Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations

[Cyclic Hotline]

Word down on the Ramp, has it that the S92 is going to be a little longer in it's final comfiguration. :O

Problems with C of G, causing a minor design re-think and at least one of the prototypes back in the shop, getting a plug installed? :confused:

Now it really will be a replacement for the S61N! :)

[Hoist-to-Crew]

A good Sea King replacement perhaps?

[JAFCon]

Also hear that the S92 is suffering from Stabilizer and Vertical Fin Cracking !!!!!, and that they intend to move the Stabilizer down to the bottom of the fin (but this may cause more problems than it will solve as the lowered Stabilizer will suffer from the Tail Rotor Downwash)
And another rumour is that the confirmed Order to Helijet isnt as they have only agreed to look at the Aircraft ?

[Cyclic Hotline]

Word down in the fuel shack the other day, confirms what you are saying. The plug/stab mod's are an attempt to correct problems with pitch stability on the aircraft.

All the Sikorsky designs with this style of tail cone/pylon seem to have experienced structural problems over the years; S61R, S64, S76. You'd think they might have resolved some of htis by now, but then again, maybe all the old guys have retired?

I'll find out what the janitor know's next! :)

[Cyclic Hotline]

Talked to the Janitor tonight. He said some blokes from Flight had been down snooping around, hitting him up for information about the old 92!

Originally Sikorsky said it was to meet the NSHP requirement, but then they read the PPRuNe version and realised they had been rumbled.

16" plug aft of the cockpit, vert stab 41" shorter, repositioning the horizontal stab, C of G problems?? Just like the guys down on the ramp said!!!!!

The good news according to the Flight International report, was the 16" plug will allow the addition of an additional row of seats to 19 pax civil operators!

Should make the cabin attendant and 2 additional pax happy to know that! ;)

(Is there anyone left at Sikorsky who know's anything about commercial aviation?)

PS....(Talked to the tea-lady this afternoon; - she say's that there is a non OEM plan afoot to stretch the S-76! She also say's that those nice Czech boys will do a very nice job of building the S-76 airframe for Sikorsky, before Keystone puts the thing together!) Whatever is she talking about?

[Magumba]

The shoe shine boy said, even when they are done tweeking the thing it will still be squirrly a hell with the SAS/AP's off. They'll spend the first 10 years getting bugs fixed.
Will it have the tail rotor servos on the tail rotor gear box? (Gosh all that weight back there kills me) (You say it's tail heavy) If so I hope they put in the tail rotor servo shut off valve. Tail rotor "cables", got to get the centering spring in there too. How about the aux ess bus contactor, ess bus resovery contactor.
Sikorsky has 'designed in' more problems in there helicopters then any other company I know of.

[chalk one]

My source at SA says the janitor’s right, stab and fin cracking, and the rest! They moved the blackhawk tail feathers around too (when it was the version that crashed at Paris).

[Cyclic Hotline]

The guy washing helicopters behind the hangar, told me he read this in Defense Daily News today,

"Only He Knows. The exact date Canada will officially open competition to replace its aging SH-3 Sea Kings is known only by the Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien, according to Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. We believe that the decision is on his desk, and that a decision will come out by the end of the year, he says. Sikorsky is looking to provide a version of its S-92 helicopter as Canada's future maritime patrol helicopter."

The milkman also told me "in confidence" to watch out for the old Aero Vodochody S-76. Said some old boy down the pub was talking about it????

[Cyclic Hotline]

Interesting conversation with the newspaper boy the other day.

He said the bloke down the road had told him, that there were now further problems coming to light, including problems with the entire tail-rotor set-up, which would precipitate a move away from the standard Blackhawk parts.

With all the changes to the airframe, systems, etc; he say's that we should expect an announcement any day now, on a 2 year delay in production!

Where do they hear such things? :)

[Cyclic Hotline]

http://www.sikorsky.com/news/99826.html

Norwegian Company Signs for Multiple S-92 Aircraft

FARNBOROUGH, July 25, 2000 -Aircontactgruppen AS of Norway has signed a Letter of Intent with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation to acquire six new S-92 helicopters. The aircraft, to be delivered between 2004 and 2007, would be offered for operating lease.

S-92 launch customer Cougar Helicopter, an offshore oil operator based in eastern Canada, earlier this year signed a deposit agreement for up to five of the aircraft with deliveries starting in 2002. Two civil operators have also signed agreements that will lead to the placement of S-92 aircraft. They are Helijet of Vancouver, British Columbia and Copter Action of Finland.

"We believe that the S-92, with its low operating cost and advanced technology, will be an excellent helicopter for the operators," said Johan H. Stenersen, Chairman of Aircontactgruppen. Sikorsky President Dean Borgman said, "We appreciate the confidence and commitment shown by Aircontactgruppen in our S-92 helicopter."

Tommy Thomason, Sikorsky Vice President - Civil Programs, said, "I know operators will appreciate the S-92 as a significant step up in medium helicopter capability. Its performance in test meets our challenging performance, reliability and operating cost goals."

Aircontactgruppen AS, of Oslo, is a privately-held Norwegian company involved in aviation, travel and tourism and technology. Its aviation activities include local sales representation of aviation industry companies, operating lease arrangements of commercial jets, global air brokering and local representation for various international airlines.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, of Hartford, Conn., which provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

[stikker]

A Norwegian financier has purchased a number of s92's for forward sale/lease can anyone shed light on their final destination

[Cyclic Hotline]

Era Aviation signs deposit for three S-92 helicopters

STRATFORD, Conn., Aug. 1, 2001 - Era Aviation Inc. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation today announced that Era intends to purchase three S-92 helicopters. Acquisition of the new aircraft would make Era the S-92 Gulf of Mexico launch customer.
Era, which provides offshore services, as well as support for forestry, construction, mining and other industries, has requested the first S-92 production slots available in 2003, according to the deposit agreement. The aircraft would serve large oil companies from bases along the Gulf.

"We look forward to Era becoming a Gulf launch customer for the S-92," said Tommy Thomason, Sikorsky's Vice President of Civil Programs. "Era, like Sikorsky, is a pioneer in the field, providing helicopter support in often-challenging climates for more than 50 years.”

In operation for five decades, Era is the world's oldest continuously serving helicopter operator. It has U.S. operations in Anchorage, Alaska; Reno, Nev.; Lake Charles, La., and various bases along the Gulf Coast. Era’s fleet includes Sikorsky S-76A++ and S-61N helicopters.

Cougar Helicopter, an offshore oil operator based in eastern Canada, has signed a deposit agreement for the delivery of the first S-92, with options for up to four more. Similar agreements that anticipate the placement of S-92 aircraft have been signed by Helijet, of Vancouver, British Columbia; Aircontactgruppen AS, of Norway and Copterline of Finland.

The Sikorsky S-92 is evolved from the proven S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK aircraft and incorporates more than 50 years of Sikorsky civil and military multi-mission experience. Available in a 19-passenger commercial, a 22-troop utility and a multitude of mission specific configurations, the design offers stand-up cabin flexibility, rapid convertibility, operational suitability and a full cabin-width rear ramp.

The S-92 provides the best combination of payload, range, speed, cabin size and operating costs in its size class. It will be the first helicopter fully certified to the harmonized FAA, JAA Part 29 requirements. The combination of this certification basis and the evolution from a military helicopter results in a comprehensive set of safety features which includes a crashworthy design to achieve maximum survivability.

Era has three major operating bases in the United States. Its Alaska division, and corporate headquarters, is located in Anchorage. Lake Charles, Louisiana, is headquarters for Era's Gulf Coast division and Reno, Nevada, is home for Era's West Coast operation. Era has operated in Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China, providing offshore support to oil companies. During the past 5 years, Era Helicopters has operated off Sakhalin Island, Russia, Thailand, Greece, the Balkans, Italy and Argentina. Era Aviation is a subsidiary of Rowan Companies, Inc., (NYSE:RDC), of Houston, Texas.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (NYSE:UTX), of Hartford, Conn., which provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

[Heliport]

Sikorsky Press Release The Sikorsky S-92 has begun formal FAA certification flight testing and the cabin for the first production aircraft is near completion as the program gathers momentum toward 2002 certification and 2003 first deliveries.

Aircraft 4 and Aircraft 5 are engaged in busy flight test schedules at Sikorsky's Development Flight Center in West Palm Beach, Fla. Aircraft 4 is performing handling qualities flight testing to develop data for the FlightSafety Inc. pilot training simulator. Meanwhile, Aircraft 5 is completing performance flight testing to generate the information on speed, lift, and engine operating characteristics needed for FAA certification.

As work continues in the skies over Florida, on the ground Sikorsky is moving forward with S-92 production. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Inc., of Japan is nearing completion of the cabin section for Aircraft 6, the first production aircraft. Long lead time components have been ordered for production aircraft scheduled for delivery through 2004. Sikorsky is also developing the lean tooling and manufacturing methods that will increase delivery flow and decrease costs for S-92 customers.

Earlier this fall, the aircraft made separate demonstration flights for three U.S. military services. Pilots from the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S Marine Corps flew the aircraft to evaluate its performance, handling qualities and ride.

In preparation for initial deliveries, Sikorsky hosted S-92 launch customers in November at the Development Flight Center for a maintenance and logistics planning conference.

Also this fall, the H-92 made its international flying debut when it visited Ottawa in October. Sikorsky is offering the H-92, the military version of the S-92, to replace Sea King helicopters currently in service with Canadian Forces. During the three-day stay, Canadian Forces pilots flew the aircraft, while potential customers, government officials, Sikorsky business partners and industry representatives viewed it on static display.

In all, the S-92 program has accumulated 845 hours flight test through early December. Aircraft 2 has flown in excess of 380 hours. Aircraft 3 has accumulated 221 flight hours since first flying in October 1999, including flight evaluations in military mission applications. Aircraft 5, which validated the longer cabin and lower tail, joined the flight program in early 2001 and has logged more than 220 hours in the air. Aircraft 4 has 25 flight hours. The Ground Test Vehicle, Aircraft 1, completed the 200 hour FAA endurance run to certify the entire drive system including main, intermediate and tail gearboxes in 1999.

The S-92 is an advanced transport helicopter that incorporates the latest design safety features such as flaw tolerance, bird strike capability, and engine turbine burst containment. It also provides benchmark crashworthiness and emergency egress capability.

The Sikorsky S-92 is evolved from the proven S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK aircraft and incorporates more than 50 years of Sikorsky civil and military multi-mission experience. Available in a 19-passenger commercial, a 22-troop utility and a multitude of mission specific configurations, the design offers stand-up cabin flexibility, rapid convertibility, operational suitability and a full cabin-width rear ramp.

An international team of companies led by Sikorsky is developing the S-92. Members of the international team are: Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) of Taiwan, Embraer of Brazil, Gamesa of Spain, Jingdezhen Helicopter Group/CATIC of the People's Republic of China, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan. Major subcontractors include General Electric, Rockwell Collins and Hamilton Sundstrand.

[roundwego]

Anyone know if there is any confirmed civilian customer yet?

[IHL]

As reported in a recent issue of Rotor and Wing. Cougar Helicopters of Halifax , Nova Scotia, Canada is suppose to be the S-92 launch customer. I believe they plan on basing {it /them} out of St.Johns
Newfoundland in support of the Hibernia project.

[baranfin]

Hey is that true about the coast guard testing them?? Now I can't wait.

[Joker's Wild]

OK, this one's bound to be a stretch, but word is some "large" Canadian operator has inked for ten (10) S92's, along with a number of 76C+'s.

Anyone? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[Heliport]

Sikorsky Press Release
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Following major structural enhancements and systems upgrades, the first military variant of the S/H-92 family is back in flight test with additional gross weight capability, an extended main rotor shaft, and an upgraded electrical system.

"The new configuration changes and the increased gross weight mark the introduction of expanded military capabilities to the Program" said S-92 Program Manager (and Rotorheads guru)Nick Lappos. "The S/H-92 demonstrates the world-class payload, safety features, and performance needed to fill the requirements of military and civil customers around the world."

The improvements to Aircraft 3 include:
A new, extended main rotor shaft, and new main rotor servos. The payload of a well-equipped S/H-92 is now more than 11,000 pounds.
A redesigned electrical system to maintain rotor ice protection after a generator failure. This upgrade will also allow the addition of a vast array of options in the future.
A structurally optimized production tail pylon that establishes the final production configuration. The new structure is lighter than the developmental tails flown previously.
The next generation of improvements in the layout of the cockpit Multi-Function Displays.

The Republic of Ireland has agreed to begin negotiations for the purchase of three Sikorsky S-92 helicopters to fulfill the Irish Air Corps Search and Rescue (SAR) mission. In 2001 pilots from the U.S. Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine Corps flew the aircraft to evaluate its performance.

Other upgrades to Aircraft 3 include the 16-inch cabin extension, lowered tail rotor pylon, and relocated horizontal stabilizer, all of which were previously incorporated into Aircraft 4 and 5 in response to customer requests for additional cabin space and a larger main door.

Aircraft 3 was also retrofitted with the Rockwell Collins glass cockpit and integrated avionics package, improved landing gear, upgraded drive train, optimized vibration system, and redundant APU fuel boost pump required for FAA certification.

The S/H-92 Program has now accumulated more than 1,000 hours of flight test. "The S/H-92 is the only aircraft that meets the latest enhanced safety requirements, such as flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection. These capabilities place the S-92 a full generation ahead of the other medium helicopters in the marketplace," said Lappos.

The first prototype with the Rockwell Collins cockpit, Aircraft 4, gathered baseline data for the FlightSafety Inc. pilot training simulator, including handling qualities, performance, noise and vibration data. Aircraft 4 is now flying avionics certification flights. Aircraft 5 has completed the majority of the certification powerplants and static performance flying. Aircraft 5 is now being fitted with upgrades similar to Aircraft 3 to prepare it for structural certification flying.

The Sikorsky S/H-92 is evolved from the proven S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK aircraft, and will be available in a 19-passenger commercial, a 22-troop utility and a multitude of mission specific configurations.

[donut king]

Is the S-92 going to be " flight in icing" capable...... full/ partial?

If so...... how are you guys engineering it?

[Nick Lappos]

There really is no partial anti-ice anymore. The system is based on the Black Hawk's, but with more heat, more zones and lessons learned on harness and system life. It is a de-ice system, some ice is allowed to gather. The blades have various zones that are heated by electric mats. The computer controller selects the zones in sequence, as the ice is accumulated. The blast of heat disbonds the ice, and the centripital (thought you'd catch me, didn't you!) force tosses the ice away. The zones are selected, and so is the exact blade position so the ice is tossed away from the tail rotor. The timing of the electricity is determined by a redundant ice rate meter, so the amount of accumulation is known. Pretty classy stuff.

We have built about 2,000 de-iced helos, so it is not exotic engineering.

The 92 has three gens, two 75 KVA to run the system, and a 35 KVA for other stuff so it can take a gen failure and keep de-icing.

The hard part is finding the really heavy ice conditions to satisfy the FAA, which sets ice capability about 3 times more intense than the military, and is hard-lined about the tests ever since the ATR icing crash proved how tough Mother Nature can be.

[heedm]

Just to keep ourselves honest, the centripetal force doesn't actually toss the ice in fact the melted layer prevents a centripetal force from being applied so the ice is free to travel unaccellerated. I can't believe I'm starting this one again. :rolleyes: :)



If you'd like some heavy icing, Canada's East coast is a good place. Also, in Ottawa is an artificial helicopter icing machine (not its official name). I think you mentioned you were there once already, Nick.

[widgeon]

I was told that Cougar ( one of the S92 launch customers) flys more time in known icing then any other operator in the world with their 3 Super Pumas. I saw a pic of one of the Cormorants somewhere with about an inch of ice on it.

[nucleus33]

How does an Ice Rate meter work?

[Nick Lappos]

Bless you heedem, for your precision is music to my ears. The ice requires hundreds of g's of acceleration to stay on the blade as it turns. Disbonded, it simply stops turning, and travels tangentially away from the aircraft. Who says pprune is not a learning experience!

The ice in the Maritimes is legendary, and Cougar is certainly one of the most experienced helo ice flying orgs on earth, perhaps right up there with the Russian Army. My friend Rick Burt has tales to tell!

I spent several days hovering a non-deiced S-76A in front of the Ottawa Spray rig, and it was a blast. Tossed off chunks from the blades that were about 1.5 inch square cross section and a foot long. Hover torque went from 65% to 95% due to the increased blade drag from the ice. Hover controllability and engine behavior were always fine. Vibes were, at times, eye watering.


The ice rate meters have several different technologies. One type has a thin post that hangs in the breeze and collects ice. As it does, its natural frequency shifts due to the mass change, and the base mount measures this shift. It is periodically heated to clear it to start the measurement cycle again. Another type uses optical pickups to see the ice on the post as it thickens, and reports that. They all read out in the cockpit, with a scale that (according to test pilot legend) starts off at "Uh-Oh!" and ends at "OH, SH*T!!"

