S-61 SeaKing

[Washout]

Can anyone tell me...Can you start an S61 in accessory drive ie, without engaging the rotors, or do you have to start in Flight Drive so to speak....Just curious....Thanks

[Percy Neldor]

You can start the Seaking in acc drive, infact it is normal practice cos you need one donk going to pressurize the hydraulics to spread the blades. Can't remember about the 61 but if it is real important I can dig out my notes.Suspect it is flight drive only.

[Washout]

Thanks for that Percy...Heres another brain teaser for you...would an Offshore S61N be equipped with an HSI or just fixed card ADF and VOR/ILS etc....Cheers

[Cyclic Hotline]

Sunday March 12 2:32 PM ET

Pilot caused ditching of chopper in East Timor

(CP) - A Canadian Sea King helicopter ditched in the ocean off East Timor last December because the pilot made an error, not because of any mechanical trouble, says a new report.

The pilot mistakenly shut off the fuel pumps to save gas, choking one of the two engines and causing it to shut down while the Sea King was hovering, a military investigation concludes.

Sea Kings cannot hover on one engine so the crew was forced to ditch in the sea. The amphibious aircraft floated for about a minute before the pilot was able to restart the engine and get airborne again.

The five people aboard were not hurt and the aircraft landed safely at nearby Dili airport.

"Shutting off boost pumps to conserve fuel is neither a valid nor auth(orized) procedure and its use with low fuel states has serious repercussions as experienced the hard way in this incident," says a report obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The geriatric Sea King fleet, dating from 1963, has been plagued with mechanical problems as Ottawa mulls over potential replacements. But the Dec. 2 accident in East Timor, widely assumed at the time to be caused by mechanical breakdown, was in fact the result of human error.

The aircraft was one of two Canadian Sea Kings based aboard HMCS Protecteur as part of an international peacekeeping force in the troubled nation.

Investigators determined that the aircraft was running low on fuel as it waited for clearance to land on Protecteur's deck.

The pilot had once heard from another Sea King pilot that shutting down the fuel pumps can reduce consumption, even though the procedure is forbidden in the official air force manual.

Highly corrosive salt water seeped into the belly of the aircraft after it ditched. The Sea King had to undergo more than three weeks of meticulous cleaning and repairs before it was ready for operations again.

And while on a test flight Dec. 20, the aircraft's other engine lost power in flight, forcing the crew to make another emergency landing at Dili airport. No one was hurt and the aircraft was not damaged.

A second investigation determined that a technician likely failed to tighten an air hose, though the hose may have worked itself lose in the hot, humid weather of East Timor.

"There was a mistake made," Maj. Mike Muzzerall, who commanded the 35-member Sea King detachment in East Timor, said in an interview from Victoria.

"There was a series of errors. It just wasn't our day."

The Sea King finally became operational Dec. 24, he said.

Canada's Sea Kings currently require about 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. They're available for operations only about 40 per cent of the time.

An order for high-tech replacement choppers was cancelled by the incoming Liberal government in 1993, forcing the military to fly the Sea Kings until at least 2005, five years past their scheduled retirement date.

Upgrades worth $80 million have kept the aircraft operational though the Sea Kings are still plagued by frequent mechanical breakdowns.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton has said he intends to buy replacement aircraft, but industry has not yet been asked for bids.
© The Canadian Press, 2000

[Harpooner]

At said event yesterday (Sat) if that flyby/ transition through the masts of the tall ships alongside had gone even marginally wrong not only would you have killed dozens of the public but you would have put the whole industry back 20 years in the eyes of the public.
As the saying goes-'start at the Board of enquiry and work backwards'
Go and sit in a corner and stare at yourself in the mirror, now run through a few what if scenarios.

If the spelling is ars* its because I still have rage clouding my vision!

[Cyclic Hotline]

The Sikorsky S61 fleet is slowly starting to gring to a halt, as the total non-production of Main Rotor Blades for the last year starts to take effect.

Apparently they have been unable to produce a satisfactory spar at the vendor, so there is nothing to build upon. Of course, no operator in their right mind is going to release any of their own spares, so the guys with no spares are starting to park them!

Life Limit extensions, look like the only viable means of maintaining an operational fleet!

Anyone got any other info on this?

[rapidstart]

Just so that you don't think that there isn't anybody interested in this dilemma except the two of us, I'll ask around.
Is it still true that these machines are to be taken off the UK register in 2005 anyway?

[U R NumberOne]

I see an S-61 div'd back to Aberdeen yesterday with a problem. Is this the beginning of the end for this old bird? If so there'll be no more 110kts down the ILS - yippee! :)

[Cyclic Hotline]

Well, Sikorsky finally came back with a 1200 hour extension to the life limit to the S61 blades.

This cures the short term shortage of zero supply, so at least the Operator's who were already grounded got going again. Still looks like well into 2001 before deliveries get under way.

Now we here that some Operators in the US are succefully getting a life limit extension of an additional 3000 hours, following the conclusion of their own engineering efforts. There is a distinct likelihood of this becoming available (for the right price) to other operators.

The Main Rotor Blades are the single part for the S61 manufactured at the Sikorsky factory for which there is no alternate supplier; no competition, nothing, and they can't keep the supply running. Makes me want to increase my options for S92's, just as soon as I can find someone to talk to at the factory! :)

[Lu Zuckerman]

Has anyone checked Agusta? They made S-61 helicopters and the blades and I understand that the US Navy procured a lot of spares from Agusta to support the SH3s in the US Navy fleet.

Just a thought.

Regarding the life extension I personally believe that although a lot of S-61s will keep flying it is not a very good idea. When the blades were first designed, the engineers calculated the basic life of the blades based on percieved dynamic loading and accumulated vibratory forces and they built in a safety factor. Now they are countering their original calculations
by adding a thousand or several thousands of hours to the life of the blades.

Sikorsky did not have a very good reputation in the support of civilian S-61s.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Los Angeles Airways. They lost two passenger S-61s for the same reason. Throwing a blade killing all of the passengers and crew on both helicopters. The grandson of the owner was on one of the S-61s that was lost. It put the company out of business. The failures of both rotor heads was traced to the overhaul procedure used by Sikorsky on the respective rotor heads. They left off a crucial process

If the blade life extension goes through, it should require an extensive periodic inspection of the spars and pockets, which will run up the maintenance costs and most likely increase the IOP* for the flight crew and passengers. But, that's my opinion.


* IOP= Intensity Of Pucker

The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]

[Flare Dammit!]

Aren't the S-61 blades BIM'd? My thinking is, if a blade can pass a BIM inspection every three hours or so, why not use it?

