S-61
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avon, CT, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-61
Does anyone have any info on the availability of S-61's, their cost, fuel burn per hour, Direct Operating Costs per hour. Are they a high maintenance ship? I hear Heli-Jet is using one for scheduled passenger service in Canada, how does it compare to the S-76?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading in Rotor & Wing some years ago that the S-61 required about 5 maintenance hours per flight hour in offshore operations in the North Sea. For comparison the Super Puma required something like 15 maintenance hours per flight hour in the same environment.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are you sure of this figure for the SuperPuma?
Considering they fly around 1700-2000 hours a year, that would mean around 3 years of non-stop maintenance for each flying year
(let's take 1800hours, x15 = 27000 hours = 1125 days !)
Or am I wrong about the hours flown each year?
Considering they fly around 1700-2000 hours a year, that would mean around 3 years of non-stop maintenance for each flying year
(let's take 1800hours, x15 = 27000 hours = 1125 days !)Or am I wrong about the hours flown each year?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the article over 20 years ago but it sticks in my mind. Perhaps someone else can clarify this. Incidentally, the point of the article was that the S-61 was an excellent offshore machine and was being phased out because it didn't meet the new standards for OEI operation in the North Sea.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason why the S61 is being 'phased out' is because it does not meet the more stringent certification requirements of FAR 29 (post AL 47) alluded to in most of Nick Lappos's posts.
The S61 can meet the second segment climb and en-route performance required by most operational regulations but its legs are a little short. It will not be able meet the more stringent requirements for PC2e (with a decent payload) that the major oil companies are now requiring for new contracts.
Mars
The S61 can meet the second segment climb and en-route performance required by most operational regulations but its legs are a little short. It will not be able meet the more stringent requirements for PC2e (with a decent payload) that the major oil companies are now requiring for new contracts.
Mars
That's Life!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out of the sand pit, carving a path through our jungle.
Age: 72
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One drawback to that is that Sikorsky are unwilling to 're-write' the FM, so you are stuck with the original performance figures. People know that the Carson blades do offer a significant increase in performance, BUT, when it can't be be proven through the FM.......
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the rumours true about the Carson blade fit on a 61 being capable of giving 92's and 225's a run for the money?
If so, why did Sikorsky spend so much money on the 92 rather than do what Boeing have done with the 747 (similar era to the 61), ie continue to develope a successful airframe?
If so, why did Sikorsky spend so much money on the 92 rather than do what Boeing have done with the 747 (similar era to the 61), ie continue to develope a successful airframe?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky does not need to re-write the flight manual for the Carson blades.
This is something accomplished by a supplement. Carson already has an approved supplement for their blades. However, as far as I know they have not completed testing to included an amended WAT chart. That is where the problem lies. The blades DO increase performance greatly, you just can't legally use the extra payload numbers until the WAT chart is amended.
Carson has stated that they are confident that a new WAT chart would give an increase of CAT A weight of at least 1400 lbs, or in other terms a 10 deg C reduction. I.E. on the Sikorsky WAT chart on a 28 degree day you would enter the chart at 18 degrees to see what the Carson blades would give you.
Even without the supp, the increase of 10-15 kts in TAS = less fuel required = more payload.
cheers
This is something accomplished by a supplement. Carson already has an approved supplement for their blades. However, as far as I know they have not completed testing to included an amended WAT chart. That is where the problem lies. The blades DO increase performance greatly, you just can't legally use the extra payload numbers until the WAT chart is amended.
Carson has stated that they are confident that a new WAT chart would give an increase of CAT A weight of at least 1400 lbs, or in other terms a 10 deg C reduction. I.E. on the Sikorsky WAT chart on a 28 degree day you would enter the chart at 18 degrees to see what the Carson blades would give you.
Even without the supp, the increase of 10-15 kts in TAS = less fuel required = more payload.
cheers
