Canadian Sea King replacement update
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to expand on Lu's comments.
Eng 1 is selectable between Accessory and main, via a switch on the overhead panel. In accessory only the Accessory gearbox is driven (as Lu says, free wheel unit prevents back driving on the input shaft from the main gearbox).
Normal start procedure (from memory) was start No 1 in Accessory, this gives 1 main generator and (I think) 1 hydraulics system. Then engine 2 is started (Eng 2 is always connected to the main gearbox), then eng No 3.
Once the rotor brake is released/engines run up and the rotor is up to speed the second generator and other 2 hydraulic systems are driven from the main gear box.
Eng 1 is then selected to Main, and drives the main gearbox directly, leaving the accessory gear box to be driven by the shaft from the main gearbox. (rotor brake is located on this shaft as well)
Eng 3 is also selectable, as it can be selected to Neutral (ie disconnected from main gearbox). This would allow 2 engine flight, though I don't believe any operators use this facility (has been used by Westlands for a range demo), and I'm not sure any one ever will.
I have a big soft spot for the EH 101, but suspect the S/H-92 will do better out in the world.
I've never had a ride in an s-92, so can't really compare.
Nick, how about a tour down-under, then you could convert me fully to the dark side (or light side, from your point of view).
Eng 1 is selectable between Accessory and main, via a switch on the overhead panel. In accessory only the Accessory gearbox is driven (as Lu says, free wheel unit prevents back driving on the input shaft from the main gearbox).
Normal start procedure (from memory) was start No 1 in Accessory, this gives 1 main generator and (I think) 1 hydraulics system. Then engine 2 is started (Eng 2 is always connected to the main gearbox), then eng No 3.
Once the rotor brake is released/engines run up and the rotor is up to speed the second generator and other 2 hydraulic systems are driven from the main gear box.
Eng 1 is then selected to Main, and drives the main gearbox directly, leaving the accessory gear box to be driven by the shaft from the main gearbox. (rotor brake is located on this shaft as well)
Eng 3 is also selectable, as it can be selected to Neutral (ie disconnected from main gearbox). This would allow 2 engine flight, though I don't believe any operators use this facility (has been used by Westlands for a range demo), and I'm not sure any one ever will.
I have a big soft spot for the EH 101, but suspect the S/H-92 will do better out in the world.
I've never had a ride in an s-92, so can't really compare.
Nick, how about a tour down-under, then you could convert me fully to the dark side (or light side, from your point of view).
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have one question , even though the aircraft theoretically can complete its mission after loss of one engine would in reality the mission not be aborted after loss of an engine ?. What does the flight manual say ?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH Engine Failure Requirement
I'm replying to those posts about the required behaviour post engine failure in the hover. Presumably both the EH101 and the H-92 meet these requirements, since they were pre-qualified.
While the MH SOR is still on the web, the derivative system spec. (MHRS) was removed. From the last version made public, here are relevant requirements:
"3.5.2.3.2.2 Single Engine Failure In Hover
3.5.2.3.2.2.1 [M] Following a single engine FAILURE while in a minimum of 60 foot sonar search hover, in the two payload/endurance conditions in this RS, the MH shall provide for a controlled descent and ditching, or after transition to forward flight, safe recovery at the nearest practical landing site. Jettison of EXTERNAL STORES, dipping sonar, sonobuoys in the launcher, and dumping of fuel is permitted to achieve the transition to forward flight.
3.5.2.3.2.2.2 [M] Following a single engine FAILURE while in a 60 foot operational hover over land, in the two payload/endurance conditions in this RS, the MH shall provide for a controlled descent and emergency landing, or after transition to forward flight, safe recovery at the nearest practical landing site."
My understanding is that these requirements did not change, and that the competing helicopters were analyzed in detail for compliance. Also, they were stringently applied. "Payload and endurance conditions" specified were for hover immediately after MGW take-off.
On another note, the MH Deputy Program Manager, in a press conference last year, responded to a query about the ability to fly away in this condition, responded that all the helicopters, including the EH101, were going to get wet after an engine failure in the hover immediately after take-off.
It appears to me that we can conclude there is little to choose between the EH101 and H-92 for OEI performance in practical terms. We need to look elsewhere for technical comparisons, probably focussing on cabin size as a primary discriminator vs. fuel consumption and maintenance burden.
