AW169 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Ian Corrigible

14th Jun 2015, 16:38

HeliHub's (http://helihub.com/2015/06/08/agustawestland-deliver-first-production-aw169/) observations on the situation:

AgustaWestland have delivered the first production AW169 prior to the type being given certification approval. Serial 69006 was delivered from Italy very early on Saturday 6th June to the UK, still carrying an Italian test registration I-RAIF and flown throughout by an AgustaWestland pilot. The helicopter was delivered to the Dubai Air Wing.

Interestingly, the AW169 was not only delivered into the UK but was actively used through the day to transport members of the Godolphin team between the London Heliport at Battersea, Epsom racecouse (where the Derby is held) and other locations. Yes, prior to certification.

Quite whether this is officially a “customer delivery” is perhaps debatable. However, the helicopter is not in an AgustaWestland house colour scheme like the other four flying prototypes, and does not carry AgustaWestland titles. The very fact that it has been delivered from Italy to the UK and used to transport passengers would strongly suggest that it is a customer aircraft.

Still waiting for Mel Brooks' official comment...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_m8OKjUIAAfnty.png

I/C

helihub

17th Jun 2015, 13:35

The subject AW169 has today returned back to the factory, routing from Fairoaks via fuel stops at Paris Vatry Chalons and Lyon airports

nowherespecial

17th Jun 2015, 14:29

A little dickie bird tells me that AW are ramping up their turnkey solutions for operators and if you wanted to dry lease an AW ac with crew and pbh these days you could..

Wonder how BRS etc will feel about that....

chevvron

18th Jun 2015, 00:59

The subject AW169 has today returned back to the factory, routing from Fairoaks via fuel stops at Paris Vatry Chalons and Lyon airports
During Ascot week??

helihub

18th Jun 2015, 08:06

chevvron
Indeed, during Ascot week. In fact Qatari helicopters (S92+EC155) have been more visible than Dubai helicopters at Ascot this week so far.

nowherespecial
"Wonder how BRS etc will feel about that...." - remember BRS are leasing 4+ AW139s from AW to cover for late AW189s... Maybe they gave AW the idea?

nowherespecial

18th Jun 2015, 11:34

My nose is positively twitching that AW are offering 139s in the O&G market direct to small operators who use them to bid vs BRS, CHC etc....

Looks like AW are becoming an operator in all but name.

chevvron

19th Jun 2015, 16:19

chevvron
Indeed, during Ascot week. In fact Qatari helicopters (S92+EC155) have been more visible than Dubai helicopters at Ascot this week so far.

In my experience, the Dubai '139s don't go into Ascot, but land close by. I've certainly seen an S92 every day (live near the southern end of 'West End' free lane).

John Eacott

16th Jul 2015, 08:04

Certification issued yesterday: well done :ok:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7204-2/10054040_CERT_REV_0_20150715.jpg

laurenson

16th Jul 2015, 09:26

Great news, I look forward to seeing it in operation now

laurenson

16th Jul 2015, 13:25

AW169 Achieves EASA Certification - DETAIL - AgustaWestland (http://www.agustawestland.com/-/aw169-easa-certification)

AW169 ACHIEVES EASA CERTIFICATION
Share
First all new helicopter type in its category in over 30 years set to enter service
AW169 Achieves EASA Certification
Marks operational readiness of the whole AW Family of new generation helicopters
Outstanding capabilities and innovation made available in less than five years
Over 150 aircraft already sold to customers worldwide for a wide range of roles

Fimeccanica-AgustaWestland announced today the new generation AW169 helicopter has been issued with type certification by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on 15 July 2015. Delivery of the first production helicopters to customers will now commence.

AgustaWestland has achieved EASA type certification less than five years after the AW169 programme launch. This achievement has been made possible also due to the strong collaboration between the EASA and AgustaWestland teams. With the AW169, AgustaWestland has responded to market demand for a new generation versatile light-intermediate twin-engine helicopter and has achieved its aim of greatly reducing the time to market, whilst meeting the most stringent operational and safety requirements set by the certification authorities and by the market.

The AW169 4.6 tonne helicopter is the first all new aircraft in its weight category to enter the market in more than 30 years, setting new certification and safety standards and marking the operational readiness of the whole AW Family. The first units will be delivered from the Vergiate final assembly line in Italy. A second AW169 final assembly line is being established at AgustaWestland’s Philadelphia plant in the USA. AgustaWestland’s Yeovil plant in UK plays a key role in the production of rotor blades and the tail rotor transmission system. The AW169 programme has benefitted from UK Government support and has already proven extremely successful in this market for corporate transport and public service duties. A Flight Training Device (FTD) and a maintenance training simulator are already operational at AgustaWestland’s Sesto Calende Training Academy in Italy, while a Level D Full Flight Simulator will be available in 2016.

More than 150 AW169 helicopters have been ordered by customers around the world to date, including framework contracts and options, for a wide range of applications including executive/corporate transport, air ambulance, law enforcement, offshore transport and utility roles. Designed with inherent dual-use capabilities, the AW169 is also ideally suited for the wide scope of parapublic and government applications and will be able to meet military and naval requirements.

laurenson

16th Jul 2015, 15:49

https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/AW169-TCDS%20R-509%20Issue1.pdf

is some one know why only 8 pax??? it's not planed to be a 10pax helicopter?

jimf671

16th Jul 2015, 17:16

I have a copy of an AW-USA presentation for ICAR (75Mb!) that is aimed at SAR and EMS. It reads as follows.

Light transport category - 4.5 tonnes / 10,000 lbs class - 1/2 pilots / up to 10 pax.

Elsewhere in the family archives, the 189 type cert states 19 and the OEB Report states two passenger densities: 16 & 19.

echocharlie35

3rd Feb 2016, 12:28

Hi, any 169 pilots around? Interested in knowing the performance?

John Eacott

9th Feb 2016, 08:37

First hand report from a 169 driver (not me!):

0: Good power margins equal to or better than AW139.
1: Fuel flow at 135 knots = 300kg per hour at 75% torque
2: Max fuel 1130litres
3: Built like a brick **** house.
4: Down side: software issue. Autopilot doesn't like turbulence collective hunting requires manual inputs. Software upgrade under development .
5: No nearest button for the GPS. Not approved for RNAV approaches .
6: Plus side: air conditioning outstanding
7: Visibility outstanding
8: Noise footprint: he is getting a lot of good reports .
9: Rear Cabin space: 3 reclining club chairs, and aft facing bench seat 4 across.
10: He loves flying it.

noooby

9th Feb 2016, 13:54

What about APU mode John? Is it standard on all 169's and how does your 169 driver friend like it?

Outwest

9th Feb 2016, 14:06

What about APU mode John?

I have only been up close to the maintenance trainer but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an APU, only the 189 does.

Corax

9th Feb 2016, 14:09

APU mode is normal on all 169.

Software upgrade will see "nearest" for GPS and should resolve collective hunting.

Touchscreen AP/FMS fairly intuitive and easy to learn. Flies quite nice.

Outwest

9th Feb 2016, 22:19

APU mode is normal on all 169

Ok, you are referring to the ability to run an engine without turning the rotor. Sorry, I was thinking actual APU like the 189.

John Eacott

10th Feb 2016, 03:26

Yes, the AW169 has an "APU" mode which matches the Accessory Drive so familiar to a Sea King driver: but all sorted via touch screen and simple switchology! It would be a big safety and convenience feature for keeping systems such as the air-con running with blades stopped, the No 1 drives everything at idle with low fuel burn whilst No 2 is shut down and blades stopped.

