EC225
Keke, thanks, its always interesting to hear the views of the passengers on relative merits.
On the subject of aircon, the 225 can of course be fitted with aircon and our fleet in Australia is so fitted. Its an option that UK oil and gas companies don't want to pay for. However it must be admitted that when so equipped, the weight of the 225 increases to the point where it can't carry 19 with full fuel.
On the subject of cabin space, its interesting that the actual cabin floor area of a 92 is only a little greater than a 225, and they are closer still if the window recesses of the 225 are taken into consideration. If there is an inch in each of width and length per passenger, that is about all. Of course the 92 has a much taller cabin and this gives the impression of more space, but space that is not used when the passengers are sitting down. However, whether imagined or not, it does seem that the space of the 92 cabin pleases the passengers!
I won't mention the tiny S92 windows!
On the subject of aircon, the 225 can of course be fitted with aircon and our fleet in Australia is so fitted. Its an option that UK oil and gas companies don't want to pay for. However it must be admitted that when so equipped, the weight of the 225 increases to the point where it can't carry 19 with full fuel.
On the subject of cabin space, its interesting that the actual cabin floor area of a 92 is only a little greater than a 225, and they are closer still if the window recesses of the 225 are taken into consideration. If there is an inch in each of width and length per passenger, that is about all. Of course the 92 has a much taller cabin and this gives the impression of more space, but space that is not used when the passengers are sitting down. However, whether imagined or not, it does seem that the space of the 92 cabin pleases the passengers!
I won't mention the tiny S92 windows!
From an earlier discussion.....
So what is the truth here on Windows.....between the 225....and the 92?
If the floor is slightly larger on the 92 and the cabin is much taller....it is a bigger Cabin....spin it all you want HC....but Sardine Cans are known for being wide, flat, and very not-tall.
The S92 windows are actually bigger that the standard AS332L/L2 push out windows, so I wouldn't exactly call them small. They are 5 inches higher above the floor than the Super Puma windows. The large EC225 windows are great (and expensive), pity the cabin is still the standard sardine can.
So what is the truth here on Windows.....between the 225....and the 92?
If the floor is slightly larger on the 92 and the cabin is much taller....it is a bigger Cabin....spin it all you want HC....but Sardine Cans are known for being wide, flat, and very not-tall.
Last edited by SASless; 14th Jul 2013 at 16:52.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
take them out for 2 weeks of purgatory
Comet became Nimrods or something like that.
Plenty of room on the line as the Comet was not exactly a commercial success.
Comparisons again!
SAS,Ii don't need to do any research to work out which person with a commercial vested interest you are quoting! Do we really want to drag up the old battleground? Well, you started it!
S92 windows 38cm x 49cm
EC225 windows 44cm x 71cm. 68% larger area.
Cabin floor size
S92 width 6.6ft, length 20ft
EC225 width 5.9ft, length 19.5ft, although the width tapers for the back 2 rows, hence only 2 seats at the back.
Cabin height
S92 6ft
EC225 4.8ft
So big difference in height which gives the perception of big increase in space, but space that is mostly only usable when embarking and disembarking.
VL, although I don't fly much, I can't remember ever having to bump bags, although I admit it can happen with a heli full of divers etc. It doesn't happen for a "normal" crew change.
S92 windows 38cm x 49cm
EC225 windows 44cm x 71cm. 68% larger area.
Cabin floor size
S92 width 6.6ft, length 20ft
EC225 width 5.9ft, length 19.5ft, although the width tapers for the back 2 rows, hence only 2 seats at the back.
Cabin height
S92 6ft
EC225 4.8ft
So big difference in height which gives the perception of big increase in space, but space that is mostly only usable when embarking and disembarking.
VL, although I don't fly much, I can't remember ever having to bump bags, although I admit it can happen with a heli full of divers etc. It doesn't happen for a "normal" crew change.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 14th Jul 2013 at 19:01.
SAS,Ii don't need to do any research to work out which person with a commercial vested interest you are quoting!
As I only pulled part of a long post.....so did not attribute the small portion to the original poster.
May I assume you refer to Optional Windows on the 225 and not to the standard fit?
Somehow....I seem to see the additional cabin height to be of value no matter the manner of entrance/exit used....and whether it is a Normal procedure or one done under water in the dark....that extra height makes a world of difference not matter what.
:
SAS, there is only one size of windows on all 225s used for oil and gas, its not an option. IIRC in the very early days (2005) EC decided to make the enlarged windows standard. I suspect that the military EC725 and maybe some early VIP config aircraft don't have them, but then they have different types of door and are not designed to spend their lives over water.
Lets see, finding a tiny window in a huge cabin vs finding a huge window in a tiny cabin - which would be easier?. Not sure, though not finding oneself under water is obviously the preferred option.
Lets see, finding a tiny window in a huge cabin vs finding a huge window in a tiny cabin - which would be easier?. Not sure, though not finding oneself under water is obviously the preferred option.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 14th Jul 2013 at 20:24.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC and SAS can argue all they want about windows. The fact is our passengers like (almost) the S-92. Its recent reliability and on time readiness means that they trust it. Conversely, they don't want to ride the 225 with the interim shaft fix.
Last edited by terminus mos; 17th Jul 2013 at 02:35.
