EC-225 orders hot up
Thread Starter
EC-225 orders hot up
I see from the latest Rotorhub statements that between CHC and BHL the EC-225 order book has just increased by 24!
Let the games begin
Let the games begin
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ****
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the looks of the CHC press release that's 22 EC225's for them.
Eurocopter and CHC Helicopter Corporation Sign Contract for 16 EC225 Helicopters at Heli-Expo
ORLANDO, FL, HAI Heli-Expo, March 1 /CNW/ - Eurocopter and CHC Helicopter
Corporation ("CHC") (TSX: FLY.A and FLY.B; NYSE: FLI) jointly announced at
Heli-Expo that they have entered into a contract for the delivery of 16 new
EC225 helicopters. The 16 aircraft are expected to be delivered between late
2008 and late 2012. CHC plans to put these aircraft into service as part of
the Company's fleet renewal plan, in support of new offshore oil and gas
contracts, and potentially as Search and Rescue (SAR) aircraft. CHC is making
this commitment to meet the unprecedented demand from our various customers
including both the offshore oil and gas industry and government sponsored SAR.
This new, 16 helicopter order, will supplement the six EC225 aircraft CHC
currently has on order. The original six aircraft, which are expected to be
delivered by December 2008, will support contracts with TOTAL E&P UK PLC,
TOTAL E&P Norge AS as well as other customers in the North Sea and elsewhere.
CHC, which is the largest civilian Super Puma family operator with 30 Mark 1
and 20 Mark 2 variants, now continues this relationship with Eurocopter by
significantly expanding its EC225 fleet.
The EC225 fleet will be fully supported by CHC subsidiary Heli-One, the
world's largest independent helicopter MRO and logistics support company.
Building on more than 25 years' experience with the Super Puma family,
Heli-One will provide total MRO support for the advanced EC225. Heli-One has
been granted an exclusive licence to perform repair and overhaul on EC225
components.
"The success of our heavy product range has always been closely linked to
the success of CHC," said Lutz Bertling, President and CEO of Eurocopter.
"Based on the company's huge experience with the Super Puma family of
helicopters, we are pleased to see the EC225 selected by CHC to serve its
clients including, TOTAL E&P's UK and Norwegian operations in the North Sea.
The EC225 benefits from many technological enhancements developed from the
entire Eurocopter product line and it sets new standards of safety, comfort
and performance for offshore services."
Sylvain Allard, President and CEO of CHC stated that "We are delighted to
continue to partner with Eurocopter to respond to the ever-growing
requirements of our customers. The EC225 meets and exceeds their needs for
modern, safe, comfortable and efficient helicopters. CHC through its European
and Global operating subsidiaries, which are fully supported by Heli-One, is
uniquely positioned to offer this aircraft to the world."
Eurocopter and CHC Helicopter Corporation Sign Contract for 16 EC225 Helicopters at Heli-Expo
ORLANDO, FL, HAI Heli-Expo, March 1 /CNW/ - Eurocopter and CHC Helicopter
Corporation ("CHC") (TSX: FLY.A and FLY.B; NYSE: FLI) jointly announced at
Heli-Expo that they have entered into a contract for the delivery of 16 new
EC225 helicopters. The 16 aircraft are expected to be delivered between late
2008 and late 2012. CHC plans to put these aircraft into service as part of
the Company's fleet renewal plan, in support of new offshore oil and gas
contracts, and potentially as Search and Rescue (SAR) aircraft. CHC is making
this commitment to meet the unprecedented demand from our various customers
including both the offshore oil and gas industry and government sponsored SAR.
This new, 16 helicopter order, will supplement the six EC225 aircraft CHC
currently has on order. The original six aircraft, which are expected to be
delivered by December 2008, will support contracts with TOTAL E&P UK PLC,
TOTAL E&P Norge AS as well as other customers in the North Sea and elsewhere.
CHC, which is the largest civilian Super Puma family operator with 30 Mark 1
and 20 Mark 2 variants, now continues this relationship with Eurocopter by
significantly expanding its EC225 fleet.
The EC225 fleet will be fully supported by CHC subsidiary Heli-One, the
world's largest independent helicopter MRO and logistics support company.