The touch screens are immensely intuitive, and won't give an option (icon greys out) unless it is available. Current software issue is 90 seconds to get the screens online with systems showing for start, Finnmechanica is working on a reduction as well as sorting the nearest GPS facility and the collective hunting. It is smoother hand flown (in some circumstances) than allowing the collective to hunt around, although it does settle down given enough time. The weather radar goes to standby with WOW, but can be inadvertently switched on when on the ramp. Not so much of an issue for us old timers but a trap for young players used to the software protecting them.

Good seats with plenty of adjustment (bliss) and great vision from the front. Comprehensive display with stunning screens. No run-down time whatsoever for the engines, just turn them off. Very difficult for any turbine experienced pilot to get used to! No boost pump at all, so with one engine shut down the fuel for that side is unable to be used by the good engine: no low level fuel interconnect. Debatable recognition of engine reliability?

Externally: huge coanda strakes built into the tail boom. Tail rotor control via a cable. Tail rotor hub is akin to a main rotor head, and a three bladed T/R on a five blade M/R just looks weird. Passenger retracting steps are huge, and the underbelly storage is almost big enough to be taken for a firefighting belly tank! Cargo bay access is on the left side again, still out of sight of the pilot in SP ops.

Rear cabin: nice seating, as you'd expect. LED lights default on when the aircraft starts, and require the (hot) lamp cover to be pushed in order to turn off; each of them, and there are 4 on each side! Mood lighting controllable from a touch screen alongside the left rear passenger seat, who is also the only one with intercom to the pilot.

John Eacott

10th Feb 2016, 04:04

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7463-2/01+AW169+cockpit.jpg

This shows the engines prior to start, with No 1 connected rather than APU. The fuel tanks have no low level interconnect, nor boost pump to feed the 'other' engine.

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7466-2/02+AW169+cockpit.jpg

Overhead simplicity!

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7469-2/38+AW169+overhead+panel.jpg

Touch screens = sticky fingermarks!

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7472-2/09+AW169+cockpit+in+flight.jp

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7475-2/10+AW169+cockpit+in+flight.jpg

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7499-2/36+AW169+interseat+panel.jpg

Decent seating :ok:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7508-2/40+AW169+pilots+seat.jpg

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7505-2/39+AW169+copilots+side.jpg

John Eacott

10th Feb 2016, 06:14

This is first of type on the CASA register, and also as a Part 61 registration for the pilot took proof that the Italian factory pilot who gave him his type rating was approved to do so. Bl**dy CASA gets worse and worse :ugh:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7490-2/29+AW169+nose+shot.jpg

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7493-2/31+AW169+right+side+shot.jpg

All that tail rotor, controlled by a cable!

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7511-2/41+AW169+tail.jpg

One heck of a coanda strake

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7514-2/45+AW169+coanda+strake.jpg

Reasonable boot space

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7517-2/46+AW169+boot.jpg

Massive retracting steps and underbelly fitting; or is it really a firefighting belly tank ;)

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7520-2/47+AW169+steps.jpg

Electrically operated gear, currently 80kias limit but looking to increase up ~120kias

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7523-2/49+AW169+main+gear.jpg

John Eacott

10th Feb 2016, 06:44

These are only iPhone 6 photos, so a bit grainy in places: sorry!

Three reclining captains chairs facing for'rd, four fixed facing aft

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7478-2/05+AW169+rear+seats.jpg

Dinky little touch screen by the left rear seat. Weird to see the DOS instructions as it boots up!

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7487-2/22+AW169+rear+control+panel.jpg

Mood lighting controls. Hmmm :hmm:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7484-2/23+AW169+rear+control+panel.jpg

and the lighting strips. The LED emergency lights to the left of the strip default 'on', and the light cover has to be pushed to turn it off. And they are hot! But the aircon is the bee's knees, plus it runs off the APU mode.

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/7481-2/24+AW169+rear+lights.jpg

jimf671

10th Feb 2016, 13:10

Great pictures John. Thanks. :ok:

malabo

10th Feb 2016, 15:50

Great cockpit. I like the visibility and the big screen instrumentation.

Is that a Ram mount for an iPad, Mini or Air? Coanda strakes are effective enough it only needs 3 blades on the tailrotor? I see you're strobing the MR, is it as smooth as a 430 or as rough as a 139?

noooby

10th Feb 2016, 16:29

malabo, if you have a rough 1/rev in a 139, you need to track and balance.
I've never looked after a 139 that was higher than 0.08 ips lateral or vertical.

If you're talking a rough 5/rev, play with the tuning weights under the floor. Don't go by the book, get it close using book values and then play with it each flight to optimise it for your cabin and aircraft configuration.
Or, just go buy the MVA. You won't be disappointed!

The 139 should only be rough when getting close to Vne or during translational. In cruise it should be nice and smooth.

Nice photos of the cockpit John, but I do note on the Fuel page that there is a corss feed interconnect in the tank. It is not at the bottom, but looks like it is placed about the same as it is in the 139, so if you lose an engine in the 169 you will have some fuel that you can't get out, but most will transfer across.

An old brochure I just dug up confirmed the interconnect. It says 200 liters will fill into the left tank before it reaches the interconnect. So if you have an engine out, there will be a maximum of 200 liters that you can't use. About the same as the 139 if you have a boost pump fail.

Now how to get the training course and not have to pay for it.......

chopper2004

10th Feb 2016, 17:33

Kent Surrey Sussex Air Ambulance received their first AW169 (photo courtesy of Finmeccanica)

cheers

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger016/AW169%20KSSAA%20SAS%20Air%20Ambulance_zps8ucujzoi.jpg

Outwest

10th Feb 2016, 20:06

So if you have an engine out, there will be a maximum of 200 liters that you can't use. About the same as the 139 if you have a boost pump fail.

Not sure what you mean by 200 liters you can't use. There is no situation that you can't use all the fuel in the 139.

The level where it becomes 2 separate fuel tanks in the 139 is 228 Kgs. If you lose a boost pump in AEO mode the engine driven pump can draw all the fuel in the respective side of the system by closing the cross feed. In OEI by opening the cross feed even in a dual boost pump failure (total electrical failure) the operating engine driven fuel pump can draw the fuel from both sides until the total fuel is exhausted.

HLCPTR

10th Feb 2016, 22:18

[Not sure what you mean by 200 liters you can't use. ]

There are no boost pumps in the 169. If you lose an engine, there is nothing to pump/suck the fuel out of the failed side tank once it reaches the connecting flange.

Outwest

10th Feb 2016, 22:59

I was referring to his statement that it is the same as the 139.

I have no knowledge on how the 169 is set up although I do know that you are correct that they do not have boost pumps. I would find it very odd that AW would have a design that would allow you to run out of fuel in an OEI situation and still have 200 liters onboard.

noooby

11th Feb 2016, 02:22

Outwest is correct, I had a brain fart there. You would need a boost pump fail AND a Xfeed fail to lose the 228kg.

I would assume the 169 has a Xfeed valve too???

HLCPTR

11th Feb 2016, 03:31

If there are no boost pumps, there is no need for a crossfeed.

Outwest

11th Feb 2016, 04:44

If there are no boost pumps, there is no need for a crossfeed.

No, as long as there is an inter-connect between the fuel systems. I think everyone is just wondering how you access the fuel from the opposite side in the event of OEI.

Torquetalk

11th Feb 2016, 07:58

"there is nothing to pump/suck the fuel out of the failed side tank once it reaches the connecting flange."

