Type spec says ISA +35°C (up to 50°C).

Turboshaft
 

Thanks

G :ok:

im looking for a 145 driver... faa cpl with an faa a&p license.

email me at: cliff4nier at yahoo dot com

Which WX Radar ? - EC 145
 

We are looking at installing a garmin GWX 68 into our EC 145.
This unit seems to have advantages over the factory installed RDR 2000 in that it is considerably cheaper , lighter , and can be interfaced with the already installed GMX moving map.
Some feedback I have recieved is not too positive although I have used one for a short time with no problems in a BK.
Has anyone installed any after factory types of WX radar into the EC 145 ??
Thanks
E
:confused:

Maybe talk to Bond UK Offshore or Air Services (not sure which) - I know its a 135 but there isn't much difference at this end of the aircraft from a 145. It's obviously a bigger antenna.

STANDARD

http://images2.auction123.com/6ed939...6972007/01.jpg

AFTERMARKET

http://i740.photobucket.com/albums/x...234/EC135B.jpg

RVDT,

The D-cup radome ("Aftermarket") is actually a standard fit for the Telephonics RDR-1600, with the B-cup radome ("Standard") housing the Honeywell RDR-2000.

I/C

EC 145: merged threads
 

Struggling to get a quick answer to these two, so if anyone sat with a manual in front of them (like wot I always have!) can you answer:

1. Does 145 have FADEC start up similar to EC135. If not I take it its not a hassle getting it started quickly for police / HEMS role?

2. Has anyone got any experience of air con fitted to 145 and would it cope ok with +40 c temps and a long soak in the sun?

thanks, :confused:

EC145 doesn't have FADEC, but is expected to get it's way into 145 with an upgraded model called "145 plus" by eurocopter training personnel.
I've talked to some pilots about the no-FADEC issue and the pilots that fly 135, really miss FADEC in 145.

EC145 starting is not by FADEC as stated previously. It is basically like starting an AS350 B2 but it has the throttle on the twist grip and a magnetically held start switch that lets go after about 40% N1. Starting can be challenging at times. Each FCU is slightly different and each aircraft is rigged just a bit different and you have to modulate the throttle to get it going. Normally it is a non-issue and things start just fine but if you have a problem it can beat you up pretty bad trying to figure out exactly what it is. As for starting quickly I don't see it as being any slower than any other twin.

As for the air conditioning it seems to do well even in the high heat areas. In the southern CA desert it gets up to 50 C and the AC still works. Now will it make it cold enough at those temps to hang meat in the cabin? probably not but it will at least make it reasonable enough to survive.

Hope it helps

Max

:ok: thanks for the prompt replies folks - a good help

The 1st start and 2nd start are no issues, even starting within 20 mins of shutdown presented no problems (following the checklist and obseving the FLI [first Limit Indicator]).

I have flown one in the north of Aus with a after market aircon fitted - "Metro Aviation Air Conditioning".

You could feel cold air if you placed your hand over the vent, but when kitted up with full flight gear and a cabin as big as the 145 IT DID NOT CUT THE MUSTARD.

Reports are that Metro are working on a mod to improve the airflow (capacity).

In saying that, it was better than none at all as the inlet vent for ambient air is only about a 4inch diameter.

Overall, a very good pilot machine.

800

T

The EC 145 with fenestron is undergoing flighttests and will be presented officially in September.

First pic:

http://www.flugrevue.de/fm/3/EC145-Fenestron.jpg

Erlkönig erwischt: Eurocopter fliegt EC145 mit Fenestron - FLUG REVUE

skadi

IMHO a very good idea.

...but a bit fugly and out of proportion, compared to a standard EC145... :yuk:

It will look better with a proper paint job.:}

Add this (which flew about 4 years ago) and some proper engines like PWC. Happy days!

RVDT - I hadn't seen that one before, thanks.

