# New MH Announcement



## Inch (22 Jul 2004)

Well, the MND is going to be in Shearwater tomorrow.   I don't think he's just dropping by to say hello.   The MHP winner should be announced at 0930 or thereabouts.   As for which way they're going to go....there was a few "party" tents set up at Grumman at Halifax Int'l, Grumman is a partner in the Sikorsky bid. What that means, well, we'll find out tomorrow for sure. 

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (22 Jul 2004)

Has the Sikorsky been ordered by anyone else, do you know?

What is your personal opinion, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Inch (22 Jul 2004)

If we get the Sikorsky, we'll be the first ones. 

I'd like to see the H92 get picked, but I'd be happy with either one. The big thing that the H92 has over the EH101 is that it has 70% commonality in parts with the H-60 Sea Hawks/Black Hawks.   Since we deploy with American carrier groups, it'll be a whole lot easier to get parts both at sea and at home since they're only a few hundred miles to the south of us.   The Cormorants (EH101 for all intensive purposes) are having real problems getting parts since the supply line goes all the way to Italy. I think they're both comparable as far as capabilities go. 

Neither one was purpose built as a military helicopter, the NH90 was but it was eliminated early on because it had a lot smaller cabin and fitting 4 crew with mission equipment was a tight squeeze. the Cormorant had numerous problems with the hoist early on since it wasn't designed with a hoist and it was added later on.

I think I'm going to have trouble sleeping tonight, like a kid on Christmas eve.

Cheers


----------



## Alex (22 Jul 2004)

Inch,

I'd imagine that Sea King pilots would be retrained on the new maritime helicopter. If that's the case, how long do you think you would have to continue flying Sea Kings before being trained on the replacement?


----------



## Inch (22 Jul 2004)

We're anticipating having the new ones in service by mid 2008, which means I'll be flying the Sea King for at least 4 more years, it could be more, it all depends on who the first wave of crews to be trained will be. It'll be a phase in over 3 years, my sqn should be the first ones to get trained and operational on it, but we can't stop our mandate to provide helicopters to the navy so some guys will be flying the new ones and everybody else will be flying the Sea Kings. The west coast will probably be the last since they're the smaller sqn and deployed less than we are. 

Cheers


----------



## Sundborg (22 Jul 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/22/seaking040722.html

Here's what CBC says.


----------



## Inch (22 Jul 2004)

You know why it cost $500 million in cancellation fees? He canceled the program well after the contract had been signed. Now they're trying to play off that the Cormorant is different than the EH101, they're the same thing, Cormorant is the name we gave it, just like no matter what we get to replace the Sea King it's going to be called the Cyclone. 

Cheers


----------



## canuck101 (23 Jul 2004)

You can take this for what it is CBC has hinted that it will be the H92 will see tomorrow what they pick


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

Sikorsky is the winner. Part of the contract was to have rubber on the ramp 48 months from today.  Bonuses for early delivery and penalties for late delivery.


----------



## Gunner (23 Jul 2004)

Here is the story from the CBC website:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/07/23/seaking_replace040722.html

Once again we make the wrong decision for political reasons.  We militarized the CH146 and look at how well it performs!  What about the cost savings of standardizing the ship borne helicopters with the Comorants used for search and rescue?

When will the madness stop?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2004)

Inch do you feel the CF made a good choice with Sikorsky?


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

I think it's a good choice.  It's a very capable aircraft, everyone compares things like useful load and all up weight, that stuff really isn't a big deal for us since utility flights and troop transport are way down on our list of priorities.  Our number one role is fleet defense and anti-submarine warfare, we extend the range of the ship's eyes and ears beyond what they'd be able to do themselves. Every other role is secondary for us, even Search and Rescue. So to be honest, how many troops we can carry isn't important, as long as we can get a NBP on board the bad guy's ships and in that respect, the H92 can carry more guys than the Sea King can and the SK was doing the job for years.

Now, for cost savings.  Everyone thinks it's such a big deal, an airframe is an airframe, the techs learn on other aircraft anyway, you don't think they tear the serviceable ones apart to learn how to fix them do you? They learn on the job at their Sqn once the basics are taught in Borden where every Tech learns the basics already.  Not to mention the fact that the MH is going to have a folding tail and rotor system, the capability to carry torpedoes, and the haul down system, all of which differ from the SAR Cormorants. The mission kit is different so you still need separate training for the techs in that area.  SAR Cormorants have Flight Engineers and SAR Techs, Maritime helicopters have AESOps and Navigators (TACCOs), no common training possible there.  About the only common training the aircrew could do would be the pilots, and you still need 2 schools for that since SAR guys don't learn deck landings or ASW and SAR guys do stuff that we don't do on a regular basis. Now cost of parts, it'll be cheaper to get parts out of the USA for the H92 than it would've been to get parts for 28 more aircraft out of Italy. Plus Sikorsky has agreed to invest in Canadian industry so it's a plus for everyone, something that EH wasn't going to do.

Now off the soap box with me.  :boring:

Cheers


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

Oh yeah, I just read the CBC.ca article, since when do we have Naval Air Stations? Morons.   CTV called it the H92 Cyclone, wrong again idiots, CH148 Cyclone is what we're calling it.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jul 2004)

Congrats on the new airframe Inch... I anxiously await our new SAR lifter  ???

The issue of techs and their ability to service both the Cormorant and the now defunct EH-101 MH is moot.  All servicing (except fueling and basic snags) is done by civilians out here in Comox.  There aren't any CF AVN/AVS techs that are qualified on that that type of fling-wing anyways.

48 months?  Pretty ambitious, who wants to start a pool?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Jul 2004)

Sorry Gunner but from Inch it does not look like a bad helo....

Inch....any word on if it will be able to carry 2 or 4 MK46s?


----------



## Inch (23 Jul 2004)

Thanks man, too bad I'm going to get my 1000hrs on the Sea King before we get the new ones. 48 months is the target, they'll get bonuses for early delivery so we'll see how that works for motivation. 

I wasn't aware that the Cormorant maint was contracted out, that wouldn't work too well for us with the deployments and all.

Ex-Dragoon, I'd have to check the MHP intranet site for the technical details, I have no idea how many MK 46s it'll carry.

Cheers


----------



## ags281 (23 Jul 2004)

About freaking time. Only a decade or so later than needed.


----------



## Gunner (23 Jul 2004)

> Sorry Gunner but from Inch it does not look like a bad helo....



The argument is not whether the Sikorsky is better or worse than the EH101.  Anything modern is better than the SK it replaces.  I think the lack of a working military version of the helicopter is of concern as we have seen what happens when the government buys off the shelf helicopters (Griffon) to meet a military requirement.  The Griffon is a very poor military helicopter.  Moreover, as with any new piece of equipment, it is going to have growing pains as it is introduced into service.  We may not experience as many with the EH101 which has already proven itself to be a good helicopter.

