UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lagos
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to CHC. I hope they will do as good a job as Bristow has over the years. I'm sure many of the crews will move over anyway and every one of them will do a thoroughly professional job.
Years ago when Bristow first started flying Coastguard contracts there were concerns as to whether civil crews could do the job that had been the exclusive domain (in UK) of the military for so long. There had also been concerns about the S61 (blade spindles and various other matters), but over the years both Bristow and the S61 proved themselves up to the demanding task. There will surely be some pitfalls along the way, but I'm sure that CHC and the S92 will eventually prove to be, not only up to the job, but show that a new era in SAR is starting. Fortune favours the brave, so good luck to all in a brave new venture
Years ago when Bristow first started flying Coastguard contracts there were concerns as to whether civil crews could do the job that had been the exclusive domain (in UK) of the military for so long. There had also been concerns about the S61 (blade spindles and various other matters), but over the years both Bristow and the S61 proved themselves up to the demanding task. There will surely be some pitfalls along the way, but I'm sure that CHC and the S92 will eventually prove to be, not only up to the job, but show that a new era in SAR is starting. Fortune favours the brave, so good luck to all in a brave new venture
The PR blitz that was done against the Chinook had nothing to do with the crash at all. The PR blitz did poison a lot of minds about the aircraft prior to the crash. It is interesting to note a couple of people survived that crash and none survived similar catastrophic failures of 61's in Norwegian waters and they still fly today. Key there....no axe job had been done on the 61.
There were good valid reasons the Old Man did not want to invest lots of money in the Chinook and that was part of the motivation for dissing the aircraft.
In the current case....who knows what is going on?
I was always taught the worst sales pitch is demeaning your competition and their product and the better pitch is in selling your services, product, and ability to service your client/customer.
For sure....if your competition is doing the latter and you are not...they will be successful to your detriment.
Free and open competition is the key to a healthy industry....seems the losers have to sharpen up their tools in order to remain competitive.
There were good valid reasons the Old Man did not want to invest lots of money in the Chinook and that was part of the motivation for dissing the aircraft.
In the current case....who knows what is going on?
I was always taught the worst sales pitch is demeaning your competition and their product and the better pitch is in selling your services, product, and ability to service your client/customer.
For sure....if your competition is doing the latter and you are not...they will be successful to your detriment.
Free and open competition is the key to a healthy industry....seems the losers have to sharpen up their tools in order to remain competitive.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PR blitz against the Chinook is surely a figment of SASLess` very fertile imagination. Bristow conducted an in depth study of the Chinook as it did with the Super Puma. It was felt that, whilst the range and payload were impressive, it would create problems for oil installations having that number of passengers descend on them at one go and numerous installations would have to upgrade their helidecks to take the beast. In addition, the attractions of so called new technology and improved safety features of the AS 332 scored over the BV 234.
At the end of the day, the deciding factor was cost and Aerospatiale, as they were in those days, offered a huge discount for the 35 machines ordered.
In practice, the decision was justified on many levels. Not only did the BV 234 not live up to its performance specifications through mechanical shortcomings but it proved hugely unpopular with the bears. Anyone who witnessed passengers boarding would compare it to the most undignified rush for Ryanair or Easyjet in order to avoid certain seats. The levels of vibration were unacceptably high for public transport sectors. As part of a trial, some pilots were invited to fly with rectal thermometers in place to assess body core temperature as a result of excess vibration.
The point is that the BV 234 did itself in without any help from anyone else.
As regards the point of the thread, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that the S92 would not cut it as an SAR platform or, indeed, the AB 139. What performance problems could the 139 possibly have?
At the end of the day, the deciding factor was cost and Aerospatiale, as they were in those days, offered a huge discount for the 35 machines ordered.
In practice, the decision was justified on many levels. Not only did the BV 234 not live up to its performance specifications through mechanical shortcomings but it proved hugely unpopular with the bears. Anyone who witnessed passengers boarding would compare it to the most undignified rush for Ryanair or Easyjet in order to avoid certain seats. The levels of vibration were unacceptably high for public transport sectors. As part of a trial, some pilots were invited to fly with rectal thermometers in place to assess body core temperature as a result of excess vibration.
