heedm, the S-92 is derived from the Black Hawk, so in that sense it's not a "clean sheet of paper" design. It's more of a "large cabin" mod of a Black Hawk, with a lot of refinements and improvements.

Nick I don't think anyone is questioning the time from first flight until enter service rather the time to develop up to the first flight . Do you have dates of the launch of each of these projects


Answering my own question

http://www.ainonline.com/Features/ne...aft02/s92.html

In the ever-so-slow world of rotorcraft development, that would mean the arrival of actual flying hardware 10 years after the S-92 “Helibus” (a term Sikorsky senior management is said to hate) was first announced at Heli-Expo 1992. After a further three years of market and design evaluation, the program was greenlighted.


http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTy...ack/NH90TR.htm

feasability study 1985
NH90 contract signed 1992
detail design 1993
first parts made 1994
First prototype 1995
# 2 1997
# 3 1998
# 4 1999


When I left Westlands in 1981 the EH101 workshare was already well established ( design work on WG34 dates back to the 70's )

Simple answer is , that large projects of this type move incredibly slowly , the added complication of having multiple design centres and cross border management make it even worse .

What engines does the S 92 have? Are they a new type, or existing?

I think that was part of the EH 101 problem was the
New Engine + New Airframe = Long development

I think the workshare and different company operating methods/attitudes between the two companies didn't really help. Sikorsky is probably luckier in that respect as it is one (albeit pretty big) company.

I am keeping an eye the S 92 with interest as its going to be a major player in that market sector, and I still have a lot of mates who work at Westlands (sorry, Agusta-Westland).

For info the website linked to above (http://www.vectorsite.net/aveh101.html) states that EH101 PP7 was 'written off'. Not true, it suffrered serious damage after rolling on its side during a landing at Malpensa Airport, but was repaired. I was at Cascina Costa (Civil 101 work) when it first flew after the rebuild. PP3 has also been retired, and donated to a museum (minus anything useful). Not bad, I've only got 5.5 years experience, and already I've flown in a museum exhibit!:D

Straight Up, the engine for the S-92 is the GE CT7-8, a growth developement of the venerable T700 used in the Black Hawk. Here's a link...

GE CT7-8

I don't know why, but this CT7-8 link does not seem to indicate that this new T700 series engine is a FADEC equipped engine, which it definitely is.

I also agree with you, the S-92 will be a major player in its market.

Flight Safety, cheers for that.

The 101 uses a T700-GE-T6A in the Civil, Italian and Canadian variants, which is also FADEC equiped, though with a HMU backup. Though the 101 needs three of them. I imagine the new CT7-8 is a better all round than the T700-T6A then?

I seem to recall that CT7 and T700 are essentialy the same thing, but can't really remember. Any one care to enlighten me, engines aint my strong point?

Any one know of any direct comparisom of the three players (EH101/NH90/S92) mentioned here? (not head to head flying wise or anything, just the same info in the same place). I have experience of the EH101, and have been around (but not on) the NH90, and there hasn't been much chance to get too close to an S 92 yet.

I'm interested as there will be an Aussie troop lift helo requirement, which I may/may not end up closely interested in.

Thanks Nick for the update. My comments about the length of time it has taken to develop was based on the original Sikorsky discusions with North Sea helicopter operators taking place in the early ninety's and the fact that this was a development from an existing aircraft (albiet only powertrain and rotor systems being carried forward as far as I am aware).

I know that many delays can be caused by commercial and market reasons but the sooner we get a viable alternative to the Eurocopter 19 - 24 seater products the better. Having had to fly AS332 variants for longer than I care to remember, I hope to get the oportunity to get my hands on a Sikorsky product again.

Which brings me back to my question about how many customers have bought options for the S92 ??????

Straight up / Flight Safety -

The CT7 is the civil version of the T700. The GE/Fiat T700-T6A equates to the CT7-6, and the -T6E to the CT7-8. The T700-T6A’s FADEC isn’t a true full authority digital engine control, but rather a supervisory DEC.

The -T6A does indeed power the Italian and Canadian versions of the EH101, together with a single civil aircraft, but the majority of EH101s are powered by the Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322. As Straight Up mentions, the RTM322 was developed for the EH101, but the new FADEC-equipped engine wasn’t the cause of the EH101’s protracted development - compared to the ‘commercial’ S-92, the EH101 was a substantially more complex mission system (i.e. airframe, avionics, weapons & ground support), with a much longer development & test program. Systems delays and the three crashes obviously did cause the development program to be longer than originally planned, but it was never going to equate to what Sikorsky has achieved with the S-92.