Finally, I can't see how having two completely different airframes is better than having one. In my mind, using one helicopter for two roles would be logistically (less spare parts, replacement, etc, etc) simplier and training (all the whop whop jocks who can operate one helicopter vice two) would be simplified.  You would have to convince me that there are no additional costs to operating two completely different fleets of aircraft. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jul 2004)

This Globe and Mail article provided a good overview of the three helicopters involved (sea king, EH101 and the H92).  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040724/HELI24/TPNational/TopStories

Sea King

Maximum load:...2,245 kg

Number of engines:...2

Passenger capacity:...40

Capabilities: The Sea King is capable of landing on small decks of destroyers and providing surveillance to ships at sea. It was often used for search-and- rescue missions

Strengths: The Sea King's strength was its longevity, ability to work on 

small ship decks and the expertise developed by its maintenance crews to keep it flying

Weaknesses: The Sea Kings were too old and required long hours of maintenance to stay in the air. They were also becoming an embarrassment on international missions.

EH-101

Maximum load:...6,072 kg

Number of engines:...3

Passenger capacity:...40

Capabilities: The EH-101 is a heavier helicopter than the Cyclone and has proven itself as a search-and-rescue and surveillance aircraft. Both helicopters bost state of the art submarine detection devices and can be fully equipped for search- and-rescue missions and maritime patrols. Strengths: The EH-101 is a proven helicopter with an established track record of performing in harsh marine environments. Weaknesses: The selection of the EH-101 would have created political embarrassment for the Liberals, who had rejected it in 1993 as too expensive. The EH -101 is larger and more powerful, but costs more to buy and operate.

Thumbnail history: The EH-101 was developed by Agusta of Italy and GKN Westland Helicopter of Britain in the early 1980s in a collaborative effort involving companies across western Europe to produce a powerful military machine with advance weaponry and self-defence systems. That chopper was rejected by the Liberals in Canada in 1993, but in 1998 Canada purchased 15 EH-101 Cormorants for search and rescue missions. EH boasts the Cormorant is the most capable long-range search and rescue helicopter in the world.

H-92

Maximum load:...5,216 kg

Number of engines:...2

Passenger capacity:...22 

Cost: The bill for the 28 Sikorsky helicopters and a 20-year service and training program is $5-billion. Public Works Minister Scott Brison and Mr. Graham both insist the Cyclones were cheaper than the EH-101s, but won't say what the difference was between the two bids. 

Strengths: The Cyclone, which is still in the development stage, provides more work for the Canadian aerospace industries and allows the military to provide input on what the new aircraft will look like.

Weaknesses: Defence analysts say 

t is also smaller, exists only in prototypes and has yet to prove itself in the air.

Thumbnail history: The S-92 and H-92 aircraft were created by Sikorsky in the late 1990s as the next generation of medium-range helicopters to follow the Sea King. The company boasts they have incorporated the ruggedness of the famous Black Hawk helicopters in an affordable medium-range model chopper with economical performance.


----------



## Inch (24 Jul 2004)

I made this comment in the other thread, but, having the same aircraft while it may provide some commonality you also have the problem of your entire fleet being grounded at the same time.  This happened in Moose Jaw with the Harvard when a USAF Texan II had a problem that grounded their entire fleet as well as ours. Putting all your eggs in one basket, not a good thing.

40 pax in a Sea King? What f***ing Sea King are they talking about? We only have room for max 9 with extra troop seats installed. Also, do the math, stated max load of 2,245 kg, average weight of a man is about 84 kg or 185 lbs X 40 pax = 3360 kg, sorry but that's 1,115 kg over weight. Even with a bunch of 150 lb sissies you'd be over weight. You could carry 40 kids, but certainly not 40 men/women, but I don't know where you'd fit them. I even have a hard time believing that the EH101 can carry 40 troops, the CH53E with a gross weight of over 70,000 lbs carries 55 troops.

As far as buying a new untested helo, if no one ever bought new untested equip, we'd still be riding horses.  It's called advancing, the EH 101 was designed in the 80s, we've made lots of advances in synthetics like carbon fibre, etc. Sure you get boned once and a while but that's the sacrifice you make to not live in the Stone Age.  The Griffon was a civilian aircraft, but again, what are people comparing it to? A Blackhawk? The Blackhawk has an max gross weight of over 20,000lbs, it's not even in the same Category as a Griffon. It's a medium lift while a Griffon is still considered a light-medium lift.  The Sea King is a closer comparison since it's gross weight is also over 20,000 lbs. Why don't we compare a Griffon to a Jet Ranger? It can lift more, carry more gas, go faster, so it's a better helo than the Jet Ranger. The problem is that we're using it for tactical airlift, something it's not capable of doing. The problem is the way we're using it, not the helo itself.

Cheers


----------



## GGboy (24 Jul 2004)

According to Jane's, the Cormorant can carry up to 22 fully equipped soldiers in addition to the crew (which Jane's defines as two pilots). In MH mode it carries 4 torpedoes.
The Cyclone's listed capacity is 19 troops. No word on torpedoes, probably because the military version is still on the drawing board ...
Also, apparently the cost difference between the Cormorant and the Sikorsky bid was less than 2%. Mind you, with a $5-billion contract each percentage point comes to $50-million.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2004)

Inch 

Reference 40 pax on SeaKing.  Could they have been getting confused with the Westland Commando variant of the Sea King operated by the RN for the Royal Marines?  But even there I think the number is only about 21-28 with side seating.  Maybe somebody has jammed in 40 on overload with all standing or sitting directly on the floor?  

I am thinking that the EH101 only has seating for 24 but apparently the Brits have managed to lift more than 40 with all standing for short lifts.

Just a thought.


----------



## Inch (24 Jul 2004)

That's a possibility my man, all I know is that looking in the cabin of our Sea Kings, there is no way of fitting 40 pax. They could even be getting confused with the S-61, the stretched out transport version of the Sea King.  The oil rig guys use them quite extensively for transporting crews but I think they only hold 20 pax.

Cheers


----------



## ringo_mountbatten (24 Jul 2004)

the eh101 can hold 40 guys, but on the floor, 24 is more realistic as it is the number of crash seats available, not to mention passenger headsets.  i believe the h92 can carry 22 crash seats for transport.


