Dragstay & Phoinix - you may wish to contact EC(UK), as they have a mod which mounts 5.6kgs onto the handling bracket on the rear of the fenestron. It was fitted to most of the early UK Police machines to correct the forward C of G of the "pod" system - I believe it's also fitted to a few of the newer machines too.

WLM - you may like to also consider a MIBS (Multi Integrated Bodysplint Stretcher), as this rolls up and is very lightweight. The strength to carry a patient is derived from rolling it (the other way) round the patient. This link should give you some idea - there are a number of variants, depending on use:Medical Stretcher

RVDT - just to question your comment about - if you meant that you could pull power on the good engine above the AEO limits, I think you'll find that you should not use the OEI range unless actually OEI. To do so would be regarded as an over-torque by your maintenance organisation. For example, Note 2 of the FADEC FAIL caution clearly states "Do not exceed N1/Tq value of normal engine and aaeo limits"

Thank you! You have PM.

EC 135 Upgrade?
A german helicopter forum ( helionline.de :: Login ) mentioned today, that according to an article in Rotor&Wing Eurocopter will introduce a new variant of the 135 at the HAI in Vegas next week.

Surprisingly the article was edited a short time after and the above mentioned news were removed. But "Eurocopter-to-Bring-EC175-EC135-T3P3-to-Las-Vegas" is still part of the web adress below :E
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: Eurocopter to Bring EC175 to Las Vegas

skadi

Looks like Eurocopter is waving its big advertising stick at Rotor and Wing!

But the stor 'e' is out!

hoist cargo hook price
 

what is the approximate cost of a used rescue hoist and a double rescue cargo hook for the 135?

£13.95p plus VAT

Been eating kryptonite again TC? :D :p

Fantastic news about the EC135T/P3 !!!!

Anyone have any pictures of the new cockpit??

What a PR failure not to have any anywhere not even on the company website???

I have been connected with the EC135 from a Police perspective since about 1996. For my money it has always had the potential to be the finest Police Helicopter in the world.

It is about the right size. It is twin engined and has a cabin large enough to carry a Pilot and two additional Police Air observers and all their associated kit etc. And it permits excellent observation facilities for its crew.

The cabin built to the latest standards of Crashworthyness has already proved its value and the machine has gained an excellant reputation for reliability and relative ease of maintenance.

But it has always carried with it one slight disadvantage which Eurocopter have never addressed and even now refuse to accept.

It has consistently lagged behind in max take of weight, and as all Police aircraft generally operate at around their maximum permitted weight the endurance has suffered because of the inability to carry sufficient fuel and still remain within Cat A.

I was always given the excuse that the machine has just about reached the point of maximum development, "so don't expect much more, because that would require stronger gearbox and transmission".

My response to that was " Then for heavens sake get on and do it!" This new version the t/p3 is clearly a step in the right direction but it is not enough! It needs to go well over 3,000 Kg,s

Eurocopter please listen! The EC135 is a fine Police Machine but it could be so much better! Please have more confidence in your own product and give it a real upgrade. Stronger Engines and more importantly a stronger transmission. Then it really will be unbeatable.

EC have always pointed towards the EC145 as being the answer to those who wanted more weight and power. But it is a very different machine and not so suitable for the high speed pursuit and manouverability offered by the 135. It also uses much more fuel. very important to cash strapped Police Forces.

I have posted this report from a Policing perspective and I am sure that many pilots will tell me that I am talking rubbish. But that is my view. I will now don battle bowler and retreat to my bunker!;)

tigerfish.

Tigerfish, all I am going to say is that sadly that once LCD screens came on to the scene a bobby decided he needed now two screens in the back which has for some strange reason become the norm. My fellow colleagues asked why that was neccessary but they got shouted down. Couple this with the interesting design of the work station in the cabin makes for lots of wasted weight IMHO.
On top of that there is quite a bit of extra kit on the mini tender aircraft which isn't being used (uplink anyone) all this means reduced fuel loads. In the real world though we have gained 15 minutes of extra fuel this could have been stretched to 30 minutes if a cool head with common sense had designed the work station. IMHO.

Devon & Cornwall at least resisted and had one landscape monitor fitted which can be split in two and a little monitor folds out on the right hand side but it still has that monstrosity of a stand on which it is bolted to.

BS

You make a good point, and it was true that the crews often wanted more & more kit. There is no doubt that that tendency did have a weight penalty.

My point was that the EC135 was/is a bloody fine aircraft, but for a variety of reasons, it was always operating at or near the top end of its weight category.

To my regret, I am no longer deeply involved, but still feel that the 135 has years left in it. However, to me it seems that it is now being threatened by two or three of the newer breeds of helicopter. They on 1st sight, may appear more capable. Yet the 135 if beefed up a bit, has the pedigree and robustness to remain at the head of the game. For me it will always be the finest Police A/C of its day. I just want to extend that day a little, - say another 20 years!

tigerfish:)

If you were to ask me what is the trump card of the EC135 I would say it has no Gotchas wether on the ground or in the air.

