Canadian Sea King replacement update
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BanjoPlayer,
For the S-92, none, no accidents or incidents.
Also, I did ask for some empty weights on the EH-101/Cormorant, but I guess nobody who flies them knows what they weigh
For the S-92, none, no accidents or incidents.
Also, I did ask for some empty weights on the EH-101/Cormorant, but I guess nobody who flies them knows what they weigh
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
Seek and ye shall find.
To: NickLappos
Check this site out.
EH-101 stats.
empty 7,121 kg / 15,700 lb
maximum take-off 13,530 kg / 29,830 lb
http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/heh101.asp
Check this site out.
EH-101 stats.
empty 7,121 kg / 15,700 lb
maximum take-off 13,530 kg / 29,830 lb
http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/heh101.asp
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: can't see for the fog
Age: 53
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pprune irregular and an RN Merlin operator (who hasn't got higher than "upstairs to Bedfordshire" since late March 04*) I must say that I've found the more recent comments on this the "Canadian Sea King Replacement Update" thread a tad anti Merlin
Why not call it the "I haven't flown it but would love to slag it off" thread
"maximum take-off 13,530 kg / 29,830 lb" - try adding another 1000kg
[email protected] - "However good it is in its primary RN role, despite not having a weapons system"
Do you mean to say that Stingray and DCs are not weapons? - I would love to hear from you as to what defines a weapons system.
*And yes I am really, really bored of staff work
Why not call it the "I haven't flown it but would love to slag it off" thread
"maximum take-off 13,530 kg / 29,830 lb" - try adding another 1000kg
[email protected] - "However good it is in its primary RN role, despite not having a weapons system"
Do you mean to say that Stingray and DCs are not weapons? - I would love to hear from you as to what defines a weapons system.
*And yes I am really, really bored of staff work
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Detracting somewhat from the original Canukian theme of this thread, but there's a great EH101 page at David Hastings' EH101 page.
Wrt the EH101's payload, the RN is due to undertake envelope expansion trials later this year, which should put the record straight as to exactly what she can do.
I/C
Wrt the EH101's payload, the RN is due to undertake envelope expansion trials later this year, which should put the record straight as to exactly what she can do.
I/C
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada/around
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This isn't even about the S-92. From a purely Canadian perspective, anyone who believes the EH-101 was even considered is completely ignorant of Canadian politics! It was a done deal from the start. I'm sure the S-92 will be a great machine, but it had NO competition.
This is Chretien's last gift to the canadian taxpayer, another helicopter purchase with no REAL bidding process, just lip service. These a$$holes don't deserve even our contempt.
But in the end, who cares, at least they finally did something.
This is Chretien's last gift to the canadian taxpayer, another helicopter purchase with no REAL bidding process, just lip service. These a$$holes don't deserve even our contempt.
But in the end, who cares, at least they finally did something.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu,
Thanks for that site, but it makes no sense. Probably very old info.
The brochure at their web site uses 19,600 lbs empty weight to give them 5350 KG useful load. I was hoping one of the guys who flies them would post a figure.
The H-92 has a useful load of 5900Kg.
Ian Corrigible,
In order to "set the record straight" it has to have a stated record, and I havn't seen any brave soul actually state what it can carry! I guess some things are either too embarassing, or a state secret!
If the MGW is extended, it still has to be hovered, and according to its brochures, it barely hovers OGE at its current MGW.
Thanks for that site, but it makes no sense. Probably very old info.
The brochure at their web site uses 19,600 lbs empty weight to give them 5350 KG useful load. I was hoping one of the guys who flies them would post a figure.
The H-92 has a useful load of 5900Kg.
Ian Corrigible,
In order to "set the record straight" it has to have a stated record, and I havn't seen any brave soul actually state what it can carry! I guess some things are either too embarassing, or a state secret!
If the MGW is extended, it still has to be hovered, and according to its brochures, it barely hovers OGE at its current MGW.
Last edited by NickLappos; 30th Jul 2004 at 04:58.
