PDA

View Full Version : New European Heavy Lift Helicopter


ORAC
25th Jun 2007, 14:19
The European Heavy Lift Helicopter Program? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/06/the-european-heavy-lift-helicopter-program/index.php)

As the 2007 Paris Air Show drew to a close, France and Germany confirmed the rumors and signed a joint declaration of intent to set up a heavy-lift helicopter program. The French DGA procurement agency's announcement lists an intended in-service date of around 2020. The new machines would be designed to carry personnel, light armored vehicles, and/or cargo, with good performance under a wide range of conditions including hot weather and high altitudes (both of which reduce helicopter performance due to thinner air).

In terms of future force structure, these helicopters would replace Germany's aging CH-53G Mittlerer Transporthubschrauber, and offer France a heavy-lift helicopter option for its future force that would sit above its planned NH90s and/or AS 532 Cougars. Both countries would rely on the forthcoming Airbus A400M tactical cargo plane and its 35-tonne capacity for larger loads or longer distances.......

It is....likely that the new helicopter's planned capacity is 30,000 pounds. This would be about the capacity planned for the US Marines' new CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter under ideal conditions, and rather more than Boeing's new CH-47F Chinook.........

Rumors pick Eurocopter as lead contractor for the eventual program, as a subsidiary of the Franco-German EADS corporation. Sikorsky's recent release re: its European strategy, however, says that it is still in discussions with both countries, offering a helicopter that is either based on or uses many technologies from the USA's CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter program..........

France and Germany also intend to open this potential project to other European partner nations under the framework of the European Defence Agency (EDA), and to consider other non-EDA partner offers. As one might imagine, the EDA is very enthused about the project.

BEagle
25th Jun 2007, 14:53
So that'll be 13 years to bring into service a helicopter with about 68% of the lifting capacity of the well-proven Mi 26 'Halo' then.....:rolleyes:

The Mi 26 was introduced into service some 24 years ago. And yet all Europe can do is to propose an expensive program which will have nothing like the Mi 26's capability some 37 years later?

Why??:ugh:

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jun 2007, 15:24
I think we could probably draw similar comparisons with the tried and tested C17 and the current sketch model of the A400M :=

BEagle
25th Jun 2007, 15:27
Except for the cost difference and gestation period.....

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jun 2007, 15:41
But even you would aggree that it has/is taking years to get A400M into service, Wiki tells me the project first started in 1982 and it has way less than 68% of the lifting capacity of the C17, which were the comparisons I was alluding to.

ORAC
25th Jun 2007, 16:26
But why compare the A400M to the C-17, when it's intended as primarily a C-130 replacement, with the C-130 incapable of carrying FRES etc?

One's too small, the other's too big and expensive for most people to buy. The US army/AF is going the route of buying the even smaller C-27 at one end, and probably more C-17s at the other for political/pork barrel reasons. The C-130J line is hurting and has no real chance of survival because of it's load constraints. Someone had to build something in the middle.

As I understand it, based on previous threads, the need for the European heavy lift is based on different operating concepts between the US and the Germans. The Germans want a large box fuselage to carry vehicles, the USMC with the 53K want the extra couple of tons it will weigh as available underslung payload. They end up using the same, or similar powertrain parts between the two though.

Concept as defined last year:

Eurocopter’s hopes of producing a new heavy transport helicopter (HTH) with a maximum take-off weight of 36t have been boosted by the release of a joint request for information from the French and German defence minstries. Flight International has meanwhile obtained new information on the proposed three-engine design, which Eurocopter says will be capable of carrying up to 66 combat-equipped troops or a payload of up to 13t – 3,000kg (6,610lb) higher than previously stated.

First details of the HTH concept emerged at the Berlin air show almost two years ago, when Eurocopter also voiced an aspiration to develop the helicopter in collaboration with a US company (Flight International, 18-24 May 2004). The aircraft is intended as a replacement for Germany’s Sikorsky CH-53 Super Stallion transports.