[Lu Zuckerman]

I was going to mention the BIM monitors on the spar and for whatever reason, left it out. Reading the BIM indicator prior to flight provides a snapshot of what the blade indication is at the time of the reading. It does not provide any warning regarding a catastrophic failure caused by fatigue.

Sikorsky developed a BIM system that monitors spar leakage in flight. It involved radioactive material and a sensor/pickup. Like in the regular BIM indicator one part shifted in relation to the other. In the normal BIM system you could see the color change from the ground.

On the other BIM indicator when the moving part shifted position the sensor/pickup would detect the shift and provide the warning to the pilot but even this system can't provide a warning about catastrophic failure. Extended blade life equals extended exposure to operating loads

------------------
The Cat

[cyclic]

Would the plastic blades from the Sea King not be suitable?

[Lu Zuckerman]

Dear Cyclic,

You question prompts the asking of several more questions:

1) Are the root fittings compatible?

2) Do the blades have the same dynamic and aerodynamic characteristics?

3) Do the blades have the same mass balance characteristics?

4) Do the blades require any type of damping system (Like the Bifilar system)?

5) Most importantly, are they certified for use on a civil aricraft?

There are probably other questions that would have to be resolved. These are just a few.

------------------
The Cat

[B Sousa]

Not that anyone hasnt done it already but would someone post the NSN (National Stock Number) for the Blades. I would like to check some surplus tricks.. If I have any luck I wil post it........

[rapidstart2000]

A few years back I believe a Cloggie S61 was shutdown on deck offshore because the crew felt "a strange vibration" during the approach. The blade basically fell off during the shutdown due to a root failure, and that blade had a very few hours to go to scrap! Are we serious about extending the life of this rather important piece of kit?

[Arkroyal]

Lu Z

Cyclic's question was also on my lips.

Westland designed them as a straight replacement for the metal blades, and as I was on a Sea King squadron when they were introduced, I seem to remember it being a very quick and effective fix. Better fuel efficiency (16% profile Tq against 20% with metal)and much much less vibration.

So answers:

1, 2, & 3 almost certainly yes

4 no

5 that's gonna be the real problem (along with cost) remember the first five words of the UK Air Navigation Order - 'An aircraft shall not fly.....'

[Grenadetosser]

The dutch S61 blade loss was a spindle failure, not a blade failure.

Westlands were approached many years ago about fitting the Sea King blades to the S61 fleet, their response if I remembe right was that regardless of the civil certification cost we the operators would have to absorb (which were going to be many big bucks said the CAA), they wanted a minimum order of 1000, yes one thousand, blades to make it worth them bothering. Needless to say it all went quiet.....

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Grenadetosser:

Several postings above I mentioned Los Angeles Airways and how their two S-61s suffered blade loss. Actually it was spindle failure. I don't know what the time frame was for the loss of the Dutch Sea King helicopter and I can't remember the time frame for the LA Airways two losses but I believe it wes somewhere around 1967 or 1968 as I flew on one of them two days prior to the loss. On that flight I had to keep my teeth clenched to keep from chipping them. One blade was out of track by almost ten inches. When I got off at LAX I told a ramp mechanic and he said that they would get to it on the next check. Perhaps, that was the blade that failed.

The problem was at that time Sikorsky did not have an overhaul manual for the S-61. So, when a major assembly such as a rotor head was returned for overhaul it was disassembled, inspected and brought up to the original design standard as dictated by the design drawings. In the case of the spindle they ground off the chrome plate down to the parent metal of the spindle. They then replated the spindle and reground it to nominal manufacturing dimension. That sounds as if they did it the right way however they left off a critical step. They did not shot peen the spindle prior to plating to relieve the residual stresses.

So, when the rotor head was installed on the helicopter the spindles had a high degree of residual stress and after accumulating some hours the spindles let go. This would also apply to extending the life on the blades.

------------------
The Cat

[Grenadetosser]

to The Cat

After the Cloggie spindle failure there was a general re-look at maintenance of them. A fleet check showed up lots of corrosion. Some form of NDT checking was intoduced, it may still be in force (I havn't been near an S61 for some years now).

If one was going to worry about blade restraint I would take a hard look at the Super Puma, but then only if I didn't want to sleep nights.....

[hover lover]

Dear B Sousa,
Here's some info for you but its not a NSN
blade number - this advert has appeared in the HAI magazine ROTOR, every issue, for the past 12 months:
Surplus Parts Inventory Liquidation - S-61 Helicopter Inventory - over 39000 line items - avionic & electrical, dynamic, hyd-ASE, power plant, structural - (AN + MS + NAS)- all sold with certificate of compliance - for details contact ........their European rep has a United Kingdom phone number.

I'm not a tout so there's no more info to share. But to a ground-based guy like me it sure looks like somebody is trying to unload S-61 blades.

[VH_KAM]

Never ever ever trust anything where the wings travel faster than the fuselage.

[Arkroyal]

VH_KAM

Can I modify that. Most helicopters are OK but never fly one where the wings can have a mid air collision with the fuselage, like the Robinson series!

[offshoreigor]

Re: Use of SeaKing Blades

The last time I checked, The SeaKing (S61A) blades were entirely different from the 61N/L. So I don't think you would get anywhere with them. Even the Shortski uses N Blades.

As for BIM's, your right, they won't give you a warning of a sudden catastrofic failure but the will give some idea that there is an impending problem i.e. cracked spar etc.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

[Pac Rotors]

Hey Guys

Wanted to get some opinions. I was recently in canada watching the Bell 214B doing some heli logging. First off I was impressed. Great performance for a single engine machine.

The question is I understand that the S-61 can out lift the 214 at Sea level but as it gets higher the 214B comes into its own and at approx 3.5 - 4000 ft actually is a better lifter than the S-61. Could anyone comment on this. Not meaning to have a shot at the S-61 just trying to get some info.

Regards

Pac Rotors. :confused:

[CTD]

I've never flown a 214B, and my memories of the 61 are foggy at best (haven't touched one since '94) but I seem to remember she didn't like altitude very much. It would come as no surprise to me that as long as the big two-blader had the lungs for it, she'd outperform Big Igor up high.

I do remember a trip across the Canadian Rockies at 11,500 once, speed somewhere around 80KIAS, with 1/rev and 5/rev competing for the rights to shake us to bits....

Maybe some of the loggers could help........

[Pac Rotors]

CTD

The one operation I spent time with said their one will cruise around 140 knots no problem at all. I was very impressed with its performance so just wondered how much parity there is between S-61 and the 214B.

