The good ole, Vanbulance.

EpiEMS said:
I'd like to try working in one of these...if only because I'd like to be able to try running EMS in Israel. (And, maybe, just maybe, it'll have better handling than a Type III).

life-support-ambulance-large.png
Click to expand...

That van is still "full size" but what I'm referring to is an ambulance built off of one of these:
1st_Chevrolet_Astro.jpg
 
Akulahawk said:
Unless it's a 222, I never did bother with Bell Helicopter model numbers... just their commonly used names.
Click to expand...

True, but the triple deuce / 230 is a while other airframe.
 
I run CCT and emergency service out of a vanbulance now until I finish with this remote rotation. I normally don't find it that bad, except that the backboards supplied by this company are too large to fit in the space provided so that have to permanently reside on the bench seat until it's needed. It's a pain in the butt on a 2 hr transport.
 
Akulahawk said:
That van is still "full size" but what I'm referring to is an ambulance built off of one of these:
Click to expand...

Ooh. Wow. That looks pretty rough. Probably better than a helicopter, though?
 
Ambulances in Asia are generally much smaller than here in US. Not sure how could they fit all equipments in.
nfa20040805machine001.jpg

dda8375e12cb916d1feef8333c5e8989
 
American ambulances are generally farrrr overstocked. I'd be ok with carrying about half the quantity of most of our stuff.
 
With all this talk of air ambulances, I have a question, what ever happened to NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) helicopters? Helicopters that use directed thrust as opposed to a vulnerable spinning blade. It seems to me that for HEMS where they could be landing just about anywhere (such as a highway with power lines or trees nearby) it would make more sense to not have a blade that could get caught up one of those (or a hapless medic). I remember ages ago I saw a piece on them, I think the specific one I'm remembering was a version of the MD500.
 
Jim37F said:
With all this talk of air ambulances, I have a question, what ever happened to NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) helicopters? Helicopters that use directed thrust as opposed to a vulnerable spinning blade. It seems to me that for HEMS where they could be landing just about anywhere (such as a highway with power lines or trees nearby) it would make more sense to not have a blade that could get caught up one of those (or a hapless medic). I remember ages ago I saw a piece on them, I think the specific one I'm remembering was a version of the MD500.
Click to expand...

I can't explain the mechanics of it, but I think the enclosed tail rotor that Eurocopter now uses on many of their models (EC120, EC135, EC145, AS365) is a more efficient design and requires less maintenance than what the MD Explorer uses.
 
Fenestrons and NOTAR tend to provide less thrust than a conventional tail rotor, which makes them in reality a poor choice for EMS. It's better to assign someone to keep people out of the tail rotor
 
usalsfyre said:
Fenestrons and NOTAR tend to provide less thrust than a conventional tail rotor, which makes them in reality a poor choice for EMS. It's better to assign someone to keep people out of the tail rotor
Click to expand...

Per wikipedia on ducted blades: "A computational simulation has suggested that maximum achievable thrust is twice as high, and that at identical power, thrust was slightly greater, than for a conventional rotor of the same diameter."

And even if wikipedia is incorrect on that, I'd say why is this bad for EMS? If you had said that the reduced thrust was bad for an attack chopper, I'd have agreed. In EMS where there are going to be numerous people and objects potentially near the blades a protected rotor seems a wise choice regardless of any performance delta.
 
Kevinf said:
Per wikipedia on ducted blades: "A computational simulation has suggested that maximum achievable thrust is twice as high, and that at identical power, thrust was slightly greater, than for a conventional rotor of the same diameter."

And even if wikipedia is incorrect on that, I'd say why is this bad for EMS? If you had said that the reduced thrust was bad for an attack chopper, I'd have agreed. In EMS where there are going to be numerous people and objects potentially near the blades a protected rotor seems a wise choice regardless of any performance delta.
Click to expand...
People are not routinely killed by the tail rotor. Crews are routinely killed by helicopters operating at the edge of their performance envelopes in close confines.
 
Something else to remember is that any time you have a ducted fan, you could have a pretty good suction on one side... While I doubt people would easily get sucked in, smaller items could get sucked right on in and then you have a potential FOD problem. The Fenestron fan pretty much has to be low to the ground as their size/weight would essentially dictate that they be placed right at the end of the boom. A conventional tail rotor can be placed much higher off the ground and this can help limit the potential for someone to inadvertently come into contact with it.

It's probably cheaper to just have someone watch the tail rotor...
 
Tigger said:
People are not routinely killed by the tail rotor. Crews are routinely killed by helicopters operating at the edge of their performance envelopes in close confines.
Click to expand...

Here comes an internet argument...

Same logic applies: according to that page quote, YOUR LINK, ducted fans have better performance than a similar open design. And not to go all meme quoting, but why not have the ducted fan that increases performance/safety AND have someone watch the tail end anyway?

I posted because I wanted to do the due diligence on a topic that was new to me before posting. I found out that one poster seemed to be incorrect regarding the performance of a protected rotor vs open rotor per wikipedia (your link). Your reply to my post (notar/fenestron designs are listed as having BETTER performance) was that lack of performance is what kills crews...

So that's two marks in favor of the notar/fenestron isn't it? Your own link tiger actually SAYS that they are considered better for RESCUE operations!

That's why I posted... just because you have a protected rotor doesn't mean you can't have a spotter too. And the protected rotor design is listed as having both a performance and safety advantage. The links posted seem to contradict the stated logic.
 
It was your link, thank you ;)
 
Kevinf said:
Here comes an internet argument...

Same logic applies: according to that page quote, YOUR LINK, ducted fans have better performance than a similar open design. And not to go all meme quoting, but why not have the ducted fan that increases performance/safety AND have someone watch the tail end anyway?

I posted because I wanted to do the due diligence on a topic that was new to me before posting. I found out that one poster seemed to be incorrect regarding the performance of a protected rotor vs open rotor per wikipedia (your link). Your reply to my post (notar/fenestron designs are listed as having BETTER performance) was that lack of performance is what kills crews...

So that's two marks in favor of the notar/fenestron isn't it? Your own link tiger actually SAYS that they are considered better for RESCUE operations!

That's why I posted... just because you have a protected rotor doesn't mean you can't have a spotter too. And the protected rotor design is listed as having both a performance and safety advantage. The links posted seem to contradict the stated logic.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you go ask a high time helicopter pilot which they prefer. I haven't found one yet that feels Fenestron's are as effective as a conventional t/r. It's the difference between Wikipedia and practical application.
 
usalsfyre said:
I'd suggest you go ask a high time helicopter pilot which they prefer. I haven't found one yet that feels Fenestron's are as effective as a conventional t/r. It's the difference between Wikipedia and practical application.
Click to expand...
The difference between statistical and anecdotal evidence.

Ex.: A lot of medical providers would take exception to the new approach to backboarding.

Only one of the two options (evidentiary vs. anecdotal) is accepted as a valid argument.
 
The tail rotor discussion is largely academic. I just felt compelled to point out that the posted information was in direct contradiction to the linked information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top