in-fact with regards of the north sea safety implementation AW139 carries 6 pax only.

Well no, I don't live in the UK, or even Europe, so I didn't know that these rule changes had been implemented.

I am glad to see progress with this aircraft.


However, it makes the window seat rule look a bit stupid. You'd be lucky to get a fat man through a S-92 window but you'd get a fat man plus his horse through an AW189 window (with the saddle still on through an EC175 window!).

Quite possible Silver, but the client's Logistics department isn't doing a very good job of seat optimisation if that's the case. I would like to know the payload available.

Terminus, it's very likely a 16 passenger aircraft where you live.
120 Nm out and back, with JAA standard IFR reserves is going to get you at least 16 passengers @ 100 Kg each, or so the brochure says.

Tottigol

I like the idea of the 189 for speed and comfort but for me its 250 out with a 160 closest alternate which will probably rule it out.

AW189 in service
 

8 pax 120nm on an 18 seat aircraft, not very impressive, no wonder they need 2 flights per day.

Hi terminus mos, it might all be a bit too early to start waving fingers :=
As the infamous Zen master once said..."we'll see" :8

Just my two cents worth

SS

Swinger, I am not waving fingers, I am interested in the available payload which will tell me all I need to know. In any event, its not an optimal load, whether oil company logistics or AW189 related.

Next time I want 2 cents from you or your Zen philosophy I will ask.

In my experience, outside of established production areas most ac are rarely full. The oil companies can afford it, don't worry. Let them worry about it.

Good point! S-92 window barely qualifies as an emergency exit, and with 7 windows per side, they are only carrying 14 pax?

New AW189 brochures are available on the AW site.

AW189 | AgustaWestland

Those AW189 brochures have been online for months now.

490 nms quoted without reserve - anyone know actual fuel burns at say 3000' ISA Vbr?

Can anybody confirm how the issue with the Cat A/Class 1 profiles was resolved?

What Issue would that be?
About 420 Kg/Hr

I note the referenced range of 600nm is with aux fuel and no reserves, so I would assume the 4 PAX at a 200nm RoA is with baseline fuel, although much detail is missing from this number. Noting current basing plans for the AW189 at LoS, Manston, Cardiff, Prestwick and Inverness, will BHL actually require aux fuel options to cover the UKSRR from any of these bases?

On the subject of fuel burn and not sure if the case for the final submissions, but I believe the initial requirements definition for RoA was for flight at just 1000 ft in ISA conditions, so pretty harsh fuel burn rates for any platform.

With lot 1 and 2 base transitions commencing on 1st April 2015, we should see initial platform deliveries to cover pre-transition training on their way pretty soon and then we will know fact from fiction.

I believe SAR 189's will have even more fuel than the standard+fwd tank+aux.
IIRC the SAR 189 has a deeper belly on it that has increased fuel stowage. I'm pretty sure the camo painted prototype has that belly on it now.

The SAR configured AW189 has a completely redesigned fuel storage and distribution system to guarantee the performance number required by the Bristow SAR contract in the UK.

I understand that the AW189 doesn't have the same Class 1/Cat A profiles as the AW139. Has this now been resolved?

You are correct, the AW189 doe not have the same CatA/PC1 profiles as the AW139 since it's a different helicopter with a different rotor blade design, different engines...

If you forgive me, I still fail to see the issue.