Hey guys, Frisky Bunny must have pulled down his post, it seems to be gone! Now our posts look like we've been arguing with a phantom!

Hey Bunny, don't be so thin skinned, we can bash each other and then laugh about it. Come on back in.

The S-92 was never born - long live the S-92A!!
 

The FAA Data Sheet makes interesting reading:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?OpenDocument

Perhaps Note 4 and all the ESFs where what got the rabbit excited (you didn't fire 4lb bugs bunny at the TR did you Nick !?!).

Yo Nick,

Congrats on the cert. Can't wait to seeing this thing flying around the Gulf Coast and ROW.

Any chance we will get to see it at Heli-Expo? Seems like a great center piece for Sikorsky's booth.


Chuckolamofola:cool:

Zalt,
The equivilent safety findings are details where we were allowed to propose alternate tests to get certification, the FAA gives them away grudgingly, but they really aren't shortfalls. For the bird strike ESF, we had to use the bird data that we got when we fired at the tail rotor and the drive shaft covers as proof that the 1.9 inch diameter (!) Titanium Pitch change links would not be damaged (!) by the bird, since the bird strike FAR requires tests, and allows only limited analysis as proof of compliance. We used the other test data on the more fragile and critical parts, and they allowed equivilent safety. We will shoot some birds at the pitch rods next spring to clean that up.

Chuck,
We are coming to Heli Expo, with rings on our fingers and bells on our toes, etc. You should see one of the prototypes flying over the Gulf in a few weeks too.

Nick,

Poor choice of words....."clean that up" after shooting yucky things into a tailrotor ? (or what become very yucky things after going through the tail rotor!)

One question.
Will an S92 be flying at Helitech 2003.

Ok.. going of at a slight tangent here... but idle curiousity begs the question...

Are there many incidences of tail rotor bird strikes?
It's not something I have heard much of. I have, however come across more incidences of persons walking into tail rotors; the last one being a Brit lass into a Lynx in Bosnia.
Obviously I would assume the S-92 is primarily aimed at securing military customers and so resistance to 'combat damage' will be a major safety selling point.

Regardless of any of that, you just have to congratulate the entire team for their years of hard work in bringing a new aircraft from the sketch pad to the landing pad.

Nick

I would like to congratulate you and you team on bringing to the market place not only a good looking a/c but one that will wipe the smile of the face of the french. Long have we suffered the poor support and delicate Puma (MK2) on the North Sea and I will look forward to getting my grubby mits on the S92.

Respect

PS

There must be enough material for you to write a book on the birth of what hopfully will be a very capable machine
:p

Congratulations
 

Nick, I would also like to congratulate you and your team for a job well done.

I believe the S-92 will be an exceptional helicopter with a very long and distinguished career, and as long as you guys keep it versatile and adaptable (like the Black Hawk), you'll sell lots of them.

I also think it'll be an outstanding search/rescue and relief helicopter, which is my interest in it. I very much plan to see it at Heli-Expo, as my wife and I have been looking forward to seeing it for some time. I'm also looking forward to seeing all of the other operational and equipment certifications that you guys plan to add to it.

Capn Notarious
We will have an aircraft there, it will fly some demos for the companies who have ordered the machine. I will be there too, mostly because I love Texas barbeque!

handyandyuk,
I think there have been tail rotor bird strikes, I dimly recall one about 10 years ago. The bird strike rules are interesting, they require that we protect anything that is exposed to strike, at Vne. We actually had to redesign the tail rotor spars after the first set of tests, since the design requirements that we used to use were not adequate if you take into account the approximately 5 tons of shock the bird gives the tail blade on impact!
The "regular" Sikorsky military design rules were also met, including ballistics and object strikes, since we intend to use the whole drive train (engines, transmissions, rotors and blades) on the most advanced version of the Black Hawk in a few years. The gearboxes bolt right into the Hawk family.

