Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heedm, the S-92 is derived from the Black Hawk, so in that sense it's not a "clean sheet of paper" design. It's more of a "large cabin" mod of a Black Hawk, with a lot of refinements and improvements.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nick I don't think anyone is questioning the time from first flight until enter service rather the time to develop up to the first flight . Do you have dates of the launch of each of these projects
Answering my own question
http://www.ainonline.com/Features/ne...aft02/s92.html
In the ever-so-slow world of rotorcraft development, that would mean the arrival of actual flying hardware 10 years after the S-92 “Helibus” (a term Sikorsky senior management is said to hate) was first announced at Heli-Expo 1992. After a further three years of market and design evaluation, the program was greenlighted.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTy...ack/NH90TR.htm
feasability study 1985
NH90 contract signed 1992
detail design 1993
first parts made 1994
First prototype 1995
# 2 1997
# 3 1998
# 4 1999
When I left Westlands in 1981 the EH101 workshare was already well established ( design work on WG34 dates back to the 70's )
Simple answer is , that large projects of this type move incredibly slowly , the added complication of having multiple design centres and cross border management make it even worse .
Answering my own question
http://www.ainonline.com/Features/ne...aft02/s92.html
In the ever-so-slow world of rotorcraft development, that would mean the arrival of actual flying hardware 10 years after the S-92 “Helibus” (a term Sikorsky senior management is said to hate) was first announced at Heli-Expo 1992. After a further three years of market and design evaluation, the program was greenlighted.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTy...ack/NH90TR.htm
feasability study 1985
NH90 contract signed 1992
detail design 1993
first parts made 1994
First prototype 1995
# 2 1997
# 3 1998
# 4 1999
When I left Westlands in 1981 the EH101 workshare was already well established ( design work on WG34 dates back to the 70's )
Simple answer is , that large projects of this type move incredibly slowly , the added complication of having multiple design centres and cross border management make it even worse .
Guest
Posts: n/a
What engines does the S 92 have? Are they a new type, or existing?
I think that was part of the EH 101 problem was the
New Engine + New Airframe = Long development
I think the workshare and different company operating methods/attitudes between the two companies didn't really help. Sikorsky is probably luckier in that respect as it is one (albeit pretty big) company.
I am keeping an eye the S 92 with interest as its going to be a major player in that market sector, and I still have a lot of mates who work at Westlands (sorry, Agusta-Westland).
For info the website linked to above (http://www.vectorsite.net/aveh101.html) states that EH101 PP7 was 'written off'. Not true, it suffrered serious damage after rolling on its side during a landing at Malpensa Airport, but was repaired. I was at Cascina Costa (Civil 101 work) when it first flew after the rebuild. PP3 has also been retired, and donated to a museum (minus anything useful). Not bad, I've only got 5.5 years experience, and already I've flown in a museum exhibit!
I think that was part of the EH 101 problem was the
New Engine + New Airframe = Long development
I think the workshare and different company operating methods/attitudes between the two companies didn't really help. Sikorsky is probably luckier in that respect as it is one (albeit pretty big) company.
I am keeping an eye the S 92 with interest as its going to be a major player in that market sector, and I still have a lot of mates who work at Westlands (sorry, Agusta-Westland).
For info the website linked to above (http://www.vectorsite.net/aveh101.html) states that EH101 PP7 was 'written off'. Not true, it suffrered serious damage after rolling on its side during a landing at Malpensa Airport, but was repaired. I was at Cascina Costa (Civil 101 work) when it first flew after the rebuild. PP3 has also been retired, and donated to a museum (minus anything useful). Not bad, I've only got 5.5 years experience, and already I've flown in a museum exhibit!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight Up, the engine for the S-92 is the GE CT7-8, a growth developement of the venerable T700 used in the Black Hawk. Here's a link...
GE CT7-8
I don't know why, but this CT7-8 link does not seem to indicate that this new T700 series engine is a FADEC equipped engine, which it definitely is.
I also agree with you, the S-92 will be a major player in its market.
GE CT7-8
I don't know why, but this CT7-8 link does not seem to indicate that this new T700 series engine is a FADEC equipped engine, which it definitely is.
I also agree with you, the S-92 will be a major player in its market.
Last edited by Flight Safety; 26th Aug 2002 at 01:30.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flight Safety, cheers for that.
