US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RotorPilot-
Touched a nerve, did I?
I was referring to the VH project, not the beginning of the world. I do think the letter from Blair was the political shot, but I guess he was sending a technical eval. OK, you win.
Regarding closed markets, the subject is complex, but I think we could find a French aircraft in US Military inventory pretty easily, but a US aircraft in the French Military could be found about the same time we find a Hot Dog in Jacques Chirac's dinner plate!
My son humps the boonies with a SAW and a close friend flies a Dolphin, and I know some dudes who fly US Military Agustas.
Touched a nerve, did I?
I was referring to the VH project, not the beginning of the world. I do think the letter from Blair was the political shot, but I guess he was sending a technical eval. OK, you win.
Regarding closed markets, the subject is complex, but I think we could find a French aircraft in US Military inventory pretty easily, but a US aircraft in the French Military could be found about the same time we find a Hot Dog in Jacques Chirac's dinner plate!
My son humps the boonies with a SAW and a close friend flies a Dolphin, and I know some dudes who fly US Military Agustas.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjssquirrel,
Guess we dont share the same sources , the ones I have spoken to have nothing but praise for the EH101, they say its a wonderful aircraft, and would love to fly it.
You mention the amount of maintainers the RAF brought with them to Pax, bear in mind that they are 3000 miles from UK and been out here since November. Dont see any mention of the amount of guys we take to Lakenheath and Mildenahall to maintain our aircraft there.
The fact that Sikorsky only took one aircraft tells me one thing, that they are closer to Pax river than the UK is, why would Lockheed not bring two over? Sikorsky have 5 at their plant in easy reach.
The RAF aircraft on the trial never missed one sortie, they never failed to provide an aircraft, and if my sources are correct and I believe they are, then you will be pleased to know that the same EH101 airframe did the whole trial. The other aircraft got airborne as soon as the other departed on its trial. 100% serviceability. From my understanding, the only time they couldnt get airborne was during the snows and cold of January, not because of limitations but due to the local rules at Pax, the RAF guys were itching to fly in the snow.
As for the press, they loved it, the RAF brought some IPs out so that people could fly, handle and try it out for themselves, no one had a bad word to say about it. As for the sick rumour, maybe thats what it is, a rumour.
As for Tony Blair, it may have been a political thing but sometimes we have to look whats on offer and take the best, the best is the 101, look what happened with the Harrier
Guess we dont share the same sources , the ones I have spoken to have nothing but praise for the EH101, they say its a wonderful aircraft, and would love to fly it.
You mention the amount of maintainers the RAF brought with them to Pax, bear in mind that they are 3000 miles from UK and been out here since November. Dont see any mention of the amount of guys we take to Lakenheath and Mildenahall to maintain our aircraft there.
The fact that Sikorsky only took one aircraft tells me one thing, that they are closer to Pax river than the UK is, why would Lockheed not bring two over? Sikorsky have 5 at their plant in easy reach.
The RAF aircraft on the trial never missed one sortie, they never failed to provide an aircraft, and if my sources are correct and I believe they are, then you will be pleased to know that the same EH101 airframe did the whole trial. The other aircraft got airborne as soon as the other departed on its trial. 100% serviceability. From my understanding, the only time they couldnt get airborne was during the snows and cold of January, not because of limitations but due to the local rules at Pax, the RAF guys were itching to fly in the snow.
As for the press, they loved it, the RAF brought some IPs out so that people could fly, handle and try it out for themselves, no one had a bad word to say about it. As for the sick rumour, maybe thats what it is, a rumour.
As for Tony Blair, it may have been a political thing but sometimes we have to look whats on offer and take the best, the best is the 101, look what happened with the Harrier
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: somewhere, under the rainbow
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, rjsquirrel, mon brave.....not even close. Should've checked before shooting from the lip...Presently,
E-3,
C-130,
C-135,
DC-8,
and that's just the US of A. For the rest of America there's a couple of Embraer Types and DHC Twin Otters. Previously they've had at least the LTV F-8, and that's without really looking hard.
