Anyone recognise this heli?

[Frank]

Anyone recognise this helicopter:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1273903/L/

[Joe McDermott]

247 in it's new coat ! Is that an Irish flag on the tail ?

Joe

[Frank]

Looks like one, 247 is still painted on the tail boom too.

[Joe McDermott]

More shots here :

http://www.rotorleasing.com:80/AS365Dauphins.htm

Joe

[Fouga23]

Nice to see it back in the air '>

[FiSe]

Looks very sexy in this Mi-24esque scheme

PS. Check the trailer on above mentioned site:

http://www.rotorleasing.com/AS365Dauphins.htm

[clan]

Its now for sale at 1m3 USD, major mistake from the Civil servants, who got a pay rise last year for such fine decisions

[Irish251]

Its now for sale at 1m3 USD, major mistake from the Civil servants, who got a pay rise last year for such fine decisions

What are you implying?  If these machines were sold on the basis of advertising their availability and accepting a realistic bid for them, that does not seem to me to represent a bad decision per se.  They had been withdrawn from Air Corps service for reasons which have been discussed here many times, so there was no point in storing them indefinitely, hoping that some day they would sell for a high price; that was never going to happen.  And just because the present owner is seeking USD1.3m for one of these Dauphins, that doesn't mean he will get that amount.  I note also that the aircraft is being sold on the basis of being certificated in the USA in the relatively limited Experimental category, which provides, inter alia:

“Experimental certificates are issued for the following purposes:

    (a) Research and development. Testing new aircraft design concepts, new aircraft equipment, new aircraft installations, new aircraft operating techniques, or new uses for aircraft.

    (b) Showing compliance with regulations. Conducting flight tests and other operations to show compliance with the airworthiness regulations including flights to show compliance for issuance of type and supplemental type certificates, flights to substantiate major design changes, and flights to show compliance with the function and reliability requirements of the regulations.

    (c) Crew training. Training of the applicant's flight crews.

    (d) Exhibition. Exhibiting the aircraft's flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions.

    (e) Air racing. Participating in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.

    (f) Market surveys. Use of aircraft for purposes of conducting market surveys, sales demonstrations, and customer crew training only as provided in Sec. 21.195.”

[Joe McDermott]

Clan,

The sellers asking price also reflects the large amount of work invested by Rotor Leasing  in the aircraft, both in the overhaul & paperwork.

A quote from their website :

"After winning the bid for the aircraft, Bateman had to go through a long process with the Irish and French government (the Dauphin is a French aircraft) and he didn't see the helicopters for a year. Bateman had to be licensed due to the fact that the Dauphin could potentially carry weapons."


Regards,

Joe

[clan]

Thanks Joe for the explanation  and yeah I did indeed know the Dauphin is a french aircraft, but i did'nt know the rest. My point been and I have read many threads both here and IMO about it is, did we get what they were worth and I personnally think no, should we have sold them again I think No. I have read all the prices been knocked about stripping them, giving them to the Navy, upgrading the electronics but as someone pointed out none of this could have happened as they were seen as a mistake in purchase. Shortfinals, I am implying that the work carried out on the aircraft could have possibly have been done here and I am asking why did we HAVE to sell them, when we clearly did'nt have to as the money received for them was basically peanuts.
We have no problem storing voting machines.

[Irish251]

did we get what they were worth and I personnally think no, should we have sold them again I think No. I have read all the prices been knocked about stripping them, giving them to the Navy, upgrading the electronics but as someone pointed out none of this could have happened as they were seen as a mistake in purchase. Shortfinals, I am implying that the work carried out on the aircraft could have possibly have been done here and I am asking why did we HAVE to sell them, when we clearly did'nt have to as the money received for them was basically peanuts.
We have no problem storing voting machines.

Clan

Surely what they were worth is, in essence, what someone was prepared to pay for them - that's what an estate agent will tell you about a house, after all! 

I too would have liked to see the Dauphins kept in service but as you say, the arguments for and against that have been well rehearsed. As with the Alouette, there was never any real prospect of them being retained alongside new equipment. 

I think we need to move on at this stage and I have not heard anyone say that the retention of the Dauphins would have left the Air Corps in a better position than we are in now with the AW139, which should in time prove to be a considerably more capable machine than the Dauphin in several respects.

Mind you, that's a great video of the Dauphin in its new garb and let's hope these aircraft do fly on in the hands of new owners.

[clan]

I agree something is only worth what so someone is prepared to pay for it, but you still do not have to sell if you do not need too and we did not need to sell them. Just because something is old does not mean it is useless, it has been said many's a time that they should have been stripped of the expensive electronics and a use could have been found for them or give them to another state agency i.e the Navy. Or re-equip them yourself and sell them on like rotoleasing is doing. But they should have been kept with the EC 135 and the six AW139's not instead of one of them, that would have given the Air Corp 12, decent helicopters for a multiude of tasks. But that is my humble opinion.

[sealion]

To upgrade the dauphin avionics to modern standards, was going to cost 1.5m per aircraft. This would not have extended the service life of the 22 year old machines.

[clan]

To upgrade the dauphin avionics to modern standards, was going to cost 1.5m per aircraft. This would not have extended the service life of the 22 year old machines.

Eh How did you come up with that idea, of course upgrading extends the life. plus stripping the aircraft down would have extended the life of the craft, demonstrated by Rotorleasing in the work they did on the aircraft.. Just because something is old does not mean it is useless or of no use, or does not perform to the ability of newer machinery, in flying in Ireland iT stated the SA air force had to buy two different types of helicopter to carry out the role previously done by the A111. A 1975 Ferrari, will out perform a 2008 S2000, 33 years in age difference yet the technology in the S2000 is far more complex then the Ferrari. You can buy a car with all the electronics you want, sat Nav, Blue tooth or the new Zigby, Intelligent Indicators etc or you can can buy a Tata or Renault Logan, wind up windows, a radio and as cheap as chips, both get you from A to B.
Same principal for an aircraft, hence why you see, S61's built in the seventies still going strong and as are C130's and that is  why you will see the Irish Dauphin around for many more years, but in someones else hands.

[Buran]

... of course upgrading extends the life.....

Upgrading avionics tends not to extend structural life limits.

...A 1975 Ferrari, will out perform a 2008 S2000...

On a once around a track maybe. But will it out perform an S2000 on a trip from here to the south of france? How many clutches do you think you would need replaced?


Old does not mean useless. This is quite true.
But old usually means more expensive to maintain. And having a fleet with a few of this and a few of that increases your operating costs. So at some point you say "screw it, lets just sell the old ones and be done with it".