External tanks on S-92
Thread Starter
External tanks on S-92
This is probably a question for Nick Lappos, in the S-92 IPC there is the info on the external wing hardpoints for the S-92 , has an external support system been fitted to a S-92 yet or is it still just a future option, i have read about the option for the proposed Portugese deal which went to the EH-101 with a S-92 with an external 870 litre tank on each side like the HH-3 and CH53, are there any photos of this projected set up or artists impressions?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackhawk9,
You can find an image showing the proposed stores carriage stub at
MH-92 Maritime Helicopter
It would be a reasonable assumption that the stub design is derived from that on the Seahawk.
This configuration, for Canada's Sea King replacement, has not yet flown, although it has been reported that the first article is well advanced in assembly. The Canadian contract is, as far is publicly known, Sikorsky's only current contract requiring carriage of heavy stores/external fuel tanks.
You will note, if you look closely, that the stub must attach to the main fuselage over the sponsons. The sponsons are designed to break away at impact, so would be unable to carry significant extra weight.
I'm sure Nick could provide more authoritative info.
You can find an image showing the proposed stores carriage stub at
MH-92 Maritime Helicopter
It would be a reasonable assumption that the stub design is derived from that on the Seahawk.
This configuration, for Canada's Sea King replacement, has not yet flown, although it has been reported that the first article is well advanced in assembly. The Canadian contract is, as far is publicly known, Sikorsky's only current contract requiring carriage of heavy stores/external fuel tanks.
You will note, if you look closely, that the stub must attach to the main fuselage over the sponsons. The sponsons are designed to break away at impact, so would be unable to carry significant extra weight.
I'm sure Nick could provide more authoritative info.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is weird that the military version looks like an afterthought. Especially the N492SA looks like "frankencopter", with bits of equipment just bolted into the skin, like it never should be there according to the overall design (not to mention the paint shame).
While the civilian versions have sleek and clean lines. Just by the looks, one can come into conclusion, that this wasn't design as a military platform, therefore could assume, there is no provision for auxiliary fuel tanks, nor enlarged sponsors (MH-53E style) as those should be shown already somewhere.
While the civilian versions have sleek and clean lines. Just by the looks, one can come into conclusion, that this wasn't design as a military platform, therefore could assume, there is no provision for auxiliary fuel tanks, nor enlarged sponsors (MH-53E style) as those should be shown already somewhere.
Thread Starter
Have seen the MH-92 pictures before those hardpoints are the weapons stations mounted to the box structure mounting the undercarriage , what i'm after is the external stores system mounted to the fuselage above the sponsons, the wing mounts are just above the sponson tank on the fuselage either side of the third last window(there is also a small round cover there the fuel plumbing would go thru to conect into main fuel manifold) with the support struts coming down from the mounts under the engines (small access panels under engine door hinges).
I envisage the wing would be about 5' long going accross the top of the sponson with the support stuts going up at about 45o to under the engines with the 870 lt tank having about an 18" gap to the sponson.
Sikorsky have alot of exeriance with external support systems as the Blackhawk runs at least 4 differant systems and the Seahawk 2 i know of.
I envisage the wing would be about 5' long going accross the top of the sponson with the support stuts going up at about 45o to under the engines with the 870 lt tank having about an 18" gap to the sponson.
Sikorsky have alot of exeriance with external support systems as the Blackhawk runs at least 4 differant systems and the Seahawk 2 i know of.
