New Helicopters

Our government has finally chosen a naval helicopter to replace our ancient Sea Kings. Starting in 4 years we'll be getting one H-92 Superhawk a month for a total of 28. The H-92 Superhawk is the military variant of the Sikorsky S-92 and we're going to call ours "the Cyclone".

The competition was between the Sikorsky H-92, EH Industries EH-101, and the Eurocopter NH-90. The NH-90 was eliminated earlier in the competition so it was really down to the EH and the Sikorsky. The press has covered this story (Toronto Star, Reuters, CBC, more...). I'm happy, this is way overdue and the H-92 looks like it'll be a great helicopter. I say looks like because it's so new no one has the H-92 yet.

Brand new design
The unproven H-92 concerns some people, but keep in mind the it's based on the Blackhawk/Seahawk, a helicopter used for years by dozens of countries. The US military has over 5 million flight hours with the Blackhawk family of helicopters. The H-92 is being considered by the US for their military and to transport the president. Sikorsky has been making military helicopters since the world's fist in 1942 (and the Sea King shortly after :)

Number of engines
The EH-101 has 3 engines, the H-92 has 2. Does that make the EH-101 better? I found an article comparing the EH-101 and H-92 as the 2 main candidates for the US President's new helicopters. 2 interesting quotes about the third engine:

Commercial operators have so far shunned helicopters with a "flying spare" engine that adds to acquisition and operating costs. The Navy prices a T700 (military CT7) turboshaft at more than $600,000, and Sikorsky engineers figure every pound of supporting aerostructure is worth around $1,000 in acquisition price. Fuel consumed and maintenance required by an additional engine adds to life cycle costs. Both RAF and Royal Navy pilots shut down their third engine altogether in cruising flight to save fuel.

CH-53E experience convinced Sikorsky engineers a third engine is a costly necessity for only the heaviest helicopters. The cost can be significant. A CT7 turboshaft weighs about 570 lb., and supporting structure and systems hike the cumulative weight penalty for an extra engine to about 1,500 lb. To that burden is added the weight of fuel carried for the flying "spare." Sikorsky engineers calculate a third engine ultimately takes the place of two passengers carried more than the same mission radius. Their system safety analysis notes that just having a third engine increases the statistical possibility of an engine failure, and a comparison of height-velocity curves reveals no significant performance advantage between the two- and three-engined presidential contenders.

Contract history

• 1992: Conservative government orders 50 EH-101's for $5.8b (~$116m each)
• 1993: Liberal government cancels the contract and pays $500m penalty
• 1998: Liberal government orders 15 search & rescue EH-101's for $790m (~$53m each)
• 2004: Liberal government orders 28 H-92s for $3.2b (~$114m each)

My "each" price is just total contract cost divided by the number

My final thoughts Would it have been a bit embarrassing for the government to choose the EH-101 now after they canceled the contract for it earlier? Yes. Are we now getting a bad helicopter? No. Lee Myrhaugen, a retired air force colonel and former Sea King pilot, summarized it nicely when he called the H-92 "an exceptional, state-of-the-art aircraft".