Canadian Sea King replacement update

[Canadian Rotorhead]

Toronto Star report (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1090577919129&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154)

[donut king]

Well it's about time!

My government has actually made a wise choice, with the selection of Nick's S- 92.

Hope you can survive on our Tim Horton's coffee and DONUTS, Nick! It's part of the contract you know!!!!!

Congrats!

D.K

[NickLappos]

Thanks, Donut King! Tim Horton's is great coffee, and the donuts are might fine, too.

I have lots of friends flying lots of good, tough missions in Canada. We are really proud to be the provider for the MHP, and we are committed to fast delivery of a very fine machine!

[KENNYR]

Untested in military use, no one else has bought it, costs $5 billion. 170 Canadian manufacturers are to be contracted to make parts. A wise choice........I think not.

[donut king]

I fully respect your right to that opinion KennyR.

Yet, may I contradict your points:

Untested( military op's)..........no kidding, it"s a brand new a/c!

no other buyer.... wrong, ask others here who has bought them.

$5 billion...........money well spent on our military...remember our government has blown millions/billions on an idiotic gun registry!

Canadian contractors......hello......equals CANADIAN jobs!

D.K

p.s. apologies for the sarcasm!!!!

[Heliport]

Followup Toronto Star article Debate swirls around choice of helicopter
Canada called `guinea pig' for new model
Decision ends years of political bickering


OTTAWA —The federal government has flown into a whirlwind of debate with its choice of the Sikorsky H-92 helicopter to replace the obsolete fleet of Sea Kings.

The government rejected the only other competitor, the three-engine Cormorant, a British-Italian design similar to Cormorants already flying rescue missions for the Canadian military.

Canada is the first country to buy the Sikorsky design, which critics charge is a less capable, cheaper helicopter, the choice of which flies in the face of Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to deliver quality equipment for Canada's armed forces.

While civilian versions of the helicopter are flying, the military model, the H-92, is still on the drawing board and is unproven in military service.
"It's a paper aircraft," said one long-time observer of the process. "Canada is going to be the guinea pig to see if this bird will fly."

The cost of the deal is estimated at $5 billion, including a 20-year support contract with Sikorsky to help maintain the choppers, meant for anti-submarine patrols, surveillance and ship-borne duties.

Defence Minister Bill Graham, announcing the decision to buy 28 of the U.S.-built choppers, said yesterday "(the Sikorsky) represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians.
"The country will be getting a robust maritime helicopter that will meet our military needs for many years to come," Graham said at CFB Shearwater, near Halifax. He called it a "world-class helicopter that is at the forefront of modern technology" and called the selection process "fair, open and very rigorous."

There are concerns that the task of customizing the Sikorsky chopper for military use and the complex electronic hardware to go with it will delay deliveries and force Canada to keep its 40-year-old Sea Kings in the air for years.

Federal officials said there's little chance the helicopter maker will renege on the delivery deadlines.
"They've got a history of competence and capability and delivery that ranks with anybody," said Alan Williams, an assistant deputy minister in the defence department.

The company will build them in the United States while General Dynamics Canada will design the electronic hardware. The deal will mean $4.5 billion in investment and benefits to Canadian firms, government officials said.

The decision ends years of political bickering that dates back to the 1980s when defence officials embarked on a process to replace the 1960s-era Sea Kings.

Brian Mulroney's Conservative government ordered 50 EH-101 helicopters, a version of the Cormorant, as a replacement. But former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien denounced the pick as unaffordable and cancelled the contract in 1993, paying out close to $500 million in penalties.

Yesterday, military experts were at least cheering the fact that Ottawa had finally made a choice. "For the armed forces, it's good news," said Alain Pellerin, of the Conference of Defence Associations.

"(But) the fact it's been so poorly handled over the last 10 years makes you wonder whether the Sikorsky won because it's the best candidate or because they didn't want to pick the one they had cancelled before," he said.

Conservative MP and defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a former high-ranking officer, said Ottawa's foot-dragging has put the crews who fly the obsolete and unreliable Sea Kings at risk.

"We're not going to congratulate the government because they've delayed this project for 10 years," said O'Connor, questioning whether Chrétien's decision to cancel the original deal has saved taxpayers any money in the end.

Even if the choppers begin arriving on schedule starting in late 2008, the aging Sea Kings — infamous for their breakdowns and harrowing close calls — will be flying for at least four more years.

Cormorant officials weren't commenting yesterday. But behind the scenes, they were fuming at being shut out of what they've long considered an unfair selection process and weren't ruling out legal action against the federal government. The company has accused Ottawa of deliberately rewriting and "watering down" the specifications to favour of the Sikorsky design.

Williams denied the standards were changed to swing the competition. "We didn't in fact dumb things down or raise the bar, or lower the bar. We remained true to our principles," he said.

Cormorant's claims that the Sikorsky helicopter was inferior are "hogwash," said Lloyd Noseworthy, general manager of Sikorsky Canada, calling the H-92 the "best performer in its class."
And he dismissed concerns modification work will delay the project. "The chopper will be ready," he said.

[NickLappos]

Some points:

1) The tender required custom designed gear, to be designed and qualified by Canadian companies to Canadian military standards. This was for both companies, and establishes the schedule, as the design development and qualification of this gear is the longest lead time, by far, but that way the Canadian user gets exactly what they want.

2) The airframe is virtually identical in the S-92 and H-92, and the production line is humming, as we have sold out the first 2 1/2 years of the line already!

3) Tail and main rotor fold are easy modifications, when you make helicopters for a living. We have designed and produced about 4,000 helicopters with folding tails. Now it will be 4,028. The design was started over a year ago, BTW.

4) Do the math! The original tender was for $4.8 Billion Canadian for about 50 helicopters, with no guaranteed support. The new tender (after 11 years of inflation) for 3.2 Billion for 28 helicopters, and includes 20 years of full maintenance cost. Even with the $0.5 Billion in contract cancellation cost, the new deal proves the old deal was a poor bargain, and properly cancelled.

Regarding capability, I will shortly post the relative peformance of the two aircraft. I could use some help from any EH-101/Cormorant drivers out there, as the brochures are unclear on a few points:
What is the empty weight of your aircraft, not including the mission equipment and supplies stored in the cabin? What is the flight manual HOGE weight for 1000 ft standard temp (OAT = +13 degrees C)?

[RotorPilot]

Winning helicopters assailed as inferior (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040724.wxhelic0724/BNStory/Front/)

By GLORIA GALLOWAY AND KEVIN COX
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
2004 July 24

Ottawa and Halifax — The 28 American-made military helicopters the federal government intends to purchase for $5-billion are smaller and weaker than the machines made by the losing bidder, and the price difference between the two is minute, sources said yesterday.
A series of Liberal defence ministers had promised that the controversial helicopter contract would go to the lowest bidder, a stipulation that critics said skewed the process in favour of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.'s H-92.
It was expected to be much cheaper than its competitor, AgustaWestland Inc.'s EH-101, also known as the Cormorant, which has three engines rather than two and can accommodate more passengers and equipment.
But the Sikorsky bid reportedly came in just about 1 per cent under that submitted for the EH-101.
"The difference in price was razor thin but the Cormorant bid was found unacceptable," a source said, refusing to divulge the bottom line on the proposed EH-101 contract.
No officials from Team Cormorant were willing to speak to the media yesterday, and defence officials also refused to put a price tag on its bid.
Even when talking about the winning Sikorsky contract, the government would not give details of the costs, saying only that it would be paying in the neighbourhood of $5-billion — $1.8-billion for the acquisition of the helicopters and another $3.2-billion for a 20-year service contract to keep the aircraft flying.
The deal calls for delivery of the first helicopter within 48 months of the deal's signing this fall, then one machine a month after that.
Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Works Minister Scott Brison told air force personnel at 12 Wing Shearwater — the Nova Scotia base where pilots and maintenance crews have struggled to keep ancient Sea King helicopters flying — that the Sikorsky bid represented the lowest cost for the aircraft and the service contract.
And Fisheries and Oceans Minister Geoff Regan said Sikorsky promised that the contract will bring $1-billion of work to aerospace companies in Atlantic Canada, with Ontario gaining $2-billion worth of industrial activity, Quebec $955-million and Western Canada $390-million.
The purchase comes 11 years after former prime minister Jean Chrétien ripped up a $5.6-billion contract signed by the previous Progressive Conservative government to replace both the military helicopters and those used in search-and-rescue missions with the EH-101. That decision cost the government $500-million in penalties.
Industry insiders have long complained that the Liberal government was desperate to avoid purchasing Cormorants to dodge the embarrassment of buying the same helicopters that Mr. Chrétien had rejected.
"That had absolutely nothing to do with our decision," Alan Williams, the assistant deputy minister of defence and the man who steered the bidding process, told a technical briefing yesterday.
He suggested that argument made no sense given the government had bought Cormorants in 1998 for $790-million when the military needed 15 helicopters to replace its search-and-rescue fleet.
But Mr. Chrétien was widely known to have been infuriated by that decision and the Liberals have seemed determined to prevent it from happening again — so much so that Team Cormorant has repeatedly complained about discrimination.
Sikorsky's H-92 is a military version of its S-92, which was built for commercial use.
Critics have suggested it would be all but impossible for Sikorsky to roll out the first helicopter in just four years. But Lloyd Noseworthy, the company's regional director for international business, said revamping the aircraft would be a relatively easy job and he had no concerns about delivering it on time.
"We have built probably more aircraft than all the other helicopter manufacturers put together, so this is business as usual for us," he said.
Public Works officials said yesterday there will be a penalty of $100,000 a day for tardiness. That penalty, however, is capped at a year — so the company will not have to pay more than $36.5-million in late fees, regardless of how long the helicopters are delayed.
The new aircraft will replace the Sea King fleet. The 40-year-old helicopters have been the workhorses of the Canadian military, flying hundreds of hours recently on surveillance missions from ships as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism. But they require as much as 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air, and some pilots have expressed frustration at being forced to cancel missions because of malfunctions and having to fly without modern instrumentation.
A dozen of Canada's 41 Sea Kings were destroyed in crashes, killing 10 crew members and injuring about 111 people since the first chopper was purchased in 1963.
The crews who will fly the new machines were delighted that the long debate over the helicopters has ended and they will soon be training on modern aircraft.
"It's kind of like a kid at Christmas — we've got something to look forward to," said Corporal Kyle Roman, a member of the maintenance team at 12 Wing Shearwater.
The advent of the new equipment could also help recruit pilots who want to fly state-of-the-art aircraft, Lieutenant-Colonel Wayne Krause said.

[heedm]

Nick,

I'm on your side. Just one point with the numbers, the original contract of 50 included 15 SAR birds. Those were already bought on another contract...can't remember the cost for certain, but $1.2 billion springs to mind.

