EH101 Merlin
Gentlemen, let's give to Ceasar what belongs unto Him.
Nick's quote: "At 198 knots, they must have been feeding the engines dynamite, or have been in the proverbial "shallow dive" was referring to the BERP IV blades trials report and not the in flight refuelling carried out behind an Italian aircraft.
And in case someone forgets, there are ALWAYS politics involved anytime a military program of ANY nation looks at airframes from another country for their domestic needs.
Especially in a great country like the USA with only one helicopter manufacturer left, the last two out of three helicopter programs were awarded to foreign airframes.
Nick's quote: "At 198 knots, they must have been feeding the engines dynamite, or have been in the proverbial "shallow dive" was referring to the BERP IV blades trials report and not the in flight refuelling carried out behind an Italian aircraft.
And in case someone forgets, there are ALWAYS politics involved anytime a military program of ANY nation looks at airframes from another country for their domestic needs.
Especially in a great country like the USA with only one helicopter manufacturer left, the last two out of three helicopter programs were awarded to foreign airframes.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dmanton300, ZH844:
Before you go trash talking, you might want to read a bit more carefully. If you look at this post:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=571
you will see that it contains the following:
Now if you go read Nick's post (carefully this time), you will see that it contains the following:
Nowhere does Nick's post suggest that they were doing 198 knots while refueling.
Before you go trash talking, you might want to read a bit more carefully. If you look at this post:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=571
you will see that it contains the following:
y 2008 on the UK's Royal Air Force fleet of AW101 Merlin Mk.3A helicopters. The BERP IV program commenced in 2000 with a technology selection and integration phase leading to the design and manufacturing phase in 2002. The blades first flew in September 2006 and have now completed a 13 month flight test programme during which the AW101 was flown at speeds up to 198 knots and at altitudes of 13,000 ft.
At 198 knots, they must have been feeding the engines dynamite, or have been in the proverbial "shallow dive".
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point OF. Mr Lappos apparently waited for the topic to deviate into the specifics of the AAR trials before throwing that nugget in without quoting it's source directly. One could almost assume he did that deliberately to mislead.If one were more suspicious than me. Which one clearly isn't. Damn my suspicious mind! Funny that. So what's actually happened is that Mr Lappos has swanned in and started gainsaying another piece of information or statistic in a sneery "yeah, right!" kind of way because it'd never do to complement the team on an achievement, then make a sneery remark about the number of blades needed because he's read a report somewhere that contains such words as "would" rather than "will", but chooses to ignore the fundamentally different patina the use of such words casts on the report in a continuing effort to fight a corner he's no longer even holding the towel in, never mind fighting from?
Oh right. In that case my point stands. . . .
Stand by for further specious "crashworthiness" facts and figures, just don't stand by for further news of the snowballing success story that is the CH-148 to date. Oh look, I made a sneery remark. Easy eh?
Oh right. In that case my point stands. . . .
Stand by for further specious "crashworthiness" facts and figures, just don't stand by for further news of the snowballing success story that is the CH-148 to date. Oh look, I made a sneery remark. Easy eh?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dmanton300, Grow up. You are foolish enough to misread the press release, then you misunderstand my post, then you slur me. How about some common sense here, guy? If you can't be bright, at least be civil.
Perhaps the VH-71 program ain't as dead as "someone" posting on these pages would like others to think, but hey everything he said has proved right so far...
http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/D...3-42f614bd0bba
My apologies for a partially out of context entry, but dang! Boeing loses Air Force Tanker competition to EADS, aka the Airbus Consortium.
Chalk another one for the Euros I guess.
Perhaps the Mexicans and the Venezuelans can buy Boeing instead, to refuel their Sukhoi fighters.
http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/D...3-42f614bd0bba
My apologies for a partially out of context entry, but dang! Boeing loses Air Force Tanker competition to EADS, aka the Airbus Consortium.
Chalk another one for the Euros I guess.