Thinks - 5 blades, PW donks - all you need is a cockpit designed by pilots for pilots and you might finally get the 902-beater that Eurocrapter have never yet really achieved (IMHO).

RVDT- that rotor is IDENTICAL to the MD900 from the early 90s! I noticed that when I first saw the promos in 2004 or so.

Mark

According to EC personnel, that 5 bladed rotor isn't going anywhere near the new 145.

Yep, i heard the same. The 5-bladed rotor EC testet a few years ago is not in a serial condition.

And, it needs much more than a nearly original EC135-tail to bring the 145 to a new life.

The fan takes a lot of power. Not sure a the moment how EC will solve that problem. Stronger engines needs new gearboxes. Engines and improved gearboxes enhance the weight.

I hope not to see a new unlucky hybrid from EC with old engines and gearboxes but fan. That means bad flight performance.

Mmmm ...

Perhaps the tail boom construction will be stronger ... and with no t/r g'box pylon (cracking) inspections necessary ?

I hope the Fenestron has more yaw authority than the T/R system has!


:ok:

Well from what I have heard this COULD be a good thing. The engines really aren't the limiting factor until you start to get up in altitude as you are torque limited until you get up there. I have heard that the weak link is not the main gearbox but in fact the intermediate gearbox which would be replaced by the fenestron. So this mod may allow more power from the engines to be used at lower altitudes should EC decide to certify it this way. Also most of our 145s are nose heavy so I don't know how the weight and distribution of the fenestron compares to the original tail rotor. Would be nice to eliminate one gearbox and push the weight a little further aft to help the CG. Based on the picture posted the tailboom is in fact different as it does not have the omega channels on the outside. One would expect it to be stronger. If this is the case then maybe they will be able to allow doors off ops now. I am told that this is currently not a good idea because the turbulence from the cabin with the doors off acts on the tail boom too much and drastically shortens its life. With a stronger boom maybe this is not the case anymore? Not that most EMS aircraft need to fly doors off but it would make the aircraft more suitable for other missions.

We shall see!

Max

Question to "on ground hydraulics"..
 

Hi!

I too have a quick question to the EC145..

If I am flying it, then land and want to stop the rotor with retained hydraulic capability, this would be doable, right?
--> I use rotor break but keep the engines on "ground idle" or something like that, right?:confused:

I'm trying to solve a 'blade folding' "problem", on a new system, that currently insists on producing/forcing stupid equipment that I don't believe to be necessary..
What I need to know is that you CAN use cyclic and collective "stick" on ground, after flight, while the rotor is not turning. ie. that hydraulics can be kept "online" after the rotor has stopped turning..

Thanks in advance for answers to this stupid question!
And, for the record, I'm not a pil!t

(There are no stupid questions, only stupid people..:})

If I am not mistaken the hydraulic pump is drive by the main gearbox so if the blades stop turning then so does the pump. I think there may be an accumulator in the system but that will supply limited volume only. It is not permissible to stop the blades with the rotor brake with engines running. In fact I don't know if it is actually strong enough to do so in the first place and as stated above it wouldn't help you since the hyd pump is driven off the main gbox anyway. That being said you still can move the cyclic and collective without the hydraulics but it requires a bit more effort. Depending on how much you need to move the controls it may still be possible without hydraulics.

Hope it helps


Max

Good answer Max, that helped me a lot.. :=
OK, not your fault that hydraulics are driven by the MGB..

But.. to continue.. could one say that, after landing whilst the MRB are slowing down and the MGB is still producing "some" pressure, it would be possible to perform a full cyclic movement at a time where ther is "enough" hydraulic pressure and the helicopter would not "keel over" (given 0 collective input)..?

(I need to have the blades at full cyclic input in 'any one' direction as the rotor comes to a halt..)

Thanks in advance..:ok:

Mmmm ...

I believe the Hydraulic system on the BK117 and the EC145 (BK117C ??) is basically the same Hydraulic pack as also used on the Bo105 series (with some subtle variation).

