SAR: Ireland
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note to ase engineer:
I took a look at the picture. Don't try putting gas down that pointy thing on the front of the helicopter - the instrumentation engineer will be very upset
.
Since the helicopter in the picture has a flight test style air data probe on the front, it is probably still involved in the test process, even if it is the first production unit.
I took a look at the picture. Don't try putting gas down that pointy thing on the front of the helicopter - the instrumentation engineer will be very upset
.Since the helicopter in the picture has a flight test style air data probe on the front, it is probably still involved in the test process, even if it is the first production unit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hydraulic Palm tree (BTW, Nice name!!),
Your questions indicate that when I apply at Westlands for that marketing assignment, you can be my right hand man for preparing marketing literature. If I can explain it to you, it is ready for prime time! Not that the info is self explanitory, but you mixed up max gross weight with mission takeoff weight, and then applied some common sense from other helicopters. This leads you to believe that I have pulled some slight of hand. Not so! I believe the data is there for you to see, let me try to explain.
The S-92 has a max gross weight of 26,150 lbs, the H-92 28,300 lbs. The empty weight of either varies based on mission equipment, of course. Equipped with all the military equipment of the UH-60L Black Hawk, including IR supressor, the H-92 weighs 15,800 lbs. That includes a dual autopilot, blade deice and lots of nav and comm. So, with 2 crew at 250 each, the H-92 has a zero fuel weight of about 16,300 pounds, and a payload of 28,300 minus 16,300 or 12,000 pounds. With a good load of SAR equipment, it would have an empty weight of about 17,000 lbs (1200 pounds of extra stuff above a military utility aircraft). This includes dual hoist, dual coupled auto approach, GPS nav, SAT comm and a bunch of equipment in the lockers in the cabin, enough to start several Boy Scout Camps. The H-92 SAR chart assumes that 17,000 empty weight. It says 23,000 lbs takeoff weight with main fuel (5,000 lbs). The SAR crew is assumed to be 4 people at 250 lbs apiece, so we have the 17,000 empty weight, 1,000 of crew, and 5,000 of fuel. So far, I get the beer, n'est-pas?
If we travel out at Vbr, the aircraft burns about 1300 to 1350 pounds per hour, mission average. 137 knots divided into 1300 pounds per hour is 9.5 pounds of fuel per nautical mile traveled. [That is the best way to figure out range, not hours and stuff, because you do not travel hours, you travel miles, right?]
BTW, if we had three engines or two main rotors, we would burn about 30% more gas, which leads me to realize why you are aghast at this miserly fuel consumption! Welcome to the 21st century, where gas milage counts.
Back to the mission, we burn about 10 pounds per NM, so the rest is easy, for 250 raduis, we need 5000 pounds of mission fuel, for 350 radius, we need 7,000 pounds. It is no coincidence that the main plus aux fuel is 7,300 pounds, which at the actual 9.5 lb/NM yields 350 NM radius with reserve.
Now, to answer your comments in detail:
Normal range is about 250 NM radius only when you carry little payload, you say "flippin tight" and so does the chart, which shows barely 245Nm only when no payload is carried. Pity you were "flippin tight" when you looked at the chart, otherwise you would have seen that it agreed with you. Try it next time in the morning, when things are clearer.
If you had actually read the last post where I discussed the chart, you would have seen that the 250 radius is best done with the aux fuel, where there is plenty of gas for the 250 trip, plus the time to hoist up those "flippin tight" party revelers who needed to to be winched into the H-92. When you travel out the 250 NM, having taken off with full main and aux fuel, you have burned down about 2400 pounds of gas (remember the 9.5 pounds per NM? 250 x 9.5= 2375 pounds down). That means that you enter the hover at 23,586 pounds (giving you 4,700 pounds of available payload to get to the 28,300 MGW). If you take 2.5 minutes per rescuee, 20 of them takes you 50 minutes. At 1550 pounds per hour in the hover, 50 minutes consumes about 1300 pounds of fuel, leaving you with 3656 pounds of fuel left (7331 takeoff, 2375 fuel outbound, 1300 fuel to hover = 3656 left for home and reserve). If you burn 9.5 pounds per mile, the 3656 will take you 384 miles to burnout. Leave off 70 Nm for reserve (half hour at Vbr) and you can return 314 NM and have lots of reserve.
