Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them


Old 3rd Aug 2004, 19:41
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,386
Received 386 Likes on 223 Posts
I agree entirely with the advice to read AC29, and it is a must read for anyone with a passing interest in how their a/c was certificated. It explains the logic and practical aspects of testing, with tips and advice for the manufacturer. Shame there is no JAA equivelant, or is it deemd the AC is sufficient?

For more on engine certification look for JAR-E and FAR part 33 on the respective sites.
212man is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2004, 20:14
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts
Nick - nice to see you like something about the 225! It has some good ideas that Sikorsky would do well to steal (eg FLI), likewise EC with Sikorsky ideas, then we might get the perfect helicopter (plus lots of law suits )

212man - I think the underfloor fuel is grandfathered, however there is an interesting paper produced by someone at the UK CAA some time ago that made the point that it didn't make much difference whether the fuel was underfloor or outside - if it leaks and catches fire you will be in a pool of fire either way. Fuel, whilst still in tanks, tends not to burn much because it can't get enough oxygen.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2004, 21:45
  #43 (permalink)  

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 201
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't want to get bogged down in the detail of certification requirements as it is easy to start using petty detail to win points. I think it is more important to look at the global picture and make a judgement on whether the WHOLE product provides a better level of safety.

As far as the 225 and the 92 is concerned, this has to be a subjective opinion as safety can only be defined historically and neither the 225 nor the 92 has a track record as a whole product. They both use components from existing machines but until they have several thousand hours under their belts it will be impossible to make an accurate assessment.

Meeting a certification requirement is not the be all and end all. Certification requirements are always written in hindsight.

Having flown the L2 for the last 4 or so years, my gut feel is that Eurocopter has reached the end of the Puma development line. Don't get me wrong, the L2 is a great machine to fly but in my opinion it is working at its limit. The airframe is 25+ years old and there are engine and system issues which require close monitoring. The electronics are also not the most robust. The aircraft does however have good redundancy.

Operationally, the L2 does what is asked of it. Compared to the "L" the “L2” is a dream. It can carry 19 passengers most of the time with a huge amount of baggage/cargo (up to 1760 lbs/800 kgs). The 225 will do the same - but from the figures I have seen, not much more (if any). Unless baggage space is sacrificed for extra fuel tanks, its range is going to be less than that of the L2 / S92.

My main concern with the 225 is that the airframe and engines will struggle with the extra weight and power demands and serviceabilty and maintainability will be a problem.

As for Puma passenger appeal - there isn't any! In the 19 seat configuration, if it was a cattle float it would be deemed illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty.

I haven't had the opportunity to observe the S92 at close quarters. From my previous Sikorsky experiences, if I ever get to fly the 92, I suspect I would enjoy it better than the Eurocopter products I have been used to for the last 20+ years.

The cabin and cockpit has to be a winner. There is no comparison with the Puma sardine tin.

I cannot comment on the systems as I have no detailed knowledge apart from that which can be gleaned from the Sikorski web site.

Operationally, I do think that the S92 could have done with more fuel tankage. According to the figures I have seen, it can carry a full load of 19 passengers with normal baggage and full fuel. The L2/225 can only carry 16 pax (approx) with fuel fuel. Unfortunately, with a head wind of any significance, the range of both Eurocopter and Sikorsky is severely reduced. On the North Sea, this means that with a northerly wind of more than 15 - 20 knots, neither the S92 nor the L2 will be able to reach the the majority of the East Shetland Basin oilfields from Aberdeen. If the 225 gets sponson fuel tanks fitted (which will mean sacrificing baggage space) it might well make the difference. From what I understand, it will not be possible to fit extra fuel tankage to the S92 without loosing fixed passenger seats. Some may say that a crew is being spoilt by being able to carry full fuel and a full load but there are times when it is most frustrating when there is not a need to carry a full load of passengers but the spare weight capacity cannot be used by carrying more fuel. It will also mean that we will still be stuck with having to pick IFR alternates which are affected by the same weather pattern as our nominated destinations - not an ideal situation.

