YAW SAS
 

Replaced the SEMA, FOG, tailboom cable, switch on cylic

When it goes out it YAWS left and then displays YAW SAS on the CDS

Yes is passes BIT check

Might be totally offtrack, but how long ago was her last fenestron detailed check? Might not be the flight control side or auto-pilot but the fenestron blade horn or 2 binding in the spider or a blade and inner/outer bearing binding for instance ? Had it before in a 130 and it caused quite vicious feedback on the pedal and uncontrolled yaw. Don't know the 135-just drawing a comparison.

Havoc

I had the same problem on our new 135T2 (35hrsTT when it started to happen) a few month back

EC engineers tried replacing AHR1 under warranty but the problem remained even with new AHR1's; then a bright avionic engineer said it was the AP computer causing the problem. Senior EC staff did not believe him initially but when they changed the AP unit with a new one, it worked lol and has since with no further issue

Hope this can help you out:ok:

WLM

SN 0015 and AP? I doubt it.

upgrade costs
 

what are the approximate costs for an upgrade from P2 to P2i?
(the aircraft was a P1 just upgrated to P2)
Thanks

P2 -> P2i
 

P2i upgrade (i = improved?)

Subscribe to EC T.I.P.I.(Technical Information Publication on Internet)

Download SB EC135-71-033 Power Plant – Version EC135 T2 and EC135 P2 – Retrofit to Version EC135 T2+ and EC135 P2+

You will have to go through the SB and compare your aircraft specification with what is required to accomplish the SB.

Main requirements are -

Mast with integrated drive link
Titanium Torque Struts
X-Y Fittings
Cat A switch conversion to High NR
FADEC software to allow High NR
Main Gearbox model and reduction and/or application of finite lives
VEMD Software
CAD Software
ADC 2 installed
FLM and all maintenance documentation is changed


All of the above depends on your current status.

"i" will then give you -

MTOW 2910 kg (although CAT A still 2835 kg)

– AEO TOP from 2 x 75% to 2 x 78% (6% increase in TOP)
– AEO Transient from 2 x 80% to 2 x 82%
– OEI MCP from 1 x 86% to 1 x 89.5%

The "price" also reflects the economics of the possibility of affecting sales of new aircraft.

Contact your local friendly EC Tech Rep and be sitting down when you get the quote!

zami - Three or four years ago, the cost of converting a T2 to T2+ (it seems the nomenclature changes depending on whether the aircraft comes out of the factory as a P/T2i, or is retrofitted to make it a "+" designation) started at £130k - at which the members of the User Group, to which the announcement was made, all took sharp intakes of breath.

I'd be surprised if the figure is now much different, & doubt there would be much difference between a T or P conversion. RVDT correctly mentions a long list of modifications but, in effect, the real changes are the X-Y fittings (which may have been done already, but it's a comprehensive man-power job) and a different XMSN - if both are required, they're best accomplished at the same time, of course. The rest of it is mainly software changes and box change for VEMDs etc.

I've also heard from a colleague that, if you're looking at a Police role-equipped aircraft, you may have to consider some weight on the tail (approx 5kg, I believe) if you wish to maximise the AUM increase, from a foreward C of G point of view.

havoc, did you solve your problem yet? What was the cause? Always interesting to know.

Thanks
 

Thanks in all two for the explanation
miza

YAW SAS issue continues
 

Thanks for the information so far, we still have the YAW SAS issue.

W and B with aux fuel tank
 

Hi

Eurocopter Germany just retrofited my chopper with aux fuel tank, that is placed in cargo area and has capacity 173kg of fuel.

As soon as I did some W and B calculations, I have doscovered, that unless I will have really fatty co-pilot, or two pax that are willing to sit whole time in opposite facing fron seats, I am behind rear limit of CG.

Since I fly usually myself, I am trying to figure out what to do, to be safe and legal. Anyone has experince, how to ballance this situation?

You can get the balancing (trim) weights in the front (or rear) section. I don't have the manual handy but its in the M&B section of the FLM.

Well I have not found anything about ballance weigths in FLM. Just checked.

RFM Section 6.6 TRIM WEIGHT INSTALLATION (OPTIONAL)


EC135 Maintenance Manual


IPC

L858M0002101 INST. TRIM WEIGHT - FIXED PARTS (FRONT)

L858M0003101 INST. TRIM WEIGHT - DETACHABLE PARTS (FRONT)

Effectivity: Trim system

85-80-00,*2*Location - Trim System


Trim System, Nose Cover

The trim system, nose cover is installed in the forward part of the cabin structure in the area of the nose cover.

The trim system, nose cover can be accessed through the nose cover. The weight mounting can be removed as assy through it.
If necessary, the trim weights can also be individually removed (Note: applies only if the original configuration is re-established
during installation).


Trim System, Rear Structure

The trim system, rear structure is installed on the aft section of the rear structure in the area of the upper tail skid neck.
The trim system, rear structure can be accessed through a cover. The number of the trim weights can be individually determined
and can be checked from the outside via a sight glass in the cover.

Note: These are both 85.00.00 Optional equipment and NOT fitted to standard aircraft.

RVDT

Thanks a lot. Your help is highlly appreciated.

Pie
 

Available for hire, stout:) pilot, 135 rating expired but about to renew, good with CG charts!

