick, it now starts to make sense, with the formula for stored energy and 212 man's explanation. Wouldn't it be nice if the manufacturer's put a little bit of background information in the systems description of the aircraft flight manual?

[Head Turner]

I congratulate all those who have responded to this subject. Your inputs are informative and constructive and it would surely benefit the readers of the manuals if the explanation were provided of the particular system, but in a stand alone annex, not in the main text. The main text needs to be precise and to the point and not painted with extra explanations as is the system at the present time.
Thank you all.

[andTompkins]

Anyone know the tail rotor RPM of the EC145 ... or at least the ratio of the main to tail rotor? I've been trolling the web, manuals, etc and can't find anything that indicates this. Thanks for your help!

Tompkins

[handysnaks]

I think it is 2169 RPM.

[HELOFAN]

As I understand it , the ratio is usually 6-1.

That is 6 rotations of the tail rotor for every 1 rotation of the main rotor, but I am not sure if that is the case for all helo's.

For the Notars.....erm ????? :confused:


Does anyone know of any helos where this is not the case... 6-1 rule?

HF

[NickLappos]

HELOFAN,
There really is no rule about ratios of rpm, but many times the tail rotor tip speed is the same as the main rotor (when a conventional open tail rotor is used), so the ratio of the rpm is often the ratio of the diameters of the two rotors. Many rotors use a tip speed between 700 and 725 feet per second. For the EC-145 that turns out to be a 6.5 to 1 rpm ratio.

[HELOFAN]

Thanks Nick.

I should say that the word "rule" was a term I was using loosly and should have said average is around.

Do you know where the ration of about 6-1 isnt correct?
I was thinking for multi tail rotor helo's such as the Apache or possibly the larger or smaller helo's come into play.
I would think it should not matter but I had to ask.

Thanks again.

HF

[Civis]

Morning all,
Anyone with first or second hand reports on the commercial machines already in service?

How about deliveries, completions, support?

Thanks

[3top]

Hi all,

it seems the used-market for the EC145 is bone-dry.
I am looking for a EC145 ASAP, pref. in Utility config. but will consider any machine as long as special equipment does not make the deal economically un-acceptable....

Please send me a Private Message....

Cheers,

3top :cool:

[tecpilot]

Forget it... or pay much more than new. There are only a few in private hand. The others are government property.

[800]

We have different forums on the B412, AW139, EC135 etc etc.

What if we have a forum regarding the EC145 and the inputs from those who operate it.

800

[maxtork]

I think thats a fine idea. It's a good aircraft but it does have it's particular challenges.

Max

[maxtork]

Well how about that we already have a EC145 thread...guess we just need to get it back to the top!

Svenestron, the Apache has a stacked tail rotor. It is basically two two bladed systems stacked with about 6 inches or so in between for noise reasons. If you have ever heard one nearby you would agree it works!

Max

[SASless]

H-5, H-21, CH-46 and CH-47 are all 1:1 ratio.:E

[MightyGem]

Svenestron, the Apache has a stacked tail rotor. It is basically two two bladed systems stacked with about 6 inches or so in between for noise reasons.

Scroll down about half way. (http://www.ebearing.com/news2001/news264.htm)

[maxtork]

Svenestron,

Yes I believe it is to reduce the interaction between the tip vorticies but it has been a looooong time since I went to school on that machine so I wouldn't swear it to be true. I can say that the sound is much lower frequency and amounts to a low hum, much quieter than the unit on the blackhawk which is about the same size aircraft. Not only are they space apart axially but they have an odd phase angle separation (the blades are not all 90 degrees apart). This may have as much to do with the low noise as anything else.

I'll be interested to see if the B model EC145, whenever it comes, will have the fenestron tail on it. I don't think the machine has much of an issue with tr performance as it is so any change to the fenestron would most likely be for noise reasons only.

Max

[800]

Hello,

Just woundering, across the fleet, if operators are having problems with the "Standby Horizon".

800

[Rigga]

Its been a while but....

Is it warm in Oz this time of year?

Has it seized?

Didn't they tell you about that on the Course?

[800]

its always warm in the west.

It's just that it does not always tell the same story as the ADI's.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Can somebody settle an argument for me and confirm that the EC145 is certified to +45 degrees C. Thanks

G. :)

[turboshaft]

Type spec says ISA +35°C (up to 50°C).

[Geoffersincornwall]

Thanks

G :ok:

[cliff4nier]

im looking for a 145 driver... faa cpl with an faa a&p license.

email me at: cliff4nier at yahoo dot com

[earach]

We are looking at installing a garmin GWX 68 into our EC 145.
This unit seems to have advantages over the factory installed RDR 2000 in that it is considerably cheaper , lighter , and can be interfaced with the already installed GMX moving map.
Some feedback I have recieved is not too positive although I have used one for a short time with no problems in a BK.
Has anyone installed any after factory types of WX radar into the EC 145 ??
Thanks
E
:confused:

[RVDT]

Maybe talk to Bond UK Offshore or Air Services (not sure which) - I know its a 135 but there isn't much difference at this end of the aircraft from a 145. It's obviously a bigger antenna.

STANDARD

http://images2.auction123.com/6ed9395d-4342-44cc-916c-af2df16c6958/2076972007/01.jpg

AFTERMARKET

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/xx46/Heli1234/EC135B.jpg

[Ian Corrigible]

RVDT,

The D-cup radome ("Aftermarket") is actually a standard fit for the Telephonics RDR-1600, with the B-cup radome ("Standard") housing the Honeywell RDR-2000.

I/C

[capt tosspot]

Struggling to get a quick answer to these two, so if anyone sat with a manual in front of them (like wot I always have!) can you answer:

1. Does 145 have FADEC start up similar to EC135. If not I take it its not a hassle getting it started quickly for police / HEMS role?

2. Has anyone got any experience of air con fitted to 145 and would it cope ok with +40 c temps and a long soak in the sun?

thanks, :confused:

[Phoinix]

EC145 doesn't have FADEC, but is expected to get it's way into 145 with an upgraded model called "145 plus" by eurocopter training personnel.
I've talked to some pilots about the no-FADEC issue and the pilots that fly 135, really miss FADEC in 145.

