Thank Nick,

Some actual hard data from the RFM would be appreciated, especially if your mate Helicomparitor would do the same.

I think CHC are buying the EC 225 as well as Bristow. So far the EC 225 has sold better in the UK than the S92, 8 - nil is the current score, against about 10 - nil to the S92 in Norway.

Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

Perhaps it is easier to convert to the 225 from the Tigers than convert to 92's. That certainly must play a role in the decisions. There must be some value to parts commonality and availability that might offset some performance issues.

Having fleet commonality would make training a lot easier....re-learning which foot to put forward would also be something to consider.

Do we really have to start the 92 vs 225 war again - I thought that had been done to death.

Oh, alright then....

I know that the heavier Bristow EC225 has an empty weight of 14112 lbs (6401 kg). That is including the 3rd generator, the 2 dinghys, floats, the "85dB trim", 4 landing lights, adelt, unusable fuel, documents, wingmirrors etc AND the crashworthy stroking seats and strengthened floor. I'll say that again because Nick has his hearing aid turned down again...IT INCLUDES THE CRASHWORTHY SEATS/FLOOR.

Add 2 pilots and you get 14506 lbs (6580kg). Gross weight is 24250 lbs (11000kg). So disposable is 9744 lbs (4420 kg). Full fuel is about 5050 lbs (2290kg) leaving a full fuel payload of 4694 lbs.

That is of course for the crew change configuration. How it would pan out in the SAR configuration I don't know. I would imagine that the extra weight of FLIR and hoists would be partially offset by taking out the seats, but it would still be heavier. The real extra weight comes from all the cabin equipment - endless medical stuff, throw-out dinghy etc but that is impossible to work out as it would depend on what the operator wishes to carry.

I know that the 92s delivered to Norsk ended up quite a bit heavier than expected. I don't know much about it but I understand that quite a bit of stuff that was expected to be standard turned out to be optional extras. Sea state 6 flotation is one that springs to mind and I think there was something about crashworthy floor which is surprising considering Nick's previous rants on the subject.

Perhaps someone from Norsk or CHC HS can enlighten us with actual figures?

Anyway I understand that, whilst we originally thought that the 92 would have the edge on payload, in fact the 225 crept ahead in the end. But of course both aircraft can take 19 pax, bags and full fuel so its a bit academic.

If you compare the RFMs (the one for the 225 I can confirm as being surprisingly accurate!) the 225 has marginally better specific fuel consumption at the faster cruise speeds, but again there is little in it. Both aircraft do a lot better at high altitude - not much use for SAR!

The story about engine variants for the 92 has changed so often that I have lost track as to what engines might be available in the future, but I know that the OEI OGE hover performance with the current engines is disappointing (though of course a lot better than the S61!). At low temperatures there is not a huge amount in it, but by +30 deg C the 225 is about 1200lbs - 1500lbs ahead (92 limits OEI on TOT from about 0 deg upwards, whereas the 225 doesn't)

But in fact both the aircraft are adequate in all the parameters I have mentioned so far. If one is 5% better or worse than the other, does it really matter for SAR?

Surely the other aspects are more important? The 92 has a clear advantage for the rear crew in terms of cabin height (about the only time its of any use, as in crew change config the pax are hopefully sitting down). But the door arrangement for SAR looks Micky Mouse. And not sure how much the sponsons will get in the way with stretchers etc?

I have tried the auto-hover on the 225. It is great with or without doppler (no more calm sea problems!). When I flew the 92 its autopilot did not seem to have autohover, and its upper modes seemed very poor compared to the 225 - but that was a couple of years ago and it might have improved since then.

Like everything, they will be as good as their weakest element, and until experience is gained in the SAR role, who knows what that will be?

Regarding the contract, as far as I am aware Bristow did not bid the 225. It was only a 5 year fill-in contract until the harmonisation thing, and I guess that didn't seem to justify the switch to new aircraft. Whether that was their mistake, or whether they would have been stymied anyway by CHCs loss-making get-a-foot-in-the-door bid, I don't know.

