Marine One Woes
What was it Nick had to say about the lower safety standard for the aircraft? I do seem to recall he considered that to be an issue or is my Geritol going stale?
Correct me if I am wrong Nick!
Now if one adds three feet to the rotor blades, stretches the airframe by a couple of yards, re-designs the drive train......is that the same model aircraft as was tendered for the contract bid process?
I see my Blue Suited Targets from my fraud investigation days at the Navy remain loyal to their past habits. Remember the toilet seats, the pilot ash trays, and the "Device, Impact, manually operated with natural fiber operating mechanism" days......(can you say "hammer" folks?)
Correct me if I am wrong Nick!
Now if one adds three feet to the rotor blades, stretches the airframe by a couple of yards, re-designs the drive train......is that the same model aircraft as was tendered for the contract bid process?
I see my Blue Suited Targets from my fraud investigation days at the Navy remain loyal to their past habits. Remember the toilet seats, the pilot ash trays, and the "Device, Impact, manually operated with natural fiber operating mechanism" days......(can you say "hammer" folks?)
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is recognized by the media as the leading source of information on government waste. Since our founding in 1984, CAGW has helped expose such high-profile symbols of federal profligacy as the Department of Defense's $640 toilet seat and $436 hammer and the National Park Service's $797,400 outhouse.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The request by Lockheed is basically giving up on the increment I aircraft and going to Increment II, thus missing the delivery date by years, throwing in the towel on an entire configuration, and scrapping the essential plan to land on the White House Lawn in 2008. This is because the massive structural changes (a whole new fuselage) to suit the safety standards has increased empty weight to the point where it cannot hover IGE. The "cure" is a whole new rotor (throwing away the BERP blades) and adding 5 feet of rotor diameter to get the lift to get the aircraft flying.
The "misunderstanding" is that Lockheed expected to fly the President in a helicopter that does not meet the requirements for flying a US Army Sargeant!
And the three engines do not get the helo to hover IGE while the competitor could and does hover OGE under the same conditions.
I predict that once the administration leaves office, the Navy will kill the EH program and recompete.
For the record, Lockheed is now saying that the EH-101 cannot be made into a Presidential transport, the entirely new helo they develop (new fuselage, rotors, transmissions and engines) will have to do so.
The "misunderstanding" is that Lockheed expected to fly the President in a helicopter that does not meet the requirements for flying a US Army Sargeant!
And the three engines do not get the helo to hover IGE while the competitor could and does hover OGE under the same conditions.
I predict that once the administration leaves office, the Navy will kill the EH program and recompete.
For the record, Lockheed is now saying that the EH-101 cannot be made into a Presidential transport, the entirely new helo they develop (new fuselage, rotors, transmissions and engines) will have to do so.
Assistant Navy Secretary Delores Etter downplayed the report's significance, saying that all aircraft programs struggle with weight and that the Navy is working through those challenges on VH-71.
Some working through!!!!
You reckon this Navy official is regretting these words right now?
Some believe that one outcome of this schedule was to make the competition more
favorable to Lockheed Martin and less favorable to Sikorsky. A Navy spokesman was
quoted as saying “The Lockheed streamlining proposal was selected because it was
judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk,
and at a lower cost....we can’t let the traditional acquisition process impede the need to
meet the President’s security requirements now.”
favorable to Lockheed Martin and less favorable to Sikorsky. A Navy spokesman was
quoted as saying “The Lockheed streamlining proposal was selected because it was
judged more likely to meet these government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk,
and at a lower cost....we can’t let the traditional acquisition process impede the need to
meet the President’s security requirements now.”
Last edited by SASless; 22nd May 2007 at 01:34.
I predict that once the administration leaves office, the Navy will kill the EH program and recompete.
-- IFMU
Sorry Nick but if the Navy can't fit all the security ,armour and avionics and seating required for the presidential mission into the EH101 with 65,000shp available what makes you think they can fit it into the smaller S-92with only 40,000shp ? Perhaps the President should use the Chinook ?!.
"....the EH101 with 65,000shp available what makes you think they can fit it into the smaller S-92with only 40,000shp.... "
That's some engine upgrade they've been subjected to!!!!!
(One too many noughts I think!
)
That's some engine upgrade they've been subjected to!!!!!
(One too many noughts I think!
)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heli1, you are at least 1 order of magnitude off in your horsepower numbers, unfortunately!
Although it is hard to believe, the EH-101 has LESS useful load than an S-92, as proven by their respective flight manuals. The horsepower difference is fully absorbed by the empty weight difference between the two, so they have precisely the same power to weight ratio, and the rotor system of the 101 is less efficient, so the net performance is actually lower. Calculating performance requires more skill than counting engines.
Here is a comparison I did 3 years ago, still valid:
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/comparison.htm
Although it is hard to believe, the EH-101 has LESS useful load than an S-92, as proven by their respective flight manuals. The horsepower difference is fully absorbed by the empty weight difference between the two, so they have precisely the same power to weight ratio, and the rotor system of the 101 is less efficient, so the net performance is actually lower. Calculating performance requires more skill than counting engines.
