Marine One Woes [Archive]

ppheli

7th Apr 2007, 05:01

SASLess - yes, we have heard about the hangar complex - Rotorhub.com ran this story on 28th January 2005 - the $36M obviously refers to the initial tranche with the target max being $84M

US Navy awards $36M contract to build Presidential Helicopter Programs Support Facility at NAS Patuxent River

Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Chantilly, Va., is being awarded a $36,800,000 firm-fixed price contract for the Presidential Helicopter Programs Support Facility at Naval Air Station (NAS), Patuxent River. This contract will be incrementally funded as authorized by Congress with the initial funding today; the total contract amount is not to exceed $84,422,000. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, Md., and is expected to be completed by July 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Phase I was competed via the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with 12 offers received, and based on the results of the technical evaluation, three of the 12 firms who submitted Phase I proposals were invited to participate in the Phase II competitive negotiation process. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N40080-04-C-0161).

Source: US Dept of Defense

=================

Flying Lawyer - the "71" is merely part of an ongoing numerical series which has in recent years featured.........

AH-66 Comanche - now consigned to history
TH-67 Creek - the NTH "new training helicopter" aka Bell 206
MH-68 Stingray - the HITRON Coast Guard interdiction heli aka A109E
??- 69 omitted from sequence
AH-70 - ARH "Armed Reconnaissance helicopter" based on the Bell 407
VH-71 Kestrel - VXX presidential helicopter aka EH-101
UH-72 Lakota - Army LUH "light utility helicopter" program - aka EC145

heli1

7th Apr 2007, 16:20

The reason there is a ???-69 is because logically this should have been allocated to the preisdential EH101 but it was not felt appropriate,given Mrs Clinton as a possible passenger. VH-70 was missed because too like S-70 ,hence the next number in the list...VH-71.
Incidentally if the VH-71 is overweight,where would that have put the smaller S-92 ???

IFMU

7th Apr 2007, 16:29

Incidentally if the VH-71 is overweight,where would that have put the smaller S-92 ???
Wasn't Nick saying that the S-92 could carry more payload further than the EH-101? If that is true then the S-92 would be better off. And, if the smaller size limited the mission creep, i.e. one safe instead of 2 due to floorspace, then maybe it would be better off again.

-- IFMU

500e

7th Apr 2007, 21:46

Gomer P
You are not alone, A lot of UK voters think this to.:oh:
ppheli
Are you saying the VH69 sucks?:=

NickLappos

8th Apr 2007, 04:01

Most of the weight growth is due to the need to completely redesign the fuselage, because the EH-101 simply falls far short of US military crashworthiness. The fuselage needs to be beefed up from 8 g's to 20 g's forward, and from 15 g's to 20 g's downward, for example.
Since the original US101 proposal was for hover IGE only on increment 1 (first batch) the increase in weight simply hits a hard stop, where the aircraft cannot take off if the weight increases further.

While it seems counter intuitive, the H-92 was rated by the Navy to have considerably MORE performance and safety than the US-101, by a large factor. I have a copy of the ratings given each, as calculated and de-briefed by the Navy. OTOH, the 101 was rated far superior in cabin width and comfort, s that there was a virtual tie, and the 5 month shedule "advantage" assessed for the 101 made it the choice. That 5 months has been eroded ina cloud of problems, allknown from the outset:

Redesign of the 101 to meet milspec - esp every frame of the fuselage

Need for cleared people (still a MAJOR problem)

Inability to fly the foreign military aircraft because the Navy hadn't cleared the airworthiness

Inability of the 101 team to understand the massive EMP, comms, and systems designs for the Presidential mission

Vast under-estimating of the weight of Presidential furnishings and soundproofing, where the 101 used standard VIP weights

I saw the weights and performance that the 101 team published for their brochures. It is now time that the smell of brewing coffee has hit home!!

Aynayda Pizaqvick

8th Apr 2007, 07:06

Well at least you're not biased at all Nick!

SASless

8th Apr 2007, 11:47

An old Cowboy saying...."It ain't bragging if you have done it." holds here.

Nick was the " Man" on the V-71 project for Sikorsky thus I reckon he ain't bragging....merely relating some facts.

Politics is a part of every military aircraft competition.

Aynayda Pizaqvick

8th Apr 2007, 12:44

My point is it is easy to slag off the opposition and I am sure Westlands would have an equal or greater list of perceived 'defects' on the S-92. The Navy had all the facts and chose the helicopter that most suited their needs (of which I understood cab volume and smoothness of ride to be the deciding factors). Of course all military procurement decisions are highly political but I simply don’t believe for a second that the Navy would have settled for the weaker competitor as some sort of concession to Tony Bliar for his support in Iraq... especially not on a program as important as Presidential Transport!
As far as the weight issues go, will the new 1000kg increase to AUW on the Danish Mk512s also be available to the VH-71 (giving MAUW of 15600kg)?

widgeon

8th Apr 2007, 15:37

hmm , what does a 8% increase in AUM do to the fatigue lives of the critical components ?. Are the rotor head and gearbox on condition in the 101 ?.

Aynayda Pizaqvick

8th Apr 2007, 15:47

I had the sales pitch from the Westlands guys a while back (I didnt buy one!) and I understood the increased AUW was possible due to the favourable HUMs data they had collected thus far. Therefore it shouldn't have any adverse effect on fatigue life.

ProfessionalStudent

8th Apr 2007, 20:25

Imagine my surprise when something involving Westlands comes in late and over budget.

SASless

21st May 2007, 22:02

What was it Nick had to say about the lower safety standard for the aircraft? I do seem to recall he considered that to be an issue or is my Geritol going stale?

Correct me if I am wrong Nick!

Now if one adds three feet to the rotor blades, stretches the airframe by a couple of yards, re-designs the drive train......is that the same model aircraft as was tendered for the contract bid process?:uhoh:

I see my Blue Suited Targets from my fraud investigation days at the Navy remain loyal to their past habits. Remember the toilet seats, the pilot ash trays, and the "Device, Impact, manually operated with natural fiber operating mechanism" days......(can you say "hammer" folks?):ugh:

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is recognized by the media as the leading source of information on government waste. Since our founding in 1984, CAGW has helped expose such high-profile symbols of federal profligacy as the Department of Defense's $640 toilet seat and $436 hammer and the National Park Service's $797,400 outhouse.:{:{

Jackonicko

21st May 2007, 22:44

One engine out in the Merlin? Barely noticeable. (It has three).

One engine out in the S-92? Dramatic......

:p

NickLappos

21st May 2007, 23:51

The request by Lockheed is basically giving up on the increment I aircraft and going to Increment II, thus missing the delivery date by years, throwing in the towel on an entire configuration, and scrapping the essential plan to land on the White House Lawn in 2008. This is because the massive structural changes (a whole new fuselage) to suit the safety standards has increased empty weight to the point where it cannot hover IGE. The "cure" is a whole new rotor (throwing away the BERP blades) and adding 5 feet of rotor diameter to get the lift to get the aircraft flying.

The "misunderstanding" is that Lockheed expected to fly the President in a helicopter that does not meet the requirements for flying a US Army Sargeant!

And the three engines do not get the helo to hover IGE while the competitor could and does hover OGE under the same conditions.

I predict that once the administration leaves office, the Navy will kill the EH program and recompete.

For the record, Lockheed is now saying that the EH-101 cannot be made into a Presidential transport, the entirely new helo they develop (new fuselage, rotors, transmissions and engines) will have to do so.

SASless

22nd May 2007, 01:23

Assistant Navy Secretary Delores Etter downplayed the report's significance, saying that all aircraft programs struggle with weight and that the Navy is working through those challenges on VH-71.

Some working through!!!!:ugh::{

You reckon this Navy official is regretting these words right now?

Some believe that one outcome of this schedule was to make the competition more
favorable to Lockheed Martin and less favorable to Sikorsky. A Navy spokesman was
quoted as saying “The Lockheed streamlining proposal was selected because it was
judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk,
and at a lower cost....we can’t let the traditional acquisition process impede the need to
meet the President’s security requirements now.”
:rolleyes:

IFMU

22nd May 2007, 01:50

I predict that once the administration leaves office, the Navy will kill the EH program and recompete.
Maybe they will just keep flying the S-61's forever! Certainly they have to fly them longer if the EH101 is delayed to presidential service.

-- IFMU

heli1

22nd May 2007, 08:14

Sorry Nick but if the Navy can't fit all the security ,armour and avionics and seating required for the presidential mission into the EH101 with 65,000shp available what makes you think they can fit it into the smaller S-92with only 40,000shp ? Perhaps the President should use the Chinook ?!.

212man

22nd May 2007, 10:07

"....the EH101 with 65,000shp available what makes you think they can fit it into the smaller S-92with only 40,000shp.... "

That's some engine upgrade they've been subjected to!!!!! :\

(One too many noughts I think! :ok:)

NickLappos

22nd May 2007, 10:13

heli1, you are at least 1 order of magnitude off in your horsepower numbers, unfortunately!

Although it is hard to believe, the EH-101 has LESS useful load than an S-92, as proven by their respective flight manuals. The horsepower difference is fully absorbed by the empty weight difference between the two, so they have precisely the same power to weight ratio, and the rotor system of the 101 is less efficient, so the net performance is actually lower. Calculating performance requires more skill than counting engines.

Here is a comparison I did 3 years ago, still valid:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/comparison.htm

heli1

22nd May 2007, 11:33

OOOPs...yep..too many noughts...but Nick,you could still only fit evrything in to an S-92 by having the President sit on someone's lap !!

unstable load

22nd May 2007, 11:53

heli1,
would that not then make it an actual VH-69 thus making this whole thread moot??:}

waspy77

22nd May 2007, 12:22

Nick, I'm interested to know where you get your performance figures from.

The S92 VIP specification brochure lists useful load as 9096 lb
The EH101 VIP as 34392 lb and a useful load as 11905 lb
The S92 has 9 passengers range as 479 nm (standard day, sea level)
The EH101 has 14 passengers range as over 500 nm (IAS+35, 3000ft)
Interesting that S92 quotes a VNE and the EH101 as a max cruise.

These figures come from the company brochures. Is this all just marketing spin, on both sides?

NickLappos

22nd May 2007, 12:32

waspy,

The H92 brochure is on the web site, and the exec aircraft that you quote has over 2000 lbs of empty weight goodies above a stripped utility aircraft.

The EH101 brochure values are as listed, if you would like, post a $50 bond (to your favorite charity) and I will prove every number. Reading brochures seems to be a lost art for EH101 fans.

waspy77

22nd May 2007, 13:03

Not doubting the analysis Nick, the technical content of your replies on this forum is excellent. But when figures are in the public domain, available directly from the manufacturer, that vary from them it is difficult to understand how a comparison can be drawn.
I'm sorry if it is my misunderstanding, if so please educate me, are you saying that to compare the two, we would need to add 2000lb+ to the EH101 to compare baseline equipment fits?

Cyclic Hotline

22nd May 2007, 13:43

Time for the General Accounting Office (GAO) to swing into action and do a true independent evaluation of this project. And if the numbers and capability of the machine are as far away from the selection criteria as it now appears, then time for a re-bid.

And should they lose, that well known helicopter manufacturer, Lockheed, should be made to return every single cent of taxpayer money they have gleaned so far! :eek: :ooh:

SASless

22nd May 2007, 13:59

Cyclic,
The sad thing is the DOD contracting system is so complex it would take a proveable act of fraud and/or conspiracy between Lockheed and the Navy Contracting Officers before there is any chance of recovery of funds paid.

When the Contracting Officer signs off on the contract, even though they are buying a pig in a poke, it becomes a binding contract.

Then add the concept of "For the convenience of the government" issues....there is a huge barrier to get over before punitive action can be taken.
Please to remember President Dwight Eisenhower's warnings about the relationship of the Department of Defense and Defense Contractors.

He was too right in his warning.

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Matthew Parsons

22nd May 2007, 18:38

This thread has taken an interesting direction.

Two highly advanced helicopters compete for a very lucrative contract. Each has their advantages over the other. I'm not going to try to list them, but the EH101 side could probably use a bit of publicity right now.

The contract happens under careful legal scrutiny with a precedence of lawsuits in such dealings. The EH101 was chosen.

Now the cost is going up. Is it because EH101 is a bad helicopter? no. Is it because EHI or AW are a bad company? no. The thing is, the company has to deliver what was in the contract. If they don't there wouldn't be a cost to the taxpayer.

This sounds like so many projects in the past where what was wanted was not clearly stated.

If you're upset about the cost overruns, don't try to label the EH101 as a bad helicopter because some areas of a very high quality contender are better. Instead, aim your anger at the contracting process that purchased something which couldn't do the job.

Interestingly, there was some knowledge about the performance capabilities early on, hence the planned increments. Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.

I'm not now or have ever been affiliated with AW, Sikorski, USN, etc. Yes, I am a fan of the EH101, but I'm also a fan of the S92.

mutt

22nd May 2007, 19:52

Apologies from a fixed wing person jumping in here..:)

I have experience with selecting and purchasing commercial airliners. If i selected an aircraft that immediately required a "rebuild" after the selection, I would expect to get fired!

Why doesnt that happen in this case?

Mutt

dangermouse

22nd May 2007, 21:29

more innuendo, spin, outright untruths, spin, incorrect analysis, axes being ground, spin, bad losing and bulls@@t from the normal suspects.

The implication that inc 1 is being replaced by inc 2 due to specification short fall is a lie, as is the statement about HIGE capability, but lets not get the truth in the way of sour grapes.

The project always assumed that the initial buy aircraft (whatever the winner) would not meet the full spec mision and that a reworked design (increment2 ) would be evolved to fully meet the desired mission (for obvious reasons the mission requiements are not in the public domain).

Matt Parsons post is the most sensible one here but it also requires a clarification 'Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.' the answers werent wrong, it's just that the aircraft design agreed at contract isnt what it is now(specification creep) and so those answers are no longer relevant.

From all the reports so far the USMC and GAO are not unhappy (unless I missed something), Nicks prediction is about as realistic as thinking the canadians are going to can the Cyclone and order the 101 because its capability is behind schedule.

Some months ago Nick offered to prove his point to me on this forum regarding 92 vs 101 capability, we are still waiting.....

Waspy77s analysis proves the 101 superiority (as well as any other analysis proves otherwise!)

