US President will now ride in a Rolls-Royce, not a Cadillac

[Flywrite]

I'm sure this wont be a popular question, but is everyone too blinded by nationalism to wonder if the US101 is the better product?

 

[TonyC]

Per Cent of Parts

You have to look at percent of parts built in the U.S. as well as assembled in the U.S. versus abroad.

OK, I'm putting together a list so we can put up some numbers. I just have a few questions before I begin.

When I list the parts and where they come from, will the percentage made in the U.S. be based simply on the number of parts? I mean, does a lock washer get the same weight as a main rotor blade? Couldn't they just throw in a whole extra gross of lock washers to skew the numbers?

Or should I base the percentages on weights of the parts? That way, the rotor blade would count for more than the lock washer because it weighs a lot more.

But that doesn't sound fair, either. If they decide to make all the heavy parts in the U.S. and do the lighter stuff somewhere else, that could really skew the figures. I mean, if they made the whole engine here, and everything else somewhere else, would that be a fair assessment?

Should I base the caclulations on volume? Main rotor blades take up more space than lock washers, right? This way the manufacturers are not inclined to make their parts heavier just to tip the scales, so to speak, in their favor. We might have a U.S. manufacturer supplying lead door handles just to make the trade figures look good.

So, what's left? Do I base the figures on the price of the part? And if so, which price do I use, the price they charge the U.S., or the price that the part cost to make? It seems that the price the part cost to make would be the most fair, but that would disadvantage many foreign suppliers, as their labor costs might be lower. On the other hand, using the price charged would encourage U.S. suppliers to overcharge in order to skew the percentages towards "U.S.-made."

Is there some other way of looking at this that is fundamentally fair to all parties involved? Is there a formula that incorporates all of these factors and assigns a relative weight to each facet of production? Is there another factor or parameter I've failed to consider? My spreadsheet is getting quite complicated already, and I still don't know how to best sort the parts.



Oh, and one other thing... Attitude Gyro... does this count as a single part, or do I break it down into all of its tiny parts?


Thanks in advance for any answers you can give!

 

[mzaharis]

Can any of the rotorheads here who know so much more than me comment on one thing? The US-101(yes, I know the name's a marketing gimmick) was a 3-engine helicopter, while the S-92 was a two-engine helicopter (apparently the same general type of engine GE CT7-8 - the US101 was a bigger helicopter) - is it possible that the US-101 was selected due to higher margin in a 1-engine out scenario?

Sorry - don't mean to start a "son of ETOPS" discussion, but just wondering.

BTW, when we sell weapons to foreign countries, the purchasing country usually asks for "offsets", basically agreements to purchase some of that country's exports. I wonder if we're trying to arrange for any offsets for the non-US component of the US101?

 

[Tim47SIP]

Tony, are your rambling?

OK Tony, I get it!

Both companies outsource 40% or so of their parts and sub assemblies according to an article in Rotor&Wing. What I was getting at is singeling out Sikorski as an "all American" company is incorrect. It was a failed marketing attempt by Sikorsky. Sikorsky stated that they would divy up the work among partners in California, Florida, Illinois, Mass, and Texas. Lockheed stated they would bring work to 200 companies in 41 states. Both have foreign partners. Heck, even Boeing has overseas partners. From the info I have, both (Lockheed and Sikorsky) would have been equally U.S. friendly.

So, why did they (Lockheed) win? Just a guess, but it had better range at 750 miles, largest cabin size, three engines which have the highest power rating (each) in the industry (for it's size and utilization), 360 degree weapons capability (probably wont be used), triple redundent systems plus a fourth from the APU, and a comprehensive defensive Aids suite. It is mission capable with only two engines (one engine out). Sikorsky is also a great aircraft, but with two engines of less power, two redundant systems plus a third from the APU. It lacks in performance capabilities and Sikorsky just hasn't kept up with the modernization of the S-92 to increase performance that Lockheed has.

 

[TonyC]

OK Tony, I get it!

Both companies outsource 40% or so of their parts and sub assemblies ...

Apparently you don't. 40% of what?

40% by sheer number? 40% by volume? 40% by weight? 40% by cost?


It has been said that one can use statistics to prove anything.


I didn't even get into the mess of "what if the parts are made in the U.S. but shipped to Mexico for assembly?" or "What about parts that are manufactured abroad but assembled in the U.S.?".



I'm inclined to respond, "Who cares?" Pick the best helicopter, and be done with it.

 

[Cardenal]

Come on people...let's put our money where our mouth is.

In the last election issues of of "Freedom", the wonders of the free market, the marvels of capitalism unencumbered by a big, nasty government, and all that were brought up as representing the essence of who we are. Oh, and also beware the nasty ugly "old world" Europeans, with their quaint regionalisms and preferences and subsidies oh my!

And now, there is this "buy american=patriotism" talk. If we believe all the things said above, let the best product win. Period. I don't know squat about helicopters , but it seems the best product won. Oh, and one more thing...If this had happened under Clinton, all the talk would be talking about treason, and lack of integrity, and yadda yadda, but because it is our current fearless and much loved leader, then none of this is heard.

Jeez....

 

[bocefus]

Although the US101 having 3 engines is being marketed as a safety feature, the truth is the third engine was required to meet the out of ground effect hover requirement, the S-92 met this with two engines. Is the US101 the better aircraft? We'll soon find out as both models gain more flight time in the real world as both are relatively new. Personally, I think the decision was entirely political, part of the Bush agenda to patch things up with Europe.

 

[KigAir]

Why not fly the prez around in one of those Ospreys?

 

[EuroWheenie]

I think bofecus hit the nail on the head; this could very well be a little 'Thank You' to PM's Blair and Berlusconi. Now if the USAF would buy A330 tankers then we'd have a real interesting debate. Not that it'll ever happen; the US is not in that much of a debt to the UK or Italy, and promoting a French/German/UK/Spanish/Portuguese aircraft where only one consortium member is presently on the 'good guy' list is about as likely as me buying a G550 next week.

PS
Someone said that US manufactured aircraft are superior to anything else. Well, perhaps. If we discount small and medium sized helicopters (Eurocopter vs Bell) and mid-sized business jets (Dassault vs anything) I suppose you're right. I've had the pleasure of, briefly, poling a Falcon 900EX. Oh boy, that bird sings! The skipper used to pole G-IV's and would not go back. Neither would the boss; he'd put an order in for a 7X. Now if we talk airliners, nothing beats a 757. Nothing. Too bad they're becoming too expensive to run vs. the A321; darn lucky my present company cannot afford shiny new jets!

 

[cherokee]

I think bofecus hit the nail on the head; this could very well be a little 'Thank You' to PM's Blair and Berlusconi. Now if the USAF would buy A330 tankers then we'd have a real interesting debate. Not that it'll ever happen; the US is not in that much of a debt to the UK or Italy, and promoting a French/German/UK/Spanish/Portuguese aircraft where only one consortium member is presently on the 'good guy' list is about as likely as me buying a G550 next week.

PS
Someone said that US manufactured aircraft are superior to anything else. Well, perhaps. If we discount small and medium sized helicopters (Eurocopter vs Bell) and mid-sized business jets (Dassault vs anything) I suppose you're right. I've had the pleasure of, briefly, poling a Falcon 900EX. Oh boy, that bird sings! The skipper used to pole G-IV's and would not go back. Neither would the boss; he'd put an order in for a 7X. Now if we talk airliners, nothing beats a 757. Nothing. Too bad they're becoming too expensive to run vs. the A321; darn lucky my present company cannot afford shiny new jets!

"Poling" airplanes??? Must be a Euro thing...