U.S. Presidential Helicopter Cabins Made in INDIA ?????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rug- Don't want t sound condescending, but Is our President going to fly in a CH-47F? If not, its not relevant. I am only highlighting the hypocrisy between the two programs.
I personally have flown CH-47F's "two palm tress .... a dumpster" and the S-92.
I personally have flown CH-47F's "two palm tress .... a dumpster" and the S-92.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone- Is it whining? Is that what you meant to write?
Deal. I'll stop whining, if you stop condescending like everyone you offer your opinion to is a 10 year old? Saying that as professionally as I can muster right now.
I know how the aircraft are unusually maintained and have enough of a past to know they do not have the ability to catch that kind of airframe issue we are talking about, if one were to occur.
More importantly. Nobody has mentioned the T/R from China...... Pretty critical component. No worries about that for a Presidential Aircraft?
ps- no caps either
Deal. I'll stop whining, if you stop condescending like everyone you offer your opinion to is a 10 year old? Saying that as professionally as I can muster right now.
I know how the aircraft are unusually maintained and have enough of a past to know they do not have the ability to catch that kind of airframe issue we are talking about, if one were to occur.
More importantly. Nobody has mentioned the T/R from China...... Pretty critical component. No worries about that for a Presidential Aircraft?
ps- no caps either
Originally Posted by Stinger10
More importantly. Nobody has mentioned the T/R from China...... Pretty critical component. No worries about that for a Presidential Aircraft?
Do you think they will just order a complete TR assy on alibaba, stick it on the new helicopter and take the president on the first test flight? Or do you expect the Chinese intelligence to reach for world domination by having tail rotors with a carefully engineered hidden flaw delivered for Marine One?
I quoted and answered your question.
I'm not familiar with the details of the kestrel program (although what I read over the last years was plain comical).
I think you can certainly make a case that it's ridiculous to transfer the jobs away from the domestic market for a project like that. But if a company like Sikorsky can have a proper and safe helicopter built in the US, why shouldn't they be able to have it built elsewhere?
I'm not familiar with the details of the kestrel program (although what I read over the last years was plain comical).
I think you can certainly make a case that it's ridiculous to transfer the jobs away from the domestic market for a project like that. But if a company like Sikorsky can have a proper and safe helicopter built in the US, why shouldn't they be able to have it built elsewhere?
Stinger - seriously, what planet are you from? This is the 21st century not the 19th century.
Do you honestly think chinese or indian built stock for the presedential limo is inferior to anything you can produce?
Are you a redneck or something?
Do you honestly think chinese or indian built stock for the presedential limo is inferior to anything you can produce?
Are you a redneck or something?
I am conversant in both US English and British English, so I use whinging or whining depending on what I feel like using.
We can toss mutual respect at one another. Works for me.
Hmm, you spent time in Stratford with the VH-3?
Not an unfair question.
Here's a pointer to where the answer lies:
When you get to flight critical components, I'll suggest to you that someone in Sikorsky has a serious interest. (A replay of the Blackhawk spindle issue back in the early 90's, which seems to have been the trigger for the "flight safety parts" program the Army put into place, is not desired ... )
Hurrah!
Deal. I'll stop whining, if you stop condescending like everyone you offer your opinion to is a 10 year old? Saying that as professionally as I can muster right now.
I know how the aircraft are unusually maintained and have enough of a past to know they do not have the ability to catch that kind of airframe issue we are talking about, if one were to occur.
More importantly. Nobody has mentioned the T/R from China...... Pretty critical component. No worries about that for a Presidential Aircraft?
Here's a pointer to where the answer lies:
- How robust is the Sikorsky surveillance program and oversight for flight critical components for this sub?
- Does the Sikorsky rep note that the process for blade manufacture and assembly meet the Sikorsky process standards that they do at home? Yes or no?
- Government oversight question: has the DCMA office charged with oversight on this contract had a look at these plans that relate to Critical Safety Items per public law?
- What oversight program does NAVAIR have in place, as I think NAVAIR has at least implementation authority on this contract? (As I've not read it, may not have that right).
