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
 

Eurocopter AS 155
 

Does anyone have knowledge or experience on the 155?
I hear reliability may be a problem in comparison to the 365 and that an organisation in the Middle East returned them?

212man's the one to ask.

Anything specific you want to know? Any particular reason?

btw it's an EC-155 not AS: AS designators stopped when Aerospatiale merged with MBB and became Eurocopter

PS. the bit about the Middle East is correct to a point; it was one not "them" and I think you may find they were outside the FLM operating envelope (limit is +40 C), unless they were doing a lot of night flying! So perhaps their gripes about performance were not entirely justified.

must be nice to have enough money to buy an aircraft without reading the Flight Manual , it couldn't be that the salesman forgot to mention the temp limits could it ?. Are the any B2's delivered yet ? .

Thank you 212man. Just showing my age on AS/EC.
It would be to operate in Europe and UK and I don't know anyone with experience on the 155. My view is the 365 is well proven and reliable. I have heard less positive news on the 155, but only hearsay. I would prefer to move with technology, but maybe it needs a little longer to iron out the niggles? Any views on the varients? Would appreciate the weak points on the 155.

A Little Clarification!

When one orders an aircraft that is in development it is not possible to fly a production aircraft for evaluation or to have final performance figures. Those that were following the development of the EC155 will know that the Technical Specifications produced by Eurocopter went through several revisions. Not only did Basic Weight grow (as might be expected) but there was a significant erosion of performance shown in the graphs. Also the initial promised certification limit of +50c OAT was reduced to +40c OAT.

Whilst performance was a major concern with our aircraft, the prime reason it was returned was unreliability. One can fly when the Autopilot fails but when neither engine will start your VIP is stranded. When the electrical passenger steps fail regularly one is either limited to flying at 50kts or the Pilot has to attack and dismantle the steps - hardly compatible with VIP arrival and departures.

Given time many of our teething problems with the new aircraft may have been resolved. However we also had problems with systems/items that had functioned reliably on our 365s for years. Towards the end Eurocopter took our comments and complaints seriously and tried to address them, I believe this has helped subsequent purchasers but was too late for us.

Returning to the OAT Limitation comments. Certification flying to increase the OAT limit from the downgraded +40c was ongoing in America when we took delivery of our aircraft. We had been operating it for some 9 months before we reached the +40c limit and Eurocopter were aware we were operating beyond it. Certification proceeds slowly and being on a Government Register can have advantages.

I believe other operators have had their share of problems. We were told Eurocopter had to work with Bristow to find new Take Off Profiles for the Nigerian contract. Also via Turbomeca sources that, though never officially admitted, the engines delivered there were blueprinted to ensure maximum performance margins. Perhaps 212man can confirm the accuracy of this.

Despite all our problems, our EC155 was a very smooth, fast aircraft and often a joy to fly. I do not miss holding my breath everytime I pressed the Starter Buttons or tried to lift out of a landing site. Nor do I miss downloading all the Fault Codes after a flight only to find no one at Eurocopter knew what they meant!

Rumours suggest the projected EC155HP is no longer a runner, has anyone heard more?

Sandy,
apologies if offence given by my comment; slightly flippant I admit. I agree entirely with your remarks, many of which sound very familiar!

Davidi,
there are two in the UK now, though not on the G reg, a B and a B1. I have some involvement so if you seriously wanted to talk about them I could probably put you in touch with relevant people ( I have flown their B but not 'on the job' so can't comment too much on it's day to day use). E-mail or PM if you like.

I'm reluctant to say too much about our aircraft as a. they are not our aircaft but a client, and b. it is innappropriate for me to do so.

Suffice to say it is a fantastic aircraft in many ways but with a surprising number of reliabilty problems, many associated with what should be proven 365 componants. The new electronic stuff is pretty reliable. Any engine that runs at up to 845 C in the cruise must be in line for problems too, I'd suggest. By definition, it won't have much in reserve for when one stops, either.

The B1 addresses many of the problems unearthed by various operators, many of whom could be mistaken for thinking they have been used as intensive flying trials units. It also has the expanded envelope and increased performance (drops Cat A weight at 28 C rather then 19.5).

I think the one 'proposed' (not officially) with the Ardiden (developed from the TM-333) is on the back burner, but the success or otherwise of the AB-139 will determine the future plans. Pity it didn't have the 333 from the word go.

A delight to fly, though, as any one who flies it will testify.

Let's hear it : the EC-155B1
 

Just found out recently that my company will use the EC-155B1 (for offshore) in the future.

