Maybe they are not out of the S61 business?
 

It appears that there is much activity within the organization as to how such a damaging story could ever have appeared - watch for some clarification in the near future.

Carson blades may happen yet from the factory!

S61 is not a lost cause!

Maybe some of the big parts will be available again when you need them!

In the meantime, a new story today from Rotorhub pleads the case for the dangers of the current joint ventures between European helicopter manufacturers and US defence manufacturers.

My only comment to this would be to look at the example of other manufacturing industries that failed to deliver on product, price, support and value - all of which the customer takes into account whenever any elective decision is made.

Whilst the management of Sikorsky seemingly undergoes regular massive changes, the core strengths and knowledge of the operators do not - the customers know the product and the company. They also know what to expect and can gauge that performance to 2, 5 or 15 years ago - maybe internally that capability has been lost?

Incidentally, I heard that one operator had 4 S61's down at one point this summer due to a shortage of Main Rotor Masts!

:eek:

Er, well maybe those new blades will be available after all?
 

Seems that the Carson blades may be back on the programme again! Now lets tackle some of the problems that somone else hasn't solved!
Rotorhub story

Carson: S61 blade TC and Sikorsky deal near
Source: Defence & Public Service Helicopter
28 October 2002

Frank Carson - inventor of a blade designed to enhance performance of the existing fleet of Sikorsky S-61 helicopters - says FAA approval of the new design Type Certificate (TC) will be received ‘by December 15 this year.’

An earlier deadline of this past June slipped ‘due to paperwork issues, nothing to do with the blade itself,’ Carson tells Rotorhub.com.

‘We’re up to 18,000 hours of fatigue testing and we’ve had the flight testing for the Type Inspectional Authorisation (TIA) completed.’

Carson also said a deal with Sikorsky on the blades will be announced soon, possibly within the next three weeks.

‘We can’t tell you the details obviously, but it will seal the relationship between us,’ Carson said.

Meanwhile, Carson says production tooling has been set up. The work will be performed by Composite Structures Inc., Monrovia, Ca.

‘They’re probably going to start making the first articles by the end of this year.’

Carson said his nine-strong fleet of S-61s would be the first customers, but that others were waiting in the wings.

‘As soon as we have the approval, we can start marketing them,’ he said.

A deal with Sikorsky is expected to see Carson Helicopters feeding new blades to Helicopter Support Inc., Orange, Conn., Sikorsky Aircraft’s wholly owned service and support organisation, says Jeff Hill of Carson.

‘I expect they’ll be our worldwide marketing organisation for the blade.’

Sikorsky had no comment on an impending deal, however.

‘I don’t know what the meaning of soon is,’ said Ed Steadham, company spokesman.

Jeff Pino, the company’s marketing executive director claims he was misinterpreted when he told an AHS meeting recently that Sikorsky had no plans to ‘directly’ support S-61s or the Carson blade in the field.

That started a stream of messages to Rotorhub.com questioning the policy. Pino declined to take the matter further.

The Carson blade has been widely praised for significantly raising performance margins of the original S-61 blade design.

The story of development has been a saga. Carson claims many years - and equally as many millions of dollars - have been poured into the project.

‘We’re almost there,’ he said. ‘You’ ll be the first to hear.’

Thought I'd bring this old thread to the top.
We've got a lot more members now than in 2001 and I don't think we had a definitive answer to the question back then.

Heliport....

Throw in the comparison of the Alouette III or Lama against the Bell 205A.....and get a real fuss started. The French machines did the same thing to the 205 as the 214 does to the 61.

Flew the 214B in Oman for 8 years, yes, it does only have one donk, but an extremely reliable one; (we did have compressor stall problems, due to sand/dust ingestion, but a daily engine wash cured that).;)

Currently am on the 61 and I wouldn’t like to try some of the lifts I did then, 8000’ density altitude and 5000 lbs on the hook, (if you ignored the EGT limit light you could always get 100% torque!), but then again, current job wouldn’t require me to.