The big decider is going to be cost. At the end of the day, the seat/mile cost is going to determine who wins the race for the large helicopter market for the next twenty years. Eurocopter has had it good in the recent past. Maybe it is now Sikorsky’s turn. It will all be down to which government gives the best “opportunities” to allow their export price to be lower.

PS. I don't know why, Mr Moderator, but my post count below seems to have been reset back to 1. I don't think I have dreamt that I have posted on this forum before.

Last edited by HughMartin; 3rd Aug 2004 at 21:56.
HughMartin is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 01:48
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have to agree that only track rcord counts in the end, but the basis of the design is in the regs chosen to be met, and these things are quite powerful in setting the safety of the design.

Automotive examples include anti-lock brakes, air bags, anti-skid electronics or steel belted tires. There is no doubt that the technology of the features sets the baseline safety aspects. This does not make today's aircraft unfit, of course, just resets the value equation, I think.

The site I set up has a full set of slides with some systems descriptions and weights and perf. I don't know the stage lengths that you are using, or I could double check your figures.

Regarding belly fuel, there is much evidence that landing on your fuel tanks in a crash is probably not preferable (is that rocket science or what?) The heavy rubberized bags were tested in older helicopters as separate items, dropped without the belly metal structure, and without the pumps and lines and stuff. Nobody knows how the bent metal and sharp edges of a crash can tear the cells and spill the fuel, except that it happens in a fair percentage of accidents in aircraft equipped with otherwise "crashworthy" fuel cells. Because of this, new regs require that the tanks be dropped with the surrounding structure, or that they meet an even higher crash standard. Facing this new standard, the 92 had to put the fuel outside the cabin, where the cells are free to break away, and no sharp metal edges threaten them. In fact, they were tested with the representative sponson structure, to be sure they were unharmed in the drop. Also, the 92 has no pumps, no transfer lines and valves, and no pressurized fuel in the airframe, the engine pumps suck the fuel up. Much fewer leak opportunities. I have posted an .avi of it at (2.5 Megs):

Last edited by NickLappos; 4th Aug 2004 at 03:26.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 09:10
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts

I know what you mean about the L2 giving the impression that its hit the limit of development. The engines struggle and pop, the electronics require frequent "re-boots" and are generally quite glitchy, and I would have agreed with you on the 225 had I not actually flown it and seen what a huge jump up from the L2 it is.

The L2 was a transitional aircraft (ie transitioning to EFIS type cockpit) and the electronics of that age don't seem to be up to the job. However the 225 is all-new in that department, and whilst the engines are still Makila, they have addresses all the irritations of the 1A2, eg fadecs (no more popping), proportional bleed valve (no more kicking) with auto-offset scheduled on airspeed, automatic Nr+10 scheduled on airspeed, no need for NrILS, FLI which is Nr-aware.

The AFCS Upper mode and screen design was developed by the EC flight test department and it really feels like it is designed by pilots for pilots. Sorry Nick, but more so that the S92 - or maybe there's a difference between what US pilots and European pilots want?

But there's always a down side - it has the same LH accessory module as the L2

I'm not sure where you get the 16 pax from - the 225's gross weight is 11000kg - up 1700kg from the L2. There is a healthy 4200kg disposable in N sea configuration with re-inforced floor and crashworthy seats, which is slight less than the 92 but because the 225 is faster than the 92 at the same fuel burn (figures taken from both flight manuals) on a long run it only loses about 100kg of payload to the 92 and still has enough for 19 with 11kg bags each at full fuel (2250kg).

As to cockpit & cabin size the S92 ain't no S61. When I flew the 92 I didn't get the impression of any more cockpit leg room over the L2, though it is a little wider. The 92 cabin looks a lot bigger than the L2 but that is mainly down to the increased height, which is of no practical value once you are seated. If you measure up you will find that the increased length of the cabin over the L2 is only about 3 inches (for the S61 its 3 feet) and although the width is up by 7 inches, this is largely offset by the fact that the window openings are high up on the 92, whereas on the 225 (which has enlarged windows over the L2), most outside passengers can put their elbows in the window recess. However as a pilot I am selfishly concerned about what its like to fly, and there the 225 wins by a mile (OK a subjective opinion I know, but I am not the only one to have flown both that thinks so)

You are right that practically speaking, reliability and operating costs are big factors but unfortunately at the moment, none of us knows how that will pan out.

