Marine One Woes
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 340
Likes: 1
From: KPHL
Nick,
I completely agree that using existing helicopters would be the only pertinent comparison. My poorly worded point was that the H92 versus the EH101 comparison starts with a 20 year technology gap. Not necessarily huge, but large enough that I'm convinced the deltas come from there.
I have no doubt that your numbers are as accurate as they can be with the information you have available. I also think that those who really understand this stuff shouldn't be surprised that 20 years of technology provides performance improvements. That's why R&D budgets still exist!
However, there is some relevance to the evened playing field exercise because the EH101 should be able to have the 20 years of technology added to the design whereas the H92 can't (at least not for another 20 years). Of course, the cost to this can be an issue. I'm definitely no expert in this contract, but it seems like the development costs are included in what AW had bid. Can anyone confirm?
When that comparison is done, my predictions are that the H92 will still have a slight advantage when moving fast. Why? Because the increased cabin volume of the EH101 will come with a weight and drag penalty, the increased weight of engine and transmission due to the third engine will penalize at the same time that the redundancy improves an aspect of safety. When moving slower I predict the EH101 would have the advantage because of the additional horses and the reduced disk loading. I know, pretty broad assumptions, but I'll buy you a beer if I'm wrong.
_________
Trying to keep this on thread, whether we compare future derivatives or existing aircraft the delays and increased costs really don't appear to be a helicopter issue. Perhaps the root of this thread belongs over on the Professional Politicians RUmour NEtwork?
I completely agree that using existing helicopters would be the only pertinent comparison. My poorly worded point was that the H92 versus the EH101 comparison starts with a 20 year technology gap. Not necessarily huge, but large enough that I'm convinced the deltas come from there.
I have no doubt that your numbers are as accurate as they can be with the information you have available. I also think that those who really understand this stuff shouldn't be surprised that 20 years of technology provides performance improvements. That's why R&D budgets still exist!
However, there is some relevance to the evened playing field exercise because the EH101 should be able to have the 20 years of technology added to the design whereas the H92 can't (at least not for another 20 years). Of course, the cost to this can be an issue. I'm definitely no expert in this contract, but it seems like the development costs are included in what AW had bid. Can anyone confirm?
When that comparison is done, my predictions are that the H92 will still have a slight advantage when moving fast. Why? Because the increased cabin volume of the EH101 will come with a weight and drag penalty, the increased weight of engine and transmission due to the third engine will penalize at the same time that the redundancy improves an aspect of safety. When moving slower I predict the EH101 would have the advantage because of the additional horses and the reduced disk loading. I know, pretty broad assumptions, but I'll buy you a beer if I'm wrong.
_________
Trying to keep this on thread, whether we compare future derivatives or existing aircraft the delays and increased costs really don't appear to be a helicopter issue. Perhaps the root of this thread belongs over on the Professional Politicians RUmour NEtwork?
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
From: The Woodlands, Texas
I've not known brother Lappos to brag in the past, especially when it comes to aircraft data. However, there was a time at the Jupitur Hilton bar 27 years ago....
THe EH101 is a political pick and nothing more. It is not fit for purpose. The 92 is fit for purpose and meets all Part 29 amendments through 47. End of story. The Bush Administration failed to do the right thing in this selection process, and is an embarrassment.
THe EH101 is a political pick and nothing more. It is not fit for purpose. The 92 is fit for purpose and meets all Part 29 amendments through 47. End of story. The Bush Administration failed to do the right thing in this selection process, and is an embarrassment.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
BIT said:
Nick's101 data is not applicable to VH71 which has the latest CT7-8E engines which I understand are similar to the S92 engine. Therefore the payload range figures are wrong.
True enough, the data I presented was for EH-101
There are 15600Kg 101s flying with operators today. If VH71 is the same weight how come it will not HIGE?
Because the Marine mission is at 3000 ft and 91 degrees, and at that height, even with the 8E engines, the VH-71 falls short, thus its "manufacturer" Lockheed has recommended dropping its construction and skipping right to the Increment II configuration (VH-71B?), with new ,aomn and tail blades, 5 foot larger radius, new heads, transmissions, and the new, stronger fuselage.
