EH101 Merlin
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can any one refresh my memory , did the original WG34 concept have 3 engines ?. I recall seeing a fuselage mock up some time in the late 70's but don't remember the number of engines .
Tynecastle: You forgot the S-76's which burned to the ground due to rotor brake problems. Since two 101's were lost due to rotor brakes, Nick really should take these off the list of rants against the 101 as the Sikorsky's design team's record appears to be comparable.
Nick and your echo's: You all missed some of the reports from the tour where the RAF crew simuilated the loss of an engine during climb out, continued the climb, completed the pattern and landed with no one noticing. With Nick's recent blowing smoke that "CAT A don't matter", I assume that with those tightly wound rubber bands on the 92 if one breaks down you go --rapidly. Three engines are nice do have their benefits.
The Sultan
Nick and your echo's: You all missed some of the reports from the tour where the RAF crew simuilated the loss of an engine during climb out, continued the climb, completed the pattern and landed with no one noticing. With Nick's recent blowing smoke that "CAT A don't matter", I assume that with those tightly wound rubber bands on the 92 if one breaks down you go --rapidly. Three engines are nice do have their benefits.
The Sultan
Sultan - you seem easily impressed - a circuit with one engine out of 2 pulled back in the climb is normal practice and people only notice if you tell them - a circuit with one engine out of 3 pulled back is hardly headline news.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOO bad Sultan uses helicopters with 2 million flight hours from which to draw his illogical conclusions! How many Bells crashed in the last 20 years, Sultan? They are still safe, because the number of flight hours it takes to make those crashes is very very high, showing that the aircraft are basically safe (otherwise you wouldn't sell them, would you?) Demonstrated accident rate that is the concern, not warstories you can remember. Wanna talk about main rotor separation, or VRS?
The EH-101's safety record to date is 5 Class A accidents in 55,000 hours
EH-101 has an accident rate of 11 per 100,000 hours, which makes it the WORST helicopter in operation on the planet, and about 11 times worse than the Bell helicopters Sultan builds, and about 15 times worse than the typical US Military multi-engined helicopter. The only worse rotorcraft is the V-22!
FYI, Sultan, I heard from a Marine that a high ranking Marine flew the 92 demonstrator at MGW, pulled back an engine on takeoff, flew around for a while, then landed without any ground roll, and said to the plot, "What the hell do I need 3 engines for?"
The EH-101's safety record to date is 5 Class A accidents in 55,000 hours
EH-101 has an accident rate of 11 per 100,000 hours, which makes it the WORST helicopter in operation on the planet, and about 11 times worse than the Bell helicopters Sultan builds, and about 15 times worse than the typical US Military multi-engined helicopter. The only worse rotorcraft is the V-22!
FYI, Sultan, I heard from a Marine that a high ranking Marine flew the 92 demonstrator at MGW, pulled back an engine on takeoff, flew around for a while, then landed without any ground roll, and said to the plot, "What the hell do I need 3 engines for?"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjsquirrel, 5 in 55,000 equals 9 in 100,000. Don't bother insulting others unless you keep yourself perfect.
Three engines versus two engines is an old silly argument. Meeting performance requirements is what matters, whether OEI or not. If both helicopters are still in the competition then both helicopters should meet the required performance.
As far as safety record goes there is hardly enough data to establish any trends. Unfortunate as it can become, I'd anticipate problems early on, what matters most to me is how the problems are dealt with.
Matthew.
Three engines versus two engines is an old silly argument. Meeting performance requirements is what matters, whether OEI or not. If both helicopters are still in the competition then both helicopters should meet the required performance.
As far as safety record goes there is hardly enough data to establish any trends. Unfortunate as it can become, I'd anticipate problems early on, what matters most to me is how the problems are dealt with.
Matthew.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heedm,
You are right, I should have figured it at 9.09/100,000 hours.
A big point - All 5 EH-101 accidents are related to failure of some part of the aircraft, not pilot or engineer error. Since three quarters of the typical military accidents are human error, we could guess that the rate where the typical helicopter breaks for a typical military helicopter is probably less than .25 per 100,000 hours.
This makes the aircraft-caused rate of the EH-101 about 36 times worse than the typical fleet helicopter. 9.09 EH-101 accidents /.25 typical = 36 times worse.
For the record, most heli programs might lose one or two aircraft due to aircraft causes during the first 150,000 hours of use (at least the several I have looked at). The loss of 5 EH-101's is eye-watering.