"I think everyone is just wondering how you access the fuel from the opposite side in the event of OEI."

On the 139, crossfeed is only controlling which engine the fuel is directed to, not which tank. Below the interconnect fuel is distributed equally by gravity. When fuel reaches a level below the interconnect, the crossfeed valve has to be open to deliver fuel to the opposite engine. It is fed up through the lines, not via the interconnect flange. It needs the boost pump on the shut down/failed side to match the input pressure on the good engine side (which won’t have had its pump switched off as part of a shut down procedure). If the pump is failed on the shut down side, switching the other one off should solve the pressure imbalance.
If it’s a similar design on the 169, without boost pumps there should be no significant pressure disparity, so just make sure that crossfeed is open (as you said Outwest).

TT

Outwest

11th Feb 2016, 08:37

If it’s a similar design on the 169, without boost pumps there should be no significant pressure disparity, so just make sure that crossfeed is open (as you said Outwest).

That's the problem, it has been mentioned in this thread that the 169 does not have a crossfeed valve. So, if that is the case then the only other option would be an interconnect valve ( like a 212) to allow fuel to flow between the 2 sides.

Geoffersincornwall

11th Feb 2016, 08:40

I'm not a 169 man but I do recall my colleagues saying that there are no booster pumps in the 169 and with the same basic tank design as the 139 there will be unusable fuel in the tank supplying the dead engine.

The laws of physics dictate that if the engine sucks through the crossfeed then in theory both tanks will supply the one live engine. I suspect that those same laws of physics will generate a pressure drop across the crossfeed lines leading to a preferential supply from the most direct tank - the one supplying the live engine.

As the fuel level drops the imbalance will grow until the live engine's supply runs out. This will turn into a big headache because once the engine sucks air it will wrap its hand in. Methinks that hauling that inaccessible fuel (200 litres?) around will become tiresome for it can never be part of your reserves.

The stopwatch is running on how long it will take for the booster pumps or transfer pumps or low-level transfer valve to appear.

Now I will go into work and get beaten up by my 169 buddies. :{

Aye G. :ok:

500e

11th Feb 2016, 10:18

Nice looking screens.
How many of the contributors on this thread are 169 pilots or have been on training course, because to me it would appear there is confusion as to the way the system operates Same as Glasgow :{

TalkSpike

11th Feb 2016, 10:55

A good vid of the AW139 fuel system for comparison.

WGrl7SGIG0c

:ok:

HeliHenri

11th Feb 2016, 11:38

.
Thanks for the pictures John,

Now I Understand why AW (sorry Finmeccanica Helicopters) has delivered just 8 AW109 last year, customers were waiting for this very nice machine ! :)
.

HLCPTR

11th Feb 2016, 11:42

Why this concern about OEI and the unusable fuel on the failed side?

If you are OEI, the good engine gets what it needs. You actually have better fuel endurance since only one engine is running. Once you get down to the flange, you still have sufficient fuel from the good side for your 20-minute reserve.

If you are OEI and you are already below the flange, you would logically be within landing distance from somewhere to go. If you are not, what were you doing there in the first place?

Boost pumps in the 139 are only there to provide the initial pressure for engine start. They are not actually necessary in flight. If you lose an engine, you have the very same condition as above. The only difference is in the case of a pump failure on the good engine side. Crossfeeding will give access to that "20-min" fuel on the opposite side. So, in the end, the two aircraft have the same fuel capability.

noooby

11th Feb 2016, 12:16

I agree that the boost pumps are only there for initial starting, once running the engines are quite capable of drawing fuel from the tank.

But.... Have you ever lost prime in a 76? What a pain in the backside when you lose prime on the engines.

And John is correct, there is no Xfeed in the 169, so if OEI that 200 liters is not available to you. 200 liters on the good side when OEI is 35 minutes flying at max power.

Outwest

11th Feb 2016, 12:42

Crossfeeding will give access to that "20-min" fuel on the opposite side.

Let's see....OEI cruise fuel burn 300 Kgs/hr, fuel below the flange 228 kgs.....math is sure not my strong suit but I'm pretty sure that is not 20 mins.

So having a flame out and forced landing with about 45 mins fuel left onboard seems ok to you?

Outwest

11th Feb 2016, 12:50

Very good video that TalkSpike posted, someone went thru a lot of trouble to make that.

Pay very close attention to what he says at time 4:06...."don't forget to do that";)

Geoffersincornwall

11th Feb 2016, 16:01

There is no crossfeed so the calculations are even simpler. No OEI performance data in the Section 9 of the RFM yet so we will have to wait and see how the fuel consumption works out but as you say, nobody is going to be excited at the prospects of losing access to that much fuel.

G. :}

HLCPTR

11th Feb 2016, 16:29

[Let's see....OEI cruise fuel burn 300 Kgs/hr, fuel below the flange 228 kgs.....math is sure not my strong suit but I'm pretty sure that is not 20 mins.].

Sorry, early morning brain fade on the number. The quotation marks were to indicate approximate 139 OEI value but should have been more like "~45 min".
I have confirmed there is no crossed valve of any kind in the 169. It is not necessary and I suspect it could not be certified without boost pumps (can't compare to older designs with different engines and fuel configurations subject to different - some now outdated - certification standards). No offense intended to other types.
Each engine draws fuel from it's on-side tank. Since the tanks are inter-connected like the 139, engine fuel is essentially combined until the flange is reached (collector cell capacity app. 160kgs). This is to assure at least one engine has fuel in case of a tank leak. It's one of the ways to meet twin-engine certification requirement for independent fuel supply. If OEI, the only unusable fuel is on the failed engine side, but only once the flange level is reached.
Not having boost pumps saves cost/weight/etc. The only drawback is that the collector cell fuel unavailable in case of OEI.
Regardless, most of us always want more fuel but if that unavailable fuel is a concern when OEI, I repeat my question: Why, by that time in the flight, would you still be out of range of a place to land. Baring some significant other problem, I just can't figure that out. What am I missing?

Non-PC Plod

11th Feb 2016, 16:54

HLCPTR. How about this: you don't get in with your IFR approach at the destination, as the weather has deteriorated. Now you need to fly a missed approach, route to your alternate, and fly another IFR approach. If you have lost access to a significant portion of your fuel in the event of OEI, (= range + endurance) this makes for interesting fuel planning for commercial IFR operators.

HLCPTR

11th Feb 2016, 18:38

As I said:
Baring some significant other problem.

More fuel is always better than less if you have the power to haul it around and you can use it. But ultimately, this configuration is certified per the relevant regulations, so it's not as if it's deficient.

Just not optimal to some.

We are as one! :cool:

Geoffersincornwall

11th Feb 2016, 20:53

That argument doesn't stand up if your national regulator insists on the carriage of 200 litres of additional fuel as that amount may become unusable following a single failure.

G.:ok:

HLCPTR

11th Feb 2016, 21:09

Then I would suspect that your national regulator might not certify the aircraft if it insists on that amount following an engine failure.

John Eacott

11th Feb 2016, 21:22

You're a weird mob. Fancy arguing that it is perfectly reasonable to face a possible (remote, but nonetheless possible) scenario where you have a functioning machine flying on one engine but unable to access ~45 minutes of fuel.

Maybe it suits some to take a contrary view, for the sake of it :hmm:

chopjock

11th Feb 2016, 22:51

So it would appear in a twin, it's more likely a fuel tank will fail than an engine. :confused: Astonishing!

