If you call it disposable load [ie/ you decide if it's fuel or payload/pax] then for the average police fit it's 800kg as near as dammit; that's with 3 seats [pilot plus 2]. Obviously if you start fitting the quick detach extra seats it reduces slightly.

The T2 series can go at CAT A helipad or otherwise up to temps in the mid 30s.

It is supposed to go up to 3000 and some, 3040kg if I remember correctly.

Generally the EC 135 shows a good empty mass / payload ratio. The average emptyweight of a series "2" normal VFR 135 is 1650kg, means a payload from round about 1185 kg (P2). 710l or 568kg fuel is the full fuel load, allowing a rest of 617kg in a normal Pax variant. If you count 100kg bagage, enough to transport 5 persons full range. The max gross 2835kg allows full Cat A (VTOL) in 30° OAT in a pressure alt. up to 1000ft or reduced to 2700kg at 2000ft.

The aux tank (217l, 173kg fuel) extends the range and there are some customers using this can, operating the ship with a 2-3 crew.

The problem is that some special customers have a lot of additional equipment mounted or included in the a/c.

Special cabin floor, mounts, racks, sx-16, FLIR, weather radar, AP, air condition, hoist, video/TV/data link systems, cargo hook or dual hook systems, high skid ,... ,... ,... ,...

The EC 135 fullfills absolutely the performance described by ECD or in the FM. It seems to me a little bit unfair, if operators are now discussing about performance and range, but have installed sometimes more than 500kg equipment in and out the ship bringing the takeoff weight without crew and fuel up to more than 2300kg, a problem sure, especially in the older series. Asking ECD why the f*** i can't transport more than 3 persons on board having empty pax seats, but the ship seems ready to win the next starwar by G.Lucas. ECD built ships with more than 20km wire onboard, allowing the customer to change the wished equipment in short time and the same customer is wondering about the higher empty weight. And the onboard installations are naturally allways onboard even if the sx-16 isn't outboard mounted.

Air condition is nice, AP is nice, high skid is safe, SX-16, FLIR, data-links are necessary,... hoists and hooks needed,...

Some operators as example in the Alps using the EC 135 and have their role and their equipment and they seems very lucky with the ship. But if i want a rescue hoist, operating the ship in 8000ft it's wise to cancel the AP or the aircondition.
If a police customer wants an long range observation helicopter with no IR certified pilots onboard, why he need the ship IFR? Why needs an VFR day rescue helicopter an AP, is on primary EMS with flights not more than 15 min an air condition needed? That are questions decided from the customer. There are papers showing the weight and the limitations of the wished equipment.
Unfortunately it's nearly impossible on this world to get anything on any place...

Look at this EC 135 aux fuel tank
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...pi/auxfuel.jpg

Semi,

My feeling from your comments is you may not be familiar with the EC135.

As the aircraft stands at the moment the 50 hour and 100 hour are "checks" not periodic inspections.

The 50 hour includes 2 items: Check the tapes on the blade cuff covers and check the friction pads of the rotor brake. Most people run without the blade cuff covers now so that is more likely only one item.

The 100 hour adds 2 more items: Check the skid shoes and check the blade cuff vent holes.

The "periodic" inspection at the moment stands at 800 hours or 12 months with an intermediate inspection at 400 hours.

I fail to see how the 50 and 100 checks would detect any major defects involved with an increase in MAUW.

The "checks" can be carried out by a pilot depending on how your specific authority views it.

If you have PW engines (not familiar with TM's) the periodic inspection is 800 and 12 months with the only oil change requirement being calendar time.

Technically speaking a release to service could be issued for 800 hours or 12 months as this is the periodic inspection interval.

Servicing includes -
Change HYD fluid 800/12
Grease S/Plate 400/12
MGB Oil 600/12
TRGB Mineral Oil used 400/12
TRGB Synthetic Oil used 1200/36
Rotor Brake Fluid 800/12

There are of course supplementary inspections which are not specific to the whole fleet and depend on the mod status of the aircraft.

We operate a P2 and I do have factory training on the 135 in Germany and also the Pratt engine.

The aircraft here in .de are operated and mainained in this way and it seems to work.