You can slice it anyway you'd like, no helicopter in recent memory has the awful record of the EH-101.
You are right, I should have figured it at 9.09/100,000 hours.
A big point - All 5 EH-101 accidents are related to failure of some part of the aircraft, not pilot or engineer error. Since three quarters of the typical military accidents are human error, we could guess that the rate where the typical helicopter breaks for a typical military helicopter is probably less than .25 per 100,000 hours.
This makes the aircraft-caused rate of the EH-101 about 36 times worse than the typical fleet helicopter. 9.09 EH-101 accidents /.25 typical = 36 times worse.
For the record, most heli programs might lose one or two aircraft due to aircraft causes during the first 150,000 hours of use (at least the several I have looked at). The loss of 5 EH-101's is eye-watering.
You can slice it anyway you'd like, no helicopter in recent memory has the awful record of the EH-101.
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, I don't need no stinking numbers.
To: heedm
Actually it is 9 in 99,000 hours if you want to be correct in the use of numbers.
The point is that the EH-101 has suffered one catastrophic failure in 11,000 hours of operation.
When I worked on the program we accounted for every catastrophic failure point and tried to design them out. However the catastrophic failures were removed from the FMECA so that the official word was that the helicopter would never suffer a single point catastrophic failure. The rotor brake problems and the tail rotor problems were accounted for in the initial analyses but were later removed from the analyses.
The sad point is that the helicopter received a civil airworthiness ticket and the airworthiness authorities never even checked the FMECA and the subsequent safety hazards analyses.
The EH-101 transmission as originally designed had a shear point that would fracture if the transmission ever locked up in flight.
The necessary force to effect the fracture is the kinetic energy in the blades. When the transmission locked up the blades would sweep forward compressing the dampers and when the dampers locked up there was a solid mechanical linkage which would effect the fracture. The dampers had a normal operating load of 1,800 pounds of linear force with a safety factor of 1.5 to limit load. When the blades sweep forward the dampers would fracture resulting in damage to the elastomeric feathering bearings.
To my knowledge the EH-101 transmission and rotorhead were never tested to demonstrate the fracture capability.
On the Apache it was written into the design spec that the US Army would accept one catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the airframe and crew every 34,000 hours of operation. The Apache is a combat helicopter the EH-101 is not. If the EH-101 continues at the present rate for catastrophic failures it is totally unacceptable not only for military applications but especially for the Presidential flight.
rjsquirrel, 5 in 55,000 equals 9 in 100,000. Don't bother insulting others unless you keep yourself perfect.
The point is that the EH-101 has suffered one catastrophic failure in 11,000 hours of operation.
When I worked on the program we accounted for every catastrophic failure point and tried to design them out. However the catastrophic failures were removed from the FMECA so that the official word was that the helicopter would never suffer a single point catastrophic failure. The rotor brake problems and the tail rotor problems were accounted for in the initial analyses but were later removed from the analyses.
The sad point is that the helicopter received a civil airworthiness ticket and the airworthiness authorities never even checked the FMECA and the subsequent safety hazards analyses.
The EH-101 transmission as originally designed had a shear point that would fracture if the transmission ever locked up in flight.
The necessary force to effect the fracture is the kinetic energy in the blades. When the transmission locked up the blades would sweep forward compressing the dampers and when the dampers locked up there was a solid mechanical linkage which would effect the fracture. The dampers had a normal operating load of 1,800 pounds of linear force with a safety factor of 1.5 to limit load. When the blades sweep forward the dampers would fracture resulting in damage to the elastomeric feathering bearings.
To my knowledge the EH-101 transmission and rotorhead were never tested to demonstrate the fracture capability.
On the Apache it was written into the design spec that the US Army would accept one catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the airframe and crew every 34,000 hours of operation. The Apache is a combat helicopter the EH-101 is not. If the EH-101 continues at the present rate for catastrophic failures it is totally unacceptable not only for military applications but especially for the Presidential flight.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am certain that if Eurocopter had had a contender for the program they would have been able to cut both engines at MGW and still continue the climb on autopilot while the pilot was serving smoked salmon canapes to the passengers.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Looks like the tail rotor half hub related restrictions on Canada's CH-149 Cormorant fleet have now been partially lifted. Anyone know whether this was the same problem the EH101 fleet experienced earlier in the year, or is it a different glitch ?
