The future of UK SAR, post SAR-H
Guest
Posts: n/a
4
Well explained "Irish" comment. Fully understand.
The single fleet 92 would have been hard to beat. Eurocopter and agusta doing a bit of last minute grandstanding before final tender stage of long sar.
Lets wait and see who bids and with what.
B
Well explained "Irish" comment. Fully understand.
The single fleet 92 would have been hard to beat. Eurocopter and agusta doing a bit of last minute grandstanding before final tender stage of long sar.
Lets wait and see who bids and with what.
B
whats the story with the EC175? WHo are ECF teaming up with? Nice to see scale model on display at EADS chalet the other day
Last edited by chopper2004; 14th Jul 2012 at 00:17.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmmmmm..........
looks a bit top heavy and very cramped inside - good luck with that one ! 
Yes, I'm sure the "real" one will be bigger
Yes, I'm sure the "real" one will be bigger
Last edited by pasptoo; 15th Jul 2012 at 20:25.
Seems a a bit of a waste of time, effort and weight to have the wheels retract to the outside of the fuslage. The aerodynamic drag, wheels up or down, will be the same compounded by the nosewheel staying down.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey come on! If its French or Italian design its got to look good first...dangly rubber just doesn't fit the aesthetic dear boy! Is that an upturned nose I see on the 175 too? What's that all about, and how do you get a nice SAR radar in there?
As for the Milano Boys - I find it strange that the 169, 189 and 139 seem to have different oleos etc. What happened to commonality to maximise production efficiency and minimise cost? Oh and the drag factor would be the same!
As for the Milano Boys - I find it strange that the 169, 189 and 139 seem to have different oleos etc. What happened to commonality to maximise production efficiency and minimise cost? Oh and the drag factor would be the same!
And have they addressed any of the 139's shortcomings in the SAR role - small cabin, high nose up hover attitude, poor ground clearance etc?
Or is this just another helicopter designed to look good and go fast that will be bastardised into a SAR role rather than actually designed for the job?
Or is this just another helicopter designed to look good and go fast that will be bastardised into a SAR role rather than actually designed for the job?
How many helicopters have been designed for the SAR role and haven't been "bastardised" for the job.?
If you did build one purely for SAR how much would it cost and how many would you sell?
If you did build one purely for SAR how much would it cost and how many would you sell?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
360 Radar....yes...er...NO
Waste of money, just where do you think this plastic fantastic
is going to land as a SAR cab especially as it is a proposed machine for most of the Mountain serving SAR bases?
Have written to the Yeovil MP and the PM congratulating them on all the BRITISH jobs created as the AW189 would serve as a great SAR machine. The gain to the tax payer as it returns money back into this Countries accounts is a great spin. Not to mention that 175 is a carbuncle of the helicopter.
is going to land as a SAR cab especially as it is a proposed machine for most of the Mountain serving SAR bases?Have written to the Yeovil MP and the PM congratulating them on all the BRITISH jobs created as the AW189 would serve as a great SAR machine. The gain to the tax payer as it returns money back into this Countries accounts is a great spin. Not to mention that 175 is a carbuncle of the helicopter.
Eric ferret - the problem is that no one has tried, despite the push for SAR aircraft around the world. It is not rocket science, you just need to start from the concept of a rear crew work place and a stable hover platform - then you add the bells and whistles. A Wessex with modern blades and engines would still give you 140 Kts and a brilliant winching platform - add decent avionics and glass cockpit and you are most of the way there - a modern version of the Sea King would be pretty splendid!
Sadly the model that is currently fashionable (apart from the S-92 which would be great if the MRGB was redesigned) is one of corporate cockpit and cabin design which is 'reimagined' as a SAR aircraft and it doesn't work!
Sadly the model that is currently fashionable (apart from the S-92 which would be great if the MRGB was redesigned) is one of corporate cockpit and cabin design which is 'reimagined' as a SAR aircraft and it doesn't work!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wherever
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC175-SAR Variant
I had a go at redesigning the cabin for SAR and I have to say it was looking like a hood set up by the time I had finished.
Okay, still a bit low, but certainly capable of meeting the smaller helo requirements.
Add to the fact that it will be easy to maintain, swift etc....could be a good SAR Helo.
Okay, still a bit low, but certainly capable of meeting the smaller helo requirements.
Add to the fact that it will be easy to maintain, swift etc....could be a good SAR Helo.
And have they addressed any of the 139's shortcomings in the SAR role - small cabin, high nose up hover attitude, poor ground clearance etc?
Or is this just another helicopter designed to look good and go fast that will be bastardised into a SAR role rather than actually designed for the job?
Or is this just another helicopter designed to look good and go fast that will be bastardised into a SAR role rather than actually designed for the job?
but Crab, look at that 360º radar!
Which is on an EC 175.
Last edited by Hilife; 18th Jul 2012 at 19:35.
When is everyone going to wake up to the fact that the 'customer'; the MCA in this instance (like the MoD in all other instances) do not really have too much sway over the way these contracts run. Yes they perofrm due diligence w.r.t. finance and legalities; also other aspects of the procurement process......but the juicy bit, the pointy endy bit, the product end is always and will always be decidied by commerce. It is the contractor that will hold the customers hand and lead them into temptation, coax them into buying 'essential' this and future proof that. The customer has no way of outwitting the contractor in this regard as they have no SME in this area. This is why one ends up with a product that is modular/common/has synergies with other areas - it keeps costs down while enhancing profits.