To be manufactured in Germany, the composite-fuselage HTH has a seven-blade main rotor and fly-by-wire – or fly-by-light – flight controls. The current configuration is an aircraft with cargo box dimensions up to 2.75m (9ft) high, 3.1m wide and 9.1m long, enabling it to carry a variety of ground vehicles, including the German army’s 4,500kg Wiesel 2 scout car and France’s 13,000kg VAB armoured vehicle. Eurocopter expects the new design to have a service life of more than 30 years, or 15,000 flight hours, and to have a mission reliability rate of 97.5%. Company material indicates an estimated production run of up to 200 aircraft.

BEagle
25th Jun 2007, 16:31
The A400M programme was primarily delayed by the sloth of certain launch customers to agree to their order numbers. Once the go ahead was finally given, the program development proceded without any show stoppers.

C-17A is an excellent aircraft, I agree. But more expensive than the A400M, which will have about 71% of the lift capacity at a more affordable price. Or at least that was the plan!

Whereas I cannot believe that the Eurochopper will cost less than the Mi 26.....

German heavy helicopter cargo box requirement compared to Mi 26:

Length: 9.1 m (12 m)

Width: 3.1 m(3.3 m)

Height: 2.75 m(2.9 - 3.2 m)

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jun 2007, 16:41
71%, are you sure? however nice to see you concede on the 25+ plus yeears to get it off the drawing board :ok:

BEagle
25th Jun 2007, 17:00
Nope, the overall Euroflag requirement emerged in May 1991..... My maths makes that 16 years ago.

Whereas the C-17's 'C-X' programme started in 1979, or 1972 if you include the YC-15 ancestry from the AMST programme.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jun 2007, 22:26
"The project began as the Future International Military Airlifter (FIMA) group, set up in 1982 by Aerospatiale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospatiale), British Aerospace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace), Lockheed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Corporation), and MBB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt-B%C3%B6lkow-Blohm) to develop a replacement for the C-130 Hercules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules) and C-160 Transall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-160_Transall). Varying requirements and the complications of international politics caused slow progress. In 1989 Lockheed left the grouping and went on to develop a second generation Hercules, the C-130J. With the addition of Alenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia) and CASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construcciones_Aeron%C3%A1uticas_SA) the FIMA group became Euroflag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroflag)."

But not quite as long as the 13 years mentioned by you for the new helicopter?

As regards 71% of the lift capacity of a C17 Wiki tells me A400 will have a max frt wt of 82,000lbs or 37 tons whilst C17 has a max frt wt of 170,900lbs or 77.5 tons. Now I am more than happy to be corrected on these facts but as they stand your 71% does not look quite right to me :oh:

BEagle
25th Jun 2007, 22:33
So try using official sources rather than wankipedia?

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jun 2007, 22:41
As I said I am happy to be corrected, in public on here, so the facts are ?

ORAC
25th Jun 2007, 22:50
Boeing - C-17 Overview: (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/c17/docs/C-17_overview.pdf) Maximum Payload: 164,900 lbs (74,797 kgs)
Airbus - A400M (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html): Maximum Payload: 37 t (37,000 kgs)

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Jun 2007, 23:00
Thanks for that ORAC :ok:

So 37 as a percentage of 77.8 is what :=

GreenKnight121
26th Jun 2007, 04:07
49.467%... half :E

BEagle
26th Jun 2007, 06:02
Payload range ?

Seldomfitforpurpose
26th Jun 2007, 07:54
Beags,

Come on chap stay on topic, you're original rant which it would appear I had the temerity to question was

" So that'll be 13 years to bring into service a helicopter with about 68% of the lifting capacity of the well-proven Mi 26 'Halo' then.....:rolleyes:

The Mi 26 was introduced into service some 24 years ago. And yet all Europe can do is to propose an expensive program which will have nothing like the Mi 26's capability some 37 years later?

Why??:ugh:

To which I alluded that comparisons could be drawn with the A400M prog which, if you take it back to it's FLA roots will have taken well over 25 years to come to fruition and only has, thank you for the maths GK, 49.467% of the lift capability of the C17.

Now you wish to introduce payload and range into the equation :rolleyes:

Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds (77,519 kilograms), and its maximum gross takeoff weight is 585,000 pounds (265,352 kilograms). With a payload of 169,000 pounds (76,657 kilograms) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 feet (8,534 meters), , the C-17 has an unrefueled range of approximately 2,400 nautical miles. Its cruise speed is approximately 450 knots (.76 Mach).