----------



## pjocsak (8 Aug 2004)

Here's my thought's on the MHP announcement, 

I think that the H92 is a fine choice to replace the Seathings, they'll adequately fill all of the roles currently required. However, the problem is that we've missed an opportunity to develope a new capability. The EH-101 could have done more than just the job of the Sea Kings. With the added internal space they could have carried a fair number of troops. While the EH-101 (or CH-149' or whatever the Maritime version would have been designated) would most likely not have been able to carry as many pax as the Cormorant or the RAF's Merlins due to the equipment required for it's ASW role, it could certainly carry more than the H92.  Now, in the here and now that really doesn't mean that much, but given the discussion surrounding the proposed Afloat Logistics Vessel, the ability to carry troops and equipment becomes very important. While many of the roles being envisioned for what ever ships replace the current AOR's are consistent with the ships we're using now, they're also talking about roles such as Comand and Control, more extensive flight deck and hangar space, and more space for troops and equipment. In truth, the project seems to be becoming a wish list that is fairly unreasonable. But, the foundation of the entire project is the need to develope at least an insipient maritme power projection capability. When this future possibility for the navy is considered, the EH-101 or a similar aircraft would be far more useful since it could do both the ASW and utility duties, as well as providing a medium lift helicopter capability to the same ships. The H92 can't do the later. So, if we intend at some point in the future to follow through with our current plans for multi-role ships capable of replacing the AOR's and acting as semi-LPH's, we're either going to have to buy a different helicopter or do without the capability. In the end, we'll probably have to do without the capability.

Like so many decisions regarding military purcahses, this seems to be another case of short sightedness. Or am I wrong?

p.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Aug 2004)

Although I was disappointed at first, from what Inch says the Sikorsky will do fine as an Naval Helicopter.  From the 70% commonality of parts, it appears that the next logical step would be to suck it up and purchase a good chunk of Blackhawk's to fulfill the roles you brought up, pjocsak.  Command and control birds, tactical lift, etc.  With the JSS, it looks as if the Army and the Navy are both going to be needing something like the Blackhawk (I know the Army desperately does...)

As well, I seen it brought up before, but isn't to our advantage to buy North American over European in terms of parts and aquistion and such.  Don't we have this problem with the HLVW and the slew of other European vehicles we have?  Despite the politics, there seems to be a good military rational (logistics) behind the decision.  I hope, if we ever look at Strategic Lift, that the Air Force can keep this in mind when comparing the C-17 to the magical Airbus A400.


----------



## Kilted Mayhem (8 Aug 2004)

I was just reading the CASR DND 101 web site idea of purchasing US Navy surplus SH-60 to immediately replace the Sea King's while we wait for the Cyclones to fully arrive. Basically, the idea is the savings from Sea King maintenance would pay for the surplus SH-60's.We could then decide to trade them in to Sikorsky to help pay for the Cyclones or keep them. I not to sure on the math but it is an idea worth looking at.
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-seahawk.htm


----------



## Inch (8 Aug 2004)

That's the first I've heard of that idea.  I like it, a lot. It would even get a foot in the door for the army types once we've got a little experience on the H-60s to get Blackhawks.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Aug 2004)

Also the Offshore Patrol Vessel is supposed to be Heli Capable.   What size Helo could you land on a 82 m - 1400 tonne vessel?

Cormorant?
Cyclone?
SH-60?
Griffin?
MBB-105?
Kaman SeaSprite?


----------



## canuck101 (8 Aug 2004)

I think it will be the MBB-105 that the coast guard is using now.  they want the crews to be a mix of navy and coast guard that is what i think i read in a newspaper article.

cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Aug 2004)

Thanks Canuck.  Makes Sense.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Aug 2004)

Why would they get a different helicopter for the new OPVs when the Cyclone will do? Doesn't make sense to look at the SeaSprite, SH60 when they are not even in our inventory. From what I understand the MBB105 is being considered for replacement but someone else can confirm that.


----------



## canuck101 (8 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon you are right about the cyclone being a good helo for the new OPV.  It all depends on the size of the new OPV's.  Now all they have to do is build a OPV with the requirements for the cyclone. I will keep my fingers crossed. ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2004)

Considering it won't have hangar facilities (supposedly) that  should not be too hard.


----------



## canuck101 (9 Aug 2004)

They also i think need to have a bear trap so they will be able to land helo's in bad weather.

cheers.


----------



## Kilted Mayhem (9 Aug 2004)

Speaking of Bear traps, I heard from the news that the current bear traps will be to high for the Cyclone. It will be millions more to refit the bear traps on our current vessels. I looked for another source but was unsuccessful so put a grain of salt on what the media says.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2004)

Never heard anything like that but Inch would probably know more.


----------



## Inch (9 Aug 2004)

I haven't heard of any problems associated with the bear traps, doesn't mean there isn't a problem but I think the focus right now is the flight decks since the Cyclone is heavier than the Sea King and the weight is distributed a little differently with the tricycle gear vs the tail wheel on the Sea King.  Another major concern right now is the folding rotor head and tail pylon that haven't been designed for the Cyclone yet, though Sikorsky has done quite well with those sorts of things on the Sea Kings, Sea Dragons, Sea Hawks, etc, so I don't think anyone is too worried about that problem.

Plus my understanding of the contract is that it includes any mods required on the CPFs.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2004)

You are right Ex-Dragoon.  It wouldn't make sense.  That is why I asked the question.  

I wanted to know if the SH-92 would be able to land on an OPV and if perhaps that was a consideration in its selection versus the Cormorant which IIRC is bigger and heavier than the SH-92.  

The reason I included the SeaSprite in the list is that I believe that is the helo that the New Zealanders would likely operate from the OPVs as they have just upgraded their SH-2s.

Speaking of upgrading.  

I saw a letter in todays paper in praise of the Sikorsky S61s currently being operated by private enterprise firms on Search and Rescue duties in the UK.  The letter made the point that the S-61s are older than the SeaKings and maintained by a Canadian company.  The writer raised the possibility of ripping out the ASW gear and refurbishing the airframes.  Got me to thinking.

Those that know better....... Is there any merit to the writers notion?  Is there enough life in the SeaKing airframes/engines to make it worthwhile to refurbish them and distribute them within Canada as Medium Support Helicopters, even as a reserve fleet to be flown part-time and ready for Disaster Response?

Cheers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (9 Aug 2004)

I was down in Halifgax for the Tall ships, and saw a couple of the Sea Things flying around.  They still LOOK good, I must admit.  Maybe Inch was in one of them.  It was a great spectacle (the tall ships), I would recommend that to anyone.  After three days in Halifax, I took a trip around Cape Breton.  Great holiday, now I'm back and ready to go!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Aug 2004)

Shoulda dropped a line Lance..maybe we could have grabbed Inch, Che, Brin and had an impromptu gettogether.


----------



## Inch (9 Aug 2004)

I will admit that from a distance they look fine.   Get up close and they look old, or for that matter look in the cockpit and you'll see what I mean.

That would've been sweet, I was down at the Lower Deck with my buddy, tons o' women, but he's married and you gots to have a wingman  ;D

I mentioned it in another thread, but I think it'd be more hassle than it's worth to keep the Sea Kings flying.   You'd have to strip them down to bare bones and redo everything. In the process of doing that you'd probably start to see metal fatigue that we don't even know is there right now.

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

I was there with wife and daughter.  Back to the hotel every night at nine or ten or so.  Sigh.  Otherwise, I most certainly would have dropped a line.  I did run into a friend, totally by accident.  He's recruiting down there in the big city.