Anyway, I don't believe Bristow is against the S92 - as soon as an oil company wants them I am sure they be delighted to provide them. In the mean time I think the 225 has the edge in terms of performance (speed, payload etc) and doesn't seem to have the vibration-induced self-destruct feature nor so many design flaws that the 92 has. And up front the 225 has a massive advantage in terms of the grin factor for the pilots.

Bristow seems to agree as they have now ordered 6 firm. CHC Scotia will/have ordered another 2 and as someone said, no-one on this side of the N Sea has ordered a 92 yet - though I am sure they will eventually.



SAS

I don't think there will be a huge difference in terms of hours between converting to the 225 or the 92 from the 332L. Both the new aircraft have major new features such as EFIS, but in many ways the 92 is more conventional. The 225 has fundamental new ideas to grasp such as, when the engine fails you don't touch the collective. And if its in during the takeoff phase after TDP you don't touch the cyclic either - just press the go-around button.

But we were certainly delighted when JAR proposed that the 225 be a variant of the 332L - it saves a lot of hassle on the paperwork front!

However the 92 has a major advantage - its got a simulator, whereas the 225 sim will not be available until 2007! (0/10 to eurocopter on that one)

I don't think the spares have much overlap as the transmission, engines and avionics have virtually no common parts. Maybe the wheels are the same?

HC

Helicomparator,
Good post, pity some of the S92 operators don't come out in the open and tell us the real story, maybe the operator on the E coast of Canada could let us know why they are sitting on the ground, come on guys, let us all know what the real VNE is, what is the fuel burn, vibration level at VNE????
TC

S-92 at Cougar Helicopters in Canada
 

Check yer latest issue (Dec 05-Jan 06) of Vertical Magazine. They have a very good article about the 92 written by Rick Burt, the Cougar General Manager, who is in charge of the S-92 program at Cougar. He flys on the line about 200 hours per year and thus stays in tune with what is really going on in that regard.

www.verticalmag.com is their web site.

Nick sez,

"I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that".

I re-read Nick's post and infer that he used the weight from a sales brochure produced before the first production aircraft hit the offshore market (dodgy) and then added a bit based on mech's post from the GOM. Hardly a definitive post, especially when the silence from actual European S92 operators is defeaning. Has Nick's information become time expired and since when has Nick remained silent for so long?

Thanks for an honest post Helicomparitor.

Come on S92 operators, in the interest of a qualitative comparison please post the real weight of a JAR OPS 3 spec S92.....................the longer you wait the more the doubts will grow!

RI

Sorry guys, can't resist pointing something out....

Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?

So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?

How about his statement on range?

At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.

So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.

In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.

Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.

HC

The Cougar Helicopters article has a SAR paragraph where the author, GM Rick Burt, says the S-92 has received shining reviews for the BF Goodrich Electric Hoist, the ergonomics for handling hoist loads into the cabin and the abundance of room to bring the load into the cabin and deal with the casualty.

He mentions a gross weight increase to 26,500 pounds (Oct 2005), an 11,000 foot takeoff and landing certification (coming in 2006), Flight into known icing with de-icing capability (Oct 2005),
and improved performance for above spec engines (coming in 2006).

Burt confirms problems but states he still believes in the aircraft and in Sikorsky being committed to improving the product and its support.

I'd fly the 225 but I think I'll wait for the B model of the 92....

Aside from that when talking SAR the cabin door size and the height of the cabin are a huge advantage to the 92 and the flight deck is built for something more than a munchkin.

I think some of you are looking at load a little too much, surely the important thing for SAR is OEI performance, what is the max weight you can lift in a hover in the 92 and 225 without going swimming if you lose an engine?

Lunar.

Let me understand this thread again - exactly how many EC-225's will enter UK SAR service in2007? Oh that's right, none!

You lost Helicomparitor, why not just admit it?

Also, why not now explain how the crashworthy changes in your pet pig were forced on you and your company by the competitive pressure of the safer S-92? I remember how you wrote that the window size was more important than the safety in a crash! It was lame then and its lame now.