Yes there is that minor issue of the 4 rotorhead cracks but curiously there have only been 4....









Right donning hard-hat....and closing the lid on the tiger.

We fly a P2 at 2910kg and usually fly with 1h40m ish of fuel with the capacity to load about another 30m if required. 2h10m in the air is quite long enough. :O

I spoke with the management last week at a press conference and they were pretty dismissive on the matter of the head cracks. They were unable to find a common link between the four and they were a while back now so I think they are watching for number 5 and assuming that the others were just a glitch.

The new EC135T3 displayed at the Heli-Expo shows that not a great deal has changed with the new airframe. Inside they have revised the ergonomics up to preferred modern standards but if you did not fit in the back seat before you still will not. Police role fits in the Uk use up a lot of 'boot space' and that area is no larger either so other than the kit getting smaller there is no gain beyond an ability to carry it conferred by the engine and rotor boost.

There was some talk about external/conformal fuel tanks but that is it seems no more than EC asking the customers whether they want them. The plan, as far as it goes is to bulge the top step in a similar manner to that exhibited on the Heli-Expo aircraft for housing the emergency floatation gear.

Older ppruners may recall the Conformal fuel tanks on the first Devon & Cornwall BK117C1 G-DCPA - they never made it past the launch photo-shoot as it was found that the police role fit with nose mounted camera shifted the C of G far too forwards. They sold them off to someone without a sensor pod. So it looks like this may be a HEMS or utility option if it ever happens.

As for the threat to the 135 from newer types that may be an illusion. The 145 may be threatened by the AW169 but not the 135. The old threats are the best! There are no plans to replace the 109 just yet so if you did not like it before you will not like it now.

Which leaves the 902 and the 429. The former is now relaunched by a very robust Lynn Tilton but her new baby and its new avionics from Universal are not expected before 2015 and the latter remains in the hands of arguments between Bell and the FAA/EASA over raising limits. Many voiced an opinion that it is only a matter of time before the certification authorities give in.....

Meanwhile the 135 continues to sell. A generally held opinion is that the 135 itself is too big for the task of police patrol and observation. The perfect type for the task is the AS350 ..... Now that is another argument.

Not with only one engine it won't be. :)

It turned out that Eurocopter is certifying the P3/T3 in two flavors: MEGHAS and Helionix, the thinking behind the former being that existing P2/T2 (/+/e) operators will want to upgrade.

So we'll probably see the new Helionix cockpit in Anaheim next year. Would expect it to look similar to the EC145 T2 layout:

http://www.nordicrotors.com/images_2...splay_4809.jpg

I/C

That'll be the new three crew EC 145 with the re-instated Flight engineers position on the LHS then?:p

The panel in Vegas on the T3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10932568/201...5T3cockpit.jpg

The Helionyx cockpit would excellent.

The CAA will probably require a analogue rad alt to be fitted in order to stay safe though..............

http://i.imgur.com/l39glJJ.jpg

I/C

Like it!:D:D

Anyone out there having problems with the new 'auto restart' software for Turbomeca engines? Particularly first start of the day being a 'double start' every time?

Any1 had issues with the EMB's (Electrical Master Box)?

EMB1 just failed, causing the Starter 1 caution light to remain on;pinpointed to a relay issue but you need to change the complete EMB.... $$$$$ and only 2 months out of new aircraft warranty with less than 250 hours TT..WTH :sad:

They are sensitive to water. Be careful when washing the ship, dont point the waterhose direct to the "exhaust" on both sides of the mainframe.
I had once a similar problem, GEN 1 out of action... Also EMB had to be replaced due to water damage.

skadi

Tks Skadi for the tip

But really how does the water leaks inside the frame where the EMB is installed is beyond me... What about flying in the rain lol

ECD is now trying to source a replacement EMB either on standard exchange or new... hate to think about the price... :ooh:

Cheers

From what I have learned it's where the wiring loom feeds from the engine through the decking into the aircraft is where the water gets in. If you just use a hose and sponge and no pressure washer you should be alright.

Sadly the EMBs seem to be a weak point, the aircraft I used to fly went through several but those wasn't down to washing.

That's where the problem is. Thought that had been sorted ages ago.

Thanks guys
Well I always used a pressure wash, hate to think I contributed to the defect :(
We managed to secure a standard exchange EMB from the USA for USD20K, damn surprising so cheap compared to the horror price stories I had heard...
To be cont....:eek:

Re washing
 

There was an ECD Information Notice a few years ago reminding users not to squirt water into the EMB "exhausts/vents" on either side of the aircraft - that's the oval shaped grille about 150mm below the forward engine cowl clip on each side.

