New US Presidential Helicopter requirement
The Prez's new ride shall be new built....as a requirement of the contract. Even if the 53D was a candidate. Sikorsky would have to re-open the production line for the aircraft in order to meet the contract specs.
Remember how strict the maintenance policies are for the aircraft when used for the President....starts with limiting timed components to Half of their normal Life Values....surveillance of the construction process of critical components, and a total segregation of parts to be used on the aircraft.
Remember how strict the maintenance policies are for the aircraft when used for the President....starts with limiting timed components to Half of their normal Life Values....surveillance of the construction process of critical components, and a total segregation of parts to be used on the aircraft.
2004 Flying Demonstrator
Thanks, Savoia.
That isn't Adobe Photoshop at work, but rather the product of the new S-92 PM at the time, a frequent poster here named Nick Lappos. The No. 3 flying test ship ( 294 ) was turned into a flying demo machine, not only with the complete interior as shown, but with a complete and functional comm/security equipment package by L-3 and associates that was fully operational, a few cockpit upgrades ( again, fully functional ) and the addition of three FG's ( force generators ) to the standard three that come with the machine, and which provided a superb ride, both up front and in the rear. That machine could have gone into the HMX-1 mission as it was. 2004. Ah, politics. Oh, almost forgot, you could buy just about two of these for one 101.
That isn't Adobe Photoshop at work, but rather the product of the new S-92 PM at the time, a frequent poster here named Nick Lappos. The No. 3 flying test ship ( 294 ) was turned into a flying demo machine, not only with the complete interior as shown, but with a complete and functional comm/security equipment package by L-3 and associates that was fully operational, a few cockpit upgrades ( again, fully functional ) and the addition of three FG's ( force generators ) to the standard three that come with the machine, and which provided a superb ride, both up front and in the rear. That machine could have gone into the HMX-1 mission as it was. 2004. Ah, politics. Oh, almost forgot, you could buy just about two of these for one 101.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 8th May 2013 at 14:06. Reason: Added comment.
Savoia
I remember I saw N492SA painted all green in the flesh; never saw it with a white top in reality. I recall they repainted it a gray/green camo, then brown camo for CSAR-X for a while after the VXX contract was lost in Jan '05.
Wonder if it will get another new coat of green paint here soon.
I remember I saw N492SA painted all green in the flesh; never saw it with a white top in reality. I recall they repainted it a gray/green camo, then brown camo for CSAR-X for a while after the VXX contract was lost in Jan '05.
Wonder if it will get another new coat of green paint here soon.
tottigol, a minor point:
I seem to recall that the bolts (Ti) have been replaced by bolts (CRS), which suggests to me that the root cause issue has been addressed. (Regarding a well known failure or two).
Not interested in getting into the 30 min issue, as that's been beaten to death already. If that is an explicit spec, for this program (and I'd hope the PM at Pax River would demand that) then remedy for that current problem would be part of a mod. There are some ways to reduce heat and wear on gears that are state of the art now, but weren't ten or fifteen years ago.
I seem to recall that the bolts (Ti) have been replaced by bolts (CRS), which suggests to me that the root cause issue has been addressed. (Regarding a well known failure or two).
Not interested in getting into the 30 min issue, as that's been beaten to death already. If that is an explicit spec, for this program (and I'd hope the PM at Pax River would demand that) then remedy for that current problem would be part of a mod. There are some ways to reduce heat and wear on gears that are state of the art now, but weren't ten or fifteen years ago.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th May 2013 at 14:32.
I seem to recall that the bolts (Ti) have been replaced by bolts (CRS), which suggests to me that the root cause issue has been addressed. (Regarding a well known failure or two).
The new filter housing and adapter took care of the filter leak. But tapered roller bearing loading in a transmission that simply cant handle elevated temperatures without oil film as well is still an issue in almost all SAC transmissions. One could argue they are all more susceptible to failure in LOL situations.
Simply put, plugging one leak does not make the inherent design more capable without lube from any other given (extremely remote?) cause.
If the current transmission was not an issue, SAC would not have spent the better part of the last decade desperately trying to finish up the IDMGB, which has still yet to make its appearance.
The real question is whether or not that arguably totally redesigned transmission would meet the new VXX requirement of essentially OTS certified, proven aircraft and components. Hence my earlier post.
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 8th May 2013 at 16:55.
Sans, I am aware of the foot cracking issue, and believe that it's both fixable, and a lot less difficult a fix than the issue of meeting the 30 min requirement that, as stated in my post, has been done to death.
If you don't run out of oil, you don't have the problem, right? Root cause fix, and all that ...
