Sikorsky S-92: [Archive Copy]
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this version represent the basic build standard that would of been provided to the VXX programme if the S-92 had not of been beaten by the european-designed US101?
Good to hear that the company is providing excellent support, suppose a lot of S-92 people have had not a lot to do since last weeks news?
Good to hear that the company is providing excellent support, suppose a lot of S-92 people have had not a lot to do since last weeks news?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the post award press conference it was indicated that one reason for rejecting the S92 was the amount of work required to get from the present config to the final VXX config and Navair's doubt that they could accomplish the required changes within the 4 year window . I believe the VXX was offered with new generation engines and some substantial structural changes.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VH-92 was exactly like the S-92, with changes that included the -8C engines (21% more power), 28,400 lb gross weight (the alternate gross weight for the S-92) and the needed equipment as specified by the RFP.
Having been briefed by the USG, I am not at liberty to discuss their findings.
I can say that the H-92 beats the EH-101 decisively in all performance catagories, either with the current engines or the larger engines for each. More payload, more range, more speed and more climb rate.
The two head-of-state salesmen for the EH-101 are quite capable folks, even as part-timers.
Having been briefed by the USG, I am not at liberty to discuss their findings.
I can say that the H-92 beats the EH-101 decisively in all performance catagories, either with the current engines or the larger engines for each. More payload, more range, more speed and more climb rate.
The two head-of-state salesmen for the EH-101 are quite capable folks, even as part-timers.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S-92 has the -8A engine, of course, at 2540 HP each. The -8C development (at 3050 HP) will continue, as will the added gross weight for military applications. Of course, work for the Canadian MHP is steaming along, as well. The availability of these added capabilities for the civil market is still being decided, the market will tell us, of course. So far, the performance of the 92A is very satisfactory as is, we are told.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Marsh
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheChopper,
Our first S-92 is flying commercial flights several times a week. I'm sure it will take some time for Norsk to get their pilots some flight time. How long depends on the demands of the customer. In the GOM we have had a problem that the North Sea folks don't have, there are not many helidecks that will support 26,000 pounds.
Our first S-92 is flying commercial flights several times a week. I'm sure it will take some time for Norsk to get their pilots some flight time. How long depends on the demands of the customer. In the GOM we have had a problem that the North Sea folks don't have, there are not many helidecks that will support 26,000 pounds.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its safer and if its faster and if it goes farther
why was it shipped in AN124 rather than flying across the pond like the 101s delivered to Canada, is it not reliable enough?
just a thought......
DM
why was it shipped in AN124 rather than flying across the pond like the 101s delivered to Canada, is it not reliable enough?
just a thought......
DM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because taxpayers paid for those flights, and shareholders pay the 75% less for the AN trip.
Same taxpayers paid $100M per aircraft for the EH-101.
If you doubt the fact that the EH-101 has less range, payload and speed than the H-92 look at the manufacturer's brochures for the two aircraft, I posted them at this site:
http://www.s-92heliport.com/VH-92.htm
If you have better data, please share it.
Same taxpayers paid $100M per aircraft for the EH-101.
If you doubt the fact that the EH-101 has less range, payload and speed than the H-92 look at the manufacturer's brochures for the two aircraft, I posted them at this site:
http://www.s-92heliport.com/VH-92.htm
If you have better data, please share it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Ive had a look at your performance comparison charts.
If your data is based on the EH101 having a MAUM of 14600Kg as shown in the manufacturers graphs in the files you show links to; it would appear that given the EH101's new MAUM of 15636 Kg(34400Lbs) as on the US101 website, the 101 carries more payload than the 92. Am I reading this right? Because if so, the 101 at the 300SM range point you quote would carry 400Kg more than the 92?
cheers
Ive had a look at your performance comparison charts.
If your data is based on the EH101 having a MAUM of 14600Kg as shown in the manufacturers graphs in the files you show links to; it would appear that given the EH101's new MAUM of 15636 Kg(34400Lbs) as on the US101 website, the 101 carries more payload than the 92. Am I reading this right? Because if so, the 101 at the 300SM range point you quote would carry 400Kg more than the 92?
cheers
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIT,
I don't think you looked at my performance charts. In fact, I know you didn't, because the chart I provided is supplied by Agusta-Westland (see the brochure, which is provided on one of the links).
The EH-101's "maximum gross weight" is 14,600 lbs, upon which its component lives and inspection intervals are based. In addition, it can hover OGE only at 14,600 KG, thus that weight is the one Agusta uses for its own range charts. At higher weights, it's flight performance is reduced considerably.
Were both helicopters to use alternate weights, (perhaps rolling takeoffs?) the range for both would increase, of course.
The "maximum alternate gross weight" for the EH-101 is listed as 15,600 kg , do you know how that changes its maintenance regimin and component retirement times? I do not know. The US-101 site may take advantage of the new rotors and other items to be designed as part of the new program, which could explain the much higher weight than the EH-101.
