Agusta A109
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first brand new 412 that was shipped for theVictorian Air Ambulance contract was tied down by the door handles! Apparently the wharfies in the states insisted that is was their job to lash it to the ship and not the bell reps. Needless to say the handles were ripped off before it hit the sunny shores of Oz 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This nose wheel retraction idea is not restricted to 109s. I recall an S76 suffering the same at Brooklands UK back in the early 80s - ie prior to Air Hanson moving to Blackbushe in 88
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agusta Composite Tail Rotor Blades
I hear that Agusta are to replace the metal tail rotor blades on the 109/119 series with a chunky looking composite blade.
Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so, when?
Does anyone know if this is correct, and if so, when?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 48 Deg South
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now a skidded version of the Power would be one I would like to see. I hated the old A109C series with a passion but think the Power and Power Elite are one of the sexiest helicopters out there.
Had a good look over G-MOMO at the Air Harrods hangar, thanks to Robin Renton, and the cockpit setup is awesome. Looks like a very nice helo to fly.
Had a good look over G-MOMO at the Air Harrods hangar, thanks to Robin Renton, and the cockpit setup is awesome. Looks like a very nice helo to fly.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agusta has been flying a skidded version of the A109E Power since Feb 2001, as I saw it then with my own eyes in Italy during the factory transition course. According to them is saves 500 pounds of empty weight, so I am not sure why they are dragging their feet with it, as I am sure they would sell more in the States if they would use the skids...I know I sure wish ours had skids!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Agusta does not seem to be very customer oriented especially if you compare them to Bell, Sikorsky or MD. Hopefully they will bring the skids and the new composite blades to the market soon however.
Last edited by HeloEagle; 14th Oct 2003 at 23:29.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mum's the word. Keep it under your arm.
To: HeloEagle
Be careful what you say about Agusta. I made several comments several months ago and some ass bite that works for Agusta notified their management and now I am being sued.
Be careful what you say about Agusta. I made several comments several months ago and some ass bite that works for Agusta notified their management and now I am being sued.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read a few of the comments regarding the robustness of 109 and whether it is suited to harsher duties over and above the VIP role surely something must be said with regard to the fundamental design of the 109 from its original purpose.
The 109 was originally designed to a military specification with the emphasis on the airframe strength. Following the incidents in the UK involving the EMS and Police 109 one cannot argue with the integrity of the aircraft hull. Perhaps this was one of the major factors upon which Dyfed Powys Police made their decision.
Furthermore the 109 has been used by the UK military since four were donated by the Argentinian Army in 1982. Many thanks by the way.
A response on the subject of wheels versus skids issue from a special forces type person involved with the 109 would be very interesting. Perhaps such a person would also have the authority to comment on the operational capability of the 109 in robust conditions.
The 109 was originally designed to a military specification with the emphasis on the airframe strength. Following the incidents in the UK involving the EMS and Police 109 one cannot argue with the integrity of the aircraft hull. Perhaps this was one of the major factors upon which Dyfed Powys Police made their decision.
Furthermore the 109 has been used by the UK military since four were donated by the Argentinian Army in 1982. Many thanks by the way.
A response on the subject of wheels versus skids issue from a special forces type person involved with the 109 would be very interesting. Perhaps such a person would also have the authority to comment on the operational capability of the 109 in robust conditions.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dyfed Powys A109
Thomas Coupling, let me correct some errors on your post re the size of Force areas and the need for a 109 to improve response times.
Checking the latest police almanac clearly shows that the Dyfed Powys force area is larger than any area covered by any air support unit in England and Wales.
E.g
Dyfed Powys 2,704,305
North Wales 1,554,858
North East 2,124,132
Devon + Cornwall 2,530,516
Chiltern 2,093,073
South+East Wales 897,463
Central Counties 2,506,891
North Mids 1,183,775
(All figures shown in Acres)
The Dyfed Powys area is over 52% of Wales.
The only bigger force area is Strathclyde in Scotland.
Furthermore the argument put forward re commonality of type holds no water. North Wales, like some others may have used the Sheep approach and copied what others have bought. Surely what is more important is selecting an aircraft that meets the operational needs of the Police Authorities and public that it is to serve. When spending public money the selection process should be robust enough to stand scrutiny that the product is fit for task, not just buy the aircraft that the chief pilot or UEO prefers. Although many units assist each other with mutual aid they are generally all independently funded and run. Commonality of type would currently offer no operational or financial benefit.
I have it on good authority that Dyfed Powys committed to a rigorous selection process comparing all available types against a detailed mission profile that had been approved by the local ACPO. The operational capability, combined with the purchase costs and ongoing running cost were all taken into consideration.