Well done USN on buying something that has proven capability. If you beef it up to make is stronger so be it. But if its still a 15600Kg heli it clearly will fly - nice one.
The USN bought a helo that cannot do the job, but they are paying to have a totally new design that will probably do so. The original plan was to have an EH-101 in 2008 that would carry the President, and that part of the program failed (by Lockheed's admission).
Nick's101 data is not applicable to VH71 which has the latest CT7-8E engines which I understand are similar to the S92 engine. Therefore the payload range figures are wrong.
True enough, the data I presented was for EH-101
There are 15600Kg 101s flying with operators today. If VH71 is the same weight how come it will not HIGE?
Because the Marine mission is at 3000 ft and 91 degrees, and at that height, even with the 8E engines, the VH-71 falls short, thus its "manufacturer" Lockheed has recommended dropping its construction and skipping right to the Increment II configuration (VH-71B?), with new ,aomn and tail blades, 5 foot larger radius, new heads, transmissions, and the new, stronger fuselage.
Well done USN on buying something that has proven capability. If you beef it up to make is stronger so be it. But if its still a 15600Kg heli it clearly will fly - nice one.
The USN bought a helo that cannot do the job, but they are paying to have a totally new design that will probably do so. The original plan was to have an EH-101 in 2008 that would carry the President, and that part of the program failed (by Lockheed's admission).
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 912
Likes: 1
From: UK
Sorry...but the fact remains that the S-92 cabin was not large enough for the mission and therfore would also have needed stretching etc ...in fact I recall that Sikorsky tried to add a bit on to the rear ramp area to boost the internal space...not enough though as it turned out .
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 290
Likes: 7
From: Somerset
my final words on this
To start with Thanks to Nick for the kind words, I never said I thought the 101 meets the Mil specs, I know in service variants don't, however all VH71 aircraft (inc1 or 2 ) will have a 20/20/10 structure from build, therefore I guess I should have said the VH71 is as safe as the S92.
Unfortunately the assertion that the increase in structural weight is 'thousands' of pounds is not correct. It is true the main frames and floor have been strengthened but just by looking at the airframes you would be hard pushed to tell. The redesign is not mythical to me, I know what has changed, I know the weight impact. Does anyone else here?
Contrary to some views the VH71A will meets its performance requirements, it has been stated here that it won't, I can state that it will hover at mission weight at the target altitude, the EH101 with the normal blades and CT7-8Es has done better than that already (believe me or not, I can't make you). Unless someone here has access to the AW flight test data the true capability of the aircraft is not known.
It is this constant unsubstantiated promulgation of incorrect information that is the problem with this thread. I draw your attention the original source of my annoyance 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. This purports to be an absolute statement of fact, there are no caveats or boundaries to the statement, and is (and remains) completely incorrect. It was for this reason I got 'personal'. A person of Nicks standing in this community should not need to issue broad brush unsubstantiated statements that are so wrong any credibility is lost and the poster leaves himself open to ridicule. It is however comforting to see that Nick has now begun to caveat his views to make them more objective (ie stating an alt/temp associated with his analysis).
BTW the crash test case would be a mandatory requirement for any aircraft for this mission, along with battle danage tolerance, HIRF etc, it has not just been called up because of the redesign, remember the specification took no credit for previous certification so even the S92 would have had to go through this.
I think this thread has run its course, so far no one in the US procurement team (including Dr Etter) has said LM or its subcontractors are at fault, so was this really a story at all...... Spec changes cost, end of story
DM
(going away for the weekend so no posts until tuesday)
Unfortunately the assertion that the increase in structural weight is 'thousands' of pounds is not correct. It is true the main frames and floor have been strengthened but just by looking at the airframes you would be hard pushed to tell. The redesign is not mythical to me, I know what has changed, I know the weight impact. Does anyone else here?
Contrary to some views the VH71A will meets its performance requirements, it has been stated here that it won't, I can state that it will hover at mission weight at the target altitude, the EH101 with the normal blades and CT7-8Es has done better than that already (believe me or not, I can't make you). Unless someone here has access to the AW flight test data the true capability of the aircraft is not known.
