S-61 SeaKing
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear B Sousa,
Here's some info for you but its not a NSN
blade number - this advert has appeared in the HAI magazine ROTOR, every issue, for the past 12 months:
Surplus Parts Inventory Liquidation - S-61 Helicopter Inventory - over 39000 line items - avionic & electrical, dynamic, hyd-ASE, power plant, structural - (AN + MS + NAS)- all sold with certificate of compliance - for details contact ........their European rep has a United Kingdom phone number.
I'm not a tout so there's no more info to share. But to a ground-based guy like me it sure looks like somebody is trying to unload S-61 blades.
Here's some info for you but its not a NSN
blade number - this advert has appeared in the HAI magazine ROTOR, every issue, for the past 12 months:
Surplus Parts Inventory Liquidation - S-61 Helicopter Inventory - over 39000 line items - avionic & electrical, dynamic, hyd-ASE, power plant, structural - (AN + MS + NAS)- all sold with certificate of compliance - for details contact ........their European rep has a United Kingdom phone number.
I'm not a tout so there's no more info to share. But to a ground-based guy like me it sure looks like somebody is trying to unload S-61 blades.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Use of SeaKing Blades
The last time I checked, The SeaKing (S61A) blades were entirely different from the 61N/L. So I don't think you would get anywhere with them. Even the Shortski uses N Blades.
As for BIM's, your right, they won't give you a warning of a sudden catastrofic failure but the will give some idea that there is an impending problem i.e. cracked spar etc.
The last time I checked, The SeaKing (S61A) blades were entirely different from the 61N/L. So I don't think you would get anywhere with them. Even the Shortski uses N Blades.
As for BIM's, your right, they won't give you a warning of a sudden catastrofic failure but the will give some idea that there is an impending problem i.e. cracked spar etc.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Out and About
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-61 vs Bell 214B (At Altitude)
Hey Guys
Wanted to get some opinions. I was recently in canada watching the Bell 214B doing some heli logging. First off I was impressed. Great performance for a single engine machine.
The question is I understand that the S-61 can out lift the 214 at Sea level but as it gets higher the 214B comes into its own and at approx 3.5 - 4000 ft actually is a better lifter than the S-61. Could anyone comment on this. Not meaning to have a shot at the S-61 just trying to get some info.
Regards
Pac Rotors.
Wanted to get some opinions. I was recently in canada watching the Bell 214B doing some heli logging. First off I was impressed. Great performance for a single engine machine.
The question is I understand that the S-61 can out lift the 214 at Sea level but as it gets higher the 214B comes into its own and at approx 3.5 - 4000 ft actually is a better lifter than the S-61. Could anyone comment on this. Not meaning to have a shot at the S-61 just trying to get some info.
Regards
Pac Rotors.
I've never flown a 214B, and my memories of the 61 are foggy at best (haven't touched one since '94) but I seem to remember she didn't like altitude very much. It would come as no surprise to me that as long as the big two-blader had the lungs for it, she'd outperform Big Igor up high.
I do remember a trip across the Canadian Rockies at 11,500 once, speed somewhere around 80KIAS, with 1/rev and 5/rev competing for the rights to shake us to bits....
Maybe some of the loggers could help........
I do remember a trip across the Canadian Rockies at 11,500 once, speed somewhere around 80KIAS, with 1/rev and 5/rev competing for the rights to shake us to bits....
Maybe some of the loggers could help........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Out and About
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTD
The one operation I spent time with said their one will cruise around 140 knots no problem at all. I was very impressed with its performance so just wondered how much parity there is between S-61 and the 214B.
Pac Rotors
The one operation I spent time with said their one will cruise around 140 knots no problem at all. I was very impressed with its performance so just wondered how much parity there is between S-61 and the 214B.
Pac Rotors
214B, nice machine, but only one engine. 2950 shp derated to 1850 continuous. Max Gross wt 13800lbs loaded internally, or 16000 with a hook load. Max I have had on the hook was 7200lbs, at 1500', OAT 23C. Will cruise at 140kts, and it is possible to got through VNE if the blades are tracked and tabbed correctly. Good old nodal beam suspension. S61, the hook is cleared for 8000lbs, but the most I have personally carried is only around half of that, due to the aircraft fit. She starts to grumble a little at max gross with no wind, too, before you get to translational.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S61N MkII Sloping Ground limits.....?
Can anyone offer some data regarding the following:
-Sloping Ground Limits
-Max windspeed for Rotor Engagement/Disemgagement
-Icing limitations
-Flight time in recirculating snow
Will be most grateful to hear from anyone who could offer answers regarding any of the above......Cheers
-Sloping Ground Limits
-Max windspeed for Rotor Engagement/Disemgagement
-Icing limitations
-Flight time in recirculating snow
Will be most grateful to hear from anyone who could offer answers regarding any of the above......Cheers
Rotor engagement max steady wind 50kts
Vmin IMC 45kts
Cleared for light icing, 1/2 inch accretion in 40 NM
Flight in icing conditions min ambient temp -5C
Min freezing level 500ft above surface (so that a descent into a positive air band is possible)
Max alt 5000ft PA
Min flight temp in engine icing -23C (below +6Cwith precipitation or horizontal viz less than 1000m)
Sloping ground - no specific limits, but care should be taken with the fwd/aft cyclic & low collective combinations to avoid clobbering the fuselage - not good for your health & future employment. Other limits of pitch, roll & heave apply from the IVLL which each N Sea operator will have.
