AAC H135M replace Gazelles

[chopper2004]

AAC looking at Airbus Helicopters H135M to replace Gazelle in surveillance role.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/uk-selects-h135s-to-replace-british-armys-elderly-gazelle-helicopters/147273.article

cheers

[NutLoose]

So replacing it with a twin, size wise you would have thought the H125M would have been more comparable.

[trim it out]

So replacing it with a twin, size wise you would have thought the H125M would have been more comparable.
Would have been perfect if we were still using the Squirrel as a trainer :ok:

[NutLoose]

Would have been perfect if we were still using the Squirrel as a trainer :ok:

That’s way to sensible a plan. :)

[PPRuNeUser0211]

AAC looking at Airbus Helicopters H135M to replace Gazelle in surveillance role.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/uk-selects-h135s-to-replace-british-armys-elderly-gazelle-helicopters/147273.article

cheers
It's allllmost like a company closely associated with the MOD bought some 135's instead of 145's, realised they made a mistake and then needed to offload some 135's.....

Obviously that's a fairy tale...

[domperry76]

It's allllmost like a company closely associated with the MOD bought some 135's instead of 145's, realised they made a mistake and then needed to offload some 135's.....

Obviously that's a fairy tale...

That seemed to be the suggestion at one point and the extra H145s were acquired that could permit that (in theory),,, Whether MoD still sees that some H135s from Ascent could come across to AAC I don't know - getting any information out of them was hard enough, Lots of sensitivity around the topic.

[FloaterNorthWest]

To add a bit of truth to this thread.

All Juno and Jupiter are owned by the MOD not Ascent. Shawbury and Valley have 29 Juno and 7 Jupiter. After Matcha that number will be the same even if Juno is selected.

Also, Juno is a H135 and not a H135M.

[[email protected]]

I believe there was the suggestion of a deal for MoD to take some 135s so Ascent could have the correct number of 145s that it should have included in the bid. I was told the price they asked was way over the top.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

To add a bit of truth to this thread.

All Juno and Jupiter are owned by the MOD not Ascent. Shawbury and Valley have 29 Juno and 7 Jupiter. After Matcha that number will be the same even if Juno is selected.

Also, Juno is a H135 and not a H135M.
This is PPRUNE, we don't want truth, we want outrage! Fair point though.

[FloaterNorthWest]

I believe there was the suggestion of a deal for MoD to take some 135s so Ascent could have the correct number of 145s that it should have included in the bid. I was told the price they asked was way over the top.

That is wrong.

[melmothtw]

Also, Juno is a H135 and not a H135M.

Haven't been able to read the story on Flight due to the paywall, but from the headline and the standfirst it seems that the Gazelle is being replaced by the H135, not the H135M. Happy to be corrected if the article says otherwise.

If so, it does raise an interesting point as to what the AAC plans to do with it as surely it won't have the same battlefield support role as the Gazelle had, and if not then what is the point of it?

[lowfat]

Haven't been able to read the story on Flight due to the paywall, but from the headline and the standfirst it seems that the Gazelle is being replaced by the H135, not the H135M. Happy to be corrected if the article says otherwise.

If so, it does raise an interesting point as to what the AAC plans to do with it as surely it won't have the same battlefield support role as the Gazelle had, and if not then what is the point of it?

apache damages the grass of the golf club to much .. and your clubs have to ride on the sponson.

[melmothtw]

Indeed lowfat, which is why the AAC has the Wildcat. Suspect you're probably right though.

[[email protected]]

That is wrong. Which part? They certainly didn't have enough 145s to start with.

[FloaterNorthWest]

Which part? They certainly didn't have enough 145s to start with.

According to who? The contract? The statement of requirement? Or someone’s opinion?

[melmothtw]

According to who? The contract? The statement of requirement? Or someone’s opinion?

According to the fact they had to acquire more, I'm guessing.

[FloaterNorthWest]

According to the fact they had to acquire more, I'm guessing.

Assuming that they got more for the initial contract and not for a new requirement after the contract had started.

[[email protected]]

As I understand it, they thought they could do more of the rearcrew training on the 135 which turned out to be incorrect.

[trim it out]

As I understand it, they thought they could do more of the rearcrew training on the 135 which turned out to be incorrect.
Are "they" the same people that designed the bespoke MPS which has been ditched after a few years for a commercial product already used by the FL? :E

[minigundiplomat]

As I understand it, they thought they could do more of the rearcrew training on the 135 which turned out to be incorrect.

Your post suggests rear crew training was part of the initial TNA, and a factor in the platform selection. I’m not sure I share your benevolence…..