It would not surprise me if the BGS and some other operators are already operating at these limits.

I'm afraid I don't share your concerns.

Tecpilot hits the nail.

We have a P2 which is 1932kg EEW.

Equipment list.

Emergency floats
Air Con (not ECD)
WSPS
MEGHAS 2 x 45 1 x 68
AP SPIFR
FM UHF VHF Hi and Lo
Iridium Satcom

Covers our requirements well.

GCN: I have about 1000hrs on the 135, and have been flying a CDS and CPDS T2 for the last 2 1/2 years or so. In addition I was an engineer for about 18 years before I went flying full time.

In the UK (without putting the full maintenance schedule here) a 50hr insp. takes about 2-3 hours a 100hr takes 6-7 assuming nothing is found to be wrong. We also have a 400hr insp taking about a week to complete, the 800hr takes a day and a night shift a good week to finish. Now that may be a lot of servicing to you, but our engineers do a spectacular job, our aircraft is immaculate (given its hours and some of my landings:O ) and we have little or no unscheduled down time.

I now understand that some of the component times are being extended. Some of the gearbox's that would have been removed for overhaul will now have a boroscope inspection and their life extended. On top of everything else I feel this is all too much in one go. At best operators my find themselves with a lot more unscheduled down time, at worst :\

Now I love the 135, it is the best helicopter in it's class and easy to see why it is selling so well. I just want to see its well deserved reputation maintained.

The basic weight of a corporate 135T2 is close to 1865kg. This gives a payload of 970kg at the present 2835kg MAUM, or more depending on the increase in MAUM that is anticipated. If a full complement of POB is carried @90kg each = 630kg that would give 1 hours flight time with a sensible reserve or 1.5 to the low fuel warning.

Head Turner : Is 1865kg the manufacturers figure for basic empty weight of a corporate machine or based on an actual aircraft?

Tec-Pilot: I dont think it is unfair to ask any of our Police 135 operating colleagues to give an idea of their equipped empty weight and therefore payload. After all the 135 is used far more extensively in the UK in the Police Role than any other.

Droopy: Thanks for the operator info rather than the sales pitch.

@Head Turner
This is correct.

@Eurobolkow

As you can read it's not unfair to ask operators why they ordered a special configuration setting limits to the operational use of the a/c. I know police units on this world using IFR Twins, in an area without a single airfield with IFR approach, fully police equipped including hoist / hoist provisions, to firefighting and discussing about the waterload.

I know sometimes, often because of financial pressure, especially in the public sector, they dont interested in a single role, not in a multi role a/c. They will have the ALL ROLE a/c but only to the price and costs of the other (limited) classes. If they have the need of so much equipment, endurance and hot'n high performance they need a ship from a greater class. Naturally more expensive.

Life is a compromise!

Tec-Pilot:

I think you are missing the point. Eurocopter specifically market the 135 (and now the ECBK11745!!) as Police Helicopters designed to meet the requirements of UK operators. The Police Operators in the UK are restricted as to what they can order by the PAOC, CAA regualtions and of course funding so you may not agree that a fully IFR, Class One, Twin is required to do the job but unfortunataly such is life.

With the above in mind I dont see how it can possibly be an unfair question to ask Police Operators their views on an aircraft targetted by the manufacturer at this market.

tecpilot

1863 kg is the EEW of an actual UK corporate ship. Many thanks for the instalation info and photo. It certainly bulks out the baggage area but that will not be a problem to us as the tank would be removed once on station. The BIG problem is the exhorbitant cost for what in reality is a alloy tank. I have to justify to my boss the cost benefits and that is causing me alot of problems. The reduction of landing fees and a quicker transit time I can quote and is known but when I rate a landing fee of 80 Euros then the sums are very much tipped against the Aux Tank.
Time saving would account for at least 2 hours per day not spent on an airfield apron which has more sway.
Anyone any other suggestions of the tactics that I can employ to get this aux tank?