Now, helicopter aerial refueling is great, Sikorsky invented it, and has built about 3,000 helicopters using it. The H-92 will have it in a bit, fear not.
Regarding max range, the figures are easy to arrive at. Recall the H-92 with Black Hawk equipment having 12,000 pounds of payload. If we take the main fuel at 5000, the remaining 7000 could be in Aux tanks at about 1 pound of tank weight per gallon of tank, so we waste 1,000 pounds with aux tanks, leaving 6000 of fuel. 5000 main fuel plus 6000 aux fuel is 11,000 pounds available. At 9.5 pounds per NM, we can go 1157 NM to burn out, or 1075 with reserve.
Now, all kidding aside Hydraulic Palm Tree, when I post something, I'd fly it, and you can take it to the bank. I made a living doing this for about 30 years, there is no achievement in publishing numbers that don't work!
Regarding the brandy, I would suggest Bourbon, Kentucky bonded. Next time I'm in the UK, lets get you, Crab and me together, we can bore each other silly with figures, buy alternating rounds, and get brilliant!
Your questions indicate that when I apply at Westlands for that marketing assignment, you can be my right hand man for preparing marketing literature. If I can explain it to you, it is ready for prime time! Not that the info is self explanitory, but you mixed up max gross weight with mission takeoff weight, and then applied some common sense from other helicopters. This leads you to believe that I have pulled some slight of hand. Not so! I believe the data is there for you to see, let me try to explain.
The S-92 has a max gross weight of 26,150 lbs, the H-92 28,300 lbs. The empty weight of either varies based on mission equipment, of course. Equipped with all the military equipment of the UH-60L Black Hawk, including IR supressor, the H-92 weighs 15,800 lbs. That includes a dual autopilot, blade deice and lots of nav and comm. So, with 2 crew at 250 each, the H-92 has a zero fuel weight of about 16,300 pounds, and a payload of 28,300 minus 16,300 or 12,000 pounds. With a good load of SAR equipment, it would have an empty weight of about 17,000 lbs (1200 pounds of extra stuff above a military utility aircraft). This includes dual hoist, dual coupled auto approach, GPS nav, SAT comm and a bunch of equipment in the lockers in the cabin, enough to start several Boy Scout Camps. The H-92 SAR chart assumes that 17,000 empty weight. It says 23,000 lbs takeoff weight with main fuel (5,000 lbs). The SAR crew is assumed to be 4 people at 250 lbs apiece, so we have the 17,000 empty weight, 1,000 of crew, and 5,000 of fuel. So far, I get the beer, n'est-pas?
If we travel out at Vbr, the aircraft burns about 1300 to 1350 pounds per hour, mission average. 137 knots divided into 1300 pounds per hour is 9.5 pounds of fuel per nautical mile traveled. [That is the best way to figure out range, not hours and stuff, because you do not travel hours, you travel miles, right?]
BTW, if we had three engines or two main rotors, we would burn about 30% more gas, which leads me to realize why you are aghast at this miserly fuel consumption! Welcome to the 21st century, where gas milage counts.
Back to the mission, we burn about 10 pounds per NM, so the rest is easy, for 250 raduis, we need 5000 pounds of mission fuel, for 350 radius, we need 7,000 pounds. It is no coincidence that the main plus aux fuel is 7,300 pounds, which at the actual 9.5 lb/NM yields 350 NM radius with reserve.
