Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you sure its a real one??
There is a big orange button on the tailboom (4th pic down) to start/stop the battery powered rotors turning on your new toy....
Regards SD..
Actually....what IS that orange thing????
There is a big orange button on the tailboom (4th pic down) to start/stop the battery powered rotors turning on your new toy....
Regards SD..
Actually....what IS that orange thing????
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sultan needs a hearing aid
The Sultan said that, "What we are hearing was that a major reason for the S-92 loss on VXX was its one engine out performance. I am also hearing that Norsk is unhappy with the Cat A performance."
Yea, Norsk is so unhappy they are buying more. Go back to your sales brochures, Sultan.
The Navy said that the flight performance of the H-92 was superior to the US-101 in each phase of the program, including initial delivery. Regarding 3 engine "safety" the navy said this about the selection:
"Q: Can I ask you, during the public debate between the companies over the past year, a lot's been made of the fact that the Sikorsky helicopter had two engines, the Lockheed entry had three, and was a larger helicopter. Were those two things factors in the decision?
MR. LAUX (Navy Head Programs Engineer): .....Regarding the three engines versus two, three engines obviously burns more gas per hour than two does. Those came into play. How big the gas tanks are....Specifically from a safety perspective, we took a look to see if in fact a three-engine platform offered potentially more safety, and we could find no data. And we operate both three-engine and two- engine aircraft that do. So that didn't turn out to be a specific advantage."
" But the overall size of the 101 clearly was a factor in terms of their capabilities. "
For your reading pleasure, here is the web site:
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/d...4-1d3f821bf124
Yea, Norsk is so unhappy they are buying more. Go back to your sales brochures, Sultan.
The Navy said that the flight performance of the H-92 was superior to the US-101 in each phase of the program, including initial delivery. Regarding 3 engine "safety" the navy said this about the selection:
"Q: Can I ask you, during the public debate between the companies over the past year, a lot's been made of the fact that the Sikorsky helicopter had two engines, the Lockheed entry had three, and was a larger helicopter. Were those two things factors in the decision?
MR. LAUX (Navy Head Programs Engineer): .....Regarding the three engines versus two, three engines obviously burns more gas per hour than two does. Those came into play. How big the gas tanks are....Specifically from a safety perspective, we took a look to see if in fact a three-engine platform offered potentially more safety, and we could find no data. And we operate both three-engine and two- engine aircraft that do. So that didn't turn out to be a specific advantage."
" But the overall size of the 101 clearly was a factor in terms of their capabilities. "
For your reading pleasure, here is the web site:
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/d...4-1d3f821bf124
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, I'm not sure if I've ever asked this question.
Since the Norsk S-92 was transported in an AN-124, can you provide a list of aircraft that the S-92 can be transported in? I'm sure it must be a short list. I'm particularly interested in aircraft that civilians can own. Would a 747F be one of those aircraft? For the 747F I imagine the nose entry is probably not tall enough, and either entry point (nose or side) is too high off the ground and would require a special loader, etc.
Thank,
Flight Safety
Since the Norsk S-92 was transported in an AN-124, can you provide a list of aircraft that the S-92 can be transported in? I'm sure it must be a short list. I'm particularly interested in aircraft that civilians can own. Would a 747F be one of those aircraft? For the 747F I imagine the nose entry is probably not tall enough, and either entry point (nose or side) is too high off the ground and would require a special loader, etc.
Thank,
Flight Safety
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety,
I dont have that list, I would imagine the boys in commercial programs can answer that. The rotor height is taller than most cargo bays, like the 747 and such (unless you have the military fold package!)
PM me and I will send you the number of a person who can help.
I dont have that list, I would imagine the boys in commercial programs can answer that. The rotor height is taller than most cargo bays, like the 747 and such (unless you have the military fold package!)
PM me and I will send you the number of a person who can help.
Flight Safety
The S92 will only fit inside an AN124, unless you want to turn it back into a kit
You need to remove the main & tail rotor blades and the beanie. There's also the option to lower the MLG oleos to improve clearances.
M609
As mentioned the orange button is an ADELT, the liferafts are contained in the forward part of the sponsons.
