Agusta A109
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tec-pilot
The 109 has never had any problems with the height of the main rotor for EMS or any other operations. If you are referring to the tail rotor then this is also not an issue due to the very quick shut down time and even less of an issue in an EMS role where the crew are trained and familiar with the standard loading procedure.
As for speed of response not being an issue then it is difficult to see how this statement fits in with the 'Golden Hour' philosophy and may be difficult to explain to someone who could have been saved if the aircraft could have been there a minute earlier!!
The Power didnt have alot of tailboom problems as you state, in fact it had one, which was identified and dealt with under warranty in a swift manner. In fact all Powers after 2002 had the modifications to strenghten the particular area built in as standard so was never an issue.
As for your statement to say that the Power needs to see an engineer every day, well quite frankly that is a load of old nonsense. The A and C models were pretty labour intensive but the E is an extremely reliable machine. If you need proof speak to the US Coast Guard and ask for their availability stats.
Finally check your cabin internal volumes and I think you will find the S will have the largest cabin in the class. The 135 and 902 give a better perception of space due to the adjoined baggage area whereas the 109 has a seperate baggage area in the tail boom.
TC:
Doesnt 'duty of care' also include ensuring the crew are given the most capable aircraft. If so then when the weather gets rough I know which system I would prefer in a 40knot crosswind!!!
The 109 has never had any problems with the height of the main rotor for EMS or any other operations. If you are referring to the tail rotor then this is also not an issue due to the very quick shut down time and even less of an issue in an EMS role where the crew are trained and familiar with the standard loading procedure.
As for speed of response not being an issue then it is difficult to see how this statement fits in with the 'Golden Hour' philosophy and may be difficult to explain to someone who could have been saved if the aircraft could have been there a minute earlier!!
The Power didnt have alot of tailboom problems as you state, in fact it had one, which was identified and dealt with under warranty in a swift manner. In fact all Powers after 2002 had the modifications to strenghten the particular area built in as standard so was never an issue.
As for your statement to say that the Power needs to see an engineer every day, well quite frankly that is a load of old nonsense. The A and C models were pretty labour intensive but the E is an extremely reliable machine. If you need proof speak to the US Coast Guard and ask for their availability stats.
Finally check your cabin internal volumes and I think you will find the S will have the largest cabin in the class. The 135 and 902 give a better perception of space due to the adjoined baggage area whereas the 109 has a seperate baggage area in the tail boom.
TC:
Doesnt 'duty of care' also include ensuring the crew are given the most capable aircraft. If so then when the weather gets rough I know which system I would prefer in a 40knot crosswind!!!
Hi Eurobolkow:
thanks for that,
some observations if I may....
I agree with tecpilot about rotor distance. The exposed tail rotor is a serious problem with EMS landing sites. 'Untrained' personnel milling around the back of the a/c are exposed. Not so with the new generation helos (902/135 and hi tail 145).
Cabin ergonomics are no where near as good as current models. Front and back seat are effectively 'cut off' from each other - bad CRM.
Short radius ops - speed is not different enough to make a difference. The golden hour is a myth!
We (as yet) have had no xwind problems with the 135. I've flown it rearwards and sideways well in excess of 40kts with no discernable LTE.
thanks for that,
some observations if I may....
I agree with tecpilot about rotor distance. The exposed tail rotor is a serious problem with EMS landing sites. 'Untrained' personnel milling around the back of the a/c are exposed. Not so with the new generation helos (902/135 and hi tail 145).
Cabin ergonomics are no where near as good as current models. Front and back seat are effectively 'cut off' from each other - bad CRM.
Short radius ops - speed is not different enough to make a difference. The golden hour is a myth!
We (as yet) have had no xwind problems with the 135. I've flown it rearwards and sideways well in excess of 40kts with no discernable LTE.
Eurobolkow
The high of the main rotor is lower than on the other competive models. The damped tripple wheel gear with its 2 lateral buckling axis brings the pivoted rotorblades additionally near the ground. Have you ever seen a A-109 in the mountains? Take your head down! The shutdown time is absolutely unimportant for a tail rotor strike
If you comes to ground on final or touchdown you will have a tailrotor strike or not. Tail rotor strikes on the ground within the cooling time are very rare...
I know personally 2 A109 Power with more than a single tailboom change or high maintenance action. The visibly signs of the tailboom vibrations are the common change of the pos lights.