Now, to answer your comments in detail:
Normal range is about 250 NM radius only when you carry little payload, you say "flippin tight" and so does the chart, which shows barely 245Nm only when no payload is carried. Pity you were "flippin tight" when you looked at the chart, otherwise you would have seen that it agreed with you. Try it next time in the morning, when things are clearer.
If you had actually read the last post where I discussed the chart, you would have seen that the 250 radius is best done with the aux fuel, where there is plenty of gas for the 250 trip, plus the time to hoist up those "flippin tight" party revelers who needed to to be winched into the H-92. When you travel out the 250 NM, having taken off with full main and aux fuel, you have burned down about 2400 pounds of gas (remember the 9.5 pounds per NM? 250 x 9.5= 2375 pounds down). That means that you enter the hover at 23,586 pounds (giving you 4,700 pounds of available payload to get to the 28,300 MGW). If you take 2.5 minutes per rescuee, 20 of them takes you 50 minutes. At 1550 pounds per hour in the hover, 50 minutes consumes about 1300 pounds of fuel, leaving you with 3656 pounds of fuel left (7331 takeoff, 2375 fuel outbound, 1300 fuel to hover = 3656 left for home and reserve). If you burn 9.5 pounds per mile, the 3656 will take you 384 miles to burnout. Leave off 70 Nm for reserve (half hour at Vbr) and you can return 314 NM and have lots of reserve.
Now, helicopter aerial refueling is great, Sikorsky invented it, and has built about 3,000 helicopters using it. The H-92 will have it in a bit, fear not.
Regarding max range, the figures are easy to arrive at. Recall the H-92 with Black Hawk equipment having 12,000 pounds of payload. If we take the main fuel at 5000, the remaining 7000 could be in Aux tanks at about 1 pound of tank weight per gallon of tank, so we waste 1,000 pounds with aux tanks, leaving 6000 of fuel. 5000 main fuel plus 6000 aux fuel is 11,000 pounds available. At 9.5 pounds per NM, we can go 1157 NM to burn out, or 1075 with reserve.
Now, all kidding aside Hydraulic Palm Tree, when I post something, I'd fly it, and you can take it to the bank. I made a living doing this for about 30 years, there is no achievement in publishing numbers that don't work!
Regarding the brandy, I would suggest Bourbon, Kentucky bonded. Next time I'm in the UK, lets get you, Crab and me together, we can bore each other silly with figures, buy alternating rounds, and get brilliant!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think Nick should take title "king of all media" from Howard Stern , nice article in this months Helicopters mag with Nick on page 30.
www.helicoptersmagazine.com
oops online version not current
www.helicoptersmagazine.com
oops online version not current
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: somewhere, under the rainbow
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an old photo, but it is the inflight refuelling probe, although you're right it is being used for something else.
Perhaps http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbenson/images/0265.jpg or http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbenson/images/0257.jpg show it better on an in service a/c and the background may be more interesting to our US readers. Where are they? Answers on a postcard please.
Perhaps http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbenson/images/0265.jpg or http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbenson/images/0257.jpg show it better on an in service a/c and the background may be more interesting to our US readers. Where are they? Answers on a postcard please.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Nick
Nick, why is there a difference in TOGW between the S-92 and the H-92? Will it be possible for a civilian to buy the 28,300 lb TOGW of the H-92? Will the H-92 be a full FAR/JAR part 29 (to amendment 44) machine, or will it have restrictions? Can a civilian buy an H-92, or will we be restricted to S-92s only?
(edited for a duplicate word)
(edited for a duplicate word)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight Safety,
The H-92 allows higher gross weight with some modifications to the fuselage structure, and use of dual engine military hover performance rather than single engine civil performance standards. The aircraft are otherwise quite similar, as the "civil" S-92 actually has a great deal of military qualified hardware, adapted from the Black Hawk.
The market will tell us if civil users want the higher gross weight, if so we will provide it. With up to 26 passengers or so, the civil aircraft can go 460 NM with Cat A and Jar reserves while still below the 26,150 S-92 weight.
