EC225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid that I haven't read all of this dick swinging contest, but it strikes me that if SK believe that EC have an unfair advantage in getting certification, then it is lawyers that should be doing the arguing. I guess that at the end of the day money and sales pitch will decide between the two.
What is important is which of the two aircraft is most stable in the hover half way up a mountian at night at the cloud base whilst winching someone off. Or can travel 100s of miles in to the ocean, do an IF decent to autohover in vitually no wind and not blow a life raft over. The rumours I hear is that a SK61 with Carson blades/TR etc would still be the preferable SAR aircraft.
What is important is which of the two aircraft is most stable in the hover half way up a mountian at night at the cloud base whilst winching someone off. Or can travel 100s of miles in to the ocean, do an IF decent to autohover in vitually no wind and not blow a life raft over. The rumours I hear is that a SK61 with Carson blades/TR etc would still be the preferable SAR aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Progress ? Debate ? Forgive me but it seems more like some sort of pi$$ing contest.
The bottom line is that the decisions will be made by bean-counters based on which manufacturer's marketing team provides the best fairy-tales regarding capabilities and DOC's.
However, I'm ever mindful that spirited debate in a forum such as this could somehow change the world so keep at it.
Can't wait till we get to the bit where "our paint scheme is better than theirs".
STL
The bottom line is that the decisions will be made by bean-counters based on which manufacturer's marketing team provides the best fairy-tales regarding capabilities and DOC's.
However, I'm ever mindful that spirited debate in a forum such as this could somehow change the world so keep at it.
Can't wait till we get to the bit where "our paint scheme is better than theirs".
STL
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point about a debate like this is that it does help shine a light into the claims that all helicopter manufacturers make about their products and help debunk their sales pitch.
Nick Lappos, although speaking ina private capacity, does help to make policy at Sikorsky and so his comments will reflect those of Sikorsky, even if only by chance. I attended a Shepherd Conference some years ago where Nick was speaking officially for Sikorsky, he is an impressive and knowledgeable salesman. He has pointed out that the cabin of the basic EC 225 is subject to grandfather rights, although the proposed optional crashworthy seats and floor will reduce this grandfathering. If think that some of his other points on the EC have been disproved.
HC has pointed out some flaws with the S92 such as performance issues and that the engines are grandfathered, but Nick seemed to think that is OK as it makes them reliable! Also the rotorhead looks quite Blackhawk like to me, but I may be wrong.
Both helicopters have their good and bad points.
If we overlook some of the bad tempered comments, this has been an illuminating debate and not merely a pissing contest. I feel we are now better placed to point out the faults in both machines to our clients.
JimL and 212 Man have made some good points on offshore performance, perhaps we should continue the debate along those lines if Sikorsky and EC are prepared to put performance data into the public domain.
Nick Lappos, although speaking ina private capacity, does help to make policy at Sikorsky and so his comments will reflect those of Sikorsky, even if only by chance. I attended a Shepherd Conference some years ago where Nick was speaking officially for Sikorsky, he is an impressive and knowledgeable salesman. He has pointed out that the cabin of the basic EC 225 is subject to grandfather rights, although the proposed optional crashworthy seats and floor will reduce this grandfathering. If think that some of his other points on the EC have been disproved.
HC has pointed out some flaws with the S92 such as performance issues and that the engines are grandfathered, but Nick seemed to think that is OK as it makes them reliable! Also the rotorhead looks quite Blackhawk like to me, but I may be wrong.
Both helicopters have their good and bad points.
If we overlook some of the bad tempered comments, this has been an illuminating debate and not merely a pissing contest. I feel we are now better placed to point out the faults in both machines to our clients.
JimL and 212 Man have made some good points on offshore performance, perhaps we should continue the debate along those lines if Sikorsky and EC are prepared to put performance data into the public domain.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At one stage Nick requested that the thread be split so that we could continue the discussion of offshore performance; as this has not been done, perhaps we can continue the discussion here by coaxing Nick, HeliComparator, 212man, JimL, G33 and any other interested pruner back into the debate. We might also encourage Eurobolkow into the fray as he appears to have an inside track with AgustaWestland.
It is not necessary for performance data to be put into the public domain - it is, in any case, unlikely to have been produced at this juncture. What might be a good first step is if Nick et al indicated the policy on what performance data/information will be available.