I seem to recall the ‘normal’ cruise for the biglifter was around 128 IAS at 6000’ DA, you’d be hard pressed to get a 61 anywhere near that, blade technology has progressed even further, maybe the Carson blades will give the 61 a new lease of life.
:E

Seaking 07 - S'uai
 

Some time ago (18 months) some kind geezer sent me a picture of a Seaking in East Timor.

Can you PM me please.

Not a problem, check your PMs

Not old Shark07 ????

:ok:

Thanks OldPinger. PM reply on way.

FOX 3 - I dunno, what do you know?

Standto- wilco, PM on route.

Fox 3- it could have been the 'other' seaking- 10 points for the side number of that one and which ship it was operating off!
:8

s61 /carson vs S92
 

Was talking to someone today who claimed that S61 with Carson blades has range and lifting capacity similar to S92 . Anyone out there got any real figures ?. When will blades be widely available ?. Will be worth picking up them H3 bodies from the desert to upgrade em.

I've got some paperwork from Prof Curtiss, the guy that did the design work somewhere. I'll have a look and see what I can dig up.

CRAN

61 hard over
 

Just a question to all you long time 61 drivers…… I’ve flown the 76 for many years and have gotten into the habit of flying (in cruse flight) with my hand off the collective. Now one of the guy’s I fly with says that it makes him “nervous” when I do this in the 61. He claims that if there was a hard over I would be unable to select the appropriate hydraulic system off in time. I don’t think I agree for a few reasons. Some of which are as follows.

1. The reaction time to get your hand back to the collective (purely instinctive) is almost instantaneous as opposed to the time required to sort out the hard over problem?
2. How many hard overs has the 61 had over its career?
3. Would there have been any difference in the out come of such an event in the split second difference in times?

Any input to this question would be appreciated.

polehog

I think he is over reacting. I have thousands of 61 hours and I have never had a hardover or a hydraulic problem.

LE

Why would you want to switch off the hydraulics if you have a hard-over, assuming in English a hardover is an autopilot problem, not a hydraulics-- and assuming a -61 is same as a Sea-king? Seems like you really want to make it difficult?

This is the condition that I'm talking about.



FLIGHT CONTROL HYDRAULIC SERVO SYSTEM FAILURE.
Control of the helicopter can be maintained through either the primary or the auxiliary flight control hy-
draulic servo system if one or the other should fail; however, prolonged operation on one servo system
is not recommended. This is a serious emergency because control is impossible with both servo systems
inoperative. Reduce airspeed to 60 to 70 hots and land at the nearest suitable landing area. With the
auxiliary servo system inoperative, the AFCS is inoperative.
Some malfunctions may cause rapid changes in aircraft attitude. The pilot’s immediate response should be
to counteract the malfunction by exerting appropriate forces on the controls. However, if a malfunction
produces forces too large to be reacted by the pilot, it is imperative to turn off the malfunctioning unit.
Because it is difficult to identify the cause of a malfunction, and because prompt action is necessary to
avoid exceeding aircraft operating limitations, the following procedure is recommended:

~ 1. If either stick drives hardover or can’t be moved, turn off units in this sequence:

a. Simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the primary servo.

I b. Turn off the auxiliaryservo.
~ The above steps should be followed sequentially, only until an improvement in control is achieved. When
either the primary or the auxiliary servo system has been turned off and the abnormal condition still
exists, the opposite servo system should be turned off. Be prepared to quickly turn the servo back on
should aircraft control become further degraded following the turn-off of a servo.

Note
Because of the pressure switch interlock, it is impossible to turn off one servo
system when the pressure in the other servo system is below 1000 psi.

2. If pedals drive hardover or can’t be moved, simultaneously turn off the AFCS and the auxiliary servo.
Once a malfunctioning servo system has been identified and corrective action has been taken, reduce air-
speed to 60 to 70 knots and avoid rapid maneuvers to minimize control forces. Land as soon as practicable.



Thanks
polehog

The 61 is different in that the servos are not dual, there are two in series, one a smaller aux servo, and one the big primary. Most newer helos have a dual primary servo, with identical tandem cylinders and dual pilot valves. These newer servos really cant hardover, since a single failure will cause one to try and move but be restrained by the other. Presumably a dual simultaneous pilot valve failure is too rare to worry about.

