S-61 SeaKing
 

Can anyone tell me...Can you start an S61 in accessory drive ie, without engaging the rotors, or do you have to start in Flight Drive so to speak....Just curious....Thanks

You can start the Seaking in acc drive, infact it is normal practice cos you need one donk going to pressurize the hydraulics to spread the blades. Can't remember about the 61 but if it is real important I can dig out my notes.Suspect it is flight drive only.

Thanks for that Percy...Heres another brain teaser for you...would an Offshore S61N be equipped with an HSI or just fixed card ADF and VOR/ILS etc....Cheers

Sea-King gas saving technique:- NOT!
 

Sunday March 12 2:32 PM ET

Pilot caused ditching of chopper in East Timor

(CP) - A Canadian Sea King helicopter ditched in the ocean off East Timor last December because the pilot made an error, not because of any mechanical trouble, says a new report.

The pilot mistakenly shut off the fuel pumps to save gas, choking one of the two engines and causing it to shut down while the Sea King was hovering, a military investigation concludes.

Sea Kings cannot hover on one engine so the crew was forced to ditch in the sea. The amphibious aircraft floated for about a minute before the pilot was able to restart the engine and get airborne again.

The five people aboard were not hurt and the aircraft landed safely at nearby Dili airport.

"Shutting off boost pumps to conserve fuel is neither a valid nor auth(orized) procedure and its use with low fuel states has serious repercussions as experienced the hard way in this incident," says a report obtained under the Access to Information Act.

The geriatric Sea King fleet, dating from 1963, has been plagued with mechanical problems as Ottawa mulls over potential replacements. But the Dec. 2 accident in East Timor, widely assumed at the time to be caused by mechanical breakdown, was in fact the result of human error.

The aircraft was one of two Canadian Sea Kings based aboard HMCS Protecteur as part of an international peacekeeping force in the troubled nation.

Investigators determined that the aircraft was running low on fuel as it waited for clearance to land on Protecteur's deck.

The pilot had once heard from another Sea King pilot that shutting down the fuel pumps can reduce consumption, even though the procedure is forbidden in the official air force manual.

Highly corrosive salt water seeped into the belly of the aircraft after it ditched. The Sea King had to undergo more than three weeks of meticulous cleaning and repairs before it was ready for operations again.

And while on a test flight Dec. 20, the aircraft's other engine lost power in flight, forcing the crew to make another emergency landing at Dili airport. No one was hurt and the aircraft was not damaged.

A second investigation determined that a technician likely failed to tighten an air hose, though the hose may have worked itself lose in the hot, humid weather of East Timor.

"There was a mistake made," Maj. Mike Muzzerall, who commanded the 35-member Sea King detachment in East Timor, said in an interview from Victoria.

"There was a series of errors. It just wasn't our day."

The Sea King finally became operational Dec. 24, he said.

Canada's Sea Kings currently require about 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. They're available for operations only about 40 per cent of the time.

An order for high-tech replacement choppers was cancelled by the incoming Liberal government in 1993, forcing the military to fly the Sea Kings until at least 2005, five years past their scheduled retirement date.

Upgrades worth $80 million have kept the aircraft operational though the Sea Kings are still plagued by frequent mechanical breakdowns.

Defence Minister Art Eggleton has said he intends to buy replacement aircraft, but industry has not yet been asked for bids.
© The Canadian Press, 2000

Tall Ships race- Coastguard S-61
 

At said event yesterday (Sat) if that flyby/ transition through the masts of the tall ships alongside had gone even marginally wrong not only would you have killed dozens of the public but you would have put the whole industry back 20 years in the eyes of the public.
As the saying goes-'start at the Board of enquiry and work backwards'
Go and sit in a corner and stare at yourself in the mirror, now run through a few what if scenarios.

If the spelling is ars* its because I still have rage clouding my vision!

Sikorsky S61 Fleet-no blades!
 

The Sikorsky S61 fleet is slowly starting to gring to a halt, as the total non-production of Main Rotor Blades for the last year starts to take effect.

