Ec-155b, D-hley
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ec-155b, D-hley
Hello community,
I have a question concerning the following image, showing EC-155B D-HLEY (probably ex - C-FORE c/n 6576) at Kassel/Calden Airport, Germany. When this picture was taken it was doing some maintenance flights with Eurocopter Kassel.
Do you have any information on the current owner/operator?
http://flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=637303
Thank you.
king regards,
Helipoc
I have a question concerning the following image, showing EC-155B D-HLEY (probably ex - C-FORE c/n 6576) at Kassel/Calden Airport, Germany. When this picture was taken it was doing some maintenance flights with Eurocopter Kassel.
Do you have any information on the current owner/operator?
http://flugzeugbilder.de/show.php?id=637303
Thank you.
king regards,
Helipoc
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South of North and East of West!
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Helipoc,
I wasn't able to find any info on D-HLEY but there is a possible explanation! D-HLEY doesn't exist on any current database at the moment and it could be down to the fact that the reg D-HLEY is temporary until a new owner is found. You mentioned that the EC155 is at Eurocopter Kassel doing maintenance flights, possibly before the new owner takes delivery. C-FORE was c/n 6575 not 6576 which belongs to D-HLTI as seen here http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true
Also more info can be found here for future reference http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Eurocopter.html and here http://new.helionline.net/templates/...egister06.html
I hope this is some help to you and I wish you luck in your search!
Let me know if you solve the mystery.
Best regards,
Jim
I wasn't able to find any info on D-HLEY but there is a possible explanation! D-HLEY doesn't exist on any current database at the moment and it could be down to the fact that the reg D-HLEY is temporary until a new owner is found. You mentioned that the EC155 is at Eurocopter Kassel doing maintenance flights, possibly before the new owner takes delivery. C-FORE was c/n 6575 not 6576 which belongs to D-HLTI as seen here http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true
Also more info can be found here for future reference http://www.airport-data.com/manuf/Eurocopter.html and here http://new.helionline.net/templates/...egister06.html
I hope this is some help to you and I wish you luck in your search!
Let me know if you solve the mystery.
Best regards,
Jim
Ec 155 D-hley
I think its the former ZS-RLI S/N 6557, which lost her very colorful painting after being sold.
skadi
skadi
Last edited by skadi; 18th Jun 2007 at 14:08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you guys.
@skadi: ZS-RLI (registration is almost removed) is still wearing its colourful paintscheme, so we are talking about two different EC-155s.
D-HLEY and ZS-RLI are both at EC Kassel at the moment.
@Jim: c/n 6575 C-FORE is correct!
You are possibly right; I also thought about a temporary registration, altough "LEY" is not very typically for a temporary registration.
Any more information about D-HLEY, (probably ex C-FORE) ?
kind regards,
Helipoc
@skadi: ZS-RLI (registration is almost removed) is still wearing its colourful paintscheme, so we are talking about two different EC-155s.
D-HLEY and ZS-RLI are both at EC Kassel at the moment.
@Jim: c/n 6575 C-FORE is correct!
You are possibly right; I also thought about a temporary registration, altough "LEY" is not very typically for a temporary registration.
Any more information about D-HLEY, (probably ex C-FORE) ?
kind regards,
Helipoc
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC-155B D-HLEY was cancelled to the UK as G-CEOY...
See also the current news (03.08.2007) on www.helionline.de
kind regards,
Helipoc
See also the current news (03.08.2007) on www.helionline.de
kind regards,
Helipoc
For a B (not B1) about 4000 kg, but it's approximate as I don't have graphs to hand. 30 C Hp=0 it's about 3900 kg.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
155B Helipad performance
For a 155B 1000ft 25 deg C is outside the graph so not permitted. At 1000 ft your max OAT would be 21 deg C.
At SL 30 deg C you can get 3800kg.
B1 will give you about another 200kg I believe.
Hope this helps.
At SL 30 deg C you can get 3800kg.
B1 will give you about another 200kg I believe.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, without appearing immodest, I have been flying the 155 since 1999 and have about 800 hours on type and as an ETPS graduate I normally check my data pretty carefully, so I think I can read the Max T/O Weight from Ground Helipad graph to within an accuracy of the nearest 1000 ft. But I'll double check ...... yes it still says outside the permitted parameters!
Max density altitude for this procedure is 2000ft.
The absolute maximum t/o weight you can achieve is 4170 kg.
Absolute max landing weight is 4700 kg.
Max density altitude for this procedure is 2000ft.
The absolute maximum t/o weight you can achieve is 4170 kg.
Absolute max landing weight is 4700 kg.
