EH101 Merlin
Merlin Back where it belongs
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: brighton
Age: 52
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
merlin
great heli i have worked with the raf on many occasions cant fualt it at the moment. the downwash is a bit of a trouble though, nearly took out 2 gazelles in germany whilst approaching the hls.....oooops
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bedfordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With ref to Thomas Coupling, Merlin Cost £30-£40 Million Two Thirds of the cost is for the Equipment inside the Airframe.
Cost for Civil EH101 Three Years Ago was in the region of £13 and half Million, very good price for what you get in fact its the best Helicopter/Aircraft I've ever worked on.
Cost for Civil EH101 Three Years Ago was in the region of £13 and half Million, very good price for what you get in fact its the best Helicopter/Aircraft I've ever worked on.
What is the cost of a civil EH-101 today?
Does anyone know?
£13.5 million (in 2001, £'s) is an awful lot in dollars, compared to the competition.
Other than the Tokyo police, have any other civil EH-101's been delivered?
Does anyone know?
£13.5 million (in 2001, £'s) is an awful lot in dollars, compared to the competition.
Other than the Tokyo police, have any other civil EH-101's been delivered?
So let me get this right - the manufacturer already had a modified TR hub which was supplied to the Canadians and the Japanese but they chose not to fit or retro-fit them to the RN or RAF Merlins.
If this is true then they are directly responsible for the Culdrose accident.
Something similar happened following a fatal Lynx crash several years ago, again a TR malfunction (this time the drive shaft). Only after the event did it transpire that a known weakness in the bonding between the aluminium tube and the titanium forging was being gradually eradicated by replacing the TR shafts with modified ones. Unfortunatley for the crew involved, theirs was not due for change and failed catastrophically.
Automotive manufacturers have to recall faulty products (a consequence of Ford trying to ignore splitting fuel tanks and being sued monstrously I believe), should aviation not play by the same rules?
If this is true then they are directly responsible for the Culdrose accident.
Something similar happened following a fatal Lynx crash several years ago, again a TR malfunction (this time the drive shaft). Only after the event did it transpire that a known weakness in the bonding between the aluminium tube and the titanium forging was being gradually eradicated by replacing the TR shafts with modified ones. Unfortunatley for the crew involved, theirs was not due for change and failed catastrophically.
Automotive manufacturers have to recall faulty products (a consequence of Ford trying to ignore splitting fuel tanks and being sued monstrously I believe), should aviation not play by the same rules?
Jungly - from what's been said, it seems like a good machine for the RN role it was procured for but it still doesn't have a proper role in the SH environment - sure it's a shiny new helicopter but is it any good for the troops; who needs a BFT when you can test the soldiers by getting them to climb the ramp from a wet and muddy field?
The latest rumour is to re-role them to bolster the ailing Sea King fleet in the SAR role - well nobody could see that coming a mile off! But our Merlins are not Cormorants and for the price of the re-role we could probably rent some S61s instead.
As for SABR - it will turn out to be a very expensive and long winded series of committees, sub-committes and steering groups to arrive at the conclusion that we will buy Merlin/Cormorant which everyone knows is the only politically acceptable choice.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that a mix of long-range and short-range SAR aircraft is the sensible way forward (strangely the same ORBAT as we had with Wessex and Sea King) but the waters get very muddied with the persistent desire to close miltary bases and blob up at unsuitable locations eg Valley.
SAR helicopters are a very long way down the priority list for their airships - if it ain't warfighting it ain't important!
Never mind, in the next round of manpower reductions the Royal Air Force will be turned into the Royal Admin Force with a couple of token aircraft to go to airshows with so the SAR issue will fall to the MCA and Mr Bristow (go on giss-a- job)
The latest rumour is to re-role them to bolster the ailing Sea King fleet in the SAR role - well nobody could see that coming a mile off! But our Merlins are not Cormorants and for the price of the re-role we could probably rent some S61s instead.
As for SABR - it will turn out to be a very expensive and long winded series of committees, sub-committes and steering groups to arrive at the conclusion that we will buy Merlin/Cormorant which everyone knows is the only politically acceptable choice.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that a mix of long-range and short-range SAR aircraft is the sensible way forward (strangely the same ORBAT as we had with Wessex and Sea King) but the waters get very muddied with the persistent desire to close miltary bases and blob up at unsuitable locations eg Valley.
