Marine One Woes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
The original contract had two sections, the second was a total redesign of either vehicle to make the new transport - both aircraft had major systems redone - fuselage, rotors transmissions. In effect, the second increment was always to be a total redesign.
The primary goal of increment I was to land on the white house lawn (thus be fully mission capable to an increment I standard, far short of increment II performance) in 2008.
In this, the EH-101 has failed miserably, due to the extensive redesign it needed to be suitable for Presidential transport - primarily the fuselage redesign to meet modern safety standards, but also clearly due to LM's inability to make the systems all talk together. Latest estimates have the Increment I VH-91 at least 2 years late.
The Navy people who ought to know have repeatedly said the requirements have not changed from the first day of the contract. Having seen and lived with those requirements, and having directed the VH-3 and VH-60 projects (as supervisor of a very talented program manager for those programs) I can assure you the requirements are tough, but clearly achievable.
The original contract had two sections, the second was a total redesign of either vehicle to make the new transport - both aircraft had major systems redone - fuselage, rotors transmissions. In effect, the second increment was always to be a total redesign.
The primary goal of increment I was to land on the white house lawn (thus be fully mission capable to an increment I standard, far short of increment II performance) in 2008.
In this, the EH-101 has failed miserably, due to the extensive redesign it needed to be suitable for Presidential transport - primarily the fuselage redesign to meet modern safety standards, but also clearly due to LM's inability to make the systems all talk together. Latest estimates have the Increment I VH-91 at least 2 years late.
The Navy people who ought to know have repeatedly said the requirements have not changed from the first day of the contract. Having seen and lived with those requirements, and having directed the VH-3 and VH-60 projects (as supervisor of a very talented program manager for those programs) I can assure you the requirements are tough, but clearly achievable.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick's Talking Complete B@ll@cks
I draw your attention to the secretary of the Navys announcement in Jan 2005 when the win was announced
Both teams met the requirements laid down by trhe Navy, Young said. But both had had substantial trouble meeting earlier scedules as they struggled with convincing the Navy they could meet the timetable requirement of an October 2009 entry into service for an intial version of the aircraft.
There has never been a statement that that date will be missed (let alone by 2 years!) unless it was in Nicks fevered imagination
come on moderators, how long must this go on for?
DM
Both teams met the requirements laid down by trhe Navy, Young said. But both had had substantial trouble meeting earlier scedules as they struggled with convincing the Navy they could meet the timetable requirement of an October 2009 entry into service for an intial version of the aircraft.
There has never been a statement that that date will be missed (let alone by 2 years!) unless it was in Nicks fevered imagination
come on moderators, how long must this go on for?
DM
Last edited by dangermouse; 31st May 2007 at 11:21. Reason: typo removed
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"There has never been a statement that that date will be missed (let alone by 2 years!) unless it was in Nicks fevered imagination come on moderators, how long must this go on for?"
Crying to the moderators to end this thread or insulting Nick won't help. Untill the truth is understood on anything, there will alwys be inquiry and dialogue......at least in non-socialist countries.
Crying to the moderators to end this thread or insulting Nick won't help. Untill the truth is understood on anything, there will alwys be inquiry and dialogue......at least in non-socialist countries.
Last edited by Dan Reno; 31st May 2007 at 13:34.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM, I sense frustration showing, but Dan Reno is right, silence is not the answer.
The Navy have stated that no "program requirements" have changed. I suspect equipment specification may have ...
As for fuselage re-design - the requirements have always been in the open, Nick himself has said that he let it be known. So surely this must have been considered as part of the program no surprises to anyone.
If this is the case, then we won't see a VH-71A airframe flying before the middle of 2008.
Statement before the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on FY 2007 Navy And Marine Corps Major Rotorcraft Programs March 9, 2006
The VH-71 Program was accelerated as a result of the White House Chief of Staff memorandum to the Secretary of Defense dated November 26, 2002. This memo expressed the need for an accelerated replacement schedule for the VH-3D due to the post 9-11 national security environment. The VXX ORD was approved by the JROC December 16, 2003. Based on current aircraft age and fatigue life limits, the decision to also replace the VH-60N aircraft with the VXX was validated by the JROC and endorsed by the WHMO. The IOC date was established as October 2009. IOC will be achieved upon delivery of four of the Increment 1 (Pilot Production) aircraft. Full Operational Capability is projected for FY 2015, once all the Increment 2 aircraft have been delivered. The total VH-71A procurement quantity is 26 aircraft (23 operational, three test article).
