Dear George, About your new helicopter ..........

[Heliport]

from the Wall Street Journal
Since Dwight Eisenhower was U.S. president in the 1950s, the distinctive green and white helicopter that picks up the commander-in-chief from the south lawn of the White House has been an American-made Sikorsky.

Now, an aircraft being offered by the U.S.'s closest ally in the Iraq War is attempting to swoop in and unseat Sikorsky as the provider of the world's most prestigious air taxi, Marine One.

Both Sikorsky and its main competitor, AgustaWestland, a joint British and Italian helicopter company, are jockeying for position against a backdrop of growing tension between the U.S. and Europe over whether some important markets, such as military contracts, are truly open to foreign competitors.

Just last week, United Technologies Corp., the parent company of Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney engines, lost a $3 billion (2.61 billion euros) contract to supply engines for a European military-cargo plane. A European consortium that included Great Britain's Rolls Royce used political ties to pressure Airbus to allow it to sweeten its bid after learning that Pratt had come in 20 percent lower.

People familiar with the Marine One competition say that until recently, it would have been unthinkable that a foreign-designed helicopter would be a permanent part of the fleet that carries an American president. Traditionally, a Boeing 747 was used as Air Force One because it is the biggest plane, while Boeing was one of the U.S.'s largest companies. But that tradition is coming into question because of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's staunch support of the president's Iraq agenda in the face of international opposition.

Mr. Blair already has intervened on behalf of AgustaWestland, sending a letter to Mr. Bush in January that began with a hand-written "Dear George," and ended with "I hope you will look favourably on this proven `off the shelf' product."

The competition will pit United Technologies' newly certified twin-engine S-92 helicopter against a three-engine helicopter that AgustaWestland plans to build in the United States. Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co. say they believe that their V-22 tilt-rotor also will be a strong contender, despite the aircraft's rocky safety record during development and testing.

The contract is relatively small in the scope of military programs -- 11 helicopters in all -- but the prestige alone could translate into marketing gains in a depressed civilian market. All three competitors hope to sell versions of their helicopters for executive transportation as well. "It's a pretty big deal," says Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. (Queen Elizabeth II flies on a Sikorsky.)

The president's helicopter fleet is part of an elite Marine Corps helicopter squadron known as HMX-1. The primary aircraft for presidential use is the 73-foot long Sikorsky VH-3, which first entered service in the early 1960s. Outfitted with plush carpeting, leather seats and systems to evade attack, the 14-passenger choppers are used to ferry the president between the White House and Andrews Air Force Base, where Air Force One is kept. They also are used to carry the president to and from his weekend retreat at Camp David and his ranch in Crawford, Texas. When the President travels, even overseas, the helicopter arrives ahead of him in a cargo plane.

Officials with the Navy's Naval Air Systems Command, which is supervising the competition, said the Marine Corps began talking about replacing the aging helicopters several years ago. Until earlier this year, the plan was to replace them by 2010, but some officials at the White House indicate that they would like to move that date up to 2007. The Navy already has $1.2 billion in its budget earmarked for the program, with the first $157 million expected to become available in fiscal year 2004. Independent studies are due in June on each of the contenders that will help define the timetable ahead.

A White House spokesman said the decision on a new helicopter would be in the hands of the Defense Department. "We fully expect any decision to be reached by an impartial and objective review," the spokesman said.

Lobbyists and executives representing the competitors already have begun touting their aircraft to key lawmakers and government officials. On Tuesday, Sikorsky is expected to take several reporters in the Washington area on a flight in its helicopter; AgustaWestland is scheduled to do the same on Thursday. Because the V-22 is still undergoing military flight testing, Bell-Boeing has no such flights planned.

Bell, which also has had helicopters in the presidential fleet over the years, hired a former Marine One pilot as a consultant. "We think the fact that the V-22 has already been undergoing the rigors of the validation process is a step up," said Arnie Easterly, who flew for both Ronald Reagan and President Bush's father.