SAR helicopters are a very long way down the priority list for their airships - if it ain't warfighting it ain't important!
Never mind, in the next round of manpower reductions the Royal Air Force will be turned into the Royal Admin Force with a couple of token aircraft to go to airshows with so the SAR issue will fall to the MCA and Mr Bristow (go on giss-a- job)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B******ks from crab again
The info I have is this
The Canadian/Jap/Italian/UK aircraft had effectively the same standards of T/R (any differences are insignificant in terms of strength etc) and all but the UK have decided that they are safe to fly with (ie keep on flying), which the airworthiness authorities have also decided, the civil aircraft never stopped and the Type Cert was not removed.
The UK MoD have single handedly taken a different tack and took the line that the all TRs in the UK must be to the latest standard to allow UK aircraft to return to flight, this is now being done.
This does not mean WHL or AG are culpable (as is always assumed) as ALL TR types are still airworthy.
Preaching from the same hymn sheet yet again, until the report is out what do we know.....
nothing firm
but a little bird says get ready to eat your words CRAB as the supposed cracks you were so keen about have nothing to do with the incident
PS anybody got news on the US pilot involved (ie his health now?)
The Canadian/Jap/Italian/UK aircraft had effectively the same standards of T/R (any differences are insignificant in terms of strength etc) and all but the UK have decided that they are safe to fly with (ie keep on flying), which the airworthiness authorities have also decided, the civil aircraft never stopped and the Type Cert was not removed.
The UK MoD have single handedly taken a different tack and took the line that the all TRs in the UK must be to the latest standard to allow UK aircraft to return to flight, this is now being done.
This does not mean WHL or AG are culpable (as is always assumed) as ALL TR types are still airworthy.
Preaching from the same hymn sheet yet again, until the report is out what do we know.....
nothing firm
but a little bird says get ready to eat your words CRAB as the supposed cracks you were so keen about have nothing to do with the incident
PS anybody got news on the US pilot involved (ie his health now?)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh101 maint hours
An article in todays Toronto Star says that IMP the civilian contractor who maintains the Canadian SAR fleet is using 22 hrs on maint time per flight hour . How does this compare to the UK experience ?.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154
Last edited by widgeon; 10th Oct 2004 at 18:02.
Widgeon, you should probably ask this question on the military aircrew forum but I won't be surprised if the answer is the same as the Canadians are finding. Would anyone have bought the aircraft if the real maintenance figures were available? I suspect not at the same price! The Danish have Cormorant, it would be interesting to find out how they are getting along with it.
All the corporate bluff about it being a complex aircraft is another excuse from Westlands for making cr*p helicopters.
At least the British Military should have saved some money this year since the Merlins were grounded for so long - no flying hours = no maintenance.
All the corporate bluff about it being a complex aircraft is another excuse from Westlands for making cr*p helicopters.
At least the British Military should have saved some money this year since the Merlins were grounded for so long - no flying hours = no maintenance.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is some interesting tripe. Remember, those guys are telling us that the awesome 55,000 hours of experience makes EH-101 a mature aircraft, a "combat proven" aircraft. Now they say that they need 22 maintenance hours per flight hour because:
"It was a new aircraft, and a new design, and there were several things that were not foreseen that happened early in service that gradually were corrected," Lt.-Col. Pierre Coulombe, project manager for the Cormorants, said in an interview.
Which way is it?
"It was a new aircraft, and a new design, and there were several things that were not foreseen that happened early in service that gradually were corrected," Lt.-Col. Pierre Coulombe, project manager for the Cormorants, said in an interview.
Which way is it?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you believe?
To: widgeon
This information was taken from a report prepared by The United States Congressional Accounting Office (GAO). The report was issued to point out the major problems on the Apache Helicopter. The report was issued in 1990 and reflected the MMH/FH expended on the following aircraft during that time frame.
AH-1W Sea Cobra 15.0 MMH/FH
UH-1H Huey 16.3 MMH/FH
SH-2F Sea Sprite 30.2 MMH/FH
SH-3H Sea King 37.2 MMH/FH
CH-46 Sea Knight 18.5 MMH/FH
CH-53 Sea Stallion 39.1 MMH/FH
SH-60B Sea Hawk 21.0 MMH/FH
I was responsible for monitoring the introduction of tha AH-1J and the Bell 214 in Iran. I spent a month at the opoerating base and determined that each type of helicopter was consuming over 70 MMH/FH.
