Sikorsky S-92 and Leonardo AW101 VVIP.
 

Hello!

DISCLAMER: I don't know a thing about helicopters, and if I'm posting in the right place of this forums.

I was instructed to gather some initial general information about running costs, reliability and dependability between Sikorsky S-92[1] and Leonardo AW101 VVIP. This is about private board members and executives needs... in Europe. So, would you mind to share some information in regards to this subjects.

Thank you. :)

[1] apparently there is a revision coming in 2021 - S-92B.

I did exactly that same exercise last year. Give me a day or two to see if I still have it at work.

I saw a beautiful S-92 in Noo Yawk back in 2006, owned by the owner of a NY football team, its main task was to carry the owner's kids from Long Island to Manhattan to school! Divided into 2 cabins, polished woodwork everywhere. Just gorgeous. Price quoted then was US $25 megabux. No idea about the running costs, but for a gazillionaire, who cares.

After experience of flying both; the S-92 beats the AW101 hands down with regards to reliability and serviceability. Of course the caveat is the quality of the technical team tasked with the maintenance of such glorious beasts!

This looks like Sikorsky for the win. :D

Thanks.

PS. that NH90 is just military, doesn't it?

101 isnt civil certified
 

so the comparison is pointless unless you are a govt or military operator, however if you are and want the biggest, most comfotable and safest vvip aircraft, the choice is clear

Are you sure it's not certified? It has a TCDS: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/TCDS-EASA-R-013-%20EH101-500%20-%20Issue_05.pdf

Greetings 212. Re this comparison: has the S-92 AVC with 6 FG’s vs the original 3 gained wide acceptance?. Re the number of blades. In either 2003 or 2004, we flew a flight loads survey on the 92 at a GW as I recall of 31800, in support of a Portuguese effort to obtain a European off shore SAR program. You know the original design gross weight for the CH-53 was 33,000 lbs and as we reacquainted ourselves with the subject of blade stall, we also renewed our appreciation for the CH-53 decision makers as to rotor solidity and number of blades for vibration control.

The EH101 was certified
 

But the newer AW101 isn't. Only one civil EH101 was delivered to the Tokyo police but has now been retired, the AW101 is certifiable but not certified by a civil authority

Hi John, to be honest I don't know what proportion of the fleet has 6 FGs, but my recollection is that it was becoming the standard fit. Our aircraft had/have them (retrofitted as not available at delivery) and it was a big improvement, although we would have preferred 5 blades!

Part of that issue is reducing the blade root shear stresses, and another part is that we humans rate the same accelerations differently at higher frequencies: the same accelerations at higher frequencies are rated smoother. There was a learned paper on the subject circulated around the engineering department not much after I matriculated and it addressed that very subject.

That was actually my understanding, so I was surprised to see the EASA TCDS dated 2016 (albeit to Part 29 Amd 27!). I know AW were in discussions with some IOCs a few years ago, and it would needed around 10 orders to pay for re-certification, but then the bottom fell out of the market and long range drilling stopped.....

Rigoletto, The AW101 is not civil certified, so you might need to look for another type for comparison. PM me if you want more detail

Do you consider more than just the MMH/FH. Look at overall supportability, availability of spares, long term development, opportunities to share maintenance burden with other operators, training requirements, user requirements.

I'm sure the S-92 is a solid cab but 101 is popular and the Norway SAR is a technology feast which has a significant amount of sunk cost in development.

Having had 3 and 6 FG set up 92's operating side by side and flying in both fairly regularly (with two different operators) , if you keep your MR vibes low and don't wait for them to flag to do adjustments , I have found stuff all difference, the 3 FG set up gives you better payloads approx. 1 person over the 6 FG, if I was getting my own 92 I'd only get 3 FG's.
The operator I'm with now has all their machines with 6 FG's, all our machines we fine tune under .1 ips on the MR , we think the 6 FG's are just dead weight but aren't allowed to remove 3.

That seems the S-92 is the only real option inside the constraints I was given. Now I need to wait to receive some other instruction about this subject.

Thank you all. :rolleyes:

Depending on your specific requirements, it might be worth considering the AW189. Doesn't have the same cabin space, but it does have a long range capability as well as being much, much cheaper.

Here's an interesting comparison. Mil 38 VIP.

https://www.ruaviation.com/docs/5/2018/10/25/209/?h