The EC135 comes with a full IFR suite as standard. Whether you want it or not!
Our additional equipment is a necessity. The average APS is around about 1900 ish for T1's and 2000+ for T2's.
The MAUM for helipad is 2835kg. Every police EC135 is helipad capable right up to its Max weight.
It is very competent at its job, particularly the T1 with an endurance (with full fuel) of 2.5+ hrs.
We normally fly with less than full fuel for reasons mentioned earlier.
We would enjoy an aux fuel tank but it is not top of the priority list.
The EC145 is too big currently for 'most' forces.

There is a mod in the pipeline to upgrade the MAUM of the EC135 to 2900+kg.

Whoa there guys. Lets look at facts and not presumptions:

ECD the aircraft manufacturer have been in deliberation with one of the fleets busiest users (german border police) and compiled a database of enormous statistical complexity. Those Germans haven't missed a trick historically with regard to this a/c's performances.
Tens of thousands of hours of operational data has resulted in a very confident statement from ECD regarding the MRP (maintenance reduction programme). As per the ORIGINAL advertisement accompanying this 'new generation' aircraft, it has now matured sufficiently such that it no longer requires any scheduled maintenance until the 400hr. The whole programme is based on flight safety - it has to be, in this litigious world that we live in!

The boroscope check for the MGB is a belts and braces check to support ongoing efficiency measures regarding the longevity of the MGB. It has always had the capacity to fly for (currently) 3200hrs between checks and it will soon go up to 4000hrs.
This 'upgrade' has taken 7 years so far...so I don't think they have "rushed" anything thru!

The MGB is (as in most helos) the weakest link for the transfer of power to the head. A MAUM upgrade to 2900+ (?) comes about after another very long term trial monitoring the S African EC635 (mil 135) flying around at 2900+ for ages!

All these 'benefits' have now cascaded down to the every day user....it just so happens that these 3 particular issues have coincided.

[How they plan to upgrade to 2900 concerns me a little, in that a 'software' upgrade would suggest that the original performance of this a/c has been slugged on purpose to give it a degree of redundancy. Adjustments to the FADEC would mean new torquemeters (or indications) and new HMU's etc. I can't believe it is a simple tweak to a computer programme!!!!!].
Only the T2 can be upgraded, I believe].

ECD will never upgrade to >3000kg, because of the erroneous costs of it then being in the 'medium twin class'. FDR's / CVR's
C of A costs etc etc would prove cost prohibitive.

TC: As usual a very infomative post however I think you will find that the upper limit before the aircraft has to have CVR etc is increased to 3,175kg MAUM which interestingly enough is the MAUM of the New Agusta Grand!!!

TC,

I think you will find it IS only a software tweak. It will probably only apply to CPDS P2 and T2. Therefore via software you just make all the limits different. I can't see the engines needing anything as the PW206B2 is a 207 as it is now. Don't know about TM's.

Euro: quite correct, 7000lbs is now the upper limit, I stand corrected.

GCN: that presumes therefore, that the MGB has, since inception, been underrated?
We are still limited to 2835kg @ ISA + 15. How will software allow us to pull more power (to make use of the 2900+) without the MGB being physically uprated?

TC: The software tweek will just change the limits on the FLI and a few new numbers will have to be learned. Benefits of having a CPDS machine. As for the CDS - no idea. Most gearbox's are overrated from day one, but that does not mean that they do not need looking at periodically, otherwise we would rely on the chip plug to tell us when to service the box:\

I'm sure ECD have lots of data to back up the MRP, but to keep that warm and fuzzy feeling that I get flying a 135 it would be nice if ECD published to operators the parameters of the study and why they have come to the conclusions, that they are about to impliment. It would give operators a bit more confidence, IMHO

If the MRP was not carried on aircraft with operators operating at the new gross weight (whatever it will be) then I think someone should take a broad overview of the whole plan. Of course that used to be the CAA's job but now they just rubber stamp anything from EASA :mad:

The Eurocopter rep I heard speak on this subject recently, said that
the only real problem left to achieve this upgrade, was finding a
newgearbox oil that could take the extra loads where the gears
intermesh.

There are actually 20 variants of the EC135.

P1 PW206B CDS Analog
P1 PW206B CDS EFIS
P1 PW206B CPDS
P1 PW206B CPDS FCDS

P2 PW206B2 (207) CPDS
P2 PW206B2 (207) CPDS FCDS

T1 Arrius 2B1 CDS Analog
T1 Arrius 2B1 CDS EFIS
T1 Arrius 2B1 CPDS
T1 Arrius 2B1 CPDS FCDS

All of the above can have the 2B1A or 2B1A1 fitted to make 12 variations.