The Navy have stated that no "program requirements" have changed. I suspect equipment specification may have ...
Lexington Institute defense analyst Loren Thompson, who provides consulting services to Lockheed Martin and other firms, said Lockheed Martin was surprised by the magnitude of the Navy's changes - more than 1,900 in total.
One former helicopter industry executive speculates that the redesign will require heavier frames throughout the US101 structure, and a new round of ground testing before the first presidential helicopter flies. Based on the helicopter industry’s track record, that process could take three years or more.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: biggleswade
Age: 55
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Political Decision?
Hi Guys
I have read with interest and amusement the heated discussion. Although it has been a long time since I was involved, in a small way, with the 101 programme, there was something that has been swimming around in the back of my head. I think there was a link between the Marine one deal and, either, the choice of RAF Future Tanker or Future Large Aircraft. Both of which had options of either European or US origins.
Summary: It was a case of "if you buy mine, I'll buy yours". Comments and criticisms welcome - and I won't go off on one, unlike some, if you are critical.
I have read with interest and amusement the heated discussion. Although it has been a long time since I was involved, in a small way, with the 101 programme, there was something that has been swimming around in the back of my head. I think there was a link between the Marine one deal and, either, the choice of RAF Future Tanker or Future Large Aircraft. Both of which had options of either European or US origins.
Summary: It was a case of "if you buy mine, I'll buy yours". Comments and criticisms welcome - and I won't go off on one, unlike some, if you are critical.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a previous post I made a statement regarding engaging brain before typing. I have since then examined this thread in great detail and in particular focused on the comments made by Nick Lappos purely because of the influence his comments appear to have. I have not met or know Nick Lappos. However, in my opinion, if you are going to make bold statements they should be supportable by bold facts that are hard to undermine.
So, armed with google and other search engines I have looked into many of Nick’s bold claims.
LAPPOS: Most of the weight growth is due to the need to completely redesign the fuselage, because the EH-101 simply falls far short of US military crashworthiness.
How does Nick know exactly what the weight growth is? Anyone who knows, even as a % just how much heavier a NAVY compliant 101 airframe is when compared to a “normal “ 101 please advise? It just doesn’t seem rational (to me) that to go from 101 to navy compliance would result in much more than approx 500lbs on a 32000lb airframe but that is a personal guess/estimate/approximation that is probably wrong.
LAPPOS: 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.
Once again, how can Nick know his information regarding the level of fuselage re-design? He MUST have contacts in AW/Lockheed to make such a statement OR his statements are NOT founded on facts. NB Later posts suggest that the aircraft can HIGE already at mission weights.
LAPPOS: The data is published for each, and those who are condemned to the "counting engines" school of helicopter performance are likely to end up vastly disappointed when they look at the data.
LAPPOS: The EH-101 brochure was downloaded from their web site in 2004, and was current then, the H-92 brochure I had made while I was Program Manager and you were on the crapper, in late 2003. It carries a date of July 2004 on the copy I have.
LAPPOS: For the record, both aircraft are equipped with today's engines, the CT7-6A for 101 and the CT7-8A for the H-92.
The VH71 has CT7-8E engines. There is lots of Cormorant data but I cant find any CT7-8E equipped EH101 data published, perhaps because IT DOESN’T EXIST as the aircraft hasn’t finished its performance testing yet or it hasn’t been published?
LAPPOS: thanks for the steer toward the brochures with the -8E engine, that is certainly a way for the EH-101 to then gain advantage over the H-92. Please be reminded that the funds to install and qualify that engine came from the US Navy, as part of the Presidential program,
AW were flying a CT7-8E equipped EH101 BEFORE they won the presidential contract so how can that be NAVY money that sponsored the original installation.
LAPPOS: The statement i s absolutely correct, the BERP blades on the EH-101 are 1980 technology, and produce less lift that modern blades, for the same power. This is provable, and not subject to any orders from the Crown.
The latest BERP4 benefits are in this weeks FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL. If you seriously consider advanced aeroelastic tailoring as 1980s technology then I admit to surprise. ( and please don’t just say Sikorsky were doing it then)!
