Bristow EC-155's eating engines at a whopping rate!
 

Whilst roaming through the HAI floor last week.....overheard a conversation that reported Bristow Nigeria's Shell owned...OLOG operated EC-155's have now done over 200 engine replacements for all manner of causes. That makes one wonder more than a bit about the reasons.....maintenance, pilots, training procedures, or design problems?

Way back...the Bristow Nigeria S-76 fleet also was going through engines by the boatload until they discovered the engine wash water was very saline (hate to use the phrase saltwater here) and that was causing a wee problem for them.


Wonder if someone close to the situation can explain the situation?

I heard of a Swiss gentleman who bought a new 155 and had an engine change within 2 weeks, just wasn't making the required power.

Have also heard that new S76 C+'s are only getting about 600hrs out of there Arriels, as I have said in other posts the french engines don't like hot climates , and the arriel 2 is pushed to the limit, Turbomeca are renouned for sending out engines from new or O/haul which fail on thermal load after a very short time, then try and get a responce from the French ; (But sir the engine was in spec when it left our workshop (with suitable french accent))

Wake up Sikorsky.
 

When are you going to realise that the French Engine is a Hybrid and won’t do its full days work?

Start looking at the C47 or LTS for the 76, or the client base will start looking elsewhere.

Where I don’t quite know yet, but not at the French that’s for sure.

First I heard that anyone Swiss had bought one?

212man....your profile says you drive 155's in Nigeria.....anything you can add to this discussion? Any sort of empirical data you can share.....for those of us that are operating 155's in hot offshore places....in the Gulf of Mexico we are being confronted by the same thing on the two 155's operating there.

What is causing the unusual number of engine changes? Shell is supposed to be the fleet leader in hours now....and in Nigeria...that means Bristow thus it would seem you might know something that could help the rest of us.

SASless, if I could tell you what the problem with the Arriel 2 series is I think I'd be knocking on Turbomecca's door with a suggested consultancy fee!

I seriously doubt the 200 figure, but stand to be corrected.

I think it's well known that the Arriel 2 is working hard and is probably at the top end of it's development process. The 76 C+ has had similar tales of woe with power assurance figures too.

The reality is that 155/76 size helicopters probably need an engine in the TM Ardiden category (the derivitive of the TM-333). There is a gap in the market at present between Arriel size and PT-6 size and maybe it will fit it.

I take it from your comments that you are now in Texair, or was that the 'royal us' ?

Are the engines being replaced...sent off to Turbomeca...overhaulled and sent back....with hot end changes or something similar? Any identifiable issues that could help point other operators towards the paths of rightousness or is it simply a bad engineering decision by the builder to use that particular engine?

You are correct that the 76 using the same engine is encountering problems with the engine making TBO....which seems to confirm your observations.

You might be closer to that consultancy than you think....but not with Turbomeca.

The Arriel 2 series engines fitted into any helicopter operating in hot climates seems to have a problem. Bristow have had to replace many engines in their EC155s in Nigeria, ACN have had to replace many engines in their S76C+s in Nigeria and Schreiner had to replace both engines in their 365N3 in Cameroon. I heard that the same problem exists/existed in Hong Kong and Macao - anybody working there care to comment? What about the machines in Dubai as well?

If only P&W could come up with an updated engine for the 76B, producing about the same power for a similar fuel burn to the Arriel 2 series, Sikorsky could ditch the problematic Arriel 2 series engines (though I'm sure Eurocopter will always go for a French engine over an American one :E )

I would put money on Eurocopter putting the Ardiden into an EC-155B2 or 3 within 3-4 years. It will transform it.

Sasless, no point fishing from me I'm afraid; you won't get anything I consider confidential.

212man....last time I checked....OLOG/Bristow operates Shell owned 155's....you guys are mere caretakers of the equipment....thus no competitive advantage there in my view.