Finally:(

It depresses me that statements from one person are taken as gospel and that anything said in contradiction is a myth, we all know Nicks history and I am not trying to belittle his time at Sikorky but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed and please remember that there are other constructors outside the USA (to our colonial friends, really there are!!) who might know more than the mighty Sikorsky does, after all this is a RUMOUR network.

DM

SASless

22nd May 2007, 22:42

t depresses me that statements from one person are taken as gospel and that anything said in contradiction is a myth, we all know Nicks history and I am not trying to belittle his time at Sikorky but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed and please remember that there are other constructors outside the USA (to our colonial friends, really there are!!) who might know more than the mighty Sikorsky does, after all this is a RUMOUR network.
DM

Being a cynic of sorts, I guess one might consider working at one place for 30 years and retiring with a damned nice pension and numerous patents, published professional papers, and moving up to a VP slot for a major aerospace corporation as leaving just in front of a polished Florsheim wingtipped shoe.....however as cynical as I am....I am not that stupid or crass.:=

IFMU

23rd May 2007, 00:33

but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed ...
... and said cynic might show to insiders that he has no inside information on that one at all. Not that the cynic's statement would reflect on anything else he said. :}
-- IFMU

Flying Lawyer

23rd May 2007, 02:38

dangermouse..... a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed.....
Only an uninformed cynic.
(Or someone who, for his own motives, wishes to make an unfounded and malicious suggestion.)

Nick was headhunted with a series of extremely attractive offers, but turned them them down. If you knew the details of the package which (eventually) was sufficient to tempt him away from Sikorsky, you'd realise your suggestion is complete and utter nonsense.

BTW, I'm sorry you feel depressed by the respect for Nick in this forum. May I suggest that you do not, under any circumstances, visit Sikorsky. The respect in which he's held there, not only by the test pilots but from shop floor to management floor, is likely to make you feel suicidal.
(I've been twice - although, in my case, it made me feel proud to be introduced as a friend of Nick Lappos.)

FL

waspy77

23rd May 2007, 07:03

This appears to have turned into an attack on Nick, which was not the intent. Nick has always provided authorative technical answers which can be relied upon in the most. But analysis requires source data, and I was interested to know where the source data came from, as it seemed in contradiction to information published by the companies themselves. Particularly as the Max AUM of the VH-71 is different from the EH101 value used in Nick's analysis (incidently so is the VNE - where Nick has chosen to use the EH101 Max Cruise speed for "H-92 Flies Faster" although not particularly interesting in this context). These all may be for valid reasons, which I was interested to find out what they were, not attack the analysis.

Jackonicko

23rd May 2007, 08:50

To suggest that Nick might be a tad less than impartial when it comes to the S-92 is an entirely natural reaction to the 'facts' which he quotes.

I'm not surprised that he's testy - he hasn't had a job flying the Merlin!

Dan Reno

23rd May 2007, 11:30

MUTT writes: I have experience with selecting and purchasing commercial airliners. If i selected an aircraft that immediately required a "rebuild" after the selection, I would expect to get fired!

Why doesnt that happen in this case?

Mutt
--------------------------------------------------------
Mostly because it's a gov contract, you know, make work, unlimited cash and politics rather than good common sense and facts. Just look at the V-22 program, decades old and still trash.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As far as Nick goes, there are less than a handfull of guys like him around and he certainly doesn't need our confirmation of anything he's done in the past but what the hell; Thanks Nick for all you've done at Sikorsky and for us here and elsewhere!

SASless

23rd May 2007, 13:13

Nick's new employer filed this press release upon hiring Nick away from Sikorsky.

It is in the public domain thus I feel there can be no objection to my posting it here.

Just as has been said.....I too enjoy and appreciate Nick's friendship and integrity and have a great deal of respect and admiration for his personal and professional accomplishments. Add that special bond he and I have due to our military service during combat flying Army helicopters and one might understand and accept why I think so highly of him.

I first met him at West Palm Beach where he was engaged in the flight testing of the S-76, research projects using the 76, and the ABC program. That was back in 1980, thus I have followed his career ever since.

If you ever meet Nick in person, you will be amazed at his love of all things aviation and the depth of his insight into the future of helicopter aviation. I know for a fact he is held in very high regard within many professional organizations.

The Press Release.....
NICHOLAS (NICK) D. LAPPOS JOINS GULFSTREAM AS VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Robert Baugniet
Corporate
Communications
(912) 965-7372
SAVANNAH, Ga., March 14, 2005 - Gulfstream Aerospace, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), has hired Nicholas (Nick) D. Lappos as vice president, government programs. In this new role, Lappos will be responsible for all business-jet aircraft programs for government and military use - from the bid and proposal phase through the delivery and post-delivery activities. He will be based at Gulfstream's Savannah, Ga., major manufacturing facility.
Prior to joining Gulfstream, Lappos was a 32-year employee with Sikorsky Aircraft. Most recently, he served as director of the VXX presidential helicopter program. Previously, he was program manager for the S-92 helicopter and director of test engineering for the company's West Palm Beach, Fla., fight-test center. Spending most of his career in research and development, Lappos served as both a test pilot and the chief pilot for R&D. He was also a flight instructor for various Sikorsky model helicopters and has helped train the flight crews of several heads of state, including that of the President of the United States.
"Nick's background, especially his R&D and program management experience, makes him ideal for this position," said Pres Henne, senior vice president, programs, engineering and test, Gulfstream. "We look forward to Nick joining the organization and helping Gulfstream continue to advance in the government programs area."
Buddy Sams, Gulfstream senior vice president, government programs and sales, said, "Government and special mission aircraft have accounted for 10 to 15 percent of Gulfstream's annual production. The addition of Nick to our team will ensure our continuing focus on this important market sector."
A recognized leader in the aerospace industry and author of numerous technical papers and articles, Lappos has been awarded the Frederick L. Feinberg Award by the American Helicopter Society (AHS) for most outstanding achievement as a pilot three separate times - once for his individual effort and two times for team efforts. The AHS also appointed Lappos a Fellow in 1994 for outstanding achievement in the vertical flight industry. A member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, he won the Ray E. Tenhoff Award for the most outstanding presentation to the association's annual symposium.
Lappos earned a bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. A helicopter pilot in the U.S. Army, he logged 900 combat flying hours in Vietnam and was awarded the Bronze Star. Lappos also holds helicopter and a fixed-wing pilot certificates with both instrument and instructor ratings. He has more than 7,000 flight hours of experience in more than 75 different types of aircraft.

Thus, no small accomplishments for a guy who could not tie his shoelaces while flying Huey Cobra's!:D

reckless1967

23rd May 2007, 13:16

I see this thread has taken a strange twist. So as not to offend anyone I'll state up front this is just a question, not an attack on anyones credibility.
Nicks comparison between the H-92 and the EH101 has the H-92's max weight as "28,400" and the EH101's as "32,193". The Sikorsky site here: http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/0,9604,1691,00.pdf
list "28,300" as the max external load weight and shows "26,500" as the max internal load for the H-92. The Agusta site here: http://www.agustawestland.com/products01_02.asp?id_product=7&id=7 shows "32,187" as the max internal and "34,392" as the max external (military utility version).

My question is: what is the true max internal weight for both aircraft? If we are to use the information posted on each manufacturers web sites then at 400 miles range the payloads are basically equivalent. Or did I miss something?

Now to the real point. You can blame politicians for which aircraft is selected and the manufacturers for delays and cost overruns, but can anyone name just one program from ANY manufacturer to come out of NAVAIR in the last 20 years that wasn't over the original budget and behind the original schedule?

Perhaps we need to fix NAVAIR?

NickLappos

23rd May 2007, 14:52

OK, I want to thank those who "defend" me, but it is the data that speaks. I also want to challenge dangermouse (or his buddy bananaman) to post that bond to their favorite charity, if I should prove to the pprune jury that he don't know what the hell he is talking about (and that using "liar" to characterize a fellow ppruner is likely to get someone a broken nose at the next bash).

The data is published for each, and those who are condemned to the "counting engines" school of helicopter performance are likely to end up vastly disappointed when they look at the data.

So dangermouse, are you ready to post that bond? I hereby challenge you to put your money where your mouth is - I will give 25 pounds to your favority charity should I not prove my case that the H-92 is somewhat superior to the EH-101 in payload-range performance (as shown in the link I provided). The glove has been thrown down.

SASless

23rd May 2007, 15:40

Reckless,

In post #37 of this thread I offered an opinion about NAVAIR....left unsaid was NAVSEA's ability to piddle away Millions as well.

The US Navy along with most other Federal Agencies is unable to properly control most of the procurement programs they enter into. That happens from a myriad of reasons some of which are quite innocent but more than a few that are patently criminal.

Throw in the scheming of their suppliers and it really gets crazy.

A singular issue of "overhead" costs always fertile dirt for an investigator. The sad thing is the government agrees to pay "overhead" for the contractors.

One can add all sorts of things into the "overhead account". Things like gym fees, kennels for Exec's dogs, dry cleaning, bar bills for entertainment, and the like that have absolutely nothing to do with the product being produced.

The secret to the problem is in the accounting. When the contractor lumps all those costs to the contract, and that overhead cost is applied to the line items listed in the contract......the numbers get twisted out of shape.

An example, on the Initial F-18 contract, the overhead was spread over the line items in a simple method of "divide overhead by number of line items".

That made the aircraft overhead costs a very small thing due to the numbers of aircraft and their "cost" as compared to a line item of a single Simulator.

During my training at the Navy Supply Officer course in Athens, Georgia, we had guest speakers among who was one that tried to justify the method used.

He ran into a very cold audience as we were all Fraud Investigators for NCIS.

He actually had the brass to say in reality there was no way to accurately track all costs applied to the contract....but we should trust him when he said it was just an accounting issue and not an attempt to commit fraud.

He was a bit taken back when I used his explanation of the cost of a "device, impact, manually operated with organic control mechanism. (We know it as a hammer.)

I held up the Federal Government GSA catalogue and began to read off the hundreds of different names for all sorts of hammers. I ended by telling him rather rudely I disagreed with his statements as evidenced by the GSA catalogue having hundreds of hammers but not a single "device,impact, manually operated with organic control mechanism".

Later the Navy started a program called "BOSS" for Buying our Spares Smart that encouraged Navy personnel to report such kinds of bovine feces with an attendant reward if found to be accurate and thus save the government money.

If you should come up with a magic wand to wave over the NAVY....I think that is the only way to bring real change to the system.

Remember, those doing the buying, are looking for post-retirement jobs with the ones doing the selling......you don't actually think they will hold the contractors feet to the fire do you?

dangermouse

23rd May 2007, 16:51

I will not withdraw my statements regarding untruths about the VH71A (and the EH101) on this thread

the bold statement made by Nick

This is because the massive structural changes (a whole new fuselage) to suit the safety standards has increased empty weight to the point where it cannot hover IGE. is a terminological inexactitude (if you don't like the word lie ), period.

Of course the aircraft can takeoff at the delivery AUM for the inc1 VH71 otherwise it would need to use the White House runway.

EH101s have flown at AUM above that for the VH71A already without being at inc2 standard.

Unfortunately it is this kind of unfounded rumour and spin on the truth that in my view impacts Nicks credibility, as I stated I am not belittling Nicks achievements it's the slavish adoration by the posters on here that annoys me, do some investigation yourself and make your own mind up, I admit a bias, but then so must others on this thread.

In answer to reckless1967s question the best comparison would be to use the VVIP 101 brochure as that is closest to the VH71A spec (obviously which isn't public domain).

Nick, regarding the comparison you posted, whilst valid for comparing a variant (I dont know which) of the S92 versus the Cormorant that isnt a realistic comparion for this aircraft. I also admit that by some parameters the 92 may show a benefit but by others the 101 will (such as comparing volumetric capability, it may be great to be able to lift things but if you cant fit them in the cabin what's the point? You could do a payload/range comprison for the AH64 and no doubt end up with some impressive numbers)

In answer to your challenge;

From Sikorskys web site quoted above the maximum AUM for a civil S92 is 12020kg with an empty operating weight of 7734 kg,equals a load capacity of 4426 kg (I think we can agree that an external load carrying AUM is not relevant to the passenger carrying mission), from the AW site the max AUM for a VVIP 101 is 15600 kg with a useful load of 5600 kg, so how does a S92 beat a 101? If I have to carry 5000 kg of stuff I can't use a S92, so the payload/range argument is moot.

DM

waspy77

23rd May 2007, 16:57

Can open ... worms everywhere ...

Apparently "it is the data that speaks", but data without transparent provenance is simply numbers. If I may ask some questions please to clarify the source of the data.

1. Is it valid to compare VIP S92 and VIP EH101 on a thread about Marine One?
2. Sikorsky quote 26500lb Max weight for the VIP S92, the comparison provided quotes 28400lb, which is correct?
3. Why does the comparison not include the higher Max weight quoted in the EH101 VIP brochure?
3. The comparison calls up flight manuals as the source of the data. For which variants of EH101, and what engine fit?
4. What data exists that VH71 Increment 1 is too heavy for HIGE?
5. What data exists that the structure has had to be "massively" re-designed to meet the crash case?
6. What other reasons might there be for increasing a rotor diameter, other than increased lift?

Hopefully from the answers, I will be able to make a judged opinion of the original statement, the source of this thread.

SASless

23rd May 2007, 17:05

Now all we have to do is separate the wormy apples from the good apples.

In the same sense some challenge Nick's comparison....we cannot compare a civvie S-92 against the 101 VIP fit....two different animals are they not.

The comparison should be the S-92 VIP data submitted to the USN as compared against the 101 VIP as submitted to the USN....then we are using apples and not a combination of fruit. (As it seems to me anyway!)

NickLappos

23rd May 2007, 17:12

In this EH-101 brochure:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/EHbrochure.jpg

On page 21 is THIS graph:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/EHPage21.jpg

and from THIS brochure:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/H92brochure.jpg

On Page 3 comes THIS plot:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/H92Page%203.jpg

Please compare these two plots, published by the respective manufacturers, with my plot that dangermouse cannot believe.