Building on more than 25 years' experience with the Super Puma family,
Heli-One will provide total MRO support for the advanced EC225. Heli-One has
been granted an exclusive licence to perform repair and overhaul on EC225
components.
"The success of our heavy product range has always been closely linked to
the success of CHC," said Lutz Bertling, President and CEO of Eurocopter.
"Based on the company's huge experience with the Super Puma family of
helicopters, we are pleased to see the EC225 selected by CHC to serve its
clients including, TOTAL E&P's UK and Norwegian operations in the North Sea.
The EC225 benefits from many technological enhancements developed from the
entire Eurocopter product line and it sets new standards of safety, comfort
and performance for offshore services."
Sylvain Allard, President and CEO of CHC stated that "We are delighted to
continue to partner with Eurocopter to respond to the ever-growing
requirements of our customers. The EC225 meets and exceeds their needs for
modern, safe, comfortable and efficient helicopters. CHC through its European
and Global operating subsidiaries, which are fully supported by Heli-One, is
uniquely positioned to offer this aircraft to the world."
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The World
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A modification program is currently underway for the global L2 fleet, being performed by a working team from ECF.
Not sure of the changes they've made to 225, can anyone shed some light?
Not sure of the changes they've made to 225, can anyone shed some light?
Blackhawk9 - Are you are speaking from a position where you have been able to compare the two aircraft in flight from the front seat? Have you in fact flown either of them? If not, on what are you basing your comment. Is it just blind prejudice?
HC
HC
Sorry HC I'm an Engineer not a driver but have been involved in a lot of test flying in Helos over the years. 6 years on Blackhawks, 10 years on 332L,L1 and L2, plus Chinook ,212,412,214ST,S76,S61 and now the S-92, worked in Oz ,the UK (yes aberdeen), Mid East ,Stavanger and a couple of other places, the frogs make a good machine but give me a US build machine anyday, the 225 will be an exellent replacement for the old 332L's , but i'm quite happy on the S-92, better engines(I used to OHaul Makilas and CT7's and the Makila isn't in the same class) , better airframe , maybe down a bit on the auto pilot to the 225 but I know from experiance I will get a damn side better support from Sikorsky than I will from Eurocopter which means I can keep my a/c in the air and not busting my ass on the ground or headbutting the wall for lack of support from a manufacturer.
Its good to have Eurocopter/Turbomeca there it makes the support from Sikorsky/Bell/G.E./Pratt's look that much better.
But the 332 ain't that bad my least favorite is the 76!!
Its good to have Eurocopter/Turbomeca there it makes the support from Sikorsky/Bell/G.E./Pratt's look that much better.
But the 332 ain't that bad my least favorite is the 76!!
Competition is good, for years you had no choice but buy an AS 332 if you wanted a large civil machine -no competition! (though the Blackhawk outsold the AS332 4 to 1 in Military sales not counting the US mil), in the mediums it has always been split pretty evenly between the AS365,S-76 and B412 on civil sales, so its good EC can sell the 225 but with sales for the S-92 out selling the 225 by more than 2 to1, and with the big backorder list for the 92 the delivery time for the 225 is much shorter, so the big operators order what they can get now! and i'm shore EC are offering some pretty good deals to get the 225 moving.
The 225 is at the end of the 330/332 design family the S-92A is the begining in 10 years time when we are buying S-92 B/C models to replace the 225 people will se the generation gap on designs.
As i said I had my time on the 332 i'm on 92's now I think the S-70/S-92 family leaves the 332/225 for dead and if I have to work on them again it's to soon!
The 225 is at the end of the 330/332 design family the S-92A is the begining in 10 years time when we are buying S-92 B/C models to replace the 225 people will se the generation gap on designs.
As i said I had my time on the 332 i'm on 92's now I think the S-70/S-92 family leaves the 332/225 for dead and if I have to work on them again it's to soon!
Blackhawk
Its interesting to have a different take on things. From where I am standing, the S92 was outselling the 225 in part because the 92 was much cheaper (even more so with the weak dollar) and available whereas the 225 was expensive and not available (but worth the wait though!). Perhaps things have changed a bit with delivery schedules but there is still nearly a 2 yr wait for a 225. Not sure what the wait for the 92 is but in the past Sikorsky were tending to manufacture aircraft without actually having buyers whereas EC would only manufacture to order, so the lead time on a 92 was much less.