AgustaWestland is seeking to position itself as a U.S. company selling a U.S.-made aircraft. It is teaming up with Lockheed Martin Corp. on the project. "This is going to be an American product that creates jobs here," said Stephen C. Moss, president of AgustaWestland's U.S. subsidiary.

Mr. Moss said that he believes that the foreign pedigree of the AgustaWestland helicopter will become a nonissue, largely because a substantial amount of the Sikorsky helicopter will be built by partners in China, Taiwan, Spain, Japan and Brazil. "Neither product is fully American," he said. AgustaWestland plans to stress its track record with more than 100 EH101s already in service world-wide. Sikorsky's Mr. Borgman stresses that while the S-92 is being built by several partners "the designs are ours."

Sikorsky is expected to be a formidable competitor, not only because it is the incumbent, but because its helicopter incorporates all of the Federal Aviation Administration's latest design and safety standards, including seats and a passenger cabin that would better survive a crash. (Agusta-Westland's helicopter was designed and certified before the more-stringent standards were adopted.) The aircraft won the National Aeronautic Association's Collier Trophy in 2002 for being the "greatest aeronautical achievement" in U.S. aerospace. "I think we have an aircraft that will win on its merits, Mr. Borgman said. Mr. Moss said he believes that the AgustaWestland helicopter stands an equal chance. "I really believe we are not tilting at windmills here," he said.

A European helicopter on the White House lawn?

Watch this space.

[Lu Zuckerman]

It is true that the S-92 has been certified to a higher standard than the EH-101 however the EH-101 was certificated based on no catastrophic failures. This does not mean that the EH-101 design is such that no catastrophic failures would ever occur it means that no catastrophic failures were ever considered in the development of the safety design standards that were required for civil certification. The S-92 is yet to be proven but the EH-101 has already suffered several catastrophic failures that resulted in three crashes and the loss of life and property. These failures were considered in the original safety analysis but were stricken from all documentation that led to certification.

:sad:

[BlenderPilot]

Still a recent article by the US magazine Rotor and Wing cites the 101 as a strong contender to be used by the U.S. Govt. citing several interesting reasons. I'm just happy to see some competition, its good for the industry.

Plus the 101 is one neat looking helicopter!

[john du'pruyting]

Mind you....get close up and you gotta admire the rivets on a 101:rolleyes:

[BIT]

zuckerman
blah conspiracy blah certification blah I'm so important blah no one else knows jack about safety analysis blah I know coz I was there blah.

Change the record that you have been laying for the past n (where n is a very large number indeed) years.

Its good to see the US of A being thought to consider a non-US designed aircraft. May the best platform win.

[leading edge]

Bit

You are being unnecessarily offensive. Lou is entitled to his opinions and actually (although I don't always agree with him) states some good facts.

The S92 is yet to be proven but Lou is correct, the EH101 has suffered some catastrophic failures during development.

I am sure that each aircraft will be judged on its merits but the S92 is very impressive in its flaw tolerant FAR/JAR 29 certification. OEI performance is excellent and it seemed to have plenty of power during the (yet to be certified) category A take off during recent evaluations.

The EH101 will be unlikely to win (in my personal opinion only) George or any other President would be more likely to travel in a US made product than a European one, allies or no allies. Airforce One just couldn't be an Airbus could it?

Yes, HMQ does fly in a Sikorsky but then again, the Brits don't really make any helicopters in that category now and no one would seriously suggest that HM might fly in an EC 155.

LE

[Barannfin]

I think it will be real interesting to see who wins the contract. Although I would prefer sikorsky, seeing as I hail from Connecticut. To tell you the truth though, I dont really know how the 101 compares to the 92, besides the additional engine on the 101. time to do some research (of man. websites that is):rolleyes:

[Thomas coupling]

Lu...please...please don't start that old chestnut all over again. We've heard it all before from you about the duff rotor brake system and hydraulics systems, blah blah.
I beg you Mr Moderator....moderate closely on this one.


Aaaargh!:zzz:

[PANews]

Having read the story starting the thread some time earlier in the day I asked Westlands in Yeovil for a comment...

Basically they come up with the line that whichever airframe is accepted it will receive such a safety makeover that it will be unrecognisable. NEITHER airframe would be acceptable to carry the US President off the shelf.

