Airbus175M Video
just an O&G aircraft with a paint job it will be a very different machine. Unfortunately the haters (and some journalists) haven’t bothered to find this out.
Last edited by FloaterNorthWest; 9th Jan 2023 at 12:28.
It is a 175 with an M painted on it - regardless of what is planned for future production - such capability does not yet exist - but you wouldnt think so listening to marketing departments ;-)
I am puzzled by the various posts regarding the helicopter seen in the footage. It is registered F-WMXB and https://www.helis.com/database/model/H175M/ has it as a H175M but with construction number still undefined.
#2 EESDL writes: "The H175M does not exist..."
#21 FloaterNorthWest writes: "It's the H175M prototype..."
#22 JulieAndrews writes: "It is a 175 with M painted in it..."
All of these statements could be mutually true, but it would be good to have a definitive statement about the identity of F-WMXB including its designation, construction number, how it differs from a regular 175 etc. I haven't searched the net to try to find more.
Blackhawk9 in #3 writes "bigger fiasco than the NH-90..." and while he followed up in #10, that doesn't really clarify why it will be a fiasco if selected. I always wonder if there are vested interests when statements are made that are not further explained. Given various troubled military helicopter acquisition programs around the world, I would also be interested to read views about which choice might be the "least fiasco" and robust reasoning for any such claims!
#2 EESDL writes: "The H175M does not exist..."
#21 FloaterNorthWest writes: "It's the H175M prototype..."
#22 JulieAndrews writes: "It is a 175 with M painted in it..."
All of these statements could be mutually true, but it would be good to have a definitive statement about the identity of F-WMXB including its designation, construction number, how it differs from a regular 175 etc. I haven't searched the net to try to find more.
Blackhawk9 in #3 writes "bigger fiasco than the NH-90..." and while he followed up in #10, that doesn't really clarify why it will be a fiasco if selected. I always wonder if there are vested interests when statements are made that are not further explained. Given various troubled military helicopter acquisition programs around the world, I would also be interested to read views about which choice might be the "least fiasco" and robust reasoning for any such claims!
Last edited by helispotter; 10th Jan 2023 at 09:41.
https://www.helis.com/database/cn/28558/
The 175M prototype visited us as the Bristow liveried prototype in ABZ a long time ago now. It was meant to be part of the subsequently cancelled Bristow order, announced as launch customer amid fanfare at Heli Expo before then.
The details in the helis.com link show serial 5001’s global travels including its recent time in U.K. as 175M.
Oil and gas painted black it is then. It even has the same winch from when we saw it on the fairway. Didn’t look to have much ground clearance then but for offshore does it matter?
A rough field on the other hand…..
The 175M prototype visited us as the Bristow liveried prototype in ABZ a long time ago now. It was meant to be part of the subsequently cancelled Bristow order, announced as launch customer amid fanfare at Heli Expo before then.
The details in the helis.com link show serial 5001’s global travels including its recent time in U.K. as 175M.
Oil and gas painted black it is then. It even has the same winch from when we saw it on the fairway. Didn’t look to have much ground clearance then but for offshore does it matter?
A rough field on the other hand…..
The following users liked this post:
As FNW says - the H175M will be a very different machine, but it does not yet exist in reality. Airbus marketeers and snake oil purveyorshave taken an H175 and installed some sideways-facing seating installed but that does not make it an 'M'. As recently re-iterated, the serial number is of the early 'demo' machine that did the rounds extolling it's O& G design credentials.
I suggest that by the time all of the low-grade chinese metal has been replaced, which will make it heavier (re-write of performance figures?), the usual trials, testing and subsequent approval of all the role equipment, DAS and useful weapons - increase MTOW to something useful like 8500kg.....not forgetting live ballistic and drop tests etc etc - then the design might justify an entry into the register as something else than what it currently is; a plain ol' O&G 175. https://www.helis.com/database/cn/28558/
I suggest that by the time all of the low-grade chinese metal has been replaced, which will make it heavier (re-write of performance figures?), the usual trials, testing and subsequent approval of all the role equipment, DAS and useful weapons - increase MTOW to something useful like 8500kg.....not forgetting live ballistic and drop tests etc etc - then the design might justify an entry into the register as something else than what it currently is; a plain ol' O&G 175. https://www.helis.com/database/cn/28558/
Working towards 2400!! After how many years?
At least Leo come with a 5000 gearbox from day uno, with proven 30 minute run dry not just some sales hype (S-92) and they seem to last. Well the gearboxes anyway. Other parts, meh, sometimes good sometimes not.
At least Leo come with a 5000 gearbox from day uno, with proven 30 minute run dry not just some sales hype (S-92) and they seem to last. Well the gearboxes anyway. Other parts, meh, sometimes good sometimes not.
The registration worn the aircraft, is one of many registrations that can be transferred between aircraft during prototyping or post-production testing. Production aircraft wear the registration for post-production testing before going through conformity checks and being issued a certificate of airworthiness and its ultimate first registration.
The aircraft serial numbers will be PT for a prototype or PS for a production serial.
PT’s are used for initial testing and then may be retained for years to do development work. Eventually, when no longer of any use they will become gate guards or training aids.