LAPPOS Yes, the VH-91 (assume he means VH71) will have far better blades than BERP, and a far better cockpit than the CRT's, because the US taxpayer will have paid not just for the blades and gauges, but for the engineering and science that developed and produced them
AW have been flying AMLCD 101 cockpits for years before the 101 contract award.
Call them BURP Beer, DM, the blades on the VH-71 (both sets, the small ones that fit on toda's EH and the big ones that will be specially built for the VH-71 Increment II) will be paid for by the US taxpayer.
It was joint MOD and AW money REF FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
So, my rather brief research has undermined many of the bold statements made by Nick. If my research is wrong then sorry. I am not saying that I am correct, or that I just know as I don’t.
I just don’t like anybody making rash statements in any forum where what they say is taken as fact when in fact its just a rumor.
My lesson to myself is to remember this is a rumor network and to get out more…and I commend those comments to all reading this.
So, armed with google and other search engines I have looked into many of Nick’s bold claims.
LAPPOS: Most of the weight growth is due to the need to completely redesign the fuselage, because the EH-101 simply falls far short of US military crashworthiness.
How does Nick know exactly what the weight growth is? Anyone who knows, even as a % just how much heavier a NAVY compliant 101 airframe is when compared to a “normal “ 101 please advise? It just doesn’t seem rational (to me) that to go from 101 to navy compliance would result in much more than approx 500lbs on a 32000lb airframe but that is a personal guess/estimate/approximation that is probably wrong.
LAPPOS: 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.
Once again, how can Nick know his information regarding the level of fuselage re-design? He MUST have contacts in AW/Lockheed to make such a statement OR his statements are NOT founded on facts. NB Later posts suggest that the aircraft can HIGE already at mission weights.
LAPPOS: The data is published for each, and those who are condemned to the "counting engines" school of helicopter performance are likely to end up vastly disappointed when they look at the data.
LAPPOS: The EH-101 brochure was downloaded from their web site in 2004, and was current then, the H-92 brochure I had made while I was Program Manager and you were on the crapper, in late 2003. It carries a date of July 2004 on the copy I have.
LAPPOS: For the record, both aircraft are equipped with today's engines, the CT7-6A for 101 and the CT7-8A for the H-92.
The VH71 has CT7-8E engines. There is lots of Cormorant data but I cant find any CT7-8E equipped EH101 data published, perhaps because IT DOESN’T EXIST as the aircraft hasn’t finished its performance testing yet or it hasn’t been published?
LAPPOS: thanks for the steer toward the brochures with the -8E engine, that is certainly a way for the EH-101 to then gain advantage over the H-92. Please be reminded that the funds to install and qualify that engine came from the US Navy, as part of the Presidential program,
AW were flying a CT7-8E equipped EH101 BEFORE they won the presidential contract so how can that be NAVY money that sponsored the original installation.
LAPPOS: The statement i s absolutely correct, the BERP blades on the EH-101 are 1980 technology, and produce less lift that modern blades, for the same power. This is provable, and not subject to any orders from the Crown.
The latest BERP4 benefits are in this weeks FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL. If you seriously consider advanced aeroelastic tailoring as 1980s technology then I admit to surprise. ( and please don’t just say Sikorsky were doing it then)!
LAPPOS Yes, the VH-91 (assume he means VH71) will have far better blades than BERP, and a far better cockpit than the CRT's, because the US taxpayer will have paid not just for the blades and gauges, but for the engineering and science that developed and produced them
AW have been flying AMLCD 101 cockpits for years before the 101 contract award.
Call them BURP Beer, DM, the blades on the VH-71 (both sets, the small ones that fit on toda's EH and the big ones that will be specially built for the VH-71 Increment II) will be paid for by the US taxpayer.
It was joint MOD and AW money REF FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL
So, my rather brief research has undermined many of the bold statements made by Nick. If my research is wrong then sorry. I am not saying that I am correct, or that I just know as I don’t.
I just don’t like anybody making rash statements in any forum where what they say is taken as fact when in fact its just a rumor.
My lesson to myself is to remember this is a rumor network and to get out more…and I commend those comments to all reading this.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...when exactly did Nick piss you off?