The point is that the BV 234 did itself in without any help from anyone else.
As regards the point of the thread, I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that the S92 would not cut it as an SAR platform or, indeed, the AB 139. What performance problems could the 139 possibly have?
This is how I see it.
The 92 and 139 are probably both going to be good aircraft once some teething problems are ironed out - on the 92 at any rate, the 139 is too new to know what the teething problems will be. I think the point at issue here is the progression from a crew-change type aircraft to a SAR one.
For example, do the 92 and 139 have tried and tested auto-trans down / hover? No doubt its in the sales brochure but does it actually exist in a certified flying state yet? And does it work reliably? Do they have dual hoist installations in service now?
I am not saying the answers to these questions is "no" but it seems likely that if you are the first to fit the high tech options, there are bound to be problems. Therefore it is rightly considered by some to be a fairly high technical risk to go this way.
Especially if you are the one floating about in the water waiting to be rescued in fog etc!
Of course to remain with existing technology ad infinitum is ludditism, but surely the compromise is to ensure that the kit will do what it says on the label before committing to using it in anger. In other words, if I were the MCA I would have commissioned a trial on the kit before going firm on its use (a bit like BP did with Jigsaw). Effective SAR requires the combination of well-sorted kit and well-sorted crews, and that takes time to develop with new kit, new crews and new (to them) procedures.
By the way Snarlie, the performance issue with the 139 is its range / endurance not its OEI lifting capability - the latter being tremendous (Oh dear that's bound to set Nick off on another one of his rants.......)
HC
The 92 and 139 are probably both going to be good aircraft once some teething problems are ironed out - on the 92 at any rate, the 139 is too new to know what the teething problems will be. I think the point at issue here is the progression from a crew-change type aircraft to a SAR one.
For example, do the 92 and 139 have tried and tested auto-trans down / hover? No doubt its in the sales brochure but does it actually exist in a certified flying state yet? And does it work reliably? Do they have dual hoist installations in service now?
I am not saying the answers to these questions is "no" but it seems likely that if you are the first to fit the high tech options, there are bound to be problems. Therefore it is rightly considered by some to be a fairly high technical risk to go this way.
Especially if you are the one floating about in the water waiting to be rescued in fog etc!
Of course to remain with existing technology ad infinitum is ludditism, but surely the compromise is to ensure that the kit will do what it says on the label before committing to using it in anger. In other words, if I were the MCA I would have commissioned a trial on the kit before going firm on its use (a bit like BP did with Jigsaw). Effective SAR requires the combination of well-sorted kit and well-sorted crews, and that takes time to develop with new kit, new crews and new (to them) procedures.
By the way Snarlie, the performance issue with the 139 is its range / endurance not its OEI lifting capability - the latter being tremendous (Oh dear that's bound to set Nick off on another one of his rants.......)
HC
Snarlie,
I was around during the times the Chinook was coming on line with Brand X, and I recall reading plenty of news articles about them and why they were being considered unsuitable.
I do not disagree with the basic underlying economics of the decision....and the Old Man as usual was proven right. They are very expensive...and by sheer size dictate limited ways of utilization in order to be successful.
This is an article that was done by FI on the 25th Anniversiary of Bristow....and now slightly over 25 years later since the article was written....it makes for an interesting bit of reading. Some of the issues he discusses have come to pass and others he was flat wrong on.
The one thing he was right on....Bristow did not have a fleet of Chinooks to get rid of when the need for them went away...and the competitors did.
As I recall even the Tiger had performance issues....something about pulling too much pitch and wearing out main transmissions at a heck of a rate until the cruise power settings were reduced. That kind of problem is not limited to the Chinook. How long is the Chinook destined to be in service with the RAF and US Army....till 2050 is it? Where are all the Pumas?
Columbia has made a fortune operating them so we cannot say they are unsafe nor economically viable machines.
http://209.196.171.35/article_flight25.htm
I was around during the times the Chinook was coming on line with Brand X, and I recall reading plenty of news articles about them and why they were being considered unsuitable.
I do not disagree with the basic underlying economics of the decision....and the Old Man as usual was proven right. They are very expensive...and by sheer size dictate limited ways of utilization in order to be successful.