You view on the maintenance angle is interesting and not one I am really qualified to comment on, but shortly we will be operating both types so a direct comparison will be easier. Based on what we have learned from the experience of others, our maintenance guys are expecting to have to put in a lot more maintenance hours per flight hour on the 92 than they have on the 225. Only time will tell if that's correct.
You say that the 92 is at the start of a new design whilst the 225 is at the end of an old one. From the point of view of the airframe that's true, but the dynamic components on the 92 are very old fashioned - you have only got to look at the rotor head to see the similarity with the S61. The Eurocopter offering is in a different league in terms of "modern-ness". Similarly the 92 gearbox is Black Hawk, the engines are even older than the makila, cockpit philosophy is 1970s with bolt-on screens.
There will surely be a 92b and c as there is plenty of scope to improve things and I think you may be right that the product has a longer life expectancy than the super puma family. Hopefully while Sik are producing the 92C++, EC will have moved on to greater things.
By the way Mr 212man, now that you have started to operate your new toys would you care to let us know how its getting on?
HC
Its interesting to have a different take on things. From where I am standing, the S92 was outselling the 225 in part because the 92 was much cheaper (even more so with the weak dollar) and available whereas the 225 was expensive and not available (but worth the wait though!). Perhaps things have changed a bit with delivery schedules but there is still nearly a 2 yr wait for a 225. Not sure what the wait for the 92 is but in the past Sikorsky were tending to manufacture aircraft without actually having buyers whereas EC would only manufacture to order, so the lead time on a 92 was much less.
You view on the maintenance angle is interesting and not one I am really qualified to comment on, but shortly we will be operating both types so a direct comparison will be easier. Based on what we have learned from the experience of others, our maintenance guys are expecting to have to put in a lot more maintenance hours per flight hour on the 92 than they have on the 225. Only time will tell if that's correct.
You say that the 92 is at the start of a new design whilst the 225 is at the end of an old one. From the point of view of the airframe that's true, but the dynamic components on the 92 are very old fashioned - you have only got to look at the rotor head to see the similarity with the S61. The Eurocopter offering is in a different league in terms of "modern-ness". Similarly the 92 gearbox is Black Hawk, the engines are even older than the makila, cockpit philosophy is 1970s with bolt-on screens.
There will surely be a 92b and c as there is plenty of scope to improve things and I think you may be right that the product has a longer life expectancy than the super puma family. Hopefully while Sik are producing the 92C++, EC will have moved on to greater things.
By the way Mr 212man, now that you have started to operate your new toys would you care to let us know how its getting on?
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having sold a grand total of 24, let's not get too carried away, Helicomparitor. Your claims about the S92 are as full of bull as those in the past.
The S92 has the most advanced rotor head you have seen, yet you foolishly say, "dynamic components on the 92 are very old fashioned" How much does EC pay you to say that? In fact, the flaw tolerant, strong as can be rotorhead of the S92 is far more advanced, and tougher, lower maintenance and more inspectable than that of any comparable helicopter. With longitudinal and lateral control power almost TWICE that of the 225, whose military cousins regularly run out of lateral cyclic when pushed to maneuver, by many reports.
You say "our maintenance guys are expecting" more maintenance but you don't publish the power-by-the-hour guarantees that come with the S92, you just spout your bulls**t. The reports I hear are that EC does not want to give power by the hour, and Sikorsky regularly signs hard contracts setting the price per hour. This alone has sparked several losses by EC 225 against S92, I understand. Yes, the S92 must be a bear to maintain, that's why the average offshore S92 flies many more annual hours that the average 332/225!!! I understand that the Norsk 92's fly over 2,000 hours per year.
EC and Bristow were caught with their pants down as they scrambled to somehow stop the S92. For far more purchase dollars and far more operating cash, the EC 225 has:
A small, cramped, less safe fuselage, where one stoops to crawl to the rear, and where one sits in oddly placed seats where the knees of one's love-mates are pushed into one's crotch (probably a nice thing for you, didn't you go to a private boy's school?) A fuselage that is 35 years old, and that barely meets the crash tolerance of the oldest helos now flying. The 225 does not meet the safety standards now common among modern helos, and demanded by many operators and unions around the globe, does it?