I/C
I/C
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and what is going on at the moment with the UK grey-painted Merlins? Not much sign of them in the skies from all accounts. Wonder if we are looking at another prolonged period of the fleet grounded. Any rumours?
Nick,
I think you missed the point....it was not the length or duration of the flight(s) but rather the darn thing did not break down along the way....after all...5,000 miles without a breakdown is pretty impressive.
I have a fleet of 11 aircraft that averages about a 98% availability rate yearly...and that includes two aircraft that go logging every day....but then we don't intend to haul the Number 1 Boss Fellah.
I think you missed the point....it was not the length or duration of the flight(s) but rather the darn thing did not break down along the way....after all...5,000 miles without a breakdown is pretty impressive.
I have a fleet of 11 aircraft that averages about a 98% availability rate yearly...and that includes two aircraft that go logging every day....but then we don't intend to haul the Number 1 Boss Fellah.
Navy delays decision on presidential helicopter contract
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
November 17, 2004, 6:49 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Navy has put off until at least next January a decision on a contract to replace the aging Marine One presidential helicopter fleet, giving both prospective contractors time to bolster their last-minute lobbying for the coveted program.
John J. Young Jr., the assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, and other Navy officials went to the White House Wednesday to give the administration an update on the decision process. The meeting was done at the request of the Navy.
The competition has been clouded by an ongoing debate over outsourcing American jobs, and "buy America" issues. A key reason for the delay is the need for more data on the suppliers _ both in and out of the country _ and how they will meet stringent security requirements, according to sources close to the Navy discussions, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitive contract negotiations.
Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky Aircraft has argued that its VH-92 Super Hawk is 100 percent American made. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin has said its US101, which is based on AgustaWestland's British-Italian made EH101 Merlin, will be as much as 80 percent American made.
Navy spokesman Lt. Chris Servello said the White House has not pressured the Navy to choose either Sikorsky or Lockheed, who are vying for the prestigious $1.6 billion contract award.
"This is a Navy acquisition decision," said Servello, adding that the Navy expects to announce the contract winner by the end of January.
The Defense Department has scheduled a Defense Acquisition Board meeting for Feb. 10. Navy officials said they have not made a decision yet, but believe they will be able to move forward before the February date.
Once the board meets and determines the Navy has all the necessary information to make a choice, the Navy can then announce its contractor decision.
Both companies have been waging massive public relations campaigns, hoping to influence the decision. In the last two weeks alone, both have peppered Capitol Hill and the Defense Department with letters urging support for their helicopter.
The decision was initially expected last spring, but the Navy announced in March that it needed more time and would make the decision in December.
Servello said discussions between the Navy and the two companies "are ongoing and the Navy has determined that additional time is required to make the best possible decision for the new presidential helicopter."
Representatives of both Lockheed and Sikorsky said they were comfortable with the decision and both remained confident with their chances.
"We certainly understand that (the Navy) has an enormous amount of data that they're trying to evaluate," said Sikorsky spokesman Ed Steadham. "And they want to be as thorough as they possibly can. We certainly understand why they might need a little extra time."
Lockheed Vice President Stephen D. Ramsey said the "Navy's decision to delay awarding the Marine One contract will have no impact on our chances of winning the competition."
Both bidders say they have the best designed and built aircraft. Lockheed's US101 is larger, more powerful and has three engines. Sikorsky built the current presidential fleet and its VH-92 Super Hawk is touted as one of the safest helicopters made.
The Merlin is used by the British Navy, which has been investigating the cause of a crash in March of one of its helicopters. Questions about potential problems with cracks in the tail rotor were raised, but U.S. Navy officials have discussed the matter with Lockheed and their concerns have been addressed, according to one Navy official who did not want to be identified because the contract discussions are secret.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute who has worked for Lockheed, said he believes that the two contractors have answered most of the Navy's technical questions, and the delay was triggered more by scheduling difficulties. He said Lockheed has an edge because of its larger size and engine capacity.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who met with Sikorsky officials and other Connecticut congressional delegation members Tuesday night, said she is hopeful that politics will not factor into the decision. And, "if the contract is awarded on the merits, it's going to be Sikorsky."
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
November 17, 2004, 6:49 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Navy has put off until at least next January a decision on a contract to replace the aging Marine One presidential helicopter fleet, giving both prospective contractors time to bolster their last-minute lobbying for the coveted program.
John J. Young Jr., the assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, and other Navy officials went to the White House Wednesday to give the administration an update on the decision process. The meeting was done at the request of the Navy.
