Agusta AW139 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

widgeon

26th Jun 2002, 15:10

Lockheed, Northrop to Revamp Coast Guard
Tue Jun 25, 4:18 PM ET
By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Coast Guard ( news - web sites) on Tuesday picked Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. to overhaul its aging ships, aircraft and communications gear in a deal worth up to $17 billion over 30 years.

The "Deepwater" project calls for the purchase of up to 91 ships, 35 fixed-wing aircraft, 34 helicopters and 76 pilot-less surveillance aircraft, the Department of Transportation said in a statement.

In addition, the contract calls for upgrading 49 cutters, 93 helicopters and communications systems that help the Coast Guard do everything from stopping illegal immigrants to catching drug runners, protecting the environment and performing search and rescue operations.

The project is designed to turn the self-described 37th oldest of 39 similar fleets worldwide into the world's most highly integrated, in line with the Coast Guard's growing role since the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The tragic events of September 11 changed the world as we know it. Homeland security, now more than ever, is a mission where we must succeed," said U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Thomas Collins.

In March, the Coast Guard rejected proposals by two other bidders -- Boeing Co. and a team made up of Science Applications International Corp., Raytheon and Manitowoc Co.

Working with some cutters built as far back as the 1940s, the Coast Guard has been struggling to secure the nation's ports, enforce safety zones around Navy ships and board commercial ships in search of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"As America's first line of defense for maritime homeland security, it is critical that the Coast Guard be able to identify and intercept targets of interest as far from U.S. shores as possible," said DOT Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson.

The "Deepwater" contract was to be awarded at a ceremony later Tuesday in Washington to Integrated Coast Guard Systems, the 50-50 partnership between Lockheed and Northrop.

Barannfin

26th Jun 2002, 23:17

Are they positive on the AB 139? Or will they be buying a assortment of A/Cs. I was kinda hoping the S-92 would be chosen. Would kind of make sense if there is some part comminality(did I spell that right?) Are the 92s perhaps too large to operate on the cutters? I am interested, because I am going to join soon and hopefuly get into flight school once I graduate college.

Any one with ship op experience have any insight on things that would be considered in choosing a helicopter?

widgeon

26th Jun 2002, 23:31

For some reason Rotorhub is announcing that they have chosen 139. Not sure if that was the only one Lockheed / martin/ grumman proposed . I am sure there will be something official soon.

Heliport

23rd Jun 2003, 02:51

Paris Air Show, Press Release

http://isweb41.infoseek.co.jp/travel/helicopt/ab139.jpg

The AB139 has received its Italian IFR Type Certification.
Mr. Di Palma, Managing Director of the Italian Certification Air Worthiness Authority (ENAC), today signed and handed over the AB139 Type Certificate to Mr. Amedeo Caporaletti, CEO AgustaWestland and Chairman of Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company, at a ceremony at the Paris Air Show, Le Bourget. The certification was the culmination of 1600 hours of ground and flight test programs.

Mr. Caporaletti stated, “Today marks a tremendous achievement that testifies the companies’ commitment to the market to introduce the new benchmark medium twin helicopter.” Mr. Redenbaugh added, “We are proud to be a partner with this exciting new product which brings new standards and capability to the market, and we look forward to the FAA certification which is expected in the coming months.”

The two Pratt & Whitney, Canada, PT6C-67C engines ensure the AB139 can maintain high cruise speeds in excess of 150 knots at all weights, high temperatures and altitudes, with ample power margins. In addition, Category “A” Class 1 performance, without payload loss, is assured. AB139 customers will enjoy high productivity with an aircraft designed to meet today’s JAR29/FAR29 standards.

http://www.bellagustaaerospace.com/html/theAircraft/ab_139/images/139_Panel_800.jpg

The first production aircraft will be delivered to an Italian customer later this year. Twenty-five customers have demonstrated their confidence in the AB139, thus providing a two-year order backlog for Bell/Agusta Aerospace Company. The major market segments of Offshore, Corporate, VIP, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and Law Enforcement are all represented. In addition, Integrated Coast Guard Systems (ICGS) has selected AB139 as its recommended helicopter for the US Coast Guard Deepwater Program.

AlanM

23rd Jun 2003, 02:56

Jolly good.

Has anyone in the UK ordered any?

AB139 at Farnborough 2002 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/260946/L/)

The Nr Fairy

23rd Jun 2003, 03:30

'S funny. Looks line an S92 but smaller and with bigger windows !

zalt

23rd Jun 2003, 04:55

The Nr Fairy - The evacuation trial vid is a gem. "The corners man... hit the corners!!!!" I laughed off my seat.

sprocket

23rd Jun 2003, 10:16

Will this one be the new alternative to the 412?

Where can I find specs on it?

Lu Zuckerman

23rd Jun 2003, 10:47

To: Sprocket

Try here: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ab139/specs.html

:ok:

The Nr Fairy

23rd Jun 2003, 14:35

Having said that, if anyone wants to give me the opportunity to compare the two . . .

sprocket

23rd Jun 2003, 16:27

Thanks Lu.

The AB 139 has the edge over the 412 in the basic specs, especially in speed and power.

How much advantage is there in a helicopter that size having five, instead of four blades in the M/Rotor? Safety in numbers? …. Anyone?

Nr, if you get the job, can I come for a ride too? ….. Huh? huh?

NickLappos

23rd Jun 2003, 22:50

My hearty congratulations to the AB-139 team. This is a great achievement, and they should be rightfully proud.

I do note the uncanny similarity in flight hours to the S-92, 1575 vice 1600. There is a story to tell with that. With a typical structural or certification test hour running about US $30,000 to 40,000, the cost of flight test alone for certification is pushing $50 million!

Shawn Coyle

24th Jun 2003, 02:49

I had the occasion to fly it when in Italy with some students from NTPS who were doing their final project.
15 minutes was just a great taste - acres of glass (best field of view I've seen since the Bell 47), easy access to the copilots seat (there was about 18" between the most forward part of the collective and the door post).
Smooth, quiet, comfortable - 163 KIAS at 100% torque at aft CG and maximum weight. 140 KIAS at 70% torque. Not much vibration. Great flight controls - typical Italian finesse in that the trim release button and the beeper trim didn't take tons of pressure to work.
Great displays - little different than normal with the vertical scale altitude and airspeed, but easy to use and see. AFCS off wasn't even a big deal.
Nice landing gear- lots of travel and yet firm.
Simple looking - no mechanical mixing of the flight controls despite a canted tail rotor (only very minor cross coupling in pedal turns - AFCS did a great job of maintaining datum attitudes).
Tail rotor has drag dampers on the blades - first one I've seen.
Baggage compartment is huge - unbelievably big.
And the cockpit is wider than a C-130 Hercules!
More details will have to wait for a longer flight (probably September, I'm told)

Bladestrike

24th Jun 2003, 06:10

I heard rumours that it was tad heavy for decks certified for the 412/76 class of aircraft, and this may cause problems for its future as these are the aircraft its slotted to replace. Anybody heard more on this?

Lu Zuckerman

24th Jun 2003, 09:31

To: Shawn Coyle

Tail rotor has drag dampers on the blades - first one I've seen.

The Sikorsky H-37 had lead lag dampers on the tail rotor and I believe the CH-53 and larger Sikorsky helicopters have them as does the EH-101. But, not on the S-61 and its’ derivitives.

:ok:

GLSNightPilot

24th Jun 2003, 11:41

However big the baggage compartment is, it ain't big enough. When you start carrying Schlumberger hands, the bags eat up the baggage space really quick. In a 412/S76 you're lucky to fit 9, using the rest of the seats for baggage in addition to the baggage compartment. It takes close to 25 cubic ft/man for baggage, sometimes more.

I don't know the max weight of either the AB139 or the S92, but most decks in the GOM are limited to 11,000lb or less. The big deepwater drilling rigs likely can handle them, as long as they have the range to get out >200NM with a load. You won't be able to stop & refuel on the way like you can with the current fleet.

Cyclic Hotline

24th Jun 2003, 12:48

Lu,

You are correct that the CH-37 had tail rotor dampers, but I believe it was the only Sikorsky model that made it to production with them installed. The entire tail rotor assembly looked like a goat-rope (but then my friends who worked on the CH-37 said the whole machine was that way)!

I have a photograph on my wall of the prototype CH-54A in an incomplete state (mock-up), with the CH-37 tail rotor installed. As far as I am aware, all production CH-53 and CH-54 had a rigid tail rotor installed. They certainly do in their current state, and share common components.

As far as the AB-139, they certainly got the baggage compartments right. They are huge and exactly what is required. The S-76 and Bell 212/412 have pitiful space available - totally inadequate for the mission.

I didn't realise that the EH-101 had tail rotor dampers, but then again it has been a while since I had the opportunity to see one up close. Anyone have any pictures?

These are interesting times, as an entire generation of new helicopters hit the marketplace, AB-139, EH-101, S92 and Super Puma Mk 2.

Hopefully the marketplace will be able to realise the potential of these aircraft and undergo a renaissance.

Lu Zuckerman

24th Jun 2003, 21:52

To: Shawn Coyle

When the EH-101 was originally designed the tail rotor was very much like the S-56 and had dampers. Looking at a close-up of the EH-101 tail rotor it seems that the design has evolved and there are no dampers. I would assume that lead and lag is reacted by the blades and they bend in plane.

Agusta on occasion would adapt a design from their license partners or from other programs. On the first Agusta 101 the fuselage looked like a Super Frelon and the rotorhead was pure French.

Sorry for the confusion.

:confused:

Jcooper

12th Nov 2003, 11:15

There has been an AB139 tooling around at Gateway (KIWA) airport in Phoenix, AZ...Anyone know what they are up to with or taking part in it? Looked like they were doing HV testing.

Shawn Coyle

13th Nov 2003, 07:36

My spies (Agusta Flight Test Engineers) tell me it's at Honeywell for AFCS development.
I am supposed to go fly it for Helicopter World sometime later in January for a full report. Can't wait, as my previous 15 minutes in the machine was an absolute gas.
Shawn

diethelm

13th Nov 2003, 22:05

There is an AB139 at Deer Valley in the Honeywell hangar. It is there for testing on the EPIC FMS. I was fortunate enough to have the engineers take me for a tour and fire up the FMS as it was in for maintenance and a fix of the Air Conditioning.

Arctic Tern

14th Nov 2003, 04:36

Saw the AB139 SAR variant at Helitech 03, looked like a real peach. Does it fly as well as it looks?

PANews

14th Nov 2003, 05:22

Saw the AB139 SAR variant at Helitech 03, looked like a real peach........

AT

The SAR configured helicopter at Heliech 03 was a PUMA for JIGSAW project.

Agusta-Bell pulled the [real] 139 at the last moment and sent it to a show in Rome instead.

The only Helitech exhibits were mock-ups.

Jcooper

14th Nov 2003, 08:14

I want a tour! Ill have to start searching the honeywell plant out in the San Tans and maybe Ill see it out there as well. Doubt theyd leave it out in the open though.

My names Turkish

9th May 2004, 11:08

Reported in this Sundays Independant.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1178363&issue_id=10847

THE Irish Air Corps is to get six new helicopters in a mix of two types - including two able to carry a section of nine soldiers.

Helicopter manufacturers are eagerly awaiting tenders, expected to be published this week by the Department of Defence which is seeking four light utility and two larger utility helicopters.

The move comes nearly five months after Minister Michael Smith said a new fleet of light utility helicopters would replace the small Alouette, Dauphin and Gazelle aircraft.

With the Air Corps' main responsibility for search and rescue now privatised, the force is looking at providing more support to the army, including air mobility for troops. As a result, the specification for the new aircraft was changed from only one type of helicopter announced by Mr Smith last December.

The defence forces have also seen how vital air mobility is in the context of modern peace keeping, like the volatile situation in Liberia.

Elements of the Irish army battalion there have been able to conduct long-range patrols hundreds of kilometres from base using giant Ukrainian Air Force Mi-26 helicopters to carry their armoured cars and jeeps; Mi-8s to carry troops and Mi-24 gunships to provide "top cover".

Manufacturers expected to be in contention for the order include Eurocopter with its Ec-135 and Ec-145 helicopters; Agusta with its 109 helicopter, and Sikorsky with its S-76 or Blackhawk.

The six new aircraft will replace 15 light helicopters, some of which were bought in 1963.

The new fleet is also expected to be used for surveillance, inshore rescue, medivac, air ambulance, island relief, hospital transfers and training.

Meanwhile, the Air Corps will take delivery, before June, of the last of the eight Pilatus PC-9m training aircraft which have been bought for €60m.

They can be armed with heavy machine guns and rockets and are expected to play a role enforcing an air exclusion zone over Dromoland Castle and Shannon Airport for the President George W Bush visit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would think that any Vendors looking at this tender will be very weary after what happened the last time with Eurocopter and Sikorsky.

Delta Julliet Golf

10th Aug 2004, 15:40

Hi,

with all the discussion regarding the EC225 and S92, I'm wondering, is there also this much knowledge about the AB139?

It's single engine performance is supposed to be great, but is this true?

Does anybody know how it flies?

How's its position regarding it's competition regarding offshore (S76C, EC155, etc).

Just wondering

:p

DJG

Heliport

10th Aug 2004, 17:41

Shawn Coyle

Any chance you could give us a debrief of your January flight test?

Or, if it didn't go ahead, your impressions from your 15 mins of gas?

Heliport

GLSNightPilot

10th Aug 2004, 22:18

It was in Galveston, TX a couple of weeks back, at the Evergreen hangar. Supposedly doing hot & humid testing, and they had the right place for that. They spent a lot of time hovering OGE, but other than that I don't know much.

SkyMaster19

11th Aug 2004, 00:47

Recently had the FAA Avionics project engineer available. Indicated the avionics EP's (as of now) are volumes thick.

Shawn Coyle

12th Aug 2004, 05:17

I've been off line for a while so sorry for the delay in responding.
I've been trying to get back to fly the machine for some time, but it's been busy doing avionics and hot weather testing.
My impression was very favorable - great field of view, smooth, fast, nice displays, and a baggage compartment you could hover an R-22 in.
Simple in appearance, and a huge cockpit as well.
And you don't have to climb up anything to get in it - the cockpit door on the co-pilot's side was so wide that I didn't have to do any contortions to get past the collective head.

NickLappos

12th Aug 2004, 22:23

skymaster19 said: "Recently had the FAA Avionics project engineer available. Indicated the avionics EP's (as of now) are volumes thick."

That EPIC system is a real marvel, actually a bit similar to some research cockpits that I have flown. It is not just avionics, that is pronbably one of the reasons why its procedures look so long, on paper. It can be circuit breakers, normal switches, systems controls, health, autopilot, and avionics.

I had a demo CD at one time that was simply so far reaching, it had features that Comanche had, a real statement for a civil system developed with commercial dollars!

SkyMaster19

13th Aug 2004, 01:11

Nick,

Interesting that what is supposed to be so automated (Avionics and displays) can be such a challenge to learn for us over 40. I think the 92 MFD's and "Rubberband" are light years ahead compared to IIDS as far as being user friendly.

Spirits are up around the Center. Joint team effort and now a Level C to get everyone through.

BTW, we just hired your double....

Keith

NickLappos

14th Aug 2004, 00:40

SkyMaster19,

My double, huh? Poor guy. Congrats to the team for getting the sim approved, can I fly it now?

The thing about all those EP's is probably more to do with the scope of the system, and the conservative FAA, who want to be sure and dot all the i's on a new type system. Think about it, does your flight manual have an EP for Oil Pressure Gage failure? I'll bet the new Epic manual has similar coverage for common failures that must now be specified.

Bell427

10th Apr 2005, 09:36

Hay!

My friend is working on AB-139 Model for Flight Simulator.
I was wondering if any of you "rotorheads" have any closeup pictures of AB-139. (Exterior or interior)

Thank you for your help.

noooby

10th Apr 2005, 16:11

You have a PM

noooby

funderrc

27th Aug 2005, 07:13

Is there anyone out there operating the AB139? Any information concerning the aircraft would be appreciated.

bwm85

28th Aug 2005, 06:21

Just on the topic of flight simulator. Does anyone know where to download some quality helis? Also some insutructions on how to install them.

