Dear George, About your new helicopter ..........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear George, About your new helicopter ..........
from the Wall Street Journal
A European helicopter on the White House lawn?
Watch this space.
Since Dwight Eisenhower was U.S. president in the 1950s, the distinctive green and white helicopter that picks up the commander-in-chief from the south lawn of the White House has been an American-made Sikorsky.
Now, an aircraft being offered by the U.S.'s closest ally in the Iraq War is attempting to swoop in and unseat Sikorsky as the provider of the world's most prestigious air taxi, Marine One.
Both Sikorsky and its main competitor, AgustaWestland, a joint British and Italian helicopter company, are jockeying for position against a backdrop of growing tension between the U.S. and Europe over whether some important markets, such as military contracts, are truly open to foreign competitors.
Just last week, United Technologies Corp., the parent company of Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney engines, lost a $3 billion (2.61 billion euros) contract to supply engines for a European military-cargo plane. A European consortium that included Great Britain's Rolls Royce used political ties to pressure Airbus to allow it to sweeten its bid after learning that Pratt had come in 20 percent lower.
People familiar with the Marine One competition say that until recently, it would have been unthinkable that a foreign-designed helicopter would be a permanent part of the fleet that carries an American president. Traditionally, a Boeing 747 was used as Air Force One because it is the biggest plane, while Boeing was one of the U.S.'s largest companies. But that tradition is coming into question because of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's staunch support of the president's Iraq agenda in the face of international opposition.
Mr. Blair already has intervened on behalf of AgustaWestland, sending a letter to Mr. Bush in January that began with a hand-written "Dear George," and ended with "I hope you will look favourably on this proven `off the shelf' product."
The competition will pit United Technologies' newly certified twin-engine S-92 helicopter against a three-engine helicopter that AgustaWestland plans to build in the United States. Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co. say they believe that their V-22 tilt-rotor also will be a strong contender, despite the aircraft's rocky safety record during development and testing.
The contract is relatively small in the scope of military programs -- 11 helicopters in all -- but the prestige alone could translate into marketing gains in a depressed civilian market. All three competitors hope to sell versions of their helicopters for executive transportation as well. "It's a pretty big deal," says Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. (Queen Elizabeth II flies on a Sikorsky.)
The president's helicopter fleet is part of an elite Marine Corps helicopter squadron known as HMX-1. The primary aircraft for presidential use is the 73-foot long Sikorsky VH-3, which first entered service in the early 1960s. Outfitted with plush carpeting, leather seats and systems to evade attack, the 14-passenger choppers are used to ferry the president between the White House and Andrews Air Force Base, where Air Force One is kept. They also are used to carry the president to and from his weekend retreat at Camp David and his ranch in Crawford, Texas. When the President travels, even overseas, the helicopter arrives ahead of him in a cargo plane.
Officials with the Navy's Naval Air Systems Command, which is supervising the competition, said the Marine Corps began talking about replacing the aging helicopters several years ago. Until earlier this year, the plan was to replace them by 2010, but some officials at the White House indicate that they would like to move that date up to 2007. The Navy already has $1.2 billion in its budget earmarked for the program, with the first $157 million expected to become available in fiscal year 2004. Independent studies are due in June on each of the contenders that will help define the timetable ahead.
A White House spokesman said the decision on a new helicopter would be in the hands of the Defense Department. "We fully expect any decision to be reached by an impartial and objective review," the spokesman said.
Lobbyists and executives representing the competitors already have begun touting their aircraft to key lawmakers and government officials. On Tuesday, Sikorsky is expected to take several reporters in the Washington area on a flight in its helicopter; AgustaWestland is scheduled to do the same on Thursday. Because the V-22 is still undergoing military flight testing, Bell-Boeing has no such flights planned.
Bell, which also has had helicopters in the presidential fleet over the years, hired a former Marine One pilot as a consultant. "We think the fact that the V-22 has already been undergoing the rigors of the validation process is a step up," said Arnie Easterly, who flew for both Ronald Reagan and President Bush's father.
AgustaWestland is seeking to position itself as a U.S. company selling a U.S.-made aircraft. It is teaming up with Lockheed Martin Corp. on the project. "This is going to be an American product that creates jobs here," said Stephen C. Moss, president of AgustaWestland's U.S. subsidiary.
