What helicopter for SAR in Norway?
Llama: You're splitting hairs methinks.
The Portuguese report even cites: High error rates in its findings.
From Canada:
Availability incorporates reliability. Why is it that the Brit Mil 101's even after their adequate engineering package are still finding they need 50hrs maintenance on the cab each time it flies for an hour then? Surely the logistics and supply line is adequate. Surely the knowledge bank and workmanship is adequate. Could it be the complex systems onboard? Could it be the aluminium lithium skin panels or carbon composites that are casuing problems. Could it be the three engines perhaps? Maybe databus EM screening issues? I think I'll stick to plain old: unreliable. 
A Bentley in a white van world.
The Portuguese report even cites: High error rates in its findings.
From Canada:
The Cormorants have turned out to be a pilot’s dream, but a mechanic’s nightmare. The tail rotor in the adapted military version had a design flaw that our technicians are forced to wrestle with on a regular basis. There are reports that their ratio of time spent in maintenance, compared to time spent in the air, outstrips even the Sea Kings – at a breathtaking 30-to-1. But this shouldn’t have come as a surprise – our Cormorants are both Early Birds and Twisted Sisters.
If only pigs could fly.
[Colin Kenny is former chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence].
If only pigs could fly.
[Colin Kenny is former chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence].
A Bentley in a white van world.
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 14th Nov 2013 at 09:49.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
1/ The Royal Navy technicians don't "wrestle" with the tail rotor, it works.
2/ The new tail rotor doesn't have a design flaw, it comes off for bay service, then it goes back on; no drama.
3/ The Canadians STILL don't have an adequate support package for the aircraft.
4/ Provide your source for the 50 hr to 1hr ratio, don't forget we do what are called "flexops" in the RN, this is a deliberate "overmaintenance (in some people's eyes) and is often reported as such.
I loved the Seaking, I had my doubts about the Merlin, but now I'm sold. Jump on one of the bus tours around Culdrose for spotters and visit 824, see the lads and lasses put these aircraft into the sky day after day. Ask the people who actually work on them instead of repeating old, innacurate and unsupported comments and articles.
Cheers
1/ The Royal Navy technicians don't "wrestle" with the tail rotor, it works.
2/ The new tail rotor doesn't have a design flaw, it comes off for bay service, then it goes back on; no drama.
3/ The Canadians STILL don't have an adequate support package for the aircraft.
4/ Provide your source for the 50 hr to 1hr ratio, don't forget we do what are called "flexops" in the RN, this is a deliberate "overmaintenance (in some people's eyes) and is often reported as such.
I loved the Seaking, I had my doubts about the Merlin, but now I'm sold. Jump on one of the bus tours around Culdrose for spotters and visit 824, see the lads and lasses put these aircraft into the sky day after day. Ask the people who actually work on them instead of repeating old, innacurate and unsupported comments and articles.
Cheers
oldgrubber,
Good post from someone who actually has experience of the aircraft.
TC,
Personally, if I needed rescuing on a grim night in the northern North Sea I would take the Bentley option over the white van every time. The 101 is a fantastic platform for long range SAR if you can afford it, which the Norwegians can.
Good post from someone who actually has experience of the aircraft.
TC,
Personally, if I needed rescuing on a grim night in the northern North Sea I would take the Bentley option over the white van every time. The 101 is a fantastic platform for long range SAR if you can afford it, which the Norwegians can.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: yeovil
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good post old grubber could not agree more recent high profile rescue's around the world have proven that the 101 is a good aircraft the people involved with the aircraft like it .The VIP aircraft is proving popular with its users , quite often its knockers have other motives and don't have any real idea about the aircraft
.
.
Old grubber I am much much closer to the design hub for the 101 than you can ever imagine old boy. Believe me, I am being kind when I quote 50:1 for maintenance. If word got out about the real figures, all hell would break loose and AW would never sell another 101.
llama/antonio: read my posts slowly and carefully - I have never criticised the 101 for its capabilities, not once. God only knows if I had to fork out Ł40-50 million quid for one helicopter I'd want ot to everything and more, with bells on
The cab is very capable. So too is a McClaren F1. It is simply NOT a practical helicopter for ANY job....it is over engineered. Nearly every modern heavy helo in the world can do what the 101 can do....for a quarter of the price.