[[email protected]]

Nick, while we are on the subject of questions on the S 92, the presentation you gave us at the SARForce conference showed the tail rotor on the starboard side in the 'tractor' position - is there a particular reason for this? I was given to understand that the decision on which side to put the TR on a helicopter was trading off the desire for uninterrupted airflow into the TR with the undesireable downwash (from the TR) forces on the vertical stabiliser. Certainly most helos have pusher, rather than puller TRs so is there another reason for selecting the puller option?

[Nick Lappos]

[email protected]:

We haven't moved the tail rotor on the S-92. It is where the Black Hawk parts are (the S/H-92 is the Black Hawk's clone, on steroids, its parts fit Black Hawk and Sea Hawk for future upgrades)

The BH had the TR where it is for balance and fold capability, to let it package itself into a C-130, no small feat for a 22,000 lb machine.

[3 D]

Some more questions if I may:

So how does the current get passed through the to the turning rotor head, is there some system of slip rings and brushes ?

Are there thermocouples on each heater mat to check they are working (or is the current measured) and if one stops working are the others switched of to prevent the ice causing vibrations if only one blade gets iced up.

[donut king]

Thanks Nick!!!

Another PPRUNE " groundschool"!!!!!

[Steve76]

I agree...
Thanks NICK :D

Still more...
Nick. Why is it not an Anti-icing system?
Would it not be easier and simpler to expect icing and apply it as required rather than wait to accrue and deal with it.
What are the pro's and con's?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick

Several years ago I read about an anti icing or de icing system that used mechanical shock to dislodge the ice from the blades. It was not an application of heat to debond the ice from the blade but a magnetostrictive force that physically altered the surface of the blade, which broke the bond between the ice and the blade skin. The magnetostrictiove force was generated by an electrical charge that would change the shape of the blade and is the same principle used in some ultrasonic cleaners. Was this type of system ever considered on the S-92 or later Blackhawks?

[Flight Safety]

Steve76, I was going to ask the same question...

My first thought is that it would take much more heat to prevent ice from accumulating, instead of removing it periodically. So "de-ice" would appear to require less energy than "anti-ice", and maybe produces less heat stress on the rotor blades (and systems) as well (though it seems more mechanical stress would be created with the higher weigh load of the ice).

[Nick Lappos]

De-ice uses about 10% of the electric power of anti-ice, due to the tremendous heat differcence between the two philosophies. Also, runback is a big problem in anti-ice systems, where the water runs back off the heated leading edge, and then freezes, making the heater mats need to be much bigger (and more power consuming).

The heat is of no structural signficance at all to the blade.

The system uses slip rings to transmit the amperage to the blades.

The other technologies (like piezo-electric shocking of the blade to force mechanical disbond) sound great, but are nowhere near mature enough to be considered.

[VLift]

Point of information, years ago I participated in helicopter icing test involving the -53 and (no kidding) a UH-1 with pneumatic boots on the leading edges of the blades.

The boots worked well enough as I remember but they didn't stand up to abrasion well enough.

The CH-47D has an unused generator pad on the aft transmission (last I saw one it was unused) which was intended for hot blades. A few of these blades were rumored to have been produced before someone decided they weren't needed. I have two personal experiences of contradiction to that decision. Unforcast, I swear.

[RW-1]

Slip rings ....

!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!

Be it known the RW-1 had to assist the electricians on the CH-53E in phase maint, cleaning the blade fold slip rings were one pain in the behind hehehe ......

!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!


sorry ...... :)

[Steve76]

Flight Safety: Great minds think alike ??? Hahaha :)
Nicko: Thanks mate. Another great ground class.

[coalface]

Anyone know how the S92 development is going? It seems to be incredibly slow coming on line. Is there a projected date for civilian certification ? Are there many firm civilian orders yet ?

[gulliBell]

It can't be to far away, it's been seen flying around New York. You'll see one in Mr Deeds (nice piece of marketing Mr Sikorsky!!)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/S92Blake.jpg

[Joker's Wild]

My understanding is development is coming along nicely with a projected initial type certificate late this year/early next year.

I think first deliveries late 2003 possibly. Cougar Helicopters of St. John's, Newfoundland still on target to be launch customer I believe.

Can't really say how many firm civvy orders though, I have a hunch it's not too many at this stage.

[Nick Lappos]

coalface,
The development of the S-92 is moving along at a pace much faster than its contemporaries. Note that we developed the machine in about half the time of the EH and NH. As the program manager, I am the one to be blamed if it were otherwise! I made the chart below based on a quick net search, and included some sites that have the data. Note that the NH-90 dates are not very precise, perhaps someone from the program is reading this and can improve the accuracy.

Here are some comparisons:

First Flight---Cert (years)---Enter Service (years)

S-92, 1998---2002 (4 yrs)---2004 (6 yrs)

EH-101, 1987---1994 (7 yrs)---2000 (13 yrs)

NH-90, 1995---2004 (9 yrs)---2004 (9 yrs)


The S-92 is just about completed its certification data flight tests, with TIA expected in a few weeks (by mid Sept) and then FAA flight tests following quickly. FAA approval is expected in December of this year. There is much technical data on the militrary and civil versions at www.sikorsky.com

http://www.rotorhead.org/military/cormorant.asp

http://www.vectorsite.net/aveh101.html

[heedm]

Thanks for the info, Nick.

The EH-101 entered service into RN on 1 Dec 1998. A-W consortium formed sometime around 1981, but not sure when EH-101 work was started.

http://www.helis.com/news/2000/eh101tril.htm
http://www.helis.com/timeline/westland.htm

In any case, your timelines for EH-101 get reduced slightly.

I'm curious as to how S92 is so much faster. Are you that good? Was it less work due to similiar helicopters as a model? Is it because only one company is building them?

One more thing, did you receive an email from me recently?

[Flight Safety]

heedm, the S-92 is derived from the Black Hawk, so in that sense it's not a "clean sheet of paper" design. It's more of a "large cabin" mod of a Black Hawk, with a lot of refinements and improvements.

[widgeon]

Nick I don't think anyone is questioning the time from first flight until enter service rather the time to develop up to the first flight . Do you have dates of the launch of each of these projects


Answering my own question

http://www.ainonline.com/Features/newrotorcraft02/s92.html

In the ever-so-slow world of rotorcraft development, that would mean the arrival of actual flying hardware 10 years after the S-92 “Helibus” (a term Sikorsky senior management is said to hate) was first announced at Heli-Expo 1992. After a further three years of market and design evaluation, the program was greenlighted.


http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRtrack/NH90TR.htm

feasability study 1985
NH90 contract signed 1992
detail design 1993
first parts made 1994
First prototype 1995
# 2 1997
# 3 1998
# 4 1999


When I left Westlands in 1981 the EH101 workshare was already well established ( design work on WG34 dates back to the 70's )

Simple answer is , that large projects of this type move incredibly slowly , the added complication of having multiple design centres and cross border management make it even worse .

[Straight Up]

What engines does the S 92 have? Are they a new type, or existing?

I think that was part of the EH 101 problem was the
New Engine + New Airframe = Long development

I think the workshare and different company operating methods/attitudes between the two companies didn't really help. Sikorsky is probably luckier in that respect as it is one (albeit pretty big) company.

I am keeping an eye the S 92 with interest as its going to be a major player in that market sector, and I still have a lot of mates who work at Westlands (sorry, Agusta-Westland).

For info the website linked to above (http://www.vectorsite.net/aveh101.html) states that EH101 PP7 was 'written off'. Not true, it suffrered serious damage after rolling on its side during a landing at Malpensa Airport, but was repaired. I was at Cascina Costa (Civil 101 work) when it first flew after the rebuild. PP3 has also been retired, and donated to a museum (minus anything useful). Not bad, I've only got 5.5 years experience, and already I've flown in a museum exhibit!:D

[Flight Safety]

Straight Up, the engine for the S-92 is the GE CT7-8, a growth developement of the venerable T700 used in the Black Hawk. Here's a link...

GE CT7-8 (http://www.geae.com/military/t700_ge_ct7_8.html)

I don't know why, but this CT7-8 link does not seem to indicate that this new T700 series engine is a FADEC equipped engine, which it definitely is.

I also agree with you, the S-92 will be a major player in its market.

[Straight Up]

Flight Safety, cheers for that.

The 101 uses a T700-GE-T6A in the Civil, Italian and Canadian variants, which is also FADEC equiped, though with a HMU backup. Though the 101 needs three of them. I imagine the new CT7-8 is a better all round than the T700-T6A then?

I seem to recall that CT7 and T700 are essentialy the same thing, but can't really remember. Any one care to enlighten me, engines aint my strong point?

Any one know of any direct comparisom of the three players (EH101/NH90/S92) mentioned here? (not head to head flying wise or anything, just the same info in the same place). I have experience of the EH101, and have been around (but not on) the NH90, and there hasn't been much chance to get too close to an S 92 yet.

I'm interested as there will be an Aussie troop lift helo requirement, which I may/may not end up closely interested in.

[coalface]

Thanks Nick for the update. My comments about the length of time it has taken to develop was based on the original Sikorsky discusions with North Sea helicopter operators taking place in the early ninety's and the fact that this was a development from an existing aircraft (albiet only powertrain and rotor systems being carried forward as far as I am aware).

I know that many delays can be caused by commercial and market reasons but the sooner we get a viable alternative to the Eurocopter 19 - 24 seater products the better. Having had to fly AS332 variants for longer than I care to remember, I hope to get the oportunity to get my hands on a Sikorsky product again.

Which brings me back to my question about how many customers have bought options for the S92 ??????

[turboshaft]

Straight up / Flight Safety -

The CT7 is the civil version of the T700. The GE/Fiat T700-T6A equates to the CT7-6, and the -T6E to the CT7-8. The T700-T6A’s FADEC isn’t a true full authority digital engine control, but rather a supervisory DEC.

The -T6A does indeed power the Italian and Canadian versions of the EH101, together with a single civil aircraft, but the majority of EH101s are powered by the Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322. As Straight Up mentions, the RTM322 was developed for the EH101, but the new FADEC-equipped engine wasn’t the cause of the EH101’s protracted development - compared to the ‘commercial’ S-92, the EH101 was a substantially more complex mission system (i.e. airframe, avionics, weapons & ground support), with a much longer development & test program. Systems delays and the three crashes obviously did cause the development program to be longer than originally planned, but it was never going to equate to what Sikorsky has achieved with the S-92.

The first EH101 prototypes were flown with the older T700, with RTM322-powered prototypes joining the fleet in 1993. The RTM322 had already been trialled on the Sikorsky S-70C and SH-60 by this time, and was therefore considered something of a low-risk item. The EH101/RTM322 combination has now been selected by the RN, RAF, Danish AF and Portuguese AF, with more opportunities being campaigned. The RTM322 has so far secured 70% of EH101 orders, and has also been selected to power 70% of NH90s, the other application on which the RRTM engine competes against the GE/Fiat offering.

Offering substantially greater power growth than the T700 family, the RTM322 is a natural choice for future variants of the S-92, but then I’m biased...:D

GE/Fiat has an exclusivity agreement on initial sales of the Helibus, but I’ll have to leave Nick to comment on future engine options...

Cheers,
t/shaft

[ZH844]

Nick,

I believe that facts are facts, etc so I would like to just list a few in support of the EH101...

1. The EH101 base vehicle took 10 years from first flight to delivery of the first production aircraft to a customer (TMP).

2. The EH101 is a NEW aircraft rather like to NH90. I think you have to accept that the S-92 owe's a lot of its predevelopment to the Blackhawk. As far as I am aware the only system to be used on another aircraft in the EH101 programme was the ACSR (tested on the TT300 during the 80s).

3. The Merlin aircraft took 9 years to enter service and if you ever have the chance to use the Merlin as a ASW platform you with realise why....it does what it say's on the packet!!!

4. EHI have sold in excess of 100 airframes to six countries...

5. The EH101 is in service and doing what was designed for!!

There, I will climb down now and wait for the anti-Wasteland guys to beat me with whatever but those are the facts..

I am sure that the S-92 will be a great success, it should be as it comes from good breading stock!!

844
:D

[Nick Lappos]

ZH844,
Thanks for the update. Seems the web site that celebrated the turnover of the first EH-101 to the RN was in 1996, 9 years after first flight, where it underwent 2 to 4 years of test before being declared operational. In this case, it was somewhere between 11 to 13 years from first flight to operational use.

Regarding the design, the S-92 is an all new design. The parts fit on the Black Hawk family (main transmission, etc) but they are all new, of completely new type of design and to a set of design standards that are quite a bit tougher and harder to test to than older machines faced. Fully damage and flaw tolerant rotor parts and fuselage structure must be proven using more samples of the components, taking more test time. This made our job a bit tougher.

The engines did not hold the development of these aircraft, they were available from first flight. Otherwise it would have been first autorotation, wouldn't it?

I had a lunch with Rafael Longibardi, the late chief pilot of Agusta a long time ago, and he told me of the funding issues in the EH development that held them back. Often, development time is not a technical measure, it is a measure of the funding and political will of the developer.

One poster commented on the development time as measured from design start. For the EH-101, first designs were started in 1981 or 1982. This made flight about 6 to 7 years after design start. S-92 had a design start in 1992, and flew in 6 years.

None of this is intended to disparage two fine helicopters, Jerry Tracey and Colin Hague are friends, and I would like to be sure they invite me back to their lair at Yoevil when I am next in the UK!

Recall that this thread was started to discuss the seemingly long time to develop the S-92. It was not a long time, it was about half to 2/3 the time of the EH-101 and NH-90.

[Straight Up]

Nick,

You WANT to go to Yeovil, good god man, why?

It took me years to achieve escape velocity from there, after being inadvertantly drawn in, even then I didn't slow down 'til I reached Oz!

Though I do miss working right on the airfield, all the aircraft I work with are and hours flight and a 2 hour drive away.

Have to agree with ZH844, the ASW is apparently bloody good. The HC3 / RAF support variant does seem to get a bit of a bashing though, but I prefffered it to the ASW variant as it had a jumpseat, you can't see **** in the back of an ASW variant.

[ZH844]

Nick,

Accept your comments, just doing my bit for the british helicopter industry!!!

Straight Up, Yeovil to Oz - what a culture change, in STARK comparison.....;)

[Straight Up]

ZH844 - I thought you might guess....

Though I have you narrowed down to 1 of 7 possibles...

[Joker's Wild]

It's a rumor network and this is certainly a rumor.

Had a telephone conversation today with a well informed rotary-wing journalist. Rumor has it there may be a delay in the S92 program because Sikorsky is considering (or will) modify the aircraft to a 5 bladed Main Rotor head.

I'll believe it when I see it, but reason given for the modification is vibration.

Cheers

[handyandyuk]

Does this mean it was down for 4?

Not having seen anything on S92 I'm guessing it's on the same lines as S76?

I'm sure the good Mr. Lappos will enlighten us...

[Nick Lappos]

Joker-

Your "well informed" journalist is not that well informed! The S-92 has 4 main rotor blades (last time I counted) and will have them for the next decade, anyway. The vibration is very nice, thank you, with levels that are better than the President's S-61, thanks to the 4 (that's four) main rotor blades, and also the very good computer driven vibration absorber system that we use.

We are producing rotorheads and airframes now for the Lot I and Lot II of production, and they have those four blades, too. The 1305 engineering reports that the FAA now has all reference the 4 blades. The FAA will shortly issue the Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) and will be testing very shortly, and will certify that 4 bladed S-92 by the end of the year.

I suggest that the journalist ring me up. I would be glad to discuss this stuff with him directly. I am not hard to find!

Here is some info on the 92 from the Sikorsky web site:

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,534,00.pdf

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf

Nick Lappos

[CRAN]

Nick,

Did you say FOUR blades?

Ahh

CRAN

[Joker's Wild]

Thanks for that, Nick.

Logic would dictate it's a little late in the program to completely revamp the M/R and head assemblies!!!

If I get the chance, I'll enquire as to where this "rumor" was born. Just out of curiosity, did Sikorsky ever look at a 5 bladed M/R head for the 92 before deciding on 4?

Cheers

[SASless]

Anyone reckon Nick plays in a rock band in Guatemala on his time off....and that is why he claims only four blades for the S-92.....in that there is still one missing digit downthere somewhere?

Being a Cobra pilot.....he is probably condition responsed trained to count in pairs anyway!

[John Bicker]

Nick Lappos,
Strangely and purely coincidentally I have seen a few of your "recent" Sikorsky products flying.

S-92 - lurking around North County FL.

Comanche - in Ft Lauderdale down by the dock in SE 17th St. Attraction was the noise of a S-76. Turned out it was a B model riding wing to the Comanche. It was masking the Comanche noise - was like watching a SF movie.

The best of all though was the "Fantail" S-76 at Paris Le Bourget in about '90-91 or thereabouts. Now what were the figures - 105 knots to the left and about 95 knots to the right. Flat pedal turns at about 120 IAS. Eyeballs were on stalks!