It DOES run off the main transmission and thus when the rotors are stopped there is NO hyd. pressure. As well as this the Rotor Brake on these aircraft is not one of their strongest features ... and I really doubt that it would stop the rotors with any kind of power applied to them.

Having said that ... although I have many hours in the 105/117 I have not flown the 145.


:}

I would bet that you could indeed make full deflection of the cyclic during shut down either with hydraulics or not but doing so while the blades are still spinning is a tougher deal. You would have to make this maneuver contingent upon a very low rotor rpm as you run the risk of a mast moment exceedance otherwise. I haven't played with the cyclic on shut down (I'm not a pilot either) so there may be a windo of time when tip speed is low enough and pump speed is high enough to pull this off. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish but if it is simply to move the cyclic to the stop in one direction then it may be just as easy to do so without hydraulics after rotor stop. I wouldn't want to fly it this way but you can sure move the controls full travel with a little effort.

Good Luck

Max

Mmm ...

I think you will find that a full cyclic movement will be tricky ... as you would have to 'trim' the stick fully over and I vaguely remember that being a 'no no' .... but then my brain is old and its been 7 years since I sat in one of those 'slippery lil suckers' ....


:O

EC145: No fadec but does not take much longer then the EC135 to start once you get handy with it and a feel for the "rigging" of the fuel control. Either aircraft I can get of the ground in less then 4 min, just the 135 a little less effort.

30-35 Celsius and up: The air conditioning in the EC135 is reasonable to bad especially compared to a BK117 or AS350, the EC145 is 10 times (if not 20 times) worse, and I have flown multiple tail nrs for hundreds of hours so I don't find this aircraft specific or type specific. (Metro and AMC completions)

The heater in the EC135 is good! The heater in the EC145 is as bad as the AC and flights over 45 min in the winter will result in loss of feeling in your feet. Good thing the pedals of the EC145 are tied into the autopilot, lol.

Moving the cyclic once on the ground in the EC145 will guaranteed get you in trouble if too enthusiastic in terms of Mast moment limits and a lot of maintenance to be performed, please, don't.

Behavior in turbulence: EC135, a lot of nose pitching up and down, rotor always steady even up to 75 kts of wind over the mountains. (even when I am far from "steady) Fadec does a great job, autopilot will "lose" it sometimes and need some assistance in "getting back". EC145, more of a shaking left and right, rotor all over the place and manual mode recommended for a reason. Autopilot seems to keep up better although I have not had a chance to fly her to the "limits" yet. So far she never kicked off on me.

How I would describe the difference? The EC135 is a BMW 3 series, the EC145 is a VW van. Both nice but different. For police work or even EMS (especially scene's) give me an 135 (2 or 2+) anytime. For Hauling 3 medcrews and an isolette, the 145 is the perfect machine.

Other then that they are both a dream to fly and designed to be single pilot IFR. And they are good at it! I have close to 1500 hrs in the 2 combined and am in love ! Remember, Just like a woman, no such thing as perfection....you just have to get to know her and find what she likes and what she doesn't like and sometimes there is no logic behind it, at least not for a simple mind like myself.


My 2 cents....

otter712: :ok: nice one.

Indeed otter ,and just like with women its better to love two so that you have one to fall back on!

True words of wisdom Bolkow, you said it :)

Sorry, it was late last night and I missed a couple of questions. Some of them have been answered but this is just my opinion in addition to..

Hydraulic rotor brake, one pull if you time it right to full blade stop after engines are off and NR below 50 %. Unfortunately you cant leave the brake on to prevent turning of the blades by wind unlike with the EC135

Cyclic movement EC145, full deflection possible and part of pre start checklist with engines off and rotor not turning ( see the mast moment issue written before if you do this with engines running and rotors turning). Unlike the EC135 you can and should. EC135, please dont even try. It wont and if it does move you might just have bend the very thin walled push pull tubes..

