|
Exciting times in Canada
From the Globe and Mail
Epithets flying as firms vie for helicopter contract. OTTAWA he two helicopter companies in the running to replace Canada's fleet of Sea Kings have started a public punch-up, launching a series of allegations that their rival's aircraft will be unreliable or even unsafe. Team Cormorant and Sikorsky are the two manufacturers bidding for the $3-billion contract, which is scheduled to be awarded in the summer. Team Cormorant is arguing that the Sikorsky H-92 is just a prototype that has never been bought by any air force and that has never flown in a sea-based, military operation. Cormorant is publishing an ad in today's edition of the Ottawa-based Hill Times weekly denigrating the H-92 as an "unproven prototype still looking for its first purchaser." "Canada would be the launch customer, and the introduction of a totally new and unproven aircraft is fraught with risks for the buyer, in this case the government of Canada and the men and women of the Canadian Forces," Team Cormorant's Gabriel Galleazzi said in a recent interview with industry newsletter Defence Policy Review. Mr. Galleazzi added that the H-92 "was not designed to be a military aircraft or more specifically a maritime helicopter flying from ship decks." Sikorsky shot back that the Cormorant is slower, costlier and still suffering from a variety of technical problems. The Canadian Forces bought 15 Cormorants in 1998 for search-and-rescue operations. The helicopters have performed some dramatic rescues, but have also suffered from a variety of problems with key pieces of equipment. "I find it very unusual that an aircraft that first flew 20 years ago still has an availability rate here in Canada of 50 per cent," Sikorsky's Lloyd Noseworthy said in an interview. "Certainly I would be concerned as a buyer to take on 28 more aircraft that are exhibiting those kinds of problems." Mr. Noseworthy promised that Sikorsky can deliver its first H-92 to the Canadian government within four years after the signing of a contract. "There is no likelihood at all that this aircraft will be any later than what [the department of National Defence] is asking for," he said. He said the H-92 is designed according to the most modern of standards. "The [Cormorant] ad shows that they are very concerned that we have a better, safer and more cost-effective aircraft," he said. Mr. Galleazzi, however, predicted that the H-92 would be at least three years late. Sikorsky has started production of a civilian version of the aircraft. If it wins the Canadian contract, Sikorsky will have to start producing a military version of the aircraft that can fit on the Canadian navy's frigates, with a folding tail and rotor. The government has promised to impose penalties of up to $36-million in the case of late delivery. Cormorant argues that the maximum fine is too low. Quick delivery of the helicopters is deemed to be crucial, given the sorry state of the 40-year-old Sea King helicopters. Sikorsky is "so early on in its development that we suspect it will be at least seven or eight years after contract award before the first maritime [H-92] is ready for delivery," Mr. Galleazzi said. In addition, Cormorant is arguing that the Canadian government has picked the wrong method to select a winning helicopter. The contract will go to the company that offers its helicopter at the lowest cost, given that both Sikorsky and Cormorant have passed the previous technical competition. "If the Cormorant costs $1 more than our competitor, it won't be chosen. That's because the lowest price selection process requires that the cheapest helicopter be purchased. No ifs, ands or buts -- and nothing else is compared," Cormorant said in today's ad. |
I have not heard much about the European ops for the EH101 .
don't know if anyone out there can answer the following. What are the total fleet hours for ship based aircraft ?. What size of ship are the Italian and British versions operating from ?. from a websearch it seems italians are operating from 5000 ton destroyer or aircraft carriers. In Uk navy website no mention is made of 101, do they operate from type 23's , website still shows lynx . |
Team Cormo....RANT
Canadian SAR op's have NOT phased out their Labrador helicopters because of snags with their Cormorants..... certain unreliabilities.
So, if anyone is involved with the Cormorants here, how can Team Cormorant trash the '92 as unreliable when the Cormorant windshields are cracking, winches failing.....having all been "certified" for all weather op's. I'm confused!!!! D.K |
What are the total fleet hours for ship based aircraft ?. What size of ship are the Italian and British versions operating from ?. I'm confused!!!! D.K No system is foolproof and the fact that a windchild cracked or a winch failed is no proof that the EH101 is a bad aircraft. The "unreliabilities" are just some components that did not live long enough as expected, but they are being subjected to extreme environment conditions that were just tested during trials and are just happening in the "Cormoran" not the EH101. The S92 has just trials done, a completely different situation. I would like to know how many "unreliabilities" will be found in the S92 after 40,000 operational hours :hmm: Edited to paste the second question that was made. (Somehow it was the same as the first one :-( |
EH-101 unreliability
I would love to comment on the Cormorant on this thread relative to its’ ultimate reliability and systems safety but I was chastised by Agustas’ lawyers and threatened with a law suit. If the Canadian contributors on this forum are interested please PM me identifying yourself and your interest in the Cormorant.
:E :E |
rotorpilot
Can't agree with you any more!!!