While the MH SOR is still on the web, the derivative system spec. (MHRS) was removed. From the last version made public, here are relevant requirements:
"3.5.2.3.2.2 Single Engine Failure In Hover
3.5.2.3.2.2.1 [M] Following a single engine FAILURE while in a minimum of 60 foot sonar search hover, in the two payload/endurance conditions in this RS, the MH shall provide for a controlled descent and ditching, or after transition to forward flight, safe recovery at the nearest practical landing site. Jettison of EXTERNAL STORES, dipping sonar, sonobuoys in the launcher, and dumping of fuel is permitted to achieve the transition to forward flight.
3.5.2.3.2.2.2 [M] Following a single engine FAILURE while in a 60 foot operational hover over land, in the two payload/endurance conditions in this RS, the MH shall provide for a controlled descent and emergency landing, or after transition to forward flight, safe recovery at the nearest practical landing site."
My understanding is that these requirements did not change, and that the competing helicopters were analyzed in detail for compliance. Also, they were stringently applied. "Payload and endurance conditions" specified were for hover immediately after MGW take-off.
On another note, the MH Deputy Program Manager, in a press conference last year, responded to a query about the ability to fly away in this condition, responded that all the helicopters, including the EH101, were going to get wet after an engine failure in the hover immediately after take-off.
It appears to me that we can conclude there is little to choose between the EH101 and H-92 for OEI performance in practical terms. We need to look elsewhere for technical comparisons, probably focussing on cabin size as a primary discriminator vs. fuel consumption and maintenance burden.
Is not the real question wether the crew will like their new machine or not?
The government has spoken, and wether the choice was good or bad, we STILL have to live with it!
The guys out there flying the old and merry Sea Kings should be happy, they're finally getting a new machine! I wish I was flying one of them (S-92 that is)
The government has spoken, and wether the choice was good or bad, we STILL have to live with it!
The guys out there flying the old and merry Sea Kings should be happy, they're finally getting a new machine! I wish I was flying one of them (S-92 that is)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: the Port Wait.....again
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see that prooners' appetite for slagging off Merlin has not diminished.
Keep up the speculation and conjecture, after all this a Rumour network, not a fact Network. Most enjoyable.
Keep up the speculation and conjecture, after all this a Rumour network, not a fact Network. Most enjoyable.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see that prooners' appetite for slagging off Merlin has not diminished.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK folks, here's the latest little tidbit about the new wonder helicopters for the Canadian Navy. The "bear traps" that anchor the helicopter to the deck have to be changed to low profile versions at a cost of..........wait for it............$30,000,000CDN.
These new bear traps are to be fitted to all the frigates.
However..........the 3 destroyers are not going to be re-equipped and are going to be deployed in the sea of iran with....yeah, you guessed it....SEAKINGS!!!!!!!!
Only in Canada!
These new bear traps are to be fitted to all the frigates.
However..........the 3 destroyers are not going to be re-equipped and are going to be deployed in the sea of iran with....yeah, you guessed it....SEAKINGS!!!!!!!!
Only in Canada!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this not already included in the contract price ? , would the other helicopter have just been plug and play ?. Interesting about the sea king though , what class are these destroyers ?.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Widgeon, I dont know what class the destroyers are.....they are all big boats to me! There was no mention whether the $30M is included in the contract or not. I would not be the least bit surprised if it is an oversight by the procurement division of DOD. I cant wait to see what is next in the great big helicopter debacle.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KENNYR,
I do know that the required mods to ships was of great interest, and I believe was a big part of the decision. EH-101 required extensive modification of the hangars, since it is much taller than Sea King, H-92 is actually a bit shorter externally (the lack of belly fuel makes the cabin floor lower to the ground, so the rotor head can be lower), so the mods were much less onerous.
You act as though 30 million is an enormous sum, but running ships is costly, and so is modifying them, and this cost is not outlandish. Most societies in the western world spend about 150,000 Canadian for each man in the service, so a ship with 250 crew costs about 37 million per year just on manpower cost. Most ships of this size cost about 250 million, so the cost of the money alone is about 20 Mill per year. Maintenance of a modern ship is about 10% of its value per year (a house is about 3%, by comparison) so the maintenance bill is about 25 Million. This still has not put one drop of oil into the ship, nor any ammo, nor the helicopters. It was a billionaire who once said, in response to the question of how much his yacht cost, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it!"