[[email protected]]

Assuming that they got more for the initial contract and not for a new requirement after the contract had started. or as a realisation that some parts of the training had been forgotten in the rush to undercut the opposition as MGD implies.

You clearly work for Ascent FNW so why not tell the truth?

[gipsymagpie]

As I understand it, they thought they could do more of the rearcrew training on the 135 which turned out to be incorrect.
I would lay big money that no one thought to check the rear seat on 135 was big enough for a full grown adult. Having spent time back there it’s painful. The H145 is far superior as it has a full height cabin all the way back. If only someone had done a fly off…

but getting back to original poster, the 135 has a long history of doing the job the gazelle currently does but with a heap load more automation and common training pathway. Good choice.

[[email protected]]

but getting back to original poster, the 135 has a long history of doing the job the gazelle currently does but with a heap load more automation and common training pathway. Good choice. and a second engine for all that hovering over Belfast:)

[Doors Off]

and a second engine for all that hovering over Belfast:)

How many engine failures in the hover from the Astazou over Belfast? I had complete faith in that puppy over Belfast and other locations. That said, I have long enjoyed the “comfort” of a second dinosaur furnace. I do prefer the Gazelle as a flying machine over the 135, which is a lovely aircraft to fly.

[[email protected]]

How many engine failures in the hover from the Astazou over Belfast? None to my knowledge but at least a second donkey gives you options (Clutha not withstanding) - but I think the 135 is far less likely to swap ends as the Gazelle had a habit of doing in adverse winds - and a modern cockpit without the need for incomplete 3rd party add-ons for instrument recovery.

[Doors Off]

None to my knowledge but at least a second donkey gives you options (Clutha not withstanding) - but I think the 135 is far less likely to swap ends as the Gazelle had a habit of doing in adverse winds - and a modern cockpit without the need for incomplete 3rd party add-ons for instrument recovery.
I’d take a Gazelle in adverse winds over a 135, every day. The slab side of the 135 is a trite more unreliable than the Gazelle. As for the add ons? Many a great planned IFR flight (as opposed to recovery) in the Gazelle. That said, the 135 4 axis option is a delight v the Gazelle “Human” axis autopilot.

[[email protected]]

I'd have thought Fenestron technology had improved since the days of the Gazelle - the 135 one seems bigger and on a shorter tail boom than the Gaz. What is the crosswind limit for 135? ISTR it was 30 Kts for Gaz. The N3 was super stable even at 40 Kts cross or downwind.

The Garmin upgrade for the AAC Gazelles is good in that it allows PBN recovery but needed the full EFIS fit properly integrated. Not putting even a basic SAS into it was false economy.

I've flown single pilot IFR in the Gaz too but compared to doing it in the Dauphin, Sea King or 139 it is an unnecessary chore..

[trim it out]

I'd have thought Fenestron technology had improved since the days of the Gazelle - the 135 one seems bigger and on a shorter tail boom than the Gaz. What is the crosswind limit for 135? ISTR it was 30 Kts for Gaz.
30kts side, 25kts rear

It's the size of the tail fin/hangar door that makes it uncomfortable hovering out of wind.

[[email protected]]

It's the size of the tail fin/hangar door that makes it uncomfortable hovering out of wind. agreed but that is true of all fenestron equipped aircraft since they need a big wing to offload the fenestron in the cruise.

[trim it out]

agreed but that is true of all fenestron equipped aircraft since they need a big wing to offload the fenestron in the cruise.
Yes, but it was heard many times at Shawbury when the 135s started turning up for the initial courses.... "that's a bloomin' big fin" from the fossils and sprogs alike 😁

Seeing the 135 parked next to the Gz you get a better appreciation of the scale between the two.

[RVDT]

It's the size of the tail fin/hangar door that makes it uncomfortable hovering out of wind

Maybe but - it's more likely the turbulent flow from the end plates on the horizontal upsetting the inflow on the entry to the duct that is the issue. In particular at ~ 30-40 degrees off the nose above that angle through to dead on the tail nothing to note.

Tracking 90 degrees with full pedal either way you can probably get to about 50 knots either direction without much issue.

Go fly a "3" and you will notice the difference and some others as well like the rolling moment. Most "3's" have an extended tip fairing.

Have a think about the tail rotor drive failure procedures as well. You will note it is written to avoid "fin stall" which is a "bodice ripper". If you get a large yaw angle and it lets go you will be in to quite a depth!

[trim it out]

Maybe but - it's more likely the turbulent flow from the end plates on the horizontal upsetting the inflow on the entry to the duct that is the issue. In particular at ~ 30-40 degrees off the nose above that angle through to dead on the tail nothing to note.

Tracking 90 degrees with full pedal either way you can probably get to about 50 knots either direction without much issue.

