Sikorsky S-92: [Archive Copy]
Had a fly of the S92 sim at FSI last week. It certainly has some single-engine performance.
Anybody looking for some serious fly-away capability should look at this bird.
Anybody looking for some serious fly-away capability should look at this bird.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost any modern twin engine, starting by the not so modern Bell 212 will fly away AT SEA LEVEL, and this being heavy.
Recently a 212 had a PT6 blow (contained failure) up just as they were leaving the edge of the pad with 15 on board and 01+15 min fuel. He flew 60 miles back to base on one engine and the helicopter, and we are talking about a 34 year old helicopter (212).
I really don't know if it was heavy, I'm sure it was hot, but being the fact that the engine quit at sea level, I don't think the fact that it flew away is any measure of great performance, it's the least you could expect from a twin engine helicopter at sea level.
What's the performance like say above 6 thousand feet?
Recently a 212 had a PT6 blow (contained failure) up just as they were leaving the edge of the pad with 15 on board and 01+15 min fuel. He flew 60 miles back to base on one engine and the helicopter, and we are talking about a 34 year old helicopter (212).
I really don't know if it was heavy, I'm sure it was hot, but being the fact that the engine quit at sea level, I don't think the fact that it flew away is any measure of great performance, it's the least you could expect from a twin engine helicopter at sea level.
What's the performance like say above 6 thousand feet?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In Canada's breastland ...mmmm
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with you IRL and Cdn Driver.
Also, the guys who fly it every day don't think it has the great single engine performance that some people think it has. !?!?!
Hats off to the crew!
Ascend Charlie
Are you sure the sim operator put you at gross weight when you were in there?
Never took off for offshore and wasn't at gross weight. Not good enough if it only has great SIP when less than GW!
Would take the EC225 anytime over the S92
Also, the guys who fly it every day don't think it has the great single engine performance that some people think it has. !?!?!
Hats off to the crew!
Ascend Charlie
Are you sure the sim operator put you at gross weight when you were in there?
Never took off for offshore and wasn't at gross weight. Not good enough if it only has great SIP when less than GW!
Would take the EC225 anytime over the S92
Where's the link?
Is this just a rumor? I haven't seen anything else on it. I would think that Sikorsky would be waving their cat-a performance banner after that donk quit.
-- IFMU
-- IFMU
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no longer in the loop for such things, but (like the 225 rumor of death and destruction via ground resonance) rumors do not have to be grounded in truth to be fun.
The OEI performance of the S92 is eye-watering. The single remaining engine provides TWICE the power of an S61 engine for only 20% more gross weight (2700 HP OEI and 26,000 lbs). In fact, the one engine provides about the same power as the two S61 engines!
The OEI performance of the S92 is eye-watering. The single remaining engine provides TWICE the power of an S61 engine for only 20% more gross weight (2700 HP OEI and 26,000 lbs). In fact, the one engine provides about the same power as the two S61 engines!
"Is this just a rumor? I haven't seen anything else on it. I would think that Sikorsky would be waving their cat-a performance banner after that donk quit."
Yes, it's common practice for operators and manufacturers to broadcast to the world that one of their aircraft has just had an engine failure. You see it all the time; great publicity.
There's nothing to shout about a continued OEI take off from a heliport, and it is indicative of how skewed our thinking is from the FW world that we think it's good.
Yes, it's common practice for operators and manufacturers to broadcast to the world that one of their aircraft has just had an engine failure. You see it all the time; great publicity.
There's nothing to shout about a continued OEI take off from a heliport, and it is indicative of how skewed our thinking is from the FW world that we think it's good.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not a rumor, it did happen sometime within the last 2 or 3 weeks. Understand the aircraft was close to Max TOW and the place was Morgan City Louisiana.
Maybe S92 Mech or Gomer may know more.
Seems to be one of these 'to be kept quiet' incidents.
A passenger said it was N392PH
Maybe S92 Mech or Gomer may know more.
Seems to be one of these 'to be kept quiet' incidents.
A passenger said it was N392PH
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Marsh
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No they are not grounded. There is an AD to change the transmission oil pump spline adapters every 50 hours. This was issued due to a North Sea operator with an oil pump spline adapter failure. None of our splines have shown abnormal wear.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a lot of problems with the S92`s related to vibration.
Compared to the puma L2 the ride is not smoother and the speed`s about the same. At 150 kts it`s quite rough..
The 13 year older L2`s autopilot is more accurate..
The S92 is very tail low on landing so you have to be very carefull on rig landings.
The only advantage so far is more space in cockpit and cabin, and easier access to luggage compartment.
There`s a lot of complains coming to atc due to noise along the routes we are flying after S92 operation started.
Can anybody tell me why this helicopter`s got only four blades???
Would love to try the 225...
Compared to the puma L2 the ride is not smoother and the speed`s about the same. At 150 kts it`s quite rough..
The 13 year older L2`s autopilot is more accurate..
The S92 is very tail low on landing so you have to be very carefull on rig landings.
The only advantage so far is more space in cockpit and cabin, and easier access to luggage compartment.
