A109e power vs S76b for exec rooftop operations
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: florida
A109e power vs S76b for exec rooftop operations
I know these are two different classes and kind of a silly question but we all love helicopters so it is still fun to talk about. Of these two airframes which do you feel is safer for rooftop operations? I believe both are extremely safe twins with pretty much redundant everything but I thought it would be fun to talk about the more nuanced pros/cons of the two airframes for the mission.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 522
Likes: 77
From: USA
Landed on many roof tops with the 76, but checking the engineered max design weight capacity of the LZ was essential. Can't speak for the 109. Could always got a nice forward view with the 76 by kicking it out of trim.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 165
From: Hobe Sound, Florida
Hello TT. Here is some relevant history re the two aircraft.
In 1974,SA Exec VP Jack McKenna was heading up a team to come up with a smaller helicopter for Gulf of Mexico oil rig support and VIP Markets. He took a small group ( incl yours truly as evaluation pilot ) to Italy to fly and evaluate the A-109, which was in flight test, with the thought being to possibly build it under license*. It still had a few flight technical issues to resolve,but nothing disqualifying. There were a couple of other things that were noted: 1) the cabin size. With me sitting opposite McKenna in the back, our knees were inside each other’s. The implication for VIP usage,not to mention the oil rig mission was obvious; 2) The rotor heads design was S-58/S-61 technology ( Augusta was building the naval version of the S-61 under license ), and SA was already doing the next step in that area with the new elastomeric MR head with titanium spar blades and composite TR on the UTTAS ( UH-60 ). Later on, the decision to go with an internal design for the S-76,incorporating a larger cabin and the new rotor technologies, was made.
*Not withstanding the design aspects of the 109, the level of presentation briefs and hospitality accorded by the Agusta folks was simply impressive.
Well, that was 46 years ago, and things have certainly changed since then, haven’t they.
In 1974,SA Exec VP Jack McKenna was heading up a team to come up with a smaller helicopter for Gulf of Mexico oil rig support and VIP Markets. He took a small group ( incl yours truly as evaluation pilot ) to Italy to fly and evaluate the A-109, which was in flight test, with the thought being to possibly build it under license*. It still had a few flight technical issues to resolve,but nothing disqualifying. There were a couple of other things that were noted: 1) the cabin size. With me sitting opposite McKenna in the back, our knees were inside each other’s. The implication for VIP usage,not to mention the oil rig mission was obvious; 2) The rotor heads design was S-58/S-61 technology ( Augusta was building the naval version of the S-61 under license ), and SA was already doing the next step in that area with the new elastomeric MR head with titanium spar blades and composite TR on the UTTAS ( UH-60 ). Later on, the decision to go with an internal design for the S-76,incorporating a larger cabin and the new rotor technologies, was made.
*Not withstanding the design aspects of the 109, the level of presentation briefs and hospitality accorded by the Agusta folks was simply impressive.
Well, that was 46 years ago, and things have certainly changed since then, haven’t they.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 21st April 2020 at 03:09. Reason: Corrected for 76 TR
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 21
From: Used to be God's own County
Have never flown either in such configuration but I’d be looking at their Cat A /PC1 elevated helipad profiles before I did.
Maybe someone with relevant experience could elaborate?
minimum climb, nose down etc
Maybe someone with relevant experience could elaborate?
minimum climb, nose down etc
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 518
Likes: 50
From: London/Atlanta
People to ask about this.
Maybe the pilots that use the pad at the Burj in Dubai or the pilots that are/or where flying for the BladeFlying app, taxi service between NYC and the airports they seem to offer various aircraft.
Maybe the pilots that use the pad at the Burj in Dubai or the pilots that are/or where flying for the BladeFlying app, taxi service between NYC and the airports they seem to offer various aircraft.
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,110
Likes: 1,083
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
I've flown a bit on both types (about 2,500 hours on the S-76, including a few hundred on the 'B' and probably about 3,000 on the A109). The S-76 is obviously a considerably bigger airframe and doesn't have the good downwards/forwards visibility of the A109. But an even better A109 variant to use for this type of operation would be either the 'S' or the 'SP'. Both have a longer cabin, meaning slightly more passenger legroom and a MAUM of 3175kgs as opposed to the 3000kgs of the earlier versions. Both approved for elevated helipad ops and have a very good power reserve. Most later examples of the 'S' and 'SP's have a disposable payload of about 950 kgs and burn about 225-230 kgs of fuel/hr at 145-150 kts.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: florida
Thanks for all the feedback everyone! I really appreciate all the info and perspectives. The boss is dead set on moving into a twin in the 1.2 - 1.7M range. Will look into the 109 Grand ShyTorque. The extra leg room and MAUM sounds great. The early EC155b models are also in the same price range I believe. Should that be considered as well?
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 927
Likes: 12
From: Germany
The EC155 was a nice bird to fly, fast and smooth.
But forget about it in terms of rooftop operations - except you are only planning with max three or four pax - or only 1 1/2hrs ish of fuel at landing.
And get your wallet handy for gearbox maintenance ;-)
But forget about it in terms of rooftop operations - except you are only planning with max three or four pax - or only 1 1/2hrs ish of fuel at landing.
And get your wallet handy for gearbox maintenance ;-)
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 71
From: Wanaka, NZ
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: florida
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: n/a