[maxtork]

EC145 starting is not by FADEC as stated previously. It is basically like starting an AS350 B2 but it has the throttle on the twist grip and a magnetically held start switch that lets go after about 40% N1. Starting can be challenging at times. Each FCU is slightly different and each aircraft is rigged just a bit different and you have to modulate the throttle to get it going. Normally it is a non-issue and things start just fine but if you have a problem it can beat you up pretty bad trying to figure out exactly what it is. As for starting quickly I don't see it as being any slower than any other twin.

As for the air conditioning it seems to do well even in the high heat areas. In the southern CA desert it gets up to 50 C and the AC still works. Now will it make it cold enough at those temps to hang meat in the cabin? probably not but it will at least make it reasonable enough to survive.

Hope it helps

Max

[capt tosspot]

:ok: thanks for the prompt replies folks - a good help

[800]

The 1st start and 2nd start are no issues, even starting within 20 mins of shutdown presented no problems (following the checklist and obseving the FLI [first Limit Indicator]).

I have flown one in the north of Aus with a after market aircon fitted - "Metro Aviation Air Conditioning".

You could feel cold air if you placed your hand over the vent, but when kitted up with full flight gear and a cabin as big as the 145 IT DID NOT CUT THE MUSTARD.

Reports are that Metro are working on a mod to improve the airflow (capacity).

In saying that, it was better than none at all as the inlet vent for ambient air is only about a 4inch diameter.

Overall, a very good pilot machine.

800

T

[skadi]

The EC 145 with fenestron is undergoing flighttests and will be presented officially in September.

First pic:

http://www.flugrevue.de/fm/3/EC145-Fenestron.jpg

Erlkönig erwischt: Eurocopter fliegt EC145 mit Fenestron - FLUG REVUE (http://www.flugrevue.de/de/zivilluftfahrt/fluggeraete/erlkoenig-erwischt-eurocopter-fliegt-ec145-mit-fenestron.29577.htm)

skadi

[Brilliant Stuff]

IMHO a very good idea.

[Bravo73]

...but a bit fugly and out of proportion, compared to a standard EC145... :yuk:

[Brilliant Stuff]

It will look better with a proper paint job.:}

[RVDT]

Add this (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/FO/scripts/myFO_publication.php?news_id=390&lang=EN) (which flew about 4 years ago) and some proper engines like PWC. Happy days!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

RVDT - I hadn't seen that one before, thanks.

Thinks - 5 blades, PW donks - all you need is a cockpit designed by pilots for pilots and you might finally get the 902-beater that Eurocrapter have never yet really achieved (IMHO).

[mfriskel]

RVDT- that rotor is IDENTICAL to the MD900 from the early 90s! I noticed that when I first saw the promos in 2004 or so.

Mark

[Phoinix]

According to EC personnel, that 5 bladed rotor isn't going anywhere near the new 145.

[tecpilot]

Yep, i heard the same. The 5-bladed rotor EC testet a few years ago is not in a serial condition.

And, it needs much more than a nearly original EC135-tail to bring the 145 to a new life.

The fan takes a lot of power. Not sure a the moment how EC will solve that problem. Stronger engines needs new gearboxes. Engines and improved gearboxes enhance the weight.

I hope not to see a new unlucky hybrid from EC with old engines and gearboxes but fan. That means bad flight performance.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Perhaps the tail boom construction will be stronger ... and with no t/r g'box pylon (cracking) inspections necessary ?

I hope the Fenestron has more yaw authority than the T/R system has!


:ok:

[maxtork]

Well from what I have heard this COULD be a good thing. The engines really aren't the limiting factor until you start to get up in altitude as you are torque limited until you get up there. I have heard that the weak link is not the main gearbox but in fact the intermediate gearbox which would be replaced by the fenestron. So this mod may allow more power from the engines to be used at lower altitudes should EC decide to certify it this way. Also most of our 145s are nose heavy so I don't know how the weight and distribution of the fenestron compares to the original tail rotor. Would be nice to eliminate one gearbox and push the weight a little further aft to help the CG. Based on the picture posted the tailboom is in fact different as it does not have the omega channels on the outside. One would expect it to be stronger. If this is the case then maybe they will be able to allow doors off ops now. I am told that this is currently not a good idea because the turbulence from the cabin with the doors off acts on the tail boom too much and drastically shortens its life. With a stronger boom maybe this is not the case anymore? Not that most EMS aircraft need to fly doors off but it would make the aircraft more suitable for other missions.

We shall see!

Max

[Svenestron]

Hi!

I too have a quick question to the EC145..

If I am flying it, then land and want to stop the rotor with retained hydraulic capability, this would be doable, right?
--> I use rotor break but keep the engines on "ground idle" or something like that, right?:confused:

I'm trying to solve a 'blade folding' "problem", on a new system, that currently insists on producing/forcing stupid equipment that I don't believe to be necessary..
What I need to know is that you CAN use cyclic and collective "stick" on ground, after flight, while the rotor is not turning. ie. that hydraulics can be kept "online" after the rotor has stopped turning..

Thanks in advance for answers to this stupid question!
And, for the record, I'm not a pil!t

(There are no stupid questions, only stupid people..:})

[maxtork]

If I am not mistaken the hydraulic pump is drive by the main gearbox so if the blades stop turning then so does the pump. I think there may be an accumulator in the system but that will supply limited volume only. It is not permissible to stop the blades with the rotor brake with engines running. In fact I don't know if it is actually strong enough to do so in the first place and as stated above it wouldn't help you since the hyd pump is driven off the main gbox anyway. That being said you still can move the cyclic and collective without the hydraulics but it requires a bit more effort. Depending on how much you need to move the controls it may still be possible without hydraulics.

Hope it helps


Max

[Svenestron]

Good answer Max, that helped me a lot.. :=
OK, not your fault that hydraulics are driven by the MGB..

But.. to continue.. could one say that, after landing whilst the MRB are slowing down and the MGB is still producing "some" pressure, it would be possible to perform a full cyclic movement at a time where ther is "enough" hydraulic pressure and the helicopter would not "keel over" (given 0 collective input)..?

(I need to have the blades at full cyclic input in 'any one' direction as the rotor comes to a halt..)

Thanks in advance..:ok:

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

I believe the Hydraulic system on the BK117 and the EC145 (BK117C ??) is basically the same Hydraulic pack as also used on the Bo105 series (with some subtle variation).

It DOES run off the main transmission and thus when the rotors are stopped there is NO hyd. pressure. As well as this the Rotor Brake on these aircraft is not one of their strongest features ... and I really doubt that it would stop the rotors with any kind of power applied to them.

