Dear George, About your new helicopter ..........
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US has always thumbed their nose at any foreign nations productss for their military. Damb near killed Canada's aviation industry in the fiftys. They took a perfectly good LMG and turned it into the M60. Took many years to fix that. It isn't about free trade, or best product for the buck, it is all about being USA number 1 at anyones expence.
Last edited by rwm; 16th May 2003 at 21:39.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rebuttal and abdication.
To: Thomas Coupling
Not every helo manufacturer just the EH-101, the A-129, The Apache, the V-22, and the B-214 and the AH1-J as well as Sikorsky. I also found major problems on the A-310 that are yet to be resolved.
I post these items not to badmouth the airframe manufacturers but to make the operators and pilots aware of the potential problems.
If you were privy to what goes on in the engineering departments of most helo and aircraft companies you would most likely give up flying for a living.
Now to keep people with your mindset from carping at me when I post I'll stop. (For now)
To: BIT
The original design concept for the EH-101 was to use the third engine on an ad hoc basis as the mission required or, if the operator wished it could be used 100% of the time. Maybe I should have made myself a bit more clear.
And, all that it stands for.
It seems you have inside knowledge on the failure of management to carry out proper risk management, for EVERY conceivable helo manufacturer in the world.
I post these items not to badmouth the airframe manufacturers but to make the operators and pilots aware of the potential problems.
If you were privy to what goes on in the engineering departments of most helo and aircraft companies you would most likely give up flying for a living.
Now to keep people with your mindset from carping at me when I post I'll stop. (For now)
To: BIT
The original design concept for the EH-101 was to use the third engine on an ad hoc basis as the mission required or, if the operator wished it could be used 100% of the time. Maybe I should have made myself a bit more clear.
And, all that it stands for.
Last edited by Lu Zuckerman; 17th May 2003 at 10:43.
doesn't the Queen ride around in a S76?
The quick answer is 'Yes' but ....
... as with all questions in the field of aeronautics its often not as clear cut as that.
The Royal Household bought the S-76 for its own presumably considered reasons as the type most likely to fit in with looking the part [replacing a Sikorsky derived Wessex] and performing the mission.
But I understand there are occasions [and missions] where the 76 is set aside and an A109 Power is used. I believe that this is a performance issue out of certain locations.
Equally I suspect that if the Queen had bought a A109 there would be missions where a S76 or similar would be brought in.
Does the use of a Sikorsky by the Queen 'prove' that the AgustaWestland EH101 is a faulty design? Or does the occasional substitution of an [AgustaWestland] A109 prove that the S76 is not up to the job?
No, on all counts.
The quick answer is 'Yes' but ....
... as with all questions in the field of aeronautics its often not as clear cut as that.
The Royal Household bought the S-76 for its own presumably considered reasons as the type most likely to fit in with looking the part [replacing a Sikorsky derived Wessex] and performing the mission.
But I understand there are occasions [and missions] where the 76 is set aside and an A109 Power is used. I believe that this is a performance issue out of certain locations.
Equally I suspect that if the Queen had bought a A109 there would be missions where a S76 or similar would be brought in.
Does the use of a Sikorsky by the Queen 'prove' that the AgustaWestland EH101 is a faulty design? Or does the occasional substitution of an [AgustaWestland] A109 prove that the S76 is not up to the job?
No, on all counts.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so does anyone have any knowledge of which helicopter is currently favored? I saw them both at Edwards AFB on the 17th and talked with both crews, as can be expected both claimed that their aircraft was received very well.
Funny thing was, I noticed the 101 was configured for troop transport with the troop seats and such, whereas the 92 had nice airline style seats in it. I had trouble imagining senators sitting in the back and enjoying the troop seats, but im sure the generals were used to it. Well I was just wondering if anybody had any info, or rumors about it, thanks.
Funny thing was, I noticed the 101 was configured for troop transport with the troop seats and such, whereas the 92 had nice airline style seats in it. I had trouble imagining senators sitting in the back and enjoying the troop seats, but im sure the generals were used to it. Well I was just wondering if anybody had any info, or rumors about it, thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barannfin
The Merlin Mk3 that you saw was RAF22 (ZJ138) and is a std in-service a/c hence the troop seats, which are actually reasonably comfy. They’re also crash worthy to X g (where X is a number I can’t remember) provided you don’t stow your kit under them. The floor is a re-enforced floor for heavy loads with a cargo hook built in to one of the bays under the floor (can be replaced if customer spec requires with an 800 kg capacity fuel tank).