HTH
Variable Load
The S92 will only fit inside an AN124, unless you want to turn it back into a kit
You need to remove the main & tail rotor blades and the beanie. There's also the option to lower the MLG oleos to improve clearances.M609
As mentioned the orange button is an ADELT, the liferafts are contained in the forward part of the sponsons.
HTH
Variable Load
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky Press Release
PHI Signs for Two S-92s and Four S-76s
ANAHEIM, Calif.
ANAHEIM, Calif.
-- Sikorsky announce that PHI will purchase six new Sikorsky helicopters to add to the company’s expanding fleet.
PHI signed for two Sikorsky S-92 helicopters™ which upon delivery will give the company six S-92s for use in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil market. In addition to the two S-92s, PHI will also add four S-76C+™ helicopters to its current fleet of 15 S-76s as part of the company’s fleet upgrade initiative. Sikorsky will begin delivery of the aircraft in mid-2005.
“Sikorsky is very proud PHI has chosen the S-92 and S-76C+ for their heavy and medium transport products,” said Jeff Pino, Sikorsky’s Senior Vice President of Sales and Commercial Programs.
PHI Chairman and CEO, Al A. Gonsoulin said "the addition of these new helicopters will enhance the level of service we provide our customers, who demand a safe, reliable, and efficient product.”
The S-92 is the first helicopter in the world certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency/ Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) to the latest and most rigorous safety standards.
PHI signed for two Sikorsky S-92 helicopters™ which upon delivery will give the company six S-92s for use in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil market. In addition to the two S-92s, PHI will also add four S-76C+™ helicopters to its current fleet of 15 S-76s as part of the company’s fleet upgrade initiative. Sikorsky will begin delivery of the aircraft in mid-2005.
“Sikorsky is very proud PHI has chosen the S-92 and S-76C+ for their heavy and medium transport products,” said Jeff Pino, Sikorsky’s Senior Vice President of Sales and Commercial Programs.
PHI Chairman and CEO, Al A. Gonsoulin said "the addition of these new helicopters will enhance the level of service we provide our customers, who demand a safe, reliable, and efficient product.”
The S-92 is the first helicopter in the world certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency/ Joint Aviation Authorities (EASA/JAA) to the latest and most rigorous safety standards.
Hippolite/Mama,
Or more correctly an ELT(AD) - Automatic Deployable; the only automatic ELT that can effectively work on flights over water. It can be deployed manually and automatically (G-switch and (saline) water immersion).
Jim
Or more correctly an ELT(AD) - Automatic Deployable; the only automatic ELT that can effectively work on flights over water. It can be deployed manually and automatically (G-switch and (saline) water immersion).
Jim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, I sent you a PM. Are you saying that the Military fold option is also available on the civilian bird? If so, that would make things a lot easier. I hope the weight penalty of the option isn't bad, and that it doesn't impose many restrictions.
Variable Load, the S-92 can also be transported in a C-17, but Boeing appears to have recently dropped the civil C-17 program, due to a lack of interest I assume. The C-17 does not have a civil certificate, so a civil program would be a rather involved program. The C-130 on the other hand does have a civil ticket (including the "J" model), but I don't think it can carry an S-92, even with the Military fold option. The An-124 would be VERY expensive to own and it lacks versatility, as it seems to be a big load hawler only.
Variable Load, the S-92 can also be transported in a C-17, but Boeing appears to have recently dropped the civil C-17 program, due to a lack of interest I assume. The C-17 does not have a civil certificate, so a civil program would be a rather involved program. The C-130 on the other hand does have a civil ticket (including the "J" model), but I don't think it can carry an S-92, even with the Military fold option. The An-124 would be VERY expensive to own and it lacks versatility, as it seems to be a big load hawler only.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety,
The fold option weighs enough to make it unattractive for anyone to lose the payload while they flog around for the several years between transports, I am sure. Even so, it doens't fit in a 747 or similar. Have to pull the trannie, I think.
Why the fixation on transporting the aircraft? I thought the helo was supposed to do the transporting? ;-)
The fold option weighs enough to make it unattractive for anyone to lose the payload while they flog around for the several years between transports, I am sure. Even so, it doens't fit in a 747 or similar. Have to pull the trannie, I think.