Having said that ... although I have many hours in the 105/117 I have not flown the 145.


:}

[maxtork]

I would bet that you could indeed make full deflection of the cyclic during shut down either with hydraulics or not but doing so while the blades are still spinning is a tougher deal. You would have to make this maneuver contingent upon a very low rotor rpm as you run the risk of a mast moment exceedance otherwise. I haven't played with the cyclic on shut down (I'm not a pilot either) so there may be a windo of time when tip speed is low enough and pump speed is high enough to pull this off. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish but if it is simply to move the cyclic to the stop in one direction then it may be just as easy to do so without hydraulics after rotor stop. I wouldn't want to fly it this way but you can sure move the controls full travel with a little effort.

Good Luck

Max

[spinwing]

Mmm ...

I think you will find that a full cyclic movement will be tricky ... as you would have to 'trim' the stick fully over and I vaguely remember that being a 'no no' .... but then my brain is old and its been 7 years since I sat in one of those 'slippery lil suckers' ....


:O

[otter712]

EC145: No fadec but does not take much longer then the EC135 to start once you get handy with it and a feel for the "rigging" of the fuel control. Either aircraft I can get of the ground in less then 4 min, just the 135 a little less effort.

30-35 Celsius and up: The air conditioning in the EC135 is reasonable to bad especially compared to a BK117 or AS350, the EC145 is 10 times (if not 20 times) worse, and I have flown multiple tail nrs for hundreds of hours so I don't find this aircraft specific or type specific. (Metro and AMC completions)

The heater in the EC135 is good! The heater in the EC145 is as bad as the AC and flights over 45 min in the winter will result in loss of feeling in your feet. Good thing the pedals of the EC145 are tied into the autopilot, lol.

Moving the cyclic once on the ground in the EC145 will guaranteed get you in trouble if too enthusiastic in terms of Mast moment limits and a lot of maintenance to be performed, please, don't.

Behavior in turbulence: EC135, a lot of nose pitching up and down, rotor always steady even up to 75 kts of wind over the mountains. (even when I am far from "steady) Fadec does a great job, autopilot will "lose" it sometimes and need some assistance in "getting back". EC145, more of a shaking left and right, rotor all over the place and manual mode recommended for a reason. Autopilot seems to keep up better although I have not had a chance to fly her to the "limits" yet. So far she never kicked off on me.

How I would describe the difference? The EC135 is a BMW 3 series, the EC145 is a VW van. Both nice but different. For police work or even EMS (especially scene's) give me an 135 (2 or 2+) anytime. For Hauling 3 medcrews and an isolette, the 145 is the perfect machine.

Other then that they are both a dream to fly and designed to be single pilot IFR. And they are good at it! I have close to 1500 hrs in the 2 combined and am in love ! Remember, Just like a woman, no such thing as perfection....you just have to get to know her and find what she likes and what she doesn't like and sometimes there is no logic behind it, at least not for a simple mind like myself.


My 2 cents....

[Thomas coupling]

otter712: :ok: nice one.

[bolkow]

Indeed otter ,and just like with women its better to love two so that you have one to fall back on!

[otter712]

True words of wisdom Bolkow, you said it :)

[otter712]

Sorry, it was late last night and I missed a couple of questions. Some of them have been answered but this is just my opinion in addition to..

If I am flying it, then land and want to stop the rotor with retained hydraulic capability, this would be doable, right?
--> I use rotor break but keep the engines on "ground idle" or something like that, right?

Hydraulic rotor brake, one pull if you time it right to full blade stop after engines are off and NR below 50 %. Unfortunately you cant leave the brake on to prevent turning of the blades by wind unlike with the EC135

Cyclic movement EC145, full deflection possible and part of pre start checklist with engines off and rotor not turning ( see the mast moment issue written before if you do this with engines running and rotors turning). Unlike the EC135 you can and should. EC135, please dont even try. It wont and if it does move you might just have bend the very thin walled push pull tubes..

Even though I never tried , and never hope to try, apparently the 145 can be flow without hydraulics in the event of a dual failure, the 135 however is a no go.

Take care

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

.... apparently the 145 can be flow without hydraulics in the event of a dual failure, ....

.... Yeah straight into the ground! .....

I don't think the Bo105/BK117 series has ever had a dual Hydraulics failure in flight ... certainly not one that I have heard off ...

I do however stand to be corrected as may be necessary .. :eek:

[otter712]

apparently as in: Appearing as such but not necessarily so.

Not my experience, not my knowledge, not my opinion however, something that might be so and could be so. Poorly communicated I admit but a question on my behalf I am hoping to find an answer to. Realistic to occur or not. Just for theoretical knowledge. Do you know?

Thanks

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Well your clue is with the manufacturer .... in their wisdom they have NOT allowed for both Hydraulic systems to be able to be turned off at the same time .... if there is a failure the 2nd system automatically becomes the active system .... what does that tell you? :=

:E




BTW ... during my conversions on to both the Bo105 and the BK117 it was emphasised that the aircraft become uncontrollable with both systems U/S.

I don't think that has changed.

[otter712]

"if there is a failure the 2nd system automatically becomes the active"

I believe they are both active at all times. Both systems run independently and simultaneously to generate the entire pressure for boosting the main rotor controls. If one system fails, the remaining system continues to supply......

It's not a bo105 neither is it a BK117 (just on paper a BK117-C2 for certification purpose)

Also I understand that "in theory" all answers are to be found at the manufacturer. But that isn't the purpose of an discussion at a forum. Here is an opportunity to exchange knowledge that is already in the field.

Please try again

Your welcome

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

otter712 .... Ok here we go ...please listen very carefully as I will only say this once .....

...... I believe they are both active at all times. ... I believe you are WRONG!

Certainly they may both be pressurised at the same time but only System 1 is actively controlling the aircraft in 'normal operation'.

This from the Bk117 MBB Helicopter Training Centre Pilot course notes ....

For reasons of redundancy the hydraulic unit is constructed as a tandem system i.e. it consists of two separate systems which operate independently of each other. One of the systems (system1) is the MAIN system the other system (system 2) is the STANDBY system. Under normal operating conditions ONLY the MAIN system functions as the (controls) booster. If there is any malfunction within the MAIN system, it will be immediately cutoff and the standby system will be actuated automatically.