A much smaller, scattered baggage scheme - where crews on windy decks will carefully open and then latch what seems like dozens of little compartments strewn wherever the frogs could put them, all with separate little latches that allow doors to open and create flight hazards. I saw that scheme on a comedy show where the heads pop out of all the little compartments and tell a joke!
In fact, the 92 has sold over twice as many helos as the 225 - most as repeat sells to the folks who tried them out - because it is a significantly better, newer safer and less expensive helo to buy and to operate.
Not easy for you to take, you who published an internal Bristow "technical" report that doubled the S92's options weights so that you could look right! Must grind on you when Air Log shoved the 92's up your orifaces, Nick!
The S92 has the most advanced rotor head you have seen, yet you foolishly say, "dynamic components on the 92 are very old fashioned" How much does EC pay you to say that? In fact, the flaw tolerant, strong as can be rotorhead of the S92 is far more advanced, and tougher, lower maintenance and more inspectable than that of any comparable helicopter. With longitudinal and lateral control power almost TWICE that of the 225, whose military cousins regularly run out of lateral cyclic when pushed to maneuver, by many reports.
You say "our maintenance guys are expecting" more maintenance but you don't publish the power-by-the-hour guarantees that come with the S92, you just spout your bulls**t. The reports I hear are that EC does not want to give power by the hour, and Sikorsky regularly signs hard contracts setting the price per hour. This alone has sparked several losses by EC 225 against S92, I understand. Yes, the S92 must be a bear to maintain, that's why the average offshore S92 flies many more annual hours that the average 332/225!!! I understand that the Norsk 92's fly over 2,000 hours per year.
EC and Bristow were caught with their pants down as they scrambled to somehow stop the S92. For far more purchase dollars and far more operating cash, the EC 225 has:
A small, cramped, less safe fuselage, where one stoops to crawl to the rear, and where one sits in oddly placed seats where the knees of one's love-mates are pushed into one's crotch (probably a nice thing for you, didn't you go to a private boy's school?) A fuselage that is 35 years old, and that barely meets the crash tolerance of the oldest helos now flying. The 225 does not meet the safety standards now common among modern helos, and demanded by many operators and unions around the globe, does it?
A much smaller, scattered baggage scheme - where crews on windy decks will carefully open and then latch what seems like dozens of little compartments strewn wherever the frogs could put them, all with separate little latches that allow doors to open and create flight hazards. I saw that scheme on a comedy show where the heads pop out of all the little compartments and tell a joke!
In fact, the 92 has sold over twice as many helos as the 225 - most as repeat sells to the folks who tried them out - because it is a significantly better, newer safer and less expensive helo to buy and to operate.
Not easy for you to take, you who published an internal Bristow "technical" report that doubled the S92's options weights so that you could look right! Must grind on you when Air Log shoved the 92's up your orifaces, Nick!
Talking about the baggage bay scheme would Nick like to comment on how one fights a fire in the big booth the S92 has?
A little bird told me Sikorsky forgot about that one but as always with hearsay I like to hear it from the horses’ mouth.
Greetings
Finalchecksplease
A little bird told me Sikorsky forgot about that one but as always with hearsay I like to hear it from the horses’ mouth.
Greetings
Finalchecksplease
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
finalchecksplease,
How does one fight a baggage fire in the large hold of an S92? One uses precisely the same method as if a fire breaks out in the aft sponson bin of a super puma. Or the lower belly hold of an Airbus.....
Actually, the ability to fight fires is determined by FAR/JAR, and I firmly believe all three aircraft mentioned meet these regs, as do the countless helos that have similar baggage firefighting capabilities. Can I suggest that you ask next time a big person and do not seek advice from little birds?
How does one fight a baggage fire in the large hold of an S92? One uses precisely the same method as if a fire breaks out in the aft sponson bin of a super puma. Or the lower belly hold of an Airbus.....
Actually, the ability to fight fires is determined by FAR/JAR, and I firmly believe all three aircraft mentioned meet these regs, as do the countless helos that have similar baggage firefighting capabilities. Can I suggest that you ask next time a big person and do not seek advice from little birds?
Last edited by NickLappos; 4th Mar 2007 at 19:30.
Thread Starter
"How does one fight a baggage fire in the large hold of an S92"
You lower the ramp and pull the nose up to 50 degrees till the baggage has all dropped out.