I doubt it would be George Bush anyway, he will undoubtedly have run his course before it arrives.

As the US101 is to be built in the US [if sold of course] there may be some debate as to which aircraft is the MOST American. Especially as the Sikorsky [say is that a Russian name?] is built up from components from Europe, Asia and South America.

AgustaWestland did of course jump in with their third engine trump card ... ummm ... and how many gearboxes is that?

Usual arguments!

[EESDL]

Ain't it strange how the Osprey has received such a bad press due to the numerous accidents it has suffered, all during 'development'.

Yet, the EHI01 has matched the V22 on this front and is selling itself using the 3-engine safety blah.

What was that? Just another engine to take you to the scene of the crash...........

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: PANews

AgustaWestland did of course jump in with their third engine trump card ... ummm ... and how many gearboxes is that?

When the EH-101 was designed the naval variant was to be used by the Royal Navy and the Italian Navy. The Italian Navy who wanted Harriers instead of the EH-101 refused to take it because of the third engine. Politics being what it is in Italy the Navy finally accepted the design as is.

Regarding gearboxes the EH-101 has a main transmission and an accessory gear box which is shaft driven off of the main transmission. All three engines are connected into the main transmission.

The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required.

:hmm:

[PANews]

Quite amusing ..... It is to be hoped that the Italian Navy who wanted Harriers instead of the EH-101 were aware of the technical differences....

.... All three engines are connected into the main transmission....The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required.

Nothing different or really new there then.... even in the recent past the Tridair conversion of the Bell 206L used the 'switch-off' option to make up for the failure to enlarge the fuel tank. So not an option to be scoffed at in itself.

[Straight Up]

Further Lu's engine/gearbox answer.

Yes the Accessory gearbox is shaft driven from the main gear box (If I remember correctly the rotor brake is also on this shaft).

Engine 2 is always connected to the main gearbox.

Engine 3 can be selected to "Main", and drive through the main gearbox, or to "Neutral" and then shut down (cruise etc).

Engine 1 can be selected to "Accessory" or "Main". Accessory is normally used at start up, so eng 1 is started and runs the accessory gearbox only, which runs one of the main generators (other is on Main g/box), and one main hydraulic pump (at least I thinks its 1, memory has obviously started to fade). After other engines are started and MGB is going, then eng 1 is switched to "Main".

Eng 3 can be shut down in flight for economy or range increase etc, but I am not aware of any operator that does this, anyone know if it's used? It has been used in this way to prove range performance to potential customers, ie turned off at the top of the climb out, and on just before descent into the airfield. With ferry tanks this does give a pretty good range (a bladder busting 8.25 hours during a demonstration workup).

As for the number of crashes, there have been 3 total write offs. PP2 - rotor brake fire (sadly also loss of crew), PP4 - tail rotor control failure (crew parachuted) and an RN variant which I don't know the cause of, but I think the crew were OK after ditching. Also PP7 had a "Heavy Landing" (or as I like to call it "a crash"), which required a major rebuild.

I don't think prez Georgie will end up with a 101, as public perception will still be of a Foreign manufacturer, no matter how much of it is built in country. where as Sikorsky is an American manufacturer, with an American design, the fact that a lot of it may be manufactured outside of the USA will probably not make it to Joe Public.

[Ian Corrigible]

Probably the worst kept secret in the industry...!

US Helicopter Agreement
GKN press release 15 May 2003

AgustaWestland, a GKN and Finmeccanica company, announced today that it has reached agreement with Bell Helicopter, a Textron Company, of Fort Worth, Texas to form a Joint Venture company to manufacture the US101 helicopter in America.

The Joint Venture company will act as a sub contractor to Lockheed Martin who as Prime Contractor and systems integrator for the US101 have overall responsibility for the programme and delivery of the US101 helicopter to the customer.