Geoffersincornwall

12th Feb 2016, 01:40

That said there is no denying that aviation authorities have always insisted on engine accountability within their possible failure scenarios. There's none that I've come across that will allow the predication of fuel requirements post-OEI on the basis of the OEI fuel consumption.

Anyway it's always been the case that fuel planning arrangements are an operational facet of regulation - not a certification aspect. There is no doubt that the 169 fuel system complies otherwise it would not be certified but what is then required to meet the required operating standards is another matter.

My bet is that it would need a very strong case to find a way around the current rules and the jury is out on that pending publication of the necessary data in the Part 9 of the RFM. I still think we will see a mod at some stage and my guess is that it would be a low level connector pipe between the two tanks with a valve in the line and a switch in the cockpit. Light weight and simple.

The 169 is shaping up well and has the makings of another big success for the Helicopter Division of Finmeccanica. There are just a few wrinkles to smooth out along the way. One wrinkle to fix will be the company name as that's a bit of a mouthful as it stands, maybe 'HDF' will do it.

G. :ok:

fkelly

12th Feb 2016, 07:13

Any empty weight [no crew, no fuel] for a given configuration?

noooby

12th Feb 2016, 14:19

Geoffers, the solution to this perceived problem is actually a lot simpler than that. Put in a XFEED valve.
That is all that is different about this fuel system.

Geoffersincornwall

12th Feb 2016, 14:44

See my earlier post. Methinks this is one reason why a cross-feed alone will not work.

The laws of physics dictate that if the engine sucks through the crossfeed then in theory both tanks will supply the one live engine. I suspect that those same laws of physics will generate a pressure drop across the crossfeed lines leading to a preferential supply from the most direct tank - the one supplying the live engine.

As the fuel level drops the imbalance will grow until the live engine's supply runs out. This will turn into a big headache because once the engine sucks air it will wrap its hand in. Methinks that hauling that inaccessible fuel (200 litres?) around will become tiresome for it can never be part of your reserves.

G. :ok:

[email protected]

12th Feb 2016, 15:51

Geoffers, surely that is only valid if the crossfeed is permanently open? A simple switch to open and close it would ensure each engine feeds from its own tank unless you choose otherwise (in the event of emergency or simply fuel balancing). Although without booster pumps, balancing might be trickier.

Geoffersincornwall

12th Feb 2016, 19:28

Imagine a 'H' shape with the tanks at the bottom of each leg and the fuel valve on the top of each leg. After each fuel valve will be the engine driven pumps sucking the fuel.

The crossed line is the horizontal part of the 'H" with the valve in the middle. That bit would be the same as the 139 but whereas we have booster pumps the 169 doesn't.

With the crossfeed valve closed each engine sucks from it's own tank - no problem. If you lose an engine then the fuel will be consumed by the remaining engine until the tank splits into two at the the 200L/200L mark. The live engine suction pump cannot then access the other tank so 200L is unavailable. Open the crossfeed and the engine driven pump should (I don't know for sure) have enough puff to suck from both tanks. My intuition tells me that there will be an uneven rate of pick-up that favours the live engine's tank due to a small pressure drop across the crossfeed line and valve. You would have to close the crossfeed as the live engine's tank approach the minimum in order to avoid sucking air.

There would be an unknown and possibly variable amount that remains inaccessible. That's why I favour the low level connector between the two tanks as there would be much less unusable fuel at the end of the day. A valve controlled by a guarded and (tell-tale) wire-locked switch in the cockpit would do the job. We had such an arrangement in the S61N and some S76B's.

The 169 tank(s) are similar in layout to the 139/189 in true 'family' style.

G.

[email protected]

12th Feb 2016, 21:04

Geoffers - sorry to cause confusion but I was assuming the crossfeed would be in a pipe that is fed from the bottom legs of the H, not the middle.

The alternative is a transfer pump but again that would need to suck from the bottom of each tank - putting the interconnect so high up seems a very odd design choice.

Outwest

13th Feb 2016, 03:38

A valve controlled by a guarded and (tell-tale) wire-locked switch in the cockpit would do the job. We had such an arrangement in the S61N and some S76B's

AW has some history with Bell as we all know......they only need to have a look at how the 212 was set up to solve this problem.

As Geoff suggests, an interconnect valve between the tanks to essentially turn "2" tanks into one is the easiest fix.

NASUS

21st Feb 2016, 05:52

Fkelly.....your weight query

Here is one I did for a police setup

BW .... ......2914kg
3 crew .... ...300kg
Equip ........ 450kg

OEW ..... ..3664kg

Total Fuel... 900kg

Total........ 4564kg

AUW.........4600 kg

Margin.....36 kg

Not great! Needs to be at least 4800 AUW to be effective. I be.ieve this will be achieved by AW near future.....

Cheers

Non-PC Plod

21st Feb 2016, 07:11

NASUS

Did your crew eat all the pies? Feed them a few salads, and you could gain another 40 or 50 kg!! :-)

fkelly

21st Feb 2016, 13:01

Thanks NASUS, 2900-ish plus role mods is the figure I was interested in.

NASUS

22nd Feb 2016, 00:12

Non-PC Plod........
Mmmmm.....so it seems you are not to sure how we work out crew weights
Person...85kg
Flight suit/jacket /helmet/ boots/switlik....8kg
NVGs/battery pack with counterweights.....1 kg
Flight bag .... 5kg
Round it off to 100....give or take as some crew will be lighter and others heavier.
Really don't have to eat to many pies for an adult male pilot to be around 85 - 90kg these days on average.

Cheers

Non-PC Plod

22nd Feb 2016, 17:20

Sorry - the pies are obviously carried in the flight bag!:E

BlenderPilot

24th Feb 2016, 17:44

Anybody that has operated it care to comment on the Hot and High Performance of the helicopter.

The Density Altitudes we operate are between 8 and 14 thousand, we currently operate a A109SP and the time of the year where only 2 passengers can be carried out of 6 passenger seats is coming, the boss is asking about this one, but I have heard that it is a great helicopter until it reaches altitude.

Our 109SP Grand New becomes a dog in couple of months around here, I am not wrong when I say you can carry a lot more in a Bell 407 in May.

Not really worried about OEI performance, we are used to the fact from our 109SP, just AEO performance.

Thank you

casper64

24th Feb 2016, 18:57

BlenderPilot, you should look at an H145... They did demonstrations in South America at really high density altitudes with up to 8 pax...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GJYUBGtJa8

Margins

25th Feb 2016, 14:22

What is the maximum certified altitude for take off and landings for the H145?

casper64

25th Feb 2016, 16:46

According EASA website (type certificate BK117 D-2) 16.000ft for take off, landing and HIGE. 20.000ft max operating altitude.

Ian Corrigible

25th Feb 2016, 17:16

What is the maximum certified altitude for take off and landings for the H145?
Per EASA (http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA_R010_AHD_BK117_Issue_09_14Dec2015.pdf#page=41), the H145's initial limitation is 16,000 ft PA or DA, whichever occurs first, though the Tech Data document for the aircraft says this is already being expanded to 18,000 ft. The AW169 (https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/AW169-TCDS%20R-509%20Issue4.pdf#page=8) is currently at 8,000 ft PA or DA, whichever occurs first, thought this envelope will presumably be expanded over time.

Right now the two platforms offer a similar useful load (3,816 lbs vs. 3,717 lbs), though as NASUS (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/562887-aw169-4.html#post9276712) mentions a 4.8 tonne IGW for the AW169 is already in work, which would push its useful load up to 4,158 lbs.

