First S-76 C++ in Australia?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my Hammock or at the Pub!
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A++ 1S1 eng, C+ 1S1 eng, C++ 2S2 engs can other pruners comment on the difference in perf wrt the 1S1 eng vs 2S2 engs and will that fit the bill in a place like Karatha ie 35-45 deg c (And yes we all agree that any model after the A model with Allison engs is going to be an improvement)
A++ MAUW 10,800 lbs, C++ MAUW 11,700 lbs will any gain in eng efficiency from the 1S1 to the 2S2 engs be lost due the higher MAUW?? (assuming the machine is operated at or close to the MAUW)
Anyone?
Max
A++ MAUW 10,800 lbs, C++ MAUW 11,700 lbs will any gain in eng efficiency from the 1S1 to the 2S2 engs be lost due the higher MAUW?? (assuming the machine is operated at or close to the MAUW)
Anyone?
Max
Last edited by maxeemum; 16th Oct 2007 at 07:24.
Max, just to clarify. A++ and C+ have very different engines, the C+ has a 2S1. The C/C+/C++ is a heavier airframe than A++ so you need to talk in terms of available payload rather than MAUW when comparing your numbers.
You might be surprised when comparing performance between an A/AllisonC30S and a C/Arriel1S1 under Karratha conditions - I stand to be corrected but I wouldn't be surprised if the A model did slightly better than a C in hot conditions. Obviously a C+ will do better, and C++ better still. I have more recent form on a C+ and from memory we could take 12 pax up to about 32 degC. After that temp you start weight limiting to make good with that crazy Cat-A elevated heliport departure profile. Being at MAUW in a 50 ft hover with no vertical performance to make CDP is no place to be if a donk quits at that point in time. If it does quit you'll need every ounce of 30sec OEI and probably a new undercarriage after arriving at the bottom.
You might be surprised when comparing performance between an A/AllisonC30S and a C/Arriel1S1 under Karratha conditions - I stand to be corrected but I wouldn't be surprised if the A model did slightly better than a C in hot conditions. Obviously a C+ will do better, and C++ better still. I have more recent form on a C+ and from memory we could take 12 pax up to about 32 degC. After that temp you start weight limiting to make good with that crazy Cat-A elevated heliport departure profile. Being at MAUW in a 50 ft hover with no vertical performance to make CDP is no place to be if a donk quits at that point in time. If it does quit you'll need every ounce of 30sec OEI and probably a new undercarriage after arriving at the bottom.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South US
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C+ compared to C++
S-76A+ 1S 10,500 or 10,800 depending on CSN kit
S-76A++ 1S1 same weight as above
S-76B PT6-36 11,700 about 102 built (Bs, Cs and C++ built on same production line until about 1999)
S-76C 1S1 11,700 about 40 built
S-76C+ 2S1 11,700, big delta is now single channel FADEC
S-76C++ 2S2 11,700 barrier filter dual channel FADEC
Zfw on a offshore C++ is about 7650, burns about 670lbs per hour slightly more than a C+. Cat A max gross right at ISA +20.
Here is the delta between C+ and C++, higher ratings are 2S2
OEI ratings:
30-second 1,0324.8%985
2-minute 9375.5%888
Continuous 8974.8%856
Dual engine ratings:
Takeoff9226.6%865
Continuous8335.0%793
S-76A++ 1S1 same weight as above
S-76B PT6-36 11,700 about 102 built (Bs, Cs and C++ built on same production line until about 1999)
S-76C 1S1 11,700 about 40 built
S-76C+ 2S1 11,700, big delta is now single channel FADEC
S-76C++ 2S2 11,700 barrier filter dual channel FADEC
Zfw on a offshore C++ is about 7650, burns about 670lbs per hour slightly more than a C+. Cat A max gross right at ISA +20.
Here is the delta between C+ and C++, higher ratings are 2S2
OEI ratings:
30-second 1,0324.8%985
2-minute 9375.5%888
Continuous 8974.8%856
Dual engine ratings:
Takeoff9226.6%865
Continuous8335.0%793
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A definately did better in the heat than a C, but don't ask me for the cross over point as it's been too long ago. Either way neither will lift much. Some days inclined to think a 206 would have done better. 
