RAF Merlins
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A buddy of mine, flying around in them rotary things (no, not a Merlin, we don't have them 
) once said that; "If they get new helicopters from We***and I'm gonna quit" (refferig to the maintenance intensive heaps in the hangar of another Sqn)
Same person is greatful to be flying a US model at present, anticipating the arrival of the NH90 (likely) in 2012
) once said that; "If they get new helicopters from We***and I'm gonna quit" (refferig to the maintenance intensive heaps in the hangar of another Sqn) Same person is greatful to be flying a US model at present, anticipating the arrival of the NH90 (likely) in 2012
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The view from here
First without getting on a soapbox....
The mirrors are not fitted to the Mk3 because the rear crew can use the bubble windows in the rear to check around the aircraft (intrestingly how do you check if the top of a Chinook is on fire?)
The twin wheels are fitted because of the soft ground operations requirement for a SH aircraft, the (as normal when it comes to rumours) exaggerated comments from other posters about 'bellying in' the aircraft are not true. Actually we are pretty good at maths and things as we do build aircraft after all and we kind of knew that soft grass ops with one wheel is a nogo and that's why we fitted two.
Spares are always a problem for a new aircraft, as correctly pointed out by others, but at least that is something that can be solved. I recognise that in some cases there are insufficient to maintain the fleet but we are aware of it.
A rhetorical question to the board....
What is in the Britsih psyche to always slag off UK products but think everybody elses is great? Why not ask all the vast number of NH90 users what they think and how servicable their aircraft are, oh sorry there aren't any in service yet are there? Well approach Sikorsky about the S92, oops there we go again.
I am sure the comments by the CO of the Bosnia detachment are heartfelt, after all he has no reason to be nice to us. The aircraft is a great product (as the US president will no doubt find out in due course)but has yet to find its true voctaion in the RAF. I agree that CSAR and SF roles are tailor made for it but we shall have to wait and see what the MoD say.
As an employee of Westlands (you might have guessed) I can only add a line from Forrest Gump: 'if youv'e got nothing good to say, say nothing'
The mirrors are not fitted to the Mk3 because the rear crew can use the bubble windows in the rear to check around the aircraft (intrestingly how do you check if the top of a Chinook is on fire?)
The twin wheels are fitted because of the soft ground operations requirement for a SH aircraft, the (as normal when it comes to rumours) exaggerated comments from other posters about 'bellying in' the aircraft are not true. Actually we are pretty good at maths and things as we do build aircraft after all and we kind of knew that soft grass ops with one wheel is a nogo and that's why we fitted two.
Spares are always a problem for a new aircraft, as correctly pointed out by others, but at least that is something that can be solved. I recognise that in some cases there are insufficient to maintain the fleet but we are aware of it.
A rhetorical question to the board....
What is in the Britsih psyche to always slag off UK products but think everybody elses is great? Why not ask all the vast number of NH90 users what they think and how servicable their aircraft are, oh sorry there aren't any in service yet are there? Well approach Sikorsky about the S92, oops there we go again.
I am sure the comments by the CO of the Bosnia detachment are heartfelt, after all he has no reason to be nice to us. The aircraft is a great product (as the US president will no doubt find out in due course)but has yet to find its true voctaion in the RAF. I agree that CSAR and SF roles are tailor made for it but we shall have to wait and see what the MoD say.
As an employee of Westlands (you might have guessed) I can only add a line from Forrest Gump: 'if youv'e got nothing good to say, say nothing'
Guest
Posts: n/a
merlins
Just to jump off thread completely. But. is that the TURNBULL who spent a few months out in a very ****ty place being guarded by locals with AKs and partaking of the odd G&T at the Rose and Crown. If it is then hello and all the best. If not, then I shall just run away from all the banter that will, I am sure, be heading my way.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Oxon
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangermouse - how many versions of the Merlin are there now, apart from the RAF / Naval versions???
The Comorant is the Canadian version isn't it - is that based on the HC3 RAF version?
I did not realise how many interesting comments from people have been "aired" on this thread - interesting reading tho!!
The Comorant is the Canadian version isn't it - is that based on the HC3 RAF version?
I did not realise how many interesting comments from people have been "aired" on this thread - interesting reading tho!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangermouse,
Quote: 'from Forrest Gump: 'if youv'e got nothing good to say, say nothing'
I too have a Westland garage door which works fine, so that's something good to say!
