• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CH-148 Cyclone Progress

The side number N4901C, is that there because it has not been accepted by the Navy (I know its actually an Air Force asset  ;D) yet and still needs a civilian tracking number? I cannot recall seeing the same type of number on the Sea Kings.

Thanks.
 
It`s not a CF asset.  It`s a helicopter owned and operated on behalf of the manufacturer, conducting trials with the CF.  As it is not a CF asset, its registration is per its owner.

 
FSTO said:
The side number N4901C, is that there because it has not been accepted by the Navy (I know its actually an Air Force asset  ;D) yet and still needs a civilian tracking number? I cannot recall seeing the same type of number on the Sea Kings.

Thanks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA REGISTRY
N-Number Inquiry Results

Reserved N-Number
Type Reservation Manufacturer (Temp)
Mode S Code 51411226
Reserved Date 03/07/1981
Renewal Date None
Purge Date None
Pending Number Change None
Date Change Authorized None
Reserving Party Name SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT 
Street PO BOX 1621 
City WEST PALM BEACH 
State FLORIDA 
Zip Code 33402 
County PALM BEACH 
Country UNITED STATES 

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N4901C
 
FSTO said:
The side number N4901C, is that there because it has not been accepted by the Navy (I know its actually an Air Force asset  ;D) yet and still needs a civilian tracking number? I cannot recall seeing the same type of number on the Sea Kings.

Thanks.

dapaterson is correct the aircraft is still owned by Sikorsky.

Normally when Sirkosky sells Blackhawks or Seahawks under FMS (Foreign Military Sales) the aircraft temporarily gets at US DOD registration during pre-delivery flights. However, as the CH148 is technically a commercial sale not an FMS sale it flies under a US civilian registration. All US civilian registrations start with the letter N.  When the government formally accepts the aircraft it be given a CF aircraft registration (aka CH148801. CH148802...).  The US civil registration vs US DOD registration means somewhat different rules are applied to the aircraft and how it is flown. Basically a US DOD registration allows more flexibility whereas an N-registration means the aircraft has to abide by FAA regulations.
 
Yet more engine problems.

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/HG1317.xml&CatID=National

KJK :cdn:
 
Changes seem pretty minor in the grand scheme of things . . .  probably normal evolution given the time it has taken to get the Airframe built.


It doesn't appear to be on the critical path.

Now if it was a new engine that had be re-certified from scratch . . . .

http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/ct7/ct7-8.html


 
More, with background, at The Torch:

Cyclone "debacle" surprise: Engine not good enough
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/cyclone-debacle-surprise-engine-not.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
What a sad farce:

Choppers running late
Two-thirds of new fleet 3 1/2 years behind Defence Department’s original schedule

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1186401.html

Two-thirds of Canada’s new fleet of 28 navy helicopters won’t begin delivery until June 2012, almost 3 1/2 years behind the original schedule, the Defence Department has confirmed.

The delivery date in the $5-billion contract with Sikorsky to replace the aging Sea King fleet was November 2008. The Defence Department delayed that last year when it renegotiated the deal so that an "interim" version of the CH-148 helicopter would begin delivery in November 2010.

The department had stated those helicopters would be delivered at a rate of one per month, which would have brought 19 of the choppers to Canadian bases by June 2012.

However, Lianne Lebel, a spokeswoman for the Defence Department, says six interim helicopters will come before 2012.

"In October 2009, Sikorsky advised the government that it would deliver six interim helicopters starting in November 2010 in advance of the delivery of fully compliant helicopters in June 2012," she said in an email.

"Six interim helicopters are sufficient to complete the necessary operational testing and training until fully compliant helicopters are delivered."

The remaining 22 helicopters will have upgraded engines and begin delivery in 2012, at which time the group of six early choppers will be sent back to have their engines retrofitted, said Lebel.

Col. Sam Michaud, the commander of 12 Wing Shearwater, told The Canadian Press in August 2009 that the first helicopter was expected in November 2010 and there would be "one per month after that."

He went on to say, "According to the revised contract, Sikorsky will deliver essentially the complete aircraft, but it has some performance shortfalls related to power output and weight. They have until the 19th aircraft to come up with the final maritime helicopter configuration."..

Mark
Ottawa
 
That's how old they are--RCN, not RCAF!

OFFICIAL UNVEILING OF ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY SEA KING HELICOPTER
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/06/14/official-unveiling-of-royal-canadian-navy-sea-king-helicopter.aspx

Mark
Ottawa
 
Oops!

SEA KING HELICOPTER CEREMONY IN SHEARWATER CANCELLED
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/06/15/sea-king-helicopter-ceremony-in-shearwater-cancelled.aspx

Maybe the PMO got wind of it.

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
What a sad farce:

Choppers running late
Two-thirds of new fleet 3 1/2 years behind Defence Department’s original schedule

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1186401.html


Mark   




I've  said this before and I'll say it again the program was a bad idea from the beginning but there isn't a politician out there that will admit  it. Not one has the moral courage to say that it  should be canceled  .
I t will not matter in the slightest if the aircraft are utterly incapable of flight. they will be delivered and the Department will issue press release after press release telling  us all what great deal they are for the country. And of course the Navy will still lack a viable platform after almost what 15 years?
Ottawa
 
Sikorsky continues playing the Canadian government for suckers.  We pay for the developement of a decent machine...and the company is trying to sell it to the Germans (no “interim” aircraft for them):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/14/AW_06_14_2010_p42-233177.xml

...Sikorsky and AgustaWestland see things differently as they eye the potential of displacing Eurocopter for a German navy program to field 30 maritime helicopters and roughly 19 German air force combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) rotorcraft...