Mr. Moss said that he believes that the foreign pedigree of the AgustaWestland helicopter will become a nonissue, largely because a substantial amount of the Sikorsky helicopter will be built by partners in China, Taiwan, Spain, Japan and Brazil. "Neither product is fully American," he said. AgustaWestland plans to stress its track record with more than 100 EH101s already in service world-wide. Sikorsky's Mr. Borgman stresses that while the S-92 is being built by several partners "the designs are ours."
Sikorsky is expected to be a formidable competitor, not only because it is the incumbent, but because its helicopter incorporates all of the Federal Aviation Administration's latest design and safety standards, including seats and a passenger cabin that would better survive a crash. (Agusta-Westland's helicopter was designed and certified before the more-stringent standards were adopted.) The aircraft won the National Aeronautic Association's Collier Trophy in 2002 for being the "greatest aeronautical achievement" in U.S. aerospace. "I think we have an aircraft that will win on its merits, Mr. Borgman said. Mr. Moss said he believes that the AgustaWestland helicopter stands an equal chance. "I really believe we are not tilting at windmills here," he said.
Now, an aircraft being offered by the U.S.'s closest ally in the Iraq War is attempting to swoop in and unseat Sikorsky as the provider of the world's most prestigious air taxi, Marine One.
Both Sikorsky and its main competitor, AgustaWestland, a joint British and Italian helicopter company, are jockeying for position against a backdrop of growing tension between the U.S. and Europe over whether some important markets, such as military contracts, are truly open to foreign competitors.
Just last week, United Technologies Corp., the parent company of Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney engines, lost a $3 billion (2.61 billion euros) contract to supply engines for a European military-cargo plane. A European consortium that included Great Britain's Rolls Royce used political ties to pressure Airbus to allow it to sweeten its bid after learning that Pratt had come in 20 percent lower.
People familiar with the Marine One competition say that until recently, it would have been unthinkable that a foreign-designed helicopter would be a permanent part of the fleet that carries an American president. Traditionally, a Boeing 747 was used as Air Force One because it is the biggest plane, while Boeing was one of the U.S.'s largest companies. But that tradition is coming into question because of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's staunch support of the president's Iraq agenda in the face of international opposition.
Mr. Blair already has intervened on behalf of AgustaWestland, sending a letter to Mr. Bush in January that began with a hand-written "Dear George," and ended with "I hope you will look favourably on this proven `off the shelf' product."
The competition will pit United Technologies' newly certified twin-engine S-92 helicopter against a three-engine helicopter that AgustaWestland plans to build in the United States. Textron Inc.'s Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co. say they believe that their V-22 tilt-rotor also will be a strong contender, despite the aircraft's rocky safety record during development and testing.
The contract is relatively small in the scope of military programs -- 11 helicopters in all -- but the prestige alone could translate into marketing gains in a depressed civilian market. All three competitors hope to sell versions of their helicopters for executive transportation as well. "It's a pretty big deal," says Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. (Queen Elizabeth II flies on a Sikorsky.)
The president's helicopter fleet is part of an elite Marine Corps helicopter squadron known as HMX-1. The primary aircraft for presidential use is the 73-foot long Sikorsky VH-3, which first entered service in the early 1960s. Outfitted with plush carpeting, leather seats and systems to evade attack, the 14-passenger choppers are used to ferry the president between the White House and Andrews Air Force Base, where Air Force One is kept. They also are used to carry the president to and from his weekend retreat at Camp David and his ranch in Crawford, Texas. When the President travels, even overseas, the helicopter arrives ahead of him in a cargo plane.
Officials with the Navy's Naval Air Systems Command, which is supervising the competition, said the Marine Corps began talking about replacing the aging helicopters several years ago. Until earlier this year, the plan was to replace them by 2010, but some officials at the White House indicate that they would like to move that date up to 2007. The Navy already has $1.2 billion in its budget earmarked for the program, with the first $157 million expected to become available in fiscal year 2004. Independent studies are due in June on each of the contenders that will help define the timetable ahead.
A White House spokesman said the decision on a new helicopter would be in the hands of the Defense Department. "We fully expect any decision to be reached by an impartial and objective review," the spokesman said.
Lobbyists and executives representing the competitors already have begun touting their aircraft to key lawmakers and government officials. On Tuesday, Sikorsky is expected to take several reporters in the Washington area on a flight in its helicopter; AgustaWestland is scheduled to do the same on Thursday. Because the V-22 is still undergoing military flight testing, Bell-Boeing has no such flights planned.