The competition has been clouded by an ongoing debate over outsourcing American jobs, and "buy America" issues. A key reason for the delay is the need for more data on the suppliers _ both in and out of the country _ and how they will meet stringent security requirements, according to sources close to the Navy discussions, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitive contract negotiations.
Stratford, Conn.-based Sikorsky Aircraft has argued that its VH-92 Super Hawk is 100 percent American made. Maryland-based Lockheed Martin has said its US101, which is based on AgustaWestland's British-Italian made EH101 Merlin, will be as much as 80 percent American made.
Navy spokesman Lt. Chris Servello said the White House has not pressured the Navy to choose either Sikorsky or Lockheed, who are vying for the prestigious $1.6 billion contract award.
"This is a Navy acquisition decision," said Servello, adding that the Navy expects to announce the contract winner by the end of January.
The Defense Department has scheduled a Defense Acquisition Board meeting for Feb. 10. Navy officials said they have not made a decision yet, but believe they will be able to move forward before the February date.
Once the board meets and determines the Navy has all the necessary information to make a choice, the Navy can then announce its contractor decision.
Both companies have been waging massive public relations campaigns, hoping to influence the decision. In the last two weeks alone, both have peppered Capitol Hill and the Defense Department with letters urging support for their helicopter.
The decision was initially expected last spring, but the Navy announced in March that it needed more time and would make the decision in December.
Servello said discussions between the Navy and the two companies "are ongoing and the Navy has determined that additional time is required to make the best possible decision for the new presidential helicopter."
Representatives of both Lockheed and Sikorsky said they were comfortable with the decision and both remained confident with their chances.
"We certainly understand that (the Navy) has an enormous amount of data that they're trying to evaluate," said Sikorsky spokesman Ed Steadham. "And they want to be as thorough as they possibly can. We certainly understand why they might need a little extra time."
Lockheed Vice President Stephen D. Ramsey said the "Navy's decision to delay awarding the Marine One contract will have no impact on our chances of winning the competition."
Both bidders say they have the best designed and built aircraft. Lockheed's US101 is larger, more powerful and has three engines. Sikorsky built the current presidential fleet and its VH-92 Super Hawk is touted as one of the safest helicopters made.
The Merlin is used by the British Navy, which has been investigating the cause of a crash in March of one of its helicopters. Questions about potential problems with cracks in the tail rotor were raised, but U.S. Navy officials have discussed the matter with Lockheed and their concerns have been addressed, according to one Navy official who did not want to be identified because the contract discussions are secret.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute who has worked for Lockheed, said he believes that the two contractors have answered most of the Navy's technical questions, and the delay was triggered more by scheduling difficulties. He said Lockheed has an edge because of its larger size and engine capacity.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who met with Sikorsky officials and other Connecticut congressional delegation members Tuesday night, said she is hopeful that politics will not factor into the decision. And, "if the contract is awarded on the merits, it's going to be Sikorsky."
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
WYSIWYG
The difference between the VH-92 and the US-101 is that the VH-92 is the same aircraft that will be delivered where the US-101 will only reflect the shape of the EH-101 and it will have five blades and a four blade tail rotor.
Another way to look at is if Sikorsky proposed the VH-92 but used an S-58 as a demonstrator.
Another way to look at is if Sikorsky proposed the VH-92 but used an S-58 as a demonstrator.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the time-frame for first deliveries?
Would Lockheed even have time to address all the problems stated here - TR-shaft, TR-cracks, crashworthiness-15/20g, high maintenance?
How does the 101-maintenance compare to the other 3-engine CH-53? That one is at about 60 hrs/flighthour isn't it?
I also wonder how a brandnew design can be compared to a 20 yeare old?
How did the price of the 101 come down to 92 levels?
About 2 years ago I remember to read in some mag, the price for the 101 system would be around 30-40 m$ depending on options.
That would have given you two 92's and some fuel money!
I am sure the final decision is pure politics (or who is polstering private pockets better! )
.......else they surely would choose the Swedish tall-cabin version of the NH90!!!
May the better one win!
3top
Would Lockheed even have time to address all the problems stated here - TR-shaft, TR-cracks, crashworthiness-15/20g, high maintenance?
How does the 101-maintenance compare to the other 3-engine CH-53? That one is at about 60 hrs/flighthour isn't it?
I also wonder how a brandnew design can be compared to a 20 yeare old?