Sorry for the bum steer: I knew the MTOW was around 4200 kg, and that we were limited to around 38-3900 kg, so was mentally interpolating/extrapolating in the absence of a FLM (don't normally take them on vacation with me 
)
It's a very limited procedure all round, most obviously highlighted by trying to train for it with the Training Mode: no VIP machine can, as the empty weights exceed the Training Weight, and most utility variants are limited to 150 kg of fuel (top tip: train near the bowser!)
Mind you, at least ECF have a helipad procedure: more than Sikorsky have for the S-92
(Hope all is well 155man)
) It's a very limited procedure all round, most obviously highlighted by trying to train for it with the Training Mode: no VIP machine can, as the empty weights exceed the Training Weight, and most utility variants are limited to 150 kg of fuel (top tip: train near the bowser!)
Mind you, at least ECF have a helipad procedure: more than Sikorsky have for the S-92
(Hope all is well 155man)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
155 Man & 212man,
Thanks for the information! Will this mean that the operators of the EC-155b when doing for example charter work (JAR-OPS3) have to land on an airport instead of an limited heliport when temp. is 25C and PA1000?
Thank you,
Thanks for the information! Will this mean that the operators of the EC-155b when doing for example charter work (JAR-OPS3) have to land on an airport instead of an limited heliport when temp. is 25C and PA1000?
Thank you,
Static unstability,
No, because operations can be conducted in PC2 (or PC3 if the MAPSC is restricted to 9 and if flown over a non-hostile environment).
Operations offshore are all flown in PC2.
Jim
No, because operations can be conducted in PC2 (or PC3 if the MAPSC is restricted to 9 and if flown over a non-hostile environment).
Operations offshore are all flown in PC2.
Jim
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Static unstability,
IN PC2 you only need to be able achieve a rate of climb of 150 ft/min, so this is the max take-off mass permitted. I'm not sure which Cat A masses you were referring to.
The take-off area must be suitable to carry out a safe forced landing.
See JAR-OPS 3, Sub part H for full details of PC2.
IN PC2 you only need to be able achieve a rate of climb of 150 ft/min, so this is the max take-off mass permitted. I'm not sure which Cat A masses you were referring to.
The take-off area must be suitable to carry out a safe forced landing.
See JAR-OPS 3, Sub part H for full details of PC2.
Static unstability,
No - you have to meet the requirement for PC2; as far as performance is concerned, that is second segment climb (150ft/min at Vy at 1,000ft above the take-off surface) and PC1 en-route (50ft/min climb at MSA - which does permit 'drift down').
The take-off mass for PC1 is governed by the requirement to ensure that distances required (rejected take-off; and take-off distance) are within those available* plus, first segment climb (100ft/min at 200ft) and the other performance elements specified above for PC2.
Jim
*With the exception that the take-off distance available can be ignored if all obstacles are cleared vertically by 35ft.
155 man crossed with me; I would add to his statement that with the appropriate approvals, exposure can be taken up to 200ft (so no safe-forced-landing requirement).
No - you have to meet the requirement for PC2; as far as performance is concerned, that is second segment climb (150ft/min at Vy at 1,000ft above the take-off surface) and PC1 en-route (50ft/min climb at MSA - which does permit 'drift down').
The take-off mass for PC1 is governed by the requirement to ensure that distances required (rejected take-off; and take-off distance) are within those available* plus, first segment climb (100ft/min at 200ft) and the other performance elements specified above for PC2.
Jim
*With the exception that the take-off distance available can be ignored if all obstacles are cleared vertically by 35ft.
155 man crossed with me; I would add to his statement that with the appropriate approvals, exposure can be taken up to 200ft (so no safe-forced-landing requirement).
Static Unstability,
to follow on from Jim's points, the EC-155 has variable Vtoss, so the PC1 (Cat A) RTOM will vary as a function of either the first segment or second segment climb performance, depending on the Vtoss selected, whereas the PC2 RTOM will be fixed for a given ambient condition. The crossover occurs at Vtoss=60 kts: before that you are first segment limited and therefore the PC2 mass will be higher than the PC1 (and hence Cat A) mass. Above that and the PC2 mass will equal the PC1 (and hence Cat A) mass.
To further follow on from Jim ref the exposure prior to 200 ft : I assume every one has read the latest JAR OPS-3 sections on performance that came with amendment 5 (1st July 2007)?
to follow on from Jim's points, the EC-155 has variable Vtoss, so the PC1 (Cat A) RTOM will vary as a function of either the first segment or second segment climb performance, depending on the Vtoss selected, whereas the PC2 RTOM will be fixed for a given ambient condition. The crossover occurs at Vtoss=60 kts: before that you are first segment limited and therefore the PC2 mass will be higher than the PC1 (and hence Cat A) mass. Above that and the PC2 mass will equal the PC1 (and hence Cat A) mass.
To further follow on from Jim ref the exposure prior to 200 ft : I assume every one has read the latest JAR OPS-3 sections on performance that came with amendment 5 (1st July 2007)?