UK MFTS RW - Airbus H135/H145 selected
The MFTS H145s are significantly different from the Met's EC145s: the new FADEC'd donks offer 30% more OEI power.
I presume someone has done the maths and performance calcs for a full SAR role fit with 2 pilots, 2 winch ops and 2 winchmen and at least an hour's fuel though.
Dave - yes, quite right, the Griffon is used for DHFS stuff rather than the 139 - don't know if they will continue with 145 and 139.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Why 6 crew? Crewman training could be one pilot one QHCI and one or two students.
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"
Why 6 crew? Crewman training could be one pilot one QHCI and one or two students.
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"
If you reduce the crewing you would need to fly more sorties, even if it's a dedicated crewman sortie with a single staff pilot up the front.
Possibly need to forget how "we always did it like that"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Looking out of the window
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The local rag says that Cobham have just signed a four year contract for rear crew training. Aerospace firm Cobham signs new Shropshire helicopter training deal « Shropshire Star
Will the Griffin continue until 2022 ?
Will the Griffin continue until 2022 ?
Thread Starter
The local rag says that Cobham have just signed a four year contract for rear crew training. Aerospace firm Cobham signs new Shropshire helicopter training deal « Shropshire Star
Will the Griffin continue until 2022 ?
Will the Griffin continue until 2022 ?
More than likely they will use the H145 for rear crew training,
cheers
Thread Starter
Going back to the need for 6 crew for the sortie - it could be argued that it is not ideal to have a student winch man being provided a service from an U-T winchop whilst also being assessed..........? Or, have things changed now?
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
Full speed ahead
https://www.airbushelicopters.com/we...MFTS_1995.html
Demanding targets are being met in the build-up to delivery of Airbus Helicopters’ commitment to the UK Military Flying Training System (MFTS).
Today, the company has carried out the first flight of the initial UK MFTS aircraft, bringing delivery one step closer.
With 12 UK MFTS aircraft already in production at the company’s site in Donauworth, the programme is meeting the challenging deadlines by delivering key programme events to time including production ramp up and initial ground runs of the first UK MFTS H135, which took place at the end of June.
Airbus Helicopters will deliver 29 H135s and 3, hoist-equipped H145s to the UK MoD. These aircraft will be factory fitted with wire cutters and Safran’s Arrius 2B2Plus and Arriel 2E turbines for the H135 and H145 respectively. The schedule will see early deliveries in the latter part of this year, the majority of aircraft delivered during 2017 and final aircraft in early 2018.
The aircraft will be delivered to the company’s UK headquarters for completion, which will see the aircraft fitted with the final configuration of equipment, including communications, sensor and access equipment to meet the customer’s requirement, before handover to the customer in time to meet the delivery of flight hours for Ascent’s UK MFTS’ training schedule.
(images below courtesy of Airbus Helicopters)
Demanding targets are being met in the build-up to delivery of Airbus Helicopters’ commitment to the UK Military Flying Training System (MFTS).
Today, the company has carried out the first flight of the initial UK MFTS aircraft, bringing delivery one step closer.
With 12 UK MFTS aircraft already in production at the company’s site in Donauworth, the programme is meeting the challenging deadlines by delivering key programme events to time including production ramp up and initial ground runs of the first UK MFTS H135, which took place at the end of June.
Airbus Helicopters will deliver 29 H135s and 3, hoist-equipped H145s to the UK MoD. These aircraft will be factory fitted with wire cutters and Safran’s Arrius 2B2Plus and Arriel 2E turbines for the H135 and H145 respectively. The schedule will see early deliveries in the latter part of this year, the majority of aircraft delivered during 2017 and final aircraft in early 2018.
The aircraft will be delivered to the company’s UK headquarters for completion, which will see the aircraft fitted with the final configuration of equipment, including communications, sensor and access equipment to meet the customer’s requirement, before handover to the customer in time to meet the delivery of flight hours for Ascent’s UK MFTS’ training schedule.
(images below courtesy of Airbus Helicopters)
So - training for the front-line - no wheels - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Apache, Lynx and Wildcat.
No conventional tail rotor - unlike Puma, Merlin, Lynx, Apache and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).
Next to no room in the back to allow doors-open voice marshalling/winching/USLs - with the exception of the 3, yes count them, just 3 145s at Valley - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Lynx and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).