Bell, which also has had helicopters in the presidential fleet over the years, hired a former Marine One pilot as a consultant. "We think the fact that the V-22 has already been undergoing the rigors of the validation process is a step up," said Arnie Easterly, who flew for both Ronald Reagan and President Bush's father.
AgustaWestland is seeking to position itself as a U.S. company selling a U.S.-made aircraft. It is teaming up with Lockheed Martin Corp. on the project. "This is going to be an American product that creates jobs here," said Stephen C. Moss, president of AgustaWestland's U.S. subsidiary.
Mr. Moss said that he believes that the foreign pedigree of the AgustaWestland helicopter will become a nonissue, largely because a substantial amount of the Sikorsky helicopter will be built by partners in China, Taiwan, Spain, Japan and Brazil. "Neither product is fully American," he said. AgustaWestland plans to stress its track record with more than 100 EH101s already in service world-wide. Sikorsky's Mr. Borgman stresses that while the S-92 is being built by several partners "the designs are ours."
Sikorsky is expected to be a formidable competitor, not only because it is the incumbent, but because its helicopter incorporates all of the Federal Aviation Administration's latest design and safety standards, including seats and a passenger cabin that would better survive a crash. (Agusta-Westland's helicopter was designed and certified before the more-stringent standards were adopted.) The aircraft won the National Aeronautic Association's Collier Trophy in 2002 for being the "greatest aeronautical achievement" in U.S. aerospace. "I think we have an aircraft that will win on its merits, Mr. Borgman said. Mr. Moss said he believes that the AgustaWestland helicopter stands an equal chance. "I really believe we are not tilting at windmills here," he said.
Watch this space.
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
Yeah but.....
It is true that the S-92 has been certified to a higher standard than the EH-101 however the EH-101 was certificated based on no catastrophic failures. This does not mean that the EH-101 design is such that no catastrophic failures would ever occur it means that no catastrophic failures were ever considered in the development of the safety design standards that were required for civil certification. The S-92 is yet to be proven but the EH-101 has already suffered several catastrophic failures that resulted in three crashes and the loss of life and property. These failures were considered in the original safety analysis but were stricken from all documentation that led to certification.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still a recent article by the US magazine Rotor and Wing cites the 101 as a strong contender to be used by the U.S. Govt. citing several interesting reasons. I'm just happy to see some competition, its good for the industry.
Plus the 101 is one neat looking helicopter!
Plus the 101 is one neat looking helicopter!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blah
zuckerman
blah conspiracy blah certification blah I'm so important blah no one else knows jack about safety analysis blah I know coz I was there blah.
Change the record that you have been laying for the past n (where n is a very large number indeed) years.
Its good to see the US of A being thought to consider a non-US designed aircraft. May the best platform win.
blah conspiracy blah certification blah I'm so important blah no one else knows jack about safety analysis blah I know coz I was there blah.
Change the record that you have been laying for the past n (where n is a very large number indeed) years.
Its good to see the US of A being thought to consider a non-US designed aircraft. May the best platform win.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit
You are being unnecessarily offensive. Lou is entitled to his opinions and actually (although I don't always agree with him) states some good facts.
The S92 is yet to be proven but Lou is correct, the EH101 has suffered some catastrophic failures during development.
I am sure that each aircraft will be judged on its merits but the S92 is very impressive in its flaw tolerant FAR/JAR 29 certification. OEI performance is excellent and it seemed to have plenty of power during the (yet to be certified) category A take off during recent evaluations.
The EH101 will be unlikely to win (in my personal opinion only) George or any other President would be more likely to travel in a US made product than a European one, allies or no allies. Airforce One just couldn't be an Airbus could it?
Yes, HMQ does fly in a Sikorsky but then again, the Brits don't really make any helicopters in that category now and no one would seriously suggest that HM might fly in an EC 155.
LE
You are being unnecessarily offensive. Lou is entitled to his opinions and actually (although I don't always agree with him) states some good facts.
The S92 is yet to be proven but Lou is correct, the EH101 has suffered some catastrophic failures during development.
I am sure that each aircraft will be judged on its merits but the S92 is very impressive in its flaw tolerant FAR/JAR 29 certification. OEI performance is excellent and it seemed to have plenty of power during the (yet to be certified) category A take off during recent evaluations.