Now where did you want that hot dog...........
E-3,
C-130,
C-135,
DC-8,
and that's just the US of A. For the rest of America there's a couple of Embraer Types and DHC Twin Otters. Previously they've had at least the LTV F-8, and that's without really looking hard.
Now where did you want that hot dog...........
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
Which half of the glass are you looking at?
To: Visionary
The Harrier as originally designed was not very reliable and it was very difficult to maintain. It was not fully integrated into the US Marines until it was completely redesigned by McDonnell Douglas. And if the US-101 is adopted for the presidential flight it too will be completely redesigned to make it safer and more reliable. It will not be in any way the same EH-101 flown by the British forces.
the best is the 101, look what happened with the Harrier
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Harrier as originally designed was not very reliable and it was very difficult to maintain
Sorry going away from the thread. May the best Heli win the competition but its got to be on merit and not political. The fact that Sikorsky lost Comanche should not have any bearing on this, neither should the amount of funding that LM put into their advertizing campaign.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RotorPilot,
Let me butt in:
You say:
"Everybody is waiting for the May decision on the choppers. If the US folds again to the by American only, you will see the repercussions, be sure of that."
It is comforting to hear warnings from you (who are you, BTW?) that warn dire consequences if the US happens to chose the best helicopter, the one that carries more, goes farther, costs less, and is more modern in design. That helicopter is of course, the S/H-92.
I guess the consequences are that the decision would be labled a "political" one (going back to the Big Bang, as you did to RJ).
I fear the greater consequences. If the EH-101 were chosen, the cost would be 50% higher, the payload would drop a ton, the fuel burn would go up, the maintenance burden would go up 50% and the aircraft would have to be disassembled to stuff it into a C-5. Yep, I guess it fits your definition of "political".
Hope Tony has lots of stamps, RotorPilot.
Let me butt in:
You say:
"Everybody is waiting for the May decision on the choppers. If the US folds again to the by American only, you will see the repercussions, be sure of that."
It is comforting to hear warnings from you (who are you, BTW?) that warn dire consequences if the US happens to chose the best helicopter, the one that carries more, goes farther, costs less, and is more modern in design. That helicopter is of course, the S/H-92.
I guess the consequences are that the decision would be labled a "political" one (going back to the Big Bang, as you did to RJ).
I fear the greater consequences. If the EH-101 were chosen, the cost would be 50% higher, the payload would drop a ton, the fuel burn would go up, the maintenance burden would go up 50% and the aircraft would have to be disassembled to stuff it into a C-5. Yep, I guess it fits your definition of "political".
Hope Tony has lots of stamps, RotorPilot.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, what tail rotor design does the S-92 have this week?
Can tell from Nick that he is a salesman. Maybe we should get a LM/ Westland guy in here at same time, could be fun
Can tell from Nick that he is a salesman. Maybe we should get a LM/ Westland guy in here at same time, could be fun
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing to keep in mind - this is bigger than just the prestige of flying the President. The Marine Corps' Osprey program is next up on the chopping block following the cancellation of the Army's Comanche helicopter and Crusader self-propelled artillery piece. If the Osprey is cancelled, the most likely replacement for the CH-46E is going to be the winner of this competition for the President's helicopter. The Marine Corps will not buy the H-60 because it is too close in size to the Huey and could possibly affect the Huey/Cobra 4 blade upgrade. (also, the Marine Corps insist on having a ramp in the back)
Thus the winner of the Presidential bid is the odds on favorite as the alternate to the Osprey. The buy for that will exceed 300 airframes.
As for which one SHOULD be the President's helicopter, I don't know. I am rooting for Sikorsky. And if the Marine Corps had any common sense, we would get the same MH-60's coming off the assembly line for the Navy and replace the Huey, the Phrog, and cancel the Osprey.
Finally, does anybody have any updates on Piasecki's Vectored Thrust Ducted Propellor modification?