In any case, the global helicopter community is competitive. No matter what we buy or when we buy it, the companies know that they won't get a contract unless the price is reasonable. Bugs me when media focuses on dollars but never puts into perspective what the dollars get you.

As far as the new head & tail, looking forward to seeing it. I might be working with you on that one.

Matthew.

[The Sultan]

Donut King:

Who is flying them? I know that one was "delivered" with great fan fair at HAI to PHI, but I was shocked to find out that it had to be trucked to and from Las Vegas. Now that is one way to pump up the fuel efficiency numbers. Nick, When does it really deliver?

One last thought (yes Nick my puny little unworthy mind does have them), this should put an end to Sikorsky's drivel that the V-22 is too expensive. All Bell-Boeing has to do is point to the $100M+ FatHawk and all arguements will cease.

The Sultan

:p

[The Sultan]

Nick,

Thanks for confirming the S-92 delivered to PHI had to be trucked to and from Stratford. Did PHI's management get to ride in the back of the semi or were they in the cab.

The Sultan

For the Uniformed:

Sikorsky S-92 Completes First Production Flight

STRATFORD, Conn., June 15, 2004 – Sikorsky Aircraft’s first production S-92 helicopter took to the Connecticut skies on June 14, accomplishing a successful first flight and ushering in a new era in civil rotorcraft.

And I saw it delivered in March!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[NickLappos]

Buzzzzz...... there it is again! Someone swat it, please.

[Ian Corrigible]

The 1998 order for 15 CH-149 SAR birds was valued at C$790-million ($605-million in real money). Presumably the maritime helo's price tag reflects considerably higher costs vis-à-vis mission equipment.

Given that the difference between the two bids was reportedly so small (1%), I'd be interested to hear whether the losing EH101 team was allowed to claim commonality savings as part of their 20 year costs (estimated at 15% by the DND) - Nick: any insider info ?

At least AgustaWestland can take some consolation (well, 32 percent's worth) from Oman's order for 20 NH90s.

I/C

[NickLappos]

Ian,

If the two prices were within 1%, two things are obvious:

1) The EH really, really lost on the merits, not just price!

2) If it were priced that low, I'd pass the hat to buy 1000 EH-101's just to cost Agusta-Westland $10 million for each I bought, and buy their factory machinery at the bankrupcy sale right afterward. It would be an interesting business tactic, wouldn't it!

Regarding commonality of savings, you can't save enough on commonality to make up for the 50% greater operating cost of an EH-101 vs. an S-92.

Regarding the cost of the equipment, the ASW gear they need is always very expensive, that is the nature of its technology. I read somewhere that the RN paid upwards of 60 million pounds each for their Merlins.

[Ian Corrigible]

Thanks, Nick. There was clearly no way the initial acquisition costs could have been the same, so I was trying to understand how the 20 year package could be within 1%, and whether Team Cormorant were given the benefit of the commonality savings by the DND's evaluation team.

(It would be nice to think you could cause 'the competition' pain by buying product at their sub-cost price tag, but the last decade has repeatedly shown that there are players in our industry (primes and subs) who are both willing and - through government support - able to buy market share this way.)

Good luck with the Cyclone (and congratulations on having the foresight to design the S-92's rotor to spin counter-clockwise...!).

I/C

[RotorPilot]

Mr. Nick Lappos:

Regarding commonality of savings, you can't save enough on commonality to make up for the 50% greater operating cost of an EH-101 vs. an S-92.

You are trying to compare the operating cost of a 20 passengers twin-engine helicopter that exist only on paper with a 35 passengers tri-engined one that is on service now.
From an ignorant it would be acceptable such claim, from you it is not.
The S92 come second in Portugal and Danmark because in Europe the almost decisive weight of the opinion of those that actually have to use the helicopters is far bigger then here.

1) The EH really, really lost on the merits, not just price!

No the EH101 lost to politics and a situation created by someone that dubbed the EH101 as "unaffordable Cadillacs" while in the opposition, something that also delayed the decision of the new helicopters for more then a decade. (Portugal and Danmark can afford the Cadillacs can you imagine that :hmm: ) It was too much for "them" to loose TWICE the reason to scrap the initial contract at a cost of $480 million.
And you know dam well that the requirements of the new helicopter were intentionally lowered to accommodate the S92 and the NH90 because none of these helicopters could ever met the initial specs. That’s when the EH101 lost its bid, not now.

[RotorPilot]

SUNDAY 2004 July 25

TONIGHT ON GLOBAL NATIONAL:

The future of Canada's troubled Sea King helicopters is no longer up in the air. You'll see why tonight.

GLOBAL NATIONAL

Bottom of page (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/index.html)

[NickLappos]

RotorPilot,
The ignorance is yours. The contract that is awarded includes a 20 year guaranteed maintenance cost. I really don't know what drives you, but its clear this is not a discussion, it is your forum for your polemics.

The requirements were tough enough that we had to push to make them, and we have better performance than the EH-101. Better, as in we carry more payload, go farther and go faster.

The myth that the competition has created is a way to save face, as they cost more and carry less, and are more expensive to operate. That myth was created to the embarassment of the good people who were trying to make a rational choice. This procurement was a tough one for the guys who had the decision, they faced adverts from one side that insisted that they just drop the competition and pick them. Those ads created the myth of the watered down requirements.

[donut king]

Re; maintenance cost/ support.

Anyone here operating, say, Eurocopter products??

How easy is it to procure an engine......length of shipment, number of engines available in the system....etc...?

I've heard it was difficult to get support with certain bigger ticket items.

Now how would that relate to an Italian production plant supplying support products to North American customers? I am NOT trashing overseas products, but would suggest their support is delayed at times.

Now if Sikorsky can GURANTEE support, down the street in Connecticut, would that not be a big positive factor in a contract??

D.K

[RotorPilot]

Mr. Nick Lappos

The ignorance is yours. The contract that is awarded includes a 20 year guaranteed maintenance cost. I really don't know what drives you, but its clear this is not a discussion, it is your forum for your polemics.

English is not my mother tongue but I think you didn't get it right or I didn't make myself understood.

Lets see again, with the phrase broken in two parts:

From an ignorant it would be acceptable such claim,/
From you it is not.

Can you grasp now that I didn't call ignorant to anyone ?


In the other thread (very difficult when one has two threads with the same subject) you said

Many on the selection board are long time experienced pilots, several with engineering degrees, and in my opinion, all of them working to buy the best helicopter available.

It's your choice who you believe, but Sgt. Phil Moffitt seems to have cornered the naysayers market.

Again you forget that in other bids in other countries, many very experienced people with engineering degrees, long time experienced pilots included, made a completely different decision.

I am a former European Air Force Pilot and in my former country the S92 came second as in other countries. In fact, in my former country, the Air Force wanted to consider the S92 but for the TACTICAL missions as a substitute to the PUMAS that are being phased out, not the MARITIME. But things did turn that way and the NH90 was selected.

With the same type of reasoning, to pretend that the Canadian choice is the best one, is to ignore all the other choices that have been made so far by Air Forces more likely to see "combat action" then the Canadian Forces and where the S92 come second or third...

That myth was created to the embarassment of the good people who were trying to make a rational choice. This procurement was a tough one for the guys who had the decision, they faced adverts from one side that insisted that they just drop the competition and pick them. Those ads created the myth of the watered down requirements.

The requirements were changed and I know where they were changed because I saw both documents. Sometimes a single line can make huge differences.



As always Mr. Donut King is very unfortunate with his comments

Re; maintenance cost/ support.
Anyone here operating, say, Eurocopter products??

What in hell has Eurocopter to do with the Agusta/Westland EH101 ?
The version for the Canadian Forces would be built in the BELL Maribel plant, with engines built in Quebec and so on up to 75% I believe.
Nobody is complaining about customer support from Agusta/Westland. On top of that, Mr. Donut King for security reasons, defence hardware require huge amounts of spare parts stocked in the premises of the operating party. My personal experience in countries that follow adequate security procedures, three full years of "normal operation" spares were stocked at any given time with quite a few more in case of conflict, specially the most vulnerable ones. In times of "conflict" the amount of spares can easily grow to the equivalent of 5 years of "normal" operation.
Military operations don't follow the commercial logic or type of management where the customer wants the factory to store the spare parts for them. In my former country (which at the time had one of the largest European helicopter fleets) I saw piles of boxes with brand new engines, main rotors, tail rotors, fuel tanks and everything else. When an engine had a problem it was replaced with a new one and the old sent for overall in the maintenance headquarters. Nobody was EVER in a rush to get any kind of spares... and at the time it was AEROSPATIALE that now is part of EUROCOPTER.

Of course if there are no spare parts stored anywhere, because the operating party decided to take unacceptable risks, then cannibalizing ones to put the others flying is the rule. (remember the PC3's a few years back?)

So, even if Eurocopter had anything to do with Agusta/Westland which it hasn't, the situation wouldn't apply in this case. If any military force wants to rely on the stocks of the manufacturer for its own maintenance, then it DESERVES to have a few helicopters grounded for lack of spares because those are unacceptable risks and having a few grounded might well be an incentive to correct the situation by storing the correct and due amount of spares.

Today there are no distances in the world. We can get anything put anywhere in 24/48 hours.
That "down the road" can be anywhere in the planet.

Your lack of real arguments is pushing you to try to mix things up eh?

I didn't see the GLOBAL TV program about this. Did anyone see it and post a few details ?

[ZH844]

Politics - that is why the S-92 won!

All this talk about capability, price, etc - all rubbish!

How did the S-92 fair in Gulf War 2? - oh it wasn't there.....
How many Canadian lives has the S-92 saved? - oh not yet flying in the SAR role!

The EH101 is in service and doing the job not just taking up space on the drawing board.

Nick, I have seen the contract requirements for this deal and good luck my old mucker cos' you and your company are going to need it! I would be careful with the comments as give it five years and you will be eating tons of humble pie!

The Canadians will see the EH101 - the next time George B decides to fly north for the weekend in his new chopper!!

See you in Washington Nick - and this time the best man will win!
:ok:

[Lu Zuckerman]

Would you believe that at the onset of the EH-101 program the Italian Navy didn't want any part of the EH-101 and if they were forced to take it they wanted only two engines. They wanted Harriers in place of the EH-101.

:E :E

[widgeon]

so we are now to believe that the independant company that reviewed the Statmement of Operational Requirements (SOR) was in the pay of Sikorsky !. Has EH101 yet won any competition for a ship borne aircraft ? , Denmark was SAR , the others have all chosen NH90 . I am surprised that more comment was not made when the NH90 was ruled non compliant . As for the requirement for 3 engines , has any one noticed that they don't make L1011 and DC10's anymore !.