It is this constant unsubstantiated promulgation of incorrect information that is the problem with this thread. I draw your attention the original source of my annoyance 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. This purports to be an absolute statement of fact, there are no caveats or boundaries to the statement, and is (and remains) completely incorrect. It was for this reason I got 'personal'. A person of Nicks standing in this community should not need to issue broad brush unsubstantiated statements that are so wrong any credibility is lost and the poster leaves himself open to ridicule. It is however comforting to see that Nick has now begun to caveat his views to make them more objective (ie stating an alt/temp associated with his analysis).
BTW the crash test case would be a mandatory requirement for any aircraft for this mission, along with battle danage tolerance, HIRF etc, it has not just been called up because of the redesign, remember the specification took no credit for previous certification so even the S92 would have had to go through this.
I think this thread has run its course, so far no one in the US procurement team (including Dr Etter) has said LM or its subcontractors are at fault, so was this really a story at all...... Spec changes cost, end of story
DM
(going away for the weekend so no posts until tuesday)
Last edited by dangermouse; 25th May 2007 at 13:04. Reason: italics added
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: Western MA
From what I can take from all this; The US is buying a helo that all of a sudden didn't meet it's spec for carrying the President. Therefore, the US will now pay to have the helo re-bladed, stretched, re-engined, new rotor(s) and all at taxpayer expense? This all seems bizarre! Is it payback to England/Westland for their support of the war? Does this travesty/fiasco approach Bell's inability to replace the H-46 & H-53D with that "Flying Pork Rind" designated as the V-22? I don't mind saying that it OBVIOUSLY looks like Sikorsky is the ONLY manufacturer out there that can build an excellent airframe right from the getgo! Sorry chaps.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
From: New York City
The US Postal Service just announced two new stamps featuring the Presidential aircraft.
The $16.25 Express Mail stamp honors the Sikorsky VH-3D Marine One.
It's based on a painting by aviation artist William S. Phillips showing Marine One flying by the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial and goes on sale next month.
The $16.25 Express Mail stamp honors the Sikorsky VH-3D Marine One.
It's based on a painting by aviation artist William S. Phillips showing Marine One flying by the U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial and goes on sale next month.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: UK
"From what I can take from all this; The US is buying a helo that all of a sudden didn't meet it's spec for carrying the President. Therefore, the US will now pay to have the helo re-bladed, stretched, re-engined, new rotor(s) and all at taxpayer expense?"
I don't take that at all.
Delays due to system integration complexity, an increase in the required capability of the Increment 2 aircraft, an increase in cost because it is now cheaper to build 5 new Increment 2 airframes than re-engineer the 5 Increment 1 airframes. All these I have read about.
At the time of the VXX announcement, Navy assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition John Young said both the US101 and VH-92 would need rotor and drivetrain improvements to meet VXX Increment II requirements. - AHS International
So neither of the base aircraft could meet the Increment 2 requirements.
I don't take that at all.
Delays due to system integration complexity, an increase in the required capability of the Increment 2 aircraft, an increase in cost because it is now cheaper to build 5 new Increment 2 airframes than re-engineer the 5 Increment 1 airframes. All these I have read about.
At the time of the VXX announcement, Navy assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition John Young said both the US101 and VH-92 would need rotor and drivetrain improvements to meet VXX Increment II requirements. - AHS International
So neither of the base aircraft could meet the Increment 2 requirements.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
waspy, you are right - the original contract was for TWO helos, the first ones (5 total) were to land on the WH lawn in 2008, and were modified just a bit (same rotors and such, new comms and other protection gear). They didnt have to met the more stringent Increment II criteria, which are very very challenging. The Increment I had to meet basic marine hot performance.
In Dec 2003, the formal criteria were lowered to allow the EH to hover IGE because the Increment I EH would not hover OGE (I recall precisely when the criteria were watered down, and our surprise since we didnt ask for it, because we were OK in hover perf.) In a competition, you track every nuance, sort of like playing battleship to guess where your opponant is weak, and where you are weak. The reduction to HIGE Increment I was allowed precisely when the cabin width popped up as a new requirement, even though the deficiencies of the last generation VH never mentioned cabin width at all. We surmised then that the playing field was being leveled by the White House, and the EH perf was marginal, so they invented a new criteria that was clearly an EH attribute (the EH is 17" wider than the H-92). These new criteria appeared 1 week after the Navy team briefed the White House staff on the status of the competition.
