EH101 Merlin
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
Don't read me wrong (as you have!) The role played by Great Britain in WWII was second to none, and not the object of my comment.
It is the idea that "political payback" for Blair that gets me right in the teeth.
Don't read me wrong (as you have!) The role played by Great Britain in WWII was second to none, and not the object of my comment.
It is the idea that "political payback" for Blair that gets me right in the teeth.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: US
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like these guys beat the EH-101 guys to it.....and did it round trip to boot.....: 
I wonder what support they took with them in their Robinson?
Coast-to-Coast Record
Rotor & Wing columnist Johan Nurmi and John Thomas have just completed a record setting flight from Los Angeles to Savanna, Ga. round-trip in a Robinson R22BII piston-powered helicopter. The flight took four days, 12 hr. and 20 sec., and recorded 53.9 flight hr. The two men set off from Los Angeles International Airport at 6:07 a.m. on Sept. 30, flew to Savannah, then returned to LAX. The route of flight both ways took Nurmi and Thomas through California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.
Nurmi said that they are now negotiating with Eurocopter "and other large helicopter manufacturers" for sponsorship of an around-the-world flight in an attempt to beat the current record. The record LAX-SAV-LAX flight "proves that we are ready to step into a turbine-engine helicopter" for an attempt at the around-the-world record, Nurmi said. He noted that the flight was a U.S. record and "might even be a world record."
I wonder what support they took with them in their Robinson?
Coast-to-Coast Record
Rotor & Wing columnist Johan Nurmi and John Thomas have just completed a record setting flight from Los Angeles to Savanna, Ga. round-trip in a Robinson R22BII piston-powered helicopter. The flight took four days, 12 hr. and 20 sec., and recorded 53.9 flight hr. The two men set off from Los Angeles International Airport at 6:07 a.m. on Sept. 30, flew to Savannah, then returned to LAX. The route of flight both ways took Nurmi and Thomas through California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.
Nurmi said that they are now negotiating with Eurocopter "and other large helicopter manufacturers" for sponsorship of an around-the-world flight in an attempt to beat the current record. The record LAX-SAV-LAX flight "proves that we are ready to step into a turbine-engine helicopter" for an attempt at the around-the-world record, Nurmi said. He noted that the flight was a U.S. record and "might even be a world record."
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning Nick,
You only have the problem with President Blair trying to get the US101 accepted, VERY SADLY many of us have to share the same country with him!
PeterR-B
You only have the problem with President Blair trying to get the US101 accepted, VERY SADLY many of us have to share the same country with him!
PeterR-B
To put it all in perspective:
Number of civilian and military deaths in II WW:
Germans: 5.5million
Jews: 5 million
Japan: 3 million
UK: 500,000
USA: 300,000
Russia: 20 million.
In April 2003, we finally finished paying the Americans for helping us out in Europe. We owed them 4300 million sterling.
Must be worth throwing in a couple of VH101's
Number of civilian and military deaths in II WW:
Germans: 5.5million
Jews: 5 million
Japan: 3 million
UK: 500,000
USA: 300,000
Russia: 20 million.
In April 2003, we finally finished paying the Americans for helping us out in Europe. We owed them 4300 million sterling.
Must be worth throwing in a couple of VH101's
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK EAST COAST
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah well, Mr.Lappos, I wonder what the math would have shown if Iraq had been Britain's war? I fancy the percentage of America's troops helping Teflon Tony would have been sweet fa...
8000 British troops is a large percentage of our army and I wouldn't dream of starting a debate of who is the most efficient....
8000 British troops is a large percentage of our army and I wouldn't dream of starting a debate of who is the most efficient....
Nick: of all people wrapped up in the front line of sales and lobbying you must be much nearer than most of us.
But NOBODY, repeat NOBODY will ever convince me that military sales are anything OTHER than whispers behind closed doors and who owes who favours and what can be done elsewhere if only one side could 'assist' the other side this time round.