The US101 is the American version of AgustaWestland's EH-101 helicopter widely considered to be the most advanced medium lift helicopter in production today. With over 36,000 hours of accumulated flight time, the EH-101 has been selected by five NATO countries and Japan for 21st century helicopter requirements. Variants are in service in the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan, performing a variety of missions, from search and rescue to maritime surveillance, battlefield support, law enforcement and civil operations.

UK Royal Navy Merlin MK1 variants were deployed in the Gulf in support of Coalition forces, and RAF Merlin MK3 helicopters were recently deployed to Bosnia for peacekeeping roles.

The US101 will be built in America to fulfil the US Government's 21st century helicopter requirements of the United States Air Force and Coast Guard in their search and rescue missions, and the Marine Corps as an executive transportation replacement for the 30+ year-old Marine One helicopter. Stephen C. Moss, President of AgustaWestland Inc. said "Bell is the perfect partner to join Team US101. It will be great to have the prestige and professionalism of the Bell team to build this helicopter in the US. The US101 is a spacious helicopter that can be configured for whatever mission is required - from submarine surveillance, to executive transport. It is very versatile with an excellent safety record and can carry more than 30 combat troops quickly over long distances."

The selection follows the naming of Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor and systems integrator for US101 last year. Lockheed Martin, Bell and dozens of subcontractors will provide significant employment throughout the United States. The US101 will contain over 65% American content. The basic aircraft will be manufactured by the JV company with mission customization, systems integration, and final aircraft delivery being accomplished at Lockheed Martin's Owego, NY facility.

"We are delighted to add Bell Helicopter to Team US101", said Frank Meyer, President of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in Owego, NY. "With the addition of Bell, the US101 aircraft is ready to serve America's heroes."

John Murphey, Bell Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said he was very proud to be joining this team and being able to participate with AgustaWestland and Lockheed Martin in meeting the US Government's requirements.

Bell and Agusta, have been partners for almost 50 years and are currently partners in building the AB139, a new light medium twin-engine helicopter, and the BA609, the world's first civil tilt rotor. "When the US government requires a modern medium lift helicopter we will be positioned to immediately respond to their requirements", he said.

A EH101 Merlin Mk3, deployed from the UK Royal Air Force, is currently in the USA to provide orientation flights for members of congress, the military and the media and will be on static display at the Joint Services Open House at Andrews AFB, May 17-18, and at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Patuxent River, MD, and Quantico Marine Base, VA.

[Lu Zuckerman]

As previously stated the EH-101 has a main transmission and an accessory drive transmission. The accessory transmission is driven by the main transmission via two thin wall shafts. These shafts normally operate under a low level of stress (torsional). There are free wheeling units in the accessory drive transmission that separate the two shaft inputs so that the accessories can be driven by one engine on the ground while the second engine is not engaged. Based on the fact that the two shafts operate under a low level of torsional stress I have two questions.

1) The rotor brake is mounted on the accessory drive gearbox. If the rotorbrake comes on hard while either the engines are driving the rotor or, the rotor is running down will the torsional levels build to the point that the shafts will either wind up torsionally or fracture?
2) If the accessory gearbox suffers a hard lockup will the shafts are turning (see 1above) will the thin wall shafts suffer the same fate (see 1 above)?

These same questions were posed in the development of the FMECA for the EH-101 but were removed along with other catastrophic failures.

[Thomas coupling]

Lu: you've gone and done it now, haven't you after I begged you not to!.....

You have mentioned the (101) rotor brake issue..again!!!

God damn it Lu, you're like a CD with no label...people come along pick it up, play it and realise it's the same old tune they discarded years ago.

For everyone's sake, please get this R and D issue off your chest once and for all.

It seems you have inside knowledge on the failure of management to carry out proper risk management, for EVERY conceivable helo manufacturer in the world.

If one was to believe your views, then every manufacturer is fiddling the system in the rush to sell airframes............

Conspiracy theorist or what??????????????????????????????????

[John Eacott]

Ground Hog Day, anyone?

[BIT]

Its not case of abuse but this topic had Zuckerman on a tirade against Merlin a few years back. His comments are just out of date. For example

"The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required".

