Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily I see S76 pilots making CG calculation, becose after some time burning fuel, depends where they put passengers, they are out of limit... 
Never happen in 365
I would like to try this 76 one day so i can really compare both
Never happen in 365
I would like to try this 76 one day so i can really compare both
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12,000 hours split evenly between A and C. LOVE IT, LOVE IT. great machine but like all has its flaws. Pluses and minus's have been mentioned but to reiterate. Never found the seat a problem, could sit there all day, but plenty of guys did complain. I'm a short a55 so that may have something to do with it. No good in the heat (A & C), offshore 35°C, 1100lb fuel, could only lift 4 pax in a C. Emergency exits leave a great deal to be desired for the offshore role - pax refer to the rear row as "suicide row". Front pax row is not far behind in my opinion. And I hated the electrical panels on the overhead in the C. Wish they kept them on the centre console as in the A. Ventilation in the heat (no air conditioning) left a great deal to be desired as well, at least for seats 0A and 0B. Not flown any French products so cant compare. You'll love it (76), I'm only sorry I'm not still there. 
froggy - never ever did any CG calcs on the line in our ops
froggy - never ever did any CG calcs on the line in our ops
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
In Nigeria they found out that they can come out of CG after a while.
Any CHC S76 nigerian pilots around there to confirm? (tropicopter...)
Never flown 76, but now they do CG calculation. Maybe due to optionals configuration?
The sliding door (optional i think) on the 76 is great
To be honnest, eurocopter has a big problem with all their models from Alouette II to Super Puma, none of them is water proof. If it's raining it is also raining inside
In Nigeria they found out that they can come out of CG after a while.
Any CHC S76 nigerian pilots around there to confirm? (tropicopter...)
Never flown 76, but now they do CG calculation. Maybe due to optionals configuration?
The sliding door (optional i think) on the 76 is great
To be honnest, eurocopter has a big problem with all their models from Alouette II to Super Puma, none of them is water proof. If it's raining it is also raining inside
Last edited by froggy_pilot; 7th Oct 2006 at 00:14.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some comments on some things posted here.
1) The crappy crazy quadrant of the C+ is gone in the C++ and will be gone in the D. But forget about the nifty "selector switch" paradigm. There will be levers in Sikorskys probably forever. (or until all the old test pilots retire)
2) The D will have the same old seats (pilot & aft divan) and doors. Nothing's changing there.
3) There will be no change to the wipers on the 76D. Too bad. (Development flight test never happens in the rain!!)
4) There WILL be a solution the the obstrusive glaresheild and knee knocker panel on the D. The gear handle will probably move and reduce the size of the lower panel. The glaresheild will be "telescoping" to provide some flexibility. It will be narrower too. (But Nick's comment about kicking the nose out of the way is spot on)
5) There will be NO "round gauges" on the EFIS. Get with the times.
6) and of course, back to Pratt power. Brand new engine for the D. Think B available power but with cruise fuel flows similar to C+. (supposedly!)
Of course all this is a RUMOR I heard from my neighbor's dog.
1) The crappy crazy quadrant of the C+ is gone in the C++ and will be gone in the D. But forget about the nifty "selector switch" paradigm. There will be levers in Sikorskys probably forever. (or until all the old test pilots retire)
2) The D will have the same old seats (pilot & aft divan) and doors. Nothing's changing there.
3) There will be no change to the wipers on the 76D. Too bad. (Development flight test never happens in the rain!!)
4) There WILL be a solution the the obstrusive glaresheild and knee knocker panel on the D. The gear handle will probably move and reduce the size of the lower panel. The glaresheild will be "telescoping" to provide some flexibility. It will be narrower too. (But Nick's comment about kicking the nose out of the way is spot on)
5) There will be NO "round gauges" on the EFIS. Get with the times.
6) and of course, back to Pratt power. Brand new engine for the D. Think B available power but with cruise fuel flows similar to C+. (supposedly!)
Of course all this is a RUMOR I heard from my neighbor's dog.
Last edited by R. Cal; 7th Oct 2006 at 03:09. Reason: typos
I don't think there's too much rumour there; it's all pretty open. PW 210 engines and Thales Top Deck Cockpit.
I would say that for passengers, in it's class the 155 wins hands down (possibly alongside the 139). More leg room, bigger and airier cabin, bigger windows, lower noise levels and very very smooth.