What's in a number?
This information was taken from a report prepared by The United States Congressional Accounting Office (GAO). The report was issued to point out the major problems on the Apache Helicopter. The report was issued in 1990 and reflected the MMH/FH expended on the following aircraft during that time frame.
AH-1W Sea Cobra 15.0 MMH/FH
UH-1H Huey 16.3 MMH/FH
SH-2F Sea Sprite 30.2 MMH/FH
SH-3H Sea King 37.2 MMH/FH
CH-46 Sea Knight 18.5 MMH/FH
CH-53 Sea Stallion 39.1 MMH/FH
SH-60B Sea Hawk 21.0 MMH/FH
I was responsible for monitoring the introduction of tha AH-1J and the Bell 214 in Iran. I spent a month at the opoerating base and determined that each type of helicopter was consuming over 70 MMH/FH.
What's in a number?
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labour as part of total cost
To put things in perspective, what percentage would labor costs be of total maintenance in these cases ?
delta3
To put things in perspective, what percentage would labor costs be of total maintenance in these cases ?
delta3
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lu , so the canadian sea king figures were not that bad then .
Is this all levels of maintenance up to and including component overhaul or just base level maint ?.
Is this all levels of maintenance up to and including component overhaul or just base level maint ?.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Zuckerman,
I think the case here is that your figures include everything for the aircraft system, and are global numbers.
The EH-101 figures of 22 hours per flight hour given are against the contracted promise of 6.8 hours per flight hour (I remember that from an older press story).
Based on those phoney promises, the Canadian maintenance was set up with 69 people to handle the fleet. The service had to hire 70% more maintenance workers (original planning number 69, now they are at 117 people). These numbers tell of a disaster in the works, and comparisons to other services with different methods of calculation will blur the message: The EH-101 is a real problem aircraft, and it has a long way to go to make it right.
I think the case here is that your figures include everything for the aircraft system, and are global numbers.
The EH-101 figures of 22 hours per flight hour given are against the contracted promise of 6.8 hours per flight hour (I remember that from an older press story).
Based on those phoney promises, the Canadian maintenance was set up with 69 people to handle the fleet. The service had to hire 70% more maintenance workers (original planning number 69, now they are at 117 people). These numbers tell of a disaster in the works, and comparisons to other services with different methods of calculation will blur the message: The EH-101 is a real problem aircraft, and it has a long way to go to make it right.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't doubt that the paper only reported facts that it could substantiate, but we must put the statistics into context.
The last of the four squadrons went fully operational with the Cormorants just this summer. This means that there are still some fairly new to the machine techs.
There were some problems that resulted in out of sequence inspections and replacements. This increased maintenance hours and decreased flying hours.
There was a significant tail rotor incident in the UK that resulted in a fleet grounding for a period of time. The technicians all worked full days, but again the flying hours were kept down.
The numbers initially discussed were produced before any operational squadrons had stood up with Cormorants or EH101s. Doubting the numbers seems an obvious step.
It will be interesting to see how things progress. In a few more years, the MMH/FH should decrease, but to what extent? The only reason its an issue now is either because its a slow news day, or because someone sees an advantage in reporting apparently damaging news on this machine or company. No idea what that could be.
The last of the four squadrons went fully operational with the Cormorants just this summer. This means that there are still some fairly new to the machine techs.
There were some problems that resulted in out of sequence inspections and replacements. This increased maintenance hours and decreased flying hours.
There was a significant tail rotor incident in the UK that resulted in a fleet grounding for a period of time. The technicians all worked full days, but again the flying hours were kept down.
The numbers initially discussed were produced before any operational squadrons had stood up with Cormorants or EH101s. Doubting the numbers seems an obvious step.
It will be interesting to see how things progress. In a few more years, the MMH/FH should decrease, but to what extent? The only reason its an issue now is either because its a slow news day, or because someone sees an advantage in reporting apparently damaging news on this machine or company. No idea what that could be.
I am very interested in understanding the methodology of calculating the maintenance man-hours for these helicopters.
