US Presidential Helicopter Bid (and Result)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
46Driver
I did read your post, I was just wondering why having 2 variants, with the different tail sections would be so difficult, after all the areas either side would be identical from a maintenance, spares and training point of view. Even the pilot training shouldn't be too different, I can't think of many extras, except to teach them about the ramp as well.
Nick
I didn't realise the height difference was so great between the 92 and the 101 (4.71m for 92, and 5.2m for 101). Just out of interest, how high is the floor above ground level? I know if you stroll out of the side of a 101 you'll get something broken (from memory it's about a metre up, even has a little fold out step at the cargo door).
I suppose there are a few people who think the president is too important to go around shutting engines off. I'm not an engines expert, but what would be the problems with leaving the 3rd engine at idle? I'm sure there should be some, but my engines knowledge isn't that extensive (I am but a simple flight test engineer).
I do have a soft spot for the 101 (ex-Wastelander, approx 190 hrs on EH-101s, most variants), but don't think the extra cabin space will win it the contract, I think the running costs will win out, along with the slightly more modern aircraft and the 92 will get the contract, and people will cry foul about the “buy American” stuff, wether it is true or not.
Unfortunately I have never seen the 92 in the flesh, any chance of a tour of Oz?
Edited 'cos I got the 101 height wrong (used tip of TR not main rotor beanie).
I did read your post, I was just wondering why having 2 variants, with the different tail sections would be so difficult, after all the areas either side would be identical from a maintenance, spares and training point of view. Even the pilot training shouldn't be too different, I can't think of many extras, except to teach them about the ramp as well.
Nick
I didn't realise the height difference was so great between the 92 and the 101 (4.71m for 92, and 5.2m for 101). Just out of interest, how high is the floor above ground level? I know if you stroll out of the side of a 101 you'll get something broken (from memory it's about a metre up, even has a little fold out step at the cargo door).
I suppose there are a few people who think the president is too important to go around shutting engines off. I'm not an engines expert, but what would be the problems with leaving the 3rd engine at idle? I'm sure there should be some, but my engines knowledge isn't that extensive (I am but a simple flight test engineer).
I do have a soft spot for the 101 (ex-Wastelander, approx 190 hrs on EH-101s, most variants), but don't think the extra cabin space will win it the contract, I think the running costs will win out, along with the slightly more modern aircraft and the 92 will get the contract, and people will cry foul about the “buy American” stuff, wether it is true or not.
Unfortunately I have never seen the 92 in the flesh, any chance of a tour of Oz?
Edited 'cos I got the 101 height wrong (used tip of TR not main rotor beanie).
Last edited by Straight Up Again; 18th Mar 2004 at 01:58.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight,
Good question. I just don't think they would go for a variant without a ramp. (and why a ramp is a pre-requisite for the Corps I have always wondered myself....). I just re-read my post and I hope I didn't come off as an @sshole - didn't mean it that way... Congrats on living in Melbourne, I was just down there several months ago with my girl and we had a wonderful time - its a beautiful city.
Nick,
You have any gouge on the Piasecki tail modification? Any thoughts? If the H-60 can get up to 230 knots with that thing, I would think the MV-22 would be dead.
Good question. I just don't think they would go for a variant without a ramp. (and why a ramp is a pre-requisite for the Corps I have always wondered myself....). I just re-read my post and I hope I didn't come off as an @sshole - didn't mean it that way... Congrats on living in Melbourne, I was just down there several months ago with my girl and we had a wonderful time - its a beautiful city.
Nick,
You have any gouge on the Piasecki tail modification? Any thoughts? If the H-60 can get up to 230 knots with that thing, I would think the MV-22 would be dead.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OEI
The brochure for the 101 shows a max gross weight for OEI HIGE of 14055 kg.
How do the CAT-A performances of the two aircraft compare?
(OK- I found some of the S-92 data on Nick's site- looks like for sea level at ISA +18 degrees the S-92 has CAT A performance up to roughly 26,400 lbs, which really cuts its payload from the comparison Nick has posted earlier. The 101 brochure shows CAT A performance at the same conditions at max gross weight, so it loses no payload to keep Cat A.)