Apparently they have been unable to produce a satisfactory spar at the vendor, so there is nothing to build upon. Of course, no operator in their right mind is going to release any of their own spares, so the guys with no spares are starting to park them!

Life Limit extensions, look like the only viable means of maintaining an operational fleet!

Anyone got any other info on this?

Just so that you don't think that there isn't anybody interested in this dilemma except the two of us, I'll ask around.
Is it still true that these machines are to be taken off the UK register in 2005 anyway?

I see an S-61 div'd back to Aberdeen yesterday with a problem. Is this the beginning of the end for this old bird? If so there'll be no more 110kts down the ILS - yippee! :)

Well, Sikorsky finally came back with a 1200 hour extension to the life limit to the S61 blades.

This cures the short term shortage of zero supply, so at least the Operator's who were already grounded got going again. Still looks like well into 2001 before deliveries get under way.

Now we here that some Operators in the US are succefully getting a life limit extension of an additional 3000 hours, following the conclusion of their own engineering efforts. There is a distinct likelihood of this becoming available (for the right price) to other operators.

The Main Rotor Blades are the single part for the S61 manufactured at the Sikorsky factory for which there is no alternate supplier; no competition, nothing, and they can't keep the supply running. Makes me want to increase my options for S92's, just as soon as I can find someone to talk to at the factory! :)

Has anyone checked Agusta? They made S-61 helicopters and the blades and I understand that the US Navy procured a lot of spares from Agusta to support the SH3s in the US Navy fleet.

Just a thought.

Regarding the life extension I personally believe that although a lot of S-61s will keep flying it is not a very good idea. When the blades were first designed, the engineers calculated the basic life of the blades based on percieved dynamic loading and accumulated vibratory forces and they built in a safety factor. Now they are countering their original calculations
by adding a thousand or several thousands of hours to the life of the blades.

Sikorsky did not have a very good reputation in the support of civilian S-61s.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Los Angeles Airways. They lost two passenger S-61s for the same reason. Throwing a blade killing all of the passengers and crew on both helicopters. The grandson of the owner was on one of the S-61s that was lost. It put the company out of business. The failures of both rotor heads was traced to the overhaul procedure used by Sikorsky on the respective rotor heads. They left off a crucial process

If the blade life extension goes through, it should require an extensive periodic inspection of the spars and pockets, which will run up the maintenance costs and most likely increase the IOP* for the flight crew and passengers. But, that's my opinion.


* IOP= Intensity Of Pucker

The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]

Aren't the S-61 blades BIM'd? My thinking is, if a blade can pass a BIM inspection every three hours or so, why not use it?

I was going to mention the BIM monitors on the spar and for whatever reason, left it out. Reading the BIM indicator prior to flight provides a snapshot of what the blade indication is at the time of the reading. It does not provide any warning regarding a catastrophic failure caused by fatigue.

Sikorsky developed a BIM system that monitors spar leakage in flight. It involved radioactive material and a sensor/pickup. Like in the regular BIM indicator one part shifted in relation to the other. In the normal BIM system you could see the color change from the ground.

On the other BIM indicator when the moving part shifted position the sensor/pickup would detect the shift and provide the warning to the pilot but even this system can't provide a warning about catastrophic failure. Extended blade life equals extended exposure to operating loads

------------------
The Cat

Would the plastic blades from the Sea King not be suitable?

Dear Cyclic,

You question prompts the asking of several more questions:

1) Are the root fittings compatible?

2) Do the blades have the same dynamic and aerodynamic characteristics?

3) Do the blades have the same mass balance characteristics?

4) Do the blades require any type of damping system (Like the Bifilar system)?

5) Most importantly, are they certified for use on a civil aricraft?

There are probably other questions that would have to be resolved. These are just a few.

------------------
The Cat

Not that anyone hasnt done it already but would someone post the NSN (National Stock Number) for the Blades. I would like to check some surplus tricks.. If I have any luck I wil post it........

A few years back I believe a Cloggie S61 was shutdown on deck offshore because the crew felt "a strange vibration" during the approach. The blade basically fell off during the shutdown due to a root failure, and that blade had a very few hours to go to scrap! Are we serious about extending the life of this rather important piece of kit?