We all know when a new a/c comes off the production line, there WILL be snags/ problems.....whatever. The Cormorant has this going on. It's just aviation!!! However, to use that fact to degrade your competitor( Sikorsky), when your own a/c suffers the same problems, is very poor. Rotorpilot, you pretty well said what I and many others here think! D.K P.S I DO NOT think that the Cormorant/ EH101 is a bad a/c. I was given a tour inside that beast and am very impressed by it. |
Well, if the Cormorant is any good, it is because the British taxpayer has bankrolled the R&D required to turn the original EHI01 into what it is now.
The RN have ironed out a lot of problems with the Merlin and 28 Sqn have battled through, using the support helicopter with the comedy ramp option. The Canadians are now the testbed for the Cormorant, so the Danes (who should get theirs in the near future) will probably benefit. All Westalnds helicopters leak, vibrate and crack - the problem with the Cormorant is that it is mostly made of composite materials which are far more difficult to repair and nearly impossible to carry out NDT (non destructive testing) on. Although the Danes carried out trials and convinced themselves they could live with the fierce downwash, I believe the Canadians are not impressed, the high disc loading and Berp style blades combine to make life underneath the aircraft very unpleasant - what a great SAR machine! |
Rotorpilot said:
"The S92 has just trials done, a completely different situation. I would like to know how many "unreliabilities" will be found in the S92 after 40,000 operational hours " comments: 1) The EH-101 banks on "Maturity" but can't stay operational. Take it one way or the other, Rotorpilot, either the EH-101 is mature at 45,000 hours or it isn't. Which one? If it is mature, then why does the customer have these problems? If it is not mature, just say so and we would agree! 2) 40,000 hours is not much at all, in any way, and is certainly not enough to brag about. A typical military fleet of one type helicopter in the US military gets 40,000 hours each MONTH. When you want to talk maturity, try for the first million hours because 45,000 is peanuts. Both aircraft are immature, I think. 3) Also, the use of 45,000 hours as proof of fitness begs the question, "How did those 45,000 hours go? Any problems?" I have heard that the EH-101 has the worst record of any development helicopter in recent history, as bad as the V-22 Tilt Rotor, which is developing a whole new technology. 4) I hear that S-92 has some kind of guaranteed cost per hour to the commercial operators, like a whole aircraft power by the hour. Does EH offer that? Anybody know the rates for either? |
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2...1002110801.asp
Cool pics , looks like a real tight squeeze . I guess the pilot has to sleep in the machine if he is in the hangar as there is no room to open the doors LOL. |
Originally posted by donut king However, to use that fact to degrade your competitor( Sikorsky), when your own a/c suffers the same problems, is very poor. Originally posted by [email protected] The Canadians are now the testbed for the Cormorant, so the Danes (who should get theirs in the near future) will probably benefit Some Nordic countries are considering it too. I will try to get a full list and will post it. Originally posted by rjsquirrel 1) The EH-101 banks on "Maturity" but can't stay operational. Take it one way or the other, Rotorpilot, either the EH-101 is mature at 45,000 hours or it isn't. Which one? If it is mature, then why does the customer have these problems? If it is not mature, just say so and we would agree! Originally posted by rjsquirrel 2) 40,000 hours is not much at all, in any way, and is certainly not enough to brag about. A typical military fleet of one type helicopter in the US military gets 40,000 hours each MONTH. When you want to talk maturity, try for the first million hours because 45,000 is peanuts. Both aircraft are immature, I think. The maritime version is not even built. I read in a recent newspaper that the Canadian version (folding tail & main rotor) has yet to be built from scratch. No wonder it has a very good record... Please correct me if I am wrong. Originally posted by rjsquirrel 3) Also, the use of 45,000 hours as proof of fitness begs the question, "How did those 45,000 hours go? Any problems?" I have heard that the EH-101 has the worst record of any development helicopter in recent history, as bad as the V-22 Tilt Rotor, which is developing a whole new technology. Definitely you have never been involved in new model testing and operations. The Air Force that trained me and where I flew for 5 years tested in ops three different models. A small, a medium, and a big helicopter. Just because of design flaw in one of them we lost 7 machines and had quite a number of fatalities. Only when we lost one flying over a base with everybody watching (and 7 dead) we got what was happening. We called the factory guys and told them what we had seen. They shortened 3 mm the long shaft and the tail rotor gearbox never came off in flight again. It was the increase in temp under certain conditions of full power and high heat/humidity from the long shaft that was throwing out the TRGB. Before this accident six machines were lost during operations but nobody did see anything. They just disappeared in the jungle without giving the pilot time to say anything. I didn't get killed TWICE because of two other snags ( a design flaw and a manufacturer error) just by pure chance. I had to open the bar for the entire base and foot the bill when they found out how and from what I had escaped. New helicopters are like that. They are exaustively tested under certain conditions. Then they are taken to very far away countries, flying in extreme conditions, sometimes in situation of extreme danger are badly abused and snags start poping up here and there. Its up to us pilots to help things out. My first big fight inside the forces was because I wanted to ground the entire fleet over a manufacturing error until the problem was solved. Non-flying big shots said it was impossible and reduced the life time of the failed component to 15 hrs when the situation was not a question of hours, but a component that was either good or bad and could fail in the first landing if it was bad, let alone after 15 hrs... Go figure !!! It was one hell of a good machine when all the snags were dealt with. My first 1k op hrs were in that machine. Originally posted by rjsquirrel 4) I hear that S-92 has some kind of guaranteed cost per hour to the commercial operators, like a whole aircraft power by the hour. Does EH offer that? Anybody know the rates for either? As for the Forces, my opinion as a former Air Force pilot in Europe with duty time in extremely dificult circumstances with brand new models is: "For military operations nothing but the very best! Security has no price, safety is never expensive !" In this particular case just the number of engines was reason enough for a decision and just for $1 milion more a piece, let alone the fact that they already have 15 !!! As the saying goes: "Those that have no money can’t have vices". Just my $002 --- |
Never fly an "A" model of Anything...........
