Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

S-76D

Old 24th Oct 2006, 03:13
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Greater Dubach Metro Area
Posts: 59
S-76D

I heard a nasty rumor the S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules. Certification to the latest standards prohibited the old airframe from being used ... presumably due to birdstrike, etc. With the new engines, rotor, and drive system, why not redesign the cabin, too?

Any thoughts or confirmation?

Speaking of OGP ... how long until those rules penetrate the Western Hemisphere?

Tompkins
andTompkins is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 05:11
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
OGP Rules

Excuse my ignorance, but what are OGP Rules.....
brame is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 07:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,119
....unmarked foot crossings are allowed but you must use the left side of the elevator.
Bertie Thruster is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 08:20
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 153
..........

Rule 1 - No poofters
Rule 2 - There is no Rule 2
Rule 3 - Refer to Rule 1

etc.......
Teefor Gage is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 09:09
  #5 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,440
Angel

Is this a surprise?

All the pictures I've seen show a new shape of airframe......and the S-76 was first flown nearly 30 years ago.

Isn't this why they suddenly came up with the C++, as an interim measure, to compete with the AW139 at fairly short notice, after losing the Presidential contract and the Commanche? (Cat, pigeons, 'spect Nick will be along very shortly).
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2006, 14:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 71
Posts: 3,012
Regarding the 139, I will go on record that it seems to be a fine machine, frankly. The teething problems it has seem monor and easily fixed. It also gives the customers a full choice, with its bold design that eliminates the HV curve at offshore conditions.

The S76D is squarely in he 139's face, for sure. I will bet the guys at Sikorsky have already asked the customers with the checkbooks what they want, and are building same. Fears of not meeting "OGP" rules are foolish, the oil companies are consulted for the design requirements whenever an investment is even considered. I believe that the S76D shares the same fuselage with the A thru C, but there is a window redesign.

The choice customers face is payload and range vs single engine immunity. The short range and high fuel burn of the 139 is dictated by its enormous engines and the weight of its drivetrain, all of which are optimized for engine failure. As I hear it, the 139 is not burning any barns in its sales, perhaps the folks who get paid to carry stuff don't want to pay to fly the drive train of a 21000 lb helo while only carrying the payload of a 12,000 lb one.

Let the customers decide!
NickLappos is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 00:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: US
Posts: 8
Tompkins says:

"I heard a nasty rumor the S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules."

This rumor is completely unfounded. The main changes to the S-76D airframe deal with those required for incorporating the new PW210S engine. There are some other minor changes being incorporated on the airframe to make improvements (ie. reduce weight, reduce drag, etc.). The basic airframe is very similar to that we have grown accustomed to. The bottom line, this aircraft will weigh less, have more power, similiar fuel consumption, the latest avionics suite available, along with keeping a proven aircraft design. What's not to like!!!

Helo Bubba
Helo Bubba is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 03:32
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: stateside
Posts: 157
Excellent answer Mr Lappos, it is an interesting trade-off like you say for the 139s single engine ability.
I hear Bell have another 412 version coming out to finally compete with the 76D and 139, called the gen-5 or something and will basically be a 412 SAR machine a-la SAF and Turks. Glass cockpit and T-9 fadecs.
I also heard the 76D does not meet the latest JARs in the same way that the EP also doesnt meet them but the 139 does.
Apparently the oil companies are gagging for another 76 version though.
More anti-bell propaganda from the oil industry (OK just Shell)

TukTuk BoomBoom is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 09:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Waltham Abbey, Essex, UK
Age: 73
Posts: 1,059
Originally Posted by TukTuk BoomBoom View Post
I also heard the 76D does not meet the latest JARs in the same way that the EP also doesnt meet them but the 139 does.
The whole point of the exercise is to dodge around the JAR regs. By making use of grandfather rights a lot of corners can be cut whilst not seriously compromising anything. You can fit safe stroking seats and beef up the airframe and fuel fuel safety provisions to within a few percentage points of the JAR without actually having to go the whole way.

And look at the changes that result... graft a JAR standard new EC135 nose on a BK117 and visually you appear to have a whole new machine. But you still have the option of 'ignoring' the bits of JAR that might get in the way of the sale, like having to seat everyone in JAR seats if that is operationally awkward.

I would expect that the new S76D will play just that sort of game.

Saves lots of money too.
PANews is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 12:21
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
While there may still be time to help design the 76D - here's my request. More fuel capacity. 1800lbs of fuel is not enough. With a burn rate of 700lbs or so, minimum 2100 - better yet 2400lbs of fuel.
js0987 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 13:04
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 135
My rumor source says "Sorry Nick, same old windows". It's amazing what can be done with paint, though...

Same little birdie tells me there will be a SLIGHT increase in fuel. But just a few gallons.

Bubba's comments are all spot on, fo-shore.

hoss
HOSS 1 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 14:29
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Originally Posted by HOSS 1
Same little birdie tells me there will be a SLIGHT increase in fuel. But just a few gallons.
Reportedly 15 gal more Jet A. Key benefit of the D seems to be in hot & high ops; SL range & payload is little changed from the C++. Other than the donks, the major changes are the MR, TR & avionics.

Originally Posted by TukTuk BoomBoom
I hear Bell have another 412 version coming out to finally compete with the 76D and 139, called the gen-5 or something
Heard the same rumor a year or so ago, but sources in BHT have played this down.

I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 16:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 885
but isn't the S-76D programme now 12 months behind? I hear first deliveries have skipped to 2009.
heli1 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 16:41
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 885
but isn't the S-76D programme now 12 months behind? I hear first deliveries have skipped to 2009.
heli1 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 17:03
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Q4 2009 = 2010...

I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 21:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: US
Posts: 8
There are many incorrect rumors running around here. Here are some of the facts:

1) The S-76D program is still on track for certification during the 1Q of 2009.

2) The program has stepped up to the plate to bring the cert basis up to be at least 92% compliant to the latest FAR/JAR amendments (currently working to make this value even higher).

3) The fuel capacity has indeed increased by 15 gals. The S-76D maximum range however will increase to greater than 400nm with the improved fuel consumption that the PW210S engine offers.

4) The PW210S has run in the test cell up to and including max takeoff power. The engine runs great.

I hope this helps to set the record straight.

Helo Bubba
Helo Bubba is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 21:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Bubba,

My date was delivery, not cert; your cert date also differs from what I've been told by SAC, but I'll not split hairs.

Now, when's the X2 gonna fly ?


I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 22:42
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Greater Dubach Metro Area
Posts: 59
Thanks for all the input folks! Just what I was looking for ... well, maybe not the stir I caused ... but thanks for the answers!

Tompkins
andTompkins is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2006, 23:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: US
Posts: 8
I/C says:

"Now, when's the X2 gonna fly?"

Now that's one that I don't have any say on.

Bubba
Helo Bubba is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2006, 01:30
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: POOR GPS COVERAGE, EH!
Posts: 24
Getting 2100lbs of fuel in a S76 is easy. Just full 'er up from a Jet-A tank chilled to -40C and you will fit 2098lbs in. There is always a way.

Yes, I know....nobody likes a smart-ass.
hovering is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.