So I guess that from the nil replies that there are no auxillery tanks fitted to EC135's as such and we could be the first.

I think you will find that many/most operators of EC135s in the UK can only dream about the idea of extending fuel endurance beyond the standard full tank. Many police operators, for example, struggle to get more than 1.5 hours usable fuel endurance, so the standard tanks can never be filled anyway. Perhaps the private/commercial operators have a different view.

With the camera and pod fitted, we can only get about 310 Kg in the main tank before MAUW. The more slimline crews like Mighty Gems can get a bit more in, but full tanks???? No chance

420 in the main with three crew on a Police role equipped T1.;)

AS I recall the 105 had dual LR tanks but most operators only installed one as there was little available load with all the extra fuel ( never mind no usable space ) . Not sure how much increased endurance you got ( any one got a flight manual ?).

420 in the main!! What is your role equipment? A disposable camera???

If you get 310kg or 420kg fuel what range or endurance would these respective figures give you for normal police ops?

Hi all,

Please excuse a stupid question, I dont fly Helcopters, just GA 'planks'.

I was interested to read that a police EC135 has an endurance of less than 1 1/2 Hrs (is that including or excluding a diversion safety margin?) and cannot be filled up with full tanks of fuel. What is the equipment carried that eats into the wieght limits? Does this not affect your role capabilities? What is the load/fuel endurance ratio like with a standard EC135 in comparison?

Thanks in advance,

SD..

Most Police 135's in this country could go to full fuel and fly for more than 2 hours before reaching MLA. We work on around 200 kg per hour which I believe is standard for the 135 series.

Most of the time we choose to keep the fuel lower than maximum to give us the flexibility to carry out a helipad approach. Some forces have to do this on departure from base anyway.

Certainly I have not heard of a long range tank for the 135, but I guess anything is possible.

Often its not the role equipment that causes weight and C of G issues, its the SLC.

UK police aircaft are invariably very heavy, with an empty weight in the lower seventies as a percentage of the maximum weight. This will typically allow a three person crew and around 2 1/2 hours endurance to dry tanks [it varies a bit if you have, say, the older, lighter version of the EC135]. Take out a 30-minute reserve and there should be the capability of flying for 1 1/2 hours with either a fourth person or the option of topping up to two hours. MG's figure does seem a little low, perhaps with an extra seat fitted and an unusually heavy crew.

What limits, you may have to excuse my ignorance on this one but if the average fuel burn is 200kg per hour and you have 60kg MLA then surely you would need 460kg to achieve 2 hours endurance?

From your post the inference seems to be that you cannot carry out a Helipad profile at MGW in the 135, is this the case? and if so what are the limiting factors?

Eurobolkow, your figures are correct, but there is also the supply tanks which hold 88 kg (possibly) as well as the main tank which may hold up to 452 kg.

On our aircraft, helipad at MGW, MTOW, MTWA, MGM (et al) is only possible in very limited circumstances.

EC135 Increase in MAUM
 

I have heard a rumour that following on from the trend initiated by Agusta that Eurocopter are to increase the MAUM of the EC135. Is there any truth in this? Anyone heard anything?

It's very clearly a 3 tonne machine, so I'd expect an increase sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the good info What Limits.

When you say that your aircraft is capable of helipad profile in very limited cases is that because it is a T1? If so is the situation improved on the T2?

Anyone know what the typical useable payload of a 135 T2 is?

I believe it is going up to 2910Kg. It will require a software upgrade, by all accounts the transmission and engines are up to it; not much else needed apart from the all the relevant paperwork.

How do ppruner's feel about ECD deleting the 50 and 100Hr servicing on the 135? There is a possibility that the 400Hr will be considerably reduced as well :\

Now wether the new servicing schedule will apply to the increased MAUW 135 I do not know, but in principle increasing the MAUW / power output of the engines and decreasing the servicing doesn't sound like a good idea to me :confused:

Semi,
Why not? Care to put forward your concerns.

Semiridigrotor's concerns are probable based upon the fact that all three things are occurring at the same time and venturing into uncharted territory. Usually upgrades are based on a wealth of historic evidence.

To answer an earlier question, the possible basic weight of a corporate T2 is 1865kg giving 970kg payload to be shared between fuel and pax and freight (sandwiches and beer).

Should the 2910kg come to fruition then there's and extra 75kg available.

Head Turner: Spot on - my concern is all of these events taking place within a short time frame. Upgrading the MAUW is normal practice for any flying machine, and from 2835Kg to 2910Kg is not that bigger jump in the scheme of things, but combine that with a reduction in servicing and it goes against everthing I have learnt in 32 years.

If all of ECD's data is based on the current 2835 gross weight, why not delete the 50hr and see how service experience goes? If all goes well reduce the 100Hr in stages, meanwhile gathering as much data from as many different operators flying as many different roles as possible. That sounds sensible to me. :)

We all know the bean counters will jump on this as a way of reducing costs :\ That really worries me.

Why not do away with all PM's....and merely record what breaks. Ensure a good daily inspection gets done leave PM's only for the purposes of oil changes and lubrications if any. Except for replacing lubricants...go to a "on condition only" kind of maintenance standard. That would make the bean counters happy.