Capiche?
llama/antonio: read my posts slowly and carefully - I have never criticised the 101 for its capabilities, not once. God only knows if I had to fork out Ł40-50 million quid for one helicopter I'd want ot to everything and more, with bells on
The cab is very capable. So too is a McClaren F1. It is simply NOT a practical helicopter for ANY job....it is over engineered. Nearly every modern heavy helo in the world can do what the 101 can do....for a quarter of the price.
Capiche?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the second time you've made this assertion, but as yet have signally failed to name them and their price for a capability the same as the -101 offers. That's THE SAME, not ballpark, roughly or with extra tankage. We await with interest. As, no doubt, do the idiots in Norway who have ordered this "over engineered" monstrosity.
I think the 101 decision in Norway is likely to be driven by the government belief in the need for carrying a large number of survivors. From amongst the competitors, it was the only one with the capability. That not everyone in Norwegian SAR believes in that requirement has made no difference.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
I know nothing about the S92/Cyclone other than I have read here and using good old Google, but I don’t see how an aircraft that causes whole body vibration white finger (according to some on here), has only two engines, can’t “run dry” for half an hour, loses significant casualty capability when it has internal fuel tanks, only has a four blade rotor head, doesn’t yet meet Canadian acceptance standards years after contract deadline, cracks, etc etc; can be as good as the Merlin. Far29 really?
I actually like the look of the NH90 family but like the S92 I only know what you knowledgeable people have written. It uses the RTM engine like the Merlin and is known as the “baby Merlin” when we talk about it at work. It uses composites and looks good too (probably because it looks like a baby Merlin), I think that is a contender for Seaking replacement around the world, so in this aircraft’s case; yes it could be an alternative.
The Blackhawk family? Well you guys seem to blow hot and cold but from what I can see it’s a capable aircraft, but long range SAR? The Seahawk too is ok but is what we’re after an ok aircraft or one that has “spare capacity”. It seems funny that some people on here say that when the S92 was originally advertised much was made of its compatabilty with existing Blackhawk components and technology and as soon as they started falling out of the sky it was; “Oh no it’s all new, nothing to see here move along!”
The Osprey, well any aircraft that can’t auto but hovers would make me nervous, but I don’t have to fly in it. Now that is an expensive aircraft TC.
The Chinook, well it is what it is and anyone who has been under one in the hover wouldn’t fancy being winched into it from a dinghy. I suppose it could blow the survivor towards rescue; bit slow as a method though. SASless loves them and he sounds Gnarley so I am not going to argue with him.
The fact that you’re close to the secret hub and you used the word “capiche” is enough for me. I bow to your vagueness and wish no disrespect to the “Don”. I’ll let the others argue with you as I’ve run out of steam and interest.
Cheers
I know nothing about the S92/Cyclone other than I have read here and using good old Google, but I don’t see how an aircraft that causes whole body vibration white finger (according to some on here), has only two engines, can’t “run dry” for half an hour, loses significant casualty capability when it has internal fuel tanks, only has a four blade rotor head, doesn’t yet meet Canadian acceptance standards years after contract deadline, cracks, etc etc; can be as good as the Merlin. Far29 really?
I actually like the look of the NH90 family but like the S92 I only know what you knowledgeable people have written. It uses the RTM engine like the Merlin and is known as the “baby Merlin” when we talk about it at work. It uses composites and looks good too (probably because it looks like a baby Merlin), I think that is a contender for Seaking replacement around the world, so in this aircraft’s case; yes it could be an alternative.
The Blackhawk family? Well you guys seem to blow hot and cold but from what I can see it’s a capable aircraft, but long range SAR? The Seahawk too is ok but is what we’re after an ok aircraft or one that has “spare capacity”. It seems funny that some people on here say that when the S92 was originally advertised much was made of its compatabilty with existing Blackhawk components and technology and as soon as they started falling out of the sky it was; “Oh no it’s all new, nothing to see here move along!”
The Osprey, well any aircraft that can’t auto but hovers would make me nervous, but I don’t have to fly in it. Now that is an expensive aircraft TC.
The Chinook, well it is what it is and anyone who has been under one in the hover wouldn’t fancy being winched into it from a dinghy. I suppose it could blow the survivor towards rescue; bit slow as a method though. SASless loves them and he sounds Gnarley so I am not going to argue with him.
The fact that you’re close to the secret hub and you used the word “capiche” is enough for me. I bow to your vagueness and wish no disrespect to the “Don”. I’ll let the others argue with you as I’ve run out of steam and interest.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what height over the water are the Portuguese and Canadians (and others?) having to hover to rescue people from dinghies/small craft/the water in order to minimise the effect of the 101's downwash? Is the winch operator required to fly the aircraft to complete these tasks at night?