Maxng,
We certainly set our sights on the North Sea environment, mission and ranges. This is also a natural fit for SAR. We think competition is healthy, you should have a choice, it makes us all work harder. This does not mean that we regret causing a few "merde"s in southern France, mind you! They make us do it a few times, too! I am friends with a few of the EC test pilots, and many of the Westland guys, and they are good fellows. The friendly rivalry is fun.

I recall the Boeing crew dropping off a box of bull**** onto our flight field at Stratford, CT with a few of our UTTAS marketing brochures back in 1975! We reciprocated with a funny coloring book ("See the mast moment indicator, it shows how much trouble you are already in... Color it red.") and some horse **** in a box dropped by parachute onto their test center ramp! I also remember at a Heli-Expo overtaking an AS 365 by 25+ knots and passing them in a climb, while they were on a demonstration flight with prospective customers. The demo pilot was Jim Brown, who had tears in his eyes at the bar that night telling me how he told the prospects that the helo blowing their doors in was an experimental French machine that he couldn't talk about!!!

Make as much noise as you can.
 

When I was working on the A-129 I convinced the engineering and flight test groups to fly an AB-205 in the immediate area when they were demonstrating the A-129 to make a comparison in the noise generated by the two helicopters.

:D

I was gonna ask Lu who won , but the forum software will not now allow an answer of less than 20 words ( or was it characters? ) . Any way I have padded this out to satisfy the verbosity filter.

Who won what?
 

To: widgeon

I can’t say who won that is if you were referring to my last post about the A-129 and the AB-205. The demonstration of the A-129 was for potential customers looking for an attack helicopter. The direct competition was the Bell Cobra, which had a similar noisy (plop-plop-sounding rotor system). Since most of these potential customers were from mountainous countries they could not afford to have a noisy helicopter. Any sales that were made were after I left Agusta.

:D

Hopefully the interior has been tidied up eh! :D
Onya Nick and Sikorsky.
Just one small question that I know XNR is dying to ask..... can we fly it to the roof? hahaha
Again .... congrats.

Nick - MaxNG

Even with their "unique" Gallic customer "support" and their dainty designs, EC probably aren't too depressed:

MaxNG is it not true that CHC have the 225 on order already?? Or will they pull out of the deal after the two BP contract losses? Plus CHC run the biggest 332 / Makila overhaul business outside France so have a big interest in the family.

Bond have ordered L2s for their long BP transport contract, doubling the UK L2 fleet. IMHO they would not want the hassle of supporting a second {large} type on any future contracts for several years if they could avoid it (and may not have the people anyway).

Bristow (who flown nearly 50% of all civil AS332 hours) may well have reconsidered their view on the merits of Sikorsky product support after events last year.

The people who really decide on the types the operators bid for a contract are the oil companies. The only other UK contract with enough aircraft to justify ordering a new type (ignoring any orders to implement Jigsaw) must be well over half way through its term (but smart money must surely be a change of type in the southern sector being even more likely). That oil company probably still have bitter memories of the introduction and demise of the BV234 (all new types = all new problems).

So Nick, are Sikorsky's spending quality time with the North Sea oil companies yet?? If so, how do you prove to an oil company sceptic that a new type will perform out the box safely & reliably and meet the DOC?

Having said that, with the S-92A, AB139 and EC155 on offer it looks like the next few years may be very interesting in the North Sea....!

The EC-155 has had it's share of problems in the oil patch....supposed to be an internal audit going on in Nigeria about the 155/Dornier Jet decision and the subsequent performance of the two "new" types. Shell Oil may be catching on to the questions lots of others have been asking about the two programs....but there it seems to be more of why the decision was made to buy the particular models/types for the operations being conducted. Race horses don't pull plows very well kind of thing!