I/C

Margins

26th Feb 2016, 20:00

16000 ft are 4877 m, quite short of 6000 m.

Lastcav

9th Nov 2016, 20:01

bluesafari

14th Nov 2016, 11:46

Has anyone got a plan drawing with all the dimensions, so we see how is it on various helipads we visit.

Self loading bear

14th Nov 2016, 19:56

Have a look at:
http://www.the-blueprints.com/ (http://www.the-blueprints.com/vectordrawings/show/11436/agustawestland_aw169/)

They ask 7 credits for the drawing in various formats.
But minimum amount of credits is 25 @ €20,00
You can have 3 different aircraft for that

SLB

Flying Bull

15th Nov 2016, 07:16

LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AW169+dimension)
LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AW169+dimension)
klick on images....

wbr

Self loading bear

15th Nov 2016, 14:38

LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AW169+dimension)
LMGTFY (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AW169+dimension)
klick on images....

wbr

Yes same link

SLB

vaibronco

2nd Dec 2016, 09:00

Why, by that time in the flight, would you still be out of range of a place to land. Baring some significant other problem, I just can't figure that out. What am I missing?

Because in OEI I need a running landing. I could be very close to helipads but far from a suitable runway.
It means I should plan all my flights considering that.

Joebootx

3rd Dec 2016, 11:35

Anyone have any AW169 pilot training information to share?

Thanks

roscoe1

3rd Dec 2016, 15:34

Anyone know what the hold-up on FAA certification is? As far as I know it has not happened yet.

laurenson

6th Dec 2016, 07:21

It seems that AW has some issues with the AW169 development. The FAA Certification, which has been expected few months before the EASA certification, has more than 1 year delay. Many of the EMS operators can't use their HC because many mandatory equipments have not been yet certified.

Moreover when you compare the payload capability, the AW169 has quite the same payload as the H145, but the H145 has a MTOW around 1000kg lower than the AW169 (4600 vs 3700kg). This delta shows the difficulties face by AW in the design of this HC.

I hope AW will finally fully certify its HC and give it a good payload capability otherwise, the sales will never take off.

noooby

6th Dec 2016, 14:32

And how far can you fly in an EMS configured 145?? A lot less than an EMS configured 169. Heck, a 145T2 won't even go as far as a BK117B2!

Oh, and I believe the 169 is the same price, if not cheaper. Same delays with FAA with the 169 as there were with the 189. Reciprocal agreements aren't so reciprocal when it comes to Type Certs with new avionic packages. For the 189 they eventually went with a VFR cert for FAA because FAA was so slow approving the IFR package!

Don't blame the aircraft for regulatory slowness.

laurenson

6th Dec 2016, 15:15

Regarding the operating cost, it is always a function of the HC weight so I believe it will be higher for the AW169 than for the H145.
Fuel: 720 Kg for H145 vs 900 kg for AW169 but the PW210 burn more fuel and the Helicopter drag is also far more important so I expect a draw in term of range.
Finally, about certification, I just ask the question why the company announced a FAA certification in the following month after the EASA one and finally we have to wait more than a year. I hope FAA rules are not new for AW.
To be honest, I have friend who have bought some AW169, and with all the delay they are not sure it has been a good choice.
However, to finish on a more optimistic point, if AW is able to increase the MTOW to 5 tones, and enhance the fuel tank, I’m sure this HC will become a nice asset for companies.

noooby

6th Dec 2016, 20:42

Operating cost is not a function of weight. It is a function of MTBF, the cost of components installed (repair/replacement), and fuel/sundries. Maintenance per flight hour can also be added on.

139 is same or less DOC's per hour, than a 76C++. CHC proved that over and over. Yet the 139 is heavier.

145 Max range, NO reserves is 365Nm. IFR with reserves takes it 300 or less. So for EMS, 150 out, 150 back.

169 is close to 400Nm range, with reserves.

Amount of fuel carried and consumption per hour is only part of the story. Speed is the other. Most AW's have their economy cruise in the 140-150 knot range. EC145 economy cruise is not that high. Hence 169 goes further.

Oh, it is cheaper too, by over US$1 million.

Ask FAA how long it takes at the moment to get an STC approved and you'll begin to understand why a Type Cert is taking so long, even though it is EASA certified already.

For STC's it is quicker now to do it in Canada and get it recognised through the bilateral agreement, than to do the STC in the US. Perhaps Leonardo should have certified the 169 in Canada first, then applied for the US certification!

casper64

6th Dec 2016, 21:21

So, how many EMS operators fly legs of 200-400 Nm? I'd say that range is more interesting for O&G operations.

roscoe1

6th Dec 2016, 23:38

So it would appear that in actuality, nobody knows why the FAA certification has been delayed for so long. Me thinks it isn't just paperwork but me doesn't know either.

laurenson

7th Dec 2016, 07:52

Your marketing argumentation is very good noooby.
However, you compare the DOC of a 1990 helicopter with a 2000s one. It is not very fair for the S-76C.
About the range, first I fully agree with casper64, it is not the top priority of an EMS mission. Then talking with pilots, the cruise speed of the AW169 is closer than 120-130kts currently (since the gear can go up ;) ).
So I invite you to talk with operators and pilots who fly this HC rather than take AW’s salesman word for it. Marketing figures are often far from operational one.

noooby

7th Dec 2016, 14:00

There are EMS tenders out there at the moment stipulating 300Nm range. We don't all live in small nations.

I have heard that the 169 is slower than the other AW's. I don't take the salesman's word for anything other than what it is, trying to get people to part with $$$!!

I have access to operators of the 169, I know what they're complaining about. Not sure what AW are going to do about the speed. I know they tried many iterations of the MGB/Engine fairings trying to tidy up the airflow back there.

And I was comparing the C++, a much improved machine over the C! Not much nicer to work on, but better to operate.

As far as FAA, who knows. The GPS system delayed IFR cert on the 189 for well over a year, for no reason. Airworthiness authorities around the planet don't seem to have the experience they once did.

Take 139 SAR Modes for instance. Transport Canada have been in the process of approving them for more than 4 (yes, FOUR) years and they STILL are not approved in Canada, even though they are approved everywhere else and Transport Canada have been to Italy to do their own test flying.

They say there is nothing wrong with it, it just isn't a high enough priority for them to push it through. WTF???

Erhypolito109

11th Jan 2017, 22:44

Hi, any 169 pilots around? Interested in knowing the performance?

I want to know about LPV aproach when it wil be running at 169?

Erhypolito109

11th Jan 2017, 23:46

Last november I had flight demo at 169 I was impressive with flight deck space in passenger compartiment ... The helicopter is easy and power smooth and quite regardin speed feel is the same Aw109 power but some improvinentes are being done such as atitude pich change in flight straight line for dragless under fuselage .

KiwiNedNZ

8th Feb 2017, 07:52

Anyone got any updates on when Leonardo are going to fix the gear issue - seems they are delivering 169s to customers but then telling them they cant retract the gear - some sort of issue with the actuators.

Also just heard they now have issues with the engine driveshaft leaking.

noooby

8th Feb 2017, 15:15

I wouldn't call it an issue with the engine driveshaft. More that the drain line went to the deck rather than to the overboard drain so it was making a mess!

The drain line and the landing gear have both been taken care of with Tech Bulletins.

They both came out last month. Takes quite a while to get new parts made, tested and put into production.

For the Landing Gear, the Bulletin is Mandatory, so owners get all the parts for free. Standard practice with Agusta (or whatever they're called now). No matter the age of the helicopter, if a Bulletin is Mandatory, parts are free.