TC,
If the Norwegians want to pay top whack for a 'gold-plated solution' and they can afford it then that is up to them. I struggle to see many alternatives that offer a similar combination of speed, cabin space, poor weather capability and low vibration levels. The 101 is remarkably vibration free at Vmax, a characteristic that is often glossed over but makes for a great environment for providing complex medical care whilst trying to get to a medical facility quickly.
Yes, the 101 is expensive and relatively high maintenance but if somebody is willing to accept those costs then why shouldn't they? If everybody thought like you Concorde would never have carried a single passenger and we'd all be driving VW Beetles.
Capiche?
If the Norwegians want to pay top whack for a 'gold-plated solution' and they can afford it then that is up to them. I struggle to see many alternatives that offer a similar combination of speed, cabin space, poor weather capability and low vibration levels. The 101 is remarkably vibration free at Vmax, a characteristic that is often glossed over but makes for a great environment for providing complex medical care whilst trying to get to a medical facility quickly.
Yes, the 101 is expensive and relatively high maintenance but if somebody is willing to accept those costs then why shouldn't they? If everybody thought like you Concorde would never have carried a single passenger and we'd all be driving VW Beetles.
Capiche?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: On the edge
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the PoAF Merlin operation question: generally 60ft.
The pilot flies the aircraft.
From the operational point the view the EH-101 "Merlin" is very well loved in the portuguese ranks. For long-range SAR there´s no other machine like it. It´s expensive? Oh yeah. But it´s the best available. At least for the portuguese requirements and their massive SRR (the biggest in Europe, more or less 6.000.000 Sq Km).
You can visit 751 Squadron page on facebook: www.facebook.com/esquadra751
Cheers,
The pilot flies the aircraft.
From the operational point the view the EH-101 "Merlin" is very well loved in the portuguese ranks. For long-range SAR there´s no other machine like it. It´s expensive? Oh yeah. But it´s the best available. At least for the portuguese requirements and their massive SRR (the biggest in Europe, more or less 6.000.000 Sq Km).
You can visit 751 Squadron page on facebook: www.facebook.com/esquadra751
Cheers,
Join Date: May 2012
Location: On the edge
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, a very cool video about the portuguese Merlin operation: Rays of Hope on Vimeo
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oxford
Age: 65
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VSF
Most 101 SAR operators seem to hover at around 60', which is a compromise between hover references, flyaway performance and downwash impact. UK variants (and others) have a hover trim control which may be used by the pilot via a cyclic-mounted trim switch or the winch operator via a separate stick. Which crewmember actually manoeuvers the helicopter in the hover will depend upon the situation.
Most 101 SAR operators seem to hover at around 60', which is a compromise between hover references, flyaway performance and downwash impact. UK variants (and others) have a hover trim control which may be used by the pilot via a cyclic-mounted trim switch or the winch operator via a separate stick. Which crewmember actually manoeuvers the helicopter in the hover will depend upon the situation.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: yeovil
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mighty 101
vertical 751 I am sure there are many people who are glad to see you I bet there are even some who are glad you drive the 101 match a good crew with a good aircraft and you have an unbeatable combination let the armchair critics have their say but you are out there doing it 
Jim671: thank you.
Dmanton300: Of course there is no equivalent of the 101...don't you get it? Don't you understand why no-one has built another like it or why none of the civvy SAR operators operate it?
Can't you see where I am coming from?
Look: You are a private company answering to shareholders, or a governmental operator holding the public purse strings. Your task is to provide a SAR service for the military OR the general public (doesn't matter).
You have a clean sheet of paper. What would you do Dmanton...what would you select that is out there ready built and available????
IF you were totally honest with yourself AND me, you would never ever purchase a fleet of the most expensive helicopter in the world to do another run of the mill operation [SAR is run of the mill - it doesn't require special equpiment like supercomputers/guns/laser finders/stealth/supersonic flight/huge endurance]. You want a machine that can do MOST jobs MOST of the time for the budget. This is called a COST EFFECTIVE solution.
Of course the 101 ticks all the boxes - but this in itself is a problem, because you'd look a right prat turning up for a couple of stranded kids in a lilo in the middle of a lake, or to a bloke with a twisted ankle on the side of a hill in snowdon - in a 101 wouldn't you??? Of course you would hit the headlines as heroes rescuing a fisherman with broken ribs 400 miles off Sumburgh once every 2 or 3 years.