From (S-76 thread;6th September 2001):
"Nick, thanks very much for your detailed reply. I have done a tp course and have an appreciation of the theory you have discussed but having monitored your excellent posts (S92 etc)for a while I was really after specifics regarding the S76 which in retrospect I should not really have asked about here - sorry bout that
Please keep up the good work Bit"
...to your "survey" is quite a stretch!
and pretending you try to protect us people who are beeing influenced by Nick is quite a laugh! I can't speak for the rest of the 11,000+ viewers of this post, but I can clearly differentiate if somebody is (understandably) upset that not his baby of how many years has won the contract or not. Clearly he needs to defend his work (I would!) and yes, I'm also waiting for him to prove his saying.
Lets see... where are your facts?
Just armed with the "looking-at-your-recent-post" feature I can tell by briefly overlooking it, that you were mostly bitching about the S-92 vs. the EH101 - and thats OK with me! Just don't pretend you are doing everybody a favor and condemning some "rash statements" - funny enough starting with "...engage your brain..."!
Nicks responses are definately questionable (in their boldness) in this post but less agressive than most those from the "other side of the fence".
and last I wanna second your saying from back in 2001: Nick, please keep up the good work! I learned a lot!
"Nick, thanks very much for your detailed reply. I have done a tp course and have an appreciation of the theory you have discussed but having monitored your excellent posts (S92 etc)for a while I was really after specifics regarding the S76 which in retrospect I should not really have asked about here - sorry bout that
Please keep up the good work Bit"
...to your "survey" is quite a stretch!
and pretending you try to protect us people who are beeing influenced by Nick is quite a laugh! I can't speak for the rest of the 11,000+ viewers of this post, but I can clearly differentiate if somebody is (understandably) upset that not his baby of how many years has won the contract or not. Clearly he needs to defend his work (I would!) and yes, I'm also waiting for him to prove his saying.
Lets see... where are your facts?
Just armed with the "looking-at-your-recent-post" feature I can tell by briefly overlooking it, that you were mostly bitching about the S-92 vs. the EH101 - and thats OK with me! Just don't pretend you are doing everybody a favor and condemning some "rash statements" - funny enough starting with "...engage your brain..."!
Nicks responses are definately questionable (in their boldness) in this post but less agressive than most those from the "other side of the fence".
and last I wanna second your saying from back in 2001: Nick, please keep up the good work! I learned a lot!
"The primary goal of increment I was to land on the white house lawn."
A Merlin has already done it. AV-1, a bog-standard Mk 410 borrowed from the MMI. That's with the least powerful Merlin engines available so far, and with the original BERP blades.
And the RAF RTM engined birds seem to manage well in Iraq.....
A Merlin has already done it. AV-1, a bog-standard Mk 410 borrowed from the MMI. That's with the least powerful Merlin engines available so far, and with the original BERP blades.
And the RAF RTM engined birds seem to manage well in Iraq.....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way too much nationalistic testosterone in this thread for sanity!
In no particular order:
Jackonicko, I didn't mean a demo, I said and meant a fully qualified Presidential helo, not a sub-standard 1985 model British military demonstrator that needs a whole new fuselage before it can carry the President.
BIT, the weight growth has been documented at 1200 pounds no matter how long you hold your breath and threaten to turn blue. Regarding how much I know, rest assured, the guys in Owego and the guys in Arlington know the truth, and the industry is too small to keep the looming disaster secret. Regarding the Navy paying for the 8E, your foolish ignorance of the program is almost too pathetic to draw comment, but the 8E's were installed, tested, and qualified with Navy money prior to the contract, as "risk reduction". I know, because I spent the 75million on risk reduction as well. While you were doing what?
waspy, I know you mean well, but it does get frustrating... The proper schedule was to land on the WH lawn by Dec 2008, when the program was delayed by 10 months they also slipped the schedule 10 months until Oct 2009. The Sikorsky proposal kept the original schedule... And you quote Loren Thompson as if he is other than a paid shill for Lockheed. He has been on their payroll for at least a decade, his "Institute" receives most of its funding from LM! AND the AMLCD cockpit is not the cockpit of the VH-71. Search his name and see how many times he has ever mentioned a bad word about LM!
Gentlemen, have a ball, it is too late to give a damn!
