End of the 225?
But then as Memory serves...was the A-7 the last Single Engine Navy Operational Aircraft?
There was the F-14, FA-18, A-6. S-3. A-3. C1.C2. all Two Engined Aircraft.
There was the F-14, FA-18, A-6. S-3. A-3. C1.C2. all Two Engined Aircraft.
Yeah. That the Navy signed up for the single in JSF is an interesting bit of acquisition decision making, which I think Engines can talk to in the F-35 thread. (Maybe he already did). Navy put the November (Twin Huey, either HH-1N or UH-1N) onto Amphibious ships as a SAR bird back in the 70's.
Hopefully they learn the lesson and don't try to cut too many corners to shave the last ounce of the design
The Puma started off as a French Army requirement and first flew in 1965. Being a French military project there were certain requirements that regulated the design. One of these was that it had to be able to travel in a SNCF railway truck so it had to be sufficiently narrow. Another was that it had to fit into the back of a Transall C60 so it had a height restriction. This meant that compared with other helicopters of that era, ie S55 and S58, one could not stand up in the back. The first two prototypes had blunt UH1 type noses and minimal instrumentation. Small windows were admissible because being a military helicopter any passengers were not going to be on board for much more than ten minutes at a time.
A lot of the dynamics were licenced from Sikorsky and others, blades, autopilot, but there was a severe vibration level which was only brought under control by inventing the barbeque plate. Apart from that it was a fast, powerful helicopter with impressive manoeuvrability. It was accepted by the French Army and subsequently by the Royal Air Force, among others. It entered service in France in 1967 and the UK in 1970. It was fast, cruised at the unheard of speed of 145 knots with a VNE of 167knots. It flew like a fighter, being able to hold a 2G 60 degree banked turn and could carry sixteen troops and fuel up to a MAUW of 6,400kgs..
There was a demand for a civilian version to satisfy the market. A major obstacle was the TBO of the gearbox made in those day IIRC by FIAT. This was only 800 hours which in the military sphere was no problem but it was in the civilian world. A program known as CAAP (Component Advanced Ageing Program) was initiated using two RAF and I believe four French Army helicopters whose sole job was to continuously fly some 100 hrs./month using the same gearboxes that would be inspected at regular intervals and reissued. The aim was to prove that they could go to 1800hrs. TBO. It was difficult to find enough tasks to suit the one aircraft so it would be used for anything that burned off the hours. (Germany to pick up wine for a party, kippers from Machrihanish, look up old girlfriends, even to Aberdeen looking for a job) The project was successful and the civilian model became a reality.
Some problems were manifesting themselves. The engine mountings were cracking because of the vibration and there was a reinforcement programme. The boom/pylon joint was also suffering because of the very powerful tail rotor and doubling plates were applied. The initial models had no protection for the tail rotor and when subsequent examples appeared with a 'sting' on the boom that we were informed that they would not be fitted retrospectively. At Stanford PTA one brushed it's tail rotor and crashed; two weeks later they all had them on. It was generally thought that any helicopter that cruised at 145 knots was entitled to shake so the general moderate to heavy vibration was tolerated. The structure of the aircraft did not agree and bits were starting to fall off, things like doors and doghouses.
The along came Chadwick Helmuth.
Main rotor balancing and dynamic tracking transformed the vibration levels. You could read the Decca roller map and yout coffee stopped spilling over the floor. To celebrate this new found smoothness the AUW went up to 6,700kgs. With the proviso of being limited to 30 degrees of bank above 6,400kgs. The so-called standard problem of the Puma remained, however, which was the lack of anticipators owing to the steam traction system of engine control. (Spinning weights) This was usually a secondary cause when sudden contact with the ground was concerned. In the civil world the because of the more refined handling the MAUW was increased to 7,200 and with the 330J with the new plastic blades up to 7,400kgs. 1,000kgs above it's original MAUW.
The 332 then came on the scene. The heritage was obvious as the first 'Super Puma' was a 330A blunt nose prototype with Makila engines, a two wheel main undercarriage and an AFT plug in the fuselage. It's introduction with it's lead customer was accelerated because their large S76A order had been cancelled owing to their blades shedding. Their 332s had large windows, proper plug doors, anticipators and were delivered in a green state and completed in the UK. The MAUW was now up to 8,600kgs, 1,800 above it's original MAUW with the same basic fuselage design and similar rotor swept area. Despite the fact that it was still the original size as required in the 1960s so one could not stand up in it but was very successful especially when the production of the S61 ceased.
One would have thought that that was as far as one could stretch a Puma. Apparently not, and we have the 225 which has generated all sorts of problems in it's relatively short life. Putting new wine into old bottles springs to mind and one must wonder whether they stretched the elastic just a bit too far. I cannot think of it regaining its passenger's trust in the same way as the BV234 exited the offshore world so it is time for Airbus or whoever they call themselves nowadays to start with a new sheet of paper.
Thanks, great background story fareastdriver.
like new H160, H175, direction of new designs
welcome to the H190 (just made the name up, now start designing...)
like new H160, H175, direction of new designs
welcome to the H190 (just made the name up, now start designing...)
That is an amazing review Fareastdriver. Thank you.
On the point about stretching the elastic too far, I understand the point you are trying to make and I am sure that it's a point that will appeal to many. However, people trying to design complex products (cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, ...) to be reliable and safe, like to know exactly how much the elastic has been stretched already. With this objective, some industries aim for 80% proven product and 20% new design. It seems to me that this is broadly how the Puma story has been written, and over at Leonardo, how the AW169 and AW189 stories are now being written. BK117 anyone?