[Nick Lappos]

John,

Your keen eyesight is admirable! The North County airspace is home turf to the guys at West palm Test Center, and the Comanche at Ft. Lauderdale was there for the AAAA convention (Army Aviation Association of America) last year.

The Fantail was at Paris doing those "Snap Turns" for the crowd. It was a real gas flying that airplane, and quite thrilling to see 125,000 people all turned eyes up to watch the demo. Talk about praying "Lord, please don't let me screw up!" It was actually 90 degrees of flat turn in 2 seconds at 120 knots to the left and 105 knots to the right.
Comanche is even better! Rus Stiles, John Dixson and I were the pilots on that show.

Nick

[claytona]

Nick,
I think I read a bit ago that if it could be done over again the canted tail rotor would be left out. Is that true? Or was it for the Comanche? Is there a difference using the shrouded blades that really didn't need the canting?
Or Is the real advantage in the larger machines? It seems that some things that work in large machines don't really apply to the smaller ones.
Thanks in advance,
Clayton

[Nick Lappos]

STRATFORD, Conn., Dec. 19, 2002 — Sikorsky’s S-92 helicopter achieved Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certification today, with 1,570 test flight hours under the most stringent rotorcraft safety requirements imposed to date.
“Today represents a culmination of almost a decade of work by the best team in the helicopter industry,” said Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. “It’s an extraordinary achievement, marking our first new FAA aircraft certification since we launched the S-76 in November 1978.”
Before it is allowed to transport passengers, each aircraft must comply with U.S. Government standards for strength and safety. The S-92 now meets Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 29 Airline Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 45, the most rigorous set of laws put forth.
“The Sikorsky team deserves our highest compliments,” said Bob Mann, Manager, Boston Aircraft FAA Certification Office. “They conducted an impressive and safe program.”
“This is like graduating and passing the Bar exam all at once,” said Program Director Nick Lappos. “Our type certification and safety capabilities place us a full generation ahead of other medium helicopters in the marketplace.”
Evolved from the proven S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK aircraft, the S-92 incorporates more than 50 years of Sikorsky civil and multi-mission helicopter experience. Originally conceived as a replacement for the venerable S-61, the S-92 is available in a variety of configurations for commercial customers, including offshore oil, VIP transport, airline operations, and other missions. The aircraft continues to generate strong interest, with firm orders spanning various customers and industries across the globe.
Breaking new ground for medium-weight helicopters, the S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability. It is the only aircraft in its class certified to the latest specifications for flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection. In addition to its civil helicopter capabilities, the rotor system and dynamic components are designed to meet the UH-60 BLACK HAWK ballistic tolerance requirements and all gearboxes are capable of running 30 minutes after loss of oil. Corrosion protection meets or exceeds current maritime standards.
In addition to its superior safety features, the S-92 excels in the areas of performance and cost effectiveness. Not only does the S-92 reach speeds of 165 knots and fly more than 500 nautical miles while carrying more payload than current competitors, but operators are also projected to save more than $200 per flight hour in maintenance costs over the Super Puma, and $500 per flight hour over the EH-101.
Sikorsky led an international consortium of companies through the development of the S-92. Global team members include Embraer of Brazil, Gamesa of Spain, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan, Jingdezhen Helicopter Group of the People’s Republic of China, and Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation of Taiwan. Major subcontractors include Hamilton Sundstrand, General Electric and Rockwell Collins. Production on the S-92 is already underway, with major subassemblies under construction in partner facilities, and final assembly commencing in March 2003 in Sikorsky’s new Bridgeport facility.
The S-92 has seen several recent enhancements prior to certification, incorporating both customer-inspired design changes and the Rockwell Collins cockpit. The aircraft now offers additional cabin space and a larger main cabin door, with a 16-inch (41 cm) cabin length extension, as well as reduced tail pylon height and a relocated horizontal stabilizer.
The new Rockwell Collins cockpit affords outstanding visibility and is equipped with a highly integrated avionics package. Rockwell Collins Avionics Management System (AMS) provides the display and management of primary flight data, presentation and management of all navigation information. The system also provides flight management data, a digital map, weather radar, terrain information and engine instrument caution and advisory system processing and display. At the center of the Rockwell Collins AMS are four portrait 6 x 8-inch high-resolution color active matrix liquid crystal Multi-function Displays (MFDs), with a fifth display to be offered as a customer option. The displays are exceptionally sunlight- and cross-cockpit readable, and
are also compatible with night vision goggle operations.
"The Rockwell Collins cockpit incorporates the most advanced avionics technology available today for rotorcraft," said Lappos. "The unique schematic data presentations provide pilots with a visual depiction of the aircraft's condition that is intuitively easy to interpret, a real plus in high workload and emergency situations."

[Flying Lawyer]

Congratulations Nick.

It must give you a wonderful sense of achievement and satisfaction after all the hard work I know you've put in as the S-92 Program Director.

Tudor

[Heliport]

Nick
I didn't realise you had a day job as well as being our resident guru! ;)

This pic may distort the page, depending upon the resolution set, but it's worth it for a superb shot of the S-92.

http://www.sikorsky.com/Images/SAC_Sikorsky_Aircraft_Corporation/US-en/S92_001b.jpg

[[email protected]]

Congrats Nick, I'll take 30 in canary SARBOY yellow, 2 winches, weather/ground mapping radar, FLIR and full IFR capable. Have them wrapped and sent round and make the invoice out to the MOD. Thanks!

[heedm]

Well done, Nick and rest of your team. Looking forward to seeing some grey ones N of the border.

Any thoughts about the CYOD invitation?


Heliport, thanks for the new desktop background.

[t'aint natural]

Congratulations, Nick... a red letter day on two counts. The January issue of Pilot magazine, out today, contains a six-page profile of one Nick Lappos headed "Sikorsky Superman"

[Special 25]

So Nick, bottom line - If I want to fly this on the North Sea, will I get to do it before I retire. In short, what is the realistic timespan to get the commercial product available ?

Well done by the way

[ATPMBA]

Congratulations for a job well done!

Nick, now that the S-92 is certified are you going to Disney World ?
:cool:

[Lu Zuckerman]

Congratulations to both Nick and the Sikorsky design team. My only lament is that I was not involved in the design process. Looking forward to seeing many of them rolling off the production line and feeling very envious of the Tech Reps working on them.

:cool:

[donut king]

Can I borrow the keys to the new "car", Dad?????

Congrat's!!!!!!!

D.K

[Nick Lappos]

To Ppruners, thanks for all the kind words! We are setting up the production line in Bridgeport, virtually next doo to the factory where the first R-4's were built. The first customer delivery will be in March of 2004, with rate production deliveries.

Donut, you can borrow the keys, but bring it back full of gas, please!

Lu, it is a Sikorsky, so you would recognize it instantly. Our reps are getting trained early next year, and we will support it with electronic data exchange with the factory thru the HUMS/HOMP which will talk to us each night. It is the first web helicopter.

Special 25, the first deliveries are to offshore folks, and they should be in service by spring of 04, after some training for the crews. Flight Safety in West Palm Beach is making the sim, which should be ready next year. Sim training for flight crews is part of the package.

Heedm, email me about the CYOD thing, OK? Isn't there a "Warm Lake" we could go to??

Crab, 30 is the right number, everything else is already set, equipment wise. But the color(??) we were thinking of something in a nice mauve to go with the carpets.....

Tudor, the feeling is one of relief, pride (and wonder that we did it on time!) It was the fastest, cleanest certification anyone at Sikorsky can remember. The first certification data flight was made last December, the FAA got on board in September, and we were done with all flights exactly one year later, Dec 12. The data was all processed in real time, so the FAA was ready to sign on Dec 17 (Wright Brothers day!) so they did. Not a bad data point in the thousands taken.

Lots of work next year for the environmental certifications (the preliminary tests were done in the past, so we have good confidence the certs will be quick) Cold at Fairbanks, Snow in the NE US, Altitude in Colorado, HIRF in Pax River, MD, De-ice in NE US and Eastern Canada. Hook, Hoist, Floats, and equipment at West Palm Beach.

[Flying Lawyer]

Lu"My only lament is that I was not involved in the design process."

Nick says they "did it on time - and it was the fastest, cleanest certification anyone at Sikorsky can remember!" ;) :)

[Jack S.]

Nick, first of all, congrats with the S-92 program. Second, do you have a ballpark time-frame and location for the de-icing testing in E. Canada (thinking maybe cyaw)...might be able to come have a closer look and of course buy you a well deserved beer or alternative....

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Flying Lawyer

Are you saying that I would have impeded the design process?

I was only inferring that I would have liked to participate in working on the Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Process.

:confused:

[Hoverman]

I think he was pulling your tail Lu :D
Merry Christmas :)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Hoverman

I consider my tail as having been pulled. :D

[Nick Lappos]

Frisky Bunny you sound frisky, all right.
I think I posted a few lines above your post to discuss the work remaining, where I described the work we will do to certify the environmentals - cold, snow, altitude and such, down to the hook/hoist/floats.

So please tell me exactly what do you think I didn't tell you, as in "What Sikorsky have not told you".......

It is great having this web site, because I can converse with folks all over the world, directly. I can also let you know that I resent your attitude, and remarks.

Any time you would like to pull off a "publicity stunt" like certifying a flying machine, let me know. I will hold your coat while you do the stunt. Just pack a lunch, cause it is just an all day job for someone as skilled as you. For us regular airframers, it takes about 250 engineers and technicians and about 4 years from first flight. Maybe 1500 flight hours, each hour the product of a 30 man team to launch, measure and inspect each of the three aircraft, plus about 100,000 pages of engineering reports, several hundred test components to tear apart on machines (the largest machine pulls with 150,000 pounds of tension). Some stunt, huh?

[SASless]

Nick,

To even respond to such drivel as was offered re: your publicity stunt....is to give credence to what was blatently obivious as bovine fecal matter to anyone with a modicum of commonsense! I would counsel you to note the source and ignore such comments for they certainly do not deserve a reply. Now....if the Weasel...Skunk or whatever that critter was....will read the Canadian Aviation site and some of the other Pprune forums and see just how well the Knock-off copy of the Apache and the vaunted EH-101 is doing......he will soon find more fertile pastures to drop his offerings into.....and at least he will have some basis of fact upon which to countenance his arguments.

By the way Nick....saw one of your fine comments quoted in another website....something along the line of...."If you find yourself in a fair fight....you have not planned correctly!" Which brings to mind another one I overheard....source unknown....which so very correctly states..."Never have a war of wits with the unarmed.....it is so unfair!" Which is why I suggest you leave the Skunk/Weasel/Hare alone.

[donut king]

Nick,

Sasless is right. FB is just instigating(sp).

Now is not the time to even get into that drivel.

It's supposed to be a happy time of year..... food, chocolate, donuts.........mmmmmmmm donuts mmmmmm, chocolate, food, DONUTS mmmmm........etc.

D.K

[Nick Lappos]

Hey guys, Frisky Bunny must have pulled down his post, it seems to be gone! Now our posts look like we've been arguing with a phantom!

Hey Bunny, don't be so thin skinned, we can bash each other and then laugh about it. Come on back in.

[zalt]

The FAA Data Sheet makes interesting reading:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/CurrentModelsbyTCHolder/4D8F35A0DCBDA70486256CA7005132FC?OpenDocument

Perhaps Note 4 and all the ESFs where what got the rabbit excited (you didn't fire 4lb bugs bunny at the TR did you Nick !?!).

[chuckolamofola]

Yo Nick,

Congrats on the cert. Can't wait to seeing this thing flying around the Gulf Coast and ROW.

Any chance we will get to see it at Heli-Expo? Seems like a great center piece for Sikorsky's booth.


Chuckolamofola:cool:

[Nick Lappos]

Zalt,
The equivilent safety findings are details where we were allowed to propose alternate tests to get certification, the FAA gives them away grudgingly, but they really aren't shortfalls. For the bird strike ESF, we had to use the bird data that we got when we fired at the tail rotor and the drive shaft covers as proof that the 1.9 inch diameter (!) Titanium Pitch change links would not be damaged (!) by the bird, since the bird strike FAR requires tests, and allows only limited analysis as proof of compliance. We used the other test data on the more fragile and critical parts, and they allowed equivilent safety. We will shoot some birds at the pitch rods next spring to clean that up.

Chuck,
We are coming to Heli Expo, with rings on our fingers and bells on our toes, etc. You should see one of the prototypes flying over the Gulf in a few weeks too.

[SASless]

Nick,

Poor choice of words....."clean that up" after shooting yucky things into a tailrotor ? (or what become very yucky things after going through the tail rotor!)

[Capn Notarious]

One question.
Will an S92 be flying at Helitech 2003.

[handyandyuk]

Ok.. going of at a slight tangent here... but idle curiousity begs the question...

Are there many incidences of tail rotor bird strikes?
It's not something I have heard much of. I have, however come across more incidences of persons walking into tail rotors; the last one being a Brit lass into a Lynx in Bosnia.
Obviously I would assume the S-92 is primarily aimed at securing military customers and so resistance to 'combat damage' will be a major safety selling point.

Regardless of any of that, you just have to congratulate the entire team for their years of hard work in bringing a new aircraft from the sketch pad to the landing pad.

[MaxNg]

Nick

I would like to congratulate you and you team on bringing to the market place not only a good looking a/c but one that will wipe the smile of the face of the french. Long have we suffered the poor support and delicate Puma (MK2) on the North Sea and I will look forward to getting my grubby mits on the S92.

Respect

PS

There must be enough material for you to write a book on the birth of what hopfully will be a very capable machine
:p

[Flight Safety]

Nick, I would also like to congratulate you and your team for a job well done.

I believe the S-92 will be an exceptional helicopter with a very long and distinguished career, and as long as you guys keep it versatile and adaptable (like the Black Hawk), you'll sell lots of them.

I also think it'll be an outstanding search/rescue and relief helicopter, which is my interest in it. I very much plan to see it at Heli-Expo, as my wife and I have been looking forward to seeing it for some time. I'm also looking forward to seeing all of the other operational and equipment certifications that you guys plan to add to it.

[Nick Lappos]

Capn Notarious
We will have an aircraft there, it will fly some demos for the companies who have ordered the machine. I will be there too, mostly because I love Texas barbeque!

handyandyuk,
I think there have been tail rotor bird strikes, I dimly recall one about 10 years ago. The bird strike rules are interesting, they require that we protect anything that is exposed to strike, at Vne. We actually had to redesign the tail rotor spars after the first set of tests, since the design requirements that we used to use were not adequate if you take into account the approximately 5 tons of shock the bird gives the tail blade on impact!
The "regular" Sikorsky military design rules were also met, including ballistics and object strikes, since we intend to use the whole drive train (engines, transmissions, rotors and blades) on the most advanced version of the Black Hawk in a few years. The gearboxes bolt right into the Hawk family.

Maxng,
We certainly set our sights on the North Sea environment, mission and ranges. This is also a natural fit for SAR. We think competition is healthy, you should have a choice, it makes us all work harder. This does not mean that we regret causing a few "merde"s in southern France, mind you! They make us do it a few times, too! I am friends with a few of the EC test pilots, and many of the Westland guys, and they are good fellows. The friendly rivalry is fun.

I recall the Boeing crew dropping off a box of bull**** onto our flight field at Stratford, CT with a few of our UTTAS marketing brochures back in 1975! We reciprocated with a funny coloring book ("See the mast moment indicator, it shows how much trouble you are already in... Color it red.") and some horse **** in a box dropped by parachute onto their test center ramp! I also remember at a Heli-Expo overtaking an AS 365 by 25+ knots and passing them in a climb, while they were on a demonstration flight with prospective customers. The demo pilot was Jim Brown, who had tears in his eyes at the bar that night telling me how he told the prospects that the helo blowing their doors in was an experimental French machine that he couldn't talk about!!!

[Lu Zuckerman]

When I was working on the A-129 I convinced the engineering and flight test groups to fly an AB-205 in the immediate area when they were demonstrating the A-129 to make a comparison in the noise generated by the two helicopters.

:D

[widgeon]

I was gonna ask Lu who won , but the forum software will not now allow an answer of less than 20 words ( or was it characters? ) . Any way I have padded this out to satisfy the verbosity filter.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: widgeon

I can’t say who won that is if you were referring to my last post about the A-129 and the AB-205. The demonstration of the A-129 was for potential customers looking for an attack helicopter. The direct competition was the Bell Cobra, which had a similar noisy (plop-plop-sounding rotor system). Since most of these potential customers were from mountainous countries they could not afford to have a noisy helicopter. Any sales that were made were after I left Agusta.

:D

[Steve76]

Hopefully the interior has been tidied up eh! :D
Onya Nick and Sikorsky.
Just one small question that I know XNR is dying to ask..... can we fly it to the roof? hahaha
Again .... congrats.

[zalt]

Nick - MaxNG

Even with their "unique" Gallic customer "support" and their dainty designs, EC probably aren't too depressed:

MaxNG is it not true that CHC have the 225 on order already?? Or will they pull out of the deal after the two BP contract losses? Plus CHC run the biggest 332 / Makila overhaul business outside France so have a big interest in the family.