But you're wrong, the Merlin doesn't get slagged off because the product is British, its because its not up to the role it was procured for.
Our troops rely on us, the SH Force, to provide them with the best lift capability available within our limited defence budget - and we didn't do it! Sure George Bush will find it a nice smooth ride, the Canadians will find it great over long distances doing SAR and the boys in Bosnia got their bus runs to R&R on time, but we bought an SH variant which needs lift, flexibilty and capablility. We elected to purchase a system with a fraction of the capability of other, cheaper, alternatives, and here we are trying to find a role for it to do.
I know as a Westland employee you will say it fitted the requirement and you are compliant with the spec, but back in the real world we have a job to do!
Quote: 'from Forrest Gump: 'if youv'e got nothing good to say, say nothing'
I too have a Westland garage door which works fine, so that's something good to say!
But you're wrong, the Merlin doesn't get slagged off because the product is British, its because its not up to the role it was procured for.
Our troops rely on us, the SH Force, to provide them with the best lift capability available within our limited defence budget - and we didn't do it! Sure George Bush will find it a nice smooth ride, the Canadians will find it great over long distances doing SAR and the boys in Bosnia got their bus runs to R&R on time, but we bought an SH variant which needs lift, flexibilty and capablility. We elected to purchase a system with a fraction of the capability of other, cheaper, alternatives, and here we are trying to find a role for it to do.
I know as a Westland employee you will say it fitted the requirement and you are compliant with the spec, but back in the real world we have a job to do!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with most comments here, as an ex-Wastelander, who worked on EH 101's of all variants, both in avionics and flight test, I think it is a very good aircraft. It has some problems (which aircraft doesn't?) and some design "features" that could be improved.
I also think that it may be very capable in some roles, but these are not the ones the RAF required. It is another example of "must buy British", which is great for the economy, but at the expense of our forces ability to do their jobs.
Even within the aircraft its self the "buy British" has compromised some systems. If I recall correctly (all corrections welcomed) the Electronic Instrument System (EIS) was from Smiths, which has 6 bulky CRTs and 3 Symbol Generators. There were better systems available (Canadian Marconi had 6 Sunlight Readable LCDs that could just hook straight up to the 1553 I believe), but we have to keep the money in the country. Politicians have to try to please everyone all the time. I would never make a good politician (probably too honest and not slimy enough).
Neil Porter - You left out the Civil variant, 1 of which was sold to the Tokyo Metropolitan Police. Its amazing what fun you can have with a nightsun, an external PA (with siren) and an area frequented by 'ladies of the night'.
I believe the Portuguese variant is in production at the moment, but that order was placed just after I left, though I was on the long range demo workup (they wanted a long range SAR capability, 400 Nm out, 0.5 hour hover and 400 Nm back. 120 Kts 2 eng cruise. 8.25 airborne bladder bursting hours).
The Cormorant is based on a mixture of HC3 and Civil (if memory is still good). There is no port side airstair/sliding door, both sides have bubble windows and SAR Tech seats at front of the cabin. Avionics is basically based on the Civil variant, but with 1553 stuff added.
I know the HC3 is regarded by many as unsuitable for the role, but what about it's performance and handling compared to other aircraft (yes I know all this stuff should be related to the mission, but I was after a general comment, maybe versus Puma, Sea King etc).
I haven't seen too many comments on what the Navy think of their version. Any seafaring chaps care to comment?
I also think that it may be very capable in some roles, but these are not the ones the RAF required. It is another example of "must buy British", which is great for the economy, but at the expense of our forces ability to do their jobs.
Even within the aircraft its self the "buy British" has compromised some systems. If I recall correctly (all corrections welcomed) the Electronic Instrument System (EIS) was from Smiths, which has 6 bulky CRTs and 3 Symbol Generators. There were better systems available (Canadian Marconi had 6 Sunlight Readable LCDs that could just hook straight up to the 1553 I believe), but we have to keep the money in the country. Politicians have to try to please everyone all the time. I would never make a good politician (probably too honest and not slimy enough).
Neil Porter - You left out the Civil variant, 1 of which was sold to the Tokyo Metropolitan Police. Its amazing what fun you can have with a nightsun, an external PA (with siren) and an area frequented by 'ladies of the night'.
