EC120
 

Do any of you fly the 120 ? i will be upgrading from my lovely little r44 raven 2 which has given me many happy flying hours to a ec120,
are they as nice as everyone says ?
maintenance say they are a doddle to work on (although there is the eurocopter parts / service which might not be the best)
but other than that ???

nelly

having a number of hours on the EC 120 including G-LHMS I would avoid them at all cost's, they are great for 1 or 2 people to cruise around in but they struggle to get off the ground with 5 on board and that's out of an airfield you will not get out of a small private site with one if you are heavy.

The servicing is not cheap you get a number of small services then a very expensive one so it works out the same as any other small turbine heli, except spare parts are a nightmare to get hold of. The one I look after recently spent 6 weeks on the ground waiting for spare parts.

I would wait for the 66 to come out or look at a late model jetranger instead or if you can afford one a 350

CB

Have to disagree
 

I never really had a performance problem with the 120, found them a very nice aircraft to fly, very comfortable with a good view for pax and a useful size boot and good and stable in strong/messy winds.

There is however a big difference in weight between models. IIRC floats and VIP seats/soundproofing would add about 130kg versus and ex utility spec aircraft I used to fly which had seats added after original order. This equates to over an hours fuel or an extra person and a bit. So take a good look at the Gross Weight. Floats and bottles alone was, I think about 70kg.

I was a big fan, used them for most purposes. Didn't go wrong much, but when they did EC could be slow with support.

I have run one for a couple of years. I hold R44 (trained on that) and EC120 ticket. I spent some months looking at everything from used jet-box, Hughes 500, an R44, an older single Squirrel. Did dream about an EC130 but it is sooooo ugly from the front.

No comparison for me; I bought a 2000 EC120. I did fit floats (you can do this with pilot removable bags - extra 36kg fuel when you take them off. I needed these for commercial work over water but I would otherwise have left them off and saved the weight.

The EC120 I have taken from South UK to the Scottish Highlands (and back) in a weekend - 4 adults and baggage. No-one complained getting out. And 5 people from South England to the Cholmondley Pagent of Power. I don't have a problem with power - just keep the weight within limits.

Fantastic views from any seat (back of a jet ranger is pokey and a Hughes 500... need I say more?). It is a great aircraft; mine has been very dependable and easy to maintain. Smooth in flight, looks great, very popular with passengers (and me). It also attracts a good deal of commercial work - wedding transfers are very popular!

I agree some have found EC slow with parts - touch wood it has not yet happened to me in a way that stopped the aircraft. And I have seen R44's taking significant cumulative hanger time; parts are faster but services take longer and you need parts more often. An old jet-box will also cost significantly more to service, I think, as would a Squirrel.

You have to watch weight & balance on all machines. The EC120 does not have the power of a twin squirrel or an EC130 - but it doesn't have the cost to buy or service either. If the machine is right for what you wish to use her for then go for it. If you want "Hot / High / Heavy" then you need more money and a Squirrel, or you want a ..... etc.... etc.... etc.

Quite frankly if you want to stay eurocopter get a gazelle ( EC120 was its replacement) Gazelle is faster doesnt have the w&B issue of the EC120 and will get off the ground with a good payload and way cheaper and looks better !

I fly John's EC120 out of Redhill and have to agree with his comments...you need to plan your load and fuel accordingly.
I have flown H500s and love them for agility, power, etc., but I love the 120 equally for its speed, stability, visibility for pax, etc....yes you can't take 5 huge blokes with gear in it like a gazelle but then most of the time its just me and a few friends or family out for a jolly :ok:
I have taken 4 'heavies' in her with enough fuel for 2 hours, but (due to my weight) they all had to sit in the back.
Great aircraft IMHO and I would love to own one like her.

This is an interesting thread for me because I'm in exactly the same position; looking to move to a 120 in the Spring. As a dedicated petrol head, I generally prefer speed and handling over comfort, but in this case the benefits of the 120 outweigh the disadvantages. I've spoken to several owners and none of them have any regrets. C of G was an issue in the early models, with the battery

I can't agree with the Gazelle argument though - it's a completely different ship. As a petrol head I love it, even though the stretch is still cramped in the back and can be a pain to fly, but it's no comparison to the 120. Also, check out insurance. Haywards' quote was ridiculous for a G reg Gazelle, asking for a zillion hours on type, even more on turbines and a safety pilot at all times!!! There have been a lot of gazelle accidents...