Bond have ordered L2s for their long BP transport contract, doubling the UK L2 fleet. IMHO they would not want the hassle of supporting a second {large} type on any future contracts for several years if they could avoid it (and may not have the people anyway).

Bristow (who flown nearly 50% of all civil AS332 hours) may well have reconsidered their view on the merits of Sikorsky product support after events last year.

The people who really decide on the types the operators bid for a contract are the oil companies. The only other UK contract with enough aircraft to justify ordering a new type (ignoring any orders to implement Jigsaw) must be well over half way through its term (but smart money must surely be a change of type in the southern sector being even more likely). That oil company probably still have bitter memories of the introduction and demise of the BV234 (all new types = all new problems).

So Nick, are Sikorsky's spending quality time with the North Sea oil companies yet?? If so, how do you prove to an oil company sceptic that a new type will perform out the box safely & reliably and meet the DOC?

Having said that, with the S-92A, AB139 and EC155 on offer it looks like the next few years may be very interesting in the North Sea....!

[SASless]

The EC-155 has had it's share of problems in the oil patch....supposed to be an internal audit going on in Nigeria about the 155/Dornier Jet decision and the subsequent performance of the two "new" types. Shell Oil may be catching on to the questions lots of others have been asking about the two programs....but there it seems to be more of why the decision was made to buy the particular models/types for the operations being conducted. Race horses don't pull plows very well kind of thing!

[Xnr]

Steve76

Anything can fly to the roof .....the real question is "can we fly it to the roof legally????".... hahaha

[zalt]

handyandyuk- reading another post which mentioned Hermes - I've just recalled the Sea King HC4 that was downed by a bird (probably a damn big one) in the South Atlantic in 1982. Sadly almost all the passengers (SAS being cross-decked) perished.

[Nick Lappos]

zalt,
Good memory, here is a web site:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/brit-aircraftlosses.htm

19th May 1982 Sea King Lost
A Sea King crashed while moving a large group of SAS troops from H.M.S. Hermes to H.M.S. Intrepid killing 22 men. .......... At 300 ft the Sea King started it's decent towards H.M.S. Intrepid. those on board heard a thump, then another from the engine above them. The Sea King dipped once then dived . Within four seconds it hit the water. Some men were killed instantly and other knocked unconscious in the initial impact. Amazingly 9 men managed to scramble out of the open side door before the helicopter slipped below the waves. They were the only survivors. Rescuers found bird feathers floating on the surface were the helicopter had impacted the water. It is thought that the Sea King was the victim of a bird strike. One theory is at the Sea King was hit by a Black Browed Albatross which has a 8 ft wing span. The SAS lost 18 men on this night. ...........

[zalt]

Nick - thanks: at my age I can never be sure if I'm reminiscing or hallucinating!!

One of the pilots did definitely get out as he did ETPS in the mid80s and went onto RW research flying at RAE.

[Jack S.]

Antonov landed in Nunavut Canada the past week with helicopter on board for cold weather testing.....
have fun in the deep freeze guys.

[Nick Lappos]

Jack S,

Wasn't us on that Antonov:

#3 prototype is now in Montana ferrying north, expected in Fairbanks in a day or so, after the Wx blows out.

#4 is working the NE US looking for snow.

#5 is getting its hair permed for Heli-Expo.

[zalt]

Jack S. - I believe it was a certain 5 bladed French helicopter.

[widgeon]

methinks one of the characters in the designation was correct also .

[RotorPilot]

Hi zalt

Can I know wich helicopter is in Nunavut.
May be I get the chance and go have a look. Know exactly where it is at the moment ?

[widgeon]

NH90 , was a pic in the local paper a couple of weeks back.
http://www.nhindustries.com/p4a7.htm

[zalt]

Widgeon - if your right (and you seem closer to the action) I'm wrong!

I was thinking it was the EC225 as it is on schedule for cold wx trials in Q1/03.

Since I guess the AB139 will need to get similar trials in this year it sounds like there will be 4 new types chasing the wx!

If they all have to do high altitude testing too this year I guess the folks in Leadville will be in for a bonanza year!

[Helioil]

Statoil and Norsk Helikopter in Bergen, Norway confirmed on friday that they have bought, and will start operations with the Sikorsky S-92 from January 1. 2005.
Check out the link below.
http://www.statoil.com/statoilcom/svg00990.nsf?opendatabase&lang=en&artid=41256A3A0055DD31C1256CBE004326A2 :D

[Algy]

Peter Gray's assessment of the S-92 is in this week's Flight International (4-10 February).

[coalface]

Anyone able to do a quick scan,cut & paste? I'm hundreds of miles from my nearest Flight.

[AirJockey]

I understand that two S-92`s has been ordered for flying in the North-Sea for Norsk Helicopter on a 5 year contract with Statoil.

About time a new and more powerful machine is introdused into the offshore marked. Not to talk about pilot and passenger comfort!

Is Norsk Helicopter launch customers for this machine since they have a firm order? Understand there are a few others sniffing on the machine as well, but have they firm orders?

[Nick Lappos]

Coalface,

Peter Gray is a real professional, and flew commercial S-61's as I recall. I flew him for a C+ article a few years back, and he was perhaps the most thorough reporter that I had ever flown. Here is a link to the article, which is under "features," reached thru the link on the left column:

http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_frameset.asp?target=fi_issue/is_display.asp?Code=105

[coalface]

Thanks for pointing me to the article Nick. Can you tell me what the likely empty weight of the painted aircraft will be fully equiped for offshore IFR work (basic weight + all equipment, seats etc but minus crew and fuel)? I have seen the publicity brochure weight but we all know that the final weight is always more.

[Barannfin]

Thats a great article, sounds like you guys made quite an aircraft. Then again I expected nothing less. When I read the article I remembered a previous discussion where you asked pilots what they wanted in their aircraft, and if my memory serves me, it looks like many things made it in. Good on ya.

I cant wait to fly one (gonna be a while) wheres my snickers bar?:}

[Nick Lappos]

coalface,

Unlike most brochures which quote stripped aircraft, we put in a pretty complete equipment package, so the S-92 brochure on the web site is quite accurate. I do have a full equipment list for that weight, if you'd like. The empty weight of a well equipped S-92 ready for work (19 pax, full interior, dual autopilot, FMS/GPS, dual nav/comm, De-ice rotors, Satcom, HF, HEELS, rafts floats and all whatnot) is between 15,800 and 16,200 lbs, depending on what extras are needed. It is hard to get it above 16,200 lbs. Max Gross weight Cat A at 90 degrees F is 26,150 lbs, and full fuel is 5150 lbs. Figure 19 pax and 2 crew at 200 lbs is 4200 lbs, baggage at 15 lbs each is 285, so total take-off gross weight is 25,815lbs. The full fuel is enough to go 460 Nm with 30 min reserve (figure 9.7 lb per NM at Vbr, 10 at Vcruise).

At 26,150 lbs, the aircraft HOGE at 6500 feet, and HIGE at 11000 feet, Vcruise is 152 Kts, Vbest range is 139 Kts.

FYI, you also get a main transmission that ran 3 hours after a massive oil leak, damage tolerant rotor and structural components, full bird strike protection (controls and drive shaft covers that are nearly ballistic so birds don't cave them in at Vne), and tolerance of engine burst events. {You also get ballistic tolerance, based on the H-60 design requirements, but one hopes this is not necessary in the oil patch!}

[coalface]

Nick, thanks for the range/payload info. By my calculations, a full offshore load of 19 passengers + bags + some freight will be able to be launched to a rig about 210 nautical miles out with home base as an alternate using North Sea reserves. This is a lot better than we have today.

Is there an option to increase fuel capacity without affecting the offshore seating layout? There are times with strong Northerly winds over the North Sea that we cannot get enough fuel in the tanks to make the East Shetland basin (and occasionally the new North Atlantic rim fields) direct. The S92 does have an extra 20 - 30 mins endurance over the Puma L/L2 but there will be the occasions when even this is not enough.

I know every pilot always wants an extra 1/2 hour whatever the total capacity is but in this case, it might make the difference between a flight going or not, particularly if the Shetland weather is not good. Obviously there is a cost/weight penalty with extra fuel capacity and even if there is an option available, it may not be worth the cost for the handful of times this happens per year.

By the way, what is the weight capacity in the baggage bay and how will the offshore variant be configured? Is the hydraulic ramp a feature on all models? The bigger the baggage bay the better.

[Heliport]

Sikorsky S-92 completes key weather test Dallas, Texas, Feb. 9, 2003
Sikorsky’s S-92 helicopter recently passed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Falling and Blowing Snow qualification testing. The aircraft achieved FAA Type Certification in December 2002.

Operating on a special FAA clearance, S-92 prototype aircraft #4 tackled a severe snowstorm in Hamilton, NY. Located in the Lake Ontario snow belt, 25 miles south of Syracuse, Hamilton is home to some of the most treacherous weather conditions in the country.

Waiting for just such a weather occurrence, the S-92 launched from Sikorsky’s main plant in Stratford, Conn., on January 31st. The helicopter arrived in Hamilton just in time to experience heavy snowfall, high ground accumulations, and visibilities that normally shut down flight operations, yet the aircraft was able to achieve its requirements for U.S. FAA environmental certification.

Aircraft #4 accomplished 20 minutes of taxiing, five minutes of hover and an hour of forward flight, all in snowy conditions with temperatures ranging from 25-34 degrees Fahrenheit and less than a quarter mile of visibility.

“The aircraft performed flawlessly, with its systems handling all of the snow we could find,” said Ron Doeppner, S-92 Experimental Pilot. “Especially during white-out conditions that can heavily tax the engine inlets.”

Several Hamilton residents, upon hearing the helicopter orbit the airport but unable to see the aircraft in the snow, called the police to report an aircraft in distress. With the airport closed to flight traffic, residents apparently did not believe that an aircraft could navigate such a severe storm. When local police arrived at the airport, the S-92 crew convinced the local constabulary that nothing was amiss.

“Instead, we found the perfect storm,” said Rick Becker, Engineering Test Pilot.

Before it is allowed to transport passengers, each aircraft must comply with U.S. Government standards for strength and safety. The S-92 now meets Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 29 Airline Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 45, the most stringent rotorcraft safety requirements imposed to date.

[widgeon]

Now you see what I face on my drive to work.
See both Sikorsky and Agusta announced some sales at HAI . Eurochooper announced they are not leaving Dallas

[coalface]

Hope no one minds this thread being nudged back up the page but my last post had a couple of questions about the S92 for N.L.

I know he will be a busy man and can't be expected to keep an eye on Pprune all the time.

[Nick Lappos]

Coalface posted, Nick replies (belatedly!):

CF: Nick, thanks for the range/payload info.

NL: No sweat!

CF: By my calculations, a full offshore load of 19 passengers + bags + some freight will be able to be launched to a rig about 210 nautical miles out with home base as an alternate using North Sea reserves. This is a lot better than we have today.

NL: Close enough, with JAR reserves (mission +30 min +10%), it is 443 NM one way, so probably 220NM radius with some loading time on the rig.

CF: Is there an option to increase fuel capacity without affecting the offshore seating layout?

NL: We have to physically lose 2 seats to add 185 Gal, 4 seats to add two of the aux tanks, they each add 120 MN to the range, so you could go 560NM with one aux. However, the tank and fuel weigh about 1450 lbs, so you would have to carry about 16 pax/baggage at 220lbs each with full fuel to hold MGW limits.

CF: By the way, what is the weight capacity in the baggage bay and how will the offshore variant be configured? Is the hydraulic ramp a feature on all models? The bigger the baggage bay the better.

NL: The ramp is standard. The baggage is on the ramp, and in racks above and to the side of it with 2000 lbs as its limit (less, perhaps 1000 lbs or so due to CG on the typical oil machine). It is accessible from inside or outside. Roller floors are optional and pallets are easily loaded, the aircraft jacks up to allow a fork lift under, with 2 M clearance under the otherwise low tail cone. The pax seats each remove easily for cargo carrying.

[Flight Safety]

Nick, whenever you get some time, I have a few questions regarding the SAR configuration, I hope you can answer.

1. Regarding the jacking mechanism to allow more clearance for the cargo ramp, is the mechanism self-contained, or does it require any external equipment (to gain the extra clearance under the tail boom)? This was a question I had after seeing ship #4 the other day, although I understood that the tailboom on #4 is not the production tail boom.

2. Regarding the roller floors, are the rollers the bolt down type, are they fixed, or are they the flip-over type (so you can quickly re-configure for either pallets or a flat floor)? I understand that an internal cargo winch is available, which will be very handy.

3. Regarding litter placements within the cabin, can the litter poles and rails (I'm not sure what you call them) be re-configured (installed and removed) in the field? Can they be carried on the aircraft? Can they be used with the fold-up side-facing seats in place (while folded up)?

4. Can the SAR version of the S-92 be equipped with similar medical equipment to the H-60Q, such as oxygen generation, ventilation, intubation, warm and cold drawers, and vitals monitoring? Can any of this equipment remain on board with the litters taken down and cargo being present on the floor?

I guess that's all I can think of for now. :D

Thanks Nick.

(edited to correct the odd spelling error)

[Steve76]

Pah!
Key WX test passed!!
I did that in an old 'A' Model 76 today....
Next time lend a new one to us Nick and we will sort out the foul WX gear ;) :cool:

[Nick Lappos]

Flight Safety asked, NL answers:

1. Regarding the jacking mechanism to allow more clearance for the cargo ramp, is the mechanism self-contained, or does it require any external equipment (to gain the extra clearance under the tail boom)?

The jacking gear is a small pump that fills the main oleos to pump up the gear, it is self contained, controllable from the cockipt and the ramp area, and battery powered. Without jacking, the tail cone is 64" above the ground, with max jacking, it is 81"

2. Regarding the roller floors, are the rollers the bolt down type, are they fixed, or are they the flip-over type (so you can quickly re-configure for either pallets or a flat floor)? I understand that an internal cargo wench is available, which will be very handy.

Flip over

3. Regarding litter placements within the cabin, can the litter poles and rails (I'm not sure what you call them) be re-configured (installed and removed) in the field? Can they be carried on the aircraft? Can they be used with the fold-up side-facing seats in place (while folded up)?

The litter poles are easily installed in the field with simple pins.

4. Can the SAR version of the S-92 be equipped with similar medical equipment to the H-60Q, such as oxygen generation, ventilation, intubation, warm and cold drawers, and vitals monitoring? Can any of this equipment remain on board with the litters taken down and cargo being present on the floor?

Yes, the medical station is the same basic idea as that on the Q, with suction, O2 and the works. It mounts on the cabin wall, and can be fitted quickly, and left in place.

[The Nr Fairy]

FS :

"internal cargo wench" - a step into new areas for Sikorsky ?

[Nick Lappos]

Steve 76,
That heavy snow test is no joke, I did them in the S-76A back in 82 or so, and it was a really fun test. Everywhere we landed, the airport closed down, school was out and we went to work, flying continuous ILS approaches to accumulate time under the heaviest snow conditions (W100ovc 1/4 S,BS), daring the engines to quit.
To help pass the test we developed the snow blankets by using the snow making machines at Powder Ridge in CT, working out of the tennis courts at the bottom of the main slope. The skiiers were surprised to see a helicopter covered in frozen slush, running its rotors at the bottom of the lift, throwing chunks of ice the size of hot dogs around the courts.
Nick

[Flight Safety]

Thanks Nick :ok:

NR, I assume the winch will be used to pull cargo up the ramp onto the pallet rollers. It should be very handy for loading pallets if a small forklift is not available. Even if a forklift were available, the winch might still be needed to get a pallet deeper into the cabin, depending on the ground slope.

A winch is just very handy when ramp loading cargo.

(edited to correct the odd spelling error)

[Ascend Charlie]

Not sure how you define your wenches - the ones I know are more suitable as bed-warmers than cargo loaders. But maybe you prefer them to be muscly.
Winches, on the other hand..........

[coalface]

Interesting differences in the English language across the pond. Oxford English dictionary defines "wench" as

noun, girl or young woman. verb, consort with prostitutes.

In UK we would use the word "winch" as a device which pulls something by rope or wire.

[Nigel Osborn]

Hi Nick
Will the 92 fit easily into a C17?

[Nick Lappos]

Nigel,
Yes, without folding the tail, and it will easily fit into a C-5 (which is much lower) by folding the tail. There is no support equipment needed for either operation.
Nick

[clearance]

Nig, don't tell me your going to buy a C17...

The Tax stuff must be doing well or have you packed that up and sent it away?:D

[Flight Safety]

What a silly misspelling mistake.

It most be that trip the company took to "Medieval Times" in Dallas the other day, where the waitresses kept calling themselves "wenches". Even though a colleague and I were having fun trying to speak Elizabethan English while we were there, I tried not to let that particular word slip into my brain, but it must have gotten in there anyway.