VIP cabin design is a bit more than slamming in a few airline style seats and I should imagine that Sikorsky only fitted their a/c with seats to facilitate famil trips for interested parties (but I wasn’t there so you’re probably a better judge of their cabin layout). The reality is that for VIP duties a lot of thought and design is required to arrive at a fully noise attenuating cabin in any helicopter.
lhb
The Merlin Mk3 that you saw was RAF22 (ZJ138) and is a std in-service a/c hence the troop seats, which are actually reasonably comfy. They’re also crash worthy to X g (where X is a number I can’t remember) provided you don’t stow your kit under them. The floor is a re-enforced floor for heavy loads with a cargo hook built in to one of the bays under the floor (can be replaced if customer spec requires with an 800 kg capacity fuel tank).
VIP cabin design is a bit more than slamming in a few airline style seats and I should imagine that Sikorsky only fitted their a/c with seats to facilitate famil trips for interested parties (but I wasn’t there so you’re probably a better judge of their cabin layout). The reality is that for VIP duties a lot of thought and design is required to arrive at a fully noise attenuating cabin in any helicopter.
lhb
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chianti Vs Spotted Dick
By all rights if the US decided to use the EH 101 as the presidential helicopter it would most likely be built in Italy and not in England. This assumes Bell does not build it in the USA. The reason I say this is by definition the UK has the contract to build the military version and Italy has the contract to build the civil version. At least that is the way it was when I worked on the program.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again Lu is behind the drag curve, the workshare between WHL and AG has nothing to do with 'military' and 'civil' (After all the Italian Navy aircraft are assembled in Italy and the civil based Danish Aircraft are assembled in the UK). The arrangements are much more likely to be based on work loads between the sites and to some degree customer preferences. Denmark is closer to the UK than Italy and vice versa for Portugal.
Nice to see this discussion ongoing, I guess we will found out in October. I can only agree with the above posts regarding the interior fit. The displayed Merlin is a front line combat aircraft, the S92 a prettified prototype
DM
Nice to see this discussion ongoing, I guess we will found out in October. I can only agree with the above posts regarding the interior fit. The displayed Merlin is a front line combat aircraft, the S92 a prettified prototype
DM
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please read more carefully.
To: dangermouse
Please re-read the last sentence above. Things do change but memories don't.
And all that it implies.
The reason I say this is by definition the UK has the contract to build the military version and Italy has the contract to build the civil version. At least that is the way it was when I worked on the program.
And all that it implies.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press report
Blair and Berlusconi lobby Bush for helicopter deal
Tony Blair and his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi, are intensely lobbying George Bush to buy AgustaWestland EH-101 helicopters for his new presidential fleet, it emerged yesterday.
Kevin Smith, chief executive of GKN, joint owners with Finmeccanica of AgustaWestland, said the two prime ministers were repeatedly marketing the helicopter in their face-to-face talks with the US president.
Industry sources said that the British government was "putting an enormous, unprecedented amount of effort" into getting a substantial order from the US, where the helicopter market is worth $7bn (£4.3bn) over the next few years, according to Mr Smith.
The green and white Marine One fleet of Sikorski helicopters ferrying Mr Bush from Washington to Camp David is due to be replaced with 24 new craft, with a decision due early next year.
AgustaWestland has teamed up with US rival Bell under the leadership of defence company Lockheed Martin to compete against Sikorski and Boeing for the order.
Eurocopter, the world's biggest manufacturer, broke ground yesterday on a new plant in Columbus, Mississippi, to build para-public helicopters for agencies such as the coast guard and county sherriffs.
It has kept out of the bidding for the fleet, convinced that only a US team will win. But Mr Smith said: "This is our best shot for a long, long time to get a product into the US - and we've proved them wrong by breaking into the Japanese market, which had been closed for 50 years.
"You never know, you might just see the president climbing into a foreign helicopter. If he takes another route that's not the end of the world for us. If we win it would be a major, major credibility reinforcement for us."
GKN is aiming for orders worth $7bn for 360 craft, including 196 search and rescue helicopters for the US air force worth up to $5bn. The entire programme is worth more than $20bn over its lifetime.
Blair and Berlusconi lobby Bush for helicopter deal
Tony Blair and his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi, are intensely lobbying George Bush to buy AgustaWestland EH-101 helicopters for his new presidential fleet, it emerged yesterday.
