Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

AW169

Old 6th Dec 2016, 07:21
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Africa
Posts: 45
It seems that AW has some issues with the AW169 development. The FAA Certification, which has been expected few months before the EASA certification, has more than 1 year delay. Many of the EMS operators can't use their HC because many mandatory equipments have not been yet certified.

Moreover when you compare the payload capability, the AW169 has quite the same payload as the H145, but the H145 has a MTOW around 1000kg lower than the AW169 (4600 vs 3700kg). This delta shows the difficulties face by AW in the design of this HC.

I hope AW will finally fully certify its HC and give it a good payload capability otherwise, the sales will never take off.
laurenson is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 14:32
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 594
And how far can you fly in an EMS configured 145?? A lot less than an EMS configured 169. Heck, a 145T2 won't even go as far as a BK117B2!

Oh, and I believe the 169 is the same price, if not cheaper. Same delays with FAA with the 169 as there were with the 189. Reciprocal agreements aren't so reciprocal when it comes to Type Certs with new avionic packages. For the 189 they eventually went with a VFR cert for FAA because FAA was so slow approving the IFR package!

Don't blame the aircraft for regulatory slowness.
noooby is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 15:15
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Africa
Posts: 45
Regarding the operating cost, it is always a function of the HC weight so I believe it will be higher for the AW169 than for the H145.
Fuel: 720 Kg for H145 vs 900 kg for AW169 but the PW210 burn more fuel and the Helicopter drag is also far more important so I expect a draw in term of range.
Finally, about certification, I just ask the question why the company announced a FAA certification in the following month after the EASA one and finally we have to wait more than a year. I hope FAA rules are not new for AW.
To be honest, I have friend who have bought some AW169, and with all the delay they are not sure it has been a good choice.
However, to finish on a more optimistic point, if AW is able to increase the MTOW to 5 tones, and enhance the fuel tank, I’m sure this HC will become a nice asset for companies.
laurenson is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 20:42
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 594
Operating cost is not a function of weight. It is a function of MTBF, the cost of components installed (repair/replacement), and fuel/sundries. Maintenance per flight hour can also be added on.

139 is same or less DOC's per hour, than a 76C++. CHC proved that over and over. Yet the 139 is heavier.

145 Max range, NO reserves is 365Nm. IFR with reserves takes it 300 or less. So for EMS, 150 out, 150 back.

169 is close to 400Nm range, with reserves.

Amount of fuel carried and consumption per hour is only part of the story. Speed is the other. Most AW's have their economy cruise in the 140-150 knot range. EC145 economy cruise is not that high. Hence 169 goes further.

Oh, it is cheaper too, by over US$1 million.

Ask FAA how long it takes at the moment to get an STC approved and you'll begin to understand why a Type Cert is taking so long, even though it is EASA certified already.

For STC's it is quicker now to do it in Canada and get it recognised through the bilateral agreement, than to do the STC in the US. Perhaps Leonardo should have certified the 169 in Canada first, then applied for the US certification!
noooby is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 21:21
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 42
Posts: 33
So, how many EMS operators fly legs of 200-400 Nm? I'd say that range is more interesting for O&G operations.
casper64 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2016, 23:38
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 77
So it would appear that in actuality, nobody knows why the FAA certification has been delayed for so long. Me thinks it isn't just paperwork but me doesn't know either.
roscoe1 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2016, 07:52
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Africa
Posts: 45
Your marketing argumentation is very good noooby.
However, you compare the DOC of a 1990 helicopter with a 2000s one. It is not very fair for the S-76C.
About the range, first I fully agree with casper64, it is not the top priority of an EMS mission. Then talking with pilots, the cruise speed of the AW169 is closer than 120-130kts currently (since the gear can go up ).
So I invite you to talk with operators and pilots who fly this HC rather than take AW’s salesman word for it. Marketing figures are often far from operational one.
laurenson is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2016, 14:00
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 594
There are EMS tenders out there at the moment stipulating 300Nm range. We don't all live in small nations.

I have heard that the 169 is slower than the other AW's. I don't take the salesman's word for anything other than what it is, trying to get people to part with $$$!!

I have access to operators of the 169, I know what they're complaining about. Not sure what AW are going to do about the speed. I know they tried many iterations of the MGB/Engine fairings trying to tidy up the airflow back there.

