Agusta A109
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Italy UK and USA
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A109 Power TOT Scale
Blenderpilot
The scale is non linear. Temperatures from 0°- 450°C are at low resolution. The more interesting area for us is from 451°-1000°C and that section of the scale is at a high resolution.
The White Tick indicates the point at which the scale changes.
Speds
The scale is non linear. Temperatures from 0°- 450°C are at low resolution. The more interesting area for us is from 451°-1000°C and that section of the scale is at a high resolution.
The White Tick indicates the point at which the scale changes.
Speds
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that he means scale, by saying resolution, as in below the white line the scale is quite small (big temp changes per cm) and past the white line the scale is larger( smaller temp change per cm so more visually accurate )
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scale is non linear. Temperatures from 0°- 450°C are at low resolution. The more interesting area for us is from 451°-1000°C and that section of the scale is at a high resolution.
The White Tick indicates the point at which the scale changes.
Speds
The White Tick indicates the point at which the scale changes.
Speds
109power
Heema
I read your post and thought what rubbish.
I apologise, I calculated the figures for our 3000kg 109E and with 5 pob @ 130kts cruise @ 3000' you could actually do that at the old weight of 2850kgs, assuming 200kgs per hour at 130kts at 3000' and 85kgs per person, 5 inc pilot. [ And before anyone says it no i didn't go to the flight manual for the fuel flow, just a quick estimate based upon operating it].
You would run out of fuel on landing but you could in theory do it.
With a 3000kg machine you could do it with 75kgs a side as a reserve.
You live and learn.
GS
I read your post and thought what rubbish.
I apologise, I calculated the figures for our 3000kg 109E and with 5 pob @ 130kts cruise @ 3000' you could actually do that at the old weight of 2850kgs, assuming 200kgs per hour at 130kts at 3000' and 85kgs per person, 5 inc pilot. [ And before anyone says it no i didn't go to the flight manual for the fuel flow, just a quick estimate based upon operating it].
You would run out of fuel on landing but you could in theory do it.
With a 3000kg machine you could do it with 75kgs a side as a reserve.
You live and learn.
GS
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 424 Likes
on
224 Posts
And with an "S" model you would land with an hour's fuel plus a bit in hand (3175 Kgs MAUM).
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 100%-102% N2/NR switch has given us food for though recently, it just happens that around here on hot days our first limitation is TOT on the 109E, AND going up to 102% pushes the TOT quite a bit, so my and a colleague were discussing the "what if" we took off with 100% instead of 102% every now and then to avoid being limited by the TOT sooner than necessary.
If my memory serves me right, going up to 102% is not in the limitations section but rather in the Norm Procedures so it is not mandatory (or is it not?).
But my question is . . . . . what is the benefit of being at 102 instead of 100?
Two benefits that come to mind are . . . .
- Having a little higher N2 RPM during an Eng Failure, thus having a little more time to spare in case of
- Having more TR RPM's thus having more TR authority, which with the older metal blades is not really an issue as they have much more authority than the new composite blades.
But I wonder if having 102 at TO will improve lifting ability vs. 100? To me it's the contrary as you will reach the engine limits faster and will be unable to pull more pitch with out exceeding something.
Opinions and thoughts?
If my memory serves me right, going up to 102% is not in the limitations section but rather in the Norm Procedures so it is not mandatory (or is it not?).
But my question is . . . . . what is the benefit of being at 102 instead of 100?
Two benefits that come to mind are . . . .
- Having a little higher N2 RPM during an Eng Failure, thus having a little more time to spare in case of
- Having more TR RPM's thus having more TR authority, which with the older metal blades is not really an issue as they have much more authority than the new composite blades.
But I wonder if having 102 at TO will improve lifting ability vs. 100? To me it's the contrary as you will reach the engine limits faster and will be unable to pull more pitch with out exceeding something.
Opinions and thoughts?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Assuming there is no change in rotor efficiency between 100 and 102, the logic should go as folows:
The power required to hover will be the same regardless of the rotor RPM. The engines shouldn't care what RPM they are driving the rotor at, and the TOT and N1 should be the same (torque will be slightly lower at 102 than 100, as power is torque times RPM).
The change in TOT you see as you bump the RPM to 102 should be transitory and return to the original value when everything settles down.
This, as was first stated, assumes the rotor doesn't change efficiency between the two RPMs.