T2 Arrius 2B2 CPDS
T2 Arrius 2B2 CPDS FCDS

Technically speaking although maybe not practical any P1 or T1 with CPDS can be upgraded to a P2 or T2. There has also been a few cases of swap from TM to PW. CDS aircraft cannot economically be upgraded.

Unofficially ECD have told me they would never offer 2 engine versions again.

It is interesting to note that MTOW is ALREADY 2900 kgs with a sling load.

EC135P2 FMS 9.2-19 LBA Approved 2900 OGE at SL +40C or 2500' PA +30C.

Can't understand the hellfire and brimstone.

My read between the lines and after talking to an ECD Engineer is the gear may be the issue. Rejected T/O's etc and the type of surface impose huge loads on the gear attach points. The dynamics are obviously up to it.

The cargo hook cycles refer to fatigue in the fuselage structure.

TC: 2835 at ISA +15???? A P2 will Hover OGE at 1000' at ISA +25.

I think there are very few P versions in the UK and now it is the engine of choice by about 70/30 over the TM if you look at global deliveries. They both have their good and bad points it's a case of what you perceive. The PW is very reliable and even though the FM data is the same it has a little more OEI at altitude where the TM runs out of NG. Conversely the PW is not as FOD resistant as the TM and runs a bit dirty, then again at least the FADEC works!

Semi: I have been flying and fixing helicopters now for 23 years and like you think the 135 is a choice piece of kit.

Spelling error: it is ISA+25 for the T2. At SL.

I think you'll find the worldfleet is engined in favour of TM by 70/30, or so the latest official comment was made at our User Gp meeting in the presence of ECD?

Of course this will change as the N American market bites.

Interesting note re, underslung AUM.

Thanks for that.

Is someone suggesting normal ops at 2900kg.

Are there any operators who have a higher MTOW limit approved by ECD? I do know Agusta would approved a higher MTOW under certain circumstances.

TC,

My data tells me that with current orders, or comparing P2's to T2's it is 70/30 in favour of Pratt.

In the early days it was a TM camp but the trend has reversed.

The increase might not necessarily be much of an advantage; for us police operators, much of our time is spent in a high hover, often downwind, so unless we see an increase in max continuous torque its usefulness will mostly be confined to those like corporate operators who use the take-off rating to get en route and accept the knot or so lower IAS. Not to mention c of g probs as pretty much anything we would want to do would push it further forward.

EC 135 in the offshore role?
 

Would appreciate any contributions that can shed some light on how well the EC 135 works in the offshore world. The decks are not big enough for a 365 so it has to be something smaller with a two pilot cockpit. Platforms are no more than 40 miles from base. MD902 is looking shaky right now but maybe the 109 is also in that 'how good will the after-sales support be' bracket. EC have not always enjoyed a good reputation in that area either but they look like they are the best of the bunch right now.

Anybody got any first hand experience with this size of machine offshore? What about Bell's products? :confused:

Taylor Energy is using a SPIFR EC-135 in the GOM and I haven't heard much about it. PHI has several on order with the first few going to the EMS jobs and a few going to the GOM for Shell and/or BP.

S92Mech

Thanks for the info. Do you know if the Shell GOM a/c are SP or TP?

I love the 135 as a pilot machine and rave about it in public. One thing to consider though is engine reliability in high salt conditions. There are some questions you may want to ask about salt damage to engine stators. That said, power by the hour will cover this under the contract and the spares back up is super!!

Fresh news from ECD a couple of weeks ago was part of their EC135 plans for 2005 included an "Offshore package" to consist of ADELT, vibro recording & anti-corrosion measures. They also have a corrosion manual in preparation.

Depends which engines you go for but, (no doubt the manufacturers will say), so long as they get washed frequently, you'll keep them fairly sweet :p - concur with JTT comments & questions, especially PBH as the sensible option. Interestingly, as Turbomeca regard the whole of the UK as a "saline environment", there are lots of people keeping an eye out for corrosion related issues, especially those near the coasts!