Perhaps the Mexicans and the Venezuelans can buy Boeing instead, to refuel their Sukhoi fighters.
Last edited by tottigol; 1st Mar 2008 at 00:15.
I agree - anyone that thought Nick had any intent of inferring the 198 kts was referring to AAR either needs to brush up on their speed reading skills or take a conspiracy theory rain check.
BTW, 198 kts for a modern rotor is not unusual - there are plenty of reasons to impose much lower Vnes than have actually been demonstrated in flight, and generally they have nothing to do with RBS or Mach effects.
BTW, 198 kts for a modern rotor is not unusual - there are plenty of reasons to impose much lower Vnes than have actually been demonstrated in flight, and generally they have nothing to do with RBS or Mach effects.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Nick's problem was the article made it seem like the helo could maintain 198 in level flight.
EDIT: What's the sideward flight capability of the 101?
EDIT: What's the sideward flight capability of the 101?
Last edited by busdriver02; 2nd Mar 2008 at 18:32.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"dmanton:
You were wrong. So be a man and apologize."
Actually, I don't have a problem with that, and have no issue with apologising for my confusion. So without further ado, I apologise to Mr Lappos for misinterpreting his comments, it was based on their appearance at that time in the thread, and my erroneous interpretation of such.
That said, it is a basic fact that in regard to the -101/S-92 debate he has exhibited little but sour grapes and sneary derision for a number of years now, all the while remaining remarkably silent about things like the continued delay to the Cyclone programme, delays which are, to be blunt, exposing Canadian pilots to further, and in many's opinion unacceptable risks which would appear to be largely due to unrealistic promises made in the bidding stage and are now coming home to roost with nary a peep from anyone on here. It's that "free pass" I alluded to earlier.
I have no problem with opinions and debates, it is after a rumour forum. But the apparant ready willingness of people to accept anything he says as gospel simply due to his (and I'll say it again for any who missed it first time - extremely impressive!) past is almost pavlovian in quality.
But I guess history will be the final arbiter of the S-92/-101 debate won't it? For now my opinion remains the the -92 is just an S-61 with forty years of development and ideal for those looking for a 21st century S-61, but militarily is pretty much a solution looking for a problem. Canadian political machinations aside, a square peg in a round hole.
Maybe I should just go back to lurking and reading? I can see pitchforks and torches on the hill, and somebody just started playing track two side two of Moving Pictures again!
You were wrong. So be a man and apologize."
Actually, I don't have a problem with that, and have no issue with apologising for my confusion. So without further ado, I apologise to Mr Lappos for misinterpreting his comments, it was based on their appearance at that time in the thread, and my erroneous interpretation of such.
That said, it is a basic fact that in regard to the -101/S-92 debate he has exhibited little but sour grapes and sneary derision for a number of years now, all the while remaining remarkably silent about things like the continued delay to the Cyclone programme, delays which are, to be blunt, exposing Canadian pilots to further, and in many's opinion unacceptable risks which would appear to be largely due to unrealistic promises made in the bidding stage and are now coming home to roost with nary a peep from anyone on here. It's that "free pass" I alluded to earlier.
I have no problem with opinions and debates, it is after a rumour forum. But the apparant ready willingness of people to accept anything he says as gospel simply due to his (and I'll say it again for any who missed it first time - extremely impressive!) past is almost pavlovian in quality.
But I guess history will be the final arbiter of the S-92/-101 debate won't it? For now my opinion remains the the -92 is just an S-61 with forty years of development and ideal for those looking for a 21st century S-61, but militarily is pretty much a solution looking for a problem. Canadian political machinations aside, a square peg in a round hole.
Maybe I should just go back to lurking and reading? I can see pitchforks and torches on the hill, and somebody just started playing track two side two of Moving Pictures again!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dmanton300,
No apology is necessary, just please do not believe that I intend to deceive or misrepresent any facts. While some folks wallow in opinions and blurry impressions drawn from their perusal of press releases and gazes at photos on the net, I have spent years as an engineer, studying the precise data in flight manuals and technical papers. I have facts at my disposal when I post, and I find it as frustrating as you do when these tiffs start.