For the A400M


Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vno): 780 km/h (421 kt)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC_speed): Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) 0.68 - 0.72 ()
Max. Operating Speed: 300 kt CAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibrated_airspeed) (560 km/h, 350 mph)
Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Take-Off_Weight): 9,000 m (29,000 ft))
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): at Max. payload: 3,300 km (1,782 nmi) (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)Payload range ?...........and you're point is what?

BEagle
26th Jun 2007, 08:18
Put simply, the C-17 was considered too big and too expensive to be a candidate for the FLA programme.

The RAF later leased it as the STSA, pending ultimate delivery of a larger number of A400M aircraft. Which do not have the same ultimate capability as the C-17A, but will be acquired in substantially larger numbers.

The STSA was a prudent move, given Bliar's susbequent interventionist policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The payload range characteristics of the A400M have been agreed to a European requirement which did not exist '25 years ago'. You may as well bring HS681 into the discussion, if you insist on bringing ancient history into the issue.

I well recall my first experience in looking at the potential of 'Solution 10' of the 'FLA' in 1994 (for DFS as it then was) as a tanker. The design was far from frozen then; indeed, it has only been frozen in the last few years. Since then, the programme has proceded without major issues.

Back to the Euroheavychopper, the Mi 26 would be unlikely to be more expensive. Of course, had C-17A been offered for sale at a price less than that of the A400M, it would have been rather daft to continue with the programme.

I don't see the need for Euroheavychopper; whereas the A400M is to be less expensive than the ('too big, too expensive') ultimately more capable C-17, I cannot see that being true for the Euroheavychopper.

PTT
26th Jun 2007, 09:21
The "EuroHeavyChopper" will likely be a sh!t-load safer and easier to operate than the Mi-26 though!

wokkameister
26th Jun 2007, 09:29
I believe the thread was about helicopters gents. Neither the C17 or A400 have rotor blades so let them go.....

WM

BEagle
26th Jun 2007, 09:41
Agreed!

What are the concerns about the safety and ease of operation of the Mi 26?

Can it be operated to 'Western' military safety levels?

Yellow & Blue Baron
5th Jan 2011, 06:27
http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=11992

Does anyone anywhere have any idea as to whether Eurocopter's HTH (heavy transport helicopter) program is still on or whether it has been shelved?

Any news welcome.

YBB

NorthernKestrel
5th Jan 2011, 08:03
Its still on, but Eurocopter and Boeing are now co-operating on the project, which means a tandem helo concept is now the preferred design.

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/09/343011/ila-eurocopter-reveals-chinook-style-heavy-transport-helicopter.html)

minigundiplomat
5th Jan 2011, 09:16
Interesting that they are quoting a payload of near 15 tonnes. The cabin isn't really large enough to accommodate anything that hefty.

They could lift CVRT type armour externally, but with one hook any really useful items approaching that weight, such as laden ISO containers would be fairly unstable requiring low transit speeds.

GreenKnight121
5th Jan 2011, 09:53
Welcome to the Super Chinook!

Kinda reminds me of the HLH... the XCH-62.

Boeing Vertol XCH-62 HLH (http://www.helis.com/70s/h_h62.php)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/Helicopters/XCH-62CH-47A1975.jpg

Boeing Vertol XCH-62 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_XCH-62)

bast0n
5th Jan 2011, 11:32
Its still on, but Eurocopter and Boeing are now co-operating on the project, which means a tandem helo concept is now the preferred design.


Can anyone tell me in simple terms why twin rotors are preffered to a single one? Is it that Boeing have always used them "So There!" ?

Clockwork Mouse
5th Jan 2011, 12:10
Increased CofG range important advantage. Chinook has 3 external load hooks as opposed to one on a single main rotor hel.

TorqueOfTheDevil
5th Jan 2011, 13:45
...and you don't have all the drawbacks associated with a tail rotor.

Hilife
5th Jan 2011, 14:09
Currently the EDA is still assessing requirements. I’d suggest the HTH program is still little more than a pipedream, as funding approval (let alone a realistic ISD - 2020 at least) is still some way off, at which point the CH-53K will be in service and I daresay, the preferred solution for the HEER to replace their ageing CH-53’s.