The EH101 will be unlikely to win (in my personal opinion only) George or any other President would be more likely to travel in a US made product than a European one, allies or no allies. Airforce One just couldn't be an Airbus could it?
Yes, HMQ does fly in a Sikorsky but then again, the Brits don't really make any helicopters in that category now and no one would seriously suggest that HM might fly in an EC 155.
LE
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it will be real interesting to see who wins the contract. Although I would prefer sikorsky, seeing as I hail from Connecticut. To tell you the truth though, I dont really know how the 101 compares to the 92, besides the additional engine on the 101. time to do some research (of man. websites that is)
Lu...please...please don't start that old chestnut all over again. We've heard it all before from you about the duff rotor brake system and hydraulics systems, blah blah.
I beg you Mr Moderator....moderate closely on this one.
Aaaargh!
I beg you Mr Moderator....moderate closely on this one.
Aaaargh!
Having read the story starting the thread some time earlier in the day I asked Westlands in Yeovil for a comment...
Basically they come up with the line that whichever airframe is accepted it will receive such a safety makeover that it will be unrecognisable. NEITHER airframe would be acceptable to carry the US President off the shelf.
I doubt it would be George Bush anyway, he will undoubtedly have run his course before it arrives.
As the US101 is to be built in the US [if sold of course] there may be some debate as to which aircraft is the MOST American. Especially as the Sikorsky [say is that a Russian name?] is built up from components from Europe, Asia and South America.
AgustaWestland did of course jump in with their third engine trump card ... ummm ... and how many gearboxes is that?
Usual arguments!
Basically they come up with the line that whichever airframe is accepted it will receive such a safety makeover that it will be unrecognisable. NEITHER airframe would be acceptable to carry the US President off the shelf.
I doubt it would be George Bush anyway, he will undoubtedly have run his course before it arrives.
As the US101 is to be built in the US [if sold of course] there may be some debate as to which aircraft is the MOST American. Especially as the Sikorsky [say is that a Russian name?] is built up from components from Europe, Asia and South America.
AgustaWestland did of course jump in with their third engine trump card ... ummm ... and how many gearboxes is that?
Usual arguments!
Ain't it strange how the Osprey has received such a bad press due to the numerous accidents it has suffered, all during 'development'.
Yet, the EHI01 has matched the V22 on this front and is selling itself using the 3-engine safety blah.
What was that? Just another engine to take you to the scene of the crash...........
Yet, the EHI01 has matched the V22 on this front and is selling itself using the 3-engine safety blah.
What was that? Just another engine to take you to the scene of the crash...........
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
Two Vs. Three
To: PANews
When the EH-101 was designed the naval variant was to be used by the Royal Navy and the Italian Navy. The Italian Navy who wanted Harriers instead of the EH-101 refused to take it because of the third engine. Politics being what it is in Italy the Navy finally accepted the design as is.
Regarding gearboxes the EH-101 has a main transmission and an accessory gear box which is shaft driven off of the main transmission. All three engines are connected into the main transmission.
The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required.
AgustaWestland did of course jump in with their third engine trump card ... ummm ... and how many gearboxes is that?
Regarding gearboxes the EH-101 has a main transmission and an accessory gear box which is shaft driven off of the main transmission. All three engines are connected into the main transmission.
The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required.
Quite amusing ..... It is to be hoped that the Italian Navy who wanted Harriers instead of the EH-101 were aware of the technical differences....
.... All three engines are connected into the main transmission....The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required.
Nothing different or really new there then.... even in the recent past the Tridair conversion of the Bell 206L used the 'switch-off' option to make up for the failure to enlarge the fuel tank. So not an option to be scoffed at in itself.
.... All three engines are connected into the main transmission....The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required.
Nothing different or really new there then.... even in the recent past the Tridair conversion of the Bell 206L used the 'switch-off' option to make up for the failure to enlarge the fuel tank. So not an option to be scoffed at in itself.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Further Lu's engine/gearbox answer.
Yes the Accessory gearbox is shaft driven from the main gear box (If I remember correctly the rotor brake is also on this shaft).
Engine 2 is always connected to the main gearbox.
Engine 3 can be selected to "Main", and drive through the main gearbox, or to "Neutral" and then shut down (cruise etc).
Engine 1 can be selected to "Accessory" or "Main". Accessory is normally used at start up, so eng 1 is started and runs the accessory gearbox only, which runs one of the main generators (other is on Main g/box), and one main hydraulic pump (at least I thinks its 1, memory has obviously started to fade). After other engines are started and MGB is going, then eng 1 is switched to "Main".