The 101 uses a T700-GE-T6A in the Civil, Italian and Canadian variants, which is also FADEC equiped, though with a HMU backup. Though the 101 needs three of them. I imagine the new CT7-8 is a better all round than the T700-T6A then?
I seem to recall that CT7 and T700 are essentialy the same thing, but can't really remember. Any one care to enlighten me, engines aint my strong point?
Any one know of any direct comparisom of the three players (EH101/NH90/S92) mentioned here? (not head to head flying wise or anything, just the same info in the same place). I have experience of the EH101, and have been around (but not on) the NH90, and there hasn't been much chance to get too close to an S 92 yet.
I'm interested as there will be an Aussie troop lift helo requirement, which I may/may not end up closely interested in.
The 101 uses a T700-GE-T6A in the Civil, Italian and Canadian variants, which is also FADEC equiped, though with a HMU backup. Though the 101 needs three of them. I imagine the new CT7-8 is a better all round than the T700-T6A then?
I seem to recall that CT7 and T700 are essentialy the same thing, but can't really remember. Any one care to enlighten me, engines aint my strong point?
Any one know of any direct comparisom of the three players (EH101/NH90/S92) mentioned here? (not head to head flying wise or anything, just the same info in the same place). I have experience of the EH101, and have been around (but not on) the NH90, and there hasn't been much chance to get too close to an S 92 yet.
I'm interested as there will be an Aussie troop lift helo requirement, which I may/may not end up closely interested in.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Sea and elsewhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Nick for the update. My comments about the length of time it has taken to develop was based on the original Sikorsky discusions with North Sea helicopter operators taking place in the early ninety's and the fact that this was a development from an existing aircraft (albiet only powertrain and rotor systems being carried forward as far as I am aware).
I know that many delays can be caused by commercial and market reasons but the sooner we get a viable alternative to the Eurocopter 19 - 24 seater products the better. Having had to fly AS332 variants for longer than I care to remember, I hope to get the oportunity to get my hands on a Sikorsky product again.
Which brings me back to my question about how many customers have bought options for the S92 ??????
I know that many delays can be caused by commercial and market reasons but the sooner we get a viable alternative to the Eurocopter 19 - 24 seater products the better. Having had to fly AS332 variants for longer than I care to remember, I hope to get the oportunity to get my hands on a Sikorsky product again.
Which brings me back to my question about how many customers have bought options for the S92 ??????
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight up / Flight Safety -
The CT7 is the civil version of the T700. The GE/Fiat T700-T6A equates to the CT7-6, and the -T6E to the CT7-8. The T700-T6A’s FADEC isn’t a true full authority digital engine control, but rather a supervisory DEC.
The -T6A does indeed power the Italian and Canadian versions of the EH101, together with a single civil aircraft, but the majority of EH101s are powered by the Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322. As Straight Up mentions, the RTM322 was developed for the EH101, but the new FADEC-equipped engine wasn’t the cause of the EH101’s protracted development - compared to the ‘commercial’ S-92, the EH101 was a substantially more complex mission system (i.e. airframe, avionics, weapons & ground support), with a much longer development & test program. Systems delays and the three crashes obviously did cause the development program to be longer than originally planned, but it was never going to equate to what Sikorsky has achieved with the S-92.
The first EH101 prototypes were flown with the older T700, with RTM322-powered prototypes joining the fleet in 1993. The RTM322 had already been trialled on the Sikorsky S-70C and SH-60 by this time, and was therefore considered something of a low-risk item. The EH101/RTM322 combination has now been selected by the RN, RAF, Danish AF and Portuguese AF, with more opportunities being campaigned. The RTM322 has so far secured 70% of EH101 orders, and has also been selected to power 70% of NH90s, the other application on which the RRTM engine competes against the GE/Fiat offering.
Offering substantially greater power growth than the T700 family, the RTM322 is a natural choice for future variants of the S-92, but then I’m biased...
GE/Fiat has an exclusivity agreement on initial sales of the Helibus, but I’ll have to leave Nick to comment on future engine options...
Cheers,
t/shaft
The CT7 is the civil version of the T700. The GE/Fiat T700-T6A equates to the CT7-6, and the -T6E to the CT7-8. The T700-T6A’s FADEC isn’t a true full authority digital engine control, but rather a supervisory DEC.