This is total Pap and reflects someone with no experience in the operatin of a Merlin/EH101. Moreover, I refuse to let his previous comment go without reply. I would prefer this thread to remain in-line with its title and not get hijacked as has happened in the past.:yuk:

[tecpilot]

Without questions the EH 101 is a very good and meanwhile proven helicopter made by new ways of engineering. It's senseless to discuss the constructional single spots. It's possible to find and to discuss controversial points on any a/c. May be the S92 hold a 10 years engineering advantage due to the later construction.
But i'm very glad to see, that a foreign company is not absolutely without chances to win the competition. For a european it's sometimes difficult to understand the US. They allways tell the rest of the world come and see and buy our (US) products. Mr. President himself and the whole goverment is the best seller of american products all over the world. But in their own country any product should made from their own industries. If the new helicopter would be built in the US but by a foreign company, it sounds ok to me.

[Head Turner]

Reading the above, it is obvious who will support the American modle on grounds that shout 'anything that is American is the best and we don't want the Europeans elboeing into our market, but retain the right to be in Euroland selling our products there'. A bit of a realism is required. We in dear olde England know that in this situation the American product will be chosen and rightly so for we would not want our Queen flying around in an American machine when we have equally good products here in Euroland.
Seeing that we again helped the Bush Administration to succeed in the Americanisation of the world we do expect some sort of backhander for our troubles and money that we have invested by way of military support.
I apologise for the political edge here but this is what it's realy all about

[Jack S.]

doesn't the Queen ride around in a S76?

[rwm]

The US has always thumbed their nose at any foreign nations productss for their military. Damb near killed Canada's aviation industry in the fiftys. They took a perfectly good LMG and turned it into the M60. Took many years to fix that. It isn't about free trade, or best product for the buck, it is all about being USA number 1 at anyones expence.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Thomas Coupling

It seems you have inside knowledge on the failure of management to carry out proper risk management, for EVERY conceivable helo manufacturer in the world.

Not every helo manufacturer just the EH-101, the A-129, The Apache, the V-22, and the B-214 and the AH1-J as well as Sikorsky. I also found major problems on the A-310 that are yet to be resolved.

I post these items not to badmouth the airframe manufacturers but to make the operators and pilots aware of the potential problems.

If you were privy to what goes on in the engineering departments of most helo and aircraft companies you would most likely give up flying for a living.

Now to keep people with your mindset from carping at me when I post I'll stop. (For now)

To: BIT

The original design concept for the EH-101 was to use the third engine on an ad hoc basis as the mission required or, if the operator wished it could be used 100% of the time. Maybe I should have made myself a bit more clear.

:ok: And, all that it stands for.

[PANews]

doesn't the Queen ride around in a S76?

The quick answer is 'Yes' but ....

... as with all questions in the field of aeronautics its often not as clear cut as that.

The Royal Household bought the S-76 for its own presumably considered reasons as the type most likely to fit in with looking the part [replacing a Sikorsky derived Wessex] and performing the mission.

But I understand there are occasions [and missions] where the 76 is set aside and an A109 Power is used. I believe that this is a performance issue out of certain locations.

Equally I suspect that if the Queen had bought a A109 there would be missions where a S76 or similar would be brought in.

Does the use of a Sikorsky by the Queen 'prove' that the AgustaWestland EH101 is a faulty design? Or does the occasional substitution of an [AgustaWestland] A109 prove that the S76 is not up to the job?

No, on all counts.

[Heliport]

http://www.rotorhub.com/news/0305/ed16a.jpg

[Barannfin]

so does anyone have any knowledge of which helicopter is currently favored? I saw them both at Edwards AFB on the 17th and talked with both crews, as can be expected both claimed that their aircraft was received very well.

Funny thing was, I noticed the 101 was configured for troop transport with the troop seats and such, whereas the 92 had nice airline style seats in it. I had trouble imagining senators sitting in the back and enjoying the troop seats, but im sure the generals were used to it. Well I was just wondering if anybody had any info, or rumors about it, thanks.