EADS/ Eurocopter would love to build something this big, but they don’t have the rotor or transmission technology, so I would see them looking to partner with Mil, Boeing or Sikorsky.

Risk: Where is the market? Russia will buy Mil platforms, the USA will buy CH-47’s and CH-53K’s (the latter being the ideal solution for both the German’s and Israeli’s), so that leaves Eurocopter holding the purse for R&D for their own military solution and I’m not certain the Armée de Terre even has a real requirement for HTH.

If you want to know how little spare cash EADS/Eurocopter has for high risk platform development just now (and likely why the German’s are more than a little reticent to invest in a new design HTH), cast your thoughts back to those other great fiasco’s like the A400M/A350XWB & A380 and just take a look at the latest X3 Program.....a mishmash of a platform lacking large amounts of EADS or French Government funding commitments if ever there was one.

EADS/Eurocopter is clearly desperate not to be left behind on European options for HTH or by the threat to current and future high speed rotary technology offered by the BA609 (if ever it happens?), the V-22 and in particularly the X-2/S-97 programs, but when it comes to HTH, I’m not convinced the rewards will outweigh the risks.

If it looks like the Germans will opt for the CH-53K, then I’d not be surprised to see Eurocopter team with Mil for a major update program for the Mi-26 and look to secure revenue from sales in Russia, India, China and the UN.

CM. The CH-53K will also have single, dual and triple cargo hook capability.

Oh and as the launch customer is the USMC and thinking footprint, it will have auto blade and tail fold so as to fit nicely in the corner of those naval decks.....well almost.

nice castle
5th Jan 2011, 14:23
"CM. The CH-53K will also have single, dual and triple cargo hook capability. "

and a tail rotor which saps a bunch of power, and makes landing with a high nose up attitude having just decelerated quickly nice and dangerous.

I'll stick to the tandem configuration for heavy lift, thanks. Just my opinion, of course...

Lonewolf_50
5th Jan 2011, 14:58
Why not buy the CH-53K?

IIRC, the Germans had CH-53D's (and an E variant? I'd need to look) or approximations thereof in the CH-53G. Still flying, last I heard ...

CH-53, though it has its peculiar traits, is a proven heavy lift rotary wing platform. I appreciate that some heavy lift folk prefer the non-tail rotor idea, Chinook and such, in a cargo aircraft.

Do you expect the winner in this design process to have a tail rotor, or not have one? :confused:

bast0n
5th Jan 2011, 15:18
Nice Castle

and a tail rotor which saps a bunch of power, and makes landing with a high nose up attitude having just decelerated quickly nice and dangerous.

Does a twin rotor not use any anti torque power? I would have thought that some power was used to keep it stable. As to dangerous landings with a tail rotor, it is all a matter of judgement...............;)

Evalu8ter
5th Jan 2011, 15:35
Why not CH-53K?

Horses for courses really. If you need a very heavy USL moved or a large amount of people for admin purposes then the -53K is an attractive, if unproven, option. Doubtless it will have better running costs and be more relaible than the hideously expensive legacy model (which make a CH47 look cheap...) and will have all sorts of swanky toys. However, if you wish to conduct assault operations in high DA / dusty environments then the -47 wins hands down thanks to the tandem rotor configuration. Why? No DA tail rotor authority issues, the ability to conduct rapid tactical decelerations onto the ground, a relative imperviousness to wind direction (except at high auw), a proven dust landing technique thanks to rear wheels and thats all before the -47F advanced avionics and flight control system are taken into consideration.

How many -53Ks ordered? 130ish for the USMC and it's sliding right all the time. How many -47Fs? 500+ and counting for the US Army, RAF, Dutch, Italians, UAE, Canada, Australia etc etc. Like I said, horses for courses....

NURSE
5th Jan 2011, 18:12
I hope the Europeans come up with a competitor to the Russians and Americans as it will hopefully make them make the next step for future heavy lift.
How long have Chinook and Sea Stalion been around now? I know they have new everything but the basic designs are from the 60's

LowObservable
5th Jan 2011, 20:44
Part of the answer on single and twin rotors: Rotor tip velocity is limited by Mach on the advancing blade in forward flight, so as your rotor gets bigger its rpm is perforce less. More power + lower rpm = lots of torque, which combined with a wider ratio in the transmission is mechanically challenging - the weight of the transmission and shaft increases more than proportionally with the power.

