|
EC225
PRESS RELEASE
CHC TO LAUNCH NEXT GENERATION EUROCOPTER AIRCRAFT Wednesday, June 20, 2001, Le Bourget, France : CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC") (TSE: FLY.A and FLY.B; NASDAQ: FLYA) is pleased to announce the signing of a contract for the acquisition of the first civilian EC 225 helicopter (delivery mid-2003) and a new AS 332 L2 Super Puma (delivery Q4 2002). CHC President Sylvain Allard and Eurocopter Group President Jean-Francois Bigay signed the contract at the Paris Air Show today, making CHC the launch customer for the EC 225, the newest addition to the Super Puma family, and one of the most sophisticated heavy helicopters in the world. With the EC 225, CHC will operate a helicopter with highly increased performance capabilities, thanks to a new main rotor with five blades, a reinforced main gear box, new engines and a new integrated piloting and display system. The EC 225 is capable of transporting 19 passengers more than 400 nautical miles, with the fuel reserves required by relevant aviation authorities. In a Search and Rescue (SAR) role, the EC 225 can rescue 21 personnel at sea and safely transport them to an offshore platform. Over the last 10 years, CHC has expanded and enhanced its offshore services around the world to become an industry leader, and the dominant player in the North Sea, the world's largest offshore market. Offshore helicopter services account for two-thirds of CHC's operations. CHC is also a world leader in SAR, Repair and Overhaul and pilot training. CHC Helicopter Corporation through its subsidiaries and investments is a leading provider of helicopter transportation services to the oil and gas industry, with a combined fleet of 312 light, medium and heavy aircraft operating in 21 countries, and with approximately 2,500 employees worldwide. The Eurocopter fleet operated by CHC around the world is made up of 42 Super Pumas, 56 Ecureuils and 14 Dauphins – the largest civilian fleet of Eurocopter aircraft in the world. Eurocopter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), one of the three largest aeronautics manufacturers in the world. |
You would think that as CHC are the biggest civil operator they would get good service?
alas not so, and it will not improve until viable competition becomes available ( S92) |
from flight inter@parisNew Super Puma launched
CHC Helicopter is to become the launch customer for the EC225, the newest addition to Eurocopter's Super Puma family. CHC will also take an AS332 L2 Super Puma as part of the deal. CHC centres its operations on offshore oil operations, but also undertakes EMS and search and rescue missions. |
EC225 Receives European IFR Certification
Marignane, July 29 , 2004
The EC 225, the most developed version of the Super Puma family of medium-sized twins (11-ton class) has just received its IFR Airworthiness Certificate in compliance with the latest version of the JAR 29 standard from the new European Airworthiness Security Agency (EASA). This certification is initially applied to a flight envelope with a maximum altitude of 20,000 feet (6,000 m) and an operating envelope including temperatures between – 15C° and + 40C°. This envelope, which is already sufficient for aircraft operational use, will be extended to –30C° and + 50C, and for flight in icing conditions by mid-2005. The aircraft performed its maiden flight in November 2000 and has already flown passenger transport missions, in particular OFFSHORE and VIP, and public service missions like Search and Rescue (SAR). This commercial aircraft has a takeoff weight of 11,000 kg; and a takeoff weight of 11,200 kg with sling capacity. This new version, with its greatly improved performance, has already been ordered in a military livery by the French Air Force for use as a future combat SAR helicopter. The principal characteristics of the EC 225 are its new main rotor system, reinforced main gear box (MGB), new engines, and a new integrated Flight Display System (FDS). The addition of this proven new technology offers improved performance (speed, maneuverability), comfort (vibration, noise), and flight safety, and has already stirred the enthusiasm of all the crews who have flown this helicopter. New Five-Bladed Main Rotor The EC 225 uses the Spheriflex main rotor head, whose performances have already been proven on the SUPER PUMA L2 and EC 155. The Spheriflex technology, which is also used on the tail rotor head, further offers reduced operating and maintenance costs. The main rotor is equipped with five blades designed with a very modern profile. The blades have a composite spar with parabolic blade tips with a