Fleet commonality and low risk are advantages also being touted by Sikorsky with its offer derived from the Canadian CH-148. Gigantelli notes that the German navy helo would be fielded only two years after Canada receives the first of its final-configuration CH-148s, so development risk would be minimized [emphasis added]. Moreover, using the Cyclone for the air force CSAR mission and the navy role would provide support and training benefits, he adds. Although Sikorsky has suffered delays in the CH-148 program, company officials insist those problems have been overcome, and four rotorcraft are in flight trials...

The freaking gall.  Where are our journalists?

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Sikorsky continues playing the Canadian government for suckers.  We pay for the developement of a decent machine...and the company is trying to sell it to the Germans (no “interim” aircraft for them):
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/06/14/AW_06_14_2010_p42-233177.xml

The freaking gall.  Where are our journalists?

Mark
Ottawa
It would help if we actually had some REAL defence journalists to begin with. Sadly we don't
 


So you would prefer that Canada had a completely orphan fleet?

Wasn't the Twin Huey a helicopter developed to a Canadian spec that ended up dominating the market, even though we only bought a few dozen?

It isn't Sikorski playing us for suckers.  Its the bunch of twits that decided to buy a paper product from the land of never-never rather than buying the original product they cancelled.
 
Kirkhill said:
So you would prefer that Canada had a completely orphan fleet?

Wasn't the Twin Huey a helicopter developed to a Canadian spec that ended up dominating the market, even though we only bought a few dozen?

It isn't Sikorski playing us for suckers.  Its the bunch of twits that decided to buy a paper product from the land of never-never rather than buying the original product they cancelled.
It is my concern that we will end up with an orphan fleet .There is  a world of difference between the Twin -PAC  Huey and the  S92  . For one thing it  the Huey was already a military A/C . The difference in technologies then and now is enormous .  And I never said it was Sikorsky that was playing  us for suckers ..............but  since you brought it up  as a matter of a fact they  are and why shouldn't they  our brainless  political leadership seem to be OK with being Sikorsky 's B**ch .
They gave them the keys to the treasury and  walked away  because  they didn't want to deal with any sticky problems that might  the  cause average Canadian  who knows nothing about defence and seems to care even less  to start asking questions.
This hasn't  been helped by the Canadian media who also could care less about defence ( to be fair this changing albeit at a glacial pace, there are one or two people trying to be defence specialists ) I swear there are some days when If I were God  I'd  stuff  most of the the forces in pink tutus and march them up and down  the street of this country singing "I"m a little  tea pot short and stout " Unless it was very slow news day I doubt it would get much coverage.
 
Kirkhill said:
It isn't Sikorski playing us for suckers.  Its the bunch of twits that decided to buy a paper product from the land of never-never rather than buying the original product they cancelled.

How's about this for keeping you awake at night?

"One of Chretien's first acts as prime minister in 1993 was to cancel the previous Conservative government's EH-10 contract to replace the Sea Kings, after deriding the Cormorant chopper as a "Cadillac" and a waste of taxpayers' money during the federal election campaign that brought him to power."

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=a9baaa17-8690-4ff4-b954-f1415a587063



"British Royal Navy

A Merlin HM.1 of 814 NASThe RN's final order was for 44 ASW machines, originally designated Merlin HAS.1 but soon changed to Merlin HM1. The first fully operational Merlin was delivered on 17 May 1997, entering service on 2 June 2000. All aircraft were delivered by the end of 2002, and are operated by four Fleet Air Arm squadrons, all based at RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall: 814 NAS, 820 NAS, 824 NAS and 829 NAS. 700 NAS was the Merlin Operational Evaluation Unit from 2000 to 2008."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101#British_Royal_Navy


Operational by 1997.  :rage:


 
One a/c is not "operational".  "Operational" is sufficient airframes, support, and trained personnel to be able to perform some level of sustained operations.

From the referenced article, that sounds like it was in 2000.
 
OK I'd settle for an operational fleet of choppers in 2000,  :nod: sounds pretty sweet next to our present pickle.

How would you like that Mr.Prime Minister politically or militarily expedient ?
 
GK .Dundas said:
It is my concern that we will end up with an orphan fleet .There is  a world of difference between the Twin -PAC  Huey and the  S92  . For one thing it  the Huey was already a military A/C . The difference in technologies then and now is enormous .  And I never said it was Sikorsky that was playing  us for suckers ..............but  since you brought it up  as a matter of a fact they  are and why shouldn't they  our brainless  political leadership seem to be OK with being Sikorsky 's B**ch .
They gave them the keys to the treasury and  walked away  because  they didn't want to deal with any sticky problems that might  the  cause average Canadian  who knows nothing about defence and seems to care even less  to start asking questions.
This hasn't  been helped by the Canadian media who also could care less about defence ( to be fair this changing albeit at a glacial pace, there are one or two people trying to be defence specialists ) I swear there are some days when If I were God  I'd  stuff  most of the the forces in pink tutus and march them up and down  the street of this country singing "I"m a little  tea pot short and stout " Unless it was very slow news day I doubt it would get much coverage.


Fair enuff, GK.  But I would still rather have somebody, anybody, else buying these beasts with us even if they do end up paying a lower fare than us.

And Baden Guy, I'm with you.
 
Kirkhill said:
Fair enuff, GK.  But I would still rather have somebody, anybody, else buying these beasts with us even if they do end up paying a lower fare than us.

And Baden Guy, I'm with you.
I tend to agree with you Kirkhill  I think it would be wonderful if the Jerries bought in on it  presuming we can get the frickin thing to work .But there are a couple of reasons why they might not  one's economic and the other two are political ,
What is really bothering me  is the fact that we deploy ships without their embarked helo dets, Each A/C is approximately 40 % of a frigate capabilities .And one of these day that may very well bite us in the ass.
 
Back
Top