I did some CG calcs for potential aux tank fitments some time ago and came to the same conclusion.

Eat more pie.

ILblog: that is quite a good point to mention as we are waiting ourselves for our retrofit Aux tank. It concerns me that ECD would have done your retrofit but not mentioned/installed the optional trims in place???

By the way, what did ECD charge you for the retrofit? ECM (Eurocopter Malaysia) is charging Euros175K for the complete retrofit.... When we queried the high cost, they replied that ECD had never performed an Aux tank retrofit before??? and we had to pay for all the SB, approvals and so forth....

Rgds
WLM

WLM,

That would be correct as there is NO SB currently for the AUX Tank installation.

Keep in mind the difference between retrofit and manufacture. If the tank was installed by ECD it was probably done under a manufacturers design approval. If it is done by EC Malaysia then technically they are not the manufacturer.

There has been a concerted effort over the last few years by ECD to include SB's to cover retrofits and they have obviously been completed with the items of highest demand first.

For the AUX Tank SB EC135-28-017 - So the claims made by EC Malaysia are probably correct.

The above issue is even significant within ECD as there is a definite line on the ground beween manufacture and MRO.

I have raised this point that more support is needed in this area many times after going through extensive mods on a 135 when virtually none of the optional equipment installation was covered by SB. Wire Strike, Floats, SMD68, etc etc.

You would think that as there are now ~ 1000 of these aircraft in service this would be addressed by now. Sometimes I wonder about ECD's knowledge of it's own market.

Well I am not sure if only ECD can do retrofit? When I have asked for pricing the ECD offered, that I can do retrofit in ECD or I can do retrofit in my local maintenance organization. The price is same as above.

tail rotor failure
 

Performing Cat A vertical ops helicopter stays exposed to forced landing in case of tail rotor failure, all the way up until reaching safe speed.
Does anyone have figures about failure probabilities of engine and tail rotor in order to evaluate the exposure risk?

traicar,

These are different failure modes addressed in different ways. My suggestion would be that they continue to be so.

A tail rotor failure before a safety speed has been reached in a CAT A helicopter, in any type of departure, will (likely) result in a poor outcome.

A CAT A helicopter relies upon certification standards for avoidance of single-point-of-failure component accidents; yes the tail rotor and its drive system are weak points - that is why there are proposals to monitor their health.

These emergencies should be addressed as independent events. The probability of an engine failure is (about) 1:100,000 flight hours. The tail rotor should have a failure rate better than that. The evidence that I have seen appears to show that tail-rotor failures are a more common event on non-CAT A helicopters.

Jim

There was that Japanese 135 which had a tail-rotor-driveshaft/control failure IIRC.

The important bit I remember was that it was a 135 which had no Autopilot fitted and the bit in the tail which gets replaced with another bit which allows the Autopilot to control the Fenestron had failed. So as long as you have the Autopilot fitted to the aircraft that particular failure shouldn't happen.

Does that make sense?

And there was another one, which lost the T/R driveshaft somewhere near Manching airfield. It was a ECD testpilot, who encountered this experience in the early days of the 135 ( Problems with T/R driveshaft bearings ).
The japanese H/C had a broken fenestron pitch link due to a blocked bearing (?), after that, EC changed the design.
I know of at least two complete enginefailures ...

skadi

Do tell. Complete engine failures??

One was a engine-fuelpump driveshaft failure and the otherone also a mechanical failure in the engine gearbox, but I do not remember exactly what it was. Both engines stopped working, but no problem, cause the otherone did;)

skadi

So it wasn't both engines on the same aircraft decided to stop working at the same time.....

Thats correct! Two cases on two different H/C. With "complete" I meant total loss of that particular engine, not only loss of power or so. One was sudden failure without preceeding warnings right after passing TDP, the other one failed very short after ENG CHIP indication during cruiseflight.

skadi

@Skadi...

It was PT-6 or Turbomeca Arriel?

PT6 on a 135? Would be nice;) and powerful.

I do not remember very well, but i think, the fuelpump issue was on a T1 and the other one was a P2 ( PW 206 ).

skadi

P2 (PW206) :ok:

Eurocopter is obviously testing a new design for the oilcooler air inlets:

Helionline.de

skadi

Looks like a T2+ or e.

With the IBF fitted there is no longer any engine air going in the front of the cowling. The oil cooler exhaust is ducted up to the top rear of the upper cowling (gear cover) so it is not ingested into the engine from the normal outlet via the IBF. When the IBF is in bypass there is probably enough air available from the area of the mast and swashplate opening.

They may all end up looking like this in the future?

What I would like to know is how those particular flights finish after having lost an engine...I mean did the pilot scare himself or did he just take this bit of info in and land back on?

Isn't that where the aircraft will show it's mettle as in how it deals with problems? Or am I being naive......

tail rotor
 

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; } Does anyone know about tail rotor failure events?
What about tail failure rate?

It seems only one or two.

How many flight hours has reached EC135 till now?

Both incidents were finished by a normal OEI landing and as far as i know without replacement of underwear;)

skadi

Glad to hear it all ended textbook.

Worldwide flighthours of the 135?

Well there are 1000+ 135s each with 2000hrs on average = a lot.

2,325,000 FH.

I/C

2.253.000 fh end 2011