[rjsquirrel]

Touchy Bunch!! I've had enough, try this out for size:

1) EH-101 is proven in service, my butt. Yep, and proven in accidents, guys. How about those five pesky crashes it has had (it lost 1/3rd of its prototype fleet, for pete's sake!) Look at the stats. It has an accident rate of about 11 per 100,000 hours, which makes it the most unsafe heli on the planet, ten times the accident rate a good navy experiences. Anybody out there have any stats on their country's heli operations? I think the world average for military ops is about 2 per 100,000 hours. Go ahead prove me wrong.

2) The EH-101 can't get itself off the ground very often. If I figure it correctly, most military helis get about 500 hours per year, so a 90 aircraft fleet of EH-101's should be gatherin time at about 45,000 hours every year. The whole fleet only has 45,000 hours, if the press reports about its massive service record are to be believed. Given that it has been building its fleet over the last 10 years, it seems that the typical EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin gets about 100 hours per year. Somebody out there give me some tail numbers that got more time than that last year, ok? Prove me wrong, all you wonder-boys!

3) Big press reports about running out of spare parts because the British military were too dumb to buy enough parts, so the EH's can't be flown enough. That's like the idiot who says his tire is flat because it doesn't have enough air! Its running through parts like it runs through petrol!

4) Its payload sucks. Lappos asked you guys to give him an empty weight, here it is - Nick, the Cormorant's are about 20,000 lbs fully stripped of all removable equipment (some brave Cormorant driver prove me wrong, post a weight sheet!!) At 20,000 lbs, it leave a putrid 12,190 pounds for fuel, crew and payload. One glance at the efficiency of a typical REAL heli shows that for a 20,000 lb empty weight the payload should be closer to 18,000 lb. It is a dog.

5) Yes, the S-92 is brand new, that's how all helicopters start out, I think, unless Noah had one on the ark. All you idiots who demand that only proven helis should be sold do not realize that you are saying "Don't bother making any new heli designs, thank you, because I am way too scared to buy one." Bulls**t, I say. Build me newer, safer, better ones, because the ones we have now are barely ok.

Lappos, post me some more funny stories, amuse me with the possibilities. I don't know if the S-92 will hack it, but hasn't Igor built one or two of those things before?

[Cyclic Hotline]

Different operations require different machines. Different countries will purchase different equipment for a multitude of reasons.

It doesn't necessarily make one bad if it is not selected, it is a selection process after all, and somewhere a decision will be reached and a purchase made.

The worst part, is the hype and misinformation that leads the selection process and the ready supply of "unidentified sources" that have followed every part of every EH-101 procurement. The only time this pitiful bleating ceased was when the entire EH-101 fleet was grounded (sorry, - not flying) and not ONE word was heard from anyone in that camp - not one word!

As soon as the procurement was sourced elsewhere, the "unidentified sources" sprang back into action pointing out that the the S-92 only had 2 engines, as opposed to 3 in the EH-101. I think this may have to go down in the history of helicopter aviation as the dumbest statement ever made by a manufacturer (sorry, unidentified source). There were others of equal comic value.

The entire way through the procurement, those "unidentified sources" fed the press a rash of stories about crashes, unreliability, breakdowns, parts shortages, etc. I'm not sure what part of Marketing 101 (sic) deals with insulting the ability of your customer to operate his existing equipment, or to make the correct choice in the next selection? Sadly, it fails entirely when it is being reviewed by other industry professionals.

I have had my own opinions (here on PPRuNe) on the early parts of the S92 programme and some other Sikorsky stuff, but I will give Sikorsky there due and they have succeeded admirably with this programme and I wish it every success.

On the contrary, having watched the marketing approach of EH Industries, I can confidently state that they will never have to worry about me as a customer. That is an aside anyway, as I don't believe that the EH-101 can ever compete in the commercial marketplace anyway (apparently, others believe the same thing).

Personally, I can't wait to get acquainted with the S-92 - something that should be happening soon. Interestingly, the commercial S-92 line is busy and has Customers - another claim that we are unlikely to hear about from those "unidentified sources"!

Congratulations to Sikorsky and the Canadian Government on a sound choice.

[Mikila1A]

All very interesting.

Nick,

When will the first civilian S-92 be in the air, and what I mean is certified to carry pax.

[RotorPilot]

Cyclic Hotline

On the contrary, having watched the marketing approach of EH Industries, I can confidently state that they will never have to worry about me as a customer. That is an aside anyway, as I don't believe that the EH-101 can ever compete in the commercial marketplace anyway (apparently, others believe the same thing).
I agree with you in this point. As a matter of fact this is one of the main differences between the two helicopters.

The EH101 is a MILITARY helicopter right from the beginning, designed to replace the Sea King with several MILITARY variants. I don't expect a big commercial hit from this helicopter because it was not intended to the commercial market.

The S92 is a CIVILIAN helicopter from which a military variant will be "extracted" (or built to military specs as they put it) sometime in the future. If it will come to the promised performances, that is something yet to be seen because none is flying.

So you are right when you expect the S92 to be competitive in the commercial market ITS MAIN PURPOSE and the only version flying so far. I expect it to eat up a good chunk of the offshore oil business, gradually displacing the Puma, simply because the PUMA as well as the COUGAR and MH90 are also a military helicopters. During its development phase only MILITARY concerns were taken into consideration, not commercial ones.

We all know that military European designed helicopters are well known for overpowered, de-rated turbines, to be able to fly high and hot with all temps within “green” range, unlike many American counterparts that are well know for exactly the opposite.

Main rotors are 5 or 6 blades unlike the Americans that even fly on only two, something that never happened in Europe.

The three engines are also there for a reason. It’s the only way to comply with one of the original specs of the bid “full survivability with the loss of one engine (that at a certain point was taken out).

We all saw this year in Afghanistan a Sikorsky MH53 Pave Low “the most powerful helicopter in the world” as they say, (2 engines only :confused: ) go down with the loss of the machine and almost all hands on board just because ONE engine stalled 5 minutes after take-off due to the high and hot conditions. If it was a 101 it would have survived the situation.
That’s why MILITARY helicopters designed to fulfil the complex and demanding requirements of military operations are more expensive to operate. It’s the MISSION, the CAPABILITY and the SAFETY of the helicopter and its crew and paxs that counts NOT the $$$. They are NOT designed to be "cheaper" or “cost effective” or “economic”. Making military decisions thinking in COMMERCIAL terms, or just in terms of $$$, sooner or later will COSTS LIVES that are priceless.

Let's see how a third engine is important:

Officials release Pave Low accident report (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007192)

3/11/2004 - HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AFPN) -- An accident investigation board determined that failure of the No. 2 engine because of compressor stall, failure of the auxiliary fuel tanks to jettison and the uneven terrain of the landing area caused an MH-53 Pave Low helicopter to crash Nov. 23. The board released its findings March 10.

The MH-53, assigned to the 20th Special Operations Squadron, crashed nine miles east of Bagram, Afghanistan, while supporting Operation Mountain Resolve.

Four of the six crewmembers on board, and one U.S. Army passenger died in the accident.

The accident investigation board also cited several contributing factors to the crash. One of these factors was the subsequent failure of the No. 1 engine when the demands of the high altitude and high-gross weight caused an over-temperature and compressor stall. Insufficient written guidance on checking the auxiliary fuel tank jettison system was also cited.

The investigation board comprised helicopter systems experts, medical, legal and aircrew advisers. (Courtesy of Air Force Special Operations Command News Service)

Yeah but we all know that those that make the decisions are not those that will have to risk their own lives when duty calls... :(


TORONTO STAR - 2004 July 27

By choosing the Sikorsky, the Liberals don't have to admit they were wrong to cancel original contract

Debate swirls around choice of helicopter

Blatantly political (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1090879819898)

THE GLOBE AND MAIL - 2004 July 27

The long, tortuous path of helicopter politics (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040724/EHELI24//?query=Sea+King)

THE GLOBE AND MAIL - 2004 July 26

By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Monday's Globe and Mail
Ottawa — The federal government concealed the fact last week that it was forced to buy Sikorsky helicopters to replace its fleet of Sea Kings after the only other competitor in the $5-billion race had been previously disqualified on technical grounds, sources say.
Instead of saying that the contract had been awarded to the only company that was still standing, government officials made it seem as if the contract had been a two-way race to the end.
The revelation that Team Cormorant was quietly thrown out of the competition earlier this year is the latest twist in the ongoing saga that is now expected to be played out before the courts.

Mr. Nick Lappos

This procurement was a tough one for the guys who had the decision, they faced adverts from one side that insisted that they just drop the competition and pick them. Those ads created the myth of the watered down requirements.

Was it so ??? Just read below how things really were.

Ottawa forced to buy Sikorsky, sources say

By DANIEL LEBLANC
From Monday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — The federal government concealed the fact last week that it was forced to buy Sikorsky helicopters to replace its fleet of Sea Kings after the only other competitor in the $5-billion race had been previously disqualified on technical grounds, sources say.
Instead of saying that the contract had been awarded to the only company that was still standing, government officials made it seem as if the contract had been a two-way race to the end.
The revelation that Team Cormorant was quietly thrown out of the competition earlier this year is the latest twist in the ongoing saga that is now expected to be played out before the courts.
A government official said information about Team Cormorant's disqualification was not made public last week because the government thinks it will be a pivotal point if Team Cormorant decides to launch a lawsuit over the outcome.
Defence Minister Bill Graham, in announcing the decision to buy 28 helicopters from U.S.-based Sikorsky, said on Friday that it "represents the right helicopter for the Canadian Forces at the best price for Canadians."
Even at a thorough technical briefing that day, senior bureaucrats did not tell journalists that the contract was awarded to the only bidder still in the running.
"It gave the impression that there were two companies, and that we went for the cheapest," the government source said yesterday.
There is growing bitterness between Team Cormorant and the government over the process. A senior government official yesterday dismissed a report that there was only a 1-per-cent price difference (about $50-million) between the winning bid of Sikorsky and the disqualified bid of Team Cormorant.
The government is arguing that the difference was more in the range of 15 per cent, meaning that Team Cormorant's bid was about $750-million higher.
The fact that Team Cormorant was disqualified in recent months is surprising because the federal government adopted a complicated process two years ago to prevent such an outcome. In 2002, the government created a "prequalification" phase under which the competing helicopters would have to meet specific technical requirements before entering the final leg of the competition, which would be settled solely on the issue of price.
Team Cormorant and Sikorsky met the requirements of the prequalification process, but Team Cormorant was, nonetheless, disqualified from the competition later. The reason for Team Cormorant's disqualification is unclear, as government and industry officials remain coy about recent events.
It is a stunning twist for a company that won the first competition to replace the Sea Kings in the early 1990s under the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. That contract was cancelled by then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien in 1993, but Team Cormorant later won a smaller competition to produce search-and-rescue helicopters for the Canadian Forces.
"It's an incredible outcome after Cormorant won in 1992, won in 1998, prequalified in 2003, to be told that their bid is not acceptable in 2004," an industry source said.
The government now expects that its decision to exclude Team Cormorant from the competition will be at the centre of a lawsuit from AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian consortium that builds the aircraft.
Team Cormorant has long alleged that the process to replace the Sea Kings was rigged in favour of other competitors, and has vowed to take the matter before the courts if it lost the contract.
Team Cormorant has three legal options: the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Ontario Superior Court.
The CITT, an administrative tribunal, provides the quickest way ahead for Team Cormorant, which could challenge its disqualification as well as Sikorsky's qualification. If Team Cormorant wins its case, the CITT could order the retendering of the contract or call on the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.
Second, the Federal Court could provide a judicial review of the process, and it could eventually send the contract back to the government for retendering.
Finally, Team Cormorant could argue before the Ontario Superior Court that Sikorsky did not meet the government's requirements and did not deserve the contract. If Team Cormorant was successful, the Ontario Superior Court could order the government to offer financial compensation to Team Cormorant.
In addition, the Auditor-General is expected to review the contract and determine whether the federal government adopted the best strategy to replace the Sea Kings.