The reason for the higher RPM is more than likely for OEI considerations as you state.
The power required to hover will be the same regardless of the rotor RPM. The engines shouldn't care what RPM they are driving the rotor at, and the TOT and N1 should be the same (torque will be slightly lower at 102 than 100, as power is torque times RPM).
The change in TOT you see as you bump the RPM to 102 should be transitory and return to the original value when everything settles down.
This, as was first stated, assumes the rotor doesn't change efficiency between the two RPMs.
The reason for the higher RPM is more than likely for OEI considerations as you state.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 424 Likes
on
224 Posts
The 102% is a performance requirement, to ameliorate excessive Nr droop if an engine fails below Vy where you are likely to be close to the ground.
Agusta T/R blades - how do they work?
I'm trying to guess how do these weights at the root of the blades work? Do they help to reduce pitch moment forces on the T/R mechanics? Could someone refresh me on how do they work?
Last edited by Phoinix; 6th Apr 2008 at 20:09.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phoinix, these reduce the "tennis raquet" effect. Each tail rotor blade occupies a radial segment of tail rotor disc, rather than the ideal radial line. The centrifugal force (in the blade reference coord system) is thus trying to flatten out the blades in rotor plane. The weights are also trying to lie in plane, so that the two resulting pitch torques cancel. This just keeps the pedal forces sensible.
Hope that helps!
Hope that helps!
Blender Pilot,
Apart from the High Nr switch I think you may find that on the 109E the engines breath slightly differently (vaguely remember L and R power charts). There is another switch on the overhead which will match TOT rather than Q so you don't reach a TOT limitation on one engine first where that may be a limiting factor.
Apart from the High Nr switch I think you may find that on the 109E the engines breath slightly differently (vaguely remember L and R power charts). There is another switch on the overhead which will match TOT rather than Q so you don't reach a TOT limitation on one engine first where that may be a limiting factor.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: paris
Age: 55
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A109S GRAND feedback
Hello there
I am a corporate pilot, flying an EC 135 T2+ in France. We have no engineer in the company, and the 135 has proven to be very reliable. It is very nice to fly, and I appreciate the "avionique nouvelle", really ideal for SPIFR.
But my boss looks for a helicopter that goes faster and farther, for about the same size...
I have been favourably impressed by the GRAND. It seems to be superior in speed, range, cabine volume and finitions (and aesthetically too, which is more subjective...).
But I would appreciate some feedback about the everyday use of the A109S, in the VIP role... From the pilot's point of view of course, but also the engineers and the passengers!
Thanks for your help!
I am a corporate pilot, flying an EC 135 T2+ in France. We have no engineer in the company, and the 135 has proven to be very reliable. It is very nice to fly, and I appreciate the "avionique nouvelle", really ideal for SPIFR.
But my boss looks for a helicopter that goes faster and farther, for about the same size...
I have been favourably impressed by the GRAND. It seems to be superior in speed, range, cabine volume and finitions (and aesthetically too, which is more subjective...).
But I would appreciate some feedback about the everyday use of the A109S, in the VIP role... From the pilot's point of view of course, but also the engineers and the passengers!
Thanks for your help!
Italy: A109E Level D Simulator Training Now Available at Rotorsim
Rotorsim A109E simulatorTo support the training needs of our A109 operators, AugstaWestland's Rotorsim training center in Sesto Calende, Italy, now has a Level D, FAA and JAA certified, A109E simulator available to meet your Type Rating, Recurrent, or Dry Time requirements. Rotorsim is an organization committed to providing comprehensive training solutions to AgustaWestland helicopter operators around the world. We offer a full range of flight and mission training to civil, para-military, and offshore operators. Our training center is staffed A109 Power Level D Simulator Training Now Available at Rotorsim Flight crew of Estado de Mexico Rescata by experienced subject matter experts using the latest technologies and training concepts to deliver a superior training experience.
The CAE-built A109 simulator allows the aircrew to train for any normal or emergency situation they might encounter, including takeoff/ landing, engine failure, IFR conditions, and a range of mission-specific environments. Our A109 simulator has been operational since November 2006. We have a 6-hour Standard Recurrent Package that includes day, night, IFR, and emergency training. Additionally, we have the ability to tailor a custom course that meets your specific training needs. Please contact Mike Moffitt at [email protected] or Craig Zysk at [email protected] to arrange for your A109 training at our operational and certified Rotorsim training center.