EC135
Is there no cyclic trim switch on the overhead panel?
Been a while since I was current on the EC135 but from memory I thought you could switch off A TRIM using the switch in the top left corner of the photo.
212 Man is correct about the CB, only way to fly without trim is to keep your thumb on the FTR.
FNW
212 Man is correct about the CB, only way to fly without trim is to keep your thumb on the FTR.
FNW
FNW, I think you mistook my question - in the 155 there is a switch on the overhead panel that turns off the cyclic trim 'mag-brake' to give you a 'floppy stick' (ooh er missus, to pre-empt any comment!). This is equivelant to holding in the FTR button, but without the force required. Turning off the auto Tri
will just mean you can't engage any upper modes that use the cyclic, and the SEMAs may saturate and require cyclic position to be re-datumned to centralise them. But that's the 155 a the 135 may not have such a switch. I'd be surprised if the autotrim cb would yield this outcome.
will just mean you can't engage any upper modes that use the cyclic, and the SEMAs may saturate and require cyclic position to be re-datumned to centralise them. But that's the 155 a the 135 may not have such a switch. I'd be surprised if the autotrim cb would yield this outcome.
212man,
There is no switch in the 135 to turn off the "force trim".
This may be helpful.
There is no switch in the 135 to turn off the "force trim".
This may be helpful.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Just over there....no there.
Age: 61
Posts: 364
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've had an awful lot of inverter captions lately(t2+), engineers think it's due to the cold which made me wonder how you chaps in Norway or Austria get on. It's very intermittant and as far as my experience goes, completely unpredictable. Anyone else?
Rick
Rick
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CyclicRick - don't know how cold it's been with you but, I imagine, colder than our infrequent -5 deg, which we think is "cold"; but I've not seen an inverter caption, in same type, in over 5 years. 
More questions arising...
Radioaltimeter on EC135. I can't seem to find it in the supplement section of FLM to find answers to my questions. We fly NVG and from time to time rely on radioaltimeter for operational usage. I've noticed that the system does not detect trees or rough terrain. For example as we fly over trees the relative height indicated is not to the tree tops but mostly to the ground. That could be a 100ft difference when we would already be scraping the tree tops. I'm not use to having this problem on our older models (212, 412). I was told from our engineers that bell uses first radar echo as a indicator of height no matter how small the surface under the radar is. As EC135 has a logic of average surface area from echo. For example if a tree is right under the radio altimeter and the ground is a 100 below, the system will due to trees smaller surface average out the tree to a few feet only thus showing slightly less height than the height to the ground is.
Any clue or literature on that EC135 radio altimeter logic?
Second question is also the kind that I could not find in any manual. I know that I could access inflight EPC resoults from maintenance menu but I can't seem to do that now. I follow the procedure published in training manual but the inflight EPc resoult menu is empty when the system asks me for the flight number. I'm not sure if the EPC inflight tests are done regulary as we have 8 pilots flying one helicopter. I know that the flight report only shows the data for last 30 flights from maintenance menu. Is that the case with EPC menu also?
Thank you!
Radioaltimeter on EC135. I can't seem to find it in the supplement section of FLM to find answers to my questions. We fly NVG and from time to time rely on radioaltimeter for operational usage. I've noticed that the system does not detect trees or rough terrain. For example as we fly over trees the relative height indicated is not to the tree tops but mostly to the ground. That could be a 100ft difference when we would already be scraping the tree tops. I'm not use to having this problem on our older models (212, 412). I was told from our engineers that bell uses first radar echo as a indicator of height no matter how small the surface under the radar is. As EC135 has a logic of average surface area from echo. For example if a tree is right under the radio altimeter and the ground is a 100 below, the system will due to trees smaller surface average out the tree to a few feet only thus showing slightly less height than the height to the ground is.
Any clue or literature on that EC135 radio altimeter logic?
Second question is also the kind that I could not find in any manual. I know that I could access inflight EPC resoults from maintenance menu but I can't seem to do that now. I follow the procedure published in training manual but the inflight EPc resoult menu is empty when the system asks me for the flight number. I'm not sure if the EPC inflight tests are done regulary as we have 8 pilots flying one helicopter. I know that the flight report only shows the data for last 30 flights from maintenance menu. Is that the case with EPC menu also?