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/range.jpg

Here is the reason why the EH-101's sub-standard safety requires an entire fuselage re-design to carry an American soldier, or an American President:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/structureshortfall.jpg

This redesign is what caused it to balloon up to the point where it can no longer hover IGE, and why it needs 5 feet more rotor blade to then do the mission.

waspy, to answer one of your questions (I cannot do all your thinking, frankly!) the reason why the higher weight for the EH-101 is not used is that it cannot hover at that weight within the Marine mission constraints. The comparison above has both aircraft hovering at precisely the same performance point (HOGE within about 300 feet of pressure altitude of each other, the best I can do from the data that the EH publishes), and so is a valid measure of the relative fitness of each. Were we to start using rolling takeoffs and limited envelopes, the comparison gets silly. Please note in my payload range plot, I take each aircraft with 600 lbs of reserve fuel, which the EH brochure does not include, they publish the range at full fuel with absolutely no cabin equipment such as seats, and with no reserve, which I refuse to do. Also, these brochures are in my possession, anyone who wants one, PM me with your home email and I will send them to you.The performance shown above is quite close to the Canadian mission, since all you have to do is swap mission equipment for fuel mass on both aircraft. This is why the EH-101 lost the competition there to the H-92, even though it was the incombant machine. The superior total performance of the H-92 (slightly better capability at far less cost and far less maintenance) was the reason why the EH-101 lost.

BTW, had the H-92 put on BERP blades, it would lose 2,000 lbs of performance, and the 101 would win the comparison.

SASless

23rd May 2007, 18:19

Look at the bright side of this decision by the Navy.....if it is a Democrat Party President riding in the 101 then the reduced safety issue becomes a positive for some of us. The scary thought is the current Speaker of the House would be one step closer to the throne if the Queen should happen to snuff it....and that is a scary thought.

The decision must have been done by Karl Rove you think?;)

Jackonicko

23rd May 2007, 18:26

1985 figures for the Merlin, 1998 for the S-92, and here we are in 2007.

Nick, your prejudices are showing.

And the reason that the "EH-101 lost the competition in Canada to the H-92" was that it was politically impossible to order more Merlins after paying such vast cancellation costs after the original deal fell through.

NickLappos

23rd May 2007, 18:44

Jaconicko,
I have no idea where you got that crap. It is irresponsible posts like that that make me even more glad that some of us post the truth, and with our names.

The EH-101 brochure was downloaded from their web site in 2004, and was current then, the H-92 brochure I had made while I was Program Manager and you were on the crapper, in late 2003. It carries a date of July 2004 on the copy I have.

For the record, both aircraft are equipped with today's engines, the CT7-6A for 101 and the CT7-8A for the H-92.

If you have better data, post it.

waspy77

23rd May 2007, 20:43

Firstly Nick - I don't need you to think for me, I did need to understand your thought process in producing information that contradicted that which was in the public domain. I have already given £25 today to the Royal British Legion in acknowledgement of the trouble you are going to in answering my questions.

Your plot payload range plot appears to have an increase in payload over that in the source brochure. I expected payload at any given range to be lower due to the need for a 600lb fuel reserve.

The EH101 Utility and VVIP brochures both are dated 2006 and contain data for EH101s with CT7-8Es, don't need to post it, just go to the agustawestland website. They indicate that EH101 can take off at 15600kg at 3000ft on an ISA+35 day. That must be one heck of a mission requirement to slug it by 1000kg.

"Sub-standard safety" harsh words. I presume from your graphical answer you have no data to support how much the empty weight of the EH101 has increased due to structural modifications because of the crash case. Therefore it's merely conjecture that it won't be able to hover.

As for the sniping in this thread, it appears that politics played no part in the Canadian MHP selection, but seemed to be the only criteria in the Marine One selection.

Still, if the comments are correct, and the VH-71 needs that much redesign I guess we won't see one flying for many years to come.

dangermouse

23rd May 2007, 22:22

and that goes for everybody:=

It would seem best to let this thread die as it is getting too personal but sometimes blatant untruths have to be challenged.

The data presented by Nick does indeed seem to show that the S92 has some advantages, I just question the relevance of that particular data to the current aircraft standards, hence my simple comparison with the latest data sets published.

In any case the statement that the aircraft cannot hover is still pure hokum, go and watch them flying in Yeovil, and before anybody jumps on that, as I keep stating the increment 1 aircraft, which has a 20/20/10 g airframe so we can keep the Prez safe from day 1 will hover at its mission weight, it's up to you whether you believe me or Nick.

Please don't take this the wrong way but the phrasing of some of Nicks comments is un-becoming, I know a lot of the design team in Yeovil and the insistence that the 101 is structurally deficient is verging on the slanderous. ('sub standard' is not a reasonable statement and has implications that are uncalled for) it’s only fair as you warned me, if you want to come and say that in Yeovil you better watch out for a broken nose as well!, some less belligerent words are in order. It cannot be denied that the basic S92 was designed to more stringent criteria, but that’s what 13 years of difference will do for you, that in itself does not make the other aircraft unsafe, if that was the case probably every airliner and every helicopter (apart from the S92 and AW139) currently flying should be grounded as none will meet the current safety standards, it just makes those particular aircraft even more safe. The 101 is now as safe.

Unfortunately the comparison we really need cannot be done, we will never know how much a S92 would now weigh in order to meet the current USMC requirement as Sikorky aren’t party to that info (not all the weigh increase can be attributed to structural redesign, the twin safe example above for instance) and AW aren't going to tell you what the 101 now weighs or how much the 'massive redesign' cost in terms of payload so as always we are comparing apples with oranges and that is the major source of my disagreement with Nicks figures, he (and no one here does) does not have the current relevant data pertaining to the VH71A and its mission unless some clandestine activities have been going on! (no implication there). Again I reiterate no report says the GAO or USMC are unhappy.

One other error I must point out, the contract date for IOC is 2009 not 2008, as stated in the press release the day of the win (28/1/2005) Based on the current contract schedule, the first US101 ready to transport the President is expected to be available in 2009, with the entire fleet of 23 US101 delivered to the Marine One squadron by late 2014. so implying that a delivery in 2009 is a contract failure is misleading.

DM (prepared to agree we will never see eye to eye but asking for less confrontational postings in future)

Jackonicko

23rd May 2007, 22:52

Nick Lappos may have the status of a saint, around here, and I'm happy to acknowledge the depth and breadth of his expertise and experience. But that clearly does not mean that he is necessarily going to be impartial or reliable when assessing competitors to the Sikorsky products with which he was associated, nor does it entitle him to abuse other members while enjoying protection from their responses.

To censor my response to his post while leaving his low and witless abuse ("I was Program Manager and you were on the crapper") is not impartial moderation.

1) The 'crap' that I posted was an accurate summary of why the EH101 was not selected to meet the NSH portion of the Canadian requirement, as numerous CAF and DND sources told me at the time, and as was widely reported at the time.

2) Nick's contention that the EH-101 has "sub-standard safety" is unfair, inaccurate, and quite probably actionable. Coming from a former Sikorsky employee, it looks like very cheap marketeering, as does the claim that Merlin "requires an entire fuselage re-design to carry an American soldier, or an American President."

And his crashworthiness stats come from an ancient Westland brochure (1985) and a very old Sikorsky one (1998), as this screenshot shows:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Jackonicko/wheredidIget.png

("Where did I get that crap"? From you, Nick, from you!)

Matthew Parsons

24th May 2007, 02:06

I think we're still missing the point. Whether or not we can produce data that demonstrates one outperforms the other is irrelevant. EH101 won. It appears that the changes being made to the aircraft are not a part of the original contract. Either the requirements changed/expanded or the contract wasn't clear. In either case we shouldn't be trying to fault either manufacturer or helicopter.

_________

Nick, you mentioned that "had the H-92 put on BERP blades, it would lose 2,000 lbs of performance". Can we then assume that the H-92 blades on the EH101 would improve performance on a similiar scale? Isn't there some new blade development occurring for a later increment 101?

This would be a good way to compare apples to apples. Providing the same generation of technology and meeting the same certification criteria...then which helicopter outperforms. I guess we'll get to that point within a few years.

In the mean time, perhaps some in the know can create some reasonable missions to compare the two helicopters, and those close to each type can spin the numbers and provide accurate answers based on the latest publicly available information. I'll bet we won't find very large differences, unless we throw in the current airframe as well. Anyone interested?

Heliport

24th May 2007, 06:31

dangermouse

This thread wasn't personal until someone decided to make it personal in post #40.
You.

Jackonicko
Regulars in this forum know (a) that I moderate impartially and (b) that I rarely delete a post.
I deleted your previous post because it contained extremely offensive personal abuse which went way beyond robust debate.

_______________________

Robust debate is acceptable.
Personal attacks are not.
Play the ball, not the player.

Heliport

sunnywa

24th May 2007, 12:01

When the Marines have finally figured out that the aircraft they (or the politicians/beancounters) bought doesn't work as advertised, I suggest a nice big bonfire somewhere out West would be the best value for money. We in Australia will gladly supply an hours worth of fuel called the Navy SeaSprite (maybe it is just a Navy thing:confused:). That would be a really good cookout/barb-b-q for the next PPrune Bash and we can all sit around, drinking beer and waxiing lyrical about poor government purchasing.

Long Live the S61:ok:

212man

24th May 2007, 15:15

Very disappointed to see Jackonicko's post deleted. I think HP, your impartiality is perhaps less than it might be. Please re-read his post and Nicks's in their full contexts'.

Cheers.

Looking forwards to seeing some figures for both types.

PS. Top tip: don't fly the president in an S-92 at 165 KIAS!!!!!!!!

NickLappos

24th May 2007, 16:20

Jackonicko,

My reference to "crap" was to refute your belief that I somehow used old data to make a biased case. Not true, as shown, and insulting. The EH-101 brochure I used has a date of 2004 on the computer file properties. You can extend my use of "crap" to include your whole set of points, if you wish, but that is your characterization, not mine. I agree with your characterization, however I do not originate it.

I am saddened by your lack of understanding of how aircraft are built, certified and subsequently modified, as shown by your incredulity about a 1985 paper as somehow relevant to the EH-101's design safety. Yes, its an old paper, but the EH-101 is an old design. That paper was written by Richard Case, who was the chief designer for the 101, and he laid out how he selected the airworthiness crash safety standard (well beyond the then-current civil standard, but by his admission, below the US Military standard.) He did it for weight savings, as the strength of the fuselage is the single biggest contributer to empty weight. The G levels that you dislike on that chart are actually backed up by the EH 101 brochures, which used to brag about 15 g's, until I publicized how the real military standard is 20 g's, at which time the brochure was updated and the g reference was removed.

I realize that you and dangermouse believe fervently in your country's goods, and that this belief extends to the sure knowledge that I must be lying if I say bad things about your pet machine. This is not the case. I could show you pictures of a crumpled aircraft that crashed from a hover, and that trapped its crew, because the sub-standard fuselage strength, but I do not want to stoop to that level. Frankly, the S-61, one of my favorite helos, would behave similarly. But by that same token, I am not foolish enough to look real data in the face, data I am not able to understand, and then close my eyes and cry, "liar!"

If you believe that the fuselage is redesigned on alternate Tuesdays, and that the 1985 paper is not relevant, you are wrong. If you believe that the US Navy is not spending billions to upgrade the EH-101 to meet modern crash standards, you are also wrong. And if you believe that this redesign does not cost the EH-101 thousands of pounds of weight, weight that causes it to fail to perform adequately, you are also wrong.

If you cannot read the Lockheed press release where they request dumping the increment I aircraft and moving to the increment II aircraft as repudiation of the EH-101 as a presidential transport, you are also wrong.

Waspy, thanks for the steer toward the brochures with the -8E engine, that is certainly a way for the EH-101 to then gain advantage over the H-92. Please be reminded that the funds to install and qualify that engine came from the US Navy, as part of the Presidential program, a case I made years ago that the US Gov would have to pay to make the EH carry more than the H-92. My words about crash safety are perhaps harsh (as was my admonishment to you, who have been a relative gentleman), but I too get steamed when I am accused of lying as we have technical discussions. And my ire about having crews cut from machines that crash is far greater than my ire when folks who have no idea what they are talking about use ad hominem attacks when their intellect and knowledge fail them.

Matthew,
Yes, if the H-92 blades were put on the EH-101 and the BERP blades removed, it would gain over 2,000 lbs of hover performance for the same power. No, the field is not leveled when you presume to spend billions modifying all machines to the same standard, the field is leveled when you load them up as is and fly them. And that is what my slides do.

Your point that the two aircraft preform about the same is valid, in fact, that is how I entered this thread, and that is what made dangermouse have hypertension! The very idea that the smaller, 2 engined H-92 could carry what the behemouth EH-101 can carry is simply not British!!

And for the record, heliport, the brute, has trimmed my posts when I go over the top, and I understand why. Without moderation, pprune would quickly become like rec.aviation.rotorcraft, a dumping grounds for spoiled children.

diethelm

24th May 2007, 16:23

It is difficult to take serious any individuals who wants to debate character under an alias!

Heliport:

I had never heard "play the ball not the player" before. Could this be the origin of the american rap saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?

R. Cal

24th May 2007, 16:46

Diethelm >> "how about you all post by your real names?"
******

??:D

Jackonicko

24th May 2007, 17:22

And what was unacceptable about the second of my posts to get the "deletement treatment" from Mr Lappos' fan club?

That I highlighted the many insults and pieces of rude and dismissive arrogance by Nick Lappos to those who had the temerity to disagree with him, or because I pointed out that this supposedly neutral mod had blamed me for 'going personal' at post 40, when in fact it was somebody else?

I note that Mr Lappos still hasn't been censured for his abuse, nor for his continuing arrogance and pompous rudeness, except by 212 Man.

("You can extend my use of "crap" to include your whole set of points, if you wish, but that is your characterization, not mine. I agree with your characterization, however I do not originate it" or "folks who have no idea what they are talking about.")

Why is it one rule for one, and one for another?

You think that Merlin crashworthiness hasn't been improved since 1985, Nick? That was TWO YEARS before the first prototype even flew.

Five Increment 1, 18 increment 2. Where's the change?

NickLappos

24th May 2007, 18:00

Jacko,

What you don't know about helicopters has built an industry. You continue because you have no way to back down!

The design constraints for an aircraft are set years before it flys, because the engineers have to know what to design. Then the aircraft is designed, built and tested, then certified, where it is NOT changed until some major source of cash comes along.

You prattle on, and show your ignorance about this issue, and it is again frustrating. BTW ignorance means lack of knowledge, in your case it is lack knowing what you don't know.

Jackonicko

24th May 2007, 18:20

Nick,

If you don't think that major orders result in just that kind of cash injection, and just that kind of stimulus for improvement, you're as deluded as you think I am.