The -T6A does indeed power the Italian and Canadian versions of the EH101, together with a single civil aircraft, but the majority of EH101s are powered by the Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322. As Straight Up mentions, the RTM322 was developed for the EH101, but the new FADEC-equipped engine wasn’t the cause of the EH101’s protracted development - compared to the ‘commercial’ S-92, the EH101 was a substantially more complex mission system (i.e. airframe, avionics, weapons & ground support), with a much longer development & test program. Systems delays and the three crashes obviously did cause the development program to be longer than originally planned, but it was never going to equate to what Sikorsky has achieved with the S-92.
The first EH101 prototypes were flown with the older T700, with RTM322-powered prototypes joining the fleet in 1993. The RTM322 had already been trialled on the Sikorsky S-70C and SH-60 by this time, and was therefore considered something of a low-risk item. The EH101/RTM322 combination has now been selected by the RN, RAF, Danish AF and Portuguese AF, with more opportunities being campaigned. The RTM322 has so far secured 70% of EH101 orders, and has also been selected to power 70% of NH90s, the other application on which the RRTM engine competes against the GE/Fiat offering.
Offering substantially greater power growth than the T700 family, the RTM322 is a natural choice for future variants of the S-92, but then I’m biased...
GE/Fiat has an exclusivity agreement on initial sales of the Helibus, but I’ll have to leave Nick to comment on future engine options...
Cheers,
t/shaft
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I believe that facts are facts, etc so I would like to just list a few in support of the EH101...
1. The EH101 base vehicle took 10 years from first flight to delivery of the first production aircraft to a customer (TMP).
2. The EH101 is a NEW aircraft rather like to NH90. I think you have to accept that the S-92 owe's a lot of its predevelopment to the Blackhawk. As far as I am aware the only system to be used on another aircraft in the EH101 programme was the ACSR (tested on the TT300 during the 80s).
3. The Merlin aircraft took 9 years to enter service and if you ever have the chance to use the Merlin as a ASW platform you with realise why....it does what it say's on the packet!!!
4. EHI have sold in excess of 100 airframes to six countries...
5. The EH101 is in service and doing what was designed for!!
There, I will climb down now and wait for the anti-Wasteland guys to beat me with whatever but those are the facts..
I am sure that the S-92 will be a great success, it should be as it comes from good breading stock!!
844
I believe that facts are facts, etc so I would like to just list a few in support of the EH101...
1. The EH101 base vehicle took 10 years from first flight to delivery of the first production aircraft to a customer (TMP).
2. The EH101 is a NEW aircraft rather like to NH90. I think you have to accept that the S-92 owe's a lot of its predevelopment to the Blackhawk. As far as I am aware the only system to be used on another aircraft in the EH101 programme was the ACSR (tested on the TT300 during the 80s).
3. The Merlin aircraft took 9 years to enter service and if you ever have the chance to use the Merlin as a ASW platform you with realise why....it does what it say's on the packet!!!
4. EHI have sold in excess of 100 airframes to six countries...
5. The EH101 is in service and doing what was designed for!!
There, I will climb down now and wait for the anti-Wasteland guys to beat me with whatever but those are the facts..
I am sure that the S-92 will be a great success, it should be as it comes from good breading stock!!
844
Guest
Posts: n/a
ZH844,
Thanks for the update. Seems the web site that celebrated the turnover of the first EH-101 to the RN was in 1996, 9 years after first flight, where it underwent 2 to 4 years of test before being declared operational. In this case, it was somewhere between 11 to 13 years from first flight to operational use.
Regarding the design, the S-92 is an all new design. The parts fit on the Black Hawk family (main transmission, etc) but they are all new, of completely new type of design and to a set of design standards that are quite a bit tougher and harder to test to than older machines faced. Fully damage and flaw tolerant rotor parts and fuselage structure must be proven using more samples of the components, taking more test time. This made our job a bit tougher.
The engines did not hold the development of these aircraft, they were available from first flight. Otherwise it would have been first autorotation, wouldn't it?
I had a lunch with Rafael Longibardi, the late chief pilot of Agusta a long time ago, and he told me of the funding issues in the EH development that held them back. Often, development time is not a technical measure, it is a measure of the funding and political will of the developer.