downward dihedral profile. This five-blade configuration also gives the aircraft a particularly low vibration level. The main rotor diameter is 16.2 meters. The rotors and tail unit may be equipped with an icing/anti-icing system for flight in extreme icing conditions. New Main Gear Box (MGB) The MGB of the EC 225 is reinforced to accommodate the more powerful engines and the aircraft's increased maximum weight. The casing and gears are made using ultra modern manufacturing materials and processes, which significantly improve the reliability of components. The lubricating system includes an emergency oil spraying sub-system, which goes much further than the JAR 29 requirements: 50 minutes operation demonstrated, for a requirement of 30 minutes. New Engines The EC 225 has two Turbomeca Makila 2A turboshaft engines. This new engine employs a new airflow concept and materials; and has an emergency rating of 1800 kW (2448 hp-2413shp), i.e. 14% more than its previous version. Each engine is an independent assembly comprising all the systems, equipment and accessories required for its operation. The engine modularity makes servicing and maintenance operations much easier. A dual channel, duplex Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) controls the engines and offers a very high level of reliability. The power turbine is designed with a 'blade shedding' system ensuring engine integrity in case of overspeed. New Integrated Display System The EC 225 has an Advanced Helicopter Cockpit and Avionics System, which is designed to reduce pilot and crew workload with a 4-axis digital autopilot, displaying flight and sub-systems management information. This integration makes for more successful missions, by allowing the pilot and copilot to concentrate more on events outside the aircraft. The Flight Display System (FDS) uses active-matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) with four 6" x 8" multi-function screens, two 4“ x 5“ screens measuring aircraft parameters, and a 3’’ screen for the ISIS independent backup system. Performance: Maximum takeoff weight, internal 11,000 kg / 24,250 lb Maximum takeoff weight, external 11 200 kg / 24,700 lb Payload, internal 5,380 kg / 11,864 lb Engine takeoff power 1, 566 kW Maximum MGB power, 2 engines running 2, 600 kW Maximum range, at maximum takeoff weight 783 nautical miles Rapid cruising speed (9,300 kg / 20,502 lb) (3,000 ft / ISA + 20°C) 156 knots In particular, the EC 225 is capable of: - Transporting 19 passengers more than 400 Nm with the fuel supplies imposed by air traffic control authorities. - Rescuing 21 people in the water, in very safe conditions, on the way to an offshore platform - Rescuing 15 people in the water, 200 Nm from the coast, in very safe conditions. 20 aircraft from the EC 225 / EC 725 family have already been ordered and the total number of orders for the Super Puma / Cougar - EC 225 / EC family has risen to 682 aircraft. |
Mover over Nick....sounds like some competition for that scaled down Super Frelon you are driving around now!
|
Sasless,
Yep, that's the competition. Read carefully, however! Only the IFR certificate meets the JAR, meaning the autopilot and displays. The rest of the aircraft was not qualified to meet the latest regs regarding its structure, but rather it meets the older DGAC requirements. Here is the JAR website describing that the JAR type certificate for the aircraft (originally named the 332LP) was withdrawn: http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Certificat...Rotorcraft.pdf The payload range of the S-92 is considerably greater than the 225, as is the cabin area, height and baggage space. |
Main Gearbox?
Just asking to clarify information received.
Does the S92 Main Gearbox comply with the latest FAR/JAR 29? Has the gearbox been demonstrated to run dry for 30 minutes without significant damage? What is the pilot action on the 92 if there is complete loss of MGB oil pressure? |
Vertalop
Interesting question and very close to the heart of any pilot. I remember this topic came up on a thread a few months ago, but Nick didn't jump in (for once), so perhaps it doesn't! Nick, Would you like to post a comparison between the EC 225's and the S92's performance, size etc? g33 |
Nick,
I'm afraid you appear to have been misled. The program director assures me that full drop tests were carried out and the EC225 structure and fuel tanks fully comply with the latest EASA JAR Part 29 Change 1 Regulations. No 'Grandfather' rights of any sort have been applied during the certification. vert :ok: |
vertalop, Sorry, but I believe the drop tests are a drop in the bucket (pardon!)
