How Important Is Crashworthiness?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern France
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How Important Is Crashworthiness?
The thread on S-92 Oil Pressure problems raised some interesting points, some old and some new.
It was previously discovered that the EC-225 was certified using 332 as the basis, so the 225 has only some improved features (I understand they call this "grandfathered"). Lappos touts the S-92 as having all new features (he also admits that the AB-139 shares this trait).
So we have the EC 225, with unprotected passenger and crew seats (I think the inference is that these seats somehow could be made to not harm the occupant in a crash, although I don't understand the process) and the S-92 with the "better" seats.
We have the EC 225 with a cabin that does not meet the latest crash strength rules (I don't know what these rules are, actually) and the S-92 that claims to do so.
Lappos claims some S-92 advantage in "flaw tolerant" components, presumably an advantage, not shared by the 225.
The 225 is based on the proven 332 family (which I assume has a good safety record, does anyone have the facts?) and we know the S-92 is unproven, just now building time.
It seems that we really don't know if the aircraft are relatively equal on payload and range performance, and perhaps on price - it has not ever been clearly stated here.
So which one is better? Which one carries more? Which one is safer? Which one has more payload and range? Which costs less to buy? Which costs less to operate?
Does anyone know the facts here (perhaps besides Lappos and helicomparitor, who both seem too close to their aircraft!)
Rick Burt, your company operates aircraft from both companies, what do you say?
It was previously discovered that the EC-225 was certified using 332 as the basis, so the 225 has only some improved features (I understand they call this "grandfathered"). Lappos touts the S-92 as having all new features (he also admits that the AB-139 shares this trait).
So we have the EC 225, with unprotected passenger and crew seats (I think the inference is that these seats somehow could be made to not harm the occupant in a crash, although I don't understand the process) and the S-92 with the "better" seats.
We have the EC 225 with a cabin that does not meet the latest crash strength rules (I don't know what these rules are, actually) and the S-92 that claims to do so.
Lappos claims some S-92 advantage in "flaw tolerant" components, presumably an advantage, not shared by the 225.
The 225 is based on the proven 332 family (which I assume has a good safety record, does anyone have the facts?) and we know the S-92 is unproven, just now building time.
It seems that we really don't know if the aircraft are relatively equal on payload and range performance, and perhaps on price - it has not ever been clearly stated here.
So which one is better? Which one carries more? Which one is safer? Which one has more payload and range? Which costs less to buy? Which costs less to operate?
Does anyone know the facts here (perhaps besides Lappos and helicomparitor, who both seem too close to their aircraft!)
Rick Burt, your company operates aircraft from both companies, what do you say?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear the 225 has about 600 lbs less payload, and about the same range. That's 2 pax shy.
The cost is about equal, dollars to Euros, but lately that means the 225 is about 25% more expensive, since those Sikorski folks sell in dollars.
The cost is about equal, dollars to Euros, but lately that means the 225 is about 25% more expensive, since those Sikorski folks sell in dollars.
Wow...lots of questions...but only a few regarding the title of the thread. The title..."How important is Crashworthiness?" has naught to do with payload, fuel burn, etc....unless I suppose one has to reduce pax seating/payload capacity to accomodate "crashworthiness measures". Within the framework of your question do you consider losing two passenger seats and a 25% cost knock out of the starting gate a cost?
How does the customer calibrate his cost analysis parameters when weighing "crashworthiness issues"? Does a customer who is quite happy for his employees to be flying over rough cold water just prior to dark in a single engine aircraft with no SAR coverage even consider such issues? If they do....why would they not opt for the most "sophisticated crashworthy" aircraft money can buy. Sheer cost would not be the issue but rather buying the cutting edge tech aircraft would be.
If we wish to fly around in "proven" aircraft we would still be in DC-3's instead of RJ's and 737 XXX models. Have not the new high tech "crashworthy" aircraft shown themselves to be superior to the old tech....less "crashworthy" aircraft over time?
A thought to consider....statistically...the Bell Jetranger is the safest general aviation aircraft in the world. Despite being operated in some very dangerous work. How does this play into your question....for sure the Jetranger is neither hi-tech nor "crashworthy" as it is applied in this discussion?
