Sometimes there is slight confusion when one talks of 'full autos to the deck'. Do they mean "with engines running" or a proper engines off situation?

I'll assume you mean (in this instance) a power on recovery to the deck. In this case, NO we in the emergency services only do them to the hover with engines running. We do occasionally run it on, but never with engines OFF.

Might be something to do with the 'frange' clipping the ground?

Yes, I do mean "a power on recovery to the deck".

I heard that the German Army doesn't do them because of the danger of cracks in the main rotorblades. Is it true that the POH says that AR's have to be recovered in a hover?

I have flown AS332L. AS355 and S76 and have never done autos terminating in ground contact ever. we always finish to a power recovery in hover unless we go-around before of course.

I cannot imagine why anyone would do a touchdown auto with the throttles back in a twin, whats the point, high risk for low return, how many double engine failures are you going to get anyway, not very many

When I was flying singles we did them all the time for obvious reasons. but never even seen someone do a full down in a twin.

didnt think I was out of line with the norm here, or am I ?

regards

CF

I agree, that 's the reason why Army has a full flight simulator in Le Luc. Some failures like the loss of tail rotor are easy to demonstrate, the replay mode is an amazing training device too.
Why risking to destroy a 4 millions dollars or more ship by doing a full autorotation for training purpose!!!! A FFS authorizes a much better training.
In France, only the test pilot have the right to perform full autorotation with twin engines like puma, super puma , twinstar etc...

It would be interesting to see what other manufacturers dictate in their POH's.

Let's hear it guys, how many twin manufacturers permit full autos to the ground?

Sorry EH 101 drivers, forgot to mention triples. Better include them too.

STL

At first, of course it's possible to autorotate the EC 135 successful to the ground, also with engines still running in flight idle.
2. Yes it's true EC doesn't support AR without power recovery.
3. Yes the german army prohibited AR without power recovery.

The reasons are: Due to the light main rotor it isn't easy to control the RPM, also on the AR glide, any EC 135 pilot knows about this problem.
Yes, the blade and the rotorhub have technical problems with very high cone angles. As any helicopter pilot should be know, is the cone angle rising higher and higher if you try to get lift on the blades with a lowering rpm. But such a risk exists on AR's without power recovering. Yes, there are some expensive harms on ships after such power off AR. The german army use the EC 135 for the newbie training.

There are no problems with power off ARs on EC's BK 117, BO 105 and AS 355 Twins.

To go a little further........
 

There are several little "issues".

The Nr indicator is very small and may be difficult to interpret exactly where the RPM is.

Nr is not displayed on the VEMD.

The blades do not like LOW Nr repetitively and were never designed to be subjected to LOW Nr.

Depending on the technique if the throttles are rolled on entry you better be sure that when you return the engines to NORMAL that the throttles are not moved past the N position.

Only a rumour but I heard that the German Army managed to get one to 124% Nr recently.

Why would you want to use a 135 for training in the first place - there are so many things you just could not demonstrate to a student.

... for political reasons I guess Giovanni Cento Nove. Those things happen if the helicopters are produced in Bavaria and the
Minister of Finance (at that time) is from that very same region.:E

I only have an FM for an AS355 to hand, but this prohibits voluntary AR to the deck. It strikes me as being a risk-based issue. Given the high cost of twin engine heles and the fairly low frequency of needing to deal with double engine failures, the risk of training to the ground is not worth the benefit.

It is interesting to compare the situation for twins with SE. I would be unhappy to fly a single without being current on FULL EOLs (i.e. to the deck), but I am reasonably comfortable with the idea of not doing them for twins, as long as the entry and glide are practised and current.

As to whether there are more problems with autos on an EC135, I am not sure. The NR is certainly lively.

SIMs certainly sound like the answer, so long as they are a reasonable simulation of the real thing and aren't prohibitively expensive. Does anyone know whether the sim to be operated by Bond at Gloucester will be able to do this sort of thing like the real machine?? My guess is that it was mainly directed towards IFR training.

What the . . . . ?
 

Wierd!

If you ever come to Acapulco Mexico you will see 212's and being autorotated to the ground everyday, and sometimes 412's also.

A few years back you could see S76's being autorotated to ground everyday in Ciudad del Carmen which is the city where all the offshore helicopters are located.

When I got my very first 212 training I had about 300 hours total and the IP rolled both throttles to idle as I was taking off and had a about 40 ft. and 20 knots, he just wanted to know how I reacted, I was really impressed that you could land a twin so smoothly in those conditions, of course he took over after I just sat there thinking I was going to crash.

My point is I have seen twins being autorotated to the ground for years as part of regular training, some companies prefer not to risk it and send you to the simulator, but if they can't send you to FSI or whatever, then you must practice this in the aircraft.

I know the chance of dual engine failure is very slim, but there are many other reasons for autorotating like TR falilure.

It may not be the reason, but for those of you who dont know:
The EC135 basically does not have a rotor head as such. The 355 has a starflex and others have articulated heads. The 135 blades are bolted solidly to the mast with no seperate flexible or moving parts. This means all flapping, feathering and dragging is done by the advanced composite blades. I would imagine that they wouldnt take kindly to low RPM coning angles associated with messed up EOLs.
Also, the head is SOOOOOOO lively; during autos you hardly ever get the lever fully down. Not suprised at a 124% already. That said, it is still a twitchy delight to fly. The germans may have had political influence, but the servicability rate is fantastic. Important at a FT school.

PS... Mr Eurocopter, please PM me to give you the address to send the cheque :p

Just something from a chap who regularly autos his UH 1D (with composite blades on a teetering head), it's not just engine failiures that will require a full blown auto.....what about MRGB failiure/driveshaft failiure....now I know these things are these days thankfully rare and cost of training is always going to be the winner, but we do need to show our FNB's what it's like early on...so we need either a) a f****ing good sim to demo it, or b) keep a cheap/simple chopper to practice on

EC135 Autos
 

The problem here are the so called `control-cuffs`.
These cuffs meassure approx. 6 ft in length and start at the blade root . At the outer point there are attached to the composite blade. They are responsible to transfer control inputs to the bearingless blade.
They can be easily overstressed during autos with low rpm
(e.g. cushion touchdown) due to the coning of the rotor.

212's are a hoot to autorotate to the ground.....just a two throttled Huey! Never done a 412 though.....

Being an ex-US Army Vietnam era pilot....I was fortunate enough to have been allowed to do thousands of the things....practice does make perfect.

The real key is the cost of insurance....and replacing broken bits if you do goof.....and with low inertia rotor systems....goofs happen quick and easy... not so with high inertia rotor systems. (the presence of inertia in the rotor system mitigates uh-oh's)

SASless....I couldn't agree more..the Huey is a hoot and roar..and you can play with the NR due to the inertia in the head..even with the new composite blades we fly with. What's the way ahead to teach new pilots?

The way ahead?

Lots of questions showing up in the various helicopter web sites around the globe pertaining to that very question. New thread coming up!

Bond EC135 sim....
 

FI just dropped through the door - Bond's new EC135 sim - is it based up at Aberdeen? Anyone know prices yet?

Hi FlyingSquirrel

It's not on site yet but will be based at Staverton, no prices at the moment - I suspect it will be very busy initially with a backlog of IF training.

TeeS

Give them a ring, 01452 856007. The building is nearly finished and I'm sure they wil be happy to hear from you.:ok:

EC135 Auxillery Tank
 

Of you who fly and operate EC135's I would like to know your views on the fitting of an auxillery fuel tank. I understand that it is attached directly to the floor and has quick release connections for fuel and power and can be removed easily by two persons.
Any advice welcomed.

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.