BWM85

noooby

28th Aug 2005, 06:33

fundercc,

try this URL for a production list. Not too sure how up to date it is. Aga Khan have 5, Namibia Govt have 2, Air Green have at least 1, Elilario have at least 1, and there is another 1 in the UAE. A few minor problems with some machines, mostly avionic/electrical. Others are working with no problems at all. Power to spare according to the pilot types, and fast as well (150knot cruise). I see you are in Saudi, not with ARAMCO are you??

http://www.dgualdo.it/prod-ab139.htm

nooby

Ned-Air2Air

28th Aug 2005, 07:22

Damiano's site is pretty much up to date. He doesnt live far from the Agusta plant and pretty much has the latest imagery of their new deliveries.

Cheers

Ned

P.S. Evergreen also have one but it has been leased back to Bell Agusta and rumour I got when in Africa last week was that one of the Namibian machines is grounded as they cooked one of the engines.

noooby

29th Aug 2005, 03:51

bwm 85, try www.hovercontrol.com they have some good helis there.

Ned, sounds like a good rumour!! :D At the moment one machine in Namibia is out in the wops for a week flying around, and the other one is sitting in the hangar with nothing to do. What the guys you were talking to probably meant to say is that, a while back, there were some problems with the engines that P&W addressed through service bulletins (Fuel cooled oil cooler, Power Turbine). The only issue now that I am aware of, is sand injestion (funny that, flying round in the desert!!). At least one of the Namibia machines is trialling a Bleed Air Particle Sep, which will be a welcome addition when its certification is completed

funderrc

29th Aug 2005, 04:16

Noooby

Thanks for the information. Good guess on Aramco. We are looking to replace our 214/212/412 fleet and any information anyone has on the AB139 is appreciated.

noooby

29th Aug 2005, 06:49

hehe, used to work for alsalam in saudi. sheesh. met a few aramco guys in italy earlier this year, they were doing 109e course, i was doing 139 course, they indicated that you guys might be looking at the 139 as well. leaves a 412 for dead!!! not as much of a truck as the 212, needs a bit more care, but lifts more. 6000lb external if i remember correctly. don't quote me on that though, i have yet to see a cargo hook on a production machine, and only saw one on a prototype!!

noooby

JollyGreen

18th Nov 2005, 05:20

Aser

18th Nov 2005, 07:49

I read somewhere the sim will be ready before mid 2006 :confused: around Sasto Calende in Italy.
I'd like to hear comments from pilots also.

Regards.
Aser

212man

18th Nov 2005, 08:26

Don't hold your breath or you'll pass out!

Eurobolkow

18th Nov 2005, 10:09

Gymble:

I can only assume you are trying to incite a response from people but quite frankly idiotic statements like this add nothing to the conversation.

'Overpriced' - In comparison to what other new aircraft? S76C++/D , EC155B1???

'Under tested' - How have you formed this opinion? Has the aircraft not been flight tested in line with regulatory requirements? You are aware that this is a NEW aircraft??

The question asked was is there a flight sim for the 139 and some of the other posters seem to be able to reply in an informed manner, perhaps there is a lesson in that!!

Aser

18th Nov 2005, 10:35

I think it's time for a good thread on the AB-139

BTW: The new 139 for CHC
http://www.xs4all.nl/~helifind/news.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~helifind/datasheets/photos/i-raia_ak2.jpg

Of course it will require less maintenance than a 412
It's suposed to , no? like any other new desing I hope.

The answer to all your doubting questions is yes.
This apply to any salesman...

No one in their right mind would pay that money for two more seats than a Bell 412
Pretty simplistic reply, if you think that you are only paying for two seats you have never compared a 412 in front a 139, c'mon! it's
the new generation, move on. Or you will fly forever withthe crappy fuel system and wipers in the 412 :}

Best regards.
Aser

noooby

18th Nov 2005, 15:55

Um, actually it is single pilot certified (definitely for VFR, not sure about IFR). The Flight Manual supplement that I have seen saying two pilot operation only (VFR and IFR), is only applicable to FAA registered machines. The particle separator is currently fitted to at least one machine, and there is at least another rolling down the production line with all necessary mods done for the installation of the particle separator, they sure are slow at certifying things!!. I would actually agree that it will be cheaper to maintain than a 412. Having worked on both, I would hazard an educated guess that maintenance manhours/flight hour are in fact a lot less with the AB139.
Hawker Pac will sell you one in Oz, as will Heliflite. Not sure about it's weight being Ok for ALL Australian helipads, but then I bet a 76 can't land on every single helipad in Australia either ;)
I can bet that parts will be freakin expensive, parts for all helicopters (especially European ones) are. Aser, you are right about the fuel system, but you might think again about the wiper system when you see it!!! As long as I never have to change the wiper motor, I'll be OK :)
Overall, I think the AB139 is a better machine than a 412, but then a 205 is better than a 412 as well :) Oh yeah, they're basically the same thing aren't they!! So that means the 412 has actually had 40+ years of development and improvement.
Don't know much about the flight sim. CAE I think have an office at Agusta. There is also a Maintenance Simulator being built, but I hear it is falling behind schedule :D
Teething problems, definitely. Headaches occasionally for the early operators, for sure. Going to be a great machine in the long run, you bet!! The first two points can be said about every new helicopter, but the last definitely cannot!!

Regards

bellsux

18th Nov 2005, 16:36

I had two japs staying in the same hotel as me in Sesto Calende setting up the flight simulator for the 139 and the 109. The schools at Malpensa airport and Verigate are to be closed down and everyone is to be moved to the new facilities at Sesto Calende.

Aser

18th Nov 2005, 18:24

bellsux: So the sim will be ready on time.. those japs works like crazy don't they? ;)
BTW: Are you in Hotel Del Parco? How is it?

Regards
Aser

SASless

30th Dec 2005, 20:09

Rumour heard about the AB139....

Seems a GOM operator is a bit miffed over the 438 pound limit for the baggage compartment. A reputable source for information suggested the operator in question is having a baggage problem. Granted Bubba and Earl always have that 28 pounds of baggage and tools when they go out...and the same 28 pounds of baggage, tools, and frozen fish when they come ashore....right?

Anyone know if this is an issue with the 139?

Ned-Air2Air

30th Dec 2005, 20:23

SASLess,

Might be the same GOM operator I just went and visited ;)

One of the problems I saw when I was there was how quick the battery was running down, even when plugged into a battery cart.

Also noticed that when it is lightly loaded it lands very much like an Astar but when they loaded it up close to max all up weight it seems to be a lot more stable in the landing mode. Now remember thats just from my observations and feedback.

One thing I will say is its a hell of a machine.

http://www.helitorque.com/albums/album33/aet.sized.jpg

Ian Corrigible

30th Dec 2005, 20:36

NickLappos

31st Dec 2005, 12:31

It is an operating limit, listed in Section I of the approved FM, and placarded on the baggage compartment:

"Maximum Load 220KG"

Usually such limits are not for CG control, which is a task controlled by the pilot. Mass distributions are sometimes limited by the crash or maneuver loads, and thus this might be hard to increase without beefups.

Oogle

1st Jan 2006, 11:39

After seeing the great pics of the AB139 on the Rotorheads around the World thread - could someone answer me this question.

I note that each PT6 is mounted with the power turbine section facing forward towards the transmission. Therefore the gas producer section aft driving the accessory gearbox.

My question is - how do they duct the exhaust gases? I assume that the exhausts run in between the two mounted engines and then ported out to the exhausts at the rear. Am I right or did I have my computer turned upside down when I was looking at the photos? :confused:

Encyclo

1st Jan 2006, 13:38

Yes, exhaust is routed to the center, then aft, then outboard. Must get pretty toasty in there:uhoh:

As you may have noticed, initially the visible exhaust duct were flush with the sides but later had to be extended as they were cooking the tailboom panels:ok:

Any comments from operators on how happy they are with vibration levels at high speed:confused:

Blackhawk9

2nd Jan 2006, 08:03

The Sultan

2nd Jan 2006, 15:49

With an exhaust duct about 2 meters long won't that be a maintenance nightmare with time, cracked ducts, loose mounts ,heat damage, access to T/R drive, access to inside of eng , no thanks! I'll stay with 412's, S76's and AS332's they all have there faults , but I like them!! (however I would give my left n_t to work on S92's!!)

And there is a lot of work required on the S-92. I heard it took weeks to get a customer to reaccept one ship after it was torn apart to remove (or was it replace) the vibration absorbers which have a nasty habit of failing.

The 139 is not limited by that minor problem.

The Sultan.

spinwing

4th Jan 2006, 20:14

I believe the baggage compartment "allowable Load" will soon be increased to at least 330Kg ...

AND .... the A139 is about to become the A139 B with a redesign of the nose section to allow the computers to be moved there (for increased cooling?).

:cool:

Encyclo

4th Jan 2006, 20:49

And better CG control :E !

Aser

4th Jan 2006, 21:25

It will be a BIG nose with the MAUs there :eek: but the nose up attitude in the hover won't be so ugly...

I heard of big problems with vibration in one machine in the Mid.East... any update?

I believe the baggage compartment "allowable Load" will soon be increased to at least 330Kg ...

AND .... the A139 is about to become the A139 B with a redesign of the nose section to allow the computers to be moved there (for increased cooling?).

:cool:

munchkins

22nd Jan 2006, 16:16

It is an operating limit, listed in Section I of the approved FM, and placarded on the baggage compartment:
"Maximum Load 220KG"
Usually such limits are not for CG control, which is a task controlled by the pilot. Mass distributions are sometimes limited by the crash or maneuver loads, and thus this might be hard to increase without beefups.

The placard in the baggage compartment of the 139 I flew today said;
"Maximum Load 200KG"

munchkins

22nd Jan 2006, 16:26

Given the large size of the 139's baggage hold (78 sq ft standard, 120 sq ft optional), could it just be a case of operator frustration over maxing-out before bulking-out ? This is going to represent a change from the norm, esp. for those transitioning from the 412's 28 sq ft hold.
I/C

120 sq. ft. optional baggage hold? If you're thinking about using the space between the main fuel tanks where the aux. tank is located, think again. There is a placard there indicating that no baggage is permitted between the tanks. Regardless, the "standard baggage hold" is huge compared to that of the medium Bells, and accessable from both sides as well.

rotorboy

23rd Jan 2006, 04:18

munchkins

23rd Jan 2006, 08:48

I was talking with a friend in the GOM and he said the problem isnt the baggae hold but the MGW!.With a full bag of gas the allowable was something silly (low). He said there has just been an increase and hopefully soon to be another. He mentioned that from one operator to another the EGW vsry due to customer requiremnts on floats and rafts that have been built into the A/C
The MGW has recently been increased to 6400 KG's and Agusta is hoping for certification at 7000 KG's. There doesn't appear to be a date established when the 7K is going to be approved. Apparently there are no airframe mods required for the increase in GW.The floats and rafts are standard issue from the factory and I'm not too sure what your friend means by his comment. Seating in the cabin however is another matter. The options are three rows of five, or three rows of four (other than VIP). I know the CHC Europe 139 has 3 rows of 4 due to room required for the passengers and their immersion suits.
The sooner Agusta ups the 139's GW better off we'll all be, including our customers.

Ian Corrigible

23rd Jan 2006, 20:36

120 sq. ft. optional baggage hold? If you're thinking about using the space between the main fuel tanks where the aux. tank is located, think again. There is a placard there indicating that no baggage is permitted between the tanks.

That's a surprise. Though BAAC/Agusta now uses the 120 sq. ft. figure fairly regularly, as it was explained to me the triangular baggage hold offers 78 sq. ft., with the rectangular space in the aft main cabin between the fuel cells representing the other 42 sq. ft. If we're talking about the same space, I'm especially surprised since this is also supposed to accommodate litters.

Seating in the cabin however is another matter. The options are three rows of five, or three rows of four (other than VIP). I know the CHC Europe 139 has 3 rows of 4 due to room required for the passengers and their immersion suits.

It's a nice cabin, but I wouldn’t want to be sandwiched in with 14 other pax for anything other than a short hop. Even the 4+4+4 configuration is cosy, esp. for the facing rows.

I/C

munchkins

24th Jan 2006, 14:21

That's a surprise. Though BAAC/Agusta now uses the 120 sq. ft. figure fairly regularly, as it was explained to me the triangular baggage hold offers 78 sq. ft., with the rectangular space in the aft main cabin between the fuel cells representing the other 42 sq. ft. If we're talking about the same space, I'm especially surprised since this is also supposed to accommodate litters.
It's a nice cabin, but I wouldn’t want to be sandwiched in with 14 other pax for anything other than a short hop. Even the 4+4+4 configuration is cosy, esp. for the facing rows.
I/C

I checked again with the Agusta rep re: the availability of the space between the main fuel tanks for cargo and was told there is no restriction despite a placard "NO LOAD AREA" and an arrow pointing to toward the area in question. Apparently the placard is a there to aid in the prevention of damage to the bulkhead between the main cabin and the baggage hold? This would obviously not be an issue when the litter(s) are installed.
Regardless, when loading baggage and freight in the main hold, care must be exercised not to damage the electronics mounted on the side bulkheads. There are light weight covers installed over the electronics but the covers IMO will be of minimal protection.
By the way in the CHC North Sea a/c with 4+4+4 configuration, all 3 rows of seats in the main cabin faced forward.

oxi

24th Jan 2006, 21:24

Ain't it the A139.............

Since Bell have left the show.........

munchkins

5th Feb 2006, 14:32

Ain't it the A139.............
Since Bell have left the show.........

Yeah, you're right. It's the A139 now. I'm not too sure if that is official or not though. I suspect it is. Bell left the "show" with Agusta late last year. Our helicopter has AB139 plastered on each side of it.

BlenderPilot

5th Feb 2006, 16:41

It would be really interesting to find out why Bell pushed out of the 139 project?

They probably wanted to put a Bell 205 tail rotor and boom on it, or they thought it would compete with their newest and "modern" Bell 210!

Tell you what if the Bell people don't get their act together soon they will be in serious trouble, we just had local operator purchase thier first 5 koalas and 2 powers to replace their fleet of 412, 407 and 206's. This used to be all Bell territory, is now being invaded by Agusta and EC.

SASless

5th Feb 2006, 16:46

Just like in the USA....

Tokunbo

6th Feb 2006, 11:55

Maybe it's because the American government won't allow spares to be supplied for American helicopters operating in countries which they don't approve of :bored: With Bell mixed in, the A139 had a much more limited market, but now, like the French,they'll doubtless allow their helicopters to get spares back-up (well, if you can call Eurocopter's a back-up :} ) and be able to sell a lot more to countries whether America approves or not.

noooby

7th Feb 2006, 19:01

I think AW139 is the new designation (AgustaWestland). Have seen it on the Maintenance Simulator in Italy

arge2

8th Feb 2006, 09:02

I heard recently that a Lufttransport 139 due for operation out of Bodo has not flown since its arrival last year due to major problems!
Would anyone care to add?:confused:

bombiter

8th Feb 2006, 11:57

The CHC 139 has gone commercial last Monday and is doing just fine.
We will see how steep the learning curve will be for all of us (pilots & technicians) with all this new gadgets :ok:

Ian Corrigible

22nd Feb 2006, 15:33

Looks like noooby is right - I'm also now hearing AW139.

I/C

AuxHyd

22nd Feb 2006, 18:41

Greatest thing since sliced bread!

widgeon

22nd Feb 2006, 22:46

La plus grande chose depuis le pain coupé en tranches

The biggest thing from the bread that is cut in the choppings

Translated from english - to french to greek and then back to English again.

Does it lose something in translation ( does the 139 ??).

vaqueroaero

23rd Feb 2006, 00:10

There's one at Montgomery airfield (KMYF) sitting in transient parking. The horizontal stabilizer is held together with duct tape. Apparently it's due to be sitting there for some while................