How does the customer calibrate his cost analysis parameters when weighing "crashworthiness issues"? Does a customer who is quite happy for his employees to be flying over rough cold water just prior to dark in a single engine aircraft with no SAR coverage even consider such issues? If they do....why would they not opt for the most "sophisticated crashworthy" aircraft money can buy. Sheer cost would not be the issue but rather buying the cutting edge tech aircraft would be.
If we wish to fly around in "proven" aircraft we would still be in DC-3's instead of RJ's and 737 XXX models. Have not the new high tech "crashworthy" aircraft shown themselves to be superior to the old tech....less "crashworthy" aircraft over time?
A thought to consider....statistically...the Bell Jetranger is the safest general aviation aircraft in the world. Despite being operated in some very dangerous work. How does this play into your question....for sure the Jetranger is neither hi-tech nor "crashworthy" as it is applied in this discussion?
No doubt I will get flack for posting on this thread too. Lets just get some facts being bandied around by rj straight.
The disposable loads (with the 225 option of crashworthy floor and seats meeting JAR / FAR 29.561/2 ) of both aircraft in North Sea fit are similar at around 4200kg (say 9250lbs) which allows both to take 19 pax, baggage and full fuel (5000lbs). That is including the strenthened floor option on the 92 as well - the standard floor isn't really up to the rigours of N Sea oil support with its loading limit of 75lbs/sq foot.
The 92 is a couple of million cheaper than the 225, which gives it a clear advantage if you are a bean counter, though this will only last as long as the dollar remains weak - should it go back to 2003 levels that difference disappears.
Ranges are very similar but I think the 225 will just take the lead by about 10 miles.
The S92 claims to meet JAR/FAR 29 1999 version
The 225 claims to meet JAR/FAR 29 2000 version with the following reversions to earlier standards:
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
That's 7 partial reversions out of hundreds of paras, 5 if you take the crashworthy floor/seat option (that clears 29.562 and 561.)
Of the 5, 3 are to do with the fuel being under the floor - the Super Puma series will never be able to meet this - a clear one up to the S92.
Not quite sure where it doesn't meet 785, but again its a crashworthiness thing.
571 does look like it would be nice to have as its there to stop you falling out of the sky, not just to soften the blow when you do.
So there is one item that I would like to have on my heli out of that lot that the 225 doesn't have, that might stop me crashing. If you are going to crash, the 92 is probably the one to do it in, though its more difficult for the passengers to get out of in a rush (small, high up exit windows).
The 225 does have genuine 30 min run time with no gearbox pumps or oil which the 92 doesn't have. So they are about equal in my book on "paper safety".
Rotorpower - the crashworthy seats are so-called because they stroke downwards in a crash with high vertical (as opposed to forward) speed on ground contact (which is what usually happens in heli crashes) thus reducing the peak g-force experienced by the passengers. They normally do this by using metal shredding or crushing (same idea as the S92 undercarriage has) to absorb energy. You also need a floor that is strong enough not to collapse.
Sas - are you sure that the jetranger is the safest general aviation aircraft in the world - don't you mean safest helicopter? Is this fact or rumour, if the former what is your source?
But you make a good point about the cost of crashworthiness. Even here in the UK, where we think we are the bees knees on safety, there is (with very few exceptions) no clamour from our clients to rush to get the new kit. With the climate of "duty of care" pervading the rest of the business world, and the high cost of killing people (well, westerners anyway), I don't understand this.
Maybe the clients are clever enough to understand the bathtub concept - ie reliability for a new aircraft follows a curve like a section through a bathtub - dodgy at first until the bugs are ironed, settles down to give good service for many years, then old age starts to catch up with it.
HC
The disposable loads (with the 225 option of crashworthy floor and seats meeting JAR / FAR 29.561/2 ) of both aircraft in North Sea fit are similar at around 4200kg (say 9250lbs) which allows both to take 19 pax, baggage and full fuel (5000lbs). That is including the strenthened floor option on the 92 as well - the standard floor isn't really up to the rigours of N Sea oil support with its loading limit of 75lbs/sq foot.
The 92 is a couple of million cheaper than the 225, which gives it a clear advantage if you are a bean counter, though this will only last as long as the dollar remains weak - should it go back to 2003 levels that difference disappears.
Ranges are very similar but I think the 225 will just take the lead by about 10 miles.