Nobody needs in HEMS seperate baggage areas. You need all the equipment within the flight and easy to get with a single grip from you seat! Thats also a big problem on the AS 350/355 or 206/407 series. Or will you ever land to get the needed?
To the speed, adopted a A109 with a cruising speed of 150kt and a BK 117 with 125kt (both VNE's are higher) the A109 get an advantage of 2,4 min on a 30 miles distance. Thats the usually distance in Europe.
Please understand me right, i'm interested in the new ship, but thats my observations... Obervations also Agusta could made, but i know the development of a complete new ship like the 900 / 135 is really expensive. The "power" is one of the best hot'n high twin, but the market needs also some other things.
The high of the main rotor is lower than on the other competive models. The damped tripple wheel gear with its 2 lateral buckling axis brings the pivoted rotorblades additionally near the ground. Have you ever seen a A-109 in the mountains? Take your head down! The shutdown time is absolutely unimportant for a tail rotor strike
If you comes to ground on final or touchdown you will have a tailrotor strike or not. Tail rotor strikes on the ground within the cooling time are very rare...I know personally 2 A109 Power with more than a single tailboom change or high maintenance action. The visibly signs of the tailboom vibrations are the common change of the pos lights.
the 109 has a seperate baggage area in the tail boom.
To the speed, adopted a A109 with a cruising speed of 150kt and a BK 117 with 125kt (both VNE's are higher) the A109 get an advantage of 2,4 min on a 30 miles distance. Thats the usually distance in Europe.
Please understand me right, i'm interested in the new ship, but thats my observations... Obervations also Agusta could made, but i know the development of a complete new ship like the 900 / 135 is really expensive. The "power" is one of the best hot'n high twin, but the market needs also some other things.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC and Tec Pilot:
Thanks to both of you for your comments.
It would be pointless of me to argue that an exposed tail rotor is as safe as a notar or fenestron when clearly it can never be. My point was merely that there are plus and minus points to each design and generally speaking the incident rate with exposed tail rotor is so low as for it not to be a significant issue.
Also please dont get me wrong I am not trying to put down either the 135 or 902, I think they are both very capable machines and again have their good and bad points.
I guess the overall message is that any helicopter is a compromise, the question is have Agusta chosen the right compromises in the right key performance area's to make this new version a challenger in the utility role.
Tec Pilot: Your experience seems to be very specifically of mountain region operation and thus I assume your comments are well founded and well made.
TC: Just two points of clarification, the co-pilot seat in the 109 is reversible for HEMS ops so the front and back are not cut off per say and also the current 109E and this 'S' are classed as new generation helos.
Interesting discussion as always!!
Thanks to both of you for your comments.
It would be pointless of me to argue that an exposed tail rotor is as safe as a notar or fenestron when clearly it can never be. My point was merely that there are plus and minus points to each design and generally speaking the incident rate with exposed tail rotor is so low as for it not to be a significant issue.
Also please dont get me wrong I am not trying to put down either the 135 or 902, I think they are both very capable machines and again have their good and bad points.
I guess the overall message is that any helicopter is a compromise, the question is have Agusta chosen the right compromises in the right key performance area's to make this new version a challenger in the utility role.
Tec Pilot: Your experience seems to be very specifically of mountain region operation and thus I assume your comments are well founded and well made.
TC: Just two points of clarification, the co-pilot seat in the 109 is reversible for HEMS ops so the front and back are not cut off per say and also the current 109E and this 'S' are classed as new generation helos.
Interesting discussion as always!!
Quoted extract from Eurobolkow....
I must pick you up on one point however as to suggest that the 'S' airframe is the same as the 'A' model is simply not correct. Sure they have the same basic shape and profile (perhaps because it was such an aerdynamically efficient design in the first place) but the airframe of the latest generation will bear little resemblance to the original.
Are you stating :-
That the 109S is a completely new airframe built to JAR27/29 standards?
That the 109S has in the cabin JAR27/29 standard stroking crashworthy seats?
I think the words the Agusta paperwork uses is 'crash resistent' and that rear seat is the same old fuel tank that has no stroking capability beyond that endowed by the cushion filling.
The Grand will win on its undoubted merit not on misinterpretation of the airframe features of that mock-up.
I must pick you up on one point however as to suggest that the 'S' airframe is the same as the 'A' model is simply not correct. Sure they have the same basic shape and profile (perhaps because it was such an aerdynamically efficient design in the first place) but the airframe of the latest generation will bear little resemblance to the original.
