EC 175
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Roundswego - having flown it with 15 pax and two crew one week ago my last statements stand at 3,000 feet + 11 degrees C.
Tottigo - once again have you flown the EC175. If not your statements are uniformed rubbish!
DB
Tottigo - once again have you flown the EC175. If not your statements are uniformed rubbish!
DB
Way to reply DB, you clearly provide exact technical facts and not a series of well picked numbers that provide a convenient partial truth.
I don't need to fly the dam thing, the laws of physics and aerodynamics apply to all helicopters.
15 pax and two crew, at what total weight, how much fuel onbard, how much did the passengers weigh and what was the fuel flow at what IAS.
Those are the numbers that I want to see, everything else you provide in this forum is MARKETING.
In this world of competing products, a partial truth is worth the potential loss of sale of hundreds of helicopters.
By the way what are your motivations.
Never mind, I saw your profile, another former pilot turned sales rep.
I don't need to fly the dam thing, the laws of physics and aerodynamics apply to all helicopters.
15 pax and two crew, at what total weight, how much fuel onbard, how much did the passengers weigh and what was the fuel flow at what IAS.
Those are the numbers that I want to see, everything else you provide in this forum is MARKETING.
In this world of competing products, a partial truth is worth the potential loss of sale of hundreds of helicopters.
By the way what are your motivations.
Never mind, I saw your profile, another former pilot turned sales rep.
Those are the numbers that I want to see, everything else you provide in this forum is MARKETING.
In this world of competing products, a partial truth is worth the potential loss of sale of hundreds of helicopters.
By the way what are your motivations.
In this world of competing products, a partial truth is worth the potential loss of sale of hundreds of helicopters.
By the way what are your motivations.
But where are the figures you are requesting when you say two pages before on this thread : "The 189 shall not have a significantly higher fuel cosumption than the 139" ?!
Strange statement (marketing) in fact when few days before on the 189 Bristow thread, you say :" Fuel burn is actually comparable to the smaller 139 as well."
The 189 has increased is fuel consumption in two weeks ?!
What are you motivations and who are your masters (as you used this word with DB) ?
.
I have flown both extensively. The fuel cruise burn charts are available. The 189 fuel flow is within 15 Kg/hr even though it is considerably heavier.
Henry, you are playing semanthics while we arecstill waiting for real numbers for the 175.
Henry, you are playing semanthics while we arecstill waiting for real numbers for the 175.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TOTTIGOL - I am a CURRENT pilot, TRI/TRE on heavy Airbus types.
I work for Airbus. At Airbus we do not critise other manufacturers helicopters as we recognise the huge effort that goes into making a new helicopter. What we do is explain our helicopter capabilities to potential clients and hope we can meet their needs.
I have personal experience of the EC175 but I am not a test pilot or a marketing man. I happen to believe the EC175 is an exceptional helicopter in its own right. I have absolutley no idea how it compares to other manufacturers types.
I described what I saw in flight. As you seem obsessed with mass and airspeed decay I suspect you have not flown a very modern EC type like 225 or 175 because if you had you would realise there is vey little difference in the MTOM airspeeds than when empty.
My motivation is to make people aware that our helicopters are well thought out competitive machines with some really sharp safety features especially in the avionics.
I know you have not flown it and yet you still sound off on this forum as if you are informed. You are either unintelligent, ignorant or attempting to spread disinformation in support of other types.
If you are a helicopter pilot shame on you because no matter what badge a helicopter wears, they are all outstanding flying machines and do deserve your delusions however poorly the are intended.
Go ahead. It's crystal to all on this forum!
I work for Airbus. At Airbus we do not critise other manufacturers helicopters as we recognise the huge effort that goes into making a new helicopter. What we do is explain our helicopter capabilities to potential clients and hope we can meet their needs.
I have personal experience of the EC175 but I am not a test pilot or a marketing man. I happen to believe the EC175 is an exceptional helicopter in its own right. I have absolutley no idea how it compares to other manufacturers types.