How do the CAT-A performances of the two aircraft compare?
(OK- I found some of the S-92 data on Nick's site- looks like for sea level at ISA +18 degrees the S-92 has CAT A performance up to roughly 26,400 lbs, which really cuts its payload from the comparison Nick has posted earlier. The 101 brochure shows CAT A performance at the same conditions at max gross weight, so it loses no payload to keep Cat A.)
Last edited by Gregg; 17th Mar 2004 at 12:38.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gregg,
I concur, as ever Lappos is not comparing "Bananas with bananas" at the same time and test point. I too have read the US 101 brochure which quotes 34,400lbs (15600Kg) as the MAUW and not as he quoted. The figures he quotes are for the basic 101 as operated by the Brits, Italians and Canadians. The aircraft is already qualified to operate at 34,400lbs and all the customers are likely to operate at this mass very soon without modification. Indeed the Danes will operate theirs at these weights from the start.
Moreover, back to the "bananas" he is quoting fuel consumption figures for the RTM engine when we should be comparing the GE engine as used by the Canadians and proposed for the US101.
Surely, we should just let NAVAIR do the assessment with like "Bananas" and then do an objective comparison.
I concur, as ever Lappos is not comparing "Bananas with bananas" at the same time and test point. I too have read the US 101 brochure which quotes 34,400lbs (15600Kg) as the MAUW and not as he quoted. The figures he quotes are for the basic 101 as operated by the Brits, Italians and Canadians. The aircraft is already qualified to operate at 34,400lbs and all the customers are likely to operate at this mass very soon without modification. Indeed the Danes will operate theirs at these weights from the start.
Moreover, back to the "bananas" he is quoting fuel consumption figures for the RTM engine when we should be comparing the GE engine as used by the Canadians and proposed for the US101.
Surely, we should just let NAVAIR do the assessment with like "Bananas" and then do an objective comparison.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have time to post the brochures, but I will later. My data is solid, and true, even if those who have no data disagree.
The takeoff weight I used is not the maximum that is published, it is, as stated, the weight at which they hover OGE. The idea of using IGE or rolling takeoffs is fine, just know that when you go into the problem. Most military services demand HOGE weight as the starting point for performance, as is reasonable. The US Army uses HOGE plus a 500 fpm vertical rate of climb, and so do about 5 military services around the globe.
Visionary, the 34,400 lbs is based on an IGE takeoff, and if you weigh that much in an EH-101, when you pull into an OGE hover, you will crash.
My weights are precise, and are based on the data provided by their brochures. As I have stated elsewhere, I would be glad to personally fly an H-92 today with a vertical takeoff to a point 300 miles away with 1700 pounds more that an EH 101 brought from that place, as long as both aircraft are similarly equipped.
The 19600 lbs I used for the empty weight of the EH is quite low, but is in their brochure.The actual operating empty weight of the Canadian EH's is about 4000 lbs more than that (I called the guys who fly them), based on the extra equipment they carry. The 19600 lbs does not even include the seats in back!
More to follow.
The takeoff weight I used is not the maximum that is published, it is, as stated, the weight at which they hover OGE. The idea of using IGE or rolling takeoffs is fine, just know that when you go into the problem. Most military services demand HOGE weight as the starting point for performance, as is reasonable. The US Army uses HOGE plus a 500 fpm vertical rate of climb, and so do about 5 military services around the globe.
Visionary, the 34,400 lbs is based on an IGE takeoff, and if you weigh that much in an EH-101, when you pull into an OGE hover, you will crash.
My weights are precise, and are based on the data provided by their brochures. As I have stated elsewhere, I would be glad to personally fly an H-92 today with a vertical takeoff to a point 300 miles away with 1700 pounds more that an EH 101 brought from that place, as long as both aircraft are similarly equipped.
The 19600 lbs I used for the empty weight of the EH is quite low, but is in their brochure.The actual operating empty weight of the Canadian EH's is about 4000 lbs more than that (I called the guys who fly them), based on the extra equipment they carry. The 19600 lbs does not even include the seats in back!
More to follow.
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
Helicopters and ramps.
To: 46 driver
I would think you being a 46 driver would know the reason.