Eng 3 can be shut down in flight for economy or range increase etc, but I am not aware of any operator that does this, anyone know if it's used? It has been used in this way to prove range performance to potential customers, ie turned off at the top of the climb out, and on just before descent into the airfield. With ferry tanks this does give a pretty good range (a bladder busting 8.25 hours during a demonstration workup).
As for the number of crashes, there have been 3 total write offs. PP2 - rotor brake fire (sadly also loss of crew), PP4 - tail rotor control failure (crew parachuted) and an RN variant which I don't know the cause of, but I think the crew were OK after ditching. Also PP7 had a "Heavy Landing" (or as I like to call it "a crash"), which required a major rebuild.
I don't think prez Georgie will end up with a 101, as public perception will still be of a Foreign manufacturer, no matter how much of it is built in country. where as Sikorsky is an American manufacturer, with an American design, the fact that a lot of it may be manufactured outside of the USA will probably not make it to Joe Public.
Yes the Accessory gearbox is shaft driven from the main gear box (If I remember correctly the rotor brake is also on this shaft).
Engine 2 is always connected to the main gearbox.
Engine 3 can be selected to "Main", and drive through the main gearbox, or to "Neutral" and then shut down (cruise etc).
Engine 1 can be selected to "Accessory" or "Main". Accessory is normally used at start up, so eng 1 is started and runs the accessory gearbox only, which runs one of the main generators (other is on Main g/box), and one main hydraulic pump (at least I thinks its 1, memory has obviously started to fade). After other engines are started and MGB is going, then eng 1 is switched to "Main".
Eng 3 can be shut down in flight for economy or range increase etc, but I am not aware of any operator that does this, anyone know if it's used? It has been used in this way to prove range performance to potential customers, ie turned off at the top of the climb out, and on just before descent into the airfield. With ferry tanks this does give a pretty good range (a bladder busting 8.25 hours during a demonstration workup).
As for the number of crashes, there have been 3 total write offs. PP2 - rotor brake fire (sadly also loss of crew), PP4 - tail rotor control failure (crew parachuted) and an RN variant which I don't know the cause of, but I think the crew were OK after ditching. Also PP7 had a "Heavy Landing" (or as I like to call it "a crash"), which required a major rebuild.
I don't think prez Georgie will end up with a 101, as public perception will still be of a Foreign manufacturer, no matter how much of it is built in country. where as Sikorsky is an American manufacturer, with an American design, the fact that a lot of it may be manufactured outside of the USA will probably not make it to Joe Public.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Probably the worst kept secret in the industry...!
US Helicopter Agreement
GKN press release 15 May 2003
AgustaWestland, a GKN and Finmeccanica company, announced today that it has reached agreement with Bell Helicopter, a Textron Company, of Fort Worth, Texas to form a Joint Venture company to manufacture the US101 helicopter in America.
The Joint Venture company will act as a sub contractor to Lockheed Martin who as Prime Contractor and systems integrator for the US101 have overall responsibility for the programme and delivery of the US101 helicopter to the customer.
The US101 is the American version of AgustaWestland's EH-101 helicopter widely considered to be the most advanced medium lift helicopter in production today. With over 36,000 hours of accumulated flight time, the EH-101 has been selected by five NATO countries and Japan for 21st century helicopter requirements. Variants are in service in the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan, performing a variety of missions, from search and rescue to maritime surveillance, battlefield support, law enforcement and civil operations.
UK Royal Navy Merlin MK1 variants were deployed in the Gulf in support of Coalition forces, and RAF Merlin MK3 helicopters were recently deployed to Bosnia for peacekeeping roles.
The US101 will be built in America to fulfil the US Government's 21st century helicopter requirements of the United States Air Force and Coast Guard in their search and rescue missions, and the Marine Corps as an executive transportation replacement for the 30+ year-old Marine One helicopter. Stephen C. Moss, President of AgustaWestland Inc. said "Bell is the perfect partner to join Team US101. It will be great to have the prestige and professionalism of the Bell team to build this helicopter in the US. The US101 is a spacious helicopter that can be configured for whatever mission is required - from submarine surveillance, to executive transport. It is very versatile with an excellent safety record and can carry more than 30 combat troops quickly over long distances."