Terminus, I think it depends on when you asked them! In the early days, the 92 was pretty unreliable and there were a lot of adverse comments about noise and vibration. Then they were scared after the fatal accident and the gearbox foot issue. Now that has settled down, the reliability as you say is better and since they are now scared of the 225, the S92 seems the better option to them. However these things have a habit of cycling round and at some point the 92 will probably scare someone again. Meantime the 225 having had a long absence will perhaps make its mark again!
On the subject of reliability, I think SKY were quicker to tackle annoying reliability issues, but EC are hopefully catching up and there has been a lot of work going on in the background, even whilst they are grounded, to tackle some of the recurring unreliability issues on the 225. Hopefully when it returns, the reliability stats will show its been worthwhile.
On the subject of reliability, I think SKY were quicker to tackle annoying reliability issues, but EC are hopefully catching up and there has been a lot of work going on in the background, even whilst they are grounded, to tackle some of the recurring unreliability issues on the 225. Hopefully when it returns, the reliability stats will show its been worthwhile.
You can stretch and pad the 225 as much as you like but the girth will remain the same.
The 225 shares the same basic fuselage as its predecessor, AS330 Puma, which was built to a French Army requirement. Two of those requirements were:
To fit into the back of a C160 Transall.
To fit on a flatbed SNCF truck.
For the Transall there was a portable crane that attached to the side of the aircraft that enabled a team to remove the engines and gearbox in 30 minutes. A trolley arrangement that the aircraft was pushed over and then the mainwheels retracted so that the pylon canted down as it went in the back. A feature similar to the present 'kneel' facility and used for the same purpose.
For the SNCF it had to be narrow. Fans of armoured vehicles will know that French troop carriers of the period were famously high and narrow for the same reason.
I would support the reasoning that there was no point in designing a larger fuselage. It hits the military market, the S92 does not have one, and you are only adding space that is not used. I have spent a lot of time on operations where I am in direct social contact with my passengers and I have never received any complaints about lack of space, trust in the aircraft or anything else.
The 225 shares the same basic fuselage as its predecessor, AS330 Puma, which was built to a French Army requirement. Two of those requirements were:
To fit into the back of a C160 Transall.
To fit on a flatbed SNCF truck.
For the Transall there was a portable crane that attached to the side of the aircraft that enabled a team to remove the engines and gearbox in 30 minutes. A trolley arrangement that the aircraft was pushed over and then the mainwheels retracted so that the pylon canted down as it went in the back. A feature similar to the present 'kneel' facility and used for the same purpose.
For the SNCF it had to be narrow. Fans of armoured vehicles will know that French troop carriers of the period were famously high and narrow for the same reason.
I would support the reasoning that there was no point in designing a larger fuselage. It hits the military market, the S92 does not have one, and you are only adding space that is not used. I have spent a lot of time on operations where I am in direct social contact with my passengers and I have never received any complaints about lack of space, trust in the aircraft or anything else.
II - don't forget that it was 167 hrs flight time. We don't know how long it was sat on a shelf or in a heli under construction before that. Probably thousands of static hours. So lots of time for the corrosion to develop, just not very long for the consequential crack to develop!
In any event what drives the TBO number?
Isn't it reasonable to expect a manufacturer to have undertaken enough of a test program to capture such faults that might occur within that timescale? (167hrs).
The problem here would seem that the two accidents threw up a host of issues that clearly they had the capability to fix and were so fundamental that one wonders why they were even issues in the first place.
Come on BB you can do better than that... the old troll thing, feed the troll etc blah is getting so predictable.
HC - so just to be clear you cool with everything. Its just one of those things and frankly the fact anyone should make any comment is a surprise?
HC - so just to be clear you cool with everything. Its just one of those things and frankly the fact anyone should make any comment is a surprise?
Perhaps....if they flew more often there would not be all that corrosion nee rust on them!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the problem SAS, the CHC one had and the Bond one hadn't and yet they apparently had the same corrosion failure but one caused by a bad angle shamfer in a plug hole and one caused by sludge, all manifesting itself on one shaft.
Part of the explanation is that some of the stresses on the shaft were underestimated at certification, but this is not "believed to be a major factor"
Management and passengers (many of whom are non aircraft engineers) say "let's just wait for the new shaft".
Part of the explanation is that some of the stresses on the shaft were underestimated at certification, but this is not "believed to be a major factor"
Management and passengers (many of whom are non aircraft engineers) say "let's just wait for the new shaft".
Last edited by terminus mos; 17th Jul 2013 at 02:37.
When the S-76 first came out....it had two fatal accidents due to rotorhead failures. I was at the factory when that happened.
The failure was put down to unforeseen stress on a threaded portion of the Blade Retention system.
Sikorsky figured out what the problem was...and made the necessary changes in the design to make the aircraft safe.
It is now a very successful aircraft....with a long service record.
There was a time you could not give a 76 away.....but those days are gone.
It will be the same for the 225....the problem will be cured and the aircraft will probably go on to a long service life as well.
With as much riding on this....EC is surely going to do what ever it takes to cure the problem.
How long it takes is the issue.....not "if".
The failure was put down to unforeseen stress on a threaded portion of the Blade Retention system.
Sikorsky figured out what the problem was...and made the necessary changes in the design to make the aircraft safe.
It is now a very successful aircraft....with a long service record.
There was a time you could not give a 76 away.....but those days are gone.
It will be the same for the 225....the problem will be cured and the aircraft will probably go on to a long service life as well.
With as much riding on this....EC is surely going to do what ever it takes to cure the problem.
How long it takes is the issue.....not "if".
Last edited by SASless; 15th Jul 2013 at 13:44.