Spankymonkey - try as I might I can't find any pictures of the Merlin with the Stingray on it - I know successful launch trials were completed but is it available for use right now? Depth charges are, I suppose, a weapons system but the concept of ops for the Merlin was as an autonomous, long range ASW/anti surface helciopter - does the Merlin go out long range fully bombed up with Stingray since a depth charge is not much use against a surface target? I don't think so hence the 'flight envelope expansion trials' so that the aircraft will do what it was actually procured for.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previously posted by Helo Teacher
This isn't even about the S-92. From a purely Canadian perspective, anyone who believes the EH-101 was even considered is completely ignorant of Canadian politics! It was a done deal from the start. I'm sure the S-92 will be a great machine, but it had NO competition.
This is Chretien's last gift to the canadian taxpayer, another helicopter purchase with no REAL bidding process, just lip service. These a$$holes don't deserve even our contempt.
This isn't even about the S-92. From a purely Canadian perspective, anyone who believes the EH-101 was even considered is completely ignorant of Canadian politics! It was a done deal from the start. I'm sure the S-92 will be a great machine, but it had NO competition.
This is Chretien's last gift to the canadian taxpayer, another helicopter purchase with no REAL bidding process, just lip service. These a$$holes don't deserve even our contempt.
Quoting a certain Mr. Williams:
"Because someone says this is more capable or this can fly faster or higher . . . if I don't need that, why should I pay taxpayers' money for that?"
"Because someone says this is more capable or this can fly faster or higher . . . if I don't need that, why should I pay taxpayers' money for that?"
They were so darn sure that the EH101 would win again that they had to disqualify it to be on the safe side
The $HIT HAWK built to Military specs
Last edited by RotorPilot; 30th Jul 2004 at 13:51.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RotorPilot won't tell us what EH-101 can carry
Lots of electrons, RotorPilot, but you are still ducking the questions:
What is the empty weight of an EH-101?
What is the weight to hover OGE at sea level?
You love the political bull, but hate the facts, don't you?
Keep posting your cartoons, they are as technically astute as your opinions.
The H-92 carries more, goes farther, and goes faster than the EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin.
What is the empty weight of an EH-101?
What is the weight to hover OGE at sea level?
You love the political bull, but hate the facts, don't you?
Keep posting your cartoons, they are as technically astute as your opinions.
The H-92 carries more, goes farther, and goes faster than the EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
You are still not comparing bananas with bananas!!!
Its more like comparing a proven aircraft with a pre-production one. Two totally different aircraft after the same role.
You yourself are touting an unproven aircraft. The US101 is not a proven aircraft but its still got a proven airframe to comment on. The US101 is in the same boat as you. You are comparing the Merlin Mk3/ RN variant with yours. Its like comparing the Blackhawk with a Merlin, which will look better? How many improvements in the Blackhawk have there been over the years? I bet the current one runs rings round the first variant.
When the US101 is eventually flying do you think that your H-92 will compare favourably? Silly question really considering your role.
Some people should click the heels on their Red Ruby Slippers together and say "There is no place like home, There is no place like home, There is no place like home"
The H-92 carries more, goes farther, and goes faster than the EH-101/Cormorant/Merlin.
Its more like comparing a proven aircraft with a pre-production one. Two totally different aircraft after the same role.
You yourself are touting an unproven aircraft. The US101 is not a proven aircraft but its still got a proven airframe to comment on. The US101 is in the same boat as you. You are comparing the Merlin Mk3/ RN variant with yours. Its like comparing the Blackhawk with a Merlin, which will look better? How many improvements in the Blackhawk have there been over the years? I bet the current one runs rings round the first variant.
When the US101 is eventually flying do you think that your H-92 will compare favourably? Silly question really considering your role.
Some people should click the heels on their Red Ruby Slippers together and say "There is no place like home, There is no place like home, There is no place like home"
Last edited by Visionary; 30th Jul 2004 at 17:58.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nick,
I'm hoping that the RN trials will lead to some detailed payload info finally being released. Most of the UK's state secrets seem to be left in briefcases on park benches these days, so next time you're walking through Hyde Park, keep your eyes open - you never know...
Crab,
A couple of images of the EH101/Stingray combination:
I/C
I'm hoping that the RN trials will lead to some detailed payload info finally being released. Most of the UK's state secrets seem to be left in briefcases on park benches these days, so next time you're walking through Hyde Park, keep your eyes open - you never know...
Crab,
A couple of images of the EH101/Stingray combination:
I/C
Ian the second one is from the launch trials but you haven't answered my questions. The spec for the Apache is always touted with RF Hellfire but to my knowledge they don't actually have it yet - is this the same with the Stingray/Merlin?