I have added, cheerfully, to the heated debates in this forum, but it is most difficult when I post a fact and find folks jumping up and down with opinions that basically say "My father, helicopter, dragster, can beat your father, helicopter, dragster,etc."
The facts:
1) When I posted that the fuselage had to be redesigned to make it fit for modern military standards, everybody crapped on that. I called it substandard to modern military requirements, and that gave some blood pressure fits. Then Dangermouse posted that the new, stronger, crashworthy fuselage was flown and is now available. NOBODY ever even hinted that they were previously wrong. Nobody thanks the US taxpayer for making the EH-101 finally meet modern safety standards.
2) When I said that the VH-71 program was in jeopardy, dangermouse poohed my input, claimed all was right as rain, and was nasty as can be about my "biased" opinion. He was basically clueless, and he did not know that I have friends on the IDA group that studied how badly the program was going, billions and years behind. The US studied scrapping the program, but settled for just cutting it into 1/4 its previous size. Within weeks of my post, the stop-work on 3/4 of the program was announced. Last month, the Increment II was stopped, and it will probably be canceled. I was right, the Brit ppruners who crapped and moaned were wrong. Did anybody even admit how clueless they were?
To summarize - I have tried to post accurate facts, albeit facts that piss off those who see the Union Jack when a 101 flies by, but facts, none the less. You see them as "sour grapes and sneary derision" and that is fine, but they are ACCURATE sour grapes and ACCURATE derision.
For your latest snit, I insist - I never intended to link any 198 knot refuel capability, and I never intended, and (frankly never intend) to devise some slim half-truth to make a slimy point. I leave that to those who have blind patriotism (or jingoism) so tightly symbolized in their pet helicopter that they can't see the facts if they are laid out in front of them!
No apology is necessary, just please do not believe that I intend to deceive or misrepresent any facts. While some folks wallow in opinions and blurry impressions drawn from their perusal of press releases and gazes at photos on the net, I have spent years as an engineer, studying the precise data in flight manuals and technical papers. I have facts at my disposal when I post, and I find it as frustrating as you do when these tiffs start.
I have added, cheerfully, to the heated debates in this forum, but it is most difficult when I post a fact and find folks jumping up and down with opinions that basically say "My father, helicopter, dragster, can beat your father, helicopter, dragster,etc."
The facts:
1) When I posted that the fuselage had to be redesigned to make it fit for modern military standards, everybody crapped on that. I called it substandard to modern military requirements, and that gave some blood pressure fits. Then Dangermouse posted that the new, stronger, crashworthy fuselage was flown and is now available. NOBODY ever even hinted that they were previously wrong. Nobody thanks the US taxpayer for making the EH-101 finally meet modern safety standards.
2) When I said that the VH-71 program was in jeopardy, dangermouse poohed my input, claimed all was right as rain, and was nasty as can be about my "biased" opinion. He was basically clueless, and he did not know that I have friends on the IDA group that studied how badly the program was going, billions and years behind. The US studied scrapping the program, but settled for just cutting it into 1/4 its previous size. Within weeks of my post, the stop-work on 3/4 of the program was announced. Last month, the Increment II was stopped, and it will probably be canceled. I was right, the Brit ppruners who crapped and moaned were wrong. Did anybody even admit how clueless they were?
To summarize - I have tried to post accurate facts, albeit facts that piss off those who see the Union Jack when a 101 flies by, but facts, none the less. You see them as "sour grapes and sneary derision" and that is fine, but they are ACCURATE sour grapes and ACCURATE derision.
For your latest snit, I insist - I never intended to link any 198 knot refuel capability, and I never intended, and (frankly never intend) to devise some slim half-truth to make a slimy point. I leave that to those who have blind patriotism (or jingoism) so tightly symbolized in their pet helicopter that they can't see the facts if they are laid out in front of them!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in case someone forgets, there are ALWAYS politics involved anytime a military program of ANY nation looks at airframes from another country for their domestic needs.
