S-76D

[andTompkins]

I heard a nasty rumor the S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules. Certification to the latest standards prohibited the old airframe from being used ... presumably due to birdstrike, etc. With the new engines, rotor, and drive system, why not redesign the cabin, too?

Any thoughts or confirmation? :confused:

Speaking of OGP ... how long until those rules penetrate the Western Hemisphere?

Tompkins

[brame]

Excuse my ignorance, but what are OGP Rules.....

[Bertie Thruster]

....unmarked foot crossings are allowed but you must use the left side of the elevator.

[Teefor Gage]

..........

Rule 1 - No poofters
Rule 2 - There is no Rule 2
Rule 3 - Refer to Rule 1

etc.......

[ShyTorque]

Is this a surprise?

All the pictures I've seen show a new shape of airframe......and the S-76 was first flown nearly 30 years ago.

Isn't this why they suddenly came up with the C++, as an interim measure, to compete with the AW139 at fairly short notice, after losing the Presidential contract and the Commanche? (Cat, pigeons, 'spect Nick will be along very shortly).

[NickLappos]

Regarding the 139, I will go on record that it seems to be a fine machine, frankly. The teething problems it has seem monor and easily fixed. It also gives the customers a full choice, with its bold design that eliminates the HV curve at offshore conditions.

The S76D is squarely in he 139's face, for sure. I will bet the guys at Sikorsky have already asked the customers with the checkbooks what they want, and are building same. Fears of not meeting "OGP" rules are foolish, the oil companies are consulted for the design requirements whenever an investment is even considered. I believe that the S76D shares the same fuselage with the A thru C, but there is a window redesign.

The choice customers face is payload and range vs single engine immunity. The short range and high fuel burn of the 139 is dictated by its enormous engines and the weight of its drivetrain, all of which are optimized for engine failure. As I hear it, the 139 is not burning any barns in its sales, perhaps the folks who get paid to carry stuff don't want to pay to fly the drive train of a 21000 lb helo while only carrying the payload of a 12,000 lb one.

Let the customers decide!

[Helo Bubba]

Tompkins says:

"I heard a nasty rumor the S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules."

This rumor is completely unfounded. :confused: The main changes to the S-76D airframe deal with those required for incorporating the new PW210S engine. There are some other minor changes being incorporated on the airframe to make improvements (ie. reduce weight, reduce drag, etc.). The basic airframe is very similar to that we have grown accustomed to. The bottom line, this aircraft will weigh less, have more power, similiar fuel consumption, the latest avionics suite available, along with keeping a proven aircraft design. What's not to like!!! :ok:

Helo Bubba

[TukTuk BoomBoom]

Excellent answer Mr Lappos, it is an interesting trade-off like you say for the 139s single engine ability.
I hear Bell have another 412 version coming out to finally compete with the 76D and 139, called the gen-5 or something and will basically be a 412 SAR machine a-la SAF and Turks. Glass cockpit and T-9 fadecs.
I also heard the 76D does not meet the latest JARs in the same way that the EP also doesnt meet them but the 139 does.
Apparently the oil companies are gagging for another 76 version though.
More anti-bell propaganda from the oil industry (OK just Shell)

:(

[PANews]

I also heard the 76D does not meet the latest JARs in the same way that the EP also doesnt meet them but the 139 does. :(

The whole point of the exercise is to dodge around the JAR regs. By making use of grandfather rights a lot of corners can be cut whilst not seriously compromising anything. You can fit safe stroking seats and beef up the airframe and fuel fuel safety provisions to within a few percentage points of the JAR without actually having to go the whole way.

And look at the changes that result... graft a JAR standard new EC135 nose on a BK117 and visually you appear to have a whole new machine. But you still have the option of 'ignoring' the bits of JAR that might get in the way of the sale, like having to seat everyone in JAR seats if that is operationally awkward.

I would expect that the new S76D will play just that sort of game.

Saves lots of money too.

[js0987]

While there may still be time to help design the 76D - here's my request. More fuel capacity. 1800lbs of fuel is not enough. With a burn rate of 700lbs or so, minimum 2100 - better yet 2400lbs of fuel.

[HOSS 1]

My rumor source says "Sorry Nick, same old windows". It's amazing what can be done with paint, though...

Same little birdie tells me there will be a SLIGHT increase in fuel. But just a few gallons.

Bubba's comments are all spot on, fo-shore.

hoss

[Ian Corrigible]

Same little birdie tells me there will be a SLIGHT increase in fuel. But just a few gallons.
Reportedly 15 gal more Jet A. Key benefit of the D seems to be in hot & high ops; SL range & payload is little changed from the C++. Other than the donks, the major changes are the MR, TR & avionics.

I hear Bell have another 412 version coming out to finally compete with the 76D and 139, called the gen-5 or something
Heard the same rumor a year or so ago, but sources in BHT have played this down.

I/C

[heli1]

but isn't the S-76D programme now 12 months behind? I hear first deliveries have skipped to 2009.

[heli1]

but isn't the S-76D programme now 12 months behind? I hear first deliveries have skipped to 2009.

[Ian Corrigible]

Q4 2009 = 2010... http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/evil.gif

I/C

[Helo Bubba]

There are many incorrect rumors running around here. := Here are some of the facts:

1) The S-76D program is still on track for certification during the 1Q of 2009.

2) The program has stepped up to the plate to bring the cert basis up to be at least 92% compliant to the latest FAR/JAR amendments (currently working to make this value even higher).

3) The fuel capacity has indeed increased by 15 gals. The S-76D maximum range however will increase to greater than 400nm with the improved fuel consumption that the PW210S engine offers.

4) The PW210S has run in the test cell up to and including max takeoff power. The engine runs great.

I hope this helps to set the record straight. :)

Helo Bubba

[Ian Corrigible]

Bubba,

My date was delivery, not cert; your cert date also differs from what I've been told by SAC, but I'll not split hairs.

Now, when's the X2 gonna fly ? :E


I/C

[andTompkins]

Thanks for all the input folks! Just what I was looking for ... well, maybe not the stir I caused ... but thanks for the answers!:ok:

Tompkins

[Helo Bubba]

I/C says:

"Now, when's the X2 gonna fly?"

Now that's one that I don't have any say on.

Bubba

[hovering]

Getting 2100lbs of fuel in a S76 is easy. Just full 'er up from a Jet-A tank chilled to -40C and you will fit 2098lbs in. There is always a way.:ok:

Yes, I know....nobody likes a smart-ass.

[IFMU]

Bubba,
Now, when's the X2 gonna fly ? :E
I/C
Probably when it's ready!
-- IFMU

[206Fan]

Just curious.. Whats the latest on the D model?

[Ian Corrigible]

First flight rumored to have slipped into next year, with SL cert now first quarter of 2010. Two years behind original schedule, but probably no bad thing given the state of the economy...

I/C

[IHL]

Brame:

OGP stands for " International Associatrion of Oil and Gas Producers.

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) (http://www.ogp.org.uk/)

[seawings]

"S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules".

Could you be more specific and reference the statement or position that OGP has taken on the S-76D?

[TheVelvetGlove]

How they ever expect any 412 to compete with a 76 is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I love the old beast- but it is, and always will be, far too slow. Maybe good for those 50 mile runs?

[FloaterNorthWest]

I have heard they have decided to extend the fuselage in the D Model so that is going to take some work.

FNW

[peterperfect]

Sorry to state the obvious, but why don't you contact the Chairman or Secretary of the OGP Aviation Sub-Committee ? This is a Rumour website after all !!
Find details or request their exact email details via 'Contact Us' on the OGP website.
pp

[tottigol]

Probably OGP don't like having passengers exiting from the pilots' doors.
That never made any sense to me, and I think the '76 is an excellent helicopter otherwise.

[PO dust devil]

Does the D model offer any real advantage over the C++ except for blade de-ice kit? Also doesn't the FAR 29 cert need fuel cell crashworthiness modification to overcome the gap in compliance? What about payload? Physical provision for air con?....and what about boot size with an aircon unit? hmmmm....air con.....

I understand the rotor blades haven't flown yet....

Not bagging it - just interested. It's about time there was some serious competition. What about EC175?.....is that ever going to be marketed or is it just a eurosinodream

DD

[skadi]

P O DD wrote:
What about EC175?.....is that ever going to be marketed or is it just a eurosinodream


Maidenflight for the 175 is announced for late 2009, first airframe is on the way from china to france for completion.

http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/de/1024/content/OF00000040950509/2/87/42344872.jpg

skadi

[PO dust devil]

Weellll....... thanks skadi for that bit of info. It's about time.:ok:

[widgeon]

What are engines for EC model. Sure hope the panel fit is better than the first EC120 , s/n 1002 had a lot of filler as I recall.

[skadi]

Engines will be PW PT6C-67E...

More infos here (english):

FLUG REVUE - Eurocopter EC175 (Z-15) (http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=1061)


skadi

[unstable load]

WOW! Pratts in a Eurocopter....:sad::D

Turbomerde must be going spastic at the insult and betrayal, and from within, so to speak.

Go, boys, GO!:ok:

[212man]

No more radical than the 76D going for the Thales TopDeck Avionics suite :ok:

[unstable load]

212man,

How does the Thales suite compare to the C+/++?

[TwoStep]

S-76D flew on February 7 according to Rotorhub...

Sikorsky’s S-76D flies for the first time | Shephard Group (http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/1706//)

[902Jon]

From the press release:-
a quiet mode for enhanced public acceptance

?? Sounds a bit Airwolf to me ??

[Aser]

Interesting years to come...

AW139/S76D/EC175

There are 200 AW139 already in service with around 100 orders for the 76D and 100 for EC175...

CHC/ERA is going for the 139
Bristow to the 175
PHI S76D?

[Maverick Laddie]

Quote: The VelvetGlove

"How they ever expect any 412 to compete with a 76 is beyond me"

Would not be to sure of that check out the UH-1Y imagine that in civies 125% increase in Payload 50% increase in Speed & Range.

[Freewheel]

Laddie,

Sounds great, but where are all those extra payloads going to sit?

[gwelo shamwari]

Has anyone heard of an offshore operator who will be taking delivery or has options on the S76D? Just wondering how it will fare in the offshore sector.

Is it true that the major OGP players are looking at aircraft with AW139/EC175 type credentials?

[Ned-Air2Air]

TGZ - Falcon Aviation in Abu Dhabi are getting the first ones and not sure if they will use them for corp or offshore, wouldnt be surprised if they used them for both.

Ned

[Ian Corrigible]

One of the GOM majors has an aircraft options contract written in such a way that it is able to switch-over from the C++ to the D at its discretion, though the delays to the D program mean that the number of aircraft involved would be limited.

I/C

[Hullaballoo]

1) The S-76D program is still on track for certification during the 1Q of 2009.

2) The program has stepped up to the plate to bring the cert basis up to be at least 92% compliant to the latest FAR/JAR amendments (currently working to make this value even higher).