As with most duplicated systems on aircraft that are not designed to fly without hydraulic power to the flight controls a hydraulic system failure in flight IS A CRITICAL FAILURE A REQUIRES A LANDING ASAP.

Now this forum not the place to go into the intimate detail of the Hydraulic pack workings should you wish too ... please go back to whoever did your type training or find a knowledgable mechanic to take you through it.

I understand the Hydraulic packs on the EC145 are the same as for the BK117 but the 'pilot' valves instead of being activated by pushrods are controlled by 'teleflex cables' there may be some other subtle electronics interface bits added but I confess to not knowing about those on the EC145.

Cheers ... good luck ... :)

[John Eacott]

otter712,

I see that you've edited your post, but the assumption you made is still incorrect. spinwing is right (hmmmmm) :ok:

spinwing, the only point to make is that a hydraulic failure (amber 'Hyd 1 - 2') is a "Land as soon as practicable" corrective action, not a "Land as soon as possible" response.

[spinwing]

Mmm ...

Hi John,

Agreed that in the checklist its a 'land as soon as practicable' ... particularly if over water .... having said that ... in a machine which is effectively unflyable without hydraulics would you take the risk ?? (unless absolutely necessary).

A bit like the difference between the 212 and the 412 ... 212s will fly reasonably happily without Hydraulics on ... but the 412 will most definitely not! .... and the company I'm with atm has reflected this in its SOP's ...

BTW .... hows the Beemer?

Cheers :}

[nodrama]

Even though I never tried , and never hope to try, apparently the 145 can be flow without hydraulics in the event of a dual failure, the 135 however is a no go.



With a rigid main rotor head, exactly the same as a Bo105 and BK117C1, and flexiball controls, I doubt it very much!!

As Spinwing says, both hyd systems are active (pumps running) but #2 is in bypass (no pressure) until #1 fails.

A Bo105 in the UK did have a temporary (long enough to scare the sh*t out of the pilot) dual hyd system failure, in flight, about 4 - 5 years ago.

[RVDT]

And possibly needless to say but I will - DO NOT TOUCH THE "HYD TEST" SWITCH IN FLIGHT!!!

[otter712]

I might be wrong, If i am, I apologize for giving you grief, but please, then tell me how to interpret this one ( I tried to insert a picture of the page but can't figure it out, I will type it instead):

Page 04-32, Eurocopter EC145 (BK117-C2) training manual states (word for word):

Redundancy provision:

The hydraulics power system is a dual system. It has two identical pressure supply systems, system 1 and system 2, that operate independently. Under normal operating conditions both pressure supply systems simultaneously generate the entire pressure for boosting the main rotor controls. System 2 in addition boosts the tail rotor controls. If one of the pressure supply systems fails, the remaining system continues to supply the main rotor actuators. This causes the operating force of the mechano-hydraulically operated main rotor actuators to decrease to half.

Now I am not an engineer, just a pilot and my knowledge is from what I read. How am I reading this wrong?

I hear what you say about the BK, quote:

One of the systems (system1) is the MAIN system the other system (system 2) is the STANDBY system. Under normal operating conditions ONLY the MAIN system functions as the (controls) booster. If there is any malfunction within the MAIN system, it will be immediately cutoff and the standby system will be actuated automatically.

But I assure you, and I just read the damned chapter 3 times and this is non existing or no mentioning regarding a MAIN and STANDBY function of any of the systems in the EC145 manual.

I will email you a scanned copy of chapter 4 if you pm me your email address. I don't mind being wrong, it's all part of "learning", but I sure as hell want to know where I am going wrong if so the case... otherwise all this was a waste of energy.

[otter712]

Gentleman,

Here we go. Since the outcome so far was not satisfactory to me at all and I didn't feel I walked away from this discussion, wrong or right, having learned something, I took it upon myself to call an old acquaintance of mine under who's command I once had the privilege of working and now is a prominent figure in the Eurocopter division of my area (Americas).

The EC145 hydraulic pack is essentially the same as the EC135 hydraulic pack. Eurocopter quote: for whom this might be unacceptable, verify part numbers BK117 A series through C1 series and note the difference of that of the BK117 C2 (EC145). Therefore, as stated in the EC145 manual and now twice word for word quoted to you for your information, both pressure supply systems simultaneously generate the entire pressure for boosting the main rotor controls. In contrary to the earlier BK series, there is no such thing as an active and standby system.

Mr spinwing, I rest my case. The EC145, which is not a BK117 in the sense of its entire design, although some/a lot of similarities, is something you might want to reeducate yourself on if my answer still is not to your satisfaction. I invite you to call Eurocopter yourself if you feel the need to do so.

At the same time Mr spinwing: Thank you for this discussion, this is the ultimate way for me to increase my knowledge to the point of practical application and understanding. I could not have done so without you. I just hope you yourself learned something as well.

best regards

Otter

[spinwing]

Mmm

Otter .....

Without a doubt I have learned something .... that the Hyd packs though similar DO operate in a different manner ...

As I said in my posts I was only intimately familiar with the Bo105/BK117 set up and was not aware of any differences ... you have proved to me those differences and I can only say that I think that is a good thing ... obviously Eurocopters have improved the operation of those packs by having them now operate simultaneously ... from an engineering and safety point of view that is a product improvement ...

Having said all that we still have an aircraft that cannot be flown with both hydraulic packs disabled :eek:

Keep on with the probing questions .... tenacity can be good ... for everybody :D


Cheers and take care ..... :ok:

[EBCAU]

Congratulations to Spinwing and Otter!
Some sensible, reasonable and well researched debate has led to an outcome that even bystanders, such as myself, can learn from.
I hope some other Ppruner's can follow your example in future and help keep this forum worth reading, i.e, without reverting to a slanging match when one has a differing opinion and one is able to graciously accept being corrected in the end.

Good work gentlemen.

[Red Ant]

I need some specific info on the Front Doors Off limitation.

Looking at the ec145 flight manual supplement F M S 9.1–2, it would seem that one is limited to 30kts with either or both the front (crew) doors removed.

We are looking at using the ec145 for vertical reference sling work (100-200') precision stuff. We previously used the BK117B2/C1, and it works very nicely with the front door removed. Does anybody know of any operators using the ec145 for VR yet?

As flying around doing drill moves at 30 kts is not really an option. According to this thread, there is some sort of device that locks the door into place, about 100mm wide gap between the door and floor. Perhaps someone/an operator has some experience with this.