Needless to say Tooradin to Karratha is a long cross-country haul. I wonder, if it is being ferried by an American crew, whether they know there aren't too many VOR's on that route. When I was flying in the States the yanks had a preoccupation with tracking via VOR's on cross country flights, they'd almost be lost without them!
Edit: the nav is easy if you either keep the blue stuff on the left, and the brown/green stuff on the right all the way. Or vice versa. Either way you'll ultimately get to where you're going!!
Edit: the nav is easy if you either keep the blue stuff on the left, and the brown/green stuff on the right all the way. Or vice versa. Either way you'll ultimately get to where you're going!!
Following on from james.russell, would it be d.r. doing the ferry?? If so, hope he does a bit of a dog-leg and we see him in Perth on the way through. I wouldn't mind going for a bit of a whiz ...er...I mean test flight...in the C++ at Jandakot.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the 76 register,
Esso has 6 x C models, fitted with IIDS (very unusual as the IIDS generally took hold with the C+). EXK at about 11,000 hrs, EXZ, EXW at about 8000 hrs, all identical and in very god nick although they are worked hard.
Esso has 6 x C models, fitted with IIDS (very unusual as the IIDS generally took hold with the C+). EXK at about 11,000 hrs, EXZ, EXW at about 8000 hrs, all identical and in very god nick although they are worked hard.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South US
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
76 Iids
Kind of off subject but here but to expand on Trapezoid's remark on IIDS .
Sikorsky made an attempt to modernize and standardize cockpits in the early 90s with the Rogerson and Kratos IIDS. This system proved to have very poor reliability with a very low mean time between removal rates. Remember this is the early 90s and computers were very old by today’s standard and liquid crystal displays were in infants. The major issue with the IIDS was heat and components that could not stand up to the processes, as the processing of the data were performed in each display. Today central data processing takes place and the displays are simply computer screens more or less.
So after spending a lot of money to fix the problems that technology at the time could not fix the early IIDS were abandon and a new solution sought out. Both C’s and B’s were built with IIDS. I think about 20-25 helicopters, most ended up in AsiaPac. Sikorsky switched back to round dials for a period whilst looking for a new supplier of glass.
Fwd 1996-97 Sikorsky built the first Parker Gull IIDS in a B model I can’t remember the serial number but somewhere around 460 something went to a VIP operator in Northeast US. The first C+ went to a New York VIP operator it is was serial number 473 I believe. From then on less one C+ for Exxon in GOM all had IIDS.
guilliBell:
Amen on the standard cockpit, but much of the differences in the aircraft are a function of the market demands. So around 2000 Sikorsky went to a standard and all machines are built to the same baseline, which by the way is a full IFR certified cockpit. Of course the baseline changes over the years as new devices come out and technology surpasses what we once thought was really cool.
So if you fly a new C+ or ++ you’ll have the luxury of a factory identical aircraft unless it was modified elsewhere.
Sikorsky made an attempt to modernize and standardize cockpits in the early 90s with the Rogerson and Kratos IIDS. This system proved to have very poor reliability with a very low mean time between removal rates. Remember this is the early 90s and computers were very old by today’s standard and liquid crystal displays were in infants. The major issue with the IIDS was heat and components that could not stand up to the processes, as the processing of the data were performed in each display. Today central data processing takes place and the displays are simply computer screens more or less.
So after spending a lot of money to fix the problems that technology at the time could not fix the early IIDS were abandon and a new solution sought out. Both C’s and B’s were built with IIDS. I think about 20-25 helicopters, most ended up in AsiaPac. Sikorsky switched back to round dials for a period whilst looking for a new supplier of glass.
Fwd 1996-97 Sikorsky built the first Parker Gull IIDS in a B model I can’t remember the serial number but somewhere around 460 something went to a VIP operator in Northeast US. The first C+ went to a New York VIP operator it is was serial number 473 I believe. From then on less one C+ for Exxon in GOM all had IIDS.
guilliBell:
Amen on the standard cockpit, but much of the differences in the aircraft are a function of the market demands. So around 2000 Sikorsky went to a standard and all machines are built to the same baseline, which by the way is a full IFR certified cockpit. Of course the baseline changes over the years as new devices come out and technology surpasses what we once thought was really cool.