The pilot places the helicopter with the front end facing the enemy and placing themselves in jeopardy and using the helicopter to mask the troops exiting at the rear. But I think you already knew the answer to your question.
(and why a ramp is a pre-requisite for the Corps I have always wondered myself....). I just re-read my post and I hope I
The pilot places the helicopter with the front end facing the enemy and placing themselves in jeopardy and using the helicopter to mask the troops exiting at the rear. But I think you already knew the answer to your question.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what little memory I have left, I have to back Nick on the MAUW, The EH-101 can fly at 15,600 kg, and even do it on 2 engines, BUT this is from a rolling take off (not much use on the White House Lawn).
Westlands did a press release after the work up for a long range demo flight (I still have a copy of it), and I'm sure even that stated a heavy (15,700 kg I think) rolling take off was performed. Engine 3 was shut down at the top of the climb out (2000 ft) and we then flew happily at 120 kts for 400 nm, then hovered for 30 min (3 engines on), then did another 400 nm (2 engines), then kept going until the fuel was used. Though most of the weight was fuel (ferry tank fitted). I do remember the press release only mentioned the blue eyed steely jawed aviators in the front, no mention of myself or Potwash Prescott in the back taking performance figures and switching/monitoring the ferry tank (I'm not bitter or anything though, 8 and a 1/4 bloody hours).
Anyway, back to the topic, I think the 3 engines does give the EH-101 an advantage in OEI situations, you could still get the Prez to where he's going very easily. Though if I have a donk quit, I would like to know why as soon as possible, not carry on for ages with a potentially serious problem.
46Driver - You didn't come across as an asshole (not intended from my side either). I can see why the military want a ramp, the quicker you dump the blokes/kit (ramp and also side door if the seats aren't blocking it) the less time in danger you have. I suppose just buying the one type makes life even easier, and I doubt the VIPs care, as long as the seats are nice...
I still reckon payload isn't that critical, with the president / high ranking government chaps on board in VIP luxury, are you going to have to start trading payload for fuel? Surely the payload that either one will have to carry will be similar, maybe a bit heavier for the 101 as it has more cabin space to fit out (about 5.39 square metres of extra floor space, going by the dimensions on the two websites).
Anyone any idea how much a VIP fit out would add to the basic weight, then add in the max number of VIPs etc carried to get a realistic AUW for the mission? (I'm presuming the number of seats fitted would be the same for each aircraft, just the 101 may have more legroom)
oops, that was a bit of a long post!
Westlands did a press release after the work up for a long range demo flight (I still have a copy of it), and I'm sure even that stated a heavy (15,700 kg I think) rolling take off was performed. Engine 3 was shut down at the top of the climb out (2000 ft) and we then flew happily at 120 kts for 400 nm, then hovered for 30 min (3 engines on), then did another 400 nm (2 engines), then kept going until the fuel was used. Though most of the weight was fuel (ferry tank fitted). I do remember the press release only mentioned the blue eyed steely jawed aviators in the front, no mention of myself or Potwash Prescott in the back taking performance figures and switching/monitoring the ferry tank (I'm not bitter or anything though, 8 and a 1/4 bloody hours).
Anyway, back to the topic, I think the 3 engines does give the EH-101 an advantage in OEI situations, you could still get the Prez to where he's going very easily. Though if I have a donk quit, I would like to know why as soon as possible, not carry on for ages with a potentially serious problem.
46Driver - You didn't come across as an asshole (not intended from my side either). I can see why the military want a ramp, the quicker you dump the blokes/kit (ramp and also side door if the seats aren't blocking it) the less time in danger you have. I suppose just buying the one type makes life even easier, and I doubt the VIPs care, as long as the seats are nice...
I still reckon payload isn't that critical, with the president / high ranking government chaps on board in VIP luxury, are you going to have to start trading payload for fuel? Surely the payload that either one will have to carry will be similar, maybe a bit heavier for the 101 as it has more cabin space to fit out (about 5.39 square metres of extra floor space, going by the dimensions on the two websites).