TTB

W&B Mod
 

Two of our machines had the weight and balance mod, which basically put about 15kg in the tail boom and made all the C of G issues go away if you were in weight you were in limits. The penalty is increasing the max all up a little. Well worth it.

I am also doing some research, trying to decide if an EC120 would be a good replacement for the R44 Raven 2 that I am flying for a company currently. I hope some of you with EC120 experience can help me out a little. Sorry the post is a little long winded, I'm just weighing some different options and pros/cons, as well as seeking some EC120 specific information. My thoughts and questions regarding the EC120 are at the bottom of my post if you want to skip down there. ;)

Typically I am flying with 1 or 2 passengers. Primary use is moving people, aerial survey and lots of off-airport landings. Flight time is 250-300 hours per year. Often times we are flying engineers and equipment operators, and they all need to be able to see outside well and look at/pass around aerial maps. Generally this means the boss is up front with me, pointing at what he wants to see while the rear seat passengers are trying to see the same thing. Landing elevations are from 900ft MSL to 3000ft MSL, nothing high altitude but the summers are very hot and humid. Most days we cover at least 250NM. 200NM or more straight line flying with lots of low and slow surveying. Anywhere from 3 - 6 hours of flight time. The terrain in the coal fields is steep and rugged, creating loads of turbulence when the wind picks up.

Our Raven 2 has worked well most of the time, but it has it's downfalls.
- While it is generally quicker than a 206 b series, an extra 20-30 knots would be very welcome on the 100NM+ flights to/from home.
- Good visibility, but the seats are uncomfortable for longer periods, and the rear seats are terrible for most grown men with boots on.
- Does not handle turbulence well. Stronger winds over flatter area is no problem, but in rugged terrain it is a miserable ride. The R44 itself is not the smoothest ride anyway, no matter how well the last track and balance session was.
- Our maintenance shop is 130NM away and bringing it in for things such as a 50 hour oil change can be a pain. The helicopter is stored inside but without climate control, and the belts always expand/contract with the weather and seem to need adjusting frequently.
- When landing on uneven surfaces, the cabin often distorts enough the some of the doors are difficult to latch unless you push in from the outside while turning the latch.
- We almost always top off the fuel tanks as it is common to be in the air for 2 - 2.5 hours. With full fuel it is a great 2 person aircraft, and does 'okay' with three. There are several times when we have 4 people in the helicopter and about 1.5 hours of fuel, and room for another passenger under similar conditions would be very ideal.

---
So I have looked at numbers for other comparable aircraft. R66, MD 500, 206 B and L series, 407, etc.

I really don't have a lot of interest in the R66. It looks to have the same uncomfortable seats, off-center t/r pedals, lack of rear leg room, only 5-10 knot cruise speed increase. The ride will be about the same if not worse due to the taller m/r mast. I suspect it will handle equally poor in high wind and rugger terrain. Hover performance is suppose to be pretty good, but that is the only real good thing I see about it. It is probably a solid four seater, although not so comfortably. While the main design is very much "R44", it is too new for me to have a lot of interest in. A lot of the VIPs in the company don't like the R44 as it is, because they say it just doesn't feel "significant enough".

The MD500 is quick, maneuverable, and handles turbulence well. But no luggage, shorter range, only four people in the aircraft in a reasonable setup. The back seat is terrible, and visibility from the back is not good either.

A 206 b series equipped with a/c (a must for us) looks like it would have less usable load than the R44 with full fuel. Back seat visibility is not good with the bulk head, and rear seat head room is not ideal. Cruise speed is equal to the R44 if not slower. The ride is a little smoother, but generally all you seem to be gaining is cost. The L series might be a little quicker, but even more expensive, and the rear seat would be very disconnected from the front for what we do. I haven't flown the L series but I'm thinking that it still isn't going to handle turbulence as well as a fully articulated system does.

The 407 would be my ideal helicopter for them, with a few exceptions. Fast, comfortable, loads of power, good parts/service availability. The negative is of course the disconnect of the rear passengers from the front and lack for forward visibility from the rear. If my boss had a desire to frequently haul around 5-6 people this would probably be an easy sale, but due to the way we normally use the helicopter it probably doesn't make sense.
---

Based on the information I have gathered so far, the EC120 looks like a pretty good fit for most of what we do. With better hover performance it would be great (at least on paper). Price on a fairly low time used ship is very reasonable, operating cost is very reasonable as well (roughly twice of the R44 according to some surveys). I am told that the ship will cruise at 120 knots with a night sun and flir unit, and should cruise at 125-135 knots clean with a couple of occupants. Does that sound accurate? That would shave 12-15 minutes off of the first and last leg of our typical day. It should also help to bridge the gap between a long trip in the helicopter and a ridiculously short trip in their Premier jet, which requires a lot more planning. The aircraft has a good range and good loiter time. Visibility looks to be great from front and the elevated rear seats. The fenestron should provide a little extra security when passengers load/unload with the rotors turning, and be a little less prone to damage from brush in unprepared landing sites. Typical useful load with full fuel seems to be about 100 lbs over our R44. What that looks like to me is a good three seater, an okay four seater and the occasional five seater if you leave some fuel behind.