The S92 claims to meet JAR/FAR 29 1999 version
The 225 claims to meet JAR/FAR 29 2000 version with the following reversions to earlier standards:
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
That's 7 partial reversions out of hundreds of paras, 5 if you take the crashworthy floor/seat option (that clears 29.562 and 561.)
Of the 5, 3 are to do with the fuel being under the floor - the Super Puma series will never be able to meet this - a clear one up to the S92.
Not quite sure where it doesn't meet 785, but again its a crashworthiness thing.
571 does look like it would be nice to have as its there to stop you falling out of the sky, not just to soften the blow when you do.
So there is one item that I would like to have on my heli out of that lot that the 225 doesn't have, that might stop me crashing. If you are going to crash, the 92 is probably the one to do it in, though its more difficult for the passengers to get out of in a rush (small, high up exit windows).
The 225 does have genuine 30 min run time with no gearbox pumps or oil which the 92 doesn't have. So they are about equal in my book on "paper safety".
Rotorpower - the crashworthy seats are so-called because they stroke downwards in a crash with high vertical (as opposed to forward) speed on ground contact (which is what usually happens in heli crashes) thus reducing the peak g-force experienced by the passengers. They normally do this by using metal shredding or crushing (same idea as the S92 undercarriage has) to absorb energy. You also need a floor that is strong enough not to collapse.
Sas - are you sure that the jetranger is the safest general aviation aircraft in the world - don't you mean safest helicopter? Is this fact or rumour, if the former what is your source?
But you make a good point about the cost of crashworthiness. Even here in the UK, where we think we are the bees knees on safety, there is (with very few exceptions) no clamour from our clients to rush to get the new kit. With the climate of "duty of care" pervading the rest of the business world, and the high cost of killing people (well, westerners anyway), I don't understand this.
Maybe the clients are clever enough to understand the bathtub concept - ie reliability for a new aircraft follows a curve like a section through a bathtub - dodgy at first until the bugs are ironed, settles down to give good service for many years, then old age starts to catch up with it.
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Apr 2005 at 23:40.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern France
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we can assume about the same performance in range and payload, and the S-92 is cheaper by a few million dollars (out of what 17 million?) OK.
Let's look at the 225's shortfalls (according to helicomparitor, who seems biased in favor of the Eurocopter. Are there more shortfalls than these?):
Fatigue evaluation of structure
Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses
Emergency dynamic landing conditions Fuel system crash resistance
Fuel tanks: general; Puncture Resistance
So the FUEL TANKS are weaker? Does this mean they split or burst more easily? Is a fire more likely in an EC 225?
What does that mean about the belts and harnesses? Are they weaker, too?
Can't those things be made safer on the EC 225, too? It seems that they are just added on, so they could be made proper.
Mr. Burt, can you speak out?
Let's look at the 225's shortfalls (according to helicomparitor, who seems biased in favor of the Eurocopter. Are there more shortfalls than these?):
Fatigue evaluation of structure
Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses
Emergency dynamic landing conditions Fuel system crash resistance
Fuel tanks: general; Puncture Resistance
So the FUEL TANKS are weaker? Does this mean they split or burst more easily? Is a fire more likely in an EC 225?
What does that mean about the belts and harnesses? Are they weaker, too?
Can't those things be made safer on the EC 225, too? It seems that they are just added on, so they could be made proper.
Mr. Burt, can you speak out?
HeliComparator
I agree with almost all you've said, but perhaps I can add a little ?
The EASA certification standard for both aircraft is JAR29 change 1. The S92 FAA standard is FAR 29 amendment 47. Looking at the FAA website I cannot see any FAA certification for the EC225, so presumably it doesn't have one yet?
My understanding of the EC225 exemption for "FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)" is that the aircraft is compliant in the 19 seat configuration.
The S92 windows are actually bigger that the standard AS332L/L2 push out windows, so I wouldn't exactly call them small. They are 5 inches higher above the floor than the Super Puma windows. The large EC225 windows are great (and expensive), pity the cabin is still the standard sardine can.
The payload/range/TAS question is an interesting one. Unfortunately the latest EC225 Flight Manual still does not contain any fuel consumption graphs, however the following is believed correct.