I don't think you looked at my performance charts. In fact, I know you didn't, because the chart I provided is supplied by Agusta-Westland (see the brochure, which is provided on one of the links).
The EH-101's "maximum gross weight" is 14,600 lbs, upon which its component lives and inspection intervals are based. In addition, it can hover OGE only at 14,600 KG, thus that weight is the one Agusta uses for its own range charts. At higher weights, it's flight performance is reduced considerably.
Were both helicopters to use alternate weights, (perhaps rolling takeoffs?) the range for both would increase, of course.
The "maximum alternate gross weight" for the EH-101 is listed as 15,600 kg , do you know how that changes its maintenance regimin and component retirement times? I do not know. The US-101 site may take advantage of the new rotors and other items to be designed as part of the new program, which could explain the much higher weight than the EH-101.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Thanks for your response. I find your manner a little abrupt in telling me what I did and didnt do but accept that you are a busy man so I appreciate your taking the time to answer my query.
I did follow the link to your S90 page and used those charts and then looked at the US101 site for comparison. In particular I compared the range payload graphs you show. I do believe that it most important to have all the facts before drawing conclusions and making statements, I'm guessing that as a test pilot you would agree with this approach.
If you dont have the performance data for a 15600 Kg EH101 how can you make the statement that it cant hover? Good job this is only a rumour network
Cheers Nick
Thanks for your response. I find your manner a little abrupt in telling me what I did and didnt do but accept that you are a busy man so I appreciate your taking the time to answer my query.
I did follow the link to your S90 page and used those charts and then looked at the US101 site for comparison. In particular I compared the range payload graphs you show. I do believe that it most important to have all the facts before drawing conclusions and making statements, I'm guessing that as a test pilot you would agree with this approach.
If you dont have the performance data for a 15600 Kg EH101 how can you make the statement that it cant hover? Good job this is only a rumour network
Cheers Nick
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Marsh
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm disapointed that the EH101 was chosen over the VH-92 for the president. I'm sure the EH101 is a very capable aircraft. But the S-92 does something that the EH101 can't do, fly passengers for hire. To me the EH101 is not a factor, it's not certified.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIT,
Sorry if I came across as sharp in my reply, I look back and see it was not what I intended, and haste is my only excuse! The point I was trying to make is that the data I show is their data, I will gladly post any new data they have. Once you take off, the range of the higher gross weight 15,600 kg would be more, because it has the available gas (it will burn a bit more in cruise, at the higher weight, perhaps 5% steeper slope on the fuel burn line of the payload range curve). That being said, the H-92 can do that as well, at the same limitations to maneuver that the EH-101 uses, so I don't think there is any relative performance advantage, at all.
I do know the ability to hover at that weight, it is in the brochure, and the 15,600 is not able to HOGE under any atomosphere (14,600 kg is the max for OGE at 3600 ft std day).
Based on the data each manufacturer provides, the H-92 goes further, faster and with more payload, under any atmosphere.
Sorry if I came across as sharp in my reply, I look back and see it was not what I intended, and haste is my only excuse! The point I was trying to make is that the data I show is their data, I will gladly post any new data they have. Once you take off, the range of the higher gross weight 15,600 kg would be more, because it has the available gas (it will burn a bit more in cruise, at the higher weight, perhaps 5% steeper slope on the fuel burn line of the payload range curve). That being said, the H-92 can do that as well, at the same limitations to maneuver that the EH-101 uses, so I don't think there is any relative performance advantage, at all.
I do know the ability to hover at that weight, it is in the brochure, and the 15,600 is not able to HOGE under any atomosphere (14,600 kg is the max for OGE at 3600 ft std day).
Based on the data each manufacturer provides, the H-92 goes further, faster and with more payload, under any atmosphere.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By now we all know that facts shouldnt get in the way of a good rumour and S92mech is a case in point...
The EH101 is certified by CAA, RAI, FAA and Japanese Cert Authority.
First Type Cert was issued 1994 (3 authorities in one day)
DM
The EH101 is certified by CAA, RAI, FAA and Japanese Cert Authority.
First Type Cert was issued 1994 (3 authorities in one day)
DM
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Marsh
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wrong about the EH101 not being certified, I looked up the type certificate using the wrong manufactor. So, before I stick my foot in my mouth again, Are there any civilian operators of the EH-101?
What we are hearing was that a major reason for the S-92 loss on VXX was its one engine out performance. I am also hearing that Norsk is unhappy with the Cat A performance.
The Sultan
The Sultan
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Purely an observation, but those pics of the S-92 on the ground make it look a lot smaller than it looks in all the A-A shots I've seen. Suddenly it's S-70 genesis is much easier to see.