And at least I can spell simple words like 'flies' and can engage in debate without labelling others as simpletons. Since you can't, you'd better talk to yourself, because I'm not going to waste time on you.

Bronx

24th May 2007, 18:46

Jacko
"or because I pointed out that this supposedly neutral mod had blamed me for 'going personal' at post 40, when in fact it was somebody else?"
The Mod didn't blame you for post 40: dangermouse
This thread wasn't personal until someone decided to make it personal in post #40.
You.

Jackonicko

24th May 2007, 19:49

It's been edited, I think

NickLappos

24th May 2007, 20:05

US Military requirements are 20G.
From EH-101 Brochure:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/15g.jpg

waspy77

24th May 2007, 20:28

Heliport,
"Play the ball not the man." Well said.:D

Jackonicko
It is still as written, I can understand the mis-understanding though.

Nick,
Nobody treats safety lightly, any helicopter crash is a bad thing for the whole industry, and a picture of a mangled airframe does nobody any good.

I could show you pictures of a crumpled aircraft that crashed from a hover, and that trapped its crew, because the sub-standard fuselage strength, but I do not want to stoop to that level.

But you do make the statement := - That is some accident recorder that can show that the airframe stayed under 20g throughout the crash, and I'm amazed you have access to the information (assuming that it wasn't a Sikorsky product) as I didn't think the industry was that open, but I'm happy if it is.

As for "lying" and I use the word most distinctly in quotes.
It sounds to me like DM has detailed knowledge of the EH101, and took exception to what he saw as an opinion being stated as fact despite his own personal knowledge to the contrary. We will know who is correct if/when an Increment 1 aircraft flies at mission weight. I will watch the press eagerly.

• Airframe structure designed to
withstand 20 g impact without
decreasing cabin volume

A direct quote from the EH101 VVIP brochure ... are we using the same internet, or is it not just EH101 fans who have lost the art of reading brochures?

NickLappos

24th May 2007, 21:19

waspy,
That crash I mention occurred from the hover, so it most certainly did NOT exceed 20g, in any way. A fully capable fuselage would not crumple into a heap from a hover in any case. The forward crash strength of the 101 is 8 g which is far short of the 20G forward requirement of the US Mil, and a very much bigger issue in the required fuselage redesign, imho. I understand that the new fuselage has every frame redesigned (the Navy demand to increase the strength by 250% requires a whole new fuselage.) I also understand that the US has resurrected the NASA fixture at Langley AFB that was built to train the lunar landing astronauts and later used to crash many test aircraft as a tool to help prove the new EH fuselage in actual crash conditions. Since this entire redesign is mythical to dangermouse, he will volunteer to stand under the new EH airframe as it is (not) dropped....
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2000-001287.jpg
That 15g quote comes from the same brochure I used earlier, it was in all EH brochures until pulled when it becaame proof of the less than fully capable crashworthiness - is that soft enough for you? ;-)

dangermouse may know lots of things, but he does not know that the EH-101's safety design meets US Mil standards, because it most certainly and provably does not. I will not sit and let anonymous people slur my name when I post what I know and can prove, while he hides and insinuates.

I do think you have helped this discourse, frankly, and also have tried to keep it above board. Thanks.

Jackonicko

24th May 2007, 21:32

Mr Lappos.

If you expect courtesy - if you expect people not to slur your name, if you prefer (though I'd say that it's your statements that are being criticised, not your character) - then you need to extend similar courtesy to those with whom you disagree.

BIT

24th May 2007, 21:41

Nick's101 data is not applicable to VH71 which has the latest CT7-8E engines which I understand are similar to the S92 engine. Therefore the payload range figures are wrong.

There are 15600Kg 101s flying with operators today. If VH71 is the same weight how come it will not HIGE?

Well done USN on buying something that has proven capability. If you beef it up to make is stronger so be it. But if its still a 15600Kg heli it clearly will fly - nice one.:D

Heliport

24th May 2007, 21:50

Jackonicko "It's been edited, I think"
No. It has not been edited.
You were so keen to criticise my moderating that you didn't read it properly.
The post is and always has been in three parts. The first is addressed specifically to dangermouse by name, the second specifically to you by name and the third (below the line) as a general warning to those posters resorting to personal attacks and abuse.

The Mil Forum where you normally post is monitored but largely unmoderated. This forum, in common with all others on PPRuNe is moderated - although it's largely self-moderating because the regulars know the difference between a robust exchange of views and personal abuse. Bad feeling is very rare here, and I intend to keep it that way. If you don't like the way we do things, don't post here.

Warning:
You've only just started posting in this forum and I've already had more than enough of your allegations and offensive allegations against me. I am not prepared to put up with any more.

If you wish to continue posting, restrict your comments to the thread topic.
If you post one more comment about the way this forum is moderated, I'll ban you.
There will be no further warning.

Heliport

BIT

24th May 2007, 21:57

I think the moderation here is just excellent....................

Ps, is the gantry in post number 75 to support Nicks ego? :}

Jackonicko

24th May 2007, 22:20

I made no offensive allegations against you, Heliport, and publicly apologise if you took offence. No offence was intended.

I particularly apologise for having jumped to the conclusion that the remark about post 40 was aimed at me. As you surmise, I must have mis-read it.

I'm not the only person here causing 'bad feeling' - it takes two to tango, and my dance partner is dancing with other people as well as me.

HeliComparator

24th May 2007, 22:40

HC

Post deleted: 100% childish personal comments deliberately designed to provoke.
I have been trying to move this thread away from personal abuse and back to the topic. I will not allow you or anyone else to undermine my efforts.

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

General Warning:

Any further posts from any source which contain personal abuse and/or deliberately provocative personal remarks will be deleted.
I have asked posters to co-operate. If I have to enforce it by banning those who don't respond to requests, I will.Heliport

Matthew Parsons

25th May 2007, 02:34

Nick,

I completely agree that using existing helicopters would be the only pertinent comparison. My poorly worded point was that the H92 versus the EH101 comparison starts with a 20 year technology gap. Not necessarily huge, but large enough that I'm convinced the deltas come from there.

I have no doubt that your numbers are as accurate as they can be with the information you have available. I also think that those who really understand this stuff shouldn't be surprised that 20 years of technology provides performance improvements. That's why R&D budgets still exist!

However, there is some relevance to the evened playing field exercise because the EH101 should be able to have the 20 years of technology added to the design whereas the H92 can't (at least not for another 20 years). Of course, the cost to this can be an issue. I'm definitely no expert in this contract, but it seems like the development costs are included in what AW had bid. Can anyone confirm?

When that comparison is done, my predictions are that the H92 will still have a slight advantage when moving fast. Why? Because the increased cabin volume of the EH101 will come with a weight and drag penalty, the increased weight of engine and transmission due to the third engine will penalize at the same time that the redundancy improves an aspect of safety. When moving slower I predict the EH101 would have the advantage because of the additional horses and the reduced disk loading. I know, pretty broad assumptions, but I'll buy you a beer if I'm wrong.

_________

Trying to keep this on thread, whether we compare future derivatives or existing aircraft the delays and increased costs really don't appear to be a helicopter issue. Perhaps the root of this thread belongs over on the Professional Politicians RUmour NEtwork?

Tailspin Tommy

25th May 2007, 06:17

I've not known brother Lappos to brag in the past, especially when it comes to aircraft data. However, there was a time at the Jupitur Hilton bar 27 years ago....

THe EH101 is a political pick and nothing more. It is not fit for purpose. The 92 is fit for purpose and meets all Part 29 amendments through 47. End of story. The Bush Administration failed to do the right thing in this selection process, and is an embarrassment.

NickLappos

25th May 2007, 07:53

BIT said:

Nick's101 data is not applicable to VH71 which has the latest CT7-8E engines which I understand are similar to the S92 engine. Therefore the payload range figures are wrong.
True enough, the data I presented was for EH-101

There are 15600Kg 101s flying with operators today. If VH71 is the same weight how come it will not HIGE?
Because the Marine mission is at 3000 ft and 91 degrees, and at that height, even with the 8E engines, the VH-71 falls short, thus its "manufacturer" Lockheed has recommended dropping its construction and skipping right to the Increment II configuration (VH-71B?), with new ,aomn and tail blades, 5 foot larger radius, new heads, transmissions, and the new, stronger fuselage.

Well done USN on buying something that has proven capability. If you beef it up to make is stronger so be it. But if its still a 15600Kg heli it clearly will fly - nice one.:D
The USN bought a helo that cannot do the job, but they are paying to have a totally new design that will probably do so. The original plan was to have an EH-101 in 2008 that would carry the President, and that part of the program failed (by Lockheed's admission).

heli1

25th May 2007, 09:04

Sorry...but the fact remains that the S-92 cabin was not large enough for the mission and therfore would also have needed stretching etc ...in fact I recall that Sikorsky tried to add a bit on to the rear ramp area to boost the internal space...not enough though as it turned out .

Spanner Turner

25th May 2007, 10:39

How much room do George, Laura and Barney take up??
How much do they weigh?

dangermouse

25th May 2007, 13:03

To start with Thanks to Nick for the kind words, I never said I thought the 101 meets the Mil specs, I know in service variants don't, however all VH71 aircraft (inc1 or 2 ) will have a 20/20/10 structure from build, therefore I guess I should have said the VH71 is as safe as the S92.
Unfortunately the assertion that the increase in structural weight is 'thousands' of pounds is not correct. It is true the main frames and floor have been strengthened but just by looking at the airframes you would be hard pushed to tell. The redesign is not mythical to me, I know what has changed, I know the weight impact. Does anyone else here?
Contrary to some views the VH71A will meets its performance requirements, it has been stated here that it won't, I can state that it will hover at mission weight at the target altitude, the EH101 with the normal blades and CT7-8Es has done better than that already (believe me or not, I can't make you). Unless someone here has access to the AW flight test data the true capability of the aircraft is not known.
It is this constant unsubstantiated promulgation of incorrect information that is the problem with this thread. I draw your attention the original source of my annoyance This is because the massive structural changes (a whole new fuselage) to suit the safety standards has increased empty weight to the point where it cannot hover IGE. This purports to be an absolute statement of fact, there are no caveats or boundaries to the statement, and is (and remains) completely incorrect. It was for this reason I got 'personal'. A person of Nicks standing in this community should not need to issue broad brush unsubstantiated statements that are so wrong any credibility is lost and the poster leaves himself open to ridicule. It is however comforting to see that Nick has now begun to caveat his views to make them more objective (ie stating an alt/temp associated with his analysis).
BTW the crash test case would be a mandatory requirement for any aircraft for this mission, along with battle danage tolerance, HIRF etc, it has not just been called up because of the redesign, remember the specification took no credit for previous certification so even the S92 would have had to go through this.
I think this thread has run its course, so far no one in the US procurement team (including Dr Etter) has said LM or its subcontractors are at fault, so was this really a story at all...... Spec changes cost, end of story
DM
(going away for the weekend so no posts until tuesday):)

Dan Reno

25th May 2007, 15:48

From what I can take from all this; The US is buying a helo that all of a sudden didn't meet it's spec for carrying the President. Therefore, the US will now pay to have the helo re-bladed, stretched, re-engined, new rotor(s) and all at taxpayer expense? This all seems bizarre! Is it payback to England/Westland for their support of the war? Does this travesty/fiasco approach Bell's inability to replace the H-46 & H-53D with that "Flying Pork Rind" designated as the V-22? I don't mind saying that it OBVIOUSLY looks like Sikorsky is the ONLY manufacturer out there that can build an excellent airframe right from the getgo! Sorry chaps.

Bronx

25th May 2007, 15:55

The US Postal Service just announced two new stamps featuring the Presidential aircraft.

The $16.25 Express Mail stamp honors the Sikorsky VH-3D Marine One.

http://www.courant.com/media/photo/2007-05/30036835.jpg

It's based on a painting by aviation artist William S. Phillips showing Marine One flying by the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial and goes on sale next month.

rjsquirrel

25th May 2007, 17:21

The $16.25 Express Mail stamp honors the Sikorsky VH-3D Marine One
It was originally a 41 cent stamp, but Lockheed and Agusta-Westland went a little over budget. :}

waspy77

25th May 2007, 21:53

"From what I can take from all this; The US is buying a helo that all of a sudden didn't meet it's spec for carrying the President. Therefore, the US will now pay to have the helo re-bladed, stretched, re-engined, new rotor(s) and all at taxpayer expense?"

I don't take that at all.
Delays due to system integration complexity, an increase in the required capability of the Increment 2 aircraft, an increase in cost because it is now cheaper to build 5 new Increment 2 airframes than re-engineer the 5 Increment 1 airframes. All these I have read about.

At the time of the VXX announcement, Navy assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition John Young said both the US101 and VH-92 would need rotor and drivetrain improvements to meet VXX Increment II requirements. - AHS International

So neither of the base aircraft could meet the Increment 2 requirements.

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 00:28

Then, the contract was awarded correctly due to the larger cabin! I stand corrected.

NickLappos

26th May 2007, 00:42

waspy, you are right - the original contract was for TWO helos, the first ones (5 total) were to land on the WH lawn in 2008, and were modified just a bit (same rotors and such, new comms and other protection gear). They didnt have to met the more stringent Increment II criteria, which are very very challenging. The Increment I had to meet basic marine hot performance.

In Dec 2003, the formal criteria were lowered to allow the EH to hover IGE because the Increment I EH would not hover OGE (I recall precisely when the criteria were watered down, and our surprise since we didnt ask for it, because we were OK in hover perf.) In a competition, you track every nuance, sort of like playing battleship to guess where your opponant is weak, and where you are weak. The reduction to HIGE Increment I was allowed precisely when the cabin width popped up as a new requirement, even though the deficiencies of the last generation VH never mentioned cabin width at all. We surmised then that the playing field was being leveled by the White House, and the EH perf was marginal, so they invented a new criteria that was clearly an EH attribute (the EH is 17" wider than the H-92). These new criteria appeared 1 week after the Navy team briefed the White House staff on the status of the competition.

When the winner was announced, the Navy said that the performance of the H-92 was "purple" which means outstanding, and the cabin comfort was "green" which means satisfactory. The EH performance was green and its cabin comfort was purple (I am sure of these ratings, I slept for months with them floating before my eyes.) The win was based on the Navy deciding that the EH could be made ready for increment I 5 months faster than the H-92. THAT is why the Sikorsky guys are flooding my email box with notes, since the LM team was given a year more many months back, and now they want to punt the Increment I.

rotormatic

26th May 2007, 04:09

Looks like the folks at Sikorsky now know how Stanley felt..