Steve76

Anything can fly to the roof .....the real question is "can we fly it to the roof legally????".... hahaha

handyandyuk- reading another post which mentioned Hermes - I've just recalled the Sea King HC4 that was downed by a bird (probably a damn big one) in the South Atlantic in 1982. Sadly almost all the passengers (SAS being cross-decked) perished.

zalt,
Good memory, here is a web site:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Fa...raftlosses.htm

19th May 1982 Sea King Lost
A Sea King crashed while moving a large group of SAS troops from H.M.S. Hermes to H.M.S. Intrepid killing 22 men. .......... At 300 ft the Sea King started it's decent towards H.M.S. Intrepid. those on board heard a thump, then another from the engine above them. The Sea King dipped once then dived . Within four seconds it hit the water. Some men were killed instantly and other knocked unconscious in the initial impact. Amazingly 9 men managed to scramble out of the open side door before the helicopter slipped below the waves. They were the only survivors. Rescuers found bird feathers floating on the surface were the helicopter had impacted the water. It is thought that the Sea King was the victim of a bird strike. One theory is at the Sea King was hit by a Black Browed Albatross which has a 8 ft wing span. The SAS lost 18 men on this night. ...........

Nick - thanks: at my age I can never be sure if I'm reminiscing or hallucinating!!

One of the pilots did definitely get out as he did ETPS in the mid80s and went onto RW research flying at RAE.

Antonov landed in Nunavut Canada the past week with helicopter on board for cold weather testing.....
have fun in the deep freeze guys.

Jack S,

Wasn't us on that Antonov:

#3 prototype is now in Montana ferrying north, expected in Fairbanks in a day or so, after the Wx blows out.

#4 is working the NE US looking for snow.

#5 is getting its hair permed for Heli-Expo.

Jack S. - I believe it was a certain 5 bladed French helicopter.

methinks one of the characters in the designation was correct also .

Hi zalt

Can I know wich helicopter is in Nunavut.
May be I get the chance and go have a look. Know exactly where it is at the moment ?

NH90 , was a pic in the local paper a couple of weeks back.
http://www.nhindustries.com/p4a7.htm

Widgeon - if your right (and you seem closer to the action) I'm wrong!

I was thinking it was the EC225 as it is on schedule for cold wx trials in Q1/03.

Since I guess the AB139 will need to get similar trials in this year it sounds like there will be 4 new types chasing the wx!

If they all have to do high altitude testing too this year I guess the folks in Leadville will be in for a bonanza year!

S-92 in the North sea
 

Statoil and Norsk Helikopter in Bergen, Norway confirmed on friday that they have bought, and will start operations with the Sikorsky S-92 from January 1. 2005.
Check out the link below.
http://www.statoil.com/statoilcom/sv...256CBE004326A2 :D

S-92 flight evaluation
 

Peter Gray's assessment of the S-92 is in this week's Flight International (4-10 February).

Anyone able to do a quick scan,cut & paste? I'm hundreds of miles from my nearest Flight.

First S-92 in the North Sea
 

I understand that two S-92`s has been ordered for flying in the North-Sea for Norsk Helicopter on a 5 year contract with Statoil.

About time a new and more powerful machine is introdused into the offshore marked. Not to talk about pilot and passenger comfort!

Is Norsk Helicopter launch customers for this machine since they have a firm order? Understand there are a few others sniffing on the machine as well, but have they firm orders?

Coalface,

Peter Gray is a real professional, and flew commercial S-61's as I recall. I flew him for a C+ article a few years back, and he was perhaps the most thorough reporter that I had ever flown. Here is a link to the article, which is under "features," reached thru the link on the left column:

http://www.flightinternational.com/f...y.asp?Code=105

Thanks for pointing me to the article Nick. Can you tell me what the likely empty weight of the painted aircraft will be fully equiped for offshore IFR work (basic weight + all equipment, seats etc but minus crew and fuel)? I have seen the publicity brochure weight but we all know that the final weight is always more.

Thats a great article, sounds like you guys made quite an aircraft. Then again I expected nothing less. When I read the article I remembered a previous discussion where you asked pilots what they wanted in their aircraft, and if my memory serves me, it looks like many things made it in. Good on ya.