(1) Someone missed the boat by several quarters. ;) As for 2010...

(2) Why not 100%? With new engines, FADEC, rotor, autopilot, cockpit displays, icing, etc., one might think full compliance with the latest amendment would be in order. "Stepping up" to 92% rather sounds like a hollow boast. :confused:

[ifsknt]

Hullaballoo

Its an airframe, fuel system and component issue.

The S-92 is heavier than the EC225 because of the additional "beef" built into components to satisfy 100% FAR JAR 29. Likewise, the AW139 is a bigger and heavier aircrfat than the S-76, same reason, 100% compliance means some areas have to be beefier. Ditto the EC175.

The S-76D cannot be fully compliant withot a complete re design so it will be mostly but not 100% compliant versus the 139, like the EC225 versus the S-92.

Its not possible to take a 1960s (Puma) or 1970s (S-76) evolutionary design andmake it 100% compliant. From good sources, the offshore version of the S-76D will be around 96% compliant.

[FH1100 Pilot]

ts not possible to take a 1960s (Puma) or 1970s (S-76) evolutionary design andmake it 100% compliant. From good sources, the offshore version of the S-76D will be around 96% compliant.
Evidently it's not possible to take a 2000's (S-92) evolutionary design and make it 100% compliant either.

[Hilife]

Evidently it's not possible to take a 2000's (S-92) evolutionary design and make it 100% compliant either.

Whilst on the subject of thread drift, I thought FAA and FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47 were the latest certification standards, to which the S-92 is certified by both authorities, or have I missed a press release?

[sox6]

I think you might want to look at:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/365720-helicopter-crash-off-coast-newfoundland-18-aboard-27.html#post5315125:eek:


Maybe the the 92 is "100% compliant" with that revision (as certain people kept repeating on here) but does this look like there was
additional "beef" built into components
does there?:sad:

The Cougar 92 crash concerns a couple of tiny but vital screws holding the filter not being adequate (we now know a problem known to Sikorsky).

No wonder the craking on the right side 92 gear box mounting foot is also causing concern.

Back to this thread: Did any one ever answer the question on how the 76D gear box will be tested? Will an oil cooler bypass system be added to match the 92?

[Shawn Coyle]

It's only necessary to meet the requirements of the amendment level of Part 29 when the helicopter was initially certified (I believe it's amendment level 16 for the original S-76). The authorities can ask for higher levels of compliance and this will be subject to negotiations with the FAA / TC / CAA / EASA.

[Brian Abraham]

From Aviation International News today.

Sikorsky S-76D Program Delayed Again
First deliveries of the Sikorsky S-76D medium twin–an upgraded derivative of the S-76C++–are now pegged for 2012 following FAA certification, expected in the fourth quarter of next year. This revised schedule means the program has been delayed by at least six months. The U.S. helicopter manufacturer is giving little explanation, citing only “an unexpected event” that prompted suspension of flight tests in April. The issue was solved “quickly” with engine maker Pratt & Whitney Canada and flight testing has since resumed. The two prototypes in the flight-test program have now accumulated 95 flights and 171 hours. A third aircraft will join the test fleet early next year, although Sikorsky had said in February that this addition was planned “soon.” One year ago deliveries were still slated for 2010 before being postponed to 2011 in February. Sikorsky is counting more than 70 “deposited customers,” down from the 100 “delivery position agreements” that were touted last year. The launch customer for the S-76D is VIP charter operator Falcon Aviation Service in the UAE.

[turboshaft]

Reportedly an engine surge issue, unusual given the PW210's centrif compressor architecture. Certification of the PW120 itself has slipped from mid-2008 to late-2010.

[Outwest]

I keep hearing rumors that Shell no longer accepts bid tenders with S76 a/c.

Can anyone confirm or deny this? 212man?

[Shell Management]

I keep hearing rumors that Shell no longer accepts bid tenders with S76 a/c.


You will note the S-76C being phased out this year in Nigeria (by EC155s then AW139s) and shortly after a similar scenarion in the GOM (by AW139s).

This follows a study done by senior Shell Aircraft staff between Dec 2003 and Mar 2005. This concluded that 'a significant number of S-76 variants have been lost in accidents' but that 'while there is no significant single shortfall that warrent cessation of operations', Shell Group would not achieve its safety targets with the continued use of the S-76.


Approval for the A was withdrawn then.
The A+ was to be limited to low utilisation contracts only (600 hours pa or less) after 1 Apr 2008 and withdrawn by 1 Apr 2011.
The C+/++ was to be limited to low utilisation contracts only after 1 Apr 2011 and withdrawn by 1 Apr 2013.
The D of course was designed since but isn't considered to mitigate the hazards inherent with the type as it does not include many of the benefits found on aircraft certified to FAR29 Amendment 45+ and so is not ALARP.

[Savoia]

.

76D Heads for Certification

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/0/e3fa91b6-f024-4a72-804b-12a4f8089205.Large.jpg (http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/3/0/e3fa91b6-f024-4a72-804b-12a4f8089205.Full.jpg)

Announced at Heli-Expo in 2005, the S-76D is moving out of its protracted development phase and into certification flight-test and low-rate production. Initial certification is expected by year-end, with deliveries to begin in the first quarter of 2012—a four-year delay.

The D model is a major upgrade to the S-76, more than 800 of which have been delivered since it first flew in 1977. With more-powerful engines, improved rotor and integrated avionics, the S-76D is designed to combine the single-engine performance of the corporate-preferred S-76B with the cruise fuel-efficiency of the offshore-favored S-76C.

“We get the power of the B with the efficiency of the C family, which is attractive from an operating cost perspective,” says Tim Fox, S-76 senior program manager. Increased power and rotor lift improve hot-and-high performance, dual-speed rotors reduce noise and a rotor ice protection system allows the D to operate in more challenging environments.

“We have power, performance, best-in-class fuel burn, and the D is extremely quiet for its size,” he says. Priced about the same as a similarly equipped C++, the D can lift 1,000lb more and fly 400nm versus 375. These improvements will allow Sikorsky to offer a single model across markets that previously were segmented, Fox says.

“The D gives us openings into new markets and areas of the world, hotter environments where the C could not operate and the B had the power, but not the specific fuel consumption,” says David Franc, S-76 marketing manager. Improved high-altitude performance opens up VIP and EMS markets such as Denver and Mexico City, while “we can go further offshore with greater launch reliability”.

Powered by a pair of digitally controlled, 1,050-shp Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S turboshafts, the D model introduces flaw-tolerant all-composite blades, a Thales TopDeck cockpit with large-format displays and four-axis autopilot, and optional electrically deiced rotors that allow flight into known icing. Active vibration control and health and usage monitoring systems are standard.

After the delays, caused by unexpected and unspecified discoveries during development, the S-76D is on track to meet its performance targets. “Shake-down tests identified weaknesses, which we have fixed,” says Fox, adding “the helicopter is quieter than predicted, rotor lift is slightly greater than predicted and fuel efficiency is on plan.”

Two prototypes, D1 and D2, have logged more than 300hr since the first flight in February 2009, with certification testing getting under way in November 2010. The third aircraft, D3, will join the 750hr. flight-test program later this year, tasked with avionics certification. D1 is moving into powerplant certification from system development, and D2 into performance testing from avionics and autopilot development.

S-76 airframes are manufactured in the Czech Republic by Aero Vodochody and in China by Changhe Aircraft Industries. Aero delivered the first production S-76D airframe to Sikorsky’s final-assembly plant in Coatesvillle, Pa., in December and, with the last S-76C++ to be delivered this December, Changhe is expected to transition to the new model late this year. “We envision dual-sourcing on the D, but this is to be worked out,” says Fox.


Report (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/business_aviation/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A2f16318d-d960-4e49-bc9f-86f1805f2c7fPost%3A94ec4563-5036-4a36-ae28-07f1c5ad56ab)

Its the 'unexpected' and 'unspecified' discoveries that I'm interested in. Someone must know what they came up against! Is this the sole reason for the "protracted development phase"?

Sav

[Brian Abraham]

'unexpected' and 'unspecified' discoveriesOne can imagine that following on from the 92 events that Sikorsky may be a little reticent in broadcasting problems encountered. We have lawyers to thank for that. I wonder what it will do to the confidence of operators, and more importantly the crews that will fly it, not knowing the issues involved. I remember living through the BBQ plates, overspeed issues and spindle problems of the A which engendered a feeling of uneasiness.

Still, have to say the 12,000 hours I spent in the machine were the best spent hours ever, but then I never got around much. Lovely machine.

[Peter PanPan]

@Shell Management, you wrote: "The A+ was to be limited to low utilisation contracts only (600 hours pa or less) after 1 Apr 2008 and withdrawn by 1 Apr 2011."

Has the A+ been withdrawn?
PPP

[SansAnhedral]

for one thing, some of the issues were in the original aero design of the top deck/pylon fairing

compare the final design with the original. there was a reason it was abandoned for the more conventional inlet setup.

http://www.sybarites.org/wp-content/Screenshot_6.jpg

[Savoia]

.
Having conferred with a fellow Rotorhead it would appear that much of what was written in #55 is in fact correct.

If so, and the 76 is now being eased-out of offshore ops, what then is Sikorsky's intended market for the D model - purely corporate, and, if this is this case how will the D rate against the 139?

Sav

[squib66]

Shell has given the S-76D its "approval" based on the S-76 record of over 5.6m flight hours.


So where did you hear that then II?

If so it would rather undermine the whole 7/7/1 safety philosophy the Shelldroids have been promoting for 6 years or so, which is heavily biased to introducing equipment certified to the to the latest standards.

Of course the accident record of the '100% compliant' S-92 might have caused them to reconsider the benefit.;) I supose you believe that if you stick to the 2003 marketing mantra everyone will forget about the MGB!


This is without absolute full FAR JAR latest amendment compliance (the D should get 93%)


93% Really? Says who?

Remember too the aircraft is not certified yet either. Plus the S-92's history tells us that problems can emerge just months before certification.
:ugh:

And what's that a percentage of? Individual certification clauses, safety benefit or just a meaningless statistic?

And what is the missing 7%?

By definition one might suspect they are the most recent items and therefore some of the more useful features certified on the AW139 and to be certified to the future EC175 and EC X4 (funny how you didn't mention those other competing mediums:D).

Fatigue and damage tolerance of structure...minimising critical rotor and transmission failure modes...crashworthiness...30 min loss of lube test...???????????

If you are so well informed can you explain the delays in certification too?

[henra]

Regarding Certification to latest FAR/JAR and the implication on safety I have to play Devil's advocat:

The real irony is that besides the S-92 which is certified according to latest FAR/JAR standards and has a serious design flaw with the MGB, the other Helo which fully fulfills the standards (AW139) on paper likes to shed its tail after less then 5 years of service life.