Any info would be greatly appreciated,

Red Ant

[ECL_FTE]

yes there is an option for the forward doors that allows you to fly with the door slightly open or with a wider angle open. If you look in the flight manual supplement 9.1-2 operation with door open and look on page 3 you'll see the airspeed limitations. on top of page 4 you have the part number for this "spoiler" option : "Use of EXTENSION pos. is only possible when the door locking device P/N B520M4023051 and/or B520M4022051 is installed"

fully extended your speed is still limited t0 30 KIAS but with the small angle (spoiler position), you can fly up to 100 KIAS.

[princi]

Hi folks,:O
I have a question for 145 pilots:
At high density, during hover, in the NORM mode operation, I guess the rotor speed is between 101% and 103.5%..is it 102% like the 139 or slighly more?:rolleyes:

[ECL_FTE]

I'm not quite sure of the question but the Nr will be at 103.5% in hover above 6500 ft density altitude. It's at 101% up to 3600 ft density and a constant increase from there to 6500 ft. Hope that answers your question.

[princi]

Thank you very much..:)
Do you know if at 55 kCAS, still at high density, the NR drops down to 100% and how it decreases to 96.5% increasing the speed?

[ECL_FTE]

The NR is controlled by the VARTOM and the control law is as follow:

For IAS<55KIAS, Nr= 101% up to 3600ft DA. Then it will increase up to 103.5% above 6500ft DA.

For IAS>55KIAS, Nr= 96.5% up to 3600ft DA. Then it will increase up to 101% above 8800ft DA.

For a given altitude, the Nr will slightly increase with airspeed. For example at Vh, Nr will go up to ~97% up to 3600ft DA and up to 102% above 8800ft DA.

So to answer your question, if you're at high DA (let say above 8800ft), the Nr will be at 103.5% in hover and up to 55KIAS, passing 55KIAS it will drop to 101%

[princi]

thnks! really precise..
I thought that increasing the speed, at a fixed altitude, the NR would decrease in order to reduce as much as possible transonic effects on the advancing blade..:bored:

[Phoinix]

Eurocopter Flight-testing ?EC146,? an Upgraded EC145: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/eurocopter-flight-testing-ec146-an-upgraded-ec145-28453/)

[skadi]

May be this one:
Tomorrow we'll know more.

https://www.facebook.com/album.php?id=190972737589754&aid=46355#%21/photo.php?fbid=194845537202474&set=a.194845533869141.46355.190972737589754&theater

skadi

[PANews]

The odd thing is the local hype says 'an upgrade and a new type' and yet the suggestion is that what we are about to see are two upgrades, one to the AS350B3 and the other to the EC145/BK117C2. The latter is expected to be EC146/BK117C3 offering a number of [I]must have [I]features including FADEC and the fenestron. Certainly an airframe offering features the industry has wanted for a while.

If the 146 is indeed the 'new type' then it suggests that EC have caught the overhype bug that turned the magnificent Bell Magellan into 'just' a Bell 412upgrade.

If not........ then there may be a wow wow factor after all.

[squib66]

I think the 'EC146' is the upgrade and 'X4' is the expected EC new type, a Dauphin replacement they say. But we may find out this weekend!

[sky2000]

:confused: Rumors say it may be called EC 145 T2

[Phoinix]

If eurocopter logic of type markings XX5 is for twin engine, than I can't see the "new type" as 146. EC145 T2 seems a bit more straight forward, following EC135's foot steps.

[MrDrumpy]

http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/116/116366_big.jpg

http://www.helionline.net/623-094543-161509/picture/29315/big.jpg

The new BK 117-C3(?) (EC 146) tested in January 2011 at Donauwörth, Germany. EC145 with Fenestron and (just rumors for now) dual-channel FADEC.

[RVDT]

Interesting -

All the tufts on the fenestron and the variation between the 2 photos of the size of the endplates on the horizontal indicate that there may be a few "issues".

Maybe they will work out that this is not the best place to put vertical and horizontal surfaces in relation to the fenestron. The 135 has it's little quirks there and look at the evolution.

To me - "The Duke" RAH-66 configuration makes sense - T tail.

To ECD - it probably is because "thats where we always put them."

Like "Topsy" from Uncle Toms Cabin - "I wasn't borned, I just growed!"

FADEC would imply Arriel 2 - goodbye range - bad SFC.

But hey if this was paid for by REGA who have extremely deep pockets - 109K2, 109SP and now this puppy, it won't matter because on a good day you can see from one end of Switzerland to the other end and to get there you will have to pass about 10 rescue helicopters and their fuel facilities! Whats the bet the next time you see this machine is Samedan in CH doing high altitude testing?

As Sid Hudgens said "off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush"

But for the rest of us - nah! Too many Pretzels and Weizen on Fridays for me!

Don't worry folks if this doesn't make sense to you all!

[helihub]

I still think the EC146 name is feasible - given they covered over the EC145 name in the shot below in early testing and they have trademarked "EC146" (http://www.trademarkia.com/ec-146-77616005.html)


http://www.hemsafety.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/EC145-Fenestron.jpg

[FalkoB]

i hope they put stronger engines in their ec146 or however they going to name it.
We use the EC 145 for EMS in Minnesota and it struggles during the summer. It performs "OK" the winter time but we still cant have full fuel on board.

lets see what improvements EC is coming up on the EC 117/ C2

[whenever]

As I understand it, it's the gearbox that is the limiting factor, ie. it can't take more power from the engines. As the test aircraft looks to be using the same rotor head and blades with the pendulum weights I would suggest it's the same gear box and therefore possibly a BK117 C3 as opposed to an EC145/6 T2 etc.

I hope I'm wrong as it's high time the EC145 was a reality and not just a commercial name.

[FalkoB]

...i must have forgotten to add the transmission to my post above :(

But i guess there is never enough power in the helicopter we fly today.

[PANews]

30 minutes to launch time [and they are still pretending its not a 145/146]:) but it looks like uprated engines with Fadec are part of the package.....and the project is aimed at the US HEMS market.... so I guess they have been listening...

[Bravo73]

So... what's the news then?


(A Pruner with a smartphone must be at the launch, shirley).

[matt82]

EC145 T2 is the name of the ship, powered by Turbomeca engines with FADEC (type not known yet), more MAUW than BK117 C2.
EC will start delivery of T2 in 2013.