I believe the Portuguese variant is in production at the moment, but that order was placed just after I left, though I was on the long range demo workup (they wanted a long range SAR capability, 400 Nm out, 0.5 hour hover and 400 Nm back. 120 Kts 2 eng cruise. 8.25 airborne bladder bursting hours).
The Cormorant is based on a mixture of HC3 and Civil (if memory is still good). There is no port side airstair/sliding door, both sides have bubble windows and SAR Tech seats at front of the cabin. Avionics is basically based on the Civil variant, but with 1553 stuff added.
I know the HC3 is regarded by many as unsuitable for the role, but what about it's performance and handling compared to other aircraft (yes I know all this stuff should be related to the mission, but I was after a general comment, maybe versus Puma, Sea King etc).
I haven't seen too many comments on what the Navy think of their version. Any seafaring chaps care to comment?
The history of the rear vision mirrors: early Sea King days, we were required to visually check the gear down & locked, which was not too easy when it involved getting a Mk2 or Mk3 helmet out through the pilot's sliding window
In fact, near impossible with the Mk2 
After a few years, miraculously the system responded, and the mirrors were fitted, along with lots of smart comments about rear view requirements. We never got the interface box for the heated gloves/socks kit, though
Next salty story, the introduction of wooly pullies after 846NAS dyed a job lot of bootneck green issue ones on Bulwark
In fact, near impossible with the Mk2 After a few years, miraculously the system responded, and the mirrors were fitted, along with lots of smart comments about rear view requirements. We never got the interface box for the heated gloves/socks kit, though
Next salty story, the introduction of wooly pullies after 846NAS dyed a job lot of bootneck green issue ones on Bulwark
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it would be improper to comment of the wonders of the SH Force (Chinook). As a Lynx driver who has worked alongside the RAF Merlins, my experience of the freaky squadron at Benson is that they all appear to be a professional bunch of guys flying what appears to be a great aircraft, ideally suited to those more specialist roles required on the battlefield that doesn't revolve around pure trash hauling.
I understand from a mate in Bosnia that the aircraft is doing great things and that during a recent ex the US troops asked for nothing else. Allegedly it was also underslinging humvees, so it can't be that cr@p given the temps and DAs in that part of the world.
I understand from a mate in Bosnia that the aircraft is doing great things and that during a recent ex the US troops asked for nothing else. Allegedly it was also underslinging humvees, so it can't be that cr@p given the temps and DAs in that part of the world.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: South of England
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few points to throw into the fray on this one:
The winner of the "competition" for the supposed Wessex/Puma (Air Staff Target 403 or something like that) was finally decided in 1995, having run for well over 15 years. Like all MoD procurement programmes it was subject to a lot of political influence and although the MoD had fully expected the Chinook to win the competition, the political lobby resulted in the contract (about £1.1 Bn, including support) being awarded to WHL.
This wouldn't have been so bad if those involved in the programme up to that point had done a decent job of keeping the basic specification of the "SH Air Vehicle" up-to-date with the developments in SH in general during the 1980s and especially the 1990s (NVG, DAS, role eqpt, crew operating philosophies etc). However, the lead staff officer at the time of contract award had last served on an operational unit at least 10 years out of date. Those in the post before him were even less experienced indeed his predecessor was ex-SAR.
WHL inevitably did try to get as much help as possible to develop the product to make it well-suited for both the RAF and more importantly for follow-on sales around the world. UK military service has always been the best advertisement for their products. Despite their best attempts and the well-meaning of some individuals in the MoD, there were inevitably some rather odd interpretations of the specification.
Of course Boeing would have had less difficulty in interpreting the specification of the "SH Air Vehicle", they would have just wheeled out the CH47D in RAF HC 2 guise. That said, technically speaking, they would also have failed miserably to meet the spec.
It could also be argued that because Boeing had been so closely involved in sorting out the Chinook (HC 1 to HC 2, and HC 2a, and then the HC 3 farce) since it's introduction to service, that they had far better lines of communication with more "operationally-minded" individuals.
Fortunately, after contract award in 1995, sense prevailed and input from operators was made freely available in developing the aircraft as much as was possible, within the constraints of the specification and timescales. The Navy OEU/IFTU was very envious of this, having suffered so much themselves with a simlar sorry background to their version.