Here is a comparison I did 3 years ago, still valid:
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/comparison.htm
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance Figures
Nick, I'm interested to know where you get your performance figures from.
The S92 VIP specification brochure lists useful load as 9096 lb
The EH101 VIP as 34392 lb and a useful load as 11905 lb
The S92 has 9 passengers range as 479 nm (standard day, sea level)
The EH101 has 14 passengers range as over 500 nm (IAS+35, 3000ft)
Interesting that S92 quotes a VNE and the EH101 as a max cruise.
These figures come from the company brochures. Is this all just marketing spin, on both sides?
The S92 VIP specification brochure lists useful load as 9096 lb
The EH101 VIP as 34392 lb and a useful load as 11905 lb
The S92 has 9 passengers range as 479 nm (standard day, sea level)
The EH101 has 14 passengers range as over 500 nm (IAS+35, 3000ft)
Interesting that S92 quotes a VNE and the EH101 as a max cruise.
These figures come from the company brochures. Is this all just marketing spin, on both sides?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy,
The H92 brochure is on the web site, and the exec aircraft that you quote has over 2000 lbs of empty weight goodies above a stripped utility aircraft.
The EH101 brochure values are as listed, if you would like, post a $50 bond (to your favorite charity) and I will prove every number. Reading brochures seems to be a lost art for EH101 fans.
The H92 brochure is on the web site, and the exec aircraft that you quote has over 2000 lbs of empty weight goodies above a stripped utility aircraft.
The EH101 brochure values are as listed, if you would like, post a $50 bond (to your favorite charity) and I will prove every number. Reading brochures seems to be a lost art for EH101 fans.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance Figures
Not doubting the analysis Nick, the technical content of your replies on this forum is excellent. But when figures are in the public domain, available directly from the manufacturer, that vary from them it is difficult to understand how a comparison can be drawn.
I'm sorry if it is my misunderstanding, if so please educate me, are you saying that to compare the two, we would need to add 2000lb+ to the EH101 to compare baseline equipment fits?
I'm sorry if it is my misunderstanding, if so please educate me, are you saying that to compare the two, we would need to add 2000lb+ to the EH101 to compare baseline equipment fits?
Time for the General Accounting Office (GAO) to swing into action and do a true independent evaluation of this project. And if the numbers and capability of the machine are as far away from the selection criteria as it now appears, then time for a re-bid.
And should they lose, that well known helicopter manufacturer, Lockheed, should be made to return every single cent of taxpayer money they have gleaned so far!
And should they lose, that well known helicopter manufacturer, Lockheed, should be made to return every single cent of taxpayer money they have gleaned so far!
Cyclic,
The sad thing is the DOD contracting system is so complex it would take a proveable act of fraud and/or conspiracy between Lockheed and the Navy Contracting Officers before there is any chance of recovery of funds paid.
When the Contracting Officer signs off on the contract, even though they are buying a pig in a poke, it becomes a binding contract.
Then add the concept of "For the convenience of the government" issues....there is a huge barrier to get over before punitive action can be taken.
Please to remember President Dwight Eisenhower's warnings about the relationship of the Department of Defense and Defense Contractors.
He was too right in his warning.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html
The sad thing is the DOD contracting system is so complex it would take a proveable act of fraud and/or conspiracy between Lockheed and the Navy Contracting Officers before there is any chance of recovery of funds paid.
When the Contracting Officer signs off on the contract, even though they are buying a pig in a poke, it becomes a binding contract.
Then add the concept of "For the convenience of the government" issues....there is a huge barrier to get over before punitive action can be taken.
Please to remember President Dwight Eisenhower's warnings about the relationship of the Department of Defense and Defense Contractors.
He was too right in his warning.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst3...ts/indust.html
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has taken an interesting direction.
Two highly advanced helicopters compete for a very lucrative contract. Each has their advantages over the other. I'm not going to try to list them, but the EH101 side could probably use a bit of publicity right now.
The contract happens under careful legal scrutiny with a precedence of lawsuits in such dealings. The EH101 was chosen.
Now the cost is going up. Is it because EH101 is a bad helicopter? no. Is it because EHI or AW are a bad company? no. The thing is, the company has to deliver what was in the contract. If they don't there wouldn't be a cost to the taxpayer.
This sounds like so many projects in the past where what was wanted was not clearly stated.
If you're upset about the cost overruns, don't try to label the EH101 as a bad helicopter because some areas of a very high quality contender are better. Instead, aim your anger at the contracting process that purchased something which couldn't do the job.
Interestingly, there was some knowledge about the performance capabilities early on, hence the planned increments. Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.
I'm not now or have ever been affiliated with AW, Sikorski, USN, etc. Yes, I am a fan of the EH101, but I'm also a fan of the S92.
