EC-225 orders hot up [Archive]

NorthSeaTiger

2nd Mar 2007, 08:25

By the looks of the CHC press release that's 22 EC225's for them.

Eurocopter and CHC Helicopter Corporation Sign Contract for 16 EC225 Helicopters at Heli-Expo
ORLANDO, FL, HAI Heli-Expo, March 1 /CNW/ - Eurocopter and CHC Helicopter
Corporation ("CHC") (TSX: FLY.A and FLY.B; NYSE: FLI) jointly announced at
Heli-Expo that they have entered into a contract for the delivery of 16 new
EC225 helicopters. The 16 aircraft are expected to be delivered between late
2008 and late 2012. CHC plans to put these aircraft into service as part of
the Company's fleet renewal plan, in support of new offshore oil and gas
contracts, and potentially as Search and Rescue (SAR) aircraft. CHC is making
this commitment to meet the unprecedented demand from our various customers
including both the offshore oil and gas industry and government sponsored SAR.
This new, 16 helicopter order, will supplement the six EC225 aircraft CHC
currently has on order. The original six aircraft, which are expected to be
delivered by December 2008, will support contracts with TOTAL E&P UK PLC,
TOTAL E&P Norge AS as well as other customers in the North Sea and elsewhere.
CHC, which is the largest civilian Super Puma family operator with 30 Mark 1
and 20 Mark 2 variants, now continues this relationship with Eurocopter by
significantly expanding its EC225 fleet.
The EC225 fleet will be fully supported by CHC subsidiary Heli-One, the
world's largest independent helicopter MRO and logistics support company.
Building on more than 25 years' experience with the Super Puma family,
Heli-One will provide total MRO support for the advanced EC225. Heli-One has
been granted an exclusive licence to perform repair and overhaul on EC225
components.
"The success of our heavy product range has always been closely linked to
the success of CHC," said Lutz Bertling, President and CEO of Eurocopter.
"Based on the company's huge experience with the Super Puma family of
helicopters, we are pleased to see the EC225 selected by CHC to serve its
clients including, TOTAL E&P's UK and Norwegian operations in the North Sea.
The EC225 benefits from many technological enhancements developed from the
entire Eurocopter product line and it sets new standards of safety, comfort
and performance for offshore services."
Sylvain Allard, President and CEO of CHC stated that "We are delighted to
continue to partner with Eurocopter to respond to the ever-growing
requirements of our customers. The EC225 meets and exceeds their needs for
modern, safe, comfortable and efficient helicopters. CHC through its European
and Global operating subsidiaries, which are fully supported by Heli-One, is
uniquely positioned to offer this aircraft to the world."

DeltaFree

2nd Mar 2007, 08:37

Nice advert for CHC and Eurocopter. Being even heavier than the L and L2 will the 225 have similar cracking problems? Or has there been a fix?

Rotorchic

2nd Mar 2007, 15:41

A modification program is currently underway for the global L2 fleet, being performed by a working team from ECF.

Not sure of the changes they've made to 225, can anyone shed some light?

zalt

2nd Mar 2007, 16:12

Fixed on all new 225. Retrofitted to the fleet leaders.

Bristow have 5 in service, one on the way and have just ordered 3 more with 8 options.

Hookipa

2nd Mar 2007, 23:46

Doesn't ERA have four or five on order too?

Blackhawk9

3rd Mar 2007, 02:52

Good ,might now replace all the claped out L's ,but i'll stick to the S-92 thanks.

HeliComparator

3rd Mar 2007, 08:34

Blackhawk9 - Are you are speaking from a position where you have been able to compare the two aircraft in flight from the front seat? Have you in fact flown either of them? If not, on what are you basing your comment. Is it just blind prejudice?