|
B Sousa
I had no choice. I was drafted, conscripted, trained and sent abroad without being asked anything. The only alternatine at the time was exile and branded traitor... |
RotorPilot:
It was one hell of a good machine when all the snags were dealt with. My first 1k op hrs were in that machine. |
Aser
And this machine was... ? The machine in question still fly a lot (especially in third world countries) but is gradually being phased out now in NATO countries... 300,000 hrs in our fleet alone and ONE engine failure... As it happens I was a passenger in that helicopter, that was being flown by a squadron leader, and that sole "engine failure" is a big lie to save the man's promotion and career... He didn't profit much from that lie because a few months after this he destroyed two big ones in a single accident and killed himself later while making an IFR approach to an airfield with the ADF listening to music of the local radio station ... He was my "advanced" helicopter instructor. Good pilot but under personal stress couldn't cope with everything. Yep, there are many ways to blame the chopper for everything and the other way around is also true... Does this make sense ? :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh: ARRIBA ESPANA !! OLE !! :ok: --- |
Rotor Pilot -
When the S92 has suffered from a tail rotor drive failure requiring the test crew to bale out, When the S92 suffers from a catastrophic failure caused by the rotor brake going on in flight leading to the loss of the aircraft and crew, When the S92 has a similar occurence with an operational crew leading to the loss of the aircraft - DESPITE having corrective maintenance carried out by the manufacturer! Then you can slag it off and praise the Merlin/Cormorant/101 It's only real plus as a SAR aircraft is it's speed and cabin capacity - as far as being an excellent winching platform....no way Jose |
Only time will tell.
To: [email protected]
QUOTE: When the S92 has suffered from a tail rotor drive failure requiring the test crew to bale out, When the S92 suffers from a catastrophic failure caused by the rotor brake going on in flight leading to the loss of the aircraft and crew, When the S92 has a similar occurence with an operational crew leading to the loss of the aircraft - DESPITE having corrective maintenance carried out by the manufacturer. UNQUOTE: We know what happened and if you want to dig into my previous posts on this subject you will find out why it happened. :E :E |
Dear Mr. Crab
If this was not a public Forum, I could provide you with some other interesting details about others very mature helicopters that have failed miserably in operations, NOT in development or testing phases. Just as few hints:
As far as I am concerned, for the role of the venerable "Sea King" there is no better replacement then the Merlin. I am not part of the decision-making team so here is, also as far as I am concerned, where this thread ends. I am not in a mood to let myself being sued by someone that might not like my opinion about this matter. I know a thing or two about what is going on in the industry. Being around for a while ;) Thanks anyway for expressing your views. I always appreciate to hear other people's opinions. :ok: -- |
Enough Gentlemen. There is a not very fine line between asserting one's opinion, and slurring a manufacturer or two.
Please keep the discourse on the positive side. PedalStop, Moderator |
Heck.
I wish people WOULD criticize my 'new :hmm: ' helicopter. http://www.UniCopter.com/Temporary/jumping_smile.gifAttempting jump takeoff |
Mr Moderator:
I didn't see anything written that couldn't be proved with facts and dates. Anyway I deleted my hints... To keep things in the positive side, let me see... :bored: :ugh: :ooh: :O :uhoh: :ouch: Well SIKORSKY and the US101 TEAM delivered two days ago the bids for President's George W. Bush helicopter !!!!! Now we are going to see some action. Do you all guys have helmets ???? We NEED some of those, just in case... Mr Dave_Jackson WHAT kind of take off is that ??? Lack of power ??? Well I know what that is too, but, lets keep things in the positive side ;) ;) If you don't have it, don't try to use it :* (good advice isn't it ?) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:54. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.