And I was comparing the C++, a much improved machine over the C! Not much nicer to work on, but better to operate.

As far as FAA, who knows. The GPS system delayed IFR cert on the 189 for well over a year, for no reason. Airworthiness authorities around the planet don't seem to have the experience they once did.

Take 139 SAR Modes for instance. Transport Canada have been in the process of approving them for more than 4 (yes, FOUR) years and they STILL are not approved in Canada, even though they are approved everywhere else and Transport Canada have been to Italy to do their own test flying.

They say there is nothing wrong with it, it just isn't a high enough priority for them to push it through. WTF???
noooby is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2017, 22:44
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Sao Paulo
Posts: 2
LPV APP

Originally Posted by echocharlie35 View Post
Hi, any 169 pilots around? Interested in knowing the performance?
I want to know about LPV aproach when it wil be running at 169?
Erhypolito109 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2017, 23:46
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Sao Paulo
Posts: 2
169 Flight Demo

Last november I had flight demo at 169 I was impressive with flight deck space in passenger compartiment ... The helicopter is easy and power smooth and quite regardin speed feel is the same Aw109 power but some improvinentes are being done such as atitude pich change in flight straight line for dragless under fuselage .
Erhypolito109 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 07:52
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 538
Anyone got any updates on when Leonardo are going to fix the gear issue - seems they are delivering 169s to customers but then telling them they cant retract the gear - some sort of issue with the actuators.

Also just heard they now have issues with the engine driveshaft leaking.
KiwiNedNZ is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 15:15
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 594
I wouldn't call it an issue with the engine driveshaft. More that the drain line went to the deck rather than to the overboard drain so it was making a mess!

The drain line and the landing gear have both been taken care of with Tech Bulletins.

They both came out last month. Takes quite a while to get new parts made, tested and put into production.

For the Landing Gear, the Bulletin is Mandatory, so owners get all the parts for free. Standard practice with Agusta (or whatever they're called now). No matter the age of the helicopter, if a Bulletin is Mandatory, parts are free.

More importantly, have they managed to speed it up? I hear it is a bit slow.

Last edited by noooby; 8th Feb 2017 at 15:21. Reason: Spellcheck is the enemy!!
noooby is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2017, 09:44
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: swedish lapland
Age: 45
Posts: 13
Quite a few bases in Scandinavia have range requirements of 300 nm or more. Here the 169 will definetly become a big player!
Perra is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2017, 16:29
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 594
I hear this morning that FAA cert is done. Can anyone confirm??
noooby is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2017, 09:17
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by noooby View Post
And how far can you fly in an EMS configured 145?? A lot less than an EMS configured 169. Heck, a 145T2 won't even go as far as a BK117B2!

Oh, and I believe the 169 is the same price, if not cheaper. Same delays with FAA with the 169 as there were with the 189. Reciprocal agreements aren't so reciprocal when it comes to Type Certs with new avionic packages. For the 189 they eventually went with a VFR cert for FAA because FAA was so slow approving the IFR package!

Don't blame the aircraft for regulatory slowness.
Yes! I was surprised that FAA was so fussy about little things with the avionic when we were trying to summit a little GPS mod.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2017, 14:15
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 151
Leonardo has confirmed FAA type certificate: https://twitter.com/AgustaWestland/s...19748378730496
GrantT is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2017, 16:52
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Africa
Posts: 45
I confirm AW said it is done but no TCDS yet.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...meset?OpenPage
laurenson is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2017, 17:27
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 594
FAA advised Leonardo Feb 8 that they accepted the validation of the EASA Type Cert. FAA Cert was issued Feb 2 (yes, before the validation letter).

TCDS number is R00007RD. I don't know why FAA don't have it on their website.

I asked someone at Leonardo and that is what they were able to tell me.

Happily this doesn't seem to be a case of Alternate Facts or Fake News though
noooby is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2017, 07:32
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: OS SX2063
Age: 49
Posts: 1,008
TCDS is on the FAA website now

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...07RD_Rev_0.pdf
VeeAny is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2017, 08:48
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 518
Am I getting this wrong?

Maximum Take-off and Landing altitude 8000 ft (pressure/density altitude whichever occurs first)
Bye bye AW169,
regards,
Alpine countries.
Phoinix is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.