All this being said, the hand on the collective of a 61 will do nothing to stop the hardover, except to reach for the hydraulic shutoff switch quicker. Even so, turning off one or the other servo is a crap shoot.

I do not know of a hardover in a 61 servo, and would not think it worth losing any sleep over.

widgeon,

The Carson web site says they get 2000 lbs more lift for the same power (about 10% more thrust). With that increase, they would just about equal the raw lift of the EH-101 or the S-92.

We would have to see the flight manual to see if that is an across the board increase, or just a spot point where it is maximum. I would suspect that the flight manual charts would be published on the web site if it were truly a blanket +2000 lbs.

Remember that the rest of the aircraft needs a bit more maintenance, and the parts are getting hard to find. Also, the level of safety in the design is of the 1960 vintage. These factors all weigh in. We find the popularity of the S-92 is associated with the increased attention to safety and redundancy, a by product of the newer design and the lessons learned in the intervening 45 years since the S-61 first flew.

I was not trying to take anything away from the S92 , but just pointing out that one of your main competitors is your own machine. On DOC's the S92 wins hands down if the published figures stand. you just designed and built em too well I guess , what is the fleet leader S61 now , I saw one for sale with over 30 K time since new.

Thanks Nick, that was exactly the kind of info that I'm interested in. I guess it comes down to risk management, how many other things are more likely to happen that require closer attention. And I can't emphasize enough how quick the hand returns to the collective with the slightest hint of trouble. I can also say that in the 10000 + hrs of flying helicopters, other than an engine failure due to snow ingestion, any failures I've experienced (and I've had a few) have always been preceded by some notice of "bad things to come"

polehog

You can't turn both systems off at the same time. Or, can you?
 

That was the Sikorsky design philosophy that existed during that time frame (design of the S-61) and it carried over from the design of the S-58, which had both primary and auxiliary servo systems,

The pressure switch on either system provided continuity when the pilot wanted to turn off the other system. When the pressure switch on the Auxiliary system was in the closed position the pilot could operate the shutoff valve on the primary system and the opposite was true if he wanted to turn off the off the auxiliary system.

On the S-58 the pressure switch and the shutoff switch on each system were very close to each other. The pin connectors for both the pressure switch and the shutoff valve were color coded to prevent a cross connection however the color-coding would wear off. Good design dictated that the connectors and the connection should be keyed to prevent the cross connection but they weren’t. This was either an oversight or, a means of cutting costs.

On an H-34 the pin connectors were cross connected and during ground check the pilot tested the integrity of the system by shutting off one system and turning it back on and then shutting down the second system. When he shut down the second system both systems shut down. The cyclic stick immediately started moving in a counter clockwise circle causing severe damage to the pilots reproductive system. Even though in great pain he hit the switch turning both systems back on.

I don’t know if this condition can be repeated on the S-61 or other later model Sikorsky helicopters but it is worth investigating.


:E :E

Thanks Lu. I guess the quote should be "If assembled as designed ...... etc"

:rolleyes:

polehog

polehog:

"Assembled as designed" aapears not to be the case for the S58 pilot after the event :\

I'd perhaps also be more worried about the failure of the bearing supporting the output shaft off the power turbine - if it fails the resulting flailing shaft and hot oil turn the other engine into a source for a fire which takes the gearbox out in less than 2 minutes. The accident report for that one should be out in a month or two, with some interesting reading (BTW, yet another nugget from the AAIB visit last Tuesday).

Hello "Tinkerbell";) ;) The failure that keeps me on my toe's is the input freewheel failure!!!!!

I've done the output shaft failure in the sim! Quite a ride. The guy's did a "fair dinkum' job to get down. Well done.

Polehog

There was logging Boeing 234? (Chinook) crash on Vancouver Island that was the result of a hardover. An electrical problem caused the parallel actuators to go right to max travel so hard that it broke flight controls and resulted in an uncontrollable helicopter.

This is based on my memory of the incident, please correct me if I'm wrong. (Like I have to ask on this forum :o )

A freewheel unit is not free.
 

To: polehog


This happened on an Italian HH-53. From the time the pilot heard the noise it took twenty-two seconds for him to autorotate to the water.