Anyone any idea how much a VIP fit out would add to the basic weight, then add in the max number of VIPs etc carried to get a realistic AUW for the mission? (I'm presuming the number of seats fitted would be the same for each aircraft, just the 101 may have more legroom)
oops, that was a bit of a long post!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visionary, the 34,400 lbs is based on an IGE takeoff, and if you weigh that much in an EH-101, when you pull into an OGE hover, you will crash.
Nothing like a bit of exaggeration Nick but come on, its a bit out of order to say it will crash. Wouldnt try putting that in a sales pitch Nick
Last edited by Visionary; 17th Mar 2004 at 21:15.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight Up Again,
The 3 engines do give some OEI advantage, for sure, since the part power remaining after a failure is greater. This is balanced against the loss of payload for having the third engine, which is about 1500 to 2000 lbs. The customer makes his choice. I am digging up some comparison for this too, and the EH advantage will show up.
Visionary,
My comment is correct and not harsh. If you are in a helicopter that is loaded to 2200 lbs above its hover weight, and you try to hover OGE, you will crash. If you don't believe it, try it and let me know! It is not intended to say that the EH is in any way unfit! The Westland pilots are friends (Jerry Tracy and I go way back) and their products are fine helicopters.
The 3 engines do give some OEI advantage, for sure, since the part power remaining after a failure is greater. This is balanced against the loss of payload for having the third engine, which is about 1500 to 2000 lbs. The customer makes his choice. I am digging up some comparison for this too, and the EH advantage will show up.
Visionary,
My comment is correct and not harsh. If you are in a helicopter that is loaded to 2200 lbs above its hover weight, and you try to hover OGE, you will crash. If you don't believe it, try it and let me know! It is not intended to say that the EH is in any way unfit! The Westland pilots are friends (Jerry Tracy and I go way back) and their products are fine helicopters.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see what Nick's saying, but I don't like the word "crash" either. 'Crash', to me, suggests a more 'out of control' situation, rather than a 'not enough power' situation. Dictionary.com defines Crash more in terms of "To break violently or noisily; smash. To undergo sudden damage or destruction on impact". I don't think that is the case. Possibly a poor choice of words Nick.
Should a pilot try to hover OGE at the weights we're talking about, would they, in fact, crash? If they only had 90% (at a guess) of the power required to hover, wouldn't they just sink to ground, and land with not much more force than a normal landing? As soon as the pilot sees they are at max power and still descending, wouldn't they push the stick forward and try to fly away? How much forward airspeed would be required to stop them from contacting the ground? I think they would be able to fly away, and not touch the ground. Of course if they decide to stay in the hover and keep the wheels up (despite being reminded by Bitching Betty), then I hope I never get into an aircraft with such a pilot.
Nick is, however, right about the take off weight that should be compared, as most of the aircrafts missions will probably require a vertical take off, the extra payload would hardly ever be used. It may be a factor when the Marines come to choose a new steed, so maybe it will factor into the final decision if they will all end up with the same aircraft.
I still think that the payload limit will not be a factor. I think it will come down to purchase price (H-92 wins), running costs (H-92 wins, I think), safety (especially for the Prez, not sure who wins here, though extra engine is good on US-101), interior size (US-101 wins), I could probably think of others, but I'd better do some work. They both win on some points, lose on others. I would hate to be the one to choose, especially with the high public attention and pressure to buy from home soil (public perception).
Should a pilot try to hover OGE at the weights we're talking about, would they, in fact, crash? If they only had 90% (at a guess) of the power required to hover, wouldn't they just sink to ground, and land with not much more force than a normal landing? As soon as the pilot sees they are at max power and still descending, wouldn't they push the stick forward and try to fly away? How much forward airspeed would be required to stop them from contacting the ground? I think they would be able to fly away, and not touch the ground. Of course if they decide to stay in the hover and keep the wheels up (despite being reminded by Bitching Betty), then I hope I never get into an aircraft with such a pilot.
Nick is, however, right about the take off weight that should be compared, as most of the aircrafts missions will probably require a vertical take off, the extra payload would hardly ever be used. It may be a factor when the Marines come to choose a new steed, so maybe it will factor into the final decision if they will all end up with the same aircraft.