Thus the winner of the Presidential bid is the odds on favorite as the alternate to the Osprey. The buy for that will exceed 300 airframes.
As for which one SHOULD be the President's helicopter, I don't know. I am rooting for Sikorsky. And if the Marine Corps had any common sense, we would get the same MH-60's coming off the assembly line for the Navy and replace the Huey, the Phrog, and cancel the Osprey.
Finally, does anybody have any updates on Piasecki's Vectored Thrust Ducted Propellor modification?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No comment
You won't get an AgustaWestland comment on this thread because employees have been warned not to post anything on this kind of site as it can be construed as an official quote, regardless of some of the mistruths posted here.
I am sure somone would love to comment but it's not worth losing a job over.
I hope that the results of the selection process (whatever they are) are going to be available so we all can see why what was chsoen was chsen, however I am sure that 'national security' interests will take priority (like they did when my suitcase was opened coming back home and items stolen withour any chance of an appeal.....so much for Thruth, Justice and the American way)
DM
I am sure somone would love to comment but it's not worth losing a job over.
I hope that the results of the selection process (whatever they are) are going to be available so we all can see why what was chsoen was chsen, however I am sure that 'national security' interests will take priority (like they did when my suitcase was opened coming back home and items stolen withour any chance of an appeal.....so much for Thruth, Justice and the American way)
DM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RotorPilot:
The answer to your questions is that the EH-101 is particularly inefficient as a transport vehicle. Any EH-101 drivers out there please refute these numbers:
The empty weight of an EH-101 is about 20,000 lbs as a minimum. Their stripped brochure weight is 19,600 lbs. The max gross weight to hover OGE at sea level is 32,100 lbs. I will email the performance chart to anyone who wants one. Thus the maximum useful load for the EH-101 is about .12,400 lbs..
The brochure shows that the EH-101 burns 13.5 lbs of fuel per mile, so at 300 miles the payload cannot exceed 12,000 - 13.5 x 300= 7950 lbs. These numbers are shown on the latest EH-101 brochure, which I can email to anyone who wants.
The H-92 weighs (in the same configuration as the EH-101 above) 15,600 lbs, and it has a maximum gross weight, and HOGE SLS weight of 28,300 lbs. Thus, it has a max payload of .12,700 lbs..
The H-92 burns slightly less than 10 lbs per NM, so at 300 nm the payload is 12700 - 10 x 300 = 9700 lbs.
In other words, .the smaller helicopter carries 1700 lbs more payload at 300 miles than the big one!v.
At higher altitudes or hotter climates the EH-101 performs comparitively worse.
I will gladly share the data with anyone who wants a more factual analysis than "Bigger vs. Smaller"
Now look at the fuel burn per mile and the payload, and decide which has longer range. Don't be fooled by the size of the fuel tanks - at 900 NM, an H-92 carries about 3000 lbs, the EH carries a postage stamp.
All the above is predicated on the need top HOGE, if you make IGE or rolling takeoffs, the EH gets a bit better.
Regarding cost, you can buy all the H-92's you want for about $17 million. Ask your friendly EH-101 guy how much that thing costs, last time Conklin and Dedecker published their comprison, it cost $22 million stripped.
Regarding cost to operate, the independent Conklin and Dedecker carries the S-92 at $890 per hour maintenance cost (and Sikorsky contracts at just a bit more than that). The EH-101 is listed by them at $1480 per hour, 50% more expensive to maintain. And with less payload, that is a really big 50%!!
RotorPilot, the reason why the smaller helicopter carries more is because the bigger one is not at all efficient. Maybe that's because it is older, and has three engines that weigh it down and that drink more fuel.
Before you decide that bigger is better, check your flight manual data more carefully. Or not, it is your choice.