That said, were I the PM for this program, I'd require the 30 min spec be met, or a 20 min spec, or whatever, and also require an actual demonstration.
Won't comment further on your point on gears, for the reason I stated previously regarding what current tech in gear design can offer. (As with anything, for a price ... )
If you don't run out of oil, you don't have the problem, right? Root cause fix, and all that ...
That said, were I the PM for this program, I'd require the 30 min spec be met, or a 20 min spec, or whatever, and also require an actual demonstration.
Won't comment further on your point on gears, for the reason I stated previously regarding what current tech in gear design can offer. (As with anything, for a price ... )
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th May 2013 at 14:50.
Sans, I am aware of the foot cracking issue, and believe that it's both fixable, and a lot less difficult a fix than the issue of meeting the 30 min requirement
Remember how strict the maintenance policies are for the aircraft when used for the President....starts with limiting timed components to Half of their normal Life Values..
I wonder what the 'defensive package' will be for the next 'Marine One' and whether there will be anything 'new'.
A lingering risk (in my view) still remains vulnerability to 'shoulder launched missiles' including RPG's. Many moons ago Sikorsky said they were developing 'something' to help mitigate this risk but .. I don't know how far they got.
However, over in Israel, they recently declared that they were making some headway in this area .. see: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/514...nally-way.html
Ah, politics.
Our Prime Minister (the 'great' Il Cavaliere Berlusconi agreed with the British Prime Minister (whom he beat at football) that having shown George Jnr. their support in Iraq, Italy and Britain were in a position to lean upon Jnr. for a favour. Il Cavaliere agreed to Blair making the pitch on behalf of both countries whereupon Blair said something like "we've shown you our support in Iraq and I have personally taken quite a bit of heat over this .. now Silvio and I want you to do something for us .. by supporting the pitch from our Anglo-Italian concern AgustaWestland" .. whereupon George Jnr. replied .. "sure thing Tony".
Personally, I would love to see Sikorsky continue serving the USMC in this prestigious role and wish them the very best.
This is the most important part of the Defensive Package!
Amen, Jack.
Sans, I think there are enough sharp folks at Sikorsky to figure it out, though I appreciate your point that it isn't necessarilyl a simple fix.
EDIT: huh? How did my post get in front of Jack's? The time tag is about 40 minutes early! By my clock, it posted at 1515, not 1439. ???
*cue in Twilight Zone music*
Sans, I think there are enough sharp folks at Sikorsky to figure it out, though I appreciate your point that it isn't necessarilyl a simple fix.
EDIT: huh? How did my post get in front of Jack's? The time tag is about 40 minutes early! By my clock, it posted at 1515, not 1439. ???
*cue in Twilight Zone music*
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th May 2013 at 19:41.
VH-92 will be a HEAVY S-92
The difference between an off the shelf S-92 and a VH-92 will be significant. Starting with a commercially certified VVIP S-92 and then adding basic the requirements for US Presidential Transport (i.e. EMP hardening, defensive avionics, ballistic protection, ……) will add significantly to the basic and all up weights of the aircraft. At some point, the basic dynamic components will have to be upgraded to meet these increases in weight.
....but the rules say no upgrade development is acceptable and the offer has to be already certificated so mods to the S-92 should be ruled out. Meantime may be Obama should ask why the president of Turkmenistan has just traded in his S-92 s for two EH101s,and if he's quick He could me next in lne after the rulers of Saudi Arabia !
The difference between an off the shelf S-92 and a VH-92 will be significant. Starting with a commercially certified VVIP S-92 and then adding basic the requirements for US Presidential Transport (i.e. EMP hardening, defensive avionics, ballistic protection, ……) will add significantly to the basic and all up weights of the aircraft. At some point, the basic dynamic components will have to be upgraded to meet these increases in weight.
....but the rules say no upgrade development is acceptable and the offer has to be already certificated so mods to the S-92 should be ruled out.
....but the rules say no upgrade development is acceptable and the offer has to be already certificated so mods to the S-92 should be ruled out.
I suspect that you will find, deep in the various pages and fine print, contract language and nuances that allow for "x" variation to the commercial spec to accomodate the purely military mission requirement. I hear rumor that this has happened before in acquisition. Why would this be any different?
Granted, that gives all bidders a level playing field ...
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th May 2013 at 22:17.
EH-101 didnt need a new tranmission with ELS, or additional blade!
Unless they are happy with an extremely austere VXX compared to the last go-around, I think its fairly obvious the current -92 dynamic system will be stretched beyond its capability.
Unless they are happy with an extremely austere VXX compared to the last go-around, I think its fairly obvious the current -92 dynamic system will be stretched beyond its capability.