The first EH101 prototypes were flown with the older T700, with RTM322-powered prototypes joining the fleet in 1993. The RTM322 had already been trialled on the Sikorsky S-70C and SH-60 by this time, and was therefore considered something of a low-risk item. The EH101/RTM322 combination has now been selected by the RN, RAF, Danish AF and Portuguese AF, with more opportunities being campaigned. The RTM322 has so far secured 70% of EH101 orders, and has also been selected to power 70% of NH90s, the other application on which the RRTM engine competes against the GE/Fiat offering.

Offering substantially greater power growth than the T700 family, the RTM322 is a natural choice for future variants of the S-92, but then I’m biased...:D

GE/Fiat has an exclusivity agreement on initial sales of the Helibus, but I’ll have to leave Nick to comment on future engine options...

Cheers,
t/shaft

Nick,

I believe that facts are facts, etc so I would like to just list a few in support of the EH101...

1. The EH101 base vehicle took 10 years from first flight to delivery of the first production aircraft to a customer (TMP).

2. The EH101 is a NEW aircraft rather like to NH90. I think you have to accept that the S-92 owe's a lot of its predevelopment to the Blackhawk. As far as I am aware the only system to be used on another aircraft in the EH101 programme was the ACSR (tested on the TT300 during the 80s).

3. The Merlin aircraft took 9 years to enter service and if you ever have the chance to use the Merlin as a ASW platform you with realise why....it does what it say's on the packet!!!

4. EHI have sold in excess of 100 airframes to six countries...

5. The EH101 is in service and doing what was designed for!!

There, I will climb down now and wait for the anti-Wasteland guys to beat me with whatever but those are the facts..

I am sure that the S-92 will be a great success, it should be as it comes from good breading stock!!

844
:D

ZH844,
Thanks for the update. Seems the web site that celebrated the turnover of the first EH-101 to the RN was in 1996, 9 years after first flight, where it underwent 2 to 4 years of test before being declared operational. In this case, it was somewhere between 11 to 13 years from first flight to operational use.

Regarding the design, the S-92 is an all new design. The parts fit on the Black Hawk family (main transmission, etc) but they are all new, of completely new type of design and to a set of design standards that are quite a bit tougher and harder to test to than older machines faced. Fully damage and flaw tolerant rotor parts and fuselage structure must be proven using more samples of the components, taking more test time. This made our job a bit tougher.

The engines did not hold the development of these aircraft, they were available from first flight. Otherwise it would have been first autorotation, wouldn't it?

I had a lunch with Rafael Longibardi, the late chief pilot of Agusta a long time ago, and he told me of the funding issues in the EH development that held them back. Often, development time is not a technical measure, it is a measure of the funding and political will of the developer.

One poster commented on the development time as measured from design start. For the EH-101, first designs were started in 1981 or 1982. This made flight about 6 to 7 years after design start. S-92 had a design start in 1992, and flew in 6 years.

None of this is intended to disparage two fine helicopters, Jerry Tracey and Colin Hague are friends, and I would like to be sure they invite me back to their lair at Yoevil when I am next in the UK!

Recall that this thread was started to discuss the seemingly long time to develop the S-92. It was not a long time, it was about half to 2/3 the time of the EH-101 and NH-90.

Nick,

You WANT to go to Yeovil, good god man, why?

It took me years to achieve escape velocity from there, after being inadvertantly drawn in, even then I didn't slow down 'til I reached Oz!

Though I do miss working right on the airfield, all the aircraft I work with are and hours flight and a 2 hour drive away.

Have to agree with ZH844, the ASW is apparently bloody good. The HC3 / RAF support variant does seem to get a bit of a bashing though, but I prefffered it to the ASW variant as it had a jumpseat, you can't see **** in the back of an ASW variant.

Nick,

Accept your comments, just doing my bit for the british helicopter industry!!!

Straight Up, Yeovil to Oz - what a culture change, in STARK comparison.....;)

ZH844 - I thought you might guess....

Though I have you narrowed down to 1 of 7 possibles...

S92 Gets 5 M/R Blades???
 

It's a rumor network and this is certainly a rumor.

Had a telephone conversation today with a well informed rotary-wing journalist. Rumor has it there may be a delay in the S92 program because Sikorsky is considering (or will) modify the aircraft to a 5 bladed Main Rotor head.

I'll believe it when I see it, but reason given for the modification is vibration.