OH-5
In 1961, twelve companies submitted proposals to meet U.S.Army requirements for a four-seat turbine-powered light observation helicopter. After evaluation, three designs were selected and 5 of each: the Bell OH-4A; the Hiller OH-5 and the Hughes OH-6, were ordered for trials by the U.S.Army Aviation Board. The Hiller OH-5 was designed as a light observation helicopter for the Army, but it lost the competition. Stung by the loss of the OH-5 contract, however, which Hiller felt had been stolen by Hughes, Hiller Aircraft refused to bid on the next Army contract. This resulted in Bell winning the OH-58, and the virtual end of Hiller helicopters when production ended in 1973.

waspy77

26th May 2007, 08:33

I am sure of these ratings, I slept for months with them floating before my eyes

"Doctor doctor I keep seeing purple and green spots."
"Have you seen an optician?"
"No, just purple and green spots!"

Sorry, schoolboy humour:8 Now back to the plot ...

When I set out to buy something like a car or PC, first I decide what I would like, then I go to the market place and see what is out there. I then modify my wish list based on what I've seen and what money I have. I then "haggle" with a selected merchant to get as much as I can for as little money as possibe. I don't believe that the aerospace business is any different.

I value your sharing your knowledge of the competition as it puts discussion in context. In my opionion though, you probably have little detailed information about the specification that exists now or the VH-71 that has come about as the result of the "haggling" phase. I take the statement below at face value

Delivery of the first aircraft was to take place by October 2009. It now appears that delivery may not come until February 2010. ... The Navy cited systems integration difficulties as the cause of the delay. “It’s just a very tough thing to integrate all those systems and get them all talking to each other,” one Navy official said. - Rotor & Wing

Therefore we cannot predict how much difficulty the Sikorsky team would have had facing the same challenges. I guess that cabin size was a real issue for this competition.

High Wing Drifter

26th May 2007, 08:41

Flying Lawyer
It's possible it was just a coincidence that such a valuable/high profile American contact was awarded to AgustaWestland rather than Sikorsky just after our Prime Minister not only took us into President Bush's war on Iraq but scampered around the world encouraging other world leaders to join in.
Anything is possible. ;)
Possibly. But seeing as it is designed by Lockheed in Owego (not Lockheed UK IS) and built by Bell I don't see where Britain comes into the equation. Didn't they tell Tony that just a couple of blokes from Havant would be involved.

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 09:07

Had the 92 been as wide as the 101, I wonder if this thread would exist. "System Integration problems" is a joke for an excuse and I'll bet today's newly designed 101 presentation date slips further. This airframe and program sounds more and more like the "Flying Pork Rind (V-22)" saga.

ShouldItDoThat

26th May 2007, 09:13

Tony doesn't do details, he's daft enough to wonder why he was being told only a couple of people from Havant would be involved, probably wondered where that was and just assumed it meant that most of the work would be in UK and just a couple of people from US would be involved.

waspy77

26th May 2007, 09:46

Dan Reno
"System Integration problems" is a joke for an excuse

Do you honestly believe that LM just popped down to RS and picked up a GPS by Garmin, and a couple of suitable mobile phones?
I would imagine that Marine One would demand the most sophisticated communication, navigation and survivability suite that technology can manage to cram into an airframe ... perhaps if S92 was a little bit larger ... hmmmm

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 12:23

The comm, nav & security suites already exist for the presidents helos and 747 so it's really just a matter of where to place the big chunks inside. The only "system integration" problems would be for anti-missle and detection due to ensuring the "bubble" around the entire aircraft is covered. Since the "final design" is still on the drawing board, it would be a chore placing all the external bits and pieces and would account for need of some extra time but who wants to tell Hillary that?

NickLappos

26th May 2007, 12:46

Dan is right, in fact, we INSTALLED the Air Force 1 comm system in our demonstrator aircraft, our partner, L3 Communications, pulled it from its test bench. We treated officials to video conferencing via satellite while airborne, using the future AF #1 software. The system worked flawlessly, it was the first satellite tracking antenna installed on a helicopter, I think.

Remember, LM chose to INVENT an entirely new cockpit for their EH-101, they scrapped everything that was in production, including all comms, navs, defensive suite and VVIP comm system for their bid. The Sikorsky bid used all EXISTING, INTEGRATED systems, off the shelf. The term "integration" is a useful tool to bury a lot of mistakes.

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 12:54

I'd still like to know whether the gov would have chosen the 92 over the 101 had the cabin widths been the same.

And I at least hope the gov demands that the fuel be external of the cabin on the new, completely redesigned 101.

NickLappos

26th May 2007, 13:27

Dan,

9,000 troops to Iraq, and standing behind the President like Italy and England did was the key. Both PM's publicly asked Pres Bush to buy their machine, on their local TV. If he had turned them down, they would have been very embarrassed, after taking the heat to back the Iraq mission.

Here is a link to a discussion of the VH-92 demonstrator:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/wildcat1.pdf

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 14:38

Nick,

No wonder there is so much BS here about the 101! I'd be embarrassed also to know the only reason the 101 got the nod was strictly political and that now the Yanks have to pay for and do a complete redesign of the loser just to bring to bring it up to 92 standards and keep our President safe! Could you imagine the outcry accross the pond if they had to do it to the 92!? The US would swim to the Brits defense if need be but they certainly don't seem appreciative of our efforts in many ways. Perhaps still licking their wounds over the thrashing we gave them way back when... How childish.

waspy77

26th May 2007, 15:00

Thanks Nick for explaining to Dan the scale of the task that LM face in integrating the systems, whether or not it was their choice to do it.

Nick, do you categorically know that the customer has not requested extra performance in the areas of communication, navigation or survivability? If the exisitng systems are satisfactory to meet the current and future requirements, why didn't the purchasing authority direct the fitment of this equipment as part of the contract/competition?

The VH-92 sounds like it had so many advantages over the US101, safety, performance, established operating procedures, security cleared personnel and assembly areas, and now an already fully integrated, fully proven and full performance mission suite. Your government must really want that extra cabin size.

As for rewarding Tony Bliar ... there were much better ways, but hey we all love a good conspiracy.

P.S. Impressive noise figures, Nick.

What are you on Dan?
Firstly, have you ever flown in an EH101? Have you seen them being assembled? Do you have access to the Engineering Specifications? If you have, then point to the exact BS and publish the truth for all to see.

Secondly, this is about engineering business. The S92 and the EH101 compete in some forums, some decisions go one way some the other. Is every single pro-EH101 decision political????

Thirdly, there is nobody on this forum who can be seen as the AW or LM equivalent to Mr. Lappos. Therefore we are listening to one side of a 'phone call. Decisions that may seem ludicrous to Nick may have good grounding. My attempts, and I am pro-EH101 (note not anti S-92), is to try and put some objective assessment on many subjective statements.

Lastly, if you think that we hold some 200 year grudge ...:ugh:

Flying Lawyer

26th May 2007, 16:19

High Wing Drifter But seeing as it is designed by Lockheed in Owego (not Lockheed UK IS) and built by Bell I don't see where Britain comes into the equation. Didn't they tell Tony that just a couple of blokes from Havant would be involved.Waspy As for rewarding Tony Bliar ... there were much better ways, but hey we all love a good conspiracy.

Sunday Times
November 2004 TONY BLAIR is seeking to capitalise on his special relationship with George Bush by urging the American president to buy British-built Westland helicopters for his Marine One fleet.

The US Navy is looking to replace its ageing fleet of helicopters that make up Marine One. They are famous throughout the world for taking a succession of presidents to and from the White House lawn.

Recognising the publicity value of taking such an iconic role, Blair lobbied for the British firm to win the contract during his private meeting with Bush in Washington this month.

He is said to have emphasised the quality of the Westland bid and its importance to British and American jobs.

Westland has attempted to Americanise its bid by offering a US-built version of EH101 helicopter — carefully renamed the US101. Its consortium is led by Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor, and includes Bell, a US helicopter manufacturer.

Whitehall officials have also written to the Bush administration putting forward the case for Westland.

Both the White House and Downing Street refused to comment on the bid last week, because it was “a commercial matter”.

Washington Post
January 2005Sixty-five percent of Lockheed's aircraft will be built in the United States; the transmission will be built in Italy and the blades in the United Kingdom.

The Navy said the Lockheed helicopter would meet its needs more quickly and on budget.

The contract calls for 23 helicopters, with the first to be delivered in 2009.

The public campaign for the contract attracted international attention, including personal appeals to President Bush from Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The Navy said politics did not factor into its decision.

waspy77

26th May 2007, 16:46

Not wishing to be controversial, and the quote is only to serve the purpose of showing that opinions, are only opinions.
I personally cannot see what George W Bush would have had to gain politically by the decision. I do believe that Tony Bliar and Silvio Berlusconi would have a lot to gain by publically asking though. How long after the US101 decision did Italy withdraw from Iraq ...? Just my personal opinion, only time will tell the truth.

BBC 30th May 2003

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said he believes weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 17:17

WASPY "What am I on" infers what? And like most here, I've neither flown or watched one be assembled. Does that mean you have done so and therefore you are the "One who walks amongst the unwashed" here. What data do I have? Only what I've digested here so perhaps you should read back a 100 pages of previous posts rather asking it to be re-hashed anew. And the BBC failed to report England along with other Europeon countries, past Presidents, Congress and the UN all agreed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Is that your best comeback in defense of the 101's terrible design? A bit off subject aren't you? No, I haven't got 101 drawings nor do I have V-22 drawings but just from reading what is here I can see the 101 will be another "Flying Pork Rind" for the US taxpayers to swallow.

Jackonicko

26th May 2007, 17:55

If you really believe that "the 101 will be another "Flying Pork Rind" for the US taxpayers to swallow" then you deserve pity, rather than abuse.
When the US does buy a European type (and it's rare) it's usually because the advantages are huge - as with the B-57 Canberra, and the AV-8 Harrier. The US101 enjoys significant advantages, too.

What you call the "101's terrible design" has so far led to its selection (over and above the cheaper competing S-92) in Denmark, Portugal, Canada (where it was the CAF's preferred choice for both requirements, though politics dictated that it could not be bought for both) and Japan, where selecting a non-US machine was extraordinary and unexpected.
Presumably all political.....?

Let's reiterate, shall we? The EH101 has eight military customers (RN, RAF, MMI, CAF, RDAF, Portugal, USMC and JMSDF) while the S-92 has one - in Canada, where a second Merlin order was politically impossible after the Chimo/Petrel affair, but where the Merlin was the CAF's preferred choice for the NSH requirement.

The Merlin has demonstrated better performance, availability and operational usefulness with the RAF in Iraq than the Chinook, and is rapidly becoming the SF platform of choice in theatre. It's quiet, agile, extremely fast, and has big enough doors. It remains to be seen whether externally mounted tanks offer much of an advantage in today's operational conditions. Chinook experience would suggest otherwise.

The aircraft was the preferred choice of the CSAR community, according to every HH-60 pilot I spoke to who flew it, and scored high enough marks to win VH-X, ON MERIT, too.

The S-92 is a fine machine, and it enjoys some compelling advantages. As a warmed over S-70 derivative, it was always going to be cheap and quick to develop, and very competitively priced, and there's no denying that a twin-engined configuration will offer payload/range advantages over a triple, and that direct operating costs will be impressive. Perhaps that's why the S-92 has been greeted so enthusiastically by the offshore industry.
That does not make it the best choice for a military operator, however.

And I have seen both aircraft being assembled, have flown in both, and have flown the Merlin, briefly, though as a fixed wing PPL I would not claim that the experience gave me any particular insight, beyond noting that the quietness and smooth ride of the Merlin in its Heliliner configuration (and I've flown in PP8 as well as in HC3s) is astonishing, and unlike any other helicopter in which I've travelled. That's quite a factor for VVIP flying.

Geoffersincornwall

26th May 2007, 18:20

Whatever the arguments and the 'conspiracy theories' I think it right and proper that the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth will get a (daily?) reminder of the consequences of going into a poorly thought-out war on the basis of a lie and then compounding the error by poorly managing the peace.

In 20 years time will President's sitting in their 101 on their way to work wonder to themselves how they happen to be traveling in a machine that had its origins not in Connecticut or Texas but in good ol' Europe.

We, of course, will be able to explain to him that alliances are formed with a price attached. If the 101 was UK's and Italy's price then let that me a lasting memorial to one President's stupidity and naivety.

G

Dan Reno

26th May 2007, 18:46

Not wishing to continue this pizzing contest but the AV8 is the most dangerous aircraft in the world as we speak. That fact is well known so if that's another "huge advantage" from accross the pond I'd say it's only for the manufacturer and enemy it's trying to kill and not the pilot. My opinion is the 101 is another Flying Pork Rind along with the V-22 and so let's leave it at that.. Agreed?

waspy77

26th May 2007, 20:35

Dan Reno
I was asking what proof or experience you had concerning "so much BS here about the 101" because you belittle the 101 as if you know it intimately, I was wondering how well you knew how it performed. You also state "but just from reading what is here" and that is my point exactly if you have formed your opinion of the 101 on the contents of this thread alone then you have formed it from a very limited source of data.

My last post begins with "Not wishing to be controversial, and the quote is only to serve the purpose of showing that opinions, are only opinions." This was in response to the preceeding post by Flying Lawyer, with a series of quotes concerning the political nature of the decision.

The political decision debate, post #93
"The win was based on the Navy deciding that the EH could be made ready for increment I 5 months faster than the H-92."

As for the "what are you on?" (it was not intended as an insult, apologies if it was taken as such - it could just be a "separated by a common language thing")
I have no idea what your statement implying the British are somehow harbouring a 200 year old grudge and have no comprehension of
"The US would swim to the Brits defense if need be but they certainly don't seem appreciative of our efforts in many ways" means or what it has to do with the Marine One Woes debate. It seems a deliberate slight on the British.

Jackonicko

26th May 2007, 21:14

The Marine Corps view the AV-8B as pivotal to their conops. So much so, that they feel that they need a STOVL version of JSF to replace it.

It is no more dangerous than any other tactical, single-engined, shipborne aircraft of its generation, and indeed landing accidents are rather less likely if you stop and then land, rather than trying to land and then stop.