Is the EC 225 JAR Certified, or did they just do some tests? The paraphrase from the program director does not specify if a true airworthiness certificate from JAR was issued. As the JAR web site shows (by the fact that no JAR application was made), I believe the tests you refer to were partial, in-house ones, without JAR oversight. The difference is enormous, and only an airworthiness type certificate from JAR proves the point. I have seen EC actually give the JAR paragraphs to the DGAC and try to use that as evidence of "partial" JAR compliance, when a JAR member never saw nor approved the data, and major parts of the helicopter are as they were in 1980. Ask for the date and number of the airworthiness type certificate from JAR (which should also be posted on line, as it is a public document). Imagine that the doctor you visit had no certificate on his wall, but instead told you that he had studied exactly as if he was in medical school. These are a partial list of what real JAR compliance consists of, for all parts of the helicopter, not just those that were refurbished: Flaw/Damage Tolerant Design FAR/JAR No. 29.571, Amendment 29-28,10/27/89 Bird Strike Protection FAR/JAR No. 29.631, Amendment 29-40, 8/08/96 Crash Resistant Fuel Systems FAR/JAR No. 29.952, Amendment 29-35, 11/02/94 Improved Crashworthiness FAR/JAR Nos 29.561, Amendment 29-38, 3/13/96 Dynamic Seat Testing (Passengers & Crew) FAR/JAR No. 29.562, Amendment 29-41, 8/29/97 Turbine Burst Protection FAR/JAR No. 29.901, Amendment 29-36, 11/2/95 Critical Parts Control FAR/JAR No. 29.602, Amendment 29-45, 8/24/99 HIRF Protection FAA proposed special condition, 7/12/99 Lightning Protection FAR/JAR No. 1309 (h), Amendment 29-40, 5/10/96 |
Yes Nick, FULLY CERTIFIED by EASA to JAR Part 29 Change 1 including all those items in your list. (EASA issued the type certificate, JAR 29 is the regulation is complies with.) :O
Also included is the 30 minute run dry main gearbox now required by JAR/FAR 29 that you did not mention. Please can you confirm whether or not the S92 also has a true 30 minute run dry gearbox as I'm unclear on this? Is immediate pilot action required in the event of a loss of main gearbox pressure? Does the check-list say "Land Immediately"? vert |
vertalap,
Do you have the certificate number and issue date for that EC 225 airworthiness certification, which escaped the attention of the press? Since the S-92 received the EASA Transport Helicopter certificate #1 in June, I would guess theirs is #2. And the S-92's oil protection system protected the transmission to the FAR/JAR with such aplomb that we shut the test down at 3 hours, not 30 minutes, with the system still running along (but admittedly pretty close to its end). That is 2 1/2 hours longer than required. The pilot must activate the system, but has several seconds to do so after clear indications, and the checklist does not say "land immediately." a further note: This quote came from the EC press release, Feb 13, 2004: "Another asset of the EC 225 is that its meets virtually all the latest JAR 29 amendments, including the "flaw damage tolerance" requirements for the main helicopter components (rotor and fuselage). " [http://www.shephard.co.uk/Search.asp...ction=Rotorhub] I guess that means it "virutually" met the JAR requirements! I believe it was greatly grandfathered, and met some/many/a few of the latest JAR requirements, but its certificate will tell the "certification basis" which will outline every paragraph of the regs that it truly meets. |
We'll call that one to Nick then shall we?:p
|
Thanks for that Nick. I will be able to see a copy of the EC225 Type Certification Data Sheet next week so may be able to give you the certification number then.
