Commanche alternatives?

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:15:54 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Paul Michael Brown" wrote in message
news
I woule be interested in the opinion of Mr. Curry, or any others, with
regard to the competition between the S-92 and the US-101 to serve as
the
next presidential helicopter. Lobbying, spin and politicking aside,
which
is the better *aircraft* for the mission?

Probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. The 101 has some possible
advantages over the S-92 in a tactical role, but as a VIP transport there
would not be much justification of one over the other *except* for
political
considerations. IMO the chance that we will see a non-US designed helo
selected for use by HMX-1 is slim-to-none; OTOH, the 101 stands at
*least*
an even chance of getting the USAF rescue helo contract that we can
expect
to be offered up for competition in the near term.

IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
rather more proven.

The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
-101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.

I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It
does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. OTOH, the
S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101
from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.

Brooks


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It
does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92. OTOH, the
S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101
from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.

I remember a few years back being startled like hell by an EH-101
flying fairly low and slow (lower than most of the Blackhawks that
transit the area) over the I-395/King Street interchange just south of
the Pentagon. At the time, I think I'd only seen one or two pictures
of the beast, and it sure wasn't an everyday sight to see any helo
that low, let alone something that unusual. Still wasn't as cool as
seeing a B2 Spirit drifting over DC Metro on Armed Forces Day, though.


AgustaWestland's got photos in its gallery from that visit.
http://www.agustawestlandinc.com/gallery.html

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
rather more proven.

The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

Fair enough, but I'd have thought for the President you'd want a
rather more proven airframe. IIRC these are not *any* government
orders for the H-92 yet, although that's mainly due to a lack of
contracts to bid for (except a few European ones). Be interesting to
see how the H-92 versus EH101 contest in Canada ends up. The EH should
have the advantage after the Cormorant order, but who knows.

On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
-101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.

I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive". It
does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92.

Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
added I'd say that's a significant difference.

OTOH, the
S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the EH-101
from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.

Not really, because as you say the S-92 isn't being bid as it's too
large, the same reason the EH101 was scrubbed (I was suprised the
Merlin even made the short list). So at most it says something about
bidding a large helicopter in a medium copter contest.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
rather more proven.

The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

Fair enough, but I'd have thought for the President you'd want a
rather more proven airframe. IIRC these are not *any* government
orders for the H-92 yet, although that's mainly due to a lack of
contracts to bid for (except a few European ones). Be interesting to
see how the H-92 versus EH101 contest in Canada ends up. The EH should
have the advantage after the Cormorant order, but who knows.

On the other hand NIH is likely to rule the day.
I agree however that for the CSAR role the extra lift and range of teh
-101 is likely to be decisive unless the Osprey hurries up.

I said it *at least* it stands an even chance, nothing about "decisive".
It
does offer some advantages in range, payload, etc.--but nothing truly
outstanding, from what I have seen, in comparison to the S-92.

Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
added I'd say that's a significant difference.

Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of
sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and
as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for
the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor.
Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations.


OTOH, the
S-92 offers greater commonality with the Blackhawk family that is in
widespread service. I just read where the Aussies have scrubbed the
EH-101
from their list of competitors for a new support helo, while the UH-60M
remains in the hunt--that might tell you something about the EH-101 being
such a decidedly better platform than the S-92.

Not really, because as you say the S-92 isn't being bid as it's too
large, the same reason the EH101 was scrubbed (I was suprised the
Merlin even made the short list). So at most it says something about
bidding a large helicopter in a medium copter contest.

Well, the NH90, which remains in the running, is a bit larger than the
UH-60M, too.

Brooks

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role is
that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
rather more proven.

The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use by
HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

The commonality of the S-92 with the H-60 appears to be greatly exaggerated. It
may have started out that way, but the numerous changes since have really made
it a new helo with some concepts borrowed from the H-60. However, by the time
they could get into service, I imagine the commercial users will have put enough
hours on it to eliminate any major worries in that area. But Sikorsky's just
making the first commercial delivery now, so ordering anytime soon would still
be taking a bit of a risk.

snip

Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
added I'd say that's a significant difference.

Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of
sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role (and
as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22 for
the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor.
Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot operations.

snip

AvLeak mantioned a month or two ago that the proposed "VH-92" was being given a
power boost to bring its hot/high performance into line with the "US-101." I
don't remember the details (it was a more powerful version of the CT-7), but the
Sikorsky person they were talking to may have said it would exceed the US-101's
hot/high performance.

Guy

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:07:41 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
.. .
IMO the only significant difference between the, for the VVIP role
is
that the EH101 has a hell of a lot more hours under it's elt and is
rather more proven.

The S-92 is a growth model of a proven design that is already in use
by
HMX-1, and I doubt its flightworthiness is of issue.

The commonality of the S-92 with the H-60 appears to be greatly
exaggerated. It
may have started out that way, but the numerous changes since have really
made
it a new helo with some concepts borrowed from the H-60. However, by the
time
they could get into service, I imagine the commercial users will have put
enough
hours on it to eliminate any major worries in that area. But Sikorsky's
just
making the first commercial delivery now, so ordering anytime soon would
still
be taking a bit of a risk.

I am not sure how much risk you are talking about; Sikorsky is ballyhooing
the fact that the S-92 is the first and only helo to have so far been
certified under the FAA Part 29 requirements. It has been flying since 1998,
apparently without major mishap, a total of five prototypes logging hours
(about 2500 to date) over the years since then. The critter even won the
Collier Trophy year before last. They already have over 20 firm sales, some
seventeen options, and a handfull of others have made deposits towards
future purchase. based upon all of that, this appears to be a pretty
low-risk program. As to commonality with the S-70/UH-60 family, it shares
the same rotor system as the UH-60M (albeit the latter has blades a foot
shorter); as one source noted, the "engines and dynamic components are
basically those of the Blackhawk family".


snip

Checking JAWA today it looks like they have a virtually identical
cruise speed, but the EH101 has a 50% greater load and between 20% and
150% more range (not much in the way of comparable data). For a SF
mission or CSAR where armour and navair and weapons are likely to be
added I'd say that's a significant difference.

Hard to say, as you noted the data comparisons right now are kind of
sketchy. I don't see the load factor as being critical in the CSAR role
(and
as of now that is the projected mission--USAF is committed to the CV-22
for
the SOF insertion/extraction role), and I doubt the "150%" range factor.
Where it apparently *does* have a distinct advantage is high/hot
operations.

snip

AvLeak mantioned a month or two ago that the proposed "VH-92" was being
given a
power boost to bring its hot/high performance into line with the "US-101."
I
don't remember the details (it was a more powerful version of the CT-7),
but the
Sikorsky person they were talking to may have said it would exceed the
US-101's
hot/high performance.

Very possible. From what I have read the S-92, while being certified at
lower payload capacity than the EH-101, has actually flown (in and out of
ground effect) at about the same maximum gross weight as the EH-101
advertises.

Brooks


Guy