One poster commented on the development time as measured from design start. For the EH-101, first designs were started in 1981 or 1982. This made flight about 6 to 7 years after design start. S-92 had a design start in 1992, and flew in 6 years.
None of this is intended to disparage two fine helicopters, Jerry Tracey and Colin Hague are friends, and I would like to be sure they invite me back to their lair at Yoevil when I am next in the UK!
Recall that this thread was started to discuss the seemingly long time to develop the S-92. It was not a long time, it was about half to 2/3 the time of the EH-101 and NH-90.
Thanks for the update. Seems the web site that celebrated the turnover of the first EH-101 to the RN was in 1996, 9 years after first flight, where it underwent 2 to 4 years of test before being declared operational. In this case, it was somewhere between 11 to 13 years from first flight to operational use.
Regarding the design, the S-92 is an all new design. The parts fit on the Black Hawk family (main transmission, etc) but they are all new, of completely new type of design and to a set of design standards that are quite a bit tougher and harder to test to than older machines faced. Fully damage and flaw tolerant rotor parts and fuselage structure must be proven using more samples of the components, taking more test time. This made our job a bit tougher.
The engines did not hold the development of these aircraft, they were available from first flight. Otherwise it would have been first autorotation, wouldn't it?
I had a lunch with Rafael Longibardi, the late chief pilot of Agusta a long time ago, and he told me of the funding issues in the EH development that held them back. Often, development time is not a technical measure, it is a measure of the funding and political will of the developer.
One poster commented on the development time as measured from design start. For the EH-101, first designs were started in 1981 or 1982. This made flight about 6 to 7 years after design start. S-92 had a design start in 1992, and flew in 6 years.
None of this is intended to disparage two fine helicopters, Jerry Tracey and Colin Hague are friends, and I would like to be sure they invite me back to their lair at Yoevil when I am next in the UK!
Recall that this thread was started to discuss the seemingly long time to develop the S-92. It was not a long time, it was about half to 2/3 the time of the EH-101 and NH-90.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nick,
You WANT to go to Yeovil, good god man, why?
It took me years to achieve escape velocity from there, after being inadvertantly drawn in, even then I didn't slow down 'til I reached Oz!
Though I do miss working right on the airfield, all the aircraft I work with are and hours flight and a 2 hour drive away.
Have to agree with ZH844, the ASW is apparently bloody good. The HC3 / RAF support variant does seem to get a bit of a bashing though, but I prefffered it to the ASW variant as it had a jumpseat, you can't see **** in the back of an ASW variant.
You WANT to go to Yeovil, good god man, why?
It took me years to achieve escape velocity from there, after being inadvertantly drawn in, even then I didn't slow down 'til I reached Oz!
Though I do miss working right on the airfield, all the aircraft I work with are and hours flight and a 2 hour drive away.
Have to agree with ZH844, the ASW is apparently bloody good. The HC3 / RAF support variant does seem to get a bit of a bashing though, but I prefffered it to the ASW variant as it had a jumpseat, you can't see **** in the back of an ASW variant.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 60
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 Gets 5 M/R Blades???
It's a rumor network and this is certainly a rumor.
Had a telephone conversation today with a well informed rotary-wing journalist. Rumor has it there may be a delay in the S92 program because Sikorsky is considering (or will) modify the aircraft to a 5 bladed Main Rotor head.
I'll believe it when I see it, but reason given for the modification is vibration.
Cheers
Had a telephone conversation today with a well informed rotary-wing journalist. Rumor has it there may be a delay in the S92 program because Sikorsky is considering (or will) modify the aircraft to a 5 bladed Main Rotor head.
I'll believe it when I see it, but reason given for the modification is vibration.
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joker-
Your "well informed" journalist is not that well informed! The S-92 has 4 main rotor blades (last time I counted) and will have them for the next decade, anyway. The vibration is very nice, thank you, with levels that are better than the President's S-61, thanks to the 4 (that's four) main rotor blades, and also the very good computer driven vibration absorber system that we use.
We are producing rotorheads and airframes now for the Lot I and Lot II of production, and they have those four blades, too. The 1305 engineering reports that the FAA now has all reference the 4 blades. The FAA will shortly issue the Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) and will be testing very shortly, and will certify that 4 bladed S-92 by the end of the year.
I suggest that the journalist ring me up. I would be glad to discuss this stuff with him directly. I am not hard to find!