The 92 to a lesser extent and particularly the 175 and 189 are all examples of government contracts in action.
Who in their right mind would either pay for a ground up designed SAR cab, or design a bespoke SAR cab. There isn't the demand. Far better to build a mainframe and then reshape it as and when the marketplace demands.
Cheap as chips.
Also don't forget - the government like these new technologies, it brings in new jobs, the new airframe is licenced in this country or parts of it are british built, etc etc and more people are employed. So yes the product costs more initially but down the line more people get jobs.
Swings and roundabaouts.
EG: If GB bought F18's instead of the new JSF, how many new jobs would it get out of the deal? NIL. Spend 10 times as much on a new fighter and you need all those new trades to service and maintain it, train with it blah, blah. Loads of new jobs. Unemployment drops, everyone is happy.
Oh, I nearly forgot - Long SAR won't have ANY military in it. No mil equals MASSIVE long term savings for the government. The old SAR mil pilots get 'absorbed' by the rest of the mil, so no job losses there and civvy street gets a huge surge of 'new' jobs. Unemployment goes down, government happy, government stay in power and repeat said process every few years.
The 92 to a lesser extent and particularly the 175 and 189 are all examples of government contracts in action.
Who in their right mind would either pay for a ground up designed SAR cab, or design a bespoke SAR cab. There isn't the demand. Far better to build a mainframe and then reshape it as and when the marketplace demands.
Cheap as chips.
Also don't forget - the government like these new technologies, it brings in new jobs, the new airframe is licenced in this country or parts of it are british built, etc etc and more people are employed. So yes the product costs more initially but down the line more people get jobs.
Swings and roundabaouts.
EG: If GB bought F18's instead of the new JSF, how many new jobs would it get out of the deal? NIL. Spend 10 times as much on a new fighter and you need all those new trades to service and maintain it, train with it blah, blah. Loads of new jobs. Unemployment drops, everyone is happy.
Oh, I nearly forgot - Long SAR won't have ANY military in it. No mil equals MASSIVE long term savings for the government. The old SAR mil pilots get 'absorbed' by the rest of the mil, so no job losses there and civvy street gets a huge surge of 'new' jobs. Unemployment goes down, government happy, government stay in power and repeat said process every few years.
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 19th Jul 2012 at 17:06.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mil equals MASSIVE long term savings for the government.
Interesting that Crab proposes a 140kt Wessex or Sea King but still wants a level winching platform. Not possible I'm afraid; basic P of F applied to any tail-rotor equipped traditional helicopter should tell you that. The reason current modern SAR platforms hover nose-up is that they are 'kin quick in a straight line compared to the (level-hovering) models of the past. Surely,the benefits of getting to/from the scene ASAP outweigh hovering nose-up during the recovery?
TC is right in that there is no commercial gain in designing a bespoke SAR cab; there a have been very few aircraft (fixed or rotary-wing) designed that do not involve some form of compromise. An interesting debate for another thread maybe?
TC is right in that there is no commercial gain in designing a bespoke SAR cab; there a have been very few aircraft (fixed or rotary-wing) designed that do not involve some form of compromise. An interesting debate for another thread maybe?
Level is clearly a relative term here, the Sea King doesn't hover level, it is usually about 4 to 5 degrees nose up - but compare that with 8 to 10 degrees nose up of the 139!
However, the Sea King(or similarly shaped helo) could be capable of 140 kts plus with the right upgrades.
The S-92 is the closest thing to a bespoke SAR helo at the moment although much of the R and D appears to have been absorbed into the Canadian Cyclone contract. That seems to have a pretty good mix of straight line speed and sensible cabin size so it is not impossible.
However, the Sea King(or similarly shaped helo) could be capable of 140 kts plus with the right upgrades.
The S-92 is the closest thing to a bespoke SAR helo at the moment although much of the R and D appears to have been absorbed into the Canadian Cyclone contract. That seems to have a pretty good mix of straight line speed and sensible cabin size so it is not impossible.
Crab
I think 140kt plus for an upgraded SK is somewhat optimistic despite what Mr. Carson might say! Even if it were possible, the long term implications of fatigue on an already ageing and worn airframe would preclude it being a sensible option. I think it's (nearly) time to let the old girl go and embrace some more modern technology. Aircraft replacement is an emotive subject and, very rarely, is the replacement embraced. That said, I'm pretty sure that whatever type (or types!) appear on our shores in the near future will be a step forward in terms of performance/capability.
I think 140kt plus for an upgraded SK is somewhat optimistic despite what Mr. Carson might say! Even if it were possible, the long term implications of fatigue on an already ageing and worn airframe would preclude it being a sensible option. I think it's (nearly) time to let the old girl go and embrace some more modern technology. Aircraft replacement is an emotive subject and, very rarely, is the replacement embraced. That said, I'm pretty sure that whatever type (or types!) appear on our shores in the near future will be a step forward in terms of performance/capability.