SASless

23rd Feb 2006, 01:18

VA,

If the boys at Houston see it....it will be doing REV flights in the morning...whats a bit of Hundred Mile an Hour tape. They flew a 76 for weeks with a plywood cabin door window.....or so I heard. That was after it got dunked in the Oggin and took off again when things got sorted out up front. One of the pax being a bit concerned jettisoned the window as he prepared to go swimming with a helicopter strapped to his hind end. Ah, the good ol' days in the Gulf.

vaqueroaero

23rd Feb 2006, 03:04

The word on the street is that it was heading down that way for HAI in Dallas......maybe no joyrides this year. The crew have apparently disbanded and gone home.

Don't quote me on this though...it is a rumour network.

Aser

24th Feb 2006, 10:41

Yes, the name: AW-139

AgustaWestland, a Finmeccanica company, is pleased to announce that Mitsui Bussan Aerospace of Japan has signed a contract, valued at approximately US$100 million, for 12 AW139 helicopters and an exclusive distributor agreement for the AW139 in Japan.

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=7b571282-9ee9-49ed-83a9-05f37219112a

Dillon the dog

7th Mar 2006, 10:59

Any more news on the AW139, is it living up to its hype?

How is it doing in Den Helder and the GOM?

Ian Corrigible

7th Mar 2006, 11:58

Seems to be going okay - 28 ships now operational, and AW139's MTBF performance is currently beating its target. That said, it looks like the type's exhaust system is being redesigned, reportedly for thermal issues.

Mods - can we rename this thread as 'AW139 corner' ?

I/C

Good suggestion, Ian - Done!

PedalStop, Rotorheads Moderator

brame

8th Mar 2006, 01:50

Rumour has it that the Qld DES is about to announce that they will purchase 3 X AW139’s to replace their B412’s. The boys where seen in Italy a few weeks ago…

Anyone know any more?

Thud_and_Blunder

8th Mar 2006, 13:24

Mods - can we rename this thread as 'AW139 corner' ?
Good suggestion, Ian - Done!
PedalStop, Rotorheads Moderator
...er, as at 1423Z on Weds 8 Mar it's still calling itself the "AB..." thread...
I know, I know - get a life! sorreeee :rolleyes: :ok:

Scattercat

29th May 2006, 23:51

I have been contacted by an organisation who are building a helipad that may be used by aircraft up to AW139 class. The helipad will be a raised (steel) construction, with a timber decking. Can any of the AW139 operators out there provide me with pavement loading specifications for this type? Also wheel dimensions / pressures.
I have tried the Agusta Westland site & email, without success.
Thanks if you can!
Cat

spinwing

30th May 2006, 10:53

scattercat ..

AW 139 at the moment certified to 6400kgs (14100 lbs) MTOWA.

Nose gear has Twin wheels/tyres inflated to 132psi.
Main gear are Single wheel/tyre inflated to 230psi.

Hope this helps ....

Cheers spinny :}

Aser

30th May 2006, 11:19

Landing gear
- Tread of main wheels ............................................. 3.04 m (9.97 ft)
- Wheel base .......................................................... 4.34 m (14.24 ft)
- Fuselage ground angle at BDGW (Nose up)..........................0° 23'
- Nose wheel tires inflation pressure .............................9.1 ±0.1 bar
(131.95 ±1.45 PSI)
- Main wheel tires inflation pressure ..........................15.85 ±0.1 bar
(229.82 ±1.45 PSI)

I can't find the PCN (Pavement Classification Number). :ugh:

Regards.
Aser

Scattercat

30th May 2006, 22:16

Thanks for the info' chaps.

Would you have the wheels dimensions? Diameter / width??

Cheers

aerolearner

30th May 2006, 22:28

Thanks for the info' chaps.
Would you have the wheels dimensions? Diameter / width??
CheersFrom the Type Certificate Data Sheet (http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Certification/Design_Appro/Rotorcraft/TCDS_R_006_Agusta_AB_139.pdf) (pg.5)
Nose Landing Gear: 5.00-5 Type: 10PR
Main Landing Gear: 18 X 5.5 Type: 10PR

aerolearner

The Juggler

3rd Jun 2006, 10:46

Just heard that the QLD government has formally........finally announced that the AW139 will be the replacement aircraft for its Government Rescue Service. No doubt the boys at QR will be happy:)

Jack Smeeorf

3rd Jun 2006, 12:22

Well done to the CP of EMQ (formally QLD Rescue)and his helpers for moving forward and getting the AW139's. He could have taken the easy way out and settled for old tech B412's. Also NVG cert shortly for the company. Where does the line start for a job at EMQ. :D

spinwing

3rd Jun 2006, 15:04

Yer might just want to wait till the AW139 has proved itself before you elbow yourself into the que..... Early days yet though it is impressive!

:hmm:

Takan Inchovit

3rd Jun 2006, 21:24

I dont have much interest in helicopters it was the budget that caught my eye.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654532.htm

Qld Budget to include $50m helicopter spending
The Queensland Government will spend more than $48 million replacing its helicopter rescue fleet.

The overhaul will be part of record emergency services spending in Tuesday's Budget.

Premier Peter Beattie says the three helicopters will be bought over four years, with the first to be operational next July.

The funding will be included in next week's Budget.

Mr Beattie says the choppers have greater range and better night capabilities than the current versions.

"The helicopters - Augusta AW139 - we'll be the first in Australia to have them and we'll be at the cutting edge of these sorts of services," he said.

"This is not just a bit of bravado. The reality is we are the most decentralised state in Australia. We need them."

The improved performance of the Augusta 139s will take nearly 25 minutes off a two-hour retrieval mission, significantly increasing patients' survival odds.

Treasurer Anna Bligh says technological improvements will also make them capable of difficult night rescues.

"It's an autohover capacity, that allows winch retrievals over water at night time, which is currently not possible with the existing fleet," she said.

In 2001, the Rockhampton-based rescue helicopter crashed while trying to rescue stricken fishermen, at night, 130 nautical miles offshore.

No one was killed, but chief pilot Trevor Wilson says there was an anxious wait in treacherous conditions until daylight.

"When we located them at 2 o'clock in the morning, because we didn't have this service enhancement, all we were able to do is certainly drop them supplies, and come back at first light to perform the winch rescues," he said.

Two of the new helicopters will be operational in the second half of next year.

Altogether $64 million will be allocated to emergency management in Ms Bligh's first Budget, including another $5 million for the network of community helicopter providers, and more than $2 million for rescue services in the Torres Strait.

maxeemum

5th Jun 2006, 03:54

Not sure if new machine has attained SP IFR certification. If so good stuff. If not choice = Co Pilots or appropriate Auto Pilot.

> 5700 kg MTOW will be interesting from a maint and crew point of view. Many differences most not evident yet. Tyre press's for one will/may entail PCN/ACN's and landing on ply wood pontoons vis a vie Bris River Helipad = a no go! Ground taxi on Soft Tarmacs in summer = unhappy aerodrome operators due divets (avoid the steaming divet). OEI at HAUW over the divide in winter with ENG Antice on will mean Drift down will be interesting-see what the flight man says vs the sales pitch.

Interesting times all round........

Max

:)

brame

5th Jun 2006, 06:06

It's a shame they didn't pick a helicopter that was described by the tender document... i.e. 4tonns, SPIFR, with a budget of about $43,000,000. Once again, forget the process, and just pick the biggest, most expensive toy that you can get away with.

AW139 may turn out to be a great helicopter, but when will we see probity in the government tendering process. Hope the NSW Health is a fair contest.

spinwing

5th Jun 2006, 07:23

Fact is .... that at the moment ...nothing else comes close to the AW139 for capability for the size (the same physical size as the 412EP).... YET!

:ok:

sagy34

6th Jun 2006, 12:41

43 Million seems like a awful lot of money to replace aircraft that are well and truly capable of performing all the task required of them?????? :bored: Couldn't the money be better spent?????:=

Aser

6th Jun 2006, 19:49

To all of you obsessed with SPIFR, could you explain why a medium RESCUE helicopter(maybe doing rescue over water at night) shouldn't have a properly trained and paid co-pilot (regardless of 4-axis or not)??¿¿ :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

brame

6th Jun 2006, 22:19

Aser

Totally agree with you, and consider that it should be mandated. But the tender for the Qld EMS helicopter was clearly for 3 same type SPIFR helicopters.

I understand that DES hope to operate the AW139 SPIFR if they can get CASA approval....

helmet fire

7th Jun 2006, 00:01

SPIFR? Not really. Any mature EMS Oz organisation will have trained the up front crewman to assist the pilot, and in the case of some organisations, are trained to use the autopilot in the event of pilot incapacitation. Sound CRM and situational awareness training (like IF procedures, LSALT, sytems, etc) can mitigate the need to have two sets of controls. They are pretty well trained to do everything else anyway.

What strikes me in the buy is the focus on larger machines. QLD is generally a vast and remote state, with population centres heavily weighted to the coast. Wouldn't more, smaller machines be the better model? QLD may not suit more small machines....thoughts anyone?

I'm thinking EC145 or A109G at say Brizzy, Oakey, Rocky, Mackay/Whitsundays, Cairns, and long range bigger machines like 412, EC155, S76 or 139s at Townsville and Brizzy. Show me the money!!!

Having a 412 or 139 hovering over you for a rescue can be a dangerous thing. Timbered country, dust areas, in the water, in a liferaft, or clinging to a cliff - that downwash is no friend. On the other hand, going from remote hospital to hospital (why isnt a fixed wing employed?), that range and payload is fantastic. Is QLD suited to smaller more frequent models, or is big the only solution?

spinwing

7th Jun 2006, 03:37

I think the point is to have a more capable machine than the now aged BH412EP ... as well as having a machine that for the say next 10 yrs will have the potential to keep up with and possibly even lead with future rescue technology and development (eg NVG and synthetic vision etc).

Anyone who has flown any of the current crop of smaller machines has to have recognised those machines flaws be they cabin size, endurance, vibration levels or OEI performance capability.

The reality is that nowdays agencies involved in the business of Rescue or Medical Evacuations and suchlike as well as the Governments that are responsible for them HAVE A DUTY OF CARE to provide to the crews AND the public the best tools to do their jobs. In this case they are trying to update the equipment to the best possible to suit the needs of Queensland as they see it.

Having over the past few years seen some of the EMS disasters that have happened in Queensland because of underfunded community organisations trying to make "strawberry Jam outa goatdroppings" (try as hard as you like it will never quite taste right!) this is a responsible way to go.

Thanks :hmm:

[email protected]

7th Jun 2006, 06:06

Helmet fire - for hovering over the water at night you want a second pilot up the front - not for when it is all going right but for when it goes wrong and since the winch operator is going to be doing exactly that, he is no place to help the handling pilot deal with a malfunction when winching. It makes the difference between managing a malfunction and ending up as another casualty. SPIFR, no problem - in the cruise the rear crew can help out as much as they like (unless they are giving CPR in the back to a critical casualty) but over water ops, give me 2 pilots every time.

Heliport

23rd Aug 2006, 08:23

The first of four AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters for the Irish Air Corps was handed over by Mr. Bruno Spagnolini, AgustaWestland’s Managing Director to Brigadier General James, General Officer Commanding, Irish Air Corps, in the presence of Major General Pat Nash, Deputy Chief of Staff (Operations), Irish Defence Forces, at Vergiate in Italy.
This handover also marks the first delivery of an AW139 to a military customer.

Flying training of Air Corps pilots will continue until late October, when the second helicopter will be handed over.

The AW139 helicopters for the Irish Air Corps are equipped with a range of role equipment including AM/FM tactical radios, a Forward Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) camera with a fifth cockpit LCD mission display.

In the cabin the aircraft can be quickly reconfigured from the troop transport role with ten crashworthy troop seats to the medical evacuation role with air ambulance equipment plus seats for attendants. Additional role equipment includes abseiling and fast rope systems as well as a dual machine gun installation.

The AW139 was selected by the Irish Department of Defence in December 2004, after a full evaluation of the aircraft against several competitors. Soon after a contract was signed for four aircraft plus two options.

The Irish Air Corps will use the aircraft for a range of duties including transport of special operation units of the Defence Forces, air ambulance, overland search and rescue and VIP transport.

AW say over 190 AW139s have been ordered, over 40 have now been delivered to Europe, Asia, Africa, North America and the Middle East.

http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/p/2006-03-01/U1335P27T1D354264F26DT20060301095504.jpg

helopat

16th Sep 2006, 10:58

Does anyone have any info on the development of an AB139 full-motion simulator?
Useful info would include dates and possible location.
Also, do any pilots have any feedback on the Aircraft itself?
Thanks in advance,
JG

Just to revive this particular point, AW-139 sims...where are they in the world? As a sim instructor I'd like to chat with the boys and gals who use them.

Ta.

HP

212man

16th Sep 2006, 11:26

It's in Italy (Sesto Calende) run by a joint venture company (CAE and AW) called Rotorsim. Only recently opened.

SuperDouper

17th Sep 2006, 07:57

Further to the 139 stuff, Bell/ AWHL are in the process of developing the 139 into the 149 which will be aimed at the military market as a possible replacement for the aging Puma fleet.

Its a great looking piece of kit

Kiwi63

10th Oct 2006, 20:40

If you are a 139 driver, can you make any comments (positive or negative) on what it is like to fly/operate?

Darren999

11th Oct 2006, 03:29

Kiwi

I can throw some light on this. I have just completed the grd school in NE Philly. The A/C is amazing. I had 76 and dauphan drivers in the class thats also expressed how easy it as to understand the systems. There was only 1 issue we hit up against and that was a weight and Balance problem, which I feel is being addressed at this time by AW. It needs a little more weight in the nose. I have not started the flight training yet, but have heard there have been some other electrical teething problems. The A/C that we fly are situated in the Gulf of Mexico. I think it maybe the humidy playing games. I'm sure other more expirenced PPruners maybe able to shed a little further light.

Darren

Aser

11th Oct 2006, 11:27

The 139 it's a dream! It has the power,speed,range,OEI perf,all the gadgets you can pay,and all the safety features of a truly new design...
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/P9270108.jpg
Yes, you'll be from 7º to 9º nose up in hover but not a problem.
The problems are not so serius for a new machine.
I love it.

noooby

11th Oct 2006, 15:58

That's not your helicopter Aser!!!!! Have you been sneaky :E :E

Aser

11th Oct 2006, 19:53

But the picture is mine, Helitech'05 http://asermartinez.iespana.es/helitech05/ :}

toolguy

12th Oct 2006, 00:15

I flew one last year and it was sweet!:ok: Lots of power! Trim and stick feel was like butter. Don't know if it was legit, but the RFM has a single engine HIGE chart at max continous, standard day, SL, slightly under max gross!

Aser

12th Oct 2006, 01:04

toolguy you are very right, controls are very "light" but you get used to it, and yes, around 6.300kg OEI HIGE SL 15ºC.
Also no H-V chart up to 3000' or 4000' ISA more or less.

arwom

12th Oct 2006, 06:11

Can any AW139 operators provide a typical planning operational fuel flow and cruise speed for operations such as EMS and SAR

Aser

20th Oct 2006, 11:39

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/articlefiles/2645-00.jpg
Japanese Coast Guard Selects The AgustaWestland AW139 Helicopter For Maritime Search And Rescue Operations (http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=2645&z=6)

Camp Freddie

21st Oct 2006, 19:55

arwom,

offshore fuel planning 145 knots, 420 kg per hour

regards

CF

platinumpure

22nd Oct 2006, 03:13

Fuel planning for EMS and SAR would be closer to 1000 lbs/hr due to the lower altitudes / shorter trips, I would expect.

Aircraft is a very nice aircraft to fly when actually able to fly. Lots of downtime recently due to maintenance. Very poor support from Agusta (at least in the US).

