EC155
 

Have any of you flown the EC155? If so, can you spare the time to make a few comments about it. Better still, e-mail me any reports you can.

Thanks.

PS that's the 155 not the 135.

------------------

212 man - Did you recieve my e-mail re EC155?
I have a new account & not sure if all is well with it. If you need it re-sent let me know.

Thanks EC, yes I did. Did you get mine? you're right there were afew problems, I think the net turned to a co.uk. Sorry it was so long.

I just saw some basic performance figures:OGE hover ceiling at MAUW and ISA +10:1500'! wow what a performer. Can't wait to try it in ISA +15-20.

------------------

Info on EC155
 

Does anyone know of Eurocopter's efforts to manufacture an upgraded EC155?

I've heard that the EC155B is not performing up to specs.

Any comment from people flying the EC155 as I am dying to get my hands on one and give it a run.

Thanks

Jerry

Heard its to do with poor Cat A (Class 1) performance but know no more.

It does perform to the specs, it just depends and how closely the specs were compared with the requirements in the first place.

The new 155B1 has the Arriel 2C2 which improves the OEI continuous power rating. This allows a higher Cat A weight when using the 60 kt Vtoss as the second segment is the limiting factor with the existing 2C1 with its current OEI Continuous power. Still need 580 m reject distance in still air, though.

212man

I heard that the 155s were not coming up to speed in Nigeria. Any truth to that.

Heli Ops

I can't really comment on that. Suffice to say that the a/c performs as it says in the FLM, ECF have brought out the B1. Read into that what you will.

My Nigerian contact tells me that they collect rain water in the cabin even more efficiently than the 212 - difficult to imagine but there you go. I don't miss it.:)

Taff

212man....

Have heard of some problems with the 155's at Shell/Warri-Port Harcourt....any truth to them?

How many windscreens have cracked while the aircraft have been setting on the ground shutdown?

How many windscreens or overhead screens have been lost to bird strikes?

Any delays in obtaining glue/cement/putty to reinstall broken windscreens?

How many incidents of wire locking being done improperly at the factory that resulted in significant risks to the aircraft? (for example....fenstrom hubs working lose and main gearbox drain plugs backing off)

Did the required reject areas play a major role in the Shell decision to move the helicopter operations to Osubi Airport?

How many radomes have been lost to bird strikes?

Does the sliding passenger door configuration interfere with simultaneous passenger and baggage loading....and how does that figure into overall elapsed time numbers as compared to comparable flights with the Bell 212?

Does the lack of air conditioning and the rapid heating of the cabin contribute to pilot fatique over long days without rest breaks?

How many Shell landing sites that met the criteria for Bell 212's remain in use by the 155?

How many unusual malfunctions have occurred that resulted in premature engine changes? Is it a fact, that anytime an engine goes to the max power setting OEI, when commanded to do so by the FADEC system, that engine must be removed and sent for an inspection at the factory?

Is the 155's "particle separater" system as effective as the 212? Any FOD problems being encountered during bush ops with the 155? Off airport or paved helipad landings present a problem as compared to the 212's the 155 is replacing?

Any incidents result in downtime to aircraft due to inexperienced (new to the aircraft) pilots making incorrect decisions during the analysis of malfunctions that could have been avoided by means of more intensive training or the use of simulators and/or procedure trainers? Is the complexity of the avionics suite presenting problems to timely execution of emergency drills by crews due to the amount of information being displayed during emergencies that could lead to a loss of situational awareness by the crew?

To the other readers.....some problems have been encountered...those who decided to replace the 212 with the 155 have presented those who have to operate and maintain the things with a handful of problems. That should be no reflection upon those now trying to make the program work.

Many of the problems are not untypical of the introduction of any new airframe and in this case may be strengthened by the operaton being located within Nigeria with all that brings on.

I'll bet some at Warri and Port Harcourt will say, over Ian Washer's favorite (Foster's beer ), that the Bell 412EP would have been the better choice.

.......didn't think so.

A little too close to home boys?









:eek:

Now here is a good rumor!