Nick,
I would not throw stones, if I were you. The cert on the S-92 says it uses 30 minute contingency power to hover and it can not take-off or land above 3500' HD. It would be really embarrassing to loose an enemy sub (or whale) because you had to break off after 31 minutes.
I hear you are bringing a S-92 through the DFW area soon. I hope it is a cool day, or do you plan to truck it in like HAI?
The Sultan
I would not throw stones, if I were you. The cert on the S-92 says it uses 30 minute contingency power to hover and it can not take-off or land above 3500' HD. It would be really embarrassing to loose an enemy sub (or whale) because you had to break off after 31 minutes.
I hear you are bringing a S-92 through the DFW area soon. I hope it is a cool day, or do you plan to truck it in like HAI?
The Sultan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was preparing a longer answer to your questions, with some long details that will take some time to write, but I decied to cut short and post this
I must tell you that I am a former conscripted military pilot and had to made a “tour of duty” that lasted almost two and an half years battling Soviet backed terrorists (today they would be called Insurgents whatever that is) and had to learn how to fly helicopters in courses that included how to avoid SAM 7 Strella’s missiles, 14.7 calibre anti-aircraft guns, barrages of mortar “flak” and a huge generality of other smaller threats that other pilots that go for “commercial” licences do not have to learn or care about.
I went through a two and an half “tour of duty” where I personally experienced all that and had to put what I have learned to good use. I am not a sofa coach.
The military operations and the commercial world are two completely different types of flying with completely different tasks, needs and requirements. In a certain way they are opposites of each other.
Consequently a machine that is GOOD for one of these two worlds is almost forcefully BAD to the other because the concerns, needs and requirements addressed during the development phase are almost antagonic.
The H92 seems a fine “commercial” machine, IMHO is a BAD military machine.
The “pave Low” accident report I posted in my July 27 post is an example I can use again and again just to show you that:
These requirements were part of the initial bid and the second one, for whatever reason, was withdrawn when the first “watered down" of the specs that you and some politicians keep denying it existed. (I saw both documents).
Sikorsky insists in “if you loose one engine you land” type of approach that I qualify as irresponsible and the accident of the Pave Low show that perfectly. First to land one has to have where to land. And if even “uneven” terrain, as we saw, might be a “problem”, the middle of the ocean, frankly is not a fine place to put it.
So they bough a fine commercial machine to fly over the prairies flatlands as a substitute for the military Sea King…
The EH101 has to carry the weight of his superior performance, his superior endurance, his superior equipment his superior reliability, and his superior mission capability.
If THAT affects the payload, I say WHO IN HELL CARES FOR THAT because that helicopter it is not intended for commercial operations.
I don’t give a dime for better payload in exchange of inferior performance, inferior endurance, inferior equipment inferior reliability, and inferior mission capability.
And all the “performances” of the H92, whatever they are, were achieved sacrificing everything, safety included, but payload as the commercial operators wants.
The PAVE LOW payload was also decreased for a number of reasons. The US Air Force in a helicopter initially developed for the Navy also traded payload for better safety when it ordered the inclusion of armour in vital parts of the machine. Also traded payload for better capability loading it with advanced electronics including terrain following radar, FLIR, and a number of other advanced avionics.
This is to say that, military speaking, payload is something good but not something to be obtained at all costs and it is there and can be traded for something else if and when needed.
Speaking about “jet fighters”:
- How much payload can they carry with full tanks ???
- How much time can they fly with a full load of weapons ???
What one want over the sea is a helicopter that will not go to the fishes if one engine fails as it happened to the Sikorsky PAVE LOW a 55 million piece of flying equipment for 38 soldiers with two engines so underpowered that can’t fly safely within its own limits in Afheganistan.
Of course if more powerful and de-rated turbines were to be installed, that would include the reduction of the payload, the increase of its price, the increase fuel consumption and so on. In a word that aircraft would not be so competitive and it would be more expensive to operate... as usual, with something that is better, more powerful and with far bigger mission capabilities, just as the EH101 is.
Among other things it’s the FULL SURVIVABILITY WITH THE LOSS OF ONE ENGINE that is important. But those that did not want the EH101 cut this requirement. Now they accept to loose one helicopter to the loss of one engine. Its a very EXPENSIVE and DEADLY option.