Common problems –

Air conditioning.
Hyd servo CAS messages due to moisture and faulty switches.
Fuel probe CAS messages (mostly due to cannon plugs).
Fire warnings due to exhausts cracking and in some cases collapsing.
AHRS failing.
GPS antenna failures (not a whole lot of fun when 150 miles offshore as the FMS D/R mode isn’t so hot)
Did I mention air conditioning.

Not so common problems –

Gear dropping magically by itself.
Engine starting to spool up when hyd electrical pump turned on ???
Parking brake sticking.
And more recently an un-commanded shutdown of an engine followed by a EEC failure.

So lots of problems, but lots of good things going for it as well (power, speed, comfort, avionics). I know Agusta are capable of building a decent helicopter but this one still needs a lot of work. However, this is new technology (at least in the helicopter world) and this is an A model. I think the B model will be fantastic and its certainly a step in the right direction.

Hope this helps.

AB139engineer

22nd Oct 2006, 04:46

If you are a 139 driver, can you make any comments (positive or negative) on what it is like to fly/operate?
I am not a driver but I am a engineer on the AB139 and I can tell you the drivers love it, they are both high time IFR pilots with both 412 and S76A/C+ time. The AB139 is a true Cat A helicopter.:ok:

Ned-Air2Air

22nd Oct 2006, 05:18

Judging by the fact that you are based in Vancouver would presume you get to play with London Air Services new toy :ok:

Nice paintscheme on it.

Ned

arwom

22nd Oct 2006, 08:01

AW139Engineer.
Noted your thoughts from the pilots perspective. What is your view from the Engineers eyes. Eg reliablity, ease of maintenance and Agusta technical and spares support etc

noooby

22nd Oct 2006, 11:45

Wow Platinumpure, it sounds like you got a dog!!!! :}
We have problems with the M/R scissor bushes wearing out every 200 hours, and cracking on the exhaust tips (although the repair seems to be holding up OK), but other than that the machine just keeps on trucking.
One machine is doing 80-100 hours/month, the other is not online yet, probably won't have enough crews until early next year.
Keep an eye on the upper left hand tailboom mount, on the fuselage side. We have one machine with a crack there, and know of at least one other machine out there with cracking in the same place. Not a major, it is only the support structure cracking, not the primary structure. Repair scheme is pretty simple.
We don't have the aircon. It isn't worth the weight and hassle. No AHRS probs, no GPS probs, no undercarriage or engine probs, and definitely no fuel system probs (we have aux tanks fitted, waste of time!!).
Either you got a dog, or we got lucky!!!
Parts are a problem, although our main problem is trying to get the company to order what we say we need. For instance..... scissor bushes wear out frequently, and we hold none in stock. But, we hold 2 DME aerials in stock, coz they always break!!! :ugh:
We also have one of every avionic box on the machine, but no pitch links, main rotor blades, or tail rotor blades.
Agree that Agusta need to sort out the spares. It is almost as if they didn't think it would be this popular, and haven't made enough parts!!
Not sure what our fuel burn figures are sorry. We usually max out our weight with 10 or 11 pax, and cruise speed is 150-155 knots. It seems to get better the faster you go :eek:

js0987

22nd Oct 2006, 12:33

Stories very reminisent about A models of all aircraft. Had an American Airlines pilot once tell me that when they first got delivery of the new MD11's they called them SCUDS - once they launched, you never new where they were going to land.
Bristow backed away from the AB139 partly due to concerns about support. Back in the late 90's, they had a meeting with Augusta and had lots of questions - things like warranties, cost of parts, retirement times, etc. - all those things you would like to know before shelling out $100 mill. The meeting was apparently in March, and by July they had not received any answers. One Bristow exec. put it this way: "if that's the kind of support you get when they're trying to sell it to you, what kind of support are you going to get after they've sold it to you."
Makes me wonder why Bell bailed out.

platinumpure

22nd Oct 2006, 14:23

Wow Platinumpure, it sounds like you got a dog!!!! :}
Either you got a dog, or we got lucky!!!
:

I think you may have got lucky or maybe we got a lot of dogs. As most of the problems we have had have been common on all of our aircraft. In fact we are currently returning one to the factory due to the amount of problems that we have had.

noooby

22nd Oct 2006, 18:36

Platinumpure, I feel for you. Nothing worse than having a machine with good potential not living up to the hype.

js0987, while Shell control Bristow (oh yes they do!!!), Bristow can't buy AW139's. Shell demand that a simulator is available, and for the 139, that won't be until late this year, early next.
Bell bailed on the 139 because they were losing sooooo much money on the V-22 and BA609, that they had to sell out of the 139 because they needed the money so bad (so I heard).
If Honeywell would step upto the plate and fix the f:mad: CMC to get rid of the phantom maintenance messages, and fix the other elec gremlins, and if Agusta would sort out the main rotor and tail rotor scissors, it would be a fantastic machine.

I still think it is better than the competition though, especially where passenger safety and comfort is concerned. You don't sit on the floor in the back like a 365, and everyone can get out the doors easily in an emergency, unlike the 76.

My 2 cents ;)

mrgb

22nd Oct 2006, 23:18

Can any of the operators of the 139 out there shed some light on rumours of cracking windscreens?
Have there been any issues or is it just rumours?

Aser

23rd Oct 2006, 13:33

Fuel planning for EMS and SAR would be closer to 1000 lbs/hr - I agree
Common problems
Air conditioning. - Yes
Hyd servo CAS messages due to moisture and faulty switches. - Yes
Fuel probe CAS messages (mostly due to cannon plugs). - No
Fire warnings due to exhausts cracking and in some cases collapsing. - Not the warning but yes on the cracks
AHRS failing. -No
GPS antenna failures (not a whole lot of fun when 150 miles offshore as the FMS D/R mode isn’t so hot) -No
Not so common problems –
Gear dropping magically by itself.- No
Engine starting to spool up when hyd electrical pump turned on ??? -No
Parking brake sticking. -No
And more recently an un-commanded shutdown of an engine followed by a EEC failure. - Hell No!

Regards
Aser

NickLappos

23rd Oct 2006, 14:45

The 139 sounds like it is doing as expected on initial introduction, the stories of cracked exhausts and the like are somewhat "normal" and quite likely to be fully ironed out very quickly. I would also bet that stories from pilots that I respect about its good vibrations, good handling and such are all quite true.

The pilot preferences for a full Cat A capability are answered by the 139, it literally has no Dead Man's curve at normal altitudes, so it meets the ppruner's most basic wish (proven by lots of interesting threads!)

The real story behind the scenes is the "cost" of the super engine power that the design brings to the table. By "cost" I mean the fuel consumed, the extra purchase price and the extra maintenance expense incurred by a drive train that would normally go into a 20,000 lb helo, but is stuck in a 15,000 lb one. Similarly, is the fuel burn of 1000 lbs per hour acceptable when compared to the 550 to 700 pph for helos with the same pax load by more "normal" engine power? If the helo loads full pax and then flys 200 miles, does it leave 3 pax home to make it, due to the extra fuel consumed?

These questions are on the lips of every operator who faces the purchase decision. I am sure the questions about support are not about whether parts will be available, they ask how much per hour the machine costs, and if the manufacturer will provice a competitive "power by the hour" guarantee.

In short, when you have no HV curve in a 15,000 lb helo, what you actually have is a 20,000 lb helo in every way (purchase price, cost to operate, fuel burn, overhaul costs) except one - payload. And less payload means less revenue generation. The market will decide if the trade-off is worth it!

noooby

23rd Oct 2006, 19:19

With due repect Nick, the market won't decide for much longer. When the new JAR regs come into effect (2008??) most helos flying offshore ops will have payload limitations put on them, whereas the 139 will not. 76D may address this with more power, as it is the power margins that will be the determining factor with regard to payload. PM me with the purchase price of an offshore equipped S-76, IFR, with 3 axis autopilot, and I'll PM you the 139 price back. You might be surprised how close it is!!!

As for windscreens, yep, the early ones cracked. All the time!!!! New windscreens are out now, and all new machines should have them. If they don't, the retrofit is simple. They come predrilled for the screws, and all the holes actually line up!!!!
So far, no problems with the new screens. Optics are better, and the frame is much stronger. One thing that I don't like however, is the fact that the anti-scratch coating is not as scratch resistant on the new screens as it was on the old ones.
Why is it that manufacturers persist with plastic/acrylic windscreens!!! I even hear that the S-92 has acrylic screens. What was the reasoning behind that Nick? I personally prefer glass, even with a weight penalty

jimma

24th Oct 2006, 10:54

Bell bailed on the 139 because they were losing sooooo much money on the V-22 and BA609, that they had to sell out of the 139 because they needed the money so bad (so I heard).
Thats completely true (had it clarified from a source at Bell). Its a bit of a shame if you ask me. The first 50ish aircraft are still AB139s though, Bell wouldnt let them change to AW139.

NickLappos

24th Oct 2006, 13:27

nooby,

Your logic is a bit flawed, the amount of power that is in the 139 is far beyond the needs of a full Cat A from a rig. As the PM on the S92, I was intimately aware of the JAR OPS needs, and several helos meet full Cat A from rigs at weights that allow good payloads and good range. The 139 carries even more power, to the detrement of its payload at even medium ranges.

Note that the 15000 lb 139 has the same power (2 x 2000 HP engines) installed as the 21500 lb Black Hawk.

noooby

24th Oct 2006, 15:17

Nick, you are assuming that 6400kg will be the final weight of the 139. I'm thinking that Agusta will be upping the MTOW at some point. Won't be for a while yet though, they don't have anywhere near enough fleet hours to be able to fully assess how the airframe would handle it. Interesting to note however that the 149, using same basic frame with different undercarriage, is rated for 7000kg. Word from a contact at Agusta was that some of the design improvements being made to the 149 (simpler retraction sequence on the main gear for instance), could be carried across to the 139. I certainly hope so.
jimma, I agree that it was a shame that Bell had to withdraw. With their product support behind it, things would be better than they are now!!!

bpaggi

24th Oct 2006, 19:47

Nick
the 139 has tha power that it needs. It has 1872 SHP at the 2.5' rating (OEI) and 2x1122 SHP AEO at T.O.
Cat A for rig operations are unbeatable allowing a Take Off weight of 6400 kg (max) for zero wind and OAT up to ISA+25 (40ºC) with no drop down!.
This the first helicopter that has exceptional margins either in power and controllability up to 14000 ft HD that is the Cat A/B take off envelope.
I'm an engineer and I love these characteristics but I also think pilots love it.
This also a TRUE JAR OPS Class 1 Performance Helicopter.
Just to mention, it also provides for the first time a Power Index (not a FLI), the only power plant gauge that substitutes all traditional engine/transmission gauges, reducing considerably pilot workload and enhancing safety.

NickLappos

24th Oct 2006, 20:08

bpaggi says, " I'm an engineer and I love these characteristics but I also think pilots love it." Yes, but only when pilots carry the checkbooks does that make sales.
I think you have read me wrong. I think the 139 has lots and lots of power, in fact, perhaps too much, since it now has less range and the payload is reduced due to the high fuel burn. With the power you describe, the helo could weigh 21000 lbs, and have about 2 tons more payload than it does. In other words, for the fantastic single engine performance, the operator carries thousands of pounds less revenue-paying load!

Regarding how pilots believe that engine power makes more safety, if you look at the accident statistics, you will see that engines are not the problem, people are. Since the biggest single block of accidents, (about 25 to 40% of all helo accidents) involve perfectly healthy machines that are flown into the water or mountains, exactly how will doubling engine power solve this?

noooby,
Have it your way, add gross weight to get payload back. But as you do, the marvelous OEI performance reduces. Cannot have it both ways!

Aser

24th Oct 2006, 21:09

C'mon Nick,
Why can't we have great OEI performance plus a JAR 29 helicopter and THEN add HEGWPS,TCAS,HUMS etc.etc.? :ugh:
I don't get your point with too much power...
We continue using b412/S76 or we buy Blackhawks?
Any other alternative (in the medium range)?
It's not my money :rolleyes:

NickLappos

24th Oct 2006, 21:49

Aser,
Months ago I posted the performance of three hypothetical helos, a one-engine one, a conventional two-engine one, and a two-engined one that could hover on one engine. The cruise range hit that you take to have OEI hover is not at all understood by pilots, I have nearly given up trying to explain why. But here goes!

Turbines are awful at part power, so the less power you are pulling in cruise, the very much worse your fuel burn is. For a given cruise power, the fuel used is at least 40% higher if the helo has OEI hover, I said. Thus, the 100 pph fuel flow for the 139 vice the 600 to 700 for a 412 or 76.

More power does NOT mean better cruise performance!! Thus the "cost" of having scads of power in an OEI condition is paid for on every cruise mile, and in the loss of revenue for meduim distance flights, as well as every overhaul, and every insurance payment (you pay for the cost to replace). For no measurable increase in safety.

helmet fire

25th Oct 2006, 03:52

Yet again when these discussions on full CAT A arise, I firmly agree with Nick and I find it almost incomprehensible that the argument goes around so many times.
It appears straight forward.

Risk = Frequency X Consequence. As engine failure rates are not accurately recorded, statistics are very hard to argue without significant flaws being apparent, so I will avoid the statistical minefield in terms of frequency of engine failures.

Examining three types of aircraft (single engine, Twin engine with limited CAT A, Twin engine with OEI hover), we can assume that engine failures are relatively consistent between the three types of aircraft and thus, we can assume that frequency of engine failure is the same across the three types. Except of course, frequency is doubled in a twin because they have two engines!

Given frequency is a constant; we need to measure risk in terms of consequence. .

If you want a single engine aircraft you are vulnerable to engine failure 100% of the time. Consequence is generally severe for all but clear area ops and experienced pilots. Thus generally, singles have high risk (due high consequence).

If you go for the Twin engine with limited CAT A, then I concede that your frequency of engine failure could be considered double that of a single in this simplified analysis, and the highest consequence is also similar to the single (i.e. severe) but not as likely to be severe due the other engine being available to reduce severity of the forced landing. Accordingly, the risk is still high, but less than that of a single.

The third type is the AW 139 – “Full CAT A” OEI hover capable with no deadman’s curve. Frequency is double the single, same as limited CAT A, but consequence is low. Thus over all risk is low.

Now the tricky bit – exposure to risk. This is a function of how often the aircraft is exposed to the negative consequence, or in other words, exposure is the amount of time that the frequency (number of engine failures) of the risk can become involved and cause the consequence (crash landing). If you are exposed for longer, the chances of an in-frequent event occurring are higher than if the exposure time was very low. Thus when we assess risk, we should also consider exposure to that risk in order to assess it’s real impact.

There are two extremes. The single is exposed nearly all the time from hover to hover. Lets say for about 80% to be conservative. The twin with hover OEI is not exposed.

The middle ground is actually not very middle at all! The twin with limited CAT A is exposed for less than 0.17% (illustrative only - Nick – can you recall the exact number here? I will amend when I have the correct figure). The aircraft is only exposed when operating in very narrow time segments of take off and landing over adverse terrain. It is not exposed enroute, nor during those narrow time segments when operating over terrain that would sustain a landing, albeit with minor aircraft damage (as opposed to human damage).

Many corporate owners happily fly around in singles because they are cheap and they assess engine failures as remote, but they almost universally fail to consider consequence. Similarly, many corporate owners want full CAT A because they either do not understand exposure, or because they don’t want any exposure to the same risks that many corporate owners consider negligible.

Now cost: singles are cheaper, twins with OEI hover are very expensive (20,000 lbs operating costs to haul 15,000 lbs of goods). The limited CAT A fits nicely in the middle BUT it allows compromise. If you want to have full CAT A, fit the aircraft with less seats and voila! You have it. If you then accept the exposure rate of 0.17% to a possible (not likely) consequence, you can load it up and operate cost effectively. I agree that limited CAT A is a smart (and probably a mandatory) step to make away from singles for high net worth individuals and work place safety reasons for fare paying passengers because it significantly reduces exposure (80%ish to 0.17%) for a more reasonable cost increase, but I cannot justify spending considerably more on reducing a mere 0.17% to about zero.

