S-92 Underslung Load Q:
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Hey thanks for the comprehensive replies - has anyone here actually flown it with 8000lb on the hook? Looking at a potential Helitack operation - so kick out the troops then clip on the bucket on a long-line then go dipping.. with the 900 US Gal bucket and throw some water at the ground.
The Puma had a load pole directly attached to the bottom of gearbox. The crewman could monitor the load through a 2'x1' hole in the floor. The pole was steadied by a bracket at the front of the hole and attached to a ring on the gearbox, as was the crewman's harness.
About fifty years ago a gearbox bottom fractured and the pole, with a jeep attached to it, went though the hole in the floor.
So did the crewman.
About fifty years ago a gearbox bottom fractured and the pole, with a jeep attached to it, went though the hole in the floor.
So did the crewman.
And i you do exceed the `certified` load limit of the hook,and there is an incident,you may well have to do the `awkward carpet -shuffle`,with no biscuits,in front of an audience.....
You may also reflect ,if you are so `cavalier` to limitations ,that they may well fail whilst someone else is driving.....
You may also reflect ,if you are so `cavalier` to limitations ,that they may well fail whilst someone else is driving.....
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why they invented load cells. If you're out hauling external loads that you either haven't weighed, don't know the weight of, or don't have your load cell to provide that information, maybe you should get someone who knows what they're doing to complete the task.
To wake up this thread, do you know if there are maintenance penalties (K-factor) for external loads operations?
Thx
jmdsm,
IIRC, there are no component penalties below 4000lb on the S-92.
Between 4-8000lbs there are huge penalties on the gearbox and restrictions on time spent doing load cycles per hour, rendering the S-92 basically uneconomic to use in the repetitive heavy external load category. I'm sure this is to do with what has been previously discussed here, but also to do with the OEM not having any plan as to what the S-92 does next once it's done in it's offshore role.
A rough rule of thumb was around 90% reduction in component life on the dynamic parts even if the cycles with weight attached part was obeyed.
IIRC, there are no component penalties below 4000lb on the S-92.
Between 4-8000lbs there are huge penalties on the gearbox and restrictions on time spent doing load cycles per hour, rendering the S-92 basically uneconomic to use in the repetitive heavy external load category. I'm sure this is to do with what has been previously discussed here, but also to do with the OEM not having any plan as to what the S-92 does next once it's done in it's offshore role.
A rough rule of thumb was around 90% reduction in component life on the dynamic parts even if the cycles with weight attached part was obeyed.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Age: 62
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understood, the S-92A is not a S-64F!
By the way about the plans for the S-92, the VPGlobal Commercial and Military Systems at LM said recently: "There’s obviously been a lot of chatter in the market about the S-92 but what I will say is that we are ready and able to build aircraft when customers want them. We are currently building five S-92s in West Palm Beach, these are of course VVIP and SAR machines and not the oil and gas ones you are following closely. We build aircraft in many places and have previously built S-92s in two other locations. Sikorsky is committed to the commercial business and the order book is open. We are watching the market closely, engaging with our customers, attending events... We have a good aftermarket business." and "We continue to invest in new product performance and safety enhancements including the S-92A+. The demand signal hasn’t been strong just yet and currently timing for the first kits is 2025. As I said before, we are ready to respond when the demand is there, LM is a huge business and can switch on investment very quickly when it needs to. The A+ has some additional investment required to complete the certification."
Many thanks
By the way about the plans for the S-92, the VPGlobal Commercial and Military Systems at LM said recently: "There’s obviously been a lot of chatter in the market about the S-92 but what I will say is that we are ready and able to build aircraft when customers want them. We are currently building five S-92s in West Palm Beach, these are of course VVIP and SAR machines and not the oil and gas ones you are following closely. We build aircraft in many places and have previously built S-92s in two other locations. Sikorsky is committed to the commercial business and the order book is open. We are watching the market closely, engaging with our customers, attending events... We have a good aftermarket business." and "We continue to invest in new product performance and safety enhancements including the S-92A+. The demand signal hasn’t been strong just yet and currently timing for the first kits is 2025. As I said before, we are ready to respond when the demand is there, LM is a huge business and can switch on investment very quickly when it needs to. The A+ has some additional investment required to complete the certification."
Many thanks
jmdsm,
IIRC, there are no component penalties below 4000lb on the S-92.
Between 4-8000lbs there are huge penalties on the gearbox and restrictions on time spent doing load cycles per hour, rendering the S-92 basically uneconomic to use in the repetitive heavy external load category. I'm sure this is to do with what has been previously discussed here, but also to do with the OEM not having any plan as to what the S-92 does next once it's done in it's offshore role.
