EC155 vs AW109S

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Can't find any previous comparisons between the two.

Capital outlay aside, would be interested in any performance and support comments relating to these two types.

For a corporate role 3-4 pax (with limited overwater flying ie. 10nm about once every quarter) which would you choose and why?

[HeliHenri]

Hello,

Well, not realy the same category,
The 155 as a MTOW of 4900 Kgs and the Grand New as a MTOW of 3200 Kgs.
So their price (new or second hand) are very very different !

For 3 or 4 Pax : the 109 for sure or maybe as second choise a 365N3 that you have not considered.

[Savoia]

I would be interested to know whether the figures I have (below) are even remotely accurate:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-dvFHzp21mSw/UDJv1bsACcI/AAAAAAAAJgg/3xFivrXzPSE/s591/155-109+comp.png

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Nn5h6PpqcHA/UDJv23W-P7I/AAAAAAAAJhQ/rHAwhtYUq0U/s781/EC_155+m.jpg
EC155 Exterior

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vNPkfxOZ7yc/UDJv3I6WJzI/AAAAAAAAJg8/YeJ8vDogPZ0/s903/Ec155+Interior.jpg
EC155 Interior Layout

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mTkrXIDevFk/UDJv1m0bCgI/AAAAAAAAJhU/f9PfC_Vw1OQ/s765/109S.jpg
AW109S Exterior

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-I2t1n58DE7g/UDJv1jHr8zI/AAAAAAAAJgk/xY7-pCxhGi8/s595/109S+Interior.jpeg
AW109S Interior Layout

As you probably know, Prince Albert of Monaco went for the 155 but .. I believe he had little choice in the matter!

[RotaryWingB2]

You are comparing chalk and cheese.

The 155 is awesome though.:E

[OvertHawk]

Sav - don't know about the 109, but your 155 figures are a wee bit off.

Can't be specific on the disposable load off the top of my head (but 2300kg seems a bit optimistic - maybe possible in a very light aircraft with virtually nothing installed in the way of extras), but she should easily cruise at 150kts plus at 50% MAUW and should be over 145 even at MAUW. As for fuel burn at MCP - about 315kg/h. That should be not too far away from you 460nm still-air to VFR reserves.

She's a great aircraft to fly! ;)

OH

[EESDL]

Perhaps both aircraft are overkill for your perceived role?
Personally, would opt for As365n1/n2 with corporate fit and floats. Smaller engines than 155 so gives you better range. I did the comparison and found 109/n3 unable to do some of the flights n1 could operating in private/corporate sector. N1 and n2 not option in aoc commercial role due to poor genuine helipad .
Currently fly the 155 and have extensive experience of flying n1 in VIP/corporate role - the interior shot of 155 looks cramped to what is actually available. Much larger cockpit and cabin than 109 range, and reflected in price.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Thanks for the feedback.

I have been told that the N3 has good OEI performance so this could be an option but in this project the owner's budget really isn't the biggest issue.

Its always better if you can get good operating costs but technical support is another really important issue and both AW and EC have their good and not so good points in this area.

[griffothefog]

From a drivers viewpoint, you need to be of midget proportions to be comfy in the 109 cockpit :{

[HeliHenri]

Anthony Supplebottom :
"but in this project the owner's budget really isn't the biggest issue"

What ! :eek:
So a 139 in a four VVIP seats config will let more room for legs and shoulders ;)

Seriously, have you seen the second hand 365N3 reg G-DOLF (ex James Dyson aircraft)
Very nice aircraft and she's got Emergency floatation gear fixed and removable parts !
The two fwd VIP seats can be put in a front looking side (sorry about my poor English) that is very pleasant for the pax.
you can find her on controller.com

[ShyTorque]

I would be interested to know whether the figures I have (below) are even remotely accurate:

The 109S has a payload of just over one metric tonne. MAUM =3175Kgs. A typical aircraft zero fuel weight is around 2140 kgs.

Difference / payload = 1035 kgs approx.

Your fuel consumption figure is about 10% pessimistic.

[PhlyingGuy]

Have you considered the Bell 429? Especially if you think that technical support is really important issue. It should probably be able to meet your flying profile.

[Savoia]

Hopefully the figures below may be slightly more accurate for use as a 'thumb suck' - thanks to OvertHawk and ShyTorque!