HC

Blackhawk9

3rd Mar 2007, 10:54

Sorry HC I'm an Engineer not a driver but have been involved in a lot of test flying in Helos over the years. 6 years on Blackhawks, 10 years on 332L,L1 and L2, plus Chinook ,212,412,214ST,S76,S61 and now the S-92, worked in Oz ,the UK (yes aberdeen), Mid East ,Stavanger and a couple of other places, the frogs make a good machine but give me a US build machine anyday, the 225 will be an exellent replacement for the old 332L's , but i'm quite happy on the S-92, better engines(I used to OHaul Makilas and CT7's and the Makila isn't in the same class) , better airframe , maybe down a bit on the auto pilot to the 225 but I know from experiance I will get a damn side better support from Sikorsky than I will from Eurocopter which means I can keep my a/c in the air and not busting my ass on the ground or headbutting the wall for lack of support from a manufacturer.

Its good to have Eurocopter/Turbomeca there it makes the support from Sikorsky/Bell/G.E./Pratt's look that much better.

But the 332 ain't that bad my least favorite is the 76!!

froggy_pilot

3rd Mar 2007, 13:42

If the big companies buy more 225 than 92 nowdays they must be a reason? ;)

Blackhawk9

3rd Mar 2007, 22:17

Competition is good, for years you had no choice but buy an AS 332 if you wanted a large civil machine -no competition! (though the Blackhawk outsold the AS332 4 to 1 in Military sales not counting the US mil), in the mediums it has always been split pretty evenly between the AS365,S-76 and B412 on civil sales, so its good EC can sell the 225 but with sales for the S-92 out selling the 225 by more than 2 to1, and with the big backorder list for the 92 the delivery time for the 225 is much shorter, so the big operators order what they can get now! and i'm shore EC are offering some pretty good deals to get the 225 moving.
The 225 is at the end of the 330/332 design family the S-92A is the begining in 10 years time when we are buying S-92 B/C models to replace the 225 people will se the generation gap on designs.
As i said I had my time on the 332 i'm on 92's now I think the S-70/S-92 family leaves the 332/225 for dead and if I have to work on them again it's to soon!

HeliComparator

4th Mar 2007, 08:25

Blackhawk
Its interesting to have a different take on things. From where I am standing, the S92 was outselling the 225 in part because the 92 was much cheaper (even more so with the weak dollar) and available whereas the 225 was expensive and not available (but worth the wait though!). Perhaps things have changed a bit with delivery schedules but there is still nearly a 2 yr wait for a 225. Not sure what the wait for the 92 is but in the past Sikorsky were tending to manufacture aircraft without actually having buyers whereas EC would only manufacture to order, so the lead time on a 92 was much less.
You view on the maintenance angle is interesting and not one I am really qualified to comment on, but shortly we will be operating both types so a direct comparison will be easier. Based on what we have learned from the experience of others, our maintenance guys are expecting to have to put in a lot more maintenance hours per flight hour on the 92 than they have on the 225. Only time will tell if that's correct.
You say that the 92 is at the start of a new design whilst the 225 is at the end of an old one. From the point of view of the airframe that's true, but the dynamic components on the 92 are very old fashioned - you have only got to look at the rotor head to see the similarity with the S61. The Eurocopter offering is in a different league in terms of "modern-ness". Similarly the 92 gearbox is Black Hawk, the engines are even older than the makila, cockpit philosophy is 1970s with bolt-on screens.
There will surely be a 92b and c as there is plenty of scope to improve things and I think you may be right that the product has a longer life expectancy than the super puma family. Hopefully while Sik are producing the 92C++, EC will have moved on to greater things.

By the way Mr 212man, now that you have started to operate your new toys would you care to let us know how its getting on?

HC

NickLappos

4th Mar 2007, 15:21

Having sold a grand total of 24, let's not get too carried away, Helicomparitor. Your claims about the S92 are as full of bull as those in the past.

The S92 has the most advanced rotor head you have seen, yet you foolishly say, "dynamic components on the 92 are very old fashioned" How much does EC pay you to say that? In fact, the flaw tolerant, strong as can be rotorhead of the S92 is far more advanced, and tougher, lower maintenance and more inspectable than that of any comparable helicopter. With longitudinal and lateral control power almost TWICE that of the 225, whose military cousins regularly run out of lateral cyclic when pushed to maneuver, by many reports.

