EH101 Merlin
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how much the british taxpayers are shelling out but .
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts...t20040825.html
they both have been awarded , 56 Million contracts for "risk reduction " Nick if you have any left over at the end of November let me know .
This is what happens when you lose a program
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004...O-00691728.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts...t20040825.html
they both have been awarded , 56 Million contracts for "risk reduction " Nick if you have any left over at the end of November let me know .
This is what happens when you lose a program
http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004...O-00691728.htm
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vsionary,
Blaming the poor availability and stunning amount of broken parts on the MOD is a novel idea. The dog just breaks too many parts because it was badly designed! Look at the average time it builds per year - it spends all its time in the shop with the hood up (or do you say bonnet?)
Blaming the poor maintenance record on lack of spares is sort of like saying that a flat tire suffers from too little air, huh?
Blaming the poor availability and stunning amount of broken parts on the MOD is a novel idea. The dog just breaks too many parts because it was badly designed! Look at the average time it builds per year - it spends all its time in the shop with the hood up (or do you say bonnet?)
Blaming the poor maintenance record on lack of spares is sort of like saying that a flat tire suffers from too little air, huh?
Last edited by rjsquirrel; 9th Nov 2004 at 01:01.
RJS,
Really? For all their faults, Westland are in a no win situation if the owner (MoD) cut costs by not buying spares, then have to rob other aircraft to keep operational machines going. What evidence have you that the fault is the aircraft design, rather than no spare parts for normal maintenance?
I had the opportunity to visit Westland at Yeovil a few months back, one of the issues that is being addressed is spares support, and the difference in MoD procurement policies and reality. Remember the problems with Lynx gearboxes, and lack of spares? When the spares supply line was thoroughly investigated, nearly 40 (yes 40!) Lynx MGB's were "found" having been lost in the supply chain of MoD
Yet at the time, Westland were being blamed for not keeping up the overhaul supply.
Rather like saying your Ferrari is a lemon and won't perform, because the dealer hasn't bothered to order spare parts to keep it maintained.
Really? For all their faults, Westland are in a no win situation if the owner (MoD) cut costs by not buying spares, then have to rob other aircraft to keep operational machines going. What evidence have you that the fault is the aircraft design, rather than no spare parts for normal maintenance?
I had the opportunity to visit Westland at Yeovil a few months back, one of the issues that is being addressed is spares support, and the difference in MoD procurement policies and reality. Remember the problems with Lynx gearboxes, and lack of spares? When the spares supply line was thoroughly investigated, nearly 40 (yes 40!) Lynx MGB's were "found" having been lost in the supply chain of MoD
Yet at the time, Westland were being blamed for not keeping up the overhaul supply.Rather like saying your Ferrari is a lemon and won't perform, because the dealer hasn't bothered to order spare parts to keep it maintained.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Eacott,
I do not recall those Canadians complaining about short spares, they complained about too much maintenance, about 3 times more than the promises made by Agusta.
Also, the time accumulated by the whole fleet is very low, I happened to list the statements from the sales guys as they tallied up the flight time while bragging about the "experience" of the fleet, and noted that they were building up about 1200 hours per month for the whole fleet. This was over a 2 year period, and each statement as it grew from 30,000 to 55,000 was about 1200 hours per month. If they have 90 aircraft, that is about 14 hours per month per aircraft.
A normal military helicopter gets about 50 hours per month, so I would guess the "experience" they have is "bad" experience. Like the three times higher maintenance, they are building time at 1/3 the rate of the typical aircraft.
Didn't a Canadian person die when the hoist failed during a rescue and they left him out there? That wasn't caused by short spares.
I think it is plain old parts failure that makes it a dog, and the spares shortage is a way to hide the problem while they try to lure in more suckers.
I do not recall those Canadians complaining about short spares, they complained about too much maintenance, about 3 times more than the promises made by Agusta.
Also, the time accumulated by the whole fleet is very low, I happened to list the statements from the sales guys as they tallied up the flight time while bragging about the "experience" of the fleet, and noted that they were building up about 1200 hours per month for the whole fleet. This was over a 2 year period, and each statement as it grew from 30,000 to 55,000 was about 1200 hours per month. If they have 90 aircraft, that is about 14 hours per month per aircraft.
