"28 weeks later" - Gazelle - questions
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wish to get a name as a pedantic sh!t but I feel that the Gazelle could not have cut the zombies in half because ZOMBIES DON'T EXIST!
sorry
I'll get me coat
sorry
I'll get me coat
In my experience the military record keeping is far more detailed than the civil paperwork.
The same situation applied to the Siouxs.
In fact one Sioux was resurrected from it's crushed cabin and the form 700
which was found lying on the seat pan.
It is not uncommon for civil aircraft to change hands with only the current log books being available. In other words no long term history.
I have a feeling that commercial interests had a hand in this, with no one wanting to disturb the market place by dumping a lot of ex military aircraft
into it.
Certification issues in the differences between military and civil versions of the same aircraft probably do play a part.
A number of years ago Bell produced a number of 205A's using aluminium rivets (military specification) in an area where monel rivets were specified in the civil spec. They were fined $100,000 per aircraft (ouch!!!)
American ex military aircraft were affected by the breakout programm where the military owned the drawings and had parts manufactured by companies not approved by the design organisation.
I do not believe that anything similar happened to the Gazelle.
The same situation applied to the Siouxs.
In fact one Sioux was resurrected from it's crushed cabin and the form 700
which was found lying on the seat pan.
It is not uncommon for civil aircraft to change hands with only the current log books being available. In other words no long term history.
I have a feeling that commercial interests had a hand in this, with no one wanting to disturb the market place by dumping a lot of ex military aircraft
into it.
Certification issues in the differences between military and civil versions of the same aircraft probably do play a part.
A number of years ago Bell produced a number of 205A's using aluminium rivets (military specification) in an area where monel rivets were specified in the civil spec. They were fined $100,000 per aircraft (ouch!!!)
American ex military aircraft were affected by the breakout programm where the military owned the drawings and had parts manufactured by companies not approved by the design organisation.
I do not believe that anything similar happened to the Gazelle.
Wizzard
If you don't think zombies exist you've never worked as a contractor on permanent nights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't think zombies exist you've never worked as a contractor on permanent nights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by ericferret; 15th May 2007 at 08:41. Reason: more
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The market never seems to get flooded with ex-mil machines, the last wave of Gazelles came around 5 or so years ago, these were the ex-navy Shark machines, I was under the impression that there were ex-army ones waiting to go to shortly after, but the commercial timing wouldn't be right.....
Or am I just cynical....
I was also aware of the statement that they can only be issued with permits to fly, due to the military engine variant having not been monitored by the CAA. I guess the fact that the military have knocked out over a million hours is not enough!!
Or am I just cynical....
I was also aware of the statement that they can only be issued with permits to fly, due to the military engine variant having not been monitored by the CAA. I guess the fact that the military have knocked out over a million hours is not enough!!
In AUS, a couple of years ago a bunch of Navy squirells were sold. Some of them ended up being re-fitted and are now doing charter work, some other people as far as I am aware bought a couple from the same batch and were unable to get them on the register for charter category because all aircraft were sold 'as is' and some came with the books and others didn't.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a helicopter without books isnt worth anything anyway i cant understand anyone buying one to make it fly again
the ex mil uk gazelles had full paperwork a lot more than the civil ones have
the ex mil uk gazelles had full paperwork a lot more than the civil ones have
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm.....
I believe those Aussie Squirrells started life as Civvy machines ....but were extensivly modified for the Military .... one of the mods being a "twist Grip" throttle being fitted ..... as this was not part of the Civil Certification for the AS350 it might be part of the reason they could not be civil certified ....
...quite happy for someone who know better to correct me.
Cheers
I believe those Aussie Squirrells started life as Civvy machines ....but were extensivly modified for the Military .... one of the mods being a "twist Grip" throttle being fitted ..... as this was not part of the Civil Certification for the AS350 it might be part of the reason they could not be civil certified ....
...quite happy for someone who know better to correct me.
Cheers
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Not my picture.)
happyjack
Military Gazelles are quite different from the original civie version.
