- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
You said your last paragraph with the exception of the last line twice....
CH-148 Cyclone Progress
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
From my perspective, if the feces hits the aerator, even after the USAF signs off on a contract for the CSAR-X, then anything pertinent to the decision that Sikorsky might have withheld would give cause to contract cancellation .... and fines for fraudulent representation....
Good2Golf said:
I hear your disbelief... for the record, since we have received modified tail rotors, have not seen any cracking problems on the "shag" for several hundred hours, restrictions are being slowly relaxed... actually have a few flying. Still has lots of issues but not as bleak as it once was
Brit S-92s Falling Short on Range
Defensetech.org (Blog)
By Christian Lowe
An alert DT reader forwarded this article to me from a British news service.
New search-and-rescue helicopters serving remote parts of the Highlands have yet to carry out a long-range rescue - eight months after being brought into service.
There have been problems with the multimillion-pound aircraft over the use of long-distance fuel-tanks.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has insisted the problems have all been resolved, saying the tanks are now fully operational.
But crews are understood to be unhappy about the loss of seating for casualties on the aircraft in order to accommodate the tanks.
Problems surrounding the fitting of the tanks have meant the four Sikorsky S92s based at Stornoway on Lewis and Sumburgh on Shetland have been unable to carry out non-stop rescues to the range which was originally heralded.
They are, in fact, covering half the distance.
The two helicopters at Sumburgh do not have the tanks - which double their range to 400 nautical miles - fitted, while those at Stornoway, where the extra distance is most needed, are yet to carry out a rescue using them.
The MCA confirmed there had been issues over fitting the tanks.
Crewmen and spokesmen at both Stornoway and Shetland Coastguard have confirmed the tanks are "not operational" yet, despite the MCA's insistence that they are.
An interesting development for sure, but hardly an indictment on the aircraft itself. Problem is, when Sikorsky is fighting tooth and nail to get back in the running on the CSAR-X contract, news like this can't help.
More...
The first S92s were introduced in Stornoway in October, and then in Shetland in November.
Some crew are also understood to be unhappy with the tanks because they halve the seating on the craft and have questioned whether they should be used.
One source said it was a "Catch 22 situation", adding: "Do you swap the extra miles for less room for casualties, so you rescue fewer people?
The tanks have cut the seats from seven to just three."
The problems first surfaced in March when a Stornoway-based helicopter was unable to rescue an injured crewman because it was out of range.
Instead, an RAF helicopter from Lossiemouth had to fly an extra round trip of 250 miles to rescue the Russian seaman, 185 miles off Benbecula -- ironically landing him at Stornoway where the new Sikorsky
S92 is based.
Defensetech.org (Blog)
By Christian Lowe
An alert DT reader forwarded this article to me from a British news service.
New search-and-rescue helicopters serving remote parts of the Highlands have yet to carry out a long-range rescue - eight months after being brought into service.
There have been problems with the multimillion-pound aircraft over the use of long-distance fuel-tanks.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has insisted the problems have all been resolved, saying the tanks are now fully operational.
But crews are understood to be unhappy about the loss of seating for casualties on the aircraft in order to accommodate the tanks.
Problems surrounding the fitting of the tanks have meant the four Sikorsky S92s based at Stornoway on Lewis and Sumburgh on Shetland have been unable to carry out non-stop rescues to the range which was originally heralded.
They are, in fact, covering half the distance.
The two helicopters at Sumburgh do not have the tanks - which double their range to 400 nautical miles - fitted, while those at Stornoway, where the extra distance is most needed, are yet to carry out a rescue using them.
The MCA confirmed there had been issues over fitting the tanks.
Crewmen and spokesmen at both Stornoway and Shetland Coastguard have confirmed the tanks are "not operational" yet, despite the MCA's insistence that they are.
An interesting development for sure, but hardly an indictment on the aircraft itself. Problem is, when Sikorsky is fighting tooth and nail to get back in the running on the CSAR-X contract, news like this can't help.
More...
The first S92s were introduced in Stornoway in October, and then in Shetland in November.
Some crew are also understood to be unhappy with the tanks because they halve the seating on the craft and have questioned whether they should be used.
One source said it was a "Catch 22 situation", adding: "Do you swap the extra miles for less room for casualties, so you rescue fewer people?
The tanks have cut the seats from seven to just three."
The problems first surfaced in March when a Stornoway-based helicopter was unable to rescue an injured crewman because it was out of range.
Instead, an RAF helicopter from Lossiemouth had to fly an extra round trip of 250 miles to rescue the Russian seaman, 185 miles off Benbecula -- ironically landing him at Stornoway where the new Sikorsky
S92 is based.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
How on earth can they be that far off on their performance estimates?
M. ???
I think that all of Sikorsky's lies are catching up with them when it comes time for them to perform. They are not delivering what they promised, if other buyers are having problems with the companys CSAR solutions, the AF would be mad to choose Sikorsky for the CSAR-X contract.
- Reaction score
- 6,430
- Points
- 1,360
Monkhouse, you obviously disagree with my comments, but I am simply calling it as I see it. I am seeing article after article being published on problems with Sikorsky, I guess that makes me tend to think that they cannot deliver or have their aircraft perform. Do you work for Sikorsky, is this why you are so offended?
A
aesop081
Guest
CharlieCF said:
Your post has no bearing on the question Bruce asked you. Now fess up.......
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CharlieCF
Your profile is empty and you have done nothing but attack Sikorsky product . I am just curious did Sikorsky fire you from a job or did your company that you work lose on the martime helicopter contract ? Witch one is it I am curious to find out . I think it's time that you come clean on who you are .
Your profile is empty and you have done nothing but attack Sikorsky product . I am just curious did Sikorsky fire you from a job or did your company that you work lose on the martime helicopter contract ? Witch one is it I am curious to find out . I think it's time that you come clean on who you are .
