EH101 Merlin
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
remote hook,
I have to agree with the "A" model comments you make, the idea that one should never buy an A model is guaranteed to assure that the Wright Flyer is the only airplane ever built (how can you make a new aircraft if nobody buys it? How can you make a B model if the A model never sells!)
Your point is well taken, progress naturally brings bugs, but the net gain makes the bugs tolerable.
One point:
The EH-101 did NOT make the longest distance helicopter escue, it only CLAIMED to have done so. It flew 1600 KM total (860NM), but only about 550 KM NM offshore (300NM), as I recall.
The longest rescue was almost twice as far offshore, and considerably longer along shore, as well. A Black Hawk, piloted by the USAF Air National Guard flew 750 NM off shore (1400 KM - half the way to the Azores!) and then rescued a crewman, then 750NM back to shore! It was dispatched from Long Island, NY to Halifax, and flew there non-stop, as well, about 500 NM, 925 KM. Thus its total distance flown was 3250 KM, although the real challenge is the offshore radius, 1400 KM.
Here are the articles:
http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/news/2003/02/14_e.asp
"On December 8, a Cormorant helicopter based in Gander, Nfld. flew its longest trip, a 1,600-kilometre oddessy, to rescue a seriously injured crewman from a Norwegian bulk carrier. The trip included a refueling stop on the Hibernia oilrig."
http://www.philippecolin.net/106thRQW.html
"In December 1994, the 106th launched two HH-60s from Gabreski Airport (New York State) on a mission that would take them to Halifax, Canada and then, 750 miles out over the Atlantic to search for survivors of the Ukrainian merchant vessel Salvador Allende. The freighter had foundered and sunk in heavy seas almost 800 miles at sea. By the time the two helicopters and their crews arrived over the search area, most of the ship's crew had perished. After searching the sea, a survivor was spotted by an helicopter crew member and the two HH-60s prepared to put a pararescueman in the water to save him. TSgt. james Dougherty jumped into the water and retrieved the last living member of the crew. Then, the two helicopters began the arduous seven-hour return flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia. "
The Canadian authorities and Press were notified about this error and have never done anything to correct it.
I have to agree with the "A" model comments you make, the idea that one should never buy an A model is guaranteed to assure that the Wright Flyer is the only airplane ever built (how can you make a new aircraft if nobody buys it? How can you make a B model if the A model never sells!)
Your point is well taken, progress naturally brings bugs, but the net gain makes the bugs tolerable.
One point:
The EH-101 did NOT make the longest distance helicopter escue, it only CLAIMED to have done so. It flew 1600 KM total (860NM), but only about 550 KM NM offshore (300NM), as I recall.
The longest rescue was almost twice as far offshore, and considerably longer along shore, as well. A Black Hawk, piloted by the USAF Air National Guard flew 750 NM off shore (1400 KM - half the way to the Azores!) and then rescued a crewman, then 750NM back to shore! It was dispatched from Long Island, NY to Halifax, and flew there non-stop, as well, about 500 NM, 925 KM. Thus its total distance flown was 3250 KM, although the real challenge is the offshore radius, 1400 KM.
Here are the articles:
http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/news/2003/02/14_e.asp
"On December 8, a Cormorant helicopter based in Gander, Nfld. flew its longest trip, a 1,600-kilometre oddessy, to rescue a seriously injured crewman from a Norwegian bulk carrier. The trip included a refueling stop on the Hibernia oilrig."
http://www.philippecolin.net/106thRQW.html
"In December 1994, the 106th launched two HH-60s from Gabreski Airport (New York State) on a mission that would take them to Halifax, Canada and then, 750 miles out over the Atlantic to search for survivors of the Ukrainian merchant vessel Salvador Allende. The freighter had foundered and sunk in heavy seas almost 800 miles at sea. By the time the two helicopters and their crews arrived over the search area, most of the ship's crew had perished. After searching the sea, a survivor was spotted by an helicopter crew member and the two HH-60s prepared to put a pararescueman in the water to save him. TSgt. james Dougherty jumped into the water and retrieved the last living member of the crew. Then, the two helicopters began the arduous seven-hour return flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia. "
The Canadian authorities and Press were notified about this error and have never done anything to correct it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikester540 - aka Mr Unprofessional!
