AW109 Trekker Operating Info
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Age: 39
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason being that operators will buy the cheapest thing they can get their hands on that will do the job or fill contract requirements and run it into the ground. Especially if the people spending the money don't have to sit in the pilot seat. Robinson helicopters come to mind here. Same deal.
Honda sells more cars than Ferrari. Doesn't mean Honda makes a better car.
Honda sells more cars than Ferrari. Doesn't mean Honda makes a better car.
Yes it does. Not better on track, but better on everything else (maybe not on looks, but that's subjective).
OK, you don't like it, fair. But you can't just disregard the price. IIRC, OP didn't state unlimited budget. Hell, I would like to go to grocery store in a AW139, but it ain't happening.
OK, you don't like it, fair. But you can't just disregard the price. IIRC, OP didn't state unlimited budget. Hell, I would like to go to grocery store in a AW139, but it ain't happening.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Age: 39
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You get what you pay for. You pay low end prices, you get a low end helicopter. They are everywhere because they are cheap, not because they are good.
I’ve been operating and managing A109 E and S aircraft for years, and flying the EC135 for the last two years.
They are different machines to say the least. There’s nothing wrong with either, but I favor the A109 for sure.
There is nothing like the speed of the A109. It’s happy flying at 165 knots all day long. At max gross, it’s slows to 145-150, but otherwise it’s at Vne. And Vne is a windshield impact issue, not a retreating blade or airframe limitation. So the thing is fast. In comparison, the EC135 is a 115-120 Knot aircraft no matter how heavy you are.
The EC135 generally is rougher ride. I’ve flown one that was pretty smooth at cruise but bad really bad in a hover. All of the others were the opposite. Bad enough that I couldn’t right in cruise, which has always been very annoying to me.
Maintenance wise, there has been no comparison for me. Agusta has been great! Airbus is relatively quick, but often only supply a full component. It’s difficult to get small parts. Agusta has been quick and offers anything we need. It’s hard to say who costs more because Airbus often doesn’t supply small parts.
The Agusta warranty and service schedule have been much better. It seems Airbus puts off all of the big inspections and service to after the 500 mark when the warranty is up. So in the beginning, they seem great, but from 500-1000 hours you get hammered with big cost inspections.
Either way, these decisions come down to personal preference and are emotional decisions, especially for a private or business purchase. As opposed to a Part 135 or EMS operator. My recommendation is to jump in these aircraft and try them out. A bigger aircraft always shows well on the ground, because they are big. And a fast a smooth aircraft always shows well in the air. Everyone that I take up in the Agusta has became a huge fan, and few even became owners themselves.
If you find yourself in Northern California, shoot me an email and if I have some time, I love to take you up for a spin up in the Agusta. Just pay me back with a ride in Oklahoma someday. I would offer the same with the EC135 but I don’t have the same latitude with those.
They are different machines to say the least. There’s nothing wrong with either, but I favor the A109 for sure.
There is nothing like the speed of the A109. It’s happy flying at 165 knots all day long. At max gross, it’s slows to 145-150, but otherwise it’s at Vne. And Vne is a windshield impact issue, not a retreating blade or airframe limitation. So the thing is fast. In comparison, the EC135 is a 115-120 Knot aircraft no matter how heavy you are.
The EC135 generally is rougher ride. I’ve flown one that was pretty smooth at cruise but bad really bad in a hover. All of the others were the opposite. Bad enough that I couldn’t right in cruise, which has always been very annoying to me.
Maintenance wise, there has been no comparison for me. Agusta has been great! Airbus is relatively quick, but often only supply a full component. It’s difficult to get small parts. Agusta has been quick and offers anything we need. It’s hard to say who costs more because Airbus often doesn’t supply small parts.
The Agusta warranty and service schedule have been much better. It seems Airbus puts off all of the big inspections and service to after the 500 mark when the warranty is up. So in the beginning, they seem great, but from 500-1000 hours you get hammered with big cost inspections.
Either way, these decisions come down to personal preference and are emotional decisions, especially for a private or business purchase. As opposed to a Part 135 or EMS operator. My recommendation is to jump in these aircraft and try them out. A bigger aircraft always shows well on the ground, because they are big. And a fast a smooth aircraft always shows well in the air. Everyone that I take up in the Agusta has became a huge fan, and few even became owners themselves.
If you find yourself in Northern California, shoot me an email and if I have some time, I love to take you up for a spin up in the Agusta. Just pay me back with a ride in Oklahoma someday. I would offer the same with the EC135 but I don’t have the same latitude with those.
The following users liked this post:
Replace Ferrari with higher end manufacturer you want. Honda doesn't build better cars than Rolls Royce, Merc, BMW, whatever. Honda builds cheap **** that passes for a car.
You get what you pay for. You pay low end prices, you get a low end helicopter. They are everywhere because they are cheap, not because they are good.
You get what you pay for. You pay low end prices, you get a low end helicopter. They are everywhere because they are cheap, not because they are good.
