Coastguard S92's
 

Hi..

Thought i'd start a new thread specifically for the discussion of the new coastguard S-92's, as the old CHC S92 thread seemed to go somewhat off topic.

Saw G-CGOC the 3rd S92 for the MCA to have arrived in the UK , land at ABZ this morning, with G-SARC i believe, getting prepped for its flight across the grampians from Prestwick. Thats the 4 ordered now in the uk... Hows training going? Night ratings done with MU at stornoway?

Looks like it's none of your business mate!

You're right though if my tax money had help pay for it, I'd sure like to know.

Here's a photo of two of the Coastguard S-92s just after arriving at Prestwick on an Antonov An-124 (photo by "DJ17" on Key Publishing discussion forum):
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/d...7_filtered.jpg
Regards,
David

Ah the last of our Shorts 360's have arrived!!! :D:D

Yep seen the two of them on stand at ABZ yesterday and today.... i take it the engineers here finish off the kitting out with FLIR, nightsun etc, as they are not wearing them at the mo..... tell a lie, think i saw OC with the cameras fitted this arvo..

Notice only one tail blade is removed from tail rotor assy.
So bi-filar pendulum assy sit above main rotor, and is removed for height restriction?
I take it that a folding tail was rejected on the S92?

S70 probably very similar:
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages...mages/1642.jpg
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages...-60A_10997.jpg

Tail fold is on the Canadian Navy variant.

The upper TR blade is pulled to fit into the AN, I don't think the bifilar has to be pulled for the AN, but must be for the C17.

As a note, I was told once that the oldest airframe manufacturer still operating under its initial name is Shorts, and the second oldest is Sikorsky, so the comparison is not just on beauty!

That has to be more than just luck. ;)

Am i right in saying tail rotor is above CG, or does this machine hover nose high?

We managed to squeeze 3 into the Antonov!

Look forward to hearing some genuine feedback on the MCA 92s in operation:

- Downwash characteristics during winching
- Ground clearance for mountain rescues
- Ease of hovering close to cliffs etc
- SAR AFCS performance
- AFCS warnings during vigorous 'stiring' (FD Degrade etc etc)
- Salt Spray ingestion effects (or not) in avionics bays
- General reliability

Good news I hope.......

The 2" leaking crack in our (500 hr) MGB casing was too large to repair, so AOG for MGB... ho hum, that's progress for you. (don't tell HC :E)

Yes, it does hover nose high, typically about 5-7 degrees, but can be more than 10 in high winds

It has a dry run capability -NL tells us-just fly back to Anduki -no problem.:ugh:

Hope you dont have to wait 3 months for your gearbox as we did for the S76.

Some nice photos of the Coastguard S-92s flying here:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...postcount=3842

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1277075/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1270835/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1268029/L/

Regards,
David Eyre

A fellow mole tells me that one of these fine aircraft took considerably longer than its specified response time to get airborne recently. Apparently this was not for any technical reason. Rather than spread false rumour, can anybody shed some light?

The Mole

'Digging for the truth.'

Couldn't see the reg but one was definitely in ABZ today.....

I must say I think it is a bit much that CHC have registered their Sumburgh S-92 G-CGOC (Coast Guard Oscar Charlie). They are clearly trying to cash in on the good reputation that the last Coast guard Oscar Charlie (G-BDOC) had in Shetland for the last couple of decades.

I'm sure that CHC would have rather had the letters CHC somewhere in the reg but as I recall, it was the MCA and the Islanders themselves that wanted to keep the 'Oscar Charlie' thing going.

On a professional note, can any of the PoF gurus explain to me why they

Is that due to greater down force on the stabaliser?

And to any of the rear crew:
Does this produce any bell crank/fleet angle or cabin entry issues for winching?

Ta

Typically the horizontal stabiliser is stalled in the low wind hover, but starts to work (producing a down force) in stronger winds. In the case of the S92, the canted tail rotor might have something to do with it as well.

HC

again, helicomparitor shows how little he knows about what makes helicopters tick.

The broad flat area of the horizontal tail, as well as the tailcone, present area for the main rotor downwash to act on, as vertical drag, even when the surface is stalled. In fact, the down force is greatest when it is stalled. They certainly produce download in a hover and in low speed flight. (How would the NOTAR work otherwise?)

The nose up for the 92 is greatest at about 10 to 15 knots of forward speed at aftmost CG, and even at that, trials by various independent agencies (including those who bought the aircraft for SAR) show that recovering a litter is quite easy, as long as the large door (1.33M wide) is fitted. Door size, cabin width to rotate the litter and surprisingly decent downwash are all judged to be supportive of the task.