S76 and AW139??
 

People can complain or critisize the S76 but, at the end, it is a good aircraft. I always love to read all those comments about how great the 139 is:ugh:
I flew the S76 for 13 years and I have been flying the 139 for 2.
I can tell you that there is huge difference cost between those aircrafts. I actually don't really understand why so many are buying the 139. In reality, state and offshore companies are buying because they are ready to spend an awful load of money to run those things. You need 2 or 3 to get one in service, maintenance is absolutely crazy, so, I don't know what is gone be with the S76D, but it can't be worse than the AW.
We had a S76 who crashed with a high vertical speed in trees. One of those trees went trough one engine, seats were still in good shape and no leaks:D
So, as usual, a lot of talk about those fuel cells for not to much at the end.
And, talking about de-icing, the 139 is certified with the FIPS. It has never worked, when I say never, it is NEVER:mad:.
I am sure Sikorsky can't be worst.........

Hi Arcal,

Sounds like you're having some issues with your 139's. One might look at how your company fitted out your aircraft and how much lead in trainging your maintenance staff received, perhaps that could be a major contributor to your "issues".

Personally I've seen great dispatch rates for the 139 in the offshore market, between 90-95% on time departures for one offshore company that I have numbers for.

Maintenance is a breeze compared to the 76. No tail rotor cables to replace access is easy to most components once you know the easy way to get to them. Ever changed a park brake valve on a 76??? :ugh::}

As to cost, a non FIPS offshore 139 is closer to the cost of an offshore configured S76 than you would think, as Agusta give some pretty good discounts for bulk contract signings. Hourly Direct Operating Costs are very close to a 76C++. Very close. If the 139 didn't gulp fuel like it does, it would probably be cheaper to run per hour, but then, fuel is the cheapest part of flying!

FIPS is VERY heavy and expensive. I'm not sure how some operators can justify the weight and expense. How often would you guys actually fly in icing conditions.

The 76 is indeed built strong., did you hear about the 76 in Nigeria that kicked off the AC Gen because the RRPM got so low?? Blades coned so much that the dampers pulled out of the main rotor blade mounts! :}:eek::eek:

The fuel tanks might not have ruptured in the incident you speak of, but try taxiing over rough ground. Personally I've seen three 76's where the mainwheel has caught in a rut and pulled the gear off the forward bulkhead, which creates a nice big puddle of fuel.

There are good things about the 76 and good things about the 139, however I think we can all agree that Sikorsky missed the boat when they came up with the 76D.

A clean sheet design would have been the way to go and it isn't too late, look at Bell, they're only just starting out on the 525 to try and catch up to the 139 and EC175. They obviously believe there is enough room in the market for another model in this weight range.

The proof is in the number of orders they (don't) have and in the number of orders that AW and EC have for their medium-heavy twins.

I liked working on the S76. Job for life! But I enjoy working on the AW139 more. Mechanically it is about the simplest beastie I've worked on in the past 22 odd years, except maybe for the Bell 47!!

Hopefully your experience will improve as your operation gains experience with what is to you guys, a new generation aircraft.

Fips
 

Well, If we had it,we will be using it quiet a bit in Winter time.At our base, our 2 main destinations have an airport and IFR approach available, so we would use it. Not that I miss going in ice because I don't really believe that we would not get in trouble :eek:.
Our enginer prefer the S76. It is true that we have many problems because of our organisation and their lack of understanding about helicopters, but the work who has to be done on the 139 is huge.
I don't know how the 76D will behave, but I think they still have a market.
I am very scared about the new Bell and when I see what kind of problems we face on the 139, you can expect a lot of trouble with this new machine who anything to do with any Bell product.
Of course, Sikorsky could have done a brand new model, but in this case, you have to go for way bigger than the S76.

Bristow buying the "D"?
 

A Bristow S-76D to be unveiled at Heli Expo?

Apparently part of a double figure Bristow order in full offshore configuration with big emergency exit compliant windows, all to be announced at Heli Expo. It may even get the "lbs" weight of a man increase in MTOW.