GB PLC has its fair share of 'exposures' and I'm damned sure the USA has too. You can bet your bottom dollar that bleary and bushless are chatting about it right now over a glass of californian red!!!
PS: The Britannica stats don't include civilians old boy.
But NOBODY, repeat NOBODY will ever convince me that military sales are anything OTHER than whispers behind closed doors and who owes who favours and what can be done elsewhere if only one side could 'assist' the other side this time round.
GB PLC has its fair share of 'exposures' and I'm damned sure the USA has too. You can bet your bottom dollar that bleary and bushless are chatting about it right now over a glass of californian red!!!
PS: The Britannica stats don't include civilians old boy.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Unhappy!!
I think the biggest insult to the people who died fighting any war is the contents of many of these postings..
Nick - I am very upset with your comments and I used to respect your opinions, it didn't take you much to be very unprofessional did it?
Nick - I am very upset with your comments and I used to respect your opinions, it didn't take you much to be very unprofessional did it?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH844 and Flypro,
I mean no disrespect to British or American servicemen, if you think I do, it is not my intent, nor is it in my words. It is in your interpretation, which I cannot control. I think you have stepped into a long thread at the end, and I hope you misunderstand my point.
Here is a note I sent a friend who PM'd me with his concerns:
I introduced the comparison and therefore am guilty of having offended you. My purpose is to help explain the sacrifice of both countries, not to discredit either, if I appear to do so, it is not my intention, nor in my words. I know WWII history quite well, and have never doubted the dedication and sacrifice of the Empire troops, and their key role in the victory. The purpose in showing the great mutual sacrifice of the UK and US in WWII is to show that the US never asked for what Blair and Berlusconi think is due them for Iraq - the automatic purchase of EH-101 helicopters as political payback for military support.
Please also note that I am probably more offended than you are at me by this British and Italian request for "payment for services." With one son in Afghanistan and 47 employees of Sikorsky in the desert right now, I am aghast that this British and Italian political pressure to pay for services rendered is somehow part of the Presidential decision.
A diplomatic mission from Italy is enroute to DC right now to press Bush on this very subject - "Buy my helicopter because I helped you out." Blair went public last week with his appeal based on the same distasteful logic, and by going public, makes it even harder for Bush to ignore it.
If I have offended you, I do apologize, I have never knowingly tried to reduce the glory of those who served and died to defeat our mutual enemies. Knowing that this is interpreted as an attempt to belittle their sacrifice saddens me that I have so badly missed my mark.
As a combat veteran, and the son of one, I can think and feel like one, and I still find no such dishonor in my original words. I do regret that you do. And because I do not wish to inflame any of my pprune friends, I have pulled down the offending remarks from my posts.
I mean no disrespect to British or American servicemen, if you think I do, it is not my intent, nor is it in my words. It is in your interpretation, which I cannot control. I think you have stepped into a long thread at the end, and I hope you misunderstand my point.
Here is a note I sent a friend who PM'd me with his concerns:
I introduced the comparison and therefore am guilty of having offended you. My purpose is to help explain the sacrifice of both countries, not to discredit either, if I appear to do so, it is not my intention, nor in my words. I know WWII history quite well, and have never doubted the dedication and sacrifice of the Empire troops, and their key role in the victory. The purpose in showing the great mutual sacrifice of the UK and US in WWII is to show that the US never asked for what Blair and Berlusconi think is due them for Iraq - the automatic purchase of EH-101 helicopters as political payback for military support.
Please also note that I am probably more offended than you are at me by this British and Italian request for "payment for services." With one son in Afghanistan and 47 employees of Sikorsky in the desert right now, I am aghast that this British and Italian political pressure to pay for services rendered is somehow part of the Presidential decision.
A diplomatic mission from Italy is enroute to DC right now to press Bush on this very subject - "Buy my helicopter because I helped you out." Blair went public last week with his appeal based on the same distasteful logic, and by going public, makes it even harder for Bush to ignore it.