Especially in a great country like the USA with only one helicopter manufacturer left, the last two out of three helicopter programs were awarded to foreign airframes.
Especially in a great country like the USA with only one helicopter manufacturer left, the last two out of three helicopter programs were awarded to foreign airframes.
In light of the EADS Tanker contract somebody over in the Military Aircrew Forum acuartely pointed out, that if America want's to sell weapons to the rest of the world, they should allow foreign technology to enter their market as well.
The EH-101 might be the "not so new" technology compared to the S-92 (although their respective maiden flight lies only 8 years apart - eons in aviaton I know, so pardon my ignorance!), but if it helps as a political instrument...
Might be a long shot, but eventually even Sikorsky could benefit from opening their market - at least the public opinion in other governments would improve, helping them to sell a few more S-92's in the long run!? Maybe less prestigious but maybe - only maybe - they might even sell more military versions than they would have sold to the presidential helicopter program? I mean after all United Technologies claims to do 62% of their business internationally.
Just my two cents...
P.S: The people who have argued that the S-92 is far more superior than the EH-101 because of advanced technologies (I do not doubt that!), probably shouldn't bitch and moan about the afore mentioned tanker contract. The A330 design is after all 10 years "younger" than the 767 right? But maybe that's all politics as well, huh?
Nick,
There is something to be said for "jingoism" and the like....why were would I be if that were a banned form of post here?
What I find entertaining is you get the spears.....and I get tagged as "fishing".
Of course being known as a "half wit" allows me some latitude in what I say whereas you Sir do not have that defense.
There is something to be said for "jingoism" and the like....why were would I be if that were a banned form of post here?
What I find entertaining is you get the spears.....and I get tagged as "fishing".
Of course being known as a "half wit" allows me some latitude in what I say whereas you Sir do not have that defense.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this isn't an mud slinging post!!
believe me I really don't wish to get into another mud slinging session as in this case I don't think Nick and I have a problem. Like Nick I am an engineer with access to equivalent (or nearly so) data and also have conections with the VH71 team so I also speak from a position of 'authority' as he does, each of us is sure of their view point and 'spin' can be a wonderful thing. I freely admit my bias, given Nicks involvement with the S92 it would be unnatural not to expect some leaning in one direction from him as well (after all we are only human)
Whilst some of Nicks past assertions have been truthful (such as the delays in the programme, most of which have not been caused by a design shortcoming) others have been complete baloney (such as the lack of hover capability of the 101).
In all this it has been easy to naysay the 101 due to the fact that we will never know how much of a delay in an equivalent S92 based VH71 programme there would have been (although the Cyclone contract may give a clue) there is only hard information available for one side of that argument, so it is a moot point.
NAVAIR have not cancelled the Vh71 contract (nor are they going to, the USN review of a few weeks ago confirmed that the decision to procure the 101 was the correct one), new aircraft are being built/flown both in the UK and at Pax (see last weeks announcement) and the entry to service date has not slipped. I believe the 1/4 reduction was caused by a funding request ommission within the Navy budget rather than any technical problems with the aircraft.
The VXX specification was unique and some degree of baseline aircraft change was always going to be in order (regardless of the selected type) the thing that gets under my skin (and I suspect other UK posters as well) is the constant use of phraseology that implies the 101 is an unsafe product, the fact that the 101 design is doing sterling service in combat and in SAR operations is proof that this is not true. The same argument could be made that the 747 is also not up to current design standards and therefore also shouldnt be 'trusted' so maybe a A380 should replace the presidents E4.
I am sure I have said this before
the decision has been made, get over it
DM
Whilst some of Nicks past assertions have been truthful (such as the delays in the programme, most of which have not been caused by a design shortcoming) others have been complete baloney (such as the lack of hover capability of the 101).
