AS355N versus EC135
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1
From: the cockpit
EC135 V AS355 N ??? for Corporate work
Recently, I have been pondering the attributes, and pros and cons of the EC 135 for corporate work. no i am not going to buy one. no I am not going to operate one. Just interested, and like to be informed.
I have done a bit of a search here on pprune in relation to the above, and it seems that the general feeling was/is:
The EC135 is the a great aircraft, with all the modern technology, but may not be suited to corporate work.
The AS355N is more suited to corporate work due cost and rotor head.
The Augusta series would win hands down for corporate work if only they were a little more reliable and less noisy.
Is that a fair summation?
Is the EC135 rotor head really that bad for corporate work? Is it anything like the BK117 head?
Is the EC135 too squeezy in the back? Is it more roomy than the 109s?
What is the 355N like? Does it do the job? Is it slow, old and noisy?
Are the 109 series really that unreliable? Are they that squeezy?
Are there any other competitors in this class worth a look (twins)?
I have done a bit of a search here on pprune in relation to the above, and it seems that the general feeling was/is:
The EC135 is the a great aircraft, with all the modern technology, but may not be suited to corporate work.
The AS355N is more suited to corporate work due cost and rotor head.
The Augusta series would win hands down for corporate work if only they were a little more reliable and less noisy.
Is that a fair summation?
Is the EC135 rotor head really that bad for corporate work? Is it anything like the BK117 head?
Is the EC135 too squeezy in the back? Is it more roomy than the 109s?
What is the 355N like? Does it do the job? Is it slow, old and noisy?
Are the 109 series really that unreliable? Are they that squeezy?
Are there any other competitors in this class worth a look (twins)?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 900
Likes: 26
From: The Wild West... and Oz
Yes there is, the Bell 427. VIP flying is the role it is most suited for I think. Quite a nice ride, enough room in the back cabin with good vis through the large windows, rear cabin seperate from the pilot, FADEC, P&W engines, about 125-130kts cruise, skids for off airfield landings, Bell customer support.
Piloting wise, they are a nice responsive helicopter with a bit of speed.
Cheers BigMike
Piloting wise, they are a nice responsive helicopter with a bit of speed.
Cheers BigMike
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 1
From: the cockpit
thanks big mike. Hadn't considered that. Do they have less issues than the 407s? IE, nice aircraft to fly, but a few reliability issues. Do they come SPIFR or do you have to go to the 429 for that?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 900
Likes: 26
From: The Wild West... and Oz
Don't know much about the 407 other than what the guys who have flown it told me, A LOT of power!
The 427 is very realiable. The only issues my company has had, have been avionic related, IIDS display sometimes playing up, and the occassional small things when the aircraft first came out, from what I have been told.
If you PM me, I can put you in touch with the Engineering guys here, and they might be able to answer those questions better.
And to answer your other question: They are VFR/NVFR. Bell were originally going to certify it latter as SPIFR I believe. They are now concentrating on the 429 I guess, which according to the specs should be quite good.
Cheers BigMike
*The 427 is also certified Cat A.
The 427 is very realiable. The only issues my company has had, have been avionic related, IIDS display sometimes playing up, and the occassional small things when the aircraft first came out, from what I have been told.
If you PM me, I can put you in touch with the Engineering guys here, and they might be able to answer those questions better.
And to answer your other question: They are VFR/NVFR. Bell were originally going to certify it latter as SPIFR I believe. They are now concentrating on the 429 I guess, which according to the specs should be quite good.
Cheers BigMike
*The 427 is also certified Cat A.
Last edited by BigMike; 12th September 2005 at 08:16.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 921
Likes: 30
From: Europe
BigMike,
You might need to check that the B427 is certificated in Category A; to my knowledge it is not - hence one of the imperatives for the work on the B429.
Certification in Category A in accordance with Appendix C of FAR/JAR 27 goes well beyond the requirement for performance data; this was exhaustively discussed in a recent thread that can be found here. Performance data in the RFM is not evidence of certification in Category A as Nick Lappos pointed out in the same thread.
You will also be aware that operations in PC1 or PC2 in compliance with JAR-OPS 3 requires certification in Category A. As the B427 was certificated after the introduction of Appendix C to FAR 27, it cannot take advantage of the alleviation contained in IEM OPS 3.480(a)(1) and (a)(2) which was introduced to cover helicopters certificated before the advent of that Appendix.
Jim
You might need to check that the B427 is certificated in Category A; to my knowledge it is not - hence one of the imperatives for the work on the B429.