Kevin Smith, chief executive of GKN, joint owners with Finmeccanica of AgustaWestland, said the two prime ministers were repeatedly marketing the helicopter in their face-to-face talks with the US president.
Industry sources said that the British government was "putting an enormous, unprecedented amount of effort" into getting a substantial order from the US, where the helicopter market is worth $7bn (£4.3bn) over the next few years, according to Mr Smith.
The green and white Marine One fleet of Sikorski helicopters ferrying Mr Bush from Washington to Camp David is due to be replaced with 24 new craft, with a decision due early next year.
AgustaWestland has teamed up with US rival Bell under the leadership of defence company Lockheed Martin to compete against Sikorski and Boeing for the order.
Eurocopter, the world's biggest manufacturer, broke ground yesterday on a new plant in Columbus, Mississippi, to build para-public helicopters for agencies such as the coast guard and county sherriffs.
It has kept out of the bidding for the fleet, convinced that only a US team will win. But Mr Smith said: "This is our best shot for a long, long time to get a product into the US - and we've proved them wrong by breaking into the Japanese market, which had been closed for 50 years.
"You never know, you might just see the president climbing into a foreign helicopter. If he takes another route that's not the end of the world for us. If we win it would be a major, major credibility reinforcement for us."
GKN is aiming for orders worth $7bn for 360 craft, including 196 search and rescue helicopters for the US air force worth up to $5bn. The entire programme is worth more than $20bn over its lifetime.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, dear!
On the original point of this thread…
Does anyone here really believe the US will buy a non-US helicopter for presidential use, at least in anything more than a token way?
You’re kidding me, right? Tell me you’re having a laugh!
Let us consider just three factors out of many:
1…There’s a perfectly good new US product recently available from Lappos & Co, called the S-92. Made-in-America, it is an award-winning aircraft, designed, tested and, most importantly, built by American workers in American factories during a time of dwindling (read: embarrassing) US state support for rotorcraft development.
2…Lappos & Co would quite like to sell a few more to others, and what better endorsement than that it recently sold to George W and his military?
3…Anyone remember the Kyoto Agreement, the one on that minor issue of global importance, the environment? Just about the first thing George W did post election was to deny his nation’s responsibilities toward this unique and overwhelmingly important global deal on the basis that cutting back wouldn’t be in America’s best (read: commercial) interests.
Now, does anyone still truly believe George could give a flying whatsit at a rolling doughnut when it comes to choosing the best performing aircraft for the presidential or even US military role? So long as the S-92 is ‘good enough’ that’s the one he’ll buy. Simple!
Good luck to Sikorsky. It looks to have an excellent craft in its catalogue and I’m sure it will do well. But guys, let’s not waste bandwidth wondering whether George W might buy 101 in numbers. He won’t. It’s just not an aircraft question; it’s a political one.
Does anyone here really believe the US will buy a non-US helicopter for presidential use, at least in anything more than a token way?
You’re kidding me, right? Tell me you’re having a laugh!
Let us consider just three factors out of many:
1…There’s a perfectly good new US product recently available from Lappos & Co, called the S-92. Made-in-America, it is an award-winning aircraft, designed, tested and, most importantly, built by American workers in American factories during a time of dwindling (read: embarrassing) US state support for rotorcraft development.
2…Lappos & Co would quite like to sell a few more to others, and what better endorsement than that it recently sold to George W and his military?
3…Anyone remember the Kyoto Agreement, the one on that minor issue of global importance, the environment? Just about the first thing George W did post election was to deny his nation’s responsibilities toward this unique and overwhelmingly important global deal on the basis that cutting back wouldn’t be in America’s best (read: commercial) interests.
Now, does anyone still truly believe George could give a flying whatsit at a rolling doughnut when it comes to choosing the best performing aircraft for the presidential or even US military role? So long as the S-92 is ‘good enough’ that’s the one he’ll buy. Simple!
Good luck to Sikorsky. It looks to have an excellent craft in its catalogue and I’m sure it will do well. But guys, let’s not waste bandwidth wondering whether George W might buy 101 in numbers. He won’t. It’s just not an aircraft question; it’s a political one.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,586
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
Mr. Sikorski defected to the States from a totalitarian regime. Now they buy his helicopters.
Mr. Blairski is welcome to do the same and do us all a favour.