And those who fly it have a more robust attitude to loss rates than armchair bound internet buffs, clearly.

PANews

27th May 2007, 19:38

A bit off centre I know, but earlier this month I queried of a salesman from Boeing why the CSAR competition was won by the noisiest contender?

The reply suggested that noise footprint was not a part of the customers requirement.

Living in an area regularly overflown by EH101 Merlin's and Chinook's the question I raised was prompted by having noted that the rotor beat of the Chinook can be heard long long before a Merlin operating at the same FL. That added to the recollection of a hostage rescue sojourn into Iran that would require an element of surprise would seem to suggest that 'stealth' should have played no small small part in the CSAR mission.

As such persons clearly played a part in selecting the Presidents craft perhaps we should not assume they have thought through all of the issues in a sensible manner!! :uhoh:

MSP Aviation

27th May 2007, 21:14

Huh? So the whitehouse lawn can't hear the president's helicopter coming? :ugh:

Dan Reno

27th May 2007, 22:28

PILOT PACIFIER said today:

"It is not often that I find myself embarrassed to say that I'm British. If I was to ever meet WO Pun, then I don't think that I could look him in the eye knowing how much this country has let him down..."

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=277365&page=5

Stop throwing rocks accross the pond long enough to help this hero.

3top

28th May 2007, 03:09

Nick,

you mentioned the BERP blades earlier.
What is the big detriment to new designed blades (you mentioned lack of lift, but why....). I mean the folks in the UK are not dumm. If there is no advantage in the BERP pieces, why stick with it?
By now prestige should really not be the problem anymore. For them there should be way more in the gamble now:
I assume that Westland/LM EH101/US101 deal has a lot to do with license fees, royalties, etc. If LM ends up building a better/new 101, surely any innovation will flow back across the big ditch.

As it looks the Increment II machines will not have a lot in common with the original 101 - modified shell and nothing else. Aaah, at least it looks similar :}

I really would appreciate some "simple" aerodynamic lesson about the BERP versus 92 or newer ideas blades! 2000 lbs of lift is no small change, 101-folks would be stupid to let that go ....

Hey, maybe LM will hire Gulf to help them out with the blades :E:E:E

3top

dangermouse

28th May 2007, 10:31

:=we have been down that route before (Berp vs others). Nick and the 'S92 supporters' have one view of the BERP blade, others (including me) have a different one, neither will agree that the other is correct and both sides will try and prove their own point with some supposed data without any definite answers being arrived at, eventually it will probably descend into a tirade of abuse.

I am not bothering to rise to answer this as there are people here who hear but don't listen, but I will agree that you are entitled to believe whatever you wish if it's posted here (but remember it is a RUMOUR network and treat the statements here as such, everyone is biased to some degree and that is reflected in the posts here, including mine)

BTW the Aerodynamic theory of the blade is pretty well known and can be found across the web if you search.

DM
I am back early as it's raining here and the weekend got spoiled:(

3top

28th May 2007, 11:20

DM,

"BTW the Aerodynamic theory of the blade is pretty well known and can be found across the web if you search."

That's why I ask here. Cannot find a consise answer. However if Nick claims a 2000 lb lift difference, he would (should?) be able to proof it.
As mentioned, I doubt that the UK-folks are any less ingenious than US.
2000 lbs is not a believe, but a rather solid number.
I would like to know how it was arrived at, and how the BERP folks look at this....

No bias, ..... by the time Inc. II is there, it is a new machine with an old name...

3top

NickLappos

28th May 2007, 12:45

The statement s absolutely correct, the BERP blades on the EH-101 are 1980 technology, and produce less lift that modern blades, for the same power. This is provable, and not subject to any orders from the Crown.

Why? Because they were built in an attempt to both hover efficiently and also allow high speed cruise, and they were made to compete with the blades of the Black Hawk generation, which they do. Power-wise, the BERP is a bit more efficient then the BH blades (1972 technology.)

If one measures the power needed to produce a given lift in a hover, and corrects for disk loading, the result is called the Figure of Merit. The BERP is about 4% worse than the S-92/UH-60M blades (1995 technology) and also about 4% worse that the Carson S-61 blades or the EC-225 blades, (which are all in a pack, according to the flight manual data).

3top asks, "If there is no advantage in the BERP pieces, why stick with it?"
There is an advantage, they exist, and a new blade design costs about $100M to develop, and there is no incentive to spend that money (while there are lots of things to fix, otherwise). Remember, the EH-101 has Cathode Ray Tube cockpit with symbol generators, clearly 1985 technology, why does nobody defend them as well? because those CRT tubes don't have a press agent like BERP blades do!

BTW, I do owe dangermouse the data on how the EH-101 BERP blades provide no stall advantage over modern blades, but I cannot find my old computer file with some flight manual data (three moves in 2 years!). DM, do you have the max speed chart from the EH-101 flight manual?

Jackonicko

28th May 2007, 14:41

The US101 will have BERP IV, not just BERP.....

and a new cockpit (already flying in CIV 01, and in the Danish Merlins, for which the five-screen LCD cockpit was designed).

NICK LAPPOS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG IN CLAIMING THAT:

"LM chose to INVENT an entirely new cockpit for their EH-101, they scrapped everything that was in production" and yet, as always, he speaks with absolute authority.

chopper2004

28th May 2007, 14:46

In my previous helicopter company back in late 2004, I had spoken to a guy from Yeovil who had settled into his new position in Italy. In the midst of a business discussion with him, I casually mentioned about a visit to 28 Sqn for a meeting, earlier that year and met one of the crews that went for a promotional tour down the east coast from Andrews AFB, Pax River, Langley AFB, down to Patrick AFB (Cape Canaveral). He asked me what the feeling was from the Americans. I said according to the 28 crew, the US were very very impressed; a few months later the Dept of Navy had announced they chose the 101.

Like every helicopter or fixed wing project for that matter, in the last two decades, Eurofighter Typhoon for one and even A380 in recent times...there's always issues with overspending, weight, delivery times etc etc. Now there are issues with the HH-47X, and with the Bell ARH-70; Boeing are thinking if there is a void; lets hit hard and go in with the Little Bird esepcially with the Manned/unmanned variant...even better two birds with one stone if you get my drift.

The only military rotary wing procurement that seems to be working is the UH-72 Lakota even though Agustawestland and MD Helicopters kicked up a storm.

So whats the solution, get rid of the 101 and put Sikorsky on the spot and have the S-92 in? I bet any money the same problems percepted for the 101 will still arise regardless of any a/c that gets chosen. Someone somwehere up and down the Pentagon corridors down to procurement down to NAVAIR and so forth will pick on something

waspy77

28th May 2007, 15:28

Dan Reno,
Many of us were already on the case of Mr. Pun V.C. and in fact I've only just about got my blood pressure under control. The Gurkhas are in incredible body of men, as anyone who have worked with them know. I truly express thanks to you for widening the awareness, and I am sure that you guys over the water would never dare to treat a Model of Honour recipient in the same way. What can I say except we are trying our best.

Back on thread
Absolutely correct in BERP being a response to a particular engineering problem back in the late 70's early 80s. G-Lynx was equipped with BERP and proved its point in the 80's. Time has moved on, and so has blade technology, and as has been pointed out already, US101 Inc 1 (and other EH101 variants) are slated for receiving BERP IV. I have no idea how well BERP IV performs in comparison to Carson blades. As for CRT displays I think you will find that the displays for the latest EH101s (Portugal and Denmark) are LCD as will be the ones for US101.

NickLappos

28th May 2007, 16:11

waspy,
My comments on the BERP blade do not mean that it can't be improved, only that there is a mistaken piece of the Empire that believes the BERP on the EH-101 is THE most efficient blade available. It can be improved, and perhaps BERP IV (grandson of the son of BERP?) will be much better.

The point I made (and it is a big one for BERPists to swallow) is that most modern blades are far better than the BERP (or BERP I, if you'd like!)

The BERP cult is so ingrained that once I landed an S92 in Canada, and a Canadian pilot asked me why we didn't just put BERP blades on the 92. I told him, "Because we wanted not to leave a ton of payload home."

The comment on CRT's is not that AW can't figure out how to get that ancient cockpit out and a better one installed, it is that nobody defends the EH101 CRT cockpit with their sacred honor! Both the BERP blades and the CRT cockpit are a product of their times, and significantly out paced by modern technology.

Yes, the VH-91 will have far better blades than BERP, and a far better cockpit than the CRT's, because the US taxpayer will have paid not just for the blades and gauges, but for the engineering and science that developed and produced them.

waspy77

28th May 2007, 16:36

Point taken Nick, it must be irritating to have something being assumed by all as de facto just because of its once position in history (for you it is BERP).
I doubt that the US tax payer has paid for the blades, as they have already flown according to the press, I may be wrong, but I believe them to have been originally targeted at the UK fleet. The LCD display is already fitted to Portugal and Denmark looking at the web, and as far as the Smiths website is concerned, the US101 display hardware is common with Future Lynx. A previous point of yours is taken though that LM may be re-developing it, for what ever reason.

Jackonicko

28th May 2007, 16:56

Perhaps your Canadian chap credited BERP I blades with Merlin's impressive quietness and smoothness? Or perhaps with the clear 'doughnut' landing in brown out?

Perhaps that impressed him more than a tad more payload?

And if the S-92 blades represent an advance over BERP, that's great, just as BERP did in their time, and just as Carson blades (which seem to have won extraordinary acclaim) represent a further step forward today.

And perhaps BERP IV will be even better.

Unless Sikorsky has a monopoly on innovation and advance..... :rolleyes:

NickLappos

28th May 2007, 17:06

Jackonicko said, "And if the S-92 blades represent an advance over BERP, that's great, just as BERP did in their time, and just as Carson blades (which seem to have won extraordinary acclaim) represent a further step forward today.

And perhaps BERP IV will be even better."

We've all come a long way in this thread, Thanks for that, Jack

Dan Reno

28th May 2007, 18:30

Waspy said: "I truly express thanks to you for widening the awareness, and I am sure that you guys over the water would never dare to treat a Model of Honour recipient in the same way".

You're welcome.

I would certainly hope we wouldn't or hadn't treated any MOH recipient disrespectfully but then again, we're pretty good at cover-ups should the need arise.

Thanks again.

BIT

28th May 2007, 21:14

Anyone who believes and states that the latest 101 will have CRT displays is clearly ignorant. Google "us101 displays" for the facts like I did.

I think its best to engage brain before typing.

heli1

29th May 2007, 07:48

Let's just see now...who still holds the world speed record due largely to the performance of the original BERP blades ?

ShouldItDoThat

29th May 2007, 08:08

heli1 said:-
Let's just see now...who still holds the world speed record due largely to the performance of the original BERP blades ?

Forgive my ignorance, I understood if you wanted speed then fixed wings or rockets were the best option, a helicopter is an all round machine that needs a degree of speed, and the ability to lift and hover at specified weights & temps. These (and a million other requirements) all require a compromise design, I don't think BERP is that.

Jackonicko

29th May 2007, 10:01

The idea that Merlin has a CRT equipped cockpit is either mischief making, or shows a woeful lack of knowledge. (Guilty as charged, m'lud, as I had inferred that CIV 01 was the only AMLCD equipped Merlin).

In fact, the Japanese, Portugese, and Danish Merlins all have LCD displays, the Danes having been the first.

"the Danish Mk 512 SAR helicopters were to be the most advanced SAR EH101s so far, with a Smiths Aerospace SDS 4010 electronic flight information system (EFIS) based on a row of six Smiths IDU (integrated display unit) 660 flat panel, active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs), linked by an ARINC 429 bus system, with an integrated standby instrument system (ISIS), comprising two 3-by-3-inch, 3-ATI liquid crystal displays on the far left of the cockpit. The main 6.3 in square ruggedized, night vision goggle-compatible colour displays replace the cathode ray tubes in the earlier variants, and “line up across the EH101 cockpit panel like paintings in a gallery”. The two outside screens, usually used as primary flight displays (PFDs), are slightly elevated. The cockpit IDUs are ‘smart’ COTS displays, containing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) applications processor, an open GL (graphics language) COTS graphics engine, and a COTS video processor with dual video inputs. Each display can be reconfigured by using the multifunction keys on the bezel, and all display modes (Primary Flight Display, navigation display, power systems display, fuel, video from the sensors etc.) can be presented on any of the six IDUs. This display interchangeability has some pre-defined limits to ensure that essential flight data is always provided."

But why let the facts get in the way of a bit more S-92 spin?

heli1

29th May 2007, 10:53

SHOULDITDOTHAT>>>>>This is a rotorcraft forum and a true helicopter speed record has to be set up by drive through the rotor,not with add-ons like jet engines and rockets !
The Berp blades did just that....21 years ago and so far no one else has got close

dangermouse

29th May 2007, 17:38

I try to be polite on this site but some people don't make it easy

let's be VERY VERY VERY CLEAR

THERE IS NO USA MONEY GOING INTO THE BERP IV PROGRAMME

it is a programme using 50/50% UK Govt money and AW private finance (see Flight international last week which reported on a presentation to the RAeS).

The same article implies that these blades MAY go on to the US101 at some point, obviously if there are significant benefits (which the article states there are) it would be a sensible thing to do, but it is not a requirement to have them.

Any statement so far as to build standard of the VH71A states it will have standard BERP III MRB and these will enable it to meet it's mission. The build standard for inc2 is a closely guarded secret, which may or may not use US funding for development of it (The reason I say that is that if US funding is used the US Govt owns the rights to that data, it may in the long term interest of the A/C designer to use private capital to develop an article and therefore keep the rights for future applications without US interference. In any case i guess no-one here knows the status of inc2 funding)

Nick is correct, the BERP III blade (I believe BERP I was development of the the Sea King/Lynx tail rotor blade, BERP II was the Sea King composite MRB) was optimised for forward speed, hence the speed record achievement, but in all cases every blade is a compromise design, it just depends where you want the 'sweet spot' to be.

Nick, in answer to your query I can get access to a CSH manual, if that is the one you mean. BTW I have seen a S92 manual and can't seem to find a Vne chart in it, is that because it is all done via the display units? it does make comparison a little hard!