Surely slightly diffferent would be more accurate?
The airframes (short and long) came off the same production lines - most (all?) Mil customers opted for the short..
UK Mil Gazelles were supplied with the Astazou 111N engine (a variant of the Astazou 111A/B in the civvy 341G) and subsequently retrofitted with a 111N2 which is a UK only engine type. Neither of those was type certificated.
The civvy 342 has the Astazou XIV, which is more powerful than any of the above.
If a civvy (type certificated) engine was installed in an ex-Mil machine, in what respect(s) would it differ from a civvy Gazelle?
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th May 2007 at 10:17.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
i thought the long[stretch airframes ]were only produced in america for civils
the 342 has 2 engines i know about the 14h [civil ]and 14m military
in the 341 range the 3a engine is civil but the 3b.3f is military but the yugo accept 3b as civil but the uk caa wont
i would also love to know if the uk caa would except a mil gaz with a 14h engine then it would be very nearly the same spec as the 342j the only difference i think would be the servo accunulators
i thought the long[stretch airframes ]were only produced in america for civils
the 342 has 2 engines i know about the 14h [civil ]and 14m military
in the 341 range the 3a engine is civil but the 3b.3f is military but the yugo accept 3b as civil but the uk caa wont
i would also love to know if the uk caa would except a mil gaz with a 14h engine then it would be very nearly the same spec as the 342j the only difference i think would be the servo accunulators
Last edited by lartsa; 16th May 2007 at 14:43.
You may have hit the nail on the head by asking what the airframe differences are between civil and military Gazelles. What interest has Aerospat (Eurocopter) got in giving anyone this information when they are trying to sell Squirrels and EC 120's.
I will try to look up the stretch issue but I think it was a post production American mod. Maybe done by Aerospatiale USA.
I will try to look up the stretch issue but I think it was a post production American mod. Maybe done by Aerospatiale USA.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first Gazelle prototype (manufactured by Sud Aviation) took to the skies from Marignane forty years ago, on 7 April 1967.
First prototype (SA340) with conventional tail rotor
Second prototype (SA341) with fenestron 
Note the changed horizontal stabiliser
The larger cabin was not an American mod.
Google produced the following:SA 340-01 - Prototype Designation
SA 341 - Second Protoype Designation; Larger cabin; Composite blades.
SA 341B Gazelle AH.1 - Initial Production Models (British Army).
SA 341C Gazelle HT.2 - Initial Production Models (British Navy).
SA 341D Gazelle HT.3 - Trainer Variant
SA 341E Gazelle HCC.4 - Transport model for the Royal Air Force.
SA 341F - Production version for the French Army. Upgraded engine to Astazou IIIC.
SA 341G - Civilian Variant
SA 341H - Military Export Model
SA 342J - Civilian Model
SA 342K - Armed SA 341F with upgraded 870-shp Astazou XIVH engine, mostly exported to the Middle East.
SA 342L - Final Export Military Model. Light attack variant with Astazou XIVM engine.
SA 342M - Final French Army Production Variant. Improved ground attack variant, similar to SA 342L, but with improved instrument panel, engine exhaust baffles to reduce IR signature, navigational systems, Doppler radar, and other night flying equipment. Fitted with Astral AAMs.
Soko H-42 - Yugoslav-produced variant of SA 341H model.
Soko H-45 - Yugoslav-produced variant of the SA 342L model.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th May 2007 at 20:58.
MD 600 Driver
The UK CAA does not accept STC's automatically, however there are plenty of them approved for UK use e.g Chadwick tank in the Hughes 500 series.
So if it is a mod and particularly if it was introduced by the aircraft manufacturer then I would not expect any significant problems.
The STC is held by Eurocopter France and introduced a 200mm stretch forward of the aft (cabin?) bulkhead.
If as flying lawyer says the Gazelle were built with the stretch why would Aerospat have needed to raise an STC?????????? An ammendment to the original type certificate would have covered the stretch. Again I wonder if this was just for the American market. The FAA type cert would reflect the DGAC type cert. For some reason the French must have not wanted to change their certificate.. Maybe this mod was never DGAC approved and hence the need for an STC.