Cheers

Does this mean it was down for 4?

Not having seen anything on S92 I'm guessing it's on the same lines as S76?

I'm sure the good Mr. Lappos will enlighten us...

Joker-

Your "well informed" journalist is not that well informed! The S-92 has 4 main rotor blades (last time I counted) and will have them for the next decade, anyway. The vibration is very nice, thank you, with levels that are better than the President's S-61, thanks to the 4 (that's four) main rotor blades, and also the very good computer driven vibration absorber system that we use.

We are producing rotorheads and airframes now for the Lot I and Lot II of production, and they have those four blades, too. The 1305 engineering reports that the FAA now has all reference the 4 blades. The FAA will shortly issue the Type Inspection Authorization (TIA) and will be testing very shortly, and will certify that 4 bladed S-92 by the end of the year.

I suggest that the journalist ring me up. I would be glad to discuss this stuff with him directly. I am not hard to find!

Here is some info on the 92 from the Sikorsky web site:

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,534,00.pdf

http://www.sikorsky.com/file/popup/1,,186,00.pdf

Nick Lappos

Nick,

Did you say FOUR blades?

Ahh

CRAN

Thanks for that, Nick.

Logic would dictate it's a little late in the program to completely revamp the M/R and head assemblies!!!

If I get the chance, I'll enquire as to where this "rumor" was born. Just out of curiosity, did Sikorsky ever look at a 5 bladed M/R head for the 92 before deciding on 4?

Cheers

Anyone reckon Nick plays in a rock band in Guatemala on his time off....and that is why he claims only four blades for the S-92.....in that there is still one missing digit downthere somewhere?

Being a Cobra pilot.....he is probably condition responsed trained to count in pairs anyway!

Sikorsky stuff
 

Nick Lappos,
Strangely and purely coincidentally I have seen a few of your "recent" Sikorsky products flying.

S-92 - lurking around North County FL.

Comanche - in Ft Lauderdale down by the dock in SE 17th St. Attraction was the noise of a S-76. Turned out it was a B model riding wing to the Comanche. It was masking the Comanche noise - was like watching a SF movie.

The best of all though was the "Fantail" S-76 at Paris Le Bourget in about '90-91 or thereabouts. Now what were the figures - 105 knots to the left and about 95 knots to the right. Flat pedal turns at about 120 IAS. Eyeballs were on stalks!

John,

Your keen eyesight is admirable! The North County airspace is home turf to the guys at West palm Test Center, and the Comanche at Ft. Lauderdale was there for the AAAA convention (Army Aviation Association of America) last year.

The Fantail was at Paris doing those "Snap Turns" for the crowd. It was a real gas flying that airplane, and quite thrilling to see 125,000 people all turned eyes up to watch the demo. Talk about praying "Lord, please don't let me screw up!" It was actually 90 degrees of flat turn in 2 seconds at 120 knots to the left and 105 knots to the right.
Comanche is even better! Rus Stiles, John Dixson and I were the pilots on that show.

Nick

canted tail rotor
 

Nick,
I think I read a bit ago that if it could be done over again the canted tail rotor would be left out. Is that true? Or was it for the Comanche? Is there a difference using the shrouded blades that really didn't need the canting?
Or Is the real advantage in the larger machines? It seems that some things that work in large machines don't really apply to the smaller ones.
Thanks in advance,
Clayton