"What a peice of crap!
Let's hope it doesn't kill someone like the other EH-101's have in the past!"
There goes somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about!
There have been no fatalilities in the losses of the production models, only in the loss of the second prototype PP2 in Italy.
Mikester540, don't be t
t and do your homework - to make these type of statements is an insult to the memory of those whom lost their lives in PP2!
The EH101 is suffering from a few technical problems but these will be resolved, in the mean time I suggest you read about the Merlin Mk3's performance in Iraq.. Seems to be doing ok out there ferrying your countrymen around the war zone..
From your location I can assume that you work for the former supplier of the Presidental Helicopter?
Let's hope it doesn't kill someone like the other EH-101's have in the past!"
There goes somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about!
There have been no fatalilities in the losses of the production models, only in the loss of the second prototype PP2 in Italy.
Mikester540, don't be t
t and do your homework - to make these type of statements is an insult to the memory of those whom lost their lives in PP2!The EH101 is suffering from a few technical problems but these will be resolved, in the mean time I suggest you read about the Merlin Mk3's performance in Iraq.. Seems to be doing ok out there ferrying your countrymen around the war zone..
From your location I can assume that you work for the former supplier of the Presidental Helicopter?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Connecticut.
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, i'm a student.
You can gloat now all you want about the VH-92 loss, we still make the world's best helicopters... and sell them! The difference is, we don't crash them!
It's so confusing now with this helicopter... The tail cracking, fleet groundings...
more fleet groundings, then they can fly again but on limited flights...
When will they finally switch to the venerable S-92?
You can gloat now all you want about the VH-92 loss, we still make the world's best helicopters... and sell them! The difference is, we don't crash them!
It's so confusing now with this helicopter... The tail cracking, fleet groundings...
more fleet groundings, then they can fly again but on limited flights...
When will they finally switch to the venerable S-92?
Mikester,
I don't see any "gloating", but I do see some foolish generalisations from you:
The nature of the beast in this game, you will be hard pushed to find a helicopter that has been in service for 10 years or more, that hasn't had a fatal accident. Sikorsky, Westland, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, I don't know of a manufacturer with a perfect safety record. The S-92 has a lot of admirable attributes, as does the EH-101, and the slanging match between the two has been going on for what seems like years.
That's right, it has been years
I don't see any "gloating", but I do see some foolish generalisations from you:
What a piece of crap!
Let's hope it doesn't kill someone like the other EH-101's have in the past!
Let's hope it doesn't kill someone like the other EH-101's have in the past!
That's right, it has been years
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Mikester540,
Sikorsky too has had it's fair share of problems, including tail cracking and main blade loss, some not so far back...
Sikorsky too has had it's fair share of problems, including tail cracking and main blade loss, some not so far back...
Hi Nick,
I did a few searches and found many references to both the cormorants longest trip and the longest offshore rescue mission in the history of the Cormorant helicopter in Canada etc. etc... but nowhere did I find it saying it was the longest offshore rescue ever.
I don't think it matters what country you're in, we all know that what writers put in their articles are never very accurate to begin with.
The bottom line is that the helicopters today coming off the productions lines of most if not all the manufacturers are superior to the previous generation of helicopters and will continue to go higher, further, faster and carry more.
bb
I did a few searches and found many references to both the cormorants longest trip and the longest offshore rescue mission in the history of the Cormorant helicopter in Canada etc. etc... but nowhere did I find it saying it was the longest offshore rescue ever.
I don't think it matters what country you're in, we all know that what writers put in their articles are never very accurate to begin with.
The bottom line is that the helicopters today coming off the productions lines of most if not all the manufacturers are superior to the previous generation of helicopters and will continue to go higher, further, faster and carry more.
bb
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Z3TX68
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont you just love students??
Here is the venerable S-92
Oh and another!
"People in glasshouses....
shouldnt root through their mothers underwear drawer"
Here is the venerable S-92
Oh and another!
"People in glasshouses....
shouldnt root through their mothers underwear drawer"
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikester540
Sikorsky once let a helicopter fly, after that they didn't invent anything.
I heard a good one the other day, came from one of our engineers:
Sikorsky made only three mistakes with the S76.......
A, B and C.
I hope they don't make a D-mistake!