Inch, do you guys have stabilised binos?


----------



## Inch (10 Aug 2004)

Not that I know of, I've never heard of them, what are they used for? We've got FLIR which is that little black ball hanging off the front, and of course radar and sonar.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

They had them in the Kiowas, for the observers.  The lens were stabilised, so that the vibration of the chopper was eliminated.  They worked very well, even using them on tanks and stuff made sense, the picture seen was not blurred at all by the vibration.  

I wonder what happened to them?

I can't recall off hand the magnification, byt it seems to me that they were 12X70, or something like that.  I would have thought that something like that would be useful in your line of work.  I also recall seeing a picture of a Sea Thing, where the copilot had a set of binos in hand.  Seems to me that stabilised binos would work really well for you, better than the standard binos.


----------



## Inch (10 Aug 2004)

Interesting.  They would be helpful identifying surface ships, not much help with the subs.  I'm sure we've got binos but I don't think they're stabilized, you get used to seeing stuff while you're getting your eyeballs shaken out of your head.

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

They have to be still in the system.

Any ragpickers, I mean bean counters, out there?  Maybe someone can do a search on them.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

Hey, Inch, you guys have to be really low on the priority list!  

Every Aurora has them, apparently.  At least 404, 405 and 415 Squadrons.  That's according to our local supply guy.  You should check them out sometime.  The more expensive ones that the Forces use are really good, they use gyros to stabilize in three axis.  They are a pain when you move them real quick, though.  They take a couple of seconds to sort themselves out.


----------



## Zoomie (10 Aug 2004)

Yup, stabilized binos are standard issue to Aurora crews.  The FE will usually use them for trying to pick up surface contacts that the RADAR has them vectoring in on.


----------



## Inch (10 Aug 2004)

It sounds like pretty good kit, so my next question is how big are these things? If they're standard bino size than I don't understand why we wouldn't have them, I've just never heard it mentioned around the sqn.  If they're large and need to be mounted then I can understand why we don't have them since being able to see a heaving ship amongst the waves and then land on it would take precedence.

Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Aug 2004)

The hel observer in the Kiowas carried them around his neck.  The carrying case is big, with spare batteries, lens cleaning kits, and so on, but the binos themselves aren't that big.  I tested them on tanks and Lynx a few years back.  I figured that anyone that gets issued binos, and is subject to any kind of vibration, should have been issued them.  We got turned down, on the excuse that they weren't rugged enough for real men, er, I mean soldiers, but they were great for the Air Force.


----------



## Inch (10 Aug 2004)

Ouch! Maybe we do have them, I just haven't seen them yet. I'll ask around to put your mind at ease.   

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Aug 2004)

The airforce-technology.com website shows the H92 with an in-flight refuelling probe. Will the Canadian machine retain this feature, and if so, could a Herc refuel it?  And, will the naval version have the rear cargo ramp?


----------



## Inch (17 Aug 2004)

That picture is a mock up, the H92's aren't even built yet, they're still a paper helicopter. As far as I know ours will not have refueling probes, there's really no point, the Hercs are not going to fly over the middle of the north Atlantic to refuel us.  The proposed refueling probe would be for American versions that it can be refueled with their Carrier based refuelers.  Negative on the ramp too, not a requirement for naval helos.

Cheers


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (17 Aug 2004)

I sure he probably seen a S-92 which is just the civlian version of the H-92 if i am not mistaken, but i could be wrong


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Aug 2004)

hey Inch has anything come down on how many mk46s will it carry (or are they looking for something else)? Will it be able to carry a door gun like the Sea pig? Also will the fleet be broken into the dipping and non dipping variants like the 124s were?


----------



## Inch (17 Aug 2004)

Still no word on how many torps it'll carry, the MG I'm not sure of either unless they make changes to the size of the cargo door (it's quite small, almost too small for hoisting, I think the EH101 has the same problem so it's not unique to the H92) though I couldn't see them leaving the MG out. My understanding of the A & B model CH124's is that we were going to go with sonobuoys all across the board, but for some reason the idea got sh*tcanned and we ended up with the 2 versions, there's only like half a dozen B models, at 423 I think we only have one. So as far as I know, all CH148's are going to be equipped to dip.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Aug 2004)

I figured there was no news but once can hope. Thanks for the response.


----------



## Inch (17 Aug 2004)

No worries. All the guys on Sqn that were around for the cancellation of the EH101 contract understandably aren't too excited right now about the new helo, they're all of the opinion "I'll believe it when I see it sitting on the ramp". 

Cheers


----------



## Gunnerlove (17 Aug 2004)

I doubt they will make a large change such as deleting the ramp as it would require a great deal of re engineering, testing, and retooling. Why would you want to lose the ramp and the utility it brings? Additionally deleting it would probably change the CG, and with the tight delivery schedule they do not have tons of breathing room before they incur penalties.  

Just my opinion. And Inch is right no one will really know till we take delivery.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Aug 2004)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> I doubt they will make a large change such as deleting the ramp as it would require a great deal of re engineering, testing, and retooling. Why would you want to lose the ramp and the utility it brings? Additionally deleting it would probably change the CG, and with the tight delivery schedule they do not have tons of breathing room before they incur penalties.
> 
> Just my opinion. And Inch is right no one will really know till we take delivery.



Have you ever seen what goes in an ASW helicopter. They are crammed full, not too mention loosing the ramp will make the helo more watertight. very useful to have for a helicopter deployed on a ship don't you think?


----------



## Inch (17 Aug 2004)

A ramp is not a major requirement for Naval helos, and considering that the Naval EH101s we were going to get didn't have ramps while the SAR ones were going to have them, I don't think it's that big of a problem.   Not to mention the fact that as I stated before, these things only exist on paper anyway so as far as CofG is concerned they haven't even put in the ASW equip yet or the torps. 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mhp/docssor_e.html

Here's the official requirements, a ramp is not part of the requirements, therefore I'd be very surprised if it came with one.

Cheers

Ex-Dragoon, you posted while I was typing, very good point on being watertight, I forgot about that very nice little feature.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Aug 2004)

LOL what can I say I am a sailor and we notice things like that.


----------



## Inch (17 Aug 2004)

;D I believe it.


----------



## Garbageman (17 Aug 2004)

I heard a rumour that they were going to drop the AESOP position and replace them with a second Nav in the Cyclones.  Anyone know if there's any truth to this?


----------



## Inch (17 Aug 2004)

Where did you hear that? I'm sure the AESOps here in Shearwater would be a little shocked to hear that.


----------



## Garbageman (17 Aug 2004)

From an old CH-124 driver.  I just read through the bid docs though, and it calls for a TACCO and an AESOP, so that quashes that one.


----------



## Inch (18 Aug 2004)

Ex-Dragoon, I just re-read the bid requirements and it was mentioned on the pilot forum as well as guys around Sqn, the bid was for the new bird to carry 2 x Mk46, no talk of 4 so if I were a betting man, I'd say we'll see 2 x Mk46. 