The EC225 has a fuel capacity of just over 5000 lbs, assuming 6 under floor tanks + sponson tanks. Without the sponson tanks this drops to just under 4000 lbs. 3000ft ISA -10 at 10,400 kgs AUW, 73% Tq produces a fuel burn of 1280lbs/hr and 135 kts TAS. With reserves + 10% this gives a range of 433nm with sponson tanks, 333nm without.
The S92 has a fuel capacity of just over 5150 lbs. 3000ft ISA -10 at 25,000lbs AUW, 66% Tq produces a fuel burn of 1320lbs/hr and 135 kts TAS. Taking reserves + 10% gives a range of 430 nm.
Nothing in it.......
However the S92 does give about 1000 lbs less available payload for the same spec of aircraft. Sikorsky are planning (??) to increase the MAUW to 28,000 lbs, so I guess some time in the future this will swing in favour of Sikorsky by about the same margin.
As you said, the only real difference at the moment is price, with Sikorsky being more cost effective to purchase and operate by a margin of about 20 - 30%. A strengthening dollar will change that - anyone have a crystal ball??
One minor point, it's a shame that ECF have not developed a crashworthy "enhanced" crew seat. Their only offering is a basic seat without all of the usual adjustments, supports and armrests.
I agree with almost all you've said, but perhaps I can add a little ?
The EASA certification standard for both aircraft is JAR29 change 1. The S92 FAA standard is FAR 29 amendment 47. Looking at the FAA website I cannot see any FAA certification for the EC225, so presumably it doesn't have one yet?
My understanding of the EC225 exemption for "FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)" is that the aircraft is compliant in the 19 seat configuration.
The S92 windows are actually bigger that the standard AS332L/L2 push out windows, so I wouldn't exactly call them small. They are 5 inches higher above the floor than the Super Puma windows. The large EC225 windows are great (and expensive), pity the cabin is still the standard sardine can.
The payload/range/TAS question is an interesting one. Unfortunately the latest EC225 Flight Manual still does not contain any fuel consumption graphs, however the following is believed correct.
The EC225 has a fuel capacity of just over 5000 lbs, assuming 6 under floor tanks + sponson tanks. Without the sponson tanks this drops to just under 4000 lbs. 3000ft ISA -10 at 10,400 kgs AUW, 73% Tq produces a fuel burn of 1280lbs/hr and 135 kts TAS. With reserves + 10% this gives a range of 433nm with sponson tanks, 333nm without.
The S92 has a fuel capacity of just over 5150 lbs. 3000ft ISA -10 at 25,000lbs AUW, 66% Tq produces a fuel burn of 1320lbs/hr and 135 kts TAS. Taking reserves + 10% gives a range of 430 nm.
Nothing in it.......
However the S92 does give about 1000 lbs less available payload for the same spec of aircraft. Sikorsky are planning (??) to increase the MAUW to 28,000 lbs, so I guess some time in the future this will swing in favour of Sikorsky by about the same margin.
As you said, the only real difference at the moment is price, with Sikorsky being more cost effective to purchase and operate by a margin of about 20 - 30%. A strengthening dollar will change that - anyone have a crystal ball??
One minor point, it's a shame that ECF have not developed a crashworthy "enhanced" crew seat. Their only offering is a basic seat without all of the usual adjustments, supports and armrests.
I may be mistaken, but I read that reference to the size of the escape 'holes' as a reference to the potential for fitting and using a very large door on the EC versus the small door forward and windows on the S-92 rather than EC escapees having to revert to the smaller windows.......
The other comment on the FUEL TANKS being weaker was I thought also a misread. I doubt either type has weaker fuel tanks. It is just that modern crashworthy requirements under JAR require the fuel tanks beneath the feet. With its SA330 Puma main structural origins the EC225 cannot provide that option.
In JAR27 the same applies to the Agusta 109 in that it claims Grandfather rights to continue to fit tanks 'in' the cabin [under the rear seats]. Again the structure will not allow for tanks underneath.
It was always an odd situation - apparently directly challenging the JAR crashworthy requirements - when Bell produced the original 'new' build 427 and put fuel tanks as a wall between the crew. It is unclear whether they thought that fitted in the JAR rules..... anyway we later got the 427IFR and then the 429 which neatly redesigned that little anomaly out!