It you take a look at the orientation of the internal pipe, you'll see that it goes forward & up, before going down to the EMBs - designed specifically so that rain (which should never fall in that direction, either when the aircraft's grounded or airborne) will not get into the EMB. The advice (from memory) was to blank the exhausts when washing so as not to get water in them, although the problem really only occurs if you point a hose or jetwash at the exhausts from aft, such that the water goes UP the pipe.

Having washed the aircraft every week since the Info Notice; not blanked the exhausts, but ensured that the jetwash (used every time) is from the front or above only, we have not had any further instances of EMB failure. I'd therefore recommend this useful, logical and not difficult to follow advice, which appears to eliminate EMB failure due to water ingress. Not a design flaw, just too many bits of paper to read, possibly!

Whilst on the washing subject, especially when using a pressure washer, don't forget not to squirt water directly between the tail rotor drive shaft cover & tail boom, as it damages the TRDS bearings.
Also, dont point it into the fresh air intakes (just forward of the front skid cross tube) or it finds its way into the blower motor electrics which, unfortunately, are immediately underneath the fan that blows the air - rather than being mounted above or beside it! (Yes, sitting in the rain, or flying into it, may do the same, but no point in increasing the problem yourself? - although there's probably an aerodynamic reason why the rain doesn't act in quite the same way as a hose) :=

I believe all these are covered by Info Notices, or maybe hiding in the FLM by now, but they're worth remembering if you wish to keep costs down. :ok:

Further to the "washing".

In the current short term covers there is a blanking cover for each of the rear structure vents. Depending on the conditions of where your aircraft may be parked the air will flow in one side and out the other. Not good near the beach!

When investigating the EMB failures if you look really close you can normally see the water tracks with a strong light.

ECD do not condone the use of a pressure washer in their Information Notice.

The forward lower vents have been removed in recent production aircraft and a single vent is now integrated into the lower forward inspection panel.

RVDT - Thank you for the reminder & update.

Now that the memory is jogged, you're right that a jet wash is not condoned, but we tend to use it as a rapid / distant wetting method both pre wash & rinsing. Not to be used to blast the airframe (although muddy skids might get the high-pressure treatment), but to get things done quicker than just bucket or hose, as washing otherwise takes up too much operational time - we also have "putting-washing-kit-away-quickly-when-required" down to a "T" :ok:

Covers are, of course, a sensible precaution when parked cross-wind in damp / spray / salt environments but less useful when parked into wind, and also best not used when rapid deployment is part of the business.

RVDT
The forward lower vents have been removed in recent production aircraft and a single vent is now integrated into the lower forward inspection panel.


And that's why there is no more decent fresh air coming into the cab.....never mind fatiguing the pilot....

Yes, we had that letter, but that was before the leak in the engine decking had been discovered. Since that area has been well sealed, we've had no further box failures.

Thank you guys for the excellent reminders, will follow that from now on:O

Yeah fresh air into the cabin, specially in Hot Tropical Climate is NIL...found out the hard way flying with 1 Gen off and no air con... Pulling the side console cable up for fresh air did ZERO.. opened the small side window and used my hand as deflector :sad:

Well well...

Got the replacement EMB today ( nearly 3 weeks), had 2 engineers for 2 days fitting it and guess what??? cleared the Start caution light but still failed the self test on the EMB itself...

Back to being AOG waiting for another EMB to arrive...:ugh:

Mast moment indicator and Aris Mounts
 

Would anyone that understands the MM indicator (P1 aircraft) and Aris mounts PM me?

I'm trying to get beyond my OPS MEL: MMI is not required for flight except to reduce slope limits and an Aris Mount failure inflight.

Thanks, I will share the experience later.

ARIS mount failure also gives you a speed limit of not above 100kts.

Weird stuff today...

Had the EMB 1 finally replaced a few days ago, went test flying, all cool

Today ie 3 days later, get ready to start up engine 2 as first engine, and upon engaging starter button, loud and I mean loud bang bang noise..immediately close starter button. Get out , look at the engine, nothing special..
try a second time and same result... battery showing 26.4V

So decide to start up engine 1 instead, same bang once then starter engage and engine starts; try engine 2 and it starts as well..

Continue with all checks, but m not happy so shut down. check engine 2 again and this time I see fuel dripping from the metal piping into the collector box (bottom rear of engine)

Called Eurocopter support, told them the problem, and they say start up again and see if same issues :eek: Told them I had no intention to be Kentucky Fried Chicken and to send engineers over...

Have any of you guys had any similar events starting up and hearing this loud bang bang noise? Eurocopter says it is an igniter issue and fuel, man I flew Bells before and never heard igniters that loud lol

WLM, it's a long way to hitch hike in the heat... I have a few EC135 engineers on staff mate. Could ask the questions to help out an old friend?
[email protected]