Jump to content

Notice: Effective July 1, 2024, Vertical Forums will be officially shut down. As a result, all forum activity will be permanently removed. We understand that this news may come as a disappointment, but we would like to thank everyone for being a part of our community for so many years.

If you are interested in taking over this Forum, please contact us prior to July 1.

S92 Or Eh101?


Recommended Posts

I know lots of you are following the MHP. Just wondering what your choice would be and why????


I have to say S92, only because I drive Sikorsky and am partial to the product. Although the idea of 3 engines over the North Atlantic is comforting!!!!!





P.S. anyone want to go halfers on a Firehawk????? Well maybe 99/1%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where did you come up with 90,000 USD while working in this industry ??? :lol::lol: I got $90 USD, can I get in on the Sikorsky Firehawk deal, but only if I get to fly it too. :up:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been in both...I'd have to say I'd want one of each!


Then again I'm flying a 40 year old bird and flash any technology at me and I'm drooling.....kind of like when I end up on a beach down south where its warm enough for the ladies to wear to bikinis. I'm just not used to it and get overwhelmed! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, I've seen you drool at 30 year old technology, anything a bit newer.


There is a short video on this link...


S92 marketing clip


The navy doesn't like the 101 due to it's weight and the CofG problems that it will impose on the ships. The 92 is more comparible to the SeaKing in size and weight, but the configuration of the prototype is not what they like. A few modifications to the ship's fueling system is one example.


Prime Minister Martin has enough on his plate these days, the media will totally forget about the MHP for a while.


Flying yesterday's aircraft tomorrow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some figures for comparison , from Agusta and Sikorsky web sites:-

length pylon folded.

101 15.75m H92 14.5 m sea king 14.4


101 5.2 M H92 4.7M sea king 5.13


101 4.61 m H92 3.84 m


101 32,188 lbs H92 28,300 sea king 21,000 lbs ( ???)

Empty weight

101 20,019 lbs H92 18,500lbs sea king 14,000 lbs

Max speed

101 150kts H92 165 kts ( note h92 quotes VNE 101, max not sure if we are comparing apples to apples ) sea king 120kts

Max internal fuel range

101 540NM H92 475NM sea king 500nM+

Hover IGE

101 7,600 ft H92 11,000 ft

OGE 3,500 ft H92 6,500 ft.



ASW search time at 100 NM radius.

101 not shown , h92 .8 hrs.


One might assume with the increased basic range of the 101 that it should have about .5 hr longer on station than the H92 , amyone have figures ?.



The sea king is a tough act to follow even after 40 years ?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just come off the Sea King and I too have been in 101 and 92, I have to say the 101 is more ready to go now. The 101 is older technology but it's proven, already marinized and folds. The 92 does not fold but with proper mods would make a great bird. Not terribly impressed with 92's ride, actually loved the 90 but that's no longer in the running.


The mods needed to ships could prove cost prohibitive and deal breakers for 92. There is no way we (DND) will get more $$$ to change to entire fleet of frigates to refuel the 92 from the other side. Bottom line, any competitor needs a machine with closed circuit refuelling receptacles on the right (starboard) side of the machine right beside the cargo door. (We need the receptacle by the cabin door so we can refuel from the hover off the ships, so either move the receptacle or the cabin door)


Also the 92 cannot have torpedoes mounted on the helo while it is in the hangar. A major pain in the rump. You have to install winglets over the sponsons to attach the torp to and can only do so out on deck. Not 100% solution for our operations and requires carrying those **** winglets along or heaven forbid, have heavy permanently mounted winglets that fold to go in and out of the hangar.


92 also deceptively top heavy on her gear, she wobbles awkwardly in turns while taxiing, very bad when sitting on a rolling ship, that needs to be addressed. Finally, the folding head for the 92 is not even designed yet. If anyone can it right it's Sikorsky but this could eat up valuable "time" to delivery.


The best machine would have been the NH90 in my books (very sexy, fast and smooth as silk) but somehow the powers to be declared it too small, whatever. Like Bladestrike says though, anything new is cool and makes us all drool so bring it on. **** right now the lads would take the Puffin (Griffon painted Navy grey).


And Bladestrike, those poor old 61s in Halifax are 40 years old? Those big girls weren't built in 64?


One thing for sure, the S92 will be ideal for offshore and should be the leader in that field for many years to come.


My 2 cents.


PS: Speaking of patches, we had to get rid of those "Flying Yesterdays Aircraft Tomorrow" and the one with the check boxes for "Sea King at 10 years, 20 years, 35 years 50 years" so my latest patch of the "CH124 Sea King - Canada's Helikoptersaurus" didn't make it to production. Too bad, cool patch....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...