Current plans call for qualifying the 28,300 pound GW to FAR/JAR amendment 45 (I said I would check and it is amendment 45 that the S/H-92 uses as its qualification basis.)
The H-92 allows higher gross weight with some modifications to the fuselage structure, and use of dual engine military hover performance rather than single engine civil performance standards. The aircraft are otherwise quite similar, as the "civil" S-92 actually has a great deal of military qualified hardware, adapted from the Black Hawk.
The market will tell us if civil users want the higher gross weight, if so we will provide it. With up to 26 passengers or so, the civil aircraft can go 460 NM with Cat A and Jar reserves while still below the 26,150 S-92 weight.
Current plans call for qualifying the 28,300 pound GW to FAR/JAR amendment 45 (I said I would check and it is amendment 45 that the S/H-92 uses as its qualification basis.)
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: by the seaside
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following news story appears on Rotorhub:
The Irish Government, surprised by the extent of negative public reaction to the cancellation of its medium-lift/SAR helicopter contract (originally awarded to the Sikorsky S92), is now investigating the feasibility of leasing. Adrian English reports that the preferred solution is that a commercial organisation will buy the machines and lease them to the Government, with the option of purchase in the long-term.
Considering that this is already happening with a CHC S61 on a leaseback deal to the Air Corps it isn't that surprising!!
The Irish Government, surprised by the extent of negative public reaction to the cancellation of its medium-lift/SAR helicopter contract (originally awarded to the Sikorsky S92), is now investigating the feasibility of leasing. Adrian English reports that the preferred solution is that a commercial organisation will buy the machines and lease them to the Government, with the option of purchase in the long-term.
Considering that this is already happening with a CHC S61 on a leaseback deal to the Air Corps it isn't that surprising!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: U.K.
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC Ireland
Word is that the pilots flying SAR over in CHC Ireland are earning up to 40% less than their counterparts in Scotia, Norway and HS.
Could this be true.....? I know its cheap to live there but surely not that much...? Are they unionised or just mad...?
Could this be true.....? I know its cheap to live there but surely not that much...? Are they unionised or just mad...?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Greystones, Ireland (but born a Kerryman!)
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup, it's currently more expensive to live here than it is to live in St.Tropez 
A recent survey has again shown that the cost of
living in Ireland is on the increase. The cost of
40 staple items in a Dublin suburb was EURO 296.31
but the same items cost only EURO 232.82 in
St. Tropez, the millionaire's playground in the
South of France. Even Guinness is more expensive
in Ireland, costing EURO 2.09 for a 500ml can in
Dublin but only EURO 1.32 in France.
living in Ireland is on the increase. The cost of
40 staple items in a Dublin suburb was EURO 296.31
but the same items cost only EURO 232.82 in
St. Tropez, the millionaire's playground in the
South of France. Even Guinness is more expensive
in Ireland, costing EURO 2.09 for a 500ml can in
Dublin but only EURO 1.32 in France.
If the price of Guinness is that high, the rest of the world best watch out....the Irish...having free time due to not being able to buy their native stout will soon take over the world. Is that not the only reason they haven't so far?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Palmsville
Age: 73
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am told Ireland is very expensive to live and Dublin costs more than London or Stavanger. I also heard that they pay their pilots less there than on the North Sea, but that they're told that it's because the Irish Coastguard cannot afford to pay the money that the oil companies pay.
Trouble is unionisation has got pilots in the North Sea a big pay rise, but still CHC are going to fire/make redundant 12-15 pilots in UK after Bond getting the contract for BP - though that may just be an excuse.
I know a few guys who were offered work in Ireland with CHC, but CHC never got back to them. They think it may be tied in with one senior Brit in CHC management in South Africa who seems to upset a lot of people. Some of the guys who were looking for work overseas with CHC were very upset by his attitude and decided to stay where they were. He is supposed to return to UK this year, so perhaps Scotia will have more trouble there later in the year.