JayTee2/Zorab64

Just the kind of info I need - thanks. I'm surprised that I haven't been ambushed by the A109 fraternity - is it that bad?

Geoff:

The interesting part of zorab64's post is the reference to the additional equipment - no prizes for guessing who is leading the debate on that.

The interesting item will be VHM; will that be just tail rotor monitoring or the transmission as well. If a helicopter is already equipped with FDR, this is not such an issue - with a FAR/JAR 27 helicopter it looks like the start of a new era.

The main issue - if these are to be replacement helicopters - will be the footprint on the helideck. A large plus point for all of these small twins is that they can provide zero exposure operations from small GOM decks.

EC 135 in the offshore role?
 

Geoffersincornwall

A word of advice regarding engine corrosion. P&WC considers Corrosion; Erosion & Sulphidation etc. as damage due to environmental conditions beyond their control and therefore are NOT covered under the P&WC warranty scheme, just like lightning strikes, sudden stoppage etc.

There are a few exceptions to these rules on a case by case, like delivery corrosion or possibly ‘First Run Warranty’ claims but please beware.

Has anyone heard how the Mexican navy MD's are doing in the offshore role ?.

I'd go the 109, great pilot friendly machine, comes standard as single pilot IFR and wx radar a delight to operate, we also fly in a salty enviroment and so far all is well.

We have been happy with customer support and warrantee issues.

Sounds like the grand may be a better machine for you with 12 or so extra inches, I believe you can set up to have all seats facing forwards.

Don't know about the 135 but the 109 also has emergency exits through the rear cabin windows, and front door jettison systems.

oxi

At last some input from the A109 fraternity. Much appreciated. As I mentioned at the start of this thread it would need to be operated 2 pilot IFR.
One thing that really concerns me about all these light twins is that by the time you have put dinghies, FDRs, IHUMS (or equivalent) ADELT, Floats (pop-outs), TAS, HEEL, HISL and any other goodies needed these days, how much weight do you have left for fuel/payload when you leave the beach in temps up to 35-40 deg C and arrive HOGE at the platform in say 30-35 deg C?

I'm not talking salesman figures here but real-life stuff.

How is the spares support for Agusta these days?

Geoffers - some (very) rough 135 figures for you.

I reckon you should be able to get 2 pilots, 4 pax (all 90kgs) & 300kgs fuel (200 kg p.h.). Some extra goodies included, another 100kgs for those I'm not sure about!

With ECD seriously considering an increased MAUW to 2900 ish (extra 65kgs), and other weight reduction measures, you could have a little more to play with - and all at +40 deg (Clear Area).

have you considered EC145?

frogspawn/zorab 64

Thanks for the info. The decks are likely to have a weight limitation that would probably make the 145 less productive than a 135 methinks.

How far could I go with 300 kgs of fuel and JAROPS fuel plan?

If the decks are the issue then it kinda sounds like your stuck... Don't know much about the 135, we looked at them but at least with the 109 you will sit at 140 indicated generaly around 75-80%. It is possible to save considerable fuel by sitting at 5000 and achieving 160 tas.


The 109 is a little on the heavy side empty doesn't leave you with much, full fuel and 3 pob is a squeeze. The standard max t/o weight being 2850 kg, perhaps go for the 3 tonne kit that will make it a much better option, the machine will do it no problems...plenty to spare, just a bit exie for the mod.

The pratts have proven reliable and perform very well, generaly you don't touch em, just check the oil and wash off the soot.

Sorry don't know what floats add to the equation.

Thats it from me good luck.

P.S Shame that all that extra stuff is required.

Oh and 2 pilots and 4 pax, gives you 392 kg of fuel, 30 min res, and with a tas of 145kts you should cover 188nm.

Thats using a standard burn rate of 220kg/hr, I would imagine you could easily better those numbers on the day.

I think the grand is going to be around 3300 kgs mtow and would think not much heaviel that the power...better again.

oxi:

The limit for a FAR/JAR 27 helicopter is 7000lbs (3175kg) - none of the small twins can go above that with their current certification.

oxi Thanks for the info - time to do some more homework