Sikorsky S-92 Awarded FAA Type Certification
 

STRATFORD, Conn., Dec. 19, 2002 — Sikorsky’s S-92 helicopter achieved Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certification today, with 1,570 test flight hours under the most stringent rotorcraft safety requirements imposed to date.
“Today represents a culmination of almost a decade of work by the best team in the helicopter industry,” said Sikorsky President Dean Borgman. “It’s an extraordinary achievement, marking our first new FAA aircraft certification since we launched the S-76 in November 1978.”
Before it is allowed to transport passengers, each aircraft must comply with U.S. Government standards for strength and safety. The S-92 now meets Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 29 Airline Transport Rotorcraft, Amendment 45, the most rigorous set of laws put forth.
“The Sikorsky team deserves our highest compliments,” said Bob Mann, Manager, Boston Aircraft FAA Certification Office. “They conducted an impressive and safe program.”
“This is like graduating and passing the Bar exam all at once,” said Program Director Nick Lappos. “Our type certification and safety capabilities place us a full generation ahead of other medium helicopters in the marketplace.”
Evolved from the proven S-70 BLACK HAWK and SEAHAWK aircraft, the S-92 incorporates more than 50 years of Sikorsky civil and multi-mission helicopter experience. Originally conceived as a replacement for the venerable S-61, the S-92 is available in a variety of configurations for commercial customers, including offshore oil, VIP transport, airline operations, and other missions. The aircraft continues to generate strong interest, with firm orders spanning various customers and industries across the globe.
Breaking new ground for medium-weight helicopters, the S-92 provides unprecedented levels of safety and reliability. It is the only aircraft in its class certified to the latest specifications for flaw tolerance, bird strike capability and turbine burst protection. In addition to its civil helicopter capabilities, the rotor system and dynamic components are designed to meet the UH-60 BLACK HAWK ballistic tolerance requirements and all gearboxes are capable of running 30 minutes after loss of oil. Corrosion protection meets or exceeds current maritime standards.
In addition to its superior safety features, the S-92 excels in the areas of performance and cost effectiveness. Not only does the S-92 reach speeds of 165 knots and fly more than 500 nautical miles while carrying more payload than current competitors, but operators are also projected to save more than $200 per flight hour in maintenance costs over the Super Puma, and $500 per flight hour over the EH-101.
Sikorsky led an international consortium of companies through the development of the S-92. Global team members include Embraer of Brazil, Gamesa of Spain, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan, Jingdezhen Helicopter Group of the People’s Republic of China, and Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation of Taiwan. Major subcontractors include Hamilton Sundstrand, General Electric and Rockwell Collins. Production on the S-92 is already underway, with major subassemblies under construction in partner facilities, and final assembly commencing in March 2003 in Sikorsky’s new Bridgeport facility.
The S-92 has seen several recent enhancements prior to certification, incorporating both customer-inspired design changes and the Rockwell Collins cockpit. The aircraft now offers additional cabin space and a larger main cabin door, with a 16-inch (41 cm) cabin length extension, as well as reduced tail pylon height and a relocated horizontal stabilizer.
The new Rockwell Collins cockpit affords outstanding visibility and is equipped with a highly integrated avionics package. Rockwell Collins Avionics Management System (AMS) provides the display and management of primary flight data, presentation and management of all navigation information. The system also provides flight management data, a digital map, weather radar, terrain information and engine instrument caution and advisory system processing and display. At the center of the Rockwell Collins AMS are four portrait 6 x 8-inch high-resolution color active matrix liquid crystal Multi-function Displays (MFDs), with a fifth display to be offered as a customer option. The displays are exceptionally sunlight- and cross-cockpit readable, and
are also compatible with night vision goggle operations.
"The Rockwell Collins cockpit incorporates the most advanced avionics technology available today for rotorcraft," said Lappos. "The unique schematic data presentations provide pilots with a visual depiction of the aircraft's condition that is intuitively easy to interpret, a real plus in high workload and emergency situations."

Congratulations Nick.

It must give you a wonderful sense of achievement and satisfaction after all the hard work I know you've put in as the S-92 Program Director.

Tudor

Nick
I didn't realise you had a day job as well as being our resident guru! ;)

This pic may distort the page, depending upon the resolution set, but it's worth it for a superb shot of the S-92.

http://www.sikorsky.com/Images/SAC_S...n/S92_001b.jpg

Congrats Nick, I'll take 30 in canary SARBOY yellow, 2 winches, weather/ground mapping radar, FLIR and full IFR capable. Have them wrapped and sent round and make the invoice out to the MOD. Thanks!

Well done, Nick and rest of your team. Looking forward to seeing some grey ones N of the border.

Any thoughts about the CYOD invitation?


Heliport, thanks for the new desktop background.

Congratulations, Nick... a red letter day on two counts. The January issue of Pilot magazine, out today, contains a six-page profile of one Nick Lappos headed "Sikorsky Superman"

So Nick, bottom line - If I want to fly this on the North Sea, will I get to do it before I retire. In short, what is the realistic timespan to get the commercial product available ?

Well done by the way

Congratulations for a job well done!

Nick, now that the S-92 is certified are you going to Disney World ?
:cool:

Aw shucks. I may as well join in.
 

Congratulations to both Nick and the Sikorsky design team. My only lament is that I was not involved in the design process. Looking forward to seeing many of them rolling off the production line and feeling very envious of the Tech Reps working on them.

:cool:

very nice!
 

Can I borrow the keys to the new "car", Dad?????

Congrat's!!!!!!!