HC, I can't really comment in public as you can imagine. Nice to get our own toys though, and lots of 'playing' taking place
Nick, it's not a "grand total of 24", it's an additional 24.
You lower the ramp and pull the nose up to 50 degrees till the baggage has all dropped out.
HC, I can't really comment in public as you can imagine. Nice to get our own toys though, and lots of 'playing' taking place
Nick, it's not a "grand total of 24", it's an additional 24.
212man,
After seeing you in action on the EC155, I can see you being able to pull that off!
Nick L,
I got to admit I rather like the birds of the non-feathered kind and thought I asked a big person when I asked you?
Greetings,
Finalchecksplease
After seeing you in action on the EC155, I can see you being able to pull that off!
Nick L,
I got to admit I rather like the birds of the non-feathered kind and thought I asked a big person when I asked you?
Greetings,
Finalchecksplease
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
I am intrigued by what Nick has to say about both types. I have to agree with him that the major flaw in the 332/225 product is the accommodation for both Passengers and crew.
It would seem that the Offshore Industry could not care less about the comfort and arguably the underlying safety for the Pax let alone crew. This has always left me frustrated as you would like to think that question numero one, when at the drawing board, would be "we need to transport X number of Pax and Crew in some kind of comfort with a high degree of safety"- and therefore start with the cabin/cockpit and build from there.
The prices being paid for these machines, and the numbers involved, must surely have supported the idea for a purpose built offshore machine, and not what we end up with always - a multi-role helicopter (Like lynx) tweaked and modified to operate in the offshore environment.
The S92 looks the part, but my limited in service experience of it is that it spends a lot of time on the sick. Hopefully this will improve.
The EC225 is clearly an attempt at improving an in service product that the offshore industry has "learned" to operate well over the past couple of decades, but I am left with the feeling that it must be the end of the road for the 332 design concept.
I am opening up for broadside here, but the 225 looks like an L2 with less baggage space but more fuel capacity!!!!
I would like to see somebody come up with at least a design concept for an offshore helicopter that meets all the requirements of our industry. Surely the Offshore industry must be the largest class of helicopter user worldwide!!!
Any thoughts
It would seem that the Offshore Industry could not care less about the comfort and arguably the underlying safety for the Pax let alone crew. This has always left me frustrated as you would like to think that question numero one, when at the drawing board, would be "we need to transport X number of Pax and Crew in some kind of comfort with a high degree of safety"- and therefore start with the cabin/cockpit and build from there.
The prices being paid for these machines, and the numbers involved, must surely have supported the idea for a purpose built offshore machine, and not what we end up with always - a multi-role helicopter (Like lynx) tweaked and modified to operate in the offshore environment.
The S92 looks the part, but my limited in service experience of it is that it spends a lot of time on the sick. Hopefully this will improve.
The EC225 is clearly an attempt at improving an in service product that the offshore industry has "learned" to operate well over the past couple of decades, but I am left with the feeling that it must be the end of the road for the 332 design concept.
I am opening up for broadside here, but the 225 looks like an L2 with less baggage space but more fuel capacity!!!!
I would like to see somebody come up with at least a design concept for an offshore helicopter that meets all the requirements of our industry. Surely the Offshore industry must be the largest class of helicopter user worldwide!!!
Any thoughts
225 Vs 92
Severe financial penalties would be incurred by any operator unable to provide daily helicopter support to the offshore companies, therefore why place all your eggs in one basket and plumb for a single type platform.
By buying more than one platform type, operators reduce exposure to any penalties in the event that one type was grounded.
As with all platforms, it depends on where you are sat and who’s paying as to the best option. I don’t suppose those being carried out to the platforms care too much about anything other than safety and comfort, whereas the operator looks at through-life-costs and performance.
Severe financial penalties would be incurred by any operator unable to provide daily helicopter support to the offshore companies, therefore why place all your eggs in one basket and plumb for a single type platform.
By buying more than one platform type, operators reduce exposure to any penalties in the event that one type was grounded.
As with all platforms, it depends on where you are sat and who’s paying as to the best option. I don’t suppose those being carried out to the platforms care too much about anything other than safety and comfort, whereas the operator looks at through-life-costs and performance.