Future UK helicopter fleet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that this is really relevant to the thread title, but the Carson bladed SeaKing Mk4 does have a composite tail rotor, HUMS, fixed undercarriage, up rated engines (of a sort) and if trials are successful, will have BIFILAR. Steel lift frames would be great but then it’s likely to crack somewhere else!
Footnote,
Which is why I wrote:
The HUMS for the 61T is a different system from the UK SK GenHums, though same aims (obviously). I seem to remember Sikorsky quoting a "zero lifed airframe" as part of the conversion, though what this meant in practice I'm not quite sure given that aircraft doesn't have a structural fatigue life per se.
Seeing as the vast majority of the UK SK fleet have relatively few hours on them, then I would have thought they would make ideal candidates for this conversion. Interesting that the US wants c. 110, I wonder how many they can stir up from the boneyard?
Nick
composite tail rotor, HUMS, fixed undercarriage, up rated engines (of a sort) and if trials are successful, will have BIFILAR
- New Engine(s)
- Non-folding MRH, including BIFILAR MRH damper (not new to S-61)
- Non-folding tail
- Steel Main Lifting Frames
- New composite TRBs
- Fixed, lightweight undercarriage
- Crash worthy fuel tanks
- HUMS
Seeing as the vast majority of the UK SK fleet have relatively few hours on them, then I would have thought they would make ideal candidates for this conversion. Interesting that the US wants c. 110, I wonder how many they can stir up from the boneyard?
Nick
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect that Sikorsky are following the Carson rebuild model which replaces the main frames to achieve zero life.
Of course the Carson rebuilds invovled entirely civ registered S61s, both long and short fuselage variants.
His plans for a re-engining with different engines were thought provoking and along with the new aerodynamic mods would have achieved performance broadly better than the S92 at a much lower price of course - or so it was claimed - so I would be suprised if they see the light of day in the new Sikorsky contract - anyone know?
Cheers
Of course the Carson rebuilds invovled entirely civ registered S61s, both long and short fuselage variants.
His plans for a re-engining with different engines were thought provoking and along with the new aerodynamic mods would have achieved performance broadly better than the S92 at a much lower price of course - or so it was claimed - so I would be suprised if they see the light of day in the new Sikorsky contract - anyone know?
Cheers
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how different would a 'Triton' be from a Mk4 with Carson blades?
Well, the Triton would be able to embark and operate from a ship for a start.
Well, the Triton would be able to embark and operate from a ship for a start.
New engine
His plans for a re-engining with different engines were thought provoking and along with the new aerodynamic mods would have achieved performance broadly better than the S92 at a much lower price of course - or so it was claimed - so I would be suprised if they see the light of day in the new Sikorsky contract - anyone know
The performance figures that I saw suggested a performance similar to a 92, excpet for the ultimate MAUM was unchanged. The engine didn't directly give you any extra payload at SL (Tx limited), but hot and high it was impressive. It was also more fuel efficient than the Gnome, which (with the extra speed from his MRBs) meant you had an effective payload increase that was useful.
Nick
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Nick - I had heard similar from other sources - much food for thought in the UK MoD in these hard pressed times I would hope...now that the US has committed to such a large number - its no longer toy town stuff anymore.
Cheers
Cheers