Regarding lift capability, the biggest influence on the Merlin's relatively poor disposable payload was that of having to comply with different standards of "Health and Safety at War", eg, crashworthiness, HUMs etc. Because Merlin was a new design it had to comply with new DefStans (Airworthiness-speak) to get through Military Airworthiness Release. Because the Chinook was deemed an "existing design" it didn't have to comply with these standards, indeed, HC 3 didn't have to, and if the MoD goes with the ICH that won't either.
You might not think that this had much influence, but by the time you've found enough nooks and crannies to store role equipment, crew kit, tool kits, EHUMs laptops that you can no longer store under the (heavier) crashworthy troop seats, and then beef them up to restrain it all to so many 'g' in different directions, this does add rather a lot of weight. As I recall, an equivalent version, not subject to the absurd MoD DefStans would have been about 800 Kg lighter!
In lift capability Kgs-per-£ terms, clearly Merlin was not good value for UK plc, but there's more to life than that. Would the UK military really want Chinooks only, with Lynx (or LBH/LUH or whatever) as the next biggest type (after the Puma eventually goes)?
One of the many lessons "identified" should be the importance of ongoing liaison between the UK military and potential suppliers to help them develop technologies and products both for MoD or export sales. In relation to formal procurement programmes, suppliers and the MoD must both have the right people in place from the earliest days of a programme. Can that be said today regarding SABR, LBH etc.
Sadly I expect not.
P.S. Dangermouse, give me a call! (I'm not looking for remuneration!)
The winner of the "competition" for the supposed Wessex/Puma (Air Staff Target 403 or something like that) was finally decided in 1995, having run for well over 15 years. Like all MoD procurement programmes it was subject to a lot of political influence and although the MoD had fully expected the Chinook to win the competition, the political lobby resulted in the contract (about £1.1 Bn, including support) being awarded to WHL.
This wouldn't have been so bad if those involved in the programme up to that point had done a decent job of keeping the basic specification of the "SH Air Vehicle" up-to-date with the developments in SH in general during the 1980s and especially the 1990s (NVG, DAS, role eqpt, crew operating philosophies etc). However, the lead staff officer at the time of contract award had last served on an operational unit at least 10 years out of date. Those in the post before him were even less experienced indeed his predecessor was ex-SAR.
WHL inevitably did try to get as much help as possible to develop the product to make it well-suited for both the RAF and more importantly for follow-on sales around the world. UK military service has always been the best advertisement for their products. Despite their best attempts and the well-meaning of some individuals in the MoD, there were inevitably some rather odd interpretations of the specification.
Of course Boeing would have had less difficulty in interpreting the specification of the "SH Air Vehicle", they would have just wheeled out the CH47D in RAF HC 2 guise. That said, technically speaking, they would also have failed miserably to meet the spec.
It could also be argued that because Boeing had been so closely involved in sorting out the Chinook (HC 1 to HC 2, and HC 2a, and then the HC 3 farce) since it's introduction to service, that they had far better lines of communication with more "operationally-minded" individuals.
Fortunately, after contract award in 1995, sense prevailed and input from operators was made freely available in developing the aircraft as much as was possible, within the constraints of the specification and timescales. The Navy OEU/IFTU was very envious of this, having suffered so much themselves with a simlar sorry background to their version.
Regarding lift capability, the biggest influence on the Merlin's relatively poor disposable payload was that of having to comply with different standards of "Health and Safety at War", eg, crashworthiness, HUMs etc. Because Merlin was a new design it had to comply with new DefStans (Airworthiness-speak) to get through Military Airworthiness Release. Because the Chinook was deemed an "existing design" it didn't have to comply with these standards, indeed, HC 3 didn't have to, and if the MoD goes with the ICH that won't either.
You might not think that this had much influence, but by the time you've found enough nooks and crannies to store role equipment, crew kit, tool kits, EHUMs laptops that you can no longer store under the (heavier) crashworthy troop seats, and then beef them up to restrain it all to so many 'g' in different directions, this does add rather a lot of weight. As I recall, an equivalent version, not subject to the absurd MoD DefStans would have been about 800 Kg lighter!
In lift capability Kgs-per-£ terms, clearly Merlin was not good value for UK plc, but there's more to life than that. Would the UK military really want Chinooks only, with Lynx (or LBH/LUH or whatever) as the next biggest type (after the Puma eventually goes)?