The outcome of making all new twins hover OEI is that more and more people will buy singles because cost effective operations are no longer viable in twins given that there is no aircraft available for those who accept the occasional 0.17%.

But what is most surprising to me about all this pprune (pilot as opposed to owner) demand for hover OEI twins that will actually drive people to singles is that a crucial piece of the puzzle always seems to escape the argument: it is NOT ENGINE FAILURES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LARGEST CHUNKS OF OUR ACCIDENT STATISTICS.

Revolutionary idea follows; lets push owner funding into anti CFIT devices like multi axis autopilots, synthetic and night vision devices, 3D nav equipment, wire detection and avoidance capabilities, advanced weather radar and ground to air situational information linking, terrain and traffic detection and avoidance capabilities, and lots more motion simulator training for the pilots. CFIT risk is proven to be much more than the 0.17% exposure to possible risk that we are trying to overcome by demanding OEI hover capable twins and driving people back to singles. Why do we stay so obsessed by such an insignificant risk when the meanest monster gets so little attention???????
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

AB139engineer

25th Oct 2006, 05:23

AW139Engineer.
Noted your thoughts from the pilots perspective. What is your view from the Engineers eyes. Eg reliablity, ease of maintenance and Agusta technical and spares support etc

Ease of maintenance on the AW139 has been good so far, weaknesses are scissor bushings which last about 100-120 hours and they are rationed out by agusta, The titainium exhaust ducts are a problem right now and are prone to cracking, and in some cases I have heard from other operators of blow outs that set off the fire detection system. Changed ours at 300 hours.The Honeywell equipment failures so far has been a GCU, a COM, and 2 Rad Alts, you will require some laptop computer skills to work with the CMC, but so far it has been working very well for us. Very few phantom caution messages, none for quite a while. Have changed the input seal on
IGB at 100 hours, and at 300+ it looks like I may need to change it again.
Agusta parts are very slow, even when they say 2 days it could mean a week or two before you have that part in your hands. I highly recommend
the operator keeps spares on the shelf, or you will definity go AOG once and a while. One cannot rely on Agusta for Overnight Parts Availability here in North America. You are going to have to buy some over priced Agusta tooling also to maintain this aircraft. The pratt -67C engines are great and the customer support is very good, no issues with the engines so far.:ok:

spinwing

25th Oct 2006, 05:42

Helmet Fire ......

EXCELLENT POST!! :ok: :ok:

jimma

25th Oct 2006, 06:54

I'm thinking that Agusta will be upping the MTOW at some point.
CHC and other North Sea operators will be pleased about that, the aircraft is 400Kg heavier than what Agusta told them so they are currently limited to 10 pax. Rumour has it that when Agusta weighed the aircraft, they forgot about all the extra North Sea equipment.

MamaPut

25th Oct 2006, 08:58

The big problem for the 139 seems to be that outside Europe, with its need for full Class 1 performance offshore, it has a pathetic baggage capacity for its size and the huge fuel burn means that an S76C+ will probably take more passengers, further and at a lower cost. The oil companies in general are not interested in Class 1 performance offshore, no matter how much we pilots may like it, and unless something is done to improve the payload/range and baggage capacity of the 139 I can't see it succeeding commercially against helicopters like the S76. It may be an old design and the Arriel 2 series engines may give lots of problems, but at the moment, and probably for the next few years, it's almost unbeatable on range/payload/performance/cost.
Don't misunderstand me, I'd love to fly the 139, it looks great and has some interesting new features, but it doesn't seem to be a serious competitor in the long range offshore market as yet. Just my own opinion.

jimma

25th Oct 2006, 13:25

I'd love to fly the 139, it looks great and has some interesting new features.
Most of the 139 pilots I know are ex-S76 aircrew and they all seem to be happy with the switch. The biggest complaint I have heard is the lack of a cupholder. In fact, several of the pilots have requested their maintenance crew to retro fit them.

spinwing

25th Oct 2006, 13:32

Any truth in the rumour that Main U/C tyres are only lasting 150 hrs???

NickLappos

25th Oct 2006, 13:47

Mamaput,
You see it exactly as I do, I think. It is important to realize that the excellent Cat A performance and the very high fuel burn are actually two facets of the same design decision!

Noooby,
I do see that the increased MGW will help the useful load (and thus either tange or payload) but it will harm the OEI performance to some extent. This actually proves my point - too much engine power means less useful load.

AB139engineer,
I have no doubt that the 139 will end up as a relatively easy to maintain helo, but it will be a helo with a drivetrain and powerplant that can carry 21000 lbs of helo in a 15000lb package, so it will cost 30% more to maintain, even if it is easy to maintain, since cost is directly related to horsepower, and the transmissions, shafts, gearboxes, engines and rotors are "too big" for its payload by about 30%. Is this a problem? Only if operators don't buy it because of these costs.

helmet fire,
Wow, you said what I was trying to, thanks for the clarity. The statistics that are used by JAR to determine rig landing compliance is that the aircraft has good OEI performance virtually all the time, except during a few seconds on takeoff and landing, and probability of engine failure during those critical portions of the flight (typically about 6 to 10 seconds during a 1 hour flight - about 0.2% of the time) is less than the demonstrated probability of a major component failing. In other words, why make the engine failure safety lots of times better than the safety of the rest of the helo, especially when engine power has such a strong influence on economics of operation.

All,
Remember, we are not talking about Cat A from a rig, several helos have that capability, but not to the massive extent of the 139. We are talking about no HV curve limitations at all, and asking iof the market wants to pay the price for that increase in capability (I do not call it an increase in safety, because it is not.) I believe the dollar cost for extra performance is very very high, and that if we spent these dollars on what causes accidents, we would get more safety by far. It can be said that if we put too much power into the helo, we make it less safe, since we now have less money to spend on real (not imagined) safety items.

Let me not sound like bad-mouthing any particular helo. The 139 by all accounts is a fine machine, smooth, fast and powerful. I however do challenge the basic premise that "power equates to safety", and that "you can't have too much power."

bpaggi

25th Oct 2006, 17:52

Nick
I do not agree with both of your conclusions. You perfectly know that power can be decisive in many occasions in getting out of troubles without considering the engine failure case.
How much power is too much?
Power is also associated to A/C controllability in hover conditions that is also a safety issue.
I agree with you as far as the penalties you have to accept when you "over design", but to me, this is going towards safety, even though this costs money (as always).
The future models of the 139 will address this issues and increase payload but without penalizing the big plus of this machine.

NickLappos

25th Oct 2006, 18:11

bpaggi,
You said, "You perfectly know that power can be decisive in many occasions in getting out of troubles without considering the engine failure case."

Nobody is arguing that power is not nice, and nobody is saying that a bunch of power is not good, but what I am saying is that a two-engined helo that doesn't need the second engine will burn 30% more gas to do its job, and is carrying transmissions, engines and shafting around that are much more expensive to buy and operate.

Regarding safety, do you have any statistics on what causes helo accidents? I do, and insufficient power is simply not an issue. Can you share your secret stash of data that shows how power is the real hidden cause of helo accidents?

You don't have to agree, because we aren't asking for a vote, just the facts. Are you saying that the 139 does not burn 1000 pounds per hour? Are you contending that the 139 carries more passengers farther than its competitors? My point is that it has awsome power, and pays a big price for that. Do you disagree?

noooby

25th Oct 2006, 19:04

spinwing... hours have nothing to do with tyres wearing out. operators who taxi alot will wear them out quickly, and vice versa ;)

jimma... i thnk it is about time pilots stop taking hot drinks on flights. Tea and coffee are diuretics, which help to pass fluid out of the body and accelerate dehydration. The only drink taken onboard should be water, and it should be in resealable containers. You want to see how much damage to avionics, and corrosion spilt coffee and tea can cause. Having the water in resealable bottles minimises that risk, and removes the corrosion risk associated with those drinks. Get over the lack of cup holder, modify your old (bad) habits!!! :ugh:

Mamaput... actually, having seen a recent chart for range/payload over distance, the 139 easily outperformed a 76C. The C+ wasn't shown, and no, I don't know who produced the chart. It wasn't Agusta though. Also showed 'heavy' machines, and the 92 way outperformed the rest. Quite impressive.

helmet fire... The limited CAT A fits nicely in the middle BUT it allows compromise. If you want to have full CAT A, fit the aircraft with less seats and voila! You have it. If you then accept the exposure rate of 0.17% to a possible (not likely) consequence, you can load it up and operate cost effectively.
Doesn't that mean, that, comparing a 76 to the 139 for instance, the 76 would have to do 2 trips for every single 139 trip, if both were flown to full Cat A?? So, in the future, if/when full Cat A is mandatory, how would a 76 still be cost effective?? I agree, it does allow compromise, and I agree that full Cat A is not always necessary, convincing rulemakers however, is a different matter entirely. Interesting arguement though :D

Nick... is the 76D going to be fully Cat A capable?? If so, would it not also be overpowered and under payload capable?? Your views are insightful.

For the record, I think the engine Agusta decided on for the 139 was a poor choice. Smaller, lighter engines of slightly less power (and shorter exhausts!!!!!) would have been far better. Perhaps Bell using the same engine (nearly the same anyway) in the BA609, had some influence. Shame really.

FLI

25th Oct 2006, 19:11

Nick,

I agree with your summary.
However, some customers (and their pilots) are happy to pay the 'penalty' for more power.
Most owners don't appreciate the OEI situation but they do notice when the helicopter is struggling to get airborne at well below gross weight! On both engines!!
This has been the case until the 109E and 139 came along.

At least Agusta listened.

FLI

NickLappos

25th Oct 2006, 19:23

noooby,
It sounds like we agree! I think Cat A is very important, it is the extreme OEI capability that I question, in that the range reduction is a steep price to pay for the vast power.

FLI,
there is a big difference between "full Cat A" and the 139. The S-92 is full Cat A from a rig with full pax and fuel for about 300 NM with reserves. The 139 has to start offloading pax by 160 NM (I think - do you have better data?) That is the price it pays for the extreme power it has.

bpaggi

25th Oct 2006, 23:44

Nick

The AW139 burns 880 pph.
What do you mean "the S92 is full Cat A". At what OAT and how much wind??
The AW139, as I said previously, is full Cat A at max weight and ISA+25 at zero wind.
Based on complete figure and at the same conditions, you can then compare range.
Can S92 have 300 nm range at ISA+25 and be full Cat A? How many passengers on board?

helmet fire

26th Oct 2006, 01:10

noooby and FLI, I think you have hit the dilemma on the head.
There is reality and there is perception; the reality being that a limited CAT A machine is much more cost effective, and can be operated CAT A by those prepared for the cost penalty of reducing load. The perception is that being not full CAT A is somehow dangerous and unacceptable.

Only we as professional pilots can help to change the perception amongst both our customers and regulators - and get them to consider the reality. The cost of increasing the engine power capabilities returns a NEGLIGIBLE payback in safety. Money spent in CFIT reduction strategies returns TANGIBLE paybacks in safety. The longer we as pilots continue to promote the obsession with full CAT A, the more of us and our customers will pay the financial and human costs.

Noooby, your comparison with the S76 and 139 is spot on. If you are prepared to accept a risk that is less than CFIT and drivetrain issues by operating with the 0.17% exposure, then it is a no brainer. If however, you want a risk exposure reduced from 0.17% to nearly zero, you are wanting (or required to) to stay locked into the full CAT A scenario. If you purchased the S76 you may be in trouble if the range and payload is excessive for that type, and the 139 will be your machine. But what if the range was not excessive? Then the S76 can still do the job and your point is flawed. The point is that now the 139 is overkill. The same arguement can be had from the AS355 to the S76 as you are using from the S76 to the 139. The AS355N can happily transport 4 VIPs and full fuel in a 0.17% exposure rate. The S76 can do that same load Full CAT A. How much money is saved flying it home empty?

There are too many variables I think. But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero.

FLI, I think the 109E is a great example of the dilemma. Looks great taking off at MAUW and going full CAT A. But if they had spent more money on that overly complex cockpit interface, antiquated electrical system, potentially dangerous fuel system, and even redesgning the scissor links we would have a greater safety return on our dollar. The 109E is also a good example of full CAT A driving people to singles. The Koala has been a direct beneficiary of the cost and range of the full CAT A 109E, and even in Australia, several high net worth people have gone the Koala for those very reasons. Both look fantastic, both are an absolute pleasure to fly, go like cut snakes, and take off vertically at MAUW, and what are the chances of the PT6 coughing? It's a lot cheaper.

So the safety outcome has been 80% plus exposure to the risk rather than 0.17% for the high net worth individuals who I am sure, do not appreciate these facts. Regardless how we may feel about the benefits of all that extra power, the outcomes are not the best possible for either us, nor our customers. And only we can help to change the perceptions.

I will, however, add that as an EMS pilot the full CAT A thing is not such an intangible benefit. There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power. We too could operate a larger machine at our normal load (which is a reduced load for the large machine) to achieve this. We are about to do that very thing when we go from a BK117 to a 139 (as long as we can stop the medical equipment suddenly increasing to compensate!!)

NickLappos

26th Oct 2006, 03:06

Well said, again, helmet fire, "But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero."

Too bad it is so hard to achieve understanding, helmet fire! You can try with those guys but it won't work - made up minds are too hard to change.

The zero HV helicopter burns more fuel each hour, to the tune of two passengers lost for each 150 NM of cruise relative to its competition, but this is no problem to the guy who pays no bills. It carries around about 1000 horsepower it can only use if an engine quits, at a great cost in engines, gearboxes, shafts, rotors and other expensive hardware, hardware that costs about $2000 per pound to buy, but this is peanuts to the guys who don't care how much it costs. It weighs over 2000 lbs more than its competitors, weight that is actually lost payload, but this is of no significance to the guys who do not care how much it can carry or how much revenue it loses.

FLI

26th Oct 2006, 06:27

Helmut Fire

You try to give the impression that you and Nick are singing from the same song but infact you are saying that OEI hover power does have real safety benefits. Quote “There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power.”

The very real returns that you allude to are also appreciated by paying passengers and especially by the ones who bought the helicopter. I appreciate that your exposure window is longer than for normal operations but there are many scenarios that corporate helicopters operate to that subject them to longer exposure times than airfield and oil rig take offs and landings.

Very rich people worry about their safety. It is one of those things that money can buy. They don’t want an exposure window no matter how long.

I am quite sure that if some of the passengers taking off from the river heliports realised that they will get wet if an engine failed just after rotation they would voice real concern and surprise. They thought that they had bought a Cat A helicopter! 2 engines, one to work and one as a spare. Not both working at 95 to 100% just to get airborne.

The issue of owners switching from 109E to Koala is not the fault of the helicopter being too powerful. I am sure the 109E corporate pilot would not advise his boss to switch to a Koala. Maybe operators who provide a charter service but not wealthy individuals. The regulations in many countries would hinder a Koala’s operation and reduce its flexibility (or revenue). I did hear that a very rich Australian dismissed a 76B for not going faster, not carrying more people, using more fuel and costing more to purchase than his 76A. An argument that even Sikorsky found hard to refute. The price of power was not worth it to him. Thankfully, he was the exception or we would all be flying around in old, under powered (but still Cat A) helicopters.

Nick,

The same corporate owners are the major purchasers of all the kit that helps prevent CFIT. Just look how their payload has reduced by having all this heavy and expensive equipment on board? They pay the price for safety.
How many offshore operators purchase this equipment? They do when the regulations demand it. As they will if FULL Cat A becomes the norm.
You, yourself, advocated a new type of heliport for true Cat A helicopters in congested cities. There is a commercial requirement for this power.
Can you also explain why, if the S92 is Cat A, the Presidential helicopter proposal was for a much more powerful variant? When is Cat A not enough?

FLI

eagle 86

26th Oct 2006, 07:04

Shut one down in cruise - HF are you suddenly an expert on the 109E!!?
GAGS
E86

Geoffersincornwall

26th Oct 2006, 07:05

These perennial arguments about the benefits of all that installed power in helicopters like the AW139 have been chewed over many times and I have learnt a lot from my colleagues with more technical background than mine. However there are some points that have not yet seen daylight.