Certification in Category A in accordance with Appendix C of FAR/JAR 27 goes well beyond the requirement for performance data; this was exhaustively discussed in a recent thread that can be found here. Performance data in the RFM is not evidence of certification in Category A as Nick Lappos pointed out in the same thread.
You will also be aware that operations in PC1 or PC2 in compliance with JAR-OPS 3 requires certification in Category A. As the B427 was certificated after the introduction of Appendix C to FAR 27, it cannot take advantage of the alleviation contained in IEM OPS 3.480(a)(1) and (a)(2) which was introduced to cover helicopters certificated before the advent of that Appendix.
Jim
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
JimL is right on, and even more so, the certification rigor for a Part 27 aircraft (Normal Catagory Rotorcraft) is much lower than that for a Part 29 (Airline Transport Rotorcraft). Fire protection, crash safety, duplication of systems, etc all favor the Part 29 aircraft.
The difference is like that of a Beechcraft to a Boeing, literally.
The 427 is the Normal catagory aircraft, and is quite a bit less than a Part 29 aircraft, especially regarding safety.
The EC 135 is a hybrid, with its twin engine installation the only system meeting Part 29
The 155 is purely a Part 29 aircraft.
Comparing the three is not easy, they are an apple, a tangerine (hybrid) and an orange.
The difference is like that of a Beechcraft to a Boeing, literally.
The 427 is the Normal catagory aircraft, and is quite a bit less than a Part 29 aircraft, especially regarding safety.
The EC 135 is a hybrid, with its twin engine installation the only system meeting Part 29
The 155 is purely a Part 29 aircraft.
Comparing the three is not easy, they are an apple, a tangerine (hybrid) and an orange.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 21
From: Used to be God's own County
Fortunate Timing!
Looking at replacing company's mount (355-F1) with another aircraft that is certified SPIFR and AOC. UK/near Europe Charter.
Obvious choice would be 355N as I've heard unfavourable accounts of ride comfort for the corporate/vip role in the back of a 135.
All ears though, as my knowledge of the market is limited at the moment.
Obvious choice would be 355N as I've heard unfavourable accounts of ride comfort for the corporate/vip role in the back of a 135.
All ears though, as my knowledge of the market is limited at the moment.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 496
Likes: 4
From: Norfolk
I've operated both, though not in the corporate role. What follows is based on an IFR version, which I assume you'd have for the corporate role. In no particular order:-
EC135
Avionics, autopilot, maintenance downtime, cabin size, seating capacity, sloping ground capability, build quality, noise, speed.
AS355N
Initial cost, ease of pilot inspection in the field [just], ride quality [the 135 isn't terrible, just rather harder], fuel endurance.
The 135 has a greater payload but also a greater fuel burn so a lot depends on whether you'd need the extra seats at the expense of range.
The 109 is a lovely aircraft but is, as you say, squeezy [only been in one, never flown it] Although the 135 high density seating isn't luxurious, the higher cabin roof gives it a much bigger feeling.
Difficult to comment further without a specific role to analyse, which seems to be the case.
EC135
Avionics, autopilot, maintenance downtime, cabin size, seating capacity, sloping ground capability, build quality, noise, speed.
AS355N
Initial cost, ease of pilot inspection in the field [just], ride quality [the 135 isn't terrible, just rather harder], fuel endurance.
The 135 has a greater payload but also a greater fuel burn so a lot depends on whether you'd need the extra seats at the expense of range.
The 109 is a lovely aircraft but is, as you say, squeezy [only been in one, never flown it] Although the 135 high density seating isn't luxurious, the higher cabin roof gives it a much bigger feeling.
Difficult to comment further without a specific role to analyse, which seems to be the case.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 900
Likes: 26
From: The Wild West... and Oz
JimL, Nick, fair enough. The guys here have told me they had it certified ("cleared" might be a better word)for Cat A procedures? They had a Bell Factory pilot come out for the training on aproaches and departures, when the Czech CAA raised this issue sometime ago. Is this a Czech thing only? Put it this way, the 427 is allowed to conduct HEMS flights under JAR OPS-3 in Czech, does it have to be Cat A for that? I am new to the Euro rules and currently wading through the paperwork for a licence validation (another story in itself) This is my first time flying twins so this is all new to me. I'm sure you are better qualified to comment on this than me.
BM
Nice helicopter to fly though.
