Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Sikorsky S-92 and Leonardo AW101 VVIP.

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Sikorsky S-92 and Leonardo AW101 VVIP.

Old 28th Nov 2019, 02:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 6
Sikorsky S-92 and Leonardo AW101 VVIP.

Hello!

DISCLAMER: I don't know a thing about helicopters, and if I'm posting in the right place of this forums.

I was instructed to gather some initial general information about running costs, reliability and dependability between Sikorsky S-92[1] and Leonardo AW101 VVIP. This is about private board members and executives needs... in Europe. So, would you mind to share some information in regards to this subjects.

Thank you.

[1] apparently there is a revision coming in 2021 - S-92B.
rigoletto is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 06:36
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 317
I did exactly that same exercise last year. Give me a day or two to see if I still have it at work.
hihover is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 06:48
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 2,481
I saw a beautiful S-92 in Noo Yawk back in 2006, owned by the owner of a NY football team, its main task was to carry the owner's kids from Long Island to Manhattan to school! Divided into 2 cabins, polished woodwork everywhere. Just gorgeous. Price quoted then was US $25 megabux. No idea about the running costs, but for a gazillionaire, who cares.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 12:19
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
If you want a helicopter that starts and runs all day with no snags then the S92 is your machine. If you are not that keen on flying then go for the Leonardo option.
P3 Bellows is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 12:21
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Age: 41
Posts: 3
After experience of flying both; the S-92 beats the AW101 hands down with regards to reliability and serviceability. Of course the caveat is the quality of the technical team tasked with the maintenance of such glorious beasts!
RotorBunny is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 23:21
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 6
This looks like Sikorsky for the win.

Thanks.

PS. that NH90 is just military, doesn't it?
rigoletto is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 10:01
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 268
101 isnt civil certified

so the comparison is pointless unless you are a govt or military operator, however if you are and want the biggest, most comfotable and safest vvip aircraft, the choice is clear
dangermouse is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 10:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 4th dimension.....
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by rigoletto View Post
Hello!

DISCLAMER: I don't know a thing about helicopters, and if I'm posting in the right place of this forums.

I was instructed to gather some initial general information about running costs, reliability and dependability between Sikorsky S-92[1] and Leonardo AW101 VVIP. This is about private board members and executives needs... in Europe. So, would you mind to share some information in regards to this subjects.

Thank you.

[1] apparently there is a revision coming in 2021 - S-92B.

I may be able to help with info. Send me a message.

Northernstar is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 11:27
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,542
Originally Posted by dangermouse View Post
so the comparison is pointless unless you are a govt or military operator, however if you are and want the biggest, most comfotable and safest vvip aircraft, the choice is clear
Are you sure it's not certified? It has a TCDS: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS-EASA-R-013-%20EH101-500%20-%20Issue_05.pdf

212man is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 12:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 699
Greetings 212. Re this comparison: has the S-92 AVC with 6 FGs vs the original 3 gained wide acceptance?. Re the number of blades. In either 2003 or 2004, we flew a flight loads survey on the 92 at a GW as I recall of 31800, in support of a Portuguese effort to obtain a European off shore SAR program. You know the original design gross weight for the CH-53 was 33,000 lbs and as we reacquainted ourselves with the subject of blade stall, we also renewed our appreciation for the CH-53 decision makers as to rotor solidity and number of blades for vibration control.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 13:16
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 268
The EH101 was certified

But the newer AW101 isn't. Only one civil EH101 was delivered to the Tokyo police but has now been retired, the AW101 is certifiable but not certified by a civil authority
dangermouse is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 13:34
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,542
Originally Posted by JohnDixson View Post
Greetings 212. Re this comparison: has the S-92 AVC with 6 FGs vs the original 3 gained wide acceptance?. Re the number of blades. In either 2003 or 2004, we flew a flight loads survey on the 92 at a GW as I recall of 31800, in support of a Portuguese effort to obtain a European off shore SAR program. You know the original design gross weight for the CH-53 was 33,000 lbs and as we reacquainted ourselves with the subject of blade stall, we also renewed our appreciation for the CH-53 decision makers as to rotor solidity and number of blades for vibration control.
Hi John, to be honest I don't know what proportion of the fleet has 6 FGs, but my recollection is that it was becoming the standard fit. Our aircraft had/have them (retrofitted as not available at delivery) and it was a big improvement, although we would have preferred 5 blades!
212man is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 13:57
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hobe Sound, Florida
Posts: 699
Part of that issue is reducing the blade root shear stresses, and another part is that we humans rate the same accelerations differently at higher frequencies: the same accelerations at higher frequencies are rated smoother. There was a learned paper on the subject circulated around the engineering department not much after I matriculated and it addressed that very subject.
JohnDixson is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 14:26
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,542
Originally Posted by dangermouse View Post
But the newer AW101 isn't. Only one civil EH101 was delivered to the Tokyo police but has now been retired, the AW101 is certifiable but not certified by a civil authority
That was actually my understanding, so I was surprised to see the EASA TCDS dated 2016 (albeit to Part 29 Amd 27!). I know AW were in discussions with some IOCs a few years ago, and it would needed around 10 orders to pay for re-certification, but then the bottom fell out of the market and long range drilling stopped.....
212man is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 18:32
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 20
Rigoletto, The AW101 is not civil certified, so you might need to look for another type for comparison. PM me if you want more detail
Ex Machina is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2019, 20:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 45
Posts: 54
Do you consider more than just the MMH/FH. Look at overall supportability, availability of spares, long term development, opportunities to share maintenance burden with other operators, training requirements, user requirements.

I'm sure the S-92 is a solid cab but 101 is popular and the Norway SAR is a technology feast which has a significant amount of sunk cost in development.
Misformonkey is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 04:39
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 245
Having had 3 and 6 FG set up 92's operating side by side and flying in both fairly regularly (with two different operators) , if you keep your MR vibes low and don't wait for them to flag to do adjustments , I have found stuff all difference, the 3 FG set up gives you better payloads approx. 1 person over the 6 FG, if I was getting my own 92 I'd only get 3 FG's.
The operator I'm with now has all their machines with 6 FG's, all our machines we fine tune under .1 ips on the MR , we think the 6 FG's are just dead weight but aren't allowed to remove 3.
Blackhawk9 is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 02:04
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 6
That seems the S-92 is the only real option inside the constraints I was given. Now I need to wait to receive some other instruction about this subject.

Thank you all.
rigoletto is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 13:17
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Escaped from ABZ...
Posts: 288
Depending on your specific requirements, it might be worth considering the AW189. Doesn't have the same cabin space, but it does have a long range capability as well as being much, much cheaper.
detgnome is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 15:53
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 1,810
Here's an interesting comparison. Mil 38 VIP.

https://www.ruaviation.com/docs/5/2018/10/25/209/?h
N707ZS is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.