AAC H135M replace Gazelles

[[email protected]]

Assuming that they got more for the initial contract and not for a new requirement after the contract had started.

or as a realisation that some parts of the training had been forgotten in the rush to undercut the opposition as MGD implies.

You clearly work for Ascent FNW so why not tell the truth?

[gipsymagpie]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

As I understand it, they thought they could do more of the rearcrew training on the 135 which turned out to be incorrect.

I would lay big money that no one thought to check the rear seat on 135 was big enough for a full grown adult. Having spent time back there it’s painful. The H145 is far superior as it has a full height cabin all the way back. If only someone had done a fly off…

but getting back to original poster, the 135 has a long history of doing the job the gazelle currently does but with a heap load more automation and common training pathway. Good choice.

[[email protected]]

but getting back to original poster, the 135 has a long history of doing the job the gazelle currently does but with a heap load more automation and common training pathway. Good choice.

and a second engine for all that hovering over Belfast

[Doors Off]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

and a second engine for all that hovering over Belfast

How many engine failures in the hover from the Astazou over Belfast? I had complete faith in that puppy over Belfast and other locations. That said, I have long enjoyed the “comfort” of a second dinosaur furnace. I do prefer the Gazelle as a flying machine over the 135, which is a lovely aircraft to fly.

[[email protected]]

How many engine failures in the hover from the Astazou over Belfast?

None to my knowledge but at least a second donkey gives you options (Clutha not withstanding) - but I think the 135 is far less likely to swap ends as the Gazelle had a habit of doing in adverse winds - and a modern cockpit without the need for incomplete 3rd party add-ons for instrument recovery.

[Doors Off]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

None to my knowledge but at least a second donkey gives you options (Clutha not withstanding) - but I think the 135 is far less likely to swap ends as the Gazelle had a habit of doing in adverse winds - and a modern cockpit without the need for incomplete 3rd party add-ons for instrument recovery.

I’d take a Gazelle in adverse winds over a 135, every day. The slab side of the 135 is a trite more unreliable than the Gazelle. As for the add ons? Many a great planned IFR flight (as opposed to recovery) in the Gazelle. That said, the 135 4 axis option is a delight v the Gazelle “Human” axis autopilot.

[[email protected]]

I'd have thought Fenestron technology had improved since the days of the Gazelle - the 135 one seems bigger and on a shorter tail boom than the Gaz. What is the crosswind limit for 135? ISTR it was 30 Kts for Gaz. The N3 was super stable even at 40 Kts cross or downwind.

The Garmin upgrade for the AAC Gazelles is good in that it allows PBN recovery but needed the full EFIS fit properly integrated. Not putting even a basic SAS into it was false economy.

I've flown single pilot IFR in the Gaz too but compared to doing it in the Dauphin, Sea King or 139 it is an unnecessary chore..

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I'd have thought Fenestron technology had improved since the days of the Gazelle - the 135 one seems bigger and on a shorter tail boom than the Gaz. What is the crosswind limit for 135? ISTR it was 30 Kts for Gaz.

30kts side, 25kts rear

It's the size of the tail fin/hangar door that makes it uncomfortable hovering out of wind.

[[email protected]]

It's the size of the tail fin/hangar door that makes it uncomfortable hovering out of wind.

agreed but that is true of all fenestron equipped aircraft since they need a big wing to offload the fenestron in the cruise.

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

agreed but that is true of all fenestron equipped aircraft since they need a big wing to offload the fenestron in the cruise.

Yes, but it was heard many times at Shawbury when the 135s started turning up for the initial courses.... "that's a bloomin' big fin" from the fossils and sprogs alike 😁

Seeing the 135 parked next to the Gz you get a better appreciation of the scale between the two.

[RVDT]

It's the size of the tail fin/hangar door that makes it uncomfortable hovering out of wind

Maybe but - it's more likely the turbulent flow from the end plates on the horizontal upsetting the inflow on the entry to the duct that is the issue. In particular at ~ 30-40 degrees off the nose above that angle through to dead on the tail nothing to note.

Tracking 90 degrees with full pedal either way you can probably get to about 50 knots either direction without much issue.

Go fly a "3" and you will notice the difference and some others as well like the rolling moment. Most "3's" have an extended tip fairing.

Have a think about the tail rotor drive failure procedures as well. You will note it is written to avoid "fin stall" which is a "bodice ripper". If you get a large yaw angle and it lets go you will be in to quite a depth!

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by RVDT

Maybe but - it's more likely the turbulent flow from the end plates on the horizontal upsetting the inflow on the entry to the duct that is the issue. In particular at ~ 30-40 degrees off the nose above that angle through to dead on the tail nothing to note.

Tracking 90 degrees with full pedal either way you can probably get to about 50 knots either direction without much issue.

Go fly a "3" and you will notice the difference and some others as well like the rolling moment. Most "3's" have an extended tip fairing.

Have a think about the tail rotor drive failure procedures as well. You will note it is written to avoid "fin stall" which is a "bodice ripper". If you get a large yaw angle and it lets go you will be in to quite a depth!

The model we have doesn't have the end plates on the horizontal.

Thanks for the heads up on the TRDF, I'll have a dig into it if/when I return to 135

[[email protected]]

I would think the 135 TRDF procedure is similar to the As 365 with the advice to maintain higher speeds for the running landing to keep airflow over the fin to produce the anti-torque thrust required.

[trim it out]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I would think the 135 TRDF procedure is similar to the As 365 with the advice to maintain higher speeds for the running landing to keep airflow over the fin to produce the anti-torque thrust required.

And don't touch the collective clutch

[N707ZS]

How big was the fleet of Gazelles against what might be ordered soon.

[[email protected]]

How big was the fleet of Gazelles against what might be ordered soon.

Do you mean the original number across all 3 services which was in the hundreds or the present number in the AAC which is not much more than single figures?

[N707ZS]

Was wondering how many were purchased, but how many available for use in the days of maximum usage. Was surprised they still had any.

[[email protected]]

In the late 80s early 90s the AAC alone had circa 200 Gazelles. I took part in the Massed approach at Wallop in the mid 90s a couple of times and 100 Gazelles was the norm ISTR. Not scary at all

[handysnaks]

Ahh! The old Wallop massed airmiss. Character building.🥴

[N707ZS]

Thanks crab. There used to be so many of them about in the 80s.