Agusta AW139
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
Tottigol - Drill for 'Eng Chip'
The real issue here is that when the engine is turned to idle not only does the load on that engine increase but more critically the generator load on the engine that you want to keep will fall dramatically and may fall as low as the 3% threshold at which point the generator is taken off line by the GMU.
This is obviously an undesirable situation if you then shut down the engine with the chip as you will then have no gennies. It took 3 years of detective work to find that little gem and yes we checked it in the real aircraft and that's exactly what happens. Quite how two electrical systems that are supposed to be isolated can behave in that way I am not sure and I have yet to find an explanation but I'll keep trying. The trick with the Bus Tie neatly circumvents this problem but the RFM leaves you in the dark as to why you need to use it.
Not all the sims behave as they should so you can't use your FSTD to verify that this point. Check it next time you shut down on the real aircraft.
G.
PS. Now back in harness at Sesto
This is obviously an undesirable situation if you then shut down the engine with the chip as you will then have no gennies. It took 3 years of detective work to find that little gem and yes we checked it in the real aircraft and that's exactly what happens. Quite how two electrical systems that are supposed to be isolated can behave in that way I am not sure and I have yet to find an explanation but I'll keep trying. The trick with the Bus Tie neatly circumvents this problem but the RFM leaves you in the dark as to why you need to use it.
Not all the sims behave as they should so you can't use your FSTD to verify that this point. Check it next time you shut down on the real aircraft.
G.
PS. Now back in harness at Sesto
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Seoul
Agusta AW139
Is there anyone out there that has an updated 139 RFM that they could send me please? If so, let me know and I will send you my email information.
I appreciate your help.
I appreciate your help.
Last edited by swisherd78; 29th October 2014 at 00:08.
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: AFRICA
AW139 engineer position
I found the following on a website
Aero Support llc is looking for a qualified AW139 engineer for a permanent position in a West African country (Ebola free).
Must have 15 years of proven helicopter experience including 5 years on AW139
Must be fluent in French and English
Send your resume to : contact @aero-support-llc.com
Must have 15 years of proven helicopter experience including 5 years on AW139
Must be fluent in French and English
Send your resume to : contact @aero-support-llc.com
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
I had heard a rumour earlier about a 7,000kg upgrade: AW prepare for 7,000kg gross weight AW139
Tail boom change/engine upgrade amongst other improvements?
30 Oct, 14
HeliHub.com understands that AgustaWestland are working on a higher gross weight AW139. With the current model topping out at 6,400kg all up weight, plans are apparently well advanced for a 7,000kg version. There will be a gap in the serial number sequences. The Italian production line is currently around MSN 31570 and will jump to 31701 for the new model. The US production line is at 41395 and is expected the numbers will jump to 41501.
We do not have a time scale on the new model. The 7,000kg gross weight puts the very successful AW139 – with over 700 delivered to date – right up against the Airbus EC175. The French built helicopter has been certified by EASA at 7,000kg but no deliveries have yet been made to operators.
AgustaWestland were asked to comment on this story, but would only say that they “are continually looking at options to further increase the AW139’s class leading performance”.
HeliHub.com understands that AgustaWestland are working on a higher gross weight AW139. With the current model topping out at 6,400kg all up weight, plans are apparently well advanced for a 7,000kg version. There will be a gap in the serial number sequences. The Italian production line is currently around MSN 31570 and will jump to 31701 for the new model. The US production line is at 41395 and is expected the numbers will jump to 41501.
We do not have a time scale on the new model. The 7,000kg gross weight puts the very successful AW139 – with over 700 delivered to date – right up against the Airbus EC175. The French built helicopter has been certified by EASA at 7,000kg but no deliveries have yet been made to operators.
AgustaWestland were asked to comment on this story, but would only say that they “are continually looking at options to further increase the AW139’s class leading performance”.
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 57
From: UK
I had heard a rumour earlier about a 7,000kg upgrade: AW prepare for 7,000kg gross weight AW139
Tail boom change/engine upgrade amongst other improvements?
Tail boom change/engine upgrade amongst other improvements?
"With the current model topping out at 6,400kg all up weight, plans are apparently well advanced for a 7,000kg version."
The current max AUW is 6800kg.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
From: England & Scotland
EAD issued for AW139 and AB139.
Main Rotor – Rotating Scissors – Inspection / Modification
This AD supersedes EASA Emergency AD 2014-0073-E dated 20 March 2014
Main Rotor – Rotating Scissors – Inspection / Modification
This AD supersedes EASA Emergency AD 2014-0073-E dated 20 March 2014
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 642
Likes: 2
From: daworld
John Eacott, they flew 31002 around for a couple of years at 7100kg and it all worked fine. Can't remember where I saw the report on it.