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Aug 2004)

Ah well one was hopeful for 4 again.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Aug 2004)

From the SOR:

Weapons/Stores

The MH weapons/stores system equipment shall:
Be initially configured to carry two MK 46 torpedoes with the capacity to carry future weapons with a weight up to 1000lbs on each station; 
"¢	allow for the upload/download of external weapons/stores while the aircraft has rotors turning;
"¢	provide an armament/stores control and dispensing system;
"¢	have provisions for self defence stores including chaff and flares; and
"¢	have provisions for a general-purpose machine gun (GPMG). 
"¢	It is desirable that the MH weapons/stores system includes a remote function select (RFS) capability.


What is the payload weight of the MK46, and is there a lighter version of it, like the ADCAP? And, how many stores statons? I presume 2, but who knows for sure?

Also, don't cancel your swimming lessons: 

Maritime Requirements 
The MH will operate in a maritime environment where immediate landing sites are unavailable in the event of an aircraft malfunction or emergency condition.  Following an emergency water ditching and shutdown, it is essential that the MH be able to float upright at the surface, for a minimum of two minutes in sea-state three, to allow for egress of the crew and passengers.  It is desirable that the MH has the ability to float upright at the surface after shutdown indefinitely in high seas to permit aircraft recovery.

As far as the rear ramp goes, upon polite inquiry, i was told yesterday by the MHP office that the placement of mission consoles is as of yet undetermined, once that is done, the question of a rear ramp will be decided, probably in favour of not having one at all.  I have a suspicion, founded on nothing concrete, that 28 complete mission kits will not be installed, even if 28 airframes are purchased.  

Collateral the issue of a rear ramp, years ago, I was in a EC130H looking at the "Rivet Fire" system. I was impressed with how modular the system was, and how easy we removed all the gear from the fuselage, consoles, seats and all.  Putting it all back in was a different story, but i am sure that has now changed for the better.  I am wondering if the new chopper will have a similar characteristic- certainly not in the SOR, but it would make sense to have a machine that can be quickly reconfigured for a new mission ... say on the JSS.   Just a thought,  I'm sure has crossed more experienced minds than my own ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Aug 2004)

Just a few points on torpedoes:
1) There is no ADACP version of the MK46 only the MK48 has an ADCAP variant.
2) Weights are as follows Mk46-517 lbs; MK48- 3434 lbs; Mk48 ADCAP- 3695 lbs and the MK50-750lbs.
I am told the navy favours the MK50 to replace the MK46 in a few years.


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Aug 2004)

I know nothing about Torp. but have felt one of the war heads being disposed of in CFAD Dundurn on the demo range what a boom and the shack's just a shaking!!!

Here's a link to the Aussie test of the Mk. 48

Info I got off the net about the Mk50

General Characteristics, MK-50
Primary Function: Air and ship-launched lightweight torpedo
Contractor: Alliant Techsystems, Westinghouse
Power Plant: Stored Chemical Energy Propulsion System
Length: 112 inches
Weight: 750 pounds
Diameter: 12.75 inches
Speed: 40+ knots
Guidance System: Active/passive acoustic homing
Warhead: Approximately 100 pounds high explosive (shaped charge)


http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/gallery/slideshow_010202.shtml#


----------



## Inch (18 Aug 2004)

As I stated before, all helos will have mission kit. Given our primary role it's pretty short sighted to not have 28 fully equipped helos. Also add into that the serviceability of the kit and you're running into having serviceable helos without the kit to do their primary job.   Pretty useless to the navy.

The 2 mins is so we have time to get the 6 man raft out of the helo, otherwise we're egressing upside down and in that situation, you're on your own. Hopefully you've got your slimline backpack on or you're SOL wrt to a raft. Before anyone starts knocking the fact that we look out for ourselves when egressing, just try it upside-down underwater in the dark and tell me how easy it is to get yourself out let alone someone who's fighting for air. 

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Aug 2004)

So it looks like 2 torps is the load, based on the above supplied specs. In either case, [mk 46, mk 50] there's a little extra weight left over for another weapon of some sort, although i can't imagine what else would be carried on an ASW mission outside of a depth charge or small bomb, if you guys even have those anymore. [and i don't know if the Sea King ever carried those, but i'm positive the Tracker did at one point.]

I remember reading somewhere that the two of the three most distinguishing characteristics of the acquisitiuon policies of canadian military hardware are short sightedness and surprise ....... no need to elaborate what the third is.   And, i think only you yourself could answer the hypothetical scenario you posed re: egressing upside down. Even though i was in the navy, and loved being at sea [most of the time], i always feared the possibility of ending up in the drink ... i hate being under water in my own pool, never mind a ditching scenario like you face every time you go up.   

If there are 28 ASW CH148, i guess some other budget is going to foot the bill for a transport airframes for the JSS, or is that just a non-starter?


----------



## Inch (18 Aug 2004)

Whiskey, mmmm  , wait what were we talking about?   ;D

There's going to have to be more airframes bought for the JSS's, especially if they're going to be putting 4 helos on each of them.   With 28 aircraft, an 80% serviceability rate is pretty optimistic but that would leave us with 22 serviceable on any given day, 6 on the west coast, 8 at 423 Sqn and 8 at the training unit (406), there really isn't enough to outfit 2 JSS's. 

The "future" weapons could be missiles, similar to what the Lynx's carry in the UK, something like the AGM-119 Penguin.

Cheers


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Aug 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> The 2 mins is so we have time to get the 6 man raft out of the helo, otherwise we're egressing upside down and in that situation, you're on your own. Hopefully you've got your slimline backpack on or you're SOL wrt to a raft. Before anyone starts knocking the fact that we look out for ourselves when egressing, just try it upside-down underwater in the dark and tell me how easy it is to get yourself out let alone someone who's fighting for air.
> 
> Cheers


Inch I know were you are coming from.
In order for me to retain my Marine Engineers ticket I have to go through Survival at Sea Training (its International Law now even in Canada),granted it's in a pool and I do know what it's like to try and up right a 25 man raft !!
Yes folk's it's a bitch 

I think the only Helo under water egress training is still down your way,I don't think we have one here on the left coast yet.
But I would like to give it ago. 

Whats your survival at sea training like?


----------



## Inch (18 Aug 2004)

You're right, Survival Systems out here in Dartmouth. Rollover underwater egress training (RUET or dunker as we call it) is done by a civvie company, they do all the rotary wing dunker courses for the CF as well as all the oil rig crews.  I've been told it costs about $5000 to put each one of us through the course, it's only 2 days, classes in the morning and a total of 14 dunks plus dinghy drills and the plunge of death! The plunge is preceded by climbing up the cargo net in full flying gear (immersion suits, LPSVs and helmets), man I didn't realize that climbing up those bloody nets was such a pain in the arse.  Given the price of it, I would think most units aren't very eager to send their guys on the course. 