When the winner was announced, the Navy said that the performance of the H-92 was "purple" which means outstanding, and the cabin comfort was "green" which means satisfactory. The EH performance was green and its cabin comfort was purple (I am sure of these ratings, I slept for months with them floating before my eyes.) The win was based on the Navy deciding that the EH could be made ready for increment I 5 months faster than the H-92. THAT is why the Sikorsky guys are flooding my email box with notes, since the LM team was given a year more many months back, and now they want to punt the Increment I.
In Dec 2003, the formal criteria were lowered to allow the EH to hover IGE because the Increment I EH would not hover OGE (I recall precisely when the criteria were watered down, and our surprise since we didnt ask for it, because we were OK in hover perf.) In a competition, you track every nuance, sort of like playing battleship to guess where your opponant is weak, and where you are weak. The reduction to HIGE Increment I was allowed precisely when the cabin width popped up as a new requirement, even though the deficiencies of the last generation VH never mentioned cabin width at all. We surmised then that the playing field was being leveled by the White House, and the EH perf was marginal, so they invented a new criteria that was clearly an EH attribute (the EH is 17" wider than the H-92). These new criteria appeared 1 week after the Navy team briefed the White House staff on the status of the competition.
When the winner was announced, the Navy said that the performance of the H-92 was "purple" which means outstanding, and the cabin comfort was "green" which means satisfactory. The EH performance was green and its cabin comfort was purple (I am sure of these ratings, I slept for months with them floating before my eyes.) The win was based on the Navy deciding that the EH could be made ready for increment I 5 months faster than the H-92. THAT is why the Sikorsky guys are flooding my email box with notes, since the LM team was given a year more many months back, and now they want to punt the Increment I.
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
Likes: 7
From: states
Looks like the folks at Sikorsky now know how Stanley felt..
OH-5
In 1961, twelve companies submitted proposals to meet U.S.Army requirements for a four-seat turbine-powered light observation helicopter. After evaluation, three designs were selected and 5 of each: the Bell OH-4A; the Hiller OH-5 and the Hughes OH-6, were ordered for trials by the U.S.Army Aviation Board. The Hiller OH-5 was designed as a light observation helicopter for the Army, but it lost the competition. Stung by the loss of the OH-5 contract, however, which Hiller felt had been stolen by Hughes, Hiller Aircraft refused to bid on the next Army contract. This resulted in Bell winning the OH-58, and the virtual end of Hiller helicopters when production ended in 1973.
OH-5
In 1961, twelve companies submitted proposals to meet U.S.Army requirements for a four-seat turbine-powered light observation helicopter. After evaluation, three designs were selected and 5 of each: the Bell OH-4A; the Hiller OH-5 and the Hughes OH-6, were ordered for trials by the U.S.Army Aviation Board. The Hiller OH-5 was designed as a light observation helicopter for the Army, but it lost the competition. Stung by the loss of the OH-5 contract, however, which Hiller felt had been stolen by Hughes, Hiller Aircraft refused to bid on the next Army contract. This resulted in Bell winning the OH-58, and the virtual end of Hiller helicopters when production ended in 1973.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: UK
I am sure of these ratings, I slept for months with them floating before my eyes
"Doctor doctor I keep seeing purple and green spots."
"Have you seen an optician?"
"No, just purple and green spots!"
Sorry, schoolboy humour
Now back to the plot ...
When I set out to buy something like a car or PC, first I decide what I would like, then I go to the market place and see what is out there. I then modify my wish list based on what I've seen and what money I have. I then "haggle" with a selected merchant to get as much as I can for as little money as possibe. I don't believe that the aerospace business is any different.
I value your sharing your knowledge of the competition as it puts discussion in context. In my opionion though, you probably have little detailed information about the specification that exists now or the VH-71 that has come about as the result of the "haggling" phase. I take the statement below at face value
Delivery of the first aircraft was to take place by October 2009. It now appears that delivery may not come until February 2010. ... The Navy cited systems integration difficulties as the cause of the delay. “It’s just a very tough thing to integrate all those systems and get them all talking to each other,” one Navy official said. - Rotor & Wing
Therefore we cannot predict how much difficulty the Sikorsky team would have had facing the same challenges. I guess that cabin size was a real issue for this competition.