So much for

Fatigue and damage tolerance of structure


Unfortunately the manufacturers fulfilled the new rules maybe by the books but unfortunately not by the spirit of the rules.

Therefore I would not overrate this compliance stuff. It's good design that counts not paperwork....

[Shell Management]

PPP:) - Yes they have gone worldwide.:ok:

Sav:) - thanks for asking around and finding I was accurate.;)

Industry Insider:mad: - Shell have not approved the S-76D and will not as it is a nonALARP, retrograde step for the reasons mentioned by contributors above, which is rightly not attracting interest from offshore customers.:ooh:

[Shell Management]

Well for a start the EC225 fuel system hasn't been repeatedly overpressured like the S-92s;):E and it has certain MRGB oil system advantages too old boy:ok::ok:.

Any suggestion that the S-76 is in the same league as the EC225 is both disengenious and ignorant.:yuk:

Seriously, you shouldn't really believe everything that the marketeers say.:=

[Hilife]

There have been accidents in that 6 million hours though, including Shell's last fatalities in UK and US.

I suspect the last US incident you refer to was as a result of a cause not within the boundaries of the OEM to control, so hardly the OEM or platform to blame and as for the UK incident, would that not be down to human and/or maintenance error and not certification or type?

In spite of the very latest and greatest safety and certification standards, Rotorheads records numerous AW139 sorties that ended in tragedy – or very nearly so - with only a fraction of the S-76's fleet hours, so I’m not so sure that pedestal you preach from has sure footings.

[Shell Management]

I suspect the last US incident you refer to was as a result of a cause not within the boundaries of the OEM to control, so hardly the OEM or platform to blame

In fact it is a very good example of the perils of operating an aircraft that was certified to old rules. :=

The aftermarket windshield was only designed to early 1970s bird strike standards and that is why the accident happened. Things would be different on an AB139 (for example).

[Hilife]

In fact it is a very good example of the perils of operating an aircraft that was certified to old rules.

The aftermarket windshield was only designed to early 1970s bird strike standards and that is why the accident happened. Things would be different on an AB139 (for example).

Aftermarket being the operative word.

Had the original laminated glass windscreen installed by the OEM at build not been removed and replaced with a None-OEM approved cast acrylic windshield limited to only 109 knots and never tested for this model, then I don’t believe the outcome would have been anywhere near as severe, so not so much to do with with the aircraft being certified to old rules. :=

[Savoia]

.
My query remains as to the intended market for the 76D if, as is being suggested, the 76 (existing and proposed variants) has a question mark behind it in terms of suitability among OGP observant operators and indeed OAG companies themselves.

Aeromed yes, corporate certainly but .. these markets do not offer the same revenues as those associated with OAG clients and the near perpetual demand for parts (as a result of the greater hour volumes) so loved by the financial officers of aircraft manufacturers!

Or .. are with dealing with a 'we have such a substantial military market that the 76 is a kind of hobby for us' approach on the part of SAC!

Sav

[Savoia]

.
When the S76 'Spirit' entered the market in 1979 numerous corporate (and a smaller number of private) operators were thrilled. Here was a 'business' helicopter the likes of which we had never really seen before. Her sleek styling, bold size and spacious cabin, combined with twin-engine 'reliability' and a smooth ride quickly propelled her into the upper echelons of VIP flight operations becoming (rightly so) queen of the mide-size corporate world where she has remained for many-a-decade.

In recent years the AW139 has given her a run for her money offering more spacious accommodation and a smoother ride along with the latest in cockpit technology and systems management.

The delays in the development of the 'D' model are disappointing for sure, but given Sikorsky's penchant for getting things right eventually, I find it hard to imagine that they will allow such a successful marque to be eroded (even at their own hands!). My confidence in Sikorsky is mixed with hope that they will in fact do the right thing and, I have wondered during the delays surrounding the 'D', what her future market will be.

One issue on my mind over the past decade has been whether the essentially four place club accommodation arrangement is going to continue serving corporate clients with the same satisfaction in the years ahead as it has in the past. Almost everywhere you look (both fixed and rotary - and certainly in the corporate world) demand for increased accommodation is on the rise. From my own assessment I would say that a 6-7 place rear cabin (offering 2-3 seats behind the 'club four' for flunkeys etc. without compromising the club space) would be ideal - some argue that a double club (8 seats) is required but at a similar price to the 76.

No doubt Sikorsky have it all figured-out but I do believe the S76 market has shifted slightly and suspect that private operations may feature increasingly in her future.

Of the 'D' Sikorsky says: "The S-76D is truly the next step in helicopter technology, setting a new standard of excellence that S-76 operators have come to expect. Power and performance are enhanced by all composite main rotor blades and optimized Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines with dual FADEC controls. Its quiet tail rotor will allow for reduced external acoustic signature and gain acceptance with the communities where it operates. Pilots will appreciate the state-of-the-art integrated Thales cockpit, its increased range and its ability to launch into known icing conditions. Passengers will love the quieter cabin."

Promising indeed, especially the news about a 'quiet tail rotor' - anyone with the inside track on how that will work? The traditional S76 tail rotor was one of those masculine properties of the rotary-wing world which prided itself in letting you know an S76 was coming and that it meant business! On the ground at flight idle the tail rotor screamed an attention which probably only helicopter pilots and mechanics could love but which would often set the hearts of boarding passengers racing (great fun for the drivers but not always appreciated by 'he who pays the bills').

Onwards with the 'D', some of the additional features advertised by Sikorsky are:

- QUIETZONE® main transmission

- Quiet Tail Rotor (QTR) with four enhanced flaw-tolerant, flexbeam composite tail rotor blades

- Two brushless, DC starter generators

Can anyone elaborate on what a 'Quietzone' transmission is and educate me on what the substitute for brushes are on a brushless generator?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rirQpQVTeLQ/TkLbVtsmOWI/AAAAAAAAEZA/UZ5NLBLAFho/76d.jpg

Will HUMS be standard fit or optional?

Much of the work (so I understand) has been about integrating the PW210's and delivering that all important combination of performance and economy.

I hope that the outcome of the delay on this programme is that the industry receives an outstanding piece of equipment.

.

[malabo]

Not sure who the "D" is aimed at. Must be Corporate, 'cause offshore could care less about ice or how quiet the tail rotor is. In these financial tailspin days I don't know whether a cheaper 76 is any easier to justify than a 139. I disagree on the ride though, the 76 is 'way smoother than a 139. Most offshore guys don't bother with the second bifiler, but the Corp guys do. If the de-ice is half decent it might make a difference - the 139 de-ice is best described by that historically appropriate Italian word "fiasco".

Cockpit is nice. I think they should have gone with something other than Thales and their rollerball controllers, maybe the same setup in the Bell 429.

Engines, hmm. The Pratt's are good, but it is going to be hard to beat the track record of that sweet Arriel 2S2 with the best FADEC on the market. Power, economy, reliability.

Nobody compares it to the 155? The 139 and 175 are both in the 7 tonne league, apples to apples what else is out there under that magic 5.7 (12500)?

[Geoffersincornwall]

So does that mean that we will have to put up with another generation of FAA licensed pilots who haven't done a proper type rating course?? Heavens preserve us.

G.

[Peter PanPan]

@Geoffersincornwall: Sounds like an arrogant JARlander preaching on how good JAA stuff is versus how appalling FAA stuff is. Initial courses like the ones by FSI or CAE are superior to Type Ratings conducted on most JARland countries. Just compare the quality of tutorials, simulators, number of hours of both ground instruction and flight instruction between FSI and Helisim for instance... How's that in terms of proper type rating course? The fact that the regulating body has determined that no type rating was needed under 12500 doesn't mean that Pilots don't get properly trained and checked on ACs. :=

[Geoffersincornwall]

I am very pleased to hear that type courses are available for those discerning companies that decide that their crews deserve a proper structured course and I in no way wish to impugn the standards of FSI courses, I am sure they are excellent and equal or better than the JAR courses, I couldn't say.

You miss the point. I have had to train pilots that have come with a S76 background and similar types, but because the FAA allows pilots to work as crew members without formal training on the specific type they come complete with horror stories about what they were expected to do with little or no formal training.

I am not arrogant, just cross, annoyed that a country that should be a beacon of excellence has a regulatory system that is taking forever to get real. You guys are good despite the system not because of it. ...... and those that aren't good should lift your heads and look for a global best practice to use as a reference for what could and should be the norm. If you find that best practice is not in the US then please don't throw rocks at those who have watched their colleagues perish on the pathway to a proper way to do business.

G. :ok:

Edited for spelling

[Savoia]

Third testbed joins S76D flight test program

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Sept. 8, 2011

http://photos.prnewswire.com/prn/20110908/NE64871


Enhanced performance, more power, and a "Grand Canyon" standard of quiet that delivers substantially reduced external noise are all proving to be the new standard in the S-76D™ helicopter as the program introduces its third prototype into testing , Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. said today. Sikorsky Aircraft is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).

"D3," the third prototype, recently flew for the first time, officially taking its place in the flight test program to serve as the primary vehicle to certify the avionics and electrical systems. The S-76D helicopter flight test program has achieved more than 500 flight hours to-date with its first two prototypes. All three prototypes were assembled at the Sikorsky Global Helicopters facility in Coatesville, Pa.

Certification testing on "D3" will begin in the 4th quarter of 2011. In addition, flight test data for the certification effort is being collected on "D1" and on "D2." An Indirect Lightning Test also was completed in August at the Sikorsky Global Helicopters facility in Coatesville, Pa. This certification test simulates lightning strikes to the aircraft to demonstrate that essential avionics and electrical equipment are thoroughly protected. The aircraft continues to demonstrate enhanced responsiveness and the power of its Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines.

"As the flight test program has grown, we have offered customers the opportunity to fly in the aircraft," said Tim Fox, Senior Program Manager on the S-76® helicopter program. "The S-76D helicopter offers a 14 percent increase in takeoff power and an 8 percent fuel efficiency over its predecessor. It is a difference the customers have noticed." The S-76D also will be fully certified for flight into known icing - a first for the S-76® helicopter family.

"We continue to build on the outstanding legacy of safety and performance of the S-76 product family as we mature the S-76D through test. We are confident that the 'D' will be a strong competitor in its class when it enters into service next year," Fox added.

The S-76D helicopter program officially launched in 2005 after an 18-month period of study to identify the key attributes that customers wanted in a new product. "Enhanced safety, avionics and performance were the big requests," Fox said.

The S-76D offers a fully integrated avionics system by Thales® that includes advanced digital maps and enhanced flight systems to deliver an aircraft that reduces pilot workload.

Aircraft certification is planned for the first quarter of 2012, with first deliveries also slated for 2012.

The new generation S-76D helicopter will perform an array of civil missions, including executive transport, offshore oil, emergency medical services, and a multi-mission role.

