If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
SWR meter Alternatives | c hinds | Home Built | 1 | June 2nd 04 07:39 PM |
Commanche alternatives? | John Cook | Military Aviation | 99 | March 24th 04 03:22 AM |