Sikorsky once let a helicopter fly, after that they didn't invent anything.
I heard a good one the other day, came from one of our engineers:
Sikorsky made only three mistakes with the S76.......
A, B and C.
I hope they don't make a D-mistake!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somehow the concept of "teething" is the issue. You EH-101 fans have a blurry memory of exactly what teething is!
Here is a picture of the 95th EH-101 built, flown 15 years after it was introduced and 20 years after it was flown. Notice how its teeth are still growing in:
The EH-101 has no teething problems, it has mature, proven, fielded problems that do not seem to have an answer. It has crippling inspections, it throws away its tail rotor after 50 hours, yet you silly bastards cover my thread with dumb posts about other helicopters.
That EH-101 crash was 18 months ago, and the "teething problem" is still not solved. Why don't you stay on the topic as posted (EH-101 Woes in Canada Continue) instead of attacking some other helicopter? Is it because you are too dumbstruck at the incredible mistake Canada made when they bought the EH-101? Is it because you know the fix for the broken tail rotors, but won't tell Westlands because you are just too mean? Is it because, if you have no idea what you are talking about, attack something else?
What is wrong with the EH-101, and when will it be fixed?
Here is a picture of the 95th EH-101 built, flown 15 years after it was introduced and 20 years after it was flown. Notice how its teeth are still growing in:
The EH-101 has no teething problems, it has mature, proven, fielded problems that do not seem to have an answer. It has crippling inspections, it throws away its tail rotor after 50 hours, yet you silly bastards cover my thread with dumb posts about other helicopters.
That EH-101 crash was 18 months ago, and the "teething problem" is still not solved. Why don't you stay on the topic as posted (EH-101 Woes in Canada Continue) instead of attacking some other helicopter? Is it because you are too dumbstruck at the incredible mistake Canada made when they bought the EH-101? Is it because you know the fix for the broken tail rotors, but won't tell Westlands because you are just too mean? Is it because, if you have no idea what you are talking about, attack something else?
What is wrong with the EH-101, and when will it be fixed?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Z3TX68
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason people posted stuff about the S-92 was the inappropriate post by our connecticut friend. Feel free to condone his comments by all means.
People defend the EH101 as you defend the S-92, we have all read your views on the EH101 in the past and we also know where your loyalties lie.
PPruners always seem to fight fire with fire, your fellow connecticut chum made a silly comment and peope responded.
As for the incident 18 months ago, the Merlin is flying succesfully in Iraq, it has an excellent serviceability record.
All aircraft have incidents, nothing is perfect
People defend the EH101 as you defend the S-92, we have all read your views on the EH101 in the past and we also know where your loyalties lie.
PPruners always seem to fight fire with fire, your fellow connecticut chum made a silly comment and peope responded.
As for the incident 18 months ago, the Merlin is flying succesfully in Iraq, it has an excellent serviceability record.
All aircraft have incidents, nothing is perfect
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Blackflies and Snow
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyclic Hotline,
the thread you've linked too is only another facet of the same story.
To reclarify the situation as I understand it, there is a propensity for tail rotor half hubs to develop surface cracks. On very rare occasions, structural cracks have also been found. The position of the CF and RDAF is that they want a simpler inspection technique, with a solid go/nogo criteria, to decide what is or is not a cosmetic crack. the recent moves from both forces are merely intended to apply pressure to AW to solve that challenge. The CF particularly is concerned with liability issues, given they operate a contractor maintained, military owned aircraft.
The UK forces are making do with inspections techniques that are more demanding of human skill and interpretation.
With that said, once it is signed off serviceable, the EH 101 does all that is asked of it and stays on the line like a trooper.
Since this thread is so partisan, I'll join in! I truly regret the decision by the Lieberals to buy the H92. It has a significant development risk (both airframe and systems) and is certain to be later, more expensive and less capable that an EH 101 based solution. For example, can anyone justify why Canada is paying for a FBW system? It was not a MHP requirement, so why are we buying that risk?
the thread you've linked too is only another facet of the same story.