D.K

To Ppruners, thanks for all the kind words! We are setting up the production line in Bridgeport, virtually next doo to the factory where the first R-4's were built. The first customer delivery will be in March of 2004, with rate production deliveries.

Donut, you can borrow the keys, but bring it back full of gas, please!

Lu, it is a Sikorsky, so you would recognize it instantly. Our reps are getting trained early next year, and we will support it with electronic data exchange with the factory thru the HUMS/HOMP which will talk to us each night. It is the first web helicopter.

Special 25, the first deliveries are to offshore folks, and they should be in service by spring of 04, after some training for the crews. Flight Safety in West Palm Beach is making the sim, which should be ready next year. Sim training for flight crews is part of the package.

Heedm, email me about the CYOD thing, OK? Isn't there a "Warm Lake" we could go to??

Crab, 30 is the right number, everything else is already set, equipment wise. But the color(??) we were thinking of something in a nice mauve to go with the carpets.....

Tudor, the feeling is one of relief, pride (and wonder that we did it on time!) It was the fastest, cleanest certification anyone at Sikorsky can remember. The first certification data flight was made last December, the FAA got on board in September, and we were done with all flights exactly one year later, Dec 12. The data was all processed in real time, so the FAA was ready to sign on Dec 17 (Wright Brothers day!) so they did. Not a bad data point in the thousands taken.

Lots of work next year for the environmental certifications (the preliminary tests were done in the past, so we have good confidence the certs will be quick) Cold at Fairbanks, Snow in the NE US, Altitude in Colorado, HIRF in Pax River, MD, De-ice in NE US and Eastern Canada. Hook, Hoist, Floats, and equipment at West Palm Beach.

LuNick says they "did it on time - and it was the fastest, cleanest certification anyone at Sikorsky can remember!" ;) :)

Nick, first of all, congrats with the S-92 program. Second, do you have a ballpark time-frame and location for the de-icing testing in E. Canada (thinking maybe cyaw)...might be able to come have a closer look and of course buy you a well deserved beer or alternative....

Barnacle on the Ass of progress
 

To: Flying Lawyer

Are you saying that I would have impeded the design process?

I was only inferring that I would have liked to participate in working on the Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Process.

:confused:

I think he was pulling your tail Lu :D
Merry Christmas :)

Tail pulling
 

To: Hoverman

I consider my tail as having been pulled. :D

Frisky Bunny you sound frisky, all right.
I think I posted a few lines above your post to discuss the work remaining, where I described the work we will do to certify the environmentals - cold, snow, altitude and such, down to the hook/hoist/floats.

So please tell me exactly what do you think I didn't tell you, as in "What Sikorsky have not told you".......

It is great having this web site, because I can converse with folks all over the world, directly. I can also let you know that I resent your attitude, and remarks.

Any time you would like to pull off a "publicity stunt" like certifying a flying machine, let me know. I will hold your coat while you do the stunt. Just pack a lunch, cause it is just an all day job for someone as skilled as you. For us regular airframers, it takes about 250 engineers and technicians and about 4 years from first flight. Maybe 1500 flight hours, each hour the product of a 30 man team to launch, measure and inspect each of the three aircraft, plus about 100,000 pages of engineering reports, several hundred test components to tear apart on machines (the largest machine pulls with 150,000 pounds of tension). Some stunt, huh?

Nick,

To even respond to such drivel as was offered re: your publicity stunt....is to give credence to what was blatently obivious as bovine fecal matter to anyone with a modicum of commonsense! I would counsel you to note the source and ignore such comments for they certainly do not deserve a reply. Now....if the Weasel...Skunk or whatever that critter was....will read the Canadian Aviation site and some of the other Pprune forums and see just how well the Knock-off copy of the Apache and the vaunted EH-101 is doing......he will soon find more fertile pastures to drop his offerings into.....and at least he will have some basis of fact upon which to countenance his arguments.

By the way Nick....saw one of your fine comments quoted in another website....something along the line of...."If you find yourself in a fair fight....you have not planned correctly!" Which brings to mind another one I overheard....source unknown....which so very correctly states..."Never have a war of wits with the unarmed.....it is so unfair!" Which is why I suggest you leave the Skunk/Weasel/Hare alone.

f****ed up bunny
 

Nick,

Sasless is right. FB is just instigating(sp).

Now is not the time to even get into that drivel.

It's supposed to be a happy time of year..... food, chocolate, donuts.........mmmmmmmm donuts mmmmmm, chocolate, food, DONUTS mmmmm........etc.

D.K