A normal military helicopter gets about 50 hours per month, so I would guess the "experience" they have is "bad" experience. Like the three times higher maintenance, they are building time at 1/3 the rate of the typical aircraft.
Didn't a Canadian person die when the hoist failed during a rescue and they left him out there? That wasn't caused by short spares.
I think it is plain old parts failure that makes it a dog, and the spares shortage is a way to hide the problem while they try to lure in more suckers.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple times each week I enter the PPRUNE website to read about the latest news and gossip regarding our wonderful profession. I have always been impressed by what I have seen...until now. To come straight to the point...WHAT AN UTTER LOAD OF B*****KS I have read in this posting.
By the sounds of things all of you have designed, built, maintained and flown every EH101 ever constructed. You have all taken part in the THREE crash investigations and have taken the aircraft into a war zone!
For the record, PP2 was lost due to an uncommanded application of the rotor brake during flight causing a fire within the transdeck resulting in loss of control. Two Merlin Mk1 helicopters have been lost in service, one due to a rotorbrake issue - not the same as with PP2 whilst we wait to see about the other - I know the reason but this is not forum to table it.
I will ask Nick to report on the success of the S-92 after his company have built 140 production versions, flown for the same number of hours that the Merlin has and then explain that they have found no problems with either the aircraft or the maintenance procedure and support, I look forward to it!
To end, I have a vested interest in the EH101 hence my disgust at the 'fiction' that I have to read in this posting. There are some of us that know this aircraft so please continue posting c**p and I will enjoy correcting you and exposing your lack of knowledge!
By the sounds of things all of you have designed, built, maintained and flown every EH101 ever constructed. You have all taken part in the THREE crash investigations and have taken the aircraft into a war zone!
For the record, PP2 was lost due to an uncommanded application of the rotor brake during flight causing a fire within the transdeck resulting in loss of control. Two Merlin Mk1 helicopters have been lost in service, one due to a rotorbrake issue - not the same as with PP2 whilst we wait to see about the other - I know the reason but this is not forum to table it.
I will ask Nick to report on the success of the S-92 after his company have built 140 production versions, flown for the same number of hours that the Merlin has and then explain that they have found no problems with either the aircraft or the maintenance procedure and support, I look forward to it!
To end, I have a vested interest in the EH101 hence my disgust at the 'fiction' that I have to read in this posting. There are some of us that know this aircraft so please continue posting c**p and I will enjoy correcting you and exposing your lack of knowledge!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH844,
So what is the bull that you complain about? It didn't have 5 crashes, all the fault of the design? It does fly more than 14 hours a month on average? The Canadans don't say they spend 22 manhours per flight hour?
Where is the bull?
So what is the bull that you complain about? It didn't have 5 crashes, all the fault of the design? It does fly more than 14 hours a month on average? The Canadans don't say they spend 22 manhours per flight hour?
Where is the bull?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: South of England
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not often I work up enough heartbeats to comment here, but lets all remember that the Canadians aren't really ever going to be well-disposed to the 101. They've caught a serious cold over the 101 once in the courts and they're on their way to catching another. Inevitably they are doing anything they can to justify their recent decision to buy the S92, treat what they say with a large pinch of salt.
Finally, with the Boeing anti-Airbus campaign in the background, Sikorsky clearly feel more at ease with using all the tricks in the book to talk down the US101 as they know that if it wins it will change US defence helicopter procurement patterns radically and most importantly at great cost to Sikorsky.
Fortunately with GW' back in the seat they'll have to invent or 'spin' a lot more stories yet!!!
Finally, with the Boeing anti-Airbus campaign in the background, Sikorsky clearly feel more at ease with using all the tricks in the book to talk down the US101 as they know that if it wins it will change US defence helicopter procurement patterns radically and most importantly at great cost to Sikorsky.
Fortunately with GW' back in the seat they'll have to invent or 'spin' a lot more stories yet!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PUP,
I wouldn't worry about heartbeats, I'd have a serious look at an EEG if I were you. Your point is that all bad EH-101 news is generated by folks out to get it.
In Canada, it is a shame that Agusta doesn't have designers of the calibre of its lawyers.