I don't think you should read too much into the wording of those press releases, there are some difficulties producing such things in a 'foreign' language (English). I am no expert on these things (besides I'm only a pilot!) and have never even seen an EC225 let alone the S92 but I'm sure that you have some non compliant items, which are accepted because they provide an equivalent level of safety. This is allowed for in the regulations. For example, the electronic engine instrument system may not comply with the exact wording of the regulation since having a 'green arc' painted on the screen is hardly practical. :8 (A layman's explanation written in front of the TV at home with no reference to the actual documents involved) I think this is what was probably meant by "virtually" in the EC press release you quote. From memory, if pilot action is required "within several seconds" of a system failure, such as a MGB oil pressure loss, isn't that non compliant with Part 29? I am sure both machines are a great advance on those previously available in the offshore market and I hope that we all get to reap the benefits of improved safety. Let's wait for the facts to be published and not "rubbish" to opposition based on some poorly worded press release. vert |
Score one for the Home Team!:ok:
|
vertalop,
The oil system, and the entire aircraft, meet FAR/JAR ammendment 47 (the latest). The FAA sat next to us as the transmission ran those 3 hours! look for a private message, with some additional thoughts. best, Nick |
Nick,
Heard a story that there were some minor problems with baggage weights for the S92. Any truth to the rumour,and if so is it sorted? Regards Chopperman. |
chopperman,
I honestly have heard nothing like that. Wouldn't know how it would be an issue, the baggage compartment is actually the entire ramp, which allows 1200 lbs structurally, unless a bizarre cabin loading has set the CG very aft. With pax, the seating is indescriminate, normally. The compartment is about 6 feet deep and 6 feet wide, and accessed by lowering the ramp, so everything is prsented quite nicely. The height is triangular, 6 feet at the forward end, tapering to about 2 feet at the rear of the ramp. |
Nick, is it not true that the only way the 92 got through the certification process regarding the 30 mins dry running was by using a manually activated valve that cuts off oil connections to outside the gearbox (cooler etc). The flight manual requires activation within 5 seconds, which is rushed in a modern multi-crew environment. Thus the oil remaining in the gearbox is hopefully not lost (assuming the leak isn't from the box itself). So the 92 cannot cope with total loss of gearbox lubricant? Is my take on that correct? Some have said that that appears to be a bit of a cheat on the certification requirements.
It does seem a bit hypocritical to crow about the fact that the 92 meets all the requirements of FAR29 (1999 version, wasn't it?) and that the 225 doesn't (which is true for a few small areas of the aircraft that have grandfather rights) when there is this question mark over how you got through certification (touch of patriotism by the FAA perhaps?). By comparison, the 225, along with the 332 and I seem to remember the 330, have an automatic cut-off of external oil feeds following a leak, and the 225 now has genuine 30 minute + running following complete loss of gearbox oil (using a total-loss spray cooling system) In my opinion this is not a particularly big deal for the 92, as there hasn't been much of a history of aircraft having to ditch due to loss of all gearbox oil, however your silence on this matter (following several "trigger" posts) makes we wonder what other glitches you might be keeping quiet about. It would be better to front up about this, as once the aircraft enters wide service, everyone will know anyway. |
I was lucky enough to get a flight in the EC225 prototype the other day. I had a big grin for days! Its very impressive and has a number of advantages from the pilot's point of view, over the 92 (which I have also been lucky enough to fly). However the 92 has advantages over the 225 in some areas as well. They are both good aircraft, though no aircraft is perfect. It seems a pity that Nick has to jump in and criticise the EC225 in its moment of glory. No-one did that when he posted certification.
Incidentally Nick, according to my calculations from looking at both flight manuals (as opposed to sales brochures!) the 225 has the longer range, though its true that the disposable payload is slightly less on the 225 - still enough to take 19 passengers and full fuel though. In my opinion, 225 is faster and smoother and nicer to fly, whilst the 92 has a bigger baggage bay and slightly more cabin room (lots more cabin height, though you can't make use of that when seated) but rather small windows. So I guess it boils down to whether you are a pilot or a passenger! I know which one I would rather fly! |
HeliComparator and Eurochopper,
First one thing, HeliComparitor - I do not post here to fool or to hide "glitches" as you state. If you doubt my veracity, it is your loss, frankly. Fitness for the job is the customer's, nobody can dispute that. Your choice (assuming that you are a customer, and not an EC salesman) is what counts. Please chose, buy and operate as you wish. Have your opinions and debate as you wish! The marketplace is the best forum. However, Compliance with the law is not subject to our opinion. The governments that we have pick experts, these experts tell the manufacturers what to do to make a new helicopter. Only they determine compliance. The only measure of compliance is the Type Certificate, upon which neither sales guys not customers get a vote. The tests that the S-92 underwent were all passed, with new designs and new concepts in many cases, because the requirements are new, and revolutionary. The latest FAR/JAR/EASA regs are known, published in 2003 and the S-92 is certified to them. The gearbox meets the