Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:25 pmby deaneb
Released today
New Zealand defense force to buy 5 Italian light training helicopters
New Zealand's air force plans to buy five Italian light utility helicopters for training and light operations, the defense minister said Tuesday.
Negotiations will begin shortly to buy the Agusta-Westland A109LUH choppers and a flight simulator, with a contract expected to be signed in early 2008, Defense Minister Phil Goff said in a statement.
The new aircraft will replace Sioux training helicopters and complement navy Seasprite choppers and eight NH-90 troop transport helicopters already purchased by defense forces, Goff said.
As well as training, the A109 can be used for search and rescue, air transport, medical evacuation, disaster response, surveillance and counterterrorism work, he said.
Air Vice Marshal Graham Lintott, chief of the air force, said the light helicopters will provide "an effective platform to train aircrew in basic helicopter operations" and will complement the more advanced skills required for the Seasprite and the NH-90s, which are due for delivery in 2010.
The statement did not detail the cost of the A109 airplanes, saying a final price was still being determined.
In August 2006 the government committed 771 million New Zealand dollars (US$592 million; €411 million) to buy the eight NH-90 airplanes expected to be in service for at least 30 years.
They will replace the air force fleet of 14 Vietnam-era Iroquois helicopters, that have been in service for more than 40 years
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:38 pmby Naki
Finally! - only took about 25 years to get a replacement (I remember them talking about a replacement of the Sioux in the early 80s). Not enough in my view but a good chioce of chopper - very versatile.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:42 pmby A185F
Far out is about time they got something although I never would have though they would get those. Will be quite a step up from the bumble bees and only 5 ? Crickey. Would have though a bunch of E model 500s (or the mil version) would be Ideal and cost effective.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:03 pmby squirrel350
One question can they not possibly tell the difference between a "Aeroplane" and a "Helicopter" its not that hard "CRIKEY".
SQ350
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:31 pmby benwynn
My Cousin will be an Instructor on them
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:16 pmby Mark Richards
Also we see commonality with Australia as the A109 is now their/our training machine as well.
Posted:
Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:00 pmby Naki
A185F wrote:Far out is about time they got something although I never would have though they would get those. Will be quite a step up from the bumble bees and only 5 ? Crickey. Would have though a bunch of E model 500s (or the mil version) would be Ideal and cost effective.
There are very good reasons for choosing the Agusta 109 instead of a smaller cheaper helo. The 109 is big enough so it can take some of the load off the NH-90s as there are only a small number of these on order & the Air Force ( & Navy) wanted a twin engine, wheeled chopper to enable them to easily use the new OPVs (as we don't have enough Seasprties to go around and these are being used on the Frigates and the new Canterbury).
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:36 amby SUBS17
Good choice in helicopter quite a useful machine the 109s.
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:40 pmby chopper_nut
Not a very good training helo in my opinion. The Bell 47 actually taught you to fly. Be better off getting another piston engined machine to train pilots on.
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:44 pmby Naki
Why - the Air Force have no piston helicopters? They need a modern helo to train on for the NH-90 & Seasprite. Most modern airforces no longer have piston helicopters (RAF, Australian Army & Navy, RN, Brtish Army, USN, USAF etc etc)
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:02 pmby chopper_nut
Mayby but why do civilian pilots learn on the R22/H300 (apart from cost) its because they teach you to fly. You have to learn to walk before you can run.
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:53 pmby ZK-Brock
So they're getting these? Crikey, a bit big for a basic trainer aren't they? (not that I know much about helos..)
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:39 pmby Naki
chopper_nut wrote:Mayby but why do civilian pilots learn on the R22/H300 (apart from cost) its because they teach you to fly. You have to learn to walk before you can run.
yea but most of the civilian guys start off flying Robbies and 300s in their commercial career not large and sophisticated NH-90s and Seasprites (& expensive to operate) - the 109s will take a lot of operational training load off these helos. If they used 300s or Robbies and went straight into a NH-90 - that is a massive step and a lot more training would be required on the NH-90 itself - at a huge cost.
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:57 pmby Alex
Ah well, if nothing else at least they look a bit cooler than the Sioux'.
Alex
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:43 pmby ardypilot
QUOTE
Crikey, a bit big for a basic trainer aren't they? (not that I know much about helos..)[/quote]
Thats what I was thinking.
QUOTE
if nothing else at least they look a bit cooler than the Sioux'.[/quote]
And that!
Are any of the Sioux still flying? If so, then where abouts? I never hear/see them around.
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:47 pmby Alex
Yeap, afaik they're mostly down Ohakea way; I saw a few of them around last time I was going past (maybe two months ago).
Alex
Posted:
Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:03 pmby ZK-KAG
Yep all part of the Pilot Training Squadron @ Ohakea. Not that I ever see em either lol...
Posted:
Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:38 amby A185F
Naki wrote:yea but most of the civilian guys start off flying Robbies and 300s in their commercial career not large and sophisticated NH-90s and Seasprites (& expensive to operate) - the 109s will take a lot of operational training load off these helos. If they used 300s or Robbies and went straight into a NH-90 - that is a massive step and a lot more training would be required on the NH-90 itself - at a huge cost.
Remember though the main point of the trainer is to train the guys to fly choppers. It would be a minimal step between 300s and the NH90, remember a chopper is still a chopper and they still fly the same, and they run the NH90 2 crew (not at all that i'm saying the RNZAF shold have robbies or 300s) but the step between the CT4 (even the king air) and the A109 would be massive. An aeroplane is not a chopper (remember it's a compleatly different licence) and going from a little bumble bee to learning to fly choppers in a 3 tonne war machine will be bloody hard work. Endless auto rotations, solo flight round the circuit etc etc - won't be easy and will be extreemly expensive.
Obviously these are to fill a few more areas like S&R and distaster relief which is a fantastic idea but I still think they could have accomplished all that with something a bit smaller and far cheaper like a 500 or even a 600 at a fraction the cost
Posted:
Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:22 amby SUBS17
The bigger a helicopter is the easier it is to fly them. Using A109s is sort of easier to learn the basics but much harder with the individual systems. etc. BTW is the 109 FBW?
Posted:
Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:52 amby Timmo
I find it surprising also that they selected not just a turbine training helo, but a twin engine one...
I think it would have been better to use a single turbine helo (As350, Ec120?) as this starts pilots on turbines (no real need to start on pistons...only reason they are used in civvy training is operating cost) but doesnt involve the complexity of a dual engine airframe....it is a training craft after all.
Im not doubting the 109 is a good helo...I just think a twin is a bit overkill.
the 109 has hydraulic controls....
"The bigger a helicopter is the easier it is to fly them"- Cant say I agree with that...different but not easier.