More importantly, have they managed to speed it up? I hear it is a bit slow.

Perra

10th Feb 2017, 09:44

Quite a few bases in Scandinavia have range requirements of 300 nm or more. Here the 169 will definetly become a big player!

noooby

10th Feb 2017, 16:29

I hear this morning that FAA cert is done. Can anyone confirm??

Mee3

11th Feb 2017, 09:17

GrantT

14th Feb 2017, 14:15

Leonardo has confirmed FAA type certificate: https://twitter.com/AgustaWestland/status/831519748378730496

laurenson

21st Feb 2017, 16:52

I confirm AW said it is done but no TCDS yet.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage

noooby

22nd Feb 2017, 17:27

FAA advised Leonardo Feb 8 that they accepted the validation of the EASA Type Cert. FAA Cert was issued Feb 2 (yes, before the validation letter).

TCDS number is R00007RD. I don't know why FAA don't have it on their website.

I asked someone at Leonardo and that is what they were able to tell me.

Happily this doesn't seem to be a case of Alternate Facts or Fake News though :)

VeeAny

24th Feb 2017, 07:32

TCDS is on the FAA website now

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7ff886415d03b802862580cf006ced96/$FILE/R00007RD_Rev_0.pdf

Phoinix

24th Feb 2017, 08:48

Am I getting this wrong?

Maximum Take-off and Landing altitude 8000 ft (pressure/density altitude whichever occurs first)

Bye bye AW169,
regards,
Alpine countries.

HeliHenri

24th Feb 2017, 09:07

In 2015, the Swiss REGA has ordered 3 AW169 to be delivered in 2021 (alpine country).

9Aplus

24th Feb 2017, 10:37

With FIPS on board....

Margins

24th Feb 2017, 11:38

Bye bye AW169,
regards,
Alpine countries.
It's about one year that the EASA TC has been updated to 15000 ft maximum altitude for takeoff and landing

Phoinix

24th Feb 2017, 12:22

Ah, right. FAA limit only than. Thanks!

CorsAir2

1st Mar 2017, 19:18

Hey, who knows the training cost for additional type rating with IR? (eight FH) I suppose available only at Leonardo company's training academy. Isn't true?

Mickey1123

14th Mar 2017, 07:22

Does anyone know, does AMMC built-in-test requires 80 sec?

noooby

14th Mar 2017, 16:27

Maintenance Manual says it does, but that is part of a full on test playing with circuit breakers.

RVDT

14th Mar 2017, 17:16

Looked at one of these in the flesh recently at HAI.

Now I understand why they will never be popular for Corporate/VIP.

Where do you put the seats so it makes any sense?

PANews

14th Mar 2017, 20:29

Having just about sorted the retraction issue there is another problem.

EASA is mandating the certification of the medical oxygen system and bottles. Some pre-certified [i.e. Bucher in the H145] but others including the forthcoming UK AW169 fleet from SAS are in the process of certification of the modified Air Methods system. May take a while.

EASA has decided that 'carry on' is not the way to go forward and this has also started to affect HEMS in the USA..... where EASA leads...

noooby

14th Mar 2017, 22:10

PANews, Canada is even worse. Flexible lines are not allowed on fixed oxy installs anymore. Must be rigid lines, which makes bottle changes a pain in the a***.

Of course, vibration in a helicopter would NEVER affect a rigid line installation. No. Never.

The EASA mandate won't just affect the 169, it will affect all new EMS installs.

RVDT, considering nearly half of 169's sold so far are for Corporate/VIP, I would imagine someone found a good place for the seats, especially as they seem to be well liked so far.

Mickey1123

14th Mar 2017, 23:38

noooby>>Thank you for your prompt answer.
Wow, thats a surprise.
One additional question, do you know how long does it take to start the ENG when powering on the battery?

RVDT

15th Mar 2017, 00:55

nooby,

considering nearly half of 169's sold so far are for Corporate/VIP, I would imagine someone found a good place for the seats, especially as they seem to be well liked so far.

As there are not that many 169's actually in service that does not account for much.

I know of about 6 very experienced customers looking to upgrade who have been struggling with the seating arrangement issue
and it has swayed their decision not to purchase.

noooby

15th Mar 2017, 16:33

Yep, I know of one guy who has opted for a 76D instead of the 169. I don't necessarily think a 76D is an upgrade though! C++ is in my mind still better than the D will ever be. For the price of a VIP 76D, you could get the 139 VIP. Unless SK is selling the 76D at a loss to try and generate sales and produce more than the 5/year that they're making at the moment.

I thought there was an interiors company (MAG?) that brought out a number of different VIP and VVIP interiors for the 169? What does the Linfox 169 have in it? They seem to be happy with the machine.

Mickey1123, no idea on engine start times.

The AMMC test I referred to is a Maintenance Check, not a pre-start check.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2017, 21:18

One friend of mine went and picked up their customers 169 (fourth attempt to pick it up after being told "its ready" only to turn up and find heaps of snags still not fixed) - and on its first flight it broke down on top of the mountain after delivering the owner to his house. :=

noooby

15th Mar 2017, 22:06

Never go and pick up an aircraft in one day! For 139 acceptances we had a 45 page document where we would test EVERYTHING in flight and would stay till everything was fixed. If you leave, they move on to work on that machine of someone who is still there putting pressure on them to fix things.

SK was the same with picking up 92's. You have to be there and put the pressure on. If you're not getting good results, time to get money off the purchase! Make sure you have firm clauses in your sale and purchase agreement about compensation for delivery delays that are not your fault.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2017, 22:08

Nooby - it wasn't all in one day - that was their fourth trip to the factory. Each time they were called and told everything was ready - then when they arrived there found out stuff still hadnt been done.

noooby

16th Mar 2017, 00:02

Did they ask for compensation??? I would if I was them.

laurenson

23rd Mar 2017, 15:40

Hi noooby,

I talked with AW169 pilots who told me that the empty weight of the HC is far higher that the figures presented first by AW. Do you know if AW plans to work on that?

Moreover, you said that around half of the sold was for VIP, but the VIP interior isn’t certified yet isn’t it? Are you sure it’s not just Loi and not contract for the VIP standard?

noooby

24th Mar 2017, 03:41

The one in Oz has a VIP interior doesn't it?

I get my delivery info from www.dgualdo.it ... "The Helicopter Area" - Aviation Photography by Damiano GUALDONI (http://www.dgualdo.it)

KiwiNedNZ

24th Mar 2017, 07:42

John Eacott

24th Mar 2017, 08:42

Nooby - LinFox's 169 has already been sold back to the UK to another owner and recently arrived at Sloanes for delivery. Seems Lindsay Fox wasn't happy about something with it so he got rid of it - heard he either had another 169 on the way or something else.

Ned,

Not true: Lindsay's AW169 is going strong and actually has the 4.8 tonne upgrade along with RNAV approaches. The undercarriage problems are also fixed.

The sale to UK was another Australian VIP AW169 about 5 months ago :ok:

KiwiNedNZ

24th Mar 2017, 18:24

Thanks John, I think the confusion was Lindsay's friend had his 169 painted the same colours :)

AW4EVER

4th Apr 2017, 10:20

Hi all,
Please someone could let me know what could be the max. payload for AW169 O&G configuration?
Thanks

noooby

4th Apr 2017, 15:31

John, do you know what sort of speed Linfox are getting out of their 169?? How slow are these things?

Is it just slow for an Agusta, or is it actually slow?

Ripstop27

2nd May 2017, 22:48

Hello all,
Are there any AW169's in the US?

