AW169
Last edited by Phoinix; 26th Feb 2020 at 23:51.
Stupid pendulum absorbers that broke apart every 50 hours. Stupid MR blades that are near impossible to balance if you breathe on them. Grrrrrrr. MR heads that would keep moving forever and never settle down after install, continuously affecting vibes. Oh and the governor rigging for the +2/-2. And AFCU failures all the time.
Yeah, I remember the 412. Not fondly.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Out West
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd actually rather take a 139 into the bush than a 412. Far less day to day problems.
I remember Bell's ads on R&W when the DoD pulled the carpet from under them by adding the IFR requirement to the LUH competiotion.
I think I actually saved that somewhere.
I just wish they'd upgrade the slump pads to 6800 or 7000kg instead of being stuck at 6400kg.
Those doing sling work say it lifts really well. Although I'd also like to see the hook mounts beefed up.
I would not take a 169 bush though. It is not made for easy access without a hangar and work stands.
Perhaps I'm biased with 15 years on the 139 but it's served me well.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Nerd-land
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone flown with MaxViz EVS-2300.
What are your thought in comparison with other products?
Does it works better than single band product?
When IFR at night, is it possible to see clouds, layers?
Thank you!
What are your thought in comparison with other products?
Does it works better than single band product?
When IFR at night, is it possible to see clouds, layers?
Thank you!
SVS is right in front of you and does the job in the same way. Both are info only, SVS not limited by thick clouds though - in haze or thin layers of clouds you can see through, otherwise you don’t.
Flying based on any of these data is not an option (certification wise).
Personally, I didn’t like it, SVS all the way for SA purposes only.
Flying based on any of these data is not an option (certification wise).
Personally, I didn’t like it, SVS all the way for SA purposes only.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Nerd-land
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SVS is right in front of you and does the job in the same way. Both are info only, SVS not limited by thick clouds though - in haze or thin layers of clouds you can see through, otherwise you don’t.
Flying based on any of these data is not an option (certification wise).
Personally, I didn’t like it, SVS all the way for SA purposes only.
Flying based on any of these data is not an option (certification wise).
Personally, I didn’t like it, SVS all the way for SA purposes only.
But if you would be IFR at 6000ft away from the ground and would like to find yourself between layers of clouds to avoid icing? Will it work just for this?
You see the cloud with your eyes and you do with IR... you only see through very thin layers vith EVS. So in any case, when you see you are inbetween layers, the EVS is the same as your eyeball mk.1.
Water vapour - ie clouds and fog - attenuates IR frequencies so you can't see through them. An IR sensor detects differences in emitted radiation and the water vapour acts a a wet blanket, making everything the same emissivity.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have experiences with tail mounted TLX searchlight for police landings in dark places? Does it have good freedom of operating from pilots viewpoint or bad shadowing of wheels and fuselage?
The two 169 landing lights are perfectly suited for the job.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see. I guess things changed https://helihub.com/2017/07/10/sas-t...ilot-training/