So on to the concerns about the EC120...
Hover performance doesn't look so good, it isn't a hot/high/heavy machine. At gross weight on a warm day it isn't going to be impressive. The R44 numbers are a little better, but there is no reason I need to have four people and a lot of fuel on board when I'm landing in a confined area above 3000ft on a hot/humid day. There are times and conditions when I have to say no to landing in the R44 due to the nature of an LZ, and it looks like the EC120 would put us in that same boat. The higher fuel burn is an advantage as it would shed weight quicker though.

Service and parts availability could be problematic. I have heard from various mechanics that Eurocopter support is less than ideal and it can be difficult to get your hands on parts. Have others in the US found this to be a problem? Our helicopter is not a revenue machine, but my boss (like anyone) does not like a lot of down time.

I haven't found much information inspection times, overhauls or life limited parts. The most I have seen is 100/500/1500 hr and a 12 year inspection. An aircraft that we may look at is a 2001 with roughly 2000 hours. Can anyone tell me what the upcoming maintenance on a 2000 hour ship is going to look like?

I appreciate any more insight you guys may have to offer. :ok:

A good Raven II will match and often beat a 120 for speed. In my (floated) experience anything over 100kt in a 120 is feels like a strain and over 120Kt is not really feasible.

Other than that I'd agree with most of your analysis. If the R44 is tight for carrying ability in the role you use it for, then it's time to trade up. And by trading up you will certainly get clear of the Robinson snobbery, which may not be justified but is certainly a factor.

The Longranger is a beautiful machine to fly, very smooth and comfortable, and great value, but if having everyone in the same cabin and looking at the same things is a priority then maybe not the machine for you.

As350 B2/3
 

Sounds like you need a squirrel great visibility from both front and rear seats,excellent HOGE performance,smooth comfortable ride,120kt-130kt cruise,range,seats six comfortably,low maintenance the list goes on. It will do everything the 407 does better and more.

the machine for you must be an as350 it meets all your requirements

An EC120 will cruise at 120kts without any problem. The max I got out of one was 126kts. A R44 is no match for an EC120.

I regularly hit 120 3-up.

Cost is less than AS350 - if you don't need the extra power why pay?

I have not seen anything with cabin comfort of the EC120 at a sensible price

3-up, without floats - full fuel load

I have recently had 4-up from Surrey to Western Highlands out Saturday and back Sunday. No complaints from any seat.

Hey Nelly are you serious about buying a 120 or are you just "tire kicking" as my old man would say. In a different post you asked about the sale of a certain 120 to which I PMed you with my phone number but still have not heard from you.

Chippy

The EC120 is sweet to fly and has good auto characteristics. You will be aware that it is under powered when fully loaded on a hot day but the thing I would hate as an owner are the cracked doors. All the EC120s I have come across have cracked doors due to its overhang when open - a design problem which you can't fix.

Is it true that the EC120 has lead weights in the tailboom for weight and balance purposes?.

I heard it was originally designed as a miltary aircraft, and in order to get the C of G working for civil use they had to add weights, hence the payload issues people have with it.

Is this true?

Yes, it can have extra weight in the tailboom.

Have about 6 years with the 120.

You are power limited in weather above 25C so you have to manage your fuel vs. load requirements.
That said, low fuel and 3 pax at 6500' in the summer is not a problem.

No problems with door cracks.

Wt and Balance has never been an issue.

EC support has always been acceptable.

Cruises nicely at 120 knots.

Offers energy attenuating seats, crashworthy structure, crashworthy fuel system, excellent visibility, excellent bagage capacity.
Most of the better pilots out there would of course never need these safety features........

100 hr. to 100 hr. inspections with no glitches.

Slighly underpowered, but... have often needed more power in B3's also!

Oh - and you can still walk after flying the machine for 7 hrs. Very comfy seats.

BD

>
Is it true that the EC120 has lead weights in the tailboom for weight and balance purposes?.

