EC 175
i am reporting you to the moderator.
Back on thread - did any of the BHL AW189 pilots in Norwich get to fly the 175? Their views would be particularly pertinent
Last edited by 212man; 23rd May 2014 at 08:13.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the nosewheel self castor to centre when the oleo extends? It looked slightly skew on the first take off in the video.
I will be interested in its REAL range and payload / fuel burn over the next couple of years. My operations needs lots of fuel due distance and lack of alternates.
I will be interested in its REAL range and payload / fuel burn over the next couple of years. My operations needs lots of fuel due distance and lack of alternates.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB
Did you get bullied at school? Made to wear shorts when all the big boys were in long trousers?
I heard the 175 has the cockpit from the Bolkow 105 and the tail rotor off the Wessex? It can lift 600kg on ISA days and that it is so quiet that you can't hear it coming until it has gone past.
Did you get bullied at school? Made to wear shorts when all the big boys were in long trousers?
I heard the 175 has the cockpit from the Bolkow 105 and the tail rotor off the Wessex? It can lift 600kg on ISA days and that it is so quiet that you can't hear it coming until it has gone past.
I won't respond to trolling
There are many pilots, mechanics, engineers, analysts, etc. on this site. We all have different views and preferences, but we're certainly not sitting in armchairs.
There are tons of posts about various other aircraft where we talk about their pros and cons (i.e. V-22, EC225, S92, etc). So when we talk about the EC175 and some of its failings, understand that just because you may be getting a kick out of that aircraft, the rest of us have opinions of our own.
There are tons of posts about various other aircraft where we talk about their pros and cons (i.e. V-22, EC225, S92, etc). So when we talk about the EC175 and some of its failings, understand that just because you may be getting a kick out of that aircraft, the rest of us have opinions of our own.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Phlyinguy. How can you possibly accuse me of trolling when you write the drivel that you do!! The prime purpose of every transport aircraft is the deliver maximum payload. There is no rushing involved. It is a clearly though out technical process to certification.
You are free to express your opinions as we are free to discredit them when they are complete fictions like "rushing" to increase the MTOM. Have you even seen the EC175? I suspect not.
212 An - sadly the Norwich 189 Chief Pilot did not make it. I do not know anything about the 189 or the 139. I can only vouch for the 175.
You are free to express your opinions as we are free to discredit them when they are complete fictions like "rushing" to increase the MTOM. Have you even seen the EC175? I suspect not.
212 An - sadly the Norwich 189 Chief Pilot did not make it. I do not know anything about the 189 or the 139. I can only vouch for the 175.
DB, since you are so knowledgeable about the 175, can you tell us what is its BOM (or Operating dry weight) in the OGP configuration and how nany does it seat in THAT configuration. That would be a good start towards credibility.
For everything else I am getting a sneezing fit, because I am severely allergic to bull****.
For everything else I am getting a sneezing fit, because I am severely allergic to bull****.
can you tell us what is its BOM (or Operating dry weight) in the OGP configuration and how nany does it seat in THAT configuration.
I assume that everyone with an opinion has read this: http://airbushelicoptersinc.com/imag...hData-2014.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
212 man thanks for helping me out with that one. It beggars believe that these guys offer an opinion with diddly squat knowledge and then retrospectively ask for it.
What the hell is "BOM" ????? Does he mean DOM!
I just had two PMs from a stone cold Dork, (you know who you are) to which I replied, followed by his last PM asking me not to reply!! Have I entered some kind of parallel universe.
What the hell is "BOM" ????? Does he mean DOM!
I just had two PMs from a stone cold Dork, (you know who you are) to which I replied, followed by his last PM asking me not to reply!! Have I entered some kind of parallel universe.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest you stop making DUM comments and show some respect DOUBLE LOUGY. I think we all know what tottigol meant. In any case, I'm not surprised by Double Bogeys' attitude as it reflects Airbus Helicopters customer service ethics which is 
to say the least. Bottom line, AW189 will rule as the AW139 did and still does! End of story!
to say the least. Bottom line, AW189 will rule as the AW139 did and still does! End of story!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Pababear have your ever flown, seen or studied the EC175?
I hear the AW139 and AW189 are fine ships. Sadly I have never had the chance to fly either and as such would not do AW the disservice of being rude about their product. I am sure AW engineers are justifiably proud of the efforts and rightly so and they do not deserve a person like me, ignorant of their efforts, making stupid uninformed statements or untruthful claims about their helicopters.
Now if people like you followed the same rules I would not feel the need to rein you in now and then.
Come on! Are you informed or are you the mouthpiece Ignoramous as your last post implies!
DB
I hear the AW139 and AW189 are fine ships. Sadly I have never had the chance to fly either and as such would not do AW the disservice of being rude about their product. I am sure AW engineers are justifiably proud of the efforts and rightly so and they do not deserve a person like me, ignorant of their efforts, making stupid uninformed statements or untruthful claims about their helicopters.
Now if people like you followed the same rules I would not feel the need to rein you in now and then.