Just to show how big a change can be accomodated on one type certificate. The 330 Puma and 332 Super Puma are on the same type cert. The SA 365C, 365N and the EC155 are also covered by one certificate.
If you go to the CAA web site and go to the register search there is a nice photo of G-CDJT which shows the 200 mm wider rear cabin door and the reduced height vertical fins which are the main external differences identifying the stretch.
The CAA issued AAN (AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL NOTE) 17988 which refers directly to STC SH2379SW and SH1858SW both of which cover the stretch mod. If there had been a European approval why would they refer to an American STC.
My computer is refusing to open PDF's so I can't check the type certs at the moment. I will have another go tomorrow.
In the mean time answers on a postcard to ...............
The UK CAA does not accept STC's automatically, however there are plenty of them approved for UK use e.g Chadwick tank in the Hughes 500 series.
So if it is a mod and particularly if it was introduced by the aircraft manufacturer then I would not expect any significant problems.
The STC is held by Eurocopter France and introduced a 200mm stretch forward of the aft (cabin?) bulkhead.
If as flying lawyer says the Gazelle were built with the stretch why would Aerospat have needed to raise an STC?????????? An ammendment to the original type certificate would have covered the stretch. Again I wonder if this was just for the American market. The FAA type cert would reflect the DGAC type cert. For some reason the French must have not wanted to change their certificate.. Maybe this mod was never DGAC approved and hence the need for an STC.
Just to show how big a change can be accomodated on one type certificate. The 330 Puma and 332 Super Puma are on the same type cert. The SA 365C, 365N and the EC155 are also covered by one certificate.
If you go to the CAA web site and go to the register search there is a nice photo of G-CDJT which shows the 200 mm wider rear cabin door and the reduced height vertical fins which are the main external differences identifying the stretch.
The CAA issued AAN (AIRWORTHINESS APPROVAL NOTE) 17988 which refers directly to STC SH2379SW and SH1858SW both of which cover the stretch mod. If there had been a European approval why would they refer to an American STC.
My computer is refusing to open PDF's so I can't check the type certs at the moment. I will have another go tomorrow.
In the mean time answers on a postcard to ...............
Last edited by ericferret; 17th May 2007 at 01:35.
UK military aircraft, including the Gazelle, were, historically, maintained to a Schedule peculiar to the UK military, and thus trying to transfer these aircraft to the civil register (other than on a Permit) is, at best, very difficult and prohibitively expensive.
The rational behind COMR (Contractor Owned, Military Registered) is that such aircraft are maintained according to EASA requirements, with monitoring contracts between MoD and the CAA. Thus the aircraft can be taken off the miltiary register and put back on the civil register with a full CofA. The benefit of this to MoD and the Contractor is that the through-life cost of the aircraft is lower, because at the end of the contract the aircraft will have a definable residual value: well above the comparable value had it only been maintained to the military spec.
BTW, the twist grip throttle on the (eg Australian and DHFS) AS350 was an official AS(EC) Mod, not a special military mod. A near identical assembly is used as standard on the EC120.
The rational behind COMR (Contractor Owned, Military Registered) is that such aircraft are maintained according to EASA requirements, with monitoring contracts between MoD and the CAA. Thus the aircraft can be taken off the miltiary register and put back on the civil register with a full CofA. The benefit of this to MoD and the Contractor is that the through-life cost of the aircraft is lower, because at the end of the contract the aircraft will have a definable residual value: well above the comparable value had it only been maintained to the military spec.
BTW, the twist grip throttle on the (eg Australian and DHFS) AS350 was an official AS(EC) Mod, not a special military mod. A near identical assembly is used as standard on the EC120.
Idle Stop
Your comments on the mil to civvy situation are an accurate view of the current position.
However the military servicing regime was never a problem in the past. In fact it was gererally accepted that UK military aircraft were in fact
"over serviced" relative to their civilian equivalents.