Enjoy your S92 should you get to fly it!

Nick - I agree that stopping the fuel tanks rupturing is vital to survive a crash, but if the tanks rupture and there's a fire it doesn't make much difference whether the tanks are inside or outside - there will be burning fuel everywhere! I believe that EC have now done drop tests with the tanks inside a representative structure so that they can get certification to the lastest standards. Well done to Sikorsky for making it politically desirable for them to do that!

I think the Sikorsky concept of no booster pumps has to be a good crashworthy feature (though I'd rather not crash in the first place )
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 10:34
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your premise starts with "If the tanks rupture" so natrually you see no difference. The tanks are more likely to rupture when encased in the belly of the aircraft, that's why they have been moved to safer locations in more modern designs. The strong bladder tanks away from the crash impact zone therefore don't rupture, unlike those trapped in twisted metal with pumps still pressurizing all those lines beneath the floor.

If you factor in the 1,000 lb increased empty weight of the crashworthy seats that are an "option" on the 225 I think you will find where those lost passengers went. Again, if you chose to compare, it might be a good idea to use aircraft that have similar equipment. The Oil Companies do it that way, I believe.

Regarding operating costs, you are right, nobody knows how it will pan out, except that the S-92 has a maintenance "power by the hour" program for the entire aircraft, so the operator does not have to risk those costs. And the numbers being offered beat the older aircraft by a prtty big margin, I am told.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 11:54
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts

I can't help thinking that your statement that tanks are less likely to rupture if installed outside the aircraft is based on bias and not science. Let me ask you where you would rather be when a helicopter crash lands - sitting in the cabin or standing outside 10 feet away? Unless your sponson tanks can withstand impact from a rotor blade rotating at near flight speed, I can see no less liklihood of rupture for external tanks. Of course one could come up with scenarios that favour either option - it just depends on how you choose to crash!

Yup I've already agreed with you on the pumps!

If you read my post again you will see that the figures I was using are based on the strengthened floor and crashworthy seats option that oil companies are likely to require. With that kit, the 92 and 225 have very similar disposable loads - the 92 comes in a few hundred kilos ahead but burns more fuel, so that on a long run there's not much in it. You may be looking at old figures from a couple of years ago before the gross weight of the 225 was upped to 11 tonnes?

I believe EC also has PBH for the whole aircraft (at least all the dynamic components anyway) but that is only one factor. Getting new bits "for free" as part of PBH is only minor compensation for an aircraft that is always in the hangar, annoying clients and not generating revenue. Which one is best there, only time will tell!
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 14:52
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Your opinions on crash behavior are really interesting, I wonder if we should ignore the ground impact on all crash discussions? In your novel approach to crashing, the ground is an innocent bystander, and the rotor blades are the real culpret! Wow, and all this time we thought otherwise. Look how wrong we were to think it a bad idea to have your passengers bolted to the fuel cells under the floor, between the seats and the ground during a crash!! We had better just rewrite the book, based on the salesman school you went to and its groundbreaking work (pardon the pun, I had to, didn't I?) In layman's terms, the ground is what gets you in a crash, HeliComparitor. It is not the drop, it is the sudden stop! Those pesky cells in the belly of the helo hit the ground while trapped in a maze of fuel lines, pumps and structure which is being chewed up by the impact. Spin some words, make a story, but that is WHY the cells are placed otherwise on modern helicopters.

And I love the tossing off of a ""few hundred Kilograms" of payload in your "analysis" nice, very nice. Those are the missing passengers. The studies I have seen from customers say the aircraft have the same speeds and fuel flows, so the 225's payload is always less.

Last edited by NickLappos; 4th Aug 2004 at 15:53.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 15:51
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh no Nick, not the ultimate insult accusing HeliComparator of being a salesman!
Mars is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 18:10
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts
Nick - I thought you had got over your personal attack mood - obviously not!