Now please let me unload a bit, and forgive me for what I am about to say. But as an expert on helicopters, and an admirer of the selection officers who work so hard (all the while knowing that they will be villified by someone) I must defend those who made the selection. I always find it amusing how people such as yourself find it so easy to believe that serving officers who make these selections are buffoons and preside over farces. It is a powerful human belief that one knows more than people who have worked dilligently to make the choice. Mistrust is something of a drug some of us. The ability to hide behind an anonymous user name and trash folks who are trying their best to do a good job is one of the amazing facets of people. Especially when the guys you trash signed the report with their own names and rank with the pride that they did their job well.
I do know that the required mods to ships was of great interest, and I believe was a big part of the decision. EH-101 required extensive modification of the hangars, since it is much taller than Sea King, H-92 is actually a bit shorter externally (the lack of belly fuel makes the cabin floor lower to the ground, so the rotor head can be lower), so the mods were much less onerous.
You act as though 30 million is an enormous sum, but running ships is costly, and so is modifying them, and this cost is not outlandish. Most societies in the western world spend about 150,000 Canadian for each man in the service, so a ship with 250 crew costs about 37 million per year just on manpower cost. Most ships of this size cost about 250 million, so the cost of the money alone is about 20 Mill per year. Maintenance of a modern ship is about 10% of its value per year (a house is about 3%, by comparison) so the maintenance bill is about 25 Million. This still has not put one drop of oil into the ship, nor any ammo, nor the helicopters. It was a billionaire who once said, in response to the question of how much his yacht cost, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it!"
Now please let me unload a bit, and forgive me for what I am about to say. But as an expert on helicopters, and an admirer of the selection officers who work so hard (all the while knowing that they will be villified by someone) I must defend those who made the selection. I always find it amusing how people such as yourself find it so easy to believe that serving officers who make these selections are buffoons and preside over farces. It is a powerful human belief that one knows more than people who have worked dilligently to make the choice. Mistrust is something of a drug some of us. The ability to hide behind an anonymous user name and trash folks who are trying their best to do a good job is one of the amazing facets of people. Especially when the guys you trash signed the report with their own names and rank with the pride that they did their job well.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me for being a concerned tax payer who is extremely tired of being fleeced by the Government of Canada over a f**king helicopter. If you have not lived in this country then please dont preach to its residents Nick.
My name and status is available to anyone who requests it so dont go off on a rant about "anonymity". I dont profess to be an expert on helicopters but I did fly one for many years before retiring and my comments are based on concern for the Canadian public who have been stiffed.
I am not calling any serving officer a buffoon, just the civil servants who control the purse strings and profess to know what is best for the Canadian Forces and the Canadian people.
I do not care a rats arse which helicopter is chosen, I care only that the best helicopter is chosen at the best price WITHOUT politics getting in the way. I care a great deal for the guys and girls who have to operate the machine in service.
So, dont go running off at the mouth just because you are a so called "helicopter expert".
As an aside, why does Canada need a Navy in the first place, they dont get into harms way with its fleet anyway...........peace keeping........huh.
My name and status is available to anyone who requests it so dont go off on a rant about "anonymity". I dont profess to be an expert on helicopters but I did fly one for many years before retiring and my comments are based on concern for the Canadian public who have been stiffed.
I am not calling any serving officer a buffoon, just the civil servants who control the purse strings and profess to know what is best for the Canadian Forces and the Canadian people.
I do not care a rats arse which helicopter is chosen, I care only that the best helicopter is chosen at the best price WITHOUT politics getting in the way. I care a great deal for the guys and girls who have to operate the machine in service.
So, dont go running off at the mouth just because you are a so called "helicopter expert".
As an aside, why does Canada need a Navy in the first place, they dont get into harms way with its fleet anyway...........peace keeping........huh.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, KENNYR, who said, "My name and status is available to anyone who requests it so dont go off on a rant about "anonymity".""
I request that you post your name and status.
Also, you don't even know who you are criticizing, as the final report was signed by those military officers who made the selection.
I request that you post your name and status.
Also, you don't even know who you are criticizing, as the final report was signed by those military officers who made the selection.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Ritchie, retired army QHI. Now what difference does that make.
They may have made the decision, but was it a considered choice or was it politically motivated?
They may have made the decision, but was it a considered choice or was it politically motivated?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
Thanks for that courtesy, I do appreciate it.
The selection recommendation came out of the source selection committee, which was military, not political, as I understand it. The reports of political pressure came from the loser, who was, throughout the selection, quite willing to criticize the military guys who were running the show, and who was willing to publish inaccurate and misleading technical info in an attempt to sway the public.