This is an article that was done by FI on the 25th Anniversiary of Bristow....and now slightly over 25 years later since the article was written....it makes for an interesting bit of reading. Some of the issues he discusses have come to pass and others he was flat wrong on.
The one thing he was right on....Bristow did not have a fleet of Chinooks to get rid of when the need for them went away...and the competitors did.
As I recall even the Tiger had performance issues....something about pulling too much pitch and wearing out main transmissions at a heck of a rate until the cruise power settings were reduced. That kind of problem is not limited to the Chinook. How long is the Chinook destined to be in service with the RAF and US Army....till 2050 is it? Where are all the Pumas?
Columbia has made a fortune operating them so we cannot say they are unsafe nor economically viable machines.
http://209.196.171.35/article_flight25.htm
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Aberdeen,UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC awarded UK search and rescue contract
VANCOUVER, Dec. 13 /CNW/ - CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC")
(TSX: FLY.SV.A and FLY.MV.B; NYSE: FLI) confirmed today it has been awarded a
five-year contract by the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
to provide commercial Search and Rescue helicopter services from four bases in
the UK commencing July 1, 2007.
The aircraft to be deployed on the contract are the Sikorsky S-92 and the
Agusta Bell AB139. CHC's European Operating Division will operate two S-92s at
Stornoway, two S-92s at Sumburgh, two AB139s at Lee-on-Solent and one AB139 at
Portland. The service will operate on a 24/7 basis at Sumburgh, Stornoway and
Lee-on-Solent, and on a day-time basis at Portland, in line with current
cover.
The introduction of new S-92 and AB139 aircraft will increase the
Coastguard's operating range and speed. In addition a new range of
technological equipment will be added to maximise effectiveness in search and
rescue work.
CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter
services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway. This new contract will
further strengthen CHC's position as world leader in civilian offshore search
and rescue helicopter services and enhance its reputation for providing
expert, cost-effective alternatives to government-run Coast Guard services.
CHC Helicopter Corporation is the world's largest provider of helicopter
services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, with aircraft operating
in more than 30 countries around the world.
VANCOUVER, Dec. 13 /CNW/ - CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC")
(TSX: FLY.SV.A and FLY.MV.B; NYSE: FLI) confirmed today it has been awarded a
five-year contract by the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)
to provide commercial Search and Rescue helicopter services from four bases in
the UK commencing July 1, 2007.
The aircraft to be deployed on the contract are the Sikorsky S-92 and the
Agusta Bell AB139. CHC's European Operating Division will operate two S-92s at
Stornoway, two S-92s at Sumburgh, two AB139s at Lee-on-Solent and one AB139 at
Portland. The service will operate on a 24/7 basis at Sumburgh, Stornoway and
Lee-on-Solent, and on a day-time basis at Portland, in line with current
cover.
The introduction of new S-92 and AB139 aircraft will increase the
Coastguard's operating range and speed. In addition a new range of
technological equipment will be added to maximise effectiveness in search and
rescue work.
CHC currently provides search and rescue and emergency helicopter
services in Ireland, Africa, Australia and Norway. This new contract will
further strengthen CHC's position as world leader in civilian offshore search
and rescue helicopter services and enhance its reputation for providing
expert, cost-effective alternatives to government-run Coast Guard services.
CHC Helicopter Corporation is the world's largest provider of helicopter
services to the global offshore oil and gas industry, with aircraft operating
in more than 30 countries around the world.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASLess
I was also around at the time the BV 234 was introduced by Brand X and, as I recall, many of the articles to which you refer appeared in that well known bugle of the offshore worker, the Press and Journal, prompted by passenger reaction.
The Tiger did indeed suffer from over-hyped Gallic marketing and the reduction in collective pitch setting did affect the cruise speed by some 10 knots but only after the BV 234 had had a precautionary limit of 120 knots placed on it following a series of gearbox problems. I distinctly remember an official complaint by a Brand X crew that a Tiger had deliberately overtaken them on the outbound leg and lowered the gear as it passed in salute!