In all this it has been easy to naysay the 101 due to the fact that we will never know how much of a delay in an equivalent S92 based VH71 programme there would have been (although the Cyclone contract may give a clue) there is only hard information available for one side of that argument, so it is a moot point.
NAVAIR have not cancelled the Vh71 contract (nor are they going to, the USN review of a few weeks ago confirmed that the decision to procure the 101 was the correct one), new aircraft are being built/flown both in the UK and at Pax (see last weeks announcement) and the entry to service date has not slipped. I believe the 1/4 reduction was caused by a funding request ommission within the Navy budget rather than any technical problems with the aircraft.
The VXX specification was unique and some degree of baseline aircraft change was always going to be in order (regardless of the selected type) the thing that gets under my skin (and I suspect other UK posters as well) is the constant use of phraseology that implies the 101 is an unsafe product, the fact that the 101 design is doing sterling service in combat and in SAR operations is proof that this is not true. The same argument could be made that the 747 is also not up to current design standards and therefore also shouldnt be 'trusted' so maybe a A380 should replace the presidents E4.
I am sure I have said this before
the decision has been made, get over it
DM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giving credit where its due.
Nick, perhaps all this tongue-wagging has to do with the US never giving the Europeans credit when credit was due. After all, Igor was allowed to come over and show us how it is done. Perhaps this short story will help smooth some feathers;
While sitting at a Heathrow pub waiting for a Pan Am flight (2?) home and watching (on the telly) the lift-off of one of the space shuttle’s first launches, two Brits sitting along side me remarked that if it hadn’t been for England’s special grass blend that allowed very little sand and wind erosion near the ocean, Cape Canaveral wouldn’t even exist today to launch those shuttles.
Let me be the first to offer a rather belated “Thank You” to the Brits for their contribution to our space program.
While sitting at a Heathrow pub waiting for a Pan Am flight (2?) home and watching (on the telly) the lift-off of one of the space shuttle’s first launches, two Brits sitting along side me remarked that if it hadn’t been for England’s special grass blend that allowed very little sand and wind erosion near the ocean, Cape Canaveral wouldn’t even exist today to launch those shuttles.
Let me be the first to offer a rather belated “Thank You” to the Brits for their contribution to our space program.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a response to Cordy
There is a bit of misunderstanding going on here, the EH101 is a crash worthy helicopter and has certification in the UK, Italy and the USA as such, just to an earlier (less demanding) set of rules, but good enough to transport paying passengers in.
Some other helicopters meet a later set but that doesnt mean the EH101 (or any other aircraft from that time) is dangerous or lethal in a crash, it is far more survivable than a Ch47, Puma or any UH1 variant for instance.
DM
Some other helicopters meet a later set but that doesnt mean the EH101 (or any other aircraft from that time) is dangerous or lethal in a crash, it is far more survivable than a Ch47, Puma or any UH1 variant for instance.
DM
Thank you Dan, we know that must have been a real effort coming from you.
I hope it was not like having a baby (I mean the pain).
You see, one of the problems with the current US Military procurement system involves career officers.
After a certain point in their careers they are assigned to some new materiel program that entails direct contact with a defense contractor, after a few years their careers mostly end with a VP job associated with one contractor or the very same one the was in their direct line of contact (see the LUH program and of course this latest major debacle by Boeing for the KC-X program).
If someone at some corporate level believes that they do not need an effort in developing new technologies just because they can bag the contract from the inside, then is only their windfall if that does not happen.
And what company do you work for (or provide consultation services)?
I hope it was not like having a baby (I mean the pain).
You see, one of the problems with the current US Military procurement system involves career officers.
After a certain point in their careers they are assigned to some new materiel program that entails direct contact with a defense contractor, after a few years their careers mostly end with a VP job associated with one contractor or the very same one the was in their direct line of contact (see the LUH program and of course this latest major debacle by Boeing for the KC-X program).