Are we for example to hear a view on the
Will the manufacturers (Sikorsky, Eurocopter and Agusta) indicate how their products will be positioned to provide the zero exposure that appears to be a likely requirement by 2010 - and, in Norway and for a number of Oil Companies, required at the introduction of these new generation aircraft.
It is not clear to me that the debate is limited to the S92 and the EC225; as G33 has indicated, new contracts that will soon be awarded will take into consideration the relative merits of the S76C+, EC155 and the BA139. Even existing and benign operating environments are not immune from these discussions - as oil exploration moves into Deep Water (where most of the larger oil reserves appear to be), we will see the introduction of a number of these newer aircraft operating at the limit of their endurance (for example, the GOM, West Africa etc.). Will it be acceptable to expose these passengers to older technology and performance when survival and recovery might be substantially longer than for existing operations that are conducted close to the shore.
We have also heard a new buzz word PC2e - what exactly does that mean in the context of this discussion?
It is not necessary for performance data to be put into the public domain - it is, in any case, unlikely to have been produced at this juncture. What might be a good first step is if Nick et al indicated the policy on what performance data/information will be available.
Are we for example to hear a view on the
…provision of Category A procedures and find out whether, at last, we will get the total flexibility that will provide a continuum from helipad to clear area with variable Vtoss, configurable heights and distances.
It is not clear to me that the debate is limited to the S92 and the EC225; as G33 has indicated, new contracts that will soon be awarded will take into consideration the relative merits of the S76C+, EC155 and the BA139. Even existing and benign operating environments are not immune from these discussions - as oil exploration moves into Deep Water (where most of the larger oil reserves appear to be), we will see the introduction of a number of these newer aircraft operating at the limit of their endurance (for example, the GOM, West Africa etc.). Will it be acceptable to expose these passengers to older technology and performance when survival and recovery might be substantially longer than for existing operations that are conducted close to the shore.
We have also heard a new buzz word PC2e - what exactly does that mean in the context of this discussion?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g33,
No aspect of the S-92 was in any way "grandfathered", including the engine, which was certified to the most current engine standards, as is the airframe. That assertion from HC escaped me if it did indeed appear the first time around. Much of what HC says escapes me, I admit.
Grandfathering is quite OK, but grandfathering and claiming otherwise is not. That is what started this thread.
Mars,
Let's start a new thread, and blow this pop stand.
I will post it now.
No aspect of the S-92 was in any way "grandfathered", including the engine, which was certified to the most current engine standards, as is the airframe. That assertion from HC escaped me if it did indeed appear the first time around. Much of what HC says escapes me, I admit.
Grandfathering is quite OK, but grandfathering and claiming otherwise is not. That is what started this thread.
Mars,
Let's start a new thread, and blow this pop stand.
I will post it now.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read the thread as it has developed.
I have flown the EC225 and the S-92. I like both for different reasons.
The MARKET and CUSTOMERS will decide which will become the dominant type in deepwater oil support. Right now, the market seems to be saying S-92.
S-92 sales so far:
PHI = 6
CHC =12
Cougar=1
Norsk (aka Bristow)=3
+ 2 corporate
EC225 sales so far
CHC =2
Bristow=2
(both CHC and Bristow sales were driven by the trade in of some AS332Ls which are going to EC for re furbish and the to the German Border Guard so essentially they were not real sales)
Reasons
S-92 = $16.5million purchase and around $1100 per hour PBH
EC225 = $ 20million and around $1900 per hour PBH
S-92 stand up cabin, baggage ramp with shelf (700lbs ramp 300lbs shelf)
EC225 no stand up cabin, small and difficult to access baggage bay.
Operators are selling to their customers. S-92 has better customer appeal. EC225 isn't bad just beyond its sell by date in terms of overall design. Some neat features but mated to an old Puma in reality.
The MARKET says that the world has moved on.
HH
I have flown the EC225 and the S-92. I like both for different reasons.
The MARKET and CUSTOMERS will decide which will become the dominant type in deepwater oil support. Right now, the market seems to be saying S-92.
