The Russians in my opinion are the worlds most experienced people in operational flying in known ice.

Pilots I have talked with who have flown in Siberia and other places with ice tell me that the biggest problem is the weight accumulation of ice.

The Mi-17 like many other Russian designed helicopters actually does have a pretty simple ice accumulation detector device which is a small probe outside the left pilot side window and it has 3 red markings on it. When ice has accumulated past the last red line the helicopter is starting to get pretty heavy and it may be a good idea to start looking for a place to land, is what a Russian test pilot told me.

Mi-17 has anti-ice systems on the main rotor & tail rotor blades as well as engine intakes, pitot/static and windshield de-ice. Nothing else is needed.

Aesir,

Those guys who said weight of ice is an issue are talking through their hats. The typical helo cannot accrete enough ice in weight gained to make up for the fuel burn in weight lost, this is also true for most airplanes.
Pilots often confuse the large torque increase they see with the "load of ice" they accumulate, but that is a misnomer. The huge performance loss due to the drag on the blades and the wings of an airplane are the way the ice gets you. It is not uncommon for a helo to experience a 10% torque rise within a minute or two when ice forms on the blades. In several hours of continuous icing flight I have never seen more than a few pounds (20, 30?) of ice form on the blunt forward ends of fuselage areas, worst case.

S92 Icing Clearance
 

NICK
------

Thanks for that reassurance. As you say, I was confused about the Icing Certification since I have never seen such a blanket clearance before. Now I know that the 92 will not ice up and I know that my former colleagues in the North Sea and elsewhere may now boldly go etc. However I suspect that helideck crews will still take cover when they land...
However getting a clearance to visit grandma could be more problematic even though it's an ice-free zone.
Nick in truth even planks don't like to stay below 10,000 feet where the ice is usually heaviest; they plough up and down through it. Simple unpressurised piston engine aircraft are capable of accreting large quantities of ice at their normal operating altitudes and even modern turboprops (ATR's etc) are not immune.

AESIR
-------

Yes I agree about the Russians; they are very experienced and they have had most of the kit for years. Both Mi-17 and Mi-26 are formidably capable but their crews also told me that ice does accrete and you MUST have a way out if you get too heavy.

Of course the proof lies with the guys who will do this thing every day; so would some of them care to give some observations? Also are there any Russians on this thread? Your experiences of icing would be welcome.

S92 ?
 

Bell Boeing wins a $1,058,600,000 contract to provide 16 Ospreys. How many S92s could they have gotten for the $66 million dollars each V22 cost? Just curious...
Nice article on them in Vertical this month.
Clayton A.

Re: S92 ?
 

Based upon the $120M per that Canada is paying I would say about 8, and that is without the sophisticated systems the V-22 has.

The Sultan

Re: S92 ?
 

Besides if they had wanted S-92s they would have chosen S-92s. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: S92 ?
 

About 60 or more UH-60's and similar number of S-92's and about 35 CH-53's.

Re: S92 ?
 

The Sultan...

Don't forget that the contract that Canada has for the purchase of the navy 92 (called Cyclone up here) includes spare parts, maintenance and training for 25 years I believe...

You need to compare apples with apples if you want to get anything out of it.

And like Ned said... If that's what they had wanted thats what they would've bought. Different machine, different use, different requirements, different capabilities, etc...

G

Re: S92 ?
 

Galapagos has it right, the Canada program price includes the development, purchase price, all spares, training and total life cycle cost for 20 years. It is a very good price, millions less than the EH-101 price (for the same payload range and mission performance!)
And frankly, Ned is also right, the Marines bought exactly what they asked for, but they got what Bell could build, which is one hell of a lot less. The original empty weight of the Bell proposal was 12,000 lbs less than the V-22 finally ended up weighing. If the original promise had been kept (if pigs had wings) the V-22 would have been a very fine rotorcraft, instead of a flying embarassment.
Sultan is quite challenged in English and math these days. Probably went to the same school as the guys who wrote the PR releases for the V-22 (Twice as far, twice as fast....). You know which school, the one that the little special school bus goes to.....