The biggest killer in underwater rollovers is guys getting disoriented, panicing and not being able to get out the exit.  We carry emergency breathing bottles (EBS), you've got 1 EBS bottle in your LPSV and 1 in your slimline backpack which also has a single man raft. They'll give you about 30 sec of air, enough to get out of the chopper and that's it.

The Sea Survival course is done at CFSSAR in Comox. It's 5 days for pilots, not sure how often we have to do it. You do all the drills static, then they take you out into the Strait of Georgia and do drag n' drops (simulating being dragged by your parachute harness and how to get out of it after water entry), then another day you do 1 drag n' drop followed by a few hours in single man life rafts.  You also do 10 man life rafts for a few hours on another day, making water with those reverse osmosis pumps, you know, those bloody things that you've got to pump about 1000 times to get a gulp of water out of. All in all, it can be a very relaxing course or a course filled with sea sickness depending on the sea state since we do it regardless of the sea state. You're right, even flipping a 10 man raft over while wearing your immersion suit, LPSV and helmet can be a real pain.

Cheers

For those of you that are wondering what an LPSV is, it's your life vest/survival vest.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Aug 2004)

"RUET or dunker as we call it is done by a civvie company, they do all the rotary wing dunker courses for the CF as well as all the oil rig crews"

I thought so,as I know quite a few marine eng. who work on the Rigs down East and they have too be RUET qual because they have to fly out by Helo to the Rigs.
Same in the U.K.

But being a Merchant Seaman by Civie trade,it's a hell of a lot easier for us to jump in if we can get away,but after what you have just told us my hat is off too you and your Crew and all those still flying the old girl .
May your Gods keep you safe.


----------



## Inch (19 Aug 2004)

Thanks.  I hope someone is looking out for me.  

It really is invaluable training, there's divers in the pool so that if you get hung up someone is there to stuff a regulator in your mouth, then you try again until you can get out on your own, the company is also really helpful too in that if we want to go through a few dunks before heading out for a deployment they'll put us through as many as we want until we're comfortable.  They're working on a cold water pool to do dunks in as well.  Getting out of the helo is tricky enough let alone doing it with cold water shock so it'll be good training.  

As you know that's the military way, we fly in immersion suits, LPSVs and helmets, we do RUET training every 5 yrs and dinghy drills every year.  Always preparing for the worst day of your life so that you can live to fight another day.

Cheers


----------



## Inch (3 Sep 2004)

Instead of starting a new thread I thought I'd just add on to this one.

Sikorsky is bringing an S-92 up here next week, not sure if it'll be at the airshow or not but they're taking all the aircrew for rides on the 9th & 10th.  I'll pass on my thoughts after my initial flight in the future Cyclone.

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Sep 2004)

You can say I am your AESOP Inch


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Sep 2004)

Can't wait for your opinion.


----------



## Inch (10 Sep 2004)

Well leave it to customs and the weather, no S-92 to be seen this week. We did get a briefing on the CH148 that we're getting. I was quite impressed, here's a few things I thought were quite interesting. 

The H92 is built for survivability. One of the leading causes of crashes is pilot error including controlled flight into terrain or CFIT. The H92 has taken cockpit design to the next level, they've lowered the instrument panel to give better forward visibility, it's all electronic fight instruments, there's chin windows so you can see below you (quite common but the Sea King didn't have them), and it's fly by wire! To add on to this, the placement of the fuel cells is a new idea. They're in the sponsons on the side of the aircraft and they're designed to break off in a crash thus separating the fuel from the cabin and helping to prevent post crash fires. Since they moved the fuel cells to the sponsons, that left a large open area in the belly that they've incorporated crumple zones to absorb some of the force on impact. Couple that with the crash seats and it's the safest aircraft in the world as stated by the FAA when they were certifying it.

It's also pretty well protected against small arms fire, the rotor head, blades and fuel cells can handle 7.62mm small arms fire with no ill effects. 

It looks like it's going to carry 2 torps and not have a ramp. The cargo door was widened to 52" to facilitate hoisting. It'll fold up small enough to fit in the existing hangar doors on the Halifax class ships though a modification will be required to the haul down system, both to accommodate the nose wheel vice the tail wheel of the Sea King and also it's going to be a lower profile bear trap, only about 6 inches high. Part of the contract is that Sikorsky will be responsible for getting those changes done. The contract also states that the training facilities for the aircrew and techs must be in place and operational 6 months prior to the first aircraft arriving so there's going to be a lot of stuff going on in Shearwater in the near future. The training facilities are going to be in a class of their own, 2 full motion simulators plus about a dozen work stations for the GIBs (guys in back) to practice their stuff. There's also going to be quite extensive training facilities for the techs as well as a hoist trainer built in the 3 story, 70,000 sq ft new complex.

Exciting times are ahead, I'm looking forward to it.  ;D

Cheers


----------



## Sam69 (11 Sep 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> The H92 has taken cockpit design to the next level, they've lowered the instrument panel to give better forward visibility, it's all electronic fight instruments, *there's chin windows so you can see below you (quite common but the Sea King didn't have them)*, and it's fly by wire!



Pardon? Have you looked down at your feet when you are flying? Noticed a window there?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Sep 2004)

Before you put your foot in your mouth again you should realize that Inch is a Sea King pilot? At 17 I think you have no room to be sarcastic to anyone when you clearly have no understanding in what you are posting.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Sep 2004)

Sam69 - in your obvious wisdom - Inch must have been mistaken or was he?

Why don't you show me the chin windows that are apparently on the Sea King?

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/seaking_ch142b/wallpaper/CH-124ASeaKing9.jpg

If you want to know what chin windows are, you can plainly see them on the Griffon:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/griffon_ch146/wallpaper/Griffon8.jpg

Cheers


----------



## Inch (11 Sep 2004)

Sam69, let me explain what a chin window is for. When you're hovering, it's a big help in preventing drift not to mention being able to see what you're hovering over. If you actually READ what I posted, you'll see that I stated the "Sea King didn't have them". 

Here's a few more pics of helos with chin windows

Blackhawk, small but still there
http://www.operations.mod.uk/veritas/img/veritas/45cdogp/buzzard_blackhawk_hr.jpg

And a Jet Ranger, quite large, the window not the helo.
http://www.lindauer-fly.ch/fotogallerie_gross/Helicopters/Augusta%20Bell/206B/Heli%20Augusta-Bell%20206B%20Jet%20Ranger%20HB-XUW%20BB%20Heli%20AG%20wef04%2001.jpg

Cheers


----------



## Scott (11 Sep 2004)

Insh, I used to be an instructor for Survival Systems (Mostly firefighting out in Waverly) and have also been through the dunker. I taught there between graduating fire school and getting hired on at SafetyBOSS.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Sep 2004)

hey Inch .. the other day I was in BC, there are some Helo's [I think they were older Pelicans] being used for hauling dead head logs out of some lakes in the interior over to some barges. There were bubble shaped plexi glass windows port and starboard where the pilot and co-pilot/nav could lean over and look straight down at what where the cable from the hoist was located. [there also appeared to be deck mounted winches inside the bird which fed straight down from inside, i was surmising a heavier winch than normally available?].   