There`s a lot of complains coming to atc due to noise along the routes we are flying after S92 operation started.
Can anybody tell me why this helicopter`s got only four blades???
Would love to try the 225...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: europe
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been some cases with cracks in the attachements for the anti vibration generators,and also one generator breaking loose from the fuselage.
But "potentially catastropic" and "on the verge of ditching" is out of the blue..
But why make a new rotorsystem with the need of a anti vibration system???
But "potentially catastropic" and "on the verge of ditching" is out of the blue..
But why make a new rotorsystem with the need of a anti vibration system???
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 Mech
What about the engine flame out at Amelia....Any news on that?
Electronic fuel selectors on the roof of the cabin could have had something to do with it according to a source??
What about the engine flame out at Amelia....Any news on that?
Electronic fuel selectors on the roof of the cabin could have had something to do with it according to a source??
High Noise Levels
The higher noise levels is an indirect function of the number of blades. The S-92 was conceived as a growth version of the S-70/UH-60 Blackhawk. As such the 4 bladed rotor system was retained. Additional lift was required to meet to meet higher mission weights. The low cost solution to more lift was increase the rotor speed by 7% over the S-70's. The rotor diameter was also increased also contributing to higher tip speeds. An additional increase in exterior noise level may be realized during cold weather operations as the tips speeds approach Mach.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The word around about the engine out was that a fuel valve leaked, and in a suction system, air flowed in and cause the engine to quit. Had it been a conventional fuel system with boost pumps, fuel would have been leaking into the cabin, with the possibility fo fire. Basically, the system worked as it should, I heard that the aircraft was at gross weight, and low speed, and it flew out handily (a credit to the crew, who did all the right things.)
I Fly 92's, it is a not true that the n/rev vibration is somehow due to a rotor that has a problem. All rotors vibrate, at about the same vibration energy, as determined by their hinge offset and the number of blades. After making so much about the 5-bladed 225, the French added a system of force generators in the airframe structure of the same design as the S-92 and the new Black Hawk. Vibration is actually due mostly to the way the structure handles the vibration energy, and how it has areas of high and low vibration (nodes and anti-nodes). The wider and more open the fuselage, the more likely it will transmit the vibration easily, and require more vibration treatment.
I did hear that an S-92 had cracks at one of its vibration absorber locations, true enough, but these were airframe in nature, in an airframe that is entirely redundant in strength. Still required design attention, you can bet.
I Fly 92's, it is a not true that the n/rev vibration is somehow due to a rotor that has a problem. All rotors vibrate, at about the same vibration energy, as determined by their hinge offset and the number of blades. After making so much about the 5-bladed 225, the French added a system of force generators in the airframe structure of the same design as the S-92 and the new Black Hawk. Vibration is actually due mostly to the way the structure handles the vibration energy, and how it has areas of high and low vibration (nodes and anti-nodes). The wider and more open the fuselage, the more likely it will transmit the vibration easily, and require more vibration treatment.
I did hear that an S-92 had cracks at one of its vibration absorber locations, true enough, but these were airframe in nature, in an airframe that is entirely redundant in strength. Still required design attention, you can bet.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why oh why didn't sikorsky take a 61 airframe and replace the running gear and engines with state of the art stuff. Nice big cabin, smooth ride, stable hover platform, relatively benign downwash and above all a proven design. Yes I know, modern regs etc, but it would have made a lovely offshore machine that would knock the 332/225 and 92s into a cocked hat, not to mention make a good SAR machine perfect.
Sorry Nick, I am being facetious - i'll climb back into my box.
Sorry Nick, I am being facetious - i'll climb back into my box.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Droopystop,
That is always the question. When do you stop modifying the last generation, and start with a clean sheet of paper?
The differences between the generations of helos is like the difference between the same span of automobile technology:
Here is a car developed at the same time as the S-61, and only a few years before the Puma:
Here is the dashboard that the passesngers faced in a crash:
Here is the seat they sat in (find the seat belts!):
I, too, am nostolgic about the past, but I have the exciting knowledge of what the new stuff means, and how it will (already has started) improve things.
The first pilots on the 61 checked me out, they loved it too. I instructed people in it as my first job as a Sikorsky test pilot, and I love it, too.
Forty years from now, people will lament that retirement of the S-92, and a great new Sikorsky team will roll out the S-124. I know I won't be there to see it, dammit!
That is always the question. When do you stop modifying the last generation, and start with a clean sheet of paper?
The differences between the generations of helos is like the difference between the same span of automobile technology:
Here is a car developed at the same time as the S-61, and only a few years before the Puma:
Here is the dashboard that the passesngers faced in a crash:
Here is the seat they sat in (find the seat belts!):
I, too, am nostolgic about the past, but I have the exciting knowledge of what the new stuff means, and how it will (already has started) improve things.
The first pilots on the 61 checked me out, they loved it too. I instructed people in it as my first job as a Sikorsky test pilot, and I love it, too.
Forty years from now, people will lament that retirement of the S-92, and a great new Sikorsky team will roll out the S-124. I know I won't be there to see it, dammit!