Among the S-76D helicopter's features are all-composite, flaw-tolerant main rotor blades; an advanced THALES integrated avionics system and autopilot; optimized rotor system for quiet operation; active vibration control; powerful Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines; and an optional Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS) for all-weather capability.

SOURCE Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/s-76d-helicopter-program-accelerates-toward-certification-as-third-prototype-joins-flight-test-program-129459698.html)

[Savoia]

Deposits being received for S76D in Sikorsky Shares Program

LAS VEGAS, Oct. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX


Associated Aircraft Group (AAG) announced today it is accepting deposits for the Sikorsky S-76D helicopter in Sikorsky Shares (http://www.sikorskyshares.com/), the Sikorsky fractional ownership program. The S-76D helicopter is a highly advanced and much anticipated new model for executive transport and other missions.

The aircraft features industry-leading technologies, including de-icing so that the S-76D helicopter can be flown during unpredictable winter weather. Its advanced main rotor blade design and new Pratt & Whitney engines enhance performance and efficiency. The S-76D helicopter also is equipped with Active Vibration Control and Quiet Zone technology to ensure the smoothest and quietest ride available in the executive helicopter class.


More (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/associated-aircraft-grouptm-accepting-deposits-for-s-76dtm-helicopter-in-sikorsky-sharestm-fractional-ownership-program-2011-10-10)

[Sir Korsky]

Great news!!!:D All they need now is an aircraft :confused:

[Snarlie]

Savoia, don`t get too orgasmic about the S76 in the corporate world in the 1980`s. The AS 365N Dauphin family was superior in all respects bar one. Range, speed, ride quality, reliability, running costs, ease of maintenance, powerplant were all superior to the Allison engined S76. The only plus for the S76 was the cabin, which is what has made it popular with owners over the years. The Dauphin cabin, no matter how plush the interior fittings, was always like sitting on cushions on the floor and the back row of seats was always a challenge for ladies in short skirts.

The sad thing for Eurocopter was the EC 155, which addressed the problems of the cabin dimensions, saddled the airframe with a power hungry transmission which then branded the aircraft a duffer.

I think the S76D model has an assured future in that there are still many areas of the world just waking up to the existence of oil and gas reserves and for whom the D model is exactly the right size and cost. In addition, it remains popular in the corporate and charter world on the strength of its comfortable cabin. Perhaps a corporate EC 175 might be the answer.

[Savoia]

Among rotorcraft there are few more handsome examples than the S76 - in fact only one in my view. Helicopters, in general, (to me) are fairly ugly contraptions but I do believe Sikorsky got it right in terms of exterior design aesthetics.

I am aware that it was only in the 'B' model that decent performance was to be realised and that this was at the expense of thirsty engines. I remember too the AS365 .. and was 'given a go' by a chap who I think was called David Sale. I had visited McAlpine's in the early 90's (perhaps 1990) to consider the Dauphin for a client and was handed over to David who at the time was flying with P&O. I actually didn't find it as smooth as the 76 but .. perhaps that ship was poorly tracked? Also, with a good load on board, the Dauphin made an unbelievable din when approaching at speed; not that the 76 was quiet mind you!

I do hope that Sikorsky 'get it right' with the 'D' model but .. my impression is that the VIP/Corporate requirements of the future are going to lean towards a 4 x 2 arrangement where either two seats (or a bench seat) are available behind the traditional club 4 - a little like the EC145 interior (below) but with more space and with the club 4 isolated from the rear 2-3 seats.

Regarding Dauphins (old and new) the crew at Starspeed certainly seem to like them.

http://www.cars-show.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/mercedeshelicopterec145forluxuryflight02.jpg
EC145 Interior

[AdamFrisch]

Still has the cleanest lines and design hasn't aged at all after 35 years. That's class. But $14 Million for a heli? Bit steep, no?

[ShyTorque]

Its not really relevant because it has largely missed the marketplace

I recently spoke to one potential customer who has decided not to wait for a D model and has bought a used C++ instead. In his opinion, the D model won't measure up to his earlier expectations, due to disappointing performance with regard to empty weight and fuel burn, albeit having the same gross weight as the present models.

Will the D turn out to be known as the "B+" ? :oh:

[HeliTester]

Its not really relevant because it has largely missed the marketplace


industry insider...please eleborate. What marketplace? What was the window of opportunity that has now closed?

[SansAnhedral]

These are Sikorsky's own numbers

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=44192

[HeliTester]

SansAnhedral…those C++ vs D numbers are confounding. At the bottom of the tabulation Sikorsky is listed as the source, but what could be the reason for producing such a table?

[LastMinute]

The table is from an article about the S‑76D (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-sikorsky-s-76d-367864/) in Flight International.

[Jack Carson]

I don’t believe that Sikorsky marketing would intentionally publish this chart. These numbers would make it difficult for an operator to justify the increased cost for the newer D. However, the numbers appear to be correct when comparing the information provided in Sikorsky’s marketing brochures for each model. Hover and OEI service ceilings appear to be the only significant performance advantages of the D over the C++. Other improvements are kind of icing on the cake, most of which are standard on the competitor’s newer machines. After all it is still just an upgraded S-76.

[Shell Management]

Just goes to show what a waste the 76Dog is. And not OGP compliant either.:ugh:

[Sir Korsky]

I bet they still sell a couple of hundred SM:ok: Flight Safety are plumbing in the D sim shortly. I am looking forward to flying her! Will not be too long now.

[Shell Management]

They would have sold more if they had not had the massive failure to achieve certification to schedule. Perhaps the FAA have been tougher on Sikorsky than before.

Having said that they started the D development 10 years too late and the performance is almost perceptibly different from the C++.

Against newer products from EC and AW this will just be a cash drain on a company that otherwise has no civil offerings between the S333 (no exactly selling like hot cakes) and the S92.

The D is one good reason for the removal of Geoff Pino.

[AdamFrisch]

What's taking so long in certification? From what I can tell, it's the same airframe, same basic components, same everything except new rotor and new engines?

[Sir Korsky]

Yes you're right SM and I don't disagree with any of your words - but the D will be with us soon and customers, mechanics and pilots will be able to share once again in Sikorsky's brilliant engineering. That's another statement up for debate of course, but I'm sure the D will let the ultimately successful 76 sail off happily into the sunset.

[HeliTester]

Sir Korsky,

Last month on the “working for the big dogs” thread regarding another poster’s possible employment at Sikorsky you wrote…

I would avoid any UTC company like the plague.

Today you write…

I bet they still sell a couple of hundred SM:ok: Flight Safety are plumbing in the D sim shortly. I am looking forward to flying her! Will not be too long now.

and

the D will be with us soon and customers, mechanics and pilots will be able to share once again in Sikorsky's brilliant engineering.

Seems like you’ve had a change of heart!

[Sir Korsky]

Look, it's coming so enjoy it. That's the conclusion I have come to. Lucky for you that you have a lot of time on your hands. :ok:

[Savoia]

Shell Management wrote: The D is one good reason for the removal of Geoff Pino.
Seems a little harsh on poor old Geoff. Either way ..

United Technologies Corp has announced the appointment of Mick Maurer as President of its Sikorsky Aircraft from 1 July 2012. Maurer will report to UTC chairman and chief executive Louis Chênevert, succeeding Jeffrey P. Pino, who will retire 1 July 2012. To ensure a seamless succession, Pino and Maurer will collaborate closely during the next two months, after which Pino will serve as a consultant to Sikorsky.

UTC names Mike Maurer as president of Sikorsky - Corporate Jet Investor (http://corpjetfin.live.subhub.com/articles/UTC_Maurer_president_Sikorsky_135)

[Tcabot113]

Ski,

Is GFC another name for the Canadian anti sub S-92 which are years late and they can not fly at night or over water. How many years before they will be allowed to risk a ship by trying to land on it?

TC

[Sir Korsky]

Any truth to the rumor that the D got certified on Friday just gone?

[Ian Corrigible]

Confirmed.

I/C

[HeliHenri]

Hello Sir Korsky,

Sorry about my english but I don't understand : "the D got certified on Friday just gone".

The D has been certified or his certification has been delayed ?
.

[PANews]

HeliHenri

The message says that the S-76D is now certified........ looks like Friday 12 October......

[HeliHenri]

Thank's PANews for the "translation" :)

It's an important (and long awaited) news and there's nothing on the Sikorsy website or in the professional media.
.

[Geoffersincornwall]

It's one thing turning up to the party late but when you turn up with the wrong product it's sad for those that always thought Sikorsky were a dynamic and forward thinking innovator.

G.

[PANews]

On that subject it seems to be across the board.

They sort of destroyed Schweizer so they could get their Elmira NY plant for Sikorsky product completions which have now apparently run out of steam. Last story I read on that front was that the local authority was 'asking' them to get to hell out of NY and give the area a chance to get over the trauma.

Meanwhile reports from the East of a customer awaiting a new S300 and having been quoted 2 years until production may restart.... on one rather than both of the models taken out of the original plant.....

Then there is the 434.

The S76D may have been gestating for a long time [for what is 'just' an update on the existing airframe] but the 434 is the model they plain and simple just do not want - except that there is an order for 50 with Saudi Arabia and I guess that if the 76D is to sell anywhere its in the sandy cities so there is a customer base you do not want to upset.

If this post-Afghanistan military market downturn does happen companies like Sikorsky are going to need every dollar they can turn in the commercial market... and it does not look as if they are courting the right people at the moment.

Still they can always look to the Iranian campaign market.....:eek:

[Savoia]

Geoff: Couldn't agree with you more.

The corporate and offshore markets are not what they were when the 76 was first 'penned' back in the 70's and the latest incarnation (besides the existing improvements) really needed an additional row of seats in order to remain relevant.

Clearly Sikorsky are willing to relinquish pole position in the VIP/corporate stakes to AgustaWestland!

Even the Pope has switched from Sikorsky to AW!

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7kHNFGkMzH4/UHv89Us5kTI/AAAAAAAAJ4o/VIMtpCOnlXs/s903/Aeronautica-Militare-Italian-Air-Force+MM81807+AW139+Rome+Ciampino+10+Sep+12+%28Aldo+Bidini%2 9.jpg
Aeronautica Militare (Italian Air Force) AW139 MM81807 at Rome's Ciampino Airport on 10th September 2012 (Photo: Aldo Bidini)

The new 'Vaticopter' which this year replaced the SH-3D (Sea King) previously assigned for Papal flying duties.

Next stop .. the new "Rainbow" when 'EB' starts getting tired!

Maybe.

[Sir Korsky]

I wouldn't write the ol girl off just yet. There still seems to be a growing corporate sector in many markets. The quiet tail rotor should help to keep noise complaints away. Lets just hope the D gets from Dog to Darling!

[Geoffersincornwall]

....... it was a fundamental mistake to believe that the next generation of avionics could live within an airframe - beautiful though it is - that has so many design shortcomings in this, the age of crashworthiness and 'escapability'.