How did the price of the 101 come down to 92 levels?
About 2 years ago I remember to read in some mag, the price for the 101 system would be around 30-40 m$ depending on options.
That would have given you two 92's and some fuel money!
I am sure the final decision is pure politics (or who is polstering private pockets better!
).......else they surely would choose the Swedish tall-cabin version of the NH90!!!
May the better one win!
3top
Last edited by 3top; 18th Nov 2004 at 20:15.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L Zuckerman -
Astonishing claim that the Sikorsky offering is closer to the delivery configuration than the US101 offering.
From an outsider's point of view, it would appear that it takes much more to transform an S-92 into a VH-92 than an EH101 into a US101. From published reports:
1. VH-92 will have new and more powerful engines not to be certified until 2007
2. Presumably that also implies upgrade of rotor, transmission, structure, etc. to accommodate the 10% MGW increase.
3. The shape of the VH-92, with its aft cabin pregnancy, is quite a bit different from that of the certified S-92
4. S-92 has never had a self defense suite installed: the RAF Merlins flying around the US have
5. Fly by wire is being developed for S-92: this would be a first in civil certified helicopters. Sounds like a big change to me
6. All new suppliers: the prototypes have sections built in several continents (admittedly this just makes it a wash with US101)
By comparison, EH101 Merlin has the structural strength to land on and be strapped to little ships, so presumably will not need much strengthening for US101 (this is of course speculative .. they could need some upgrades due to weight growth too.)
I don't believe that any one inside the program will be telling the whole story any time soon, so the rest of us are just speculating in more or less informed ways.
It's interesting that people with links to Sikorsky are prominent in these threads, while the Lockheed/Agusta/Westland/Bell people are notably silent. Does that mean the latter believe the acquisition folk have given a higher technical score to the US101?
As others have said, both helos would likely do the job, so result is probably influenced by politics, in spite of Navy whistling in the wind about "This is a Navy acquisition decision."
We foreigners are looking on with interest. I personally always believed that if Sikorsky could meet the technical bar, the political optics would determine the decision. I don't believe that Bush cares a whit about the political debt he owes Tony Blair.
Waiting (but not with bated breath) ...
Astonishing claim that the Sikorsky offering is closer to the delivery configuration than the US101 offering.
From an outsider's point of view, it would appear that it takes much more to transform an S-92 into a VH-92 than an EH101 into a US101. From published reports:
1. VH-92 will have new and more powerful engines not to be certified until 2007
2. Presumably that also implies upgrade of rotor, transmission, structure, etc. to accommodate the 10% MGW increase.
3. The shape of the VH-92, with its aft cabin pregnancy, is quite a bit different from that of the certified S-92
4. S-92 has never had a self defense suite installed: the RAF Merlins flying around the US have
5. Fly by wire is being developed for S-92: this would be a first in civil certified helicopters. Sounds like a big change to me
6. All new suppliers: the prototypes have sections built in several continents (admittedly this just makes it a wash with US101)
By comparison, EH101 Merlin has the structural strength to land on and be strapped to little ships, so presumably will not need much strengthening for US101 (this is of course speculative .. they could need some upgrades due to weight growth too.)
I don't believe that any one inside the program will be telling the whole story any time soon, so the rest of us are just speculating in more or less informed ways.
It's interesting that people with links to Sikorsky are prominent in these threads, while the Lockheed/Agusta/Westland/Bell people are notably silent. Does that mean the latter believe the acquisition folk have given a higher technical score to the US101?
As others have said, both helos would likely do the job, so result is probably influenced by politics, in spite of Navy whistling in the wind about "This is a Navy acquisition decision."
We foreigners are looking on with interest. I personally always believed that if Sikorsky could meet the technical bar, the political optics would determine the decision. I don't believe that Bush cares a whit about the political debt he owes Tony Blair.
Waiting (but not with bated breath) ...
Last edited by plt_aeroeng; 19th Nov 2004 at 01:39.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
plt_aeroeng,
Here are some answers to your points (answers in italics):
1. VH-92 will have new and more powerful engines not to be certified until 2007
The engines in the EH-101 and the S/H-92 are the same, all are models of the CT7 series. The total differences between the engine now in the S-92 (the CT7-8A) and the upgrade for the VH-92 (CT7-8C) are about 10 parts. The new -8C model has achieved 11% overspec power in its tests this year. It will be certified 3 years before needed for the VH-92.