Pac Rotors

[Attila]

214B, nice machine, but only one engine. 2950 shp derated to 1850 continuous. Max Gross wt 13800lbs loaded internally, or 16000 with a hook load. Max I have had on the hook was 7200lbs, at 1500', OAT 23C. Will cruise at 140kts, and it is possible to got through VNE if the blades are tracked and tabbed correctly. Good old nodal beam suspension. S61, the hook is cleared for 8000lbs, but the most I have personally carried is only around half of that, due to the aircraft fit. She starts to grumble a little at max gross with no wind, too, before you get to translational.

[zaplead]

Can anyone offer some data regarding the following:
-Sloping Ground Limits
-Max windspeed for Rotor Engagement/Disemgagement
-Icing limitations
-Flight time in recirculating snow
Will be most grateful to hear from anyone who could offer answers regarding any of the above......Cheers

[Attila]

Rotor engagement max steady wind 50kts
Vmin IMC 45kts
Cleared for light icing, 1/2 inch accretion in 40 NM
Flight in icing conditions min ambient temp -5C
Min freezing level 500ft above surface (so that a descent into a positive air band is possible)
Max alt 5000ft PA
Min flight temp in engine icing -23C (below +6Cwith precipitation or horizontal viz less than 1000m)
Sloping ground - no specific limits, but care should be taken with the fwd/aft cyclic & low collective combinations to avoid clobbering the fuselage - not good for your health & future employment. Other limits of pitch, roll & heave apply from the IVLL which each N Sea operator will have.

Hope this helps;)

Almost forgot, one N Sea operator has specific limits for protracted running on the ground in rreduced visibility caused by falling snow.

[zaplead]

Cheers for the info, forgive my ignorance but I'm not familiar with the terms Vmin and IVLL, wondered if you wouldnt mind elaborating on these?
Thanks.....Zap

[Attila]

V refers to speed, as in VNE, Velocity not to exceed. In this case, Vmin IMC is the minimum speed for operating the aircraft under Instrument Met Conditions. Various others include Vbroc, Vtoss, etc. I'll leave you to work those out.

IVLL is the Installation & Vessel Landing Limitations list. This is a document produced by the CAA after consultation with the helicopter operators. It includes all platforms, semi-subs, resupply vessel, seismic vessels operating in the Northern and Southern North Sea and provides information concerning any obstructions etc which may hinder your approach, plus gives restrictions on the amount of pitch, roll and heave that are acceptable for the various helicopter types!!

Phew, that's the epistle according to Attila, I'm off for a beer.

:D

[zaplead]

Thanks for the info Attila,
Hope you enjoy the 'old perculiar',
Cheers....Zap

[coalface]

Minor correction to Attila's last post. The IVLL is not produced by the CAA. It is produced by the UK North Sea helicopter companies (Bristow and Scotia). They finance the manpower to do helideck inspections, and collate all helideck info including voyage reports about turbulence etc. The end result is the Installation and vessel Limitations List (IVLL) which is available to our pilots during preflight planning and also in the cockpit. This allows us to be fully briefed on every aspect of a helideck prior to arrival. Gone are the days when one operator would impose a limitation on a deck due to a severe turbulence problem and no-one else would be told. All limitations etc are the same for each operator.

[zaplead]

Thanks for that Coalface,
In a world with so many regulatory restrictions, minima and criteria to be up to speed with it is nice to see anything which standardises procedures and reduces workload for pilots, assuming you can get everyone to agree!
Thanks for that.....Zap

[Cyclic Hotline]

Sikorsky’s top marketing executive Jeff Pino offered the following insight into the internal thinking at Sikorsky.


The S-61 program shows too many regulatory problems for Sikorsky to stay in the business. ‘We’ll support it, but essentially we’re out of that business in a direct sense.’ Pino implied the new Carson blade initiative for S-61s is also something Sikorsky will stay away from.

Excuse me. Did I miss something? It must certainly have been the "support" offered on the S61 for the last few years? Maybe I missed it somewhere?

As Mr Pino has only just joined Sikorsky, he may well be unaware of the problems this particular model has suffered in the last few years - namely a lack of major parts to support the programme; gutting of the product support department and a TOTAL lack of interest in the problems this has posed for the operators of this type! It might be worth Sikorsky's while to get out and talk to some of their existing customers, rather than deliver this information to the AHS. We are already quite aware of the level of commitment from that end.

Fortunately there are alternatives to the factory for parts and support. One of the major bright spots in the S61's future is the composite Main Rotor Blades that Carson has had the vision to create. These blades provide a means to enhance the performance of the S61 to a level that means it will remain in commercial service for at least another 20 years, whether the marketing department wants it or not. The Carson blades offer the most economic improvement to the existing fleet that money can buy, and will be the way forward for many aircraft (including military) for some considerable time.

The fact that Sikorsky entirely lost the large offshore market (due to terminating manufacture of the S61) and handed the ENTIRE market to the Eurocopter Super Puma, is of course one of those great aviation mis-marketing stories of all time.

Now, to win back those lost (and very loyal) customers, they announce that they are essentially stopping support on the last large commercial helicopter they built , and that a large number of their loyal customers still operate.

Maybe I lost something in my comprehension of modern marketing methods, but somehow I think that those boys at Eurocopter who have been laughing in their wine for the last 20 years, must be in absolute hysterics now?

[Dave Jackson]

The Wall Street Journal mentioned last week that the planned purchases of Comanche helicopters maybe cut by an additional 40%, and there are plans to kill the program entirely.

On the other hand, Sikorsky has just been granted another patent [#6,454,532] on its Variable Diameter Rotor, for use in tilt rotors.

Perhaps after 60 years, Sikorsky is coming to recognize that the tail-rotor was the easy way, but the wrong way, to go. Perhaps the company is finally acknowledging the ingenuity of the Germans and the Russians with their coaxial, side-by-side and intermeshing configurations.

Dave J.

Symmetry is beauty ~ Ban the tail-rotor :)

[Special 25]

Commercial operators just don't spend like the military. We buy S-61's back in the 1960's and continue to operate them 30 years later. The original batch of Bell 212's, still flying for operators in various parts of the world. We finally bite the bullet and buy the S-76, a totally new type, and sure enough continue to operate the same airframes, without buying any more new ones for the next 20 years +.

Compare that to the military that have a continuing turnover of aircraft, and suddenly it is clear that the financial pressures that commercial operators are under, make them pretty poor customers.

[SASless]

Commerical operators are poor customers for Sikorsky??? Funny, that seems to be a self inflicted wound to me! When the Pilots Unions formed in the Gulf of Mexico and the operators finally raised rates, one of the by-products was the ability to upgrade their fleets. That was announced in public by the operators themselves! Maybe, if the operators had used sound business management techniques all along and raised rates they would have been able to buy new aircraft over the years instead of continuing to fly antiques till they finally found their way to the boneyard. The helicopter industry is facing yet another crisis....and that is finding a way to replace all of these old aircraft with modern state of the art equipment. As long as they have an attitude of just getting by and relying upon outdated marginal operating practices.....the industry will continue to be a backwater to the aviation mainstream. Why should Sikorsky worry about a customer base that refuses to invest in new aircraft.....after all they are builders of aircraft primarily and suppliers of parts secondarily.