The aircraft in question is a PT serial wearing
a registration used by many aircraft.
The aircraft serial numbers will be PT for a prototype or PS for a production serial.
PT’s are used for initial testing and then may be retained for years to do development work. Eventually, when no longer of any use they will become gate guards or training aids.
The aircraft in question is a PT serial wearing
a registration used by many aircraft.
The following users liked this post:
Go back enough years and the successful SA 330 started life as a military helicopter but with a number later built as plain ol' O&G SA330J's!
Wiki tells me the J's were "Upgraded civil transport version with composite rotor blades and with higher maximum takeoff weight", so in some respects more capable than their then military counterparts (aside from SA 330L).
I can see the point re ground clearance. SA 330 seems to have good clearance, but Black Hawk doesn't in comparison, yet never heard this raised as an issue for them.
Wiki tells me the J's were "Upgraded civil transport version with composite rotor blades and with higher maximum takeoff weight", so in some respects more capable than their then military counterparts (aside from SA 330L).
I can see the point re ground clearance. SA 330 seems to have good clearance, but Black Hawk doesn't in comparison, yet never heard this raised as an issue for them.
Go back enough years and the successful SA 330 started life as a military helicopter but with a number later built as plain ol' O&G SA330J's!
Wiki tells me the J's were "Upgraded civil transport version with composite rotor blades and with higher maximum takeoff weight", so in some respects more capable than their then military counterparts (aside from SA 330L).
I can see the point re ground clearance. SA 330 seems to have good clearance, but Black Hawk doesn't in comparison, yet never heard this raised as an issue for them.
Wiki tells me the J's were "Upgraded civil transport version with composite rotor blades and with higher maximum takeoff weight", so in some respects more capable than their then military counterparts (aside from SA 330L).
I can see the point re ground clearance. SA 330 seems to have good clearance, but Black Hawk doesn't in comparison, yet never heard this raised as an issue for them.
It’s unsuitability for the battlefield were soon made apparent. The lack of engine anticipators (not required for S&L flying and steady approaches to rigs/HLS) highlighted its unsuitability to nap-of-the-earth flying and rapid approaches into unprepared sites.
The Mk2 ‘upgrade’ from Romania is another story !
You'll probably find that was the revised contract once MOD were looking for a paddle.
I only deal in facts - it's what OEMs do - it's how they make their money but it doesn't mean we have to endorse it.
Ask any of the MAA guys at the time.
Some might call it clever commercial tactics - others would say it was taking advantage of a known weakness in the UK procurement mindset.
I only deal in facts - it's what OEMs do - it's how they make their money but it doesn't mean we have to endorse it.
Ask any of the MAA guys at the time.
Some might call it clever commercial tactics - others would say it was taking advantage of a known weakness in the UK procurement mindset.
Oh no. Who mentioned Puma 2?!!!
An ‘upgrade’ of a changing number of airframes, for more than a new SuperPuma/Cougar cost at the same time.
But EC shone through with Makilas like we had in ABZ since the early 80’s, South Africa and Portugal had since the 90’s. Sprinkle the 90’s vintage Collins MFD255’s that had been in 532 and 155 since late 90’s and an EICAS screen from the 225. Not sure where the MGB came from but hailing that as they did as some form of triumph….. WOW!
At least it was better than the CRT’s we had in the L2 before the MGB’s started breaking up and revealing their hidden gems. Sorry, thread creep but you see how Aerospatiale, EC now Airbus have history with poor value and MGB’s made of toffee.
Whilst Leo are better in some respects to balance out we have 189’s offshore also where the MGB claims of being ‘run-dry’ are manipulated description of a system with a gravity fed additional reservoir. So it’s never running dry.
An ‘upgrade’ of a changing number of airframes, for more than a new SuperPuma/Cougar cost at the same time.
But EC shone through with Makilas like we had in ABZ since the early 80’s, South Africa and Portugal had since the 90’s. Sprinkle the 90’s vintage Collins MFD255’s that had been in 532 and 155 since late 90’s and an EICAS screen from the 225. Not sure where the MGB came from but hailing that as they did as some form of triumph….. WOW!
At least it was better than the CRT’s we had in the L2 before the MGB’s started breaking up and revealing their hidden gems. Sorry, thread creep but you see how Aerospatiale, EC now Airbus have history with poor value and MGB’s made of toffee.
Whilst Leo are better in some respects to balance out we have 189’s offshore also where the MGB claims of being ‘run-dry’ are manipulated description of a system with a gravity fed additional reservoir. So it’s never running dry.
Sprinkle the 90’s vintage Collins MFD255’s that had been in 532 and 155 since late 90’s
UK not the only military I know of who have done this for budgetary reasons and paid twice as much as new.
For once, not the OEMs fault the system is as it is.
Usually different budgets and processes. New aircraft requires a tender process. Modifying existing doesn’t.
UK not the only military I know of who have done this for budgetary reasons and paid twice as much as new.
For once, not the OEMs fault the system is as it is.
UK not the only military I know of who have done this for budgetary reasons and paid twice as much as new.
For once, not the OEMs fault the system is as it is.
