NAWSARH AW101 launch last week
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,534
Likes: 293
From: The Alps
NAWSARH AW101 launch last week
Hi guys, I attended the rollot / launch of the RNoAF NAWSARH AW101 in sunny somerst as well as seeing the first airframe which flew back in April, do a flight demo so here are my photos below,
cheers
cheers
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,534
Likes: 293
From: The Alps
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 563
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Are they that reliable - was up there shooting a SAR Ex with Norwegian Air Amb and the AW101 was there but when they got an actual call later that day they ended sending the Norwegian Air Amb Foundation D3 because the 101 had broken down ??
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 563
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Should have shopped on Black Friday 
4.2 billion is about twice as much as the entire air ambulance contract costs during the current period (12 bases, 13 helicopters + backup, distributed throughout Norway) 
We don't suffer from galloping national debt here on the mountain.
4.2 billion is about twice as much as the entire air ambulance contract costs during the current period (12 bases, 13 helicopters + backup, distributed throughout Norway) We don't suffer from galloping national debt here on the mountain.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 173
Likes: 20
From: The 4th dimentia.....
Our CHC brethren on the SAR S92 in Norway are arguing the case to turn the interim nature of their contract into a permanent solution. They have proven the civilian operation of a pair of S92's equally as capable in real terms but government want to make it all AW101 including remote bases. 45 minute hover limit due to recurring MGB chips is less than ideal. Serviceability rate overall nowhere near the civlian S92 standard across CHC and Bristow of 96-98%.
Joined: Mar 2007
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 29
Likes: 2
From: Oxford
Our CHC brethren on the SAR S92 in Norway are arguing the case to turn the interim nature of their contract into a permanent solution. They have proven the civilian operation of a pair of S92's equally as capable in real terms but government want to make it all AW101 including remote bases. 45 minute hover limit due to recurring MGB chips is less than ideal. Serviceability rate overall nowhere near the civlian S92 standard across CHC and Bristow of 96-98%.
As for the S92 being 'as capable as the AW101 in real terms', that too is a familiar argument used to justify the procurement of a cheaper, but ultimately less capable, aircraft. In many ways, that's fair enough; in the UK, I remember the Bell 412 being promoted as an alternative to the Sea King. Indeed, it could probably have performed at least 80% of the Sea King's missions at a much lower cost. However, the Bell 412 could not meet the MOD's requirements, especially in terms of range.
Similarly, the Norwegian Air Force, during its comprehensive procurement process, set out clear performance requirements. The S92 could not meet them, and it still can't. Should the criteria be changed to match the aircraft?
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 563
From: Auckland, New Zealand
Similarly, the Norwegian Air Force, during its comprehensive procurement process, set out clear performance requirements
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 206
Likes: 91
From: Canada
Aw101 Canadian SAR success
It has been a successful SAR platform in Canada. Very interesting article about renewing the fleet and upgrading to Norway SAR spec: - Article Link
Joined: Mar 2007
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 29
Likes: 2
From: Oxford
Xmit Do you know what those requirements were and were they done to make sure 101 succeeded ??
If my memory serves me correctly, the S92 required additonal internal fuel tanks to exceed even the Sea King's range, while the AW101 could exceed the required range using its standard fuel tanks alone. There might have been other factors.
As I say, this is only my recollection, and I would not wish it to be taken as 100% factual. Details of the SAR Helicopter procurement process, and its outcome, might be available from the Norwegian Government.
Last edited by Xmit; 27th January 2026 at 20:45.
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 563
From: Auckland, New Zealand
However, I believe that the key factor in the AW101's favour was range.
Just curious.
Joined: Mar 2007
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 29
Likes: 2
From: Oxford
Of course, there are many other criteria eg cabin size, OEI performance, safety considerations, and other mission requirements. For SAR operations, the AW101's combination of characteristics is hard to beat - except on cost. I believe that the S92 was eliminated from the Norwegian SAR helicopter competition, which was eventually between the AW101 and the EC725 (Caracal).
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 165
From: Hobe Sound, Florida
As to the S-92 range capability, it is a continuing puzzle to me that we ( well
Sikorsky ) never just copied what we did with the USAF H-3s and 53s and put external aux tanks attached to the sponsons. Not exactly rocket science.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
As to the S-92 range capability, it is a continuing puzzle to me that we ( well
Sikorsky ) never just copied what we did with the USAF H-3s and 53s and put external aux tanks attached to the sponsons. Not exactly rocket science.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Joined: Sep 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 2,371
Likes: 877
From: Canada
S-92
As to the S-92 range capability, it is a continuing puzzle to me that we ( well…Sikorsky ) never just copied what we did with the USAF H-3s and 53s and put external aux tanks attached to the sponsons. Not exactly rocket science.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Being as the Royal Canadian Navy mounts torpedoes on sponsons of the Cyclone variant of the S-92 it should be possible to mount Aux Tanks thereupon….( of course I am sure there will be tons of folk who will say it is impossible or will cost billions ).