BM
Nice helicopter to fly though.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 5
From: Europe
This topic has been done before! My previous comments and views were as follows
Firstly 355N is quite different from 355F; significantly more power, faster (130kts low skids no floats), much better Class 1 performance, much more reliable (engines), very quick to start and go, 1 min shutdown v 2 mins on the Fs.
Advantages 355N are mainly much better range than 135 (3 hours endurance v 2.30) , better ride comfort (135 is more fidgety esp in turbulence), better pax seat comfort and view, pilot/pax communication, ability to pick up/drop rear pax through big pilot door rotors running safely, lower price and hence insurance costs.
Advantages 135 are lower operational costs and downtime from maintenance, speed (probably 7 kts faster spec for spec), Cat A performance, baggage space, cabin volume, quieter outside, better quality avionics, generally more solid, more modern systems, better crash-worthiness.
Both excellent, popular aircraft with different role strengths.
Firstly 355N is quite different from 355F; significantly more power, faster (130kts low skids no floats), much better Class 1 performance, much more reliable (engines), very quick to start and go, 1 min shutdown v 2 mins on the Fs.
Advantages 355N are mainly much better range than 135 (3 hours endurance v 2.30) , better ride comfort (135 is more fidgety esp in turbulence), better pax seat comfort and view, pilot/pax communication, ability to pick up/drop rear pax through big pilot door rotors running safely, lower price and hence insurance costs.
Advantages 135 are lower operational costs and downtime from maintenance, speed (probably 7 kts faster spec for spec), Cat A performance, baggage space, cabin volume, quieter outside, better quality avionics, generally more solid, more modern systems, better crash-worthiness.
Both excellent, popular aircraft with different role strengths.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 921
Likes: 30
From: Europe
BigMike,
The operational standards applying to the Czech Republic is a matter for the Czech Authority; however, being a signatory to Cyprus Convention, the State could be audited by the JAA Operational Standardisation Team and found to be non-compliant (on this issue). The flexibility of implementation (currently being exercised by the Czech Republic and other States) will have to be addressed when European operational standards are unified under EASA - at which time all States will be brought into compliance.
In answer to your question; to operate in PC1 or PC2 in compliance with JAR-OPS 3, the helicopter must have been certificated in Category A. It could be compliant by operating in PC3 - in a non-hostile environment - but that could present problems for a HEMS operator.
The B427 never has, and never will be, certificated in Category A (it is a matter of the design and build standard - Bell took that decision when the helicopter came off the drawing board) - that will have to await the B429; and while we are on the subject the same applies to the B206L4T and the MD900.
If it had not been for your claim about the B427, I for one, would have remained silent on the issue even though the facts were known.
Jim
The operational standards applying to the Czech Republic is a matter for the Czech Authority; however, being a signatory to Cyprus Convention, the State could be audited by the JAA Operational Standardisation Team and found to be non-compliant (on this issue). The flexibility of implementation (currently being exercised by the Czech Republic and other States) will have to be addressed when European operational standards are unified under EASA - at which time all States will be brought into compliance.
In answer to your question; to operate in PC1 or PC2 in compliance with JAR-OPS 3, the helicopter must have been certificated in Category A. It could be compliant by operating in PC3 - in a non-hostile environment - but that could present problems for a HEMS operator.
The B427 never has, and never will be, certificated in Category A (it is a matter of the design and build standard - Bell took that decision when the helicopter came off the drawing board) - that will have to await the B429; and while we are on the subject the same applies to the B206L4T and the MD900.
If it had not been for your claim about the B427, I for one, would have remained silent on the issue even though the facts were known.
Jim
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 21
From: Used to be God's own County
OK, so need to get out of Battersea (helipad), Perf A, AOC, 5 on board with 90 minutes fuel - who wins?
Edited to indicate to our distant cousins that Batters is a helipad
Edited to indicate to our distant cousins that Batters is a helipad
Last edited by EESDL; 13th September 2005 at 07:48.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 921
Likes: 30
From: Europe
EESDL,
You may have to choose another example - one of the elements of a Category A procedure is the size of the FATO; it is unlikely that there will be many helicopters that can meet the size constraints of Battersea.
Having said that, it might be possible to find a helicopter which can operate in PC1 (not Category A) from Battersea under the revised rules of NPA-38 (in the circumstances where a rejected take-off is not required); in the class of helicopter (that it appears) you are considering it is likely that the Grande will be one. Depending on the day, the latest marks of the EC135 might also be candidates.
Jim
You may have to choose another example - one of the elements of a Category A procedure is the size of the FATO; it is unlikely that there will be many helicopters that can meet the size constraints of Battersea.