A rough rule of thumb was around 90% reduction in component life on the dynamic parts even if the cycles with weight attached part was obeyed.
IIRC, there are no component penalties below 4000lb on the S-92.
Between 4-8000lbs there are huge penalties on the gearbox and restrictions on time spent doing load cycles per hour, rendering the S-92 basically uneconomic to use in the repetitive heavy external load category. I'm sure this is to do with what has been previously discussed here, but also to do with the OEM not having any plan as to what the S-92 does next once it's done in it's offshore role.
A rough rule of thumb was around 90% reduction in component life on the dynamic parts even if the cycles with weight attached part was obeyed.
I lost a good friend in the early 80s when the BBQ plate on a Puma failed during logging operations. The transmission rotated ripping out one engine drive shaft which led to an overspeed on that engine and engine overspeed protection shut the engine down. ( overspeed protection on the second engine is disabled when this happens ). The transmission rotated back and tore out the other engine drive shaft which led to the a massive engine overspeed on the now unprotected engine and a engine explosion as the aircraft descended from the high hover. Both crew were killed in the crash and fire.
I well remember when the only cycles we counted were engine starts on all of our turbine helicopters. Nothing else was recorded.Then suddenly you had to record 0.25 of a cycle for each subsequent takeoff or sling load pickup. ( I may be wrong on that 0.25 number)
Then years later they came up with RINS which were, initially so confusing as to be useless unless you carried a secretary to record them. Merely adding power to climb above max continuous incurred a penalty.Lowering power for a descent then increasing power to land another “event” Torque, N1, T4 all were factors. Just how we were supposed to record all that crap and fly the aircraft was not explained. Nor was the requirement for all this explained on aircraft that had been reaching TBO with no problems for years.
Towing a survey bird up and down hilly terrain for 7-8 hours a day was a nightmare. Needless to say some gross estimates +- were made.
Friend used to long line with a Puma supporting drilling operations in the mountains, best question he asked was what are the minimums on an NDB approach with a load attached, a get out of trouble moment he had.
I believe it's not as bad on the L/ L1 as it is on the L2 and H225 but there is a penalty on the Puma series for loads. it's not as expensive as the S-92 penalties though. The main reason I guess is that AH at least designed the Puma with the military application in mind so Loads were factored in from the outset.
NWS, a worthwhile point re the external load operations impact on CRT’s ( Component Replacement Time ). SA’s eyes were opened after the S-64 started logging ( and the 61 as well ). Drive train cycle frequency went way up and naturally the fatigue spectrum compared to the spectrum used with the US Army was very, very different. I don’t know this with certitude, but that may have been a factor in selling the type certificate to Erickson i.e., the inability to get a handle on the real usage in the field when logging. Erickson is a sharp outfit-curious as to how they approach the issue.
We can debate correct VASI / PAPI sight picture too!
Talked to and had the pleasure of flying with various folks who had done long distance IFR long line ops in the Arctic winter night using S-61s and B212s….an interesting job they said. All turns at. rate 1/2 and you didn’t want to get the load swinging. It was mandatory to make sure the load would fly stable. “ Darker than the inside of a polar bear! “ was the descriptor used. They had some very funny stories to tell.
Operators in Alaska did IMC/IFR night sling loads routinely on the North Slope and out over the Arctic and Chukchi.
Load stability checks were done VMC before going IMC and as Albatross mentions.....there were some very interesting stories of Loads appearing in front of the helicopter which at night in cloud must be a very sobering thing to experience.
Load stability checks were done VMC before going IMC and as Albatross mentions.....there were some very interesting stories of Loads appearing in front of the helicopter which at night in cloud must be a very sobering thing to experience.
there were some very interesting stories of Loads appearing in front of the helicopter which at night in cloud must be a very sobering thing to experience.
212man is right. Only 1x S-92 in NZ and it's with advanced flight/ rocket lab doing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3CWGDhkmbs
"Down range" normally involves a lot of water naturally.
As I don't think they have successfully caught a used booster from a mission yet I am not sure if the procedure is to drop it on a support vessel or drag it home which may not be feasible.
ZK-HEV and you can track it obviously but it doesn't seem to have done much for a couple of months. There was talk of it being used for PAX flights between manufacturing facility and launch site.
I seem to recall they successfully caught a booster but had to pickle the load after it began oscillating and became unstable. But the core concept seems to be feasible