With the $480 million cost of the cancelation of the initial contract, plus the compensation it will have to be paid now, even following with government numbers, ($750 M) the S92 will become a lot more expensive then the EH101 :yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

Original Globe and Mail text:
Ottawa forced to buy Sikorsky, sources say (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040726.wxchoppers26/BNStory/National/)



UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Ottowa braces for AgustaWestland suit (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040726-034927-7415r.htm)


rjsquirrel
Lappos, post me some more funny stories, amuse me with the possibilities. I don't know if the S-92 will hack it, but hasn't Igor built one or two of those things before?
Yeahh tell him to post some more stories about the bid... I would like to see them too. :\

[[email protected]]

RotorPilot - the EHI - 01 (it became the EH 101 after a typo) was built as a civilian helicopter, a heliliner designed to cruise between North Sea oil rigs - it's in the RAF museum at Henlow. It was resurrected as a platform for ASW when the RN needed to replace its Sea Kings with an autonomous detection and weapons delivery system in the 90s. It never achieved the weapons delivery system because it couldn't hack the payload, despite the third engine but, after much work the detection hardware and software was sorted. Then, when the Canadians first said 'Non' to the 101 and Westlands were looking down the barrel of a big trading defecit, the RAF were forced to 'procure' the SH variant of the Merlin, complete with the comedy rear ramp which is too steep for troops and not big enough for a landrover (unless you remove the windscreen). We actually wanted more Chinooks since they lift more and go faster.

As for the Canadians recent decision - they probably learned their lesson from their aquisition of the Cormorants - cracked windscreens, horrendous downwash and a rapid replacement of the TR hubs that grounded the UK fleet - if it had been a new car you would have sent it back!
The S 92 might not live up to all its hype and press but it can't do much worse than the EH101.

[BanjoPlayer]

Just adding on from what Mr Squirrel asked or should I say commented on with reference to Pre-Production accidents on the EH101. Has the S-92/ H-92 had any accidents etc during pre-production or since?

[Visionary]

Crab,
I have noticed that you dont particularly like the Merlin, but intrigued as to whether you have had a go on it or is it just educated comment?

[Wunper]

EHI-01 / EH101 / MERLIN HM Mk1/MERLIN HC Mk3 /PETREL/CHIMO/ CORMORANT call it what you will plenty of poop here

W



http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/international/agwest/EH101/EH101.htm

[Ian Corrigible]

Crab,

Reasonable criticism of an aircraft is acceptable, but you're a little off course. The EH101 was not designed as a North Sea heliliner - it stemmed from the MoD's feasibility studies of 1974-77 into a Sea King replacement, with Agusta joining the party in 1980. The aircraft at RAF Hendon (ZJ116 / G-OIOI) was developed by EHI later in game, but was never going to have much success given the small demand for offshore heavylift helos and the dominance (at the time, before Nick chimes in...!) of the Super Puma.

It does seem a little strange that the RAF didn't insist on applying an SH paint job to ZJ116 before parking it in the museum.

I/C

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Ian Corrigible

The EH101 was not designed as a North Sea heliliner - it stemmed from the MoD's feasibility studies of 1974-77 into a Sea King replacement, with Agusta joining the party in 1980

I believe the EH-101 was a collaborative effort between Agusta and Westland from the very beginning. Agusta designed the dynamic and flight control systems and they were to build the civil version where Westland would build the naval version. They also had a work sharing agreement where each would build elements that would be used by the other as well as on their own builds.

Agusta who had built an Agusta 101 several years earlier forced the use of the 101 designation on Westland. The Agusta 101 resembled the Super Frelon and I believe the rotorhead was a French design. The Agusta 101 was developed to be a bargaining chip to force Vertol to give Agusta a license to build the CH-47

Check this out http://212.158.133.3/hwa/hpi/0001-0500/0342.jpg


:E :E

[widgeon]

if i recall correctly it started life as the WG34 ( my memory sometimes fails me ) . I think Westlands had a few years of development before EHI came into the picture. ( wonder what wg 31 , 32 and 33 were ??).

[[email protected]]

Ian Corrigible - I stand corrected on the history of the Merlin, the aeroflight page is very detailed if a little partisan - is he employed by Westlands? Hendon, Henlow... I was only 2 letters out. The one in the RAF museum hasn't got the comedy ramp which is probably why they didn't give it the paint job. Mind you, the 28 Sqn Merlins have been on the ground for so long they might as well have driven one down there to add to the display.

Visionary - I know that most Merlin pilots praise the aircraft for its handling and avionics, apparently it is like a scaled up Lynx and therefore must be good fun to fly. But the avionics fit is available on any modern helicopter and is a quantum leap in capability from the Sea King/Puma from which most of the Military pilots converted; no wonder they are impressed with it.

However good it is in its primary RN role, despite not having a weapons system, it is not a match for the Chinook in SH ops nor is it a good SAR platform apart from extreme range jobs. I would not like to have to rescue climbers/cliff hangers in it nor try to get a winchman onto a small fishing boat or yacht - it is just too big, has too powerful a downwash and sits in an awkward attitude for winch work.

Anyway we will definitely be able to buy it now that GKN are selling out to Augusta - our politicians will say we are supporting our European partners instead of just sending lorryloads of cash to Yeovil.

[NickLappos]

'Nobody believes' chopper deal was fair, DND official laments
Ottawa Citizen
The Defence Department's top procurement official is frustrated and at a loss over how to convince the public that the purchase of a new helicopter for the Canadian military is not only a good deal, but one that involved a fair competition.
The U.S.-based Sikorsky aircraft company was named last week as the winner of the $5-billion competition to provide the Canadian Forces with 28 new maritime helicopters.
But allegations have been flying that the process was rigged against Sikorsky's rival, Team Cormorant, and its chopper, a version of the EH-101, and that Liberal government officials interfered with the competition.
"I'm frustrated because it's really such a great win for us as a military and for the taxpayer," said Alan Williams, assistant deputy minister responsible for materiel. "Nobody seems to want to believe me.
"People, I think, want to believe the worst," he added.
Mr. Williams has acknowledged that there were lengthy delays in getting the government to approve the start of the procurement process.
"The fact is once we got the go ahead, not one peep was heard out of them in terms of interfering with the process," he said. "There wasn't one peep about trying to change the statement of requirements. That's the case. And I don't know how to get that message out even more clearly than I am."
Mr. Williams said he won't comment on suggestions that Team Cormorant's bid was eliminated because the paperwork it submitted was not properly done and that various capabilities of the craft were not documented.
He said such information is proprietary and it is up to the company to release any such information.
His remarks won't likely mollify Team Cormorant, which has said it is reviewing whether to proceed with legal action against the federal government.
In their war chest of potential legal arrows is a 1997 Defence Department report that concludes that several hundred million dollars could have been saved if the government selected the same type of helicopter for both search-and-rescue and naval operations.
The Canadian Forces already operate Cormorant helicopters for search-and-rescue duties, and officials argue it would have made financial sense to pick the same aircraft for the Sea King replacement.

[RotorPilot]

Today's "GLOBE AND MAIL" has another article about this whole affair.
They caught one big shot lying about the process and inplicitly admit that the EH101 might be better.

Unfortunately this almost half page article does not show in their web edition.

Will try to scan the document to post.

Its what the Canadians wanted (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1090707007414)

[rjsquirrel]

RotorPilot,

So why don't you tell us why the EH-101 crashes so often, and has the worst safety record of any heli in service? How about telling us the payload or at least the empty weight? Why don't you tell us how many hours a year it can fly?

Instead of hunting for a scanner for a half page article, how about some answers?

Are you afraid to talk about your pet helicopter with all its warts?

Rocket J. Squirrel

[BanjoPlayer]

Mr Squirrel,

How many crashes / serious incidents has the EH101 had? How many crashes / serious incidents has the S-92 had?

Maybe Nick can answer the last one

[RotorPilot]

TODAY'S PAPER

Auditors deny looking at helicopter bid
Auditor-General's staff favoured process, rookie Public Works Minister Brison said

By GLORIA GALLOWAY
Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - Page A6

OTTAWA -- Officials in the Auditor-General's office have never looked at the contract to buy $5-billion worth of military helicopters despite newly minted Public Works Minister Scott Brison's statement that they spoke favourably about the process.
When Mr. Brison was joined by two of his Liberal cabinet colleagues -- Defence Minister Bill Graham and Fisheries Minister Geoff Regan -- to announce that the government would buy the 28 choppers from Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., he talked positively about the procedure used to procure the aircraft.
"I am pleased to say that officials of the Auditor-General have commented favourably on our use of this approach," he said in a speech approved by senior Public Works staff. Mr. Brison was referring to the "lowest-cost compliant approach," in which the contract is awarded to the bidder who meets all the specifications at the lowest price.
The government has traditionally favoured what it calls the "best-value approach" in which the actual value of what each bidder is offering is divided by the amount on the price tag.
"The approach that they have taken, under certain conditions, could be seen to be fair and lead to best value," said Julie Hebert, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Auditor-General, "but we have not audited this particular purchase, so, further than that, we don't know."
It is impossible to say whether the lowest-cost compliant approach is bad or good, Ms. Hebert said. "Under some conditions, this approach is fair and it's good and it leads to good value. In this case did it? We have not done an audit."
Mr. Brison's comments were based on a letter from Hugh McRoberts, the assistant auditor-general, to Alan Williams, the assistant deputy minister of National Defence, who supervised the purchase process for the helicopters in February, 2003 -- 10 months before the requests for helicopter proposals went out.
In the letter, Mr. McRoberts points out that the department had outlined steps taken to determine what features were not needed in the helicopters, and therefore not considered of value.
"Based on those discussions, we have agreed that, in these circumstances, a lowest-cost-compliant approach to this type of procurement could give rise to best value," he wrote.
However, Mr. McRoberts said at the end of his letter, "I must make it clear that it will only be after the procurement is completed and we have done our audit will we be able to make an assessment as to whether or not best value was actually achieved."
The minister was unavailable for comment yesterday, but his spokesman, Dale Palmateer, disagreed that Mr. McRoberts was speaking neutrally in his letter about the approach.
And Mr. Brison "has stated that they have commented favourably on an approach," Mr. Palmateer said. "He's not suggesting in any manner that they have actually examined [the bid] yet."
The process used to select the winning bid is an issue because AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian company that lost out to Sikorsky's H-92s, has alleged that the bidding was rigged in favour of Sikorsky. AgustaWestland's EH-101s, also called Cormorants, are more expensive than the H-92s.
The bid replaces a substantial portion of one that former prime minister Jean Chrétien ripped up after he took office in 1993. That contract, forged by the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, would have bought EH-101s.
Mr. Williams, who noted yesterday that the Sikorsky bid was "hundreds of millions" of dollars less than that received from AgustaWestland, said Mr. McRoberts's letter simply agreed that there are many ways of getting the best value.
"This is perhaps the case that will come closest to providing best value for the taxpayer in the sense that we don't spend a nickel more on anything that we don't have to and we're minimizing the whole life cycle of costs," Mr. Williams said.
"Because someone says this is more capable or this can fly faster or higher . . . if I don't need that, why should I pay taxpayers' money for that?"