The hours I see quoted are so far removed from anything I have ever seen in commercial aviation, that they are beyond comprehension.
Does anyone have a definitive system that is being used? What is, and is not included in this count. How are man-hours attributed to a machine. What is included in the count? What level of management and indired labour is included in this total?
How can these hours be interpreted into a more realistic and comprehensible format. I think this would have to include the utilisation. Of course, there are always those who might consider that the numbers are skewed because the contractor has an interest in billing hours, as opposed to creating efficiencies. Likewise the level of crewing, may be more a function of the requirement to maintain high utilization capability, rather than the less demanding normal operational pace?
Anyone have any answers?
The hours I see quoted are so far removed from anything I have ever seen in commercial aviation, that they are beyond comprehension.
Does anyone have a definitive system that is being used? What is, and is not included in this count. How are man-hours attributed to a machine. What is included in the count? What level of management and indired labour is included in this total?
How can these hours be interpreted into a more realistic and comprehensible format. I think this would have to include the utilisation. Of course, there are always those who might consider that the numbers are skewed because the contractor has an interest in billing hours, as opposed to creating efficiencies. Likewise the level of crewing, may be more a function of the requirement to maintain high utilization capability, rather than the less demanding normal operational pace?
Anyone have any answers?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers? We don't need no stinking numbers.
I prepared the Maintainability criteria document for the Agusta 129 and I was responsible for the same material on the Agusta portion of the EH-101. In the case of the A-129 the helicopter was already designed so there was no input into design modification to maximize the design for maintainability. As such the numbers that we calculated for the A-129 were quite high due to the lack of design for maintainability. This document was specifically for the Italian Army to show the ease of maintenance and for provisioning of manpower and spares. The department manager decreased all of the numbers in order to make it look good. I can only assume that when the helicopter went into service they had to increase their manpower and spares provisioning.
When I prepared the document for the EH-101 the same thing happened regarding the decreasing of the numbers. The manager used numbers from the ASH-3D that were not fully recognized as being truly representative of the actual helicopter MMH/FH. Here again there was a significant effect on the maintenance structure of the operators.
The US Army approaches it backwards. They do a bit of war gaming to determine the battle group strength necessary to repel an enemy force. From that they determine the number of attack helicopter groups and from that they determine the number of helicopters in each battle group. They then determine the availability or the helicopters in each group. In other words if they determine that if there are ten helicopters in each group they must have eight available for mission dispatch. This means 80% availability.
This availability figure is written into the contract and the R&M group at the contractor must extrapolate what the reliability and maintainability must be for the helicopter at the top level. From this they apportion the R&M characteristics for each system and they then determine the R&M characteristics for major system components and this is written into the contracts for the vendors.
Starting at the bottom each part and each subsystem as well as the systems must show compliance with the contractual figures in order to meet the availability requirements set down by the Army. In other words the Army provides a meaningless figure to the contractor and also provides the procedures to determine the necessary R&M figures. The contractor then using these criteria will start the big lie and impose these lies on the subcontractors who in turn state that they will meet these requirements. In this way when all of the parts are added into the system the contractor is guaranteed to meet the Army’s requirements.
To make matters worse eighteen months later the contractor must show reliability growth. Since at that time the design is frozen there is no possibility to change the design to improve it. So, the contractor refers to official databases and extracts better numbers for the various items showing the Army that they have in fact improved the design.
When the helicopter is fielded it performs poorly consuming parts at an alarming rate and using more maintenance personnel than originally required. In some cases the helicopter is so complex that the Army technicians can’t maintain it and contractors are brought into the mix. The Army just waits until the next meeting of congress and asks for a higher appropriation in order to meet their operational commitment.
Does this sound familiar to those of you that were in the military?
To: Cyclic Hotline
The determination of MMH/FH on US Military contracts is stipulated to reflect only active tool time on the subject equipment. It does not include the time it takes to get the replacement part, the time it takes to get a special tool, the time it takes to get access equipment (check stands) or other items that do not directly relate to the repair procedure.
It does include the time to gain access, the time to locate the defect, the time it takes to isolate the defect, the time to remove the element, the time it takes to replace the element, the time it takes to determine the efficacy of the repair, the time to clean the area, the time it takes to secure the area (close the cowling or replace the access panel(s).