One of the many lessons "identified" should be the importance of ongoing liaison between the UK military and potential suppliers to help them develop technologies and products both for MoD or export sales. In relation to formal procurement programmes, suppliers and the MoD must both have the right people in place from the earliest days of a programme. Can that be said today regarding SABR, LBH etc.
Sadly I expect not.
P.S. Dangermouse, give me a call! (I'm not looking for remuneration!)
Condolences to No.28 on the loss of one of their groundcrew on Monday in the tragic accident on the A423 as was. Prayers go out to his daughter, who survived the accident, and for his wife who died on the scene and for his young son who passed away in hospital yesterday.
Take care out there - even this bucolic idyll can be bloody dangerous.
Take care out there - even this bucolic idyll can be bloody dangerous.
Is it true that the EH 101 designation was as a result of a typo in that someone read EHI 01 (European Helicopter Industries 01) incorrectly. I think we should be told!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tahnx to Jacko for mentioning that, our thoughts are with the family
Many thanx to PUP for his well written and structured comments. As always we are between a rock and a hard place. The EH101 was never meant to be a heavy lifter (it's pretty obvious really, but in terms of volume moved it must be pretty good, Mass out rather than bulk out would seem a good compromise. There are things yet to go on the EH101 that the service was offered but turned the option down, it is a work in progress after all.
It's also nice to hear from an operator in theatre in defence of the aircraft, thanks.
As a final comment, reagrdless of what people wish they had, get a life and live with what you got (after all it wasnt OUR decision)
DM
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: somewhere, under the rainbow
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EH101 or EHI 01
-----------
Is it true that the EH 101 designation was as a result of a typo in that someone read EHI 01 (European Helicopter Industries 01) incorrectly. I think we should be told!
------------
Nope, it is an urban myth. It was always the EH 101 for the, rather shaky IMHO, reason that it sounded good. A bit like Boeing 707. An earlier "attempt" at a civil aircraft, based on a Lynx, was called the Westland 606 for similar reasons. (actually it was never built, but there was a mock up based on a put back together crashed airframe, in a rather dodgy brown-ish paint scheme)
Is it true that the EH 101 designation was as a result of a typo in that someone read EHI 01 (European Helicopter Industries 01) incorrectly. I think we should be told!
------------
Nope, it is an urban myth. It was always the EH 101 for the, rather shaky IMHO, reason that it sounded good. A bit like Boeing 707. An earlier "attempt" at a civil aircraft, based on a Lynx, was called the Westland 606 for similar reasons. (actually it was never built, but there was a mock up based on a put back together crashed airframe, in a rather dodgy brown-ish paint scheme)
So no truth in the less well known 'urban legend' that a senior chap at Agusta took one look at the drawings and said:
"What the **** have you lot done to my lovely Agusta 101?"
The Agusta A101 was, of course, a 1964 triple-engined assault helicopter design......
"What the **** have you lot done to my lovely Agusta 101?"
The Agusta A101 was, of course, a 1964 triple-engined assault helicopter design......
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South Oxon
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare my recent photo of a 28 Sqn Merlin at Abingdon on a training sortie - to Jackonicko's photo of the Agusta 101 & guess for yourselves - any similarities?
I have attached a link to the photo (off my Abingdon Fayre web / RAF Abingdon page!!)..
http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/abingdo...f/SAVE0047.JPG
Does Benson now have the full compliment of 22 (?) Merlins in situ as i know space was abit of an issue there ie: hangar space??
i thought the last one had been accepted before the last Stn Cmdr at Benson was posted on (Dec 02) - i think he oversaw the Merlins into RAF Service.
I read somewhere the RAF may get some more in the near future to bolster the SH force?? Is that just a rumour??
I have attached a link to the photo (off my Abingdon Fayre web / RAF Abingdon page!!)..
http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/abingdo...f/SAVE0047.JPG
Does Benson now have the full compliment of 22 (?) Merlins in situ as i know space was abit of an issue there ie: hangar space??
i thought the last one had been accepted before the last Stn Cmdr at Benson was posted on (Dec 02) - i think he oversaw the Merlins into RAF Service.
I read somewhere the RAF may get some more in the near future to bolster the SH force?? Is that just a rumour??
Another urban legand?
I've heard the one about the EHI 01 typo... I also heard another one that said it was supposed to be called the MARLIN, after a great sea-bird (to reflect its Royal Navy connections perhaps?)
Another typo maybe?
Another typo maybe?
