Marine One Woes
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
waspy,
when it was the "US-101" and was made by LM and Bell, the embarassment of having a British TP and British first flight was palpable. Forgive me, but back then, we used all swords to stab the beast!
And yes, Oct 09 was finally contracted. I have my alarm clock set for that date, and would bet that we could sleep comfortably on the White House helipad on Halloween, 2009 with no fear of being woken by the sound of a 5-bladed system!
when it was the "US-101" and was made by LM and Bell, the embarassment of having a British TP and British first flight was palpable. Forgive me, but back then, we used all swords to stab the beast!
And yes, Oct 09 was finally contracted. I have my alarm clock set for that date, and would bet that we could sleep comfortably on the White House helipad on Halloween, 2009 with no fear of being woken by the sound of a 5-bladed system!
Nick,
As long as you use words like: "a sub-standard 1985 model" to describe Merlin, you are in real danger of making yourself look like a narrow minded fool (and you're clearly not that), or like an unscrupulous and cynical shill for Sikorsky (and you're accusing others of shilling for Lockheed in a way that makes it sound as though you don't approve of such prevarication, so presumably you're not one of those).
So why do you use such foolish and deliberately provocative language?
And I suppose a fully qualified Presidential VIP S-92 is ready now?
As long as you use words like: "a sub-standard 1985 model" to describe Merlin, you are in real danger of making yourself look like a narrow minded fool (and you're clearly not that), or like an unscrupulous and cynical shill for Sikorsky (and you're accusing others of shilling for Lockheed in a way that makes it sound as though you don't approve of such prevarication, so presumably you're not one of those).
So why do you use such foolish and deliberately provocative language?
And I suppose a fully qualified Presidential VIP S-92 is ready now?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So new American Engines.
New Fuselage to replace the inadequate Anglo/Italian one.
New Blades.
New LM designed and invented Comms, Navs, Defensive Suite and VVip comm system.
Hmm. Must be that thick British Hide on the seats that is still causing this Transatlantic Rift.
Still imagine how we'd feel if the Royal Flight chose an American helicopter......... We'd probably have to called it XX or something too......
New Fuselage to replace the inadequate Anglo/Italian one.
New Blades.
New LM designed and invented Comms, Navs, Defensive Suite and VVip comm system.
Hmm. Must be that thick British Hide on the seats that is still causing this Transatlantic Rift.
Still imagine how we'd feel if the Royal Flight chose an American helicopter......... We'd probably have to called it XX or something too......
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for the third time.....
All costs associated with that activity were funded by AW (said for the 3rd time) regardless of what other think. Integration of the CT7-8E was part of the 101 improvement package that was already in the works. The current civil engine (CT7-6) introduced performance restrictions on the aircraft and the CT7-8E was the obvious way to go, as for any chance of breaking into the USA the % of US involvement had to be high, it was available in the civil market and already flying. The aircraft arrived in California in November (or October I can't quite remember which), the contract award was in the following January so the statement I made earlier is correct.
The data line was so AW could pass the data back to home base so they could analyse the data WHICH THEY OWNED as soon as possible (given the 8 hr time difference and the cost of daily DHL transportation of tapes). It was not a case of exporting US Govt funded data as there wasnt any. There was no US Govt involvement or oversight in VCV, it wasn't needed.
As Nick had admitted, at that time everything was used to gain an advantage over the competitor, and basing an aircraft in the USA whilst bidding for a USA contract was good PR and as well as increasing the flying rate. Of course the US press would make a big deal about the aircraft being flown by UK crews, that fire was stoked by Sikorsky (and I don't blame for doing it), however as we all know the press (especially the non technical press) always give a one sided view of events and just because a reporter says something it don't mean it's true.
Mr Reno you are entitled to your opinion (however wrong it may be)
DM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM Thanks for reafirming my entitlement rights though on the mainland here, we're working hard to get people off them and become individualists, not hand-out expecters..
Regarding the Marine One saga, it seems we're at the old "he-said-she-said" impass whereby a court would then be conveined to establish the truth either by jury or judge. Here, all we have is "who is more credible?" Who has a reputation as such? Who was in a better position to know the truth since it appears getting receipt for monies passed isn't likely? Perhaps Nick and most other gentle readers here know all about you, your background experience and positions for oversight of this debate. I don't, but do know that Nick's is an open-book so to speak. If you have any "insider", provable, personal info that would trump Nick's comments that would be of use so please share since Nick's credentials preceded him here. (In socialist countries it means: "His papers are in order comrade.") Are yours or anyone elses? I know it seems like I'm being an apologist for Nick (met him once) but again, who has the best credentials, reputation? Who was in a position to know? And....based on past experience with so-called Europen, goverment funded, aeronatical design and R&M, there's a lot of reason to beleive that it was US tech and $$ that got the 101 to where it's at now, and as we can see today, where it's going in the future. It's Sunday so please forgive the typos and enjoy life vertical and above the ground while we all can!