Have you ever seen a naval helo with a dipping sonar or cargo variant that uses this type of window? Would these "bubbles" even have a naval application?


----------



## childs56 (11 Sep 2004)

So who is going to be doing the maintenance on the H92 the military or civie contractor. The reason I ask is that a friend of the family works for Sikorsky Canada and stated that a company in Port Alberni BC is going to be doing the work on them and already have the contract signed. just curious maybe he is talking about something else


----------



## Inch (11 Sep 2004)

Scott, that's pretty cool. Mike Tabor is the guy that teaches dunker here in Dartmouth.

Whiskey, the bubble would be more geared towards slinging than dipping since dipping isn't all that precise as far as positioning goes. Besides, it's pretty hard too tell if you're drifting when everything looks the same (ie the ocean), that's why it's all coupled to the cable, there's sensors that tell what angle the cable is at relative to the airframe, so if the angle gets bigger we're drifting and causing the sonar to "drag" and pull the cable. "George" does the flying while we're in the dip. I can't say I have seen bubbles on naval helos, they're quite common on utility helos for logging or whatnot but not on military ones since we tend to add crew members to spot like the Griffon, when they're slinging, the FE has the door open and they're usually laying on their stomach spotting the cable for the pilots.  SAR aircraft also have bubbles so that the spotters can look down.

CTD, the new contract has us doing 1st and 2nd line maintenance with Sikorsky doing the 3rd line maintenance. That's pretty much what we have in place now for the Sea Kings with IMP aerospace doing the 3rd line maintenance. Don't ask me what exactly they do in 3rd line maintenance, but my understanding is that 3rd line maintenance is the major overhaul stuff. 

Cheers


----------



## Sam69 (12 Sep 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Before you put your foot in your mouth again you should realize that Inch is a Sea King pilot? At 17 I think you have no room to be sarcastic to anyone when you clearly have no understanding in what you are posting.



I know damn well who Inch is... and if you check my profile again you will see that it is 17 years in the mob not 17 years old. 

Indicated in the photo below is what I have always heard referred to as the chin window. I think I might have reason to know what I am talking about.


----------



## Sam69 (12 Sep 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Sam69, let me explain what a chin window is for. When you're hovering, it's a big help in preventing drift not to mention being able to see what you're hovering over. If you actually READ what I posted, you'll see that I stated the "Sea King didn't have them".



Thanks Inch,

I do know what a chin window is, and, although the lower window in the Sea King does not stretch as low as some you are used to, it is still commonly referred to as a "chin" window. I think you would find it much more useful if you had flown the aircraft before they put the current fixed instrument plate holders in, you used to be able to see much more through them.

Cheers,
Sam


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Sep 2004)

Sam 69, great picture, is that located in Pat Bay?


----------



## Inch (12 Sep 2004)

Sam, are you superman? If you are you'll know what I'm talking about, my apologies for the curt response but you got the same PM I did from Whiskey601 explaining why. Welcome to the site, it's nice to have another Sea King driver kicking around.

I was always under the impression that the chin bubble was under your feet whereas the floor of the Sea King is solid right out to the window,   but that line of thinking is probably due to my OJT with the Griffon guys and the abundance of TacHel types in Portage.

Cheers


----------



## Sam69 (12 Sep 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Sam, are you superman?



I'm gonna kill Corax for digging that picture out of pre-history! 

Your reply was fine, I just thought it funny that nobody seems to notice the window down there anymore but I suspect it is because it is not as useful as it once was. You are doing a great job of explaining of the MH world to the "great unwashed masses" (   ;D ), I'll just head back to lurking. Seriously, keep the up the great work - I think I've learned a thing or two from your very clear explanations.

Take care,
Sam


----------



## Sam69 (12 Sep 2004)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Sam 69, great picture, is that located in Pat Bay?



The picture was actually taken in Shearwater down at Jetty NA (I think that's the right desig - the jetty by FDU(A) in any case). It was taken on 26 Jul 99 as 429 was getting set to embark on HMCS IROQUOIS for SNFL '99.

Sam


----------



## Inch (12 Sep 2004)

Corax, what a guy.   

Thanks, I try my best.

Cheers


----------



## sgt_mandal (12 Sep 2004)

I was noticing something when I was reading some threads, Why do you guys call yourselves seaking drivers or Herc drivers? why not pilots?


----------



## Inch (12 Sep 2004)

Just the lingo. Not much more than that. Just like calling army guys crunchies since that's the sound they make when you land on them!  

Cheers


----------



## Bograt (13 Sep 2004)

sgt_mandal said:
			
		

> I was noticing something when I was reading some threads, Why do you guys call yourselves seaking drivers or Herc drivers? why not pilots?



Its easier to explain to some ladies that you are a driver- especially when you show them your plane "keys."

Sorry, now back to the topic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2004)

SAM69 first off let me extend my apologies as well, your first post left me and a few others confused and I(and again several others) believed that you were either challenging or derailing Inch's opinion. We have had many armchair commando wannabes in the past who believe they know  more about a certain piece of kit then the people who use it day after day and no matter what you try and tell them these "generals" cannot be convinced otherwise. I also misread your profile as well so my apologies for that as well.


----------



## Inch (13 Sep 2004)

So after being disappointed last week about not getting an S-92 ride, I was pleasantly surprised to see it sitting on the ramp this morning.   The pax lists from Thurs/Fri were no where to be seen so new ones were started and yes, to the disappointment of a few,   I managed to get a front seat for the famil trip.   ;D

The Sikorsky pilot taxied out and gave me control for the take off, my first impression was "this does not feel like 28,000lbs". The control is so smooth, I pulled it into the hover and with some minor corrections I had a stable hover with about a minute or so of sticktime. I transitioned to forward flight with no problems.   That thing has all the bells and whistles, I'm not sure if the Cyclone will have the same setup but it's a sweet piece of kit nonetheless.   It's even got a nice lady going "altitude, altitude, altitude" when you're too low, she tells you when the autopilot is disconnected ( I couldn't let George do all the flying), and she tells you when to level off in climbs and descents. 

I was impressed to say the least. Here's a couple pics for y'all to have a gander at. 

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2004)

Sounds like you are in love Inch  ....will it be hard to get you rated(?) on the Cyclone?


----------



## Inch (13 Sep 2004)

Man am I ever. It's hard not to love it, it even tells you what the wind speed and direction is while you're flying!

Qualified.   It's just like any other aircraft, you do a conversion course to learn the systems and you're off and running. They vary in length, I think the Sea King course is around 30 flights and that's for a nugget straight off the pipe so I'd assume the Cyclone conversion will be fairly similar.