Bearing in mind that my views reflect those found in the major oil and gas companies I make the following points:-

1. You can argue pennies and cents about excess direct operating costs that derive from excess HP but don't forget that what gave us all the greatest heartache when the S76 appeared on the scene was not how much fuel we burnt but the maintenance costs and unscheduled down-time. 25 man-hours per flight hour actual compared with just one or two advertised by Sikorsky (it's testing my memory a bit but those are the numbers I recall from the 1980s). We would gladly have paid a bit more per flight hour if it translated into a reliable machine that delivered on our crew-change schedules. There is one base in Europe where 3 out of 5 S76s are out for major crack repairs because whilst a helo can take off at Max AUW and fly at VNo when you do it for 10 hours a day and cycle it through up to 30-40 take offs a landings per day it will eventually break and drop you in the poo big-time unless it has structual reserves and is operated at something less than balls-out all the bl:mad: y time. In South America there is a 332L2 operator who did what the brochure said and flew the aircraft at VNe at Max GWt every day. The airframe cracked and was out of service for 3 months leaving the customer down yet another vital resource. If we followed Nick's design philosophy (and he is not alone) then we would have the lightest cheapest machine flying balls-out for short term economic gain. Me and mine would like the other option which is a machine capable of delivering agreed payload/range targets consistently - every day - day after day. This conservatism has a price but I often have only one window of opportunity to fix my offshore platform during a 'shutdown' period and NOT doing it has a cost too and that can be a lot more expensive.
2. Nobody has yet mentioned that one fatal accident can cost the oil company (not necessarily the operator) $150m. This number (and I have seen bigger numbers quoted in this context) covers litigations costs, loss of prestige, loss of employee confidence (remember the Boeing 234 Chinook). When you hunt around for risks that can be reduced by being more conservative then that's what we will do. Feed in $150m into the DOCs and it screws your numbers up just a wee bit. Of course we want to deal with CFIT - that's why having LOFT is vital and a sim or FTD is a vital part of that philosophy. (hence no-sim-no-buy in some quarters). There are those areas of the market where the operator decides what to buy and those where the customer makes that decision for the operator. Then there are those rich enough to do what the hell they like - and good luck to them but they do not have to deal with a regime that recognises the 'Duty of Care' implicit in an employer-employee relationship. When an oil company sends it's employees to work in a helo that it has hired for the purpose then they (the oil company) take the rap if they have not ensured that everything reasonable has been done to minimise the risk to its employees. Nick's focus is predominantly FAR 135 - can you imagine where the US would be if the offshore ops came under FAR 21? About where JARs are now I would hazard a guess. How can anybody justify the difference between the two when employees have little opportunity to vote on who to fly offshore with other than by voting with their feet - and many have done that with the oil companies loosing good people who are too scared to fly.

Sorry Nick, technical arguments translated into economic arguments MUST take into account all the other human elements otherwise you will be working in a meaningless vacuum.

Geoffers

:ok:

js0987

26th Oct 2006, 12:13

Gosh - All this talk about Cat A, range, cost efficiency, and, oh yes - cracks - makes me long for the Bell 214ST. Wop Wop Wop

fatrat

26th Oct 2006, 12:40

Helmet Fire,

We are about to do that very thing when we go from a BK117 to a 139 (as long as we can stop the medical equipment suddenly increasing to compensate!!)

You have to win the contract first!!:E

Fatty

bpaggi

26th Oct 2006, 18:42

Nick

You don't have to agree, because we aren't asking for a vote, just the facts
I respect everyone's opinion and my was another one's opinion and not a vote.
I agree the 139 pays a price for having higher safety.
The S-92 is full Cat A from a rig with full pax and fuel for about 300 NM with reserves
When you say such things, you also know that this statement itself does not mean anything. As I already stated, you should specify in what ambient conditions you can do that, helicopters do not limit themselvs to Sea Level and ISA conditions.
But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero
Assume you have to fly with an arliner that offers two fares.
Fare A for Airplane A; $1000.00
Fare B for Airplane B; $800.00
You ask what is the difference between them and you are told that Fare A gives you 100% safety during T.O. and Landings.
Fare B offer a reduced safety but only in a limited time of your flight. If during this time you have an engine failure, you CRASH. But do not warry, it is a very limited time of your flight during which this could happen.
What are the percentage of people that will choose Fare A and what are the ones for Fare B?

I wolud never go for Fare B, even if it is more expensive.

Shawn Coyle

26th Oct 2006, 22:17

A very interesting thread.
Nick makes some very good points about the cost for the all-round Category A performance and how we really don't have many engine failures any more.
There is another side to the equation that has been sort of hinted at, and that's the long-term effects of having over-powered, over-engineered airframes. What's the long term cost in terms of reduced maintenance, increased dispatch reliability and so on?
As an example, a certain Russian made co-axial machine was reported to have an airframe life of 6,000 hours. Now well past that, it has no signs of any airframe fatigue issues, despite being operated at maximum weight all the time while hauling logs. I remember seeing it in the hangar next to another type (nameless) used for logging that was stripped to the bones and undergoing the annual stop-drill every crack and replace certain airframe structural components dance.
I remember seeing the overhaul facility in St. Petersburg (Russia, not FL) for Mi-8 and Mi-17. They got overhauled every 1500 hours, and the comment from the workers was that if the helicopter hadn't crashed, they never ever saw any airframe damage or fatigue issues on them.

If your engines are used to the maximum all the time, what percentage of those engines make it to their TBO? If you let them work at reduced power settings, what is the savings if they routinely make TBO and don't require any maintenance?
Fuel burn is only part of the issue - the difference between 1,000 lb/hr and 800lb/hr in gallons is 30 gallons -at $4 per gallon, that $120 per hour in direct operating costs (maximum). That works out to less than 2 hours of maintenance / overhaul cost (perhaps even less than that), and doesn't even consider the cost of an airframe out of service...
Someone must have some idea of the relative cost of this sort of thing....

And for bpaggi:
It's OK to say you would never go for Airline B, but that assumes you have some say in which airline you are taking. If it's your company that books all the travel for you, and you have no say in the matter - what then?

malabo

27th Oct 2006, 00:09

With all respect to your hypothesis, bpaggi, when push has come to shove and the dollars are on the table, very few will pay the kind of premium you are talking about for that last .017% of safety.

I flew for an exec charter operation with a mix of multi-engine IFR and singles.

Given the choice, the chairman for Toyota went cheap, so did the owner of Evergreen, just for example.

Funniest would be that the entourage would arrive in separate GIII's and Global Express for "safety" reasons, then all hop in the same 407.

malabo

Geoffersincornwall

27th Oct 2006, 00:56

Malabo

You have answered your own question. Rich people (or folk who don't end up paying the bills) don't always make rational decisions when it comes to their own safety. Money brings its own brand of immortality. Unfortunately there are many holes in the ground that point to a lack of wisdom in that department.

Shawn

Couldn't agree more with you pal.

I'm told that the design requirement of a formula one engine is that it should expire one lap after the race is finished (or the second race these days). The design requirements of the Mils that I have had the pleasure of flying are that they should not expire - ever. They are built like brick-sh1t-houses and never see the inside of a hangar save during their 1500 hour refurb. You can dig a Mil out of a snow-drift and just press the button, switch on the blade de-ice and away you go.

Whatever the design requirements set out by western manufacturers they seem to get sabotaged by the brochure writers and the con - sorry - salesmen. Oh yes, of course you can fill it up to Max Gross and fly at VNe - all day if you want - yea, in my dreams. I think I could make a fortune making doublers for western helicopters. They grow repair patches and reinforcements like it's going out of style. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I would like to visit with the design teams for any new western helicopter carrying a flight bag - say 20kg - full of metal and say to them "There you are please put 20 kgs of metal back in your helicopter where you think it will do most good". I would rather have the pain out front, day one, than go through all the agonies of multiple-ship downtime and pissed-off customers.

Over to you factory guys.

Geoffers

:ok:

helmet fire

27th Oct 2006, 02:44

FLI, we have been around this carcass before haven't we mate?

You are right - the excess power has benefits, and if you look closely at my posts I have always said that. I also mentioned the enormous variables surrounding this argument and I like the "meaningless vacuum" simile of Geoff. When talking of the EMS mission hovering over the gorge full of gum trees with two mates on the wire I am purposely giving you a vivid picture of the exposure experienced in that scenario. If you review my post I stressed that given the risk is similar across the three types, exposure is the key to the assessment.

The EMS winch mission gives me far more exposure than the 0.17% typical CAT A passenger ops would. Recently on a BK 117 winch mission in the Blue Mountains I was exposed (with catastrophic consequences) to engine failure for 54% of the mission – not too far off a single actually. But if I was in my shiny new AW139 I would have reduced exposure to almost zero. I like that.

On the other hand, during a recent BK 117 hospital transfer to Nowra, I was not exposed at all to catastrophic consequences, although perhaps exposed to minor damage on landing should I suffer an engine failure in a 1 minute in 100 minute mission. In my shiny new AW 139 I achieve the same, less any probability of even minor damage. BUT – if I could spend even some of the money I saved by flying the BK 117 on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems, more sim trips to Sweden (how are you Inga?), more emergency training flights, live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats,……I think you get the picture. All these benefits have a greater return on the safety dollar than the reduction of the risk of minor damage to almost zero. Dont you think?

Airframes are simply horses for courses and generally, economics determines my horse.

However, the point I am making here is that wherever possible I will be explaining to clients, customers, passengers, and fellow aircrew that dependant upon your exposure level money spent on power is a good thing when going from single to limited CAT A to reduce exposure from 80% plus, to 0.17%. Spending more is past the point of diminishing returns and would be far better spent taming the CFIT monster first. If I am out doing loads of winching during the VFR daylight hours as my primary mission – give me the full CAT A as priority over dollars for HUMS and synthetic vision and autopilot and weather downlinks and….etc.

Unless we talk in terms of exposure, then we will continue to hunt the full CAT A beast whilst being stalked by a far greater threat in the form of CFIT.

I am quite sure that if some of the passengers taking off from the river heliports realised that they will get wet if an engine failed just after rotation they would voice real concern and surprise. They thought that they had bought a Cat A helicopter!
I am equally sure that they will have wished they spent sufficient money on training so that the pilot would operate the CAT A machine correctly so that they didn’t get wet.
Your S76 example hits the nail on the head. Extra power has a penalty and some people don’t accept that penalty for such a marginal increase in exposure. But forcing them into the overpowered machines by continuing the myth that the limited CAT A machine is somehow dangerous or underpowered is why they are going to singles instead. The argument is: if the limited CAT A machine is almost as bad as a single, why would I bother spending so much extra for the twin?

Geoff and Shawn. I agree wholeheartedly with your arguments about the operational and cost issues of continuous operations at max capacities. Well said. Such considerations should be thrown into the bag of variables that the “consultant” needs to consider when advising of aircraft buys – along with operating costs, airframe safety, range, payload, EXPOSURE, reliability, lead times, re-sale, etc, etc. The point we are trying to make is that the full CAT A thing is being weighted in this process far higher than reality requires because of a false perception of it’s penalties versus protection ratio.

Fatty: I thought I baited that hook so well they would be jumping into my boat! Alas, you were the only one and the ranger has asked me to throw you back for breeding purposes.:8

Eagle86; is anyone be an expert in those things? Or could anyone be an expert in them? Certainly not me, and you know who to call to find out I speak the truth!!!!:ok:

NickLappos

27th Oct 2006, 02:51

Geffers,

You said, "I would like to visit with the design teams for any new western helicopter carrying a flight bag - say 20kg - full of metal and say to them "There you are please put 20 kgs of metal back in your helicopter where you think it will do most good". "

Good on ya, that is almost exactly what I tried to do daily in Sikorsky! One of the reasons why I post the thoughts about "too much power" is just because the weight wasted on unecessary power (yes, there is a max threshold!) robs payload that could be used to add safety!

Aser

27th Oct 2006, 11:33

BUT – if I could spend even some of the money I saved by flying the BK 117 on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems, more sim trips to Sweden (how are you Inga?), more emergency training flights, live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats,……I think you get the picture. All these benefits have a greater return on the safety dollar than the reduction of the risk of minor damage to almost zero. Dont you think?
Airframes are simply horses for courses and generally, economics determines my horse.
Yeah, I think the same but I prefer to start from a 139 platform than a 117,412 or 76.
I'm not the one who is going to stop anybody from buying a 139 if they can afford it, then we can start asking for improvements, try to load your Bk117 with on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems,live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats, you will need "power" besides money.
The big discussion here is why spend money on the overpowered 139 instead of fighting the "CFIT monster". But I think there is no need to forget CFIT once we have the 139, if the operator can buy and operate a multimillion helicopter I'm pretty sure they can buy all the gadgets too...

Lightonwheels

11th Jun 2007, 03:30

To all you guys around the globe I would like to request you to use this new thread to post your views, opinions, experiences which you may like to share about this aircraft. The knowledge we share can be of immense help to all of us who fly and maintain the AW 139. Looking forward to your valuable contribution.

AB139engineer

11th Jun 2007, 05:05

Great helicopter, no trips delayed or cancelled due to maintenance issues and good reliability since it left the factory 16 months ago. My pilots are happy with the machine.:ok:

spinwing

11th Jun 2007, 09:31

Cripes you've been lucky ....

Wot about .....

The cracks in the exhaust system .....

Excessive wear on Main gear tyres (last less than 150 hrs)....

Poor main battery performance ....

Air Conditioner system problems .....

Smokey engines on shutdowns .......

Etc ...

Good idea to share info though .......

Cheers :}

Darren999

11th Jun 2007, 13:53

I think this helicopter will be great in a couple of years, as the post above I have experienced a few hick up's..

Cracked tail booms
Cracked exhausts
No2 engine started to spool up as the Aux switch was turned on :eek:
Windows falling out
Had 3 engines have to be shut down in flight
Hyd failures

But I'm sure once all the gliches are ironed out, this will be a wondeful aircraft. I enjoyed flying it immensly..:D

OCTANE100

12th Jun 2007, 02:52

I'm all for it!

We will start operation with the '139 late next year and any group discussion/input would be most welcomed.

From what I understand (AW139engineer) will know, most of the issues above have been dealt with on new aircraft or with modifications...s/s exhaust, larger battery etc etc.

Q 1. How do you all feel about the current support system? Components arriving in time??

Q2. What a/c problems have come up?

all the best,

Octane:ok:

AB139engineer

12th Jun 2007, 06:39

Spinwing
1. Cracked exhaust systems, Agusta replaces titainium pipes under warranty with stainless ones, the AD is eliminated and no longer needs a 25 hour check of tailpipes.
2. Excessive tire wear, swap the tire around at 140 -160 hours and maintain the required 230 psi should get you close to 300 hours out a tire, assuming your not doing a lot of taxiing. Takes 20 mins to do.
3. Poor battery performance, we ground power start all the time, so we have no problems, it is a problem when the pilots take a long time to do their cockpit checks without the use of ground power you run the risk of running down both batteries to below 18v, when you attempt a start with a "low" Epic(aux) battery then you risk the screens going blank during start. I highly recommend the new replacement battery for the Epic . See TB for info. If your operation can afford a 139, it can certainly afford a power cart.
4.A/c problems yes its common, changed a couple of low pressure switches, cured our problem, also run the AC often so lubricating oil is evenly distributed throughout sytem.
5. Smokey Engines? thats a new one, I do know that if you shut the master sw off while engines are still rotating during coast down one may introduce a little fuel into the exhaust sytem which produces a lot of white smoke.

I hope this helps, remember this is a new helicopter and it will have problems just like all the other designs on the market., you can wait till it fails and goes U/S or you can be proactive keep a sharp eye on it and catch those impending faults before they ground your machine.