[low height bug]

Barannfin

The Merlin Mk3 that you saw was RAF22 (ZJ138) and is a std in-service a/c hence the troop seats, which are actually reasonably comfy. They’re also crash worthy to X g (where X is a number I can’t remember) provided you don’t stow your kit under them. The floor is a re-enforced floor for heavy loads with a cargo hook built in to one of the bays under the floor (can be replaced if customer spec requires with an 800 kg capacity fuel tank).

VIP cabin design is a bit more than slamming in a few airline style seats and I should imagine that Sikorsky only fitted their a/c with seats to facilitate famil trips for interested parties (but I wasn’t there so you’re probably a better judge of their cabin layout). The reality is that for VIP duties a lot of thought and design is required to arrive at a fully noise attenuating cabin in any helicopter.

lhb

[Lu Zuckerman]

By all rights if the US decided to use the EH 101 as the presidential helicopter it would most likely be built in Italy and not in England. This assumes Bell does not build it in the USA. The reason I say this is by definition the UK has the contract to build the military version and Italy has the contract to build the civil version. At least that is the way it was when I worked on the program.

:hmm:

[dangermouse]

Again Lu is behind the drag curve, the workshare between WHL and AG has nothing to do with 'military' and 'civil' (After all the Italian Navy aircraft are assembled in Italy and the civil based Danish Aircraft are assembled in the UK). The arrangements are much more likely to be based on work loads between the sites and to some degree customer preferences. Denmark is closer to the UK than Italy and vice versa for Portugal.

Nice to see this discussion ongoing, I guess we will found out in October. I can only agree with the above posts regarding the interior fit. The displayed Merlin is a front line combat aircraft, the S92 a prettified prototype

DM

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: dangermouse

The reason I say this is by definition the UK has the contract to build the military version and Italy has the contract to build the civil version. At least that is the way it was when I worked on the program.

Please re-read the last sentence above. Things do change but memories don't.

:ok: And all that it implies.

[Heliport]

Press report

Blair and Berlusconi lobby Bush for helicopter deal


Tony Blair and his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi, are intensely lobbying George Bush to buy AgustaWestland EH-101 helicopters for his new presidential fleet, it emerged yesterday.

Kevin Smith, chief executive of GKN, joint owners with Finmeccanica of AgustaWestland, said the two prime ministers were repeatedly marketing the helicopter in their face-to-face talks with the US president.

Industry sources said that the British government was "putting an enormous, unprecedented amount of effort" into getting a substantial order from the US, where the helicopter market is worth $7bn (£4.3bn) over the next few years, according to Mr Smith.

The green and white Marine One fleet of Sikorski helicopters ferrying Mr Bush from Washington to Camp David is due to be replaced with 24 new craft, with a decision due early next year.

AgustaWestland has teamed up with US rival Bell under the leadership of defence company Lockheed Martin to compete against Sikorski and Boeing for the order.

Eurocopter, the world's biggest manufacturer, broke ground yesterday on a new plant in Columbus, Mississippi, to build para-public helicopters for agencies such as the coast guard and county sherriffs.

It has kept out of the bidding for the fleet, convinced that only a US team will win. But Mr Smith said: "This is our best shot for a long, long time to get a product into the US - and we've proved them wrong by breaking into the Japanese market, which had been closed for 50 years.

"You never know, you might just see the president climbing into a foreign helicopter. If he takes another route that's not the end of the world for us. If we win it would be a major, major credibility reinforcement for us."

GKN is aiming for orders worth $7bn for 360 craft, including 196 search and rescue helicopters for the US air force worth up to $5bn. The entire programme is worth more than $20bn over its lifetime.

[Dantruck]

On the original point of this thread…

Does anyone here really believe the US will buy a non-US helicopter for presidential use, at least in anything more than a token way?

You’re kidding me, right? Tell me you’re having a laugh!

Let us consider just three factors out of many:

1…There’s a perfectly good new US product recently available from Lappos & Co, called the S-92. Made-in-America, it is an award-winning aircraft, designed, tested and, most importantly, built by American workers in American factories during a time of dwindling (read: embarrassing) US state support for rotorcraft development.

2…Lappos & Co would quite like to sell a few more to others, and what better endorsement than that it recently sold to George W and his military?