My comments will follow ASAP

Original text from
THE GLOBE AND MAIL


Auditors deny looking at helicopter bid (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040728/HELI28//?query=Auditors+deny+looking+at+helicopter+bid)

The helicopter procurement process (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1090976014168)

[NickLappos]

BanjoPlayer,

For the S-92, none, no accidents or incidents.

Also, I did ask for some empty weights on the EH-101/Cormorant, but I guess nobody who flies them knows what they weigh;)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: NickLappos

Check this site out.

EH-101 stats.



empty 7,121 kg / 15,700 lb

maximum take-off 13,530 kg / 29,830 lb


http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/heh101.asp



:E :E

[spankymonkey]

As a pprune irregular and an RN Merlin operator (who hasn't got higher than "upstairs to Bedfordshire" since late March 04*) I must say that I've found the more recent comments on this the "Canadian Sea King Replacement Update" thread a tad anti Merlin

Why not call it the "I haven't flown it but would love to slag it off" thread

"maximum take-off 13,530 kg / 29,830 lb" - try adding another 1000kg

[email protected] - "However good it is in its primary RN role, despite not having a weapons system"

Do you mean to say that Stingray and DCs are not weapons? - I would love to hear from you as to what defines a weapons system.

*And yes I am really, really bored of staff work

[Ian Corrigible]

Detracting somewhat from the original Canukian theme of this thread, but there's a great EH101 page at David Hastings' EH101 page (http://www.targetlock.org.uk/eh101/).

Wrt the EH101's payload, the RN is due to undertake envelope expansion trials later this year, which should put the record straight as to exactly what she can do.

I/C

[HeloTeacher]

This isn't even about the S-92. From a purely Canadian perspective, anyone who believes the EH-101 was even considered is completely ignorant of Canadian politics! It was a done deal from the start. I'm sure the S-92 will be a great machine, but it had NO competition.

This is Chretien's last gift to the canadian taxpayer, another helicopter purchase with no REAL bidding process, just lip service. These a$$holes don't deserve even our contempt.

But in the end, who cares, at least they finally did something.

[NickLappos]

Lu,
Thanks for that site, but it makes no sense. Probably very old info.

The brochure at their web site uses 19,600 lbs empty weight to give them 5350 KG useful load. I was hoping one of the guys who flies them would post a figure.

The H-92 has a useful load of 5900Kg.

Ian Corrigible,
In order to "set the record straight" it has to have a stated record, and I havn't seen any brave soul actually state what it can carry! I guess some things are either too embarassing, or a state secret!

If the MGW is extended, it still has to be hovered, and according to its brochures, it barely hovers OGE at its current MGW.

[[email protected]]

Spankymonkey - try as I might I can't find any pictures of the Merlin with the Stingray on it - I know successful launch trials were completed but is it available for use right now? Depth charges are, I suppose, a weapons system but the concept of ops for the Merlin was as an autonomous, long range ASW/anti surface helciopter - does the Merlin go out long range fully bombed up with Stingray since a depth charge is not much use against a surface target? I don't think so hence the 'flight envelope expansion trials' so that the aircraft will do what it was actually procured for.

[RotorPilot]

Previously posted by Helo Teacher

This isn't even about the S-92. From a purely Canadian perspective, anyone who believes the EH-101 was even considered is completely ignorant of Canadian politics! It was a done deal from the start. I'm sure the S-92 will be a great machine, but it had NO competition.

This is Chretien's last gift to the canadian taxpayer, another helicopter purchase with no REAL bidding process, just lip service. These a$$holes don't deserve even our contempt.


http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/040728_moudakis_cartoon.jpg


Quoting a certain Mr. Williams:
"Because someone says this is more capable or this can fly faster or higher . . . if I don't need that, why should I pay taxpayers' money for that?"

Implicitly they are admitting that the EH101 is BETTER but they don’t need helicopters THAT GOOD.

They were so darn sure that the EH101 would win again that they had to disqualify it to be on the safe side

:uhoh: :\ :ugh: :ooh: :yuk:




The $HIT HAWK built to Military specs

http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/040725_corrigan_cartoon.jpg

[NickLappos]

Lots of electrons, RotorPilot, but you are still ducking the questions:

What is the empty weight of an EH-101?

What is the weight to hover OGE at sea level?

You love the political bull, but hate the facts, don't you?

Keep posting your cartoons, they are as technically astute as your opinions.

The H-92 carries more, goes farther, and goes faster than the EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin.

[Visionary]

Nick

The H-92 carries more, goes farther, and goes faster than the EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin.

You are still not comparing bananas with bananas!!!

Its more like comparing a proven aircraft with a pre-production one. Two totally different aircraft after the same role.

You yourself are touting an unproven aircraft. The US101 is not a proven aircraft but its still got a proven airframe to comment on. The US101 is in the same boat as you. You are comparing the Merlin Mk3/ RN variant with yours. Its like comparing the Blackhawk with a Merlin, which will look better? How many improvements in the Blackhawk have there been over the years? I bet the current one runs rings round the first variant.

When the US101 is eventually flying do you think that your H-92 will compare favourably? Silly question really considering your role.

Some people should click the heels on their Red Ruby Slippers together and say "There is no place like home, There is no place like home, There is no place like home"

[Ian Corrigible]

Nick,

I'm hoping that the RN trials will lead to some detailed payload info finally being released. Most of the UK's state secrets seem to be left in briefcases on park benches these days, so next time you're walking through Hyde Park, keep your eyes open - you never know...

Crab,

A couple of images of the EH101/Stingray combination:

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/data/gallery/medium/1027939393m.jpg

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/merlin/images/merlin2.jpg

I/C

[[email protected]]

Ian the second one is from the launch trials but you haven't answered my questions. The spec for the Apache is always touted with RF Hellfire but to my knowledge they don't actually have it yet - is this the same with the Stingray/Merlin?

[The Sultan]

Nick,

I would not throw stones, if I were you. The cert on the S-92 says it uses 30 minute contingency power to hover and it can not take-off or land above 3500' HD. It would be really embarrassing to loose an enemy sub (or whale) because you had to break off after 31 minutes.

I hear you are bringing a S-92 through the DFW area soon. I hope it is a cool day, or do you plan to truck it in like HAI?

The Sultan

[RotorPilot]

I was preparing a longer answer to your questions, with some long details that will take some time to write, but I decied to cut short and post this

I must tell you that I am a former conscripted military pilot and had to made a “tour of duty” that lasted almost two and an half years battling Soviet backed terrorists (today they would be called Insurgents whatever that is) and had to learn how to fly helicopters in courses that included how to avoid SAM 7 Strella’s missiles, 14.7 calibre anti-aircraft guns, barrages of mortar “flak” and a huge generality of other smaller threats that other pilots that go for “commercial” licences do not have to learn or care about.
I went through a two and an half “tour of duty” where I personally experienced all that and had to put what I have learned to good use. I am not a sofa coach.

The military operations and the commercial world are two completely different types of flying with completely different tasks, needs and requirements. In a certain way they are opposites of each other.
Consequently a machine that is GOOD for one of these two worlds is almost forcefully BAD to the other because the concerns, needs and requirements addressed during the development phase are almost antagonic.

The H92 seems a fine “commercial” machine, IMHO is a BAD military machine.

The “pave Low” accident report I posted in my July 27 post is an example I can use again and again just to show you that:

Well overpowered de-rated turbines are a MUST for high and hot military missions.
Full survivability with the loss of one engine is ANOTHER MUST for military operations especially over the sea, that can only be achieved either with two horrendously powerful turbines or with three engines powerful enough for two allowing a safe return to base, or, in certain cases, the completing of the mission.

These requirements were part of the initial bid and the second one, for whatever reason, was withdrawn when the first “watered down" of the specs that you and some politicians keep denying it existed. (I saw both documents).

Sikorsky insists in “if you loose one engine you land” type of approach that I qualify as irresponsible and the accident of the Pave Low show that perfectly. First to land one has to have where to land. And if even “uneven” terrain, as we saw, might be a “problem”, the middle of the ocean, frankly is not a fine place to put it.
So they bough a fine commercial machine to fly over the prairies flatlands as a substitute for the military Sea King…

The EH101 has to carry the weight of his superior performance, his superior endurance, his superior equipment his superior reliability, and his superior mission capability.
If THAT affects the payload, I say WHO IN HELL CARES FOR THAT because that helicopter it is not intended for commercial operations.

I don’t give a dime for better payload in exchange of inferior performance, inferior endurance, inferior equipment inferior reliability, and inferior mission capability.

And all the “performances” of the H92, whatever they are, were achieved sacrificing everything, safety included, but payload as the commercial operators wants.

The PAVE LOW payload was also decreased for a number of reasons. The US Air Force in a helicopter initially developed for the Navy also traded payload for better safety when it ordered the inclusion of armour in vital parts of the machine. Also traded payload for better capability loading it with advanced electronics including terrain following radar, FLIR, and a number of other advanced avionics.
This is to say that, military speaking, payload is something good but not something to be obtained at all costs and it is there and can be traded for something else if and when needed.

Speaking about “jet fighters”:

- How much payload can they carry with full tanks ???
- How much time can they fly with a full load of weapons ???

What one want over the sea is a helicopter that will not go to the fishes if one engine fails as it happened to the Sikorsky PAVE LOW a 55 million piece of flying equipment for 38 soldiers with two engines so underpowered that can’t fly safely within its own limits in Afheganistan.
Of course if more powerful and de-rated turbines were to be installed, that would include the reduction of the payload, the increase of its price, the increase fuel consumption and so on. In a word that aircraft would not be so competitive and it would be more expensive to operate... as usual, with something that is better, more powerful and with far bigger mission capabilities, just as the EH101 is.