SASless obviously feels as protective towards the BV 234 as I did towards the S61N but even he would have to admit that as a lifter and shifter it is beyond comparison but as a passenger transport it was not a success. The fact that the oil companies dumped it so quickly, largely on passenger feedback emphasises the view,
Columbia are using them in their primary role which is lifting and shifting.
HeliComparator need not worry too much about exposure to glitches in new technology in the S92 and AB 139 in the SAR role. As has been the case for some time now, there exists a fully operational tried and tested SAR machine available 24 hours a day in the shape of the EH 101 Merlin. In the unlikely event of the S92 or AB 139 not producing the goods the MCA could just call in the Navy!
I was also around at the time the BV 234 was introduced by Brand X and, as I recall, many of the articles to which you refer appeared in that well known bugle of the offshore worker, the Press and Journal, prompted by passenger reaction.
The Tiger did indeed suffer from over-hyped Gallic marketing and the reduction in collective pitch setting did affect the cruise speed by some 10 knots but only after the BV 234 had had a precautionary limit of 120 knots placed on it following a series of gearbox problems. I distinctly remember an official complaint by a Brand X crew that a Tiger had deliberately overtaken them on the outbound leg and lowered the gear as it passed in salute!
SASless obviously feels as protective towards the BV 234 as I did towards the S61N but even he would have to admit that as a lifter and shifter it is beyond comparison but as a passenger transport it was not a success. The fact that the oil companies dumped it so quickly, largely on passenger feedback emphasises the view,
Columbia are using them in their primary role which is lifting and shifting.
HeliComparator need not worry too much about exposure to glitches in new technology in the S92 and AB 139 in the SAR role. As has been the case for some time now, there exists a fully operational tried and tested SAR machine available 24 hours a day in the shape of the EH 101 Merlin. In the unlikely event of the S92 or AB 139 not producing the goods the MCA could just call in the Navy!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicomparitor,
I remember reading those "rants" between you two guys and IIRC, you said that the size of the windows is more important than the crashworthiness of the fuel system, fuselage and seats. Nice logic, except to your passengers! Combined with the opinions in your above post, it is little wonder why you and that grandfathered old 225 lost this contract!
Now you will get to watch those S-92's fly past your Bristow windows, I guess.
I remember reading those "rants" between you two guys and IIRC, you said that the size of the windows is more important than the crashworthiness of the fuel system, fuselage and seats. Nice logic, except to your passengers! Combined with the opinions in your above post, it is little wonder why you and that grandfathered old 225 lost this contract!
Now you will get to watch those S-92's fly past your Bristow windows, I guess.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote from 'running in' from the Military forum about SAR, the S92 and AB139.
"I agree that the S92 is a contender for harmonization, but not the current S92A.
In 4 years time a civil S92B will be a spin off from the Canadian Cyclone S92. For a good SAR machine the S92 will need some more power, so the CT7-8C not the current -8A. It will need more payload, the basic S92 is very heavy and so a weight increase above the current 26,500 lb will be needed - so perhaps a new gearbox as well?
The proposed fly by wire version will be nice and improve handling qualities. Also a 5 bladed head to reduce the vibration.
So, the S92B will be a contender but it won't be around for a few years yet.
vecvechookattack
When you hang a hoist (or two), a FLIR & Skyshout off the side..fill up the back with SAR kit, the fast and agile AB 139 will be a bit more sluggish. You can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot!
RI"
"I agree that the S92 is a contender for harmonization, but not the current S92A.
In 4 years time a civil S92B will be a spin off from the Canadian Cyclone S92. For a good SAR machine the S92 will need some more power, so the CT7-8C not the current -8A. It will need more payload, the basic S92 is very heavy and so a weight increase above the current 26,500 lb will be needed - so perhaps a new gearbox as well?
The proposed fly by wire version will be nice and improve handling qualities. Also a 5 bladed head to reduce the vibration.
So, the S92B will be a contender but it won't be around for a few years yet.
vecvechookattack
When you hang a hoist (or two), a FLIR & Skyshout off the side..fill up the back with SAR kit, the fast and agile AB 139 will be a bit more sluggish. You can't squeeze a quart into a pint pot!
RI"
RJ
Actually the rant I was referring to was the one about the tradeoff between OEI power and cruise fuel consumption, and IIRC Nick and I pretty much agreed on that one - I just didn't really want to hear it all again.