I still think that the payload limit will not be a factor. I think it will come down to purchase price (H-92 wins), running costs (H-92 wins, I think), safety (especially for the Prez, not sure who wins here, though extra engine is good on US-101), interior size (US-101 wins), I could probably think of others, but I'd better do some work. They both win on some points, lose on others. I would hate to be the one to choose, especially with the high public attention and pressure to buy from home soil (public perception).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Eacott and group:
The brochure John points to is an excellent summary of the EH-101 performance.
http://www.agustawestland.com/dindoc/EH101_Brochure.pdf
It shows these things:
Empty Weight:
See the Performance chart at the top of page 23, it shows the max payload in utility configuration as 5300Kg. Take 5300Kg from 14600Kg and you get 9300Kg empty weight (this includes pilots and trapped fluids, but NOT reserve fuel, note the bottom of the range chart is exactly the same as the total fuel mass). 9300Kg is 20506 lbs. I was accused of fibbing when I used 19600 in my earlier post. I was 1000 lbs kinder than their own brochure.
Fuel Burn:
Take the slope of that chart and you get 6Kg/Nm fuel burn, which is 13.24 lb.nm. Look at page 22 at the top and you see 761Kg/Hr at 123 Kts. 761/123 = 6.18Kg/hr. I said 13.5 lb/hr which is 6.12 Kg/hr and was accused of fudging!
HOGE weight:
The table at the top of Page 22 shows the HOGE ceiling standard day as 14600Kg. Their flight manual shows the 14600Kg HOGE ceiling as about 900 feet.
S-92 data is shown at www.s-92heliport.com
Empty weight:
Look at the S-92 Overall Description, slide 56, it shows the empty weight as 15900 lbs. This includes all the offshore equipment shown on the previous pages (rafts floats, full interior etc. I used an empty weight of 15600 lbs for a utility transport, guys!
Fuel burn:
Look at page 62 for the fuel burn at Vbest range. The chart shows 1380 lb/hr at 25,000 lbs (mid mission weight). At 138KTAS this is 10 lb/nm.
HOGE weight:
See Page 58 which shows the HOGE for the S-92. Note that it shows just 28,000 lbs at Sea Level, standard. The H-92 has a slightly uprated transmission, and this number is 28,300 lbs.
Comparative payload range:
See the H-92 Overall Description on that web site, page 6 and 7. Those charts contain the info from above. Note the fact that the EH-101 as shown is EXACTLY as shown in the EH-101 brochure (the range is slightly less because I made that chart, and I subtracted 600 lbs of fuel from each helo, since I never publish a chart with no reserve, unlike the EH brochure).
Cat A: The Cat A weight for the S-92 is 26500 at SL ISA +18 degrees (chart 59 of the S-92 Overall Description). This gives it 10,600 lbs of Cat A useful load per the brochure weights.
The EH-101 at the same conditions is 14,600Kg or 32193 lbs. Less its brochure empty weight of 9300Kg, 20505 lbs, it has a Cat A payload of 11686 lbs. This means it carries about 1000 lbs more Cat A payload. This advantage is wiped away when the range is more than 285 NM, since the fuel the EH needs at that distance is 1000 lbs more than the S-92 needs.
Sometimes smaller can be better, fellows. And when I post, I always post factual data.
The brochure John points to is an excellent summary of the EH-101 performance.
http://www.agustawestland.com/dindoc/EH101_Brochure.pdf
It shows these things:
Empty Weight:
See the Performance chart at the top of page 23, it shows the max payload in utility configuration as 5300Kg. Take 5300Kg from 14600Kg and you get 9300Kg empty weight (this includes pilots and trapped fluids, but NOT reserve fuel, note the bottom of the range chart is exactly the same as the total fuel mass). 9300Kg is 20506 lbs. I was accused of fibbing when I used 19600 in my earlier post. I was 1000 lbs kinder than their own brochure.
Fuel Burn:
Take the slope of that chart and you get 6Kg/Nm fuel burn, which is 13.24 lb.nm. Look at page 22 at the top and you see 761Kg/Hr at 123 Kts. 761/123 = 6.18Kg/hr. I said 13.5 lb/hr which is 6.12 Kg/hr and was accused of fudging!