To trade some of the payload for a third engine is a very smart choice that includes heavier gear box and transmission and so on.
To finish for now, I am saying something that has been a curse all my life:
ANYONE can access the cost of doing something or buying something. It takes a very INTELLIGENT and KNOWLEDGEBLE person to access the cost of NOT doing or not buying something.
The payload of the EH101 ?
Is exactly the difference between its maximum load and the weight of all the equipment necessary to fly safely high and hot, assure full survivability with the loss of one engine and all the advanced avionics necessary to help the pilots achieve the objectives of their future missions without too many risks of their lives and those of the troops they are carrying.
It can change over time with the inclusion of better and new equipment or if it is decided to trade some of it for something else.
Dicit
BTW that "thing" always saying Last edited by RotorPilot in sunch and such date is driving me nuts
I must tell you that I am a former conscripted military pilot and had to made a “tour of duty” that lasted almost two and an half years battling Soviet backed terrorists (today they would be called Insurgents whatever that is) and had to learn how to fly helicopters in courses that included how to avoid SAM 7 Strella’s missiles, 14.7 calibre anti-aircraft guns, barrages of mortar “flak” and a huge generality of other smaller threats that other pilots that go for “commercial” licences do not have to learn or care about.
I went through a two and an half “tour of duty” where I personally experienced all that and had to put what I have learned to good use. I am not a sofa coach.
The military operations and the commercial world are two completely different types of flying with completely different tasks, needs and requirements. In a certain way they are opposites of each other.
Consequently a machine that is GOOD for one of these two worlds is almost forcefully BAD to the other because the concerns, needs and requirements addressed during the development phase are almost antagonic.
The H92 seems a fine “commercial” machine, IMHO is a BAD military machine.
The “pave Low” accident report I posted in my July 27 post is an example I can use again and again just to show you that:
- Well overpowered de-rated turbines are a MUST for high and hot military missions.
- Full survivability with the loss of one engine is ANOTHER MUST for military operations especially over the sea, that can only be achieved either with two horrendously powerful turbines or with three engines powerful enough for two allowing a safe return to base, or, in certain cases, the completing of the mission.
These requirements were part of the initial bid and the second one, for whatever reason, was withdrawn when the first “watered down" of the specs that you and some politicians keep denying it existed. (I saw both documents).
Sikorsky insists in “if you loose one engine you land” type of approach that I qualify as irresponsible and the accident of the Pave Low show that perfectly. First to land one has to have where to land. And if even “uneven” terrain, as we saw, might be a “problem”, the middle of the ocean, frankly is not a fine place to put it.
So they bough a fine commercial machine to fly over the prairies flatlands as a substitute for the military Sea King…
The EH101 has to carry the weight of his superior performance, his superior endurance, his superior equipment his superior reliability, and his superior mission capability.
If THAT affects the payload, I say WHO IN HELL CARES FOR THAT because that helicopter it is not intended for commercial operations.
I don’t give a dime for better payload in exchange of inferior performance, inferior endurance, inferior equipment inferior reliability, and inferior mission capability.
And all the “performances” of the H92, whatever they are, were achieved sacrificing everything, safety included, but payload as the commercial operators wants.
The PAVE LOW payload was also decreased for a number of reasons. The US Air Force in a helicopter initially developed for the Navy also traded payload for better safety when it ordered the inclusion of armour in vital parts of the machine. Also traded payload for better capability loading it with advanced electronics including terrain following radar, FLIR, and a number of other advanced avionics.
This is to say that, military speaking, payload is something good but not something to be obtained at all costs and it is there and can be traded for something else if and when needed.
Speaking about “jet fighters”:
- How much payload can they carry with full tanks ???
- How much time can they fly with a full load of weapons ???
What one want over the sea is a helicopter that will not go to the fishes if one engine fails as it happened to the Sikorsky PAVE LOW a 55 million piece of flying equipment for 38 soldiers with two engines so underpowered that can’t fly safely within its own limits in Afheganistan.
Of course if more powerful and de-rated turbines were to be installed, that would include the reduction of the payload, the increase of its price, the increase fuel consumption and so on. In a word that aircraft would not be so competitive and it would be more expensive to operate... as usual, with something that is better, more powerful and with far bigger mission capabilities, just as the EH101 is.
