Sikorsky wins Presidential helo competition
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HL
At least you acknowledge that this had little to do with the best or most appropriate product for the job, and has MUCH to do with US politics....
I don't believe I qualified my statement about aircraft "bidding for the VXX", but since you mention it, every combat helicopter qualified, including the maligned but battle proven AW-101, has to qualify a level of run dry capability for the MGB in case of battle damage.
Also, as the First FAR Part 29 qualified aircraft, its interesting they chose to bypass the run-dry test for the S-92 in lieu of paperwork. However, several FAR part 29 and 27 aircraft have met or exceeded the 30 min run dry test. AW139, AW189 (50 min), AW169 (pending), AIRBUS EC-175,NH-90 (Military), EC-145T2, Bell 429, Bell 525 (pending) just to name a few.......
Why would they put the Pres. of the US in a helicopter that hasn't proven a basic capability resident in the rest of the FAR 29/27 commercial and combat helicopter fleet? I am confident the Navy will pick up the tab to ensure the S-92 develops the capability tho.....
I don't think asking legitimate questions regarding what is being widely reported is Anti-Sikorsky. I just think that when a DoD supplier keeps getting non-competed contract awards (after all competition is a condition, and not a label that gets applied), and for this vendor its constant (Navy MH-60s, USAF CRH, CH-53K, and VXX), you end getting shortchanged in terms of quality and price. Much like the US car companies in the 70's when they were protected from competition. It wasn't until barriers were removed, and true competition took place did market factors take over. Ultimately US car companies were forced to produce a better product at a better price (FACT). Same applies here.
When certified in 2004, the S-92 was the first (and only) rotorcraft in the world certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, at the time the latest US safety regulations, as well as the equivalent European Aviation Safety Agency/Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) standards, so would you care to inform us of any other helicopters considered for the VXX competition which are either equal to, or newer in certification compliance than the S-92A?
Also, as the First FAR Part 29 qualified aircraft, its interesting they chose to bypass the run-dry test for the S-92 in lieu of paperwork. However, several FAR part 29 and 27 aircraft have met or exceeded the 30 min run dry test. AW139, AW189 (50 min), AW169 (pending), AIRBUS EC-175,NH-90 (Military), EC-145T2, Bell 429, Bell 525 (pending) just to name a few.......
Why would they put the Pres. of the US in a helicopter that hasn't proven a basic capability resident in the rest of the FAR 29/27 commercial and combat helicopter fleet? I am confident the Navy will pick up the tab to ensure the S-92 develops the capability tho.....
I don't think asking legitimate questions regarding what is being widely reported is Anti-Sikorsky. I just think that when a DoD supplier keeps getting non-competed contract awards (after all competition is a condition, and not a label that gets applied), and for this vendor its constant (Navy MH-60s, USAF CRH, CH-53K, and VXX), you end getting shortchanged in terms of quality and price. Much like the US car companies in the 70's when they were protected from competition. It wasn't until barriers were removed, and true competition took place did market factors take over. Ultimately US car companies were forced to produce a better product at a better price (FACT). Same applies here.
I am sure that there is sufficient funding in the new VXX, at $206M per aircraft, to redesign the transmission.
Why would they ever risk the Pres. of the US in an aircraft that doesn't provide the same capability as every new civil certified helicopter has to meet today?
Turned out to be true, in spades.
This recollection informed my terse little example letter up there to the folks now undertaking to make this program work.
VH-92 MGB
Stinger, the 92 box has the same outward layout, and that's about where it ends.
Almost forgot, the 53K spec calls out a 30 min run dry capability, so while I have not seen this VH requirement document, it would seem a safe bet that NAVAIR requirements will be consistent.
Almost forgot, the 53K spec calls out a 30 min run dry capability, so while I have not seen this VH requirement document, it would seem a safe bet that NAVAIR requirements will be consistent.
Don't forget that although the 101 is a military machine it is civil certified. Only one civil operator though, Japan Police. Market they were aiming for was offshore oil, but the cost and the small number of rigs that could take it killed that idea.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L/W & JD
......the aircraft system was not mature enough to compete or even have a seat at the table.
So what has the S-92 developed in the last 10 years? They are a good Off-shore aircraft. The only attempt to militatrize the S-92 (Cyclone) IS considered the "worst acquisition program in Canadian history" by the PM of Canada. Is there any doubt that the new S-92 VXX will be about as standard as the President's limo?