When you get to flight critical components, I'll suggest to you that someone in Sikorsky has a serious interest. (A replay of the Blackhawk spindle issue back in the early 90's, which seems to have been the trigger for the "flight safety parts" program the Army put into place, is not desired ... )
ps- no caps either
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All excellent questions-
All that being said the S-92 STILL has had some MGB issues too. I would think with as much scrutiny as the VXX program has gone through, why wouldn't they avoid the issue and find U.S. suppliers for critical components?
Again, I didn't make the rules but I know the rules that were strictly enforced the last time around and this is the polar opposite.
•How robust is the Sikorsky surveillance program and oversight for flight critical components for this sub?
•Does the Sikorsky rep note that the process for blade manufacture and assembly meet the Sikorsky process standards that they do at home? Yes or no?
•Government oversight question: has the DCMA office charged with oversight on this contract had a look at these plans that relate to Critical Safety Items per public law?
•What oversight program does NAVAIR have in place, as I think NAVAIR has at least implementation authority on this contract? (As I've not read it, may not have that right).
I don't know the answer, but someone in the program office sure as hell better.
When you get to flight critical components, I'll suggest to you that someone in Sikorsky has a serious interest. (A replay of the Blackhawk spindle issue back in the early 90's, which seems to have been the trigger for the "flight safety parts" program the Army put into place, is not desired ... )
•Does the Sikorsky rep note that the process for blade manufacture and assembly meet the Sikorsky process standards that they do at home? Yes or no?
•Government oversight question: has the DCMA office charged with oversight on this contract had a look at these plans that relate to Critical Safety Items per public law?
•What oversight program does NAVAIR have in place, as I think NAVAIR has at least implementation authority on this contract? (As I've not read it, may not have that right).
I don't know the answer, but someone in the program office sure as hell better.
When you get to flight critical components, I'll suggest to you that someone in Sikorsky has a serious interest. (A replay of the Blackhawk spindle issue back in the early 90's, which seems to have been the trigger for the "flight safety parts" program the Army put into place, is not desired ... )
Again, I didn't make the rules but I know the rules that were strictly enforced the last time around and this is the polar opposite.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRAVO - Bravo
Does the President fly on his cell phone? Could it fatally crash?
Am I missing something?
The President probably uses a 'phone which was manufactured in China. Does that worry you too?
Am I missing something?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas - Lets not call names.
I would think you would have supported your UK based VH-71 program, from which SIK only took jobs and money away from your country......?
Stinger - seriously, what planet are you from? This is the 21st century not the 19th century.
Do you honestly think chinese or indian built stock for the presedential limo is inferior to anything you can produce?
Do you honestly think chinese or indian built stock for the presedential limo is inferior to anything you can produce?
VH-92
( Need to start this by making clear that I retired 10 years ago, first, and second, that I haven't checked this subject out with anyone at SA )
According to the processes that I assume are still in place for the qualification of a US military helicopter, the VH-92 will require, among other flight testing, a flight loads survey covering the entire flight envelope specified by the contract, and additionally, a structural flight demonstration according to Mil D 23222. See: Demonstration Requirements for Helicopters
I should add/clarify: FAA qualification requires a thorough flight loads survey, but does not require a structural demonstration as specified by the military.
This data will, I assume, be summed with existent FAA structural loads data that is applicable, and the respective component lives and replacement times will be established.
I used the word " assume twice so far, and recall as a junior Lt., I was taught never to assume anything, and that good advice applies here.
It would appear, therefore, that the system is in place to ensure any new parts get a thorough test qual.
BTW, a review of the test conditions and maneuvers required by 23222 makes for interesting reading for pilots and engineers.
According to the processes that I assume are still in place for the qualification of a US military helicopter, the VH-92 will require, among other flight testing, a flight loads survey covering the entire flight envelope specified by the contract, and additionally, a structural flight demonstration according to Mil D 23222. See: Demonstration Requirements for Helicopters
I should add/clarify: FAA qualification requires a thorough flight loads survey, but does not require a structural demonstration as specified by the military.
This data will, I assume, be summed with existent FAA structural loads data that is applicable, and the respective component lives and replacement times will be established.
I used the word " assume twice so far, and recall as a junior Lt., I was taught never to assume anything, and that good advice applies here.
