NASA Airbus Helicopters H135
 

Announced here today in Anaheim and a historical first: NASA orders 3 x Airbus Helicopters H135 to replace the legacy Bell UH-1H at Kennedy Space Center supporting space ops.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...licopters.html


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a659d89f6.jpeg

Looks nice in the NASA livery!

Surprised they didn't go with an EC145/UH-72 and leverage the Army contract for something with a bit bigger cabin.

Good point seeming as the Lakota replaced the Huey in the army and would make sense as the NASA Hueys carries security and emergency response teams around the launch area.

cheers

First two delivered
 

First pair delivered (photos courtesy of Airbus )

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...ce-center.html


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....79496d3d8.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8a46ab123.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....840582825.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c8ef83472.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....64ab2fd0c.jpeg

VERY NICE !!! I've worked on both the old & new 135's - they are a brilliant workhorse.
But why do they have the taller vertical fin fairing?
No floats either, which I thought would've been a requirement over water rescuing & transferring astronauts?

The extended vertical fin fairing is Airbus’s response to the design department’s decision to remove the vertical stabilisers on the T3 variant. The first T3s, without the fin extension, had (still have) an uncomfortable tendency to fishtail at high speed, especially in turbulent conditions. The fin extension is now offered as an optional refit for those early airframes. Makes you wonder how come the test pilots signed it off in the first place.

This tendency only became apparent when the Helionix model (P3H and T3H) was released which has a completely different AFCS system to the early T3 and P3.

Earlier 135's with sideslip angles around 30-45 degrees suffer from instability from the wake from the endplates entering the fenestron. Not ideal.

Flying at sideslip angles around 30-45 degrees is Not ideal.

Depends on your speed. At a guess the 135 is completely capable of 90 degrees up to about 60 knots at the limit of the TR?

20-40 knots with an angle of 30-45 is the worst for endplate wake.

Thanks QTG. Explains it all now. I hadn't touched the Helionix types, so hadn't see that fin.

Haven’t flown a Helionix T3, but the problem first appeared (and it’s still there) on the original FCDS T3 with the traditional AP.

I don't believe water rescue is part of their mission...you may notice the H135's are not hoist equipped. USAF HH-60's served that role for awhile, but not sure if that remains accurate.

Still have the 920th Rescue Wing at Patrick AFB

https://www.920rqw.afrc.af.mil

cheers

Looks like they have the hoist fix parts at least RH transmission cowling in 2 parts and the RH top skid
.

The non-Helionix T3 are still stuck with a 90kt limit on the IAS UM mode IFR so I think the problem is on both variants. Limitation cannot be removed unless tall fin is fitted. To be honest the place you actually notice the lack of fin area is that it is less stable in yaw in the hover. Sure you use less extremes of pedal cross wind (ie you don’t get as near to full travel) but you have to work harder to hold a heading.

All of nips and tucks on T3 are about making it better for high altitude out of wind hover. I prefer a P or T2+ For sea level to and fro work (although I do like Helionix a lot).

Third and final
 

Third and final H135 delivered last week...

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/a...security-fleet


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3fe3b65a3b.jpg

cheers

The fin replacement was free, but Airbus then schwacks you 30-40k for the autopilot software mod to go with it.

Gipsy,

Can you give me the FLM reference for this limitation?

Thanks

FNW

Thank you Chopper2004. I see that "442" doesn't have the radome fitted on it's nose, nor does it have the extra oil cooling vent on the left side transmission cowling. It must be modded differently, or about to get mods applied to it.

When IBFs are installed, then the oil cooling vent is located at the end of the doghouse. Therefore, no oilcooler outlet on the transmissioncowling.

skadi

Skadi,

All new T/P3 135 now use the upper vent method regardless of if IBF are fitted or not.

FNW

Ok, the engine air intake also from the side with just mesh cover? The reason for relocating the vent was to prevent ingestion of warm air into the engine.

skadi

Yes for both P and T models.

P3H models come with IBF as standard, T3H it is an option.

FNW

The 300+ hour installation time of the IBF on the P/T2 sort of forced them to incorporate the design into the P/T3.

For the T3 CPDS model with the SPIFR/DPIFR kit:

FLM 9.2-56 pg5 para 2.2

hope this helps.

Thanks. That makes sense, since the PW engines were very sensible when operating in offairport szenarios. Lot of wear at compressor blades without IBF

skadi

What is the MTOW on the 135?

Typically 2980kg

Thank you Skadi & Havick. I had not thought of the hot outlet air going straight to the engines.

That's been increased on H models to 3100kg.

Unfortunately the T3 comes with a limit for downwind (25 kts) that isn't there on the earlier models. Again, all for the direct air intakes and reingestion of fumes.

Honestly I’ve been pretty surprised at the lack of support on even the dumbest of parts and other issues from Airbus with our T3.

eg. dzus fasteners for the tail rotor driveshaft cowl are no longer procurable, yes you can source direct through other suppliers but really?

Some major avionics parts no longer supported or procurable on what is only a 5 year old machine.

It’s a great product but death by a 1000 cuts to push you into something else for the next purchase which is kind of sad.

sorry for the thread drift. The nasa machines look great all lined up.