Two highly advanced helicopters compete for a very lucrative contract. Each has their advantages over the other. I'm not going to try to list them, but the EH101 side could probably use a bit of publicity right now.
The contract happens under careful legal scrutiny with a precedence of lawsuits in such dealings. The EH101 was chosen.
Now the cost is going up. Is it because EH101 is a bad helicopter? no. Is it because EHI or AW are a bad company? no. The thing is, the company has to deliver what was in the contract. If they don't there wouldn't be a cost to the taxpayer.
This sounds like so many projects in the past where what was wanted was not clearly stated.
If you're upset about the cost overruns, don't try to label the EH101 as a bad helicopter because some areas of a very high quality contender are better. Instead, aim your anger at the contracting process that purchased something which couldn't do the job.
Interestingly, there was some knowledge about the performance capabilities early on, hence the planned increments. Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.
I'm not now or have ever been affiliated with AW, Sikorski, USN, etc. Yes, I am a fan of the EH101, but I'm also a fan of the S92.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies from a fixed wing person jumping in here..
I have experience with selecting and purchasing commercial airliners. If i selected an aircraft that immediately required a "rebuild" after the selection, I would expect to get fired!
Why doesnt that happen in this case?
Mutt
I have experience with selecting and purchasing commercial airliners. If i selected an aircraft that immediately required a "rebuild" after the selection, I would expect to get fired!
Why doesnt that happen in this case?
Mutt
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well this thread is going as well as we might expect.....
more innuendo, spin, outright untruths, spin, incorrect analysis, axes being ground, spin, bad losing and bulls@@t from the normal suspects.
The implication that inc 1 is being replaced by inc 2 due to specification short fall is a lie, as is the statement about HIGE capability, but lets not get the truth in the way of sour grapes.
The project always assumed that the initial buy aircraft (whatever the winner) would not meet the full spec mision and that a reworked design (increment2 ) would be evolved to fully meet the desired mission (for obvious reasons the mission requiements are not in the public domain).
Matt Parsons post is the most sensible one here but it also requires a clarification 'Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.' the answers werent wrong, it's just that the aircraft design agreed at contract isnt what it is now(specification creep) and so those answers are no longer relevant.
From all the reports so far the USMC and GAO are not unhappy (unless I missed something), Nicks prediction is about as realistic as thinking the canadians are going to can the Cyclone and order the 101 because its capability is behind schedule.
Some months ago Nick offered to prove his point to me on this forum regarding 92 vs 101 capability, we are still waiting.....
Waspy77s analysis proves the 101 superiority (as well as any other analysis proves otherwise!)
Finally
It depresses me that statements from one person are taken as gospel and that anything said in contradiction is a myth, we all know Nicks history and I am not trying to belittle his time at Sikorky but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed and please remember that there are other constructors outside the USA (to our colonial friends, really there are!!) who might know more than the mighty Sikorsky does, after all this is a RUMOUR network.
DM
The implication that inc 1 is being replaced by inc 2 due to specification short fall is a lie, as is the statement about HIGE capability, but lets not get the truth in the way of sour grapes.
The project always assumed that the initial buy aircraft (whatever the winner) would not meet the full spec mision and that a reworked design (increment2 ) would be evolved to fully meet the desired mission (for obvious reasons the mission requiements are not in the public domain).
Matt Parsons post is the most sensible one here but it also requires a clarification 'Very curious as to why a performance study on the increment I was completed, but got such very wrong answers.' the answers werent wrong, it's just that the aircraft design agreed at contract isnt what it is now(specification creep) and so those answers are no longer relevant.
From all the reports so far the USMC and GAO are not unhappy (unless I missed something), Nicks prediction is about as realistic as thinking the canadians are going to can the Cyclone and order the 101 because its capability is behind schedule.
Some months ago Nick offered to prove his point to me on this forum regarding 92 vs 101 capability, we are still waiting.....
Waspy77s analysis proves the 101 superiority (as well as any other analysis proves otherwise!)
Finally
It depresses me that statements from one person are taken as gospel and that anything said in contradiction is a myth, we all know Nicks history and I am not trying to belittle his time at Sikorky but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed and please remember that there are other constructors outside the USA (to our colonial friends, really there are!!) who might know more than the mighty Sikorsky does, after all this is a RUMOUR network.
DM
t depresses me that statements from one person are taken as gospel and that anything said in contradiction is a myth, we all know Nicks history and I am not trying to belittle his time at Sikorky but a cynic might say he jumped before he was pushed and please remember that there are other constructors outside the USA (to our colonial friends, really there are!!) who might know more than the mighty Sikorsky does, after all this is a RUMOUR network.
DM
DM
Being a cynic of sorts, I guess one might consider working at one place for 30 years and retiring with a damned nice pension and numerous patents, published professional papers, and moving up to a VP slot for a major aerospace corporation as leaving just in front of a polished Florsheim wingtipped shoe.....however as cynical as I am....I am not that stupid or crass.