Have you seen the transmission on an Mi-26? I remember when they brought the beast to Paris and opened up the cowls. It's like a Volkswagen made from solid titanium. More torque also means more power to the tail rotor - even relative to the size of the helo, the tail rotor is huge.

You can squeeze the diameter down as much as possible, but then you get jet-blast downwash.

The bigger you get, the bigger the advantages of multiple rotors - which is one reason why the -47 has lasted so long.

Rigga
5th Jan 2011, 21:44
A programme of 15 (I think) CH53's going though Upgrade to G-1 status (I think) at Donnauwoerth now!

First one left a few weeks ago.

oldgrubber
6th Jan 2011, 10:51
What could have been !! Sigh!

Fairey Rotodyne was the future of aviation | Archive | The Engineer (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/classic-archive/fairey-rotodyne-was-the-future-of-aviation/1003155.article)


Cheers

andyy
6th Jan 2011, 12:10
Whatever is built or bought, lets hope that it is marinised as standard, inc auto blade fold, so that it can fit in to ships easily no matter which service operates it.

Mechta
7th Jan 2011, 15:43
Is there any good reason why a Chinook doesn't have blade fold? I would have thought that there are users who would have wanted the capability.

Ref the Mi-26, here is the main rotor hub and gearbox (thanks to Aviastar.org). Shame there is no-one next to the gearbox for scale:

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mil/mi-26_4.jpg

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/mil/mi-26_5.jpg

It does seem strange that the biggest operational lifter is a single and not a twin rotor. Maybe the drive shafts to the other rotor just get too big? Evidently the Mi-12 wasn't a roaring success, and the Yak-60 with the same drivetrain as a tandem rotor didn't get off the drawing board. The latter would have been a sight to see though, with four times the lifting capacity of a Chinook.

Technical data for Yak-60 Rotor diameter: 35m, fuselage length: 46m, take-off weight: 100,000kg, empty weight: 55,000kg

minigundiplomat
7th Jan 2011, 16:17
Is there any good reason why a Chinook doesn't have blade fold? I would have thought that there are users who would have wanted the capability.


As far as I am aware, the UK is the only nation to deploy Chinooks on carriers with any degree of regularity. The USMC operates CH53 (which, and I may be mistaken, have blade fold), and Sea Knights (No idea if they have blade fold). However, the average USMC carrier is designed to take 'proper sized' aircraft and it's deck/lifts/hanger decks are much larger.

I am no expert in things nautical, but that's my opinion on why the Chinook blade fold system has never gained ground.

GreenKnight121
8th Jan 2011, 04:08
Spent a little time with our American cousins a few years ago being flown around in their Chinooks from their floaty things. The blade fold system was used regularly but being a manual system it looked to be a bit of a faff when windy.


The USN & USMC use the CH-46 Sea Knight, not the CH-47 Chinook.

Yes, they are very similar... but the CH-46 is smaller and specifically designed for ship-board use.

The CH-46 does have power blade-folding. If they were manually folding them, perhaps the system wasn't working on those particular aircraft.
UH-46 Sea Knight (http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/ch46.htm)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Amphibs/USSIwoJimaLPH-2.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/Helicopters/CH-53EonUSSBataan.jpg

StopStart
8th Jan 2011, 14:36
I thought Chinooks had folding blades (albeit manual)? I've seen yank ones with folded blades and the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/ch47dspec.htm) lists them as being manually folding.

Admittedly it does look like a massive bloody performance..... :hmm:

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/Folded_Blades/Folded_Blades_1.jpg

Jig Peter
8th Jan 2011, 15:35
If the Big Chopper does begin to get serious attention on both sides of the Atlantic, the Europrop consortium has a suitably high-powered engine now in flight test on the A400M. Going by the Mi-26's use of the Bear's 10 - 11000 BHP engine, the Europrop power unit, suitably amended, would seem to be in with a chance, specially as P&W's (indirectly, through MTU) somewhere in the mix, and nobody else outside Russia has an engine like it.
'Ere's 'opin', innit?
:D:D:)

Modern Elmo
8th Jan 2011, 16:42
Sea Knight Helicopter of the Marine Corps

Tandem rotors have been a feature of all production helos built by ... Special features included power-operated blade folding, integral cargo handling ... The CH-46D Sea Knight helicopter is used by the Navy for shipboard delivery of cargo and personne. ... Information and photos provided by the United States Navy ...