In all cases it certainly does not naturally mean that anyones builds tanks that split or burst more easily.
The other comment on the FUEL TANKS being weaker was I thought also a misread. I doubt either type has weaker fuel tanks. It is just that modern crashworthy requirements under JAR require the fuel tanks beneath the feet. With its SA330 Puma main structural origins the EC225 cannot provide that option.
In JAR27 the same applies to the Agusta 109 in that it claims Grandfather rights to continue to fit tanks 'in' the cabin [under the rear seats]. Again the structure will not allow for tanks underneath.
It was always an odd situation - apparently directly challenging the JAR crashworthy requirements - when Bell produced the original 'new' build 427 and put fuel tanks as a wall between the crew. It is unclear whether they thought that fitted in the JAR rules..... anyway we later got the 427IFR and then the 429 which neatly redesigned that little anomaly out!
In all cases it certainly does not naturally mean that anyones builds tanks that split or burst more easily.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PANews:
Not sure you have that quite right:
The reason that the 'pop-out' windows are now de rigeur for offshore operations is because it has been demonstrated that it is nearly impossible to evacuate through the required exits within the breath hold time for the average occupant (remember that these helicopters are only required to be certificated to Sea State 4 - although the S92 and EC225 better that standard). A trial conducted in Canada with a notional large aircraft with 19 seats made that quite clear - this is nothing to do with the size of the (required) emergency exits. Thus best practice indicates that a passenger must not be more than one person removed from an acceptable escape route (a pop-out window).
That aircraft fuel is carried under the floor causes the problem for types that were certificated earlier - to meet the revised requirements, the fuel has to be installed outside the fuselage.
Not sure you have that quite right:
The reason that the 'pop-out' windows are now de rigeur for offshore operations is because it has been demonstrated that it is nearly impossible to evacuate through the required exits within the breath hold time for the average occupant (remember that these helicopters are only required to be certificated to Sea State 4 - although the S92 and EC225 better that standard). A trial conducted in Canada with a notional large aircraft with 19 seats made that quite clear - this is nothing to do with the size of the (required) emergency exits. Thus best practice indicates that a passenger must not be more than one person removed from an acceptable escape route (a pop-out window).
That aircraft fuel is carried under the floor causes the problem for types that were certificated earlier - to meet the revised requirements, the fuel has to be installed outside the fuselage.
Variable Load
Thanks for clearing up the point about the 29.785. I am confused about FAA certification because the reversions I posted are taken from the EASA TCDS, and are a mixuture of JAR and FAR references. Dunno what that is all about!
Are you sure the 92 has 1000lbs worse disposable load than the 225 in similar config? That seems a lot. Its always very difficult to compare these things as its so dependant on equipment level.
Regarding the crashworthy pilot seats, EC are offering these with adjustable lumbar support but no rake or thigh support adjustment. I think its tricky to have variable rake with a stroking seat. Of course you would also have to go for the strengthened cockpit floor.
However, as far as I am aware (someone correct me!) the S92 doesn't have crashworthy fully adjustable seats either.
In my book, comfort comes before crashworthiness!
I think the 92's windows are smaller than the L/L2s but don't have the data right now - will check and get back to you.
Rotorpower - no, the fuel tanks are not weaker, they are just in a harsher environment if you crash - ie surrounded by shredded metal bits with tons of passengers, engines and transmissions bearing down on them. On the 92 they are outside and should break away in a crash - though not sure what happens to them after that (ie do they survive being whacked by rotor blades etc?)
Thanks for clearing up the point about the 29.785. I am confused about FAA certification because the reversions I posted are taken from the EASA TCDS, and are a mixuture of JAR and FAR references. Dunno what that is all about!
Are you sure the 92 has 1000lbs worse disposable load than the 225 in similar config? That seems a lot. Its always very difficult to compare these things as its so dependant on equipment level.
Regarding the crashworthy pilot seats, EC are offering these with adjustable lumbar support but no rake or thigh support adjustment. I think its tricky to have variable rake with a stroking seat. Of course you would also have to go for the strengthened cockpit floor.
However, as far as I am aware (someone correct me!) the S92 doesn't have crashworthy fully adjustable seats either.
In my book, comfort comes before crashworthiness!
I think the 92's windows are smaller than the L/L2s but don't have the data right now - will check and get back to you.