I see newspaper articles about bad maintenance, facts about extremely high accident rates, and facts about very poor availabliity. These you say are "tricks". How about some facts, PUP? Did the EH-101 have 5 crashes or not (making it the worst helicopter introduction in memory)? Did the Canadians say it is 3 times harder to maintain, or not?
I wouldn't worry about heartbeats, I'd have a serious look at an EEG if I were you. Your point is that all bad EH-101 news is generated by folks out to get it.
In Canada, it is a shame that Agusta doesn't have designers of the calibre of its lawyers.
I see newspaper articles about bad maintenance, facts about extremely high accident rates, and facts about very poor availabliity. These you say are "tricks". How about some facts, PUP? Did the EH-101 have 5 crashes or not (making it the worst helicopter introduction in memory)? Did the Canadians say it is 3 times harder to maintain, or not?
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
In support of Igor.
I’m a long time supporter of Sikorsky helicopters but even their best designs will eventually manifest problems. These problems will eventually be solved and as the designs build time the problems are fewer and far between and the seriousness of the problems lessen. The S-92 was designed with the lessons learned from previous designs and it has been designed to the latest FAA design standards. Even with this it will still have teething problems and hopefully these problems will be small and quickly rectified.
The EH-101 was designed to the standards existing twenty or so years ago and a lot of things were not considered relative to safety, reliability, and maintainability. If Lockheed wants to enter the US-101 into competition with the S-92 it will have to redesign the airframe for crashworthiness, to redesign the dynamic systems to improve the airworthiness and the robustness of critical parts in the rotor system and to redesign many of the critical parts to improve safety and reliability. In other words if they are to successfully compete there will have to be a significant redesign and recertification and as such the US-101 will only reflect the EH-101 in planform and not much else.
The EH-101 was designed to the standards existing twenty or so years ago and a lot of things were not considered relative to safety, reliability, and maintainability. If Lockheed wants to enter the US-101 into competition with the S-92 it will have to redesign the airframe for crashworthiness, to redesign the dynamic systems to improve the airworthiness and the robustness of critical parts in the rotor system and to redesign many of the critical parts to improve safety and reliability. In other words if they are to successfully compete there will have to be a significant redesign and recertification and as such the US-101 will only reflect the EH-101 in planform and not much else.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd guess that neither manufacturer can stay in business if they produce a bad helicopter. The truth is that both helicopters are in competition. Differences abound, one may shine, but in the end they're both competing.
Choosing the superior helicopter based on media reports is dangerous for a number of reasons. The first being that even the most honest and knowledgeable reporter will only tell a story that will sell. The facts may come from a reliable source but one that only knows a part of the story. Neither is superior overall, but one will prove to be superior when role, cost, national interests, safety, etc. are considered. Before you can pick the superior helicopter, you must understand the role it will fly.
On the website, the US101 team has hired a former presidential pilot who's indicated that the US101 will be good for the job. I'm certain Sikorsky has/could do the same and I'm certain they could support the same claim.
We're fortunate that Nick is here with an understanding of the role and the Sikorsky machine. I appreciate the information he provides. It's too bad there is nobody with that knowledge from the US101 team, it means that we're being educated with media clippings, catch phrases, rumour and speculation.
To set the record straight with respect to the Canadian Cormorants, I'd say that the maintenance man hours should not be used to comment on the machine at this point. The fleet here is small, the experience levels are low, the parts supply network is new (and yes, I understand there have been issues...I'd be more surprised if there weren't), and the environment is extrememly harsh. The machine that was replaced was well understood, not in its infancy, and yet it also had high MMH/FH ratio.
I'm about the truth, I'm not taking sides. I hope the president gets to ride in the best helicopter for the job. I honestly do not know which one that is, but I'd certainly be happy to fly either one of those machines (doubt if I could do it with the president on board...I'm not American).
Most important point here. Nobody died because of a hoist fail or any other part failing. In fact, many lives have been saved because of the capabilities of the Cormorant. I know the mission you're thinking about and its obvious that you don't. It's one thing to lie and/or speculate but to make hard hitting grandiose claims that are completely unsubstantiated is tremendously ungrateful to the people that risk their lives to save others. I shouldn't say what I'm really thinking.