Thank you!
Tightgit
Radalt--Don't know
EPC results, if they're not in there, they are probably not being done, simple solution, do one yourself, then check once you've landed to see whether it's there!!
Our results seem to store correctly
EPC results, if they're not in there, they are probably not being done, simple solution, do one yourself, then check once you've landed to see whether it's there!!
Our results seem to store correctly
Rad Alt - Bendix King KRA 405
Normally pretty accurate (<1m ≤ 200m Rad Alt).
The issue of course is the density or variation of the trees below you. Would you like it to indicate the height of each tree you have just passed over? The antennas are on the tailboom after all, it doesn't look forward. If the trees were ~ 100' each I guess as the indication would be wildly fluctuating you would assume that you were over trees! Having used them for geophysical work and from memory at a cover of >50% they would read the distance to the tree tops. That information was "smoothed" in the indicator to the pilot. The raw data which was recorded was all over the place and was smoothed in the data post processing. As opposed to your requirement we actually wanted to know where the ground was so estimated the tree height and flew at a lower Rad Alt accordingly until passing the trees. There is obviously a damping algorithm but who knows what it is. I would guess that it is probably the same as your old Bell was. Sounds like you are pretty low on NVG's in uncharted territory and relying on data that can be "incorrect". Rather you than me.
If you have some time on your hands you may be abe to work it out from here - TSO C87
As for the EPC - see the previous. Only so many kept "on file". An EPC trend is required if you operate "Cat A" - see RFM Supplement. Be aware EPC data, ECD Ground Power Check, and engine manufacturers data/method may vary. You cannot mix the 3. ECD EPC data is acquired at 2 x 60% Q at S & L. ECD Ground Power Check done using airframe data and "eyeball" with one engine in idle. Engine Manufacturer check normally on the ground with one engine in idle and acquired by ground based software using EEC parameters. See RFM Section 5.
Normally pretty accurate (<1m ≤ 200m Rad Alt).
The issue of course is the density or variation of the trees below you. Would you like it to indicate the height of each tree you have just passed over? The antennas are on the tailboom after all, it doesn't look forward. If the trees were ~ 100' each I guess as the indication would be wildly fluctuating you would assume that you were over trees! Having used them for geophysical work and from memory at a cover of >50% they would read the distance to the tree tops. That information was "smoothed" in the indicator to the pilot. The raw data which was recorded was all over the place and was smoothed in the data post processing. As opposed to your requirement we actually wanted to know where the ground was so estimated the tree height and flew at a lower Rad Alt accordingly until passing the trees. There is obviously a damping algorithm but who knows what it is. I would guess that it is probably the same as your old Bell was. Sounds like you are pretty low on NVG's in uncharted territory and relying on data that can be "incorrect". Rather you than me.
If you have some time on your hands you may be abe to work it out from here - TSO C87
As for the EPC - see the previous. Only so many kept "on file". An EPC trend is required if you operate "Cat A" - see RFM Supplement. Be aware EPC data, ECD Ground Power Check, and engine manufacturers data/method may vary. You cannot mix the 3. ECD EPC data is acquired at 2 x 60% Q at S & L. ECD Ground Power Check done using airframe data and "eyeball" with one engine in idle. Engine Manufacturer check normally on the ground with one engine in idle and acquired by ground based software using EEC parameters. See RFM Section 5.
Last edited by RVDT; 6th Apr 2009 at 19:52.
It's not so much of uncharted territory as to unusual of being relatively lower than the RA would show. Colegues had the problem I described, but I've also noticed this before; during confined area T/O-LDG as the RA didn't catch any of the trees that we have flown over during departure.
Our pilots are aware of this "misleading" reading and we take some safety altitude with it.
I'll perform an EPC test today. We perform checks as per manual at every 100HRS for CAT A and we are some 50 HRS from that check, no wonder it isn't in the memory any more.
Thank you!
Our pilots are aware of this "misleading" reading and we take some safety altitude with it.
