S-61 SeaKing
Maybe they are not out of the S61 business?
It appears that there is much activity within the organization as to how such a damaging story could ever have appeared - watch for some clarification in the near future.
Carson blades may happen yet from the factory!
S61 is not a lost cause!
Maybe some of the big parts will be available again when you need them!
In the meantime, a new story today from Rotorhub pleads the case for the dangers of the current joint ventures between European helicopter manufacturers and US defence manufacturers.
My only comment to this would be to look at the example of other manufacturing industries that failed to deliver on product, price, support and value - all of which the customer takes into account whenever any elective decision is made.
Whilst the management of Sikorsky seemingly undergoes regular massive changes, the core strengths and knowledge of the operators do not - the customers know the product and the company. They also know what to expect and can gauge that performance to 2, 5 or 15 years ago - maybe internally that capability has been lost?
Incidentally, I heard that one operator had 4 S61's down at one point this summer due to a shortage of Main Rotor Masts!
Carson blades may happen yet from the factory!
S61 is not a lost cause!
Maybe some of the big parts will be available again when you need them!
In the meantime, a new story today from Rotorhub pleads the case for the dangers of the current joint ventures between European helicopter manufacturers and US defence manufacturers.
My only comment to this would be to look at the example of other manufacturing industries that failed to deliver on product, price, support and value - all of which the customer takes into account whenever any elective decision is made.
Whilst the management of Sikorsky seemingly undergoes regular massive changes, the core strengths and knowledge of the operators do not - the customers know the product and the company. They also know what to expect and can gauge that performance to 2, 5 or 15 years ago - maybe internally that capability has been lost?
Incidentally, I heard that one operator had 4 S61's down at one point this summer due to a shortage of Main Rotor Masts!
Er, well maybe those new blades will be available after all?
Seems that the Carson blades may be back on the programme again! Now lets tackle some of the problems that somone else hasn't solved!
Rotorhub story
Carson: S61 blade TC and Sikorsky deal near
Source: Defence & Public Service Helicopter
28 October 2002
Frank Carson - inventor of a blade designed to enhance performance of the existing fleet of Sikorsky S-61 helicopters - says FAA approval of the new design Type Certificate (TC) will be received ‘by December 15 this year.’
An earlier deadline of this past June slipped ‘due to paperwork issues, nothing to do with the blade itself,’ Carson tells Rotorhub.com.
‘We’re up to 18,000 hours of fatigue testing and we’ve had the flight testing for the Type Inspectional Authorisation (TIA) completed.’
Carson also said a deal with Sikorsky on the blades will be announced soon, possibly within the next three weeks.
‘We can’t tell you the details obviously, but it will seal the relationship between us,’ Carson said.
Meanwhile, Carson says production tooling has been set up. The work will be performed by Composite Structures Inc., Monrovia, Ca.
‘They’re probably going to start making the first articles by the end of this year.’
Carson said his nine-strong fleet of S-61s would be the first customers, but that others were waiting in the wings.
‘As soon as we have the approval, we can start marketing them,’ he said.
A deal with Sikorsky is expected to see Carson Helicopters feeding new blades to Helicopter Support Inc., Orange, Conn., Sikorsky Aircraft’s wholly owned service and support organisation, says Jeff Hill of Carson.
‘I expect they’ll be our worldwide marketing organisation for the blade.’
Sikorsky had no comment on an impending deal, however.
‘I don’t know what the meaning of soon is,’ said Ed Steadham, company spokesman.
Jeff Pino, the company’s marketing executive director claims he was misinterpreted when he told an AHS meeting recently that Sikorsky had no plans to ‘directly’ support S-61s or the Carson blade in the field.
That started a stream of messages to Rotorhub.com questioning the policy. Pino declined to take the matter further.
The Carson blade has been widely praised for significantly raising performance margins of the original S-61 blade design.
The story of development has been a saga. Carson claims many years - and equally as many millions of dollars - have been poured into the project.
