EC 225 vs. S 92 'from the cockpit'
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter which type
Well, beeing two metres tall, I prefer the S92 that I'm flying over the 225, but if the company would decide to make the base a 225 only base, then I would cram myself into it and be happy about it.
There are definately good things with both helicopters, so it is not a deciding factor and if you find out you are on the wrong one, you will be able to change after a few years anyway.
Worst on S92 is autopilot, vibrations can be bad, but not so bad that some say. Good thing with it is that it is the "A" model with many nice upgrades to come, hopefully. 5 blades and the machine would be a dream for me at least.
Worst on 225 is not for me to say, but when the 50hr inspection stops including changing the engines, since their performance has degraded below acceptable, it will be a nice helicopter for shorter pilots.
Base is more important than type.
Have fun and maybe we'll meet in KSU.
/2beers
There are definately good things with both helicopters, so it is not a deciding factor and if you find out you are on the wrong one, you will be able to change after a few years anyway.
Worst on S92 is autopilot, vibrations can be bad, but not so bad that some say. Good thing with it is that it is the "A" model with many nice upgrades to come, hopefully. 5 blades and the machine would be a dream for me at least.
Worst on 225 is not for me to say, but when the 50hr inspection stops including changing the engines, since their performance has degraded below acceptable, it will be a nice helicopter for shorter pilots.
Base is more important than type.
Have fun and maybe we'll meet in KSU.
/2beers
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South US
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Started:
HC,
Still very tame compared to missiles flying in 2004-05 timeframe! Though a little off subject, I do like the EC 175 so far (full disclosure my company has a large position on the 175), but comparing a much larger EC 175 to an S76 is a bit difficult/unfair. The D will fit in where the AW139 and EC175 are too large or too costly to operate. One example for the Gulf of Mexico is many platforms are rated to 12,000 pounds or less, limiting the bigger medium twins. Now that the B214STs are basically out of the market the EC 175 is really creating its own place, I assume not just in the civil world. Frankly if I were Sikorsky I’d be more concerned with how the EC175 measures up to a Blackhawk instead of the S-76. Also Sikorsky does have some interesting ideas for the next medium as well, not just the X2.
I do like the fact that we now will have a range between 6-13 ton aircraft to choose from!
Now build one that gets 200 knots plus, smooth ride, comfortable cabin, right sized baggage compartment, robust gearboxes that make TBO, reliable low fuel consuming engines and a cockpit that suite HC’s very demanding standards. Oh yes and dampers that don’t leak.
Dave Stepanek
Still very tame compared to missiles flying in 2004-05 timeframe! Though a little off subject, I do like the EC 175 so far (full disclosure my company has a large position on the 175), but comparing a much larger EC 175 to an S76 is a bit difficult/unfair. The D will fit in where the AW139 and EC175 are too large or too costly to operate. One example for the Gulf of Mexico is many platforms are rated to 12,000 pounds or less, limiting the bigger medium twins. Now that the B214STs are basically out of the market the EC 175 is really creating its own place, I assume not just in the civil world. Frankly if I were Sikorsky I’d be more concerned with how the EC175 measures up to a Blackhawk instead of the S-76. Also Sikorsky does have some interesting ideas for the next medium as well, not just the X2.
I do like the fact that we now will have a range between 6-13 ton aircraft to choose from!
Now build one that gets 200 knots plus, smooth ride, comfortable cabin, right sized baggage compartment, robust gearboxes that make TBO, reliable low fuel consuming engines and a cockpit that suite HC’s very demanding standards. Oh yes and dampers that don’t leak.
Dave Stepanek
Dave
You are being far too sensible to get a good argument going! Of course you are right to point out that the 175 and 76D are not in the same category, I was responding to rotorrookie's comparison of the future generation 92 (if there is one) with the current generation EC product - just about as unreasonable as comparing a 76 with a 175!
HC
You are being far too sensible to get a good argument going! Of course you are right to point out that the 175 and 76D are not in the same category, I was responding to rotorrookie's comparison of the future generation 92 (if there is one) with the current generation EC product - just about as unreasonable as comparing a 76 with a 175!
HC
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South US
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Yes I’m naturally reverting back to a salesperson (I guess I can't help myself), being sensible, avoiding conflict and getting to yes! This is why we have engineers, and test pilots to cut through the c&%p. Good point on the response to Rotorrookie, missed your direction on that one. Cheers, hope to see you at Helitech.
Dave
I can't see the air-conditioning compressor vent........
I can't see the air-conditioning compressor vent........
Having flown a couple of Ozzie 225 with aircon, it is very nice even in S of France temperatures, but of course it does cut down the payload a bit - instead of having about 750lbs more payload than the 92, it takes it down to a mere 500lbs more...
HC
HC,
Is this some of the famous British "understatement" I hear so much about?
If one were to go back over other discussions would we find the same admission of "prejudice" in your arguments with a certain well know advocate of the S-92?
If one embraces the EC concept of telling only what is absolutely necessary then it seems you are a back sliding and becoming an advocate of the SA method of getting out as much information as possible.
Those few hours in the 92 Simulator appears to be having a positive effect.
(There.....how did I do Nick?)
Is this some of the famous British "understatement" I hear so much about?
Everyone knows I am biased to the 225
If one embraces the EC concept of telling only what is absolutely necessary then it seems you are a back sliding and becoming an advocate of the SA method of getting out as much information as possible.
Those few hours in the 92 Simulator appears to be having a positive effect.
(There.....how did I do Nick?)