S-92 sales so far:
PHI = 6
CHC =12
Cougar=1
Norsk (aka Bristow)=3
+ 2 corporate
EC225 sales so far
CHC =2
Bristow=2
(both CHC and Bristow sales were driven by the trade in of some AS332Ls which are going to EC for re furbish and the to the German Border Guard so essentially they were not real sales)
Reasons
S-92 = $16.5million purchase and around $1100 per hour PBH
EC225 = $ 20million and around $1900 per hour PBH
S-92 stand up cabin, baggage ramp with shelf (700lbs ramp 300lbs shelf)
EC225 no stand up cabin, small and difficult to access baggage bay.
Operators are selling to their customers. S-92 has better customer appeal. EC225 isn't bad just beyond its sell by date in terms of overall design. Some neat features but mated to an old Puma in reality.
The MARKET says that the world has moved on.
HH
Hippolite
You are clearly correct in that the market is favouring the 92 - my only concern is that this choice is based mainly on SK's excellent marketing hype and the lack of any EC marketing hype, but not necessarily because the 92 is the best aircraft. By the way the price differential you quote seems high but of course is heavily influenced by exchange rates of the day. I make it more like $18.5 million for a 225 - but still more expensive than the 92 I agree. PBH rates are negotiable, though it would be difficult to get down to SK rates. Do you know for how long those rates are guaranteed not to go up?
Am I right in thinking you work for PHI? In which case any info on what the 92 is like to operate would be very interesting. ( Has it gone into service yet?)
HC
You are clearly correct in that the market is favouring the 92 - my only concern is that this choice is based mainly on SK's excellent marketing hype and the lack of any EC marketing hype, but not necessarily because the 92 is the best aircraft. By the way the price differential you quote seems high but of course is heavily influenced by exchange rates of the day. I make it more like $18.5 million for a 225 - but still more expensive than the 92 I agree. PBH rates are negotiable, though it would be difficult to get down to SK rates. Do you know for how long those rates are guaranteed not to go up?
Am I right in thinking you work for PHI? In which case any info on what the 92 is like to operate would be very interesting. ( Has it gone into service yet?)
HC
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hippolite,
Your list of sales is interesting! Has anyone actually bought a 225?
I heard that Turkministan bought two S-92's for transporting their VIP's. Word has it the French went ape, because the
Turkminis got out of two nearly new Super Pumas to buy the S-92's, and they really bad-mouthed the Pumas as "junk" that couldn't meet the French promises.
Your list of sales is interesting! Has anyone actually bought a 225?
I heard that Turkministan bought two S-92's for transporting their VIP's. Word has it the French went ape, because the
Turkminis got out of two nearly new Super Pumas to buy the S-92's, and they really bad-mouthed the Pumas as "junk" that couldn't meet the French promises.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the PBH rates , does any one have it broken down by major components ? , is the majority of the difference in the Engines or the other components . What is the difference in the total DOC ( I realize that both are only estimates so far ).
( just looked on SIkorsky web site , all components except for MGB on condition (MGB 6,000 hrs TBO) Does that include the engines ?)
( just looked on SIkorsky web site , all components except for MGB on condition (MGB 6,000 hrs TBO) Does that include the engines ?)
Last edited by widgeon; 21st Aug 2004 at 17:06.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliComparator
Wrong assumption on who I work for so can't give you any in service reports I'm afraid. BOTH manufacturers have lots of marketing hype, they are both the same in that respect.
You are not quite accurate with your EC225 price because you haven't matched it feature for feature with the S-92.
Crashworthy Passenger Seats are standard on the S-92 but optional on the EC225 and require the military spec reinforced floor. Both are additional significant cost items.
If you want AC in your EC225 it is a $465,000 option but only $240,000 on the S-92.
All up, the EC 225 is $20m but I agree that the wealk$ has much to do with it and if the currency was the same, both aircraft would be close on purchase price. The PBH is another story though and EC's is considerably more than Sikorsky's even after factoring the Euro vs $ exchange.
EC are selling more 332L2s than they are EC225s which must show that the gains of the 225 over the 332L2 are not significant enough to justify the price difference.
Widgeon
PBH agreements vary widely in their composition. Most work in a similar way. Sikorsky call theirs a TAP which is a nose to tail and includes engines from GE (the cost of which Sikorsky add to their numbers to get the total TAP) It is around $1100.