A cheap (maybe) training solution that will just push more training onto the OCUs (different budget) - is this really the best option?
How well did the 3 139s cope with the workload and environment at Valley??? Not very well so what lessons were learned there?
I believe the 'common' syllabus has already fragmented with each service wanting different elements (no change there then)!
No conventional tail rotor - unlike Puma, Merlin, Lynx, Apache and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).
Next to no room in the back to allow doors-open voice marshalling/winching/USLs - with the exception of the 3, yes count them, just 3 145s at Valley - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Lynx and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).
A cheap (maybe) training solution that will just push more training onto the OCUs (different budget) - is this really the best option?
How well did the 3 139s cope with the workload and environment at Valley??? Not very well so what lessons were learned there?
I believe the 'common' syllabus has already fragmented with each service wanting different elements (no change there then)!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
The Gazelle seemed to be able to do the job without wheels or a conventional tail rotor, asd I recall.
The Gazelle seemed to be able to do the job without wheels or a conventional tail rotor, asd I recall.
Yes - when we had skidded Lynx and Gazelles in Service. The rearcrew training was conducted on the Wessex.
This is budget driven training....
As a QHI who instructed for years at Shawbury, I always felt that there was a place for EOLs in the syllabus as long as single engine helis were being used. If all twin from now on, as long as the student/pilot can manoeuvre in auto to the flare/check/level point, then I'd suggest he would walk away from the subsequent 'landing' following a real double engine failure.
Once I got to the fleet, all of our autos were to a power recovery(flew all twins) This goes back to the mid 80's when I was flying SH-2F's. All power recovery for training autos.
Autos aren't just for engine failures. As a gentleman in an Apache showed in Afghanistan somewhat recently, you fly an auto if the tail rotor/tail rotor drive takes the rest of the day off while you are flying ...
So - training for the front-line - no wheels - unlike Puma, Merlin, Chinook, Apache, Lynx and Wildcat.
No conventional tail rotor - unlike Puma, Merlin, Lynx, Apache and Wildcat (plus 212 and 412).
A cheap (maybe) training solution that will just push more training onto the OCUs (different budget) - is this really the best option?
How well did the 3 139s cope with the workload and environment at Valley??? Not very well so what lessons were learned there?
I believe the 'common' syllabus has already fragmented with each service wanting different elements (no change there then)!
But apart from that, incisive as ever
Have the skids fitted to the Griffin caused any issues with trainees going on to wheeled types?
Does a different type of tail rotor on front line types cause problems for trainees? Should we have a tandem rotor trainer for those destined for the Chinook?
Have you seen the courses Ascent are proposing?
How well have the 3 Griffins coped with the workload and environment at Valley for the last 19 years?
In creating a cutting edge and greatly improved training empire as MFTS is supposed to be when compared to DHFS, there will be plenty of training that will still need to be done on front-line types which are far more expensive to fly - how is this a way forward to a smarter, joined-up, end-to-end training solution?
Like a Citroen, it seems to have been built down to a price-point rather than up to a quality standard.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Whilst I understand some of the sentiment, the aircraft are NOT shiny new plastic. The 135 might just surprise you in its ability to stay serviceable. After 3000 hours/12 years, I have nothing but praise for a brilliantly designed airframe. The 145 is quickly becoming very very popular, by the time you get yours it will be very well established. The new avionics fit is state of the art and user friendly. The fenestrons are no different to tail rotors except in failure situations, where your ability to make a safe landing in an area of your choosing is a massive bonus.
Please, give them a chance. They are different to now, but they are not bad, really!!
Please, give them a chance. They are different to now, but they are not bad, really!!
Jayteeto - I agree the aircraft are pretty sound but will the 145 survive in the very harsh maritime environment of North Wales spending much of its time over the water enveloped in salt spray? The 139 definitely had issues with it.
I guess you didn't see the Airbus safety note about the different control responses and handling qualities with Fenestrons. In essence it describes the non-linear thrust levels with pedal positions compared to a conventional TR - part of the reason for the myth of Fenestron stall.
I guess you didn't see the Airbus safety note about the different control responses and handling qualities with Fenestrons. In essence it describes the non-linear thrust levels with pedal positions compared to a conventional TR - part of the reason for the myth of Fenestron stall.