S-76D
 

I heard a nasty rumor the S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules. Certification to the latest standards prohibited the old airframe from being used ... presumably due to birdstrike, etc. With the new engines, rotor, and drive system, why not redesign the cabin, too?

Any thoughts or confirmation? :confused:

Speaking of OGP ... how long until those rules penetrate the Western Hemisphere?

Tompkins

OGP Rules
 

Excuse my ignorance, but what are OGP Rules.....

....unmarked foot crossings are allowed but you must use the left side of the elevator.

..........

Rule 1 - No poofters
Rule 2 - There is no Rule 2
Rule 3 - Refer to Rule 1

etc.......

Is this a surprise?

All the pictures I've seen show a new shape of airframe......and the S-76 was first flown nearly 30 years ago.

Isn't this why they suddenly came up with the C++, as an interim measure, to compete with the AW139 at fairly short notice, after losing the Presidential contract and the Commanche? (Cat, pigeons, 'spect Nick will be along very shortly).

Regarding the 139, I will go on record that it seems to be a fine machine, frankly. The teething problems it has seem monor and easily fixed. It also gives the customers a full choice, with its bold design that eliminates the HV curve at offshore conditions.

The S76D is squarely in he 139's face, for sure. I will bet the guys at Sikorsky have already asked the customers with the checkbooks what they want, and are building same. Fears of not meeting "OGP" rules are foolish, the oil companies are consulted for the design requirements whenever an investment is even considered. I believe that the S76D shares the same fuselage with the A thru C, but there is a window redesign.

The choice customers face is payload and range vs single engine immunity. The short range and high fuel burn of the 139 is dictated by its enormous engines and the weight of its drivetrain, all of which are optimized for engine failure. As I hear it, the 139 is not burning any barns in its sales, perhaps the folks who get paid to carry stuff don't want to pay to fly the drive train of a 21000 lb helo while only carrying the payload of a 12,000 lb one.

Let the customers decide!

Tompkins says:

"I heard a nasty rumor the S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules."

This rumor is completely unfounded. :confused: The main changes to the S-76D airframe deal with those required for incorporating the new PW210S engine. There are some other minor changes being incorporated on the airframe to make improvements (ie. reduce weight, reduce drag, etc.). The basic airframe is very similar to that we have grown accustomed to. The bottom line, this aircraft will weigh less, have more power, similiar fuel consumption, the latest avionics suite available, along with keeping a proven aircraft design. What's not to like!!! :ok:

Helo Bubba

Excellent answer Mr Lappos, it is an interesting trade-off like you say for the 139s single engine ability.
I hear Bell have another 412 version coming out to finally compete with the 76D and 139, called the gen-5 or something and will basically be a 412 SAR machine a-la SAF and Turks. Glass cockpit and T-9 fadecs.
I also heard the 76D does not meet the latest JARs in the same way that the EP also doesnt meet them but the 139 does.
Apparently the oil companies are gagging for another 76 version though.
More anti-bell propaganda from the oil industry (OK just Shell)

:(

The whole point of the exercise is to dodge around the JAR regs. By making use of grandfather rights a lot of corners can be cut whilst not seriously compromising anything. You can fit safe stroking seats and beef up the airframe and fuel fuel safety provisions to within a few percentage points of the JAR without actually having to go the whole way.

And look at the changes that result... graft a JAR standard new EC135 nose on a BK117 and visually you appear to have a whole new machine. But you still have the option of 'ignoring' the bits of JAR that might get in the way of the sale, like having to seat everyone in JAR seats if that is operationally awkward.

I would expect that the new S76D will play just that sort of game.

Saves lots of money too.

While there may still be time to help design the 76D - here's my request. More fuel capacity. 1800lbs of fuel is not enough. With a burn rate of 700lbs or so, minimum 2100 - better yet 2400lbs of fuel.

My rumor source says "Sorry Nick, same old windows". It's amazing what can be done with paint, though...

Same little birdie tells me there will be a SLIGHT increase in fuel. But just a few gallons.

Bubba's comments are all spot on, fo-shore.

hoss

Reportedly 15 gal more Jet A. Key benefit of the D seems to be in hot & high ops; SL range & payload is little changed from the C++. Other than the donks, the major changes are the MR, TR & avionics.

Heard the same rumor a year or so ago, but sources in BHT have played this down.