I described what I saw in flight. As you seem obsessed with mass and airspeed decay I suspect you have not flown a very modern EC type like 225 or 175 because if you had you would realise there is vey little difference in the MTOM airspeeds than when empty.
My motivation is to make people aware that our helicopters are well thought out competitive machines with some really sharp safety features especially in the avionics.
I know you have not flown it and yet you still sound off on this forum as if you are informed. You are either unintelligent, ignorant or attempting to spread disinformation in support of other types.
If you are a helicopter pilot shame on you because no matter what badge a helicopter wears, they are all outstanding flying machines and do deserve your delusions however poorly the are intended.
Go ahead. It's crystal to all on this forum!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one sighted using Northrepps Airfield north of Norwich doing a demo flights the other probably for Bond; the airfield tried to take photos but Airbus were too cunning and kept to the far corner of the field.
Look pal, I do not want to change this thread into a slugging match. I am just going to state once and for all that aerodynamics and physics are unflexible, you can improve on them, but going faster at hevier all up masses requires more power, and when you go over a certain threshold your fuel flow rate increases drastically even for modest speed gains.
I have never said the 175 sucks, perhaps it does, perhaps it does not.
What sucks for you is that in your job, and considering the professional forum attendance, stating half truths and keeping a similar attitude is only helping the competition.
Have a nice day.
I have never said the 175 sucks, perhaps it does, perhaps it does not.
What sucks for you is that in your job, and considering the professional forum attendance, stating half truths and keeping a similar attitude is only helping the competition.
Have a nice day.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are settling with power guys on this thread and need to get speed back on track...I believe everyone here agree that both helicopters mentioned are great in their own right...We can go on and on for ages talking about their performance and get really subjective over it , but the fact of the matter remains the same. That after years of research into the growing market demands in terms of finding a versatile multirole helicopter, Operators have favored (for reasons best known to themselves) the AW189 over the EC175 by a milestone (which is evident in the Total Booking Order). So, Agusta Westland yet again rule the market I'm afraid, which is no surprise for the majority of the world except the fair few. Which brings me back to my earlier thread...
I have not criticized the 175, nor have I compared it to the 139 or 189 (HH brought those two threads over here out of context to try getting back at me
).
What I was trying to obtain are real numbers and not the polished version for the shirt and tie beancounters, the beancounters do not fly the aircraft but they will expect you to fly it the way THEY are told and to get the performance THEY are told.
Those valuable folks flying out to the Oil and Gas production and discovery structures are quite larger and normally carry more gear than skinny corporate type ogling over a fancy cabin interior and oohhing (my term) over a smooth ride, I can make an out of track 412 fly smooth.
That is why the number of passengers is relative and why the PAYLOAD is what counts, same as speed meaning fuel flow.
You can put as much polish on as you wish, but those are the figures that count to get the job done offshore.
And I didn't need to call anyone names to point that out, did I?
So remember Mr. Whatsyourname that YOU represent Airbus on this forum, why I represent myself a possible customer who now shall probably look at the whatever it is competition because of YOUR attitude.
By the way, a quick google search found this article:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...weight-399566/
So, it seems somebody is lying and it ain't yours truly.
).What I was trying to obtain are real numbers and not the polished version for the shirt and tie beancounters, the beancounters do not fly the aircraft but they will expect you to fly it the way THEY are told and to get the performance THEY are told.
Those valuable folks flying out to the Oil and Gas production and discovery structures are quite larger and normally carry more gear than skinny corporate type ogling over a fancy cabin interior and oohhing (my term) over a smooth ride, I can make an out of track 412 fly smooth.
That is why the number of passengers is relative and why the PAYLOAD is what counts, same as speed meaning fuel flow.
You can put as much polish on as you wish, but those are the figures that count to get the job done offshore.
And I didn't need to call anyone names to point that out, did I?
So remember Mr. Whatsyourname that YOU represent Airbus on this forum, why I represent myself a possible customer who now shall probably look at the whatever it is competition because of YOUR attitude.