To reclarify the situation as I understand it, there is a propensity for tail rotor half hubs to develop surface cracks. On very rare occasions, structural cracks have also been found. The position of the CF and RDAF is that they want a simpler inspection technique, with a solid go/nogo criteria, to decide what is or is not a cosmetic crack. the recent moves from both forces are merely intended to apply pressure to AW to solve that challenge. The CF particularly is concerned with liability issues, given they operate a contractor maintained, military owned aircraft.
The UK forces are making do with inspections techniques that are more demanding of human skill and interpretation.
With that said, once it is signed off serviceable, the EH 101 does all that is asked of it and stays on the line like a trooper.
Since this thread is so partisan, I'll join in! I truly regret the decision by the Lieberals to buy the H92. It has a significant development risk (both airframe and systems) and is certain to be later, more expensive and less capable that an EH 101 based solution. For example, can anyone justify why Canada is paying for a FBW system? It was not a MHP requirement, so why are we buying that risk?
Actually, the part that intrigued me was the suggestion that the Danes weren't too keen on taking delivery of a new helicopter with a potentially rather serious flaw in a primary flight system.
Is this information accurate? (I have no idea, so don't shoot the messenger here).
Is this information accurate? (I have no idea, so don't shoot the messenger here).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Connecticut.
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is expected to remain in effect until at least the Spring 2006 timeframe.
EH-101:
Large, fat 20-year old son with bad knees. He occasionally falls down, and he is grounded many times of the year.
S-92:
Young, 1-year old. He is muscular and agile. Like all young kids, this kid has 'teething' problems with some hydraulic lines. (and de-icing)
The difference?
If a 20 year old is still teething, it's not teething; something is wrong!
What's the fear of Connecticut on the board? You EH-101 lovers love generalizing people and helicopters.
Thanks,
Michael Phillips
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Z3TX68
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will you revisit that analogy when the US101 starts flying?
1 year old? is that in dog years?
S-92 first flight
Young, 1-year old. He is muscular and agile. Like all young kids, this kid has 'teething' problems with some hydraulic lines. (and de-icing)
S-92 first flight
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yeovil
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since this forum is a rumour network, let me throw this one into the melting pot, re: The Culdrose crash 18 months ago....
I have it on very good authority that had management been more maintenance focused, rather than operational flypro focused, then that crash needn't have happened. I was told that despite advice from certain quarters within the service not to fly that aircraft, it flew with a known crack and a reported irregular but heavy buzzing of the TR pedals.....
As I said, just a rumour from a former colleague.. probably just crewroom scandal merchants eh??
I mean, it couldn't possibly have any foundation??
No No, I'm being silly, that sort of thing never goes on in the service, as I'm sure several of you out there will no doubt point out in an over zealous and confrontational fashion...
I have it on very good authority that had management been more maintenance focused, rather than operational flypro focused, then that crash needn't have happened. I was told that despite advice from certain quarters within the service not to fly that aircraft, it flew with a known crack and a reported irregular but heavy buzzing of the TR pedals.....
As I said, just a rumour from a former colleague.. probably just crewroom scandal merchants eh??
I mean, it couldn't possibly have any foundation??
No No, I'm being silly, that sort of thing never goes on in the service, as I'm sure several of you out there will no doubt point out in an over zealous and confrontational fashion...
Cormorants grounded?
Tail flaw plagues new military helicopters
Last Updated Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:40:40 EDT
CBC News
Persistent technical problems with 15 brand-new Cormorant helicopters are forcing the Canadian military to reassign some of them, directing its pilots to use older aircraft instead.
Search and rescue teams at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ont., have stopped using the bright yellow Cormorants entirely because the tail rotor half-hub is wearing out and cracking. That's the part that holds the rear blades onto the aircraft.
"The danger is, if you get cracking, it spins at a high rate of RPM [revolutions per minute]. And it's used to pretty well control the aircraft," Capt. Tim Seibert told CBC News in an interview on the tarmac at CFB Trenton.
"When it flies and it's working properly, it's great," said Seibert. "But because of the half-hub problems, we're only flying it two hours at a time."
The military's entire fleet of 15 Cormorants is under severe flight restrictions because of the flawed tail rotor part.
Trenton using Griffons instead
The commander of Trenton's 424 Search and Rescue Squadron, Lt.-Col. Russ Konyk, went even farther, deciding that as of this week, his teams won't fly Cormorants any more until the tail rotor problem is sorted out.