As to your snipe about the 225 (which I don't recall anyone talking about in this thread) as far as I am aware no-one tendered the 225 on this contract. The 92 will not be passing Bristow's windows because they will not be at Bristow bases.
So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border
HC
ps - will I get a row for bringing xenophobic politics into it.....?
Actually the rant I was referring to was the one about the tradeoff between OEI power and cruise fuel consumption, and IIRC Nick and I pretty much agreed on that one - I just didn't really want to hear it all again.
As to your snipe about the 225 (which I don't recall anyone talking about in this thread) as far as I am aware no-one tendered the 225 on this contract. The 92 will not be passing Bristow's windows because they will not be at Bristow bases.
So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border
HC
ps - will I get a row for bringing xenophobic politics into it.....?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 13th Dec 2005 at 18:28.
So overall I would say that everything in your post is incorrect. Maybe you should consider sticking to what the USA does best, such as indefinitely detaining without charge and torturing of foreign citizens, refusing to take any interest in trying to limit climate change whilst being the biggest culprit, dumping heavily subsidised cotton onto the global market resulting in starvation in Africa, and most outrageous of all, the blind belief that good-old-USA-home-grown-products are the best (one only has to compare European cars to USA ones to see how laughable that concept is!) which of course stems from a complete lack of appreciation that anything exists outside their country's border
Wife being a bit coy lately or something?
Let's compare British cars to European cars shall we....or to Japanese cars.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think HeliComparator's greater problem may be that there is nothing flying by his window.
His contribution to the outcome may be in a very different way to that being discussed, but his participation in this once great company may be directly related to the outcome - hence his bitterness! Can anyone say early retirement?
Mind you, if past experience is anything to be considered, he will probably be working for the competition in short order, the same as some of the other past senior management who have either retired or otherwise gone away.
Then he will be cheerfully extolling the virtues of the selected types.
His contribution to the outcome may be in a very different way to that being discussed, but his participation in this once great company may be directly related to the outcome - hence his bitterness! Can anyone say early retirement?
Mind you, if past experience is anything to be considered, he will probably be working for the competition in short order, the same as some of the other past senior management who have either retired or otherwise gone away.
Then he will be cheerfully extolling the virtues of the selected types.
SAS (who, having spent many years in Europe and Africa, I concede has probably worked out that there is something beyond USA's border)
His post was an irrelevant snipe which I treated with the contempt it deserved
Not married
Why? I though the comparison was with European and American helis, not British. Anyway, do we make cars? I didn't think so. But if we do, the Brits are not stupid enough to buy them. That's the difference.
HC
Just what was said by RJ that promted these comments?
Wife being a bit coy lately or something?
Let's compare British cars to European cars shall we....or to Japanese cars.
HC
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARowl,
I don't know who "running in" is but he has it pretty wrong. I hear the Canadian Cyclone S-92 helo is an S-92A in its entire drive train, including engines. The fuselage has the tail fold, too.
The FBW will be a significant difference, but not because it makes the aircraft handle "better." I once flew a Commanche simulator at Ft. Rucker, fly by wire makes the aircraft able to be hand hovered in zero zero conditions. This should be available in the civil version, I will bet, once pilots see what it does.
In its ability to perform a SAR mission, the S-92A outperforms the EH-101 and Sea King in every measure of SAR fitness, including hover performance, tail rotor authority, Hoist suitability, payload, range and speed. Wait for the S-92B if you'd like, you can stand next to helicomparitor and look out that window to watch the S-92A's fly by in the mean time.
And helicomparitor, slap Americans around if you want, but I seem to remember some of your lot pissing around a bit, eh?
My Dad was based in England during the War, but maybe next time, we just might hold back and let the bad guys cross the channel and teach you a new language. It might do you some good, look what mean things you say with the old one!
I don't know who "running in" is but he has it pretty wrong. I hear the Canadian Cyclone S-92 helo is an S-92A in its entire drive train, including engines. The fuselage has the tail fold, too.