It is implied by the military organization that they will factor in all of the logistics elements related to the specific repair. However the calculations made by the contractor relative to MMH/FH are what the operator sees and it will appear that they can never meet these requirements. What the operator must look at are the availability figures specified by the contract as this figure more truly reflects what is happening. In most cases it take years to meet this figure if in fact it is ever met.
The UK uses these same procedures which were adapted in 1983. This document was extracted with minimal changes from the US standards and is reflected in Defense Standard 00-41 (PART 1) / Issue 1 MOD PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY.
I can’t say that the UK handles it any differently than they do in the US but it seems that the Merlin indicates that they do.
When I prepared the document for the EH-101 the same thing happened regarding the decreasing of the numbers. The manager used numbers from the ASH-3D that were not fully recognized as being truly representative of the actual helicopter MMH/FH. Here again there was a significant effect on the maintenance structure of the operators.
The US Army approaches it backwards. They do a bit of war gaming to determine the battle group strength necessary to repel an enemy force. From that they determine the number of attack helicopter groups and from that they determine the number of helicopters in each battle group. They then determine the availability or the helicopters in each group. In other words if they determine that if there are ten helicopters in each group they must have eight available for mission dispatch. This means 80% availability.
This availability figure is written into the contract and the R&M group at the contractor must extrapolate what the reliability and maintainability must be for the helicopter at the top level. From this they apportion the R&M characteristics for each system and they then determine the R&M characteristics for major system components and this is written into the contracts for the vendors.
Starting at the bottom each part and each subsystem as well as the systems must show compliance with the contractual figures in order to meet the availability requirements set down by the Army. In other words the Army provides a meaningless figure to the contractor and also provides the procedures to determine the necessary R&M figures. The contractor then using these criteria will start the big lie and impose these lies on the subcontractors who in turn state that they will meet these requirements. In this way when all of the parts are added into the system the contractor is guaranteed to meet the Army’s requirements.
To make matters worse eighteen months later the contractor must show reliability growth. Since at that time the design is frozen there is no possibility to change the design to improve it. So, the contractor refers to official databases and extracts better numbers for the various items showing the Army that they have in fact improved the design.
When the helicopter is fielded it performs poorly consuming parts at an alarming rate and using more maintenance personnel than originally required. In some cases the helicopter is so complex that the Army technicians can’t maintain it and contractors are brought into the mix. The Army just waits until the next meeting of congress and asks for a higher appropriation in order to meet their operational commitment.
Does this sound familiar to those of you that were in the military?
To: Cyclic Hotline
The determination of MMH/FH on US Military contracts is stipulated to reflect only active tool time on the subject equipment. It does not include the time it takes to get the replacement part, the time it takes to get a special tool, the time it takes to get access equipment (check stands) or other items that do not directly relate to the repair procedure.
It does include the time to gain access, the time to locate the defect, the time it takes to isolate the defect, the time to remove the element, the time it takes to replace the element, the time it takes to determine the efficacy of the repair, the time to clean the area, the time it takes to secure the area (close the cowling or replace the access panel(s).
It is implied by the military organization that they will factor in all of the logistics elements related to the specific repair. However the calculations made by the contractor relative to MMH/FH are what the operator sees and it will appear that they can never meet these requirements. What the operator must look at are the availability figures specified by the contract as this figure more truly reflects what is happening. In most cases it take years to meet this figure if in fact it is ever met.
The UK uses these same procedures which were adapted in 1983. This document was extracted with minimal changes from the US standards and is reflected in Defense Standard 00-41 (PART 1) / Issue 1 MOD PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY.
I can’t say that the UK handles it any differently than they do in the US but it seems that the Merlin indicates that they do.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bedford, TX
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Military DOC
A summary of estimated 2003 US Military Helicopters and Aircraft Operating Cost can be found on the DOD Comptroller web site.
It is VERY interesting that there has been no publication of 2004 or 2005 cost numbers.
You can draw your own conclusions on why they are keeping quiet about current cost numbers.
http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/rates/fy2003.html
It is VERY interesting that there has been no publication of 2004 or 2005 cost numbers.
You can draw your own conclusions on why they are keeping quiet about current cost numbers.
http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/rates/fy2003.html