EC145
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Huntsville AL
Age: 51
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
We shall see!
Max
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Terra
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question to "on ground hydraulics"..
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?
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..
)
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?
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..
)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Huntsville AL
Age: 51
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Hope it helps
Max
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Terra
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, 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..
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Huntsville AL
Age: 51
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Good Luck
Max
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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' ....
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' ....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 51
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 51
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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
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?
--> I use rotor break but keep the engines on "ground idle" or something like that, right?
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ..
.... 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 ..
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 51
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 51
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Last edited by otter712; 9th Sep 2010 at 21:30.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ...
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 ...
otter712,
I see that you've edited your post, but the assumption you made is still incorrect. spinwing is right (hmmmmm)
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.
I see that you've edited your post, but the assumption you made is still incorrect. spinwing is right (hmmmmm)
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.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