Having said that, it might be possible to find a helicopter which can operate in PC1 (not Category A) from Battersea under the revised rules of NPA-38 (in the circumstances where a rejected take-off is not required); in the class of helicopter (that it appears) you are considering it is likely that the Grande will be one. Depending on the day, the latest marks of the EC135 might also be candidates.
Jim
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 21
From: Used to be God's own County
Mmmmmmm, Agusta Grande?
Best I tell my Boss and his clients to bring their umbrellas!
Let's hope it is not a 'leaker' like its' forebearers.
Comment not made from any prejudice but from talking to 109 pilots and operators. Like I said earlier - I'm all ears.
Have no particular bent towards the AS355 either, gutless and full of limits above 15 deg celius and 2 pax! (F1 that is).
Have looked at the S76 and, although it's seen by most as the corporate workhorse, its too big for our needs, doesn't have skids and has silly running costs.
Lots of muddy site inspections, so skids essential as far as I can determine.
5 pax max. Typical work can vary between taking Boss to near europe or 5 business men to the big smoke (1.3hrs from our base).
Let's hope it is not a 'leaker' like its' forebearers.
Comment not made from any prejudice but from talking to 109 pilots and operators. Like I said earlier - I'm all ears.
Have no particular bent towards the AS355 either, gutless and full of limits above 15 deg celius and 2 pax! (F1 that is).
Have looked at the S76 and, although it's seen by most as the corporate workhorse, its too big for our needs, doesn't have skids and has silly running costs.
Lots of muddy site inspections, so skids essential as far as I can determine.
5 pax max. Typical work can vary between taking Boss to near europe or 5 business men to the big smoke (1.3hrs from our base).
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 542
Likes: 5
From: Europe
EESDL
Your Battersea example: no prob in 355N.
Say EOW 1670 kg (IFR but no floats), 90 mins fuel at 3kg/min = 270 kg, say 20% reserve = 40 mins x 3 kg = 120 kg, say 5 pax x 90kg = 450 kg. Total weight 2510kg, max Group A TOW 2540 kg.
Don't know about 135 but would guess would do it too.
Your Battersea example: no prob in 355N.
Say EOW 1670 kg (IFR but no floats), 90 mins fuel at 3kg/min = 270 kg, say 20% reserve = 40 mins x 3 kg = 120 kg, say 5 pax x 90kg = 450 kg. Total weight 2510kg, max Group A TOW 2540 kg.
Don't know about 135 but would guess would do it too.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 506
Likes: 1
From: Europe
Your Battersea example: no prob in EC 135 P2 
don't know Battersea?
Say EOW 1850kg (IFR but no floats), 90 mins fuel at 3kg/min = 270 kg, say 20% reserve = 40 mins x 3 kg = 120 kg, say 5 pax x 90kg = 450 kg. Total weight 2690kg, max Group A TOW 2835 kg up to more than 30°C, means much more possible payload than on a AS 355.
Also much more bagagge room on EC 135 than on AS 355 and the EC 135 is in my view the more modern and innovative a/c. Full Cat "A", including automatic enhanced rotorspeed by "Cat A" switch and better OEI performance.
Engines without cooling time, can be immediately stopped after touch down. Maintenance costs are much lower on the EC 135. First date at 400h and many components "on condition", doesnt' have 50h or 100h checks. With the "fenestron" lower ground risk than the conventional tailrotor on the AS.
The EC 135 seems to be more expensive in buying, but i don't know actual AS 355N prices.
But just my view!!!
don't know Battersea?
Say EOW 1850kg (IFR but no floats), 90 mins fuel at 3kg/min = 270 kg, say 20% reserve = 40 mins x 3 kg = 120 kg, say 5 pax x 90kg = 450 kg. Total weight 2690kg, max Group A TOW 2835 kg up to more than 30°C, means much more possible payload than on a AS 355.
Also much more bagagge room on EC 135 than on AS 355 and the EC 135 is in my view the more modern and innovative a/c. Full Cat "A", including automatic enhanced rotorspeed by "Cat A" switch and better OEI performance.
Engines without cooling time, can be immediately stopped after touch down. Maintenance costs are much lower on the EC 135. First date at 400h and many components "on condition", doesnt' have 50h or 100h checks. With the "fenestron" lower ground risk than the conventional tailrotor on the AS.
The EC 135 seems to be more expensive in buying, but i don't know actual AS 355N prices.
But just my view!!!