I/C

but isn't the S-76D programme now 12 months behind? I hear first deliveries have skipped to 2009.

but isn't the S-76D programme now 12 months behind? I hear first deliveries have skipped to 2009.

Q4 2009 = 2010... http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/smilies/evil.gif

I/C

There are many incorrect rumors running around here. := Here are some of the facts:

1) The S-76D program is still on track for certification during the 1Q of 2009.

2) The program has stepped up to the plate to bring the cert basis up to be at least 92% compliant to the latest FAR/JAR amendments (currently working to make this value even higher).

3) The fuel capacity has indeed increased by 15 gals. The S-76D maximum range however will increase to greater than 400nm with the improved fuel consumption that the PW210S engine offers.

4) The PW210S has run in the test cell up to and including max takeoff power. The engine runs great.

I hope this helps to set the record straight. :)

Helo Bubba

Bubba,

My date was delivery, not cert; your cert date also differs from what I've been told by SAC, but I'll not split hairs.

Now, when's the X2 gonna fly ? :E


I/C

Thanks for all the input folks! Just what I was looking for ... well, maybe not the stir I caused ... but thanks for the answers!:ok:

Tompkins

I/C says:

"Now, when's the X2 gonna fly?"

Now that's one that I don't have any say on.

Bubba

Getting 2100lbs of fuel in a S76 is easy. Just full 'er up from a Jet-A tank chilled to -40C and you will fit 2098lbs in. There is always a way.:ok:

Yes, I know....nobody likes a smart-ass.

Probably when it's ready!
-- IFMU

Just curious.. Whats the latest on the D model?

First flight rumored to have slipped into next year, with SL cert now first quarter of 2010. Two years behind original schedule, but probably no bad thing given the state of the economy...

I/C

Brame:

OGP stands for " International Associatrion of Oil and Gas Producers.

International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (OGP)

OGP
 

"S-76D may require a major airframe redesign in order to comply with OGP rules".

Could you be more specific and reference the statement or position that OGP has taken on the S-76D?

How they ever expect any 412 to compete with a 76 is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I love the old beast- but it is, and always will be, far too slow. Maybe good for those 50 mile runs?

I have heard they have decided to extend the fuselage in the D Model so that is going to take some work.

FNW

Sorry to state the obvious, but why don't you contact the Chairman or Secretary of the OGP Aviation Sub-Committee ? This is a Rumour website after all !!
Find details or request their exact email details via 'Contact Us' on the OGP website.
pp

Probably OGP don't like having passengers exiting from the pilots' doors.
That never made any sense to me, and I think the '76 is an excellent helicopter otherwise.

Does the D model offer any real advantage over the C++ except for blade de-ice kit? Also doesn't the FAR 29 cert need fuel cell crashworthiness modification to overcome the gap in compliance? What about payload? Physical provision for air con?....and what about boot size with an aircon unit? hmmmm....air con.....

I understand the rotor blades haven't flown yet....

Not bagging it - just interested. It's about time there was some serious competition. What about EC175?.....is that ever going to be marketed or is it just a eurosinodream

DD

Maidenflight for the 175 is announced for late 2009, first airframe is on the way from china to france for completion.

http://www.eads.com/web/pressdbdata/...7/42344872.jpg

skadi

Weellll....... thanks skadi for that bit of info. It's about time.:ok:

What are engines for EC model. Sure hope the panel fit is better than the first EC120 , s/n 1002 had a lot of filler as I recall.

Engines will be PW PT6C-67E...

More infos here (english):

FLUG REVUE - Eurocopter EC175 (Z-15)


skadi

WOW! Pratts in a Eurocopter....:sad::D

Turbomerde must be going spastic at the insult and betrayal, and from within, so to speak.

Go, boys, GO!:ok:

No more radical than the 76D going for the Thales TopDeck Avionics suite :ok:

212man,

How does the Thales suite compare to the C+/++?

S-76D flew on February 7 according to Rotorhub...

Sikorsky’s S-76D flies for the first time | Shephard Group

From the press release:-
?? Sounds a bit Airwolf to me ??

Interesting years to come...

AW139/S76D/EC175

There are 200 AW139 already in service with around 100 orders for the 76D and 100 for EC175...

CHC/ERA is going for the 139
Bristow to the 175
PHI S76D?