The FBW will be a significant difference, but not because it makes the aircraft handle "better." I once flew a Commanche simulator at Ft. Rucker, fly by wire makes the aircraft able to be hand hovered in zero zero conditions. This should be available in the civil version, I will bet, once pilots see what it does.
In its ability to perform a SAR mission, the S-92A outperforms the EH-101 and Sea King in every measure of SAR fitness, including hover performance, tail rotor authority, Hoist suitability, payload, range and speed. Wait for the S-92B if you'd like, you can stand next to helicomparitor and look out that window to watch the S-92A's fly by in the mean time.
And helicomparitor, slap Americans around if you want, but I seem to remember some of your lot pissing around a bit, eh?
My Dad was based in England during the War, but maybe next time, we just might hold back and let the bad guys cross the channel and teach you a new language. It might do you some good, look what mean things you say with the old one!
Last edited by rjsquirrel; 14th Dec 2005 at 01:47.
Leaving the cotton subsidies and the future harmonisation of Europe to one side, for a moment, I'm puzzled (not difficult!) as to why the two England SAR contracts are not part of this change? I had (obviously erroneously) thought that the status quo would remain until about 2010 when the whole SAR situation would change and the existing Military operations would probably become civilian or part civilian.
Is the MCA going to have two separate contractors providing their SAR cover, what likelyhood would there be of BHL retaining Lee and Portland when those contracts come up and are they due at different times?
Is the MCA going to have two separate contractors providing their SAR cover, what likelyhood would there be of BHL retaining Lee and Portland when those contracts come up and are they due at different times?
I guess this answers my own questions, but probably raises a few more!
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...h=12&year=2005
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...h=12&year=2005
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I'd like to know is how CHC plan to make any money out of this contract? £100million for seven new helicopters plus all the spares support and all the other add-ons? Then there are the start-up costs, salaries, insurance, etc, etc. Surely this must be a lost-lead contract in the hope that they will get more in 2012? A brave move, especially if it goes wrong!
I see that the start date is 1 July 2007, but hasn't Bristow already been told that they will be extended to 2008? Why is that if CHC are to start in 2007?
I see that the start date is 1 July 2007, but hasn't Bristow already been told that they will be extended to 2008? Why is that if CHC are to start in 2007?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjsquirrel
Some info for you:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...awk/index.html
Apart from the Statue of Liberty, the brief French occupation of the USA seems to have given you their arrogance gene and a chip off both shoulders.
Did I see you in the film Deliverance?
RI
Some info for you:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...awk/index.html
Apart from the Statue of Liberty, the brief French occupation of the USA seems to have given you their arrogance gene and a chip off both shoulders.
Did I see you in the film Deliverance?
RI
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
running in,
That article describes the basic S-92 military version, and virtually all the data is also true for the civil S-92A (except for the fold, FBW and avionic equipment). The -8C engine is available for the military version, but the Canadian Cyclone has the 8A, which fills the transmission up to about 8,000 feet. The 8C is for ambients even higher. The article is basically correct, but the Canadian engine is not clearly specified, I do understand your confusion. (It is a marketer's delight, have many brand names for one product, and mix and match them as you wish - Cyclone, S-92A, Super Hawk, etc.)
I have no idea why helicomparitor is turning this into a "hate this country" thread, seems kind of small minded. Squirrel isn't helping, I must admit.
That article describes the basic S-92 military version, and virtually all the data is also true for the civil S-92A (except for the fold, FBW and avionic equipment). The -8C engine is available for the military version, but the Canadian Cyclone has the 8A, which fills the transmission up to about 8,000 feet. The 8C is for ambients even higher. The article is basically correct, but the Canadian engine is not clearly specified, I do understand your confusion. (It is a marketer's delight, have many brand names for one product, and mix and match them as you wish - Cyclone, S-92A, Super Hawk, etc.)
I have no idea why helicomparitor is turning this into a "hate this country" thread, seems kind of small minded. Squirrel isn't helping, I must admit.
OK I need to correct my vitreolic posting: my remarks only apply to americans whose names include all the following letters:
l e r r i u q s j r
Apologies to any other americans I have offended (even though you did vote for Bush TWICE)
HC
l e r r i u q s j r
Apologies to any other americans I have offended (even though you did vote for Bush TWICE)
HC