What are the experiences with this aircraft?

DJG

Will or May? Temperate or Tropical?

Dancopter are pretty happy with their's I understand.

How about you 212man.....you are the 155 Guru extant are you not?

SASless, no I don't need an extant, I've got an FMS to tell me where I am......

Well this works....fortunately I've downloaded the Tech Details from EuroCopter.

:cool:
DJG

EC 155 Drivers
 

Could any of you 155 drivers tell me the pros & cons of the machine, especially the latest model.
If you don't like it, what machine of that size would you prefer.

Many thanks

Nigel,
We looked at the 155 for our operation which is probably completely different from yours of course and came up with the following:

Pro

Speed
Range
Quiet
Good visibility
Volume
Flat floor
Sliding rear doors
Huge luggage space
At the moment if you know where to look - cheap

Cons

Hover performance
OEI performance
Engine power degradation over time
CAT A vertical profile - none
Altitude performance
Empty weight
Air conditioning

I guess you have to assess your priorities.

The hover performance seems to be a trade with speed. Comes from tacking another blade on what was once a 4 blade rotor. MGW ISA OGE = 0.

OEI - see above. OEI MGW ISA +20 200fpm/80knots = 150 ft/nm???????? Curve of the earth even before your authorities have attacked it!

The Arriel 2C1/2 struggles to make power sometimes and you can be splitting hairs. Seems 350B3 operators can have similar problems. No doubt it will be addressed and nobody said when.

CAT A vertical profile. I am told it is a legacy from the 365 gear. It can't handle the increased gross weight by design. This seems plague a few designs that are growth variants. (A109 Power?)

We regularly operate and land at over 10,000'. Performance up there is pretty limited. They were slowly expanding the envelope and maybe it will go further and in fact the certification trials occurred in exactly the same area. I think it is a lot better now.

It is real easy to eat your payload with EEW increases. Check your figures closely. Don't know why in this day of micro electronics people fit radios out of a 747.

Air conditioning performance seems to be not as good as it could be and may never be.

In your patch if the question is Payload/Range/Speed, it may be worth looking at because some fairly impressive numbers can be achieved. 160 knots should be easy.

Price - if you were to look really hard you may find a deal. You just have to consider why!

If the Hover performance or CAT A vertical is not acceptable. The N3 is probably an option if you can find one of course.

I think that's a pretty good sum up above. It's also very smooth which is a bonus for passengers and crews alike (though it does have a particularly harsh 5 per coming into land through about 25 kts). If you are a single pilot operation it is very well suited to that.

Has a good range on standard tanks: 1000 kg fuel with burn down to 290ish kg/hr at FL 80 and 160 kt TAS. SL gives about 340 kg/hr at 150-155 kt TAS.

The helipad profile does exist now, but is very limited. The current weights are a reflection of the need to maintain a 35 ft clearance from the ground during a continued take off, with TDP at 100ft, but climbing higher is not possible because of the vertical speed/undercarriage considerations during a rejected take off (currently it is possible to reach 1000 f/min if at max helipad weight and rejecting from 99 ft).

The 5th blade and fenestron are very hungry at low speeds, but once above 15-25 kts the scene changes quickly. If you depart heliports/runways then fly to a windy rig, no problem. If you want lots of confined area and hovering OGE ops, not so good.

A certain Danish operator uses the B1 offshore in the North Sea, and as far as I'm aware are very happy with it in that role.

Build quality is not what it might be which can result in frustrating unserviceabilities.

Currently has short service intervals for major checks and component changes, e.g. 600 hr check takes a couple of weeks and MGB is lifed at 1800 hrs at the moment. Awkward for a single or twin a/c, but busy, operation perhaps?

Rumour is that a B2 is round the corner, fitted with the TM Ardiden (a derivative of the TM-333)

Can't comment on the air-conditioning, unfortunately!

Encountered some airframe problems. Seems to be the "plastic" frame isn't so stable. After some flighthours, you can count with problems. Some inflight sliding doors losts and also engine cowlings separated in flight. :ugh:

Avionics and 4-axis AP are impressive, really good for single pilot ops.

tecpilot,
not heard about the engine cowlings; any details?

I agree about the AP etc, superb. EC-225 even better.

Me thinks having to have a runway to operate helicopters says it all.....eh, 212man. Berger done with the runway yet?

212man,

check your PM.

Thanks Guys.

There seems to be more cons for field ops than I expected. What other machine of same size or slightly bigger would you prefer?
Is EC doing anything about these problems?