Certainly we would not want you to give out proprietary information....but the same information that would go into a MMIR or a government publication surely is not "confidential". We are talking about generic problems that all operators of a common aircraft type are having......ever sat in on a Technical briefing at the HAI for example....the manufacturers are very forthcoming about these kinds of things....and they are open to the public...no invite required...no entrance fee....just walk thru the door. I found the feedback given and received by the operators and manufacturer to be very helpful last week. Engine issues with the C+ was discussed....that led to the conversation about the 155 and its engine issues. No secrets at Sikorsky....why at your end?

Why do you appear reluctant to discuss straight forward technical issues? You are in a position to relate much the same kinds of information that Nick does for the S-92 and S-76, and would not reveal sensitive company information while doing so.

Or do I misunderstand your position?

SASless,

You have to accept that if the data is harmful to someone's position, it won't be given out, at least in some circles.

Best to assume it is bad enough to want to clam up.

Mama M

P&W are doing it!

PW210S will power the S76D in 2008, with 1000-1100 SHP and lower or equal fuel burn as the Arriel.

Will it work, time will tell.



CB

Gentleman,

I am not a guru on the Arriel 2C or 2S series engines but I can offer some explainations based on my experience with the 2B series which is very close.

When the engine is calibrated on the test cell they actually bend slightly the nozzel guide vanes. After a short time (within 700 hours or so from new) the NGV seems to open up just a bit which reduces power and makes the engine run cooler. Turbomeca has figured this out and changed the test cell criteria such that an engine with 700hrs does not fail a power check. Now the engines right off the test bench make a good bit more power and therefor run a touch hotter. Normally this is not an issue but if you are running in a high temp environment you could be pushing the T4.5 limits right from the start. The folks in the shop are given a range to shoot for when calibrating an engine and they have to guess at the type of environment you will be operating in so they can produce an engine that fits your needs. Unfortuantely until recently they were not getting much feedback from the field as to where their best guess was hitting. They have to use Kilowatts and T3 temperature in the cell where as on the aircraft with installation losses and corrections the numbers may change. The test cell guy doesn't know that so many KW and so much T3 is going to equal a certain amount of Tq margin and T4.5 margin in the aircraft. They are getting this info now so they should be able to set the engine up a little better in the future.

The Arriel 2 series in general is still a fairly young engine and of course has had it's growing pains. As was mentioned previously it is getting near it's upper power limits which creates some challenges. Another issue that has become a problem is premature engine removal. Since the engines are FADEC controlled some of the old school type maintenance staff would rather change an engine than troubleshoot to see where the problem really lies. I don't want to accuse anyone of this as most of the maintenance folks I have met are top notch but it does happen. I have seen several engines removed for indication problems and lack of troubleshooting. This situation as well is getting better but the damage to the statistics is probably already done.

I would be happy to unofficially try to answer any specific questions if I can but as I said I am not the Arriel 2S or 2C authority.

Best Regards,
MaxTork

So explain this to a non pilot.
Why then do they not install a bigger power output engine in the first instance or, issue an AD? that in places where temperatures are consistantly above a fixed point a different set of donkeys should be installed.
Note the smart use of a colloquialism, why go out more when the worthy pprune subscribers are so informative.
And don't just respond with the word MONEY for if the helicopter is on ground and not earning, it's costing money.

Captain N

Unfortunately Money is the big factor here. Sikorsky and Eurocopter ask for an engine that makes XYZ power at XYZ temps and that is wht the engine guys have to provide. If this turns out to be not enough for some instances then so be it. It would be up to the airframer to certify a new engine in their aircraft just to meet the needs of the few operators who work in high temp areas. If they were to do so then it would make sense to put the same high output engines in all the airframes. This is very much what was mentioned earlier in this thread about the Ardiden engine which will be much more powerful than the current Arriel. Not to mention all this hot rodding we talk about in making more power from an engine has consequences too. More power means more stress on a gearbox and airframe which takes modification as well. It is very much like building a race car...bigger engine means stronger transmission and driveline then a rollcage for stiffness and so on....do you see the snowball getting bigger? As much as I hate to say it if you want a bigger snowball you better have a bigger pocket book.

