Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Iceland
Age: 53
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP
I started two years ago making a comparison chart like the one you are talking about, comparing different types of single engine helicopters to see which one would do it for me. But after many hours of research, I quit. It was to time consuming to dig after all the information.
It would have been very nice to be able to buy this kind of information from a reliable source. Anyone open for making a few dollars for producing a sheet like this?
I started two years ago making a comparison chart like the one you are talking about, comparing different types of single engine helicopters to see which one would do it for me. But after many hours of research, I quit. It was to time consuming to dig after all the information.
It would have been very nice to be able to buy this kind of information from a reliable source. Anyone open for making a few dollars for producing a sheet like this?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would have been very nice to be able to buy this kind of information from a reliable source
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding footnote 4:
>>15 gallon increase in fuel
And the assumption is all of that is usable? According to the SA representitves at Heliexpo, the increase is due to a reshaping of the tank filler pads. There is no change to the basic airframe.
There was no answer to if the new pads could retrofit to older models.
Something seems fishy. If it is such a simple matter to increase the fuel, why haven't we seen a "-76 range extender kit" stc'd years ago??
HOSS
>>15 gallon increase in fuel
And the assumption is all of that is usable? According to the SA representitves at Heliexpo, the increase is due to a reshaping of the tank filler pads. There is no change to the basic airframe.
There was no answer to if the new pads could retrofit to older models.
Something seems fishy. If it is such a simple matter to increase the fuel, why haven't we seen a "-76 range extender kit" stc'd years ago??
HOSS
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HOSS1,
I helped in the original A model pad shaping and unusable fuel determination. The assumptions we made were very conservative regarding the maneuver state and speeds. A small change in those assumptions can yield some big dividends. My gut feel is that the D team revisited those assumptions and found a few degrees less slope, and thus more volume.
Retrofit? maybe so.
PP, thank the Sikorsky pilots!
I helped in the original A model pad shaping and unusable fuel determination. The assumptions we made were very conservative regarding the maneuver state and speeds. A small change in those assumptions can yield some big dividends. My gut feel is that the D team revisited those assumptions and found a few degrees less slope, and thus more volume.
Retrofit? maybe so.
PP, thank the Sikorsky pilots!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven flown most of the S76 family, I am now aware that the largest client group [arguably] being the Shell Group of Companies has not approved either the existing “C’ ,C+ or C++ for any long term activities from the end of this year [2008].
I also hear that as the 76D is the same airframe as its earlier ancestry, that the “D” airframe will also be an unacceptable option for the future.
The understanding is that this is due [partly] to the fuel tanks being under the rear passenger seats and being of the “Non Impact Tolerant” versions.
I suspect that if this is the case and that if SK are not addressing the matter, then the Sikorsky fleet will be replaced in the Offshore Market in the next few years!!
I also hear that as the 76D is the same airframe as its earlier ancestry, that the “D” airframe will also be an unacceptable option for the future.
The understanding is that this is due [partly] to the fuel tanks being under the rear passenger seats and being of the “Non Impact Tolerant” versions.
I suspect that if this is the case and that if SK are not addressing the matter, then the Sikorsky fleet will be replaced in the Offshore Market in the next few years!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Man Rotor
If seating above fuel is not to their liking then the 101 may be the answer but they would have to get the VIP kit version with the crash tolerant tanks below deck (like the US Presiden'ts version).
Otherwise, the H-92 or H-60 is the answer.
Anyone see a common link here (TIC)?
If seating above fuel is not to their liking then the 101 may be the answer but they would have to get the VIP kit version with the crash tolerant tanks below deck (like the US Presiden'ts version).
Otherwise, the H-92 or H-60 is the answer.
Anyone see a common link here (TIC)?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: US
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Man Rotor says:
I also hear that as the 76D is the same airframe as its earlier ancestry, that the “D” airframe will also be an unacceptable option for the future.
Not true. Shell has stated that if Sikorsky meets their planned certification goals for the aircraft that the S-76D would in fact be an acceptable aircraft.
I also hear that as the 76D is the same airframe as its earlier ancestry, that the “D” airframe will also be an unacceptable option for the future.
Not true. Shell has stated that if Sikorsky meets their planned certification goals for the aircraft that the S-76D would in fact be an acceptable aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly hope that I am ill informed.
However, I understand that two of the almighty Shell requirements has been.
Crashworthy Passenger Seats
No Fuel in/under the passenger cabin.
Is this correct??
If this is correct, has the big SK got a fix for these, or are we going to see another double standard?
However, I understand that two of the almighty Shell requirements has been.
Crashworthy Passenger Seats
No Fuel in/under the passenger cabin.
Is this correct??
If this is correct, has the big SK got a fix for these, or are we going to see another double standard?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: florida
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not Happening
You are full of it as we say here in the states.
There is no replacement that can fit on any of the Shell platforms here in the Gulf other that the S-76. With only 52'X52' helipad with multiple obstructions.