Retaining the fuel tank under the rear seats was the real killer in this respect. No chance of crashworthy seats when you are sitting on the fuel tank. The door layout imprisons those in the rear seat who also have a tiny window through which to escape if required.

Once again we see short-termism winning the argument, great shame.

G.

[Sir Korsky]

FAA Approves Type Certification for S-76D Helicopter (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=eda5c956eb06a310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD)

[Hilife]

My summer S-76D briefing for O&G OPS showed 3 rows of energy attenuating seats in the cabin (so that includes the rear row atop the fuel cell) and energy attenuating crew seats too, oh and Type IV windows front and rear either side of the single action jettisonable cabin door.

For all the latest hullabaloo about crash worthy fuel cells and seats from a certain O&G customer (and no doubt their chain was pulled by a certain OEM), I cannot for the life of me recall a single EC155 or S-76 that burned post a survivable impact in resent years, because the fuel cell was not up to the latest and greatest crashworthiness standards (I am aware of a certain S-76 EMS incident, but as the rotors struck a fuel bowser in the final moments, the post accident fire did not stem from the lack of a crashworthy fuel cell).

As for stroking seats, just how many cases of serious injury or death in the O&G or VIP helicopter sectors (expressed in percentage terms per million flight hours) were caused as a result of not having energy attenuating seats these past 10 years and more?

For me, ‘Proven Safety’ wins over the latest certification standards when I step into a machine, be it on land, sea or air.

[blackdog7]

"For all the latest hullabaloo about crash worthy fuel cells and seats"

I'll take the hullabaloo any day.....here's wishing I can be one of those great drivers (or passengers) who never needs such trivial items.

[Geoffersincornwall]

.......... and will dish myself a portion of umbel pie. Don't think those 'goodies were in the plans when I last looked at them so maybe the OGP influence won the day. The energy absorption must be compromised by the tank to some extent I am sure. the seat has to 'stroke' to absorb the energy but maybe you have to duck your head whilst seated and make the most of the view over the heads of rows 1 & 2?

G. :)

[ShyTorque]

Why are the passengers trying to jump out? Surely, it can't be that bad in there.... :E

[chopper2004]

Hi Savoia,

Is the Pope, Catholic? Lol :8:ok: lol

Anyhow doesn't match up to the splendour of the ASH-3D/AS-61 for His Eminance or the rest of the government from 93a Gruppo TS :)

Offhand, there were a number of operators globally promoting the D as their next gen including Norrlandsflyg in Sweden who operate the C in the EMS / Coast Guard SAR role.

But have to agree the Sikorsky chart doesn't shown much extra value for money / speed compared to the current C/C++

Cheers

[tottigol]

The Swedish Maritime Administration (SMA) has signed an agreement to purchase seven AgustaWestland AW139s for SAR duties, it has been revealed.

The new aircraft will replace Sikorsky S-76s that were inherited by the SMA after the Swedish government nationalised private operator Norrlandsflyg, which operated the aircraft on SAR and air ambulance duties on behalf of the agency.

The aircraft are now operated by a new state-owned operator SMA Helicopter Rescue.

According to a press release released on 16 October, the AW139s will begin replacing the S-76s from mid-2013 with the last arriving at the end of 2014.

The aircraft will be available for operations at sea and over land and are operated from five stations across Sweden at Ronneby, Visby, Gothenburg, Norrtälje and Umeå.

'It is very satisfying that in the future we will have an improved capacity and ability to save lives without increasing the total cost of operations,' said Naomi Eriksson, the Swedish Maritime Administration's deputy director general and head of SAR, in the statement

The order will come as a blow for Sikorsky. In 2008, Norrlandsflyg placed an order for six S-76Ds, but the late arrival of the aircraft and then the financial difficulties of the operator have resulted in the apparent cancellation of the order resulting in SMA Helicopter Rescue purchasing the AW139 instead.

[Ian Corrigible]

PPRuNe sans Sans? Say it ain't so. :(

I/C

[Shell Management]

Model S-76D Certification Basis
14CFR 29 through Amendment 29-52 (applicable sections) except
– 29.1317 Amendment 29-49 not adopted for initial TC (Special Condition 29-ASW-16
used)
– 29.625 through Amendment 29-41
– 29.631 Amendment 29-40 not adopted
– 29.1 through Amendment 29-38
– 29.561(c) through Amendment 29-37 for engines
– 29.952 Amendment 29-35 not adopted
– 29.963, 29.967, 29.973 and 29.975 through Amendment 29-34
– 29.427 Amendment 29-30 not adopted
– 29.787 through Amendment 29-30
– 29.923 through Amendment 29-30 (except (a), (b) (1) & (b)(3), which have demonstrated
compliance through Amendment 29-39)
– 29.307 through Amendment 29-29 (except the main and tail rotor blades, which have
demonstrated compliance through Amendment 29-52)
– 29.391 and 29.865 through Amendment 29-29
– 29.562 Amendment 29-29 not adopted
– 29.561(b) and (c) through Amendment 29-28
– 29.571 through Amendment 29-27 (except the main and tail rotor blades, which have
demonstrated compliance through Amendment 29-52)
– 29.908 through Amendment 29-25
– 29.812(b) Amendment 29-24 not adopted
– 29.671 and 29.785 through Amendment 29-23
– 29.1309 through Amendment 29-23 (except new avionics, electrical and electronic
equipment which have demonstrated compliance through Amendment 29-52)
– 29.927 through Amendment 29-16
Special Condition No. 29-004-SC (Docket No. SW004), dated June 17, 1998.
14CFR 36 through Amendment 36-28 (applicable sections)


AND

The Model S-76D defines a configuration which does not include cabin interior furnishing and passenger
provisions.

[HeliHenri]

Aeroservicios Especializados (ASESA) from Mexico orders six S76D.
ASESA locks US Ex-Im financing for S-76D order (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/asesa-locks-us-ex-im-financing-for-s-76d-order-378046/)
.

[FalkoB]

Has the S76D been certified along with the Deicin/Anti-icing sytem ? And if not, when will that happen ?

thanks

[Ian Corrigible]

No; last I heard was that RIPS will follow "within one year of baseline cert."

I'm also not certain that the Type IV windows mentioned by Sikileaks (prior to the post being black bagged) are certified yet, but I stand to be corrected.

I/C

[Ian Corrigible]

industry insider -

I appreciate the update, thanks.

I/C

[Savoia]

Well, 'Los Mexicanos' certainly believe in the 'D' model!

The board of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) authorized more than $50 million to guarantee a loan extended by Apple Bank to Aeroservicios Especializados S.A. DE C.V. (ASESA) of Mexico that will finance the export of a fleet of Sikorsky S-76D™ helicopters to Mexico.

ASESA is a leading helicopter-services provider for the oil and gas industry in Mexico and plans to employ the Sikorsky helicopters to ferry personnel to and from deep-water drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.

In terms of capabilities, the helicopter provides increased range and a quieter cabin. Upon further certification to come, the helicopter will boast the ability to operate in known icing conditions.

Ex-Im Bank approves $50M finance for Mexican offshore S76D fleet | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2012/10/29/ex-im-bank-approves-50m-finance-for-mexican-offshore-s76d-fleet/)

[9Aplus]

Am I understanding news right or wrong, but "mexicanos" got 6 ships for $50 M
less than $ 8,5 M per unit.... interesting price level..... :cool:

[9Aplus]

TNX, now sounds more realistic.... :E

[Arcal76]

People can complain or critisize the S76 but, at the end, it is a good aircraft. I always love to read all those comments about how great the 139 is:ugh:
I flew the S76 for 13 years and I have been flying the 139 for 2.
I can tell you that there is huge difference cost between those aircrafts. I actually don't really understand why so many are buying the 139. In reality, state and offshore companies are buying because they are ready to spend an awful load of money to run those things. You need 2 or 3 to get one in service, maintenance is absolutely crazy, so, I don't know what is gone be with the S76D, but it can't be worse than the AW.
We had a S76 who crashed with a high vertical speed in trees. One of those trees went trough one engine, seats were still in good shape and no leaks:D
So, as usual, a lot of talk about those fuel cells for not to much at the end.
And, talking about de-icing, the 139 is certified with the FIPS. It has never worked, when I say never, it is NEVER:mad:.
I am sure Sikorsky can't be worst.........

[noooby]

Hi Arcal,

Sounds like you're having some issues with your 139's. One might look at how your company fitted out your aircraft and how much lead in trainging your maintenance staff received, perhaps that could be a major contributor to your "issues".

Personally I've seen great dispatch rates for the 139 in the offshore market, between 90-95% on time departures for one offshore company that I have numbers for.

Maintenance is a breeze compared to the 76. No tail rotor cables to replace access is easy to most components once you know the easy way to get to them. Ever changed a park brake valve on a 76??? :ugh::}

As to cost, a non FIPS offshore 139 is closer to the cost of an offshore configured S76 than you would think, as Agusta give some pretty good discounts for bulk contract signings. Hourly Direct Operating Costs are very close to a 76C++. Very close. If the 139 didn't gulp fuel like it does, it would probably be cheaper to run per hour, but then, fuel is the cheapest part of flying!

FIPS is VERY heavy and expensive. I'm not sure how some operators can justify the weight and expense. How often would you guys actually fly in icing conditions.

The 76 is indeed built strong., did you hear about the 76 in Nigeria that kicked off the AC Gen because the RRPM got so low?? Blades coned so much that the dampers pulled out of the main rotor blade mounts! :}:eek::eek:

The fuel tanks might not have ruptured in the incident you speak of, but try taxiing over rough ground. Personally I've seen three 76's where the mainwheel has caught in a rut and pulled the gear off the forward bulkhead, which creates a nice big puddle of fuel.

There are good things about the 76 and good things about the 139, however I think we can all agree that Sikorsky missed the boat when they came up with the 76D.

A clean sheet design would have been the way to go and it isn't too late, look at Bell, they're only just starting out on the 525 to try and catch up to the 139 and EC175. They obviously believe there is enough room in the market for another model in this weight range.

The proof is in the number of orders they (don't) have and in the number of orders that AW and EC have for their medium-heavy twins.

I liked working on the S76. Job for life! But I enjoy working on the AW139 more. Mechanically it is about the simplest beastie I've worked on in the past 22 odd years, except maybe for the Bell 47!!

Hopefully your experience will improve as your operation gains experience with what is to you guys, a new generation aircraft.

[Arcal76]

Well, If we had it,we will be using it quiet a bit in Winter time.At our base, our 2 main destinations have an airport and IFR approach available, so we would use it. Not that I miss going in ice because I don't really believe that we would not get in trouble :eek:.
Our enginer prefer the S76. It is true that we have many problems because of our organisation and their lack of understanding about helicopters, but the work who has to be done on the 139 is huge.
I don't know how the 76D will behave, but I think they still have a market.
I am very scared about the new Bell and when I see what kind of problems we face on the 139, you can expect a lot of trouble with this new machine who anything to do with any Bell product.
Of course, Sikorsky could have done a brand new model, but in this case, you have to go for way bigger than the S76.