It would appear, therefore, that the system is in place to ensure any new parts get a thorough test qual.
BTW, a review of the test conditions and maneuvers required by 23222 makes for interesting reading for pilots and engineers.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 22nd Oct 2015 at 20:39. Reason: wording addition/changes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not familiar with the details of the kestrel program (although what I read over the last years was plain comical).
I think you can certainly make a case that it's ridiculous to transfer the jobs away from the domestic market for a project like that. But if a company like Sikorsky can have a proper and safe helicopter built in the US, why shouldn't they be able to have it built elsewhere?
I think you can certainly make a case that it's ridiculous to transfer the jobs away from the domestic market for a project like that. But if a company like Sikorsky can have a proper and safe helicopter built in the US, why shouldn't they be able to have it built elsewhere?
WHY? What has changed?
I am thinking Sultan has an evil twin in Stinger....they both sure seem to have the same attitude towards anything Sikorsky.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You certainly have an agenda. The tail rotor blade issue is not an issue because the TRB is not made in China as you assert. The tail rotor pylon is made in China. Pretty benign. Keep swinging. Put those terrible folks from another company trying to advance the industry in their place. I really don't get the hating.
So, in Stinger's ideal world, this all-amurrican presidential machine has every part made in the gosh-darn Hew Hess Hay and is a gleaming example of truth, justice, and the amurrican way.
And then he puts some fuel into it, which comes from ....an arab country!
And then he puts some fuel into it, which comes from ....an arab country!
Well, actually, we do have a little bit of that Oil stuff in our own country. Except for the policies of the current Occupant of the White House and his cronies....we would be exporting the stuff we got from Canada.
SAS
You are shooting dusty wads. No connection to Stinger. Do not really care about the presidential helicopter as it will be cancelled for gross overruns. Much more fun to point out the disasters of the CH-53K and S-97.
Only 5 weeks to go to get the 53K in the air to the new schedule. As a tax payer I hope they are ground running by now with a hover safe gearbox.
The Sultan
You are shooting dusty wads. No connection to Stinger. Do not really care about the presidential helicopter as it will be cancelled for gross overruns. Much more fun to point out the disasters of the CH-53K and S-97.
Only 5 weeks to go to get the 53K in the air to the new schedule. As a tax payer I hope they are ground running by now with a hover safe gearbox.
The Sultan
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear God!!!
I've spent a lot of the last couple of years at Sikorsky seeing through the production of a couple of VIP machines we have on order for a European customer. Parts are made all over the world, shipped to SA and put together. Exactly the same way that Boeing do it (In fact Boeing undercarriages are made about twenty five miles from where I am in the UK)
The quality control and audit process is outstanding, including in the countries who supply the parts (all overseen by SA and FAA and I would expect for the Presidential 92 the Pentagon), The production line is a busy place with a lot of really good people making sure everything goes together properly.
It all comes down to expertise and cost. If someone in China/India/Uk/Canada or Outer Mongolia has made the investment in a specific area of technology and can produce the right kit, to the right standard, at the right price then that has to be the sensible way to go.
As an overseas customer of SA the biggest bugbear has to be ITAR, that really does cause a massive level of frustration.
So its' not all American, who cares because neither is the Statue of Liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty
SND
I've spent a lot of the last couple of years at Sikorsky seeing through the production of a couple of VIP machines we have on order for a European customer. Parts are made all over the world, shipped to SA and put together. Exactly the same way that Boeing do it (In fact Boeing undercarriages are made about twenty five miles from where I am in the UK)
The quality control and audit process is outstanding, including in the countries who supply the parts (all overseen by SA and FAA and I would expect for the Presidential 92 the Pentagon), The production line is a busy place with a lot of really good people making sure everything goes together properly.
It all comes down to expertise and cost. If someone in China/India/Uk/Canada or Outer Mongolia has made the investment in a specific area of technology and can produce the right kit, to the right standard, at the right price then that has to be the sensible way to go.
As an overseas customer of SA the biggest bugbear has to be ITAR, that really does cause a massive level of frustration.
So its' not all American, who cares because neither is the Statue of Liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_LibertySND