Are you stating :-
That the 109S is a completely new airframe built to JAR27/29 standards?
That the 109S has in the cabin JAR27/29 standard stroking crashworthy seats?
I think the words the Agusta paperwork uses is 'crash resistent' and that rear seat is the same old fuel tank that has no stroking capability beyond that endowed by the cushion filling.
The Grand will win on its undoubted merit not on misinterpretation of the airframe features of that mock-up.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
may i ask something from left field, i am only a student, so don't laugh too hard.
has there ever been a concerted effort to design a purpose built EMS helo?
granted the helo is destined to be multi-functional aircraft , but has anyone, as an entity (EMS pilots & crew in particular) sat down & collectively said "this is what we need/require from the aircraft", then passed that to any/all helo manufacturers.
I can appreciate the process that an organisation must have to go through in its search for the next replacement A/C to replace an aging unit(s)
why isn't there a machine that specifically meets the needs of the EMS community outright, is it such a difficult solution that no one machine could be designed, by a prudent manufacturer, to accomplish such an obviously high demand role. Surely EMS would have to be the 2nd biggest market to the obvious military troop movers?
similiar to the A-10 i suppose, the purpose was they found the gun they wanted to out-range the ZSU-23-4, then made it fly.
in this case we obviously need an ambulance
how many times have you heard a woman say: "this kitchen must have been designed by a man".
& i suppose more pertinantly if it hasn't already been done - why not, & if it has, did they (A/C manuf.) listen?
just a thought (from the outside looking in).
has there ever been a concerted effort to design a purpose built EMS helo?
granted the helo is destined to be multi-functional aircraft , but has anyone, as an entity (EMS pilots & crew in particular) sat down & collectively said "this is what we need/require from the aircraft", then passed that to any/all helo manufacturers.
I can appreciate the process that an organisation must have to go through in its search for the next replacement A/C to replace an aging unit(s)
why isn't there a machine that specifically meets the needs of the EMS community outright, is it such a difficult solution that no one machine could be designed, by a prudent manufacturer, to accomplish such an obviously high demand role. Surely EMS would have to be the 2nd biggest market to the obvious military troop movers?
similiar to the A-10 i suppose, the purpose was they found the gun they wanted to out-range the ZSU-23-4, then made it fly.
in this case we obviously need an ambulance
how many times have you heard a woman say: "this kitchen must have been designed by a man".
& i suppose more pertinantly if it hasn't already been done - why not, & if it has, did they (A/C manuf.) listen?
just a thought (from the outside looking in).
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA News:
Perhaps you need to read what I actually said again!!
I did not mention JAR 27/29 at any stage and since when did the seats become part of the airframe. What I said was the airframe will bear little resemblance to the A model except for the overall concept and shape and this is correct. The cabin door structure is revised signifcantly, as are the cockpit doors and surrounds, the PW207 require new mounting structure, the tail boom includes the strenghtening mods and the undercarriage attachments are revised significantly.
Perhaps you need to read what I actually said again!!
I did not mention JAR 27/29 at any stage and since when did the seats become part of the airframe. What I said was the airframe will bear little resemblance to the A model except for the overall concept and shape and this is correct. The cabin door structure is revised signifcantly, as are the cockpit doors and surrounds, the PW207 require new mounting structure, the tail boom includes the strenghtening mods and the undercarriage attachments are revised significantly.
My apologies, I was taking my lead from TCs comment on the 'same old airframe' - I assumed [perhaps incorrectly] that HE was talking about the 'same old airframe' as in the A109E Power as opposed to the same old airframe of 1978 vintage [the A].
Anyway that resolves whether you were suggesting JAR27/29, you were not. On the mock-up it was the seats that confirmed that, just a clue but worth noting.
I suspect that if the manufacturers [AW] had really been able to 'start again' they would also have deepened the fuselage to give more headroom in the back as well as gone sideways. Policemen are traditionally tall and even the back row of the 135 and 145 are severely challenged in that respect. The only constant headroom winner is the 900.
Anyway that resolves whether you were suggesting JAR27/29, you were not. On the mock-up it was the seats that confirmed that, just a clue but worth noting.
I suspect that if the manufacturers [AW] had really been able to 'start again' they would also have deepened the fuselage to give more headroom in the back as well as gone sideways. Policemen are traditionally tall and even the back row of the 135 and 145 are severely challenged in that respect. The only constant headroom winner is the 900.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA News:
I agree entirely that a clean sheet design would probably have included an further increased cabin height.