requirement, and in fact has six times the protection for its crews as the reg requires. (the shutoff valve is felt by several customers as better than the alternative, a collection of parts and valves and reservoirs that adds complexity, weight, maintenance and failure modes. ) I listed some of the other new requirements above, the actual number is enormous. Of the 1700+ , the facts are irrefutable: The S-92 meets all, the Super Puma MKII meets 44% of them, and is allowed to ignore the remaining 56% because it is "grandfathered." This is exactly as if you could sell a brand new 1987 car as if it could compete with a 2004 model on its safety features. There are hundreds of JAR paragraphs that the Super Puma MKII does not meet, because it is so old, and safety technology has changed so much. That is irrefutable, but acceptable to the authorities, and to the customers who buy it. It is not acceptable to the customers who decide to buy a newer, better product. If the EC 225 salesmen say "fully JAR compliant", it is up to them to provide its certification basis, which lists (by JAR/FAR paragraph) what it meets and doesn't meet. It is also a matter of public record, as published by the certifying agency. It is my knowledge, until proven otherwise, that the 225 does not comply with the latest JAR/FAR. Nick PS The paper 225 has respectable performance, I agree. But, the empty weight of the EC 225 does not include the many safety features desired by the end customer. For example, crashworthy seats and the structure of the floor to support them. If you ask EC to sell you those seats (assuming your passengers ask for the latest protection, and assuming you are wise enough to know how to ask) then EC will tell you the aircraft grows by about 1000 lbs empty weight ( "crash-resistant seats can be fitted" says the EC press release. ) They will try to talk you out of them, because they haven't even designed them yet. Now once you have configured the seats that way, ask them to give you the choice on each other JAR paragraph, and add up the weight. Two S-92 customers told about the flying squad of EC salesmen that descended on them with all this bunk! This is proof of their grandfathering, since there is no 'option" under the new requirements, it must be part of the design. Let me know when you decide that the certificate means something. |
Nick ....
Never try to teach a pig to sing! Sacre Bleu! Mon Sweet....give up! In your heart....you really know the 225 is the superior machine....after all...it is European! Thus...it just must be! The chaps on the far side of the Saltwater Divide (funny how salt water keeps ruining our relationship with these guys!)....just are not going to concede that something from over there....is inferior to something from overhere....at least not gracefully. |
Nick,
I have asked this on another thread and gotta no reply to date, so I will ask again here. What is the expected date of "certification" allowing passengers (paying) to be carried on the S92 in Europe, Canada and The USA? |
Mikila1A,
When you apply your home-grown definition of "certification" I know you have an agenda, and not a simple question. Just call a spade a spade, Makila. You don't want information, you want to set up some kind of a point. Just say that point and stop pussy-footing around. |
Nick, you said
"However, Compliance with the law is not subject to our opinion. The governments that we have pick experts, these experts tell the manufacturers what to do to make a new helicopter. Only they determine compliance." So you don't have "politics" in the USA? There is no tendancy for US citizens to grant favour to good old US products? So some of these experts wouldn't just happened to have worked for the manufacturers before getting their government jobs (how else do you become an expert?) :O Seriously, I don't think the US is any worse than any European country, but to think that these things are black and white is naive. So you're still not going to confirm or deny that the 92 will not run for 30 mins without some oil in the gearbox? No, I thought not, better to stick to your "attack is the best form of defense" smokescreen and use lots of bold type! By the way, were we talking about the L2? For the record, the S92 has 1 level of "backup" function to cope with gearbox oil loss - the pilot activates a valve that cuts off external oil feeds and we hope that the leak was not from the gearbox itself. The 225 has 2 levels of backup - 1) an intrinsic shutoff of external oil feeds when gearbox oil level gets low (no, there are no valves to have failure modes) and 2), should we be unlucky enough to lose all gearbox oil from a leak to the box itself, a manual activation of a total loss cooling system that runs for 30 mins plus. As I said before, I don't think this is a particularly big deal for the S92 - I'm sure it will have a long and safe operating life. But justifying that the 92 is better in all respects just because it complies with some beaurocratic rules is dangerous ground! And don't snipe at the enemy on their big day - looks like sour grapes |
Nick,
On the contrary, I have no agenda or reason to have one. It was / is a simple question. Why would you think such? PM me please and we can surely discuss it, again I thought it a harmless question:confused: :confused: sorry if for some reason i have offended you. |
HeliComparitor,
What is black and white is what regulation basis the aircraft choses. That is what we are discussing, I think, and what we would like to know for the EC 225. The reason why I mention the 332 MKII is because the certification of the 225 is simply an amendment of the 332's certificate, in other words, the 225 is a 332, and except for the few differences, yet undefined, it is a MKII+ Perseverate on oil loss, it seems to help you leave the subject. Hyjack the thread if you wish, it seems to amuse you. However, you have added nothing to our understanding of the cert basis of the 225, which is the subject of the thread. |
Sorry Nick.