Crashing - like I said, it depends on how you crash! Hitting the ground hard is certainly the problem, but whether or not the fuel tanks rupture was the issue we were discussing. Yes, having fuel tanks in a crumpled pile of twisted metal is a bad thing (though I probably already be dead by then) but so is a fuel tank/sponson breaking off , bouncing and being sliced into bits by the rotors -then you get nice fine droplets of fuel with plenty of air about to burn.

I'm sure you would agree that neither scenario is desirable, but which is better, who could say?

Those "modern helicopters" you talk about woudn't happen to be the S92 by any chance would they? Some self-fulfilling logic there!

Yes, the 225's payload is always less, but unless you are going for a near-full range trip that extra payload is no use in a 19 seat configuration - both aircraft can take 19 plus bags and a bit of freight. At full range, the difference becomes about 100kg but the 225 has slightly better range (by about 15nm). This is enough to make the difference between 19 pax and lots of baggage (92) or 19 pax and a reasonable amount, ~11kg (or 25lbs to you Nick) of baggage (225).

In other words the 92 does have better payload, but its only useful in the 19 seat configuration at extremes of range, say over 350nm

Do you think everyone else is getting bored with us trading minutiae? You seem determined to hijack this thread to continue promoting your product and trashing the opposition and with relatively few people in a position to argue you have a strong hand. Its a pity the French don't have a Nick equivalent - maybe I should ask for a job?

Since I have no vested interest other than the truth, and have to get up early for a flight tomorrow, I let you get on with it!
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 19:16
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts
Oh by the way Nick, a document has just fallen into my lap which reminds me that the S92's certified maximum baggage/cargo load is 700lbs. So you have all that payload but if the passengers have lots of baggage/freight, looks like they'll have to carry it on their laps! Maybe you should design a roof-rack?

Its also interesting that the S92 is certified for min. 2 pilots VFR whereas the 225 is certified for 1 pilot VFR. Is that because the 92 is more difficult to fly safely than the 225?
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 20:19
  #52 (permalink)  

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 201
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This thread is beginning to turn into a slagging match between Nick and Helicomparator (which seems somewhat of a misnomer as he/she does not truly compare).

I am a bit concerned about this alleged 700lb baggage/cargo limit. I had heard this sometime ago and, via a PM, Nick implied that the baggage bay limit was significantly higher. If it is true, it is not much more than the S76 baggage bay limit. Nick- can you clarify?

As to range/payload calculations, I hope the 225 has more accurate airspeed indications systems than those fitted to the L2 which constantly over-read in cruise flight by, I suspect at least 7-8%.

No one has yet compared Group/Cat A performance. Do the aircraft need 800 metres of runway to take off which is more than some fixed wing aircraft need?

I hope that anyone who has ordered 225's or 92's have included a performance guarantee in their contract with the supplier.
HughMartin is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 20:58
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 1500' AMSL
Age: 68
Posts: 412
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I believe you are a bit unfair helicomparator, and this thread tends to turn into a mad dogs fight....and when you are stating that eurocopter would need an nick lappos equivalent, there is no risk in that....with this company's arrogant and distant attitude towards the "common" public and users
Nick has been giving for long, a very precious contribution and informations to everyone on this forum, knowing his involvment in the S92 project, we cannot blame the sometimes commercialy oriented arguments.
This appart, beeing french myself, I regret the absence (or the too late intervention( of a 'french equivalent" of M.Nick Lappos on this forum, to talk a little bit more about EC helicopters.
cpt is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2004, 21:02
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts

You are right - its a slagging match but not from my choice - I am only (over?) reacting to Nick's one-sidedness in the interests of balancing the thread. As I have said many times, both are good aircraft though neither perfect. Do you think I should shut up and let him have a free hand with his sales pitch?

The L2 overreads on airspeed because of the location of the static ports (on the pitot head) causes that error which, although reported in the flight manual, nevertheless has the potential to get pilots into trouble (been there done that!)