The 109 was found to be by far the most capable compared to the mission profile AND have a cheaper purchase price (including a full NVG compatible cockpit, NOT available on the 135 or 902)
Given the recent history the force had had with their previous 109, the safety and capability of the type would have been the subject of considerable scrutiny by pilots, observers, ACPO and "bean counters" alike, before deciding to buy another. The fact that they have is testament to the advantages in performance and price that it offers.
Checking the latest police almanac clearly shows that the Dyfed Powys force area is larger than any area covered by any air support unit in England and Wales.
E.g
Dyfed Powys 2,704,305
North Wales 1,554,858
North East 2,124,132
Devon + Cornwall 2,530,516
Chiltern 2,093,073
South+East Wales 897,463
Central Counties 2,506,891
North Mids 1,183,775
(All figures shown in Acres)
The Dyfed Powys area is over 52% of Wales.
The only bigger force area is Strathclyde in Scotland.
Furthermore the argument put forward re commonality of type holds no water. North Wales, like some others may have used the Sheep approach and copied what others have bought. Surely what is more important is selecting an aircraft that meets the operational needs of the Police Authorities and public that it is to serve. When spending public money the selection process should be robust enough to stand scrutiny that the product is fit for task, not just buy the aircraft that the chief pilot or UEO prefers. Although many units assist each other with mutual aid they are generally all independently funded and run. Commonality of type would currently offer no operational or financial benefit.
I have it on good authority that Dyfed Powys committed to a rigorous selection process comparing all available types against a detailed mission profile that had been approved by the local ACPO. The operational capability, combined with the purchase costs and ongoing running cost were all taken into consideration.
The 109 was found to be by far the most capable compared to the mission profile AND have a cheaper purchase price (including a full NVG compatible cockpit, NOT available on the 135 or 902)
Given the recent history the force had had with their previous 109, the safety and capability of the type would have been the subject of considerable scrutiny by pilots, observers, ACPO and "bean counters" alike, before deciding to buy another. The fact that they have is testament to the advantages in performance and price that it offers.
Last edited by JoBurg; 6th Nov 2003 at 02:07.
Regardless of the content of your post I note that you have changed your handle to a brand new one before posting that JoBerg.
You really should build yourself up a spare for ventures like that!
You really should build yourself up a spare for ventures like that!
Joburger: I stand corrected re the geographical size of your force area, shame 90% of the population live in only 30% of it!
I also have it from first hand knowledge that this a/c came third on the list of choices BEHIND the 135 and 902, to do the job. And it was a long way behind in third place.
Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to accept that this force decided that their mission profile was so far removed from 99% of the rest of the country that they had to select a very different a/c to do the job.
I would suggest that us sheep might just possibly have realised that there was some merit in:
modern JAR 27 capable helos
purpose built for the job in hand
common ground in sharing experiences with all the other sheep
User groups for sheep
ample relief sheep to fly the a/c
ample type rated examiners
It came down, quite simply (because we are after all, sheep) to money - plain and simple. Bean counters rule...and always will, sorry.
I also have it from first hand knowledge that this a/c came third on the list of choices BEHIND the 135 and 902, to do the job. And it was a long way behind in third place.
Do you honestly expect me (or anyone else for that matter) to accept that this force decided that their mission profile was so far removed from 99% of the rest of the country that they had to select a very different a/c to do the job.
I would suggest that us sheep might just possibly have realised that there was some merit in:
modern JAR 27 capable helos
purpose built for the job in hand
common ground in sharing experiences with all the other sheep
User groups for sheep
ample relief sheep to fly the a/c
ample type rated examiners
It came down, quite simply (because we are after all, sheep) to money - plain and simple. Bean counters rule...and always will, sorry.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas Coupling Gets Facts Wrong Again
Tommy "bah bah" Coupler : Whoever your contact who says they have "first hand knowledge" of the selection scores is, don't pay them, as they are giving you duff gen. I've seen it in black and white and the 109 out-scored both the other two on performance and price.
I think we have established that due to the size and demographics of the Dyfed powys area their mission profile will vary from many more urban forces.
However, I accept that the mission profile is not that different from many other forces who have chosen another type, e.g a 135.
The difference is that senior staff in many of those forces air support units a.k.a. The Sheep, Chief Pilot etc. chose the aircraft first and then wrote their selection criteria/mission profile to ensure that it was biased to the one they wanted.
Of course the reason many do this is that they see their neighbours shiny new toys and make the mistake of believing the marketing bumpf which claims great things. Unfortunately, many find that, unlike Ronseal, it doesn't do what it says on the tin. The promised increase in performance over their old squirrels is minimal and they can't actually achieve some elements of the mission profile.
When they find this out it is too late and they daren't let on as their senior officers and bean counters would turn them into lamb chops.
Dyfed's first 109 came about after withdrawing from an initial order for a 135. At the time of that order, the 135 in the police role was merely a concept and the aircrafts performance/weight was projected. It sounded like the best thing since sliced bread, but as the project moved on it became clear that the final product was not going to get anywhere near the promised increase in usable payload and endurance. It was brave of the then Chief Constable to avoid being another sheep and cancel the order, changing to an aircraft that could achieve the necessary performance.