Regarding the Marine One saga, it seems we're at the old "he-said-she-said" impass whereby a court would then be conveined to establish the truth either by jury or judge. Here, all we have is "who is more credible?" Who has a reputation as such? Who was in a better position to know the truth since it appears getting receipt for monies passed isn't likely? Perhaps Nick and most other gentle readers here know all about you, your background experience and positions for oversight of this debate. I don't, but do know that Nick's is an open-book so to speak. If you have any "insider", provable, personal info that would trump Nick's comments that would be of use so please share since Nick's credentials preceded him here. (In socialist countries it means: "His papers are in order comrade.") Are yours or anyone elses? I know it seems like I'm being an apologist for Nick (met him once) but again, who has the best credentials, reputation? Who was in a position to know? And....based on past experience with so-called Europen, goverment funded, aeronatical design and R&M, there's a lot of reason to beleive that it was US tech and $$ that got the 101 to where it's at now, and as we can see today, where it's going in the future. It's Sunday so please forgive the typos and enjoy life vertical and above the ground while we all can!
Last edited by Dan Reno; 3rd Jun 2007 at 12:15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I been wondering the same as Dan. Nick Lappos was Director of the S-92 program and was then in charge of the Sikorsky bid so he had to know the competition product as well as his own. Dismissing what he says as sour grapes seems kinda childish.
How about the guys who keep telling NL he's wrong giving us their credentials?
B.
How about the guys who keep telling NL he's wrong giving us their credentials?
B.
Last edited by Bronx; 3rd Jun 2007 at 15:09.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 400ft
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Dan & Bronx, I've great respect for Nick (never met him - my loss) and if you look back through his many posts he has been challenged many times, has sometimes made mistakes, but the thrust is always accurate, and the mistakes generally turn out to be nit-picking.
Knowing how any company works, the idea of spending their own cash when they get someone else to do it through "risk reduction" or whatever is a no-brainer, it might be possible to argue that it wasn't *directly* funded, but you can be sure that knowing that a bucket load of cash was coming your way might make you advance or initiate plans you may have considered. but couldn't justify. I've not been able to find any trace of EH101 getting the uprated engine prior to the US101 plan, and it doesn't appear related to the BERP 4 work.
Knowing how any company works, the idea of spending their own cash when they get someone else to do it through "risk reduction" or whatever is a no-brainer, it might be possible to argue that it wasn't *directly* funded, but you can be sure that knowing that a bucket load of cash was coming your way might make you advance or initiate plans you may have considered. but couldn't justify. I've not been able to find any trace of EH101 getting the uprated engine prior to the US101 plan, and it doesn't appear related to the BERP 4 work.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have any "insider", provable, personal info that would trump Nick's comments.
Nick's job was to promote the S-92, and undermine the US101. He did it well, and continues to do it well, not exactly un-biased. I don't believe Nick has any provable, personal info on the US101 project. If he did I suspect that his industrial spy within LM or AW has a limited career. He himself has admitted that for performance that he is doing "the best I can do from the data that the EH publishes"
The US101 is being developed by the US for the US, they own what they have paid for. I am in no doubt EH101 would have continued to develop without the US101 programme.
It seems the focus of this thread has moved from.
US101 can't do the job, it'll never fly. To
US101 is foreign and we are throwing our money away.
Strangely reminiscent of the Sikorsky marketing message during the competition.
Nick's job was to promote the S-92, and undermine the US101. He did it well, and continues to do it well, not exactly un-biased. I don't believe Nick has any provable, personal info on the US101 project. If he did I suspect that his industrial spy within LM or AW has a limited career. He himself has admitted that for performance that he is doing "the best I can do from the data that the EH publishes"
The US101 is being developed by the US for the US, they own what they have paid for. I am in no doubt EH101 would have continued to develop without the US101 programme.
It seems the focus of this thread has moved from.
US101 can't do the job, it'll never fly. To
US101 is foreign and we are throwing our money away.
Strangely reminiscent of the Sikorsky marketing message during the competition.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The "all American helicopters" claim always brings a wry smile.
For example just ask where the "good old, all American" S-76 is made.....
Having said that, being an old cynic (but a realistic one), I suspect that George W. and Tony B. have had more than a passing conversation about "war reparations" regarding this particular contract.
For example just ask where the "good old, all American" S-76 is made.....
Having said that, being an old cynic (but a realistic one), I suspect that George W. and Tony B. have had more than a passing conversation about "war reparations" regarding this particular contract.
What's the latest on VH-71?
This thread has been rather quiet.
Any news on whether or not the program is going as planned?
How is the LM - AW - Bell relationship working?
Is the US government committed to this choice or is another protest still possible?
How much progress has there been on the redesigned features of the second round of aircraft?
Any news on whether or not the program is going as planned?
How is the LM - AW - Bell relationship working?
Is the US government committed to this choice or is another protest still possible?
How much progress has there been on the redesigned features of the second round of aircraft?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word has it the Navy bis not at all happy. They gave no award fee, which means they saw insufficient progress (fees are earned when the plan is being met):
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288102
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=288102
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i suspect that the current problems are primarily due to integration...the amount of stuff they cram into the Prez's aircraft is simply amazing.
imho, systems integration is the most difficult and overlooked aspect of any aircraft procurement (how many time has the integratot NOT been the manufacturer of the aircraft???). i'd bet a cold 6-pack that similar issues would be happening had the S92 had been chosen.
imho, systems integration is the most difficult and overlooked aspect of any aircraft procurement (how many time has the integratot NOT been the manufacturer of the aircraft???). i'd bet a cold 6-pack that similar issues would be happening had the S92 had been chosen.