[chalk one]

As a former SAC employee I can tell you that support for the S61 in future will go the way of support for the S64…..none. Product liability has made the bean counters turn their backs on these two fine products. Onesey and twosey sales to the commercial market don’t feed the bull dog….SAC marketing knows that they live and die by military sales and R&D funding.



Flexible is much too rigid, in aviation you have to be fluid. - Verne Jobst

[Cyclic Hotline]

It appears that there is much activity within the organization as to how such a damaging story could ever have appeared - watch for some clarification in the near future.

Carson blades may happen yet from the factory!

S61 is not a lost cause!

Maybe some of the big parts will be available again when you need them!

In the meantime, a new story today from Rotorhub (http://hoovnews.hoovers.com/fp.asp?layout=query_displaynews&doc_id=NR200210191675) pleads the case for the dangers of the current joint ventures between European helicopter manufacturers and US defence manufacturers.

My only comment to this would be to look at the example of other manufacturing industries that failed to deliver on product, price, support and value - all of which the customer takes into account whenever any elective decision is made.

Whilst the management of Sikorsky seemingly undergoes regular massive changes, the core strengths and knowledge of the operators do not - the customers know the product and the company. They also know what to expect and can gauge that performance to 2, 5 or 15 years ago - maybe internally that capability has been lost?

Incidentally, I heard that one operator had 4 S61's down at one point this summer due to a shortage of Main Rotor Masts!

:eek:

[Cyclic Hotline]

Seems that the Carson blades may be back on the programme again! Now lets tackle some of the problems that somone else hasn't solved!
Rotorhub story (http://www.rotorhub.com/news/0210/carson.htm)

Carson: S61 blade TC and Sikorsky deal near
Source: Defence & Public Service Helicopter
28 October 2002

Frank Carson - inventor of a blade designed to enhance performance of the existing fleet of Sikorsky S-61 helicopters - says FAA approval of the new design Type Certificate (TC) will be received ‘by December 15 this year.’

An earlier deadline of this past June slipped ‘due to paperwork issues, nothing to do with the blade itself,’ Carson tells Rotorhub.com.

‘We’re up to 18,000 hours of fatigue testing and we’ve had the flight testing for the Type Inspectional Authorisation (TIA) completed.’

Carson also said a deal with Sikorsky on the blades will be announced soon, possibly within the next three weeks.

‘We can’t tell you the details obviously, but it will seal the relationship between us,’ Carson said.

Meanwhile, Carson says production tooling has been set up. The work will be performed by Composite Structures Inc., Monrovia, Ca.

‘They’re probably going to start making the first articles by the end of this year.’

Carson said his nine-strong fleet of S-61s would be the first customers, but that others were waiting in the wings.

‘As soon as we have the approval, we can start marketing them,’ he said.

A deal with Sikorsky is expected to see Carson Helicopters feeding new blades to Helicopter Support Inc., Orange, Conn., Sikorsky Aircraft’s wholly owned service and support organisation, says Jeff Hill of Carson.

‘I expect they’ll be our worldwide marketing organisation for the blade.’

Sikorsky had no comment on an impending deal, however.

‘I don’t know what the meaning of soon is,’ said Ed Steadham, company spokesman.

Jeff Pino, the company’s marketing executive director claims he was misinterpreted when he told an AHS meeting recently that Sikorsky had no plans to ‘directly’ support S-61s or the Carson blade in the field.

That started a stream of messages to Rotorhub.com questioning the policy. Pino declined to take the matter further.

The Carson blade has been widely praised for significantly raising performance margins of the original S-61 blade design.

The story of development has been a saga. Carson claims many years - and equally as many millions of dollars - have been poured into the project.

‘We’re almost there,’ he said. ‘You’ ll be the first to hear.’

[Heliport]

Thought I'd bring this old thread to the top.
We've got a lot more members now than in 2001 and I don't think we had a definitive answer to the question back then.

[SASless]

Heliport....

Throw in the comparison of the Alouette III or Lama against the Bell 205A.....and get a real fuss started. The French machines did the same thing to the 205 as the 214 does to the 61.

[redandwhite]

Flew the 214B in Oman for 8 years, yes, it does only have one donk, but an extremely reliable one; (we did have compressor stall problems, due to sand/dust ingestion, but a daily engine wash cured that).;)

Currently am on the 61 and I wouldn’t like to try some of the lifts I did then, 8000’ density altitude and 5000 lbs on the hook, (if you ignored the EGT limit light you could always get 100% torque!), but then again, current job wouldn’t require me to.

I seem to recall the ‘normal’ cruise for the biglifter was around 128 IAS at 6000’ DA, you’d be hard pressed to get a 61 anywhere near that, blade technology has progressed even further, maybe the Carson blades will give the 61 a new lease of life.
:E

[STANDTO]

Some time ago (18 months) some kind geezer sent me a picture of a Seaking in East Timor.

Can you PM me please.

[oldpinger]

Not a problem, check your PMs

[Fox3snapshot]

Not old Shark07 ????

:ok:

[STANDTO]

Thanks OldPinger. PM reply on way.

FOX 3 - I dunno, what do you know?

[oldpinger]

Standto- wilco, PM on route.

Fox 3- it could have been the 'other' seaking- 10 points for the side number of that one and which ship it was operating off!
:8

[widgeon]

Was talking to someone today who claimed that S61 with Carson blades has range and lifting capacity similar to S92 . Anyone out there got any real figures ?. When will blades be widely available ?. Will be worth picking up them H3 bodies from the desert to upgrade em.

[CRAN]

I've got some paperwork from Prof Curtiss, the guy that did the design work somewhere. I'll have a look and see what I can dig up.

CRAN

[polehog]

Just a question to all you long time 61 drivers…… I’ve flown the 76 for many years and have gotten into the habit of flying (in cruse flight) with my hand off the collective. Now one of the guy’s I fly with says that it makes him “nervous” when I do this in the 61. He claims that if there was a hard over I would be unable to select the appropriate hydraulic system off in time. I don’t think I agree for a few reasons. Some of which are as follows.

1. The reaction time to get your hand back to the collective (purely instinctive) is almost instantaneous as opposed to the time required to sort out the hard over problem?
2. How many hard overs has the 61 had over its career?
3. Would there have been any difference in the out come of such an event in the split second difference in times?

Any input to this question would be appreciated.

polehog

[leading edge]

I think he is over reacting. I have thousands of 61 hours and I have never had a hardover or a hydraulic problem.