You say "our maintenance guys are expecting" more maintenance but you don't publish the power-by-the-hour guarantees that come with the S92, you just spout your bulls**t. The reports I hear are that EC does not want to give power by the hour, and Sikorsky regularly signs hard contracts setting the price per hour. This alone has sparked several losses by EC 225 against S92, I understand. Yes, the S92 must be a bear to maintain, that's why the average offshore S92 flies many more annual hours that the average 332/225!!! I understand that the Norsk 92's fly over 2,000 hours per year.

EC and Bristow were caught with their pants down as they scrambled to somehow stop the S92. For far more purchase dollars and far more operating cash, the EC 225 has:

A small, cramped, less safe fuselage, where one stoops to crawl to the rear, and where one sits in oddly placed seats where the knees of one's love-mates are pushed into one's crotch (probably a nice thing for you, didn't you go to a private boy's school?) A fuselage that is 35 years old, and that barely meets the crash tolerance of the oldest helos now flying. The 225 does not meet the safety standards now common among modern helos, and demanded by many operators and unions around the globe, does it?

A much smaller, scattered baggage scheme - where crews on windy decks will carefully open and then latch what seems like dozens of little compartments strewn wherever the frogs could put them, all with separate little latches that allow doors to open and create flight hazards. I saw that scheme on a comedy show where the heads pop out of all the little compartments and tell a joke!

In fact, the 92 has sold over twice as many helos as the 225 - most as repeat sells to the folks who tried them out - because it is a significantly better, newer safer and less expensive helo to buy and to operate.

Not easy for you to take, you who published an internal Bristow "technical" report that doubled the S92's options weights so that you could look right! Must grind on you when Air Log shoved the 92's up your orifaces, Nick!

HeliComparator

4th Mar 2007, 16:21

yaaaaawwwnnnn............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

finalchecksplease

4th Mar 2007, 18:21

Talking about the baggage bay scheme would Nick like to comment on how one fights a fire in the big booth the S92 has?
A little bird told me Sikorsky forgot about that one but as always with hearsay I like to hear it from the horses’ mouth.

Greetings

Finalchecksplease

NickLappos

4th Mar 2007, 19:04

finalchecksplease,

How does one fight a baggage fire in the large hold of an S92? One uses precisely the same method as if a fire breaks out in the aft sponson bin of a super puma. Or the lower belly hold of an Airbus.....

Actually, the ability to fight fires is determined by FAR/JAR, and I firmly believe all three aircraft mentioned meet these regs, as do the countless helos that have similar baggage firefighting capabilities. Can I suggest that you ask next time a big person and do not seek advice from little birds? ;)

212man

5th Mar 2007, 07:28

"How does one fight a baggage fire in the large hold of an S92"
You lower the ramp and pull the nose up to 50 degrees till the baggage has all dropped out.:ok:

HC, I can't really comment in public as you can imagine. Nice to get our own toys though, and lots of 'playing' taking place;)

Nick, it's not a "grand total of 24", it's an additional 24.

finalchecksplease

5th Mar 2007, 07:37

212man,

After seeing you in action on the EC155, I can see you being able to pull that off! :ok:

Nick L,

I got to admit I rather like the birds of the non-feathered kind and thought I asked a big person when I asked you?;)

Greetings,

Finalchecksplease

DOUBLE BOGEY

5th Mar 2007, 07:58

I am intrigued by what Nick has to say about both types. I have to agree with him that the major flaw in the 332/225 product is the accommodation for both Passengers and crew.

It would seem that the Offshore Industry could not care less about the comfort and arguably the underlying safety for the Pax let alone crew. This has always left me frustrated as you would like to think that question numero one, when at the drawing board, would be "we need to transport X number of Pax and Crew in some kind of comfort with a high degree of safety"- and therefore start with the cabin/cockpit and build from there.

The prices being paid for these machines, and the numbers involved, must surely have supported the idea for a purpose built offshore machine, and not what we end up with always - a multi-role helicopter (Like lynx) tweaked and modified to operate in the offshore environment.

The S92 looks the part, but my limited in service experience of it is that it spends a lot of time on the sick. Hopefully this will improve.

