|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sikorsky S-92 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Aviation / Rotorcraft||(Rated C-class)|
H-92 and CH-148
Front what I gathered, the S-92 and H-92/CH-148 are very different, perhaps enough for them to have their own articles. For example, the S-92 has standard flight controls, while the H-92/CH-148 is a fly-by-wire aircraft. They have different weights, different engines, different power, different performance. They only look the same. Hudicourt (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- The CH-148 Cyclone is an article. The H-92 was previously on its own page with the CH-148, by was merged back here as it has not been sold, and as such doesn't warrant it's own page. - BillCJ (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed but from what I gather, the H-92 is closer to the CH-148 than to the S-92. On the Sikorsky website, they only refer to the CH-148 as the H-92 Superhawk. At this address () they even show the CH-148 in Canadian Forces livery and refer to it as the H-92.
"The maritime MH-92 SUPERHAWKTM is an extremely capable naval platform that provides advanced mission management systems. The MH-92 SUPERHAWK is ideal for ASW, ASuW and shipboard operations, using automatic folding tail and rotor-head features. The Government of Canada has selected the MH-92 SUPERHAWK to fulfill its challenging naval requirements including Above-Water Warfare, Under-Water Warfare, Air Support Operations, Surveillance and Reconnaissance missions."
I think the CH-148 and the H-92 are one and the same, save for a couple options and should share a common Wiki page, rather than have the H-92 share a page with the S-92 with which it has little in common outside its general appearence.Hudicourt (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to read the Talk:CH-148 Cyclone#Requested move section and the one after it. The problem was that users were removing the H-92 info from the CH-148 page, as they perceived that it didn't belong there. Rather than continually fight them, we put it here. That was alost 2 years ago though. If you still want to have the info moved, you might raise the issue at the CH-148 talk page, and see if there are any ojections there. It really doesn't matter either way to me, just whatever causes the least propblems. - BillCJ (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the H-92 content were to be moved, it would not be a big deal. There's a sentence in the lead on the H-92 and a variant section. Not much overall. If this were moved, a 1-2 sentence summary would be in order under variants, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
CH148/H92 is a production modification of the S92. The airframes start off with stock S92 cabins from MHI, and are modified from there with a series of "production modifications". The main additions are with mission equipment and structural additions for things like the RAST, weapons pylons, and folding tail pylon for service aboard frigates. The CH148 is also fully fly by wire with numerous redesigned dynamic systems components (blade fold). Cefoskey (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I was looking over the numbers in the specification section and found two values that I couldn't find in the brochure. The MTOW is stated as 12800 kg when the brochure says 12020 kg. The engine power is stated at 3000 shp, the brochure says about 2500 shp. Unless anyone has any objections should I change these values? I will also update the reference to the brochure as the current one is dead. FitzyJ (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I corrected/updated the specs with S-92 Helicopter (Attributes tab) and International Directory of Civil Aircraft book. The S-92 brochures on Sikorsky's site list specs that look the same but can be added anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Noise and vibrations detrimental to health of pilots
See article: This should be looked into and added to the article. http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/02/07/nyheter/innenriks/arbeidsmiljo/helikopter/15285182/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhg14mn7DAwou27wyisAot_n5ExoEg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The $32M unit cost is already tagged as being uncited. Either remove that completely or update to the S-92's current cost with a reliable source. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|==Start== Born2flie: Same issues as the H-92 article. Not much about the development other than an acknowledgement to its predecessor. --04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)|
Last edited at 04:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)