In no particular order:
Jackonicko, I didn't mean a demo, I said and meant a fully qualified Presidential helo, not a sub-standard 1985 model British military demonstrator that needs a whole new fuselage before it can carry the President.
BIT, the weight growth has been documented at 1200 pounds no matter how long you hold your breath and threaten to turn blue. Regarding how much I know, rest assured, the guys in Owego and the guys in Arlington know the truth, and the industry is too small to keep the looming disaster secret. Regarding the Navy paying for the 8E, your foolish ignorance of the program is almost too pathetic to draw comment, but the 8E's were installed, tested, and qualified with Navy money prior to the contract, as "risk reduction". I know, because I spent the 75million on risk reduction as well. While you were doing what?
waspy, I know you mean well, but it does get frustrating... The proper schedule was to land on the WH lawn by Dec 2008, when the program was delayed by 10 months they also slipped the schedule 10 months until Oct 2009. The Sikorsky proposal kept the original schedule... And you quote Loren Thompson as if he is other than a paid shill for Lockheed. He has been on their payroll for at least a decade, his "Institute" receives most of its funding from LM! AND the AMLCD cockpit is not the cockpit of the VH-71. Search his name and see how many times he has ever mentioned a bad word about LM!
Gentlemen, have a ball, it is too late to give a damn!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article
http://news.morningstar.com/news/Vie...ml&Cat=Economy
http://news.morningstar.com/news/Vie...ml&Cat=Economy
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Navy now wants what amounts to an all-new helicopter for its next presidential transport, leading to a two-stage development process that is significantly more complicated - and perhaps more expensive - than expected
Navy officials told Dow Jones Newswires that the final fleet of 23 VH-71 helicopters will need new, longer rotor blades, new engines, a new transmission and a new tail so they can carry the president and a heavy electronics system over a 350-nautical-mile range. These helicopters will require an extensive battery of flight tests and design reviews, and it's not yet clear whether they can meet a 2015 goal for entering service.
But in the short run, the Navy also has high standards for an initial batch of five aircraft that are supposed to be ready by October 2009. These first helicopters will need to carry an ambitious avionics package over a 150- nautical-mile range. They also need a reworked tail rotor assembly, so the U.S. Navy can avoid the flight restrictions that Canada imposed on a fleet of similar helicopters because of recurring tail-rotor cracks.
Navy officials told Dow Jones Newswires that the final fleet of 23 VH-71 helicopters will need new, longer rotor blades, new engines, a new transmission and a new tail so they can carry the president and a heavy electronics system over a 350-nautical-mile range. These helicopters will require an extensive battery of flight tests and design reviews, and it's not yet clear whether they can meet a 2015 goal for entering service.
But in the short run, the Navy also has high standards for an initial batch of five aircraft that are supposed to be ready by October 2009. These first helicopters will need to carry an ambitious avionics package over a 150- nautical-mile range. They also need a reworked tail rotor assembly, so the U.S. Navy can avoid the flight restrictions that Canada imposed on a fleet of similar helicopters because of recurring tail-rotor cracks.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I am sorry you consider me foolish, ignorant and pathetic for questioning your statements. Who am I to question you? Just a Joe who would like to know the truth and not the spin of a bitter man.
I commend your last statement and suggest you abide by it.
Yours foolishly,
BIT
I am sorry you consider me foolish, ignorant and pathetic for questioning your statements. Who am I to question you? Just a Joe who would like to know the truth and not the spin of a bitter man.
I commend your last statement and suggest you abide by it.
Yours foolishly,
BIT
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys, we avoided the nastiness once before and were getting somewhere.
The IOC date was established as October 2009. I have searched long and hard to find any other firm, published, established date since the contract was awarded. All data in the public domain shows this as the IOC. Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that the 3 test vehicles are marked as due for delivery at the end of 2008. I can see no reference to any slip, pre-LMs last request that started this thread, other than that of the contract award by the Navy themselves. Surely that can't be held against LM?
If the US government, with their supplier, wish to develop a new suite of display software at their expense, that is their right. It is not the same as saying that the US taxpayer is funding EH101 development, the EH101 has an AMLCD cockpit that is developed and flying now. As for the structure, it will give future EH101 customers a choice ... do they want 20g crashworthiness, or do they want more payload? Surely this is normal business practice, to develop a product during its lifecycle?