Among other things it’s the FULL SURVIVABILITY WITH THE LOSS OF ONE ENGINE that is important. But those that did not want the EH101 cut this requirement. Now they accept to loose one helicopter to the loss of one engine. Its a very EXPENSIVE and DEADLY option.

To trade some of the payload for a third engine is a very smart choice that includes heavier gear box and transmission and so on.

To finish for now, I am saying something that has been a curse all my life:
ANYONE can access the cost of doing something or buying something. It takes a very INTELLIGENT and KNOWLEDGEBLE person to access the cost of NOT doing or not buying something.

The payload of the EH101 ?

Is exactly the difference between its maximum load and the weight of all the equipment necessary to fly safely high and hot, assure full survivability with the loss of one engine and all the advanced avionics necessary to help the pilots achieve the objectives of their future missions without too many risks of their lives and those of the troops they are carrying.

It can change over time with the inclusion of better and new equipment or if it is decided to trade some of it for something else.

Dicit


BTW that "thing" always saying Last edited by RotorPilot in sunch and such date is driving me nuts :mad:

[NickLappos]

many, many words, no answer.

Going, into the trash file RotorPilot.

[Visionary]

many, many words, no answer

Referring to which post Nick?

[Ian Corrigible]

Crab,

Sorry, honestly don't know the official answer to that - I'd assumed that the Stingray had been carried operationally since the AUTEC trials in 2000, if not earlier.

One of the fish heads over at Military Aircrew might know.

I/C

[Mikila1A]

Nick,

When will the S-92 be certified to carry pax.

In euro, usa or canada?

Thanks for the quick reply!

[heedm]

Nick, perusing many sites I found 8600kg empty weight for a utility variant of the EH101, I assume that is reasonable for the naval variant less the mission kit. That makes a 6,000kg useful load.

Curious though, you keep telling us that the H92 is far superior than the EH101, but then admit that you have no numbers for the EH101. It seems to me you're not backing your claims with facts.

Matthew.

[NickLappos]

heedm,

Thanks, heedm, that is a pretty good number. One must believe that Macy's knows what Gimble's is selling! I really want to raise a bit of consciousness about the facts.

Actually, I will post this weekend a full description of the two froma weights and performance aspect. The brochure empty weight of the EH-101 for stripped utility configuration is 19,644 lbs. which gives it a useful load (max payload) of about 12,000 lbs, or 5500 KG. his coincides with its ability to hover OGE at 3600 feet std day, according to the brochure.

I had hoped some intrepid airman would post the weight of his airplane, but I guess info around here is a one way street!

The H-92 weighs 15,079 stripped utility (dual autopilot, full nav and displays, etc) and hoge at 3600 ft std is 28,400 lbs, yielding a max payload of about 12,900lbs.

For all purposes at short range the aircraft are almost equal, with a small advantage to the H-92. At longer range, the H-92 gains, because it burns much less gas per mile. At 300 NM, the 92 carries a total of 1500 pounds more payload. All the hype about the "more capable" aircraft is known by the evaluation board to be hogwash, just as the rumors about equal price were also planted falsehoods.

[[email protected]]

Rotor Pilot

'What one want over the sea is a helicopter that will not go to the fishes if one engine fails'

Yes the EH101 has successfully put itself with the fishes, following a modification by the manufacturers, when the rotor brake went on in flight. And, but for the grace of God, The Merlin would have totalled an airframe and crew when the RN aircraft at Culdrose shed its TR blade if it had not happened in a low hover over a flat surface.

Is the Merlin/101 safe following a single engine failure throughout its whole flight envelope? - I doubt it but how many single engine failures have brought catastrophe to twin engine helicopters in the hover? Not very many compared to the number of hours spent in the hover.

Westlands have made a great deal of this extra survivability in their marketing but their premise is flawed - if the twin engine aircraft has strong reliable engines (as most are nowadays) then the number of failures are greatly reduced. Why then sacrifice payload and range (massive fuel consumption with 3 engines running) to cater for an event that is outweighed statistically by TR malfunctions - why not spend the money on a decent TR hub in the first place.

[rjsquirrel]

to continue [email protected]'s comment:

The third engine on the EH=101 is certainly needed, and without all three running, it falls pretty fast. I got a few emails from folks in the last few days with info.

The dead man's curve (where an engine failure will create a crash) is quite large on the EH-101, making those comments about an "extra engine" just not true. In spite of the protests of rotorpilot, the top of the dead man's curve for the EH is said to be over 400 feet on a hot day, and the bottom is supposed to be around 25 feet. That means from the hover at anywhere in between, you must land hard when one engine stops. Is that right, RotorPilot?

If the aircraft is anywhere near MGW, it will come down. and at MGW it has a Catagory A landback distance that is large. I have heard that it needs 1,000 ft runway at MGW, and that to do a small heliport vertical procedure, it must drop 5,000 lbs of GW.

As other folks have asked, where are your numbers, rotorpilot? Are you a rotor pilot?

[JimL]

rjsqirrel,

This is an interesting debate but one for which there is generation of more heat than light.

I have no wish to get involved in these sematics but would like to point out that it is extremely unlikely that in a (representative) HV Diagram, the EH 101 would have an upper boundary of 400ft - if only because an engine failure will represent a loss of one third of the installed power.

In a contest of drop-down following an engine failure in the hover (or on take-off from a ship), it stands to reason that the EH101 is bound to win hands down.

[[email protected]]

JimL - that might be true if the remaining 2 engines could put all their remaining power through the MRGB to drive the rotors and it is my belief that the Merlin cannot do this. One of the good things that Westlands designed was the conformal, 3 pinion gearbox on the Lynx which allowed all the power from the remaining engine to drive the rotor following a power failure. Who built the gearbox for the 101? not Westlands - it was Augusta using conventional design. No doubt a variation on the 3 pinion MRGB would be offered as a mid-life update for the Merlin.

However, I agree that 400 feet is a little excessive - all that is required is enough nose down to achieve about 30 kts and it should fly away on 2 engines. But if your twin engine performance is that good, why do you need a third engine?

[cyclic_fondler]

I love all this pickering with regards to "my helicopter is better than yours".

I think it's very easy to pick faults with the EH-101 as it is in use and we are aware of it's real limitations compared to the H-92 which is not in an operational role just yet.

I think we need to wait until there's about 30-40 H92 out there doing various roles before we have some real data and then we can have a real fight!

And then somebody will have the right to say "told you so that my heli is better than yours".

I

[rotormatic]

If you want a good competition to see which ship is the best, put a hook on them, and send them logging for six months...

The one with the best availability rate wins....

[RotorPilot]

rjsquirel

The third engine on the EH=101 is certainly needed, and without all three running, it falls pretty fast. I got a few emails from folks in the last few days with info.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.
To discuss anything one must imply that the other contender (so to speak) knows something about it. Not you case. Being so I refrain myself to answer to your diatribes.



[email protected]


In this thread, for the third time in less then a year, you contradicted my statements with false data and information. In this thread or in the other about the same subject, you had to declare yourself “standing corrected” about some basic specifics as the EH101 being, from its very beginning, a military machine developed to fulfill the requirements of several countries wishing to replace the Sea King.

Your “credit rating” with me is below zero, as I do not have the time or patience to “correct” basics that should be known by those engaged in given opinions, even as biased as yours. In fact I am not interested in correcting anything at all. My interest is just to discuss well-based and well fundamented opinions about something, even if drastically different points of view might emerge from those discussions. I never turn down a good fight of ideas.

So I am not going to “correct” any of your statements or "beliefs" but rather give some more data about the EH101. You will know where they fit.

Engine and transmission limits with one engine off still make available more then 75% of the total power to the pilots.
It is allowed and indeed a very common procedure to turn off the right engine (number three) in flight if one wants to increase the endurance from 750 to 1,000 nautical miles or provide for greater loiter time.
The left engine (number 1) is tied to the auxiliary gear box and does not directly turn the main rotor.

cyclic_fondler

I think it's very easy to pick faults with the EH-101 as it is in use and we are aware of it's real limitations compared to the H-92 which is not in an operational role just yet.

I think we need to wait until there's about 30-40 H92 out there doing various roles before we have some real data and then we can have a real fight!

Exactly cyclic. Drawings don't fly so they don't crash either. That's why they have an imaculate safety record. :E
On top of that they can be anything provided one can convince the buyer that the manufacturer will be able to make good on his promises. Kind of the Boeing Dreamliner that can be anything until it starts flying... :E
How come somebody buys 5 billion worth of promises is mind-boggling :rolleyes:

The EH 101 is being flown everywhere, was deployed in the Balcans conflict, it is deployed in Iraq in extremely demanding conditions and will be packing soon elsewhere also very hot, very dry and very messy...
The H92 is "deployed" in Sikorsky's drawing board...

Oh BTW I almost forgot one thing:
Follow-up of the NH90 seems to be the HTH - Heavy Transport Helicopter for 70 troops intended to replace the twin engine CH53's in Europe and trying to give a run to Sikorsky's HLH (Heavy Lift Helicopter)... Number of engines they are thinking about ? THREE also !
Can you imagine the amount of payload they are going to loose to those engines ? :E
Well but this one is still in the "Dreamliner" phase. Not yet for sale.


http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/eurocopt/HTHArt.JPG

[rjsquirrel]

Again RotorPilot says "You simply do not know what you are talking about." Again without giving any facts.

OK rotorrooter, answer this:

Is the top of the dead man's curve for the EH-101 at MGW at sea level, 15 degrees C at 200 feet? Yes or no?

Is the top of the dead man's curve for the EH-101 at 3,000 feet and 30 degrees C at 400 feet? Yes or no?

Do these figures mean that at 170 feet in a steady hover that EH-101 (with the "extra third engine") will fall and crash if it loses one of its three engines? Yes or no?

Do these figures mean that if the EH-101 is doing a winch rescue under these conditions that it will have to ditch? Yes or no?

I think we are all waiting, RotorPilot. Please answer

[JimL]

rjsquirrel,

It is difficult to understand where you are going with this; if I were supporting the S92 against the EH101, One Engine Inopertative (OEI) performance would not have been the issue of my choice (for the reason I indicated earlier). However, if you wish to continue with it, it might be fairer to compare graphs for both aircraft.

The HV Diagram is not a graph that is used when examining winching performance - it is too general and therefore of little use. What would normally be used (if engine failure is being considered - which it might not under military conditions) is the OEI HOGE performance graph; the entry point would be (initial) on-task mass.