I heard it was originally designed as a miltary aircraft, and in order to get the C of G working for civil use they had to add weights, hence the payload issues people have with it.

Is this true?
<

Probably require the lead after removing the guns from the tailboom.

Yes it has extra weights in the tail boom. Without it the C of G is too far fwd so 2 x 90kg guys up front and two lady pax means you are in trouble. With the battery moved back plus the lead = no problem.

The tail boom weights are not that heavy so don't affect pax capacity and only small fuel drop. Way out there at the back of the boom they have the desired effect through the arm not mass.

Mine is floated and empty weight is 1126kg, MTOW 1715kg so you do the math. She can hold 315kg fuel, 5 people and lots of luggage - just not all at the same time. Take the floats off = 36kg more payload!

G'day John (and others), this is a very interesting read for me, as I am (too) looking to upgrade my R44 Raven II (great machine) for something that can take 4 adults (2 x 90kg and 2 x 70kg), 2 sets of golf sticks, and overnight bags & (!) full fuel. We live in Australia...it's a big place.

I have been lucky enough to fly the new R66 (it is very nice). And have flown quite a lot of hours in EC120B, and flown Jetrangers / Squirrels and (out of my price range) A109 Grand.

My thoughts for a new aquistion have narrowed to EC120B, AS350B2 (B3, sure, if the stock market goes up dramatically !) or R66. But of course, all of these machines have positives & negatives.

The EC120B is really well made, great detail and superb to fly. It is (or the one I flew ? It was new - 2 years ago.) underpowered, and has tail rotor authority problems - or my right leg is simply not long enough on approach to a hover ?!

Squirrels are fantastic workhorses - but agricultural...even with the exec fitout.

R66 - unproven, cool to fly (even for the 20 minutes or so), doesn't look as cool as EC120B.

My pick would be the EC120 (C ?) - I have read elsewhere that EC have listened to the complaints about the 120B and will introduce a new version with more power and a FADEC. Does anyone have any details on that ?

Anyway - great reading - I wish the choice was a bit clearer or easier !

Any good information would be greatly appreciated.

Arrrj :ok:

R44GUY
 

PS - the R66 has MUCH better seating in the front (seems like a lounge chair compared to my Raven II) and more room in the back. It's not a EC120B, but (from my initial calcs) will carry more kgs and burn less fuel. I would certainly be considering the R66 for your needs.

I'm seriously in the market for a 120 now :eek:

There are several machines coming up for the 12 year inspection; anyone got any experiences of that? What is a typical cost? Ditto the 15 year inspection on the engine?

John - I'll PM you for a beer and pick your brains :ok:
TTB

I think the first 120's were produced in 1999 (may heve been '98), so 2011 is the first year any will be due a 12 year, so my guess is that there is very little experience of 12yr insp's out there.

I would guess at a 15yr o/h on an Arrius 2F to be somewhere in the region of 200k euros, going from experience of Arrius 1's and Arriels. Not to mention the 6mth TAT.:ugh:

The next major service point I have reached on my 120:

500 hr inspection £8,450

Several minor anti-corrosion treatments undertaken at the same time, the swashplate re-shimmed, and I swapped one of the radios. (additional cost to above)


Then igniter box failed - £4,806 to replace, done in 2 days.

She is running absolutely smoothly. The current known problems remain:

1. An over-wound clock! (perils of self-fly hire). Need to take out and release the spring, then re-install
2. Occasional fuse-pop on the strobe - will have this investigated for frayed wire then replace if needed
3. Blade tape used to denote the "blue" rotor has come off (replace)

John

Arrj

I don't disagree with underpowered - then I think my R63AMG is underpowered, and I could do with some more grunt in the Subaru Imprezza STI. These are the limitations, we just work within them.

I don't agree the "lack of tail authority" point, though I did feel the same as you when I first converted from R44. It took time for me to get used to the amount of Right pedal, and the idea that unlike the R44 I needed to be ahead of what the aircraft was about to do, not be reacting to what it had started doing. It took me a short time but (and I am touching wood here, with crossed fingers) I haven't been caught out for quite some time.

One thing I do practice, having read of some accidents where the machine has yawed "uncontrollably" and then crashed, is maintaining a level attitude in yaw, and "travelling yaw" (spinning the machine whilst either moving along a straight path or moving around a hover square) so that if this happens to me I am more likely to maintain a level attitude whilst I keep the right foot in to stop the yaw. Not needed it yet, but it is so much fun to practice!

Anyway - LPC shortly with Puntasaurus so he can tell me how poor my skills have become.