The people I saw and met were wearing the uniform of their country, were lately from Operational squadrons (so they would eventually fly the machine they picked) and were ernestly doing a tough job. That is why I react the way I do.
Thanks for that courtesy, I do appreciate it.
The selection recommendation came out of the source selection committee, which was military, not political, as I understand it. The reports of political pressure came from the loser, who was, throughout the selection, quite willing to criticize the military guys who were running the show, and who was willing to publish inaccurate and misleading technical info in an attempt to sway the public.
The people I saw and met were wearing the uniform of their country, were lately from Operational squadrons (so they would eventually fly the machine they picked) and were ernestly doing a tough job. That is why I react the way I do.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
Whether Canada needs a navy or not is irrelevant in this discussion. The fact is that Canada has a navy and if we continue to have one then we must supply that navy. Hence the purchase.
The DOD made no oversight as Canada doesn't have a DOD. It's called DND, The Department of National Defence.
The facts that matter are that militaries across the world are subject to the decisions of the leaders of the country. Canada had the military create a specification for a helicopter to do the role for the navy. The helicopter that was selected met that specification. I don't see a problem here.
Lets focus on the good. The Sea Kings are going to be replaced with a capable machine. What's the problem with this?
Matthew.
Whether Canada needs a navy or not is irrelevant in this discussion. The fact is that Canada has a navy and if we continue to have one then we must supply that navy. Hence the purchase.
The DOD made no oversight as Canada doesn't have a DOD. It's called DND, The Department of National Defence.
The facts that matter are that militaries across the world are subject to the decisions of the leaders of the country. Canada had the military create a specification for a helicopter to do the role for the navy. The helicopter that was selected met that specification. I don't see a problem here.
Lets focus on the good. The Sea Kings are going to be replaced with a capable machine. What's the problem with this?
Matthew.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well forgive me for getting the abbreviation wrong.....but you knew exactly what I meant, didnt you?
I have already stated that I couldnt give a rats arse what helicopter the Navy gets as long as the costs dont spiral out of control. Will the $5 Billion turn into $10 BIllion by the time the helis are ready? Will the manufacturers, all 170 of them, be able to produce the goods on time and on budget? Will the Frigates be converted on time?
I am glad that Canada has decided to upgrade the heli fleet but at what cost to the already cash-strapped tax payer. When the government changes in 4 years will this helicopter be scrapped because of political grandstanding?
I'm just a sceptic who has seen all this once before. Will the helicopter fiasco turn out to be the same as the submarine fiasco.....4 Submarines?.....dangerous place the St Lawrence seaway!!!!! (he says, sarcastically).
I have already stated that I couldnt give a rats arse what helicopter the Navy gets as long as the costs dont spiral out of control. Will the $5 Billion turn into $10 BIllion by the time the helis are ready? Will the manufacturers, all 170 of them, be able to produce the goods on time and on budget? Will the Frigates be converted on time?
I am glad that Canada has decided to upgrade the heli fleet but at what cost to the already cash-strapped tax payer. When the government changes in 4 years will this helicopter be scrapped because of political grandstanding?
I'm just a sceptic who has seen all this once before. Will the helicopter fiasco turn out to be the same as the submarine fiasco.....4 Submarines?.....dangerous place the St Lawrence seaway!!!!! (he says, sarcastically).
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KennyR:
First you posted this:
Later, you posted things like:
and this:
Is not the sea of Iran in harms way? Is it not a dangerous place?
First you posted this:
.the 3 destroyers are not going to be re-equipped and are going to be deployed in the sea of iran with.
dangerous place the St Lawrence seaway
they dont get into harms way with its fleet anyway
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Iraq have an effective airforce and navy and they get their hands on some silkworm missiles and then have the capability to launch them and then seed the sea of Iran with mines....etc. etc.. then it becomes a dangerous place. The only danger to these ships is from its own Seakings!!!
Iran will not attack a Canadian ship or any other coalition ship in the sea or iran, they are not that stupid.
Iran will not attack a Canadian ship or any other coalition ship in the sea or iran, they are not that stupid.
Last edited by KENNYR; 10th Aug 2004 at 18:47.
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
Depends on your point of view.
I don’t believe there is any such body of water as the Iranian Sea. It is either the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Gulf depending on which shore you are standing on. Iran and Saudi Arabia almost went to war over this distinction. I believe there is an Arabian Sea but this is outside the Gulf area.