I'm curious about Brian's comments about never doing c of g calculations; we always did in the A+/++. If you were taking pax it was easy to go out the front end, if you were empty with lots of fuel it was easy to go out the back. In fact we couldn't take full fuel and a single pilot without taking ballast.
Shy Torque said: "Sikorsky have resorted back to "round gauge" displays, albeit computer generated ones on an IIDS screen, for the S-92.
"
Don't even get me started on that; guaranteed 'light the blue touch paper' stuff
I would say that for passengers, in it's class the 155 wins hands down (possibly alongside the 139). More leg room, bigger and airier cabin, bigger windows, lower noise levels and very very smooth.
I'm curious about Brian's comments about never doing c of g calculations; we always did in the A+/++. If you were taking pax it was easy to go out the front end, if you were empty with lots of fuel it was easy to go out the back. In fact we couldn't take full fuel and a single pilot without taking ballast.
Shy Torque said: "Sikorsky have resorted back to "round gauge" displays, albeit computer generated ones on an IIDS screen, for the S-92.
"
Don't even get me started on that; guaranteed 'light the blue touch paper' stuff
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 61
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been flying the S76 A+ and ++ for about the last 6 years and I love the aircraft. Not had the chance to fly the glass cockpit variants so cannot comment. I agree with some of the issues like high nose up attitude, poor seating for the pilots particularly not being able to see the top row of lights on the CWP when seated in the best position for looking out the window! Just converting onto the EC155 at the moment which looks brill in terms of its autopilot architecture.
On a shallow level though, the S76 has to be the sexiest looking helicopter I have seen on the market. The French and our eastern block helicopter designers just don't get it!
On a shallow level though, the S76 has to be the sexiest looking helicopter I have seen on the market. The French and our eastern block helicopter designers just don't get it!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man, dont recall the A CG but with the C one pilot, no boot load or pax could load fuel to 1760. Line was two pilots and max fuel generally seen was 1400. Pax were loaded front seat to rear and in practice never seemed to be a problem if stick position is taken as a guide. Our pax always had PLENTY of baggage. Then again a lot of things we did were definately suss.
P2bleed, there have been some deaths as a result of people walking in the front of the 76 rotor disc but personally I put these down to pilot error for not paying attention to where the disc is at. One driver ought to be paying attention to whats going on outside while on the deck at all times. If you keep the disc up even Micheal Jordan wouldnt have a problem (providing he's not leaping for the imaginary basket).
Round gauges - we had the Kratos fit and the only thing I didnt like was the bar representation for the N2/Nr. Always thought it would be difficult to interpret in the heat of the moment when thinks go really pear shaped as the N2 icons were so small as to be almost invisable. The good old round triple tach made it instantly obvious what was married, split, high, low.
P2bleed, there have been some deaths as a result of people walking in the front of the 76 rotor disc but personally I put these down to pilot error for not paying attention to where the disc is at. One driver ought to be paying attention to whats going on outside while on the deck at all times. If you keep the disc up even Micheal Jordan wouldnt have a problem (providing he's not leaping for the imaginary basket).
Round gauges - we had the Kratos fit and the only thing I didnt like was the bar representation for the N2/Nr. Always thought it would be difficult to interpret in the heat of the moment when thinks go really pear shaped as the N2 icons were so small as to be almost invisable. The good old round triple tach made it instantly obvious what was married, split, high, low.
Last edited by Brian Abraham; 7th Oct 2006 at 13:38.
I agree about round Tachos, it's the ASI and Altimeter that make by blood boil.
Never flown the 365 so no comment. But really - who has?
S76 is more prevelant, more experienced and more usefull. Just look at the support problems with the Astar and imagine the issues with a 365.
As far as not seeing where you are going on night or raining conditions. I find that a bit weak. Rain, + RA, SN, FRZ RA, +SN and all manner of conditions; if you want to see where you are going, you fly the machine cross coupled. No big deal from either side - just step on the pedal and roll it over. Superb TR control and its a no brainer.
As for rugged. Lets get real about 'rugged'. Define what is RUGGED about offshore? No trees, wires, slopes, hills, mountains, turbulence, riggers, drillers, hover exits, hook work, blah blah. Its as NON rugged as she gets. The most expansive use of the 76 I am aware of and have been involved in, is in Canada where the machine is treated just like any other bush machine. They even land it in lakes up to the belly, hover exits, slopes, backyards, parks, boats....