The EC225 is clearly an attempt at improving an in service product that the offshore industry has "learned" to operate well over the past couple of decades, but I am left with the feeling that it must be the end of the road for the 332 design concept.

I am opening up for broadside here, but the 225 looks like an L2 with less baggage space but more fuel capacity!!!!

I would like to see somebody come up with at least a design concept for an offshore helicopter that meets all the requirements of our industry. Surely the Offshore industry must be the largest class of helicopter user worldwide!!!

Any thoughts

Hilife

5th Mar 2007, 12:11

225 Vs 92

Severe financial penalties would be incurred by any operator unable to provide daily helicopter support to the offshore companies, therefore why place all your eggs in one basket and plumb for a single type platform.

By buying more than one platform type, operators reduce exposure to any penalties in the event that one type was grounded.

As with all platforms, it depends on where you are sat and who’s paying as to the best option. I don’t suppose those being carried out to the platforms care too much about anything other than safety and comfort, whereas the operator looks at through-life-costs and performance.

Limpopo

5th Mar 2007, 14:13

Rumour control has it that a Norwegian oil company using the S-92 has now decided not to have any more on its contract due to serviceability problems plus complaints from its staff over comfort and vibration. I've heard several stories of the seat known as the "sin bin" where passengers suffer from eyesight problems and/or dizziness after their flights.

Is that why there are suddenly a lot of EC225s being ordered? Not saying this company is going to use the EC225, but what else is there if they aren't happy with the S-92? I am also surprised that CHC only has one pax aircraft in the UK at the moment, unless their priority is to get the SAR ones on line as quickly as possible after their contract start in July.

As I say, all rumour.

NickLappos

5th Mar 2007, 19:29

Who could guess where the rumors came from! I saw a French slide of S92 passengers screaming in the water and sharks all around, shown by the EC225 chief salesman to a group of Oil Safety folks at the previous HeliExpo. Considering that the Norwegians have now bought upwards of 10 S92's, those snide slurs can only come from one source.

Any facts out there to support the rumors??

From Rotorhub, a fact, not a rumor:
Ken Norie, President/CEO of VIH and Cougar, said the S-92 has won over his company with its steady reliability as a proven and popular aircraft.
"We selected the S-92 because of its reliability, increasing product maturity, and the economic value it represents in operation. Additionally our end-user customers like the space and comfort of the S-92 and Sikorsky's legacy of commitment to safety," Norie said.

HeliComparator

5th Mar 2007, 21:31

zzzzzzz..>!!!..time to wake up...

S92 passengers screaming in the water and sharks all around

Those SK salesmen get everywhere ;-) But perhaps a great marketing angle was lost there - I can just see it.... "Sk redefines offshore safety by introducing the S92 with shark-proof windows. Don't worry, should the sea come up to mess with the chopper, our extra small windows ensure that you don't do anything foolish like get out into the sea and ensure those pesky sharks can't get in! You can be sure to be able to drown in peace and in one piece!"

Its funny how you never hear the President of a helicopter company say "Gee these new $20million helicopters we bought are really crap. If I was a passenger I would never fly in one!". I wonder why?

We brits did have a guy called Gerald Ratner who said something like that (about a different product) and you can guess how long he lasted!

Hey Nick, is that a pair of rotor blades I see sticking out of your back. Oh no, its just a key going round and round...

Alright, back to my burrow now.....is that the time....z..zz...zzzzzzzzz
HC

Limpopo

6th Mar 2007, 10:13

Considering that the Norwegians have now bought upwards of 10 S92's, those snide slurs can only come from one source.

OK, I did say it was only a rumour.

Interesting your comment on 10+ S92s in Norway. The CHC website states 5 for Norway, 3 for Denmark and 5 for UK (1 pax and 4 SAR). The Norsk website states 5 in service with them. Bristow has 5 on order for later this year. That makes 23 in service or on order.

Bristow currently have 5 EC225s plus one due very shortly. They have just ordered another 3 plus 8 more on options. CHC have 6 EC225s on order and have just ordered another 16. (Both taken from Rotorhub). I believe that Bond also have two on order. I haven't seen any recent big orders for the S92 (other than one for Cougar/VIH who don't operate this side of the Atlantic anyway), other than the 5 for Bristow which are due later this year.