Mr. Blairski is welcome to do the same and do us all a favour.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: mostly in the jungle...
Age: 59
Posts: 502
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing that something as important as new helicopters are a political debate at all! Especially considering the (normally) importance of the Presidential Transport System, there should just be a competition over requirements and the best craft wins no matter what - if necessary make compensation deals for using a foreign product.
Second, I am not up to date on the performance figures, but the EH101 does seem quite a bit bigger then the S-92? Is this a fair comparisson from this point of view?
In a recent Rotor&Wing they mentioned a SAR operation from a Canadian Cormorant over a huge distance offshore. I guess the service record of the EH101 will count for something against no service record (yet) for the S-92.
I understand the competition for the Presidential Helicopter, but as a follow on the Armed Forces will most likely buy the same product (slimming down to fewer systems, etc.), I understand the Presidential fleet is actually part of the Marine Corps, does that mean they will get more Helicopters (despite their love for the V-22) or will it be only for the Presitential Taxi?
Last, no one mentioned economics:
Also R&W as a source, the S-92 was mentioned at around 18-20 million in VIP configuration, the EH (US?)-101 is a hefty 45+!!!
Never mind politics, I´d get me TWO S-92´s and some spare cash for operation!! Juggle the numbers with 24 aircraft - that´s some real cash, even for the Armed Forces!
3top
Second, I am not up to date on the performance figures, but the EH101 does seem quite a bit bigger then the S-92? Is this a fair comparisson from this point of view?
In a recent Rotor&Wing they mentioned a SAR operation from a Canadian Cormorant over a huge distance offshore. I guess the service record of the EH101 will count for something against no service record (yet) for the S-92.
I understand the competition for the Presidential Helicopter, but as a follow on the Armed Forces will most likely buy the same product (slimming down to fewer systems, etc.), I understand the Presidential fleet is actually part of the Marine Corps, does that mean they will get more Helicopters (despite their love for the V-22) or will it be only for the Presitential Taxi?
Last, no one mentioned economics:
Also R&W as a source, the S-92 was mentioned at around 18-20 million in VIP configuration, the EH (US?)-101 is a hefty 45+!!!
Never mind politics, I´d get me TWO S-92´s and some spare cash for operation!! Juggle the numbers with 24 aircraft - that´s some real cash, even for the Armed Forces!
3top
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CSP Vessel
Don't the US use a VIP version of the UH60 (prince of helicopters)? I think several other nations have purchased this version also. Faster, lighter and cheaper than EHI-01 / NH90 variants. Why not?
Why not?
LM,
HMX-1 already operate VH-60N's; the tender is primarily to replace the VH-3's which are getting somewhat long in the tooth
Air portability is something of an issue, since the VH-60N's are able to be airfreighted to other countries to support Presidential visits, unlike the VH-3. We had VH-60 parked in our hangar (with 24 hour armed Marine guard
) when Bush Mk1 visited Melbourne, and it is not what could be called "Presidential" inside. No headroom (unless you're less than 4ft tall), limited seats, and no windows to speak of. Really just an emergency support aircraft.
HMX-1 already operate VH-60N's; the tender is primarily to replace the VH-3's which are getting somewhat long in the tooth
Air portability is something of an issue, since the VH-60N's are able to be airfreighted to other countries to support Presidential visits, unlike the VH-3. We had VH-60 parked in our hangar (with 24 hour armed Marine guard
) when Bush Mk1 visited Melbourne, and it is not what could be called "Presidential" inside. No headroom (unless you're less than 4ft tall), limited seats, and no windows to speak of. Really just an emergency support aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Monkey!
Cheers John, just stirring the northren hemisphere patriots. Excellent piccy. Undoubtably suffers from the shallow cabin like all blackhawks. Apparently the ride is far less noisy due to some whizz bang insulation. However, throw in some leather seats and a bar fridge and I could imagine worse chariots to be ferried around in, even in an emergency!
leather seats and a bar fridge
Try very average cloth covered seats, half the cabin taken up with comms gear and seats for the operator, and flash protected windows
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that the Executive Blackhawk shown above is used for VIP transport other than the Executive Branch. Specifically, you will find General Officers and other military VIP's (i.e. the Under Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, etc, etc, etc).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RDR, the VH-60 is periodically used to transport the president. A year or two ago, I saw George W on TV using a VH-60 to overfly an area damaged by a storm, that he later declared a disaster area to make FEMA funding available for rebuilding.