Among other things it’s the FULL SURVIVABILITY WITH THE LOSS OF ONE ENGINE that is important. But those that did not want the EH101 cut this requirement. Now they accept to loose one helicopter to the loss of one engine. Its a very EXPENSIVE and DEADLY option.
To trade some of the payload for a third engine is a very smart choice that includes heavier gear box and transmission and so on.
To finish for now, I am saying something that has been a curse all my life:
ANYONE can access the cost of doing something or buying something. It takes a very INTELLIGENT and KNOWLEDGEBLE person to access the cost of NOT doing or not buying something.
The payload of the EH101 ?
Is exactly the difference between its maximum load and the weight of all the equipment necessary to fly safely high and hot, assure full survivability with the loss of one engine and all the advanced avionics necessary to help the pilots achieve the objectives of their future missions without too many risks of their lives and those of the troops they are carrying.
It can change over time with the inclusion of better and new equipment or if it is decided to trade some of it for something else.
Dicit
BTW that "thing" always saying Last edited by RotorPilot in sunch and such date is driving me nuts
Last edited by RotorPilot; 30th Jul 2004 at 20:02.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Crab,
Sorry, honestly don't know the official answer to that - I'd assumed that the Stingray had been carried operationally since the AUTEC trials in 2000, if not earlier.
One of the fish heads over at Military Aircrew might know.
I/C
Sorry, honestly don't know the official answer to that - I'd assumed that the Stingray had been carried operationally since the AUTEC trials in 2000, if not earlier.
One of the fish heads over at Military Aircrew might know.
I/C
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, perusing many sites I found 8600kg empty weight for a utility variant of the EH101, I assume that is reasonable for the naval variant less the mission kit. That makes a 6,000kg useful load.
Curious though, you keep telling us that the H92 is far superior than the EH101, but then admit that you have no numbers for the EH101. It seems to me you're not backing your claims with facts.
Matthew.
Curious though, you keep telling us that the H92 is far superior than the EH101, but then admit that you have no numbers for the EH101. It seems to me you're not backing your claims with facts.
Matthew.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heedm,
Thanks, heedm, that is a pretty good number. One must believe that Macy's knows what Gimble's is selling! I really want to raise a bit of consciousness about the facts.
Actually, I will post this weekend a full description of the two froma weights and performance aspect. The brochure empty weight of the EH-101 for stripped utility configuration is 19,644 lbs. which gives it a useful load (max payload) of about 12,000 lbs, or 5500 KG. his coincides with its ability to hover OGE at 3600 feet std day, according to the brochure.
I had hoped some intrepid airman would post the weight of his airplane, but I guess info around here is a one way street!
The H-92 weighs 15,079 stripped utility (dual autopilot, full nav and displays, etc) and hoge at 3600 ft std is 28,400 lbs, yielding a max payload of about 12,900lbs.
For all purposes at short range the aircraft are almost equal, with a small advantage to the H-92. At longer range, the H-92 gains, because it burns much less gas per mile. At 300 NM, the 92 carries a total of 1500 pounds more payload. All the hype about the "more capable" aircraft is known by the evaluation board to be hogwash, just as the rumors about equal price were also planted falsehoods.
Thanks, heedm, that is a pretty good number. One must believe that Macy's knows what Gimble's is selling! I really want to raise a bit of consciousness about the facts.
Actually, I will post this weekend a full description of the two froma weights and performance aspect. The brochure empty weight of the EH-101 for stripped utility configuration is 19,644 lbs. which gives it a useful load (max payload) of about 12,000 lbs, or 5500 KG. his coincides with its ability to hover OGE at 3600 feet std day, according to the brochure.
I had hoped some intrepid airman would post the weight of his airplane, but I guess info around here is a one way street!
The H-92 weighs 15,079 stripped utility (dual autopilot, full nav and displays, etc) and hoge at 3600 ft std is 28,400 lbs, yielding a max payload of about 12,900lbs.
For all purposes at short range the aircraft are almost equal, with a small advantage to the H-92. At longer range, the H-92 gains, because it burns much less gas per mile. At 300 NM, the 92 carries a total of 1500 pounds more payload. All the hype about the "more capable" aircraft is known by the evaluation board to be hogwash, just as the rumors about equal price were also planted falsehoods.