Trenton's three new helicopters are being sent to Nova Scotia, where they'll back up the Cormorants stationed there.
Konyk is temporarily replacing them with older, less powerful Griffons.
The Griffons can carry less equipment and aren't as versatile, but base pilots will support them with Hercules aircraft if necessary.
"It's a big glitch. No question. It is a big glitch and it's causing us to take a temporary pause," Konyk said of the Cormorant problem.
"Am I confident we'll solve it? Yeah, I am."
He added: "When it is doing its job, it's doing its job well. I am very happy with that airplane. I just wish it were available all the time."
Military working with manufacturer
Military managers are working with the manufacturer, Augusta-Westland Industries, to fix the problem.
In April 2004, a tail rotor half-hub assembly problem became the focus of an investigation into the March 2004 crash of a British Royal Navy Merlin helicopter. The Cormorant and Merlin helicopters are both manufactured by Augusta-Westland Industries and share similar components, a Canadian military news release said at the time.
The Department of National Defence decided to limit the Cormorant to search and rescue operations until the British investigation was complete.
Last Updated Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:40:40 EDT
CBC News
Persistent technical problems with 15 brand-new Cormorant helicopters are forcing the Canadian military to reassign some of them, directing its pilots to use older aircraft instead.
Search and rescue teams at the Canadian Forces Base in Trenton, Ont., have stopped using the bright yellow Cormorants entirely because the tail rotor half-hub is wearing out and cracking. That's the part that holds the rear blades onto the aircraft.
"The danger is, if you get cracking, it spins at a high rate of RPM [revolutions per minute]. And it's used to pretty well control the aircraft," Capt. Tim Seibert told CBC News in an interview on the tarmac at CFB Trenton.
"When it flies and it's working properly, it's great," said Seibert. "But because of the half-hub problems, we're only flying it two hours at a time."
The military's entire fleet of 15 Cormorants is under severe flight restrictions because of the flawed tail rotor part.
Trenton using Griffons instead
The commander of Trenton's 424 Search and Rescue Squadron, Lt.-Col. Russ Konyk, went even farther, deciding that as of this week, his teams won't fly Cormorants any more until the tail rotor problem is sorted out.
Trenton's three new helicopters are being sent to Nova Scotia, where they'll back up the Cormorants stationed there.
Konyk is temporarily replacing them with older, less powerful Griffons.
The Griffons can carry less equipment and aren't as versatile, but base pilots will support them with Hercules aircraft if necessary.
"It's a big glitch. No question. It is a big glitch and it's causing us to take a temporary pause," Konyk said of the Cormorant problem.
"Am I confident we'll solve it? Yeah, I am."
He added: "When it is doing its job, it's doing its job well. I am very happy with that airplane. I just wish it were available all the time."
Military working with manufacturer
Military managers are working with the manufacturer, Augusta-Westland Industries, to fix the problem.
In April 2004, a tail rotor half-hub assembly problem became the focus of an investigation into the March 2004 crash of a British Royal Navy Merlin helicopter. The Cormorant and Merlin helicopters are both manufactured by Augusta-Westland Industries and share similar components, a Canadian military news release said at the time.
The Department of National Defence decided to limit the Cormorant to search and rescue operations until the British investigation was complete.
Why havent the manufacturers repaired this fault then? What did they do with the Culdrose ship incident?
Seems an awful lot of fuss - grounding the entire fleet because of a known defect??????
I would assume there should have been a rapid fusing of minds to find the solution as this is going to be driving the back end of Bushes bus
Seems an awful lot of fuss - grounding the entire fleet because of a known defect??????
I would assume there should have been a rapid fusing of minds to find the solution as this is going to be driving the back end of Bushes bus
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fleet hasn't been grounded, just the resources reallocated. The Trenton squadron won't be operating the Cormorant because an interim solution is in place there.
If you highlight different lines of that same report, the bad news doesn't sound so bad.
"Am I confident we'll solve it? Yeah, I am."
"I am very happy with that airplane."
My point is that we spin the stories here, not just the media.
Matthew
If you highlight different lines of that same report, the bad news doesn't sound so bad.
"Am I confident we'll solve it? Yeah, I am."
"I am very happy with that airplane."
My point is that we spin the stories here, not just the media.
Matthew