If someone at some corporate level believes that they do not need an effort in developing new technologies just because they can bag the contract from the inside, then is only their windfall if that does not happen.
And what company do you work for (or provide consultation services)?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You’re welcome tottigol but it really was no effort at all in thanking someone for their efforts in support of our Country’s space program. ‘Hands across the water’ and all that you know mate. I should have done it long ago!
Who are/is the other persons in the “We know that…” statement? I wasn’t aware of a peanut gallery at PPRuNe hanging on every word I spew.
Yes, you’re right of course. The ‘Not For Profit’ government side of our capitalistic system is jam-packed with ‘good ol’ boy’ pay-backs and a lot of time the very best product doesn’t get a “fair” shake at a contract. Kinda like the socialist system somewhat in the spreading around of the wealth rather than going to those or that which is most deserving and worked the hardest. The civilian side does do better though they have to balance initial costs with the bottom line once they start operating one of these collections of moving parts, so the best indicator would be a machine that is the safest regardless of the cost. A VIPed-out H-60 comes to mind right away.
It’s been a pleasure Sir and “No,” I am not a consultant to no one now unless I see you rigging up a fishing rod wrong.
Who are/is the other persons in the “We know that…” statement? I wasn’t aware of a peanut gallery at PPRuNe hanging on every word I spew.
Yes, you’re right of course. The ‘Not For Profit’ government side of our capitalistic system is jam-packed with ‘good ol’ boy’ pay-backs and a lot of time the very best product doesn’t get a “fair” shake at a contract. Kinda like the socialist system somewhat in the spreading around of the wealth rather than going to those or that which is most deserving and worked the hardest. The civilian side does do better though they have to balance initial costs with the bottom line once they start operating one of these collections of moving parts, so the best indicator would be a machine that is the safest regardless of the cost. A VIPed-out H-60 comes to mind right away.
It’s been a pleasure Sir and “No,” I am not a consultant to no one now unless I see you rigging up a fishing rod wrong.
two Brits sitting along side me remarked that if it hadn’t been for England’s special grass blend that allowed very little sand and wind erosion near the ocean, Cape Canaveral wouldn’t even exist today to launch those shuttles.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EH101 crashworthiness?
I know of 10 RN crew members that owe their lives in some part to the crashworthiness of the EH101...
Most helicopters would fold when hitting the sea at 70-80 kts, nose down and right wing low...the Merlin didn't and the boys are here to tell the tell....
I know of 10 RN crew members that owe their lives in some part to the crashworthiness of the EH101...
Most helicopters would fold when hitting the sea at 70-80 kts, nose down and right wing low...the Merlin didn't and the boys are here to tell the tell....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Portugal grounds half of EH101 fleet
Didn't we just go through this with Denmark a couple of weeks back?
Lack of spares grounds Portuguese helicopters
Diario de Noticias website © BBC 2008-03-11
The Portuguese air force (FAP) has grounded "about 50 per cent" of its EH-101 helicopters due to a shortage of spare parts - some of the helicopters "have been cannibalized" to keep the remainder flying. Several FAP sources told Diario de Noticias yesterday that this branch of the armed forces is experiencing a "critical and very difficult situation": on the one hand the company Agusta-Westland cannot supply enough parts to keep the 12 helicopters flying; on the other hand the Defence Ministry has still not yet signed the contract for the operation of the aircraft.
Lack of spares grounds Portuguese helicopters
Diario de Noticias website © BBC 2008-03-11
The Portuguese air force (FAP) has grounded "about 50 per cent" of its EH-101 helicopters due to a shortage of spare parts - some of the helicopters "have been cannibalized" to keep the remainder flying. Several FAP sources told Diario de Noticias yesterday that this branch of the armed forces is experiencing a "critical and very difficult situation": on the one hand the company Agusta-Westland cannot supply enough parts to keep the 12 helicopters flying; on the other hand the Defence Ministry has still not yet signed the contract for the operation of the aircraft.