By the way, a quick google search found this article:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...weight-399566/
So, it seems somebody is lying and it ain't yours truly.
Last edited by tottigol; 26th May 2014 at 18:25.
Roundswego - having flown it with 15 pax and two crew one week ago my last statements stand at 3,000 feet + 11 degrees C.
Can you tell us what the projected North Sea Empty Operating Mass is (fully equipped, including aircraft library, tie downs etc etc but excluding crew and fuel)?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Roundswego APS for offshore between 4500-4600 kgs dependant on options taken. Max fuel 2050 kgs. Fuel is left behind with 16 pax but the radious of action at the new MTOM is good at between 170-180 nm.
The real progress is in the Helionics which takes the cockpit one great leap into the future with no Systems Gauges displayed to the crew during Normal operations. Active trend monitoring does the job for the pilot. The AFCS also packed with safety features that protect the envelope and is a natural evolution ofthe EC225 AFCS.
Passengers, operators, unions and pilots all impressed with the open airy cabin, huge windows and exceptionally smooth ride.
It's a fantastic helicopter to fly and every passenger who flew in her on the Demo Tour loved it.
I am sure there are n umbers and parameters that when manipulated cynically will make the old girl look lame but you cannot hide quality and it shone through in spades last week.
DB
The real progress is in the Helionics which takes the cockpit one great leap into the future with no Systems Gauges displayed to the crew during Normal operations. Active trend monitoring does the job for the pilot. The AFCS also packed with safety features that protect the envelope and is a natural evolution ofthe EC225 AFCS.
Passengers, operators, unions and pilots all impressed with the open airy cabin, huge windows and exceptionally smooth ride.
It's a fantastic helicopter to fly and every passenger who flew in her on the Demo Tour loved it.
I am sure there are n umbers and parameters that when manipulated cynically will make the old girl look lame but you cannot hide quality and it shone through in spades last week.
DB
The beancounters don't seem to be going for it (64 vs 130). Is each airframe much more expensive than an equivalent AW189?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
I think we must be a little pragmatic and maybe accept that the issue with the EC225 MGB has probably had an impact. Hopefully as the new shaft enters service and things stabilise the EC175 will have its day in the sun. I never forget that the EC225 has still not hurt anyone but the Insurers!
DB
DB
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TOTTIGOL just for you Sir;
MTOM - 7800
APS. - 4600
16 bears - 1600
2 pilots - 170
16 bags - 160
Total 6530 empty fuel mass
Fuel 1270 kgs
Burn average 480 ph
Cruise speed average 155 KIAS
30 min reserve 220 kgs
Leaves 1050 fuel burnt at 480 ph mass average in fast cruise 155 KIAS = 340nms or 170 Nm Radius of Action.
I am being kind at 10 kgs per man for the bags but harsh with 16 fat bastards at 100 kgs each. In my 1/4 century of offshore experience I reckons we could generally be 200 kgs better of with a normal average load which will see her radius of action sniffing at 200 Nm.
All I have stated is on the Airbus website and in 212 mans posted link.
My personal flight experience, 17 POB at the MTOM supports the data in the glossy brief.
Now try to be gentle and deal in facts!!
Apologies it took so long but been a bit busy.
MTOM - 7800
APS. - 4600
16 bears - 1600
2 pilots - 170
16 bags - 160
Total 6530 empty fuel mass
Fuel 1270 kgs
Burn average 480 ph
Cruise speed average 155 KIAS
30 min reserve 220 kgs
Leaves 1050 fuel burnt at 480 ph mass average in fast cruise 155 KIAS = 340nms or 170 Nm Radius of Action.
I am being kind at 10 kgs per man for the bags but harsh with 16 fat bastards at 100 kgs each. In my 1/4 century of offshore experience I reckons we could generally be 200 kgs better of with a normal average load which will see her radius of action sniffing at 200 Nm.
All I have stated is on the Airbus website and in 212 mans posted link.
My personal flight experience, 17 POB at the MTOM supports the data in the glossy brief.