"Doctor doctor I keep seeing purple and green spots."
"Have you seen an optician?"
"No, just purple and green spots!"
Sorry, schoolboy humour
Now back to the plot ...When I set out to buy something like a car or PC, first I decide what I would like, then I go to the market place and see what is out there. I then modify my wish list based on what I've seen and what money I have. I then "haggle" with a selected merchant to get as much as I can for as little money as possibe. I don't believe that the aerospace business is any different.
I value your sharing your knowledge of the competition as it puts discussion in context. In my opionion though, you probably have little detailed information about the specification that exists now or the VH-71 that has come about as the result of the "haggling" phase. I take the statement below at face value
Delivery of the first aircraft was to take place by October 2009. It now appears that delivery may not come until February 2010. ... The Navy cited systems integration difficulties as the cause of the delay. “It’s just a very tough thing to integrate all those systems and get them all talking to each other,” one Navy official said. - Rotor & Wing
Therefore we cannot predict how much difficulty the Sikorsky team would have had facing the same challenges. I guess that cabin size was a real issue for this competition.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying Lawyer
Possibly. But seeing as it is designed by Lockheed in Owego (not Lockheed UK IS) and built by Bell I don't see where Britain comes into the equation. Didn't they tell Tony that just a couple of blokes from Havant would be involved.
It's possible it was just a coincidence that such a valuable/high profile American contact was awarded to AgustaWestland rather than Sikorsky just after our Prime Minister not only took us into President Bush's war on Iraq but scampered around the world encouraging other world leaders to join in.
Anything is possible.
Anything is possible.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: Western MA
Had the 92 been as wide as the 101, I wonder if this thread would exist. "System Integration problems" is a joke for an excuse and I'll bet today's newly designed 101 presentation date slips further. This airframe and program sounds more and more like the "Flying Pork Rind (V-22)" saga.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
From: 400ft
Tony doesn't do details, he's daft enough to wonder why he was being told only a couple of people from Havant would be involved, probably wondered where that was and just assumed it meant that most of the work would be in UK and just a couple of people from US would be involved.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: UK
Dan Reno
"System Integration problems" is a joke for an excuse
Do you honestly believe that LM just popped down to RS and picked up a GPS by Garmin, and a couple of suitable mobile phones?
I would imagine that Marine One would demand the most sophisticated communication, navigation and survivability suite that technology can manage to cram into an airframe ... perhaps if S92 was a little bit larger ... hmmmm
"System Integration problems" is a joke for an excuse
Do you honestly believe that LM just popped down to RS and picked up a GPS by Garmin, and a couple of suitable mobile phones?
I would imagine that Marine One would demand the most sophisticated communication, navigation and survivability suite that technology can manage to cram into an airframe ... perhaps if S92 was a little bit larger ... hmmmm
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: Western MA
The comm, nav & security suites already exist for the presidents helos and 747 so it's really just a matter of where to place the big chunks inside. The only "system integration" problems would be for anti-missle and detection due to ensuring the "bubble" around the entire aircraft is covered. Since the "final design" is still on the drawing board, it would be a chore placing all the external bits and pieces and would account for need of some extra time but who wants to tell Hillary that?
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
Dan is right, in fact, we INSTALLED the Air Force 1 comm system in our demonstrator aircraft, our partner, L3 Communications, pulled it from its test bench. We treated officials to video conferencing via satellite while airborne, using the future AF #1 software. The system worked flawlessly, it was the first satellite tracking antenna installed on a helicopter, I think.
Remember, LM chose to INVENT an entirely new cockpit for their EH-101, they scrapped everything that was in production, including all comms, navs, defensive suite and VVIP comm system for their bid. The Sikorsky bid used all EXISTING, INTEGRATED systems, off the shelf. The term "integration" is a useful tool to bury a lot of mistakes.
Remember, LM chose to INVENT an entirely new cockpit for their EH-101, they scrapped everything that was in production, including all comms, navs, defensive suite and VVIP comm system for their bid. The Sikorsky bid used all EXISTING, INTEGRATED systems, off the shelf. The term "integration" is a useful tool to bury a lot of mistakes.