Rotorpower - no, the fuel tanks are not weaker, they are just in a harsher environment if you crash - ie surrounded by shredded metal bits with tons of passengers, engines and transmissions bearing down on them. On the 92 they are outside and should break away in a crash - though not sure what happens to them after that (ie do they survive being whacked by rotor blades etc?)
The 92 windows are 1 to 1.5 ins bigger than the L/L2 ones.
The basic pilot seats have only lumbar adjustment but the modified seat (available end of 2005?) will have rake, armrests and adjustable headrests (ie as the Leader seat in the 332s) but retaining the full crashworthiness (it's a Martin-Baker seat). The pax seats are also MB crashworthy seats.
The basic pilot seats have only lumbar adjustment but the modified seat (available end of 2005?) will have rake, armrests and adjustable headrests (ie as the Leader seat in the 332s) but retaining the full crashworthiness (it's a Martin-Baker seat). The pax seats are also MB crashworthy seats.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, the 225's fuel system is based on the 1964 rules, and is very very prone to splitting and fire. The number of 332's with the same basic weakness that have burned after crashes is high. I recall a crash in an Arabic country that burned and killed about 10 people, including the Army chief of staff. The weakness of the fuel system is fairly legendary, I think.
Combined with poorer seats, weaker seat belts, this is an example of EC trying to slog off older stuff on its passengers and crews.
Instead of saying that comfort is more important than safety, why don't we ask for both?? Isn't it about time that we require the highest safety for our aircraft, especially if that doesn't cost more performance?
Combined with poorer seats, weaker seat belts, this is an example of EC trying to slog off older stuff on its passengers and crews.
Instead of saying that comfort is more important than safety, why don't we ask for both?? Isn't it about time that we require the highest safety for our aircraft, especially if that doesn't cost more performance?
As I recall from earlier discussions with a Fumey rascal in a dingy bar in West Africa....he told of the cruise performance of the Tiger being reduced after it was discovered the main GB's were wearing extraordinarily quickly. HC...can you confirm that as being true? The guy purported to have been a management type....from the way he consumed other people's beer and played golf to the exclusion of anything but his drinking...I think that might have been the truth....thus I suppose his statements were true about having to reduce the amount of pitch being pulled for cruise. Any truth to his statement?
Thus can we put any reliance into the performance numbers of the 225 as being promoted? Are they very similar to the current Bristow Tiger numbers now being experienced as to power settings and such?
The 92 is still too new to know for sure....at this point...for sure the 225 is too new.
Thus can we put any reliance into the performance numbers of the 225 as being promoted? Are they very similar to the current Bristow Tiger numbers now being experienced as to power settings and such?
The 92 is still too new to know for sure....at this point...for sure the 225 is too new.
Steve_oc - they may be 1-1.5 ins bigger in one dimension, but what about the other? I can't put lay my hands on the 92's window size at the moment - do you have both dimensions?
rj - as I posted earlier, the 225's fuel system is "less crashworthy" than the 92, though its much improved from the old 330 puma that you are referring to. EC have done about as much as can be done in terms of strengthening and thickening the bags, but whilst they are under the floor they will never pass the new regs.
There has been no mention of weak seat belts - where did that come from? Its true that the stroking passenger seats are an option, but at least that gives the customer the choice - better payload or better safety. With that option the seats are not "poorer" as you suggest.
Yup, give me comfort AND safety please, but none of the manufacturers do that yet.
SAS - by Tiger do you mean the AS332L Super Puma - the EC Tiger is surely a military attack helicopter? The AS332L's flight manual was the subject of a CAA change sheet which removed references to fast cruise - only economical cruise was allowed. This was a long time ago and the result of the experiences of all the North Sea operators. I believe the reason was to do with general vibration levels as well as the gearbox.
It looks like the same thing is happening to the S92 - operators are already finding airframe cracks in aircraft with less than 200 hrs in service, due to the high vibration levels. I suspect we will be seeing them reduce their cruise speed unless SKy can reduce the vibration.
As to the 225, no-one knows yet. However it is intrinsically much smoother than either the 332L or the S92. Its being promoted to be cruised at max continuous power, giving 141kts tas at 11 tonnes, 151 at 9.5 tonnes (6000' 0degC, with floats). When I flew it, it was very smooth at that speed but we were quite light. Not sure what it would be like at max gross weight.