If I have offended you, I do apologize, I have never knowingly tried to reduce the glory of those who served and died to defeat our mutual enemies. Knowing that this is interpreted as an attempt to belittle their sacrifice saddens me that I have so badly missed my mark.
As a combat veteran, and the son of one, I can think and feel like one, and I still find no such dishonor in my original words. I do regret that you do. And because I do not wish to inflame any of my pprune friends, I have pulled down the offending remarks from my posts.
Last edited by NickLappos; 5th Dec 2004 at 23:58.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
You bring up the point about the Crashworthiness of the S92 compared to the 101, what is the crashworthiness of the S76 ?
don't think it is very good is it, the good old 61 has shed Blades, T/R failures , engines exploding and it still lives to fight another day, the 76 has done all of the above with dire consequences.
You bring up the point about the Crashworthiness of the S92 compared to the 101, what is the crashworthiness of the S76 ?
don't think it is very good is it, the good old 61 has shed Blades, T/R failures , engines exploding and it still lives to fight another day, the 76 has done all of the above with dire consequences.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tynecastle,
New capabilities create reasons to buy new gear, and the cold light of progress shines on all aircraft, including the S-76 (I had the honor of flying its first flight and structural shakedown, so it has a special place in my heart!)
It is Sikorsky's standard for several decades to design the fuselage to a primary strength of 20 g's down and forward, 10 g's upward and 10 g's lateral, which is somewhat better than the US Mil spec (Mil-1290) and a very great deal better than typical civil requirements. The S-76 (and S92) was designed to this strength requirement, too, so it is considerably stronger than most helos that we fly. This feature measures the protection provided for the passengers and crew by the structural cage they inhabit. The more the g's, the more the cage withstands without crushing. The crashworthiness is strongly influenced by this factor.
Regarding the rest of the crashworthiness equation, the S-76 baseline seats and fuel system meet the older requirements, and are surpassed by the new designs (unless one orders the options, which are available, but which consume some useful load.)
The S-76 crashworthiness is therefore equal to or better than most of the helos in operation today, but not up to the par of the latest machines, like the S-92 and presumably the AB-139 (it must meet them, I have never seen its type certificate data sheet as demonstration.)
Regarding relative safety records, I think the S-76 has the best safety record in the civil patch, in terms of accident rate and passenger safety. I love the S-61 as well, and I think they are close.
New capabilities create reasons to buy new gear, and the cold light of progress shines on all aircraft, including the S-76 (I had the honor of flying its first flight and structural shakedown, so it has a special place in my heart!)
It is Sikorsky's standard for several decades to design the fuselage to a primary strength of 20 g's down and forward, 10 g's upward and 10 g's lateral, which is somewhat better than the US Mil spec (Mil-1290) and a very great deal better than typical civil requirements. The S-76 (and S92) was designed to this strength requirement, too, so it is considerably stronger than most helos that we fly. This feature measures the protection provided for the passengers and crew by the structural cage they inhabit. The more the g's, the more the cage withstands without crushing. The crashworthiness is strongly influenced by this factor.
Regarding the rest of the crashworthiness equation, the S-76 baseline seats and fuel system meet the older requirements, and are surpassed by the new designs (unless one orders the options, which are available, but which consume some useful load.)
The S-76 crashworthiness is therefore equal to or better than most of the helos in operation today, but not up to the par of the latest machines, like the S-92 and presumably the AB-139 (it must meet them, I have never seen its type certificate data sheet as demonstration.)
Regarding relative safety records, I think the S-76 has the best safety record in the civil patch, in terms of accident rate and passenger safety. I love the S-61 as well, and I think they are close.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
The 76 has a good safety record, but it when it is involved in an accident it is usually catastrophic, seen one last year that just had a hard landing, and it was a mess.
The old 61 has shed blades[or part of ], crashed on its side [T/R Buzz ] MGB failures and the crews and pax walked away from it.
With the 61N been amphibious, the hull is very strong so that is probably the reason for its great survivability.