Lu Z

Cyclic's question was also on my lips.

Westland designed them as a straight replacement for the metal blades, and as I was on a Sea King squadron when they were introduced, I seem to remember it being a very quick and effective fix. Better fuel efficiency (16% profile Tq against 20% with metal)and much much less vibration.

So answers:

1, 2, & 3 almost certainly yes

4 no

5 that's gonna be the real problem (along with cost) remember the first five words of the UK Air Navigation Order - 'An aircraft shall not fly.....'

The dutch S61 blade loss was a spindle failure, not a blade failure.

Westlands were approached many years ago about fitting the Sea King blades to the S61 fleet, their response if I remembe right was that regardless of the civil certification cost we the operators would have to absorb (which were going to be many big bucks said the CAA), they wanted a minimum order of 1000, yes one thousand, blades to make it worth them bothering. Needless to say it all went quiet.....

To: Grenadetosser:

Several postings above I mentioned Los Angeles Airways and how their two S-61s suffered blade loss. Actually it was spindle failure. I don't know what the time frame was for the loss of the Dutch Sea King helicopter and I can't remember the time frame for the LA Airways two losses but I believe it wes somewhere around 1967 or 1968 as I flew on one of them two days prior to the loss. On that flight I had to keep my teeth clenched to keep from chipping them. One blade was out of track by almost ten inches. When I got off at LAX I told a ramp mechanic and he said that they would get to it on the next check. Perhaps, that was the blade that failed.

The problem was at that time Sikorsky did not have an overhaul manual for the S-61. So, when a major assembly such as a rotor head was returned for overhaul it was disassembled, inspected and brought up to the original design standard as dictated by the design drawings. In the case of the spindle they ground off the chrome plate down to the parent metal of the spindle. They then replated the spindle and reground it to nominal manufacturing dimension. That sounds as if they did it the right way however they left off a critical step. They did not shot peen the spindle prior to plating to relieve the residual stresses.

So, when the rotor head was installed on the helicopter the spindles had a high degree of residual stress and after accumulating some hours the spindles let go. This would also apply to extending the life on the blades.

------------------
The Cat

to The Cat

After the Cloggie spindle failure there was a general re-look at maintenance of them. A fleet check showed up lots of corrosion. Some form of NDT checking was intoduced, it may still be in force (I havn't been near an S61 for some years now).

If one was going to worry about blade restraint I would take a hard look at the Super Puma, but then only if I didn't want to sleep nights.....

Dear B Sousa,
Here's some info for you but its not a NSN
blade number - this advert has appeared in the HAI magazine ROTOR, every issue, for the past 12 months:
Surplus Parts Inventory Liquidation - S-61 Helicopter Inventory - over 39000 line items - avionic & electrical, dynamic, hyd-ASE, power plant, structural - (AN + MS + NAS)- all sold with certificate of compliance - for details contact ........their European rep has a United Kingdom phone number.

I'm not a tout so there's no more info to share. But to a ground-based guy like me it sure looks like somebody is trying to unload S-61 blades.

Never ever ever trust anything where the wings travel faster than the fuselage.

VH_KAM

Can I modify that. Most helicopters are OK but never fly one where the wings can have a mid air collision with the fuselage, like the Robinson series!

Re: Use of SeaKing Blades

The last time I checked, The SeaKing (S61A) blades were entirely different from the 61N/L. So I don't think you would get anywhere with them. Even the Shortski uses N Blades.

As for BIM's, your right, they won't give you a warning of a sudden catastrofic failure but the will give some idea that there is an impending problem i.e. cracked spar etc.

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

S-61 vs Bell 214B (At Altitude)
 

Hey Guys

Wanted to get some opinions. I was recently in canada watching the Bell 214B doing some heli logging. First off I was impressed. Great performance for a single engine machine.

The question is I understand that the S-61 can out lift the 214 at Sea level but as it gets higher the 214B comes into its own and at approx 3.5 - 4000 ft actually is a better lifter than the S-61. Could anyone comment on this. Not meaning to have a shot at the S-61 just trying to get some info.