Come on! Are you informed or are you the mouthpiece Ignoramous as your last post implies!
DB
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
212 Man the TechData you linked is out of date now. The new MTOM being 7,800 kgs. This provides 16 Pax with a radius of action with 30 minute IFR reserve of 170 Nm.
Alternatively, the maximum fuel load (with standard tank fit) permits 12 Pax with an approximate radius of action approaching 280 Nm.
To put this in contact, the EC225 with a full 19 pax has a radius of action of 190 Nm without the forward tanks.
All in all it is a pretty capable offshore machine and an outstanding SAR ship.
However the real progress is in the cockpit and sensing systems. Exceptional redundancy and state of the art AFCS.
The reviews in Aberdeen were outstanding!
Alternatively, the maximum fuel load (with standard tank fit) permits 12 Pax with an approximate radius of action approaching 280 Nm.
To put this in contact, the EC225 with a full 19 pax has a radius of action of 190 Nm without the forward tanks.
All in all it is a pretty capable offshore machine and an outstanding SAR ship.
However the real progress is in the cockpit and sensing systems. Exceptional redundancy and state of the art AFCS.
The reviews in Aberdeen were outstanding!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many pax can the 175 carry with CAP 1145 implemented but without re breathers (it may take sometime to get everyone trained)? More or less than a 189 or even 139?
DB are you saying radius ie. 280 out and 280 back with 12 pax? That's a long way. Do you know what the fuel burn rate is in real life at 5000 DA? 260 radius is my requirement.
DB are you saying radius ie. 280 out and 280 back with 12 pax? That's a long way. Do you know what the fuel burn rate is in real life at 5000 DA? 260 radius is my requirement.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TM - I do not have enough personal experience to answer your Q but will find out. My calculations are based on:
155 KIAS, 2000 kgs full, 30 min reserve, 490-510 kgs/hour burn at a cruising altitude. She is a very fast helicopter.
Is your requirement straight out and straight back?
DB
155 KIAS, 2000 kgs full, 30 min reserve, 490-510 kgs/hour burn at a cruising altitude. She is a very fast helicopter.
Is your requirement straight out and straight back?
DB
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by terminus mos
How many pax can the 175 carry with CAP 1145 implemented but without re breathers
...vs. 8 for the AW189:
(But will this interim CAP 1145 requirement ever actually be implemented?)
Interesting to note from their respective Tech Datas that the cabin volumes for the two aircraft are near identical: 424 cu. ft. (plus 82 cu. ft. baggage hold volume) for the 175, vs. 396 cu. ft. (plus 85 cu. ft. baggage volume) for the 189. It's going to be interesting to see how these compare to the 525: the Relentless minisite used to show a cabin volume of 390 cu. ft. for the 525, but this figure has now disappeared, with Bell quoting only a baggage hold volume of 128 cu. ft. and an unspecified "best in class cabin volume." Perhaps Bell is reviewing its cabin dimensions to offer something better justifying the 'super medium' label? The 525's external dimensions certainly seem bigger.
Originally Posted by Bravo73
How is the order book (compared to current orders for the AW189)?
By comparison, AgustaWestland claims orders for approximately 130 AW189s, "including options and framework contracts."
Originally Posted by tottigol
I seriously doubt that the CT-7 is thirstier than the PT6
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 27th Aug 2014 at 19:02.
...but engine thermodynamic performance tends to be better at the upper end of the power spectrum (i.e. the 'part power' SFC problem).
(Commonly referred to as Part Load SFC - PLSFC)
Airbus Helicopters claimed "total bookings for 48 EC175s" last September, since when they have also announced six for LCI, six more for NHV and two for CHI Aviation, with Pegaso also claimed to have converted two options to orders. So perhaps 64, assuming that the 16 additional orders weren't conversions of options included in the 48 figure, and assuming also no additional unannounced orders.
By comparison, AgustaWestland claims orders for approximately 130 AW189s, "including options and framework contracts."
By comparison, AgustaWestland claims orders for approximately 130 AW189s, "including options and framework contracts."
Thanks, I/C.
It sounds like the 'industry' has spoken (so far).
TM - I do not have enough personal experience to answer your Q but will find out. My calculations are based on:
155 KIAS, 2000 kgs full, 30 min reserve, 490-510 kgs/hour burn at a cruising altitude. She is a very fast helicopter.
Is your requirement straight out and straight back?
DB
155 KIAS, 2000 kgs full, 30 min reserve, 490-510 kgs/hour burn at a cruising altitude. She is a very fast helicopter.
Is your requirement straight out and straight back?
DB
I suspect you will be nearer 145kts and 540kg/hr at that weight.
Damn! Unless Airbus Helicopters just discovered the formula for antigravity at 7800 Kg AUM the 175 shall be another overgrown 155.
Forget PC1 and perhaps PC2e as well. Hold on, I am having another sneezing attack.
Forget PC1 and perhaps PC2e as well. Hold on, I am having another sneezing attack.