Edit: Here is a photo of 31002 flying at 7100kg with the Goodrich landing gear. Also it is testing the Enhanced Long Nose rear cowling.
Notice the strain gauges on the tailboom, probably checking the twisting at the increased gross weight. From what I heard, the tests were very successful and showed that the stresses between 6.8 and 7.1 were basically the same.
Interesting to see that after all these years it still has the old passenger doors with the external carriage/roller mechanism and with the door handles identical to the pilots. Not sure why that was changed on production machines.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7284882
It did have the heavyweight landing gear (Goodrich) on it though, like the 189 gear. This is now available on the 139 as an (expensive) option.
I heard the new tailboom will be standard for all new 139's so I don't think it will just be for a possible 7k machine. Mind you I've also hear talk of a new fuselage as well to improve upon the "Enhanced" Long Nose fuselage.
We shall see.....
Tottigol, speaking of the 7.5k EC175, why aren't they delivering any if it has been certified for so long?
Edit: Here is a photo of 31002 flying at 7100kg with the Goodrich landing gear. Also it is testing the Enhanced Long Nose rear cowling.
Notice the strain gauges on the tailboom, probably checking the twisting at the increased gross weight. From what I heard, the tests were very successful and showed that the stresses between 6.8 and 7.1 were basically the same.
Interesting to see that after all these years it still has the old passenger doors with the external carriage/roller mechanism and with the door handles identical to the pilots. Not sure why that was changed on production machines.
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7284882
It did have the heavyweight landing gear (Goodrich) on it though, like the 189 gear. This is now available on the 139 as an (expensive) option.
I heard the new tailboom will be standard for all new 139's so I don't think it will just be for a possible 7k machine. Mind you I've also hear talk of a new fuselage as well to improve upon the "Enhanced" Long Nose fuselage.
We shall see.....
Tottigol, speaking of the 7.5k EC175, why aren't they delivering any if it has been certified for so long?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 1
From: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Mmmm ...
Rumours have been about for some time on what has been called the Mk2 139 ...
... those rumours also mentioned a different engine fit as well (CT7s anyone ?) and avionics ...
Time will tell ....
Rumours have been about for some time on what has been called the Mk2 139 ...
... those rumours also mentioned a different engine fit as well (CT7s anyone ?) and avionics ...
Time will tell ....
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 103
Likes: 3
From: Melbourne
John Eacott,
The Queensland Government AW 139s are now rated at 6800kg following a software up grade and minor changes to the tail rotor. However, the additional 400 kgs comes at a cost to the maintenance hours when it is flown above 6400 hours.
The Queensland Government AW 139s are now rated at 6800kg following a software up grade and minor changes to the tail rotor. However, the additional 400 kgs comes at a cost to the maintenance hours when it is flown above 6400 hours.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 317
Likes: 8
From: Escaped from ABZ...
There were mutterings from the instructional staff at Sesto earlier this year about a mk2 139 with the increased AUM (as above) as well as the ability to run one of the engines as an APU (Wessex/Sea King actuated freewheel anyone?). I had also heard that to provide commonality across the 169/139/189 that the avionics would all begin to look like the 189, perhaps with the hope that changes between the types would only require a differences course rather than an entire TR.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 1
From: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Mmmmm .....
'Twud appear the sarcastic dig after my post (#1673) has been removed ...
much appreciated ...
Thank you detgnome ... we must have been listening to the same rumour monger ...
'Twud appear the sarcastic dig after my post (#1673) has been removed ...
much appreciated ...
Thank you detgnome ... we must have been listening to the same rumour monger ...
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Anyone have an opinion on why there is a 10 sec limit on light up during the start?
I was only type rated a few months ago so i stand to be corrected. Im thinking that its a limit with the supply of fuel from the EEC combined with the FMM. Im just scouting my ground school notes but nothing specific at the moment. Ill do some more research.
Our brief is for first eng start.
"Start the clock, check for start legends and light off within 10 seconds & ITT does not exceed 869, Rotors turning by 40% and start disengaged by 49%, any questions or additions"
Last edited by belly tank; 22nd November 2014 at 19:25.
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 57
From: UK
Interesting. That is all standard stuff. Do you repeat it for every first engine start?
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 673
Likes: 1
From: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
I think its because if it hasn't started within 10 secs, you may be accumulating unburnt fuel in the engine, with the possibility that If it does subsequently start, it will be a hot one
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
From: LOS
ok, well I was told by one of the ground instructors ( maintenance not flight) in Sesto it was because the ignitors only operate for 10 secs. I can find nothing in writing to this effect.
It sure seems odd that as a group we all seem to just go along with a limit stated in the RFM and no one questioned why......
It sure seems odd that as a group we all seem to just go along with a limit stated in the RFM and no one questioned why......