Viewing page 9 of 39
It looks like you're using a mobile device. We recommend using a physical keyboard for transcription entry.
NEW YORK AIRWAYS, INC. COPY TO H. BROCK, J. SLATE, R. WHEATLAND ✓ AND J.E. GALLAGHER August 9, 1955 The following is a copy of a handwritten note received today from R.L.C.:- (I do [[underline]] not [[/underline]] wish you were here) Dear Bill:- In thinking about this equipment problem and in discussing it with a lot of people - primarily Sabena and B.E.A. - it is very evident that we have a most serious responsibility, not only to ourselves, but to the entire helicopter industry in deciding between the three alternatives (a) S-58, (b) PH42, or (c) wait for turbines or something better - our reputations and future are very much at stake. In doing our job we must be extremely meticulous - absolutely cold logic must prevail - guess work will most certainly be involved in some areas - but where it is it must be clearly marked and understood as such - we must bend over backwards to boil everything down to a [[underline]]factual[[/underline]] basis - and above all we must avoid being mislead - (or indeed being lead at all) - by so-called "opinions". I believe that NYA's analysis should include a comparison of a lot of things - on the back of this I have tried to draw up a table of what I mean - unfortunately I think we must count on a rate case - in other words our estimates should be [[underline]]high[[/underline]] on the cost side and low on the revenue side - and by that word [[underline]]low[[/underline]] I don't mean just conservative. [[underline]]S-55[[/underline]] [[underline]]S-58[[/underline]][[underline]]PH-42[[/underline]] A. Noise in decibels (Internal and External) (NYA [[underline]]must[[/underline]] do its own measuring) B. Indescriminate loading - ? - C.G. travel - again we must make our [[underline]]own[[/underline]] determinations. C. Temperature accountability " D. Flight characteristics " E. Vibration " F. Heliport requirements " G. Conrtact possibilities (on this point we will never be in a better [[strikethrough]] teaching [[/strikethrough]] position - and both manufacturers are well aware of it.) All of the above as well as other items are susceptible to [[underline]]exact[[/underline]] knowledge. H. Costs (except in the case of the S-55 we must add 25% to all so-called "accurate technical" estimates. I. Revenues - I"m very bullish but what is the point - assuming adequate lift (power) they will vary as the usable cubage - clearly the PH42 has a big advantage - [[underline]]but[[/underline]] the S-58 does in fact represent a substantial improvement over the S-55. However, in this connection as a result of the presently quoted purchase prices it is possible to buy [[underline]]6[[/underline]] S-58s for the cost of [[underline]]5[[/underline]] PH42s - and as we know frequency is of the utmost importance - but of course this is only [[underline]]one[[/underline]] factor - this begins to bear on the fleet size question which I feel should be put aside until the [[underline]]facts[[/underline]] about the two types have been determined. Earlier I said we are preparing inevitably for a rate case - I am totally convinced of this because no matter what ship we determine on,
Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.