Last place I was based with the mighty 92 we had two aux tanks in the cabin that allowed 7000 lbs of fuel total. Being as the rig was 280 Nm offshore through the ice and fog….we needed it….we required an onshore alternate …most I ever loaded was 6300 lbs.
Payload heading offshore was limited.
We needed min 560 nm range ( sometimes more ) plus 2 approaches to the rig and 2 onshore plus reserves.
Not to say the wx was problematic but one exceptionally bad WX week I did 4 trips to the rig and never saw anything but a blip on the radar. Nor did anyone else and we were doing min 2 trips a day out there.
“Are you sure they are still there? For all we know they upped stakes daze ago, the standby boat then towed them to Bermuda for vacation and we’ve been doing approaches to an iceberg or some Portuguese fishing boat!”
As to the 101 there is some very good stuff on You Tube by Mattfrom103 an RCAF SAR guy based in Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador. They do some long trips.
Last edited by albatross; 28th January 2026 at 16:53.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 173
Likes: 20
From: The 4th dimentia.....
Whilst Sikorsky may have dropped the ball when proposing S92, they failed to provide performance data but it was between S92 and AW101 by that stage of the process, there is clear demonstration in Tromsų, and now Svalbard of the SAR capability of the airframe, and it is purely a SAR function here.
Therefore it is not a case of apples and oranges. AW101 in Norway is purely a SAR airframe and only available for SAR tasking. That is 330Sqn's job.
Serviceability of Portugal AW101 is horrific, on occasion sub 20%. There are plenty of former Portugal Air Force SAR AW101 crew in the offshore arena now to provide their opinion.
Clearly the NAWSAR airframes are vastly superior in many ways, but at what cost? What is the unit price and hourly operating cost of the asset? CHC Norway crew will argue heavily that their S92 performance has never fallen short of the mission requirement, SAR and only SAR.
Therefore it is not a case of apples and oranges. AW101 in Norway is purely a SAR airframe and only available for SAR tasking. That is 330Sqn's job.
Serviceability of Portugal AW101 is horrific, on occasion sub 20%. There are plenty of former Portugal Air Force SAR AW101 crew in the offshore arena now to provide their opinion.
Clearly the NAWSAR airframes are vastly superior in many ways, but at what cost? What is the unit price and hourly operating cost of the asset? CHC Norway crew will argue heavily that their S92 performance has never fallen short of the mission requirement, SAR and only SAR.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 165
From: Hobe Sound, Florida
Thanks Albatross. Great video of that offshore patient pickup from an enroute ship. Obviously a very well experienced and trained crew. Tribute to their service. Imagine the offshore weather provides some serious challenges on a not infrequent basis. Looks like you have the professionals to handle whatever comes your way. Good luck.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
I would have liked some height and speed calls on the letdown to the ship by the PNF plus confirmation of rad alt settings and AP modes.
Additionally the briefing was rather bitty and the decision to do a 'dry run' should have been made while the PF was assessing his hazards and references. The PF seemed surprised to find turbulence in the lee of the superstructure.
We called it a dummy deck and the briefing could have included the idea that if it looked OK in the overhead they would stay there and winch out - it was a bit of a voyage of discovery by the crew.
I heard no mention of power or performance or any intentions should they suffer a power loss.
A straightforward winching serial - nothing tricky in there, but what do I know......
Additionally the briefing was rather bitty and the decision to do a 'dry run' should have been made while the PF was assessing his hazards and references. The PF seemed surprised to find turbulence in the lee of the superstructure.
We called it a dummy deck and the briefing could have included the idea that if it looked OK in the overhead they would stay there and winch out - it was a bit of a voyage of discovery by the crew.
I heard no mention of power or performance or any intentions should they suffer a power loss.
A straightforward winching serial - nothing tricky in there, but what do I know......
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Likes: 26
From: Australia
As to the S-92 range capability, it is a continuing puzzle to me that we ( well…Sikorsky ) never just copied what we did with the USAF H-3s and 53s and put external aux tanks attached to the sponsons. Not exactly rocket science.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
Forgot to mention: as to the additional weight, there was a possibility at one time that an Atlantic SAR requirement might exist and that Portugal would be the operator of some S-92s. We prepared for this possibility by doing a flight loads survey flight test at 31,000 lbs and up to 9000 ft altitude ( and yes, including the rotor stall envelope etc - some interesting flying ). Anyway it never came to pass, but putting aux tanks on the sponsons would not be much different than similar experience with the S-61 and S-65.
I think the problem is Civil aviation authorities won't certify for helo's that can jettison 800L fuel tanks.