Obviously, "winch" is the correct spelling. :D

PS - The more I read the previous posts, the funnier they get.

[RoamingCyclic]

Congratualtions to Nick and the Team!

A former colleague of mine always said " You Dont Want To Fly The A Model Of Anything" - Normally I would agree however this is one "A" Model I Cant Wait To Get My Hands On!

Well Done Guys.

[turboshaft]

Congrats to Nick and the team.

----------

Sikorsky S-92 Wins 2002 Collier Trophy
Feb. 24, 2003

Sikorsky Aircraft has been selected by the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) to receive its prestigious 2002 Robert J. Collier Trophy, honoring the all-new S-92 helicopter as "the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America."

Sikorsky was chosen for designing, manufacturing, testing and introducing into service the S-92 helicopter, an aircraft that combines exceptional safety and performance features to dramatically raise the standards for helicopter travel. The Collier Trophy is regarded worldwide as the most prestigious award in the aerospace industry.

"This award ratifies the truly breakthrough nature of the Sikorsky S-92," said Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. "The Collier Trophy is a benchmark for aviation excellence and achievement, and we are deeply honored that the S-92 is taking its place among the most important aeronautical accomplishments of the past century."

The S-92 achieved type certification from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in December 2002, with FAA Regional Administrator Amy Corbett calling the aircraft "the world's safest helicopter."

Breaking new ground for medium-weight helicopters, the S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability. It is the only aircraft in its class certified to the rigorous FAA Part 29 requirements, incorporating the latest specifications for flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection.

In addition to its superior safety features, the S-92 excels in the areas of performance and low operating cost. The aircraft offers a 50% decrease in internal noise and 30% decrease in vibration over existing helicopters, offering passengers a quieter and more comfortable ride. Dramatically reduced operating costs make helicopter airlines more economically viable.

Borgman noted that these same innovations have great appeal to potential military customers. "Safety, reliability, performance and low operating cost are all major advantages that are incorporated into the H-92, the military version of the S-92. Coupled with the combat virtues of its drive train, such as ballistic tolerance, the H-92 is an outstanding candidate for the next generation Presidential transport mission for the U.S. Marine Corps and the Combat Search and Rescue mission of the U.S. Air Force."

The S-92 Team, under the leadership of S-92 Program Manager Nick Lappos, also includes General Electric (engines) and Rockwell Collins (cockpit flight instruments).

This year's Collier Trophy is the latest in a long tradition of receiving this honor for the business units of United Technologies Corporation, formerly known as United Aircraft. The list begins in 1933, when the company then called Hamilton Standard (now Hamilton Sundstrand) was honored for developing the controllable pitch propeller. Pan American Airways was honored for pioneering safe transpacific airline travel in 1936, with many of those landmark flights taking place in Sikorsky S-42 flying boats. The helicopter industry, including Sikorsky Aircraft, was recognized in 1950 for developing rotary-wing air rescue operations. Leonard Hobbs of United Aircraft earned the Collier Trophy in 1952 for the development and production of the J-57 jet engine. In 1970, Pratt & Whitney won plaudits as part of the Boeing 747 team. Pratt & Whitney engines also powered the winners of the 1975 (Air Force F-16), 1994 (C-17 Globemaster), and 1995 (Boeing 777) Collier Trophies. Both Hamilton Sundstrand and Pratt & Whitney participated in the advanced turboprop propulsion technology achievements that earned the 1987 Collier Trophy. And in 2001, a Pratt & Whitney-led team was honored for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter's integrated lift fan propulsion system. The 2002 award will be presented in Washington D.C in June.

[Flight Safety]

Congratulations Nick, what a nice way to cap the S-92 development program.

[Nick Lappos]

Thanks, Guys! The Award was a complete surprise, as we were competing this year against spaceships, military UAVs and a balloon that circled the world. It is a real credit to our industry that a helicopter is now considered in that league. (I should be sure to mention that the Apache and the V-22 Osprey have also won the Trophy in the past).

The real work is now on us, we are setting the first set of major components on the final assembly line in Bridgeport, within a few meters of the original assembly line for the R-4. There will be a full production line running by summer.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Congratulations Nick and team. It seems that Sikorsky has now gone the full circle. They started out at the South Avenue facility and now they have returned. I don’t know if the old buildings have been taken down and a new facility built up or, if the old facility is still standing. In either case the name of the street is still the same and the address is most likely the same.

:cool:

[dangermouse]

Congrats to the S92 team, but I must object to the statement about FAR29 certification, you must be classing the EH101 as a different type of aircraft (it is much more capable after all) as we had CAA, FAA pt 29 and RAI certification for two variants in 1994, so although well done we were 9 years ahead!! (BTW we now have JAR as well)

:*

[Flight Safety]

DM, are you referring to the following statement in the press release?

Breaking new ground for medium-weight helicopters, the S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability. It is the only aircraft in its class certified to the rigorous FAA Part 29 requirements, incorporating the latest specifications for flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection.

If so, then the statement is correct. The reason is because the S-92 is certified to FAA Part29 - Amendment 45, while the EH101 is certifed to FAA Part 29 - Amendment 27.

Since the S-92 is a brand new certification, it only makes sense that it would be certified to a higher amendment level, and thus the higher safety standards incorporated into the higher amendment levels.

[Nick Lappos]

Flight Safety is right on, the S-92 was certified to amendment 45, dated Oct 1999, while the EH-101 was certified to amendment 27, dated in 1990. The difference in that 9 years is striking.

About 1/3 of the regulations had changed in the meantime, including all those relating to the safety aspects that were mentioned in the Collier Award Citation. The flaw tolerance, bird strike, critical parts, crashworthiness and other items were all instituted after the EH was certified.

It should be mentioned that the manufacturer gets to select the certification basis when the original application is made, so the EH, when certified in 1994, met the regulations that were in effect in 1990. This "Grandfathering" is commonly done to freeze the design at an older basis to assure faster compliance. With the S-92, we applied for a certification basis in the FUTURE to capture the draft regulations. This meant that we reached ahead to capture those safety aspects.

Similarly, the S-92 is the only large helicopter to apply for JAR certification, and will shortly work with the JAR test community to get that done. Unless the JAA website (dated 5 Feb 2003) is wrong, dangermouse need not fume because the EH-101 is NOT on the JAR list for certification projects.

Here are the websites to check my homework:

JAR Projects:
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Certification/Public%20Documents/JAA%20Projects/JAA%20Projects%20-%20Rotorcraft.pdf

Type data Sheets for certification basis:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

Historical FAR for dates of amendments:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/b4a0cab3e513bb58852566c70067018f?OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=5.28#5.28

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse, is this the same fabulous EH101 that the Military are struggling to give a full Military Aircraft Release to, the one that has the first dozen Navy Merlins operating on different software fits and individual Release to Service, the same one which is cracking in various places but can't be repaired by anyone but Westlands because it is composite, the one that can't be shut down on sloping ground because of the airframe deformation it causes and the same one we will probably be stuck with in the SAR force - not because it is any good for the job but because the Military have always been forced to support Westlands regardless of the quality of the product?
By the way, since I get the impression you work for WHL - why, since it was a joint venture with Augusta, did Westlands not build the main rotor gearbox? I ask the question because one of the few good Westland products I have seen is the 3 pinion MRGB on the Lynx - it has a clever load sharing ring that allows the full power of a single engine to drive the gearbox in the event of a single engine failure. Wouldn't that have been a good idea on a 3 engine helicopter - the ability to harness the full power from the remaining 2 engines, shame the EH101 can't!

[dangermouse]

I have got to concede the point to NL and FS, the 101 is not JAR29 certified per se but uses JAR29 as the basis for certification following the FAR29 and BCAR cert in 94, if the comment had read 'It is the only aircraft in its class certified to the latest standard of the rigorous FAA Part 29 requirements', it would have been clearer.

Crab: I dont know where your info comes from but you are confused about aircraft procurement, qualification and RTS.

The spec to which any item is designed is promulgated by the relevant IPT on behalf of the user.

The manufacturer designs and qualifies the aircraft to meet a spec, this is overseen by the relevant IPT (NOT the user). Thus the IPT are the customer and the auditor of the design from a compliance point of view. The IPT are MoD staff and hence not constrained by commercial concerns.

In the case of Merlin WHL have determined that the aircraft is both safe to fly and spec compliant and that info has been given to the IPT after approval by the design staff, airworthiness staff and the Engineering director.

The fuselage distortion on shutdown comment is completely unfounded and we ought to know, if you manage to get a copy of the WHL lims document you will see that as far as we (the designers after all) are concerned the aircraft can land on severe slopes with significant cross winds without trouble, please do not accuse us (yes I work for WHL) of not having the interests of the user at heart, flightsafety is paramount and we would not promulgate a 'release' for a knowingly deficient aircraft.

In the sad case of the UK the IPT have decided that the design Release to service (RTS) which is issued by the ACAS is based on Recommendations from QinetiQ who are now a commercial organisation, every 'fault' they find gives them more work and more profit....(conflict of interest?)

The RTS for both Merlin variants is an agreed incremental approach, between us, the RAF, the IPT and QQ (who have the most to lose by recommending a full MAR quickly, less work etc) and we have generally met our programme dates, ask QQ why they only schedule 12 hrs a month of flying when we achieve 24, thats the delay in MAR production.

Composites are not the same as metal, you have to treat them differently, from your location I guess you are involved in the SK 3A at chivenor, so 21st century technology might appear strange to you.

The initial Merlin deliveries had some teething troubles (as all new A/C do, comments from the early users of Tornado would be interesting) but it was all agreed by the customer (not you, the IPT, any grievances should be directed at them, they audit us and were happy).

As for being unhappy with the 101 as a SAR cab, talk to the canadians about their recent experiences or read Defence Helicopter. If you are happy with the SK and think that a 150 kt cruise with an deliberate icing clearance, 3 FADEC engines, 50 kt cross wind hover capability, properly designed NVG 'glass' cockpit and a cabin you can get a landrover in aren't an improvement you really are deluded.

As to the quality of our products and we are a protected company what is flying at Shawbury, what is flying at Odiham, why is the Apache flying at Middle Wallop instead of letting us do our own A/C (remember Lynx3?). Dont forget August 1986...(400 kph level without compounding ). The Canadians (twice), Portuguese, RAF, RN, MMI, Danish and Japanese can't all be wrong can they?

On the positive side thanx for the comment on the Lynx MGB, the workshare years ago was decided on by WHL and Agusta (if I recall during our problem period) and they got the MGB, c'est la vie, anyway in the 101 case the MGB is perfectly OK as is, we have OEI CAT A performance at well above MAUM, three engines are better than two, less dead weight to carry around to cope with losing 1/2 your power instead of 1/3, similarly 4 is better than 3! I would be interested in the SK and S92 Cat A performance penalties as a comparison (didn't Flight International say that to achieve CAT A behaviour the S92 loses 1000kg in AUM?)

To sum up, do some research and get yourself a flight at Benson before commenting.

The 101 looks great in USMC colours.....

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Dangermouse

Check to see if Agusta ever verified that the main transmission can survive a mechanical lockup. If they did, did the demonstration take place using an EH-101 transmission or did they use an A-109 transmission and, did they ever determine the level of damage suffered by the rotorhead when it supplied the necessary energy to break through the lockup. I await your response.

:rolleyes:

[Nick Lappos]

dangermouse,
Thanks for responding to crab, I almost did (but thankfully suppressed the urge!) because each machine has lots to offer. It is up to our customers to decide. As I have posted in the past, I have many friends at Westlands, including several test pilots, and do wish to be able to drink coffee there in the future!

For the record, the Collier press release said, "It is the only aircraft in its class certified to the rigorous FAA Part 29 requirements, incorporating the latest specifications for flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection. " That statement is quite correct, but the comma does allow one to stop a bit too long, perhaps.

Regarding Cat A, the S-92 is qualified to Cat A at its max gross weight, up to hot high conditions.

[dangermouse]

to Nick, thanx for that, obviously FI got their facts wrong

To Lu, I havent a clue about that one, is it a certification point?:confused:

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse, I see you have used the classic defense of blaming Qinetic and the IPT for the delays bring the Merlin into service, how stupid of me not realise that WHL are completely blameless.
You have rather dodged the issue of cracking in the airframe - yes I know composites are different but when a Sea King cracks (station 290 or the I beams for example) WHL issue a repair schedule so that the military (MASU for example) can repair the airframe themselves. Now your super composite aircraft is cracking, please deny that any work has to be carried out by your firm at extra cost to the military (more work, more profit).
I am sure that the aircraft can be safely landed on severe slopes with significant crosswinds but I suspect your WHL lims document just says it can be done - not that shutting down on slopes will cause the airframe to distort - anyone from 28 Sqn care to comment?
As far as the Canadians go, 2 of our flight are planning to visit Greenwood next month so we will see if they really are as ecstatic as you claim. The Canadians were so desperate to get their politicans to stop fannying about with procurement decisions they would have jumped at the chance of any new helicopter - they didn't exactly have a fly off of different contenders, did they?
I know you will argue that the Danes assessed the aircraft fully before they fdecided to go for it, unlike the RAF who had the SH version forced upon us instead of something useful like more chinooks. As for the landrover in the back, providing you take the windscreen off (particularly excellent thing to do when you are being extracted under fire) you might just squeeze it in but don't pretend this is an SH aircraft, it is just not squaddie proof.
As for being an improvement on the Sea King - I would love more range and more speed as well as better icing clearances but a SAR aircraft has to be first and foremost a stable and effective winching platform where the winch wire doesn't foul the airframe and the downwash doesn't trash the survivor.
Nick had some very well presented arguments about the wisdom of 2 engines v 3 that he gave to the SAR conference last year which WHL really didn't have an answer to but according to your logic the more engines the better - dead weight is carrying around spare engines as a back-up to an engine that is statistically very unlikely to fail!
I did fly in an early EH101 and was particularly amused when my boss asked to see how the ac behaved with the active anti vibration kit to be switched on - it already was.
Try to find someone in the military who is actually pro WHL and it's products and you might go some way to understanding that as much as you soft soap the IPTs and the MOD procurement chain, the guys who actually fly the stuff are not impressed - even if none of it is your fault (yeah right!)

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Dangermouse

When the EH-101 main transmission was originally designed it incorporated a shear point that would fracture in the event of a sudden stoppage due to something getting into the gear mesh thus allowing a safe autorotation. The energy that is necessary to effect the fracture (shearing) is provided by the inertial energy of the rotor system. During this instantaneous stoppage the blades move forward and transfer their energy through the dampers to the rotorhead and this collective energy causes a reversal of the drive reacting against the stoppage and results in the fracture.

I questioned the Agusta dynamics group as to their demonstrating the ability of the transmission to survive a sudden stoppage. At first they were vague in their response but later stated that they would alter an A-109 transmission for the demonstration. They indicated that they would scale up the results to demonstrate the EH-101s capability of surviving a sudden stoppage. I left the program shortly after that.

My next consulting position was with the company that built the EH-101 hydraulics system, the flight control servos and the dampers. While there, I read the specs for the damper. It indicated that the maximum load on the damper during all areas of flight would not exceed 1800pounds (tensile and compression). Allowing a 1.5 safety margin it would be expected that the damper would start to yield at some point over 2700 pounds (tensile and compression).

Referring to my statement above about the dampers transferring the kinetic energy of the blade the instantaneous load on the damper would far exceed the 2700-pound safety margin causing the structural failure of the dampers. The damper failure can also translate into side loads being imposed on the blade elastomeric bearings resulting in their possible failure.

In any case the pilots would lose control of the helicopter.

So, the question is did Agusta run the test and did they consider the loads on the dampers and would the dampers successfully transfer the loads without failing.

Check the certification requirements to see if the shearing of the shaft is a requirement requiring testing or if the CAA is like the FAA
did they do a computer analysis involving all of the structural loads that apply.

:eek:

[ZH844]

Just stumbled across this topic and being a Merlin operator I would like to have my say.

First, congratulation to Nick and the boys - development to certification a long and expensive process. Well done.

Now to the 'comments' about the Merlin. Despite the obvious experience of many of the members almost everyone forgets that when a new platform enters service there are issues.

These issues only become problems when they cannot be addressed. WHL have addressed all the issues and this has resulted in the RN being able to deploy the aircraft to the front line.

The Cormorant version is the best SAR aircraft in the world today - not my thoughts - the thoughts of the Canadian SAR operatives so what more do you want Crab?

I would like to see the Merlin replace the Sea King in the SAR role - just hope that money sponges aka LMA, are not involved you might see a working spare parts supply line then!!

Every design has aspects not liked by the operators but the S-92 and the EH101 are the best helicopters ever design both in terms of operation and safety.

Having read both the MAR and the RTS it appears that our friends at Boscombe Down are on a job preservation jolly. The cabs could do more if these jokers were not involved!

Keep up the good work Dangermouse and thanks for the opertunity to get on my soap box!!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: ZH844

Every design has aspects not liked by the operators but the S-92 and the EH101 are the best helicopters ever design both in terms of operation and safety.