More details welcome! New main transmission???

[PANews]

New Kawasaki gearbox to take the additional power [source the ZF stand:\!]

Certification is BK117D2 and posted name as above EC145T2

So there is enough remaining for the good old Grandfather Rights... but I suspect it gets less and less each and every revamp......

[MrDrumpy]

f9lz_85MoUU

Video of the "new" EC145T2 aka EC146 :ok:

[212man]

Video of the "new" EC145T2 aka EC146

It can't be a 146 - you obviously aren't familiar with EC's numbering logic....;)

[chopper2004]

Saw the Tango 2 at Heli Expo, sleek looking but nothing to take home about. I guess they learned that the 145 in itself was more up to parapublic missions with the wider cabin space than the 135 and done another hybrid.

[bolkow]

I could never understand how those oversized vertical tail stabilizers did not snap tails off on the earlier 117's and the ec145. The size on the ec146 looks a lot safer from that respect at speed. In fact I heard a rumour that a 117 stateside did loose its tail some years back for that reason.?

[Kulwin Park]

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/__dRpfF8qlVM/TXse0ksWC1I/AAAAAAAACCY/obluBq81_zU/145%20rescue.jpg


Picture taken from the Japanese Earthquake forum ....
I've just noticed the Main Rotor Blade tips are tapered off at the end, whereas the old BK117 blades are squared off at the end. Does anyone know the reason for this?? Is there still Static Wicks fitted??
I thought all the blades were meant to be interchangeable and the same between the B & C models...

curious, KP

PS - great news for the fenestrom and upgraded gearboxes on the Ec145 T2 !!

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...


.... could never understand how those oversized vertical tail stabilizers did not snap tails off on the earlier 117's and the ec145 ....... In fact I heard a rumour that a 117 stateside did loose its tail some years back for that reason.? ......

Bolkow .... if by the above you mean the NewYork 'Colgate' machine you need to research that incident ...you will find it had nothing to do with the vertical stabilisers and a lot to do with an improper repair to taliboom vertical spar cracks.


:hmm:

[Flying Bull]

Hi Sinwing,

the vertical stabliziers on the BK117 have an soft area, a predertimined breaking area, which will break, if you mishandle the bird so far, that the blades will reach the stabilisers.
Had happend before - have seen the repair afterwards and you can tick the area with a coin, if you want to know, where it is.
If you handle the bird according to the handbook, it won´t happen...

Greetings Flying Bull

[tecpilot]

Cutted the fin one time personally at the controls, have seen a second time live and in colour and have heard about a few dozen times about it by ECD.

Thats the reason why the BK have still such an soft area on the right fin.

It's not a question of the RFM, simple a question of wind direction, speed and turbulence and be sure ECD knows everything about. In the RFM you will not find a single hint about it.

In my personally file the wind came with just 20kt gusts right about a 15m away airfield hangar in my 8 o'clock position causing intensive blade flapping during starting up the first engine.

[FalkoB]

does anybody know if Eurocopter will allow current EC145 operators to upgrade their EC145 fleet with the new engines and transmission from the EC145T2 to improve the performance ?

[whenever]

Can't see how this would be possible, not just an engine/gearbox up grade, what about the new tail boom, FADAC, 4 axis auto pilot new cockpit instrumentation?

[starflex3]

Why did they not upgade the EC145 T2 with the 5 bladed bearingless main rotor? Anybody with inside knowledge?

[Phoinix]

When I was in Donauworth for sim training, the instructor said the 5 bladed rotor is not going anywhere near the new 145 because it took more power without any real benifit in lift. But it was a smooth ride.

[flysebi]

The newest member of Eurocopter’s helicopter family was formally launched this month with the unveiling of its EC145 T2 – an evolved version of the popular twin-engine EC145 that incorporates new Arriel 2E engines, along with the company’s Fenestron shrouded tail rotor, upgraded main and tail rotor gear boxes, an innovative new digital avionics suite and a 4-axis autopilot.
http://pilotmagazin.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/EC145T2_3.jpg EC145 T2 debut was at the Heli-Expo 2011 exposition in Orlando, Florida, where Eurocopter also announced launch agreements for a total of 17 helicopters from four international customers, who plan to utilize these rotary-wing aircraft in emergency medical services (EMS), oil and gas operations and business aviation.

More info here:

Eurocopter expands its product line with the EC145 T2 helicopter, integrating more powerful engines, a Fenestron tail rotor, new avionics and mission capabilities upgrades - Pilot Magazin (http://pilotmagazin.ro/2011/03/eurocopter-expands-its-product-line-with-the-ec145-t2-helicopter-integrating-more-powerful-engines-a-fenestron-tail-rotor-new-avionics-and-mission-capabilities-upgrades/)

[What Limits]

Its like putting lipstick on a pig........

[206Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shWqF5li7GE

[henra]

Its like putting lipstick on a pig........


No, this is definitely not about lipstick....

It adresses the points which hinder a bigger success of the EC145 in the EMS market compared to the EC-135:
- Insufficent Power
- Open Tail rotor (which is considered almost a no-go for HEMS in many countries in Europe).
- No FADEC

Reasonable move on behalf of EC.

This ship is not primarily aimed at bragging rights at your Golf Club....

[Rigga]

The -C2 cried out for FADEC so thats a good thing.
Replacing the T/R removes the issues with the inclined G/box meshing and Tail shakes/repairs.

All seems good...so far...I dont know what fenestron issues the 135 had/has.

[chopper2004]

And here's my shots of the Tango Two at Heli Expo last week, spent time at Bell Helicopter stand to see the unveiling of the 407GX and 407AH so I missed the rollout of the T2

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/P3080894.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/P3060535.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/P3060536.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/P3060534.jpg

cheers :ok:

[Svenestron]

"..the instructor said the 5 bladed rotor is not going anywhere near the new 145 because it took more power without any real benifit in lift."
With all due respect to your Sim-instructor, that IS a load of bullcrap..
If the 5-bladed rotor has any problem, it is 'being shot down for political reasons'..
But that rotor won't die, it will just reincarnate in a stronger, more viable form:ok::}

[PANews]

Was it only last week? Time flies!

Someone, not sure who needs to be congratulated on the quality of work on the EC145T2 mock up I was asked where the serial number was! Not so sure 'works of art' in this sphere have started carrying a s/n just yet..... although '1 of a series of 3' might just catch on and who knows they may get something akin to a BAPC number one day!