MaxTork

Thank you Maxtork.

Capt. Notarious,
Its not so much about the power but (as Mama Mangrove correctly stated...) its all related to the fuel burn.
If they could, they would probably fit the PT6 and be done with it. Canadian motors rock...

However, an S76 or a 155 are going to suffer a dramatically reduced range and be economically impractical. Hense the reason that the S76B model is largely a corperate machine these days. It has the fuel hungry engines.

The other issue is that big motors weigh more, cost more and can lift more. Larger motors will encourage the customer to ask for more payload and any advantage of the power surplus is soon absorbed in payload increase.

EG: The C model 76 has the 1S1 and has always been N1 and temp limited. The solution for this was the 2S1 engine in the C+. Better OEI and hot and high performance...
Does anyone know the operating specs of the C+?, the MAUW of the C model was 11700lbs. Any changes to that?

I dare say the EC-155 purchase by Shell was not based upon any kind of efficency study....quite the contrary. The Bell 412 that showed up at Redhill with all the fancy kit, buttons, knobs, and dials was not even looked at. That was a Shell decision....not a Bristow one.

The 155 was to replace the 212....but cannot carry the people and baggage the 212 does....one cannot load passengers and baggage simultaneously as you can on the 212.....the 155 requires much more "runway" to operate than does the 212. We even did a VIP run into a ball field because the 155 could not operate into the place.

The 155 is faster, smoother, has all the fancy kit....but is not the aircraft the 412 is for offshore or utility type flying.

Ask 212man about the new runway being built at Warri to replace the 212 site that has been used for ages so the 155 can legally operate out of the Shell IA. All of that is a function of engine power or the lack of....

SASless

There is one big fact you have been over looking. The B212 was never operated to Cat A performance specs. The EC155B is required to meet Cat A. Granted this must be achieved using a much different takoff and landing profile. I loaded passengers just the other day at the same time. It just has to be from both sides of the A/c. Which the 212 can't do if someone is in a well seat. I think if they had the performance charts to operate to Cat B for the EC 155B you'd find it performs just as well as a B212.

Musket,

How do you load baggage and pax simultaneously on the 155...does not the cabin door slide back over the swinging baggage door?

Do you still have the restriction on opening the crew doors with the rotors turning at less than full chat?

Seems to me we used Cat A performance on the 212's although the profiles had been tinkered with to allow for operation from the pumpstations so long as we used the canals and rivers for rejected takeoffs. As you can relate...some of the reject areas were quite small and usually very rough....sometimes covered in Bananna Palms.

I never could see how "ditching" could be considered a "safe landing area".....anyone care to explain that to me? I was always led to understand the reject area had to be clear of obstacles, smooth, and firm enough to support the aircraft. I freely submit any sort of water does not meet that critieria.

Why would you operate the 155 Cat A only...and not the 212 fleet....has there been a change in the safety culture at Shell? When the 212 and the 155 were working side by side....was that the case....Cat A for the 155 and non-Cat A for the 212?

Musket 33,

Surely the only requirement for 155 to operate Cat A is Shell, no? I thought Bell 212 was operated Cat A as well, just it has a shorter reject distance and having skids, can be operated off grass in rainy season Cat A (unlike 155, which rolls over when the wheels dig in to the mud.

Does the 155 operate Cat A from all the flow stations and offshore as well? If it's operating Cat A offshore how many passengers can it lift using helipad profile?

They do have performance charts to operate Cat B for 155. Your Operations Manual must specify what the DP is for Cat B or Class 2 operations (normally either Vtoss or Vy after which the national legislation will normally specify you must have Cat A performance. Normally the Cat A will be limited by something like the single engined performance en-route (normally something like...... must be able to maintain level flight on one engine at Vy at SE max continuous power). So all you have to do is go to the single engine performance graphs and work it out. If you fly 155 and 212, just go to the graphs and compare for yourself.