I don't work for Sikorsky and have and never have had an affiliation with them or any other company. I actually have no ill will at all towards the company, I am looking at this from an objective perspective. I don't know if I said it on this particular forum, but I follow U.S. AF programs as a hobby...and this one caught my interest because of CSAR-X. There is no discussion about Boeing or Lockheed on here, so-no comments about them. I am following the certain platforms that all of the company's are proposing or have modeled their aircraft after. And doing research on it, I have seen many faults with Sikorsky that when I seem them, I just pass along on this forum. Because it is CSAR, and I feel a connection to this for personal reasons,and I have really gotten into seeing what each of the company's have. I have no agenda on this and did not mean to imply that I am not a "normal" poster.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
CharlieCF said:
Funny that two of you just happen to be streaming in from "XXX" in the United States and interested "as a hobby" in the same thing.
Either your current place of employment does indeed have an interest in this project outcome -- or you've got a double account. One of which should be disclosed to posters as a bias (as given in the site guidelines) and the other of which (the double account) is also against forum policy IAW those guidelines.
Anyway, please fire me off a PM to clarify the circumstances, I'm expecting it.
Have read through the "XXX" bio BTW, including the bit about the 2001-2006 expansion ...
ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
CharlieCF
It's one thing to have a hobby but it sure sounded like you had a beef with Sikorsky . The reason why you don't here about the other companies you mentioned in this thread is because this thread is only for this chopper . I believe on this site if you do some searching you will find threads about the Chinooks witch is I believed made by Boeing ( any one with more experience can correct me as I am just a civy ) Also I think you need to fill out your profile and be honest about that any how good luck .
It's one thing to have a hobby but it sure sounded like you had a beef with Sikorsky . The reason why you don't here about the other companies you mentioned in this thread is because this thread is only for this chopper . I believe on this site if you do some searching you will find threads about the Chinooks witch is I believed made by Boeing ( any one with more experience can correct me as I am just a civy ) Also I think you need to fill out your profile and be honest about that any how good luck .
A
aesop081
Guest
Hobby .........Lobby
Hahaha....it rhymes
Hahaha....it rhymes
The fact that a developemental defence item is over budget and behind time is not all that unusual . In fact if one looks at defence contracts worldwide , to find one on time and on budget would be extremely unusual or rare. Thats why so many buy off the shelf items already tested and in service elsewhere , that already have the bugs worked out of them. Defence contractors are like used car salesman trying to make a sale. The Aussie's just cancelled a contract for new Naval Helo's that dragged on for years and became obvious the contractor would not be able to deliver in the near future and this was just an older model helo that was being modernized and not a completely new developement and complex machine like the H-92.
cheers.
cheers.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
STONEY said:
Absolutely correct. Nor is it unusual to find those doing the largest amount of "told 'ya so" and complaining about that to be others who had a vested interest in the outcome, but failed to succeed with their bids. That's in the "see the contract was improperly awarded" realm "because the guys we lost to can not meet the contract requirements". You'll also find them frequntly using the media/lobbyists to promote this "arguement" as grounds for having the contract as awarded overturned and a re-visiting of the bidding process.
All's fair in "business" ... especially the Defence Industry - especially when one is on the losing end of the contract.
Looks like Sikorsky is going to flog the H92 at Farnborough next week. If anyone is at the show, maybe we can get some HUMINT on what is really happening, not the pap that we are getting in the MSM
"The week-long event that begins July 14 brings a number of new elements.
Bell/Agusta Aerospace has reserved a spot in the flying demonstration line-up for its BA609 civil tilt-rotor, according to the show’s organizers. Bell plans to exhibit its new light twin Model 429, which will be shown in an emergency medical service configuration. Sikorsky Aircraft plans to bring the militarized version of its S-92, the H-92, to Farnborough to kick off a worldwide tour of that aircraft. Eurocopter will be presenting the 7-9-ton EC175 it is developing with Aviation Industries of China 2 (AVIC 2) for the offshore-support and other markets and highlighting the EC725, which it is proposing for the U.K. Search and Rescue Harmonization (SAR-H) program."
"The week-long event that begins July 14 brings a number of new elements.
Bell/Agusta Aerospace has reserved a spot in the flying demonstration line-up for its BA609 civil tilt-rotor, according to the show’s organizers. Bell plans to exhibit its new light twin Model 429, which will be shown in an emergency medical service configuration. Sikorsky Aircraft plans to bring the militarized version of its S-92, the H-92, to Farnborough to kick off a worldwide tour of that aircraft. Eurocopter will be presenting the 7-9-ton EC175 it is developing with Aviation Industries of China 2 (AVIC 2) for the offshore-support and other markets and highlighting the EC725, which it is proposing for the U.K. Search and Rescue Harmonization (SAR-H) program."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Cheez....
Considering some of the shortcomings that Charlie brought up in post 184 WRT the S92 in "current" use by the UK SAR types, it will be interesting how Sikorsky will propose to market same said airframe at Farnborough.... Ya gotta be certain the the RAF will be asking questions ... or making certain that potential clients ask them...
I hear that 007s "Little Nell" and her twin sister are available..... Rocket launchers, machine guns, mine dispensers, the works....
Considering some of the shortcomings that Charlie brought up in post 184 WRT the S92 in "current" use by the UK SAR types, it will be interesting how Sikorsky will propose to market same said airframe at Farnborough.... Ya gotta be certain the the RAF will be asking questions ... or making certain that potential clients ask them...
I hear that 007s "Little Nell" and her twin sister are available..... Rocket launchers, machine guns, mine dispensers, the works....
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
I think it was "Little Nellie"....
Matthew.
Matthew.
Similar threads