Almost forgot, the 53K spec calls out a 30 min run dry capability, so while I have not seen this VH requirement document, it would seem a safe bet that NAVAIR requirements will be consistent.
SO unless NAVAIR is going to change the basic premise and objective of the program, which I contend would have allowed more bidders to compete, what you see, is what you get.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noooby
I recall AW saying that civil cert was too long ago to be valid for the current 101. NAVAIR not accepting the military cert for the 101 as valid was the reason the team of NGC & AW decided not to bid, if I remember the press stories....
The VXX S-92 will almost certainly have an ALS fitted.
But I am sure now we will likely see the completion of the long awaited, much ballyhooed in 2008, yet currently conspicuously missing Improved-Durability MGB for the S-92.
Its almost like Sikorsky intended to use the funding from the initial VXX competition back in 2004 to help fund the requisite MHP upgrades (or perhaps vice versa).
But now 10 years later, this award just may help ballast the steaming pile of repeated failures that is the CH-148 and get the guys in Fort Worth to finish off the new box for use in both programs.
None of this really solves the S-92's desperate need for a 5th blade, which was on the drawing board from all the way back on VXX's first time around.
But I am sure now we will likely see the completion of the long awaited, much ballyhooed in 2008, yet currently conspicuously missing Improved-Durability MGB for the S-92.
Its almost like Sikorsky intended to use the funding from the initial VXX competition back in 2004 to help fund the requisite MHP upgrades (or perhaps vice versa).
But now 10 years later, this award just may help ballast the steaming pile of repeated failures that is the CH-148 and get the guys in Fort Worth to finish off the new box for use in both programs.
None of this really solves the S-92's desperate need for a 5th blade, which was on the drawing board from all the way back on VXX's first time around.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANH
BINGO. Your tax dollars hard at work, instead of the company paying for the R&D like they proposed in Canada.
IF they put a compliant MGB and 5th blade on the S-92, it will be everything intended, and a very strong aircraft in every way.
IF they put a compliant MGB and 5th blade on the S-92, it will be everything intended, and a very strong aircraft in every way.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that will all put more cost on the aircraft. As it stands a 'standard' 40 million USD 92 ends up costing more once you pay for the replacement parts required to solve the problems of lack lustre and plain lazy design on the OEM's part. Now imagine all the things they'll charge for when it comes to VXX, new MGB, 5th blade, and that's just the start……
Synical but waiting with baited breath to hear about the final product.
H
Synical but waiting with baited breath to hear about the final product.
H
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VXX part1 rules
If I recall correctly the original VXX spec stated that no credit could be taken for any existing qualification, so the fact that the 101 was military and civil certified and the 92 was Jar29 certified was actually irrelevant to NAVAIR, the entire aircraft (whatever was selected) was going to be fully qualified against a set of NAVAIR requirements.
is the same still true?
is the same still true?
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM
That's not accurate. You had to have either a current US military cert, or a current civil cert. So if you fell in the middle like an AW101 or NH-90, you were not considered currently certified and made you a non-starter compared to a currently US military or civil certified aircraft.
Also, the NAVAIR plan was to have the FAA certification maintained and only have NAVAIR certify certain elements of the aircraft that the FAA would waive. Which means the aircraft would have to go through STC's for any changes and be maintained by FAA certified mechs which HMX-1 doesn't have. They still use Marine maintenance for security reasons.
All this remains to be seen whether it can be accomplished or is really an end run around the NAVAIR testing mandate, which they would impose if the aircraft is going to be certified by them. (See P-8 program). If the NAVY ends up certifying the entire aircraft, then other vendors would have submitted proposals because ANY existing certification would have been simply a starting point for the Navy certification.
Also, the NAVAIR plan was to have the FAA certification maintained and only have NAVAIR certify certain elements of the aircraft that the FAA would waive. Which means the aircraft would have to go through STC's for any changes and be maintained by FAA certified mechs which HMX-1 doesn't have. They still use Marine maintenance for security reasons.
All this remains to be seen whether it can be accomplished or is really an end run around the NAVAIR testing mandate, which they would impose if the aircraft is going to be certified by them. (See P-8 program). If the NAVY ends up certifying the entire aircraft, then other vendors would have submitted proposals because ANY existing certification would have been simply a starting point for the Navy certification.