HOGE weight:
The table at the top of Page 22 shows the HOGE ceiling standard day as 14600Kg. Their flight manual shows the 14600Kg HOGE ceiling as about 900 feet.
S-92 data is shown at www.s-92heliport.com
Empty weight:
Look at the S-92 Overall Description, slide 56, it shows the empty weight as 15900 lbs. This includes all the offshore equipment shown on the previous pages (rafts floats, full interior etc. I used an empty weight of 15600 lbs for a utility transport, guys!
Fuel burn:
Look at page 62 for the fuel burn at Vbest range. The chart shows 1380 lb/hr at 25,000 lbs (mid mission weight). At 138KTAS this is 10 lb/nm.
HOGE weight:
See Page 58 which shows the HOGE for the S-92. Note that it shows just 28,000 lbs at Sea Level, standard. The H-92 has a slightly uprated transmission, and this number is 28,300 lbs.
Comparative payload range:
See the H-92 Overall Description on that web site, page 6 and 7. Those charts contain the info from above. Note the fact that the EH-101 as shown is EXACTLY as shown in the EH-101 brochure (the range is slightly less because I made that chart, and I subtracted 600 lbs of fuel from each helo, since I never publish a chart with no reserve, unlike the EH brochure).
Cat A: The Cat A weight for the S-92 is 26500 at SL ISA +18 degrees (chart 59 of the S-92 Overall Description). This gives it 10,600 lbs of Cat A useful load per the brochure weights.
The EH-101 at the same conditions is 14,600Kg or 32193 lbs. Less its brochure empty weight of 9300Kg, 20505 lbs, it has a Cat A payload of 11686 lbs. This means it carries about 1000 lbs more Cat A payload. This advantage is wiped away when the range is more than 285 NM, since the fuel the EH needs at that distance is 1000 lbs more than the S-92 needs.
Sometimes smaller can be better, fellows. And when I post, I always post factual data.
Last edited by NickLappos; 18th Mar 2004 at 02:03.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not harsh...A Crash is a crash
Chaps, if you are ever limited in an IGE maneuver, then get yourself into an OGE maneuver under the same atmospheric conditions, yes you will crash!!
[Or trash the gearbox, transmission or engine[s]…which ever lets go first]
Hope no pilot asks the obvious hidden question now!!
[Or trash the gearbox, transmission or engine[s]…which ever lets go first]
Hope no pilot asks the obvious hidden question now!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotorpilot has some good points, ramp designs are easier for unloading all kinds of cargo, especially wheeled vehicles, and also serve as fast troop exits. They do, however force the tail higher, and so create an overall height issue, which could affect shipboard stroage and also air transportability. Ramps are also big holes in the tail cone where the loads from the tail and tail rotor pass thru, so ramp equipped helos suffer a bit of payload reduction (empty weight increase) due to somewhat less efficient structure. For bigger machines, nothing beats a ramp, I think.
Inside the ramp lintel of the CH-53E is my favorite placard:
"All Vehicles Turn Left to Exit"
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/a...3e-dvic305.jpg
Inside the ramp lintel of the CH-53E is my favorite placard:
"All Vehicles Turn Left to Exit"
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/a...3e-dvic305.jpg
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Washington-AP, Mar. 23, 2004
Despite pressure from the White House to move quickly, Navy officials say they are delaying a decision on who will build the next presidential helicopter, suggesting it may take until the end of the year.
Navy spokesman John Young Junior said today that comparable development programs have taken about 12 months from the release of the bidding requirements to the contract award.
The bid proposals for the new Marine One fleet went out in December, and a decision was originally planned for May.
Young said additional time is needed for discussions with the two bidders, Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, on aircraft design, performance and costs.
Despite pressure from the White House to move quickly, Navy officials say they are delaying a decision on who will build the next presidential helicopter, suggesting it may take until the end of the year.
Navy spokesman John Young Junior said today that comparable development programs have taken about 12 months from the release of the bidding requirements to the contract award.
The bid proposals for the new Marine One fleet went out in December, and a decision was originally planned for May.
Young said additional time is needed for discussions with the two bidders, Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin, on aircraft design, performance and costs.