[terminus mos]

A Bristow S-76D to be unveiled at Heli Expo?

Apparently part of a double figure Bristow order in full offshore configuration with big emergency exit compliant windows, all to be announced at Heli Expo. It may even get the "lbs" weight of a man increase in MTOW.

[Savoia]

Wow! I am surprised, but great news for the D model! :D

[Sir Korsky]

Bonanza of D orders at the expo, including more than 2 dozen from Bristow!

Bristow Places Order for Up To 26 S-76D (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=550acd8f34b3d310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD)

[KiwiNedNZ]

Just a question for the S76 pilots and operators here. Whats your thoughts on the new S76D model thats progressing through its test phase.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Bristows are probably the best ones to ask about this (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=550acd8f34b3d310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) as they will be keeping close tabs on its final development and introduction to service.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/249352-s-76d.html

[Rotoronin]

I'm sorry Sans but there's a few mistakes there on the C++.

The average fuel fow is 700lbs/hr, even an A+ is 640lbs/hr.

155kts is the VNE of an S76 from A-C++. VNO is 10knts below VNE depending on Density Altitude.

Long range cruise speed is still VNO, 145kts-ish, you set 80% and normally get 145kts unless you're max all up weight.

Range is actually about 350-380, sticking 1900lbs in the tank is akin to getting John Goodman in to a shopping trolley after a night out.

Hope these corrections help to put the S76D in perspective. Sans, I'm aware you were directly quoting from Flight International so please don't take it as me being a pedantic git, just trying to inform..

[KiwiNedNZ]

Couple of pics from my visit to the S76D testing at Leadville, CO few days ago. Got to shoot it up in the mountains and also over Turquoise Lake which sits at around 10,300ft.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/S76D/Sik0277_zps5f060b1f.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/S76D/Sik1601_zps6b33ac8c.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/S76D/Sik0619_zps198ec858.jpg

[Heli-News]

.. from my visit to the S76D testing at Leadville, CO few days ago.

Since you have just been there, can you provide any update on the program, when the first delivery will take place + any problems they are having?

[ChopperFAN]

Awesome pics Ned :D

[parcasna]

Any known future Operators of the S-76D? :cool:

[Anthony Supplebottom]

Since you have just been there, can you provide any update on the program, when the first delivery will take place + any problems they are having?

HN - You may get more satisfaction contacting SAC directly! :ok:

[KiwiNedNZ]

Anthony is right, best to contact the media people at Sikorsky. While I spent a few days with the guys there I am not at liberty to say who is getting what and when and how the program is going :}

If I start doing that then wont be invited back again :ok:

Ned

[HeliHenri]

.
Just go to their website, all the informations are there :

"October 15, 2012. STRATFORD, Connecticut - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved the Type Certificate for the S76D helicopter, moving the aircraft forward to its highly anticipated delivery into the medium-sized marketplace.

The S-76D helicopter has a current backlog approaching a half-billion dollars and is expected to begin deliveries later this quarter.
Our customers are excited to begin receiving the S-76D into their fleets."

Their customers are maybe excited but surely very patient ! :rolleyes:
.

[industry insider]

But, the one at the HAI show was not it flyable form. None have actually been "delivered" yet, as in to a customer who is actually operating one. The D has taken 7 or 8 years to develop. Its only a derivative with new engines and cockpit + plastic blades, not a new type. Throughout its life it has been starved of investment and engineering resources. It had a large personnel turnover in the program.

[Grenville Fortescue]

Their customers are maybe excited but surely very patient !

Excitement I'm not so sure about, patience certainly, though I suspect many "would have been" S76D customers have found solace among other manufacturers.

I am surmising that the integration of the "all new" Pratt & Whitney 210S is a factor in the delay but as there has been very little by way of clear information from Sikorsky on the ongoing delays, who knows?

[SansAnhedral]

The real story behind the soap opera that has been the S76D involved a lot of politics involving Shell with the program through the mid 2000s. The acquisition/incorporation of Keystone also had a hand in things.

[HeliTester]

It's only a derivative with new engines and cockpit + plastic blades, not a
new type.


It seems to me that new engines and blades are a pretty big "only". Developing and qualifying a new engine installation and dynamic components (even without new gearboxes) is no small task.

[HeliHenri]

.
Developing and qualifying a new engine installation and dynamic components (even without new gearboxes) is no small task.

About 8 years to do so ! you're right, not a small task for Sikorsky :rolleyes:
.

[industry insider]

The D was Steve Finger's idea after he came from P&W to be President of Sikorsky. He wanted the S-76 to have P&W engines not Turbomeca engines and the D Program was born. But Sikorsky was busy with the in service reliability issues with the S-92, the "what to do with Schweizer" question and the where to do completions the S-70i question.

When the GFC hit, nearly all funding was cut from the D Model, Steve Finger had gone back to P&W and Jeff Pino had little enthusiasm for Finger's project. To be assigned to the D Program was like being told that the next step was chasing parts followed by being shown the exit to the building. Being assigned to the D Program Management was seen as a punishment.

There were (are) some great talented people who made great progress with the D, the trouble is that they were not properly resourced with $ or people. The oil and gas industry, one of the historical S-76 customers, had moved on to the AW139 in spite of some issues. The lateness of the D meant that it was (in terms of size, cabin and crashworthiness) out of date before it was even flown.

[SansAnhedral]

dynamic components (even without new gearboxes)

Rotor system is identical to the S76A/B/C outside of the composite-spar blades. The new blades were essentially baby S70/S92 AWC blades; nothing really unprecedented

[HeliTester]

Developing and qualifying a new engine installation


...the other half of the sentence that was quoted. I guess being the launch customer for the PW210S engine that was being developed concurrently is also nothing really unprecedented.

[heli1]

Interesting insights there II but surprised no one has mentioned the launch orders.they were published in HD some months ago....Mexico offshore, Bristow in the Gulf,then Middle East,Malaysia,China and corporate following on.

[HeliHenri]

.
surprised no one has mentioned the launch orders

Really ?
Just take time to read the 2 previous pages and you'll see the Bristow and Mexican O&G orders.

And we can add the Japan Cost Guard with 11 aircrafts ordered.

.

[ptflyer]

So the S-76D received type certification 12th October 2012 and at that time Sikorsky stated in their press release that they would "begin deliveries later this quarter".

Eight months on and still no deliveries is kind of strange unless you have a major problem. Some rumours seem to point to the structure down the back end being the problem. Anybody able to confirm if this is correct and if so what is the problem and what is the fix?

[unstable load]

Some rumours seem to point to the structure down the back end being the problem.
Standard S76 scenario. They have been bootstrapping, reskinning, reinforcing and strengthening the tail pylon since the A model.

[helmet fire]

They have been bootstrapping, reskinning, reinforcing and strengthening the tail pylon since the A model.

....unlike the competitors such as the 139 and the 412?........ :8

[unstable load]

helmet fire,
I have no experience on those types, so I will defer to yours.
It is nothing new, though for designs to show their weaknesses and flaws in the form of cracks and rivets pulling.

[victor papa]

Its easy! Just ground the whole lot then no more cracking or pulling rivets!:ugh:

[unstable load]

Yep, composites are great aren't they?

[parcasna]

Any updates on the program?...I heard that deliveries are on its way,..so?:hmm:

[Grenville Fortescue]

TIANJIN, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) - China's Changhe Aircraft Industrial Group (CAIG) and US based Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation signed an agreement on Thursday Sept. 5th to co-produce S-76D commercial utility helicopters.

CAIG, a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, a state-owned aerospace and defense company, will supply S-76D parts and assemble the helicopters, according to the agreement signed at the ongoing China Helicopter Exposition in the northern port city of Tianjin.

CAIG is expected to deliver the first S-76D helicopter in 2016 and have an annual production capacity of 24 helicopters by 2018, according to the agreement.

Chinese, U.S. companies agree to co-produce helicopters - Xinhua | English.news.cn (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-09/05/c_132694638.htm)

[SansAnhedral]

Wow, the folks in Coatesville are probably none too happy about that :sad:

[Grenville Fortescue]

What I find particularly interesting is the government response, or general lack thereof, towards offshoring. The longterm impact on a domestic economy is that in order to facilitate cheaper purchases, you must pay for this through a more extensive welfare system, the needs of which are generated by continually favouring overseas labour over one's domestic workforce. Great for the short-term in lowering product prices to customers or, more realistically, widening the profit margin on sales, but it does throw-up bigger issues eventually.

However, as no government is interested in "nationhood" anymore, longterm domestic economic performance has taken a back seat in deference to attending the "global" agenda. And where, I do wonder, will that take us?

[noooby]

I'm sorry, when was the last time a 76 fuselage was built in the USA???

I was under the impression that they had been uilt in the Czech Republic for a number of years, so the offshoring that you are complaining about, is nothing new for the 76.

I would imagine Sikorsky, like many other big players, see's many $$$ in China and need to have a presence there if they are to secure a part of the market.

EC has been there for years, AW is moving into Brazil and Russia.
Bell fuselages are built in Korea(??) AW fuselages are made in Poland.
Until people are willing to pay more to have their products produced locally, this is how it will be.

Sometimes it works the other way too. AW and EC both have assembly plants in the USA, both of which have grown considerably and employ thousands of people. Should they close those down and increase their employment in Europe???

Welcome to the global Economy.

[SansAnhedral]

I'm sorry, when was the last time a 76 fuselage was built in the USA???

Nobody was mentioning building the fuselage in the USA. Final assembly of S-92 and S-76 is the bread and butter of the former Keystone facility operated by Sikorsky in PA.

CAIG, a subsidiary of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, a state-owned aerospace and defense company, will supply S-76D parts and assemble the helicopters

[Grenville Fortescue]

All correct noooby. However, my response is in answer to SansAnhedral's comment and which is why I referred to offshoring generally as opposed to Sikorsky specifically. There remain arguments both for and against depending on one's political priorities and remembering that not everything can be rationailsed in terms of dollars and cents. Though many would have us believe to the contrary!

[Ian Corrigible]

I like the fact that the official press release (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sikorsky-changhe-sign-agreement-76d-140000008.html) contains three ™'s and two ®'s.

So that's bound to prevent any IPR 'leakage'... :E

(The PR confirming, BTW, that the news relates only to D cabin production at Changhe -- as first announced in 2008 (http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/NEWSLETTER/commercial/CommLinks_0608.pdf) -- not local assembly. Changhe was supposed to have transitioned from C++ to D cabins in 2011 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:2f16318d-d960-4e49-bc9f-86f1805f2c7f&plckPostId=Blog%3A2f16318d-d960-4e49-bc9f-86f1805f2c7fPost%3A94ec4563-5036-4a36-ae28-07f1c5ad56ab), but this schedule was obviously delayed by the D's slippages.)

