Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos
As I said, I think both programs were delayed, not by technical problems, but by the availability of cash due to higher priority programs absorbing all the company's available money.
If you ever read about how difficult certification can be, especially with a new type of flying vehicle, you might appreciate a lengthy development period.
And actually, the 76D has new blades, engines, and fairings (among other misc things). The rotor system is basically the same.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Saudi Arabia
Age: 68
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could Not Risk a Civil Crash
I suspect that after having the Congress and Military come close to stop funding due to several crashes, the risk of a Civil Tilt Rotor crash was too great. Big money military... little money civil tilt-rotor.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it correct that the oil filter on the S-76A, B & C MGB is held on by just two titatinum studs and that there is a known risk of loss of preload on the nuts and cracking of the studs?
Has this been changed on the D model?
Has this been changed on the D model?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the 76D but the rest is correct. There was a recent SSA with this warning:
Fracture of either one or both of the Main Gearbox lower housing oil filter bowl attachment studs will result in the rapid loss of the Main Gearbox lubricating oil and an Emergency situation for the Flight Crew. Resultant thermal damage may eventually be sufficient to cause loss of drive continuity and loss of control of the helicopter.
I wonder if the canpoy design issues highlighted by the report were altered at all with the D...my guess is no as the cockpit area remained largely unchanged.
Helicopter maker accused of hiding report on crash - Houston Chronicle
Helicopter maker accused of hiding report on crash - Houston Chronicle
Helicopter maker accused of hiding report on crash
MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press
Updated 08:42 a.m., Tuesday, August 30, 2011
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The owner of a helicopter that crashed in Louisiana in 2009, killing eight people, is asking a federal court to sanction the aircraft's manufacturer for allegedly hiding a damning internal report to conceal its liability.
In a court filing last Friday, PHI Inc. claims Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. withheld a report by one of its lead engineers because his analysis concluded Sikorsky's faulty design caused its helicopter to crash near Morgan City.
PHI is seeking court-ordered monetary sanctions against Sikorsky, which faces a federal trial in November for a batch of consolidated lawsuits filed by relatives of crash victims.
PHI says it wouldn't have paid as much last year to settle plaintiffs' claims if it had seen Wonsub Kim's report beforehand.
"Sikorsky hid the existence of Dr. Kim's analysis because it was not helpful to Sikorsky. In fact, Dr. Kim's analysis undermines Sikorsky's entire defense," PHI attorneys wrote.
Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said in an email that the company "strongly" denies PHI's allegation and is prepared to "defend against it strenuously." Jackson wouldn't comment beyond that statement.
Investigators concluded a bird struck the Sikorsky S-76 before it crashed about 100 miles southwest of New Orleans on Jan. 4, 2009, killing both pilots and six passengers and injuring a lone survivor. The helicopter had been carrying workers to a Shell Oil Co. platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
Investigators found the remains of a Red-tailed hawk on the remnants of the pilot's side windshield. They also found bird feathers under a windscreen seal and in an engine.
PHI says Sikorsky has claimed PHI was responsible for the crash because it replaced the helicopter's original glass windshield with a plastic one that allowed the bird to penetrate the windshield and disable its throttle controls.
PHI, however, says Kim's November 2009 report shows Sikorsky's faulty design of the helicopter's canopy and throttle quadrant caused the crash. Kim concluded the windshield doesn't fail when a bird strikes a Sikorsky S-76 exactly where it did in this case, PHI says.
"Instead, the bird strikes causes the canopy to fail 'substantially,' which causes the throttles to disengage, turning off the engines, and leading to the crash just seventeen seconds later," PHI lawyers wrote.
PHI claims Sikorsky intentionally kept Kim and his analysis hidden before it turned over his report on March 14, 2011. A plaintiffs' attorney, Paul Sterbcow, said they learned of the report's existence while questioning a witness in February 2011.
"There is no question that PHI and the plaintiffs were entitled to Dr. Kim's report and the related information when they first sent discovery requests to Sikorsky in 2009," PHI attorneys wrote.
To support its allegations, PHI cited an email exchange between Sikorsky official Phillip Potts, Kim and his boss, Michael Urban, in late 2009. In his email, according to PHI, Potts said the analysis wasn't complete even though Kim had signed his final report.
"Your stated conclusion related to the windscreen cracking is wrong!" Potts wrote.
"I strongly disagree with the reviewer's comments," Urban replied. "The statement that the results are wrong implies that a given result is known or desired. I cannot directly alter the results only the inputs and (accept) the outcome."