Seems a 155 crew in Nigeria got ahead of themselves on the before takeoff checklist....cleared all around....pulled the ol' collective up under the sweaty armpit.....and of all things the Fadec governor system realized they were wanting to do a single engine takeoff.....determined max power on the good engine would be required....and very obediently provided the necessary input to the single engine that was not in the ground idle position.....and yes....in light of the factory requirement to return the engine to the factory for an inspection upon any duration of max power as selected by the Fadec....yet another AOG aircraft for an engine change.

Any truth to that rumor 212Man?

Me thinks these things are becoming very ....very expensive to operate. Heck...the 412EP....being so low tech....it would either hover or at least warn you of the impending disaster by physical signs before kidnapping your pocketbook!

so they didnt notice the pretty coloured exceedence lines coming up on all the gauges then ?. Does the venerable 412 have an aural warning to remind you when you are beeing stupid ?.

Widgeon,

It was suggested those who selected the 155 considered the 412 so 'old tech" that they would not even attend a demo of a 412EP with four axis autopilot and all the goodies specified in the RFP.......but being old tech, the 412 does not have a Fadec system that automatically throws the remaining engine into warp speed when it senses the need.....and the resulting engine change that entails.

The 412 relies upon old tech pilots to determine how much power is applied and uses a rather novel concept....pilot's thumb and hand....to adjust power as required. There are times old tech methods are a better answer me thinks.

Imagine the cost and inconvenience that results from this....Fadec senses a need for wide open.,.does so at the speed light....and Eurocopters gets to inspect the engine while the operator is left doing an engine change in the field.

At least the trusty PT-6 doesn't have to be replaced every single time max intercontingency power is used.:)

I'm surprised the FADEC doesn't have some sort of AOG logic to inhibit OEI parameters on the ground. The 'old technology' 412 has it on the Royal Saudi version, which is FADEC (PT6,-T9) 4 axis, and nothing but 4 flat screens in the office.

The EC155 has DECUs fitted, not FADECs. I'm sure that there would be some raised eyebrows wiring the DECUs into the gnd/flt logic.

Good luck with the mod.

SASless,

On your take off rumour:
I love my 212's but......I do love an engine system that works its effen guts out when I told it to, because I need to do it OEI. if I am coming in OEI and I want to use the power, stuff the ruddy engine. If that means it is occaisionaly over temped/sped/torqued through misshandling, so be it.
All of these things can be done to the twin pac, but unless you have an accurate ECM, it is unlikely that the pilot will pick up all the exceedences. Isnt that worse? But the issue here is misshandling isn't it - not engine systems?

Or, I have missed your point? :confused:

Helmet fire....alas yes...you did miss the point of my post....I have no problem the way the Fadec or Decu or whatever it is works....the problem I have currently is that upon it working as designed....the operator is confronted with a need for an engine change despite....key word ...despite no exceedence occuring. As I understand the procedure....no matter the temp..Q...Ng....the engine has to have an inspection. At least that is what was being put out by those in the know following an inflight problem involving a training captain as mitigation for the resulting engine change. The statement was made to suggest the engine change would have to be made no matter if any exceedence occured or not thus the engine change was no big deal.....and the TC was not on the hook for the engine change....though it seems there might have been an exceedence.

um....um...

I am still not really understanding your problem. I think perhaps it is because I have no knowledge of the EC-155 systems or there is some information I am missing in your arguement. Maybe you could expand on the background of the issue a bit more?

You state: "the problem I have currently is that upon it working as designed....the operator is confronted with a need for an engine change despite....key word ...despite no exceedence occuring"

But then you go on to infer that although "those in the know" have said that an engine change is standard with no exceedences, this particular incident "might have" involved an exceedence.

If the engine required a change due to the parameters of the incident as defined by the manual - what is wrong with that? Same same for just about every engine - when certain defined parameters are reached, change the engine. How does this differ from the 212? If the 212 worked as designed and I pulled up the collective with one engine at idle, I too could exceed parameters.

Are you saying that both engines were at "fully open" at the flight idle detent (not ground idle) and some sort of OEI training switch was inhibiting one of the engines from sharing the load and then the system allowed some sort of exceedence?

Sorry, but it makes little sense to an outsider thus far.


:cool:

H.K. Grounds EC 155