Joebootx

27th Jul 2017, 17:00

Anyone been through the aw169 course here? Pm if so.

Phoinix

17th Aug 2017, 15:25

Hey guys! I was wondering,... looking through the AW169 manual and not finding any charts, can anyone share a practical crusing speed for MCP at lower altitudes and fuel burn at that setting?

Also, can somebody confirm a clean airframe with external hoist would be around 3000kg?

Thanks!

Phoinix

21st May 2019, 07:14

So, whilst starting my typerting in Sesto, I got a glimps into the 169. First impression; it's far from what I knew by now. Flying EC135P2+, A109E, B212/412/206... helicopter is not a hardware part that will not need changing for a while, the software however, it adds new functions and it's now the heart of the whole thing. Phase 4 now, Phase 5 (software) is expected to bring Electronic checklists, ECO mode (cruise NR below 96%) and SAR autopilot modes. I have a feeling of looking at my phone or a computer. Whole different mindset.

And for the guys comparing the EC145 and AW169 - hoist, NVIS, dual controls and some stuff... The 169 has 1650 kg useful load and the EC145 1400 kg. Performance wise (OGE at altitude and in cruise), 169 wins hands down...the useful load drops only 80 kg at 8000 feet but it was never in the class to compete with 145 to start with. But it is an amazing replacement for 212/412.

Mee3

21st May 2019, 13:15

Not sure if you are comparing a T2 or not, but quick glance of your number does not seem right. And after the 5 blade mod kicks in, 169 may not has a lot meaningful load advantage either.

Phoinix

21st May 2019, 13:44

Not sure if you are comparing a T2 or not, but quick glance of your number does not seem right. And after the 5 blade mod kicks in, 169 may not has a lot meaningful load advantage either.

like I said, it’s altitude performance we are looking for, and 3800 inprovement on T2 does nothing to that but reduction. From the words of AH Donauwort instructor, H145 with 4-blade rotor could handle 3800 just the same. No change.

heliguy77

29th Jan 2020, 20:41

Leonardo Helicopters announced at HAI a significant increase in performance for the AW169...
Take a look at the article from AINonline:
---------------Performance Packages Increase Power, Payload for AW169by Mark Humber - January 28, 2020, 12:01 AM

Leonardo is developing two performance packages for the AW169 medium twin that will increase engine shaft horsepower (shp), transmission rating, and available payload. The "Enhanced" and “Superior” performance packs rely on software updates and minor aerodynamic modifications to deliver increased performance. Leonardo expects EASA approval for the packages by the end of 2020 and will make them available on new deliveries and as a retrofit to existing helicopters beginning in 2021.

Retrofit pricing was not disclosed, but a company spokesman said he expected the retrofits to require 16 man-hours of labor. Available payload would increase from 440 to 770 pounds, depending on phase of flight and external conditions; more than 770 pounds for hovering, over 660 pounds for CAT. A-PC1 operations, and 440 pounds for one-engine-inoperative (OEI) hover. Shortly after initial EASA certification approval for the helicopter, Leonardo certified the AW169 for a maximum gross weight increase from 4.6 to 4.8 tons in 2016. That increased-gross-weight kit upped the aircraft’s maximum takeoff weight from 10,141 to 10,582 pounds, a capability that could add up to 100 nm of additional range from the original ferry range of 431 nm (no reserve).

Leonardo’s Samuele Tosi, head of product marketing for dual-use helicopters, said the performance packs produce an increase of approximately 144 shp on the 1,000-shp Pratt & Whitney PW210A Fadec-controlled engines, and an increased transmission rating of approximately 150 shp. He said the differences between the packages is price and the amount of shp increase—with the Enhanced pack delivering approximately two-thirds the power increase of the Superior pack. He said the power increases would give the AW169 “the highest power-to-weight ratio in its class.

“The AW169 is designed to surpass customers’ expectations and set a new market standard within its category,” Tosi said, adding that it appeals to a wide variety of customers, including those upgrading from Part 27 helicopters (up to 7,000 pounds MTOW) and those switching from older, larger twins, including the BK117 and Bell 412. “Those designs are now showing their age,” he said.

Customers not only appreciate the AW169 and its newer design standards; more are attracted to it because of its flexible, multi-mission capabilities and quick-change configurations, a Leonardo spokesman told AIN. As an example, he pointed out the fleet of three AW169s acquired by Travis County, Texas, that will be used for a combination of firefighting, EMS, and law-enforcement missions. He also noted that the AW169 received military certification last year. “The market is showing increased interest in a range of missions. This upgrade provides a wide variety of applications spanning from civil to parapublic to military in all weather conditions.” The spokesman said that the helicopter had seen “very interesting success in more niche applications” such as wind farm support and electronic newsgathering in Japan.

Since the AW169 was first certified by EASA in 2015, more than 100 of these helicopters have been delivered and over 220 have been ordered. The in-service fleet has logged 45,000 flight hours with the fleet leader surpassing 2,000 hours. The aircraft features Collins glass-panel touchscreen avionics with capabilities that include a four-axis digital automatic flight control system and a dual flight-management system.

Top cruising speed is 155 knots, and the 222-cu-ft cabin can accommodate seven to 10 passengers. The aircraft is manufactured at Leonardo’s plant in Vergiate, Italy.

Phoinix

30th Jan 2020, 06:34

Just out of curiosity, what helicopter is currently overpowering the 169 “in it’s class”? H160 is underpowered, 412 had gained weight, AS365/EC155 is underpowered,... which one?

GonzoTheGreat

25th Feb 2020, 15:35

With Leonardo temporarily closing its training facility at Sesto Calende, due to the lockdown over Corona, are there any other AW169 Sims being developed? Coptersafety are close to sorting theirs in Helsinki but are there any others?

tottigol

26th Feb 2020, 04:12

Nope!
The one in Coptersafety is nowhere near to be ready, and the second Leonardo should go to Philadelphia sometime later this September.

Tatischeff

26th Feb 2020, 16:08

Just out of curiosity, what helicopter is currently overpowering the 169 “in it’s class”? H160 is underpowered, 412 had gained weight, AS365/EC155 is underpowered,... which one?

Are you sure about this ? H160 power to weight ratio is quite the same as AW169 one (maybe better at the MTOW of 5670kg).

Phoinix

26th Feb 2020, 16:19

Safran Helicopter Engines has received EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) Type Certification for its Arrano 1A engine, installed in the Airbus Helicopters H160. Arrano is a new generation engine in the 1,100 to 1,300 shp power range, perfectly suited for new four-to-six tonne helicopters. The H160 made its first flight with the Arrano in January 2016.

lets go for the best in arrano power range,...

H160
1300hp/5670kg = 0,23

AW169 (before the announced power boost)
1180hp/4800kg = 0,25
after power boost 1324hp/4800 = 0,28
after expected mtom increase
1324hp/5000 = 0,26

Using the increased GW for H160 calcs makes it a 412 “killer” material.

FloaterNorthWest

26th Feb 2020, 17:59

H145 Arriel 2e

1072bhp/3700kg = 0.29

Same again

26th Feb 2020, 18:03

Phoinix

26th Feb 2020, 18:08

It is only a '412 killer' if it can match or exceed the 412 in all other areas. I would be interested to see if it could fly 8 hours per day water bombing for weeks on end with minimal maintenance and few unserviceability issues. Very pretty though....

That we shall see, but I doubt in the first years. We have 212, 412, 169,... whenever the 100hrs check comes, it’s not exactly “minimum maintenance”, unless under some “non-easa” regs.

tottigol

26th Feb 2020, 22:16

lets go for the best in arrano power range,...