‘We’re almost there,’ he said. ‘You’ ll be the first to hear.’
Rotorhub story
Carson: S61 blade TC and Sikorsky deal near
Source: Defence & Public Service Helicopter
28 October 2002
Frank Carson - inventor of a blade designed to enhance performance of the existing fleet of Sikorsky S-61 helicopters - says FAA approval of the new design Type Certificate (TC) will be received ‘by December 15 this year.’
An earlier deadline of this past June slipped ‘due to paperwork issues, nothing to do with the blade itself,’ Carson tells Rotorhub.com.
‘We’re up to 18,000 hours of fatigue testing and we’ve had the flight testing for the Type Inspectional Authorisation (TIA) completed.’
Carson also said a deal with Sikorsky on the blades will be announced soon, possibly within the next three weeks.
‘We can’t tell you the details obviously, but it will seal the relationship between us,’ Carson said.
Meanwhile, Carson says production tooling has been set up. The work will be performed by Composite Structures Inc., Monrovia, Ca.
‘They’re probably going to start making the first articles by the end of this year.’
Carson said his nine-strong fleet of S-61s would be the first customers, but that others were waiting in the wings.
‘As soon as we have the approval, we can start marketing them,’ he said.
A deal with Sikorsky is expected to see Carson Helicopters feeding new blades to Helicopter Support Inc., Orange, Conn., Sikorsky Aircraft’s wholly owned service and support organisation, says Jeff Hill of Carson.
‘I expect they’ll be our worldwide marketing organisation for the blade.’
Sikorsky had no comment on an impending deal, however.
‘I don’t know what the meaning of soon is,’ said Ed Steadham, company spokesman.
Jeff Pino, the company’s marketing executive director claims he was misinterpreted when he told an AHS meeting recently that Sikorsky had no plans to ‘directly’ support S-61s or the Carson blade in the field.
That started a stream of messages to Rotorhub.com questioning the policy. Pino declined to take the matter further.
The Carson blade has been widely praised for significantly raising performance margins of the original S-61 blade design.
The story of development has been a saga. Carson claims many years - and equally as many millions of dollars - have been poured into the project.
‘We’re almost there,’ he said. ‘You’ ll be the first to hear.’
Heliport....
Throw in the comparison of the Alouette III or Lama against the Bell 205A.....and get a real fuss started. The French machines did the same thing to the 205 as the 214 does to the 61.
Throw in the comparison of the Alouette III or Lama against the Bell 205A.....and get a real fuss started. The French machines did the same thing to the 205 as the 214 does to the 61.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: an island
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew the 214B in Oman for 8 years, yes, it does only have one donk, but an extremely reliable one; (we did have compressor stall problems, due to sand/dust ingestion, but a daily engine wash cured that).
Currently am on the 61 and I wouldn’t like to try some of the lifts I did then, 8000’ density altitude and 5000 lbs on the hook, (if you ignored the EGT limit light you could always get 100% torque!), but then again, current job wouldn’t require me to.
I seem to recall the ‘normal’ cruise for the biglifter was around 128 IAS at 6000’ DA, you’d be hard pressed to get a 61 anywhere near that, blade technology has progressed even further, maybe the Carson blades will give the 61 a new lease of life.
Currently am on the 61 and I wouldn’t like to try some of the lifts I did then, 8000’ density altitude and 5000 lbs on the hook, (if you ignored the EGT limit light you could always get 100% torque!), but then again, current job wouldn’t require me to.