DM

NickLappos

29th May 2007, 20:46

Call them BURP Beer, DM, the blades on the VH-71 (both sets, the small ones that fit on toda's EH and the big ones that will be specially built for the VH-71 Increment II) will be paid for by the US taxpayer. I can be sure as shooting that no company will turn down free money, and I can also believe that the US Navy will ask for repeats of all the tests someone else has done, because they want to control them and approve the data.

There is obviously a BERP IV program, paid separately. The question is what has that blade to do with the VH-71?

I will dig up the stall chart from the 92, can you get the airspeed limit chart from the Canadian manual?

waspy77

29th May 2007, 21:32

If BERP IV already exists, then the design work is done. Nothing left to pay for.
If the US Navy choose to re-test, then surely this would always have happened and would have been costed for already in the program.
In the same way is the US also paying for a redesign of the windscreens, the flying controls, the hydraulics and I don't know what else? If it is - then the basic EH101 cost must have been incredibly cheap.

Nick,
You quote an increase in FoM for the S-92 blades of 4%. Is this an average across the thrust range, or at a particular thrust setting.

As a matter of interest anyone out there know how much power it takes to hover at 12000kg for an S-92 and an EH101 (say ISA, sea-level)?

NickLappos

29th May 2007, 22:48

waspy,

Figure of Merit is a hover efficiency measure.

Be careful with your calculations, figure of merit and efficiency are measured at the same disk loading, and plotted at pounds of lift per horsepower. Once you have the two helos at the same disk loading, then the difference in lbs of lift per HP is in the blades (mostly).

EH101 disk is 2923 sq feet, S-92 is 2490 sq ft. so they have equal disk loading when their GW is ratioed at 1.173:1

Therefore, take the S-92 at 26500 and the EH-101 at 31100, and measure the horsepower. Then divide the gross weight by the horsepower.

If I am right, the EH-101 will lift 4% fewer pounds per horsepower than the 92 at the same disk loading. I will post the S92 HP shorly (gotta go home.) Maybe DM will post the 101's HP (let's use sea level standard temp)

dangermouse

30th May 2007, 12:20

The BERP IV blade has nothing to do with VH71A as far as I know at the moment.

The aircraft will have BERP III MRB, obviously the ones allocated to that airframe will be paid for by the customer, that does not however mean that any US tax payers money has been spent of design and qualification of those blades, they are in service around the world already (similarly I dont expect the UK tax payer funded the WAH64 blade development apart from any UK specific items)

I would expect this to apply to the BERP IV MRB as well (if fitted) the UK MoD and AW will not allow a foreign government to control a UK patented item.

Any specific variant equipment will be paid for by the customer (as always)

Yes I can get the speed chart for the Cormorant.

DM
ummm... forgive my maths but how does a 4% change in FOM give a 2200lb loss of lift? 26500 lb x 0.96 = 25440 lb, a delta of 1060 lb (just under 1/2 a tonne tonne, not a whole one) so did a bit of marketing hyperbole come into play in canada?

maxtork

31st May 2007, 01:35

I've been watching this thread all along and there is one question I can't find the answer to. Why was there a competition at all? It seems that neither aircraft is really up to what is needed currently. The 92 cabin is too small and the 101 has performance issues..(or at least that is what is perceved as they are already going to block II). Sounds to me like the government did just like many comercial operators out there today. They shopped for and bought a jet ranger when they really needed a 412 and then complained that what they got wont do the job. With all this talk about performance vs payload vs range wouldn't it have been smart to just use a bigger aircraft that is already in the inventory like the CH47 or CH53? Sure it may seem like overkill but if you put in the gear you need and add some extra fuel you could surely do the job even if you had to lower the overall gross weight of the machine to maintain the required performance characteristics. I'm sure there are some other criteria which may need to be included but I hardly think fuel economy is one of them! I'm just struggling to understand why we always start with the small and make it do more instead of starting big and growing into the bigger shoes.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate!

Max

Jackonicko

31st May 2007, 09:37

Merlin is big enough and man enough for the job.

Increment 1 is man enough for the original spec.
Increment 2 will be man enough for the 'crept' and revised spec.

A more capable Increment 2 aircraft was always planned.

Only Merlin offers the blend of quiet, smooth, fast and agile platform required for this role.

If you want a heavylift master of underslung loads, buy a Chinook.

If you want a money-making, economic cab to service offshore platforms, get yourself one of Nick's S-92s.

But if you want speed, quietness, and performance - as you do for CSAR and VVIP, then Merlin's the answer.

Horses for courses.

waspy77

31st May 2007, 10:03

Maxtork
I think the point that several people have been making is that 101 doesn't have performance issues. It is overweight at this point by 600kg it seems that that is recognised fact. No-one has shown that it can't fly, that's just opinion ... 15,600 kg EH101s are flying in customer hands and even Nick quietly admitted that a CT7-8E equipped 101 can probable give an 92 a close run.

Increment 1 aircraft hasn't been abandoned. Not from what I've read. LM have stated that it is not economically viable to refit Increment 1 aircraft to Increment 2 standard at a later date, and that new airframes should be built instead.

One thing this thread has shown is that aircraft selection (or even comparison) is a difficult and multi-variable thing, and there is never rarely one clear right answer.

NickLappos

31st May 2007, 10:25

Max,

The original contract had two sections, the second was a total redesign of either vehicle to make the new transport - both aircraft had major systems redone - fuselage, rotors transmissions. In effect, the second increment was always to be a total redesign.

The primary goal of increment I was to land on the white house lawn (thus be fully mission capable to an increment I standard, far short of increment II performance) in 2008.

In this, the EH-101 has failed miserably, due to the extensive redesign it needed to be suitable for Presidential transport - primarily the fuselage redesign to meet modern safety standards, but also clearly due to LM's inability to make the systems all talk together. Latest estimates have the Increment I VH-91 at least 2 years late.

The Navy people who ought to know have repeatedly said the requirements have not changed from the first day of the contract. Having seen and lived with those requirements, and having directed the VH-3 and VH-60 projects (as supervisor of a very talented program manager for those programs) I can assure you the requirements are tough, but clearly achievable.

dangermouse

31st May 2007, 11:18

I draw your attention to the secretary of the Navys announcement in Jan 2005 when the win was announced
Both teams met the requirements laid down by trhe Navy, Young said. But both had had substantial trouble meeting earlier scedules as they struggled with convincing the Navy they could meet the timetable requirement of an October 2009 entry into service for an intial version of the aircraft.
There has never been a statement that that date will be missed (let alone by 2 years!) unless it was in Nicks fevered imagination
come on moderators, how long must this go on for?
DM:ugh:

Dan Reno

31st May 2007, 11:31

"There has never been a statement that that date will be missed (let alone by 2 years!) unless it was in Nicks fevered imagination come on moderators, how long must this go on for?"

Crying to the moderators to end this thread or insulting Nick won't help. Untill the truth is understood on anything, there will alwys be inquiry and dialogue......at least in non-socialist countries.

waspy77

31st May 2007, 15:54

DM, I sense frustration showing, but Dan Reno is right, silence is not the answer.

Statement before the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on FY 2007 Navy And Marine Corps Major Rotorcraft Programs March 9, 2006
The VH-71 Program was accelerated as a result of the White House Chief of Staff memorandum to the Secretary of Defense dated November 26, 2002. This memo expressed the need for an accelerated replacement schedule for the VH-3D due to the post 9-11 national security environment. The VXX ORD was approved by the JROC December 16, 2003. Based on current aircraft age and fatigue life limits, the decision to also replace the VH-60N aircraft with the VXX was validated by the JROC and endorsed by the WHMO. The IOC date was established as October 2009. IOC will be achieved upon delivery of four of the Increment 1 (Pilot Production) aircraft. Full Operational Capability is projected for FY 2015, once all the Increment 2 aircraft have been delivered. The total VH-71A procurement quantity is 26 aircraft (23 operational, three test article).

The Navy have stated that no "program requirements" have changed. I suspect equipment specification may have ...
Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson, who provides consulting services to Lockheed Martin and other firms, said Lockheed Martin was surprised by the magnitude of the Navy's changes - more than 1,900 in total.
As for fuselage re-design - the requirements have always been in the open, Nick himself has said that he let it be known. So surely this must have been considered as part of the program no surprises to anyone.

One former helicopter industry executive speculates that the redesign will require heavier frames throughout the US101 structure, and a new round of ground testing before the first presidential helicopter flies. Based on the helicopter industry’s track record, that process could take three years or more.

If this is the case, then we won't see a VH-71A airframe flying before the middle of 2008.

Torque Split

31st May 2007, 17:01

Hi Guys

I have read with interest and amusement the heated discussion. Although it has been a long time since I was involved, in a small way, with the 101 programme, there was something that has been swimming around in the back of my head. I think there was a link between the Marine one deal and, either, the choice of RAF Future Tanker or Future Large Aircraft. Both of which had options of either European or US origins.

Summary: It was a case of "if you buy mine, I'll buy yours". Comments and criticisms welcome - and I won't go off on one, unlike some, if you are critical.

BIT

31st May 2007, 19:39

In a previous post I made a statement regarding engaging brain before typing. I have since then examined this thread in great detail and in particular focused on the comments made by Nick Lappos purely because of the influence his comments appear to have. I have not met or know Nick Lappos. However, in my opinion, if you are going to make bold statements they should be supportable by bold facts that are hard to undermine.
So, armed with google and other search engines I have looked into many of Nick’s bold claims.

LAPPOS: Most of the weight growth is due to the need to completely redesign the fuselage, because the EH-101 simply falls far short of US military crashworthiness.
How does Nick know exactly what the weight growth is? Anyone who knows, even as a % just how much heavier a NAVY compliant 101 airframe is when compared to a “normal “ 101 please advise? It just doesn’t seem rational (to me) that to go from 101 to navy compliance would result in much more than approx 500lbs on a 32000lb airframe but that is a personal guess/estimate/approximation that is probably wrong.

LAPPOS: The request by Lockheed is basically giving up on the increment I aircraft and going to Increment II, thus missing the delivery date by years, throwing in the towel on an entire configuration, and scrapping the essential plan to land on the White House Lawn in 2008. This is because the massive structural changes (a whole new fuselage) to suit the safety standards has increased empty weight to the point where it cannot hover IGE. The "cure" is a whole new rotor (throwing away the BERP blades) and adding 5 feet of rotor diameter to get the lift to get the aircraft flying.

Once again, how can Nick know his information regarding the level of fuselage re-design? He MUST have contacts in AW/Lockheed to make such a statement OR his statements are NOT founded on facts. NB Later posts suggest that the aircraft can HIGE already at mission weights.

LAPPOS: The data is published for each, and those who are condemned to the "counting engines" school of helicopter performance are likely to end up vastly disappointed when they look at the data.

LAPPOS: The EH-101 brochure was downloaded from their web site in 2004, and was current then, the H-92 brochure I had made while I was Program Manager and you were on the crapper, in late 2003. It carries a date of July 2004 on the copy I have.

LAPPOS: For the record, both aircraft are equipped with today's engines, the CT7-6A for 101 and the CT7-8A for the H-92.

The VH71 has CT7-8E engines. There is lots of Cormorant data but I cant find any CT7-8E equipped EH101 data published, perhaps because IT DOESN’T EXIST as the aircraft hasn’t finished its performance testing yet or it hasn’t been published?

LAPPOS: thanks for the steer toward the brochures with the -8E engine, that is certainly a way for the EH-101 to then gain advantage over the H-92. Please be reminded that the funds to install and qualify that engine came from the US Navy, as part of the Presidential program,

AW were flying a CT7-8E equipped EH101 BEFORE they won the presidential contract so how can that be NAVY money that sponsored the original installation.

LAPPOS: The statement i s absolutely correct, the BERP blades on the EH-101 are 1980 technology, and produce less lift that modern blades, for the same power. This is provable, and not subject to any orders from the Crown.

The latest BERP4 benefits are in this weeks FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL. If you seriously consider advanced aeroelastic tailoring as 1980s technology then I admit to surprise. ( and please don’t just say Sikorsky were doing it then)!

LAPPOS Yes, the VH-91 (assume he means VH71) will have far better blades than BERP, and a far better cockpit than the CRT's, because the US taxpayer will have paid not just for the blades and gauges, but for the engineering and science that developed and produced them

AW have been flying AMLCD 101 cockpits for years before the 101 contract award.

Call them BURP Beer, DM, the blades on the VH-71 (both sets, the small ones that fit on toda's EH and the big ones that will be specially built for the VH-71 Increment II) will be paid for by the US taxpayer.

It was joint MOD and AW money REF FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL

So, my rather brief research has undermined many of the bold statements made by Nick. If my research is wrong then sorry. I am not saying that I am correct, or that I just know as I don’t.
I just don’t like anybody making rash statements in any forum where what they say is taken as fact when in fact its just a rumor.

My lesson to myself is to remember this is a rumor network and to get out more…and I commend those comments to all reading this.

Phil77

31st May 2007, 23:48

From (S-76 thread;6th September 2001):

"Nick, thanks very much for your detailed reply. I have done a tp course and have an appreciation of the theory you have discussed but having monitored your excellent posts (S92 etc)for a while I was really after specifics regarding the S76 which in retrospect I should not really have asked about here - sorry bout that :)
Please keep up the good work Bit"

...to your "survey" is quite a stretch!
and pretending you try to protect us people who are beeing influenced by Nick is quite a laugh! I can't speak for the rest of the 11,000+ viewers of this post, but I can clearly differentiate if somebody is (understandably) upset that not his baby of how many years has won the contract or not. Clearly he needs to defend his work (I would!) and yes, I'm also waiting for him to prove his saying.

Lets see... where are your facts?
Just armed with the "looking-at-your-recent-post" feature I can tell by briefly overlooking it, that you were mostly bitching about the S-92 vs. the EH101 - and thats OK with me! Just don't pretend you are doing everybody a favor and condemning some "rash statements" - funny enough starting with "...engage your brain..."!

Nicks responses are definately questionable (in their boldness) in this post but less agressive than most those from the "other side of the fence".

and last I wanna second your saying from back in 2001: Nick, please keep up the good work! I learned a lot!

Jackonicko

1st Jun 2007, 00:05

"The primary goal of increment I was to land on the white house lawn."

A Merlin has already done it. AV-1, a bog-standard Mk 410 borrowed from the MMI. That's with the least powerful Merlin engines available so far, and with the original BERP blades.

And the RAF RTM engined birds seem to manage well in Iraq.....

NickLappos

1st Jun 2007, 04:15

Way too much nationalistic testosterone in this thread for sanity!