Quess for some reason I have pee'd you off. Again, in all sincerity, thought it was just a honest question! Well, enough said about that I quess? |
Interesting comments here from both sides of the pond... What really interests me though is what the OIL companies think. As I understand CHC are expecting some deliveries of the S-92 soon, i've heard that pilots from CHC Europe (Aberdeen) are due to head to Sikorsky soon to train on the 92, but do CHC have a contract yet for work with the 92? Also, the Shell offshore contract for central and southern North Sea is out for tender at the moment, annoucment I believe to be after Christmas, so the next few months may be vital for Eurocopter/Sikorsky.
|
OK Makila1 I will relent, text is awfully hard to decipher, and I guess I got a bit touchy, sorry!
The first aircraft is undergoing final cert of the customer peculiar equipment, and the crews are due to train literally any day. The training school is setting up shop for the first class this week (!) and the simulator ihas undergone its final FAA review. The delivery will take place when all the items fall into line, within a few weeks I am sure. simfly tells it as it is. Our customers will tell us all what they want, mostly by buying the products they value. I can't comment on any individual customer (all this writing that I do is strictly as an individual, I cannot speak for any manufacturer, nor do I pretend to.) |
Nick,
No problem mate, this skin is pretty tough. If our little quip got me worked up I would have left this business many moons ago. Thanks for the answer all the same, that was all I was looking for. Cheers . |
Nick
My last word on this thread - I know I will never get you to change your public opinion! You will be able to get the last word by replying, which should keep you happy! Subject of the thread: "EC225 receives European IFR certification". Is it called "Which bits of the EC225 are certified to recent versions of JAR29"? No, so who actually hijacked the thread first? Your hijack was aimed at rubbishing the opposition for commercial reasons, mine aimed at redressing the balance 'cause I like to see fair play (no, I don't work for EC) . So we're even! Not quite - I still didn't get you to verify my take on the gearbox lube system, but I guess your silence does that for you. You are right that its black and white whether the aircraft is either fully certified to some recent version of JAR/FAR29 (S92) or only partially - well mostly actually (EC225). However does that necessarily mean that the S92 is safer? I would say not necessarily because are we sure that the latest standard of JAR/FAR29 is a higher standard in all respects than an earlier certification basis? Have look at the bird strike criteria - I am speaking from memory here but I think you will find that FAR29 calls for a 1kg bird whilst BCARs (British cert requirements) called for a 1.8 kg bird - the L2 met that years ago. (Could this be the only case where Americans are lighter than Europeans?!). You have to look very carefully at the small print before buying a helicopter and anyway there's a lot more to safety than certification requirements. Have a nice day now! |
Helicomparitor,
You said, "I know I will never get you to change your public opinion! " I do not opine, I state facts and ask for them from each manufacturer, you seek opinions, and judge them. In your continued perseveration about the S-92 oil system that FAA/JAR and EASA certify to the highest standard, you failed to discuss the sub-standard passenger crash protection of the baseline EC 225, which is an obvious non-compliance with the latest FAR/JAR/EASA, and clear sign of grandfathering (thus it is meerly an option, and not part of the base design). You fail to discuss bird strike protection, or turbine burst protection or any of the other several hundred paragraphs of FAR/JAR that are swept under the thick, musty carpet of opinion. Airworthiness Certification of a helicopter is not subject to soft cloudy opinions. It is subject to a defining set of rules and tests, with dates, revisions and certainty. To some, including Government authorities, safety and progress are the amassing of facts, tests and solutions to old problems, Helicomparitor, not opinions. Let me clarify the difference, "Helicomparitor will not publically change his opinion, regardless of the facts." That being said, you have every right to those opinions, and we have no rubber hoses to beat you into submission about this. It would be a dull pprune if we all posted Me Too! to everything. |
Hands up who else had to look up "opine" in the dictionary.