Funny, if you actually read my post, you'd realize I was not referring to the bid process that AW won. This was while S-92 was undergoing flight test, which means BEFORE THE FIRST COMMERCIAL DELIVERY!
I note the continual obsession with the term "compete."
I am not sure if you have noticed, but the aviation industry has been slowly consolidating, not expanding, over the last 15-20 years. That does not make for more competition, it makes for less.
No question NAVAIR made a meal of the 101 VH deal. I don't think anyone gets to declare victory on that score, other than whomever could win political points for cancelling a program that was a mess.
SO unless NAVAIR is going to change the basic premise and objective of the program, which I contend would have allowed more bidders to compete, what you see, is what you get.
I am not sure if you have noticed, but the aviation industry has been slowly consolidating, not expanding, over the last 15-20 years. That does not make for more competition, it makes for less.
No question NAVAIR made a meal of the 101 VH deal. I don't think anyone gets to declare victory on that score, other than whomever could win political points for cancelling a program that was a mess.
Is there actually any modicum of truth in the rumours that there was going to be a 5th blade added to the 92?
I've heard it from a million different people ranging from TREs to spotters and everyone in between.
I've heard it from a million different people ranging from TREs to spotters and everyone in between.
Is there actually any modicum of truth in the rumours that there was going to be a 5th blade added to the 92?
I've heard it from a million different people ranging from TREs to spotters and everyone in between.
I've heard it from a million different people ranging from TREs to spotters and everyone in between.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sans, of course, I meant filter, not cooler. Human error caused by late night fatigue. But the fact remains, the oil has largely stayed in the box ever since.
5th blade won't happen for civil S-92s anytime soon. SAC is selling all they can make right now, helicopter operators are making money with the aircraft and they are more dispatch reliable than the EC225.
5th blade won't happen for civil S-92s anytime soon. SAC is selling all they can make right now, helicopter operators are making money with the aircraft and they are more dispatch reliable than the EC225.
5th blade won't happen for civil S-92s anytime soon.
(Do you think this might precipitate a 92 that rides more like a 21st century helicopter than a 20th century tractor?)
Has no one noticed that a couple of VIP S-92 customers later upgraded to the AW101 ? What do they know that the US President has yet to find out?
S-92 Ride
LW and Sans,
In preparation for the original VH selection process, the SA 92 Program ( under Nick Lappos' leadership ) modified one of the test aircraft into what was essentially a VH Phase 1 compliant machine. In that machine were installed not three, but six* FG's ( force generators ) and the ride, both in the cockpit and cabin, was very good indeed.
* I think it was six. It was at least five, of that I am certain.
In preparation for the original VH selection process, the SA 92 Program ( under Nick Lappos' leadership ) modified one of the test aircraft into what was essentially a VH Phase 1 compliant machine. In that machine were installed not three, but six* FG's ( force generators ) and the ride, both in the cockpit and cabin, was very good indeed.
* I think it was six. It was at least five, of that I am certain.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again. According to the VXX program plan that NAVAIR just awarded, and claimed a cost savings victory on, as far as airframe development goes, whatever is CURRENTLY FAA certified on the S-92 is what they get. ANYTHING else either has to be done as an STC or it goes into the NAVAIR certification realm which opens the aircraft up to the same pitfalls of extensive testing that killed the VH-71 program. Which was where 90% of the cost growth in the VH-71 program developed, test time. (FACT)
L/W: imagine the vibration issues if the UH-60 were 6000 lbs heavier with the same 4 bladed system and blade chord width. That's the challenge. You can only do so much with FG's to null it out. 5th blade and slightly narrower blades are the next step.
The aircraft would live up to expectation and the aircraft Nick Lappos envisioned, IF they developed it as advertised: 5th blade, Upgraded transmission, FBW flight controls.
As is, the S-92 is exactly what the original name said it was a "HeliBus".
L/W: imagine the vibration issues if the UH-60 were 6000 lbs heavier with the same 4 bladed system and blade chord width. That's the challenge. You can only do so much with FG's to null it out. 5th blade and slightly narrower blades are the next step.
The aircraft would live up to expectation and the aircraft Nick Lappos envisioned, IF they developed it as advertised: 5th blade, Upgraded transmission, FBW flight controls.
SAC is selling all they can make right now, helicopter operators are making money with the aircraft and they are more dispatch reliable than the EC225.