Sea Knight Helicopter of the Marine Corps (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blseaknight.htm)

Modern Elmo
8th Jan 2011, 19:47
Does a twin rotor not use any anti torque power?

Nope, a tandem rotor helicopter does not expend any power producing anti-torque effect. The two rotors rotate in opposite directions, thereby cancelling each other's torque without net expenditure of power on torque cancellation.

A single main rotor helicopter with tail rotor has to allocate 12 to 15 of per cent available shaft power to the tail rotor in vertical flight. Fast cruising flight unloads the tail rotor because the vertical stabilizer offsets the main rotor's torque, but this anti-rotor torque trim soaks up about the same per cent of available power by converting rotor torque to vertical stabilizer drag.

The opposed direction of rotor movements of a tandem helicopter also has a swirl-straightening effect on the air flow through the combined momentum disk, thereby slightly increasing vertical lift/thrust.

You are aware that the most efficient helo configuration for vertical thrust is a counter rotating, coaxial design because the coax. config. minimizes vorticity -- a fancier word for swirl -- of the momentum flux through the rotor disk? A coax helo theoretically should reduce power required by a factor of 1/(sqrt(2)) compared to a single main rotor design to hover with the same weight.

On the other hand, a tandem rotor helicopter is slightly less efficient than a single main rotor helo in forward flight because the rear rotor on a tandem has to fly in the somewhat turbulent wake of the forward rotor. Also, a tail rotor makes a single main rotor helicopter arguably and perhaps more maneuverable than a tandem or coax. layout.

Conclusion: coaxial or tandem rotor designs are better configurations for large transport hubschraubers, assuming that a large transport helo ought to optimize vertical flight rather than forward flight efficiency, and one can't have both in the same aircraft. Therefore, neither the CH-53 nor the MiL-26 are the optimum designs for their roles.

Sikorsky has circulated art work showing a big big coaxial helo or flying crane as their proposal for a new, very heavy lift helicopter for the Army. I suspect that the H-53 and the big MiL are single main rotor designs because that's all their parent firms knew how to build way back when.

A Chinook or Sea Knight in forward flight can obtain maximum lift and thrust, albeit at a slower cruising speed, by flying at a bit of a yawed angle. It gets the rear rotor somewhat out of the forward rotor's wake. Also, one can think of this as increasing the effective wingspan of a Chinook's rotary wings.

We have some Chinook pilots here at Peeprune who might tell us about flying the Chinook yawed versus not yawed.

Trim Stab
8th Jan 2011, 20:38
I thought Chinooks had folding blades (albeit manual)? I've seen yank ones with folded blades and the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/ch47dspec.htm) lists them as being manually folding.

Admittedly it does look like a massive bloody performance..... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif


StopStart - what you are actually looking at is the USMC Maypole-Dancing Society. If you look closely, the chap on the left even has little bells on his ankles

GreenKnight121
9th Jan 2011, 08:58
StopStart - what you are actually looking at is the USMC Maypole-Dancing Society. If you look closely, the chap on the left even has little bells on his ankles

Nice joke, but as the USMC doesn't wear berets, it is a US Army cluster-f@ck.


Just This Once... fair enough, a Special Forces MH-47G certainly would visit USN ships from time to time.

I wouldn't have liked to be on the blade-folding party.

I have been party to a "foreign" helo on a USN ship... in 1987, when USS Ranger CV-61 was returning from the Indian ocean back to San Diego, we diverted to rescue some burned Japanese sailors from an ocean-going tug that had had a fire (USN carriers have a full "mini-hospital", fully equipped operating theater, board-certified surgeons, etc).

The sailors were brought to us by a USAF CH-3E, which had done a multiple-mid-air-refuel trip from Hawaii. They decided to just keep it aboard until we were close enough it could do an unrefueled flight back.

The USAF CH-3E, despite being built around the engine/rotor system & cockpit of a Sea King, didn't have folding rotor blades, so it sat mid-flight deck, preventing all fixed-wing flight for 2 days.