Wow! I am surprised, but great news for the D model! :D

Bonanza of D orders at the expo, including more than 2 dozen from Bristow!

Bristow Places Order for Up To 26 S-76D

S76D - Thoughts.
 

Just a question for the S76 pilots and operators here. Whats your thoughts on the new S76D model thats progressing through its test phase.

Bristows are probably the best ones to ask about this as they will be keeping close tabs on its final development and introduction to service.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/249352-s-76d.html

Mmm..
 

I'm sorry Sans but there's a few mistakes there on the C++.

The average fuel fow is 700lbs/hr, even an A+ is 640lbs/hr.

155kts is the VNE of an S76 from A-C++. VNO is 10knts below VNE depending on Density Altitude.

Long range cruise speed is still VNO, 145kts-ish, you set 80% and normally get 145kts unless you're max all up weight.

Range is actually about 350-380, sticking 1900lbs in the tank is akin to getting John Goodman in to a shopping trolley after a night out.

Hope these corrections help to put the S76D in perspective. Sans, I'm aware you were directly quoting from Flight International so please don't take it as me being a pedantic git, just trying to inform..

Couple of pics from my visit to the S76D testing at Leadville, CO few days ago. Got to shoot it up in the mountains and also over Turquoise Lake which sits at around 10,300ft.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...ps5f060b1f.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...ps6b33ac8c.jpg

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...ps198ec858.jpg

Since you have just been there, can you provide any update on the program, when the first delivery will take place + any problems they are having?

Awesome pics Ned :D

Any known future Operators of the S-76D? :cool:

HN - You may get more satisfaction contacting SAC directly! :ok:

Anthony is right, best to contact the media people at Sikorsky. While I spent a few days with the guys there I am not at liberty to say who is getting what and when and how the program is going :}

If I start doing that then wont be invited back again :ok:

Ned

.
Just go to their website, all the informations are there :

"October 15, 2012. STRATFORD, Connecticut - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved the Type Certificate for the S76D helicopter, moving the aircraft forward to its highly anticipated delivery into the medium-sized marketplace.

The S-76D helicopter has a current backlog approaching a half-billion dollars and is expected to begin deliveries later this quarter.
Our customers are excited to begin receiving the S-76D into their fleets."

Their customers are maybe excited but surely very patient ! :rolleyes:
.

But, the one at the HAI show was not it flyable form. None have actually been "delivered" yet, as in to a customer who is actually operating one. The D has taken 7 or 8 years to develop. Its only a derivative with new engines and cockpit + plastic blades, not a new type. Throughout its life it has been starved of investment and engineering resources. It had a large personnel turnover in the program.

Excitement I'm not so sure about, patience certainly, though I suspect many "would have been" S76D customers have found solace among other manufacturers.

I am surmising that the integration of the "all new" Pratt & Whitney 210S is a factor in the delay but as there has been very little by way of clear information from Sikorsky on the ongoing delays, who knows?

The real story behind the soap opera that has been the S76D involved a lot of politics involving Shell with the program through the mid 2000s. The acquisition/incorporation of Keystone also had a hand in things.

It seems to me that new engines and blades are a pretty big "only". Developing and qualifying a new engine installation and dynamic components (even without new gearboxes) is no small task.

.
About 8 years to do so ! you're right, not a small task for Sikorsky :rolleyes:
.

The D was Steve Finger's idea after he came from P&W to be President of Sikorsky. He wanted the S-76 to have P&W engines not Turbomeca engines and the D Program was born. But Sikorsky was busy with the in service reliability issues with the S-92, the "what to do with Schweizer" question and the where to do completions the S-70i question.

When the GFC hit, nearly all funding was cut from the D Model, Steve Finger had gone back to P&W and Jeff Pino had little enthusiasm for Finger's project. To be assigned to the D Program was like being told that the next step was chasing parts followed by being shown the exit to the building. Being assigned to the D Program Management was seen as a punishment.