Regards

Pac Rotors. :confused:

I've never flown a 214B, and my memories of the 61 are foggy at best (haven't touched one since '94) but I seem to remember she didn't like altitude very much. It would come as no surprise to me that as long as the big two-blader had the lungs for it, she'd outperform Big Igor up high.

I do remember a trip across the Canadian Rockies at 11,500 once, speed somewhere around 80KIAS, with 1/rev and 5/rev competing for the rights to shake us to bits....

Maybe some of the loggers could help........

CTD

The one operation I spent time with said their one will cruise around 140 knots no problem at all. I was very impressed with its performance so just wondered how much parity there is between S-61 and the 214B.

Pac Rotors

214B, nice machine, but only one engine. 2950 shp derated to 1850 continuous. Max Gross wt 13800lbs loaded internally, or 16000 with a hook load. Max I have had on the hook was 7200lbs, at 1500', OAT 23C. Will cruise at 140kts, and it is possible to got through VNE if the blades are tracked and tabbed correctly. Good old nodal beam suspension. S61, the hook is cleared for 8000lbs, but the most I have personally carried is only around half of that, due to the aircraft fit. She starts to grumble a little at max gross with no wind, too, before you get to translational.

S61N MkII Sloping Ground limits.....?
 

Can anyone offer some data regarding the following:
-Sloping Ground Limits
-Max windspeed for Rotor Engagement/Disemgagement
-Icing limitations
-Flight time in recirculating snow
Will be most grateful to hear from anyone who could offer answers regarding any of the above......Cheers

Rotor engagement max steady wind 50kts
Vmin IMC 45kts
Cleared for light icing, 1/2 inch accretion in 40 NM
Flight in icing conditions min ambient temp -5C
Min freezing level 500ft above surface (so that a descent into a positive air band is possible)
Max alt 5000ft PA
Min flight temp in engine icing -23C (below +6Cwith precipitation or horizontal viz less than 1000m)
Sloping ground - no specific limits, but care should be taken with the fwd/aft cyclic & low collective combinations to avoid clobbering the fuselage - not good for your health & future employment. Other limits of pitch, roll & heave apply from the IVLL which each N Sea operator will have.

Hope this helps;)

Almost forgot, one N Sea operator has specific limits for protracted running on the ground in rreduced visibility caused by falling snow.

Thanks Attila....
 

Cheers for the info, forgive my ignorance but I'm not familiar with the terms Vmin and IVLL, wondered if you wouldnt mind elaborating on these?
Thanks.....Zap

V refers to speed, as in VNE, Velocity not to exceed. In this case, Vmin IMC is the minimum speed for operating the aircraft under Instrument Met Conditions. Various others include Vbroc, Vtoss, etc. I'll leave you to work those out.

IVLL is the Installation & Vessel Landing Limitations list. This is a document produced by the CAA after consultation with the helicopter operators. It includes all platforms, semi-subs, resupply vessel, seismic vessels operating in the Northern and Southern North Sea and provides information concerning any obstructions etc which may hinder your approach, plus gives restrictions on the amount of pitch, roll and heave that are acceptable for the various helicopter types!!

Phew, that's the epistle according to Attila, I'm off for a beer.

:D

I dont blame you......Have one for me!
 

Thanks for the info Attila,
Hope you enjoy the 'old perculiar',
Cheers....Zap

Minor correction to Attila's last post. The IVLL is not produced by the CAA. It is produced by the UK North Sea helicopter companies (Bristow and Scotia). They finance the manpower to do helideck inspections, and collate all helideck info including voyage reports about turbulence etc. The end result is the Installation and vessel Limitations List (IVLL) which is available to our pilots during preflight planning and also in the cockpit. This allows us to be fully briefed on every aspect of a helideck prior to arrival. Gone are the days when one operator would impose a limitation on a deck due to a severe turbulence problem and no-one else would be told. All limitations etc are the same for each operator.

Nice to see some uniformity for a change..
 