BTW the glass cockpit is the same as that from the EC175 [and that part looked 'real' enough as well] - I believe it will not be an option, take it or pay heavily for something else. That option will have an effect on law enforcement use and the TFO/observer will probably have to use the same screen.

[Big Bucks Bernie]

Someone, not sure who needs to be congratulated on the quality of work on the EC145T2 mock up I was asked where the serial number was! Not so sure 'works of art' in this sphere have started carrying a s/n just yet..... although '1 of a series of 3' might just catch on and who knows they may get something akin to a BAPC number one day!

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that EC145 mockup is the same one that was displayed at the Heli Expo 2002 and the ILA in 2004 (see here (http://myaviation.net/?pid=00130187)), but with T2 modifications/alterations added this time around ;).

[skadi]

Official presentation flight at Donauwörth 18.March.2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6LbqVtgvB4

skadi

[Coconutty]

Any idea what this is all about :

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/145Tail.jpg

.... Is it a "Repair" of some sort ????

Didn't seem to be present during the filmed flights ....



http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[skadi]

Mounts for some flighttest-sensors or cameras:

Helionline.de (http://www.helionline.net/010-182280-493592/photogallery/15/236/29619///D-HADJ+9002.html)

They also flew with different endplates:

Helionline.de (http://www.helionline.net/010-182280-493592/photogallery/15/236/29360///D-HADJ+9002.html)

skadi

[skadi]

DRF Luftrettung, Germany signed contract for 25 EC 145 T2

Helicopter manufacturer, aircraft helicopter military, colibri helicopter - Eurocopter, an EADS company (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Press-Releases_310.html)

skadi

[JB-319]

All in the title. Thx for answering.

[JB-319]

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/0ffd7364313f8cdb862573930059363e/$FILE/H13EU.pdf

http://easa.europa.eu/certification/type-certificates/docs/rotorcrafts/EASA-TCDS-R.010_Eurocopter_Deutschland_MBB--BK_117-03-29112010.pdf

Still no ideas, or you guys just look at FLI needles ?

[Senior Pilot]

JB-319,

You may get more of a response if you made your question in plain English rather than in shorthand and links to documents, expecting Rotorheads to work out just what you are after.

I cannot fathom out your request, and suspect that the lack of response is because others cannot either :confused:

[JB-319]

Sorry about that, but i thought AEO TOP would be clear enough...
(All Engines Operative Take Off Power) 5 minutes, the red bar on top of the FLI (10).

[Senior Pilot]

Thanks: but what is it about the AEO TOP that you want to know?

[JB-319]

Max Torque and RPM are different, with same engines. I'm just wondering why.

[Senior Pilot]

Maybe the EASA document is current (November 2010) whereas the FAA one is 3 years older (November 2007)? They also refer to different Construction Number blocks, but that could be region specific or give a clue to an update in the EASA Type Certificate that is missing in the FAA one.

Rotorheads are pretty good at many things, but mind reading isn't high on the list ;)

[aegir]

Are you comparing the EC145 (with EASA TCDS) with the UH-72A?
The two h/c are not the same, the EC145 is the civil version and the UH-72 is the US ARMY version.

[ECL_FTE]

The EC145-C2 and the UH-72A are the same aircraft
Prior to delivery to the Army the aircraft is certificated as an EC145-C2. Therefore the flight manual limits are the same for both aircraft.
As already said the TOP power has been increased from 83% to 88% AEO long time ago.

[JB-319]

Thanks for your replies.

[VegasRobbiedvr]

The United States Army wanted an off-the-shelf civilian helicopter with no modifications, military radio installation noted, but the whole idea was to minimize the cost with no R&D associated exspenses. I do however believe the United States Army, had Eurocopter change the direction the rotors turn to (counter-clockwise) to bring the airframe inline with all the other single rotor ships in the inventory. Just my 2 cents, paid in full!!!

[skadi]

I do however believe the United States Army, had Eurocopter change the direction the rotors turn to (counter-clockwise) to bring the airframe inline with all the other single rotor ships in the inventory. Just my 2 cents, paid in full!!!

The EC 145 is german origin, not french!
So the rotors are turning anticlockwise ( like the BO105 ) ...

skadi

[Rigga]

BK117...Bo105?

B = Bolkow (AKA Bo)
K = Kawasaki

Kawasaki builds the basic Airframe/Cabin - and ships them to Donauwoerth for assembly by Bolkow (even the US Army ones)

The assembly "Lines" for the US frames were interspersed with civil frames, I was there when they went through, but I believe the US frames had a block of numbers allocated to just that contract. The only real difference on delivery was the external finish. Secure Radios & any special role equipment fitted in the states I think?

[Savoia]

Eurocopter’s EC145 Helicopter: 500 Deliveries and Still Going Strong

http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/de79ef87d307e2dfcc01c0b680dfc3f80b2a5110_big.jpg

The 500th EC145 helicopter was delivered by Eurocopter today, marking a new milestone for this twin-engine workhorse rotorcraft that continues in high-rate production for international customers.

Eurocopter’s 500th EC145, along with the 501st production helicopter, were provided to Transportes Aereos Pegaso, which is the largest Mexican operator in the Gulf of Mexico. Pegaso already operates 13 EC145s and four of the predecessor BK117 versions, with an additional EC145 to be provided to this customer in May.

Delivery of the 500th EC145 occurred at Eurocopter’s Donauwörth, Germany facility, where the helicopter is built. The handover comes 10 years after Eurocopter’s delivery of the no. 1 EC145 in April 2002, and it was witnessed by Francisco Nicolas Gonzalez Diaz, the Ambassador of Mexico in Germany, along with political and industrial representatives and some 600 company employees who have contributed to the helicopter’s successful production run.

defence.professionals | defpro.com (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/34931/?SID=992d8c7923f84950d1465dd2ea3a0b75)

[chopper2004]

Press Story | Bond Aviation Group (http://www.bondaviationgroup.com/media/press-story?story=2033)

Only came across this story just now :)

[chopper2004]

Just read in Combat Aircraft Vol 14, which has just come out that apparently the US Army are in talks with American Eurocopter about the proposed UH-72B variant which is the T2.