AB139engineer

12th Jun 2007, 07:08

OCTANE 100

Agustawestland product support, yes it needs to improve, so does everybody else. Its getting better. However I do highly advise that you do keep some spares on hand, if your fleet is big enough to justify it. It may depend what part of the world your operating in, it might be tougher to get parts if your not in Europe or N.America. The hassle with Agustawestland in North America is that all parts from Italy must go through Philadelphia before they go to the customer. This adds a day or 2 more delivery time (read as AOG time) if your part has to come from Italy.

Some of the stuff that has failed...
Honeywell Starter Generator brushes 270- 300 hour life
1 Honeywell Comm Box
1 Honeywell Rad Alt Box
1 Forward Radio Shelf Cracked due to improper shim support done at factory.
2 A/C Low Pressure Switches
1 IGB input seal (Westland)
1 Yaw trim actuator(Sagem)
2 exhaust pipes crack was only 1/4" replaced with SS Exhaust pipes
1 Rotor Brake Actuator

all the above stuff was covered under warranty.

OCTANE100

12th Jun 2007, 07:37

Thanks '139engineer.

We will end up with at least six, so I can see some extra GSE coming our way.....a GPU on the helipad for sure.:ok:

Sounds like we had better stock up on spare wheels/tyres....!

How are things going with the scissor link bearings? Any improvment on those
bushes yet?

Octane:ok:

AB139engineer

14th Jun 2007, 03:48

OCTANE 100

Yes the 139 rotating scissor bushings definitly need improvement in terms of service life. I have personally complained to Agusta about it. Right now they are testing bushing from 3 different bearing manufacturers. In the mean time Agusta has increased the allowable play in the scissors assembly. The real trick is to shim the scissor bushing fairly tight and that seems to help quite a bit and increases service life of the assembly before removal.
I highly recommend operators that fly lots of hours keep a healthy stock at hand of the scissor bushes. I also have a spare rotating scissor set which speeds up maintenance when its time change out the worn bushes.

FerryFlight

14th Jun 2007, 09:16

we've heard about payload problems also, is that true ?

sprocket

14th Jun 2007, 10:51

... and maintain the required 230 psi ....

AB139engineer: What equipment do you use to apply and accurately measure the high pressure in the tyres?

pitchlink

14th Jun 2007, 18:06

There is the Aircraft itself, and then there is the FMS!!!!! Still discovering new things almost daily, and puzzling over why things work in certain ways. I find it helps if you think of the aircraft crossing the Atlantic! I think it would be a good idea to pool resources of any tips/tricks used elsewhere, maybe people have specific problems that could be answered. The Honeywell Epic and FMS manual hardly touch the surface in telling you how it may be used in our type of environment.

noooby

14th Jun 2007, 21:19

Golly, where to start!!
Been working on 139's for 2 1/2 years nearly, and alot of the early problems have been sorted, but still a few that need sorting.

Exhausts: If you have Titanium exhausts (which I personally prefer), check every post flight for cracks. When you find a crack, repair as per the BT, and they will never crack again. Better yet, install the repair BEFORE they crack :)

Smokey engines: I've only seen that once, and it was after an emergency shutdown from 100% after a faulty Baggage bay smoke detector went off. Never seen it after a 2 minute rundown at idle.

Scissor link bushes: Yep, a problem still. Agusta say they are in the final stages of testing. The only type I've heard about from them are made by Kamatics, and they make pretty good stuff, so here's hoping!!

Sprocket, 230psi is only 30psi over an S-76 mainwheel. If you have the gear for S-76 wheels, then no problemo.

Ground Power: I was involved in some GPU tests on the 139, and you really need a GOOD 1200Amp GPU. The bigger Aux battery has really helped. Never had Main Battery problems. We do first start of the day on GPU, after that, battery only. Teach you pilots (beat if necessary!!) to modify their pre-start so that most they only need to turn power on to switch on the fuel, and start. That really helps.

Tyres have been covered. One thing that seems to help a bit is reducing turn radius. The tyres scrubb easily. If you taxi out and need to do a 180, pick it up and hover turn, then takeoff from the hover. Easy.

Rotor brake actuators: My pet hate. The actuator itself is OK, but the little microswitch inside is :mad: Quite often get UP and DOWN lights flashing together, even when you know the actuator has stopped moving. Keeping the pivot bolt lubed helps a bit, but it gets damn hot in there, and I think the poor old microswitch just can't hack it.

Mechanically is about as simple as it gets. Much easier to maintain mechanically than a 76. Honeywell needs a kick in the butt though. Updates are few and far between, and box reliability is crappity crap crap. Having said that, some items have been steadily improved.

When you go to the factory for acceptance, take a good engineer. Spend a week if you can, and have them pull of as many access panels as you want. Definitely pull every box out of the center console. Sometimes the screws on the side are too long, and damage the boxes. Don't stand for any damage, have them replaced. Check the lower anti col for corrosion on the reflector. Check EVERY piece of kit that needs electrons. Make sure it is installed, and make sure it works. Ensure you have a checklist from your boss detailing EVERY option that your company has paid for. The guys at the acceptance hall won't know as those details are held by sales. You need to know what should be there. If you do find problems, they will work around the clock to try and ensure your delivery is not delayed.

Serviceability for us has been pretty good. Most issues could have been fixed if parts were here. Our main problem is the time it takes our own supply chain to fulfill orders.

Support from Agusta has been generally good. They are genuinely interested in our problems, and want to fix them. Speed however is not their forte :=

That should about do it for now :E
noooby

AB139engineer

15th Jun 2007, 04:08

Ferry Flight

its manageable

AB139engineer

15th Jun 2007, 04:14

I use a nitrogen bottle and a calibrated pressure gauge

Agusta will sell you a servicing kit that includes a tire pressure gauge fit for the dualies on a dump truck, I was so pissed off with that crappy air pressure gauge I hounded them for months about it and they finally gave in and purchsed a proper tire pressure gauge to replace it. They do listen, it just takes them a long time to do anything.

noooby

15th Jun 2007, 14:59

AB139engineer, yelling seems to help, repeatedly!!! :eek:

AB139engineer

16th Jun 2007, 05:32

Pitchlink

Yes the FMS is quite a device, world airport database and all. It would be better if the data base was configured more so for helicopter operations than fixed wing. I guess someone at Honeywell figured helicopters only land and takeoff from airports. At the 139 operators conference comments were made about this issue and I believe honeywell is working on on making the database more practical for helicopter operators in the future.

AB139engineer

16th Jun 2007, 05:46

Octane 100 & Noooby

Today I replaced the left hand main landing gear retraction actuator (made by Smiths for Leiber) due to static leakage from the seal while parked. Philly had the part in stock and it arrived via fedex 40 hours after I ordered it.

platinumpure

18th Jun 2007, 02:48

I start this aircraft on Battery every morning no problem. The only thing that I use an external power cart for is the system checks before the first flight of the day (flight controls etc), as the electrical hyd pump hammers the battery.
The latest revision to the flight manual has modified proceedures for startup on battery when regarding these checks. Check it out.
You will find as you use and cycle the battery more and more it will become stronger and stronger. Hense, starting on the battery no longer becomes a problem.

Pitchlink, what type of enviroment are you operating in? You will eventually grow to love this piece of equipment, it can be a pain in the arse at first but once you get a good hold on it you will love it. I'd be lost with a GPS now.

p.s. Hows the new job Darren999? Hope things are going well mate.

PK

pitchlink

18th Jun 2007, 18:27

Platinumpure,

Am using the 139 to shuttle short sectors in the Southern North Sea. My post was not to give the impression that I do not like the FMS, I think it is great! It is the little neuances (spelling?) and finer points of use that I am interested in!
The point was to find out how other operators are using it, or getting the information required from it. For example it has taken over a year of use to find out how to find arrival fuel to the nearest KG, rather than the closest 100kg. Are people using the VPath function and if so what for? And what are the /.3M/.5M/ figures in the descent portion of the PERF INIT page? I have figured out the rest and how they affect the system planning, but cannot figure out what they are and the manual does not help!
I may be different to others, but I would like to know as much I can about a system so that I can choose which aspects not to use, rather than just wanting to know the basics. Any help would be appreciated.

RedWhite&Blue

18th Jun 2007, 21:06

Pitchy. Try Mach Number. I guess you might be pulling a tad too much PI if you can achieve .5M ;)
It's alongside the speed constraint in knots, is it not? Seperated by a /. ie 166/.3M. You can change either side of the constraint - just not much use to us.
@ 15 degrees C and MSL, 0.251Mach which rounded to one decimal point = 0.3M is 166kts.
Think of it in the same light as tonnes of fuel.
Useful huh?
Red

pitchlink

18th Jun 2007, 21:29

Red, :D
Thanks for that! Not much use, but at least I now know what it is! Maybe if I had asked the right person, I could have got the answer first hand! If this is correct, why is it that the maximum figure you can put in is .5M, and the minimun is .3M? Is this based on some FW logic? This however does not explain why it was that one of our aircraft lost its ability to ascertain its groundspeed in the descent when this particular number was set to the default 150/.-M/3.0 . Put the mach no. in and all of a sudden it knew its groundspeed. Is it trying to work every speed out as a mach no? :8

platinumpure

18th Jun 2007, 21:34

In the PERF init. page the numbers /.3M/.5M/ are mach speeds. You should have 3 numbers in the following format Airspeed/mach/decent angle, I believe in that order.

These are the default airspeeds (I'll get to the decent angle later) that the FMS will use for planning i.e. before you take off and for speed restraints if using the 4 axis autopilot. I'll assume by your post that you know how these numbers effect the planning. As as helicopter pilot mach speed are rarely something that we have to worry about. Therefore to get rid of you should be able to delete it directly from the PERFinit page. It should then read 140/-./3.0. If you ever do want to impose a Mach speed comand you can do this by entering it into the flight plan adjacent to you waypoint. For example if you wanted to arrive at your waypoint at 500 feet decending at MACH0.5 you would enter 0.5/500 into the stratchpad and press the RIGHT line select key across from your waypoint, and the FMS would display the following 0.5M/500 any value over 1 but less than 6 will be displayed as degrees. If you enter 140 say, it will be displayed as an airspeed.

This takes us nicely onto VPATH and decent angles. This is something I use everday its fantastic and manages to keep me awake on the long legs lol.
If you look at your flight plan you will see your waypoints entered on the left hand side of the screen with distances, courses and ETE (ETA if you are in flight or have set a ETD while on the ground). On the right side of the screen you have the blue or "Cyan" if you like that word better figures ----/--- etc. Anytime you see blue figures they are displaying one of 3 things, Vertical Nav info, Performance info or Atmospheric data. In this case on your flight plan page these figures are VNAV information.

I'll run through an example of how we would use this and it may make more sense.

Say for instance we where on a flight from A to B. We are going to cruise at an altitude of say 5000 feet. Therefore we enter 5000 feet cruise alt when doing our PERF init. You then go through the rest of the PERF init and confirm the init when done, as normal. 3 things are required in order to recieve VNAV or VPATH data. The performance Init. confirmed is one (be aware that you have to re-init. every time you land or have WOW). The altitude select knob set to the appropriate value is the next thing required and finally a value must be set in the VNAV info portion of the flight plan (i.e. the "Cyan or Blue" ---/---) on the right side of the flight plan.

Therfore we now have 5000 feet in our PERF INIT and confirmed. Our altitude select should be set to 5000 (displayed in BLUE above altimeter) and now we are going to enter a value in the VNAV portion of the flightplan. In this case we are going to decend on a 2 degree angle from 5000 feet to arrive at our destination (point B) at 300 feet. We enter 2.0/300 into the stratchpad and then press the "RIGHT" line select key, probabaly "R2" adjacent to "point B" in our flight plan. The FMS will now display:

POINT B 2.0/500.(Cyan)

you may then see a rate of decent displayed above this. If you now look at your MAP page on your MFD at your flight plan you will see 2 small diamond shapes apear on your flight plan. One should be labeled "TOC" and the other "TOD", these are top of climb and top of decent respectivley.
Now you take off and start the flight, the top of climb should display where the FMS estimates you will reach your cruise altitude (or well you will reach it using the 4th axis climbing at 120 (or whatever value you set in the PERF INIT Page). When you have reached cruise flight and are nearing your "TOD" top of decent you will see a message displayed on the FMS, it should say "RESET ALTITUDE SELECT". This is prompting you to reset your altitude select knob to a lower value as the FMS will not decend below whatever this is set to. You should now reset this altitude select value to 300, or whatever altitude you plan to level out at. At around the same time you should see a VPATH profile bar appear where the glide slope would usually be. If you go to the PROGRESS page 2 you can get information like rate of decent required to maintain the glide slope, and lots of other great VNAV info.

Now I don't know if you know all this already, so my apologies for going over the basic stuff if you do.

Anyway, that was a very basic example of a flight from point A to B using VPATH profiles. However you can see the implications for other uses. For instance when shooting approaches. Now you can have a glide slpoe on your VOR/NDB/GPS approaches. Its also great for approaches where you have many step down fixes as it will give you glide slope that will take you through each one of these altitude restrictions. So its like shooting an ILS all the way down from cruise altiude through many altitude restrictions and turns all the way down to your landing area. This is something that I use a lot as we do a lot of point in space GPS approaches with step down fixes.

As for the groundspeed make sure you have GS/FF selected in the PERF INIT page.

Anyway mate hope this helps let me know if I can help with anything else.

pitchlink

18th Jun 2007, 22:19

ppure,

Thanks for that, a good description of the use of VPATH, something I have been getting to grips with over the past few weeks! I have found it a useful tool in mast instances, but can overcomplicate the issue in others!
When you say about deleting the Mach no in PERF INIT, as I said, one of our aircraft then looses its ability to calculate its groundspeed in the descent when this is done and the PERF INIT is in PILOT SP/FF mode. Any idea as to why this should happen? When you put the Mach No Speed Constraint in, it does not get this fault!
I tend to do the PERF INIT in the PILOT SP/FF mode as it seems to be the only way to give the FMS the ability to see round corners and give an accurate estimate of fuel back on Tera firma at the end of a route. Has anyone found another way of doing this?
I gues most of this will make more sense when we get the fourth axis fitted, but it does not do any harm to practice in the mean time!

platinumpure

18th Jun 2007, 22:54

To solve the problem always select GS/FF. Then in order to calculate fuel back to the beach in this mode do your PERF INIT as normal, however in PILOT GS/FF mode. Then in order to calculate fuel flow select FUEL MANAGEMENT from the PERF page. In the top right hand corner you will see fuel flow. Select the fuel flow you require into the scratchpad. For planning purposes I would select 950 to 1000lbs (or in Kg in this case). Then paste this value on top of the fuel flow value in the top right hand corner. This is the value that the FMS will now use to calculate fuel burn. Then you can select delete into the scratchpad and paste it on top of the fuel quantity, this will then display the current gauge value.

Go to your PERFORMANCE page and you should now see fuel remaining at each point based on this new fuel flow value.

In flight you can adjust this value if you find that you are burning less or more than this value.

What we usually do is when we get into cruise flight we take a quick look at the pressure altitude, weight and temp and get the fuel flow for those values from the flight manual. This gives us a TAS, torque setting and fuel flow value. We then paste this value into the FMS as descibed above and reset the fuel quantity to the gauge value as described above in order to get a more accurate estimate in flight. (We have all this simplified as a program for excel for the PDA - Therefore we just plug in weight, pressure alt and temp and we get Torque, TAS, and fuel burn)

Hope this helps.