Nice word, well used Nick. |
Cetainly nothing "Grandfatherly" about the engine in the 225. It is new and complies 100% with the turbine burst requirements. It was tested to destruction and no debris escaped the engine casing.
I don't really understand that diagram on the S92 web-site which appears to show a burst turbine throwing shrapnel through the rotors and passenger cabin. |
vertalop,
The Makila engine on the 225 is not new, it is a growth of the basic engine (this is not bad, it is good, as that engine is a reliable one, for sure!) Like virtually all engines, it is designed for turbine blade retention, not disk retention. Blades weigh small fractions of a kilo, disks weigh several kilos. The "everything" that you saw retained were the light blade shreds, every engine has to do that. To meet the current regs, and not be grandfathered, the aircraft has to maximize the safety of its design to allow fly home after the bursting of the engine turbine. These 1 to 2 Kg chunks literally shoot big holes in things, and when the engines are tightly clustered around the transmission, with the primary flight control rods between them, turbine bursts mean big problems. Perhaps you recall the dramatic footage of the L-1011 landing (cartwheeling into flames) at Soux City in the states years ago after the crew had to control the aircraft with the throttles (!!) and saved a large percentage of the passengers, this accident triggered the new rules for transport aircraft. This was proven a necessity for helos after an accident in the North Sea where the primary flight controls were cut after a turbine burst and the aircraft tumbled into the water. The layout of components, redundant controls and passive shielding are methods of meeting this requirement. The purple ring on the S-92 shows the places where detailed shot-path analysis was performed, and how that area does not include the primary controls or servos. This was one of the reasons why that engine layout was selected, and also one of the reasons why grandfathering of old designs is necessary, since entirely changing the layout is impractical. That being said, I do not know of any data to show that the EC 225 meets this turbine burst requirement. The type certificate data sheet will tell the story, by telling which paragraphs it meets and which it grandfathers. |
Oh dear, I said I wasn't going to come back on this thread but since the subject has changed, can I change my mind? Wow - was Nick pointing out that old proven reliable technology was actually a good thing safety-wise. Perhaps that's because the CT7-8 fitted to the 92 is an even older engine than the Makila!
The Makila 2A (as fitted to the 225) has turbine blade shedding to cope with otherwise unresolved overspeed - ie an overspeed that is not contained by the normal electronic overspeed shutdown at 120% N2 (as happened in the Norwegian accident Nick refers to). At 140% (from memory) the turbine blades are designed to all detach simultaneously and are contained within the engine. No more blades = no more turbine disc acceleration so the disc won't burst. Now what would you rather have, a turbine disc bursting and hoping that all that airframe reinforcement doesn't allow bits to hit the flight controls, rotor blades etc, or a system that intrinsically guarantees that the turbing can't overspeed to the point of disc destruction? I have to say that I am not sure exactly what JAR FAR 29 says on this subject. Can anyone point to a web location that has the publications as I can never find them? However I am pretty sure that the Makila 2A is compliant. Some EC/TM person could confirm that? If you don't change anything, you can fall back on grandfather rights, but once you change something, it has to be re-certified and hence meet the current requirements. If Sikorsky can get their FAA to grant certification to the 92's gearbox, I am sure that Turbomeca can do the same with the DGAC/EASA and their 2A (sorry, couldn't resist :D ) |
The concept for blade shedding as a way to avoid turbine bursts seems elegant (that's engineer speak for really cool.)
|
Helicomparator JAR/FAR 29?
Well if you go to a relevant web site (maybe JAA.nl or FAA.gov, for example) you might find links to them. The JAA one even has a link to the EASA site, if a google search doesn't yield a result (which I think it might). I think underfloor fuel tanks would be a grandfather right, would it not? |
The document that contains methods of compliance for the subjects that have been discussed in this thread is AC 29-2C and can be found at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...7?OpenDocument
The pages of interest are:
Enjoy! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:26. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.