Even then it is more complex than the HV diagram, as density and wind would have to be taken into consideration. Such graphs usually have temperature and pressure (density altitude) as the constants with drop-down v hover-mass as the trade off. With some missions, there is the opportunity of taking advantage of some of the drop down - so increasing the on-task mass; this would not result in a ditching.

If one were to do these calculations for the EH101 and the S92, it is likely that the EH101 would be nearer to MTOM than the S92.

[widgeon]

4.1.2.3.2.
In order to reduce the risk of loss of an aircraft in the maritime environment, it is essential that the MH have power plant and flight dynamic capabilities, which include the following features:
a. capability of operating in icing conditions;
b. be multi-engined and have a one-engine-inoperative (OEI) capability sufficient to allow: a safe immediate emergency landing from a 60 ft hover, or, after transition to forward flight, safe recovery to the nearest practical landing site; and
c. to maximize the chances of safely recovering the MH, all gearboxes must be capable of operating for a minimum of 30 minutes after the total loss of all normal lubricating fluid.


The only question is does the aircraft meet the requirements of para B .

there are no extra points for exceeding the requirements .

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mhp/sor/mhp_sor.doc

Does any one have the equivalant requirement from the original SOR ?.

[Mars]

Widgeon:

Thanks for posting that (and the link); it appears that you are closer to this than we observers - I have one observations and two question:[list=1] Item c is far less ambiguous than FAR 29.927(c)(1) and appears to allows less 'interpretation' Does the OEI capability have to be shown at the MAUM? Does a 'safe immediate landing' permit a safe-forced-landing on water (i.e. a ditching)?[/list=1]

[RotorPilot]

Widgeon

Does any one have the equivalent requirement from the original SOR ?.

I saw the original SOR and copied it, but I don't have access to it anymore. I even posted this part in the CanadianAviation.com Forum but it was closed down and its no longer online. Otherwise we would have access to the original specs there.

The initial SOR clearly stated as a condition:

"Full survivability with the loss of one engine"

This was the single most important requirement that was watered down (b) to accommodate other helicopters apart from the EH101, in spite of denials from several quarters. :( :*

But even with this it was such a close call that it seems it was "necessary" to disqualify the EH101 just to be on the safe side.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RotorPilot

The left engine (number 1) is tied to the auxiliary gear box and does not directly turn the main rotor.

If this is the case if you shut down the right engine you will be operating on one engine. There is a clutch in there somwhere.

:E :E

[RotorPilot]

If this is the case if you shut down the right engine you will be operating on one engine. There is a clutch in there somewhere.

Nope. This is not the H92... it has three engines and one of them has an "auxiliary gear box" in between.
If you loose one engine you go on operating the other two.
This EH101 has "full survivability with the loss of one engine" and was the only helicopter to fulfill the initial requirements before the... .... hummm... ... "baptism"...

In fact the EH101 fly "twin" in a number of situations as "normal" operations. In case of need the number 3 can be put on line in seconds.

On the ground from cold start to full three engines power 90 seconds... ;)

[SASless]

Jim L....

How many helicopters have a geniune OEI HOGE performance chart at all? Lets see....if we take any multi-engined helicopter in existence....load them to reasonable weights...defined as typical mission weights.....I doubt there are but one or two that might be able to accomplish a OGE Hover after losing one engine...meaning one engine on the 92....two engines left on the 101...two engines on the 53E....one engine left on the CH-47.

All you big iron drivers...drop yer beers...grab yer RFM's...go to the performance sections....calculate your OGE hover weight limits....expressed in percentage of an aircraft that weighs in at 90% of mauw or maum at takeoff at a sealevel...ISA day.......divide the chart weight by the 90% weight...and report the numbers....no wind ....seal level...ISA conditions.....do any pass muster with a 1.0 coeffiecient?

[Mars]

SASless,

You are correct in that it is unusual to see OEI HOGE graphs in other than a European Flight Manual. However, for human external cargo or, in Europe, CAT Hoisting, such performance has to be ensured. (In some countries when conducting SAR it is acceptable not to have such performance during a mission but necessary during hoist training.)

Such graphs are present in the S76C+, AS332 and Bell 412 manuals (even the venerable S61 which we used to use for passenger winching in the Beryl Field) and data is available for the EH101. Unusually, the best performers are the (FAR 27 Appendix C certificated) EC135, A109 and probably the MD902 which are now quite close to OEI HOGE performance in ISA nil wind conditions (it is also expected that the AB139 will provide close to nil drop down in ISA conditions within its published MAUM).

From the Operational Specification shown to us by Widgeon, it would appear that the Canadian aircraft of choice had to be capable of a drop down from the hover of less than 60ft. It is likely that for all reasonable sectors (for short sectors the fuel load could be reduced), arrival at the point where winching had to be commenced with this performance in hand could have been achieved by the EH101 (and hopefully by the S92). (However, it was difficult to establish from the text that Widgeon showed us what the required mass would have to be.)

Such performance has always been required for passenger transfer in Europe - and some other countries in the world.

[RotorPilot]

On top of everything, the EH101 has "eagle-eyes" something the others don't have :p :E


Four young New Brunswickers were considered lucky to be alive Sunday after spending 17 hours adrift at sea overnight in an inflatable dinghy.

The two young men and two young women, aged 16 to 22, were spotted by the eagle-eyes of a Cormorant helicopter team early Sunday afternoon and were then rescued.

Missing teens plucked from rough seas (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=06323730-86af-4478-bc8e-531e7b0eb25d)

[[email protected]]

Rotor pilot - it's called 'Search and Rescue' - you search for someone using your eyes/TV/Flir/radar and then you Rescue them - if this is your great vindication of your argument for the superiority of the 101 then I hate to disappoint you but the Whirlwind was capable of doing exactly this 40 years ago!

However in the finest traditions of a man losing an argument, you choose to deflect the direction of the argument, either by brining in random stories such as the one above or by making personal attacks on the other parties.

If I choose to contradict you then it may be because I think most of your posts are misleading and extremely biased eg' Engine and transmission limits with one engine off still make available more then 75% of the total power to the pilots.' Does this mean that 75% of the power available from the remaining 2 engines is available (endorsing my comments) or that 75% of the total power from 3 engines is available from the other 2?

'The left engine (number 1) is tied to the auxiliary gear box and does not directly turn the main rotor.' So is this the weak link? can the auxiliary gearbox not handle the full power of the RTM322 and therefore not transmit it to the rotor?

Some facts, not rhetoric would be nice but I think I'll have to ring our Merlin Sqn and get some proper information.

[NickLappos]

Crab,

You are dead right to check elsewhere. While it has quite good OEI characteristics, the EH-101 has a fairly small One Engine Inoperative hover envelope, in that if it loses one engine, it cannot maintian the hover unless it is well below MGW, something to the tune of 5000 lbs lost payload.

RotorPilot's idea that it has "full servicability" with one engine shut down is simply absurd, and countered by the EH-101 brochures, which state otherwise, and its flight manual which provides a substantial H-V avoid area, and a rather large Cat A landback distance.

The reason why the MHP requirement was changed to state that a safe landing must be made after engine failure is that no helicopter could enter the OGE hover on the MHP mission, as required, and either maintain the hover after an engine failure, nor could it fly away from the engine failure. The adverts presented by one side's marketing organization (and perhaps written by Mr. RotorPilot, if my suspicions are correct!) were unfortunately not in agreement with the flight manual!

As RotorPilot has refused to answer the simple questions Mr. Squirell has posed to him, perhaps a Merlin or Cormorant pilot could do so.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RotorPilot

Nope. This is not the H92... it has three engines and one of them has an "auxiliary gear box" in between.

The left engine (number 1) is tied to the auxiliary gear box and does not directly turn the main rotor.

The Auxiliary gearbox is not mounted between the No. 1 engine and anything else. The Aux gearbox is mounted in front of the main transmission and on the ground is powered by No. 1 engine. There are two drive shifts that power the Aux gearbox and when No. 1 is driving on the ground the second shaft is isolated by a freewheeling unit preventing the main transmission from being back driven. As I said there must be a clutch that allows No.1 to run without powering the main rotor.

:E :E

[Straight Up Again]

Just to expand on Lu's comments.

Eng 1 is selectable between Accessory and main, via a switch on the overhead panel. In accessory only the Accessory gearbox is driven (as Lu says, free wheel unit prevents back driving on the input shaft from the main gearbox).

Normal start procedure (from memory) was start No 1 in Accessory, this gives 1 main generator and (I think) 1 hydraulics system. Then engine 2 is started (Eng 2 is always connected to the main gearbox), then eng No 3.

Once the rotor brake is released/engines run up and the rotor is up to speed the second generator and other 2 hydraulic systems are driven from the main gear box.

Eng 1 is then selected to Main, and drives the main gearbox directly, leaving the accessory gear box to be driven by the shaft from the main gearbox. (rotor brake is located on this shaft as well)

Eng 3 is also selectable, as it can be selected to Neutral (ie disconnected from main gearbox). This would allow 2 engine flight, though I don't believe any operators use this facility (has been used by Westlands for a range demo), and I'm not sure any one ever will.

I have a big soft spot for the EH 101, but suspect the S/H-92 will do better out in the world.

I've never had a ride in an s-92, so can't really compare.

Nick, how about a tour down-under, then you could convert me fully to the dark side (or light side, from your point of view).

[widgeon]

I have one question , even though the aircraft theoretically can complete its mission after loss of one engine would in reality the mission not be aborted after loss of an engine ?. What does the flight manual say ?

[plt_aeroeng]

I'm replying to those posts about the required behaviour post engine failure in the hover. Presumably both the EH101 and the H-92 meet these requirements, since they were pre-qualified.

While the MH SOR is still on the web, the derivative system spec. (MHRS) was removed. From the last version made public, here are relevant requirements:

"3.5.2.3.2.2 Single Engine Failure In Hover

3.5.2.3.2.2.1 [M] Following a single engine FAILURE while in a minimum of 60 foot sonar search hover, in the two payload/endurance conditions in this RS, the MH shall provide for a controlled descent and ditching, or after transition to forward flight, safe recovery at the nearest practical landing site. Jettison of EXTERNAL STORES, dipping sonar, sonobuoys in the launcher, and dumping of fuel is permitted to achieve the transition to forward flight.

3.5.2.3.2.2.2 [M] Following a single engine FAILURE while in a 60 foot operational hover over land, in the two payload/endurance conditions in this RS, the MH shall provide for a controlled descent and emergency landing, or after transition to forward flight, safe recovery at the nearest practical landing site."

My understanding is that these requirements did not change, and that the competing helicopters were analyzed in detail for compliance. Also, they were stringently applied. "Payload and endurance conditions" specified were for hover immediately after MGW take-off.

On another note, the MH Deputy Program Manager, in a press conference last year, responded to a query about the ability to fly away in this condition, responded that all the helicopters, including the EH101, were going to get wet after an engine failure in the hover immediately after take-off.