This is not nationalistic support of a European product. It is an objection to the insinuation that somehow the US taxpayer has been ripped off by a European conspiracy.
The IOC date was established as October 2009. I have searched long and hard to find any other firm, published, established date since the contract was awarded. All data in the public domain shows this as the IOC. Maybe the confusion stems from the fact that the 3 test vehicles are marked as due for delivery at the end of 2008. I can see no reference to any slip, pre-LMs last request that started this thread, other than that of the contract award by the Navy themselves. Surely that can't be held against LM?
If the US government, with their supplier, wish to develop a new suite of display software at their expense, that is their right. It is not the same as saying that the US taxpayer is funding EH101 development, the EH101 has an AMLCD cockpit that is developed and flying now. As for the structure, it will give future EH101 customers a choice ... do they want 20g crashworthiness, or do they want more payload? Surely this is normal business practice, to develop a product during its lifecycle?
This is not nationalistic support of a European product. It is an objection to the insinuation that somehow the US taxpayer has been ripped off by a European conspiracy.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No US money for the CT7-8E on the 101
Period
It was funded as a private venture by AW along with the new screens etc (if it had been a US Govt sourced programme the option to offer it to other customers would have been capable of being held hostage by US interests, not a clever thing to do commercially. If Sikorsky did that with US Govt money that's their choice, AW didnt)
This was part of the normal development of an aircraft design.
The Dow Jones report says nothing new, as stated before the 2 stage incremental approach was always part of the VXX programme (regardless of the winner)
Thanx to all the people now posting to support my views (if you notice I have never denigrated the S92 just defended the untruths posted about the 101 here)
DM
It was funded as a private venture by AW along with the new screens etc (if it had been a US Govt sourced programme the option to offer it to other customers would have been capable of being held hostage by US interests, not a clever thing to do commercially. If Sikorsky did that with US Govt money that's their choice, AW didnt)
This was part of the normal development of an aircraft design.
The Dow Jones report says nothing new, as stated before the 2 stage incremental approach was always part of the VXX programme (regardless of the winner)
Thanx to all the people now posting to support my views (if you notice I have never denigrated the S92 just defended the untruths posted about the 101 here)
DM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AHS Vertiflight, 2004:
"Agusta Westland in the UK has received two General Electric CT7-8E turboshafts for flight testing in an EH101this summer. The 2,500 shp-class engines are the powerplants proposed for the Lockheed Martin US101 Presidential helicopter (VXX). The -8 engine introduces a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) more advanced than the Digital Electronic Control (DEC) on the 2,000 shp CT7-6 previously certificated in the EH101. The new engines are only slightly longer than the -6 version and can be accommodated with minor cowling changes.
Both Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky Aircraft continue risk reduction studies pending a VXX selection expected after the 2004 Presidential elections."
This is the second batch of risk reduction money, the first was doled out in late 2003, the two batches funded the new engines, which were first flown in Yoevil until I told the press the flight was made in England, upon which time the test team scrambled to find a US base for testing, and moved to California:
Lockheed Martin Receives $56.5 Million Risk Reduction Contract for the Presidential Helicopter Program
OWEGO, NY, August 26, 2004 - The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $56.5 million risk reduction contract to fund program management, engineering and logistics support for the Presidential Helicopter Program through November 30, 2004. These efforts will further reduce potential technical risks associated with the program before the Navy awards the presidential helicopter contract in December 2004.
"This contract enables us to continue risk reduction activities and ensure system maturity for the Presidential Helicopter Program," said Stephen D. Ramsey, US101 vice president and general manager at Lockheed Martin. "Through this contract, we will continue to work closely with the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, MD, to ensure the quick production start of these helicopters so that we can meet the customer's first aircraft delivery requirement of 2008."
In preparation for that award, Lockheed Martin continues to aggressively recruit new employees for its systems integration facility in Owego, NY. "We are recruiting across the country for the very best talent, primarily in the fields of engineering and program management," Ramsey said. "We will be ready to perform at top strength on day one of the presidential helicopter contract."