Based on what Nick Lappos has stated about the design characteristics of the S-92 I would agree with your comment above. However I disagree with the second point of your statement about the safety of the EH-101 Merlin. Westland can only address those elements that they had design responsibility for. Agusta was responsible for the powertrain, the hydraulics system the rotorheads, flight control system and some of the blade design as well as fuselage design for the civil version.

I supervised preparation of the Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analyses (FMECA) for the Agusta designed elements which, included all of the catastrophic failures that could cause loss of the aircraft. For whatever reason the department manager had all catastrophic failures removed from the FMECAs so they were never considered in the certification for civil usage or, for military applications. As a result, two of these catastrophic failures have manifested themselves on the Merlin and many more will in the future. See my post above regarding gearbox seizure.


:sad:

[zalt]

Nick Any progress on the TC/JAA validations?

[JimL]

A European validation team on it way to the States next week.

[NickLappos]

zalt and jimL,

The JAA team is coming to statford and West Palm Beach next week to perform the next stage of the JAA certification. We intend to fly the program they request (which should not be too extensive) and then complete the HIRF (High Intensity Radiation Field) tests at Pax River in late summer. This data will be presented to the JAA, and we hope to have certification shortly thereafter.
A complication is the EASA organization start-up, which might create some complexity in the legalisms of JAA certification, but the authorities seem quite dedicated to continuing the process in an orderly manner.

On other fronts, we have begun the formal IFR data gathering, and have also begun the de ice program with a tour in the Eglin AFB climatic hangar running right now. We will toss ice at the rotor to help substantiate the patterns on the blades, which will help correlate the airborne data we get next fall. We have every intention of certifying the deice in one season, which requires a flawless deice system, a really bad icing season, and some luck.

[SASless]

Chilling thought that Nick!

[zalt]

Nick

Good to hear there is more solid progress!

I'd heard rumours that the JAA were going to have to do a re-familiarisation visit (i.e what they do at the very start of their programme) because the design has changed so much since 1996 and that Sikorsky/FAA haven't supplied any information for two years on the open CRIs.

I know I shouldn't believe what I read in the press, but didn't #3 do trials at McKinley Lab (some place...!) in late 00? Why go back? Config changes or just to add blade deicing to the past test points?

[chopperdr]

nick: has there been any provisions / hardpoints for the installation for flir and searchlight, if so there approx location . will be installing our new blackhawk nightsun mount next week, will send pix.
dr

[zebedee]

Nick, why are the cabin windows so small? Pax like to have something they could climb through if they had to. Most of our 'bears' really don't like the idea of queueing for an emergency exit after ditching! (I know, the chances of an S92 ditching are ziltch - right?)

[Another KOS]

Rule of thumb - if Nick can get through them they are OK.

[Helitemp]

One for Nick Lappos,
Are you coming over with the S92 for the Paris airshow and subsequent visits to Norsk at Stavanger and Bergen ?. Is the machine going to fly the pond round the top or is it going to be Airtransported the easy way.



Helitemp:O

[MarkD]

Globe and Mail (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030605/UHELIN/National/Idx)

Sikorsky attacks rival military copter

Manufacturers shed gloves in fight to replace Canada's aging Sea Kings

By DANIEL LEBLANC
Thursday, June 5, 2003 - Page A4

OTTAWA -- The helicopter war took off yesterday as Sikorsky launched a surprise attack against Team Cormorant's EH-101, and the two companies shed their gloves in the $3-billion race to replace Canada's 40-year-old Sea Kings.

One Cormorant official called it a "pissing contest" as the two manufacturers compared the size and strength of their products, which they hope to sell to the Canadian Forces in coming months.

U.S.-based Sikorsky, which has entered its brand-new H-92 in the race, offered a presentation to The Globe and Mail, stating that its aircraft is faster, stronger, cheaper to maintain and safer.

The Cormorant has long been seen as the Canadian Forces' first choice for a new helicopter, since it has three engines rather than two, and offers more power and size than its competitors. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has referred to the EH-101 as a Cadillac.

But Sikorsky took a series of shots at the Cormorant, bringing its lobbying campaign to win the contract out into the open. Sikorsky's attacks took Cormorant officials by surprise. They were in meetings with the Department of National Defence all day.

Nick Lappos, project director for Sikorsky's H-92, said his company's aircraft is the best equipment for Canada, even if it has yet to be sold to any military force in the world. Mr. Lappos said the H-92 can carry 1,000 kilograms more than the Cormorant in tough weather conditions:

"Wherever you go, the H-92 carries more than the EH-101."

He added that the Sikorsky's cruising speed of 280 kilometres an hour is faster than the Cormorant's absolute speed limit of 277 km/h and is more fuel-efficient.

Officials from Team Cormorant were outraged, accusing Sikorsky of being hysterical. They said Sikorsky "manipulated" data to try to bring down the Cormorant.

Larry McWha of Team Cormorant said his company's craft is as fast as the H-92 and a lot more powerful than Sikorsky's numbers show. He said that Sikorsky took numbers from a variety of sources, relating to different variants of the Cormorant, to make their own H-92 aircraft look better.

"I'm not going to call them [Sikorsky] liars, but they have obviously taken some numbers wherever it was convenient."

Team Cormorant officials also made reference to a government document dated July, 2001, stating that Sikorsky was not capable of meeting the draft requirements for the Canadian Forces at the time. The document said that in hot weather, Sikorsky faced a "performance shortfall" of 1,000 kg in lift capability.

The other competitor in the race is the European NH-90, built by the French-led consortium NHIndustries. Officials from that aircraft manufacturer told The Globe last month that their helicopter meets all of Canada's requirements at the best price.

The contract to replace the Sea Kings will be awarded to the bidder that meets all the Forces' requirements, at lowest cost.

Team Cormorant has been arguing for a process whereby the contract can go to a higher bidder if its product is markedly better.

[NickLappos]

I think Peter O'Neil's article (below) was closer to the mark. Hard to believe, but he received the same brief as Daniel Leblanc, who wrote the more sensational article above.

Chopper bidder's tactics anger rivals, DND
AgustaWestland alleges Defence has watered down requirements
The Ottawa Citizen
Thu 05 June 2003
Page: A5
Section: News
Byline: Peter O'Neil and Mike Blanchfield
Source: The Ottawa Citizen; with files from CanWest News Service

A European firm's aggressive campaign against the federal government's maritime helicopter procurement process has triggered an angry backlash by two competitors as well as the Defence Department.

They are ganging up on AgustaWestland, the Anglo-Italian consortium and manufacturer of the EH-101 aircraft that won a huge Canadian helicopter contract in the early 1990s and then had that contract cancelled in 1993 by Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

AgustaWestland has been alleging that the Defence Department is watering down its requirements to ensure that a cheaper, inferior, and less safe aircraft -- in other words, any chopper but the EH-101, now called the Cormorant -- wins the competition for the $3-billion contract.

The Department of National Defence is taking the unprecedented step of calling together security experts and reporters to briefings this week in an attempt to combat the anti-government spin that has clouded the Sea King replacement.

Department spokesman Jeremy Sales said there are "misconceptions" about the 1999 Statement of Requirements and subsequent specifications on the new helicopter, specifications that AgustaWestland has alleged have been reduced to help competitors of the Cormorant.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. spokesman Nick Lappos ridiculed any suggestion that Sikorsky is marketing an unsafe and inadequate helicopter.

He also accused AgustaWestland of misleading Canadians by asserting that the Cormorant, which has three engines, could survive the failure of a single engine while hovering, whereas its competition's two-engine choppers couldn't.

An AgustaWestland advertisement this week said the federal government is willing "to purchase an aircraft that will ditch and sink to the bottom of the ocean if an engine fails while hovering providing it is $1 cheaper than one that will not do that. Saving $1 to lose 10s of millions is strange economics."

"We believe the H-92 is the safest helicopter that's ever been conceived," Mr. Lappos said by telephone conference call during a slide presentation offered to several journalists yesterday.

"I'm absolutely amazed. It is disappointing to find people who will assert, for example, that they are immune to an engine failure when their own flight manual states otherwise."

The Sikorsky briefing cited U.S. army data suggesting an engine failure during missions is extremely rare in any event, with one occurring in a 20-aircraft fleet every 25 years.

Another Sikorsky official, however, endorsed Agusta-Westland's allegation that the Chretien government is diluting its requirements, though to assist another competitor, NH Industries, rather than Sikorsky or AgustaWestland.

"I'd have to say right now that there's a lot of rumour out there right now that they've dropped the bar significantly, and we've certainly questioned the latest release of the specifications," said Lloyd Noseworthy, Sikorsky's regional director of business development in Canada.

Olivier Francou, the Canadian sales director of NH Industries, said his consortium is growing weary of the media campaign mounted by AgustaWestland to discredit the Sea King replacement process, while promoting its own helicopter.

All the helicopters in the U.S. navy are twin-engine, he added.

NH Industries -- a consortium of French, Italian, Dutch and German aerospace companies -- developed its prototype for the NH-90 in the early 1990s as part of a NATO working group.

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

[dangermouse]

Announced today 14 more EH101s have been ordered

This time for Japan (the S92 being down selected some time ago)

so thats 145 Military EH101s,

zero S92s (gotta be a message there somewhere)

Thought for the day....

If the S92 is so cheap (according to Sikorskys figures for Portugal 3XS92 = 2XEH101) why did they and the Japanese go for 101s?


DM:ok:

[MarkD]

Marine One - S92 + BAe vs EH-101

http://www.rotorhub.com/news/0306/ed07.htm

EH-101 Japan contract

Bloomberg (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=ala29vI2rPCU&refer=japan)

Seriously Nick L., getting t'Baron involved? Do visions of S-92 MRA4 not swim before your eyes? :D

[NickLappos]

So much for accurate reporting! The BAE controls we are using on the FBW S-92 are basically those from the Comanche, with components from other US FBW projects. The BAE group we are working with is actually in the Upstate New York section of Britain, about 3500 miles west of London just past the wet sections of the M4.

The Japanese minesweeping decision was made about 18 months ago, it was a foregone conclusion to use a Kawasaki/EH arrangement, there really was no competitive process. We did not bid.

[Hilico]

Dangermouse...

...and that's 100 million VHS tape players sold last year and no Betamaxes!

[NickLappos]

Hilico,

Actually, all TV stations and video makers use Beta cameras and decks as the master format for everything they shoot, because it is technically better, and copies perfectly for clean edits. As a result, I think all professional video is actually Beta! Perhaps there's a message here....... Naa!

Dangermouse, the price difference of the two is a matter of fact, with the typical EH costing about 50% more than the S-92 with the same equipment. Conklin and dedecker lists them at 14 and 21 million with mimimal equipment, accurate as far as I know. Japan paid about 37 million apiece, I think.

As I have said in lots of other posts, both makers have good machines, our customers will sort out what they want.

Regarding the EH/Cormorant assertions that they are immune to engine failure in a hover, I have copies of their Avoid Area from the Cormorant Flight Manual. At MHP weights, they go in the drink any time they are hovering below about 170 feet when have any appreciable fuel on board, standard day. On a hot day, they will swim, period. The PR type who doubted my veracity probably couldn't find the Flight Manual, let alone read it.

Any Ppruners who want the data, ask and I can post it on the net. They have a good helicopter, its the PR types who seem to run their programs who are a bit tacky. They told the US Marine Corps the same bunk about three engine immunity, and when their data became available, they seemed to lose a lot of credibility.

[Helioil]

Norsk helikopter to add 2 more S-92 to their fleet.
Brings the total to 4.


http://www.sikorsky.com/news_index/1,3033,CLI1_DIV69_ETI435,00.html

[Flytest]

Heard rumour that HUMS not fully functional on S-92 and that FAA had certified the aircraft without it, how are Norsk going to operate in the oil fields without it?

[NickLappos]

Flytest,

You're wrong, see the reparte on the other S-92 thread. The hums is certified, it is operational, and the S-92 is going to operate in the oilfield.

I wonder how all those non-JAR certified aircraft will operate in the oil field, now that new aircraft have safety features and capabilities they don't.

[GLSNightPilot]

It's simple, Nick. All over the world, the golden rule is followed. Those who have the gold get to make the rules.

[Another KOS]

Nick:

Don't want to appear cynical but do you include the S61 and S76 in that category?

GLS:

What particular rules are you alluding to?

[Flytest]

Nick,

Obviously been fed incorrect information from the states.

As for safety features, as you know HUMS is available to all operators as retrofit, however as our colleague mentioned above, remember the golden rule!!

Incidentally, congrats for actually taking the lead and building a helicopter with the system onboard, look forward to actually seeing it operate in anger.

[NickLappos]

Another KOS and Flytest,

The simple fact is that I show 61 systems in briefings to illustrate how the new rules have begun to change the game, and old systems simply don't meet the new requirements. The competition we all face is with gravity more that it is with other aircraft manufacturers.

It would be a disservice to treat the new way of developing and qualifying the aircraft as a simple sales angle, and to say that these rules are Sikorsky's alone would also be quite wrong. Certainly 61 falls far short of the new requirements, as do many other machines. Even the 76, which I truly love, is not of the latest standard, though its record and heritage give it superb marks in the safety department. I could not use pprune as a soapbox for the pablum that some posters on other sites follow, where all of one manufacturer are golden and all of another are crap. A spade is a spade, after all.

Time marches on, and with it come our expectations of new and better products, with higher safety standards.

The interesting discussion that zalt and I are having on the other thread is right up to the minute, too. I had the same discussion with a Norwegian CAA official, (who certainly does not agree with zalt BTW) just last week about the certification of the hums and bearing monitor, as we all (operators, Sikorsky and the regulators) want to be sure that the monitoring is of a high order, is certified and is useful.

Where zalt and I disagree is if the hums is "certified" only by making its operation a part of the proof that the aircraft is safe. We at Sikorsky follow the FAA lead, where the hums is important, approved and available, and that maintenance procedures are dictated by its readings, but the safety of the aircraft is not dictated by its operation. I believe that zalt is quoting the CAA line, where hums must be available to prove the safety of the system. I know of no other national regulatroy agency that feels that way, and JAR does not, I believe. My tightrope analogy is a correct one, I think, and at Sikorsky we will follow that until our customers ask for the zalt-type approval, in which case we will simply get it. Norsk is an important customer, knowledgable, experienced. They will tell us what they want, and we will build it!

[GLSNightPilot]

Another, I'm only referring to one rule, the Golden Rule, which in the U.S. these days is, "Those who have the gold get to make the rules".

[Another KOS]

GLS:

Thanks for that - although I'm not sure that it adds any to my understanding. Hopefully, operational and certification rules are not subverted in the way you imply. We all have sympathy for the US (and the planet) whilst manna rules.

Nick:

A well constructed and eloquently argued position. The exchanges between you and Zalt have been interesting.

My understanding is that, contrary to your contention, the rules for HUMS in the UK are likely to be driven down the route of operational requirements - exactly as you are advocating. Thus, once outside the certification scope, MELs can be constructed to permit elements of the HUMS to be out of service for defined periods. The periods of unserviceability will obviously have to be risk assessed to ensure that the ramp of a trend cannot lead to an event during those periods of unserviceability (this assumes of course that trends are monitored - see later).

The operational approach also permits the appropriate level of software certification to provide cost savings (hopefully to be passed on to the customer). Upgrades will also appear quicker and will be cheaper.

We all applaud the willingness of the manufacturers, at last, to join the party and make HUMS systems an integral part of the aircraft build.

It would be an additional improvement if secondary analysis of HUMS data could be introduced to further improve the knowledge and safety of the industry by removing other nasty 'surprises'. Do Sikorsky intend to reconfigure and warehouse the downloaded data to permit such secondary analysis for clusters and trends?

As it would appear that operational rules will be the catalyst for change, is it possible that you could further expand on the impact of the S92 (and other modern machines) on operational standards; do you expect that there will be a move - either by the customers, operators or the regulators - to raise the bar and to squeeze out the machines that are more susceptible to gravity, or do not meet the improved safety standards.

(in the North Sea with the crew feeding regimes, that might properly be gravy)?

[NickLappos]

Another KOS,

I agree, zalt makes strong points. I always learn something when I log onto pprune.

You are perceptive to see the real value of hums data goes way beyond any one aircraft. We certainly intend to use the fleet-wide data base to see trends and nip problems in the bud. Today, the way we know we have a reliability problem with a part is when we start to run low in our inventory, due to all the replacements we are shipping. A bit late, that.

With hums, we can see and learn from each aircraft each night, since we all will log into a common net. we have to work out the issues of data privacy (probably easy enough with some scrubbing off of locals and names). Pooled lessons on diagnostics will allow us all to learn from one user's troubleshooting successes (and frustrations). Imagine a pprune with real usage and maintenance data from all over the world!

I picture our system coming to maturity when we have suppliers, manufacturers, operators and end users all sharing the data, and all up to the minute as to successes and failures. We are setting up the beginnings of that system right now.