SASless

Wow! Opened a can of worms here, so first things first.
A "Nigerian Cat A" is not the Cat A Bell helicopters describes in the approved Aircraft Operators Manual. As you'll notice the max takeoff weight is 10,200 lbs and goes down from there. I know for a fact your well aware of the little fiddle that was carried on for years to make the "Nigerian Cat A" acceptable. Perhaps you should talk to a Capt. McDonald who is no longer flying. He was one of the people who helped arrive at a compromise to develope the "Nigerian Cat A"

Yarba

Yes your right any wheeled aircraft will sink into the mud faster than a skid aircraft. Yes, your also right the B212 had a shorter reject distance than the EC155B. However, the B212 operated with a much lower max takeoff weight to met the Bell approve Cat A profiles.
As for Cat A and Cat B I understood that Class 1 and Class 2 refered to the type of reject area you were rejecting to. This would determine the amount of damage to passengers and aircraft if a reject were required. I understand these definitions come from the current JAR ops. Must admit I\'m not really up on the EU regulations so any specific reference would be greatly appreciated.

SASless

Your absolutely right if the passenger door is open it blocks the baggage door on that side of the aircraft. However, you only need to open one passenger door at a time. This leaves the other side baggage door free to be opened and use. Unlike the B212 which only has one baggage area door.

SASless and Yarba

Sorry, I\'m a little rusty on the 212, not having flown it for a few years. Looking under CAA approved supplements BHT-212-FMS-CAA-7 Section 1A-6-A Maximum GW is 10,000 pounds.

Steve -

The 76B, C, C+, C++ and D are all 11.7klbs MGTOW per Sikorsky's data and press releases.

Added power just gives better high hot and Cat-A performance.

The 76C++ will be fitted with an inlet barrier filter (imagine a huge K&N filter and you'll be right on) which will supposedly significantly lower the mean time between unscheduled removals.

Hoss

Cheers HOSS.
I understand the 212 to be the most capable OEI helicopter on the planet. Am I incorrect?

Hi Musket,

I think you'll find that in reality there's no such thing as Nigerian Cat A. Cat A is based on ICAO Class 1 performance, which basically says that at any time after you start moving with passenegrs on board you can either reject safely, with no damage to anyting, or continue to fly, divert to a safe place to land and do so with no damage to anything. Cat B is basically ICAO Class 2 performance. Everything in Class 1 applies, except it is accepted that there is an acceptable degree of risk during the take off part of flight where, until you reach your defined 'decision point' (refer to my previous post), you may not be able to land safely. However, even if you can't land without damaging your helicopter you can't damage other people, either inside or outside the helicopter. This would mean that you could take off in your 155 on grass in the rainy season, but only class 2 and you have to be sure that when the aircraft digs in to the mud your passengers aren't damaged! :E

The best references are ICAO performance standards, and NCAR ops for Nigeria.

Hope that helps you. :ok:

Yarba....having more than a little bit of fondness for old Musket 33 there......I begin to wonder if he considers the skies of SE Asia a bit friendlier than Nigerian skies currently.

Right about now.....he will probably be sitting next to 212man as they study the bottoms of thier Gulder bottles wondering why they bother trying to educate the unwilling about the 155.

I am sure they are chuffed to be flogging around the claggy airspace of the delta region....happily twiddling knobs and punching buttons....getting confused over which screen is active....which nav mode is engaged....crosswords on their kneeboards....sweat dripping off their noses while their once crisply starched now sweat soaked white shirts portray their hairy chests for all to see. But.....as good as it is to have the toys....they fail to realize just how good the old 212 was....with the wonderful SFENA Stab system....12 different cockpit layouts in nine aircraft....and 37,000 hours on the airframe.

Some questions arose while reading 33's (ah memories of some real beer in that number) reponses. I do not recall a 10,200 number...I do remember a 11,200 number with a usual weight of about 10,800 being the usual weight.

