AW189
I am glad to see progress with this aircraft.
However, it makes the window seat rule look a bit stupid. You'd be lucky to get a fat man through a S-92 window but you'd get a fat man plus his horse through an AW189 window (with the saddle still on through an EC175 window!).
However, it makes the window seat rule look a bit stupid. You'd be lucky to get a fat man through a S-92 window but you'd get a fat man plus his horse through an AW189 window (with the saddle still on through an EC175 window!).
Terminus, it's very likely a 16 passenger aircraft where you live.
120 Nm out and back, with JAA standard IFR reserves is going to get you at least 16 passengers @ 100 Kg each, or so the brochure says.
120 Nm out and back, with JAA standard IFR reserves is going to get you at least 16 passengers @ 100 Kg each, or so the brochure says.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW189 in service
8 pax 120nm on an 18 seat aircraft, not very impressive, no wonder they need 2 flights per day.
Hi terminus mos, it might all be a bit too early to start waving fingers
As the infamous Zen master once said..."we'll see"
Just my two cents worth
SS
Hi terminus mos, it might all be a bit too early to start waving fingers
As the infamous Zen master once said..."we'll see"
Just my two cents worth
SS
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swinger, I am not waving fingers, I am interested in the available payload which will tell me all I need to know. In any event, its not an optimal load, whether oil company logistics or AW189 related.
Next time I want 2 cents from you or your Zen philosophy I will ask.
Next time I want 2 cents from you or your Zen philosophy I will ask.
I note the referenced range of 600nm is with aux fuel and no reserves, so I would assume the 4 PAX at a 200nm RoA is with baseline fuel, although much detail is missing from this number. Noting current basing plans for the AW189 at LoS, Manston, Cardiff, Prestwick and Inverness, will BHL actually require aux fuel options to cover the UKSRR from any of these bases?
On the subject of fuel burn and not sure if the case for the final submissions, but I believe the initial requirements definition for RoA was for flight at just 1000 ft in ISA conditions, so pretty harsh fuel burn rates for any platform.
With lot 1 and 2 base transitions commencing on 1st April 2015, we should see initial platform deliveries to cover pre-transition training on their way pretty soon and then we will know fact from fiction.
On the subject of fuel burn and not sure if the case for the final submissions, but I believe the initial requirements definition for RoA was for flight at just 1000 ft in ISA conditions, so pretty harsh fuel burn rates for any platform.
With lot 1 and 2 base transitions commencing on 1st April 2015, we should see initial platform deliveries to cover pre-transition training on their way pretty soon and then we will know fact from fiction.
I believe SAR 189's will have even more fuel than the standard+fwd tank+aux.
IIRC the SAR 189 has a deeper belly on it that has increased fuel stowage. I'm pretty sure the camo painted prototype has that belly on it now.
IIRC the SAR 189 has a deeper belly on it that has increased fuel stowage. I'm pretty sure the camo painted prototype has that belly on it now.
The SAR configured AW189 has a completely redesigned fuel storage and distribution system to guarantee the performance number required by the Bristow SAR contract in the UK.
You are correct, the AW189 doe not have the same CatA/PC1 profiles as the AW139 since it's a different helicopter with a different rotor blade design, different engines...
If you forgive me, I still fail to see the issue.
If you forgive me, I still fail to see the issue.