The 225 has reverted to the 332L location for the ports, presumably making the error the other way as it was in the 332 - a much safer situation.

Having (probably rightly) been given grief for battling on so long, I am not going to be the one to raise the issues of Group A performance and definitely not the one to mention the OEI OGE hover performance of the 92. However I think you will find that neither aircraft have finalised Group A/ Cat A performance supplements yet and until they do, both are a little restrictive - for example from memory I think the current S92 clear airfield takeoff distance is fixed at 3800' (1150 metres). That will I'm sure change in the fullness of time following more flight testing.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2004, 00:07
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No slogging here just facts, which must be applied when you toss out unschooled and biased opinions. If it seems like slogging, I apologize, but as Lenin said, "Facts are inconvenient things." I still have heard nothing from you on the certification basis of the 225, so I can surely assume it is grandfathered a great deal.

The baggage of the S-92 is held in the aft compartment, accessed by the ramp, and it has about 140 cubic feet ( that is 4 cubic meters - an EC 225 could do a U-turn in there) and it holds 1,000 lbs under normal conditions. There is a shelf above the ramp that is good for 300 pounds, but the total for the compartment is 1,000 lbs. The ramp itself is good for 2,000 lbs, but the unrestrained baggage system uses the rear cabin bulkhead to hold the 1,000 lb cargo so that tiedowns are not needed, and load/unload cycles are literally "toss the bags in". The entire baggage load on the ramp is lowered to level with a hydraulic cylinder, and raised the same way, the ramp is about 1.8 meters by 2 meters in dimension. This 1,000 lb load allows normal CG for most cabin loads, although it might be that a bunch of Dallas Cowboys in the last few rows only, and a full baggage could be at the aft CG limit.

HughMartin, I hope this is enough to suit. What is the 332L2 have for baggage space and weight?

Last edited by NickLappos; 5th Aug 2004 at 01:28.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2004, 00:45
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As Requested (Flight envelope to be expanded as flight hours increase)