I/C

[parcasna]

Sikorsky S-76D? Helicopter Flight Simulator Enters into Service -- LONDON, Sept. 24, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sikorsky-s-76d-helicopter-flight-simulator-enters-into-service-225024002.html)

[terminus mos]

This must be the first helicopter simulator which has actually been delivered before an actual aircraft has been delivered to a customer.

[Ian Corrigible]

AW189 flight training device ready for training (http://www.agustawestland.com/news/aw189-flight-training-device-ready-training)

...though in this instance more the result of planning than a 4+ year delay to EIS.

I/C

[cayuse365]

Oil gas and petroleum

[47B-3]

Has the S-76D entered commercial or corporate service with any North American customer? Where is interior completion and customization work done? Coatesville, PA? Or another location?

[Grenville Fortescue]

There are no D models in service anywhere.

Sikorsky has, for the last 40+ months, been battling to overcome troubles with the integration and performance of the Pratt & Whitney PW210S engines including some specific problems encountered at altitude (although Sikorksy themselves have not been in a hurry to publicise this). However, those working on the programme are well aware that this has been a major issue.

Not sure about the interiors. Some of the VIP configurations will be available from multiple vendors/locations while both VIP and utility/offshore interiors will also, as far as I know, be available ex-Coatesville.

[HeliHenri]

.
One month ago :

"The first customer delivery of the Sikorsky S-76D medium-twin helicopter is “imminent,” the Stratford, Conn.-based aircraft manufacturer said. According to a Sikorsky executive, the first example will be handed over this month to an offshore operator in the Gulf of Mexico"


First Sikorsky S-76D Delivery ?Imminent? | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2013-10-03/first-sikorsky-s-76d-delivery-imminent)
.

[helimutt]

Rumour has it that 3 are on their way to the caribbean imminently. I hope so.

[noooby]

Industry Insider, I thought the D stood for Doh!!

Still not too late for a clean sheet design Sikorsky!!

[HeliHenri]

.
Any news from the other side of the Atlantic ? :confused:
.

[HeliHenri]

.
Better late than never ! :)

First S76D delivered : First S-76D delivered ? to Bristow Helicopters | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2014/01/06/first-s-76d-delivered-to-bristow-helicopters/)

.

[noooby]

I like the bit where they are excited about a $700 million backlog of orders. If you pay $12 million per ship (rough estimate based on 76C++ pricing, averaged over different configurations) then that is ooooooo, about 59 aircraft.

That does not sound like a lot to me. Even with a base price of $10 mil, that is still only 70 machines on order.

Are there really only that many operators with orders in for the D??

[Ian Corrigible]

Backlog appears to be at least 62 aircraft, based on announced orders:

2 x Falcon Aviation Services (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=de27104935df4210VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Nov 2009)
1 x Kuwait International Aircraft Leasing (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=6279bb74112f6210VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Feb 2010)
11 x Saudi Ministry of Interior (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=86e45aabed0f9210VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Jul 2010)
1(?) x AAG (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=d4a8678c6cee2310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Oct 2011)
1 x Air Engiadina (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=7a9532b44ac75310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Feb 2012)
2 x PT Travira Air (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=ff74e54c4cfad310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Mar 2013)
6 x ASESA (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=a69dc83c92c3d310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Mar 2013)
7 x Milestone Aviation Group (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=cd7acd8f34b3d310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Mar 2013)
2 x Arkansas Children’s Hospital (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=dd4dc83c92c3d310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Mar 2013)
2 x PT Travira Air (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=ff74e54c4cfad310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Mar 2013)
6(?) x Bristow (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=550acd8f34b3d310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Mar 2013)
11 x Japan Coast Guard (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=58ad0f3b5115f310VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (via Mitsubishi) (Feb 2012 - March 2013)
8 x Chinese Ministry of Transport (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=b3758ce46c1f0410VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Dec 2012 & Jul 2013)
2 x Macquarie Rotorcraft Leasing (http://sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=ac2dd099f4022410VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) (Oct 2013)

The Bristow announcement totalled 26 orders and options; based on Sikorsky's claim of 29 announced orders (http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/NEWSLETTER/commercial/Commlinks_0313.pdf) for the type at Heli-Expo 2013, of which 23 others were detailed in press releases, this suggests six orders and 20 options (assuming no additional S-76D customers placed orders at the show).

Other options announced include Milestone (10), Saudi MOI (8) and FAS (2).

The AAG 'order' from its parent is speculative (could also be higher).

Given the 76's popularity with executive flight departments, there are also likely to have been non-publicized orders placed from corporate (e.g. Teterboro based) operators. A Florida company did sign a deposit for two executive aircraft for 2009 delivery back in 2006 (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=b97ea96c2e289110VgnVCM1000001382000 aRCRD), though as with the original '70 orders (http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=218572&dfpPParams=aid_218572&dfpLayout=article)' still claimed for the AW609 13 years later (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aw609-tiltrotor-progresses-as-agustawestland-eyes-future-392315/), it's questionable as to whether the customer has been willing to wait... :E

I/C

[parcasna]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q77/s720x720/995298_216662295183925_577338141_n.jpg

[noooby]

Wow, so I wasn't that far off with my guessing.

I doubt there is anyone still waiting for an AW609, except maybe a couple of billionaires who just want the first of everything. I hear a third prototype is supposed to be joining the flight testing soon (whatever soon means).

Yes, I agree that the 76D will find a loyal following in the executive flight department. Must be about time for Mr Trump to upgrade?

[Ian Corrigible]

Must be about time for Mr Trump to upgrade?
Only if you offer him 75% off list. :mad:

I hear a third prototype is supposed to be joining the flight testing soon (whatever soon means).
It'll fly in 2001 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ba-609-assembly-heads-for-march-completion-123283/)...or 2003 (http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/4100394/bells-ba609-tiltrotor-program-schedule)...or 2006 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/804404/posts)...or 2007 (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=aa43a692-ceaa-41a3-8943-2faf0561c4e5)...or 2008 (http://archive.is/yLRVe)...or 2012 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-agustawestland-signs-agreements-for-aw609-engines-avionics-and-flight-computer-374057/)...or 2013 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-agustawestland-disagree-on-future-of-ba609-partnership-354196/)...or maybe 2014 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aw609-tiltrotor-progresses-as-agustawestland-eyes-future-392315/)... :E

I/C

[terminus mos]

Maybe not Noob, the S-76D is heavy and in cooler climates carries less payload than the S-76C++.

In reality, it doesn't carry much more than an AW169, it isn't certified to the same standards as the AW169 and it will probably cost $4m more. Bristow got a massive bargain basement deal to give the D some traction in the oil market when everyone else, even loyal Sikorsky customers have said, no thanks.

[unstable load]

Yes, but all too often, those A++/C+ jobs are for cheapskates, which rules out a shiny new toy.

[terminus mos]

Not many contracts (excepting in the the USA GOM maybe) where there are any A++ working these days. Part of the Bristow D purchase was to trade all of their old A+ and A++ for which there was no work available. That was the sweetener.

[helimutt]

Looks like National in Trinidad just got delivery of their first S76D. :ok::ok:
Looks great in their colours too.

[KiwiNedNZ]

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/2014%20Mis%20Images/BR0076_zps6fbf73c3.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/2014%20Mis%20Images/BR1299_zps4088f40e.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g100/KiwiNed/2014%20Mis%20Images/BR1230_zps4d4ef484.jpg

[212man]

Nice photos:ok:

...... pity about the parking though! If I got $5 for every photo I saw with a helicopter not in the correct position on a helideck, I'd have retired by now.......:ugh:

[helimutt]

so come on, I have to ask, what is the correct position on a helideck? So theres just one position and thats it? no taking into consideration the D value, wind position, boarding and alighting directions, position for refueling? The 76 is what? a 16D? that helideck is what? 21D?

and from that picture, it doesnt even look as though the aircraft has landed yet:ok: Maybe it was parked perfectly once they'd landed into wind?

[Tynecastle]

212 man.
Never mind the $5 for poor parking, you are ex BSP, you can retire now!!!!

[212man]

Helimut, I agree it isn't quite clear if they've landed or not - possibly not the more I look at it....

I also agree that there's not one 'single' correct position from a heading perspective (and in this case I would turn 30-40 degrees left to give a direct access to the stair well, but there is a general truth that the Touch Down/Position Marker should be used regardless of aircraft D value. A well known Pprune contributor produced this a few years ago:

http://www.helidecks.org/download%20files/Touchdown%20and%20Positioning%20Marker%20-%20Paper%20V1%209.pdf

Sorry for thread drift (no pun intended) ;)

[helimutt]

Thanks for that 212. Interesting reading.

[JimL]

...a document since superseded by a more comprehensive treatment of the whole subject of heliport sizes, markings and surface loading for the ICAO Heliport Working Group.

back to the thread; I'm always impressed by Ned's photographs - these are probably the best offshore ones he has provided for some time.

Jim

[Geoffersincornwall]

IMHO - We don't need to be too 'dog-in'the-manger' about this lest we miss the most important aspect of the aiming circle and its correct usage.

It is true that when landing on a deck with the minimum 'D' size, when landing on an unfamiliar deck, when landing at night or when uncertain of the obstacle environment, that the correct technique is to place the pilot's bum over the aiming circle. This should ensure that all of the aircraft structure is inside the 'D'. Changing the aircraft heading will be fine as long as the pilots bum remains over the aiming circle and the aircraft centreline passes through the centre of the circle.

There are plenty of other situations when another technique is perfectly acceptable. For example when landing on a deck bigger than your own 'D' size there may be issues to do with the pathways used by passengers and the situation can often be optimised by landing in another location with exits and pathways then defaulting to the safest direction.

When you are based offshore and routinely visit a collection of decks 15 or 20 times a day it is natural for flight and deck crew to seek the safest and most expeditious methods during deck ops but beware complacency, document your protocols so they have SOP status and if in doubt revert to using the aiming circle as described above.

I have found during countless audits that the problems, when they arise, are because pilots have no idea how to make effective use of the deck markings. Non-ICAO markings are often encountered in some parts of the world in which case your FSO/CP/DO must document the correct procedures. Helicopters striking obstacles in the deck vicinity is one of the most common causes of accidents in the offshore world.

G.

[KiwiNedNZ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTlsTI8DsN4

S76D

[cayuse365]

FH7jNSaNPtk

[John Eacott]

FAA Certifies S-76D™ Helicopter V400 Software, Adding Capabilities and Reducing Pilot Workload (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=acd7d6e3fd3b7410VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD)

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. announced today that the Federal Aviation Administration has certified the V400 avionics software for the S-76D™ helicopter, increasing the capabilities of the aircraft and allowing the aircraft to operate single pilot under Instrument Flight Rules. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp.