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-a9QgkTHrFuU/UDOiqUuoXgI/AAAAAAAAJiI/qEa0RZ47VYk/s589/155-109%2520comp.png

[212man]

For a B I'd suggest 320kg/hr. the MCTOM is 4800kg (4920 for the B1) so with a dry empty mass (2 pilot) of around 3400kg for a corporate machine, I think your disposable is a bit optimistic. The speed seems a bit pessimistic, still, from what I recall, and I'm not sure what you mean by "50% of MAUW." It's not possible to operate at that weight as it would be 2,400 kg i.e. below the empty weight. One thing the EC155 really excels in is the high altitude cruise - especially compared to the S-76 which becomes Vne limited above 4,000 ft. I regularly saw 165 kts TAS and 275 kg/hr at 8-10,000 ft!

[Hyds Out]

Don't forget the 7 day / 15fh engineering requirement on the 155. Of course, cannot be done by a pilot, so unless you are based with a maintenance company, it can be a pain in the backside. Good old EC.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Hyds Out - Would you mind providing a little more info on the 15hr inspection?

If that's the case then yes, it could be a right pain especially during continental trips.

[Hyds Out]

Anthony, sent you a PM, but basically no pilot approved Check A as such on the 155, just a walkround. Instead an engineer does a 7/15. Takes 2-3 hours (ish) which comprises a general check, levels etc. Pilot not approved to open cowlings. Not trusted. Or b), another EC money making scheme. Does mean you can take it away for 7 days without checking anything.
Surprised EC haven't developed an engineers seat in the boot. Then at least, when touring, they are on hand.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Does mean you can take it away for 7 days without checking anything.
As long as the 7 days doesn't exceed 15hrs!!! That's not a lot of leeway for many European destinations with some local flying thrown in!

Thanks for the tip.

[Flying Bull]

Well Hydsout,

with some extra training - which isn´t bad, because you understand more from your machine - a pilot can also do the check....
You´re right about the 2 to 3 hrs ish time needed - and some extra kit, i.e. for tyre pressure and a mirror, to look for the cracks ;-)

Greetings Flying Bull

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Which kind of check, every 15hrs, takes up to 3hrs - can you give a breakdown out of interest?

[Flying Bull]

Hi Anthony,
couple of pages wich checks to be done.
From opening the radome, checking for water in the drailines, selftesting the inbuild computers, total fuselage, from windows over doors, door locking operations including display on the caution and advisory display while opening and closing, all lights, landing gear with pressure to the tyres, fire extinguish system pressure, tail with fenestron, with looks to damage and play of blades, rotor head and blades with all the dampers, scisor links and so on, opening engine and gearbox doors (better remove them and instal them later again - better view and quicker) and checking all the lines, pop ups and levels as well as all the flexiable couplings (by turning the rotor the wrong direction).
Main gear box for cracks on the bottom plate and wear on the lines, hydraulik jacks and reservoirs. Checking also the mobile fire extinguisher, the remaining pressure of the hydraulik system, the firts aid box, interior and even some cleaning inside.
And if done correctly - two to three hours with a few moments of help for the engine doors and the turning of the rotor.

Greetings Flying Bull

[EC155B1]

HELLO FOLKS

Does any one has any info on frequent AHRS(Attitude Heading Reference System) and RA failure on EC 155B1.

RA failure leads to Wx Radar failure........

Is this happening frequently on EC 155 B1fleet ?Any specific reason for it? Any engineering input and analysis on this is welcome......

Rgds

[BlenderPilot]

My boss really wanted an EC155, so he calls me up and tells me that he really wants an EC155, and asks me to look into into it, I discovered that around here, the EC155 can barely lift itself off the ground and costs twice as much. We now have an Agusta 109SP, which also sucks big time, lack of TR authority, avionics are a constant problem, lot's of QC issues for a new aircraft, and lotssss of vibration, around here they call the SP the living dead. But at least it will get itself off the ground.

[Anthony Supplebottom]

So what is the aircraft of choice in the light-medium corporate twin category for performance, operating cost and without having to land at a service centre every 15 hours (as with the EC155)?

[RotaryWingB2]

Pilots can do the 15hr inspection, with the correct training and approvals.

[Savoia]

So what is the aircraft of choice in the light-medium corporate twin category for performance, operating cost ..
S76B? .. Minus the fuel burn?

.. the EC155 can barely lift itself off the ground ..
I have to admit .. is does seem extraordinary for a modern light to medium twin to have such poor performance. I am curious as to how offshore operators using the 155 cope with this?

[aegir]

What about EC135 or EC145? It's very good aircrafts.

And don't forget the AS365N3: it's a little smaller compared to the 155, but it offers good performances and comfort.

[imarfly]

Does anyone know the current price of a EC155B1 configured for 4-6 VIP seats?

[Savoia]

Several sources quote a new 155 at around USD 10m.

Used examples (in VIP configuration) are available from anywhere between 3-7m according to specification.