.
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 The lateness of the D meant that it was (in terms of size, cabin and crashworthiness) out of date before it was even flown.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