Wonder will any of the manufacturers come up with a design for smaller helicopters based on the F1 racing cars were the cockpit is incredibly strong to protect the driver, you see a car go into the barriers at 200mph, the car is totalled but the drivers area is intact.
Cheers,
TC
The 76 has a good safety record, but it when it is involved in an accident it is usually catastrophic, seen one last year that just had a hard landing, and it was a mess.
The old 61 has shed blades[or part of ], crashed on its side [T/R Buzz ] MGB failures and the crews and pax walked away from it.
With the 61N been amphibious, the hull is very strong so that is probably the reason for its great survivability.
Wonder will any of the manufacturers come up with a design for smaller helicopters based on the F1 racing cars were the cockpit is incredibly strong to protect the driver, you see a car go into the barriers at 200mph, the car is totalled but the drivers area is intact.
Cheers,
TC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tynecastle,
The "data" you are quoting is not very meaningful, unfortunately. The fuselage strength and crashworthiness of the 61 is significantly less than the 76, and than the 92, or the most current part 29 aircraft.
I know of several very hard landings with 76's that would have split open other helos (I am the proud author of one of those). This is not to say that a 76 is superhuman, just that your means of comparison is drawn from warstories and suppositions.
The boat hull on a 61 is a nice feature, but it does not add significant strength to the fuselage. Where did you get that idea?
The concept you wonder about (the protective cage for racecars) is exactly what I described in the previous post. The "cage" of an S-76, an Apache, an S-92 and (probably) an AB-139 are about twice as strong as an S-61, Super Puma or EH-101. This is determined with data, not suppositions.
The "data" you are quoting is not very meaningful, unfortunately. The fuselage strength and crashworthiness of the 61 is significantly less than the 76, and than the 92, or the most current part 29 aircraft.
I know of several very hard landings with 76's that would have split open other helos (I am the proud author of one of those). This is not to say that a 76 is superhuman, just that your means of comparison is drawn from warstories and suppositions.
The boat hull on a 61 is a nice feature, but it does not add significant strength to the fuselage. Where did you get that idea?
The concept you wonder about (the protective cage for racecars) is exactly what I described in the previous post. The "cage" of an S-76, an Apache, an S-92 and (probably) an AB-139 are about twice as strong as an S-61, Super Puma or EH-101. This is determined with data, not suppositions.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Nick, I'm not dealing in figures I am dealing in facts, look at the 76 accidents, how many people walked away from them, I cannot think of too many, there was a training accident in Baku last year where the 3 crew escaped but seconds later the aircraft was totally destroyed, the accidents with the spindles and blades on the 76, no body stood a chance, the comparison I gave on the 61 everyone walked away from it and this is not war stories, I was and still am working with the companies who were involved in that accidents and they were major accidents.
I'm scratching my head a little over your comments about the N hull though, if you are suggesting the L model is as strong as the N, I do not have the figures you have available, but you will not convince me.
You will not admit it Nick, but the build quality on the 61 was far superior to the 76, a lot of the corrosion problems we found on the 76 was down to poor procedures to start with at manufacture.
Now Nick, I'm not knocking the 76, we fly many hours per year offshore, its a very good aircraft, but it still has its faults, and whatever data you come up with on crashworthiness means nothing if it doesn't work in practice.
I'm scratching my head a little over your comments about the N hull though, if you are suggesting the L model is as strong as the N, I do not have the figures you have available, but you will not convince me.
You will not admit it Nick, but the build quality on the 61 was far superior to the 76, a lot of the corrosion problems we found on the 76 was down to poor procedures to start with at manufacture.
Now Nick, I'm not knocking the 76, we fly many hours per year offshore, its a very good aircraft, but it still has its faults, and whatever data you come up with on crashworthiness means nothing if it doesn't work in practice.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tyne,
Now look at the position you have taken:
"I know it, there are lots that I recall, and so I am right!" Do you expect me to publically debate the realtive number of people hurt in helicopters as some kind of proof?