The passengers of the Bristow 225's have Sikorsky to thank for the safer design, because the French having have been forced to redesign their helicopter, and add an untested and incertified crashworthy floor and seat system, as well as hundreds of pounds to the aircraft to gain back parity with the S-92. If it were not for competition, helicomparitor's passengers would be forced to have a less safe ride, and only the kind assurances from HC that everything will be all right.

At least, by redesigning your pet pig to close the gap, you admitted how poor it was, and now the game begins anew.

Nick,

Sorry to stick my nose into your discussion but I think the 92 as a new build aircraft should be much better than its competitor.

When you consider that the Puma is such an old design that has just been stretched and modified for the past 30 years I would have expected Sikorsky to have built a machine that was streets ahead.

In the end of the day the fact that there is a credible competitor to the Eurocopter product is only good for the pilots.

Maybe Eurocopter will get off their arses and design a new machine instead of tweaking the old one. For now the fact that they got the 225 on the same type rating as the 332 is a huge advantage.

Lunar

Now that brings up a good question....in my mind anyway.

The 225 is on the same type certificate as the 332 but HC says there are few parts that are identical.

Does that mean I check out in both if I fly just one of them for pilot license issues?

SASless

If you were already rated on the 332, at minimum you would have to do the differences course and type rating... and vice versa

Ah...but two different type ratings? Not one type rating with a differences course....odd for an aircraft that is the same "type".

Nick

Great post - completely ignoring mine of course! Anyway, I have to agree with you that Sk can take some credit for raising the safety bar and encouraging EC to do some extra work on their aircraft. I'm sure that will give you a warm feeling!

They did forget to copy some safety features of the 92 - the duplex transmission oil system where one failure takes out both systems because SK forgot the check valves that even the 76 has, the exploding hydraulic system, the self-jettisoning anti-vibration generators, the anti-DVT system (ie the automatic massage given to the pilots when they go above 120kts), the fuel system that flames out the engines on takeoff, something about self-destruct swash plates and probably a few others that are secret!

SAS / F43

The 225 will be on the same type rating group as the 332L and L2, once the beurocratic process is complete. In the mean time the UK CAA have agreed to anticipate that. Anyone with 332L or L2 on their licence can get a new page with 332L / L2 / 225. So its just a differences course to go from L or L2 to 225. The fact that all the spares are different doesn't really affect type rating groups - the piloting philosophy is the same and anyone who has flown the L2 especially, will not feel too confused. I did 5 hrs factory differences course from L2 to 225, after which I was reasonably happy with the beast. Once you get over the gadget factor its easier to fly than the L2 or L

HC

As far as I am aware it is just a differences course, can't be a new type as on the license it says AS332L/As332L2 and EC225...

Would that identical piloting philosophy apply to other similar situations?

One 206....all 206's/407's/204/205's....all basically the same method of operation...single engine, VFR, single pilot, single hydraulics (except 205A which has two)....same manufacturer?

212 and 412...same types for licencing as well?

Had one input from some folks near the beehive suggest the D model Huey was a different type than the H model Huey.

When they found out the pitot tube location and a bit more horsepower from the engine was the only difference they did mitigate that stance a bit however... but it was not without some resistance.

Well Hughes/Md tried that logic for years, getting almost all of their aircraft certified as varients of the 369 model.

Well for the 369....as in the 206....is that not a valid proposition?

In the case I mentioned....the 206, 204, 205, 212, 412, 222, 230, 430, 214, 214ST....they are all the same family and all have the same piloting philosophy do they not? You might make a distinction between wheels and skids I guess or even single and twin engine....but they all have collective throttles and very similar systems. They are as much derivatives of the 204 as the 225 is from the 332 it would appear.

Are not all helicopters the same "piloting philosophy" and only require differences training for the specific "model" of aircraft?

SASless

True enough but if you extend that logic you lead to type ratings for weight catagories, which there are in some countries but the 332L/L2 and 225 have more in common than the 206 does to the 412.

The L2 is just a halfway house between the L and the 225.

Anyone with a (H) license can fly most helicopters but it is getting to know the differences in that type that will stop you making an idiot of your self, or worse. Would you be happy for someone to fly a 212 if they only had experience on the 206?