Team US101 is led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration - Owego, which serves as the prime contractor and systems integrator for the American-built US101 aircraft, an American variant of AgustaWestland's successful EH101 multimission helicopter. More than 200 U.S. companies from 41 states will participate in the US101 Presidential Helicopter program. Those suppliers are expected to create and sustain thousands of jobs nationwide while working on the Presidential Helicopter fleet. The US101 team collectively brings unmatched rotorcraft expertise and experience to this program: Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integration), AgustaWestland (aircraft design) and Bell Helicopter (aircraft production), while General Electric will supply each helicopter's three CT7-8E engines.
and:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32447.pdf
see page 14 mid page reference to the need for 4 helos in 2008, but delayed because the two competing proposals are "less technically mature" which is DoD speak for "the fuselage needs redesigning."
"Agusta Westland in the UK has received two General Electric CT7-8E turboshafts for flight testing in an EH101this summer. The 2,500 shp-class engines are the powerplants proposed for the Lockheed Martin US101 Presidential helicopter (VXX). The -8 engine introduces a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) more advanced than the Digital Electronic Control (DEC) on the 2,000 shp CT7-6 previously certificated in the EH101. The new engines are only slightly longer than the -6 version and can be accommodated with minor cowling changes.
Both Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky Aircraft continue risk reduction studies pending a VXX selection expected after the 2004 Presidential elections."
This is the second batch of risk reduction money, the first was doled out in late 2003, the two batches funded the new engines, which were first flown in Yoevil until I told the press the flight was made in England, upon which time the test team scrambled to find a US base for testing, and moved to California:
Lockheed Martin Receives $56.5 Million Risk Reduction Contract for the Presidential Helicopter Program
OWEGO, NY, August 26, 2004 - The U.S. Navy has awarded Lockheed Martin a $56.5 million risk reduction contract to fund program management, engineering and logistics support for the Presidential Helicopter Program through November 30, 2004. These efforts will further reduce potential technical risks associated with the program before the Navy awards the presidential helicopter contract in December 2004.
"This contract enables us to continue risk reduction activities and ensure system maturity for the Presidential Helicopter Program," said Stephen D. Ramsey, US101 vice president and general manager at Lockheed Martin. "Through this contract, we will continue to work closely with the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, MD, to ensure the quick production start of these helicopters so that we can meet the customer's first aircraft delivery requirement of 2008."
In preparation for that award, Lockheed Martin continues to aggressively recruit new employees for its systems integration facility in Owego, NY. "We are recruiting across the country for the very best talent, primarily in the fields of engineering and program management," Ramsey said. "We will be ready to perform at top strength on day one of the presidential helicopter contract."
Team US101 is led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration - Owego, which serves as the prime contractor and systems integrator for the American-built US101 aircraft, an American variant of AgustaWestland's successful EH101 multimission helicopter. More than 200 U.S. companies from 41 states will participate in the US101 Presidential Helicopter program. Those suppliers are expected to create and sustain thousands of jobs nationwide while working on the Presidential Helicopter fleet. The US101 team collectively brings unmatched rotorcraft expertise and experience to this program: Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integration), AgustaWestland (aircraft design) and Bell Helicopter (aircraft production), while General Electric will supply each helicopter's three CT7-8E engines.
and:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32447.pdf
see page 14 mid page reference to the need for 4 helos in 2008, but delayed because the two competing proposals are "less technically mature" which is DoD speak for "the fuselage needs redesigning."
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello, is anyone listening?
Not a cent of US Govt money has been used to qualify the CT7-8E in the 101,
I don't know what it was spent on but it wasnt for the engines, as then AW couldnt use the data to sell the installation without US interference
The 101 in the USA was there before the contract was announced in order to improve the flying rate (the weather here isn't good as you know!) so the engine could be offered ASAP to other customers
believe me or Nick, it's down to that again...
DM
I don't know what it was spent on but it wasnt for the engines, as then AW couldnt use the data to sell the installation without US interference
The 101 in the USA was there before the contract was announced in order to improve the flying rate (the weather here isn't good as you know!) so the engine could be offered ASAP to other customers
believe me or Nick, it's down to that again...
DM
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what we've failed to consider is that price may simply not have been an issue in the least. For example, if I want the fastest car, I'm going to shell out around $515k for a 250mph screamer. On the other hand, I could spend $150k for something that does 200mph. That's a roughly 350% price difference, whereas the performance difference is only 25%. However, if I want THE fastest, I'm gonna be shelling out half a million.