And with a 2 hour TSA security time to any changes in manfest for any aircraft over 12,500 The 20 changes a hour Shell makes will cripple thier process with anything larger than the S76
So I guess they will shut everthing down so they can retrofit helipads that can support the S-76 replacement. At over $100 a barrel and 250,000 barrels a day here anybody want to make bets.
There is no replacement that can fit on any of the Shell platforms here in the Gulf other that the S-76. With only 52'X52' helipad with multiple obstructions.
And with a 2 hour TSA security time to any changes in manfest for any aircraft over 12,500 The 20 changes a hour Shell makes will cripple thier process with anything larger than the S76
So I guess they will shut everthing down so they can retrofit helipads that can support the S-76 replacement. At over $100 a barrel and 250,000 barrels a day here anybody want to make bets.
Double Standards?
OMR,
If one has worked in the oil patch for at least a day.....the concept of a double standard is a laugh! What multiple of double standards do you wish to count?
The very same "standard" that insists upon twins, IFR and all sorts of other "standards"....happily jump into single engine helicopters elsewhere in the world.
The one thing that is standard is the variation in standards.
The GOM is not the North Sea....and never will be. There is good and bad in that situation but the standards will never be the same between the two places.
If one has worked in the oil patch for at least a day.....the concept of a double standard is a laugh! What multiple of double standards do you wish to count?
The very same "standard" that insists upon twins, IFR and all sorts of other "standards"....happily jump into single engine helicopters elsewhere in the world.
The one thing that is standard is the variation in standards.
The GOM is not the North Sea....and never will be. There is good and bad in that situation but the standards will never be the same between the two places.
Actually, the intent is not as specific as fuel tanks - it's a desire to use aircraft on contract to the later certification standards. For Heavy types it is intended that they be to Part 29 Amdt 45+ and for medium types (obviously including the 76) to Amdt 40+. Without looking it up, I'm pretty certain that the fuel cell under the cabin 'issue' came up in Amndt 47.
Recognising that you can't achieve this overnight, the intent is to prioritise high hours contracts and contract renewals. Short term and low hours contracts will continue to use older machines for longer. SASless may call that double standards, I'd call it pragmatic and realistic!
What, apart from an EC-155B1 you mean
Recognising that you can't achieve this overnight, the intent is to prioritise high hours contracts and contract renewals. Short term and low hours contracts will continue to use older machines for longer. SASless may call that double standards, I'd call it pragmatic and realistic!
There is no replacement that can fit on any of the Shell platforms here in the Gulf other that the S-76. With only 52'X52' helipad with multiple obstructions.
212man,
Get the bulldozers and motor graders out if the 155's show up! Or is the latest model of that gem past those limitations?
Can you use canals/rivers/creeks as a safe reject areas in the new regs?
Get the bulldozers and motor graders out if the 155's show up! Or is the latest model of that gem past those limitations?
Can you use canals/rivers/creeks as a safe reject areas in the new regs?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell has been using the 412 for decades, and its fuel is under the cabin. I don't know of a medium helicopter that doesn't have fuel under the cabin. IME, Shell talks a good game, but in the end money talks and bovine fecal matter walks. Expediency and low cost win out every time.
Why the fixation with fuel under the cabin? I just said it wasn't an issue
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As perhaps THE person who started the current concern with modern FAR/JAR compliance. I made the first presentations to the Oil companies and Unions that described the true differences legislated by modern requirements as a way to establish the merit of safety in design. These presentations are the ones that helicomparitor and the EC-101 fanatics like to put down, mostly because their favorite helicopters do not meet them. The differences between the S-92 and its competitors is vast, because those other aircraft are grandfathered back to earlier, more lenient FAR requirements.
Well, the goose and gander meet when we discuss intermediates.
Current FAR is only met by the A-139, the S-92 and in the short future, the Bell 429. All other production helicopters (to the best of my knowledge) fall well short. The issue is not fuel in the belly, it is compliance with the fuel tank drop tests. And also flaw tolerance, bird strike resistance, turbine burst immunity, crashworthy cabins, stroking seats, high mass retention, HIRF shielding, lightning test compliance and a bunch of additional paragraphs.
This is a great debate, because it means that ppruners are starting to know the difference, and asking which helos have the best safety features. Next thing you know, they will start asking for them, and stop believing that safety means more intense training.
Well, the goose and gander meet when we discuss intermediates.
Current FAR is only met by the A-139, the S-92 and in the short future, the Bell 429. All other production helicopters (to the best of my knowledge) fall well short. The issue is not fuel in the belly, it is compliance with the fuel tank drop tests. And also flaw tolerance, bird strike resistance, turbine burst immunity, crashworthy cabins, stroking seats, high mass retention, HIRF shielding, lightning test compliance and a bunch of additional paragraphs.
This is a great debate, because it means that ppruners are starting to know the difference, and asking which helos have the best safety features. Next thing you know, they will start asking for them, and stop believing that safety means more intense training.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wot? Build them right and monkeys can fly them?
Nick - Oh NO - I was with you all the way right up to the last phrase. Please Please Please let's get both right. Good design AND competence-based training. Intense may convey the wrong emphasis but we will ALWAYS need good quality training that gets the job done and does not just TICK BOXES.
G
G