Presumably that also implies upgrade of rotor, transmission, structure, etc. to accommodate the 10% MGW increase. Your presumption is wrong, no modifications are needed, a minor upgrade of the transmission (5% continuous, 9% for takeoff) was already qualified earlier this year.
3. The shape of the VH-92, with its aft cabin pregnancy, is quite a bit different from that of the certified S-92
It is not quite a bit different, it is actually less than 16 inches of bulge along the aft lower secton, where the ramp normally is, and has already been built and qualified earlier this year.
4. S-92 has never had a self defense suite installed: the RAF Merlins flying around the US have
True enough. Our partner for the program, Northrop-Gruman, invented the system, and Sikorsky has installed several hunderd such systems on its helicopters in the recent past. Not significant risk. BTW the model installed on the current Merlins is obsolete, and not fit for the contract
5. Fly by wire is being developed for S-92: this would be a first in civil certified helicopters. Sounds like a big change to me
For Sikorsky, it is not a big change, as we have flown several models with FBW. The FBW is not part of the initial delivery kit, and so the schedule does not depend on it.
6. All new suppliers: the prototypes have sections built in several continents (admittedly this just makes it a wash with US101)
No, it is not a wash. All the original S-92 suppliers are retained except for the sheet metal structure, which is being worked right now by Vought, who has done similar jobs for Boeing and Grumman in less time than our schedule calls for. This means all H-92 pumps, actuators, hinges, gears and widgets remain with the fully qualified supplers and purchase orders. The EH-101 has the need to fully qualify its entire parts chain, a job we know it cannot do in time. It is clear that EH-101 will use European parts for the first batch, if they win. Internal discussions between Westland and the press have indicated so, making the "US-101" label even more of a sham
By comparison, EH101 Merlin has the structural strength to land on and be strapped to little ships, so presumably will not need much strengthening for US101 (this is of course speculative .. they could need some upgrades due to weight growth too.)
the EH-101 is comparitively weak, and by design intent falls far short of required US military strength. Its basic fuselage needs considerable beefing up to be fit, the EH-101 team has reportedly already asked for a waiver. A private in the US Army has a more crashworthy ride than a Prime Minister in the EH-101. for the original discussion of this critical compromise, see the paper written by Richard Case, its chief designer:
www.s-92heliport.com/crash.jpg
Were it not for Blair's salesmanship, we, too, think the winner will surely be the best helicopter, and like the Canadian competition, it will be the aircraft with the best payload, range, speed, safety and economics.
Here are the two brochures for the aircraft (with today's engines) to show that the H-92 has more range, payload, speed than the much bigger, much less capable EH-101.
http://www.s-92heliport.com/H92.pdf 200K
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101.pdf This is about 5 megs
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101perfpages.pdf performance excerpt only 600K
Regarding political debts for wartime loyalty, I visited my father's Bomb Group at Bury St. Edmund's a few years back, and was reminded that there were more Yanks who died flying from Britain in WWII than Brits who have walked on Iraqi soil, my friend. I do not remember England repaying anything for the last two times the US helped defeat our mutual enemies. Nor do I remember the US grubbing for the bill. Maybe I just missed that movie, huh?
Here are some answers to your points (answers in italics):
1. VH-92 will have new and more powerful engines not to be certified until 2007
The engines in the EH-101 and the S/H-92 are the same, all are models of the CT7 series. The total differences between the engine now in the S-92 (the CT7-8A) and the upgrade for the VH-92 (CT7-8C) are about 10 parts. The new -8C model has achieved 11% overspec power in its tests this year. It will be certified 3 years before needed for the VH-92.
Presumably that also implies upgrade of rotor, transmission, structure, etc. to accommodate the 10% MGW increase. Your presumption is wrong, no modifications are needed, a minor upgrade of the transmission (5% continuous, 9% for takeoff) was already qualified earlier this year.
3. The shape of the VH-92, with its aft cabin pregnancy, is quite a bit different from that of the certified S-92
It is not quite a bit different, it is actually less than 16 inches of bulge along the aft lower secton, where the ramp normally is, and has already been built and qualified earlier this year.
4. S-92 has never had a self defense suite installed: the RAF Merlins flying around the US have
True enough. Our partner for the program, Northrop-Gruman, invented the system, and Sikorsky has installed several hunderd such systems on its helicopters in the recent past. Not significant risk. BTW the model installed on the current Merlins is obsolete, and not fit for the contract
5. Fly by wire is being developed for S-92: this would be a first in civil certified helicopters. Sounds like a big change to me
For Sikorsky, it is not a big change, as we have flown several models with FBW. The FBW is not part of the initial delivery kit, and so the schedule does not depend on it.