Why the fixation on transporting the aircraft? I thought the helo was supposed to do the transporting? ;-)
Hi Nick et al
I have to agree. All this talk from Flight Safety about transporting S92s about the globe seems to be confused.
The use of C17s and lack of suitability of C130s
Even going to the extreme of owning an AN124! What gives??
As a civvie operator, if you want to deliver an S92 by fling wing, the only real option is an AN124. If you consider this too expensive then fly it to wherever you want to go
If you are spending taxpayers money, then accompany the whole trip with a CC130, as the Canadian Forces did with their EH101 deliveries
I have to agree. All this talk from Flight Safety about transporting S92s about the globe seems to be confused.
The use of C17s and lack of suitability of C130s
Even going to the extreme of owning an AN124! What gives?? As a civvie operator, if you want to deliver an S92 by fling wing, the only real option is an AN124. If you consider this too expensive then fly it to wherever you want to go
If you are spending taxpayers money, then accompany the whole trip with a CC130, as the Canadian Forces did with their EH101 deliveries
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for any confusion. I was just exploring the option of using S-92s (SAR versions) for humanitarian relief with an NGO. Being able to transporting the S-92s could speed up a repaid response effort. Clearly this wouldn't be the typical S-92 application.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
self deployment vs. big hauler
Flt Safety
Some years ago, at the time when a C130 crashed at Alert (lat 80N+), I was associated with the then current effort to buy EH101s for Canadian SAR. We were considering whether to urge the customer to go for an air refuelling option.
Analysis showed that it would have taken 17hrs. from launch to get an EH101 to Alert from Trenton AFB (on Lake Ontario) with air refuelling, but only 4 hrs more to land in Northern Quebec and refuel.
In the actual case, weather intervened to delay rescue, but the actual rescue vehicles were Alaskan HH-60s carried in USAF MATS transports (C141s, I think, but my memory is a little vague) to Thule, which is not far from Alert. (I've flown from Thule to Alert, and it isn't out of helo range unless you're talking Jet Rangers.) The time penalty to get the HH-60s on scene compared to the theoretical air refuelled EH101s was trivial. We therefore couldn't convince the customer that it was a worthwhile option.
On a longer range deployment, i.e. USA to Indonesia, obviously big hauler would be the way to go unless there is a CVN in the vicinity. In that long range scenario, what's wrong with an AN124? Or a C17, for that matter? I'll bet that if NGO helos were important, the USAF could be convinced to send C17s.
Some years ago, at the time when a C130 crashed at Alert (lat 80N+), I was associated with the then current effort to buy EH101s for Canadian SAR. We were considering whether to urge the customer to go for an air refuelling option.
Analysis showed that it would have taken 17hrs. from launch to get an EH101 to Alert from Trenton AFB (on Lake Ontario) with air refuelling, but only 4 hrs more to land in Northern Quebec and refuel.
In the actual case, weather intervened to delay rescue, but the actual rescue vehicles were Alaskan HH-60s carried in USAF MATS transports (C141s, I think, but my memory is a little vague) to Thule, which is not far from Alert. (I've flown from Thule to Alert, and it isn't out of helo range unless you're talking Jet Rangers.) The time penalty to get the HH-60s on scene compared to the theoretical air refuelled EH101s was trivial. We therefore couldn't convince the customer that it was a worthwhile option.
On a longer range deployment, i.e. USA to Indonesia, obviously big hauler would be the way to go unless there is a CVN in the vicinity. In that long range scenario, what's wrong with an AN124? Or a C17, for that matter? I'll bet that if NGO helos were important, the USAF could be convinced to send C17s.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S 92 Blows opposition away....
An S 92 has been on static display at IDEX (International Defence) Exhibition in Abu Dhabi this week. On departure this afternoon it did a max rate climb into high hover, followed by a spot turn before departing. The resultant downwash damaged several chalets and displays. Most affected was the Agusta Westland chalet which had its windows blown in and started to collapse onto the occupants. Flying debris narrowly missed the Agusta 109 Power parked behind the chalet. Luckily no one was injured. One way of blowing the opposition away....
Obviously wasn't 'secured' properly!!