Tonnes of field work on medevac in remote areas down to -40 at times. Those nutty Canuks land the damn thing in the craziest of places and I pretty much pleaded to consider the idea of a hoist.
The S76 would be a nicer machine if it lost a few pounds and didn't have such a crazy electrical system. Anti-icing on the rotors would be nice but the A model is still out there doing as good at the C+ to this day. Pretty useful aircraft considering the 154kt VNE and expansive flight envelope. Like Brian says - never worried about the COG unless it was annual flight check time but had an awareness of the evelope like every other working pilot.
I would love to see one stripped out, naked with a hook and longline window for some external op's. That would put a smile on the dial...
S76 is more prevelant, more experienced and more usefull. Just look at the support problems with the Astar and imagine the issues with a 365.
As far as not seeing where you are going on night or raining conditions. I find that a bit weak. Rain, + RA, SN, FRZ RA, +SN and all manner of conditions; if you want to see where you are going, you fly the machine cross coupled. No big deal from either side - just step on the pedal and roll it over. Superb TR control and its a no brainer.
As for rugged. Lets get real about 'rugged'. Define what is RUGGED about offshore? No trees, wires, slopes, hills, mountains, turbulence, riggers, drillers, hover exits, hook work, blah blah. Its as NON rugged as she gets. The most expansive use of the 76 I am aware of and have been involved in, is in Canada where the machine is treated just like any other bush machine. They even land it in lakes up to the belly, hover exits, slopes, backyards, parks, boats....
Tonnes of field work on medevac in remote areas down to -40 at times. Those nutty Canuks land the damn thing in the craziest of places and I pretty much pleaded to consider the idea of a hoist.
The S76 would be a nicer machine if it lost a few pounds and didn't have such a crazy electrical system. Anti-icing on the rotors would be nice but the A model is still out there doing as good at the C+ to this day. Pretty useful aircraft considering the 154kt VNE and expansive flight envelope. Like Brian says - never worried about the COG unless it was annual flight check time but had an awareness of the evelope like every other working pilot.
I would love to see one stripped out, naked with a hook and longline window for some external op's. That would put a smile on the dial...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: poor gps coverage
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno, i sat in the back of a C++ Quiet gearbox and a coccoon and it was Incredibly quiet. Sat in the back of a 139 and those sliding doors just make it hard to insulate the noise . . . . . supposed to have a spin in the 155 . . . but they were waiting for a part from eurocopter . . . that was two months ago . . wouldnt be surprised if they were still waiting.
Cant wait to see the 76d..... DeIce, Quiet gearbox, Prat engines, (has the 139 been certified to fly in falling snow yet?)
Anyway helipolarbear calls it the BabyHawk and he says its cool and hes normaly right .......... so there!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very easy to get out of CG limits with the A++. We are required to do a wt/bal calculation before every takeoff. It's not at all unusual to have to move pax around to get it in CG. There is no way to carry much in the baggage compartment with adequate fuel and no pax in front, so it's not very good as a freighter. The only way is to remove seats, and this requires an A&P certificate, at least in the US. You also can be way out of CG forward if you fill the seats without much baggage. At least the CG doesn't move much as the fuel burns, and the fuel system is far better than the Rube Goldberg deal in the 412.
Kicking it way out of trim on final is one way to see, but only for one side. If you're the PNF and the PF is a new guy you haven't learned to trust, it's not much fun, especially in the dark. There is no possibility of both pilots being able to see the landing area. The glareshield is a problem, and it's difficult to find a position in which you can see both outside and the instruments. The seats are very uncomfortable, much worse than the 412, and the left seat in the C+/C++ won't hold anyone with a pot belly.
The electrical system apparently wasn't designed, it was just cobbled together as they went along.
The S76 does have its flaws, but all in all, it's the best helicopter I've ever flown, bar none. Relatively light, the first limit in cruise is Vne, at least with the later models, and climbing up to 6000 or 7000 feet requires reducing power a lot, giving low fuel flows while still giving good speed. It's a very stable instrument platform, and I can't think of any aircraft of any type I had rather fly in IMC, especially the C+. It has speed, range, and it's a joy to fly. Properly tracked, it's very smooth, other than the transient 4/per you get.