PHI is seeking a court order requiring Sikorsky to reimburse PHI for 80 percent of its settlement payments to plaintiffs. The amount of the settlement payments is confidential.
PHI has settled with Floresville, Texas, resident Steve Yelton, the lone survivor, and with relatives of four of the passengers who died: Andrew Mauricio, of Morgan City, La.; Allen Boudreaux Jr., of Amelia, La.; Jorey A. Rivero, of Bridge City, La.; and Randy Tarpley, of Jonesville, La.
Sterbcow, Yelton's attorney, said plaintiffs' attorneys also are seeking court-ordered monetary sanctions against Sikorsky. Sterbcow said they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for expert analysis they wouldn't have needed if they had seen Kim's report sooner.
Aeronautical Accessories Inc., which made the helicopter's windshield, also has settled plaintiffs' claims.
Thomas Ballenger, of Eufaula, Ala.; and Vyarl Martin, of Hurst, Texas; were the PHI pilots who died. The other passengers killed were Ezequiel Cantu, of Morgan City; and Charles W. Nelson, of Pensacola, Fla.
MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press
Updated 08:42 a.m., Tuesday, August 30, 2011
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The owner of a helicopter that crashed in Louisiana in 2009, killing eight people, is asking a federal court to sanction the aircraft's manufacturer for allegedly hiding a damning internal report to conceal its liability.
In a court filing last Friday, PHI Inc. claims Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. withheld a report by one of its lead engineers because his analysis concluded Sikorsky's faulty design caused its helicopter to crash near Morgan City.
PHI is seeking court-ordered monetary sanctions against Sikorsky, which faces a federal trial in November for a batch of consolidated lawsuits filed by relatives of crash victims.
PHI says it wouldn't have paid as much last year to settle plaintiffs' claims if it had seen Wonsub Kim's report beforehand.
"Sikorsky hid the existence of Dr. Kim's analysis because it was not helpful to Sikorsky. In fact, Dr. Kim's analysis undermines Sikorsky's entire defense," PHI attorneys wrote.
Sikorsky spokesman Paul Jackson said in an email that the company "strongly" denies PHI's allegation and is prepared to "defend against it strenuously." Jackson wouldn't comment beyond that statement.
Investigators concluded a bird struck the Sikorsky S-76 before it crashed about 100 miles southwest of New Orleans on Jan. 4, 2009, killing both pilots and six passengers and injuring a lone survivor. The helicopter had been carrying workers to a Shell Oil Co. platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
Investigators found the remains of a Red-tailed hawk on the remnants of the pilot's side windshield. They also found bird feathers under a windscreen seal and in an engine.
PHI says Sikorsky has claimed PHI was responsible for the crash because it replaced the helicopter's original glass windshield with a plastic one that allowed the bird to penetrate the windshield and disable its throttle controls.
PHI, however, says Kim's November 2009 report shows Sikorsky's faulty design of the helicopter's canopy and throttle quadrant caused the crash. Kim concluded the windshield doesn't fail when a bird strikes a Sikorsky S-76 exactly where it did in this case, PHI says.
"Instead, the bird strikes causes the canopy to fail 'substantially,' which causes the throttles to disengage, turning off the engines, and leading to the crash just seventeen seconds later," PHI lawyers wrote.
PHI claims Sikorsky intentionally kept Kim and his analysis hidden before it turned over his report on March 14, 2011. A plaintiffs' attorney, Paul Sterbcow, said they learned of the report's existence while questioning a witness in February 2011.
"There is no question that PHI and the plaintiffs were entitled to Dr. Kim's report and the related information when they first sent discovery requests to Sikorsky in 2009," PHI attorneys wrote.
To support its allegations, PHI cited an email exchange between Sikorsky official Phillip Potts, Kim and his boss, Michael Urban, in late 2009. In his email, according to PHI, Potts said the analysis wasn't complete even though Kim had signed his final report.
"Your stated conclusion related to the windscreen cracking is wrong!" Potts wrote.
"I strongly disagree with the reviewer's comments," Urban replied. "The statement that the results are wrong implies that a given result is known or desired. I cannot directly alter the results only the inputs and (accept) the outcome."
PHI is seeking a court order requiring Sikorsky to reimburse PHI for 80 percent of its settlement payments to plaintiffs. The amount of the settlement payments is confidential.
PHI has settled with Floresville, Texas, resident Steve Yelton, the lone survivor, and with relatives of four of the passengers who died: Andrew Mauricio, of Morgan City, La.; Allen Boudreaux Jr., of Amelia, La.; Jorey A. Rivero, of Bridge City, La.; and Randy Tarpley, of Jonesville, La.