So, that's 23 S92s (pax and SAR) against 41 EC225s for the European Offshore market. Almost 2:1 in favour of the EC225. So, what is it that makes the oil companies want EC225s in comparison to the S-92? Both CHC and Bristow offer both types and are obviously prepared to offer them to their prospective clients. There must be something that the clients do not like about the S92? I suspect operating costs if oil companies are anything to go by.

Comments Mr Lappos and HeliComparator (sensible replies please and keep your bitching comments to each other to yourselves).

HeliComparator

6th Mar 2007, 11:52

Limpopo

Much as it pains me, I have to point out that your sums are not quite right. You have to bear in mind that orders for "Bristow" is not Bristow Europe, rather these days its Bristow Houston. I very much doubt that all or even most of the 11 new 225 orders are destined for Europe.
Regarding operating costs as far as I am aware the 225 is significantly more expensive both in terms of purchase cost and power-by-the-hour deals (depending on how good you are at negotiating!).

So why are they choosing the 225? Whilst there have been some introductory problems with the 225, my feeling is that the 92 has been much worse, though its difficult to prove that feeling. Certainly I hear the same rumours as you about the Norwegian passengers displease with it.

But perhaps its just the oil companies read Pprune?

HC

Limpopo

6th Mar 2007, 20:32

HeliComparator

Many thanks for the update. I was working on what Rotorhub had on its site and assumed that the Bristow EC225s were for the North Sea. I guess the CHC EC225s may very well be for worldwide use as well then.

Still, it does seeem strange that if the EC225 is more expensive to buyand more expensive Power By The Hour, then why has there been this huge recent buy, rather than the cheaper (to buy and to run PBTH), bigger S92? There has to be something other than the costs I would think.

It would be interesting to get a view from someone who is connected with the oil industry for their views on each type.

NickLappos

6th Mar 2007, 21:30

I do agree that the expense to operate the 225 is somewhat higher (I do not know how much) and the purchase price is also higher. I believe that the total Oil Patch buys for the S92 are somewhere about 30 to 35 (I will look for authoritative numbers) since the exec market for this size machine is necessarily smaller.

Why are there any 225s sold when it is older, more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate and more cramped? Because the oil companies know that competition is good, and it is a good thing to ring Sikorsky's chimes a bit to remind them of that. And if the oil companies buy three S-92's for each 225 (a ratio which is perhaps where it is just now) that might be just enough to make Sikorsky work at peak customer kindness, and EC to work even harder at showing shark pictures of S-92's.:)

I do know that safety sells, and the 92's newer total design and qualification has struck a chord with the oil companies (I met them personally when the decisions were being made 3 years ago). The helicomparitor view of the lack of value of these design features is simply not shared by the oil companies or the unions, thus the 3 to 1 ratio. This does not mean that the 225 is a poor machine, far from it. Frankly, the same argument could be made for the pairing of the S76 (my helicopter!) against the 139, where the newer design has many features that are simply not possible to retrofit into the older design.

EC are not sitting idle. Rumors that the 225 debacle is causing a new program to make the NH-90 design as a civil alternative, with a new roomy fuselage, flaw tolerance, strong crashworthy fuselage, bird strike resistance, fly by wire, few life-limited components - all of these could be part of the new EC civil aircraft, and this will close that sales ratio the old fashioned way - better, newer, safer products.

HeliComparator

6th Mar 2007, 21:57

I too am not totally sure of the reason why the oil companies seem to be favouring the 225 at the moment. Normally us cynical pilots would suspect that these decisions are made by people who don't really understand the technical issues but do understand the finances.

My suggestions are as follows. I know this will generate another agressive response from Nick - its a pity he can't just allow me to have my opinion, which is all it is, but to be fair to him he put a lot of effort into the project and who likes to see the culmination of a big chunk of their career criticised?

Sikorsky put its effort into complying with the letter of the version of JAR /FAR 29 that was current when the design was finalised - the primary differences between that version and previous ones of course being improvements that should increase safety. In many ways this a was commendable effort and certainly what the offshore market wanted.