Cheers

[chopper2004]

Eurocopter launches the law enforcement version of its EC145 T2 helicopter with an order from Germany?s Baden Württemberg police - Eurocopter, an EADS company (http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/press/Eurocopter-launches-the-law-enforcement-version-of-its-EC145-T2-helicopter-with-an-order-from-Germanya-s-Baden-WA-rttemberg-police_1099.html)

[chopper2004]

Airbus Helicopters? new EC145 T2 is certified: Deliveries of mission-ready rotorcraft to begin in the third quarter - Airbus Helicopters (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/site/en/press/Airbus-Helicoptersa-new-EC145-T2-is-certified:-Deliveries-of-mission-ready-rotorcraft-to-begin-in-the-third-quarter_1145.html)

[carsickpuppy]

We had the chance to check it out when they came touring through Asia, a step forward sure; avionics, a little more snort from the engines and the welcome addition of FADEC.

[Eurocopter145]

There is no FADEC in a ec 145?:ooh:

[ECL_FTE]

EC145 (BK117-C2) doesn't have FADEC.
EC145-T2 (BK117-D2) has FADEC now, 4-axis autopilot and Fenestron.

[Victorbiz]

Hi there,

Since I got no reply at the 'Flight Manual request' thread, I'll try it a second time here.

I'm looking for an English version of the BK117's Training Manual (version C-2 if possible) in pdf.

Can someone help me with this?

Many thanks,

VB

[chopper2004]

Airbus Helicopters starts delivery of EC145 T2 with DRF Luftrettung - Airbus Helicopters (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/site/en/press/Airbus-Helicopters-starts-delivery-of-EC145-T2-with-DRF-Luftrettung_1186.html)

Cheers

[chopper2004]

VIDEO: ADAC Luftrettung receives its first EC145 T2 | Airbus Helicopters Events (http://events.eurocopter.com/en/article/video-adac-luftrettung-receives-its-first-ec145-t2)

Cheers

[bladegrip]

Any talk of HUMS in the latest variant? I know FADEC accomplishes some of this, but...

[Ian Corrigible]

HUMS available as an option.

I/C

[chopper2004]

Successful First Flight of Airbus Helicopters' EC645 T2 - Airbus Helicopters (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/site/en/press/Successful-First-Flight-of-Airbus-Helicopters-EC645-T2_1223.html)

Cheers

[chopper2004]

Saw this on Scots Ambulance Service FB site that they took delivery this week of their new T2 for service entry in the summer,

Cheers

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/10915350_771102652974337_8327149068877067627_o_zps02803298.j pg

[Brilliant Stuff]

It's been doing IR approaches at Bristol last week, sounded awesome and the paint is a deep nice yellow, doesn't come across that well on the picture.

[chopper2004]

I was fortunate to be invited to the launch of our new Air Ambulance at the end of April @lovely Cum Quay Best Western Hotel...here are my pics

, Cheers

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5062_zps4h3jkvzq.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5060_zpsdd0mvnho.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5072_zpsvdfr8hpy.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5098_zps1ckocmrv.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5093_zpseteqynsw.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5096_zps41bfl2ti.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/IMG_5088_zps69xqztkw.jpg

Cheers

[Frying Pan]

Is this the one that Prince Bill will be flying? Very nice, room in the back for nappy changing too. :O

[chopper2004]

@Frying Pan lol :)

Airbus Helicopters (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Ready-to-serve:-Airbus-Helicopters%E2%80%99-militarized-H145M-receives-its-on-time-EASA-certification_1749.html)


Cheers

[Heliarctic]

Greetings lads

Can anybody tell me what the approximate hourly operating cost is for the 145?

[chopper2004]

Trying to work this one out , with the original EC145, production has now ceased leaving the H145 (T2) and new EC145e being the new kids on the block -

Will the price of a H145 come down so that parapublic operators and offshore who have had an interest / do fly the EC145 can afford the H145?


Or

Will they go for the EC145e variant....for cost effectiveness but as the a/c has pretty much had its SPIFR stripped including co-pilot controls to save weight - I suspect within Europe, the 'e' may not be popular with EASA w.r.t public service but popular in North American marketplace


In short looking globally at the EC145 customer marketplace compared to the current H145 -

Off the top of my head, current customers

Babcock-Bond (Anglian Air Ambulance and Scottish Ambulance Service) here in UK
DRF and ADAC in Germany
Pacific Helicopters in Papua New Guinea
Dare County Healthcare , N,C, USA
INAER Italy
Baden-Wuttenberg Polizei
Svensk Luftambulans.Sweden
Corporate customer in NZ and Turkey recently

Yorkshire Air Ambulance should be online this year

Pegaso in Mexico are buying ten airframes

On the mil and parapublic side to come

Elbit Systems has procured H145 for Israeli police,
Royal Thai Navy and Army should be getting theirs come next year

Its pretty much a decade since the BK117-C2 went into production and now ceased....

Also with Airbus increasing the MTOW , that may increase the cost per airframe?

http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Airbus-Helicopters-raises-the-maximum-take-off-weight-of-the-H145-to-3,700kg_1899.html

Any thoughts?

cheers

[Flying Bull]

Hi Chopper2004,

you missed a customer
EC145 T2: Modernster Polizeihubschrauber der Welt für Landespolizei Nordrhein-Westfalen - Airbus Helicopters - Pressemitteilung (http://www.pressebox.de/pressemitteilung/eurocopter-deutschland-gmbh/EC145-T2-Modernster-Polizeihubschrauber-der-Welt-fuer-Landespolizei-Nordrhein-Westfalen/boxid/718130)

don´t really think, the price will go down with so many interested in the "new kid on the block"
but you might get a lot of used BK117 (B2/C1) for a bargain nowadays ;-)

[chopper2004]

Cheers FB for that, figured I missed that :)

Anyhow in more news :)

Those who are fans of CSI will like this lol :ok: the LVMPD has ordered H145

HeliHub Las Vegas Metro Police to acquire Airbus H145 (http://helihub.com/2016/03/30/las-vegas-metro-police-to-acquire-airbus-h145/)

and today

Airbus Helicopters delivers first two H145M to RTN

http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Airbus-Helicopters-hands-over-first-two-H145M-to-Royal-Thai-Navy_1957.html



http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger079/Royal%20Thai%20Navy%20H145M_copy%20Copyright%20Airbus%20Heli copters_Claas%20Belling_2_zpsfcco6ldw.jpg

(photo courtesy of Airbus Helicopters)

cheers