Hope this helps
Almost forgot, one N Sea operator has specific limits for protracted running on the ground in rreduced visibility caused by falling snow.
Vmin IMC 45kts
Cleared for light icing, 1/2 inch accretion in 40 NM
Flight in icing conditions min ambient temp -5C
Min freezing level 500ft above surface (so that a descent into a positive air band is possible)
Max alt 5000ft PA
Min flight temp in engine icing -23C (below +6Cwith precipitation or horizontal viz less than 1000m)
Sloping ground - no specific limits, but care should be taken with the fwd/aft cyclic & low collective combinations to avoid clobbering the fuselage - not good for your health & future employment. Other limits of pitch, roll & heave apply from the IVLL which each N Sea operator will have.
Hope this helps
Almost forgot, one N Sea operator has specific limits for protracted running on the ground in rreduced visibility caused by falling snow.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Attila....
Cheers for the info, forgive my ignorance but I'm not familiar with the terms Vmin and IVLL, wondered if you wouldnt mind elaborating on these?
Thanks.....Zap
Thanks.....Zap
V refers to speed, as in VNE, Velocity not to exceed. In this case, Vmin IMC is the minimum speed for operating the aircraft under Instrument Met Conditions. Various others include Vbroc, Vtoss, etc. I'll leave you to work those out.
IVLL is the Installation & Vessel Landing Limitations list. This is a document produced by the CAA after consultation with the helicopter operators. It includes all platforms, semi-subs, resupply vessel, seismic vessels operating in the Northern and Southern North Sea and provides information concerning any obstructions etc which may hinder your approach, plus gives restrictions on the amount of pitch, roll and heave that are acceptable for the various helicopter types!!
Phew, that's the epistle according to Attila, I'm off for a beer.
IVLL is the Installation & Vessel Landing Limitations list. This is a document produced by the CAA after consultation with the helicopter operators. It includes all platforms, semi-subs, resupply vessel, seismic vessels operating in the Northern and Southern North Sea and provides information concerning any obstructions etc which may hinder your approach, plus gives restrictions on the amount of pitch, roll and heave that are acceptable for the various helicopter types!!
Phew, that's the epistle according to Attila, I'm off for a beer.
I dont blame you......Have one for me!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Sea and elsewhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minor correction to Attila's last post. The IVLL is not produced by the CAA. It is produced by the UK North Sea helicopter companies (Bristow and Scotia). They finance the manpower to do helideck inspections, and collate all helideck info including voyage reports about turbulence etc. The end result is the Installation and vessel Limitations List (IVLL) which is available to our pilots during preflight planning and also in the cockpit. This allows us to be fully briefed on every aspect of a helideck prior to arrival. Gone are the days when one operator would impose a limitation on a deck due to a severe turbulence problem and no-one else would be told. All limitations etc are the same for each operator.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Britain
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see some uniformity for a change..
Thanks for that Coalface,
In a world with so many regulatory restrictions, minima and criteria to be up to speed with it is nice to see anything which standardises procedures and reduces workload for pilots, assuming you can get everyone to agree!
Thanks for that.....Zap
In a world with so many regulatory restrictions, minima and criteria to be up to speed with it is nice to see anything which standardises procedures and reduces workload for pilots, assuming you can get everyone to agree!
Thanks for that.....Zap
Sikorsky say's it's essentially out of the S61 business!
Sikorsky’s top marketing executive Jeff Pino offered the following insight into the internal thinking at Sikorsky.
Excuse me. Did I miss something? It must certainly have been the "support" offered on the S61 for the last few years? Maybe I missed it somewhere?
As Mr Pino has only just joined Sikorsky, he may well be unaware of the problems this particular model has suffered in the last few years - namely a lack of major parts to support the programme; gutting of the product support department and a TOTAL lack of interest in the problems this has posed for the operators of this type! It might be worth Sikorsky's while to get out and talk to some of their existing customers, rather than deliver this information to the AHS. We are already quite aware of the level of commitment from that end.
Fortunately there are alternatives to the factory for parts and support. One of the major bright spots in the S61's future is the composite Main Rotor Blades that Carson has had the vision to create. These blades provide a means to enhance the performance of the S61 to a level that means it will remain in commercial service for at least another 20 years, whether the marketing department wants it or not. The Carson blades offer the most economic improvement to the existing fleet that money can buy, and will be the way forward for many aircraft (including military) for some considerable time.
The fact that Sikorsky entirely lost the large offshore market (due to terminating manufacture of the S61) and handed the ENTIRE market to the Eurocopter Super Puma, is of course one of those great aviation mis-marketing stories of all time.