I cant wait to fly one (gonna be a while) wheres my snickers bar?:}

coalface,

Unlike most brochures which quote stripped aircraft, we put in a pretty complete equipment package, so the S-92 brochure on the web site is quite accurate. I do have a full equipment list for that weight, if you'd like. The empty weight of a well equipped S-92 ready for work (19 pax, full interior, dual autopilot, FMS/GPS, dual nav/comm, De-ice rotors, Satcom, HF, HEELS, rafts floats and all whatnot) is between 15,800 and 16,200 lbs, depending on what extras are needed. It is hard to get it above 16,200 lbs. Max Gross weight Cat A at 90 degrees F is 26,150 lbs, and full fuel is 5150 lbs. Figure 19 pax and 2 crew at 200 lbs is 4200 lbs, baggage at 15 lbs each is 285, so total take-off gross weight is 25,815lbs. The full fuel is enough to go 460 Nm with 30 min reserve (figure 9.7 lb per NM at Vbr, 10 at Vcruise).

At 26,150 lbs, the aircraft HOGE at 6500 feet, and HIGE at 11000 feet, Vcruise is 152 Kts, Vbest range is 139 Kts.

FYI, you also get a main transmission that ran 3 hours after a massive oil leak, damage tolerant rotor and structural components, full bird strike protection (controls and drive shaft covers that are nearly ballistic so birds don't cave them in at Vne), and tolerance of engine burst events. {You also get ballistic tolerance, based on the H-60 design requirements, but one hopes this is not necessary in the oil patch!}

Nick, thanks for the range/payload info. By my calculations, a full offshore load of 19 passengers + bags + some freight will be able to be launched to a rig about 210 nautical miles out with home base as an alternate using North Sea reserves. This is a lot better than we have today.

Is there an option to increase fuel capacity without affecting the offshore seating layout? There are times with strong Northerly winds over the North Sea that we cannot get enough fuel in the tanks to make the East Shetland basin (and occasionally the new North Atlantic rim fields) direct. The S92 does have an extra 20 - 30 mins endurance over the Puma L/L2 but there will be the occasions when even this is not enough.

I know every pilot always wants an extra 1/2 hour whatever the total capacity is but in this case, it might make the difference between a flight going or not, particularly if the Shetland weather is not good. Obviously there is a cost/weight penalty with extra fuel capacity and even if there is an option available, it may not be worth the cost for the handful of times this happens per year.

By the way, what is the weight capacity in the baggage bay and how will the offshore variant be configured? Is the hydraulic ramp a feature on all models? The bigger the baggage bay the better.

Sikorsky S-92 completes key weather test

Now you see what I face on my drive to work.
See both Sikorsky and Agusta announced some sales at HAI . Eurochooper announced they are not leaving Dallas

Hope no one minds this thread being nudged back up the page but my last post had a couple of questions about the S92 for N.L.

I know he will be a busy man and can't be expected to keep an eye on Pprune all the time.

Coalface posted, Nick replies (belatedly!):

CF: Nick, thanks for the range/payload info.

NL: No sweat!

CF: By my calculations, a full offshore load of 19 passengers + bags + some freight will be able to be launched to a rig about 210 nautical miles out with home base as an alternate using North Sea reserves. This is a lot better than we have today.

NL: Close enough, with JAR reserves (mission +30 min +10%), it is 443 NM one way, so probably 220NM radius with some loading time on the rig.

CF: Is there an option to increase fuel capacity without affecting the offshore seating layout?

NL: We have to physically lose 2 seats to add 185 Gal, 4 seats to add two of the aux tanks, they each add 120 MN to the range, so you could go 560NM with one aux. However, the tank and fuel weigh about 1450 lbs, so you would have to carry about 16 pax/baggage at 220lbs each with full fuel to hold MGW limits.

CF: By the way, what is the weight capacity in the baggage bay and how will the offshore variant be configured? Is the hydraulic ramp a feature on all models? The bigger the baggage bay the better.

NL: The ramp is standard. The baggage is on the ramp, and in racks above and to the side of it with 2000 lbs as its limit (less, perhaps 1000 lbs or so due to CG on the typical oil machine). It is accessible from inside or outside. Roller floors are optional and pallets are easily loaded, the aircraft jacks up to allow a fork lift under, with 2 M clearance under the otherwise low tail cone. The pax seats each remove easily for cargo carrying.