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 Sep 2004)

Wow that thing is big.


----------



## canuck101 (18 Sep 2004)

I guess size does count. ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Sep 2004)

Granted my only point of reference is the Griffon.


----------



## Inch (18 Sep 2004)

You're right, it's bloody huge compared to the Griffon.  I don't think it's that much bigger than a Sea King, it'll lift more but I think as far as dimensions go, it's pretty close to the same size. We had 16 pers on board when we took off and it felt like we were empty.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Sep 2004)

Now if only we could attach a nice weapons platform to it.


----------



## Sam69 (18 Sep 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> SAM69 first off let me extend my apologies as well, your first post left me and a few others confused and I(and again several others) believed that you were either challenging or derailing Inch's opinion. We have had many armchair commando wannabes in the past who believe they know   more about a certain piece of kit then the people who use it day after day and no matter what you try and tell them these "generals" cannot be convinced otherwise. I also misread your profile as well so my apologies for that as well.



Ex-D, apologies accepted but really not necessary. My answer was a bit terse and I should know better: it wasn't the most graceful entry into the discussion. I extend my apologies as well for my return fire.

Sam


----------



## Sam69 (18 Sep 2004)

Great shots Inch - that's a downright purty helo there. And I am more than bit jealous; I did get to test drive the Cougar Mk2 and the EH-101 but I missed out on both the NH-90 (which I suspect might have been the most fun of all) and the S-92.

How may guys in YAW got to fly the machine? Has anyone bothered to write a detailed assessment of the handling characteristics?

Sam


----------



## Inch (18 Sep 2004)

Thanks. I was one of 6 that day, as far as I know that's all there was.  I've heard that a bunch of guys got to fly it last year when they were still in the bidding but I can't say for sure. I don't know of anyone that wrote a detailed assessment, I have limited experience flying helos but I though it handled quite well for being 28,000lbs. The collective and cyclic were smooth and even close to AUW we pulled about 70%Q in the hover. The only thing I really didn't like about it was the fact you had to hold the trim interrupt buttons while moving cyclic and collective otherwise as soon as you let go, the control would snap back to where it was.  If you know anyone at HOTEF, Chet flew it and could probably give you a better comparison between it and the Sea King if you've got burning questions.

I'd have to agree about the NH90, I haven't heard first hand how it flies but the stats look pretty convincing. If only the GIBs didn't complain about not being able to stand up.  :

Cheers


----------



## Sam69 (18 Sep 2004)

Thanks Inch,

I owe Chet a call so I will hit him up for some more details. I appreciate your perspective.

For the sake of comparison, I'll throw in a couple of shots of the EH-101 that I got to fly. She's marked up with orange because she was still involved in flight testing (icing trials) at the time. 

Overall, a very nice machine with many attributes similar to the ones you noted about the S-92. Although she is more than 50% heavier than a SK (I think she was around 32K AUW and change the day I flew it), she handled like a smaller machine and was reasonably nimble for something that looks like it should handle like a Winnebago. Unfortunately, the bird I flew was an RN cab and they had a number of handling restrictions on it (like 30 degrees AOB) that were not airframe limits but rather designed to increase structural life.

The RN 101s have the Rolls Royce RTM-322 engines (our Cormorants have the CT7-8s, I believe) with the dual FADEC. Starting the engines was literally a matter of turning a rheostat from "off" to "GI" (Ground Idle) and the computers handled the rest. Like the SK, #1 was first started in ACC drive (using the APU) with #2 and #3 starting in Flight. #2 was used to engage the head and then #1 was switched to flight as well. Pretty similar to the SK... except it was almost all automatic.

The most unique system in the aircraft was the ACSR (Active Control of Structural Response). ACSR is basically a system of active hydraulic vibration dampeners that function in much the same way as Bose's Active Noise Reduction (ANR). Like ANR, ACSR uses high-speed processing to read the vibration being felt in the airframe and then counters it with powerful hydraulic rams that cancel (most of) the vibration using diametrically opposed inputs. In flight, the aircraft was quite smooth with the system on and surprisingly rough with the system off.

I wish that I had pictures from my Cougar ride: it was quite the sports car. Very fast, very agile, and disappointingly small for our needs. But what a ride!! When I asked the factory test pilot what the maneuvering limits were, he told me not to worry... that I would scare myself before I ran into any trouble. I was able to execute 80+ degree AOB turns (level) at 140-150 KIAS (bleeding speed quickly to 100-120) without him even raising an eyebrow. There is little doubt in my mind that the Cougar would loop and roll with little effort.

Cheers,
Sam


----------



## Inch (19 Sep 2004)

Great pics, I'll post one up of the lit up instrument panel.

The S-92 is about as automatic as you get for starts, you flip a switch to turn on the APU, then you advance the SSLs to get the hot air blown out, and then if a certain temp or pressure(I don't remember exactly what it was) is within limits, you could start both engines at the same time.  It's all computer controlled so you could advance the SSLs as quick as you wanted with no ill effects. Pretty slick I must say. I didn't get any pics of the overhead panel but it's pretty similar to the centre console and the instrument panel, about 10 years newer than the 101. As for the handling, I didn't really get to do any 60 and 2's, word on the street is the pax don't like it too much.  

It'll be interesting to see how the Cyclone will be set up, whether or not the APU will unfold the blades and pylon or if an engine will have to be started to power the hydraulics, that would pretty much negate the coolness of being able to start both engines at the same time.

Cheers


----------



## Sam69 (19 Sep 2004)

Nice shot - that has to be one of the nicest pits ever made. It's also great to see that the Land Low coast crawl is still mandatory for every famil flight.  ;D

Sam


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Sep 2004)

*will be ready for Inch the next time he overflies my house*

**evil laughter and hides his brand new shiney SA-7**


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Sep 2004)

Would the Cyclone be something the Tac Helo squadrons would want and regulate the Griffon to utility and maybe eventually armed recce duties?


----------



## Inch (19 Sep 2004)

Yeah, the coast crawl was fun, we overflew a cruise ship coming out of the harbour at about, uh, 500ft  

ExD, you better hit the gym buddy, the rotor wash from a 28,000lb helo tends to blow sissies over!   ;D

As for the Tac Hel guys wanting them , I think they'd want them to have a medium - heavy airlift capability but I don't think you could use them in a Tactical airlift role.  The Griffon has a few advantages like the size for example, you can get the Griffon into a whole lot more clearings in the woods than you could a Cyclone. Plus it's a 1/3 of the weight so you don't have the same ability to blow stuff over like the Cyclone would.  So IMHO, I think it would be too big to do everything the Griffon does, but it would add some capabilities that were lost when the Chinooks were sold. Sam could probably shed a little more light on the role the Chinooks were used in since the Chinooks were long gone when I got in.

Cheers


----------