Kicking it way out of trim on final is one way to see, but only for one side. If you're the PNF and the PF is a new guy you haven't learned to trust, it's not much fun, especially in the dark. There is no possibility of both pilots being able to see the landing area. The glareshield is a problem, and it's difficult to find a position in which you can see both outside and the instruments. The seats are very uncomfortable, much worse than the 412, and the left seat in the C+/C++ won't hold anyone with a pot belly.
The electrical system apparently wasn't designed, it was just cobbled together as they went along.
The S76 does have its flaws, but all in all, it's the best helicopter I've ever flown, bar none. Relatively light, the first limit in cruise is Vne, at least with the later models, and climbing up to 6000 or 7000 feet requires reducing power a lot, giving low fuel flows while still giving good speed. It's a very stable instrument platform, and I can't think of any aircraft of any type I had rather fly in IMC, especially the C+. It has speed, range, and it's a joy to fly. Properly tracked, it's very smooth, other than the transient 4/per you get.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
"The electrical system apparently wasn't designed, it was just cobbled together as they went along. "
Totally agree - which other aircraft has a number 1 inverter driven by the number 2 busbar and vice versa.
I think they call it evolution.
I was confused even before they told me that
"Totally agree - which other aircraft has a number 1 inverter driven by the number 2 busbar and vice versa.
I think they call it evolution.
I was confused even before they told me that
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: hot & wet
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Lenticular... The 76 is the best all round compared to AS365 variants...
I've flown the 365N2 and S76A++ and recently the S76 B and I love the 76. Glass cockpits are OK but agree the 76's high nose up attitude and vis of top row of lights on the CWP is a problem for us tall guys.... But still the best machine I've flown....
SD
I've flown the 365N2 and S76A++ and recently the S76 B and I love the 76. Glass cockpits are OK but agree the 76's high nose up attitude and vis of top row of lights on the CWP is a problem for us tall guys.... But still the best machine I've flown....
SD
Last edited by Sundance76; 8th Oct 2006 at 13:16.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown the 365C2 365N and N3, the s76b and now the 155 and i have to say the worst of them was the 76. What a heap of ....
It shakes, makes a lot of noise, immense panel and nowhere to look outside. As already said; the wipers wipe the rain in the area you want to look!
On short final offshore, you are single pilot, because the guy next to you can't see anything!
The N3 was powerwise the best. but the autopilot on the 155 is a dream!
So imho the 155 is closest to be a pilots dream.
I fear the day that I have to go back to fly the 76...
Last edited by Spheriflex; 9th Oct 2006 at 18:25.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...add the 412/212, please!
Hi all,
VERY interesting thread!!
I am in a constant discussion/argument with a "Bell-believer".
There may be a need for some aircraft in this class in the future, for an outfit forming at this time.
Not having flown any of the mentioned machines, but still arguing to at least consider the AS365 and S-76 families, I would appreciate if someone could include the 412/212 in this discussion.
I was successful to interest my friend in the A-Star line, at least look at it, but I still need some arguments (except speed,....) to discuss 412/212/76/365!
Saludos,
3top
VERY interesting thread!!
I am in a constant discussion/argument with a "Bell-believer".
There may be a need for some aircraft in this class in the future, for an outfit forming at this time.
Not having flown any of the mentioned machines, but still arguing to at least consider the AS365 and S-76 families, I would appreciate if someone could include the 412/212 in this discussion.
I was successful to interest my friend in the A-Star line, at least look at it, but I still need some arguments (except speed,....) to discuss 412/212/76/365!
Saludos,
3top
Spheriflex: told you you'd like it!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell is so far behind they will never catch up. A 412 will carry more payload (slightly) than an S76 for about 50 miles, but beyond that it's no contest. The 412 uses 33% more fuel to go about 75% as far, and has less fuel capacity, in terms of time. The 412 is as rough a ride as you will ever find in a helicopter, even with all those weights on the head. It starts out with the blades out of plane, and just gets worse. It's not possible to really track it, you just get it to an acceptable ride, where acceptable is anything that doesn't shake your teeth out. It has almost no baggage capacity, unless you use the side-facing seats, which gives you a 9 passenger helicopter. The gross weight has been increased so much that it barely gets off the deck, never mind PC2 performance. It's mid-last-century technology, poorly executed. Every pilot I know who flies the 412 and the S76 does everything possible to stay out of the 412, and whines continually as long as he is in it. There isn't even any competition - Bell has abandoned any effort to stay in the game. It bet everything on the tilt rotor, and it appears it lost.