When they opened the gearbox at Agusta they found that the left-hand FW unit had suffered a catastrophic failure that prevented the FW unit from Free Wheeling. The rotor system kept the transmission rotating and the energy back driving the frozen free wheel unit caused the metal parts to abrade, melt, and generally deform. The engine was also effected causing it to suffer severe damage. All of this in 22 seconds. It was however survivable.


:E :E

Lu,

Not likely it was an Intalian HH-53, they don't have any.

To the group,

Please take Lu's assertions about design mistakes with a spoonful of salt. Lots of professionals in lots of helicopter companies make lots of helicopters with a mass of expertise and knowledge that Lu will never understand, nor appreciate.

Lest the group get shaky about the mechanical safety of our machines, remember that the chief causes of accidents, by a factor of 10, is in our hands as the pilots and maintainers. A flaw in our training system is the way we open the emergency procedures section of the flight manual and read all about what we need to practice, as though that stuff will get us. The reality is that we need to practice the judgements and skills needed to fly normal healthy helos in adverse conditions (or learn when not to fly in those conditions!)

If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all.

I'm sorry if I misspoke
 

To: Nick lappos

I may have been wrong about the type of helicopter S-61 Vs HH-53 but I was referencing my statements about the internal damage from photographs and I assumed it was an HH-53. Now, about the Italians’ not having any HH-53s you are totally wrong. The Aeronautica Militare flew them in SAR operations. I have a factory model of one of their HH-53s and the tail number is MM80976. A division of Agusta located in Sesto Calende (spelling) not too far from Cascina Costa built these helicopters. There is a possibility that the USCG HH-53s were built at that same location.

Now as far as the rest of your post you are being far too accusatory and way too defensive about the quality of not only Sikorsky products but other helicopters as well. While I worked at Sikorsky the following happened.

1) In the assembly of an S-55 being delivered to the Armed forces of Israel the main transmission was installed out of sequence and deformed the transmission deck. The fishplate that joined the transmission mount to the side of the airframe could not be installed due to misalignment of the boltholes. Someone tried to align the holes and in the process made deep scratches in the Magnesium structure. The helicopter went through flight test and was flown to New Jersey for delivery. This S-55 although destined for military use was sold as a civilian aircraft. Making delivery in New Jersey Sikorsky avoided paying state sales tax. The helicopter was put aboard a freighter in an unprotected hold and the salt spray attacked the magnesium structure. In the flight-testing and the delivery to New Jersey the pilots did not notice anything wrong. Upon delivery to the Israel the test pilots noted a severe beat. Detailed inspection found that the right forward transmission mount was not tied into the structure and the adjacent structure was severely corroded. The helicopter was returned to Sikorsky for remanufacture.
2) During the build up of the fuel tanks in the tub section of an S-58 the technicians did not remove a paper lock on the fuel high level shut off valve. When fuel was put into the tank the paper lock came loose and was floating around in the tank. The helicopter was sent to the French in North Africa. On one flight in mountainous territory the paper lock floated over the intake strainer and shut off the fuel supply to the engine. The helicopter autorotated and in the process stove in the tub section. In the ensuing investigation the fuel tank was opened and they found the following: The paper lock which, had printed white on red stated that the lock must be removed prior to installing the valve. They also found bobby pins and chewing gum wrappers in the tank as well as long hairs from the woman technicians.
3) Sikorsky technicians forgot to install a snap ring in a tail rotor gearbox for an S-58. This particular gearbox had a bad leak in the area of the input housing and was repaired three times before the leak was stopped. Each time the leak was corrected the technicians checked the gear mesh. In doing this they would have a direct view of the snap ring installation. Once the leak was stopped the gearbox was run in and again inspected for the proper gear mesh. The paper work had been signed off and stamped four times without inspection having viewed the work. The gearbox was placed in open stock and installed on a Navy HSS-1. It went through flight test and was ferried out to San Diego. On the first flight checking out the SONAR system the tail rotor came off the gearbox and the helicopter crashed killing the three-man crew. The helicopter and the tail rotor were recovered and upon disassembly of the gearbox it was found that the snap ring was missing from its’ place and there was no evidence that it had been installed. The Navy presented its’ case to Sikorsky and they were told that the snap ring had been installed and to prove it, they showed them the paperwork. The Navy could not question the build-up technicians because they had been given the day off with pay and the inspector was transferred to another department. The sad thing is that being in open stock the gearbox could have been installed on an H-34, which carried twelve men or even worse on a Sabena S-58.