In no particular order:

Jackonicko, I didn't mean a demo, I said and meant a fully qualified Presidential helo, not a sub-standard 1985 model British military demonstrator that needs a whole new fuselage before it can carry the President.

BIT, the weight growth has been documented at 1200 pounds no matter how long you hold your breath and threaten to turn blue. Regarding how much I know, rest assured, the guys in Owego and the guys in Arlington know the truth, and the industry is too small to keep the looming disaster secret. Regarding the Navy paying for the 8E, your foolish ignorance of the program is almost too pathetic to draw comment, but the 8E's were installed, tested, and qualified with Navy money prior to the contract, as "risk reduction". I know, because I spent the 75million on risk reduction as well. While you were doing what?

waspy, I know you mean well, but it does get frustrating... The proper schedule was to land on the WH lawn by Dec 2008, when the program was delayed by 10 months they also slipped the schedule 10 months until Oct 2009. The Sikorsky proposal kept the original schedule... And you quote Loren Thompson as if he is other than a paid shill for Lockheed. He has been on their payroll for at least a decade, his "Institute" receives most of its funding from LM! AND the AMLCD cockpit is not the cockpit of the VH-71. Search his name and see how many times he has ever mentioned a bad word about LM!

Gentlemen, have a ball, it is too late to give a damn!

Bushfire

1st Jun 2007, 06:33

Interesting article

http://news.morningstar.com/news/ViewNews.asp?article=/DJ/200705242218DOWJONESDJONLINE001126_univ.xml&Cat=Economy

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Navy now wants what amounts to an all-new helicopter for its next presidential transport, leading to a two-stage development process that is significantly more complicated - and perhaps more expensive - than expected

Navy officials told Dow Jones Newswires that the final fleet of 23 VH-71 helicopters will need new, longer rotor blades, new engines, a new transmission and a new tail so they can carry the president and a heavy electronics system over a 350-nautical-mile range. These helicopters will require an extensive battery of flight tests and design reviews, and it's not yet clear whether they can meet a 2015 goal for entering service.

But in the short run, the Navy also has high standards for an initial batch of five aircraft that are supposed to be ready by October 2009. These first helicopters will need to carry an ambitious avionics package over a 150- nautical-mile range. They also need a reworked tail rotor assembly, so the U.S. Navy can avoid the flight restrictions that Canada imposed on a fleet of similar helicopters because of recurring tail-rotor cracks.

BIT

1st Jun 2007, 06:45

Nick,

I am sorry you consider me foolish, ignorant and pathetic for questioning your statements. Who am I to question you? Just a Joe who would like to know the truth and not the spin of a bitter man.

I commend your last statement and suggest you abide by it.

Yours foolishly,

BIT

waspy77

1st Jun 2007, 09:16

Come on guys, we avoided the nastiness once before and were getting somewhere.

The IOC date was established as October 2009. I have searched long and hard to find any other firm, published, established date since the contract was awarded. All data in the public domain shows this as the IOC. Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that the 3 test vehicles are marked as due for delivery at the end of 2008. I can see no reference to any slip, pre-LMs last request that started this thread, other than that of the contract award by the Navy themselves. Surely that can't be held against LM?

If the US government, with their supplier, wish to develop a new suite of display software at their expense, that is their right. It is not the same as saying that the US taxpayer is funding EH101 development, the EH101 has an AMLCD cockpit that is developed and flying now. As for the structure, it will give future EH101 customers a choice ... do they want 20g crashworthiness, or do they want more payload? Surely this is normal business practice, to develop a product during its lifecycle?

This is not nationalistic support of a European product. It is an objection to the insinuation that somehow the US taxpayer has been ripped off by a European conspiracy.

dangermouse

1st Jun 2007, 11:08

Period

It was funded as a private venture by AW along with the new screens etc (if it had been a US Govt sourced programme the option to offer it to other customers would have been capable of being held hostage by US interests, not a clever thing to do commercially. If Sikorsky did that with US Govt money that's their choice, AW didnt)

This was part of the normal development of an aircraft design.

The Dow Jones report says nothing new, as stated before the 2 stage incremental approach was always part of the VXX programme (regardless of the winner)

Thanx to all the people now posting to support my views (if you notice I have never denigrated the S92 just defended the untruths posted about the 101 here)

DM

NickLappos

1st Jun 2007, 12:30

AHS Vertiflight, 2004:
"Agusta Westland in the UK has received two General Electric CT7-8E turboshafts for flight testing in an EH101this summer. The 2,500 shp-class engines are the powerplants proposed for the Lockheed Martin US101 Presidential helicopter (VXX). The -8 engine introduces a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) more advanced than the Digital Electronic Control (DEC) on the 2,000 shp CT7-6 previously certificated in the EH101. The new engines are only slightly longer than the -6 version and can be accommodated with minor cowling changes.
Both Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky Aircraft continue risk reduction studies pending a VXX selection expected after the 2004 Presidential elections."

This is the second batch of risk reduction money, the first was doled out in late 2003, the two batches funded the new engines, which were first flown in Yoevil until I told the press the flight was made in England, upon which time the test team scrambled to find a US base for testing, and moved to California:

Lockheed Martin Receives $56.5 Million Risk Reduction Contract for the Presidential Helicopter Program
OWEGO, NY, August 26, 2004 - The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $56.5 million risk reduction contract to fund program management, engineering and logistics support for the Presidential Helicopter Program through November 30, 2004. These efforts will further reduce potential technical risks associated with the program before the Navy awards the presidential helicopter contract in December 2004.
"This contract enables us to continue risk reduction activities and ensure system maturity for the Presidential Helicopter Program," said Stephen D. Ramsey, US101 vice president and general manager at Lockheed Martin. "Through this contract, we will continue to work closely with the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, MD, to ensure the quick production start of these helicopters so that we can meet the customer's first aircraft delivery requirement of 2008."
In preparation for that award, Lockheed Martin continues to aggressively recruit new employees for its systems integration facility in Owego, NY. "We are recruiting across the country for the very best talent, primarily in the fields of engineering and program management," Ramsey said. "We will be ready to perform at top strength on day one of the presidential helicopter contract."
Team US101 is led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration - Owego, which serves as the prime contractor and systems integrator for the American-built US101 aircraft, an American variant of AgustaWestland's successful EH101 multimission helicopter. More than 200 U.S. companies from 41 states will participate in the US101 Presidential Helicopter program. Those suppliers are expected to create and sustain thousands of jobs nationwide while working on the Presidential Helicopter fleet. The US101 team collectively brings unmatched rotorcraft expertise and experience to this program: Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integration), AgustaWestland (aircraft design) and Bell Helicopter (aircraft production), while General Electric will supply each helicopter's three CT7-8E engines.

and:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32447.pdf
see page 14 mid page reference to the need for 4 helos in 2008, but delayed because the two competing proposals are "less technically mature" which is DoD speak for "the fuselage needs redesigning."

dangermouse

1st Jun 2007, 13:55

Not a cent of US Govt money has been used to qualify the CT7-8E in the 101,
I don't know what it was spent on but it wasnt for the engines, as then AW couldnt use the data to sell the installation without US interference

The 101 in the USA was there before the contract was announced in order to improve the flying rate (the weather here isn't good as you know!) so the engine could be offered ASAP to other customers

believe me or Nick, it's down to that again...

DM:ugh:

Dan Reno

1st Jun 2007, 14:54

Mark me down for Nick please.

MSP Aviation

1st Jun 2007, 14:56

I think what we've failed to consider is that price may simply not have been an issue in the least. For example, if I want the fastest car, I'm going to shell out around $515k for a 250mph screamer. On the other hand, I could spend $150k for something that does 200mph. That's a roughly 350% price difference, whereas the performance difference is only 25%. However, if I want THE fastest, I'm gonna be shelling out half a million.

Similarly, if the most important criteria was cabin size and comfort, then the Merlin must be chosen. The S-92 may be cheaper and better-performing in its factory trim, but it will never have the cabin size of the Merlin.

Whether or not cabin size was the first priority is up for debate, but if the Marines simply wanted THE biggest, the correct choice was made.

diethelm

1st Jun 2007, 16:08

Given Bush's performance and the thought of Hillary in office after him, my choice would be that we go back to a Bell 47 with wood blades.

NickLappos

1st Jun 2007, 16:33

dangermouse sadi, "The 101 in the USA was there before the contract was announced in order to improve the flying rate (the weather here isn't good as you know!)"

Wrong. The LEASE for the hangar in California was signed 3 days after the press reported that the first flight of the new engines was in England for work paid-for by US taxpayers. The leasing agent said they were in a BIG hurry. I know, because I asked the leasing agent (the hangar was owned by Pratt and Whitney, a sister UTC company to Sikorsky, unbenownst to Lockheed!). After the embarassment in the Washington Post, LM and AW scrambled to find a US site for the testing, then they made major press anouncements about the US site. I then showed the reporters (who didn't mind publishing the info) that the first thing the test team did was to buy a T1 line back to the UK for the data they took. My friends in Owego confirmed that none of the data the US taxpayer paid for stayed in the US, it went to England.

waspy77

1st Jun 2007, 17:57

Firstly, wouldn't first flight of a re-engined EH101 always be in England or Italy - after all that's where the aircraft re-fit would have taken place.
Where did the first flight of an RRTM equipped Apache take place?

Secondly, wouldn't any analysis data go back to England or Italy - after all that's where the massive amount of specialist knowledge about EH101 performance is based? Was the analysis for the RRTM equipped Apache done by Boeing or AW?

Thirdly, I suspect that AW would have booked somewhere other than the UK for engine trials - they seem to have done for other programs. Adverse press precipitated by a competitor over-stressing that the engines had flown in England, may have caused an urgent need for fixed arangements to be published. That's PR, not really a scandal.

If the US taxpayer specifically "bought" a particular test item, then surely that belongs to them. If AW want to use it elsewhere then they would have to get permission from the owner, that includes data, so what's the big deal? Is Nick now openly accusing AW of stealing US data or is CT7-8E engine data part of the politcal price?

At least we seem agreed that the 2008 date was pre-contract, the delay applicable to both 101 and 92, and therefore of no relevance to "Marine One Woes".

NickLappos

1st Jun 2007, 18:54

waspy,
when it was the "US-101" and was made by LM and Bell, the embarassment of having a British TP and British first flight was palpable. Forgive me, but back then, we used all swords to stab the beast!

And yes, Oct 09 was finally contracted. I have my alarm clock set for that date, and would bet that we could sleep comfortably on the White House helipad on Halloween, 2009 with no fear of being woken by the sound of a 5-bladed system!

Jackonicko

1st Jun 2007, 19:11

Nick,

As long as you use words like: "a sub-standard 1985 model" to describe Merlin, you are in real danger of making yourself look like a narrow minded fool (and you're clearly not that), or like an unscrupulous and cynical shill for Sikorsky (and you're accusing others of shilling for Lockheed in a way that makes it sound as though you don't approve of such prevarication, so presumably you're not one of those).

So why do you use such foolish and deliberately provocative language?

And I suppose a fully qualified Presidential VIP S-92 is ready now?

Sandy Toad

1st Jun 2007, 19:24

So new American Engines.
New Fuselage to replace the inadequate Anglo/Italian one.
New Blades.
New LM designed and invented Comms, Navs, Defensive Suite and VVip comm system.
Hmm. Must be that thick British Hide on the seats that is still causing this Transatlantic Rift.
Still imagine how we'd feel if the Royal Flight chose an American helicopter......... We'd probably have to called it XX or something too......;)

waspy77

1st Jun 2007, 20:07

I'm not sure it will use British leather ... mad cow disease an' all that:}

Royal Flight ... Agusta A109 isn't it. At least you get a Versace interior.

Sandy Toad

1st Jun 2007, 20:30

No A109s are 32 Squadron I think. Try a Sikorsky S 76 G-XXEA....

dangermouse

3rd Jun 2007, 09:24

:ugh:All costs associated with that activity were funded by AW (said for the 3rd time) regardless of what other think.

Integration of the CT7-8E was part of the 101 improvement package that was already in the works. The current civil engine (CT7-6) introduced performance restrictions on the aircraft and the CT7-8E was the obvious way to go, as for any chance of breaking into the USA the % of US involvement had to be high, it was available in the civil market and already flying. The aircraft arrived in California in November (or October I can't quite remember which), the contract award was in the following January so the statement I made earlier is correct.

The data line was so AW could pass the data back to home base so they could analyse the data WHICH THEY OWNED as soon as possible (given the 8 hr time difference and the cost of daily DHL transportation of tapes). It was not a case of exporting US Govt funded data as there wasnt any. There was no US Govt involvement or oversight in VCV, it wasn't needed.

As Nick had admitted, at that time everything was used to gain an advantage over the competitor, and basing an aircraft in the USA whilst bidding for a USA contract was good PR and as well as increasing the flying rate. Of course the US press would make a big deal about the aircraft being flown by UK crews, that fire was stoked by Sikorsky (and I don't blame for doing it), however as we all know the press (especially the non technical press) always give a one sided view of events and just because a reporter says something it don't mean it's true.

Mr Reno you are entitled to your opinion (however wrong it may be)

DM

Dan Reno

3rd Jun 2007, 11:53

DM Thanks for reafirming my entitlement rights though on the mainland here, we're working hard to get people off them and become individualists, not hand-out expecters..

Regarding the Marine One saga, it seems we're at the old "he-said-she-said" impass whereby a court would then be conveined to establish the truth either by jury or judge. Here, all we have is "who is more credible?" Who has a reputation as such? Who was in a better position to know the truth since it appears getting receipt for monies passed isn't likely? Perhaps Nick and most other gentle readers here know all about you, your background experience and positions for oversight of this debate. I don't, but do know that Nick's is an open-book so to speak. If you have any "insider", provable, personal info that would trump Nick's comments that would be of use so please share since Nick's credentials preceded him here. (In socialist countries it means: "His papers are in order comrade.") Are yours or anyone elses? I know it seems like I'm being an apologist for Nick (met him once) but again, who has the best credentials, reputation? Who was in a position to know? And....based on past experience with so-called Europen, goverment funded, aeronatical design and R&M, there's a lot of reason to beleive that it was US tech and $$ that got the 101 to where it's at now, and as we can see today, where it's going in the future. It's Sunday so please forgive the typos and enjoy life vertical and above the ground while we all can!