The answer to your questions is that the EH-101 is particularly inefficient as a transport vehicle. Any EH-101 drivers out there please refute these numbers:
The empty weight of an EH-101 is about 20,000 lbs as a minimum. Their stripped brochure weight is 19,600 lbs. The max gross weight to hover OGE at sea level is 32,100 lbs. I will email the performance chart to anyone who wants one. Thus the maximum useful load for the EH-101 is about .12,400 lbs..
The brochure shows that the EH-101 burns 13.5 lbs of fuel per mile, so at 300 miles the payload cannot exceed 12,000 - 13.5 x 300= 7950 lbs. These numbers are shown on the latest EH-101 brochure, which I can email to anyone who wants.
The H-92 weighs (in the same configuration as the EH-101 above) 15,600 lbs, and it has a maximum gross weight, and HOGE SLS weight of 28,300 lbs. Thus, it has a max payload of .12,700 lbs..
The H-92 burns slightly less than 10 lbs per NM, so at 300 nm the payload is 12700 - 10 x 300 = 9700 lbs.
In other words, .the smaller helicopter carries 1700 lbs more payload at 300 miles than the big one!v.
At higher altitudes or hotter climates the EH-101 performs comparitively worse.
I will gladly share the data with anyone who wants a more factual analysis than "Bigger vs. Smaller"
Now look at the fuel burn per mile and the payload, and decide which has longer range. Don't be fooled by the size of the fuel tanks - at 900 NM, an H-92 carries about 3000 lbs, the EH carries a postage stamp.
All the above is predicated on the need top HOGE, if you make IGE or rolling takeoffs, the EH gets a bit better.
Regarding cost, you can buy all the H-92's you want for about $17 million. Ask your friendly EH-101 guy how much that thing costs, last time Conklin and Dedecker published their comprison, it cost $22 million stripped.
Regarding cost to operate, the independent Conklin and Dedecker carries the S-92 at $890 per hour maintenance cost (and Sikorsky contracts at just a bit more than that). The EH-101 is listed by them at $1480 per hour, 50% more expensive to maintain. And with less payload, that is a really big 50%!!
RotorPilot, the reason why the smaller helicopter carries more is because the bigger one is not at all efficient. Maybe that's because it is older, and has three engines that weigh it down and that drink more fuel.
Before you decide that bigger is better, check your flight manual data more carefully. Or not, it is your choice.
Last edited by NickLappos; 17th Mar 2004 at 02:23.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't all this talk about who can carry how much a bit redundant? How fat are you expecting your President and their immediate entourage to be?
I was always taught to think in terms of mission relation and suitability when selecting/testing. Both aircraft seem suitable for the mission, they both have strengths (one is bigger, the other is cheaper to run etc). The mission is surely to carry X number of people a certain distance, within certain time constraints, I can't see either aircraft conducting underslung load operations at the same time (unless it's a really big entourage.
).
Is the bigger aircraft better for VIP use, as there is more room for more people or a plusher fit out? I’m sure they’re both smooth and as vibration free as is possible. I do notice that the US-101 is the ramped variant in the advertising pictures, what does a VIP helo need a ramp for? Why haven’t they gone with the tapering tail variant, as per the RN/Italian naval aircraft (less complex, less weight)?
The websites I've seen say that the US-101 will have the 5 tank configuration, but nobody has mentioned that 1 engine can be shut down during cruise (yes, I know, no current operators do this), but it has been done and proven to work (even on an over max weight aircraft). What does that do to the range calcs / efficiency? I don’t know if the fuel burn numbers Nick quoted were for 2 or 3 engine operation.
As for fitting into transport aircraft, are we talking about folded or not? I can see no reason why the presidential helo couldn’t have blade and tail fold for easier transporting.
The info I have looked at (I didn’t spend too much time looking) does seem a bit sparse for me to make up my own mind about this.
I was always taught to think in terms of mission relation and suitability when selecting/testing. Both aircraft seem suitable for the mission, they both have strengths (one is bigger, the other is cheaper to run etc). The mission is surely to carry X number of people a certain distance, within certain time constraints, I can't see either aircraft conducting underslung load operations at the same time (unless it's a really big entourage.