LE

[sycamore]

Why would you want to switch off the hydraulics if you have a hard-over, assuming in English a hardover is an autopilot problem, not a hydraulics-- and assuming a -61 is same as a Sea-king? Seems like you really want to make it difficult?

[polehog]

This is the condition that I'm talking about.



FLIGHT CONTROL HYDRAULIC SERVO SYSTEM FAILURE.
Control of the helicopter can be maintained through either the primary or the auxiliary flight control hy-
draulic servo system if one or the other should fail; however, prolonged operation on one servo system
is not recommended. This is a serious emergency because control is impossible with both servo systems
inoperative. Reduce airspeed to 60 to 70 hots and land at the nearest suitable landing area. With the
auxiliary servo system inoperative, the AFCS is inoperative.
Some malfunctions may cause rapid changes in aircraft attitude. The pilot’s immediate response should be
to counteract the malfunction by exerting appropriate forces on the controls. However, if a malfunction
produces forces too large to be reacted by the pilot, it is imperative to turn off the malfunctioning unit.
Because it is difficult to identify the cause of a malfunction, and because prompt action is necessary to
avoid exceeding aircraft operating limitations, the following procedure is recommended:

~ 1. If either stick drives hardover or can’t be moved, turn off units in this sequence:

a. Simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the primary servo.

I b. Turn off the auxiliaryservo.
~ The above steps should be followed sequentially, only until an improvement in control is achieved. When
either the primary or the auxiliary servo system has been turned off and the abnormal condition still
exists, the opposite servo system should be turned off. Be prepared to quickly turn the servo back on
should aircraft control become further degraded following the turn-off of a servo.

Note
Because of the pressure switch interlock, it is impossible to turn off one servo
system when the pressure in the other servo system is below 1000 psi.

2. If pedals drive hardover or can’t be moved, simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the auxiliary servo.
Once a malfunctioning servo system has been identified and corrective action has been taken, reduce air-
speed to 60 to 70 knots and avoid rapid maneuvers to minimize control forces. Land as soon as practicable.



Thanks
polehog

[NickLappos]

The 61 is different in that the servos are not dual, there are two in series, one a smaller aux servo, and one the big primary. Most newer helos have a dual primary servo, with identical tandem cylinders and dual pilot valves. These newer servos really cant hardover, since a single failure will cause one to try and move but be restrained by the other. Presumably a dual simultaneous pilot valve failure is too rare to worry about.

All this being said, the hand on the collective of a 61 will do nothing to stop the hardover, except to reach for the hydraulic shutoff switch quicker. Even so, turning off one or the other servo is a crap shoot.

I do not know of a hardover in a 61 servo, and would not think it worth losing any sleep over.

[NickLappos]

widgeon,

The Carson web site says they get 2000 lbs more lift for the same power (about 10% more thrust). With that increase, they would just about equal the raw lift of the EH-101 or the S-92.

We would have to see the flight manual to see if that is an across the board increase, or just a spot point where it is maximum. I would suspect that the flight manual charts would be published on the web site if it were truly a blanket +2000 lbs.

Remember that the rest of the aircraft needs a bit more maintenance, and the parts are getting hard to find. Also, the level of safety in the design is of the 1960 vintage. These factors all weigh in. We find the popularity of the S-92 is associated with the increased attention to safety and redundancy, a by product of the newer design and the lessons learned in the intervening 45 years since the S-61 first flew.

[widgeon]

I was not trying to take anything away from the S92 , but just pointing out that one of your main competitors is your own machine. On DOC's the S92 wins hands down if the published figures stand. you just designed and built em too well I guess , what is the fleet leader S61 now , I saw one for sale with over 30 K time since new.

[polehog]

Thanks Nick, that was exactly the kind of info that I'm interested in. I guess it comes down to risk management, how many other things are more likely to happen that require closer attention. And I can't emphasize enough how quick the hand returns to the collective with the slightest hint of trouble. I can also say that in the 10000 + hrs of flying helicopters, other than an engine failure due to snow ingestion, any failures I've experienced (and I've had a few) have always been preceded by some notice of "bad things to come"

polehog

[Lu Zuckerman]

Because of the pressure switch interlock, it is impossible to turn off one servo when the other system is below 1000 PSI.

That was the Sikorsky design philosophy that existed during that time frame (design of the S-61) and it carried over from the design of the S-58, which had both primary and auxiliary servo systems,

The pressure switch on either system provided continuity when the pilot wanted to turn off the other system. When the pressure switch on the Auxiliary system was in the closed position the pilot could operate the shutoff valve on the primary system and the opposite was true if he wanted to turn off the off the auxiliary system.

On the S-58 the pressure switch and the shutoff switch on each system were very close to each other. The pin connectors for both the pressure switch and the shutoff valve were color coded to prevent a cross connection however the color-coding would wear off. Good design dictated that the connectors and the connection should be keyed to prevent the cross connection but they weren’t. This was either an oversight or, a means of cutting costs.

On an H-34 the pin connectors were cross connected and during ground check the pilot tested the integrity of the system by shutting off one system and turning it back on and then shutting down the second system. When he shut down the second system both systems shut down. The cyclic stick immediately started moving in a counter clockwise circle causing severe damage to the pilots reproductive system. Even though in great pain he hit the switch turning both systems back on.

I don’t know if this condition can be repeated on the S-61 or other later model Sikorsky helicopters but it is worth investigating.


:E :E

[polehog]

Thanks Lu. I guess the quote should be "If assembled as designed ...... etc"

:rolleyes:

polehog

[The Nr Fairy]

polehog:

"Assembled as designed" aapears not to be the case for the S58 pilot after the event :\

I'd perhaps also be more worried about the failure of the bearing supporting the output shaft off the power turbine - if it fails the resulting flailing shaft and hot oil turn the other engine into a source for a fire which takes the gearbox out in less than 2 minutes. The accident report for that one should be out in a month or two, with some interesting reading (BTW, yet another nugget from the AAIB visit last Tuesday).

[polehog]

Hello "Tinkerbell";) ;) The failure that keeps me on my toe's is the input freewheel failure!!!!!

I've done the output shaft failure in the sim! Quite a ride. The guy's did a "fair dinkum' job to get down. Well done.

Polehog

[heedm]

There was logging Boeing 234? (Chinook) crash on Vancouver Island that was the result of a hardover. An electrical problem caused the parallel actuators to go right to max travel so hard that it broke flight controls and resulted in an uncontrollable helicopter.

This is based on my memory of the incident, please correct me if I'm wrong. (Like I have to ask on this forum :o )

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: polehog


Hello "Tinkerbell" The failure that keeps me on my toe's is the input freewheel failure!!!!!