I'll perform an EPC test today. We perform checks as per manual at every 100HRS for CAT A and we are some 50 HRS from that check, no wonder it isn't in the memory any more.
Thank you!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
back to the same over and over again!
Gentlemen, the EC135 is on order and we are getting real close to freeze the ordersheet.
We are aiming for the lightest possible configuration (still needs to be dual/single IFR), but in our environment we are a little limited with IFR infrastructure, so we are aiming to delete what we cannot use.
One fundamental question is still engine choice.
All the fleet is Turbomeca (...ok we have one lonely Bell206), but the question still is if Pratt's would be the better selection or not!
I saw the post about EC135s in Asia (pref. PW).
Our application is hot & humid, sea level to max 12.500 ft (highest elevation in the country .....)
The P&W wins with some 20+ hp better power in some situations, but the question is what is preferable overall in our specific environment.
So, if you guys/gals (mechanics/engineers) have any experience with the EC135 in similar conditions, please advice or let me know where this was already posted!
THanx!
3top
back to the same over and over again!
Gentlemen, the EC135 is on order and we are getting real close to freeze the ordersheet.
We are aiming for the lightest possible configuration (still needs to be dual/single IFR), but in our environment we are a little limited with IFR infrastructure, so we are aiming to delete what we cannot use.
One fundamental question is still engine choice.
All the fleet is Turbomeca (...ok we have one lonely Bell206), but the question still is if Pratt's would be the better selection or not!
I saw the post about EC135s in Asia (pref. PW).
Our application is hot & humid, sea level to max 12.500 ft (highest elevation in the country .....)
The P&W wins with some 20+ hp better power in some situations, but the question is what is preferable overall in our specific environment.
So, if you guys/gals (mechanics/engineers) have any experience with the EC135 in similar conditions, please advice or let me know where this was already posted!
THanx!
3top
3top,
I hope you haven't deleted the air con in the weight saving exercise? Life in a hot and humid environment would be unbearable without it! The 135 is a hot, stuffy aircraft even in a British summer.
FNW
I hope you haven't deleted the air con in the weight saving exercise? Life in a hot and humid environment would be unbearable without it! The 135 is a hot, stuffy aircraft even in a British summer.
FNW
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanx Guys!!
On the A/C I will try to push the Aircomm unit - least weight and best performance, no trouble!
Good point on the "guaranteed" weight - will definitely recommend this to the boss!!
Eddie1, is there anything specific pro/con P&W?
I mean start-up issues is a good one anyhow and maintenance/spares too.
However we probably will go with the power per hour program, so spares may be out of the equation.
I know the Arrius only from the EC120 and it does have a few issues there, but the donks in the 135 are different models....
Thanx again, ....and keep it coming!
3top
On the A/C I will try to push the Aircomm unit - least weight and best performance, no trouble!
Good point on the "guaranteed" weight - will definitely recommend this to the boss!!
Eddie1, is there anything specific pro/con P&W?
I mean start-up issues is a good one anyhow and maintenance/spares too.
However we probably will go with the power per hour program, so spares may be out of the equation.
I know the Arrius only from the EC120 and it does have a few issues there, but the donks in the 135 are different models....
Thanx again, ....and keep it coming!
3top
When I was in Donauworth for EC135 type rating I was told that PW compared to TM had a 1:10 FADEC failure ratio (partial or complete failure). I don't know if Turbomeca did anything on their systems to correct the problem since then.
EC135 does not have a particle separator. It has a sand filter system. We have a sand filter in our storage, but we really didn't use it for the last 550hrs. Depends on your enviroment. I saw saudi arabia using it, german army had it on, but removed it.
If you are intending to use your 135 in a cold enviroment, consider PW as it has fuel/oil heat exchanger.
Spot on on the dirty tail boom. PW's are really smoking. We have a metalic blue on the tailboom and you can hardly see any difference up until 50-70hrs unless you really look up close.
If you are intending to use your 135 in a cold enviroment, consider PW as it has fuel/oil heat exchanger.
Spot on on the dirty tail boom. PW's are really smoking. We have a metalic blue on the tailboom and you can hardly see any difference up until 50-70hrs unless you really look up close.