I. General
1. Data Sheet No: EASA.R.002
2. Type / Variant or Model: EC 225 LP
3. Airworthiness Category: Large Rotorcraft
4. Type Certificate Holder: EUROCOPTER
Aéroport International Marseille - Provence
13725 MARIGNANE cedex
5. Manufacturer: As above
6. DGAC-F Application Date: 07 November 2000
7. EASA Certification Date: 27 July 2004
8. JAA Recommendation Date: TBA
II. Certification Basis
1. Airworthiness Requirements: JAR 29, Change 1 effective December 1st, 1999,
except for the following :
2. Reversions and Exemptions Granted :
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
3. Equivalent Safety Findings:
- JAR 29.173, 175 Static longitudinal Stability (Reference CRI B-03)
- JAR 29 Apdx B §IV IFR Static longitudinal Stability – Airspeed stability (Reference CRI
- JAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure for changed metallic PSE (Reference CRI C-
- JAR 29.807(c)(1) Passenger emergency exits other than side-of-fuselage (Reference
CRI D-02)
- JAR 29.813(a), 29.815 Emergency exit access - Main aisle width (Reference CRI D-03)
- JAR 29.923(a)(2) Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests (Reference CRI E-
- JAR 29.1303(j) VNE aural warning (Reference CRI F-01)
- JAR 29.1545(b)(4) Airspeed indicators markings (Reference CRI G-01)
- JAR 29.1549(b) Powerplant instruments markings (Reference CRI G-02)
Issue 01, 27 July 2004
Page 4 of 4
4. Special Conditions: Minimum in flight experience (Reference CRI B-01)
External loads, JAR 29.865 amdt. 2 (Reference CRI
Protection from the effects of High Intensity Radiated
Field (Reference CRI F-02)
5. Environmental Standards including noise:
Compliant with ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1, Part II, Chapter
8 and Appendix 4
Engine Emission.
Compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 2, (Fuel Discharge).
III. Technical Characteristics and Operational Limitations
1. Type Design Definition: document ref. 332 A 89 2120, Issue F
2. Description: large twin-engine helicopter designed as a derivative
product of the former type certified model AS 332 L2
3. Equipment: As required by JAR 29 and referenced within approved
Flight Manual
4. Dimensions:
Fuselage Width 3.96m (13ft 00in)
Height 4.97m (16ft 30in)
Main Rotor 5 blades Diameter 16.20m (53ft 14in)
Tail Rotor 4 blades Diameter 3.15m (10ft 33in)
5. Engines: 2 Turboméca Makila 2A
EASA DS No: E.006
5.1 Installed Engine Limits: Refer to approved Flight Manual
5.2 Transmission Torque Limits: Refer to approved Flight Manual
6. Fluids (Fuel/Oil/Hydraulic/Additives):
6.1 Fuel JP-8 (F34), Jet A-1(F35)
6.2 Oil as approved in the Flight Manual for engine and
6.3 Hydraulic as approved in the Flight Manual
6.4 Additives as approved in the Flight Manual
7. Fluid Capacities:
7.1 Fuel 2588 l (684 US gals)
basic internal fuel tanks and sponsons
7.2 Oil engines 4,92 l
MGB 27 l
Issue 01, 27 July 2004
Page 5 of 5
IGB 0,62 l
TGB 1,5 l
7.3 Hydraulic RH system 5,0 l
LH system 9,5 l
8. Airspeed Limits: Vne Power on 175 Kt up to 5.000ft density altitude
and 175kt – 3kt / 1.000ft above 5.000ft
Vne Power off Vne Power on limited to 150 Kt
see Flight Manual for other approved airspeed limits
9. Rotor Speed Limits:
Power on:
Maximum 275 rpm
Minimum 246 rpm
Min transient 220 rpm
Power off:
Max transient 310 rpm (20 sec)
Maximum 290 rpm
Minimum 246 rpm (IAS > 100Kt) 220 rpm ( IAS < 100Kt)
10. Maximum Operating Altitude and Temperature:
10.1 Altitude
Take-off and landing –2.000ft altitude pressure / + 2.000ft density
En route –2.000ft altitude pressure / + 10.000ft altitude
10.2 Temperature -15°C to ISA +25°C limited to + 40°C
11. Operating Limitations:
11.1 General Category A and B
VFR day and night
IFR day and night
12. Maximum Certified Weights: Take-off and landing 11,000kg (24,251lb)
13. Centre of Gravity: Refer to approved Flight Manual
14. Datum: 4.67m (183.85in) forward of main rotor centroid
15. Levelling Means: Levelling plate on right side of the fuselage and
graduated plate for plumb line on left side
16. Minimum Flight Crew: Two (2): Pilot and Co-pilot in IFR
One (1): Pilot in VFR
17. Maximum Passenger Seating Capacity: 25
18. Passenger Emergency Exits: one (1) door whose dimensions exceed those of Type II
exit + two (2) Type IV exits on each side
19. Maximum Baggage/Cargo Loads: the cabin floor is provided with the structural strength
required for a load of 800kg/m2 evenly distributed in
cargo configuration
20. Rotor Blade and Control Movement: For rigging information, refer to Maintenance manual
Issue 01, 27 July 2004
Page 6 of 6
21. Auxiliary Power Unit: None as basic equipment
22. Wheels and Tyres:
Tyres: nose: 466 x 173-10
main: 615 x 225-10
Wheels: nose: Messier Bugatti C 20525 000
main: Messier Bugatti C 20147 200
IV. Operating and Service Instructions
1. Rotorcraft Flight Manual, Document No: EC 225LP Flight Manual, normal revision RN0,
04-20 approved by EASA on 27 July 2004 or
approved issues
2. Maintenance Manual, Document No: Airworthiness Limitations as EC 225LP
Maintenance Servicing Recommendations,
Chapter 05.99, edition 2004.05.31, Rev. 000
approved by EASA on 27 July 2004 or
subsequent approved issues
EC 225LP Maintenance Programme as
- Maintenance Servicing Recommendations
- Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)
3. Service Letters and Service Bulletins: As published by Eurocopter and approved by
4. Required Equipment:
• As per compliance with JAR 29 requirements and in accordance with the
original Type Design standard.
• Refer to approved Flight Manual and MMEL.
5. Master Minimum Equipment List: None
V. Notes
1. Eligible serial numbers: 2600 and subsequent of EC 225LP version.
2. The certified “optional” installations are each approved independently of the basic helicopter and
an approved Flight Manual Supplement is associated to each optional installation if necessary.
3. Cabin Interior and Seating Configurations must be approved.
vertalop is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2004, 01:20
  #57 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Thanks, this Type Certificate data sheet (TCDS) is the document. Note the Part II, Basis of Certification, section 2, reversions and exemptions (those are the Grandfather clauses). Specifically defined grandfathered sections are those most difficult to put in because they involve large changes, usually not economically feasible, like the crashworthiness shown, where the primary structure cannot take the crash loads, but the entire aircraft would have to be redesigned to meet the new rule. Also true of .571 Flaw Tolerance, for similar reasons, and the fuel system (the subject of lots of gnashing between RotorComparitor and me, unfortunately for other ppruners).