Lunar

Lunar,

Do you suggest by your question that one must work your way up the totem pole increment by increment?

How many BHL HP pilots did the Bell 47/R22/206 training scheme to step into the cockpit of 61's , Puma's, and other large aircraft? They seemed to fare well. The military does this as a routine.

I would quite happily train an ab-initio student on the 212 disregarding costs as an issue.

I maintain a helicopter is a helicopter...some are bigger...some faster...some carry more...some have fancier avionics...but they are all helicopters. You pull up on the lever in your left hand....and the same thing happens....you push forward on that stick in your right hand and the same thing happens...push the pedals and the same thing happens.

Each machine is different but they are all helicopters. We can make the system complex and costly...or we can go the other way and still achieve the same safety levels.

Look at the difference in the way we handle type ratings between the UK and the USA....that alone should indict the concept of "typing" helicopters. We use weight as the thresh hold for determing "type" ratings. I would suggest to you that a SPIFR EC-135 is far more sophisticated than a VFR only BV-107 used only for underslung work but the 135 does not require a type rating and the 107 does. In the UK...everything has a type rating and related "type technical" exams and checkrides done by the licensing authority. We on the other hand rely upon the operator to give differences training and checkrides except when we require the "type" rating based upon weight.

The conversion to larger more complex machines should not be based upon previous types flown but be based upon ability and other qualifying experience.

I can assure you, a pilot with a broad reach of experience in 206's will be the better risk for 212 flying than a pilot that has thousands of hours doing the same bus run out across the North Sea in a 332/225. The one will have skills the other does not. Each will be better suited for the kind of flying he has been doing as a result of that experience.

The transition to multi-engine flying is not all that complex when compared to learning the skill sets required for your average utility helicopter pilot flying 206's in moutains, deserts, offshore, ag work, and doing underslung work in all those places.

I would think nothing of hiring a well experienced 206 pilot for an offshore flying job...but not the reverse. There is a mystique (more like an Urban Myth) that suggests working for a large North Sea operator qualifies one as a helicopter pilot. I would suggest it well qualifies one for one sector of the industry.

Lord knows we proved flying 212's in hot and humid conditions in Nigeria was more difficult than flying on the North Sea. Ask your mates who did that routine and get them to describe how many aircraft got over torqued or bent while they got the grasp of 212 flying after being on the North Sea for years.

Sorry, I just thought this thread was about UK SAR and BHL's loss of the contract?

bondu :confused:

Nick Lappos stated:-

"The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls."

The S92 didn't initially win. 5 years ago a Coastguard study ruled out the S92 as being unsuitable. Why the change of heart? Can anyone smell something fishy?

SAS et al
 

We're getting a bit off the thread here but the subject is an interesting one. I must say that it is slightly worrying to hear that pilots that perform OK in the North Sea end up overtorquing etc in Nigeria. Does that say something about the N Sea training or does it (more likely?) say something about the operating standards in Nigeria. Maybe those with Nigerian overtorquing experience can comment.

On the question of type ratings I can say that, having been a freelancer for 20 years or more that I have experienced many different "qualities" of type qualifying processes. In one company I was subjected to 10 days in the simulator on joining - and that was a type I was already qualified on! (Ok - my original TR was in another country) The worst was just a good read of the Flight Manual and off you go.

Whilst all of my TRs were 'legal' if you ask me which one left me feeling 'good to go' I would have to say that the more comprehensive it was the better I felt.

Now, when I became a QHI it was a three month nightmare course and that will quite rightly be seen as being at one extreme of the quals required to impart skills to the newcomers. But - can it be acceptable for those carrying out TRs to be just 'appointed' with no 'competency-based training beforehand? This is what is happening in some jurisdictions I believe.

Would those who live under such regimes please let us have your opinion about such apparent 'laxness' or just tell me I have it all wrong.

G

:ok:

SARowl,

I think the reason why the S-92 was not considered 5 years ago is that it was not certified, and therefore was not yet at a reduced risk of demonstration of its promise. Nothing fishy there.