This happened on an Italian HH-53. From the time the pilot heard the noise it took twenty-two seconds for him to autorotate to the water.

When they opened the gearbox at Agusta they found that the left-hand FW unit had suffered a catastrophic failure that prevented the FW unit from Free Wheeling. The rotor system kept the transmission rotating and the energy back driving the frozen free wheel unit caused the metal parts to abrade, melt, and generally deform. The engine was also effected causing it to suffer severe damage. All of this in 22 seconds. It was however survivable.


:E :E

[NickLappos]

Lu,

Not likely it was an Intalian HH-53, they don't have any.

To the group,

Please take Lu's assertions about design mistakes with a spoonful of salt. Lots of professionals in lots of helicopter companies make lots of helicopters with a mass of expertise and knowledge that Lu will never understand, nor appreciate.

Lest the group get shaky about the mechanical safety of our machines, remember that the chief causes of accidents, by a factor of 10, is in our hands as the pilots and maintainers. A flaw in our training system is the way we open the emergency procedures section of the flight manual and read all about what we need to practice, as though that stuff will get us. The reality is that we need to practice the judgements and skills needed to fly normal healthy helos in adverse conditions (or learn when not to fly in those conditions!)

If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick lappos

Not likely it was an Intalian HH-53, they don't have any.

I may have been wrong about the type of helicopter S-61 Vs HH-53 but I was referencing my statements about the internal damage from photographs and I assumed it was an HH-53. Now, about the Italians’ not having any HH-53s you are totally wrong. The Aeronautica Militare flew them in SAR operations. I have a factory model of one of their HH-53s and the tail number is MM80976. A division of Agusta located in Sesto Calende (spelling) not too far from Cascina Costa built these helicopters. There is a possibility that the USCG HH-53s were built at that same location.

Now as far as the rest of your post you are being far too accusatory and way too defensive about the quality of not only Sikorsky products but other helicopters as well. While I worked at Sikorsky the following happened.

1) In the assembly of an S-55 being delivered to the Armed forces of Israel the main transmission was installed out of sequence and deformed the transmission deck. The fishplate that joined the transmission mount to the side of the airframe could not be installed due to misalignment of the boltholes. Someone tried to align the holes and in the process made deep scratches in the Magnesium structure. The helicopter went through flight test and was flown to New Jersey for delivery. This S-55 although destined for military use was sold as a civilian aircraft. Making delivery in New Jersey Sikorsky avoided paying state sales tax. The helicopter was put aboard a freighter in an unprotected hold and the salt spray attacked the magnesium structure. In the flight-testing and the delivery to New Jersey the pilots did not notice anything wrong. Upon delivery to the Israel the test pilots noted a severe beat. Detailed inspection found that the right forward transmission mount was not tied into the structure and the adjacent structure was severely corroded. The helicopter was returned to Sikorsky for remanufacture.
2) During the build up of the fuel tanks in the tub section of an S-58 the technicians did not remove a paper lock on the fuel high level shut off valve. When fuel was put into the tank the paper lock came loose and was floating around in the tank. The helicopter was sent to the French in North Africa. On one flight in mountainous territory the paper lock floated over the intake strainer and shut off the fuel supply to the engine. The helicopter autorotated and in the process stove in the tub section. In the ensuing investigation the fuel tank was opened and they found the following: The paper lock which, had printed white on red stated that the lock must be removed prior to installing the valve. They also found bobby pins and chewing gum wrappers in the tank as well as long hairs from the woman technicians.
3) Sikorsky technicians forgot to install a snap ring in a tail rotor gearbox for an S-58. This particular gearbox had a bad leak in the area of the input housing and was repaired three times before the leak was stopped. Each time the leak was corrected the technicians checked the gear mesh. In doing this they would have a direct view of the snap ring installation. Once the leak was stopped the gearbox was run in and again inspected for the proper gear mesh. The paper work had been signed off and stamped four times without inspection having viewed the work. The gearbox was placed in open stock and installed on a Navy HSS-1. It went through flight test and was ferried out to San Diego. On the first flight checking out the SONAR system the tail rotor came off the gearbox and the helicopter crashed killing the three-man crew. The helicopter and the tail rotor were recovered and upon disassembly of the gearbox it was found that the snap ring was missing from its’ place and there was no evidence that it had been installed. The Navy presented its’ case to Sikorsky and they were told that the snap ring had been installed and to prove it, they showed them the paperwork. The Navy could not question the build-up technicians because they had been given the day off with pay and the inspector was transferred to another department. The sad thing is that being in open stock the gearbox could have been installed on an H-34, which carried twelve men or even worse on a Sabena S-58.

Now if you want me to address Bell products I can relate stories that would make even a hardened warrior such as yourself cringe.

:E :E

[zalt]

Nick says:
"If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all."

So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?

[NickLappos]

Poor Lu,

The Italians don't have, never had and probably never will have HH-53 helicopters of any model designation. You seem to be referring to an HH-3, which is a totally different type, at about half the size, and 15 years older. Please check your facts.


zalt asks "So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?"

I think you ask that question as if you know of a new way to design, and that you also think others don't have it. Fair enough, but Sikorsky maintains a large and capable human factors engineering group. That group has been part of Sikorsky design for several decades.

I just love it when somebody invents a new acronym or phrase, and then thinks they invented something new! Takes more than that.

BTW, the US Army uses the phrase Manprint to define the entire design process of governing effective and safe behavior from the basic task thru the hardware and then the training and pubs. Its a shame they didn't think of "human centered design", they could have been first. Of course, Manprint has been around for about 20 years. I'll tell the Army and Sikorsky Human Factors to stop being so old fashioned!;)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: NickLappos

Nick when you are right you are right. I hit too many keys when I typed in HH-53. It should have been HH-3. That being said everything else stays as previously stated.

One point to remember. No matter how much care is taken in the design of the aircraft, the design of the training system and the design of the maintenance program things fail. The failure could result from a design miscalculation, a faulty machining process or any number of things relating to QC. Or a fault in the maintenance program or the POH operating procedures.

When the first Commanche or S-92 crashes what can you blame it on since Sikorsky has taken every precaution to minimize if not totally eliminate failure.

Remember the failure of the S-76 blade that failed when the secondary loadpath failed and then, when the primary loadpath failed the blade separated.

The V-22 was designed using the Integrated Design Team concept and look at the safety record for that aircraft.

:E :E

[polehog]

Wooops!!!! didn't mean to stirr up that nest of hornets!!!!! But for what its worth I still think Sikorsky is #1 in my books. I have to admit that a Super Puma is no slouch either.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

polehog

[belly tank]

Hi all,

Today i noticed(hard not to!!) an S-61 i beleive its coulsons from the US, yellow and white arrive at Cessnock airport in the Hunter Valley wine region.

