PPRuNe Forums - Agusta AW139

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)

- - Agusta AW139 (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/405110-agusta-aw139.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowherespecial (Post 11781992)

I put this to some senior Leonardo people at an event recently. The senior people were suitably non commital as you would expect from a listed company. The rest of their sales team were..... less inhibited.
Based on the more junior team members the plan is for:

More composite to try and reduce the amount of corrosion issues
More aligned maintenance schedules (like AH have done with the H175/ H160)
More future proof/ cheaper/ in house avionics
Strangely power was not mentioned, it's not really an underpowered aircraft at the moment to the best of my knowledge
Unlikely an increase in MTOW, but possibly a little. If some of the aircraft can be made of composite, you do not need to go above 7T, the lighter EEW takes care of more payload anyway.

I assess it's still a little while away before it breaks cover, like AH's new H135.

I like tracking prototypes on flight radar and it seems that the AW139 MKII has already performed around 50 to 80 fh. I’m quite impatient the discover all the improvments integrated in the AW139.
Maybe some news will come at HAI.

[QUOTE=nowherespecial;11781992]I put this to some senior Leonardo people at an event recently. The senior people were suitably non commital as you would expect from a listed company. The rest of their sales team were..... less inhibited.
Based on the more junior team members the plan is for:

"More composite to try and reduce the amount of corrosion issues"

Only aircraft I've come across where corrosion was included in the basic package.

I'd say, Yes, It does need a power upgrade, not an MTOM upgrade. At 6.800 it can barely hold its TOP HOGE at ISA conditions at 2.500 ft. You don't want to see a 7000 MTOM chart... see level ISA performance only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoinix (Post 11784153)

Buy a 189K so. The 139 was originally certified at 6T. Adding a whole tonne to the MTOW was really pushing it. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can have power or reliability but not both. Another few HP isn't going to turn a 7T 139 into a 6.4T 139. In effect the 139 has ruined an entire group of pilots forever because they have no idea what an underpowered helicopter is like to fly.

I’m glad I got ruined on the 169. With increased mtom I can go up to 11.400 on ISA and do the job :) But, like you mentioned, it's actually not the power, it's the immense increase in MTOM that is the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scorpygixxer (Post 11784623)

In effect the 139 has ruined an entire group of pilots forever because they have no idea what an underpowered helicopter is like to fly.

They just have to fly few hours on AS355 and they will learn….:)

[QUOTE=ericferret;11784139]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nowherespecial (Post 11781992)

"More composite to try and reduce the amount of corrosion issues"

Only aircraft I've come across where corrosion was included in the basic package.

Ain't that the truth - saw one that had just come off an offshore lease and had less than 600 TTSN and it was minging.

I just discover this MK2 version. Very interesting as there is thousand old and rusty AW139 which need to be scraped :)
It seems that there are pictures of the aircraft available, can someone share the link?
I’m curious to see what it looks.

Many thanks Jeff.
Indeed, it clearly integrate a new engine. It looks to not have the PT6 up side down integration. In that range of power, it might be an Ardiden or GE catalyst or a PW100.

You have the engine manufacturer there, just not the model because it is a new model that you won't have heard of yet.

Cockpit and avionics is common with the 169/189 family concept.

Perhpas an announcement at HAI? Who knows...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Hom (Post 11809782)

Here it is

https://www.**************/photo/Leo...-MK-II/7714181

What happened to the link?

Quote:

Originally Posted by noooby (Post 11815997)

Perhpas an announcement at HAI? Who knows...

unbearable suspense !
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bpaggi (Post 3992970)

Of course the aircraft does not realize whether it's flying at 100 or 102%. For AW139 Cat A operations 102% has not been selected to have the best rotor efficiency but to achieve the best Cat A performance. So in this terms the best aircraft efficiency is 102% NR

Actually is FADEC and nothuing else that it'll take care of the power delivered topping the engine at 2.5' rating and giving you always the max power available. Collective has to be kept at the same position most of the times and when needed (at the extreme of the nevelope) pulled in order to droop the rotor as much as required to achieve transitional lift.

You do not need to know whether the engine is at max power, you need to carry out the reccomended procedure. Actually you need to watch NR gauge and not PI. Many conditions will not require max OEI power to carry out the procedure.

If you operate the aircraft within the RFM limitations you'll have huge safety margins at 100% NR in the whole Cat B envelope respecting the certification requirements.

212man

The reason 102% has been selected is not to achieve 100% when the rotor droops but to have a greater inertia reserve down to 90% when is required

Regardless of an AEO or OEI condition, as per the Equation of Lift, increased rotational speed results in increased lif, which leads to increased aerodynamical performance of the rotor(s), which in turn is the overall goal of the non-exposire time of this specifications.