Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

EC 225 latest ......so quiet

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

EC 225 latest ......so quiet

Reply

Old 26th Oct 2016, 16:03
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,035
Just curious but what are you using for fuel burn and TAS when comparing the 225 and the 92? As an aside are you using PC2 for both aircraft? ISA?
albatross is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 27th Oct 2016, 07:01
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: llanelli
Posts: 355
II, thanks for the patronising attempt at a lecture. I'm sure you know that Heli Union had a 225 in Angola with Sonangol until last year. I'm also sure you knew that Tullow didn't pay NHV for the 175s, it was just a PR exercise to get the SM into Ghana and give NHV a launch customer in O&G outside Europe. You think the 225 is dead globally. I disagree with a global view. I don't like it but that is commercial reality. Let's revisit this in 12 - 18 months.

"Payload? We can't fill a 225 or a 92 out to 170nm IFR at 32c" - You can't with a 92, that was my point. Maybe 'we' need to get back in the books on the 225.

Albatross, my data was from 100kg per pax, ISA +15. not going to reveal my PBH and burn rates but the 225 PBH was slightly higher but the fuel burn overtook it for the S92 for hourly charges overall. It was very close. S92 issue is the swapping of pax for fuel as you go further (135nm plus). 225 takes more people further for basically the same money. I stand by the figs I quoted below. Let me know by PM if you want to discuss further. PC2 yes.
nowherespecial is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Oct 2016, 07:47
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: llanelli
Posts: 355
Having spent all day yesterday crying, I'm now over it II...
nowherespecial is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Oct 2016, 15:19
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 997
Take away the technical problem and there is no reason for the ac not to come back once the fix has been explained to the workforce and demonstrated to be compliant and safe.
Fair point but where, and on whose, credibility? There have been a few bites of a few cherries and little by way of explaining even the past oversights.
Pittsextra is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Nov 2016, 10:48
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
EC/AH225 sighting?

Unless I am very much mistaken, I saw an EC225 (as a retired 225 driver, it will always be an EC225 to me!) flying over Seaford and Newhaven yesterday lunchtime. It was overhead for around 30 minutes at an estimated 2000ft or so. It did not appear on Flightradar24, so I assume it was on a VFR flight plan.
Does anyone know any more about this?

bondu
bondu is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Nov 2016, 17:57
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Unless I am very much mistaken, I saw an EC225 (as a retired 225 driver, it will always be an EC225 to me!) flying over Seaford and Newhaven yesterday lunchtime. It was overhead for around 30 minutes at an estimated 2000ft or so. It did not appear on Flightradar24, so I assume it was on a VFR flight plan.
Does anyone know any more about this?
Bondu, new glasses needed. Your aircraft did show on FR24 at 1230 and was showing callsign "164114". FR24 showed the hex code as 406D62 which G-INFO decoded to AS332L G-BWMG which is now registered to Airbus Helicopters. Guess it may have come out of Fleetlands on an air test.
ABZSpotter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Nov 2016, 22:14
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 262
ABZSpotter

New glasses indeed needed! It certainly looked more like a 225, rather than a 332L! But I definitely didn't see it on FR24.

bondu
bondu is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Nov 2016, 21:18
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: England
Posts: 9
Airbus fumes over UK ban

I read in the news that Airbus went:

"Frankly we have to understand why they are not following EASA: is that an anticipation of Brexit or is that due to other evolutions or influences? We need to understand that."
Airbus fumes over UK ban on Super Puma helicopter flights | Daily Mail Online


It looks to me that they are making a technical problem a political issue, which doesn't look very good to the public. If just the guys at AH read a bit around, there is a clear answer in:

"However, the report states: "Although the ‘interim action’ could reduce the frequency of spalling, spalling with the potential for catastrophic failure remains an inherent characteristic of the Puma family for which no long term solution has yet been identified (...) Despite the EASA decision, both the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority have kept bans on Super Pumas flying in their airspace in place.
The two organisations are awaiting the final report into the crash near Bergen, which is expected to be several months away."
Super Puma has 'potentially catastrophic' design failure, report claims (From HeraldScotland)


While I can understand the HS could not be the main read around Marignane, AH basically says nothing more about the report, other than denying.
SweetComanche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Nov 2016, 00:53
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,138
So somebody seems to be telling us we would be safer with a single-sourced new design than with an evolution that we now know a huge amount about.

I'm not sure I can go along with that.
jimf671 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 9th Nov 2016, 10:05
  #90 (permalink)  
BJ1
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Heard that bristow Australia has pulled their 225's from storage and potentially getting them ready to fly? anyone know anymore?
BJ1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Nov 2016, 19:49
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: England
Posts: 9
Good news for AH and Boeing

Good news for AH and Boeing, looks like in Singapore they've hit the spot:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...opters-431238/

Military it's a totally different situation
SweetComanche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Nov 2016, 22:27
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 806
Yes, they are expendable.
tottigol is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2016, 18:11
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 41
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by tottigol View Post
Yes, they are expendable.
I hope you are kidding and even then it's not funny...
casper64 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2016, 14:44
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: England
Posts: 9
Originally Posted by tottigol View Post
Yes, they are expendable.
Actually, no trained resource is expendable, especially in aviation, for a matter of costs AND tactics. True is that military ops are based on different parameters: while in civil aviation you have a scale that's normally safety-economicity-tempestivity, I guess in military you have effectiveness at first. Plus, very different safety margins, since the aircrafts fly essentially much less than in commercial environment.
SweetComanche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2016, 17:24
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 806
As a military pilot you cannot say no without repercussions.
tottigol is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2016, 17:28
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 209
As a military pilot you cannot say no without repercussions.
What military are you flying for? It can be a lot easier than saying no in a commercial environment.
Bing is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Nov 2016, 23:10
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 309
Most people on this site know military usage is a lot different from commercial.
Military aircraft usually do a few hundred hours/yr, commercial operators schedule a few thousand for jetliners.
So it is eminently reasonable for military operators to keep using the 225, it is a very good performer, it has a well established support structure and it is very reliable, plus it is available at a good price currently.
The fatigue issues that dog commercial operators are unlikely to be of concern to the military buyer. The revised overhaul life AH offers is about 10 years service for the military. That means it is unlikely to drive the economics for the military.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Nov 2016, 10:20
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,933
When the SA 330, the 225's predecessor, entered military service the TBO for the gearbox was 800 hrs. There was a concentrated trial in the 70's to extend this to 1,800 hrs. not for the benefit of the military but to make it acceptable for civilian operators.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 21st Nov 2016, 16:13
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post
When the SA 330, the 225's predecessor, entered military service the TBO for the gearbox was 800 hrs. There was a concentrated trial in the 70's to extend this to 1,800 hrs. not for the benefit of the military but to make it acceptable for civilian operators.
It will be quite possible to focus on the military versions, they will be new build, will mostly not be delivered until after the completion of the accident report and will be fitted/retrofitted with whatever recommendations that brings. They can use the epicyclic which did not feature in the accidents and adopt stringent TBO and operating procedures.
This has been so from day one. I very much doubt however if, as some have suggested, it can slip back into widespread operation in Oil and Gas
birmingham is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Nov 2016, 06:01
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,452
If you do not think mil personnel are 'expendable' (tongue slightly in cheek) then you must not be aware of the 'second-class citizen' mindset that pervades the corridors of power.
That is why the UK mil at least were decades behind HSE and airworthiness regulations. If you ever thought otherwise I'm afraid you were very much mistaken.
The list of examples is effing endless and now we have slipped the surly bonds of this topic and danced the skies of thread creep........
EESDL is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service