|
I guess that’s the price you pay for not having fuel sloshing around under your feet.
Having self-sealing breakaway fuel tanks on the outside of the cabin structure has many benefits, not the least of which comes into play should you ever have the misfortune to experience an in-airframe drop test of the fuel system. ;) Of course, if you want to see what’s directly below you, you could always use the FLIR, look out of the door, the bubble windows and even the ramp. A ramp, now there’s a novel idea...... |
Prefer having the fuel in the cargo ??
Looking with the FLIR ! why not ! try it ! But, yes, having a ramp is really a good idea. especially when you have no lateral doors !! or a so small one... http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5784/imgp37001.jpg |
Would there be any limitations ( aside from speed ) of opening the ramp in flight ?
|
Would there be any limitations ( aside from speed ) of opening the ramp in flight ? As for 725 Driver.....are you still trying to convince them they should have bought the Cougar?????? If you are looking for a bite, then you can't beat a top heavy aircraft from the 1970s that has blades going the wrong way! How many countries have used a marinised Puma or derivatives for ASW over the last 40 years???? it's amazing how windows are obstructed by the sponsons !! the field of view is really tight The pilots of the CH124 never get to see the bear trap and always get in the trap. (well a few occasionally miss - but that is sport - "In the Trap, Trapped! Down Tail Probe. Centre Lock, Centre Rail! :ok::ok::ok: ). Pasptoo |
where did you read I supposed the 92 inferior because of the lateral doors ??
Having 2 doors gives you many ways to drop your commandos quickly ! but of course it's not at all any kind of superiority : it's only more comfortable for the pilot ; and this is effectively the problem of not having the hoists (2) on each side. Yes, flying with doors opened is of great interest in some unfriendly countries... |
Commandos ?
The CH-148 is ASW/ASuW platform, not Spec-ops insertion/extraction. In other roles - yes a big doors on both sides give some advantage - but that's what S-70 is still for. But a ramp and wide-enough door is good enough (2-3 rappelling points)... although I would still prefer both a ramp and two wide doors of NH90 ;) |
Sikorsky continues to fail to deliver the MHP weapons system:
DND/CF | Backgrounder | Maritime Helicopter Project Not a good sign for selling the once rejected S-92 as a presidential helicopter with a complex mission system, especially as a second gearbox foot has failed completely in flight too. Alos see these recent threads: http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/394...box-crack.html http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/422...pros-cons.html |
CEFOSKEY - The 'General Dynamics' seems to be a common problem with the S-92 first all those cracks and now the mission system!
But when it comes to Sikorsky bashing I think the Norwegian helicopter safety report speakes volumes. The latest S-92 joke amongst LAEs is 'whats is Extremley Remote' - the gearbox published TBO! |
|
|
Looks like the Canadians have finally lost patience with Sikorsky, they must have taken a leaf out of the Turkish book (the Turkish have demanded an extra Seahawk as payment for delays).
Ottawa to rule on fines for late choppers | iPolitics |
Crown headaches for Sikorsky
Alexander Soule | Feb 04, 2011 | Comments 0 http://westfaironline.com/wp-content...l1-300x200.jpg A Sikorsky-built CH148 Cyclone prototype helicopter lands in Nova Scotia. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is set to commence deliveries of maritime helicopters long overdue to the government of Canada, with the manufacturer absorbing losses on the initial aircraft shipped but still promising profits over the lifetime of the deal thanks to a lengthy service contract. Separately, a Sikorsky consortium could be facing insurmountable problems in a ballyhooed multibillion-dollar agreement with the United Kingdom for search-and-rescue helicopters, as reports surfaced that the U.K.-controlled Royal Bank of Scotland is withdrawing from the deal amid allegations of improper bidding tactics by a consortium member. Stratford-based Sikorsky is the largest employer in Fairfield County, and remains the top performing division of United Technologies Corp. as fourth-quarter revenue rose 7 percent from a year ago to nearly $2.1 billion and operating profits totaled $239 million. Sikorsky delivered 74 large helicopters during the quarter and some 250 for 2010, as it contributed $6.7 billion in revenue to UTC’s total sales of $54.3 billion for the year. According to UTC Chief Financial Officer Greg Hayes, the company is still in talks with the U.S. Department of Defense for an order extension totaling an additional 500 helicopters, which would furnish Sikorsky with years more of steady work in Stratford. Talks continue even as Sikorsky works on a heavy-lift helicopter for the Marine Corps and pursues a possible contract to provide armed scout helicopters to the Pentagon based on its X2 high-speed prototype. And Sikorsky is finalizing an updated S-76 helicopter, which Hayes said the company will likely not begin deliveries on until 2012 and which it is counting on to reinvigorate commercial helicopter sales. Even as it does so, Sikorsky is readying to deliver the first of 28 CH-148 Cyclone helicopters originally promised Canada in 2008, before contract delays Sikorsky says were the result of changes in performance specifications by Canada. While the cost overruns will impact Sikorsky’s profit margins in the immediate future, Hayes said the program will still pay off in the long run. “The initial helicopters are each going to go out with a $10 million check,” Hayes said, in a conference call with investment analysts. “The Canadians, they want these aircraft. We’ve done a lot to make sure the business is the best search-and-rescue helicopter out there. We think there’s still possibilities for international sales, too. So this will be a good program over the long term, but it’s going to be painful for Sikorsky as they deliver this first (helicopter).” According to a report in the Financial Times, RBS pulled out of the Soteria consortium in Great Britain that includes Sikorsky, CHC Corp. and Thales. A year ago, Soteria was named the preferred bidder for a contract with the potential to approach $10 billion to take over the search-and-rescue helicopter operations of Great Britain. The country’s Ministry of Defense currently runs those operations using aging Sikorsky Sea King helicopters; through Soteria, Sikorsky would provide S-92 helicopters. The company recently shipped two S-92 helicopters to Wood Dale, Ill.