SASless,

I did all of my basic flying in the US, just less than four years of flying 22/44/206 and 500 and I like the system there. I think you missed the point I was trying to make and has led to a bit of an offshoot discussion.

I was saying that the Puma models are more similar than the different models you mentioned so I don't really see a problem if you are rated on one to be rated on the others as long as your differences course gives you enough time to get used to the change. The change from L2 to 225 is a lot easier than L to L2/225.

I have worked the US system and the European system of type ratings and weight catagories, the European system is very expensive and having to revalidate each year is exhobitantly expensive to freelancers (you also have to find a TRE to fly with you), the US system of biannual flight review is easier as you only need a CFI.

In my view if you took the US system and the European systems and took the best of both you could create a system that wouldn't drive pilots nuts all of the time!

I agree with a lot of what you said in the previous post.

So back to the subject at hand...

Lunar

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

Still no authorative weight for a European spec S92.................the silence is deafening.

RI

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

The weights have been posted TWICE, to you personally. What more do you want?

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

With 2 pilots and seastate 5 floats the S92 weight is 17800 lbs, max gross is 26150 lbs, full fuel 5100 lbs, payload 3350 lbs.

When speed is 150 or above the level of vibration is very high. i hope they will have to come up with a new modern rotorsystem like the 225...

The autopilot has to be improved, in alt,vert speed and airspeed mode 3 cue/4axis its inaccurate.
If you adjust collective when coupled in alt mode it will start climb/descend +- 200`, in vertical-speed mode it will never give what you set on the bug, airspeed mode adjustmens are usually very slow.
Reminds me of an old 332L 4axis Puma...
But Sikorsky`s working on it, but i guess they have a lot of improvements to work on...

I belive and hear the "pilot grin factor" is quite higher in the "grandfather" 225

Best wishes and safe flights in the new year.

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

Thanks I fly 92's

Do you know how much Sea State 6 flotation gear and the anti-icing system adds?

Good luck with your improvements, all new aircraft have problems. Best wishes for the New Year

Nick,

I wanted the weight of a JAR OPS spec S92, which weighs a bit more than your figures.

RI

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

running in,
I have emailed the 92 bunch, I will see what detail I can provide on that. I think that I fly 92's data is sound, but certainly includes the company gear that is essential, and almost never included in brochure weights. I don't know what the ss 6 floats will add, the deice completion is probably about 100-150 lbs, but might be in I fly's numbers.

I fly, can you break that weight down a bit finer?

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

What happened to the 26,500 pound MAUW limit that was approved in Oct '05 as reported in the Cougar Article in Vertical magazine?

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

.......................................... (stunned silence!)

I am gobsmacked by the weight quoted by IF92! Surely it can't be right? I posted earlier that the full-fuel payload on the 225 is 4694lbs. If it is as reported by IF92 that makes the full fuel payload on the 92 about 1300lbs less than the 225, (by strange co-incidence, the mirror of what was stated by Nick in an earlier post - which I notice he has not seen fit to edit!) and of course the 225 goes further on full fuel. Is the 92 any better on payload than an L2? (we only have a SAR L2 so I am not sure what the full fuel payload on a crew change one is).

Anyway, thanks IF92 for an honest post on the features of the 92.

I don't think I need to say more....

HC

ps I have some digital video of the 225's screens /autopilot in action. If anyone is interested, and can tell me how to post it, I will do so.

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

Nick,

So when you add all the SAR gear, sea tray, twin hoist, FLIR, medical kit, winch-op, winchman/diver, stretchers etc and allow for the fact that the S92 drinks a lot more fuel than the S61, especially in the hover, then the two helicopters will have about the same endurance! The S92 is faster but how much faster without bits falling off?

You said in an earlier post:

"The contract starts in July 2007, plenty of time to complete the delivery of the auto approach/hover system. It has completed its company trials months ago, and behaves flawlessly, as the auto-pilot was designed for SAR from the outset".

From I fly 92's post, the autopilot needs a bit of work before I would want it to trans me down on a dark night to the autohover!

Isn't the sales brochure a bit on the optimistic side, should it be revised?