Regarding the possible obsolescence of older machines as new ones come around - it is about time. I would be most disheartened if my son (about to go to US Army flight school) were to check out in a Cobra I left 30 years ago. The design trades and technologies of the last several decades were right on for their times, but are getting long on the tooth. I would not go to a hospital with 1967 xray, monitors and procedures.

I must say, however, that the economics should also drive the equation. If the new technologies cost much more, or do not pay their way in better operating costs, they are not necessarily better.

I do fear one facet that seems to loom especially in Europe. The idea that all worst case scenarios must be met, simultaneously, for every operation. The JAR Ops Class 1 from rigs is an example. Instead of relying on reasonable statistics about exposure times and probabliities, regulators ran off with the requirement, and are now backing off as they see the economic impact and the rarity of the event. The worst case design concept can lead to helicopters that are measurably less safe, if we fix the stuff that doesn't need it, and ignore the stuff that does. I heard (here in Aberdeen today) a great discussion of the need for sea state 6 floats, and side floats, because "we fly over sea state 6 sometimes." Yea, I guess so, but I wonder what the probability of a simultaneous event where there is a required ditch and a sea state 6. The combined probability is what we should work on, I think.

[Another KOS]

Nick:

I for one applaud your aspiration for data/information sharing - which goes way beyond my consideration for operators' fleets; yours is a much more far reaching vision. At the moment, trend analysis and not just alert event monitoring would be a welcome addition to some systems. (There is a similar debate going on with regard to FOQA/HOMP/FDM information – to share lessons learnt.) Regarding the possible obsolescence of older machines as new ones come around - it is about time.but how do you see it being achieved – just by economics?

You are quite right to take a swipe at the regulators for their original proposal for Class 1 from rigs in 2010. Since 1995, there have been substantial moves to legitimise Performance Class 2 - with exposure - for offshore operations. My understanding is that debate on the 2010 requirement for Performance Class 1 for rigs has already opened and a solution is being sought that is both ‘technically feasible’ and ‘economically justifiable’. I’m sure that any proposal will have to be justified to the “men in grey suits” with reasonable statistics about exposure times and probabilities based on data for engine reliability. I also hope that sanity reigns and the results will take account of the distinction between North Sea (hostile) and GOM (non-hostile - in most cases) operations.

I have no idea what went on at Aberdeen or who was expressing such views However:

Examination of the historical data to establish the probability of sea state 6 in the northern North Sea might yield some interesting facts – notwithstanding that, my understanding is that you are offering the S92 with such a ditching approval. In doing so you are probably satisfying FAR 29.801(d): It must be shown that, under reasonably probable water conditions, the flotation time and trim of the rotorcraft will allow the occupants to leave the rotorcraft and enter the life rafts…Or it could be that it didn't cost too much to do.

[Mars]

Nick Lappos/Another KOS,

It has been noticeable that Nick has been somewhat out-of-the-loop whilst highland flinging, however now that he appears to be back in contact, could this thread continue.

The discussion on this and the other S92 thread - in the context of where you expect the offshore industry to go in the future - has been extremely interesting.

The discussion on the mechanism for change was inconclusive and could be of some importance to the industry. Is it possible for Nick to elaborate on the question posed by KOS?

[Crashondeck]

I know it is still early days yet, but there must be an ever increasing number of people who have flown the 92. Come on guys, tell us what its like....

Is it going to be the dream machine we are all expecting? Is it going to offer huge loads or is the huge AUW just allowing for a bigger ZFW?

[NickLappos]

Mars and KOS,
Forgive me, I will get philosophical here:
The economics will almost always rule, since if the true economic cost is calculated (a rare event so far) it will include the safety and environmental impacts, and will therefore align itself with our values.

When we stray from accurate economic accounting (where some aspects are exploited without accounting for their use/abuse) then we get the skewed answers that dominated the 19th and 20th century technologies. The piles of slag near mining towns are examples of this partial economic "solution" method.

When the true cost of safety is accounted for, strong solutions with great safety records will be developed. As I have said before, we can be lead astray by those who want to spend too little on safety as well as we can be mislead by those who attempt to solve problems that are not problems, but that spend valuable resources.

[arm the floats]

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/S92crop.jpg
I spotted Nick Lappos buzzing around the North of Scotland a few days ago whilst I was enjoying a cold beer in my garden.


http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/S92andAS350.jpg
I've got to say, it looks and sounds fantastic.:ok:

arm the floats

[Check 6]

I saw Nick Lappos on Discovery-Europe last week flying the Comanche.

:ok:

[NickLappos]

In truth, I am one of those "suits" now and only flew intermitently while we were in Aberdeen, including one glorious flight to Inverness. The flight crew were two test pilots from West Palm Beach, Phil Pacini, former USAF rescue pilot and Rick Becker, former USN pilot, both outstanding aviators.

We flew several dozen sorties flying pilots and pax from the operators at ABZ, then jumped across the pond to Norway and the Baltic Sea area.

[AirJockey]

As one of the lucky chap`s I must say the S-92 is a mighty impressive machine to fly considering it`s size.

The cockpit is very clean and gives you a fantastic field of view. The instrument panel is quite low compared to Bell, SuperPuma and other Sikorsky machines, but the information you get on the liqiud crystal screens are so geniuosly set up that your scan goes to only one primary screen for nav. info. This screen has ADI, RMI, VSI, ASI, TQ, TGT, RadAlt, Radar, TCAS and a few other things. Fantastic!
The other screen cover oil press. hyd, fuel, MGB and other warnings. The cockpit is therefore quite clean and has less switches and buttons than a 737.

Taxi is done with ease. When hovering this 26000lbs machine it shows itself as a very stable platform.
During pedalturns, sideways, backwards taxi and piruettes the machine is so stable that you might think the testpilot next to you are at the controls, but no, this was my machine.

During takeoff we climbed at 1500`fpm with around 25000lbs.
At 1500`we leveled of and set 86% TQ. which gave us a good 148 kts. Vibration are minimal, but noticable. This was being adjusted as data from flights came in and they would make the neccessary adjustments to the counteractive vibration system.

During cruise the test pilot showed me the one engine out traning mode where the computer makes the machine belive it has an engine out and adjust the other engine parameters according to a real engine failure. The way it works is that on the primary display the N1 counts down from the 30 sec. limit, then you reduce collective to 2 min. limit and thereafter max continuous. All the parameters are shown in red, and yellow colour and changes as the time runs out, so you really can not screw up. The computer tells you what to do!
I was otherwise impressed by the stabillity during high speed
turns and power adjustments. You can pretty much put you feet on the floor and let the autopilot control the yaw channel. Any input from you will more likely screw up the trim.

There were a few things I`m sure Sikorsky will adjust like the seat cushion and adjustment. 4-8 hr`s a day requires a better seat. I was told the engineers are on the case. Some of the autopilot functions should also be transfered to the collective or cyclic stick for IFR ops.

Noise in the cockpit is an important issue. It`s therefore nice to know that the cockpit and cabin have only 78 db. This allows you to talk without your headseth without any problem. I know since I`ve tried it from both seats!!

There are no question in my mind that this will be the best offshore/passenger transport helicopter in the next decades to come.

Job well done Sikorsky:ok: :ok: :ok:

[212man]

I agree that it looks like a superb machine and look forward to seeing it in the flesh.

I'm slightly disappointed to see the small round IAS and ALT dials on the PFD though; I think the tape system used by Eurocopter (and of course most fixed wing EFIS) is a better system once familiarity is gained. I agree, though, the conversion may be harder to start with for those use to traditional instruments.

The engine parameter indications are also good from the info I've seen, but again I think the current FLI gauge the Eurocopter use in their Avionique Nouvelle suite is a stroke of genius; On dial, one needle. On the other hand they don't provide nearly enough system information I feel, which I think the S-92 does (in line with most glass cockpit fixed wing).

Will it be at Helitech?

[Hedski]

Some nice snaps of it at Dublin's military air base the Monday after Paris on www.irishairpics.com. Just click on Irish Helicopter Photos link and scroll down a little. Go on Nick, give the pruners a go at Helitech!!! ;)

[leading edge]

I have flown it as well . Overall, much as described above but the torque gauge is too small (like a 50 pence piece) which may make OEI during a critical phase a real 2 crew job with one pilot calling torques while the other continues flight.

Fantastic cabin, plenty of power, smooth, stable and has great range and payload characteristics. Should be a winner.

BUT...the EC155 (and presumably 225) has a better avionic system with the FLI and has now added the "blue line" feature. The blue line stays on the FLI all the time and works like this:

If your power stays below the blue line at all times, you will have full Cat A accountability, if your power is above the blue line, you will droop rotor RPM. All you have to do in a critical phase of flight if an engine failure occurs is get as close to the blue line immediately and all should be ok. Slick huh??

LE:D

[NickLappos]

Leading Edge,

Thanks for your comments. You are most kind about the aircraft in general, and I don't want this to sound like a snivel, after all, this thread invites all comments about the aircraft. Consider these comments as trying to explain the differences between the S-92's power management and the previous generation.

On the S92, we use the philosophy that the FADEC power limiters take care of limits, and the pilot manages all power by allowing the rotor rpm to droop, and letting the automatic governing manage the power. This is more like First Limit Automation (maybe we needed an acronym??) Thus all max power and OEI fly aways require that the pilot simply adjust collective pitch to cause rotor rpm to droop slightly. I don't think this is a two pilot task (unless one pilot has the eyes and the other the hands!). The FAA agrees, BTW.

The small torque gage reflects the fact that it is not particularly needed, unlike other aircraft, where if you don't obey the limit marked on the gage, you get a chargable overtorque. On the 92, you can't overtorque.

Your comments are quite valid if one carries the old philosophy of needing to have the pilot stay as a gauge-tender, with one eye on the limit and the other on the rest of the world, but we designed the system to free you of that workload.

The French FLI gauge shows the first limit, so you don't have to hunt around the cockpit to judge which is today's limit, this is a real improvement over previous aircraft. But the FLI requires the pilot to use the indicator to juggle the lowest limit, and he gets kicked in the butt if he pulls through that limit.

On the S92, we directly limit the engine at the first limit, cutting out the middle man, so to speak. The displays show the lowest limit in distinct colors and markings, but this is for orientation only. As the limit clock runs out (clearly shown on the displays), the pilot simply shifts to the next limit (if he wants to) using a button on the collective.

In short, our philosophy was to govern the task for the pilot, and then inform him of what was going on. It is actually a full generation ahead of the FLI. With a FLI, the pilot must avoid over torquing, and the gauge is his only cue. That Blue Line is really nice, but why not just connect the Blue Line to the engine, and be assured of limit compliance. That's what S-92 does.

The limiters are smart, too. If the first limit that is governing the engine is insufficient to get you the power you need, we use a concept where the limit is raised automatically. We "blow away" the limits if the rotor droop becomes very great. This allows you to get maximum possible performance from the aircraft (why protect the drive train and allow the aircaft to hit an obstacle?)

[212man]

Nick,
interesting points. I agree up to a point but would argue that when OEI, which most of your comments are refering to, the Eurocopter phillosophy is also to fly the Nr with the FLI really there as a guide and time indicator. It is a prominent Nr gauge with the logical idea of having a large Nr needle and small Nf needles behind (who ever dreamt up the reverse logic?).

For twin engine ops, I think it very useful for a pilot to have a visula cue of power margin on T/O and landing, which the big FLI needle gives you. Also, technically you don't have to look at it at crucial phases as there is an audio limit warning: Look out the window, pull power, audio warning, stop pulling. great for heavy rig take offs. Of course it also has a blow away function.

How do you mean that you can't overtorque an S-92? Is this a function of the gearbox rating or the FADEC power limiting?

I'm interested to know more about the PFD logic?

I still agree it looks like a great machine and hope i get a chance someday to see/fly it.

[Dave_Jackson]

Nick ~ just an idea. :D

It's said that the S-92 has a quiet rotor. In addition, everyone knows that the rotor is controlled by the swashplate.

On the S-92 why not rename the 'swashplate' to 'swishplate'?

swash ~ to make violent noisy movements ~ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
swish ~ to (cause to) move quickly through the air making a soft sound ~ Cambridge International Dictionary of English

Dave J. http://www.unicopter.com/drinking_smile.gif

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Dave Jackson

Swishplate will have a totally different meaning in San Francisco.

:p

[Autorotate]

I saw it flying around Paris and at the airshow and have to say I was impressed with just how quiet it is for such a large helicopter.

The feedback I heard from people at Norsk Helikopter was also great and they are looking forward to the ones they are getting. Also heard about the private owner in the UK who is getting one, should be a nice toy for their travels.

:E

[NickLappos]

212man,
The torque system on the S-92 is also radically different for twin-engine tasks. The limiters also support normal power pulls, so you make a takeoff using the limiter to regulate the power.
The gauge shows three power levels:
1) the power you are pulling, of course
2) an index that shows the power available at the current ambients from the engines in your aircraft, based on the automatically calculated power assurance.
3) the power needed to HOGE at the current ambients.

That way, you have in one place the power you are pulling, the power you can pull, and the power you need to HOGE.
Here is the basic patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=11&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=lappos&s2=power&OS=lappos+AND+power&RS=lappos+AND+power

It may be an overstatement that you can't overtorque the aircraft , since we pilots are very clever in our screw-ups, but the torque limits are set very high, typically on our helicopters at 150% for OEI and 135% for two engine levels, and the limiters stop you well short of these values.

[Dave_Jackson]

Get serious

:(

Lu,

The 'swishplate' idea was a serious marketing suggestion. You know that noise is big concern in the rotorcraft industry.

________________________________________________


And furthermore

:O

Lu,

Your comment did prompt further research. Apparently, a 'swishplate' can only be used with 'gay blades'.

How about 'Swooshplate'?

[Autorotate]

Dave - You might have to get Nike's OK to use that one.

:E

[Heliport]

A little bird has just told me (I don't actually know if she's little) that Sikorsky has just agreed to exhibit the S-92 at this year's Helitech at Duxford - and it will be flying every day!

I don't know yet if the flights will simply be 'customer-demo' flights departing/returning or whether the organisers have reintroduced display flights after 2001's 'No Displays' idea.

Heliport http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/aktion/action-smiley-085.gif

[Flight Safety]

Go and see it if you get a chance, you won't be disappointed.

[Flying Lawyer]

I agree.
I saw it lifting out of Battersea as I drove past a few weeks ago - very impressive!

[leading edge]

A different bird told me the same thing, that makes 2 birds with the same story. I heard that it is still in Europe waiting for Helitech before going the the Middle East for more demos...

LE

[Helitemp]

When Sikorsky were here in Bergen with the machine at Norsk they said that after they were finished with visiting Finland the 92 was on boat from Gothenberg back to Florida but may be they have changed plans

Helitemp

[Helitemp]

AS of 11th Aug S92 was still in Norsk Hangar Sola , took Directors of Norsk to a board meeting in South Norway. waiting to position uk for duxford next month

[Flytest]

So that wasn't an S-92 flying over Coventry on sunday??

It was high up, but from ground and sound I thought it was??

[Heliport]

PHI has signed an agreement to purchase two Sikorsky S-92s which should enter service in 2004 and support deepwater drilling and production activity in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sales of the S-92 have now taken place in two of the world?s leading oil producing regions, the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, as well as in the North American corporate market.

"PHI is one of the world's top commercial helicopter operators, and one of our most valued customers," said Jeff Pino, Sikorsky's senior vice president for marketing and commercial programs. "PHI has utilized every commercial helicopter that Sikorsky has produced, from the S-55 in the early 1960s to the S-92 today. We are thrilled with PHI's continued confidence in our aircraft and their willingness to introduce the S-92 into the Gulf of Mexico."

PHI provides helicopter transportation and related services to a broad range of customers including the oil and gas industry, air medical programs and the third party maintenance business.

[leading edge]

Friends in Sikorsky say that this will make PHI the first offshore operator of the S92. First aircraft rumoured to be delivered sometime 2nd quarter of 2004.

Can anyone confirm this? What happened to Cougar's lead position as the first offshore operator?

LE

Edited for typo

[Helitemp]

Re PHI being offshore S92 first customer ? Norsk Statoil contract commences 1st Jan 05 but airframes will bewith Norsk Bergen approx middle 04.

Helitemp;)

[Rotor Wrench]

PHI plans to have the S-92s in operation by May or early June 2004. I'm not sure but I think the Sikorsky press release states PHI will be the first GoM operator of S-92s.

[chuckolamofola]

ERA has had two options for some time now. I also think PHI is the first customer to actually sign the dotted line for a scheduled delivery.

[AirJockey]

I recently heard a "rumor" that Sikorsky might start a project with 5 rotorblades on the S-92 to eliminate todays vibrations on the machine. I know the prototype 4 which was in europe had a heavier tail than the production machines and a lot of test equipement onboard.
I think this rumor is made on the basis of the feedback from the pilots who flew the machine and think it was to rough on ground and in the air.

Nick L. Do you have any knowledge of this?:ok: :ok:

[zalt]

With Fly By Light apparently on the cards surely this would unlikely??

