Originally Posted by
JohnDixson
As to the S-92 range capability, it is a continuing puzzle to me that we ( well…Sikorsky ) never just copied what we did with the USAF H-3s and 53s and put external aux tanks attached to the sponsons. Not exactly rocket science.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Hi John:
Being as the Royal Canadian Navy mounts torpedoes on sponsons of the Cyclone variant of the S-92 it should be possible to mount Aux Tanks thereupon….( of course I am sure there will be tons of folk who will say it is impossible or will cost billions ).
Last place I was based with the mighty 92 we had two aux tanks in the cabin that allowed 7000 lbs of fuel total. Being as the rig was 280 Nm offshore through the ice and fog….we needed it….we required an onshore alternate …most I ever loaded was 6300 lbs.
Payload heading offshore was limited.
We needed min 560 nm range ( sometimes more ) plus 2 approaches to the rig and 2 onshore plus reserves.
Not to say the wx was problematic but one exceptionally bad WX week I did 4 trips to the rig and never saw anything but a blip on the radar. Nor did anyone else and we were doing min 2 trips a day out there.
“Are you sure they are still there? For all we know they upped stakes daze ago, the standby boat then towed them to Bermuda for vacation and we’ve been doing approaches to an iceberg or some Portuguese fishing boat!”
As to the 101 there is some very good stuff on You Tube by Mattfrom103 an RCAF SAR guy based in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador. They do some long trips.