HC
rj - as I posted earlier, the 225's fuel system is "less crashworthy" than the 92, though its much improved from the old 330 puma that you are referring to. EC have done about as much as can be done in terms of strengthening and thickening the bags, but whilst they are under the floor they will never pass the new regs.
There has been no mention of weak seat belts - where did that come from? Its true that the stroking passenger seats are an option, but at least that gives the customer the choice - better payload or better safety. With that option the seats are not "poorer" as you suggest.
Yup, give me comfort AND safety please, but none of the manufacturers do that yet.
SAS - by Tiger do you mean the AS332L Super Puma - the EC Tiger is surely a military attack helicopter? The AS332L's flight manual was the subject of a CAA change sheet which removed references to fast cruise - only economical cruise was allowed. This was a long time ago and the result of the experiences of all the North Sea operators. I believe the reason was to do with general vibration levels as well as the gearbox.
It looks like the same thing is happening to the S92 - operators are already finding airframe cracks in aircraft with less than 200 hrs in service, due to the high vibration levels. I suspect we will be seeing them reduce their cruise speed unless SKy can reduce the vibration.
As to the 225, no-one knows yet. However it is intrinsically much smoother than either the 332L or the S92. Its being promoted to be cruised at max continuous power, giving 141kts tas at 11 tonnes, 151 at 9.5 tonnes (6000' 0degC, with floats). When I flew it, it was very smooth at that speed but we were quite light. Not sure what it would be like at max gross weight.
HC
HC...
I guess you are the only person that never heard of the Bristow "Tiger"...close hold information...along with the registration number to that effect even.
What was it....G-TIGR and other G-TIG_ registrations. They also have a simulator....based on the "Tiger" version of the Super Puma.....and have the same "Tiger" Super Puma in Australia.
From results of a Google search....
Bristow Helicopters operates a modern fleet of over 120 aircraft, including the world's largest commercial fleet of the 18-passenger Super Puma. Bristow's experience in operating these long-range, harsh-environment aircraft surpasses that of any other operator.
Bristow provides services from several strategic locations in the UK and Norway for offshore related activity. The northern and central locations of the North Sea are serviced from Aberdeen - Scotland, Stavanger - Norway and Scatsta in the Shetland Islands. The 18 seater Super Puma 'the Bristow Tiger' is the main helicopter type in use. The fleet also comprises Mark II Super Pumas operating in Norway
Yo Nick...maybe this guy doesn't work for Bristow....or he is not being completely forthright in his responses here.
He says he does not work for EC...but does work as a pilot on the North Sea but does no know of the Bristow Tiger....maybe he is just Lu in disguise? Lu...if that is you ...knock it off old man!
I guess you are the only person that never heard of the Bristow "Tiger"...close hold information...along with the registration number to that effect even.
What was it....G-TIGR and other G-TIG_ registrations. They also have a simulator....based on the "Tiger" version of the Super Puma.....and have the same "Tiger" Super Puma in Australia.
From results of a Google search....
Bristow Helicopters operates a modern fleet of over 120 aircraft, including the world's largest commercial fleet of the 18-passenger Super Puma. Bristow's experience in operating these long-range, harsh-environment aircraft surpasses that of any other operator.
Bristow provides services from several strategic locations in the UK and Norway for offshore related activity. The northern and central locations of the North Sea are serviced from Aberdeen - Scotland, Stavanger - Norway and Scatsta in the Shetland Islands. The 18 seater Super Puma 'the Bristow Tiger' is the main helicopter type in use. The fleet also comprises Mark II Super Pumas operating in Norway
Yo Nick...maybe this guy doesn't work for Bristow....or he is not being completely forthright in his responses here.
He says he does not work for EC...but does work as a pilot on the North Sea but does no know of the Bristow Tiger....maybe he is just Lu in disguise? Lu...if that is you ...knock it off old man!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the Antarctic Gazette & Rag
Airbuzz is Seeking Customers for Its New A380-1/2 Airplane
Airbuzz is to offer a low cost version of the A380 for price conscious customers. They believe that there is a large market for such a craft, after seeing Mr. Mighty Gem's post on PPRuNe. By reading between the one lines of Mr. Gem's well documented post, they realized that 'crashlessness' and 'crashworthiness' are two different 'nesses'.