Here is for sultan:
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/...comparison.pdf

Norsk S92
 

Just heard that a Norsk Helikopter S92 had to return to Sola airport today whilst enroute to an offshore platform.

No more details as of yet, but don't think it was serious!

Any more info?

Re: Norsk S92
 

If it had been a SuperPuma....would you have posted that?

....Or...an S-61?

Re: Norsk S92
 

SASless, if it had been a 332, possibly not...

However, if this 'precautionary landing' (as it was described to me) had meant that every 332 in Norway had RTB'd within the first 4 months of operation (as I believe this S92 makes it a full set!); I may have posted the same regarding a Puma.:confused:

Just wondering if the 'field trials' are coming up with anything new, or was it the recurring 'Beach Boys’ (Good Vibrations) issue...?:cool:

European Agency Adds to S-92 Icing Approvals
 

European Agency Adds to S-92 Icing Approvals
Wednesday April 12, 1:57 pm ET

STRATFORD, Conn., April 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) approved the Sikorsky-built S-92(TM) helicopter this week for flight into known icing conditions. The S-92 has now received icing certifications from all three of the world's preeminent civil certification authorities, as both the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Transport Canada granted their approvals in October 2005. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX - News).
All three authorities flew the S-92 with its Rotor Ice Protection System (RIPS) in Alaska in the fall of 2005. Since the first certifications in 2005, S-92 aircraft in the United States and Canada have flown flawlessly in known icing conditions. The automatic modes of the S-92 RIPS operation reduce pilot workload in these conditions providing for an even higher degree of operational capability. With the EASA approval, S-92 aircraft in Europe will now begin the same kinds of operation, helping to provide reliable passenger transportation in diverse weather conditions.
The RIPS determines the temperature and moisture content of the surrounding environment and applies heat to the main and tail rotor blades to remove any ice buildup. Most S-92 helicopters delivered to date or ordered include RIPS. Development of the S-92 RIPS began in 1997 and included three years of aircraft testing. That testing began with ice accretion tests in the Eglin Air Force Base McKinley Climatic Hangar in Florida and dry air tests of simulated ice on the tail surfaces in 2003. In 2004 Sikorsky conducted flight testing behind a CH-47D helicopter with special equipment that creates an ice cloud in the trailing air. The tests ended with flights in natural icing conditions in 2004 and 2005 at sites from the northeastern United States, through Canada to Alaska.
Sikorsky also plans to incorporate similar rotor ice protection equipment on the new S-76D(TM) helicopter. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacturing and service. United Technologies Corporation, based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.



http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060412/new025.html?.v=52

Nick I visited Phil A , the FTE for most of the trials, in Jupiter a couple of weeks back , I heard he is getting an award at AHS this year , he could not get me a test flight though :<).

What will the actual limits be in terms of temperature, time, altitude and severity of icing for permitted ops?

The RFM says flight in icing conditions up to 10000 feet pressure altitude. No freezing rain/drizzle or supercooled droplets. Minimum RFM OAT is -40C.

Steve - does the RFM make any mention of what happens / what to do if the system fails whilst flying in icing conditions? This is not a 92-bashing question as the problem of a (presumably simplex) deicing system failing in icing conditions with "nowhere to go" must be common to all de-iced helicopters.

HC

Steve, since supercooled droplets are what causes icing in cloud, they must use different terminology in the RFM.

The only thing "presumably simplex" is Helicomparitor's need to find things wrong with his arch nemisis, the S92. Having welded his career to the other brand, HC finds it necessary to wheedle around this way.

Your presumptions are wrong, HC, it is a duplex system in all aspects.

Nick - Oh I see, thanks for putting me right on that one. Presumptions are clearly out of order for a rumour network. But is that duplex as in duplex, or duplex as in the 92's MGB lubrication system?

Just one other thing I didn't understand - what is a nemisis? Here in Scotland its what we would say to the wife on retiring to bed with a headache (as in "nae mrs") but perhaps you mean Nemesis, the Greek Goddess of divine retribution and vengeance. If you think your baby is the goddess of retribution I am glad I don't have to fly it!

HC