PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th Mar 2017, 14:46   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,496
Marine One Helis

In Bloomberg Business Week, an excellent article published on March 14 by Garrett M. Graft reviews in detail plans to renew both Air Force One aircraft and new ones proposed for Marine One Helicopers. At present, the presidential helicopters include 11 Sea Kings, 8 White Hawks, and a number of Super Stallions and Sea Kings, which follow the President around the world in cargo aircraft, so he never has to depend on local transport.

After a lot of kerfluffle, apparently Sikorsky will be providing the new ships, the S92. The current Marine One type has been in use since 1974.

The article in Bloomberg, though long and detailed, is very amusing, and well worth a read. I wonder if any of you Rotorheads have seen it? and what do you think of the aircraft under consideration...
mary meagher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Mar 2017, 16:24   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 539
The tale of the sea king replacement in both Canada for MHP and for "Marine One" / VXX is a long a sordid story, befitting a soap opera.

There were many long-winded threads here and elsewhere discussing the merits of the S/H-92 versus EH101 for both contracts.
SansAnhedral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Mar 2017, 06:15   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 583
I believe the US Marines currently operate several V-22's specifically for transporting US federal executive administration officials.
riff_raff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Mar 2017, 12:16   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 981
The finances expended in the provision of aircraft resources for all Presidents appear to be the biggest factor in ensuring that the UK will never get rid of the Queen!

The US President [and Presidential Heads of State in general] seem to require so much gear to get them from here to there that its a first class case for actually creating a monarchy from scratch!

Poor old Queenie [Lizzie 2] has her own helicopter, which she paid for out of her pension and can call upon some aircraft of the RAF and British Airways when they have been brushed out and polished [never more than one available].

They take off without any ceremony from the nearest available airport without air exclusion zones that ground the fare paying public and leave them in their lesser aircraft fuming as their 45 minute reserves are burned off.... and usually without ceremony.

Indeed the US Presidents announce their impending presence by the very announcement of air exclusion zones ..... [is it safe?]

Any yet the Brit Head of State seems to manage to get around the world without undue fuss, still has an old railway train set of carriages, a couple of Rolls Royces and a Land Rover ...... She even sneaks around London wearing a headscarf and wellington boots....

Now how many 747s and helicopters does it take to move a President?
PANews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th Mar 2017, 14:08   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 971
I was in Normandy when Obama visited in 2014.
I think there were fewer assets available in 1944.
What a huge operation.
I was not impressed how difficult it was to move around on June 6.
Omaha Beach cemetery...completely taken over.
Fortunately we were at Juno.
albatross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2017, 11:22   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 69
Posts: 6,708
I'm sure I read a few weeks ago that Donald had ordered the cancellation of both new 'Air Force 1s' as they were too expensive, the implication in the article being that he thought Boeing were deliberately inflating the costs.
chevvron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2017, 16:16   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 860
Way back when there was still a competition (before the Secret Service ran amok with requirements creep on the VH-71 and the re-tendered contract could only be fulfilled by Sikorsky.....) I had a look at both mock ups at Heli Expo. The 101 mock up was spacious and roomy, the S-92 however felt cramped. I dare say that the new POTUS will need to stoop to get in/out. The Merlin has become a top rate VVIP helicopter whereas the S-92 is carving a niche in SAR/Offshore work. I think that probably says a lot about the relative merits of each design....
Evalu8ter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2017, 16:43   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 6,171
They'll need a bigger helicopter to carry the new President's ego...............
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2017, 16:53   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 971
Ike got along with a Bell 47-J.
Requirements change I guess.
albatross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2017, 17:05   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evalu8ter
I dare say that the new POTUS will need to stoop to get in/out.
In terms of cabin height both platforms are identical (6.0 ft / 1.83 m). 45 is taller than this (as was 44), but since the aircraft's fielding date is 2020 it remains to be seen whether the first CINC flying the VH-92 will have to stoop.

The S-92's cabin is a little shorter that the AW101's (20.0 ft vs 21.3 ft), but the main difference is in cabin width (6.6 ft vs 8.2 ft), driving a 30% difference in cabin volume (700 cu. ft. vs. 970 cu. ft.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SansAnhedral
There were many long-winded threads here and elsewhere discussing the merits of the S/H-92 versus EH101 for both contracts.
To wit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevvron
I'm sure I read a few weeks ago that Donald had ordered the cancellation of both new 'Air Force 1s' as they were too expensive
Grab some popcorn: US Air Force One replacement - President-elect Trump's view

I/C

Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 20th Mar 2017 at 11:25. Reason: Cabin volumes corrected
Ian Corrigible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 00:12   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Victoria, Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 3,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Corrigible View Post
In terms of cabin height both platforms are identical (6.0 ft / 1.83 m).

The S-92's cabin is a little shorter that the AW101's (20.0 ft vs 21.3 ft), but the main difference is in cabin width (6.6 ft vs 8.2 ft), driving a 30% difference in cabin volume (20 cu. ft. vs. 28 cu. ft.).
My basic math gives the volumes as 1,048 cu ft for the AW101, and 792 cu ft for the S-92.

Maybe 29.7 vs 22.4 cubic metres? Excuse the pedantry
John Eacott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 11:29   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,765
John,

Thanks for the catch. Published volumes for both platforms are 970 cu. ft. and 700 cu. ft., the difference being explained by the fact that neither cabin is of a simple 'box' layout (e.g. tapered headroom, etc.).

Cheers,
I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 18:29.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1