Four years on and still the 135 struggled to reach the first promised levels of performance. Even the T2 model still falls way short of a 109 in endurance, useable payload, speed, tail rotor authority etc etc (and the 109 is cheaper)
I'm sure their are some marketing men out their who will tell you different, but you've dealt with them long enough to know the score !
Hows the promised 135 NVG conversion coming on by the way ? 5 years and still counting some say ?
I think we have established that due to the size and demographics of the Dyfed powys area their mission profile will vary from many more urban forces.
However, I accept that the mission profile is not that different from many other forces who have chosen another type, e.g a 135.
The difference is that senior staff in many of those forces air support units a.k.a. The Sheep, Chief Pilot etc. chose the aircraft first and then wrote their selection criteria/mission profile to ensure that it was biased to the one they wanted.
Of course the reason many do this is that they see their neighbours shiny new toys and make the mistake of believing the marketing bumpf which claims great things. Unfortunately, many find that, unlike Ronseal, it doesn't do what it says on the tin. The promised increase in performance over their old squirrels is minimal and they can't actually achieve some elements of the mission profile.
When they find this out it is too late and they daren't let on as their senior officers and bean counters would turn them into lamb chops.
Dyfed's first 109 came about after withdrawing from an initial order for a 135. At the time of that order, the 135 in the police role was merely a concept and the aircrafts performance/weight was projected. It sounded like the best thing since sliced bread, but as the project moved on it became clear that the final product was not going to get anywhere near the promised increase in usable payload and endurance. It was brave of the then Chief Constable to avoid being another sheep and cancel the order, changing to an aircraft that could achieve the necessary performance.
Four years on and still the 135 struggled to reach the first promised levels of performance. Even the T2 model still falls way short of a 109 in endurance, useable payload, speed, tail rotor authority etc etc (and the 109 is cheaper)
I'm sure their are some marketing men out their who will tell you different, but you've dealt with them long enough to know the score !
Hows the promised 135 NVG conversion coming on by the way ? 5 years and still counting some say ?
Gloves off, here we go:
Do you know what the mission profile requirement is for our 135?
Do you know what our endurance is?
What is your mission profile, such that it requires a ferrari imposter?
What is your endurance?
I was there when DP fell out with a certain maintenance organisation remember, and I know EXACTLY what went wrong. Be very careful how you interpret that one
2 yrs research went into the procurement process and at the time there were NO other new generation operators out there. I most certainly DO NOT take the credit for a massive tidal wave of similar decisions within the industry unless you believe your own drivel.
Believe it or not, it's not ONLY what it must do that counts....it's very much running costs too. The proof of the pudding as they say....
Can/will the 109 consistently achieve a 98% serviceability rate that the 13 (135) forces are experiencing to date? Mmmm...............
Of course the Agusta can do the job. There is no dispute over that. BUT can it provide an overall package of efficiency? I think not. Time will tell.
Joking aside......do you really really think 13 (135) and 11 (902) police forces didn't ever question their methods re the procurement of possibly their most expensive asset(s). Then ask yourself this: why has no-one else gone down the same road as you, billy no-mates
I do like the analogy of buying because of the robustness of the machine from your a previous experience(s). Two questions:
(a) are you expecting to crash again soon?
(b) Do you actually know the crashworthy rating of an Agusta 109E power?
Ewe should know better and stop bleating.
Do you know what the mission profile requirement is for our 135?
Do you know what our endurance is?
What is your mission profile, such that it requires a ferrari imposter?
What is your endurance?
I was there when DP fell out with a certain maintenance organisation remember, and I know EXACTLY what went wrong. Be very careful how you interpret that one
2 yrs research went into the procurement process and at the time there were NO other new generation operators out there. I most certainly DO NOT take the credit for a massive tidal wave of similar decisions within the industry unless you believe your own drivel.
Believe it or not, it's not ONLY what it must do that counts....it's very much running costs too. The proof of the pudding as they say....
Can/will the 109 consistently achieve a 98% serviceability rate that the 13 (135) forces are experiencing to date? Mmmm...............
Of course the Agusta can do the job. There is no dispute over that. BUT can it provide an overall package of efficiency? I think not. Time will tell.
Joking aside......do you really really think 13 (135) and 11 (902) police forces didn't ever question their methods re the procurement of possibly their most expensive asset(s). Then ask yourself this: why has no-one else gone down the same road as you, billy no-mates
I do like the analogy of buying because of the robustness of the machine from your a previous experience(s). Two questions:
(a) are you expecting to crash again soon?
(b) Do you actually know the crashworthy rating of an Agusta 109E power?
Ewe should know better and stop bleating.