The lower price will come from two logical cost saving features; the purchase of lowest-bid parts and the elimination of pointless inspections. A Mr. Lu Zuckerman objected to this reduction of the 'crashlessness' without an increase in the 'crashworthiness', so the company said that it will put airbags in front of every seat.
Mr. Zuckerman said OK and then made one additional request, to which the company agreed. Upon impact, the airbags are to fill with hydrogen. They feel that an explosion of 500 airbags will be a quick way to remove the passengers from the crash site.
Edited for no logical reason.
Airbuzz is to offer a low cost version of the A380 for price conscious customers. They believe that there is a large market for such a craft, after seeing Mr. Mighty Gem's post on PPRuNe. By reading between the one lines of Mr. Gem's well documented post, they realized that 'crashlessness' and 'crashworthiness' are two different 'nesses'.
The lower price will come from two logical cost saving features; the purchase of lowest-bid parts and the elimination of pointless inspections. A Mr. Lu Zuckerman objected to this reduction of the 'crashlessness' without an increase in the 'crashworthiness', so the company said that it will put airbags in front of every seat.
Mr. Zuckerman said OK and then made one additional request, to which the company agreed. Upon impact, the airbags are to fill with hydrogen. They feel that an explosion of 500 airbags will be a quick way to remove the passengers from the crash site.
Edited for no logical reason.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 11th Apr 2005 at 21:37.
What happened to the posting by Mars?
Mars
You've removed your posting just as I was about to give you a hard time for deliberately muddying the waters
This attempt to "out" HC was good fun, although I thought you're input was less than sporting
ECF/Bristow/Sikorsky........I know where my money is, despite the curved ball that SASless seems to have caught.
Go on HC, put everyone else out of their misery..........OK, maybe not
You've removed your posting just as I was about to give you a hard time for deliberately muddying the waters
This attempt to "out" HC was good fun, although I thought you're input was less than sporting
ECF/Bristow/Sikorsky........I know where my money is, despite the curved ball that SASless seems to have caught.
Go on HC, put everyone else out of their misery..........OK, maybe not
Oh yes, so he has!
I think the idea that HC works for ECF is surprisingly Naive. I would have thought it blatantly obvious from both his name and the remarks he makes that he is somebody in a key position within one of the major, UK, operators, who has the chance to 'compare' the two types prior to selection for purchase.
Clearly not for Bond as they approached the selection of the L2 from a different standpoint (nothing to do with an ECF sales manager joining BP I'm sure!)
I seem to recall that one of the operators may be introducing the EC-225 later this year, maybe he works for them?
(Pure speculation, no knowledge of HC's true identity and )
I think the idea that HC works for ECF is surprisingly Naive. I would have thought it blatantly obvious from both his name and the remarks he makes that he is somebody in a key position within one of the major, UK, operators, who has the chance to 'compare' the two types prior to selection for purchase.
Clearly not for Bond as they approached the selection of the L2 from a different standpoint (nothing to do with an ECF sales manager joining BP I'm sure!)
I seem to recall that one of the operators may be introducing the EC-225 later this year, maybe he works for them?
(Pure speculation, no knowledge of HC's true identity and )
212man...totally agree. In reality it shouldn't take Albert Einstein (or anyone of an IQ greater than ~100!!) to work out the true credentials of HC.
Pity really, as the sporting value of the EC225 vs S92 contest was great to watch from the sidelines......if you genuinely believed the independence of the competitors
Pity really, as the sporting value of the EC225 vs S92 contest was great to watch from the sidelines......if you genuinely believed the independence of the competitors
Personally, I am more interested in the comparisons between the two aircraft and their competitiveness than who HC is. Picking at him is fun...but only to the extent of having a polite go at him. We all bring something to the forum and I find it to be very informative. Sometimes a big long stick is needed in an attempt to stir things up and get a good argument going.
Trying to understand the wonderful world of the regulatory agencies in itself leads to fertile ground for a fuss of sorts.
Someone ring the Bell and lets start another round.
Trying to understand the wonderful world of the regulatory agencies in itself leads to fertile ground for a fuss of sorts.
Someone ring the Bell and lets start another round.