Choosing the superior helicopter based on media reports is dangerous for a number of reasons. The first being that even the most honest and knowledgeable reporter will only tell a story that will sell. The facts may come from a reliable source but one that only knows a part of the story. Neither is superior overall, but one will prove to be superior when role, cost, national interests, safety, etc. are considered. Before you can pick the superior helicopter, you must understand the role it will fly.
On the website, the US101 team has hired a former presidential pilot who's indicated that the US101 will be good for the job. I'm certain Sikorsky has/could do the same and I'm certain they could support the same claim.
We're fortunate that Nick is here with an understanding of the role and the Sikorsky machine. I appreciate the information he provides. It's too bad there is nobody with that knowledge from the US101 team, it means that we're being educated with media clippings, catch phrases, rumour and speculation.
To set the record straight with respect to the Canadian Cormorants, I'd say that the maintenance man hours should not be used to comment on the machine at this point. The fleet here is small, the experience levels are low, the parts supply network is new (and yes, I understand there have been issues...I'd be more surprised if there weren't), and the environment is extrememly harsh. The machine that was replaced was well understood, not in its infancy, and yet it also had high MMH/FH ratio.
I'm about the truth, I'm not taking sides. I hope the president gets to ride in the best helicopter for the job. I honestly do not know which one that is, but I'd certainly be happy to fly either one of those machines (doubt if I could do it with the president on board...I'm not American).
Most important point here. Nobody died because of a hoist fail or any other part failing. In fact, many lives have been saved because of the capabilities of the Cormorant. I know the mission you're thinking about and its obvious that you don't. It's one thing to lie and/or speculate but to make hard hitting grandiose claims that are completely unsubstantiated is tremendously ungrateful to the people that risk their lives to save others. I shouldn't say what I'm really thinking.
Last edited by heedm; 10th Nov 2004 at 05:43.
S-92 Track Record
I'll bet if you look into the details all flying S-92's are still flying except one that was taken out of service to be a ground training device. It's class A mishap rate is ZERO over the life of the program to date and every crew member and passanger to ever get on an S-92 walked off at the end of the flight.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu, what the do you mean about 'crashworthiness', in both RN Merlin incidents the crew were in the aircraft at the time of impact and they all survived. On one occasion the aircraft entered the sea at >60kts and the cockpit held together - apparently if the same happened in a Sea King (from the same home as the S-92) there would of been fatalities - the words of the pilot not mine!
This 'crash' issue seems to be something that need clarification. Four airframes have been destroyed due to accidents. Sadly the crew of PP2 lost there lives but in all other cases the crew live to tell the tell. There is a 5th loss being talked about and this could be a reference to PP7 that made a running landing at Malpensa Airport. This wasn't really an accident and following a few repairs flew again soon after - in fact on one flight it took yours truly over Milan in early 98!
Although I have an interest in the EH101 I agree with Heedm in that I am not sure who has the best airframe US101 or S-92 (never flown the S-92) and it won't be the best aircraft to win the VXX contract but the 'right' one - just like Canada..
I will also ask you to think twice and then again when posting 'facts' to this site - I have the resources to check them and will take great pleasure in correcting you!
This 'crash' issue seems to be something that need clarification. Four airframes have been destroyed due to accidents. Sadly the crew of PP2 lost there lives but in all other cases the crew live to tell the tell. There is a 5th loss being talked about and this could be a reference to PP7 that made a running landing at Malpensa Airport. This wasn't really an accident and following a few repairs flew again soon after - in fact on one flight it took yours truly over Milan in early 98!
Although I have an interest in the EH101 I agree with Heedm in that I am not sure who has the best airframe US101 or S-92 (never flown the S-92) and it won't be the best aircraft to win the VXX contract but the 'right' one - just like Canada..
I will also ask you to think twice and then again when posting 'facts' to this site - I have the resources to check them and will take great pleasure in correcting you!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH844 ,
It would be good if you had some facts and not rose colored glasses for your favorite helicopter. Lu is right, and he has facts.
The EH-101 has compromised crashworthiness, falling quite short of US military crashworthiness. In a paper written by its designers and in its brochures, it is stated that the EH-101 has 15 G's of crashworthiness. This is remarkably better than a Huey, but far short of the 20 G's required by the US military.