I was talking to some Rural fire services brass the other day and belive it will be based At cessnock for the season.

There are also a plethora of overseas craft here as well, Kmax's, Air cranes, 205,204'S and i beleive there is a Mil-8 floating around.


So far to date we have not seen major action up this way in fires. i was out in our 206 in late september for a week doing air attack but that has been about the extent of it. we have had quite a bit of rain in the last week.

Anyway just a bit of trivia for you all.

[SICKorSKI]

:confused:

Belly tank here is some more trivia:

Carson is from the states and has yellow S-61's

Coulson is from Canada and has black S-61's

Sounds like a Carson Machine in Oz.

Cheers

:O

[Autorotate]

It is a Carson machine, one of two they have down there. It is also hoped to have their new belly tank fitted to it within the next month or so.

Yes there is a Mil 8 being based in Victoria as part of the AFAC contract, its Heli Harvest's Mi-8 from New Zealand.

Good operators these guys and very professional.

Autorotate.

[belly tank]

Thanks Guys!!

My mistake!..I think i may wander over the other side of the airport later and take a few happy snaps!

cheers guys

[Autorotate]

Look for a kiwi guy called Garry Mahoney who put the whole thing together for Carson. If you catch up with him tell him I said hi.

Autorotate.

[Spaced]

Belly Tank, do you fly a red 206 from up near camerons?
If you do would you mind if I came up to say Hi?

[belly tank]

Spaced,

I do fly a red 206 but am located in the Newcastle area, but sure visit anytime or drop me a private email

[simfly]

Apparently Chevron-Texaco not impressed with the Super Puma/Tiger. Have re-opted to use the S-61 on their flights to Captain field. May well see the 61 around for a while then.....

[rotornut]

Years ago I read in R&W that the maintenance requirements of the 61 were about a third of the Super Puma. I wonder if this is a major factor in their decision.

[widgeon]

Maybe they can send some Candian Forces wrenches to up the hrs LOL. Imagine what the performance will be if they install the Carson Blades !!.

[ATPMBA]

Does anyone know the operating costs per hour for a S-61. Also, I would to know the total fuel/flow per hour and cruising speed.

Thanks.

[Mars]

ATPMBA

For the last two 1050 - 1200 lbs/hour (1100 lbs/hour is a good average to use) depending on the weight - and 120kts (if you have VNO) and up to 135kts if you do not.

[plt_aeroeng]

Nick Lappos' s-92 web site, http://www.s-92heliport.com/
has a comparison chart between the S-92 and H-3 (which is an S-61) ascribing a maintenance burden/hr of $1091 USD to the H-3 and $300 USD for fuel at $2 US per gallon.

[toolguy]

Conklin & Dedecker have the commercial S61 in their data base. If you need actual operating costs, contact Mike Wiggins from Wiggins Group at 360-734-3699

[NickLappos]

The web site that plt_aeroeng refers to is quoting Conklin & Dedecker S-61 data, but the data is about 18 mos old now. I labled the chart H-3 because it was presented to US Military folks who know it as that.

My guess is only fuel costs have changed - yes, they have changed! in the States, costs have gone up almost double in the last year, is it the same in England and Oz?

plt_aeroeng your web reference captured the comma at the end, so it does not link properly, could you edit it"

[slizer58]

Fuel consumption is about 1050-1100 lbs@hour.
If flown at altitude and if you can acheived a TAS of 105-110kyts fuel flow can go down to about 950-1000 lbs@hr

[rjtjrt]

Could one or more of you knowledgeable folk let me know the sling load lift capability/capacity (mass) of the Sea King?
John

[John Eacott]

It used to be 6000lb on the hook, or 8000lb on the cargo swing/frame.

Mind you, those figures have very likely changed in the past few years since I played with them ;)

[VitaminGee]

John(s),

Reassuringly, the figures remain the same - no metric bolleaux yet!!

VG

[Tony Chambers]

seaking mk3 RAF and seaking mk4 RN Semi Automatic Cargo Release Unit SACRU No3 mk1:

SWL - 10,000lb 4536kg
A/C limits 8,000 lb

hope this is the info you are looking for

TC
:ok:

[Phil Kemp]

Get your hands on a commercially operated, lightened, modified Sea-King (S61A) with Carson blades.

11,000 pound, external load limit. Get one that is good and light, minimal fuel and it will dead lift 11,000 pounds, within the 22,000 pound gross weight limitation. :ok:

[Fatigue]

Gents, any operators currently using the S61's on the North sea or are they all "retired"???? (if so where did they get the pilots for them)??
Thanks..

[cyclic]

Bristows use one on the Captain contract as far as I know.

[Droopystop]

All the Coastguard helicopters are 61s too

[Brilliant Stuff]

The wise people fly them.

[rotornut]

Why was the "workhorse of the North Sea" retired? I recall reading some time ago that the 61 didn't meet certain performance criteria. Is this true?

[SASless]

Did they ever put Carson blades on the North Sea machines?


Flight testing, he said, has shown that the new blades, which incorporate two airfoils and 12 degrees of twist, give the venerable Sikorsky workhorse 2,000 pounds more lift in a hover and 15 knots more airspeed in cruise than the standard metal blades for the same power settings. Carson has signed a contract with NASA for exclusive use of the airfoils.

Frank Carson, owner and CEO, said the blades would be available by the end of this year. He estimated the price for a set of five blades at $1.1 million, but said he plans to make the blades available to other commercial operators at an hourly rate not yet determined.

Still in the works are new tail rotor blades based on the same airfoils, which Carson expects to have flying by the end of the year. These, he said, will provide the aircraft with an extra 400 pounds of lift in a hover. The company is also working with Boundary Layer Research to develop tailboom strakes for the S-61. And Carson is also researching a main landing gear modification, which would replace the S-61’s double wheels with a Black Hawk-like single wheel and a narrower sponson to reduce drag, as well as an engine upgrade to give the aircraft more power.

[S92mech]

The S-61 that Cougar has in the GOM for SAR has the Carson blades installed. Those guys say it's like a getting a new helicopter.

[Spheriflex]

Schreiner flies 2 now, one has gone to England, from there it will get a boat ride to Canada. Get some maintanance and will then go to Asia for CHC global, if I'm correct.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I had the pleasure of taking PH-NZK from Halifax to Part Alberni on Vancouver Island . Great trip, took 5 days with great scenery all the way. Canada! - What a place, magnificent.

The dear old lady is now in the safe hands of Wayne Coulson and his boys at Coulson Aircrane where she will get a major overhaul before her next assignment.