).Is the bigger aircraft better for VIP use, as there is more room for more people or a plusher fit out? I’m sure they’re both smooth and as vibration free as is possible. I do notice that the US-101 is the ramped variant in the advertising pictures, what does a VIP helo need a ramp for? Why haven’t they gone with the tapering tail variant, as per the RN/Italian naval aircraft (less complex, less weight)?
The websites I've seen say that the US-101 will have the 5 tank configuration, but nobody has mentioned that 1 engine can be shut down during cruise (yes, I know, no current operators do this), but it has been done and proven to work (even on an over max weight aircraft). What does that do to the range calcs / efficiency? I don’t know if the fuel burn numbers Nick quoted were for 2 or 3 engine operation.
As for fitting into transport aircraft, are we talking about folded or not? I can see no reason why the presidential helo couldn’t have blade and tail fold for easier transporting.
The info I have looked at (I didn’t spend too much time looking) does seem a bit sparse for me to make up my own mind about this.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visionary,
I dont know what you mean about the tail rotor. Are you hinting at something?
Regarding the C-5, there are hundreds in the US inventory, and they are being updated to last another 25 years. They represent about 2/3 of the lift capacity for the USAF for the forseeable future. BTW, Lockheed Martin has the contract for their upgrade!
Straight Up Again (nice name!!)
The fuel burn I give is for all engines operating. If you shut down an engine with the President on board, you will probably not get to be captain of the return flight! The performance of the EH with only one engine operating is simply awful, so you'd have to scramble start the shut down engine if one quit, dont think there is a "spare" engine, it uses all three to do its work.
Regarding payload and range, certainly there is plenty in either aircraft, for many missions. I am referring above to value and efficiency, and I think that point is made.
Both aircraft must be folded for transport. Even folded, the EH-101 cannot fit into a C-5, the transmission and center engine must be removed. The aircraft is just too high for the inside of the C-5. In a C-17, the EH just fits with about 2" to spare with the head tucked into the cathedral behind the wing beam.
I dont know what you mean about the tail rotor. Are you hinting at something?
Regarding the C-5, there are hundreds in the US inventory, and they are being updated to last another 25 years. They represent about 2/3 of the lift capacity for the USAF for the forseeable future. BTW, Lockheed Martin has the contract for their upgrade!
Straight Up Again (nice name!!)
The fuel burn I give is for all engines operating. If you shut down an engine with the President on board, you will probably not get to be captain of the return flight! The performance of the EH with only one engine operating is simply awful, so you'd have to scramble start the shut down engine if one quit, dont think there is a "spare" engine, it uses all three to do its work.
Regarding payload and range, certainly there is plenty in either aircraft, for many missions. I am referring above to value and efficiency, and I think that point is made.
Both aircraft must be folded for transport. Even folded, the EH-101 cannot fit into a C-5, the transmission and center engine must be removed. The aircraft is just too high for the inside of the C-5. In a C-17, the EH just fits with about 2" to spare with the head tucked into the cathedral behind the wing beam.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight Up Again,
Reread my previous post. The helo that wins the Presidential lift award is the likely candidate for the Marine Corps medium lift assault mission. The Marine Corps will not buy an assault helo without a ramp.
Also, no helo carrying the President is going to shut down an engine in flight (unless it is carrying Hillary and then they might shut them all down and take one for the team... ) Nor is an aircraft in an assault mode going to shut down an engine.
I would like to know what is the commonality of parts between the S-92 and the H-60 fleet is. If many of the parts can be swapped back and forth, that would be a logistical advantage for the S-92.
On the other hand, I understand from my buds at HMX that the S-92 currently comes with GE 700 engines? That seems underpowered for a 28,000 lb helo. Is Sikorsky going to put bigger engines on the S-92 and if so, are these engines going to have the proven reliability to be a Presidential Helicopter?
Reread my previous post. The helo that wins the Presidential lift award is the likely candidate for the Marine Corps medium lift assault mission. The Marine Corps will not buy an assault helo without a ramp.