The selection follows the naming of Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor and systems integrator for US101 last year. Lockheed Martin, Bell and dozens of subcontractors will provide significant employment throughout the United States. The US101 will contain over 65% American content. The basic aircraft will be manufactured by the JV company with mission customization, systems integration, and final aircraft delivery being accomplished at Lockheed Martin's Owego, NY facility.
"We are delighted to add Bell Helicopter to Team US101", said Frank Meyer, President of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in Owego, NY. "With the addition of Bell, the US101 aircraft is ready to serve America's heroes."
John Murphey, Bell Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said he was very proud to be joining this team and being able to participate with AgustaWestland and Lockheed Martin in meeting the US Government's requirements.
Bell and Agusta, have been partners for almost 50 years and are currently partners in building the AB139, a new light medium twin-engine helicopter, and the BA609, the world's first civil tilt rotor. "When the US government requires a modern medium lift helicopter we will be positioned to immediately respond to their requirements", he said.
A EH101 Merlin Mk3, deployed from the UK Royal Air Force, is currently in the USA to provide orientation flights for members of congress, the military and the media and will be on static display at the Joint Services Open House at Andrews AFB, May 17-18, and at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Patuxent River, MD, and Quantico Marine Base, VA.
US Helicopter Agreement
GKN press release 15 May 2003
AgustaWestland, a GKN and Finmeccanica company, announced today that it has reached agreement with Bell Helicopter, a Textron Company, of Fort Worth, Texas to form a Joint Venture company to manufacture the US101 helicopter in America.
The Joint Venture company will act as a sub contractor to Lockheed Martin who as Prime Contractor and systems integrator for the US101 have overall responsibility for the programme and delivery of the US101 helicopter to the customer.
The US101 is the American version of AgustaWestland's EH-101 helicopter widely considered to be the most advanced medium lift helicopter in production today. With over 36,000 hours of accumulated flight time, the EH-101 has been selected by five NATO countries and Japan for 21st century helicopter requirements. Variants are in service in the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, and Japan, performing a variety of missions, from search and rescue to maritime surveillance, battlefield support, law enforcement and civil operations.
UK Royal Navy Merlin MK1 variants were deployed in the Gulf in support of Coalition forces, and RAF Merlin MK3 helicopters were recently deployed to Bosnia for peacekeeping roles.
The US101 will be built in America to fulfil the US Government's 21st century helicopter requirements of the United States Air Force and Coast Guard in their search and rescue missions, and the Marine Corps as an executive transportation replacement for the 30+ year-old Marine One helicopter. Stephen C. Moss, President of AgustaWestland Inc. said "Bell is the perfect partner to join Team US101. It will be great to have the prestige and professionalism of the Bell team to build this helicopter in the US. The US101 is a spacious helicopter that can be configured for whatever mission is required - from submarine surveillance, to executive transport. It is very versatile with an excellent safety record and can carry more than 30 combat troops quickly over long distances."
The selection follows the naming of Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor and systems integrator for US101 last year. Lockheed Martin, Bell and dozens of subcontractors will provide significant employment throughout the United States. The US101 will contain over 65% American content. The basic aircraft will be manufactured by the JV company with mission customization, systems integration, and final aircraft delivery being accomplished at Lockheed Martin's Owego, NY facility.
"We are delighted to add Bell Helicopter to Team US101", said Frank Meyer, President of Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in Owego, NY. "With the addition of Bell, the US101 aircraft is ready to serve America's heroes."
John Murphey, Bell Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said he was very proud to be joining this team and being able to participate with AgustaWestland and Lockheed Martin in meeting the US Government's requirements.
Bell and Agusta, have been partners for almost 50 years and are currently partners in building the AB139, a new light medium twin-engine helicopter, and the BA609, the world's first civil tilt rotor. "When the US government requires a modern medium lift helicopter we will be positioned to immediately respond to their requirements", he said.
A EH101 Merlin Mk3, deployed from the UK Royal Air Force, is currently in the USA to provide orientation flights for members of congress, the military and the media and will be on static display at the Joint Services Open House at Andrews AFB, May 17-18, and at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Patuxent River, MD, and Quantico Marine Base, VA.