Would be nice the see the S61 get a new lease of life and keep us old buggers in business:ok:

Sorree...... thanks CYCLIC HOTLINE... my fading memory already

[Mr Toad]

Not a dry eye in the house. Any interesting historical pics anyone?

Sadly, although Frank Carson has put a lot of effort into improving the old girl, can he really improve on the maintenance costs and spare parts problems? Perhaps Carson 61's can find a living load-lifting, fire-fighting, logging etc.

What do others think?

[Spheriflex]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/Spheriflex/9.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/Spheriflex/14.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/Spheriflex/15.jpg

http://www.demanenschijn.nl/werk/foto/s61_ph-nzk.jpg

[outhouse]

Hi all S61 Buffs, can’t resist to comment. She is properly the best and greatest respected and most welcome lady; any old and not so bold have known. It’s like pulling on an old and comfortable pair of slippers when you fly, she has a forgiving nature and will let you know if you are taking advantages. She well deserves a new frock and a nice but reserved face-lift. But don’t change the basic lady.

Outhouse.

[HOGE]

My favourite helicopter for the following reasons:

A cockpit, no... change that, a ...flightdeck big enough to be able to put your feet up in.

Windows you can hang your arms out of.

Stairs to walk up to get into the aircraft, as opposed to climbing up on skids.

A cabin tall enough for a short@rse like me to walk down without having to stoop.

Never misbehaves, and engines just that little bit underpowered so you don't get cocky.

The tailwheel lock pins make good bottle openers. (I'm sure there are S61 drivers who haven't broken the tail wheel lock pin, but I'm not one of them).

[Rotorhead77]

Good to hear the positive reviews. I'm just about to move to the 61 after 8 years on the 76. Can't wait!

[GerryTompkins]

Having flown both NZD and NZK during this last year I have photographs (JPEG) of both. NZD at Ceuta & Malaga last summer, and NZK at Halifax docks, Halifax intl, Sherbrooke, North Bay, Wawa, Thunder Bay, Kenora, Winnipeg, Brandon, Swift Current, Calgary, Kamloops and Port Alberni this summer. If anyone would like to post them let me know.
Rumours abound over what will happen to the Brunei 61s when the 92's arrive. Unlikely they will be flight-ferried as the centre tanks have been removed. (max endurance 2hr 17mins).

[Variable Load]

Hi Gerry

You have to let me know what the rumours are for the V8- S61s, then perhaps I can make it happen :O

At the moment there isn't anything definitive as to what we're going to do with them.

Look after yourself
:ok:

[wobble2plank]

Love the tail lock pin one!

I'm in the club as well, my keyring is the remains of the one I left on the runway after trying to turn off without making sure the bugger was out!!!

Great machine, a real queen of the skies and hopefully will be for a few years yet.

:D

[Freewheel]

All right, you've got me convinced it's a great bus. Now for the hard bit, I've decided to guess how much it costs to operate one of the old girls.

How about US$1500 - $2000 an hour?

I've taken an extrapolation of published fuel burn, component life, engine overhaul costs, added them together, simmered for about 6 seconds and pulled the figure out of my @r5e. How close am I?

[Outwest]

Can anyone out there post some hard numbers from the Carson blade supplement? Specifically WAT chart. For example what is the CAT A takeoff weight for 28 degs at sea level.
Thanks

[Decks]

Hey Gerry,

I love the fuel figure of 2hrs 17 mins!!! Come on Ireland!!

Decks....

[offshoreigor]

Phil Kemp,

Are you not referring to the S61-N Shortsky? This the N model with the fuselage plug (54" I think) removed. I have yet to see an H3A (CH124A, S61A) in Civil service.

Cheers,

:eek: OffshoreIgor :eek:

[Phil Kemp]

Sorry, the link didn't work, you'll have to click to see it. (http://image02.webshots.com/2/8/13/35/120481335UpNjUZ_ph.jpg)

Just like this one! There are quite a few of them flying around in the US commercial marketplace (maybe 10 or so). They have been flying around since the late 60's, although it is really in more recent times they have become much more common.

Here's a couple of them together! (http://image09.webshots.com/9/8/14/8/120481408GLAJDV_ph.jpg)

Sikorsky delivered only one commercial S61A, (N318Y) to Utility Helicopters. All the others are former military aircraft. All are Restricted Category. The later ships are SH-3G/H models, but were configured back to the Sikorsky S61A Type Certificate - this is no longer possible, so there are a number of "new" S61A and H-3 variant Type Certificates out there.

N3173U is nowadays back with Carson and is sporting some nice looking new blades ;) and a belly tank these days! These modified commercial machines have the "H" model pylon, allowing the use of long (ribbed) tail rotor blades, and utilise all commercial S61 components and CT-58 engines. A few strategic structural upgrades that eliminate all the problem areas in the MGB support area and tailcone attachment. New wiring, strip out everything not required, fixed gear and you will show up in the mid 10K's empty weight range if you have Carson Blades and a Kawac hydraulic system. I have seen them weigh in under 10,000 pounds before though!:eek:

The short "N" models weigh slightly more, but basically the same aircraft! I operated "A"'s and short "N"'s side by side for many years, and both were configured identically other than the parts specific to the "A" model configuration.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I once lifted a 6000 pound load in Glasgow with an egg-cup full of fuel and if the old lady can do better than that then I´ll be very surprised. The Sea King didn`t have a low response frame and from memory 6000 lbs was what that could lift.:ok:

[John Eacott]

GiC,

The ASW SK was somewhat limited (you're right, 6000lb was about it) with so much ASW kit onboard. ISTR about 13000lb+ as an empty weight, mauw then was 20500lb, not a lot to spare! We were tasked to pick up a couple of Speys out of Gan in their stands, easily 6k, the only way we managed was about 30min of fuel, and 0600 when the temp was still below 30C ;) :rolleyes:

No doubt the junglie SK's have a much better capability. Re the Carson S61's they put a couple in here a year or so ago, a chum who got endorsed reckoned they could cruise pretty close to Vne, but with max forward cyclic. I wonder what that does for the flight control run and head, in the long run?

[Fake Sealion]

Last evening saw a Sea King making majestic progress accross the sky just east of Harrogate. . . .but with a difference. On the port side, approx at the rear observers window was a VERY bright white light ! As the helo passed over the light grew in intensity such that it was brightest when viewed FROM rear three quarters position and then faded somewhat.
Clearly some A/c mounted light, but I've not seen this on a SK before? As it was almost dark difficult to see type of SK, but don't think it was RAF yellow and NOT an S-61.


FS
:confused:

[JKnife]

The RAF Sea Kings have a moveable spotlight behind the port rear bubble window. It has been there for a number of years and is used both for searching and also for showing up the rotor disc at night. The power of the light is the same as the pilots' moveable landing lights I believe.