Also, no helo carrying the President is going to shut down an engine in flight (unless it is carrying Hillary and then they might shut them all down and take one for the team...
) Nor is an aircraft in an assault mode going to shut down an engine.I would like to know what is the commonality of parts between the S-92 and the H-60 fleet is. If many of the parts can be swapped back and forth, that would be a logistical advantage for the S-92.
On the other hand, I understand from my buds at HMX that the S-92 currently comes with GE 700 engines? That seems underpowered for a 28,000 lb helo. Is Sikorsky going to put bigger engines on the S-92 and if so, are these engines going to have the proven reliability to be a Presidential Helicopter?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
46Driver,
The H-60 and S/H-92 don't share many major parts, the 92 has about 30% more power and thrust, so most of those components were redesigned to take it. Also the 92 family is fully flaw tolerant, which means that you can scratch, dent or damage the parts without worry about fatigue cracks. The 92's gearboxes do fit onto the Hawk family, however, so a future retrofit could upgrade to that extra power. (with structural beefup, for sure)
The engines for the S-92 are the CT7-8A at 2500 SHP< and the H-92 has those (which I used for the performance quoted above) or the CT7-8C, which has 3000 SHP each. The H-92 carries about 3000 lb more than the typical hawk under any environment. The transmission is in the 4400 HP catagory (vice 3400 for the Hawks).
http://www.s-92heliport.com has a presentation on the S-92 and the safety features. See slides 6 and 7 of the H-92 discussion for payload range data on the 92 vs the EH.
The H-60 and S/H-92 don't share many major parts, the 92 has about 30% more power and thrust, so most of those components were redesigned to take it. Also the 92 family is fully flaw tolerant, which means that you can scratch, dent or damage the parts without worry about fatigue cracks. The 92's gearboxes do fit onto the Hawk family, however, so a future retrofit could upgrade to that extra power. (with structural beefup, for sure)
The engines for the S-92 are the CT7-8A at 2500 SHP< and the H-92 has those (which I used for the performance quoted above) or the CT7-8C, which has 3000 SHP each. The H-92 carries about 3000 lb more than the typical hawk under any environment. The transmission is in the 4400 HP catagory (vice 3400 for the Hawks).
http://www.s-92heliport.com has a presentation on the S-92 and the safety features. See slides 6 and 7 of the H-92 discussion for payload range data on the 92 vs the EH.
Nick,
Interesting figures, but I can't quite correlate the weights that you put forward.
According to Sikorsky's details on the VIP H-92 here , the empty weight is 17,200lb, not 15,600lb. I have had no luck confirming the 101's weights, except for a reference to Basic Empty Weight of 18960lb, but I accept this will increase with a VIP fit.
The fuel burn figures that I've managed to pick up give the 101 burning c.12.7lb/hr at 150ktas, SL, and the 92 burning 11lb/nm (again, from the Sikorsky brochure), both with all engines running. The 101 sounds light to me, with three donks, but that's the way I read Agusta-Westland's brochure here . I'm only interpolating from their cruise data, and accept it isn't dead accurate.
I'd appreciate looking at the brochures that you may be using for your calculations
Interesting figures, but I can't quite correlate the weights that you put forward.
According to Sikorsky's details on the VIP H-92 here , the empty weight is 17,200lb, not 15,600lb. I have had no luck confirming the 101's weights, except for a reference to Basic Empty Weight of 18960lb, but I accept this will increase with a VIP fit.
The fuel burn figures that I've managed to pick up give the 101 burning c.12.7lb/hr at 150ktas, SL, and the 92 burning 11lb/nm (again, from the Sikorsky brochure), both with all engines running. The 101 sounds light to me, with three donks, but that's the way I read Agusta-Westland's brochure here . I'm only interpolating from their cruise data, and accept it isn't dead accurate.
I'd appreciate looking at the brochures that you may be using for your calculations