Similarly, if the most important criteria was cabin size and comfort, then the Merlin must be chosen. The S-92 may be cheaper and better-performing in its factory trim, but it will never have the cabin size of the Merlin.
Whether or not cabin size was the first priority is up for debate, but if the Marines simply wanted THE biggest, the correct choice was made.
Similarly, if the most important criteria was cabin size and comfort, then the Merlin must be chosen. The S-92 may be cheaper and better-performing in its factory trim, but it will never have the cabin size of the Merlin.
Whether or not cabin size was the first priority is up for debate, but if the Marines simply wanted THE biggest, the correct choice was made.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dangermouse sadi, "The 101 in the USA was there before the contract was announced in order to improve the flying rate (the weather here isn't good as you know!)"
Wrong. The LEASE for the hangar in California was signed 3 days after the press reported that the first flight of the new engines was in England for work paid-for by US taxpayers. The leasing agent said they were in a BIG hurry. I know, because I asked the leasing agent (the hangar was owned by Pratt and Whitney, a sister UTC company to Sikorsky, unbenownst to Lockheed!). After the embarassment in the Washington Post, LM and AW scrambled to find a US site for the testing, then they made major press anouncements about the US site. I then showed the reporters (who didn't mind publishing the info) that the first thing the test team did was to buy a T1 line back to the UK for the data they took. My friends in Owego confirmed that none of the data the US taxpayer paid for stayed in the US, it went to England.
Wrong. The LEASE for the hangar in California was signed 3 days after the press reported that the first flight of the new engines was in England for work paid-for by US taxpayers. The leasing agent said they were in a BIG hurry. I know, because I asked the leasing agent (the hangar was owned by Pratt and Whitney, a sister UTC company to Sikorsky, unbenownst to Lockheed!). After the embarassment in the Washington Post, LM and AW scrambled to find a US site for the testing, then they made major press anouncements about the US site. I then showed the reporters (who didn't mind publishing the info) that the first thing the test team did was to buy a T1 line back to the UK for the data they took. My friends in Owego confirmed that none of the data the US taxpayer paid for stayed in the US, it went to England.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, wouldn't first flight of a re-engined EH101 always be in England or Italy - after all that's where the aircraft re-fit would have taken place.
Where did the first flight of an RRTM equipped Apache take place?
Secondly, wouldn't any analysis data go back to England or Italy - after all that's where the massive amount of specialist knowledge about EH101 performance is based? Was the analysis for the RRTM equipped Apache done by Boeing or AW?
Thirdly, I suspect that AW would have booked somewhere other than the UK for engine trials - they seem to have done for other programs. Adverse press precipitated by a competitor over-stressing that the engines had flown in England, may have caused an urgent need for fixed arangements to be published. That's PR, not really a scandal.
If the US taxpayer specifically "bought" a particular test item, then surely that belongs to them. If AW want to use it elsewhere then they would have to get permission from the owner, that includes data, so what's the big deal? Is Nick now openly accusing AW of stealing US data or is CT7-8E engine data part of the politcal price?
At least we seem agreed that the 2008 date was pre-contract, the delay applicable to both 101 and 92, and therefore of no relevance to "Marine One Woes".
Where did the first flight of an RRTM equipped Apache take place?
Secondly, wouldn't any analysis data go back to England or Italy - after all that's where the massive amount of specialist knowledge about EH101 performance is based? Was the analysis for the RRTM equipped Apache done by Boeing or AW?
Thirdly, I suspect that AW would have booked somewhere other than the UK for engine trials - they seem to have done for other programs. Adverse press precipitated by a competitor over-stressing that the engines had flown in England, may have caused an urgent need for fixed arangements to be published. That's PR, not really a scandal.
If the US taxpayer specifically "bought" a particular test item, then surely that belongs to them. If AW want to use it elsewhere then they would have to get permission from the owner, that includes data, so what's the big deal? Is Nick now openly accusing AW of stealing US data or is CT7-8E engine data part of the politcal price?
At least we seem agreed that the 2008 date was pre-contract, the delay applicable to both 101 and 92, and therefore of no relevance to "Marine One Woes".