Sterbcow, Yelton's attorney, said plaintiffs' attorneys also are seeking court-ordered monetary sanctions against Sikorsky. Sterbcow said they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for expert analysis they wouldn't have needed if they had seen Kim's report sooner.
Aeronautical Accessories Inc., which made the helicopter's windshield, also has settled plaintiffs' claims.
Thomas Ballenger, of Eufaula, Ala.; and Vyarl Martin, of Hurst, Texas; were the PHI pilots who died. The other passengers killed were Ezequiel Cantu, of Morgan City; and Charles W. Nelson, of Pensacola, Fla.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here not There.
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Planning Figures
Greetings all,
I fly an S76A++ and the standard fuel planning figures previously used were 130TAS and 580LB/Hr.
I have recently been advised to cruise at 94% N1. I can't imagine it will be a big change but I was wondering what flight planning TAS/FB this may be and if I can find out other than flying that figure.
I was wondering if anyone else does this and what TAS/FB planning figures they use for generic planning? In the Performance charts there is a line for cruise power but I have been told this is based on 98% N1 is this correct? How do you use the chart at 94% N1?
Excuse my ignorance if this is obvious but I have missed it somehow. Curious to know what other flight planning figures people use.
I fly an S76A++ and the standard fuel planning figures previously used were 130TAS and 580LB/Hr.
I have recently been advised to cruise at 94% N1. I can't imagine it will be a big change but I was wondering what flight planning TAS/FB this may be and if I can find out other than flying that figure.
I was wondering if anyone else does this and what TAS/FB planning figures they use for generic planning? In the Performance charts there is a line for cruise power but I have been told this is based on 98% N1 is this correct? How do you use the chart at 94% N1?
Excuse my ignorance if this is obvious but I have missed it somehow. Curious to know what other flight planning figures people use.
C2,
We use 600lb/hr at 135kts for planning, but the OAT tends to be high in the NW. That's pulling 70%Tq in the cruise, which is generally about 95 - 96%N1.
Your fuel burn will vary with altitude and temp, I see about 570lb/hr at 7000ft, but the Vne reduction can easily outweigh the reduced burn when the OAT is still >20C at 7000!
Part 2 Section V for the C30 had a comprehensive set of fuel flow charts, but I've not seen anything similar for the Arriel, unfortunately.
We use 600lb/hr at 135kts for planning, but the OAT tends to be high in the NW. That's pulling 70%Tq in the cruise, which is generally about 95 - 96%N1.
Your fuel burn will vary with altitude and temp, I see about 570lb/hr at 7000ft, but the Vne reduction can easily outweigh the reduced burn when the OAT is still >20C at 7000!
Part 2 Section V for the C30 had a comprehensive set of fuel flow charts, but I've not seen anything similar for the Arriel, unfortunately.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76C+ Autohover
Hi everyone,
We have a SAR S76C+ equipped with autohover.
The fact is, that system is unreliable.
I doesn't work properly when you really need it.
Waves more than 3-4 meter high and the aircraft is anything but stable when when both Radalt & Velhold modes are on...
That's because S76's low gross weight compared to S61?
S61 is rock-steady in autohover....
Because the S76 autohover system design?
We have a SAR S76C+ equipped with autohover.
The fact is, that system is unreliable.
I doesn't work properly when you really need it.
Waves more than 3-4 meter high and the aircraft is anything but stable when when both Radalt & Velhold modes are on...
That's because S76's low gross weight compared to S61?
S61 is rock-steady in autohover....
Because the S76 autohover system design?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here not There.
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the response guys. John there are some fuel planning figures similar to those you mentioned in our FLTMAN for the Arriel but the charts are very small!
I will have a look at the C model charts as CB suggested. From what you guys have said and others I have spoken too our planning figures are pretty close for planning purposes and the 94% N1 cruise shouldn't change actual figures by much.
cfr I am surprised by your comments. Maybe you need to try a higher hover height if the aircraft is moving around a lot. Not sure what parameters you have set for the Autohover. We do ours at 75-100' with not many dramas but sea state usually a bit lower.