When installed by the operator, the V400 software will expand the avionics capabilities for functionalities such as single-pilot operation, weather overlays on a moving map display and other features that reduce pilot workload while enhancing the S-76D helicopter’s capabilities. V400 software provides an integrated cockpit solution to allow use of optional SiriusXM™ weather overlays on the moving map, Mode S Transponder transmission of Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast data, and Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance, for both runway and heliports.
“This certification provides our customers with innovative software that will improve their in-flight experience,” said Leon Silva, director, S-76 Helicopter Programs. “This software will provide the operators with enhanced safety capabilities and an even more reliable aircraft.”
Sikorsky has delivered more than 800 S-76 helicopters to customers globally since 1979, contributing daily to a growing 6.5-million-plus fleet flight hours total.
The new generation S-76D helicopter, through its application of modern technologies, provides a substantial increase in performance, power and authority. The S-76D helicopter’s baseline equipment includes powerful and efficient Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210S engines; an advanced THALES TopDeck® integrated avionics system and four-axis autopilot; Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) incorporated into fleet monitoring and analysis; active vibration control; and all-composite, flaw-tolerant main rotor blades.

http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/images/News/S-76D1-THALES_TopDeck_cockpit.jpg

[tottigol]

Wow!
"Sikorsky has delivered more than 800 S-76 helicopters to customers globally since 1979, contributing daily to a growing 6.5-million-plus fleet flight hours total".

The AW139 is just shy of that number but started delivering in 2005.
For the rest there's nothing new here, move on.

[Ian Corrigible]

In terms of production ramp-up and market acceptance, the bigger concern is probably that the "more than 800" figure hasn't changed since March 2011 (http://bit.ly/1B3HVnd). In reality, approx. 30 Ds have been delivered in that time; unfortunately for Stratford, so have ~325 AW139s.

I/C

[Joker's Wild]

Perhaps I'm just getting old and cranky, but after 21+ years of uninterrupted time spent flogging about in the 'ol 76 (A's to C++), it really is difficult to get anywhere near excited about the D. :zzz:

[Darren999]

Very lucky I flew the D yesterday, flies very nice....

[TIMTS]

I hear Bristow has returned the D's to Sikorsky. Not living up to the fuel burn numbers seems to be one reason. Too little internal space another...

[Sir Korsky]

No, warranty work to beef up tail booms and exhaust cracks.

[tottigol]

At least one major corporate flight department in the greater NY area ditched its brand new 76D order and biught a 139 instead.

[The Sultan]

Sir K

It is brand new so how could it require major rework? What is the high time ship, 500 hrs?

The Sultan

[TIMTS]

I was told by friends still in Bristow that they were returned due to too little room in the back row. Something with the liferaft? And the fuel burn was greater than promised by Sikorsky. Hence the return.
Also talked to a few people here in NYC that fly or flew them, not one had anything good to say.

[terminus mos]

The D has had exhaust problems throughout development and testing. It also had problems with achieving rearward flight certification.

It is too heavy and too small. When fitted with a VIP interior and RIPS, it can carry 2 or3 pax only.

The Medium aircraft game has moved on, sadly, Sikorsky never realised it with the D model. The S-76C++ should have wound down production slowly until sales dried up. The D was Steve Finger's idea, was starved of funds during its Jeff Pino era development cycle as all the money went either to keep the stockholder's happy at the quarterly meetings with UTC or to fix the issues with the S-92.

[stilton]

Can anyone tell me what those protrusions are under each side of the forward fuselage ? :confused:

[212man]

Can anyone tell me what those protrusions are under each side of the forward fuselage

They look like steps to me

[terminus mos]

Steps, integrated with life rafts.

[SansAnhedral]

So I wonder if this is indeed bearing out in operation

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=44192

[Sir Korsky]

I understand the original plan for the D was to stick an 18 inch plug in the middle and extend the cabin. TM told the rest above.

[heli1]

OK...I give up. Just how many S-76Ds have been delivered to Bristow. Reports say three but nine show up on the FAA register.

[domperry]

As far as I can tell from the latest financials, they have only taken three and the rest are delayed for unspecified reasons until next year.

More here: Bristow delays S-76D deliveries - 11/12/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bristow-delays-s-76d-deliveries-405949/)

[Ian Corrigible]

The three aircraft mentioned in the recent Flight (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bristow-delays-s-76d-deliveries-405949) article related to 2H FY14 deliveries only. Flight's own database (http://www.ascendworldwide.com/what-we-do/ascend-data/aircraft-airline-data/ascend-online-fleets.html) currently shows nine Ds with Bristow, of which eight are listed as being in storage.

I/C

[domperry]

The discrepancy between the two is down to how the data is recorded, apparently. Most of the latter batch of Ds are in completion rather than necessarily with Bristow, however they have been registered to the operator on FAA documents, which is one of the sources Ascend relies on.

[bhisham45]

National Helicopters Services Ltd Trinidad

A S76 D was delivery today
N769N

[unstable load]

The first one delivered in Africa is currently being re-assembled in Cape Town at Titan.

[bhisham45]

A second s76 d arrived on christmas eve to N.H.S.L and on old years day N.O.C Trinidad receive a s76d
2014

[terminus mos]

Plenty of S-76Ds available apparently, maybe some going cheap

The news that Sikorsky has opened an office in Houston to demonstrate the S-76D to the oil and gas industry does not feature other news that an operator beginning with B is allegedly trying to return S-76Ds to Sikorsky due to problems or alternatively is considering selling their S-76Ds

So, if you want a heavy, small cabin, non type IV escape window, non crash-worthy certified helicopter for your offshore workforce in these low oil price times at a bargain price, there may be some for sale

[Darren999]

Term..

A certain operated B are not returning their S76D's. They have just booked a whole year training at FSI for 76D for their crews. The aircraft may not operate for that company in the US, for the monent :)

[Mel Effluent]

I note that EASA have issued a revised Type Certificate data sheet for the S-76 to include the S-76D. See here: http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/TCDS_EASA_IM_R113_S76_Issue_01_25Feb2015.pdf The maximum passenger seating capacity is currently 6 (with a possible option for 7), there is no icing clearance and no vertical profiles have been approved.

Looks OK for VIP operations but not for offshore.

[laurenson]

This could explain why Britow delays its S-76D deliveries...
Bristow delays S-76D deliveries - 11/12/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bristow-delays-s-76d-deliveries-405949/)

[heli1]

More to it than that....See the next issue of He#iData News for the facts learned at HeiExpo!

[Darren999]

Bristow are using the D models, not in the gulf, but in Africa. It's totally political. The aircraft performs well.....

[Sir Korsky]

The only D sim is at PBI with FSI and they are starting to get busy.

[Stinger10]

While the S-76D is a very nice upgrade to the S-76 family, but ITS EXPENSIVE.

From a current S-76D operator: "between $15-16M fitted out cost" :eek:

That's a lot of money for a twin bench seat cabin aircraft that can seat 8 pax.

[noooby]

For that money I could get an offshore AW139 and a couple million change, or a corporate 139 or an EMS 139 with custom interior and anti-ice!

Are you sure about that cost for a 76D? Sounds a bit high.

[Stinger10]

NO-
Right from an S-76D owner's mouth......

[noooby]

Ouch. I hope it has a very very nice VIP interior for that price!

[Ian Corrigible]

That number is in line with data from a well-known database suggesting that base 76D is IRO $1.5 mil above the 139.

I/C

[unstable load]

Ian,
That will make it fly off the shelf......:rolleyes:

[terminus mos]

Sikorsky is desperate to sell the D. Wait until they have unsold white tails at the end of the year when Hartford comes calling for cash, a fleet buyer will get them for $10m each. But, still way too much money for what it offers, especially when long term lease deals on 139s can be had at very attractive rates.

[HeliHenri]

Sikorsky’s CEO Mick Maurer at HAI 2015 : The S-76D will be “ramped up to full production”

[R. Cal]

And then goes behind the big blue wall and tells suppliers to slash deliveries. :ok:

Perhaps the microphone cut out and missed the end of his sentence, "... in 2017."

[tasspook]

Anyone care to wager how long it would take the new owners to shutdown the 76 line should United Tech decide to spinoff Sikorsky???

[terminus mos]

Probably before they even buy it!

[Sir Korsky]

NY state troopers buy ' slightly used ' S76D

Flying Cuomo among uses for new, faster State Police helicopter - The Buffalo News (http://buffalonews.com/2016/10/22/state-police-buying-new-helicopter-will-ferry-gov-cuomo/)

[nowherespecial]

Anyone know how many of these ac Sk have sold? I heard 24 somewhere but that sounds low. Equally I hear it's not that good so maybe that's right? Anyone?

[HeliHenri]

.
Around 30 delivered so far, 4 for the first 9 months of this year.
.

[nowherespecial]

Thanks HH. My info wasn't too far off then... :)

[HeliHenri]

And delivered doesn't always mean operating ...

[Socat]

Hi guys! Anyone can share a decent C++ or D models AFM? Thanks!

[malabo]

The offshore industry is driving to heavy expensive options, so the weight and price of all helicopters goes up and payload goes down. The AW139 was blessed with a series of gross weight increases, otherwise a 4700kg aircraft trying to operate at the original 4200 wouldn't have much payload either. The D is in an airframe already maxed out from the original 10,500 lb gross, so payload challenged compared to the C++ or even the A++ (though those aircraft don't have the same bells and whistles). Heavier to mitigate a highly improbable risk isn't safer.

You'd have to really want a D to buy one, 139's are dirt cheap on the market right now.

[212man]

Thread started October 2006 - says it all!

[Fareastdriver]

The D is in an airframe already maxed out from the original 10,500 lb gross,

10,000 lb. when I started on the A model in 1981.

[Sanus]

Bristow Aberdeen say they are flying 76D #74 in Nigeria so I guess there are over 70 sold?

[Darren999]

Bristow are flying a couple of S76D's in Africa now..

[murdock]

Bristow are flying a couple of S76D's in Africa now..

I wouldn't say they are flying them per say. More like letting 4 of them sit outside to rot at Lagos airport.

[nowherespecial]

NAAPE Shuts Down Bristow Helicopters, Over 50 Aircraft Grounded - INFORMATION NIGERIA (http://www.informationng.com/2016/11/naape-shuts-bristow-helicopters-50-aircraft-grounded.html)

Oh dear so I guess none of them are flying...!

Will post to Nigeria thread...

[jmdsm]

Hi guys! Anyone can share a decent C++ or D models AFM? Thanks!

Hello, I'm also interested in a recent D model AFM (with 11,875 lbs IGW kit if possible), I'm a FM's collector and I'm afraid they stop the D production soon :{.

Many thx

[Ian Corrigible]

There's a feature article on the S-76D in the latest issue of Rotorhub (https://shop.shephardmedia.com/magazines/rotorhub), though it's predominantly HEMS-focused, with little program info. The fleet of 70 or so Ds has now logged over 20K flight hours.

I/C