Here is some info on the 92 from the Sikorsky web site:
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,534,00.pdf
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf
Nick Lappos
Your "well informed" journalist is not that well informed! The S-92 has 4 main rotor blades (last time I counted) and will have them for the next decade, anyway. The vibration is very nice, thank you, with levels that are better than the President's S-61, thanks to the 4 (that's four) main rotor blades, and also the very good computer driven vibration absorber system that we use.
We are producing rotorheads and airframes now for the Lot I and Lot II of production, and they have those four blades, too. The 1305 engineering reports that the FAA now has all reference the 4 blades. The FAA will shortly issue the Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) and will be testing very shortly, and will certify that 4 bladed S-92 by the end of the year.
I suggest that the journalist ring me up. I would be glad to discuss this stuff with him directly. I am not hard to find!
Here is some info on the 92 from the Sikorsky web site:
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,534,00.pdf
http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf
Nick Lappos
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 60
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that, Nick.
Logic would dictate it's a little late in the program to completely revamp the M/R and head assemblies!!!
If I get the chance, I'll enquire as to where this "rumor" was born. Just out of curiosity, did Sikorsky ever look at a 5 bladed M/R head for the 92 before deciding on 4?
Cheers
Logic would dictate it's a little late in the program to completely revamp the M/R and head assemblies!!!
If I get the chance, I'll enquire as to where this "rumor" was born. Just out of curiosity, did Sikorsky ever look at a 5 bladed M/R head for the 92 before deciding on 4?
Cheers
Anyone reckon Nick plays in a rock band in Guatemala on his time off....and that is why he claims only four blades for the S-92.....in that there is still one missing digit downthere somewhere?
Being a Cobra pilot.....he is probably condition responsed trained to count in pairs anyway!
Being a Cobra pilot.....he is probably condition responsed trained to count in pairs anyway!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CH
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky stuff
Nick Lappos,
Strangely and purely coincidentally I have seen a few of your "recent" Sikorsky products flying.
S-92 - lurking around North County FL.
Comanche - in Ft Lauderdale down by the dock in SE 17th St. Attraction was the noise of a S-76. Turned out it was a B model riding wing to the Comanche. It was masking the Comanche noise - was like watching a SF movie.
The best of all though was the "Fantail" S-76 at Paris Le Bourget in about '90-91 or thereabouts. Now what were the figures - 105 knots to the left and about 95 knots to the right. Flat pedal turns at about 120 IAS. Eyeballs were on stalks!
Strangely and purely coincidentally I have seen a few of your "recent" Sikorsky products flying.
S-92 - lurking around North County FL.
Comanche - in Ft Lauderdale down by the dock in SE 17th St. Attraction was the noise of a S-76. Turned out it was a B model riding wing to the Comanche. It was masking the Comanche noise - was like watching a SF movie.
The best of all though was the "Fantail" S-76 at Paris Le Bourget in about '90-91 or thereabouts. Now what were the figures - 105 knots to the left and about 95 knots to the right. Flat pedal turns at about 120 IAS. Eyeballs were on stalks!
Guest
Posts: n/a
John,
Your keen eyesight is admirable! The North County airspace is home turf to the guys at West palm Test Center, and the Comanche at Ft. Lauderdale was there for the AAAA convention (Army Aviation Association of America) last year.
The Fantail was at Paris doing those "Snap Turns" for the crowd. It was a real gas flying that airplane, and quite thrilling to see 125,000 people all turned eyes up to watch the demo. Talk about praying "Lord, please don't let me screw up!" It was actually 90 degrees of flat turn in 2 seconds at 120 knots to the left and 105 knots to the right.
Comanche is even better! Rus Stiles, John Dixson and I were the pilots on that show.
Nick
Your keen eyesight is admirable! The North County airspace is home turf to the guys at West palm Test Center, and the Comanche at Ft. Lauderdale was there for the AAAA convention (Army Aviation Association of America) last year.
The Fantail was at Paris doing those "Snap Turns" for the crowd. It was a real gas flying that airplane, and quite thrilling to see 125,000 people all turned eyes up to watch the demo. Talk about praying "Lord, please don't let me screw up!" It was actually 90 degrees of flat turn in 2 seconds at 120 knots to the left and 105 knots to the right.
Comanche is even better! Rus Stiles, John Dixson and I were the pilots on that show.
Nick