I have investigated military crashes (same fuselage as S-61) that proove you (unfortunately) incorrect.
Some of my observations on the S-76 toughness:
1) I recall one S-76 that slid off a deck an a wet day, and nestled in the railing below, clipped off all 4 main blades near the root while pulling 100% torque. The aircraft was huled home, and the transmission removed with common tools. Most helos would have had the whole transmission mount and cabin structure disintegrate from that massive torque.
2) I landed at 13.5 ft/second in one hard landing (a horrendous impact, do not try this at home!) and the aircraft suffered one bent stringer in the tail cone. It flew thousands of hours after that landing (which would have bent the skids of a Huey up to the belly and crushed the lower tub).
3) In a training accident where the instructor shut down the good engine during an OE practice, the aircraft landed very hard and peeled itself apart, tail cone, landing gear, then roll over and all blades snapped off. I was the investigator, and opened the two doors that were still unopened with one hand, using the normal door handle. All four doors ft properly in their jambs because there was so little cabin distortion.
None of this is attempting to disprove that the latest helicopters that meet the newest regulations are better, but the S-76 is no slouch, and it is actually better than the older, less strong S-61. This debate can't go on, I simply can't start to denegrate one helo to prove another, as you have. You are technically and factually wrong, however. Like most opinions, yours seems right to you, based on the facts that you have, but not when all the facts available are layed out.
Have a Merry Christmas!
Now look at the position you have taken:
"I know it, there are lots that I recall, and so I am right!" Do you expect me to publically debate the realtive number of people hurt in helicopters as some kind of proof?
I have investigated military crashes (same fuselage as S-61) that proove you (unfortunately) incorrect.
Some of my observations on the S-76 toughness:
1) I recall one S-76 that slid off a deck an a wet day, and nestled in the railing below, clipped off all 4 main blades near the root while pulling 100% torque. The aircraft was huled home, and the transmission removed with common tools. Most helos would have had the whole transmission mount and cabin structure disintegrate from that massive torque.
2) I landed at 13.5 ft/second in one hard landing (a horrendous impact, do not try this at home!) and the aircraft suffered one bent stringer in the tail cone. It flew thousands of hours after that landing (which would have bent the skids of a Huey up to the belly and crushed the lower tub).
3) In a training accident where the instructor shut down the good engine during an OE practice, the aircraft landed very hard and peeled itself apart, tail cone, landing gear, then roll over and all blades snapped off. I was the investigator, and opened the two doors that were still unopened with one hand, using the normal door handle. All four doors ft properly in their jambs because there was so little cabin distortion.
None of this is attempting to disprove that the latest helicopters that meet the newest regulations are better, but the S-76 is no slouch, and it is actually better than the older, less strong S-61. This debate can't go on, I simply can't start to denegrate one helo to prove another, as you have. You are technically and factually wrong, however. Like most opinions, yours seems right to you, based on the facts that you have, but not when all the facts available are layed out.
Have a Merry Christmas!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
No way am I trying to denegrate the 76, I make my living working on it, I am simply stating my views on what I feel is an area where the aircraft is weak.
You are correct that I do not have all data, not to many people have, all I can deal with is the facts as they are presented to me, the accidents that you refer probably didn't happen in the oil patch, so they didn't make the news.
As for the strength, build quality, of the 76 / 61 lets just agree to disagree.
Anyway its the festive season so lets forget about helicopters for a day or two.
Have a good one and all the best for 2005
Slainte,
PR
No way am I trying to denegrate the 76, I make my living working on it, I am simply stating my views on what I feel is an area where the aircraft is weak.
You are correct that I do not have all data, not to many people have, all I can deal with is the facts as they are presented to me, the accidents that you refer probably didn't happen in the oil patch, so they didn't make the news.
As for the strength, build quality, of the 76 / 61 lets just agree to disagree.
Anyway its the festive season so lets forget about helicopters for a day or two.
Have a good one and all the best for 2005
Slainte,
PR