The 212 had a well seat for two that converted to a baggage compartment if the tailboom would not hold all the trash...thus you had some flexibility in that regard. Both cabin doors slide back...thus the Gran Prix Nigerian pax loading system works fine. We had the Nigerian Air Quartermaster to control the mob in back...and do all the paperwork....leaving pilots to do the crossword and make radio calls....read checklists....brief...re-brief...de-brief...and chat with Martha.

I used to be able to rattle off all the briefs for the various profiles...but they got all complicated last time I was there....never could keep it straight whether it was Cat A, Group B, Class 1.....whatever and merely reverted to The Small One's....favorite call of "We're outta here!"

Basic premise of this response...Musket 33 is a dear chap...he is trying to defend the 155...it was a gallant try....he caught a lot of spears for 212man....beers for 33 on 212man's account are in order.

Am I forgiven, 33?

SASless and Yarba

The B212 is a good old bird. Never did say it wasn't. The EC155 is also a good aircraft but a much different technic is required to manage it. It is not the perfect CAT A helicopter. There isn't any that I am aware of at the present or near future. I've never been in a B212 that could climb at 800 fpm, indicating 110 kts thru 3000 feet with 10 pacs and baggage. However, I would gladly trade some of this performance for an airconditioner or a window you could open.

SASless next time you plan on passing thru Las Vegas drop me an e-mail and I will buy the first beer. Will buy all the beers if you can show me you have a check-ride the next morning.

SASless,
it all boils down to the old adage; you can't have your cake and eat it.

You want fast? Have fast but expect penalties at low speed. You want slow? Have slow but don't expect to get a very high Vne. You want good economy? have it but don't expect good OEI performance. You want good OEI performance? Have it but don't expect good fuel economy, and so it goes on.

I loved flying the 212 but I wouldn't swap the 155 now. Granted, it's not perfect, but no helicopter is.

If you read a bit more into what is and is not allowable, you will find water rejects are perfectly legal when operating to PC2 standards. In reality it was always going to be a likely outcome with the 212, too. You and I may not desire it; we'd all like to step out of our a/c on a tarmac strip rather than clamber out into a dinghy, but it IS legal.

PS I don't like Gulder and I don't have a hairy chest!

PC2 standards....sounds like the same logic that allows a Jetranger to be over the Gulf of Mexico in winter with a 40 knot wind blowing and the water temperature down around 50 degrees F......sea rolling about Sea State 4-5 or higher.....and pop-out floats that are certified to mill pond standard or slightly more. No exposure suits and the Coastguard running around the Port of New Orleans hunting terrs.

It may be legal.....but is it safe enough a standard when carrying SLF?

But that is a topic for another argument.

You're right; another topic. The same one where advocating Cat A standards tends to generate flack!

Any 155 pilots fancy a change?
 

Rumour is this guy has 2 on order with a possible third....

http://flightinternational.com/Jobs/...ter+Pilot.html ;)

Requires the FAA License 212man....maybe our old friend can be convinced to come forth again out of Lost Wages and ply his trade once again. How could anyone give up Nigeria for a posh job on some nice yacht.....there ain't no Bush Bar to retire too and contemplate life.

EC155
 

Hi Guys,

I keep hearing about "Lots" of EC155's working the offshore patch around the globe however I can only think of a few locations -

Nigeria (5 - 6)
Vietnam (2 - 3)
China (2)

Where are the rest ???

What about their reliability and performance - again hear of frequent engine changes especially during the early stages of operations in Nigeria BUT does anyone know the real facts on that or any other maint issues?

Curious to hear from those amongst you who have flown the 155 and the S76 and how they compare side by side.

APTD,

I do believe there are some operating from Scandinavia, I assume Norway.

Dancopter operate 155´s in North sea.

ERA Helicopters can be added to the list as they operate two in the GOM at the moment.

Maybe one for ERA if the gear up landing rumour is correct.

2 or 3 for COHC in China and 2 for Norwich. 2 in the Med on the back of boats and 4 or 5 operating in the UK

What are the icing limits for the EC155 (if any?)?

Thanks