PZL SW4
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
From: Poland
Originally Posted by 9Aplus
Technically speaking SW4 is much better than EC120,
rest is.....
rest is.....
).
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 821
Likes: 1
From: no comment ;)
Lt. EC120 can not take off with 5 people on board on hot and high cond.
SW4 can...even with this turbine.
Rest you can find in comparing RFM of both units, both are available on "famous"
list around here
Price
...... price issue around SW4 is "terra incognita". UK customer order from 2008. Farnborough 2008 (SkyCharter) was 3 x 900.000 euro, no delivery, big question if contract still exist, same autmn offer for 2 units to another European customer was 1.290.000 euro, after some facts and arguments reduced to 1.090.000 euro. Deal canceled, because following:
All sales during last few years was under sort of
influence from Cachina Costa, all in way to reduce total Swidnik value. Sad but true
SW4 can...even with this turbine.
Rest you can find in comparing RFM of both units, both are available on "famous"
list around here
Price
...... price issue around SW4 is "terra incognita". UK customer order from 2008. Farnborough 2008 (SkyCharter) was 3 x 900.000 euro, no delivery, big question if contract still exist, same autmn offer for 2 units to another European customer was 1.290.000 euro, after some facts and arguments reduced to 1.090.000 euro. Deal canceled, because following:All sales during last few years was under sort of
influence from Cachina Costa, all in way to reduce total Swidnik value. Sad but true
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
From: Poland
I'm about to compare both RFMs.... but first I have to do some cleanup with that "famous" list
Actually, I'm going to compare them with others too - thinking bout Bell 206B3 and MDD 530F+, those should be about in that price range.
Actually, I'm going to compare them with others too - thinking bout Bell 206B3 and MDD 530F+, those should be about in that price range.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
9Aplus - The EC120 can take off with 5 POB hot & high, it just can't do it with a full tank...and neither can the SW-4 or most light singles. 
Comparing the RFMs, with 5 POB @ 180 lb each, and with 500 lb of fuel (a generic figure, not meant to favor either platform), the SW-4 has a TOW of 3,612 lb (using an older brochure, since the SW-4 RFM doesn't actually provide an OEW), while the EC120 has a TOW of 3,591 lb. Using these weights:
At 15C OAT: the SW-4 has a HOGE of 3,935 ft and a HIGE of 7,105 ft. The EC120 has a HOGE of 6,300 ft and a HIGE of 7,375 ft.
At 35C OAT: the SW-4 has a temp-limited HOGE of 2,575 ft @ 34C (35C is not achievable), and a temp-limited HIGE of 0 ft @ 33C. The EC120 has a HOGE @ 35C of 2,225 ft and a HIGE of 3,400 ft.
So I really wouldn't consider the SW-4 to be a better hot & high machine. From a technical perspective, I sincerely doubt the SW-4 seriously challenges the EC120 (rotor design, powerplant, avionics, safety, etc.). The SW-4 has its place in the market, but just not at this price point.
(But I agree that the EC120 could do with more power to fully exploit its abilities - it's a bit of a tease to give us such a large cabin and baggage compartment, and then not allow us to fully utilize it in all operating conditions.)
I/C
Comparing the RFMs, with 5 POB @ 180 lb each, and with 500 lb of fuel (a generic figure, not meant to favor either platform), the SW-4 has a TOW of 3,612 lb (using an older brochure, since the SW-4 RFM doesn't actually provide an OEW), while the EC120 has a TOW of 3,591 lb. Using these weights:
At 15C OAT: the SW-4 has a HOGE of 3,935 ft and a HIGE of 7,105 ft. The EC120 has a HOGE of 6,300 ft and a HIGE of 7,375 ft.
At 35C OAT: the SW-4 has a temp-limited HOGE of 2,575 ft @ 34C (35C is not achievable), and a temp-limited HIGE of 0 ft @ 33C. The EC120 has a HOGE @ 35C of 2,225 ft and a HIGE of 3,400 ft.
So I really wouldn't consider the SW-4 to be a better hot & high machine. From a technical perspective, I sincerely doubt the SW-4 seriously challenges the EC120 (rotor design, powerplant, avionics, safety, etc.). The SW-4 has its place in the market, but just not at this price point.
(But I agree that the EC120 could do with more power to fully exploit its abilities - it's a bit of a tease to give us such a large cabin and baggage compartment, and then not allow us to fully utilize it in all operating conditions.)
I/C
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 52
From: Pensacola, Florida
But I agree that the EC120 could do with more power to fully exploit its abilities.
Ian, in your comparison, how quickly will the 120 go through that 500 pounds of fuel compared to the SW4? Maybe the more accurate comparison would be each machine with two hours of fuel or some such?
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
The fuel burn of the EC120 is between 32-38 US Gallons an hour cruising either 110 or 120. When light the fuel burn is even less. I don't consider that high.
The cruise speed of SW4 is lower anyway so I don't think the fuel burn differs a lot. But I don't think you should compare the SW4 with an EC120 anyway, I don't really know where it fits in anyway, I think the design is pretty old fashioned (the interior looks .....) and the only advantage over a Jetranger would be the three blades.
The cruise speed of SW4 is lower anyway so I don't think the fuel burn differs a lot. But I don't think you should compare the SW4 with an EC120 anyway, I don't really know where it fits in anyway, I think the design is pretty old fashioned (the interior looks .....) and the only advantage over a Jetranger would be the three blades.
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Recommend cruise for the SW-4 seems to be 180 km/h (98 kt), at which speed fuel burn is 0.48-0.52 kg/km (86-94 kg/hr).
Recommend cruise for the EC120 is given as 97 kg/hr at 110-117 kt.
(And, yes, more power with better SFC would always be appreciated...)
I/C
Recommend cruise for the EC120 is given as 97 kg/hr at 110-117 kt.
(And, yes, more power with better SFC would always be appreciated...
)I/C
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 821
Likes: 1
From: no comment ;)
No much need for further discussion 
AW in Poland, the company is waiting for approval from the European authorities to give the green light for its take-over of PZL-Swidnik. Once through, AgustaWestland says it plans to send extra work to Poland by moving A109LUH final assembly as well as some AW101 structural work there. The company says is still deciding on what to do with the existing PZL-Swidnik product family including the W-3A Sokol and SW-4 light helicopter. AW says it will make a decision once after approval. Article by Tony Osborne - Rotorhub.com
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 605
Likes: 12
From: UK
Nothing from within the industry apart from the fact it was SP-SSW on cold weather testing, 3 POB and OAT of -36 (not sure if that is C or F but it doesn't matter as the graphs cross at -40
Two links to press stories
Copter crashes during cold-weather testing | Anchorage Daily News - The News Tribune
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Helicopter accident holds up flights at Fairbanks airport
Two links to press stories
Copter crashes during cold-weather testing | Anchorage Daily News - The News Tribune
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - Helicopter accident holds up flights at Fairbanks airport
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 821
Likes: 1
From: no comment ;)
SW-4 is SP-SSW c/n 600401 - Was operating in Arizona, USA, during 2010. summer for hot and high test trials.
That reminds me that W3 was not happy either, with -40 in Siberia, while tested just year before USSR (1990.) went to history....
That reminds me that W3 was not happy either, with -40 in Siberia, while tested just year before USSR (1990.) went to history....