OK, with facts, buyers can know what they are buying. That is all we can ask!

Congratulations to EC for this achievement!

Here is the FAA's web site library for all the TCDS on file with them:
NickLappos is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2004, 01:54
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I note that many of the reversions are to FAR 29, Amendment 24, which I believe was the certification basis for the S92, although some are older.

Can you post the same sheet for the S92 here so that we can compare?

Out of interest, is this what you were expecting when you made your original post? "Only the IFR certificate meets the JAR, meaning the autopilot and displays. The rest of the aircraft was not qualified to meet the latest regs regarding its structure, but rather it meets the older DGAC requirements." Or do you feel that statement was perhaps a little exaggerated in hindsight?

vertalop is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2004, 02:20
  #59 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 76
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
vertalop asked - "I note that many of the reversions are to FAR 29, Amendment 24, which I believe was the certification basis for the S92, although some are older."

Nick sez - Nope, the S-92 is to amendment 47 (May 2001), which is the most current regulation, with NO grandfathering or exceptions. That link I provided was to allow you to find the sheets for all FAA aircraft, including S-92. Here is the specific S-92 TCDS link (note that this sheet is a bit out of date, the cert basis was extended to amendment 47 in June, as the baggage was increased to 1000 lbs) The sheet shows amendment 45:

The amendment 24 that the EC 225 grandfathers for most of its passenger safety features is the December 1984 regulation

vertalop asked "Out of interest, is this what you were expecting when you made your original post?....Or do you feel that statement was perhaps a little exaggerated in hindsight?"

Nick sez: Good question, it is exactly what I suspected, but not what the French or (RotorComparitor) said. The extensive grandfathering of the safety, crashworthiness and fuel system integrity is understandable, as they could not redesign these sections to meet the current requirements without redesigning the entire machine. Note the phrase in the middle near section III "2. Description: large twin-engine helicopter designed as a derivative product of the former type certified model AS 332 L2" This is the exact grandfather clause.

It would be a good exercise to look up the specific paragraphs to see what the shortfalls are. Here is the "historical FAR" which lists each paragraph and each amendment so you can read them and compare: Just click on the left margin by historical FAR, by part and select Part 29 to see the history of each paragraph.

Last edited by NickLappos; 5th Aug 2004 at 02:33.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2004, 05:46
  #60 (permalink)  

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 201
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick, to answer your question re baggage bay capacity, the L2 can carry 1760 lbs of baggage bay split between the main baggage and the two sponson compartments. Volume (at normal baggage density) would usually cause the aircraft to bulk out first at about 1000 lbs. For 19 passengers with lots of bags, 800lbs is about the maximum bags/cargo load normally required for North Sea flights.

Helicomparator, The IAS/CAS correction graph in the L2 Flight Manual significantly under-reports the real difference. At 140kts, the graph reports a 3 knot error. In my experience, it is nearer 8 - 10 knots.

Last edited by HughMartin; 5th Aug 2004 at 07:19.
HughMartin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.