As an example Alouette 2 G-BSFS ex army XR378 had a public transport
c of a.
Again the Sioux to Bell 47 conversions were never a problem.
The company I worked for converted abou 20 ex army Sioux. Most ended up crop spraying, however they had transport cat c of a's.
There was a policy change in the CAA and I believe the Gazelle was the first aircraft to suffer from it.
It might be that there was a case for not giving it a c of a but the seating restriction (2 only???) is unnecessary. It just makes the ex mil Gazelle unattractive compared with a 120, 206 e.t.c
Back to my conspiracy theory that the CAA were pressured into refusing the aircraft a c of a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your comments on the mil to civvy situation are an accurate view of the current position.
However the military servicing regime was never a problem in the past. In fact it was gererally accepted that UK military aircraft were in fact
"over serviced" relative to their civilian equivalents.
As an example Alouette 2 G-BSFS ex army XR378 had a public transport
c of a.
Again the Sioux to Bell 47 conversions were never a problem.
The company I worked for converted abou 20 ex army Sioux. Most ended up crop spraying, however they had transport cat c of a's.
There was a policy change in the CAA and I believe the Gazelle was the first aircraft to suffer from it.
It might be that there was a case for not giving it a c of a but the seating restriction (2 only???) is unnecessary. It just makes the ex mil Gazelle unattractive compared with a 120, 206 e.t.c
Back to my conspiracy theory that the CAA were pressured into refusing the aircraft a c of a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by ericferret; 17th May 2007 at 12:40.
The Squirrel throttle mod reminds me of a story we were told at the Turbomeca factory.
We asked why the engine starting technique had changed from the SA 365C
to the 365N. As the engines were basically the same we could see no reason for the change.
365C Throttle into the idle gate and then press start.
365N Press start then open the throttle.
The answer was this was nothing to do with the Dauphin!!!!!!!
The French said they had to changed the technique to mirror the Bell 206 start sequence as the Australians had pilots going from the Squirrel to the 206 and then opening the throttle and pressing the start button, resulting in hot starts.
We asked why the engine starting technique had changed from the SA 365C
to the 365N. As the engines were basically the same we could see no reason for the change.
365C Throttle into the idle gate and then press start.
365N Press start then open the throttle.
The answer was this was nothing to do with the Dauphin!!!!!!!
The French said they had to changed the technique to mirror the Bell 206 start sequence as the Australians had pilots going from the Squirrel to the 206 and then opening the throttle and pressing the start button, resulting in hot starts.
Just for info I looked at the ex RAF SAL Bulldog's. Given that they operated in a training and aerobatic regime they have been given c of a's not permits.
I wonder if they had stress meters fitted?
I wonder if they had stress meters fitted?
Erci:
Yes, you're right. I occasionally instruct in an ex RN Bulldog and it has a proper CofA. Had forgotten that.
It's back to the paper trail for Permit vs Full CofA for the Gazelle.
It seems that a few UK Permit Gazelles are going onto the Hungarian reg, since the Hungarians are more accommodating over full Cs of A. So much for a common JAR/EASA standard!
Throttles:
EC120: set at Index mark, then engage start, modulate T4 A/R
AS350 Floor Mounted Throttle Lever: engage start, throttle at 10%, modulate A/R
AS350 TWT GRP Throttle: set at Index mark, then engage start, modulate T4 A/R
Yes, you're right. I occasionally instruct in an ex RN Bulldog and it has a proper CofA. Had forgotten that.
It's back to the paper trail for Permit vs Full CofA for the Gazelle.
It seems that a few UK Permit Gazelles are going onto the Hungarian reg, since the Hungarians are more accommodating over full Cs of A. So much for a common JAR/EASA standard!
Throttles:
EC120: set at Index mark, then engage start, modulate T4 A/R
AS350 Floor Mounted Throttle Lever: engage start, throttle at 10%, modulate A/R
AS350 TWT GRP Throttle: set at Index mark, then engage start, modulate T4 A/R