-based AAR, which is using them for utility airlift duties in Afghanistan where AAR is a military contractor. The Financial Times reported that the Ministry of Defense may consider scrapping the original Soteria agreement and putting the privatization back out to bid, and that even if it moves ahead, the withdrawal of RBS as the consortium’s equity partner could be fatal for the Soteria bid. The report did not specify how the cancellation of the current agreement would impact Soteria consortium members in any future bidding process |
"The Canadians, they want these aircraft. We’ve done a lot to make sure the [S-92] is the best search-and-rescue helicopter out there." I/C |
The DND now says that CH-149 Operational Availability rates of below 40% led to the decision to buy the mothballed USMC VH-71 Presidential Helicopter fleet for C$164M.
Since its introduction in 2001, the Cormorant fleet has been plagued by parts availability and technical support problems, significantly reducing its mission readiness for both training and operations," said the Sept. 1, 2010, briefing, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information. The Defence Department did not answer questions about the Cormorant’s service record and is now refusing to conduct any interviews about the aircraft, especially where it relates to its primary search-and-rescue role. New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris says the U.S. choppers, which include nine airframes and spare parts, should be upgraded to flying condition and added to Canada’s rescue fleet. "They could easily reconfigure these helicopters for search and rescue," he said Wednesday. The same article says that the DND is reportedly now looking at a V-22 buy for long-range SAR. Meantime delivery of the first six interim spec CH-148s has slipped again, with UTC now saying that only two or three Cyclones will be delivered by the end of this month, as opposed to the previous goal of all six. Sikorsky appears to have the DND by the balls, since a Canadian government briefing from last November ...urged both politicians and defence officials to take a deep breath and not get involved in any further debate – or request changes. “It is also paramount that DND not interfere or influence the conduct of activities, as this would provide Sikorsky rationale for excusable delay.” |
Check this out: Mark Collins - Cyclone Maritime Chopper Still a Long Way From Prime Time
[1] I’ve followed this forum as a guest for several years and I decided at long last today to throw my oar in. I’ve had and continue to have considerable first hand knowledge of the MH (Cyclone) Project (for quite a few tears now) and have always followed posts to sites like this one on the subject with great interest. Most of what appears often seems to me to be uninformed or, at least, ill-informed opinion. Your recent post about the aircraft being in storage and your opinion of unfolding troubles are, however, accurate. The helicopter that Sikorsky “delivered” to Shearwater last year has not been accepted by Canada for a multitude of very serious reasons. It is indeed in storage at Shearwater, remains unflyable, and also remains under Sikorsky title unusable to Canada for any purpose other than as a static display aircraft. The MH procurement is indeed currently in serious trouble. The Cyclone does not/cannot meet many of the key minimum performance requirements of the original contract and. for these and other reasons, cannot be certified as being airworthy for anything more than daytime, fair weather, over land operations at best…. in other words, unsuitable both for flight training and the operational roles for which it was acquired. [2]… Without getting too technical: The “drivetrain” (engines and main gear box) are inadequate. New engines and a new MGB are currently in development but will not be ready in time for the amended late delivery date of June 2012. There is no guarantee that the engines and MGB under development will meet the original requirement. Airframe vibration and flutter grossly exceed the contract standard… there is no easy fix for this. There are a number of outstanding issues related to the airworthiness of the Fly-by-Wire flight control system. Procedural “work-arounds” may end up being the only way to deal with some but there are still matters of robustness and lack of maturity that remain basic safety concerns. There remain unresolved landing gear and blade fold concerns that impact ship compatibility. There are more “issues” but those are some of the big ones (and, they are certainly not nits) that need to be overcome on an aircraft that was supposed to have been delivered ready for duty 3.3 years ago. [3] There are still a few remaining Mission System integration matters to be resolved, but except for one of them potentially, I believe that none can be classified as show stoppers and so I felt that they were not worth highlighting. They are mainly software-related and those troubles are invariably curable over time. Hi Rathawk - is this an authorized forum for you to release this information? Your profile clearly states that you are a Colonel in the RCAF |
CDN
After the CHC gearbox problem (if confirmed to be the "final" fix) that required the aircraft to be boated home, it may be another couple of years before the MH is ready for service. Anybody know what the root cause of the problem was in this incident? CDN can you imagine how embarrassing it is for Sikorsky to have a commerical pilot get a pilot of the year award due to a mechanical failure. TC |
The following CP story appeared in a number of Canadian papers today:
RCAF to get only five test choppers as manufacturer faces $80 million fineBy: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press Posted: 01/26/2012 4:33 PM Ottawa agreed to pay $5 billion in 2004 for 28 Sikorsky Cyclone helicopters. OTTAWA - The manufacturer of the air force's new maritime helicopter has told National Defence it will deliver only five test aircraft this year — opening the door to tens of millions of dollars in fines on a project the auditor general has said is late and over budget. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. is supposed to deliver a "fully mission capable" version of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter by June, or face a further $80 million in contract penalties on top of $8 million the federal government has already levied. Senior defence officials say safety certification of the aircraft is still ongoing and it's highly unlikely the giant U.S. aircraft-maker will meet its target, even though the program is years behind schedule. "Sikorsky are only committing to deliver five by this year, which will be training aircraft," said a high-level defence source, who spoke to The Canadian Press on the condition of anonymity. The Cyclones are the highly touted replacement for the CH-124 Sea Kings, which will mark a milestone 50 years in service in 2013. Originally, the company was supposed to deliver its first chopper in 2008 and have the whole fleet of 28 on the flight line by end of last year. When it became evident a few years ago that schedule wasn't going to be met, the Harper government worked out a deal with the Stratford, Conn.-based corporation to provide a handful of scaled-down aircraft, which would be retrofitted later. The so-called interim helicopters, which are minus combat systems, were supposed to allow crews to train. But only one helicopter was delivered last year and it arrived late, prompting the government to impose an $8 million fine. Sikorsky has still not completed full certification of the training aircraft, although it is expected to happen sometime this year. But that's a long way from delivering a "fully capable (maritime helicopter), with all its mission software," which is what the contract stipulates. When originally proposed 12 years ago, the cost was expected to be $2.8 billion, but that has ballooned to an estimated $5.7 billion, according to a 2010 report by former auditor general Sheila Fraser. She criticized the Cyclone purchase as well as the plan to buy 15 CH-147-F helicopters, saying Defence turned what was supposed to be off-the-shelf purchases into a customization nightmares. New Democrats have slammed the Harper government for apparently not collecting the initial $8 million fine. But senior defence officials said that penalty and the anticipated additional $80 million will be deducted from future payments the federal government will make for maintenance on the helicopter fleet. "The $8 million comes out of reduced payments and in-service support over time, which is to our advantage," said the senior official. "If you beat them up now, you disincentive the company from giving you completed aircraft. If you take it out of in-service support costs, it's easier for them to manage and it lowers our operating costs." A spokesman for Sikorsky, Paul Jackson, declined to say anything about either the fines — or the delivery status. "My only comment is that we do not comment on customer contractual matters," he said. The repeated delays in the program has caused budget pain for Defence. The department was forced last year to hand back $250 million in unspent funds related to the Cyclones. The cash had been authorized in previous budgets to pay for the aircraft that still haven't been delivered. Defence sources confirmed that cash has been lost to the military and it will have to make up for it some other way in the future. It is possible that the shortfall could be made up in the estimated $1 billion contingency fund associated with the program, but officials say that remains to be seen. "It's not a question of money," said the official. "It's a question of schedule." |
$200 Million Unit Price?
Maybe SASLESS or John Dixson can correct my math. At 5.7 Billion for 28 aircraft my simple brain says they are now $200 million a piece! Man that is 3 combat capable V-22's each and it still does not have a viable transmission. Why isn't Sikorsky absorbing the $3B overrun?
TC |
$200 Million Unit Price
TC, if the unit price was that high, I'd guess that UTX might be priced higher than $77 bucks!
From my readings re the MHP contract data, I think that big number is the 20 year program cost number, which includes a lot more than just the initial purchase price per machine. That said, the contractual fine subject is serious business for SA, and on the other side, one can't miss the fact that the Canadian Gov't is taking severe criticism for their management of the program. Like most things in life the final truth is likely a blend of both sides of the question and perhaps some decisions that one/both might do differently in hindsight. Lost in the media/political treatment of the problem is any informed discussion about the hard facts behind the present situation. At the moment neither SA nor the Canadian Gov't appear desirous of washing laundry in public. Thanks, John Dixson |
In the USA, its mandatory for publicly traded companies/corporations to hang their laundry outside at least once per year. Watch for the next UTC SEC annual submission regarding the Cdn MH-92. I believe that you will find in it that Sikorsky is holding in excess of US$800 million in unplanned MH-92 NRE costs on their books as "inventory" ... an "asset" that they will go on to assure their shareholders they plan to recover once Cyclone deliveries commence. The UTC SEC report for CY 2011 will be made public not later than 10 Feb 2012. Watch for it. This appears to me to be a big catastrophe waiting to be discovered.
The $5 billion figure referred to ncludes 16 years of Cyclone ISS. The actual acquisition costs associated with the 28 aircraft Cyclone procurement now well exceed $2 billion of that figure. What a fiasco. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.