Eurocopter have their PBH, then add Turbomeca's and then add something for the avionics which is set by the manufacturer.
rj squirrel
The only sales I know of were the CHC and Bristow ones which were generated by the trades I mentioned earlier. Each operator traded 5 332Ls for 2 EC225s almost even I understand.
HH
Wrong assumption on who I work for so can't give you any in service reports I'm afraid. BOTH manufacturers have lots of marketing hype, they are both the same in that respect.
You are not quite accurate with your EC225 price because you haven't matched it feature for feature with the S-92.
Crashworthy Passenger Seats are standard on the S-92 but optional on the EC225 and require the military spec reinforced floor. Both are additional significant cost items.
If you want AC in your EC225 it is a $465,000 option but only $240,000 on the S-92.
All up, the EC 225 is $20m but I agree that the wealk$ has much to do with it and if the currency was the same, both aircraft would be close on purchase price. The PBH is another story though and EC's is considerably more than Sikorsky's even after factoring the Euro vs $ exchange.
EC are selling more 332L2s than they are EC225s which must show that the gains of the 225 over the 332L2 are not significant enough to justify the price difference.
Widgeon
PBH agreements vary widely in their composition. Most work in a similar way. Sikorsky call theirs a TAP which is a nose to tail and includes engines from GE (the cost of which Sikorsky add to their numbers to get the total TAP) It is around $1100.
Eurocopter have their PBH, then add Turbomeca's and then add something for the avionics which is set by the manufacturer.
rj squirrel
The only sales I know of were the CHC and Bristow ones which were generated by the trades I mentioned earlier. Each operator traded 5 332Ls for 2 EC225s almost even I understand.
HH
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks , I am sure a single contract would be preferable to 3 individual contracts , I thought Eurochopper were trying to go that way too at least in the US . Would be interesting to know how long the Sikorsky PBH rate is guaranteed for . Is it true for the big jets that the engines are not in most cases owned by the operators but leased from the manufacturers ? , would the same set up work for Helicopters ?.
Hippolite - sorry for confusing you with someone else! I did take account of the crashworthy seat option, but not aircon, when I worked out the prices. Perhaps it depends on which salesman you talk to!
I believe that EC have sold 5 other 225's - 2 VIP format to some unknown buyer in the Middle East and 3 to Oman. Neither for oil support of course but at least they are sales.
Then of course there is the large order for the French military. I am told there is currently a 20 month lead time for delivery so they will not be going bust just yet!
I don't think there is a big price difference between the L2 and 225 if you exclude the crashworthy seat/floor - about US$2 million, which buys you a 1000kg increase in payload.
HC
I believe that EC have sold 5 other 225's - 2 VIP format to some unknown buyer in the Middle East and 3 to Oman. Neither for oil support of course but at least they are sales.
Then of course there is the large order for the French military. I am told there is currently a 20 month lead time for delivery so they will not be going bust just yet!
I don't think there is a big price difference between the L2 and 225 if you exclude the crashworthy seat/floor - about US$2 million, which buys you a 1000kg increase in payload.
HC
Bristows new EC225 rumour
Stories are coming out that Bristows brand spanking new EC225 had a serious incident during the delivery flight as it pit stopped at Norwich. Rumour has it that at least two of the crew had to have lacerations treated.
Anyone got something more substantial or is this just the opposition trying to rubbish the aircraft?
Anyone got something more substantial or is this just the opposition trying to rubbish the aircraft?
Last edited by roundwego; 29th Jul 2005 at 17:21.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard there was an incident of severe ground resonance, which would also explain what I saw it doing today. It arrived in Aberdeen on Wednesday so can't have been too serious an incident in Norwich....
Unlikely to be the 'opposition' operator wise, as they will all be taking this aircraft at some point I think (CHC, BOH).
Surprised and sadened to hear this and look forward to hearing some explanatory info.
Fantastic piece of kit
Surprised and sadened to hear this and look forward to hearing some explanatory info.
Fantastic piece of kit
So it is probably true that a senior Bristow engineer who was walking around in the back while it was still taxing was injured by flying champagne bottles bought in France and had to get multiple stitches in his head. We will look forward to seeing the MOR summary 
Heard a similar storey mid last week about "MEGA" ground resonance from a Bristows pilot. They dropped the AP then shut the a/c down in record time. Oooops 