6. All new suppliers: the prototypes have sections built in several continents (admittedly this just makes it a wash with US101)
No, it is not a wash. All the original S-92 suppliers are retained except for the sheet metal structure, which is being worked right now by Vought, who has done similar jobs for Boeing and Grumman in less time than our schedule calls for. This means all H-92 pumps, actuators, hinges, gears and widgets remain with the fully qualified supplers and purchase orders. The EH-101 has the need to fully qualify its entire parts chain, a job we know it cannot do in time. It is clear that EH-101 will use European parts for the first batch, if they win. Internal discussions between Westland and the press have indicated so, making the "US-101" label even more of a sham
By comparison, EH101 Merlin has the structural strength to land on and be strapped to little ships, so presumably will not need much strengthening for US101 (this is of course speculative .. they could need some upgrades due to weight growth too.)
the EH-101 is comparitively weak, and by design intent falls far short of required US military strength. Its basic fuselage needs considerable beefing up to be fit, the EH-101 team has reportedly already asked for a waiver. A private in the US Army has a more crashworthy ride than a Prime Minister in the EH-101. for the original discussion of this critical compromise, see the paper written by Richard Case, its chief designer:
www.s-92heliport.com/crash.jpg
Were it not for Blair's salesmanship, we, too, think the winner will surely be the best helicopter, and like the Canadian competition, it will be the aircraft with the best payload, range, speed, safety and economics.
Here are the two brochures for the aircraft (with today's engines) to show that the H-92 has more range, payload, speed than the much bigger, much less capable EH-101.
http://www.s-92heliport.com/H92.pdf 200K
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101.pdf This is about 5 megs
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EH101perfpages.pdf performance excerpt only 600K
Regarding political debts for wartime loyalty, I visited my father's Bomb Group at Bury St. Edmund's a few years back, and was reminded that there were more Yanks who died flying from Britain in WWII than Brits who have walked on Iraqi soil, my friend. I do not remember England repaying anything for the last two times the US helped defeat our mutual enemies. Nor do I remember the US grubbing for the bill. Maybe I just missed that movie, huh?
Last edited by NickLappos; 19th Nov 2004 at 04:47.
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
Not even close.
To: 3 Top
According to a report issued by the United States General Accounting office the MMH/FH for the CH-53 is 39.1. This was in 1990 and with gained experience this figure could have decreased. Conversely with an aging fleet that figure may have increased however I do not believe it is 60 MMH?FH.
Let Nick be the final judge.
How does the 101-maintenance compare to the other 3-engine CH-53? That one is at about 60 hrs/flighthour isn't it?
Let Nick be the final judge.
Nick,
Go easy there....The British do not like to be reminded of things like that....they are a proud bunch and rightfully so too. They were fighting in 1939 while we were only building their weapons for them....and were still hanging on in 1941 when the Japanese convinced us to join in. The fact they were beat never entered their heads....God Bless them!
They have been our friends over the years...maybe they have acted like our rich elite from the Ivy League colleges...but friends they have been and remain so.
They are easy targets to poke fun at....but the bottom line is they have been good friends....at least by God they have troops walking the ground in Iraq as compared to some others that claim to our buddies all the while selling arms to our enemies.
Please do not cheapen their troop's service in combat along side our fine young men and women. As a Veteran yourself and also having a son in the military....you should be more sensitive to those kinds of comments.
Give them hell when they deserve it....and often they do...but focus on the real issues please....
Go easy there....The British do not like to be reminded of things like that....they are a proud bunch and rightfully so too. They were fighting in 1939 while we were only building their weapons for them....and were still hanging on in 1941 when the Japanese convinced us to join in. The fact they were beat never entered their heads....God Bless them!
They have been our friends over the years...maybe they have acted like our rich elite from the Ivy League colleges...but friends they have been and remain so.
They are easy targets to poke fun at....but the bottom line is they have been good friends....at least by God they have troops walking the ground in Iraq as compared to some others that claim to our buddies all the while selling arms to our enemies.
Please do not cheapen their troop's service in combat along side our fine young men and women. As a Veteran yourself and also having a son in the military....you should be more sensitive to those kinds of comments.
Give them hell when they deserve it....and often they do...but focus on the real issues please....