Someone has to weigh up the costs of rescuing someone.
An analogy: The 737 has (had) an inherent rudder problem with its screw jack, once in every "x" flying hours. When it happened, everybody onboard would crash and burn. The cost of the litigation was "Y". The cost of replacing the part was "Z". As long as Z>Y, don't fix the problem...it's not worth it.
The same goes for the 101. If someone did a cost based analysis they would conclude that the 101 is way over the top for the job.
Those who choose to proceed of course are entitled to do so, but their processes for proceeding are flawed from a financial perspective.
The S92, NH90, EC225, AS365, Mi-17, are all capable of doing most long range tasks most of the time. How often will anyone want to go past 450NMm? And yet each of these are substantially cheaper than the gold plated 101.
You have to remember that outside of the M.E, Norway are the richest country (per capita) in the world. As far as Portugal goes: from an economic perspective they are bankrupt, so how or why they bought these suggests foul play at work
. The same could be said for another country, like, er, let's see, um: ah yes: India, perhaps. Now what was the problem there then with the 101 purchase
Dmanton300: Of course there is no equivalent of the 101...don't you get it? Don't you understand why no-one has built another like it or why none of the civvy SAR operators operate it?
Can't you see where I am coming from?
Look: You are a private company answering to shareholders, or a governmental operator holding the public purse strings. Your task is to provide a SAR service for the military OR the general public (doesn't matter).
You have a clean sheet of paper. What would you do Dmanton...what would you select that is out there ready built and available????
IF you were totally honest with yourself AND me, you would never ever purchase a fleet of the most expensive helicopter in the world to do another run of the mill operation [SAR is run of the mill - it doesn't require special equpiment like supercomputers/guns/laser finders/stealth/supersonic flight/huge endurance]. You want a machine that can do MOST jobs MOST of the time for the budget. This is called a COST EFFECTIVE solution.
Of course the 101 ticks all the boxes - but this in itself is a problem, because you'd look a right prat turning up for a couple of stranded kids in a lilo in the middle of a lake, or to a bloke with a twisted ankle on the side of a hill in snowdon - in a 101 wouldn't you??? Of course you would hit the headlines as heroes rescuing a fisherman with broken ribs 400 miles off Sumburgh once every 2 or 3 years.
Someone has to weigh up the costs of rescuing someone.
An analogy: The 737 has (had) an inherent rudder problem with its screw jack, once in every "x" flying hours. When it happened, everybody onboard would crash and burn. The cost of the litigation was "Y". The cost of replacing the part was "Z". As long as Z>Y, don't fix the problem...it's not worth it.
The same goes for the 101. If someone did a cost based analysis they would conclude that the 101 is way over the top for the job.
Those who choose to proceed of course are entitled to do so, but their processes for proceeding are flawed from a financial perspective.
The S92, NH90, EC225, AS365, Mi-17, are all capable of doing most long range tasks most of the time. How often will anyone want to go past 450NMm? And yet each of these are substantially cheaper than the gold plated 101.
You have to remember that outside of the M.E, Norway are the richest country (per capita) in the world. As far as Portugal goes: from an economic perspective they are bankrupt, so how or why they bought these suggests foul play at work
. The same could be said for another country, like, er, let's see, um: ah yes: India, perhaps. Now what was the problem there then with the 101 purchase
Well, it seems that in his last couple of posts TC is finally shedding the last vestiges of the sheepskin and revealing the fur of the fox calling the grapes sour.
I would not wish MY ENEMIES had to be rescued by a Mi-17 and I have sincere doubts regarding the AS-365 range when carrying anything more than a couple of letters if outfitted for SAR work.
That would leave two candidates of which perhaps the EC-225 being the least expensive to operate, and the NH-90, of which there are no dedicated SAR variants to date if I remember correctly.
The rest is rubbish.
I would not wish MY ENEMIES had to be rescued by a Mi-17 and I have sincere doubts regarding the AS-365 range when carrying anything more than a couple of letters if outfitted for SAR work.
That would leave two candidates of which perhaps the EC-225 being the least expensive to operate, and the NH-90, of which there are no dedicated SAR variants to date if I remember correctly.
The rest is rubbish.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does hovering at just 60' not present problems when rescuing people from dinghies, lilos and small vessels? How often do the Portuguese/Canadians have to do tasks like these?