Aser

22nd Jun 2007, 12:29

Heli Express of Hong Kong Order Seven AW139 Helicopters
http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=4725&z=6

And

Saudi Aramco orders 14 AW139s for oil support
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Alerts/?j=697&u=3769&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.shephard.co.uk%2fRotorhub%2fDefault.asp x%3fAction%3d745115149%26ID%3d09763349-9a59-40b3-a483-557fc296e8a5
The link it isn't working at the moment (or just for me)

This take the orders up to 260!

cayuse365

18th Jul 2007, 21:52

Do you have the fourth axis autopilot installed, not available in the States.
Also, do you or anyone you know have the Euro Nav IV or V (moving map)installed.

chopper2004

19th Jul 2007, 07:15

Here's my photos of London Air Service AW139 that I took at Heli Expo in Orlando back in March. http://photo.ringo.com/223/223017995O387451358.jpg
http://photo.ringo.com/223/223017989O097364923.jpg

http://photo.ringo.com/223/223017993O000255505.jpg

chopper2004

19th Jul 2007, 07:22

Thought I might share these with you, as I took them last saturday at Fairford.
http://photo.ringo.com/222/222698776O305587977.jpg

http://photo.ringo.com/222/222698917O924556747.jpg

http://photo.ringo.com/222/222698948O479307275.jpg

Aser

1st Aug 2007, 10:46

http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/articlefiles/5042-DSC_0099.JPG
Nice looking machine...
CBP Air and Marine Acquires Helicopters for Border Security Mission
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 / U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Air and Marine added two AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters to its aircraft fleet today, strengthening CBP’s ability to help secure and protect the nation’s borders. The acquisition of these state-of-the-art, multiengine helicopters will enhance CBP Air and Marine (A&M) capabilities to safely and reliably conduct crucial border security missions in selected areas of border operations.

noooby

2nd Aug 2007, 08:48

No wonder there is a gross weight increase coming soon. Look at all the crap they're hanging off of it!!!
Nose looks weird, like it was installed upside down. :eek:
Where was the photo taked Aser??

Aser

4th Aug 2007, 11:02

Hi noooby, how are you down there?
I don't know where was taken the picture.
Do you know how much will be the increase in weight ?
What I wonder is , are they going to put finally the MAU's in the nose?
We have got another one here in the sunny Spain.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/P1010133.jpg
Regards to you and Khalil
Aser.
No wonder there is a gross weight increase coming soon. Look at all the crap they're hanging off of it!!!
Nose looks weird, like it was installed upside down.
Where was the photo taked Aser??

Darren999

4th Aug 2007, 13:41

Hi PK...
Job ok... EMS very quiet.. miss the 139 :{ :{ 40 mins from home, so that helps. Hope all's well with you.
Cheers
Darren

noooby

4th Aug 2007, 21:33

Aser,

Long nose prototype was flying around Philadelphia last time I was there. Long nose production is getting ready, they will use a totally different serial number system though. 31xxx for Italian short nose, 41xxx for Philadelphia short nose, and 51xxx I think for the long nose.
Not sure what time frame they are looking at, but they were saying sooner rather than later.
MAUW increase should be 400kg this year, and they are hoping for another 400kg next year, that is what I was told anyway.
I'm trying to get Agusta to introduce a system whereby they will keep customers up to date on improvements that they are working on. Just an email database would suffice for now.
Do you have HUMS fitted?? I hear a number of customers are going with VXP instead of HUMS. Mistake in my mind. The HUMS works well when people are trained up on how it works, and the machines come prewired for it!! Have heard from one VXP 139 operator that they aren't getting Tail Rotor data in the cruise. Something about vibes in the tail being to big for it to aquire data???? Perhaps someone from there can clarify. All I know is that with HUMS we are getting data from every regime, with no problems. And the Track and Balance program works like a dream!! :ok:
Where are the liferafts for that machine in the picture?? It has the floats, and the extended strobe lights on the sponsons, but the rafts aren't fitted. Don't tell me the supplier has run out!! :O

Cheers

AB139engineer

5th Aug 2007, 05:51

We had trouble with a dead axial accelerometer the other day in the tail, but when the VXP works it works well, and yes it is collecting TR data in flight.

Main Rotor .08 IPS average and TR now .1 IPS average.

600 hours so far and still smooth and no smoking rivets or cracks in the tail.

Finished changing a AFCS Actuator today, it takes a hell lot of time to do because you need to drop the ceiling and remove forward interior just to get to be able to get access to the overhead panels that also need to be removed to get at the roll & pitch actuators. The Agusta design engineer designed that installation obiliously never worked on a helicopter before.
It could of been done a lot more simpler. The ceiling a bit of a challenge as you need at least 4-5 people to install it. :mad:

AB139engineer

5th Aug 2007, 16:06

Noooby re stretched nose cowling

Enlarged nose cowling contains options not offered by Agusta, L3 in Waco has been working on these 2 ships for some time and have installed specialized radar and encrypted communication systems designed to suit the mission requirements of Homeland Security.:cool:

noooby

9th Aug 2007, 10:38

AB139Engineer,

Ah OK, that explains the funny nose, didn't look like an Agusta long nose. Speaking of which, 31007 was flying around Philly when I was there a wee while back. It was completing the icing trials, but is also the prototype for the 'long nose' model. Word at AAC was that the long nose would be going into production soon, with its own serial code (31xxx for Italian short nose 139, 41xxx for US short nose 139, 51xxx for long nose).

Aser

9th Aug 2007, 11:59

Hi noooby,
We don't have the Hums here, just the wiring , the tracking camera inside the cockpit etc. but you wont find the hums screen in the console :E
Do you have a link for VXP?

The liferafts were not installed because the machine come with the HEMS config. and is doing pax flights while its future is decided... (surely the SAR contract)

And today is coming the third one from Italy!

noooby Aser,

Long nose prototype was flying around Philadelphia last time I was there. Long nose production is getting ready, they will use a totally different serial number system though. 31xxx for Italian short nose, 41xxx for Philadelphia short nose, and 51xxx I think for the long nose.
Not sure what time frame they are looking at, but they were saying sooner rather than later.
MAUW increase should be 400kg this year, and they are hoping for another 400kg next year, that is what I was told anyway.
I'm trying to get Agusta to introduce a system whereby they will keep customers up to date on improvements that they are working on. Just an email database would suffice for now.
Do you have HUMS fitted?? I hear a number of customers are going with VXP instead of HUMS. Mistake in my mind. The HUMS works well when people are trained up on how it works, and the machines come prewired for it!! Have heard from one VXP 139 operator that they aren't getting Tail Rotor data in the cruise. Something about vibes in the tail being to big for it to aquire data???? Perhaps someone from there can clarify. All I know is that with HUMS we are getting data from every regime, with no problems. And the Track and Balance program works like a dream!!
Where are the liferafts for that machine in the picture?? It has the floats, and the extended strobe lights on the sponsons, but the rafts aren't fitted. Don't tell me the supplier has run out!!

Cheers

Aser

9th Aug 2007, 12:20

It was completing the icing trials, but is also the prototype for the 'long nose' model. Word at AAC was that the long nose would be going into production soon, with its own serial code (31xxx for Italian short nose 139, 41xxx for US short nose 139, 51xxx for long nose).

About the icing trials, there is a good article in either Vertical or Heli-ops (don't have it here) , showing the 139 behind the chinook-ice maker :)

AB139engineer

18th Aug 2007, 07:07

Attention fellow AW139 Engineers, next time you do a 600 hour on your PT6C-67C engine provide photos of your nozzles and ignitors to your local Pratt rep, as PW is keen on extending these items to 900 hours if the data they get from the field is good.

noooby

18th Aug 2007, 13:34

Aser, no info on VXP from me sorry. We use the Smiths system. Not sure if the offshore people will accept VXP yet.

AB139Engineer, thanks for the info. We're going to send our nozzles to them for cleaning and put new ones in, but will take photos anyway.

Is anybody else using the new scissor link bushes?? We managed to get one set, and so far they are working better than the old type.

AB139engineer

18th Aug 2007, 15:20

The last set of scissor bushes lasted 250 hours, one thing I recommend doing to each bush is chamfering the outer edge of the end being pushed in the scissors, this will reduce any chance of scoring the inside of the component. A few seconds with some 320 grit emery paper really helps.
Make sure you shim the scissor bush until they are a snug fit. This will help insure maximun service life.

noooby

18th Aug 2007, 17:27

Yeah, but were they the new type, or the old type?
When I left Agusta they were looking at three different types. Good to see that they have managed to get an improved bush to market. Wasn't the one I thought they would go with, but perhaps it is only an interim solution.
I don't bother re-working the bushes. Sit them in dry ice for a few minutes, and they drop in nicely. Same with the pivot bushes. Been doing it like that for the last 2 years with no issues. And yes, shim to get as snug a fit as possible. Agusta have a scheme where you can reshim when the play gets close to limits. For the amount of time it takes to do that, you might as well just let them run to limits and change them.
Now I'm just waiting for them to rework the main gear so that the tyres last a bit longer. Unofficial word is that they are working on it, but no time frame. Sheesh. :ugh:

AB139engineer

19th Aug 2007, 23:23

Nooby the bushes are the ones with the red teflon impregnated liner. I say that there still not good enough, we need proper long life carbide bushes like all the other decent helicopters. We should get at least 600 plus hours out of scissor bushes.
Have you tried the newer profile tires yet? They look like they were made for Fred Flintstone, they have a rather squared off profile compared to other helicopter tires.

noooby

20th Aug 2007, 15:00

OK, the reddish brown teflon lined bushes are the old ones. The one set of new ones we received are black in colour. I asked our friendly tech liaison at Agusta where we could get more, and he said we shouldn't have them yet!! Well, we sure aren't handing them back :}
I'll order some of the new tyres. We only have 4 sets of the old ones left. That should last us about a month :ouch:

AB139engineer

1st Sep 2007, 02:25

I hear the approval of the 4th axis autopilot is now a reality in Europe, what is happening with the FAA or Transport Canada approval process? Anyone out there have any recent information on this matter?

GOM139er

1st Sep 2007, 14:35

Aser,Noooby,

Just found out about this site. It's really nice to find a real forum.(as opposed to the foolishness on JH).Not that I'm against a little foolishness now and then. Anyway,I'm an AB139 tech in the GOM. We have the VXP system installed on all of our aircraft. It works very well. However,it won't do everything that HUMS will do. We also have experienced some problems getting T/R ips readings in flight due to the accelerometers not being able to read the vibes. Our Chadwick rep says they are working on new accelerometers with a different gain setting. Overall,operationally the HUMS system is probably the better of the two systems. With that said, you have to consider the cost. I don't remember the exact figures, but the HUMS systems is considerably more expensive than VXP. In my opinion the VXP system suffices for now. Improvements are coming a little slow. As with everything, there are trade-offs to be considered when comparing two systems. Hope this helps.

noooby

2nd Sep 2007, 08:40

AB139Eng,

BT139-046 should be out tomorrow, Monday 3 Sept. This is the 4-axis BT, and should describe how to update the software. Not sure how long it will take to get the software though (Rev4.8 of the Flight Software).
Agusta are still working on the weight increase. MTOW will go to 6750kg, but there will be structural mods that you will have to do. They're still working on the fatigue data.

jet_kay

2nd Sep 2007, 17:27

i have just seen a new AW139, with the new bushings installed "latest ones" 200 hrs of flight and almost no play at all, seems that they r improving them a lot and quick.
Nooby the 3.6 flight software is already prepared and working with 4 axis.

noooby

4th Sep 2007, 19:32

jet_kay,

A quote from BT139-046:

"Since “PRIMUS EPIC®” Flight Software release 4.8.0 installation is
mandatorily required for the four axis autopilot kit, part I of this
bollettino provides the necessary instructions to perform the software
upload."

Version 3.6 may work with it, but according to the BT, it ain't legal. What Agusta does, and what their customers have to do, are sometimes different :ugh:

heliski22

4th Sep 2007, 21:50

Yo, Nooby!

I thought the MTOW was going up without structural mods?

The only limitation being whispered about is that you'll just have 6400kgs above 8000ft?

noooby

5th Sep 2007, 13:53

heliski,

Tell me about it!!! That was what Agusta in Philadelphia said too. Now this week, Agusta in Italy tell me there are structural mods to do :ugh::{
I guess we'll have to hurry up and wait :cool:

Thomas coupling

5th Sep 2007, 16:17

I'm doing some background research on the winch penalty on the MGB cycles for the AW139 in SAR role, as per its FLM clauses.
I am surprised NO - ONE has even as much as hinted about this problem as yet!
Anyone out there with experience of the penalties imposed on the MGB when using the winch, please?

Regards,

TC

Aser

5th Sep 2007, 17:00

Why don't you try to contact elilombarda or elilario or evergreen or just the manufacturer? :rolleyes:
http://www.dgualdo.it/icepa-cre-002.jpg
http://www.dgualdo.it/irocs-obe-008.jpg
http://www.dgualdo.it/4004-nda-002.jpg
Regards.
Aser

Aser

5th Sep 2007, 17:07

Some days ago I was flying the I-REDY, for the first time with the moving map and hook cameras in the MFD, really nice features. Can't wait to try the 4-axis, whatever soft. version :E
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h263/aser_martinez/P1010026.jpg

Thomas coupling

6th Sep 2007, 15:51

ASER don't you think I thought of that yet? Anyone else out there with winch experience on the AW139?

Aser

6th Sep 2007, 16:08

Thomas don't take it as an offense.
Could you give more info about how important are the penalties?

Regards
Aser

I'm doing some background research on the winch penalty on the MGB cycles for the AW139 in SAR role, as per its FLM clauses.
I am surprised NO - ONE has even as much as hinted about this problem as yet!
Anyone out there with experience of the penalties imposed on the MGB when using the winch, please?

Regards,

TC

Thomas coupling

6th Sep 2007, 18:19

Number of winches x total sortie duration x 2.5 = number of cycles or hours taken off MGB TBO.
I think???

AB139engineer

7th Sep 2007, 03:38

It would be unfair to penalize the operator for anything more than actual load time on the winch itself. What this is all about is mast moment stress which must be accounted for when optional equipment is installed that has significant cof g change upon the aircraft. Years ago while building camera mounts for various helicopters, this factor had to be considered to get a engineering approval.

3D CAM

7th Sep 2007, 11:09

TC.
I need to get something clear in my head,(a bit hard at my age but I will give it a try.)
Are you saying number of hoists fitted to the aircraft, or the number of hoist cycles?? x sortie time x 2.5.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic but this fact will be of great significance to any pure SAR, not HEMS, operator!
Agusta/Wastelands will be rubbing their hands at the thought of all those gearboxes to be made.

7th Sep 2007, 14:47

As stated in the AMPI, maint man chap4, "retirement lives" section (if I remember correctly).
The penalty is NOT on the TXmission but on the input driveshafts into the TXmission.
Formula is... Flight time for that entire sortie X number of hoist cycles X 2.5 (hoist cycles being down and up as one cycle, weight or no weight does not matter)

TXmission penalty is for sling load (hook) work, don't have the formula at hand.

TC, I believe that I might have met you in Abu Dhabi and had a telephone conversation with you???:confused:

Current SAR pilot in AW139..:ok::ok:

3D CAM

7th Sep 2007, 17:23

C4.
Thanks for that, plenty of food for thought there!
Out of interest, just how often are your engineers changing these input driveshafts?

8th Sep 2007, 06:34

We have not changed any... Cry wolf is all I can say!!!

8th Sep 2007, 17:07

My figures were slightly off.. Below is an exerpt from the MM..
flight time + (2.5 X Hoist cycles) = hours.. is the actual formula

External Hoist Operation
For the parts listed in Table 5 a life penalty must be mandatorily applied whenever an external hoist lift is performed.
The external hoist lift is defined as an unreeling and recovery of the cable with a load attached to the hook, independent of the length of the cable that is deployed/recovered. An unreeling/recovery of the cable with no load on the hook is not considered to be a lift. Any operation where a load is applied for half the operation (i.e. unreeling or recovery) must be considered as one lift.
Increase the flying hour by the specified value for each external hoist lift. The penalty is applicable only to flying hours.

Table 5 External Hoist Lift - Life penalty factor
Ref Part Part number Life penalty factor
RL022 MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01852 2.5
MGB Shaft, Main Rotor 3G6320A01853 2.5
E.g.: MGB shaft, main rotor: Flight time = 2 FH. Number of rescue hoist lifts = 3. Total accumulated FH = 2 + (2.5 x 3) = 9.5 FH.