3…Anyone remember the Kyoto Agreement, the one on that minor issue of global importance, the environment? Just about the first thing George W did post election was to deny his nation’s responsibilities toward this unique and overwhelmingly important global deal on the basis that cutting back wouldn’t be in America’s best (read: commercial) interests.

Now, does anyone still truly believe George could give a flying whatsit at a rolling doughnut when it comes to choosing the best performing aircraft for the presidential or even US military role? So long as the S-92 is ‘good enough’ that’s the one he’ll buy. Simple!

Good luck to Sikorsky. It looks to have an excellent craft in its catalogue and I’m sure it will do well. But guys, let’s not waste bandwidth wondering whether George W might buy 101 in numbers. He won’t. It’s just not an aircraft question; it’s a political one.
:{

[ShyTorque]

Mr. Sikorski defected to the States from a totalitarian regime. Now they buy his helicopters.

Mr. Blairski is welcome to do the same and do us all a favour. :E

[3top]

It is amazing that something as important as new helicopters are a political debate at all! Especially considering the (normally) importance of the Presidential Transport System, there should just be a competition over requirements and the best craft wins no matter what - if necessary make compensation deals for using a foreign product.

Second, I am not up to date on the performance figures, but the EH101 does seem quite a bit bigger then the S-92? Is this a fair comparisson from this point of view?

In a recent Rotor&Wing they mentioned a SAR operation from a Canadian Cormorant over a huge distance offshore. I guess the service record of the EH101 will count for something against no service record (yet) for the S-92.

I understand the competition for the Presidential Helicopter, but as a follow on the Armed Forces will most likely buy the same product (slimming down to fewer systems, etc.), I understand the Presidential fleet is actually part of the Marine Corps, does that mean they will get more Helicopters (despite their love for the V-22) or will it be only for the Presitential Taxi?

Last, no one mentioned economics:

Also R&W as a source, the S-92 was mentioned at around 18-20 million in VIP configuration, the EH (US?)-101 is a hefty 45+!!!

Never mind politics, I´d get me TWO S-92´s and some spare cash for operation!! Juggle the numbers with 24 aircraft - that´s some real cash, even for the Armed Forces!

3top


:cool: :cool: :cool:

[Love Monkey]

Don't the US use a VIP version of the UH60 (prince of helicopters)? I think several other nations have purchased this version also. Faster, lighter and cheaper than EHI-01 / NH90 variants. Why not?

[John Eacott]

LM,

HMX-1 already operate VH-60N's; the tender is primarily to replace the VH-3's which are getting somewhat long in the tooth ;)

Air portability is something of an issue, since the VH-60N's are able to be airfreighted to other countries to support Presidential visits, unlike the VH-3. We had VH-60 parked in our hangar (with 24 hour armed Marine guard :eek: ) when Bush Mk1 visited Melbourne, and it is not what could be called "Presidential" inside. No headroom (unless you're less than 4ft tall), limited seats, and no windows to speak of. Really just an emergency support aircraft.

http://www.rotorhead.org/military/images/vh60.jpg

[Love Monkey]

Cheers John, just stirring the northren hemisphere patriots. Excellent piccy. Undoubtably suffers from the shallow cabin like all blackhawks. Apparently the ride is far less noisy due to some whizz bang insulation. However, throw in some leather seats and a bar fridge and I could imagine worse chariots to be ferried around in, even in an emergency!;)

[John Eacott]

Try very average cloth covered seats, half the cabin taken up with comms gear and seats for the operator, and flash protected windows :ok:

[RDRickster]

I'm pretty sure that the Executive Blackhawk shown above is used for VIP transport other than the Executive Branch. Specifically, you will find General Officers and other military VIP's (i.e. the Under Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, etc, etc, etc).

[Flight Safety]

RDR, the VH-60 is periodically used to transport the president. A year or two ago, I saw George W on TV using a VH-60 to overfly an area damaged by a storm, that he later declared a disaster area to make FEMA funding available for rebuilding.

[3top]

Lucky George!