Moving the pedals to get a bit more leg room might be a more urgent and more affordable tweak!

Plus in the commuter role some overhead storage might be handy (putting anything other than a WSJ or FT under a crashworthy seat being illadvised!). I can't see a fat cat in a hurry wanting to wait for an attache case to be fished out of the vast 'hold'. The BV234 was designed with bins from one of its Boeing big brothers I recall.

[NickLappos]

Since we started selling the machines, this rumor has persisted, inexplicably. The rumor is wrong on all counts, four blades works splendidly, thank you. The character of the aircraft is that it has some 4R vibration on the ground, especially in moderate winds. This can be relieved by raising the collective a bit, especially during taxi.

Warning, Commercially tainted paragraph follows:

Reports attribute the rumor about 5 blades to French salesmen who can't seem to sell the aircraft they have, the with one too many blades and not nearly enough performance for the price.

[Autorotate]

Nick - What was the hydraulics problem they had on the last day of Heli Tech that they grounded the machine more. This info came from one of the Sikorsky people there.

Autorotate. :E

[NickLappos]

Auto,
They found a leak on the last flight of the day, and taxiied back to fix it. By definition, it was the last flight of the day!:sad:

[Autorotate]

Shame because a lot of people enjoyed watching it come and go. Always funny watching a big aircraft taxi out on wheels. Rick gave me a good walkover the aircraft and explained all the systems and would hate to be the guy that has to hand carve all the rotorheads out of the big block of metal :{

When doing a walkaround its easy to see the family resemblence on ideas from the CH-53, Blackhawks etc. Love the luggage space in the back and the way the sponsons have been designed. Good luck with the program, it looks like it should be a winner.

If I remember correctly isnt the S-92 the only aircraft, apart from the S-76 that has been specifically designed for the civil helicopter industry, apart from specialised aircraft like the Kmax etc.

:E

[Avnx EO]

Back to the 4-per-rev... Out of curiosity, Nick, what does that beast use for vibration suppression. Are you using Active Vibration Suppression? If so, do you take advantage of that to allow variable or scheduled rotor speeds?

I know we can get some interesting advantages sheduling rotor speeds with the lighter birds (speed, noise, fuel consumption advantages), I was wondering if that applies to the big iron.

[John Eacott]

Slightly OT, but when we put the Westland Sea King into RN service, a Friday Happy Hour rumour that it would fly on 4 blades if one was lost in flight (:eek: ) became a year long discussion, firmly believed by those who weren't there ;)

Then there was the time I told a Buccaneer driver that the fuel dump tube was the mounting for our arrestor hook, to be fitted for non diversion carrier ops. Took less than 24 hours to become firm fact :D

[widgeon]

Sacre blue le Plastic Fantastique Ecuriel was certainment designed pour le Civil Marche . ( at least I am fairly sure the miltary version came after ) . I think maybe the A109 and the EC135 were also specifically designed for Civil market.

[NickLappos]

Avnx,
the 92 uses an active vibration system where a computer controls a set of elecric motors with excentric weights that spin as commanded to create counter-vibrations. Works very well, we have 3 of them around the aircraft, and sensors on the cabin and cockpit floor. the computer sorts out what is needed to keep things smooth. We also have a bifilar on the rotor head. the system tunes to any rotor rpm, so it does not go off tune in autorotations or approaches.

see http://www.s-92heliport.com for some data in the presentations that you can download.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: John Eacott

As a training manager on Sikorsky helicopters I monitored a class being presented by a US Army instructor teaching H-37 flight controls and dynamic systems. One of his students asked what would happen if the H-37 lost a blade in flight. The instructor replied that the remaining blades would reposition themselves and the helicopter could continue flying.

The centrifugal force (and if NickLappos is reading this) the centripetal force created by the spinning blade is around 72,000 pounds which would create a tad bit of imbalance.


:E

[NickLappos]

I have had to study this carefully and find that the typical helicopter undergoes about 2 to 3 g's of lateral vibration if an entire blade comes off. This occurs at about 3 to 8 cycles per second, a really bad ride. For most helos, this vibration magnitude and frequency takes the tail cone off, and the rest is history.

That film of the intermeshing Pumas taken on a home video shows the tail collapse on both machines, look at PUMA Helicopters Midair Collision half way down the page:


http://www.helisite.be/list_link.php?cat=9

[Matelot B'stard]

Nick L. Saw the Puma vid.. nightmare!!

As for your vibration cancelling, why didn't you guys just do the same thing as the system fitted on the s-76, just hike the 1R Vrt up to about 0.15 i.p.s. to mask the 4R, could have saved yourselves a fortune!!

Any jobs going in your good ideas department???

[NickLappos]

Matelot B'stard,
You are on to our trick!! Actually, I agree that if one vibration is high enough, iut is difficult to judge if another frequency is behaving itself. Helo test pilots can get good enough to arrive within .1 IPS of a vibration amplitude without using the vibe gear. I use the physiological cues from my body to tell, (teeth slight chater at .5 IPS, etc.) On one test flight, I do recall having to fly with horizon reference because nothing in the cockpit was standing still enough to be read! In one experimental aircraft, the vibration was so bad my legs fell asleep, the blood couldn't figure out which way to flow, at the capillary level, I think.

Seriously, most S-76's can get quite smooth, especially in 1 per rev (1R). If not, there might be some tweeking needed on the blade. Email me for more info if you'd like.

[Autorotate]

Nick I have had a number of emails from people that have flown the S-92 and they have serious reservations about the vibration levels in the aircraft. I have pasted part of an email I received.

The S-92 is not ready for the market in its present state. The vibrations are much higher than may be expected from a state-of-the-art product. The displays, Rockwell Collins ProLine, are worse than expected also and inferior to the Sextant displays you`ll find in the Super Puma Mk II today.

Can you give me some feedback from your side on this one.

Autorotate.

[NickLappos]

I guess the best way to answer this is to not, but I am not that smart. It is like answering "When did you stop beating your wife?" Actually, I haven't stopped beating my wife, at least to the remote control.... ;-)

There has been plenty of positive comments written about the S-92, I won't quote all those who find it smooth, powerful, fast and agile. Pprune would balk at the number of lines consumed were I to post them all.

As to the market fitness, those who have flown the machine generally are very positive about it, and some are so positive they actually buy it. More buy it than the Brand X mentioned, which leads me to think that the market is finding it quite fine, actually.

The displays are quite a bit more capable than those in the other brand mentioned, I think. They are not ProLine at all.

Prospective buyers like the performance and find that it has about a ton more payload than brand x (who have grown their gross weight twice since the S-92 was introduced, and still fall far short). The economics are great (and backed by a Total Assurance Package - a whole aircraft hourly rate for maintenance). The safety features are a generation ahead of the others (flaw tolerance alone is worth crowing about, where an S-92 can take a .040" pit or gouge on any critical part in any critical location for at least 1250 hours without allowing a crack to form.) The crashworthiness is a real factor, where the fuselage, landing gear and the stroking seats are a generation ahead of brand X (who offers some of these features if pressed, but has yet to even design them let alone try to certify them. Watch the productivity tumble when these features are added to the already lesser payoad!

All this being said, let the games continue, as they will. The market will decide.

[Autorotate]

Nick - Thanks for a great response. Info wasnt meant to offend, just trying to get info from both sides for a balanced view. Appreciate it.

By the way you shouldnt mention "Stroking Seats" here as many of the outback Aussie guys might take it the wrong way and get excited :O :O


:E

[NickLappos]

Autorotate,

Absolutely no offense taken!

I won't go near the stroking seats idea, it is exciting enough flying helicopters!

[Brasky]

Just wondering what kind of numbers Sikorsky and the Agusta/Westland team can put up for OEI performance. It seems that neither companies tech publications on their website list OEI Rate of Climb or OEI ceiling.

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks!

[NickLappos]

Here are some great web sites with lots of data:

http://www.prowax.com/1prod_bulls/s92pb.html

http://www.shokos.com/EH-101.htm


:ok:

[Hippolite]

By now, PHI should have their S-92 but rumor has it that it is still in Connecticut and hasn't even left the factory in Bridgeport yet. Can anyone confirm? Heard from someone that the second ship (corporate I think?) is also running very late and Air Harrods who will be managing it are delaying pilot training courses.

Anyone have any updates on when the 92 will be operating?

HH

[Gomer Pylot]

Rumor is that Sikorsky hooked it to a hydraulics mule and activated the hydraulics with the flight controls disconnected, or some such, and repairs will take some months. Why it was back there, when there were hundreds of pictures released of the highly-publicized turnover to PHI, is anybody's guess.

[ppheli]

Hmm, Air Harrods, eh? Who will be the owner? Should we presume the boss himself - aka "The Egyptian Grocer" as a certain infamous ex-politician and his wife refer to him as...

No doubt that is why the S92 demo spent a lot of time at Stansted when went over to Europe last Autumn (for Helitech, demos, etc)

[Joker's Wild]

Small update, interesting all the same.

hydraulics glitch (http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=fed90404-2e1c-426a-9aa6-3d1555e6640a)

[Autorotate]

PPHeli- No its not for Mohammed, its for another private owner. You will have to wait and see, no telling anyone Nick :E

I spoke to Jeff Pino at Heli Expo and he was saying that the aircraft was trucked to Heli Expo for the ceremonial delivery but that it was always going to go back to the factory for some more work to be done on it. Obviously once the work is done it will be delivered. If I spent that much on a new helo I would want to make sure it was 100% before I took delivery of it.

Ned

[Flying Lawyer]

News from the annual FAA/JAA/EASA meeting:

The 'Lappos S-92' (aka the Sikorsky S-92) has become the first helicopter to be certified by EASA/JAA to the latest safety standards. EASA made the formal certificate presentation in Philadelphia on Tuesday at the annual FAA/JAA/EASA meeting.

The S-92 is the first, and so far only, helicopter certified by the FAA to FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 47, the latest U.S. safety regulations.
Sikorsky aims to obtain Transport Canada approval later this summer.
Following successful tests behind a CH-47 icing tanker earlier this year, the concluding aspects of full icing certification will occur later this year when regulatory agencies fly the S-92 for final approval in known icing.

Production deliveries begin this summer, with 12 aircraft planned for delivery this year. Training will be at FlightSafety International, West Palm Beach, where the S-92 simulator is on track for FAA Level D certification in July.

Sikorsky is implementing systems to capture and use data originating on the first operational aircraft. Combined data from HUMS, bearing monitors, maintenance data computers, and maintenance management systems will electronically flow to Sikorsky for real-time analysis and action.

Looks like all that hard work is paying off Nick. :ok:

Tudor

[Autorotate]

Congrats to Nick and his team. Looks awesome in the PHI paint scheme that I saw at Heli Expo.

Ned :ok:

[Heliport]

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft04/FRH0405/FR0405d1.JPG

[CRAN]

An excellent piece of engineering, congratulations to all involved. Now, when can I have a go...

CRAN!!!
:)

[SASless]

S-92 my hind end! Now who would want to fly the latest technology....certified for everything....carrys bags of bags and bags of gas...flys hands off...likes ice...hovers on one donk....looks cool....heck....how's that supposed to go over with the boys? Not to mention that extra wide cockpit designed around Nick's parameters....crike's sakes...if he had his wallet in his hip pocket, I bet us narrow bodies could square dance side by side in the thing! If Nick wasn't such a Teetotaller there would even be a wet bar in the thing I wager! Next thing you know...the President will be wanting one of the things....:ok:

[Flight Safety]

Outstanding result Nick, congratulations on building such a fine machine. :D I can't wait to hear how the S-92 does in the first year or two of service. :ok:

[Foxy Loxy]

Can someone please provide me with some info on this type? It's not one I've come across before, and I would like to know:
MAUW
Wake vortex cat.
Rotor diameter
Wheels/skids???
Overall length.

A piccy would be helpful!!

Cheers in advance,

Foxy

[Heliport]

http://www.sikorsky.com/Images/SAC_Sikorsky_Aircraft_Corporation/US-en/S92.jpg


If you do a search for S92, you'll come up with 20+ threads.

[Flying Foxy]

FoxyLoxy

Here's a couple of threads to give you a head start.

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI890,00.html (http://)

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,3038,827,00.pdf (http://)

HTH

F Foxy :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Sikorsky Press Release Sep. 23, 2004First Production Sikorsky S-92 Heads to Work

http://www.sikorsky.com/Images/SAC_Sikorsky_Aircraft_Corporation/US-en/PHIoverwater.jpg
The first production S-92 proudly displays PHI colors

Latest Generation Helicopter to Fly the Gulf for PHI

STRATFORD, Conn. - The first production Sikorsky S-92 helicopter is expected this weekend at its new home base in Lafayette, La., where it will open up a new age of offshore service on the Gulf of Mexico with Petroleum Helicopters, Inc. (PHI).

"The S-92 is a revolutionary aircraft, the most technologically advanced and safest helicopter in the world. We are pleased with the S-92 because of its advanced safety features, range, payload, cabin size and cost effectiveness," said Al A. Gonsoulin, chairman, and CEO of PHI.

A second S-92 for PHI is nearing delivery early next month. S-92 completion will increase through the end of 2004, with decreasing intervals between deliveries. The plan is to deliver 18 aircraft in 2005. Sikorsky has orders, including options, for 60 S-92 helicopters.

"We are delivering this aircraft to a high-usage customer that will be flying the aircraft in demanding offshore missions in the Gulf of Mexico," said Sikorsky President Steve Finger. "Under these conditions, this S-92, and the one we deliver in a few weeks, will build up flight hours of operation at an incredible rate."

Sikorsky has been selected by the Government of Canada to provide 28 H-92 maritime helicopters, military derivatives of the S-92. Sikorsky is also offering a version of the H-92 in the competition for the next-generation helicopter to serve the White House mission.

http://www.sikorsky.com/Images/SAC_Sikorsky_Aircraft_Corporation/US-en/PHI_Departure.jpg
PHI's S-92 makes a pass over Sikorsky Aircraft, Stratford Forgive my interest in this particular helicopter. It was the nearest to completion when I visited the production line at Bridgeport almost exactly a year ago.

Must give you a very satisfied feeling, Nick. :ok:

[NickLappos]

Flying Lawyer,

You bet it does! Hundreds of engineers and program people were there to see it off, the second and third are right behind it.

I was near DC with our demonstrator flying press and Washington officials, so I missed it, unfortunately.

[CRAN]

Congratulations chaps!

A fine machine and a cracking paint job.

CRAN

[The Sultan]

Nick,

Is it true the only reason the delivery was delayed was so the temperature would drop low enough so you would not violate the low density altitude take-off/landing limitations?

By the way, how many passengers can you carry with full fuel at sea level at 100 F and meet Cat A requirements? Your thread dissing the need for Cat A performance indicates to me it must be a lot less than desired.

The Sultan

:)

[Gomer Pylot]

The temperature down here in the GOM hasn't dropped enough to notice yet. And I'll wager my next several paychecks that the S92 will carry more passengers Cat A at 100 degrees than a 412 or a 214 will.

Cat A isn't an issue offshore or on the US Gulf Coast, though. There are no heliports onshore or offshore that have Cat A criteria.

[SASless]

Hey Nick...

How's about a Demo flight out here....? I will throw in a bottle of Old Overcoat and a Cobra flight for you!;)

[NickLappos]

SASless,

Do you hear a buzzing sound, like a fly that just lifted off from a cow pasture, somewhere in Texas?


I'd love to, buddy, let me find the time. Similarly, come East and I will show you a place where REAL helicopters are built.

[ppheli]

Last week Sikorsky put out a press release (http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1895,00.html) to say that the first S-92 for PHi was expecting to be in Lafayette by the weekend, and it would soon be plying its trade in the Gulf of Mexico (hurricanes permitting).

However, the first S-92 delivered was flying in the UK on Friday..... and is a corporate aircraft. That is backed up by the "Certificate Issue Date" being listed for this aircraft on the FAA register, but not for either PHi aircraft.

Oh, you want to know who the customer is, do you??? Well, remember that shiny black S-61N G-LAWS with the full leather interior.... Yes, Leslie Wexner has replaced it with S-92 reg N908W. Seen at Stansted on Friday, and Birmingham UK today, presumably interlining with his BBJ.

[Hippolite]

Depends what you mean by delivery. The PHI aircraft was the first one accepted and signed for by the customer.

Actual date on site after some additional training in Stratford does not count.

The PHI aircraft will not be fully operational in the GOM for another couple of weeks....helideck crew training, contract customer acceptance, etc.

Obviously you have never been involved in an aircraft delivery process.

HH:cool:

[rjsquirrel]

Hippolightweight,

Sounds like you slept through another class, kimosabe,

Websters Dictionary:

Deliver - to take and hand over to or leave for another : CONVEY <deliver a package> b : HAND OVER, SURRENDER <delivered the prisoners to the sheriff> <delivered themselves over to God>

Obviously you have never been involved with a language process before. Must be hard being semi-right so often.