How is morale in CHC in general now, with the redundancies on the way and the loss of work to Bond? Are many pilots really thinking of working for Bond again?
Trouble is unionisation has got pilots in the North Sea a big pay rise, but still CHC are going to fire/make redundant 12-15 pilots in UK after Bond getting the contract for BP - though that may just be an excuse.
I know a few guys who were offered work in Ireland with CHC, but CHC never got back to them. They think it may be tied in with one senior Brit in CHC management in South Africa who seems to upset a lot of people. Some of the guys who were looking for work overseas with CHC were very upset by his attitude and decided to stay where they were. He is supposed to return to UK this year, so perhaps Scotia will have more trouble there later in the year.
How is morale in CHC in general now, with the redundancies on the way and the loss of work to Bond? Are many pilots really thinking of working for Bond again?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No we are not mad over here but we are getting very upset. There have been many Brits here over the years, both front and rear crew and all would agree that its more expensive to live over here considering tax, housing, insurance etc.
It is totally unacceptable that all the other pilots in the company throughout Europe ( and their main competitors... Norsk and BHL) get paid a similar salary while we get paid significantly less while doing a more specialized job. We were all disappointed about BP but to suggest that it was only due to labour costs alone is nonsense. We all know that the oil companies wanted more competition and without doubt Bond will have to pay the market rate if they want people. The contracts here are as good as anywhere else and if the company arent making money then its certainly not the pilots fault as they had ****** all competition during the tendering. While no one wants action, most especially in SAR, the company will be drawing it on themselves if they dont pony up soon.
It is totally unacceptable that all the other pilots in the company throughout Europe ( and their main competitors... Norsk and BHL) get paid a similar salary while we get paid significantly less while doing a more specialized job. We were all disappointed about BP but to suggest that it was only due to labour costs alone is nonsense. We all know that the oil companies wanted more competition and without doubt Bond will have to pay the market rate if they want people. The contracts here are as good as anywhere else and if the company arent making money then its certainly not the pilots fault as they had ****** all competition during the tendering. While no one wants action, most especially in SAR, the company will be drawing it on themselves if they dont pony up soon.
PPRuNe Time
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irish helicopter found missing woman
An Irish coastguard helicopter has located a 35-year-old British woman who failed to return from a fishing trip off the Isle of Man yesterday.
A search was launched last night after the woman attempted to contact her husband by mobile phone, but the signal failed.
She was eventually located at around 1am using the infrared camera on board the Irish rescue helicopter, which was dispatched to help the British search operation.
A British helicopter and four lifeboats were also involved in the operation.
Source
A search was launched last night after the woman attempted to contact her husband by mobile phone, but the signal failed.
She was eventually located at around 1am using the infrared camera on board the Irish rescue helicopter, which was dispatched to help the British search operation.
A British helicopter and four lifeboats were also involved in the operation.
Source
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irish Air Corp lose out to CHC in North West
Irish Air Corp lose out to CHC in North West
I Hear CHC are getting the deal here
3. Air Core North West service axed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minister for Defence Michael Smith explains the reasons behind the decision to transfer search and rescue duties in the North West to a private company 28k - http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1218/new...news1pm3a.smil
McSkull
I Hear CHC are getting the deal here
3. Air Core North West service axed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minister for Defence Michael Smith explains the reasons behind the decision to transfer search and rescue duties in the North West to a private company 28k - http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1218/new...news1pm3a.smil
McSkull
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More to this one than meets the eye; tales of bullying, crew being placed under house arrest after questioning amount of torque being pulled during winching ops, un-serviceable equipment, in subordination and malingering by crew; that’s the story heard at a reputable drinking establishment at EIDW. Eventually the government pulls plug!
Perhaps someone closer to the coalface might supply a few details?
Perhaps someone closer to the coalface might supply a few details?