Go fly a "3" and you will notice the difference and some others as well like the rolling moment. Most "3's" have an extended tip fairing.

Have a think about the tail rotor drive failure procedures as well. You will note it is written to avoid "fin stall" which is a "bodice ripper". If you get a large yaw angle and it lets go you will be in to quite a depth!
The model we have doesn't have the end plates on the horizontal.

Thanks for the heads up on the TRDF, I'll have a dig into it if/when I return to 135 :cool:

[[email protected]]

I would think the 135 TRDF procedure is similar to the As 365 with the advice to maintain higher speeds for the running landing to keep airflow over the fin to produce the anti-torque thrust required.

[trim it out]

I would think the 135 TRDF procedure is similar to the As 365 with the advice to maintain higher speeds for the running landing to keep airflow over the fin to produce the anti-torque thrust required.
And don't touch the collective clutch :E

[N707ZS]

How big was the fleet of Gazelles against what might be ordered soon.

[[email protected]]

How big was the fleet of Gazelles against what might be ordered soon. Do you mean the original number across all 3 services which was in the hundreds or the present number in the AAC which is not much more than single figures?

[N707ZS]

Was wondering how many were purchased, but how many available for use in the days of maximum usage. Was surprised they still had any.

[[email protected]]

In the late 80s early 90s the AAC alone had circa 200 Gazelles. I took part in the Massed approach at Wallop in the mid 90s a couple of times and 100 Gazelles was the norm ISTR. Not scary at all:)

[handysnaks]

Ahh! The old Wallop massed airmiss. Character building.🥴

[N707ZS]

Thanks crab. There used to be so many of them about in the 80s.

[gipsymagpie]

I would think the 135 TRDF procedure is similar to the As 365 with the advice to maintain higher speeds for the running landing to keep airflow over the fin to produce the anti-torque thrust required.

Not really, you just do an autorotation to an EOL (iaw PCL)

You could do a fast running landing, but with skids it would be a different ball game to the wheeled AS365. The sim suggests you could get away with it but I wouldn't want to try for real.

[gipsymagpie]

The model we have doesn't have the end plates on the horizontal.

Thanks for the heads up on the TRDF, I'll have a dig into it if/when I return to 135 :cool:
They lopped off the end plates and the lower fin to make out of wind hovering require less extremes of pedal...great for hoisting in the mountains...not so good for suppressing Dutch roll in forward flight and the 90 kt limit on IAS mode IFR. You win some, you lose some.

And the solution is to add more fin...genius.

[[email protected]]

Not really, you just do an autorotation to an EOL (iaw PCL) That was an option on the 365 as well but again, although the sim thinks you can do it, you wouldn't want to try it for real.

A fast running landing on tarmac wouldn't be so bad, at least the friction would help directional control - it would be scary for sure but more controllable I think. Once you start the flare in an EOL with no TR you are in the lap of the Gods.

[casper64]

Not really, you just do an autorotation to an EOL (iaw PCL)

You could do a fast running landing, but with skids it would be a different ball game to the wheeled AS365. The sim suggests you could get away with it but I wouldn't want to try for real.

Heard an Eurocopter pilot did it on a Runway some 20 years ago without issues. Aircraft was not even damaged and is flying again. (Just needed some new skid shoes I guess :-) ) (Don’t know if he did an AR or running landing…)

[Thud_and_Blunder]

You could do a fast running landing, but with skids it would be a different ball game to the wheeled AS365
Anyone else here remember the Met Police Bell 222 with TR problems that did a lovely high-speed running landing? All went well to touchdown (kudos), but I believe even differential braking couldn't keep it straight and it went off the runway/tipped over. Helis with high CofGs and relatively narrow wheel/skid track are going to experience significant roll moment as the aircraft yaws at speed on the ground. If the heli decelerates rapidly in a straight line before yaw starts to take effect the risk of the roll moment building is potentially reduced. I had a single engine problem in a 135T1 at night - carried out a running landing to a well-lit cargo apron instead of the runway proffered by ATC (dark desert surroundings, reduced height/depth perception). No yaw, hardly had to touch the pedals. With hindsight I was glad to have chosen the apron, as the surface wasn't finished to the same high standard as the runway so the friction (and resultant deceleration) was greater. The run-on was about 30m - a lot of noise and a shower of sparks behind the aircraft which was distracting, but the only things that needed replacing were the skid shoes. I was unfortunate enough later that year when training with a student to do a run-on to the main runway which resulted in more damage: after touchdown, the aircraft slid for over 100m even with the lever down, and I failed to stop the aircraft from yawing over the centreline lights. They might only be approx 2cm above the surface, with chamfered edges, but that was still enough to snap the right rear skid post. Moral to these tales - if you have to do a run-on landing in an aircraft with skids, use a taxiway or apron for preference and - if you have to use a runway - stay away from the centreline. I wouldn't use grass unless it was a patch I knew well (Middle Wallop or Tern Hill, for example) and had faith in the grounds-maintenance folk to keep it flat.