The S-92 meets US Ml spec, at 20 G's.
I can provide the documentation for this to anyone who requests it in a PM to me. I can post it if enough interest is shown. I also understand that the "US-101" will not meet the US military crashworthiness standard until the second increment, thus assuring that a private in the US Army has better crashworthness than the president, should the EH-101 be chosen.
Also, ZH844, since you hold others to facts, you might try to tell the truth in your posts, otherwise we might learn to simply tune you out. The "running landing" at Malpensa that you say "wasn't really an accident" was a tail rotor drive shaft failure, followed by a roll over that had the entire rotor system destroyed, wasn't it? And yes it did re-fly, after 25 months of hard work at the factory, where only the lord knows how much was spent on it.
US military procedure calls for a Class A accident to be declared if the damage is over $1M. That was a Class A accident due to failure of a critical component.
What else have you posted that takes similar liberties?
It would be good if you had some facts and not rose colored glasses for your favorite helicopter. Lu is right, and he has facts.
The EH-101 has compromised crashworthiness, falling quite short of US military crashworthiness. In a paper written by its designers and in its brochures, it is stated that the EH-101 has 15 G's of crashworthiness. This is remarkably better than a Huey, but far short of the 20 G's required by the US military.
The S-92 meets US Ml spec, at 20 G's.
I can provide the documentation for this to anyone who requests it in a PM to me. I can post it if enough interest is shown. I also understand that the "US-101" will not meet the US military crashworthiness standard until the second increment, thus assuring that a private in the US Army has better crashworthness than the president, should the EH-101 be chosen.
Also, ZH844, since you hold others to facts, you might try to tell the truth in your posts, otherwise we might learn to simply tune you out. The "running landing" at Malpensa that you say "wasn't really an accident" was a tail rotor drive shaft failure, followed by a roll over that had the entire rotor system destroyed, wasn't it? And yes it did re-fly, after 25 months of hard work at the factory, where only the lord knows how much was spent on it.
US military procedure calls for a Class A accident to be declared if the damage is over $1M. That was a Class A accident due to failure of a critical component.
What else have you posted that takes similar liberties?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay folks, I think its time to get a hold of your emotions.
Everyone in the Helicpopter industry has complained that the biggest problem we have over the years is winning over the General Puplic , I hope the GP aren't reading this thread, it will put them off helicopters for life.
Offcourse the EH 101 is having problems, is it any different from any other new helicopter?
The 76 is a great offshore helicopter these days, but it wasn't always, was it ? rememeber spindles departing, blades departing, damper lugs breaking off, under powered engines, maintenance on them in the early 80's was a nightmare, and don't tell me different, if it wasn't for someones vision in re-equipping with Arriels I don't think there would too many flying offshore nowadays.
Before someone pipes up about the S92, which I have no doubt will be a great aircraft, remember this, the 61 was in service in the early sixtes, the 76 in 1978, but the 92 did not enter service until 2004 and it was developed from a proven drivetrain, doesn't that tell you something.
We all have our favourite helicopter, but that is no reason to knock another type without reason, there again some people's views obviously depend on what country the Helicopters were manufactured in, all other data is secondary.
Slainte,
Tynecastle.
Everyone in the Helicpopter industry has complained that the biggest problem we have over the years is winning over the General Puplic , I hope the GP aren't reading this thread, it will put them off helicopters for life.
Offcourse the EH 101 is having problems, is it any different from any other new helicopter?
The 76 is a great offshore helicopter these days, but it wasn't always, was it ? rememeber spindles departing, blades departing, damper lugs breaking off, under powered engines, maintenance on them in the early 80's was a nightmare, and don't tell me different, if it wasn't for someones vision in re-equipping with Arriels I don't think there would too many flying offshore nowadays.
Before someone pipes up about the S92, which I have no doubt will be a great aircraft, remember this, the 61 was in service in the early sixtes, the 76 in 1978, but the 92 did not enter service until 2004 and it was developed from a proven drivetrain, doesn't that tell you something.
We all have our favourite helicopter, but that is no reason to knock another type without reason, there again some people's views obviously depend on what country the Helicopters were manufactured in, all other data is secondary.
Slainte,
Tynecastle.