Now try to be gentle and deal in facts!!
Apologies it took so long but been a bit busy.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
I dunno.
They are just numbers to hang our hats on.
Maybe I can get names of some offshore workers, weigh them and make a proper list. Would that help TM?
They are just numbers to hang our hats on.
Maybe I can get names of some offshore workers, weigh them and make a proper list. Would that help TM?
DB, I thought you said you were a pilot. I think you are a salesman. Look at the RFM. Airbus probably haven't got the figures in the RFM for mass above 7500kgs which has not been certified yet but at 7500kgs (which would be about the half way mark out to your mythical 170nm) the RFM is giving a TAS of 151kt and FF of 540kgs/hr (SFC=3.576kgs/nm) at just below MCP. These are taken from the 3000'/0c graph. At the Recommended cruise setting, the figures are 145kts/515kgs/hr (3.552kgs/nm). Going up to 6000', the figures improve to 3.483kg/nm at MCP and 3.243kgs/nm at Recommended cruise. How do you get 155kt and 480kgs/hr which would give a SFC of 3.097?
DB, you insist on pushing 7800kg as AUM, however the EC175 was certificated under EASA at a max weight of 7500Kg.
Further weight increases require supplemental certification paperwork and time, so me thinks you are selling vaporware.
Also the number you are boasting for cruise are not matched by the RFM, perhaps you ought to review some figures, or stop lieing in a forum of professionals.
Before you go on a tantrum again and start calling people names, I suggest you review your numbers.
You started by calling those 30 minutes an IFR reserve, that did not really make much sense. Now you caught ghe mistake and made those into a VFR reserve, slightly vloser to reality. 10 kg of bags per passenger happens only in your North Sea dreams, try that in the GoM and you'll be leaving passengers behind to carry the bags, it already happens in the 225.
I have not quite made it yet to the ISA +20 charts, want to guess what I'll find there?
Oh yes, the airy interior and the smooth ride.
Further weight increases require supplemental certification paperwork and time, so me thinks you are selling vaporware.
Also the number you are boasting for cruise are not matched by the RFM, perhaps you ought to review some figures, or stop lieing in a forum of professionals.
Before you go on a tantrum again and start calling people names, I suggest you review your numbers.
You started by calling those 30 minutes an IFR reserve, that did not really make much sense. Now you caught ghe mistake and made those into a VFR reserve, slightly vloser to reality. 10 kg of bags per passenger happens only in your North Sea dreams, try that in the GoM and you'll be leaving passengers behind to carry the bags, it already happens in the 225.
I have not quite made it yet to the ISA +20 charts, want to guess what I'll find there?
Oh yes, the airy interior and the smooth ride.
Last edited by tottigol; 28th May 2014 at 00:43.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TOTTIGOL
1. The IFR reserve at holding speed.
2. Helicopters burn fuel as they fly (you might have noticed) you therefore take an average between them listed figures. You are using values at the MTOM.
3. The cruise speed at 7500 is 156 KIAS. I have seen it with my own eyes.
4. The MTOM will be certified at 7800 kgs very soon. At 7500 the published radius of action Auth 16 oil and gas pax is 140 mms. At 7800 this will increase to between 170 and 200 depending on the mass of the pax. These are mathematical facts.
5. There are very few baggage bumps in an EC225. You are fantasising.
These figures are available in the public domain.
You are making yourself look desperate. Keep trying!
1. The IFR reserve at holding speed.
2. Helicopters burn fuel as they fly (you might have noticed) you therefore take an average between them listed figures. You are using values at the MTOM.
3. The cruise speed at 7500 is 156 KIAS. I have seen it with my own eyes.
4. The MTOM will be certified at 7800 kgs very soon. At 7500 the published radius of action Auth 16 oil and gas pax is 140 mms. At 7800 this will increase to between 170 and 200 depending on the mass of the pax. These are mathematical facts.
5. There are very few baggage bumps in an EC225. You are fantasising.
These figures are available in the public domain.
You are making yourself look desperate. Keep trying!