H160
1300hp/5670kg = 0,23

AW169 (before the announced power boost)
1180hp/4800kg = 0,25
after power boost 1324hp/4800 = 0,28
after expected mtom increase
1324hp/5000 = 0,26

Using the increased GW for H160 calcs makes it a 412 “killer” material.

If weight and power to weight ratio is the only parameter you take into account to determine a "412 killer" you are missing out on 40 years of technological and avionics advances.

Phoinix

26th Feb 2020, 23:39

If weight and power to weight ratio is the only parameter you take into account to determine a "412 killer" you are missing out on 40 years of technological and avionics advances.

I wasn’t really implying it needs a killer, it’s dying of natural causes as we speak... even if it is gets the drone quad on the tail.

noooby

27th Feb 2020, 04:29

It is only a '412 killer' if it can match or exceed the 412 in all other areas. I would be interested to see if it could fly 8 hours per day water bombing for weeks on end with minimal maintenance and few unserviceability issues. Very pretty though....

As a former 412 mechanic, I can say there is no such thing as minimal maintenance on those pigs. 212 was much better and I'd actually rather take a 139 into the bush than a 412. Far less day to day problems.

Stupid pendulum absorbers that broke apart every 50 hours. Stupid MR blades that are near impossible to balance if you breathe on them. Grrrrrrr. MR heads that would keep moving forever and never settle down after install, continuously affecting vibes. Oh and the governor rigging for the +2/-2. And AFCU failures all the time.

Yeah, I remember the 412. Not fondly.

Same again

27th Feb 2020, 06:27

I'd actually rather take a 139 into the bush than a 412. Far less day to day problems. Hmmm. That comment raised a few eyebrows and sniggers here in the bush and yes we are all familiar with both types.

tottigol

27th Feb 2020, 18:05

I wasn’t really implying it needs a killer, it’s dying of natural causes as we speak... even if it is gets the drone quad on the tail.
I am stiill laughing.
I remember Bell's ads on R&W when the DoD pulled the carpet from under them by adding the IFR requirement to the LUH competiotion.
I think I actually saved that somewhere.

noooby

28th Feb 2020, 14:33

Hmmm. That comment raised a few eyebrows and sniggers here in the bush and yes we are all familiar with both types.

Mechanically, the 139 is the simplest machine I've ever worked on. Electrically, people are scared of it. And for no real reason. It is DC only. No AC crap to try and find issues with.

I just wish they'd upgrade the slump pads to 6800 or 7000kg instead of being stuck at 6400kg.

Those doing sling work say it lifts really well. Although I'd also like to see the hook mounts beefed up.

I would not take a 169 bush though. It is not made for easy access without a hangar and work stands.

Perhaps I'm biased with 15 years on the 139 but it's served me well.

zlydzidek

10th Feb 2021, 12:36

Has anyone flown with MaxViz EVS-2300.
What are your thought in comparison with other products?
Does it works better than single band product?
When IFR at night, is it possible to see clouds, layers?
Thank you!

Phoinix

10th Feb 2021, 12:47

zlydzidek

10th Feb 2021, 12:57

SVS is right in front of you and does the job in the same way. Both are info only, SVS not limited by thick clouds though - in haze or thin layers of clouds you can see through, otherwise you don’t.

Flying based on any of these data is not an option (certification wise).

Personally, I didn’t like it, SVS all the way for SA purposes only.

Ok, agree.
But if you would be IFR at 6000ft away from the ground and would like to find yourself between layers of clouds to avoid icing? Will it work just for this?

Phoinix

10th Feb 2021, 13:08

You see the cloud with your eyes and you do with IR... you only see through very thin layers vith EVS. So in any case, when you see you are inbetween layers, the EVS is the same as your eyeball mk.1.

[email protected]

10th Feb 2021, 13:40

Water vapour - ie clouds and fog - attenuates IR frequencies so you can't see through them. An IR sensor detects differences in emitted radiation and the water vapour acts a a wet blanket, making everything the same emissivity.

Phoinix

2nd Sep 2021, 13:42

Does anyone have experiences with tail mounted TLX searchlight for police landings in dark places? Does it have good freedom of operating from pilots viewpoint or bad shadowing of wheels and fuselage?

trakka and any other high power search light is limited to a certain height. You are not allowed to use it for t/o and landing.

The two 169 landing lights are perfectly suited for the job.

Aucky

2nd Sep 2021, 14:20

Does anyone have experiences with tail mounted TLX searchlight for police landings in dark places? Does it have good freedom of operating from pilots viewpoint or bad shadowing of wheels and fuselage?

I’m told by a friend operating a police 169 that the aft mounted searchlight is good for surveillance work when linked to the Wescam, but has no value for a high/low recce for off airfield landings due to the software stops and aircraft shadowing preventing the beam from pointing where you need it. I can put you in touch if you need more information.

Cencio

3rd Nov 2021, 15:50

Hey

Anybody knows Where and How Much for AW169 type rating course?

ApolloHeli

3rd Nov 2021, 20:13

Hey

Anybody knows Where and How Much for AW169 type rating course?
AFAIK there's only Leonardo at Sesto Calende, Italy. I don't know the explicit cost, but I've heard of pilots bonded for £50k for the type rating.

212man

3rd Nov 2021, 20:16

AFAIK there's only Leonardo at Sesto Calende, Italy. I don't know the explicit cost, but I've heard of pilots bonded for £50k for the type rating.
pretty sure SAS in the UK do type ratings too

helicrazi

3rd Nov 2021, 21:04

Hey

Anybody knows Where and How Much for AW169 type rating course?

I think coptersafety are now able to do them too

handysnaks

3rd Nov 2021, 21:35

“pretty sure SAS in the UK do type ratings too”
SAS send their pilots to Sesto to do the Leonardo course.

212man

3rd Nov 2021, 22:38

“pretty sure SAS in the UK do type ratings too”
SAS send their pilots to Sesto to do the Leonardo course.
I see. I guess things changed https://helihub.com/2017/07/10/sas-to-undertake-aw169-pilot-training/

HeliboyDreamer

4th Nov 2021, 15:11

I see. I guess things changed https://helihub.com/2017/07/10/sas-to-undertake-aw169-pilot-training/

Early 2018 (6 month after the above mentioned article) people were still being sent to Sesto. Not sure what would be the current situation now.

Hot_LZ

4th Nov 2021, 16:07

SAS have an ATO approval for AW169. Their initial TR I believe are conducted by Leonardo. Recurrent checks are conducted by their own TRE but all in Sesto.

LZ

pira

4th Feb 2023, 16:00

Is there a AW169 PC sim to get familiar with the FMS and autopilot? I know a few options for the AW139, but can't find any for the 169.

helimutt

10th Feb 2023, 06:50

No. No online emulator as yet for the AW169. I’m told it’s possibly coming, but at the moment you have to go to the training facility in Sesto to use the VIPT or desktop training suite. Once you sign up for a course you will have access to the reading material on all phases and the training information.

forgot to add, the simulator is a Phase 4. The VIPT is a phase 4. FFS will be upgraded to phase 6 I believe very soon. Some subtle but useful changes, then phase 7 is available with phase 8 also available once the update to phase 7 has been complete. Again don’t quote me on this but I think Phase 7 is some structural changes and phase 8 is software. So when using an emulator make sure its for the correct phase as it can get somewhat confusing.

https://youtu.be/fwt_We3D4mY