It appears to me that we can conclude there is little to choose between the EH101 and H-92 for OEI performance in practical terms. We need to look elsewhere for technical comparisons, probably focussing on cabin size as a primary discriminator vs. fuel consumption and maintenance burden.

[Winnie]

Is not the real question wether the crew will like their new machine or not?

The government has spoken, and wether the choice was good or bad, we STILL have to live with it!

The guys out there flying the old and merry Sea Kings should be happy, they're finally getting a new machine! I wish I was flying one of them (S-92 that is):ok:

[Mars]

Surely fit for task is the only issue.

[Duncan Bucket]

Good to see that prooners' appetite for slagging off Merlin has not diminished.

Keep up the speculation and conjecture, after all this a Rumour network, not a fact Network. Most enjoyable.

[OFBSLF]

Good to see that prooners' appetite for slagging off Merlin has not diminished. You think it is only the Merlin that is getting slagged off? It seems to me that both the 92 and the Merlin are getting their share of abuse.

[KENNYR]

OK folks, here's the latest little tidbit about the new wonder helicopters for the Canadian Navy. The "bear traps" that anchor the helicopter to the deck have to be changed to low profile versions at a cost of..........wait for it............$30,000,000CDN.
These new bear traps are to be fitted to all the frigates.

However..........the 3 destroyers are not going to be re-equipped and are going to be deployed in the sea of iran with....yeah, you guessed it....SEAKINGS!!!!!!!!

Only in Canada!:sad: :ugh:

[widgeon]

Was this not already included in the contract price ? , would the other helicopter have just been plug and play ?. Interesting about the sea king though , what class are these destroyers ?.

[KENNYR]

Sorry Widgeon, I dont know what class the destroyers are.....they are all big boats to me! There was no mention whether the $30M is included in the contract or not. I would not be the least bit surprised if it is an oversight by the procurement division of DOD. I cant wait to see what is next in the great big helicopter debacle.:rolleyes:

[NickLappos]

KENNYR,

I do know that the required mods to ships was of great interest, and I believe was a big part of the decision. EH-101 required extensive modification of the hangars, since it is much taller than Sea King, H-92 is actually a bit shorter externally (the lack of belly fuel makes the cabin floor lower to the ground, so the rotor head can be lower), so the mods were much less onerous.

You act as though 30 million is an enormous sum, but running ships is costly, and so is modifying them, and this cost is not outlandish. Most societies in the western world spend about 150,000 Canadian for each man in the service, so a ship with 250 crew costs about 37 million per year just on manpower cost. Most ships of this size cost about 250 million, so the cost of the money alone is about 20 Mill per year. Maintenance of a modern ship is about 10% of its value per year (a house is about 3%, by comparison) so the maintenance bill is about 25 Million. This still has not put one drop of oil into the ship, nor any ammo, nor the helicopters. It was a billionaire who once said, in response to the question of how much his yacht cost, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it!"

Now please let me unload a bit, and forgive me for what I am about to say. But as an expert on helicopters, and an admirer of the selection officers who work so hard (all the while knowing that they will be villified by someone) I must defend those who made the selection. I always find it amusing how people such as yourself find it so easy to believe that serving officers who make these selections are buffoons and preside over farces. It is a powerful human belief that one knows more than people who have worked dilligently to make the choice. Mistrust is something of a drug some of us. The ability to hide behind an anonymous user name and trash folks who are trying their best to do a good job is one of the amazing facets of people. Especially when the guys you trash signed the report with their own names and rank with the pride that they did their job well.

[KENNYR]

Forgive me for being a concerned tax payer who is extremely tired of being fleeced by the Government of Canada over a f**king helicopter. If you have not lived in this country then please dont preach to its residents Nick.

My name and status is available to anyone who requests it so dont go off on a rant about "anonymity". I dont profess to be an expert on helicopters but I did fly one for many years before retiring and my comments are based on concern for the Canadian public who have been stiffed.

I am not calling any serving officer a buffoon, just the civil servants who control the purse strings and profess to know what is best for the Canadian Forces and the Canadian people.

I do not care a rats arse which helicopter is chosen, I care only that the best helicopter is chosen at the best price WITHOUT politics getting in the way. I care a great deal for the guys and girls who have to operate the machine in service.

So, dont go running off at the mouth just because you are a so called "helicopter expert".

As an aside, why does Canada need a Navy in the first place, they dont get into harms way with its fleet anyway...........peace keeping........huh.

[NickLappos]

OK, KENNYR, who said, "My name and status is available to anyone who requests it so dont go off on a rant about "anonymity".""

I request that you post your name and status.

Also, you don't even know who you are criticizing, as the final report was signed by those military officers who made the selection.

[KENNYR]

Ken Ritchie, retired army QHI. Now what difference does that make.

They may have made the decision, but was it a considered choice or was it politically motivated?

[NickLappos]

Ken,

Thanks for that courtesy, I do appreciate it.

The selection recommendation came out of the source selection committee, which was military, not political, as I understand it. The reports of political pressure came from the loser, who was, throughout the selection, quite willing to criticize the military guys who were running the show, and who was willing to publish inaccurate and misleading technical info in an attempt to sway the public.

The people I saw and met were wearing the uniform of their country, were lately from Operational squadrons (so they would eventually fly the machine they picked) and were ernestly doing a tough job. That is why I react the way I do.

[heedm]

Ken,

Whether Canada needs a navy or not is irrelevant in this discussion. The fact is that Canada has a navy and if we continue to have one then we must supply that navy. Hence the purchase.

The DOD made no oversight as Canada doesn't have a DOD. It's called DND, The Department of National Defence.

The facts that matter are that militaries across the world are subject to the decisions of the leaders of the country. Canada had the military create a specification for a helicopter to do the role for the navy. The helicopter that was selected met that specification. I don't see a problem here.

Lets focus on the good. The Sea Kings are going to be replaced with a capable machine. What's the problem with this?

Matthew.

[KENNYR]

Well forgive me for getting the abbreviation wrong.....but you knew exactly what I meant, didnt you?

I have already stated that I couldnt give a rats arse what helicopter the Navy gets as long as the costs dont spiral out of control. Will the $5 Billion turn into $10 BIllion by the time the helis are ready? Will the manufacturers, all 170 of them, be able to produce the goods on time and on budget? Will the Frigates be converted on time?

I am glad that Canada has decided to upgrade the heli fleet but at what cost to the already cash-strapped tax payer. When the government changes in 4 years will this helicopter be scrapped because of political grandstanding?

I'm just a sceptic who has seen all this once before. Will the helicopter fiasco turn out to be the same as the submarine fiasco.....4 Submarines?.....dangerous place the St Lawrence seaway!!!!! (he says, sarcastically).

[OFBSLF]

KennyR:

First you posted this: .the 3 destroyers are not going to be re-equipped and are going to be deployed in the sea of iran with.
Later, you posted things like: dangerous place the St Lawrence seawayand this: they dont get into harms way with its fleet anywayIs not the sea of Iran in harms way? Is it not a dangerous place?

[KENNYR]

When Iraq have an effective airforce and navy and they get their hands on some silkworm missiles and then have the capability to launch them and then seed the sea of Iran with mines....etc. etc.. then it becomes a dangerous place. The only danger to these ships is from its own Seakings!!!

Iran will not attack a Canadian ship or any other coalition ship in the sea or iran, they are not that stupid.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I don’t believe there is any such body of water as the Iranian Sea. It is either the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf depending on which shore you are standing on. Iran and Saudi Arabia almost went to war over this distinction. I believe there is an Arabian Sea but this is outside the Gulf area.

:E :E

[KENNYR]

Thanks for pointing that out, the newscaster gave it out as the Iranian Sea.............its the Persian Gulf. I believe that the Canadian contingent will be spot checking civilian vessels as part of the blockade. I was making light of the Canadian participation in the sand-box area. They do an excellent job with limited and outdated equipment. The last thing I want is to start a slanging match with our Canadian allies, even though the Canadian Government refused to help its brothers in arms when the poop hit the fan.

[donut king]

You've already slagged us Canadians sir, "The only danger to these ships is from its own Seakings!!!"

[OFBSLF]

So you believe that Iraq is the only possible enemy in that region? Doesn't Iran also have a combat aircraft, small naval vessels, and cruise missiles? Isn't Iran once again at odds with western nations over its nuclear "research"?

Isn't Sudan also in that general region (Red Sea versus Gulf)? Doesn't Sudan have Migs? Isn't Sudan currently at odds with western nations over the Darfur region?
Iran will not attack a Canadian ship or any other coalition ship in the sea or iran, they are not that stupid.Really? They've done it before. Remember the Vincennes? When the Vincennes shot down the airliner, it was currently under attack by Iranian gunboats.

[KENNYR]

Its only my opinion but I do not believe that Iran or Sudan will take any action against the Coalition. However, anything is possible. Korea is much more of a threat right now so the Canadians will be safe and sound where they are. I cant see the Canadians getting involved in that situation.......can you?

[Ian Corrigible]

Nick,

On a lighter note, good luck with your sale of those two S-92s to Turkmenistan. From your experience in selling S-76s, you're doubtless familiar with the foibles of the rich and famous, but the recent actions of the Turkmen president set new standards for eccentricity, including:

- The renaming of several months after himself, his mother and other 'key figures'
- The official extension of adolescence until the age of 25 and postponement of old age until 85
- A $50,000 fee for any foreigners marrying Turkmenistanis
- Construction of a palace made of ice in the middle of the desert
- Obligatory reading of his 400 page 'spiritual guidebook' (and introduction of a test on the book as part of the Turkmenistan driving test !!)
- Decrees against gold fillings, long hair and beards
- Obligatory braided hair and fur hats for schoolgirls
- Official endorsement of polygamy (and why not...)

After dealing with this sale, the usual requests for gold-plated door handles and leopard skin interiors may seem sane !!

:E

I/C

[NickLappos]

Ian,

I am especially intrigued by the "renaming of several months after himself, his mother and other 'key figures'" All the while, I had been waiting patiently for the 12th of Nicholas to come around so I could celebrate my special day. Now you tell me I've lost that thrill, too.

The disappointments pile on...

A list of the accomplishments of a certain head of state would look similarly bizarre, if posted in a single list. Perhaps he won't get 4 more years to practice his magic. Sasless, comments?

[exwessex]

Just a quick tech question-could anyone clear up for me as to whether the EH101 has triple redundant hydraulic controls(ie.triple actuators per control path)or if it's the more usual duplex system-I've heard that it's both.If it is duplex then the third system must be utility-is this powered by the Apu?and is there any power-transfer between systems?

Thanx.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: exwessex

I believe the EH-101 has two parallel hydraulic systems and an inline electrically powered set of actuators that allow trimming and autopilot input.


:E :E

(But that was back in 1984. Things may have changed).

[deebchamoun]

any famous company that can do the overhaul