It is interesting to note however that the figures I have been given in the past by the various manufacturers seem contradictory to the general perception (but I am open to correction if these cabin height figures are incorrect):
EC135: 126cm
MD902: 124cm
A109E: 128cm
Any observations on the Grand from the info you have to hand?
I agree entirely that a clean sheet design would probably have included an further increased cabin height.
It is interesting to note however that the figures I have been given in the past by the various manufacturers seem contradictory to the general perception (but I am open to correction if these cabin height figures are incorrect):
EC135: 126cm
MD902: 124cm
A109E: 128cm
Any observations on the Grand from the info you have to hand?
Unfortunately the papers AW gave out on the day were fuzzy and did not even give the new width dimensions.
The cabin of the mock-up was constantly full with people so I never got a real chance at a sit and see. There was plenty of evidence from studying those who were in the cabin though.
Most of my Grand opinions came from comparing Power and Grand photos and line drawings after the event.
As for the others in the pack [135/145/109/900] I have sat in and flown in them all and although the business end of the ECs [first two rows] have more than ample room the third row of these and the rear cabin of the 109 all failed to fit with a helmet on. Fortunately in each of the flights in the back I was without helmet. One flight in EC135 NESV I was able to wear a helmet in comfort in row 2.
I am 6 feet 4 inches so it is perhaps a little unfair on all of them. But that means anyone over 6 feet wearing a helmet would have a similar problem. In the past that was a reasonable height for a policeman.
You can prove as much as you like with numbers. I have stuck myself in the back of each of them and sat in the space available. In the rear of the 109 and 119 I had to sit slightly crooked to fit in bare headed. A helmet was out of the question.
I was rejected from flying in row 3 of another EC135 because the helmet/seat belt and size did not work out. My seat was given up to a 5' 5" pretty young thing!
Going back a generation there are no such problems in an AS355/350!
The 900 has plenty of headroom, its problems lie elsewhere.
The cabin of the mock-up was constantly full with people so I never got a real chance at a sit and see. There was plenty of evidence from studying those who were in the cabin though.
Most of my Grand opinions came from comparing Power and Grand photos and line drawings after the event.
As for the others in the pack [135/145/109/900] I have sat in and flown in them all and although the business end of the ECs [first two rows] have more than ample room the third row of these and the rear cabin of the 109 all failed to fit with a helmet on. Fortunately in each of the flights in the back I was without helmet. One flight in EC135 NESV I was able to wear a helmet in comfort in row 2.
I am 6 feet 4 inches so it is perhaps a little unfair on all of them. But that means anyone over 6 feet wearing a helmet would have a similar problem. In the past that was a reasonable height for a policeman.
You can prove as much as you like with numbers. I have stuck myself in the back of each of them and sat in the space available. In the rear of the 109 and 119 I had to sit slightly crooked to fit in bare headed. A helmet was out of the question.
I was rejected from flying in row 3 of another EC135 because the helmet/seat belt and size did not work out. My seat was given up to a 5' 5" pretty young thing!
Going back a generation there are no such problems in an AS355/350!
The 900 has plenty of headroom, its problems lie elsewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA News:
Thanks for your comments, I can also concur from experience that in my opinion the 900 does have the edge on cabin height, but was merely making the point that the published figures would have you believe otherwise. I also note your last comment.
As you mentioned, the details AW provided at Farnborough were a bit vague but hopefully all will be revealed in due course.
Thanks for your comments, I can also concur from experience that in my opinion the 900 does have the edge on cabin height, but was merely making the point that the published figures would have you believe otherwise. I also note your last comment.
As you mentioned, the details AW provided at Farnborough were a bit vague but hopefully all will be revealed in due course.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some additional info on cabin size and baggage bay of the Grand:
(1) Cabin
Width: 161cm
Height: 128cm
Length: 230cm
(2) Baggage Bay:
Width: 129cm max
Height: 75cm max
Length: 230cm max
*May not be correct as not provided by AW or SH.
(1) Cabin
Width: 161cm
Height: 128cm
Length: 230cm
(2) Baggage Bay:
Width: 129cm max
Height: 75cm max
Length: 230cm max
*May not be correct as not provided by AW or SH.