However in my opinion they put all their effort into compliance with a document and slightly lost sight of making a "good helicopter" regardless of what the regulations required - ie allowed beurocracy to come before common sense. I would liken it on the flying side to having flight crew who comply with very comprehensive operational laws and regulations, but still fly into the ground crashing and burning.

When questioned, (in heaven) they said that there was nothing in the regulations that said you must not fly into the ground at high speed.
So, for example, the 92 has a commendable degree of fault tolerance on many of its critical parts as required by the new regs, but failed to have check valves where the output from the two main gearbox lubrication pumps joined, so that following a failure of one pump, the other pump was effectively taken out as well. There is no specific requirement for check valves in the regs, but the requirement is surely common sense and certainly fitted to the likes of the S76.

There are loads of other examples like this. So in summary whilst the aircraft complies with the letter of the design regs, in some other areas its design seems to lack common sense. This trickles down to make an aircraft that is not that easy to operate and has daft restrictions - my favourite one being the maximum speed for operating the windscreen wipers: 40kts. Pretty minor I agree but indicative of accepting pilot non-friendliness. Worse are the high vibration levels which whilst being uncomfortable for passengers at advertised cruise speeds, surely is bad for any airframe and its systems.

Despite the 225 being a jumped-up 332L2, its a different beast with the ability to carry 19 pax with baggage and full fuel on every trip (in UK temperatures), smooth cruise at 150kts average, very clever autopilot and EFIS system etc. That the oil companies realise this and even value it is surprising, but then I can't think of another reason why its favoured!

HC

ShyTorque

6th Mar 2007, 21:58

I suggest we use the "Harry Hill" method of sorting out this argument...... :p

HeliComparator

6th Mar 2007, 22:05

No, he's bigger than me (in one dimension at least!)

HC

ShyTorque

6th Mar 2007, 22:09

:ok:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pPrcr5Mj4y0

HeliComparator

6th Mar 2007, 22:14

Well I know which one I am and it ain't the one in the pink suit!

HC

Whirlygig

6th Mar 2007, 22:18

Oh No! Helicomparator IS Dot Cotton :eek:

Cheers

Whirls

...actually HC, I've met Harry Hill and he's not that tall and he's not fat so I'm not sure to which dimension you are referring :O

heli1

7th Mar 2007, 07:51

Of course one reason why the EC225 is being ordered may be the long waiting time for S92s,plus the Super Puma history of reliability.

NickLappos

7th Mar 2007, 09:17

heli1,
You are quite right - fast delivery and a proven record are attractive.

helicomparitor has that fact-less disease again. That pump check valve lie is a perfect example, as he must know that the production S92 has such check valves. The S76 has them, of course, but it, too didn't when we first flew it - I was the Test Pilot who had to land when it proved itself back in 1977!

Those kinds of silly untruths seem to clog Helicomparitor's whole construct in this debate, and thus make it so hard to leave me to simply let him spout his opinion, as he asks. If your opinion is made up of "made-up facts" hc, your opinion is not worth very much.

And your confusion as to why the 225 sells so few is based on the fact that you have not visited the people who buy the 92, so you do not know that they, unlike you, value the more modern safety design. I wonder if you let your children drive cars without modern safety features like ABS and crashworthy doors, safety airbags and the like. I hope not.

HeliComparator

7th Mar 2007, 09:50

Hi Nick

your confusion as to why the 225 sells so few

Err, surely the debate is why the 225 is selling so much?

I thought you would bite -what took so long? Regarding the pump check valves, following the near-ditching in Norway in the early days of the 92's operations, I was told by some guys from Sikorsky that the check valves had been omitted because "they hadn't considered that failure mode". Perhaps they were lying, though it seems unlikely. So I accept your criticisism that I don't actually know what I am talking about, I concede that my error might have been to believe what the Sikorsky guys said.

But actually you and I both know that my comment is correct - unless you have been away too long to remember?

Perhaps there has now been a mod to add the valves (I hope so) but at the time Sky were saying that was too difficult and their preferred solution was to fit the pumps with some anti-rotation device to stop them going into turbine mode.