Even though I never tried , and never hope to try, apparently the 145 can be flow without hydraulics in the event of a dual failure, the 135 however is a no go.

Take care

Mmmm ...

.... apparently the 145 can be flow without hydraulics in the event of a dual failure, ....

.... Yeah straight into the ground! .....

I don't think the Bo105/BK117 series has ever had a dual Hydraulics failure in flight ... certainly not one that I have heard off ...

I do however stand to be corrected as may be necessary .. :eek:

apparently as in: Appearing as such but not necessarily so.

Not my experience, not my knowledge, not my opinion however, something that might be so and could be so. Poorly communicated I admit but a question on my behalf I am hoping to find an answer to. Realistic to occur or not. Just for theoretical knowledge. Do you know?

Thanks

Mmmm ...

Well your clue is with the manufacturer .... in their wisdom they have NOT allowed for both Hydraulic systems to be able to be turned off at the same time .... if there is a failure the 2nd system automatically becomes the active system .... what does that tell you? :=

:E




BTW ... during my conversions on to both the Bo105 and the BK117 it was emphasised that the aircraft become uncontrollable with both systems U/S.

I don't think that has changed.

"if there is a failure the 2nd system automatically becomes the active"

I believe they are both active at all times. Both systems run independently and simultaneously to generate the entire pressure for boosting the main rotor controls. If one system fails, the remaining system continues to supply......

It's not a bo105 neither is it a BK117 (just on paper a BK117-C2 for certification purpose)

Also I understand that "in theory" all answers are to be found at the manufacturer. But that isn't the purpose of an discussion at a forum. Here is an opportunity to exchange knowledge that is already in the field.

Please try again

Your welcome

Mmmm ...

otter712 .... Ok here we go ...please listen very carefully as I will only say this once .....

...... I believe they are both active at all times. ... I believe you are WRONG!

Certainly they may both be pressurised at the same time but only System 1 is actively controlling the aircraft in 'normal operation'.

This from the Bk117 MBB Helicopter Training Centre Pilot course notes ....

For reasons of redundancy the hydraulic unit is constructed as a tandem system i.e. it consists of two separate systems which operate independently of each other. One of the systems (system1) is the MAIN system the other system (system 2) is the STANDBY system. Under normal operating conditions ONLY the MAIN system functions as the (controls) booster. If there is any malfunction within the MAIN system, it will be immediately cutoff and the standby system will be actuated automatically.

As with most duplicated systems on aircraft that are not designed to fly without hydraulic power to the flight controls a hydraulic system failure in flight IS A CRITICAL FAILURE A REQUIRES A LANDING ASAP.

Now this forum not the place to go into the intimate detail of the Hydraulic pack workings should you wish too ... please go back to whoever did your type training or find a knowledgable mechanic to take you through it.

I understand the Hydraulic packs on the EC145 are the same as for the BK117 but the 'pilot' valves instead of being activated by pushrods are controlled by 'teleflex cables' there may be some other subtle electronics interface bits added but I confess to not knowing about those on the EC145.

Cheers ... good luck ... :)

otter712,

I see that you've edited your post, but the assumption you made is still incorrect. spinwing is right (hmmmmm) :ok:

spinwing, the only point to make is that a hydraulic failure (amber 'Hyd 1 - 2') is a "Land as soon as practicable" corrective action, not a "Land as soon as possible" response.

Mmm ...

Hi John,

Agreed that in the checklist its a 'land as soon as practicable' ... particularly if over water .... having said that ... in a machine which is effectively unflyable without hydraulics would you take the risk ?? (unless absolutely necessary).

A bit like the difference between the 212 and the 412 ... 212s will fly reasonably happily without Hydraulics on ... but the 412 will most definitely not! .... and the company I'm with atm has reflected this in its SOP's ...

BTW .... hows the Beemer?

Cheers :}