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
A question for the ingineers on the forum
As previously stated the EH-101 has a main transmission and an accessory drive transmission. The accessory transmission is driven by the main transmission via two thin wall shafts. These shafts normally operate under a low level of stress (torsional). There are free wheeling units in the accessory drive transmission that separate the two shaft inputs so that the accessories can be driven by one engine on the ground while the second engine is not engaged. Based on the fact that the two shafts operate under a low level of torsional stress I have two questions.
1) The rotor brake is mounted on the accessory drive gearbox. If the rotorbrake comes on hard while either the engines are driving the rotor or, the rotor is running down will the torsional levels build to the point that the shafts will either wind up torsionally or fracture?
2) If the accessory gearbox suffers a hard lockup will the shafts are turning (see 1above) will the thin wall shafts suffer the same fate (see 1 above)?
These same questions were posed in the development of the FMECA for the EH-101 but were removed along with other catastrophic failures.
1) The rotor brake is mounted on the accessory drive gearbox. If the rotorbrake comes on hard while either the engines are driving the rotor or, the rotor is running down will the torsional levels build to the point that the shafts will either wind up torsionally or fracture?
2) If the accessory gearbox suffers a hard lockup will the shafts are turning (see 1above) will the thin wall shafts suffer the same fate (see 1 above)?
These same questions were posed in the development of the FMECA for the EH-101 but were removed along with other catastrophic failures.
Lu: you've gone and done it now, haven't you after I begged you not to!.....
You have mentioned the (101) rotor brake issue..again!!!
God damn it Lu, you're like a CD with no label...people come along pick it up, play it and realise it's the same old tune they discarded years ago.
For everyone's sake, please get this R and D issue off your chest once and for all.
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.
If one was to believe your views, then every manufacturer is fiddling the system in the rush to sell airframes............
Conspiracy theorist or what??????????????????????????????????
You have mentioned the (101) rotor brake issue..again!!!
God damn it Lu, you're like a CD with no label...people come along pick it up, play it and realise it's the same old tune they discarded years ago.
For everyone's sake, please get this R and D issue off your chest once and for all.
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.
If one was to believe your views, then every manufacturer is fiddling the system in the rush to sell airframes............
Conspiracy theorist or what??????????????????????????????????
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not case of abuse but this topic had Zuckerman on a tirade against Merlin a few years back. His comments are just out of date. For example
"The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required".
This is total Pap and reflects someone with no experience in the operatin of a Merlin/EH101. Moreover, I refuse to let his previous comment go without reply. I would prefer this thread to remain in-line with its title and not get hijacked as has happened in the past.
"The third engine is not always on line and is normally only used when required".
This is total Pap and reflects someone with no experience in the operatin of a Merlin/EH101. Moreover, I refuse to let his previous comment go without reply. I would prefer this thread to remain in-line with its title and not get hijacked as has happened in the past.
Without questions the EH 101 is a very good and meanwhile proven helicopter made by new ways of engineering. It's senseless to discuss the constructional single spots. It's possible to find and to discuss controversial points on any a/c. May be the S92 hold a 10 years engineering advantage due to the later construction.
But i'm very glad to see, that a foreign company is not absolutely without chances to win the competition. For a european it's sometimes difficult to understand the US. They allways tell the rest of the world come and see and buy our (US) products. Mr. President himself and the whole goverment is the best seller of american products all over the world. But in their own country any product should made from their own industries. If the new helicopter would be built in the US but by a foreign company, it sounds ok to me.
But i'm very glad to see, that a foreign company is not absolutely without chances to win the competition. For a european it's sometimes difficult to understand the US. They allways tell the rest of the world come and see and buy our (US) products. Mr. President himself and the whole goverment is the best seller of american products all over the world. But in their own country any product should made from their own industries. If the new helicopter would be built in the US but by a foreign company, it sounds ok to me.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the above, it is obvious who will support the American modle on grounds that shout 'anything that is American is the best and we don't want the Europeans elboeing into our market, but retain the right to be in Euroland selling our products there'. A bit of a realism is required. We in dear olde England know that in this situation the American product will be chosen and rightly so for we would not want our Queen flying around in an American machine when we have equally good products here in Euroland.
Seeing that we again helped the Bush Administration to succeed in the Americanisation of the world we do expect some sort of backhander for our troubles and money that we have invested by way of military support.
I apologise for the political edge here but this is what it's realy all about
Seeing that we again helped the Bush Administration to succeed in the Americanisation of the world we do expect some sort of backhander for our troubles and money that we have invested by way of military support.
I apologise for the political edge here but this is what it's realy all about