There were (are) some great talented people who made great progress with the D, the trouble is that they were not properly resourced with $ or people. The oil and gas industry, one of the historical S-76 customers, had moved on to the AW139 in spite of some issues. The lateness of the D meant that it was (in terms of size, cabin and crashworthiness) out of date before it was even flown.

Rotor system is identical to the S76A/B/C outside of the composite-spar blades. The new blades were essentially baby S70/S92 AWC blades; nothing really unprecedented

...the other half of the sentence that was quoted. I guess being the launch customer for the PW210S engine that was being developed concurrently is also nothing really unprecedented.

Interesting insights there II but surprised no one has mentioned the launch orders.they were published in HD some months ago....Mexico offshore, Bristow in the Gulf,then Middle East,Malaysia,China and corporate following on.

.
Really ?
Just take time to read the 2 previous pages and you'll see the Bristow and Mexican O&G orders.

And we can add the Japan Cost Guard with 11 aircrafts ordered.

.

So the S-76D received type certification 12th October 2012 and at that time Sikorsky stated in their press release that they would "begin deliveries later this quarter".

Eight months on and still no deliveries is kind of strange unless you have a major problem. Some rumours seem to point to the structure down the back end being the problem. Anybody able to confirm if this is correct and if so what is the problem and what is the fix?

Standard S76 scenario. They have been bootstrapping, reskinning, reinforcing and strengthening the tail pylon since the A model.

....unlike the competitors such as the 139 and the 412?........ :8

helmet fire,
I have no experience on those types, so I will defer to yours.
It is nothing new, though for designs to show their weaknesses and flaws in the form of cracks and rivets pulling.

Its easy! Just ground the whole lot then no more cracking or pulling rivets!:ugh:

Yep, composites are great aren't they?

So???
 

Any updates on the program?...I heard that deliveries are on its way,..so?:hmm:

Wow, the folks in Coatesville are probably none too happy about that :sad:

What I find particularly interesting is the government response, or general lack thereof, towards offshoring. The longterm impact on a domestic economy is that in order to facilitate cheaper purchases, you must pay for this through a more extensive welfare system, the needs of which are generated by continually favouring overseas labour over one's domestic workforce. Great for the short-term in lowering product prices to customers or, more realistically, widening the profit margin on sales, but it does throw-up bigger issues eventually.

However, as no government is interested in "nationhood" anymore, longterm domestic economic performance has taken a back seat in deference to attending the "global" agenda. And where, I do wonder, will that take us?

I'm sorry, when was the last time a 76 fuselage was built in the USA???

I was under the impression that they had been uilt in the Czech Republic for a number of years, so the offshoring that you are complaining about, is nothing new for the 76.

I would imagine Sikorsky, like many other big players, see's many $$$ in China and need to have a presence there if they are to secure a part of the market.

EC has been there for years, AW is moving into Brazil and Russia.
Bell fuselages are built in Korea(??) AW fuselages are made in Poland.
Until people are willing to pay more to have their products produced locally, this is how it will be.

Sometimes it works the other way too. AW and EC both have assembly plants in the USA, both of which have grown considerably and employ thousands of people. Should they close those down and increase their employment in Europe???

Welcome to the global Economy.

Nobody was mentioning building the fuselage in the USA. Final assembly of S-92 and S-76 is the bread and butter of the former Keystone facility operated by Sikorsky in PA.

All correct noooby. However, my response is in answer to SansAnhedral's comment and which is why I referred to offshoring generally as opposed to Sikorsky specifically. There remain arguments both for and against depending on one's political priorities and remembering that not everything can be rationailsed in terms of dollars and cents. Though many would have us believe to the contrary!

I like the fact that the official press release contains three ™'s and two ®'s.

So that's bound to prevent any IPR 'leakage'... :E

(The PR confirming, BTW, that the news relates only to D cabin production at Changhe -- as first announced in 2008 -- not local assembly. Changhe was supposed to have transitioned from C++ to D cabins in 2011, but this schedule was obviously delayed by the D's slippages.)

I/C