HC

212man

7th Mar 2007, 10:16

"that pump check valve lie is a perfect example, as he must know that the production S92 has such check valves"

Maybe Sikorsky took a lead from ECF and used the launch customers to do the pre-production test flying! That aircraft was very much a 'production' aircraft.

Nice to see my use of the word 'EC-225' in a thread has awakened the S-92/EC-225 bashing debate between HC/NL. Regardless of the relative merits and de-merits of the two (types- not individuals!) no one can say that an announcement for 24 civil sales of a heavy helicopter is insignificant.

simfly

14th Mar 2007, 06:20

Why all this EC/SK bashing???? I think it fair to say that as far as the clients go (for Bristow anyway!) there is one major, Shell, who is happy that BOTH S-92 & EC225 are safe, very good aircraft for their requirements, and both as bad as each other at present for technical reliability! Shell certainly do a hell of a lot of research before giving the go ahead, and through the IAC, had put their faith in the S-92 via the agreement to use them in Shetland AFTER the EC225 had entered service with Bristow in Aberdeen. Selling either aircraft does not seem to be a problem, and as we see, some of the clients are happy to have both too, just that one is more appealing for one sector than the other. I've heard a lot of people saying that the perfect aircraft would be an S-92 fuselage with an EC225 cockpit and avionics! People on here seen to jump at the sound of others bashing one aircraft, but I'm sure there are just as many liking the same aircraft, this is just another Boeing v Airbus type campaign, again, both of which just go round in circles and have no valid conclusion.

HeliComparator

14th Mar 2007, 10:01

both of which just go round in circles and have no valid conclusion.
Only when their fly-by wire systems fail and go to the default setting of 30 degrees of bank:D

So what you are saying is that lets all just say how fantastic all helicopters are as after all, they all fly so they must all be as good as each other.

How boring and uninformative that would be. :bored:

3000+ views can't be wrong - someone finds it interesting (or maybe amusing?)

HC

simfly

14th Mar 2007, 10:48

Yes of course I'm saying all helicopters are fantastic, just like the chaps stuck on the Haewene Brim as they've had a good look at one whilst it's been stuck there since yesterday.
All I'm saying is that the 225's have had a lot of technical issues, the client has been very frustrated and the workforce offshore unhappy with the delays once they started flying, I'm sure it will be short lived though. I'm sure the S-92 will have it's problems when introduced to Shetland too. I've seen people having a go at one helicopter for it's technical issues, but think between the 2 types they've had equal amounts of problems, but the clients haven't seen any that are a real concern (yet...).

simfly

14th Mar 2007, 10:59

Out of interest, re the vibration on the S-92, is it much worse than on any other 4 bladed machine ie 332?

HeliComparator

14th Mar 2007, 11:15

simfly

Of course the 225 has had some technical issues, as has the 92 in service with other operators and soon with BHL. Because manufacturers don't test their aircraft properly, its a sad but well-known fact that new helicopters always come with problems and will certainly be initially less reliable than those they replace. Its the bathtub theory - ie take a section longways through a bathtub so see the shape of the reliability graph. Crap at first, but then steeply improving to bottom out for a long time, before aging aircarft syndrome starts to cause failure rates to creep up again. I would say the 332 is just starting to creep up the back of the curve whilst the 225 and 92 are very much in the middle of the downward slope.

I am not sure if the oil companies understand this - they certainly like to complain at every glitch. But it has to be that way (until manufacturers do more maturity flying) as otherwise you never replace your aircraft and they slowly die on their feet.

What this debate has really been about is the different design approaches followed by Sikorsky and Eurocopter. Once intial reliability and spares issues are addressed, you will be left with two fairly reliable aircraft but which are completely different in design concept, and that is what I have been talking about.

Yes, the 92 is intrinsically rougher than the 332L even when flown at the same speed, however its active anti-vibration system does generate spheres of acceptable vibration in the cabin, but unfortunately also zones where the vibration is bad. So it just depends on where you sit. For the structure outside the cabin though, it has to put up with the stress.

HC