I will have a look at the C model charts as CB suggested. From what you guys have said and others I have spoken too our planning figures are pretty close for planning purposes and the 94% N1 cruise shouldn't change actual figures by much.
cfr I am surprised by your comments. Maybe you need to try a higher hover height if the aircraft is moving around a lot. Not sure what parameters you have set for the Autohover. We do ours at 75-100' with not many dramas but sea state usually a bit lower.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: london
Age: 39
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
94% N1? Thats a chc company directive isn't it? I was talking to a mate in Australia who works for CHC and he was puzzled about this being introduced as well. Told me they are often cruising around 96-97% N1.. Assuming your in the 76's in Australia aswell, that must be on the RAAF SAR contract?
You guys would have a bit of trouble no, especially in the hot humid environments and a full crew? Where bout's do you guys do training that even comes close to 3-4m sea state, as i am curious, curious2? Used to surf in australia alot.
Cheers
troolllllll
You guys would have a bit of trouble no, especially in the hot humid environments and a full crew? Where bout's do you guys do training that even comes close to 3-4m sea state, as i am curious, curious2? Used to surf in australia alot.
Cheers
troolllllll
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cfr I am surprised by your comments. Maybe you need to try a higher hover height if the aircraft is moving around a lot. Not sure what parameters you have set for the Autohover. We do ours at 75-100' with not many dramas but sea state usually a bit lower.
As sea state increases, we increase hover height safety margin as well. For a 4-meter swell, hover alt is about 100' (depends on on-scene conditions)
Over 4/5-meter swell Radalt oscillation is excessive (up to +-20')
Even worse, vertical movements are completely "desynchronized" with swell.
When the wave goes up, helicopter goes down...
That means system makes collective inputs larger and larger.
At one point it is unacceptable and we back to Manual mode (even at night)
Over 6-meter swell is more difficult to "fight" against autohover system than revert to Manual mode.
VelHold is not good too...
More than 30Kts headwind and we need to beep forward up to 3-4 Kts to maintain position.
Real "0 longitudinal /0 lateral doppler" (pressing chinese hat) only works with light and moderate winds (less than 25-30 Kts).
Sea State HIGH is selected on Doppler menu.
What about Doppler wave? When do you select CW/CCW?
RAD ALT hold on the S76 is not very good, and if you read through the manual I think it says that it is only demonstrated to sea state 3, or something close to that. When you really need the system, you have to do it manually.....
The need to beep forward speed on VEL HLD could be due to doppler is maintaining surface water speed. Depending on what you are trying to hold position on, you always have to adjust this value a little.
CW and CCW is used when there is a lot lot of precipitation in the air. It cuts the doppler wave to avoid misreading. I have never seen any difference in doppler behavior using it.
CB
The need to beep forward speed on VEL HLD could be due to doppler is maintaining surface water speed. Depending on what you are trying to hold position on, you always have to adjust this value a little.
CW and CCW is used when there is a lot lot of precipitation in the air. It cuts the doppler wave to avoid misreading. I have never seen any difference in doppler behavior using it.
CB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here not There.
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Football, yes I am in SAR in Australia and you are right on all counts. The power thing isn't too bigger issue where I am though as our standard fuel load is trimmed down a bit in the summer months.
As for cfr and cb's comments I will admit that in my niaive world of smaller sea states I have not encountered these issues as much as you. I have learnt from your posts so thanks for them.
As for cfr and cb's comments I will admit that in my niaive world of smaller sea states I have not encountered these issues as much as you. I have learnt from your posts so thanks for them.
If the 'small' charts are on the white pages of Part 2, Section V, then they will most likely be the Allison C30 charts. Only the green pages refer to the 1S1 Arriel installation, and those that I have do not give any fuel consumption information for the 1S1. Unless we've missed something, somewhere, which is always a possibility!
A bit of a trap, but for some reason the white (superseded) S76A pages apparently have to remain in the FM and be crossed out, while the green S76A++ pages are inserted and should be used in their place. It makes for a lot of cross referencing to weed out the unwanted pages, IMO.
Last news from Verticalmag :
"Although the Sikorsky S-76D is running behind its previously projected certification date of June 2012, the manufacturer reports that the aircraft is now in the final stages of United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification, with a type certificate now expected in October of this year"
.
"Although the Sikorsky S-76D is running behind its previously projected certification date of June 2012, the manufacturer reports that the aircraft is now in the final stages of United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification, with a type certificate now expected in October of this year"
.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Brazil
Age: 44
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 seconds usage.
Nick, I understand that upon landing after the 30 seconds power have been used, the 30 sec. ball will be displayed on the N1 indicator. I have two questions on that regard. 1- How is that ball cleared? Is it necessary to physically disconect the battery? 2- is it possible to start the engine with the 30 seconds ball displayed?
Thanks a lot!
Thanks a lot!