In case he would have to settle for the Blackhawk it would probably be the latest version - with all new electronics.

The Austrian Airforce had 3 coming down because of these electronics - heared through the vineyard, but down they came!

Nick, know something about?

3top
:D

[Avnx EO]

Gotta thow in my two bits here on a few items....

Big problem with the VH-60 still remains that the prez can't stand in the door and wave to the crowd. The PR guys don't want the prez to have to duck as he walks from the helicopter..... not good for his image. So it's gotta be a big bird.

For those who cry about unfair access to the US market - excuse me!!! But the US has opened its government procurement to foreign competition more than anywhere else. Yes US stuff is in all kinds of foreign countries, but not when the country has an equivalent, internally-grown capability. In contrast... the US coast guard has Dauphins. They beat out Bell and Sikorsky for that. The Marine Corps flies Harriers (I don't care if MD makes 'em - It's still a BAE design). The Canada / US defense sharing agreement put a lot of Canadian-built hardware in US inventory. There are Israeli-built displays and avionics on the V-22. There are lots of other examples.

Can you imagine the French government buying Bells, or Boeings for that matter. Can you imagine Collins or Honeywell on an Airbus flight deck (Rather than the government sponsored Thales ne Sextant ) Or how about the Brits buying S92s over 101s. Ever think that'll happen? The Sikorskys there now wouldn't be there without the relationship with Westland. The same can be said about Bells in Italy, if it weren't for the licensing.

As for the prez's aircraft. I'd say that's one place where it's O.K. - for once - to stop being so bent over trying to play fair to keep everyone happy.

Live with it.

As far as any part of the AB-139 every being built by Bell in the US (or Canada) (mentioned earlier in the thread) - I ain't hold'n my breath for that either. Other than having the original concept for the aircraft design (a.ka. the Bell 442 which fell off the drawing board) Bell will have as much manufacturing or design content in the AB-139 as Car Max has in the Toyota it sells.:{

Just goes to show.. ya can't believe everything ya read in the press.

[John Eacott]

Sikorsky S76 to transport HM the Queen?

;)

[Avnx EO]

An the home-grown U.K. alternative to an S-76 would be.......

What... A Lynx?

[Flying Lawyer]

"Sikorsky S76 to transport HM the Queen?
The Brits have already done it, John. The Queen has used a civvy S-76C since 1998.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/380000/images/_380492_heli300.jpg
S-76 in the Queen's back garden.

It replaced the two ageing RAF Wessex HCC4s of 32 (The Royal) Squadron which had been in continuous service since 1969.

The Royal Household awarded a ten year contract to Sikorsky and Air Hanson (as then was) to provide the Queen with an S-76 and crew. Buckingham Palace claimed at the time the privatisation would save the taxpayer at least £1.8m on the annual bill for the two Wessex - making the deal a snip at a mere £2.8 million per annum. :eek:
I think 32 Squadron possibly still operates a Twin Squirrel but I don't know for sure, or who flies in it if they do.

Although I'm a fan of the S-76 (total time logged 1 hour ;) ) I think taxpayers' money should be spent on a 'home' product whenever possible.
The 'Royal' helicopter should be British or European (we're in the EEC, for better or worse) and the Presidential helicopter(s) should be American.

[Bronx]

Yeah, it was way way back in the summer of 2003 it happened......
They were real good friends then one day Flying Lawyer wrote a post saying the Queen of England shouldn't be flying around in a Sikorsksky. :eek: Folks tried to explain London had a record heatwave that summer and the sun probly got to FL's head, but no good. Nick never spoke to him again. :sad:

[NickLappos]

Bronx,

I must say, FL and I are great friends, and he is entitled to his opinion, of course!

I helped develop the procedures that Queen's Flight uses, and got a chance to work with the fellows who fly the machine. They have a first class operation, in every way.

I toured Buckingham Palace during the initial operations, it is certainly the finest heliport I have ever seen!

Regarding the main subject of this thread, and relative performance of the EH-101 and the S-92, I have some data that I will post later on, comparing the payload, range and speed of the two aircraft. Makes for interesting reading!