RI

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

running in,

From your snide "falling off the aircraft" remark, I can surely tell you are not interested in any data, just a few more snowballs to throw. Too bad. One might think after building 2,500 helicopters with automatic approach, Sikorsky might know how to build an automatic approach. There are more Sikorsky helos operating today at sea at night than the entire RAF helicopter fleet, BTW.

Should you need any more data, just stand by, the fleet of successful 92's doing SAR will be flying past your window. I had a great chat yesterday with one of the fellows who will take your job, he was happy to do so, especially since you are so progressive and forward thinking. And yea, I too think the 61 is better, and I think the RAF should scrap their jets and buy Avro Lancasters, a proven design.....

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

You all seem to be missing the point,will the end user(the survivor/casualty)be able to depend on an,as yet, unproven SAR platform?
The areas the aircraft is going to be used in have extremes of weather,hurricane force winds,fog ,ice and snow and the very high sea states which requires a good winching platform.
Both bases have notoriously poor service by air/sea which causes problems for spares back up;what spares are required,it takes time and experience in the role to get that sorted,which the 92 does not have.
I am sure,as with all Sikorsky products,that eventually the 92 will become as trusted and admired as the 61;it will be left to the operational staff to do that;we do like a challenge though!

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

Time please Gentlemen!

Lots of differing views of varying validity. Come July '07, the Coastguard crews are going to get two new aircraft types. I doubt the crews had much say in the choice and will not be able to say "No thanks, we want the 61/Wessex/Whirlwind back" or "can we have a 225 instead?". At the end of the day, the crews will have to make the 92 work. If they expect it work the same as their existing mounts, they are misguided. It would be an interesting and exciting project to work on - I just hope for the sake of the British Public that the team can think out side of the 61 rut. And it is going to take time to work out the best way of skinning the cat with the new cab. Only then can a valid jugement be made on the suitability of the 92 for SAR. Sadly for the 225 lovers, it will be even longer before Eurocopter's offering will be proven (or otherwise), and no, the track record of the L2 doesn't count in my book.

I know I have been very pro 61 in the past and Nick has presented photos of some nice cars that were the dog's knob at the time the 61 was introduced to illustrate how things change. Fair comment (although the 747 is still going strong). The 92 and the 139 are going to oust the 61 from UK SAR in 18 months time. Sad but true but it had to happen. I only hope the 92 can give the same level of serviciability and reliability the 61 has over the years.

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

Nick,

I have been trying to get to the bottom of the actual weight of the S92, your posts have been inaccurate to say the least! My comments might seem snide, but if you had come clean at the start I would not have needed to keep chipping away. I fly S92 gave a user's view of the S92's AP, do you disagree with the perception of someone who has got to use the kit every day? I am sure the S92 will become an excellent helicopter in time, but it does have a little way to go still and hopefully will get there by July 2007.

Droopystop

I think you will find that the EC 225 is already in SAR service with the FAF under the name of the 725 and has been for the past year. Although I have not seen any reports on how it is going.

RI

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

As a 'part time' 92 driver, I can say that the machine I fly has only one problem with the AP - and that is being fixed on the 3.2 software upgrade. I find the FD spot on and we certainly haven't had these 'wandering' problems that IF92 has been experiencing.

The vibes are OK as well, we're getting 0.05 ips at 145kts if I remember correctly.

As far as the thread is concerned, I am sure that the 92 and the 225 could each do the job as required. I do think that the superior cabin height of the 92 will make for a much better work space for the guys in the back.

What I have noticed is that all the Sikorsky team involved in the 92 are very highly motivated.

Re: UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
 

IF92s numbers tally with what I've seen; but for an offshore machine. With winch and crew I don't imagine you'll get much change out of 18,500 lb but don't have the spec to hand as I write. His comments about the AP holds also tally exactly with first hand reports I've had though, as reflex says, there is a major software revision out which may address those issues (and others such as power management.)

HC, I'd be interested in seeing those clips as I only had the ground briefing and never got to fly one; can you e-mail them to me? I'll try not to cry into my milk!:{