I seem to recall the ‘normal’ cruise for the biglifter was around 128 IAS at 6000’ DA, you’d be hard pressed to get a 61 anywhere near that, blade technology has progressed even further, maybe the Carson blades will give the 61 a new lease of life.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
s61 /carson vs S92
Was talking to someone today who claimed that S61 with Carson blades has range and lifting capacity similar to S92 . Anyone out there got any real figures ?. When will blades be widely available ?. Will be worth picking up them H3 bodies from the desert to upgrade em.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
61 hard over
Just a question to all you long time 61 drivers…… I’ve flown the 76 for many years and have gotten into the habit of flying (in cruse flight) with my hand off the collective. Now one of the guy’s I fly with says that it makes him “nervous” when I do this in the 61. He claims that if there was a hard over I would be unable to select the appropriate hydraulic system off in time. I don’t think I agree for a few reasons. Some of which are as follows.
1. The reaction time to get your hand back to the collective (purely instinctive) is almost instantaneous as opposed to the time required to sort out the hard over problem?
2. How many hard overs has the 61 had over its career?
3. Would there have been any difference in the out come of such an event in the split second difference in times?
Any input to this question would be appreciated.
polehog
1. The reaction time to get your hand back to the collective (purely instinctive) is almost instantaneous as opposed to the time required to sort out the hard over problem?
2. How many hard overs has the 61 had over its career?
3. Would there have been any difference in the out come of such an event in the split second difference in times?
Any input to this question would be appreciated.
polehog
Why would you want to switch off the hydraulics if you have a hard-over, assuming in English a hardover is an autopilot problem, not a hydraulics-- and assuming a -61 is same as a Sea-king? Seems like you really want to make it difficult?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the condition that I'm talking about.
FLIGHT CONTROL HYDRAULIC SERVO SYSTEM FAILURE.
Control of the helicopter can be maintained through either the primary or the auxiliary flight control hy-
draulic servo system if one or the other should fail; however, prolonged operation on one servo system
is not recommended. This is a serious emergency because control is impossible with both servo systems
inoperative. Reduce airspeed to 60 to 70 hots and land at the nearest suitable landing area. With the
auxiliary servo system inoperative, the AFCS is inoperative.
Some malfunctions may cause rapid changes in aircraft attitude. The pilot’s immediate response should be
to counteract the malfunction by exerting appropriate forces on the controls. However, if a malfunction
produces forces too large to be reacted by the pilot, it is imperative to turn off the malfunctioning unit.
Because it is difficult to identify the cause of a malfunction, and because prompt action is necessary to
avoid exceeding aircraft operating limitations, the following procedure is recommended:
~ 1. If either stick drives hardover or can’t be moved, turn off units in this sequence:
a. Simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the primary servo.
I b. Turn off the auxiliaryservo.
~ The above steps should be followed sequentially, only until an improvement in control is achieved. When
either the primary or the auxiliary servo system has been turned off and the abnormal condition still
exists, the opposite servo system should be turned off. Be prepared to quickly turn the servo back on
should aircraft control become further degraded following the turn-off of a servo.
Note
Because of the pressure switch interlock, it is impossible to turn off one servo
system when the pressure in the other servo system is below 1000 psi.
2. If pedals drive hardover or can’t be moved, simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the auxiliary servo.
Once a malfunctioning servo system has been identified and corrective action has been taken, reduce air-
speed to 60 to 70 knots and avoid rapid maneuvers to minimize control forces. Land as soon as practicable.
Thanks
polehog
FLIGHT CONTROL HYDRAULIC SERVO SYSTEM FAILURE.
Control of the helicopter can be maintained through either the primary or the auxiliary flight control hy-
draulic servo system if one or the other should fail; however, prolonged operation on one servo system
is not recommended. This is a serious emergency because control is impossible with both servo systems
inoperative. Reduce airspeed to 60 to 70 hots and land at the nearest suitable landing area. With the
auxiliary servo system inoperative, the AFCS is inoperative.
Some malfunctions may cause rapid changes in aircraft attitude. The pilot’s immediate response should be
to counteract the malfunction by exerting appropriate forces on the controls. However, if a malfunction
produces forces too large to be reacted by the pilot, it is imperative to turn off the malfunctioning unit.