Once you start the flare in an EOL with no TR you are in the lap of the Gods
Absolutely right - teaching the exercise in the sim, we stressed the need to tighten the flare slightly more than for a 'normal' EOL to kill off all forward speed, then concentrate on getting the floor absolutely level for touchdown. Glad I'll never have to be the person who has to try it for real - retirement is a wonderful thing :ok:

[MightyGem]

Heard an Eurocopter pilot did it on a Runway some 20 years ago without issues. Aircraft was not even damaged and is flying again. (Just needed some new skid shoes I guess :-)

As did the Merseyside Police Twin Squirrel in 1993. Very poor quality video, but the stationary tail rotor can clearly be seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oVw6_0MEU

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Did NOT know about that one, Gem - what a lovely bit of flying!

[[email protected]]

Textbook stuff and a great outcome - Kudos:ok:

[melmothtw]

Whatever the truth of the H135 vs H145 debate for training at DHFS, the MoD has just ordered another five of the former. Now at 34 H135s and 7 H145s, all in.

[[email protected]]

Are they looking to take on other defence-related training I wonder? Other nations military's have often wanted UK Mil level training.

[diginagain]

As did the Merseyside Police Twin Squirrel in 1993. Very poor quality video, but the stationary tail rotor can clearly be seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oVw6_0MEU
Chap did well.

[handysnaks]

JC, if I remember correctly. Top work by a top pilot.

[gipsymagpie]

Whatever the truth of the H135 vs H145 debate for training at DHFS, the MoD has just ordered another five of the former. Now at 34 H135s and 7 H145s, all in.
Are not those the extras to replace Gazelle as per the original post? Not for Shawbs surely

[FloaterNorthWest]

Are not those the extras to replace Gazelle as per the original post? Not for Shawbs surely

Not for Shawbury. Shawbury are Juno HT Mk 1 and these will be Juno AH Mk 1.

[gipsymagpie]

AH Mk2 is more likely as the mark number changes no matter what the letters are. Think Gazelle AH1, HT2, HT3, CC4

[melmothtw]

I don't see five helicopters being for a Gazelle replacement.

[diginagain]

JC, if I remember correctly. Top work by a top pilot.
Apart from the bit that instigated the need for an EOL...

[handysnaks]

Cowling issue (I think).

[[email protected]]

I don't see five helicopters being for a Gazelle replacement. pretty much what they need for 5 Regt AAC.

[MightyGem]

JC, if I remember correctly. Top work by a top pilot.
Cowling issue (I think).
Yes to both.

[chopper2004]

With the leasing of these five to the ADF, albeit more for keeping up hours before the AAAC fully equipped with the Sikorsky UH-60M , they have arrived at Sydney International according to a FB post by Kilo Hotel photography who was there to capture it.,

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_1_fd77cdcfe7022a88eed508aac10571f19f90 ab9f.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_2_af96d5345cd190b489c0d99a0d2fca103969 1cf8.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_3_e05f678fed0d94e8bf6cd18115c2709a7394 ffea.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_4_76fbf6554da6ca07ba672728431ba4e16147 0b6e.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_5_ded1a7913e3bc18f9fcb471d7d696913e952 355d.jpg

cheers

[Doors Off]

With the leasing of these five to the ADF, albeit more for keeping up hours before the AAAC fully equipped with the Sikorsky UH-60M , they have arrived at Sydney International according to a FB post by Kilo Hotel photography who was there to capture it.,

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_1_fd77cdcfe7022a88eed508aac10571f19f90 ab9f.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_2_af96d5345cd190b489c0d99a0d2fca103969 1cf8.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_3_e05f678fed0d94e8bf6cd18115c2709a7394 ffea.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_4_76fbf6554da6ca07ba672728431ba4e16147 0b6e.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/mod_h135_adf_delivery_5_ded1a7913e3bc18f9fcb471d7d696913e952 355d.jpg

cheers The Aus AAC did the 135 interim nonsense back in 07 for a few years. They stuffed it then and they will stuff it again. They have a bunch of 139’s leased through a company that an Oz TA Rupert runs, and still zero capability for a battlefield.

[nowherespecial]

Doors Off, while not affiliated with the gentleman you are slandering in any way, I do know him. I would love to see you say that to his face after a distinguished full time Army Aviation career including commanding his regiment.

[[email protected]]

slandering libelling surely?