Thanks for that Coalface,
In a world with so many regulatory restrictions, minima and criteria to be up to speed with it is nice to see anything which standardises procedures and reduces workload for pilots, assuming you can get everyone to agree!
Thanks for that.....Zap

Sikorsky say's it's essentially out of the S61 business!
 

Sikorsky’s top marketing executive Jeff Pino offered the following insight into the internal thinking at Sikorsky.


Excuse me. Did I miss something? It must certainly have been the "support" offered on the S61 for the last few years? Maybe I missed it somewhere?

As Mr Pino has only just joined Sikorsky, he may well be unaware of the problems this particular model has suffered in the last few years - namely a lack of major parts to support the programme; gutting of the product support department and a TOTAL lack of interest in the problems this has posed for the operators of this type! It might be worth Sikorsky's while to get out and talk to some of their existing customers, rather than deliver this information to the AHS. We are already quite aware of the level of commitment from that end.

Fortunately there are alternatives to the factory for parts and support. One of the major bright spots in the S61's future is the composite Main Rotor Blades that Carson has had the vision to create. These blades provide a means to enhance the performance of the S61 to a level that means it will remain in commercial service for at least another 20 years, whether the marketing department wants it or not. The Carson blades offer the most economic improvement to the existing fleet that money can buy, and will be the way forward for many aircraft (including military) for some considerable time.

The fact that Sikorsky entirely lost the large offshore market (due to terminating manufacture of the S61) and handed the ENTIRE market to the Eurocopter Super Puma, is of course one of those great aviation mis-marketing stories of all time.

Now, to win back those lost (and very loyal) customers, they announce that they are essentially stopping support on the last large commercial helicopter they built , and that a large number of their loyal customers still operate.

Maybe I lost something in my comprehension of modern marketing methods, but somehow I think that those boys at Eurocopter who have been laughing in their wine for the last 20 years, must be in absolute hysterics now?

The Wall Street Journal mentioned last week that the planned purchases of Comanche helicopters maybe cut by an additional 40%, and there are plans to kill the program entirely.

On the other hand, Sikorsky has just been granted another patent [#6,454,532] on its Variable Diameter Rotor, for use in tilt rotors.

Perhaps after 60 years, Sikorsky is coming to recognize that the tail-rotor was the easy way, but the wrong way, to go. Perhaps the company is finally acknowledging the ingenuity of the Germans and the Russians with their coaxial, side-by-side and intermeshing configurations.

Dave J.

Symmetry is beauty ~ Ban the tail-rotor :)

Commercial operators just don't spend like the military. We buy S-61's back in the 1960's and continue to operate them 30 years later. The original batch of Bell 212's, still flying for operators in various parts of the world. We finally bite the bullet and buy the S-76, a totally new type, and sure enough continue to operate the same airframes, without buying any more new ones for the next 20 years +.

Compare that to the military that have a continuing turnover of aircraft, and suddenly it is clear that the financial pressures that commercial operators are under, make them pretty poor customers.

Commerical operators are poor customers for Sikorsky??? Funny, that seems to be a self inflicted wound to me! When the Pilots Unions formed in the Gulf of Mexico and the operators finally raised rates, one of the by-products was the ability to upgrade their fleets. That was announced in public by the operators themselves! Maybe, if the operators had used sound business management techniques all along and raised rates they would have been able to buy new aircraft over the years instead of continuing to fly antiques till they finally found their way to the boneyard. The helicopter industry is facing yet another crisis....and that is finding a way to replace all of these old aircraft with modern state of the art equipment. As long as they have an attitude of just getting by and relying upon outdated marginal operating practices.....the industry will continue to be a backwater to the aviation mainstream. Why should Sikorsky worry about a customer base that refuses to invest in new aircraft.....after all they are builders of aircraft primarily and suppliers of parts secondarily.

As a former SAC employee I can tell you that support for the S61 in future will go the way of support for the S64…..none. Product liability has made the bean counters turn their backs on these two fine products. Onesey and twosey sales to the commercial market don’t feed the bull dog….SAC marketing knows that they live and die by military sales and R&D funding.