Because it is difficult to identify the cause of a malfunction, and because prompt action is necessary to
avoid exceeding aircraft operating limitations, the following procedure is recommended:
~ 1. If either stick drives hardover or can’t be moved, turn off units in this sequence:
a. Simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the primary servo.
I b. Turn off the auxiliaryservo.
~ The above steps should be followed sequentially, only until an improvement in control is achieved. When
either the primary or the auxiliary servo system has been turned off and the abnormal condition still
exists, the opposite servo system should be turned off. Be prepared to quickly turn the servo back on
should aircraft control become further degraded following the turn-off of a servo.
Note
Because of the pressure switch interlock, it is impossible to turn off one servo
system when the pressure in the other servo system is below 1000 psi.
2. If pedals drive hardover or can’t be moved, simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the auxiliary servo.
Once a malfunctioning servo system has been identified and corrective action has been taken, reduce air-
speed to 60 to 70 knots and avoid rapid maneuvers to minimize control forces. Land as soon as practicable.
Thanks
polehog
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 61 is different in that the servos are not dual, there are two in series, one a smaller aux servo, and one the big primary. Most newer helos have a dual primary servo, with identical tandem cylinders and dual pilot valves. These newer servos really cant hardover, since a single failure will cause one to try and move but be restrained by the other. Presumably a dual simultaneous pilot valve failure is too rare to worry about.
All this being said, the hand on the collective of a 61 will do nothing to stop the hardover, except to reach for the hydraulic shutoff switch quicker. Even so, turning off one or the other servo is a crap shoot.
I do not know of a hardover in a 61 servo, and would not think it worth losing any sleep over.
All this being said, the hand on the collective of a 61 will do nothing to stop the hardover, except to reach for the hydraulic shutoff switch quicker. Even so, turning off one or the other servo is a crap shoot.
I do not know of a hardover in a 61 servo, and would not think it worth losing any sleep over.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
widgeon,
The Carson web site says they get 2000 lbs more lift for the same power (about 10% more thrust). With that increase, they would just about equal the raw lift of the EH-101 or the S-92.
We would have to see the flight manual to see if that is an across the board increase, or just a spot point where it is maximum. I would suspect that the flight manual charts would be published on the web site if it were truly a blanket +2000 lbs.
Remember that the rest of the aircraft needs a bit more maintenance, and the parts are getting hard to find. Also, the level of safety in the design is of the 1960 vintage. These factors all weigh in. We find the popularity of the S-92 is associated with the increased attention to safety and redundancy, a by product of the newer design and the lessons learned in the intervening 45 years since the S-61 first flew.
The Carson web site says they get 2000 lbs more lift for the same power (about 10% more thrust). With that increase, they would just about equal the raw lift of the EH-101 or the S-92.
We would have to see the flight manual to see if that is an across the board increase, or just a spot point where it is maximum. I would suspect that the flight manual charts would be published on the web site if it were truly a blanket +2000 lbs.
Remember that the rest of the aircraft needs a bit more maintenance, and the parts are getting hard to find. Also, the level of safety in the design is of the 1960 vintage. These factors all weigh in. We find the popularity of the S-92 is associated with the increased attention to safety and redundancy, a by product of the newer design and the lessons learned in the intervening 45 years since the S-61 first flew.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was not trying to take anything away from the S92 , but just pointing out that one of your main competitors is your own machine. On DOC's the S92 wins hands down if the published figures stand. you just designed and built em too well I guess , what is the fleet leader S61 now , I saw one for sale with over 30 K time since new.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Nick, that was exactly the kind of info that I'm interested in. I guess it comes down to risk management, how many other things are more likely to happen that require closer attention. And I can't emphasize enough how quick the hand returns to the collective with the slightest hint of trouble. I can also say that in the 10000 + hrs of flying helicopters, other than an engine failure due to snow ingestion, any failures I've experienced (and I've had a few) have always been preceded by some notice of "bad things to come"
polehog
polehog