Now, to win back those lost (and very loyal) customers, they announce that they are essentially stopping support on the last large commercial helicopter they built , and that a large number of their loyal customers still operate.
Maybe I lost something in my comprehension of modern marketing methods, but somehow I think that those boys at Eurocopter who have been laughing in their wine for the last 20 years, must be in absolute hysterics now?
The S-61 program shows too many regulatory problems for Sikorsky to stay in the business. ‘We’ll support it, but essentially we’re out of that business in a direct sense.’ Pino implied the new Carson blade initiative for S-61s is also something Sikorsky will stay away from.
As Mr Pino has only just joined Sikorsky, he may well be unaware of the problems this particular model has suffered in the last few years - namely a lack of major parts to support the programme; gutting of the product support department and a TOTAL lack of interest in the problems this has posed for the operators of this type! It might be worth Sikorsky's while to get out and talk to some of their existing customers, rather than deliver this information to the AHS. We are already quite aware of the level of commitment from that end.
Fortunately there are alternatives to the factory for parts and support. One of the major bright spots in the S61's future is the composite Main Rotor Blades that Carson has had the vision to create. These blades provide a means to enhance the performance of the S61 to a level that means it will remain in commercial service for at least another 20 years, whether the marketing department wants it or not. The Carson blades offer the most economic improvement to the existing fleet that money can buy, and will be the way forward for many aircraft (including military) for some considerable time.
The fact that Sikorsky entirely lost the large offshore market (due to terminating manufacture of the S61) and handed the ENTIRE market to the Eurocopter Super Puma, is of course one of those great aviation mis-marketing stories of all time.
Now, to win back those lost (and very loyal) customers, they announce that they are essentially stopping support on the last large commercial helicopter they built , and that a large number of their loyal customers still operate.
Maybe I lost something in my comprehension of modern marketing methods, but somehow I think that those boys at Eurocopter who have been laughing in their wine for the last 20 years, must be in absolute hysterics now?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wall Street Journal mentioned last week that the planned purchases of Comanche helicopters maybe cut by an additional 40%, and there are plans to kill the program entirely.
On the other hand, Sikorsky has just been granted another patent [#6,454,532] on its Variable Diameter Rotor, for use in tilt rotors.
Perhaps after 60 years, Sikorsky is coming to recognize that the tail-rotor was the easy way, but the wrong way, to go. Perhaps the company is finally acknowledging the ingenuity of the Germans and the Russians with their coaxial, side-by-side and intermeshing configurations.
Dave J.
Symmetry is beauty ~ Ban the tail-rotor
On the other hand, Sikorsky has just been granted another patent [#6,454,532] on its Variable Diameter Rotor, for use in tilt rotors.
Perhaps after 60 years, Sikorsky is coming to recognize that the tail-rotor was the easy way, but the wrong way, to go. Perhaps the company is finally acknowledging the ingenuity of the Germans and the Russians with their coaxial, side-by-side and intermeshing configurations.
Dave J.
Symmetry is beauty ~ Ban the tail-rotor
Last edited by Dave Jackson; 1st Oct 2002 at 01:52.
Commercial operators just don't spend like the military. We buy S-61's back in the 1960's and continue to operate them 30 years later. The original batch of Bell 212's, still flying for operators in various parts of the world. We finally bite the bullet and buy the S-76, a totally new type, and sure enough continue to operate the same airframes, without buying any more new ones for the next 20 years +.
Compare that to the military that have a continuing turnover of aircraft, and suddenly it is clear that the financial pressures that commercial operators are under, make them pretty poor customers.
Compare that to the military that have a continuing turnover of aircraft, and suddenly it is clear that the financial pressures that commercial operators are under, make them pretty poor customers.
Commerical operators are poor customers for Sikorsky??? Funny, that seems to be a self inflicted wound to me! When the Pilots Unions formed in the Gulf of Mexico and the operators finally raised rates, one of the by-products was the ability to upgrade their fleets. That was announced in public by the operators themselves! Maybe, if the operators had used sound business management techniques all along and raised rates they would have been able to buy new aircraft over the years instead of continuing to fly antiques till they finally found their way to the boneyard. The helicopter industry is facing yet another crisis....and that is finding a way to replace all of these old aircraft with modern state of the art equipment. As long as they have an attitude of just getting by and relying upon outdated marginal operating practices.....the industry will continue to be a backwater to the aviation mainstream. Why should Sikorsky worry about a customer base that refuses to invest in new aircraft.....after all they are builders of aircraft primarily and suppliers of parts secondarily.
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a former SAC employee I can tell you that support for the S61 in future will go the way of support for the S64…..none. Product liability has made the bean counters turn their backs on these two fine products. Onesey and twosey sales to the commercial market don’t feed the bull dog….SAC marketing knows that they live and die by military sales and R&D funding.
Flexible is much too rigid, in aviation you have to be fluid. - Verne Jobst