John - did you get my PM? I've lost your mobile number...

TTB -PM answered

Nellycopter
Having owned 5 r44 and 3 as350 and been in your position, I would suggest finding a nice 1990's era B or BA, for private work you don't need more power of the B2/3, but a huge increase on the ec120 which has scared me a number of times even with four people and full tanks. You should be able to find one, give it, new paint and interior to your standard and not pay more for it than a ec120.

Nellycopter. I think most people agee that the ec120 is the best in the class, however only buy one if you can afford a massive financial hit from turbomeca. It will take more to overhaul / calender inspect that engine than a good complete low time H500 or B206 helicopter will cost to buy outright. ! or even a new r44 !

I agree with J&K - there seems to be little experience of an overhaul as yet. I am sure it won't be cheap (what jet turbine is cheap to overhaul?) but I certainly would hesitate to guess what the cost will be based on what a different power plant costs. As an owner, I am finding it difficult to get accurate information on a price and so have stayed silent on this cost. Some may know more than me; but as the laws of lible apply equally to internet postings then should posted information not be accurate, and should it lead to Eurocopter losing a sale because people were scarred-off buying their machine, then things could get expensive.

This link explains things simply - apologies to anyone who knew all this already.

Basic UK libel law for idiots by Adam Porter

You will appreciate that though this particular article says potential damage to reputation, and hence potential loss and compensation, would likely be lower for internet postings as the number of people seeing them would be small, things may be different for us posting here. Possibly, the number of potential EC120 customers (new or secondhand) reading a PPrune Roterheads posting would be larger than the number reading one of the national Newspapers!

So our defence, in these postings, must be that we are accurate (stating truth) where we cite information that [somebody] may consider to be damaging to their financial interests.

What I have posted so far is data from actual bills (it is accurate). I also know for sure that the TBO for the Arrius 2F fitted to Eurocoters differs depending on the configuration that you have. I have the longer-lifed version and the TBO for me is 15 yrs or 3000 hrs. I won't make the hours limit, so April 2015 it is then.

What any potential owner needs to do with any machine is to factor into their calcualtions of the cost of ownership any infrequent bills like this. It is no different for a Robinson rebuild, or for lifed-blades, turbines, etc. Cheaper 50 / 100 / 500 hr servicing over 15 years plus more expensive items later in life may or may not be cheaper in the long-run. Only you, the potential purchasor, can make your calculations and your decisions.

I bought the machine 3 years back at a significant discount to "new" price (about -600k) and that discount together with the lower cost of servicing provides a fund from which to meet (later) expenses. If I sell the machine in the meantime [no current intention] that pot is mine, offsetting any reduction in sale price [as component values are lower] compared to purchase cost.

As I say, I haven't yet got an indication of the cost for overhaul or an idea of how long it will take, or whether I can get a swap / pay to bring my old engine up to reconditioned standard; but as soon as I do I will post.

Goodness I thought this was a thread on the ec 120 not a law lecture. Hope Eurocopter don t sue me for praising the 120 ! Yes it is important to be factual as i have also been. Another fact is that anyone owning a turbomeca engine with four years to run will be getting a very very big bill in 2015 if not sooner and no options, you must deal with turbomeca uk. - not even aloud to go to America. In contrast with the rolls royce model 250 you have a choice of dozens of overhaul shops to negotiate with. A recent 1750 hour inspection on one of my RR 250 turbines cost £24k including replacement of two wheels.-fact ! and no calender life.

As an aside ECUK have two new EC120 at Oxford at the moment, I wonder who is buying those?

When does the timer start? From the time the aircraft leaves the factory or when first registered or when first sold?

I am just thinking of that new AS365 which ECUK I am told they still have stored away fro a long while now.

Bit of a raw nerve there. You can get ointment for that:ok:

Hello Brilliantstuff,

Calendar inspection items have their time counted from the Date of Manufacture on the Data Plate.

Rigidhead

Agricultural? Have you seen the work that is done by the fitout shop in Caloundra, Qld? Have you seen Dymock's B2? BMW Nappa leather; hand stitched joints and so on. You must have awfully high standards above and beyond what Bentley do to their cars... IMHO.

Thank you Rigidhead.

If you want to be raped go for the french engine !! After my experience i would not own a french engined heli if you gave it to me . Any major problem will cost you the price of a very nice 500 or 206 ...crazy !!!
I would by an AS 350 LTS101 . All the best of the french helicopter without the french engine .....perfect . ( incl 15% fuel saving , more power and a fraction of the maintenance cost )