(1) Cabin
Width: 161cm
Height: 128cm
Length: 230cm
(2) Baggage Bay:
Width: 129cm max
Height: 75cm max
Length: 230cm max
I think we have to take those numbers as suspect but they may be right. The numbers in the Agusta data for the standard A109E come out at...
(1) Cabin
Width: 161cm
Height: 128cm
Length: 210cm
2) Baggage Bay:
Width: 110cm max
Height: 71cm max
Length: 230cm max
That suggests that there is no gain in height [expected] or width [and yet the airframe appears to be wider].
There is of course a change in length although these slight differences suggest that the cabin length has gained at no loss to the baggage compartment - although its overall volume us down (?)
Perhaps the new doors soaked up the width increase and affected the width of the baggage compartment?
Width: 161cm
Height: 128cm
Length: 230cm
(2) Baggage Bay:
Width: 129cm max
Height: 75cm max
Length: 230cm max
I think we have to take those numbers as suspect but they may be right. The numbers in the Agusta data for the standard A109E come out at...
(1) Cabin
Width: 161cm
Height: 128cm
Length: 210cm
2) Baggage Bay:
Width: 110cm max
Height: 71cm max
Length: 230cm max
That suggests that there is no gain in height [expected] or width [and yet the airframe appears to be wider].
There is of course a change in length although these slight differences suggest that the cabin length has gained at no loss to the baggage compartment - although its overall volume us down (?)
Perhaps the new doors soaked up the width increase and affected the width of the baggage compartment?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few interesting questions which I'm afraid I dont have ready answers for unfortunately.
I too had been told that the cabin width had increased by a couple of cm so I am not sure whether my information is as accurate as I had hoped.
The overall length of the airframe is increased, however the new MRB system means that overall the signature of the S is slightly less than that of the E.
I'm not sure how tha baggage bay volume can less (if in fact it is) than that of the E but I will find out.
I too had been told that the cabin width had increased by a couple of cm so I am not sure whether my information is as accurate as I had hoped.
The overall length of the airframe is increased, however the new MRB system means that overall the signature of the S is slightly less than that of the E.
I'm not sure how tha baggage bay volume can less (if in fact it is) than that of the E but I will find out.
My baggage volume comment related to the 109P width figure being smaller than the 109E. If the usable airframe interior was longer the volume might stay the same but be calculated from different dimensions [if you can still follow me!] .
I just hope that AW know what their selling and the customers understand them..... cos I am losing it!
I think we will have to await confirmation of those numbers because at the moment the overall interior of the Grand looks smaller than its predecessor and that cannot be right!
I just hope that AW know what their selling and the customers understand them..... cos I am losing it!
I think we will have to await confirmation of those numbers because at the moment the overall interior of the Grand looks smaller than its predecessor and that cannot be right!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: oceanside
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can anyone confirm if the grande will also include the new fenestron tailrotor that agusta has for the 109 and will the skid mod be offered, both are well along and it would seem a positive upgrade for all markets
dr
dr
First I have heard of it.
It is a new tail rotor though, described as 'paddle' whatever that means. Not seen on the mock-up of course. I guess its shorter and with a wider chord..... quieter?
It is a new tail rotor though, described as 'paddle' whatever that means. Not seen on the mock-up of course. I guess its shorter and with a wider chord..... quieter?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hover Bovver:
The aft bulkhead is not pushed back to increase the cabin space. There is a cabin plug/extension in the mid section of the fuselage. The baggage bay of the S should be at the very least the same as the E if not bigger.
Chopper Dr:
Dont know where you got this info but as far as I am aware there are no plans for a Fenestron or indeed skids. As to why skids would be a positive upgrade for all markets is anyones guess, if anything this would reduce capability.
PA News:
The 'Paddle' tail rotor blade design is a composite blade which is significantly shorter tip to root and has quite a wide chord. Apparently substantially reduces T/R noise levels.
The aft bulkhead is not pushed back to increase the cabin space. There is a cabin plug/extension in the mid section of the fuselage. The baggage bay of the S should be at the very least the same as the E if not bigger.
Chopper Dr:
Dont know where you got this info but as far as I am aware there are no plans for a Fenestron or indeed skids. As to why skids would be a positive upgrade for all markets is anyones guess, if anything this would reduce capability.
PA News:
The 'Paddle' tail rotor blade design is a composite blade which is significantly shorter tip to root and has quite a wide chord. Apparently substantially reduces T/R noise levels.