Sikorsky S-92 only 3.2 Billion

Well folks..... I'm a little surprised.

It's not everyday that a country orders 3.2 billion dollars worth of a
helicopter that theoretically is still on the drawing boards.

I would have thought that one of my fellow Canadians would have thrown
the subject out in this newsgroup.... but apparently not.

After all it's only taken what.... twenty years, one cancellation,
one 500 million dollar penalty, four sitting governments, two political
parties and a partridge in a pear tree to finally settle on a make,
model, and actually sign a contract.

http://tinyurl.com/67deg

They call it the Sikorsky S-92 and I do believe the military version is
still on the drawing boards.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the same model that will be the
next Marine 1.

Unfortunatley my interested lies more in the little machines than the
military models so perhaps someone more knowleable than I might
want to jump in with their comments or information on this machine.

This is an Automated Troll Alert System (ATAS) message.

The user who has just posted here under the false identity
of [Shiver Me Timbers ] is a known troll in numerous newsgroups.

Comments by trolls, in general, are carefully crafted to
insult, belittle and ridicule with the express intent to
start flame wars. It is best to ignore posts from trolls
regardless of how tempting it may be to set them straight.
Let this automated post be the final word to let everyone
know that what the troll wrote was not factual.

Trolls that use false identities are already known to be
liars given that their identity is a lie. Nothing a liar
says or writes should be taken seriously.

Other recent identities used by this particular troll a

Speaking of Netiquette
Shiver Me Timbers
TO THE GROUP

this is annoying.

TROLL WARNING wrote:
This is an Automated Troll Alert System (ATAS) message.

The user who has just posted here under the false identity
of [Shiver Me Timbers ] is a known troll in numerous newsgroups.

Comments by trolls, in general, are carefully crafted to
insult, belittle and ridicule with the express intent to
start flame wars. It is best to ignore posts from trolls
regardless of how tempting it may be to set them straight.
Let this automated post be the final word to let everyone
know that what the troll wrote was not factual.

Trolls that use false identities are already known to be
liars given that their identity is a lie. Nothing a liar
says or writes should be taken seriously.

Other recent identities used by this particular troll a

Speaking of Netiquette
Shiver Me Timbers
TO THE GROUP

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:
Well folks..... I'm a little surprised.
snip snip
After all it's only taken what.... twenty years, one cancellation,
one 500 million dollar penalty, four sitting governments, two political
parties and a partridge in a pear tree to finally settle on a make,
model, and actually sign a contract.

http://tinyurl.com/67deg

They call it the Sikorsky S-92 and I do believe the military version is
still on the drawing boards.

I have a picture somewhere of, IIRC, a mockup of an S-92 at the 1995
or 1996 Ottawa airshow. IIRC (again), one of the reps said they were
trying to sell it as a replacement for the Sea Kings (or was it the
Labradors?).

Maybe I need to look for that picture...

Jim Carriere wrote:

one of the reps said they were
trying to sell it as a replacement for the Sea Kings

Yup..... It's the Sea Kings they are replacing.

Just the other day the remaining Sea Kings were grounded for some
mechanical failure.

They say for every flight hour that it takes fourty hours of
maintenance.

Shiver Me Timbers wrote:
Jim Carriere wrote:


one of the reps said they were
trying to sell it as a replacement for the Sea Kings


Yup..... It's the Sea Kings they are replacing.

I meant in the mid 1990's these were being touted as a Sea King
replacement. I think that was right after the first EH101 contract
(not the Cormorant one, the BIG EH101 contract) was cancelled.

Just the other day the remaining Sea Kings were grounded for some
mechanical failure.

This tends to happen with any type of aircraft, but more often to the
ones that are old- for example, about this time a year ago a lot of
Lynxes were grounded for a short while, something about a titanium
part in the rotor head is about all I remember.

They say for every flight hour that it takes fourty hours of
maintenance.

I think the H-46 is near this figure as well.

Well I'm certainly not up on the military end of aviation by any
stretch of the imagination but I did happen to catch a one hour
documentary on the Cormorant and I have to say that with that third
engine as back up, and extra power it sure seems like a sweet machine.

The fact that our government has called it a cadillac seems a little
uncharitable in my humble opinion.

One interesting comment that came up after the government signed the
contract with Sikorsky was whether the helicopters were needed at all.

Seems like a strange comment, but the logic was that initially the Sea
Kings were put on the ships as sub hunters and now with the cold war
long gone that maybe a machine like the Sea King was no longer
necessary.

I suppose there is some logic when you look at it from that perspective.

When they had all the problems with ships going to sea without a Sea
King I could never understand why they didn't put something on board
like a bell 206 just to give the ship the ability to quickly go
upstairs and have a peek at something or transfer something ship to
ship or ship to shore.

But what do I know.

When you say that its a a sweet machine you have no idea how right you
are. The pictures on the internet do not do it justice. A couple of
month ago there was SAR excersie that was held at the local airport. I
went down with my video camera and got some great footage of both the
Cormorant and the Buffalo in action. I also was taken out on the
flight line to get some great shots of the Cormorant on the tarmat.
I believe there was a prototpye of the S-92 up around HudsonBay
area earlier this year doing cool weather testing .

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 02:26:34 GMT, Shiver Me Timbers
wrote:

Well I'm certainly not up on the military end of aviation by any
stretch of the imagination but I did happen to catch a one hour
documentary on the Cormorant and I have to say that with that third
engine as back up, and extra power it sure seems like a sweet machine.

The fact that our government has called it a cadillac seems a little
uncharitable in my humble opinion.

One interesting comment that came up after the government signed the
contract with Sikorsky was whether the helicopters were needed at all.

Seems like a strange comment, but the logic was that initially the Sea
Kings were put on the ships as sub hunters and now with the cold war
long gone that maybe a machine like the Sea King was no longer
necessary.

I suppose there is some logic when you look at it from that perspective.

When they had all the problems with ships going to sea without a Sea
King I could never understand why they didn't put something on board
like a bell 206 just to give the ship the ability to quickly go
upstairs and have a peek at something or transfer something ship to
ship or ship to shore.

But what do I know.