Now if you want me to address Bell products I can relate stories that would make even a hardened warrior such as yourself cringe.

:E :E

Nick says:
"If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all."

So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?

Poor Lu,

The Italians don't have, never had and probably never will have HH-53 helicopters of any model designation. You seem to be referring to an HH-3, which is a totally different type, at about half the size, and 15 years older. Please check your facts.


zalt asks "So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?"

I think you ask that question as if you know of a new way to design, and that you also think others don't have it. Fair enough, but Sikorsky maintains a large and capable human factors engineering group. That group has been part of Sikorsky design for several decades.

I just love it when somebody invents a new acronym or phrase, and then thinks they invented something new! Takes more than that.

BTW, the US Army uses the phrase Manprint to define the entire design process of governing effective and safe behavior from the basic task thru the hardware and then the training and pubs. Its a shame they didn't think of "human centered design", they could have been first. Of course, Manprint has been around for about 20 years. I'll tell the Army and Sikorsky Human Factors to stop being so old fashioned!;)

My god he got me again.
 

To: NickLappos

Nick when you are right you are right. I hit too many keys when I typed in HH-53. It should have been HH-3. That being said everything else stays as previously stated.

One point to remember. No matter how much care is taken in the design of the aircraft, the design of the training system and the design of the maintenance program things fail. The failure could result from a design miscalculation, a faulty machining process or any number of things relating to QC. Or a fault in the maintenance program or the POH operating procedures.

When the first Commanche or S-92 crashes what can you blame it on since Sikorsky has taken every precaution to minimize if not totally eliminate failure.

Remember the failure of the S-76 blade that failed when the secondary loadpath failed and then, when the primary loadpath failed the blade separated.

The V-22 was designed using the Integrated Design Team concept and look at the safety record for that aircraft.

:E :E

Wooops!!!! didn't mean to stirr up that nest of hornets!!!!! But for what its worth I still think Sikorsky is #1 in my books. I have to admit that a Super Puma is no slouch either.

:ok: :ok: :ok:

polehog

Coulson S61 IN OZ
 

Hi all,

Today i noticed(hard not to!!) an S-61 i beleive its coulsons from the US, yellow and white arrive at Cessnock airport in the Hunter Valley wine region.

I was talking to some Rural fire services brass the other day and belive it will be based At cessnock for the season.

There are also a plethora of overseas craft here as well, Kmax's, Air cranes, 205,204'S and i beleive there is a Mil-8 floating around.


So far to date we have not seen major action up this way in fires. i was out in our 206 in late september for a week doing air attack but that has been about the extent of it. we have had quite a bit of rain in the last week.

Anyway just a bit of trivia for you all.

:confused:

Belly tank here is some more trivia:

Carson is from the states and has yellow S-61's

Coulson is from Canada and has black S-61's

Sounds like a Carson Machine in Oz.

Cheers

:O

It is a Carson machine, one of two they have down there. It is also hoped to have their new belly tank fitted to it within the next month or so.

Yes there is a Mil 8 being based in Victoria as part of the AFAC contract, its Heli Harvest's Mi-8 from New Zealand.

Good operators these guys and very professional.

Autorotate.

Thanks Guys!!

My mistake!..I think i may wander over the other side of the airport later and take a few happy snaps!

cheers guys

Look for a kiwi guy called Garry Mahoney who put the whole thing together for Carson. If you catch up with him tell him I said hi.

Autorotate.

Belly Tank, do you fly a red 206 from up near camerons?
If you do would you mind if I came up to say Hi?

Spaced,

I do fly a red 206 but am located in the Newcastle area, but sure visit anytime or drop me a private email

S-61 back in the north sea!!
 

Apparently Chevron-Texaco not impressed with the Super Puma/Tiger. Have re-opted to use the S-61 on their flights to Captain field. May well see the 61 around for a while then.....