So if you fly a new C+ or ++ you’ll have the luxury of a factory identical aircraft unless it was modified elsewhere.
Last edited by David Stepanek; 19th Oct 2007 at 15:12.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this worth applauding?
Putting the Smoke and Mirrors aside, should we really be applauding the arrival of an already obsolete airframe?
When a credible operator recently introduced the S92, it was placed on the Australian Register, Crewed with Aussie Pilots and a true first for Australia.
In the Tooradin operator scenario it is N registered, Yank crewed and hardly worth applauding.
In relation to the continued trollip about this operators pay scales you really must be kidding! Only fixed based in the NW shelf pay well and this is greatly improved by the company renting houses already owned by the Pilot or Engineering staff. A little creative with 180K figure I think.
Bristows are soon to crack the 100k barrier with live in SFO's in Karratha or Broome, with zone allowance, executive housing, power and weekends off.
As for the highest paid Captains you just cannot go past ESSO.
So let's just get this all back into perspective, anyway who is the CEO of the Tooradin operator. Can anybody confirm a management change?
Bring it On.
When a credible operator recently introduced the S92, it was placed on the Australian Register, Crewed with Aussie Pilots and a true first for Australia.
In the Tooradin operator scenario it is N registered, Yank crewed and hardly worth applauding.
In relation to the continued trollip about this operators pay scales you really must be kidding! Only fixed based in the NW shelf pay well and this is greatly improved by the company renting houses already owned by the Pilot or Engineering staff. A little creative with 180K figure I think.
Bristows are soon to crack the 100k barrier with live in SFO's in Karratha or Broome, with zone allowance, executive housing, power and weekends off.
As for the highest paid Captains you just cannot go past ESSO.
So let's just get this all back into perspective, anyway who is the CEO of the Tooradin operator. Can anybody confirm a management change?
Bring it On.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sputnik
I believe that the Tooradin Operator has a change of management at the top and that they have a new GM.
I personally would differ that the C++ is an obsolete airframe, it is still in production, is well equipped and earns good revenue for operators. It is no more obsolete than a 225 for example.
I think it is worth applauding since to bring in aircraft which are new compared with 25 year old existing Puma and 76 fleets has to be an overall improvement for the industry. I am sure it will soon be put onto the VH register and Australian crews will be trained on the differences between it and the A++ so that foreign crews will not be required in the long term.
Anything which lowers the age of the offshore fleet has to be a positive whatever aircraft type it may be.
I believe that the Tooradin Operator has a change of management at the top and that they have a new GM.
I personally would differ that the C++ is an obsolete airframe, it is still in production, is well equipped and earns good revenue for operators. It is no more obsolete than a 225 for example.
I think it is worth applauding since to bring in aircraft which are new compared with 25 year old existing Puma and 76 fleets has to be an overall improvement for the industry. I am sure it will soon be put onto the VH register and Australian crews will be trained on the differences between it and the A++ so that foreign crews will not be required in the long term.
Anything which lowers the age of the offshore fleet has to be a positive whatever aircraft type it may be.
Maybe I’m old fashioned. Most of the people I know think I am. I open doors for sheilas and stand back whilst they order their next wannagetshagged round. Glass cockpits are fine, I’ve flown a few but for the offshore industry is it necessary? It’s all very nice have an effectively computer game presentation in front of you but with a MDH of around 200ft what difference does that make. Offshore, where it counts, you are in the same ball game as round dials, steam driven NDBs and radar. Performance it what counts, not the gubbins inside. Performance from the engines that will ensure that you will be able to control the situation if any emergency like engine failure at any time on the take off and landing offshore. Performance which pulls you out of the crap if you have a bad day. THAT IS SAFETY. Whatever way you look at the S76, no matter what ++++++++ it is, it cannot manage that.