On the point about stretching the elastic too far, I understand the point you are trying to make and I am sure that it's a point that will appeal to many. However, people trying to design complex products (cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, ...) to be reliable and safe, like to know exactly how much the elastic has been stretched already. With this objective, some industries aim for 80% proven product and 20% new design. It seems to me that this is broadly how the Puma story has been written, and over at Leonardo, how the AW169 and AW189 stories are now being written. BK117 anyone?
Fareastdriver, thanks for the chronology. Interesting stuff. I'm curious what folks may feel about what is now the H215C1e variant. Different upper planetary gears and so on. Obviously that model is not affected by the EASA or FAA bulletins. Sure, it is smaller but it is a brute of a helicopter as far as I can tell. Not having the history with these machines it still seems like a very good aircraft for a chunk of the niche that the 332L2 and 225LP filled.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roscoe, that may be so but Offshore personnel already regard the 225 & L2 cabin to be too small. So to get them into something smaller will require some sales talk !! If we are going to go backwards.....S61 anybody ???
People bought Super Pumas in the 1980s because it had performance more suitable for a large passenger helicopter than a S-61. How does a S-61 (in which quite a few have ended their lives or had a very bad day) magically become safer because of the recent Super Puma history?
If you factored in systemic safety improvements into the S-61 to include aircraft...I wonder how the safety record of the Old Girls would look?
In the UK the 61 never shucked two Rotor Heads ever as I remember?
In the UK the 61 never shucked two Rotor Heads ever as I remember?
People bought Super Pumas in the 1980s because it had performance more suitable for a large passenger helicopter than a S-61. How does a S-61 (in which quite a few have ended their lives or had a very bad day) magically become safer because of the recent Super Puma history?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase...ype=S61&page=1
There seem to be a lot of rotor failures in this list, dampers spindles and blades.
The most remarkable being the loss of a main rotor blade on 29/12/90 to KLM PH-NVK
I believe the aircraft shut down on a rig after vibration issues and the blade departed as the rotor was coasting down.
There seem to be a lot of rotor failures in this list, dampers spindles and blades.
The most remarkable being the loss of a main rotor blade on 29/12/90 to KLM PH-NVK
I believe the aircraft shut down on a rig after vibration issues and the blade departed as the rotor was coasting down.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase...ype=S61&page=1
There seem to be a lot of rotor failures in this list, dampers spindles and blades.
The most remarkable being the loss of a main rotor blade on 29/12/90 to KLM PH-NVK
I believe the aircraft shut down on a rig after vibration issues and the blade departed as the rotor was coasting down.
There seem to be a lot of rotor failures in this list, dampers spindles and blades.
The most remarkable being the loss of a main rotor blade on 29/12/90 to KLM PH-NVK
I believe the aircraft shut down on a rig after vibration issues and the blade departed as the rotor was coasting down.
The Dutch event was way before my time. But I have been on the Logger platform where it happend. They had the blade root on a pedestal in their Mess room.
They were very lucky that time.
One blade or a full head: when it is not survivible and can/could not be detected in time it makes not that much difference. I understood they invented the BIM crack detectors for this S61 problem?
I think we also lost a S61 in the Dutch Northsea due to similar blade problem. That one crashes with I believe 6 people. (Might also have been a S62???)
On a side track:
On the Logger platform there was a faded photo on the wall of the S61 lifted of the platform by a B234.
I have never seen that photo again.
Does somebody has it?
SLB
They were very lucky that time.
One blade or a full head: when it is not survivible and can/could not be detected in time it makes not that much difference. I understood they invented the BIM crack detectors for this S61 problem?
I think we also lost a S61 in the Dutch Northsea due to similar blade problem. That one crashes with I believe 6 people. (Might also have been a S62???)
On a side track:
On the Logger platform there was a faded photo on the wall of the S61 lifted of the platform by a B234.
I have never seen that photo again.
Does somebody has it?
SLB
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: West Sussex
Age: 84
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I was working at BHL, I got quite friendly with Al Savard, a Sikorsky rep. he told me about the Los Angelis Airways S61 that had the first blade failure. His bosses told him to get down there and just calm thinks down a bit. He had this unenviable job as the boss of the airlines favourite grandson had been flying the aircraft.
He also said that after many requests to update the 61 with more powerful engine, and composite blades, they were quite happy to do it, but they wanted the operators to put up some money up front, but nobody would.
He also said that after many requests to update the 61 with more powerful engine, and composite blades, they were quite happy to do it, but they wanted the operators to put up some money up front, but nobody would.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like CHC has been given approval by a TX bankruptcy court to be released from their lease contracts on at least 65 EC225 helicopters. They also plan to get rid of most of their other similar AH models.
The question now is where will these helicopters end up?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...a-fami-427644/
The question now is where will these helicopters end up?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...a-fami-427644/
Technically agreed. But the result will be exactly the same, for the unfortunate souls onboard the only difference being the level of vibration before/while free- falling back to Earth.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear AH have discovered cracks in the tail rotor assy of the EC225 and they want the customer to pay for the fix , anyone got any information on what’s going on? Sounds like madness can’t possibly be true
Lets see here....225'S are being trucked over the road to the Surplus Yards around the World because the MGB's are so much scrap iron....and you really think someone is going to give a hoot about repairing cracks in the Tail Rotor Assy? Really!
I am wondering what the 225 MGB and rotor head weighs.....as I am interested in buying every one in the Inventory for sale to metal recycling operations!
The airframes would make nice additions to Kiddy playgrounds or perhaps storage sheds in back gardens.
The airframes would make nice additions to Kiddy playgrounds or perhaps storage sheds in back gardens.