What do you think will come after Puma
At least the Puma now has the engines it should have had in 1971
The Turbomeca Makila is a family of French turboshaft engines for helicopter use, first run in 1976 and flown in 1977
I saw the first 'Super Puma' with Makilas in 1977. It was one of the original six prototype 330s with the flat Huey type nose. There was a one metre plug at the rear of the fuselage and single main wheels. The instrumentation inside hadn't changed a lot since 1966.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt we'll be able to afford any new helicopters by 2025 - never mind 2035...............
A lot of kit will need replacing in the 2020's - SSBN, T26, T31, C130, Tornado, UK-MBT..............
A lot of kit will need replacing in the 2020's - SSBN, T26, T31, C130, Tornado, UK-MBT..............
You could lease or buy 332L2/ EC225 for next to nothing. Last time I looked there were 9/10 in mothballs at Humberside alone.
Nobody expects them to return to offshore flying.
Nobody expects them to return to offshore flying.
Last edited by ericferret; 29th May 2017 at 08:57.
Eric,
Indeed you can, but buying the aircraft is a small part of the Through Life Costs. Modifying them, testing them and certifying them for anything other than benign theatres will cost an awful lot of money. If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family (flying straight & level) I'm not sure I'd want to stick a whole load of DAS, armour and guns on it then fly tactically at low level.....
Indeed you can, but buying the aircraft is a small part of the Through Life Costs. Modifying them, testing them and certifying them for anything other than benign theatres will cost an awful lot of money. If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family (flying straight & level) I'm not sure I'd want to stick a whole load of DAS, armour and guns on it then fly tactically at low level.....
If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family (flying straight & level)
It beats the hell out of a helicopter. When the BV234 came into service the Boeing engineers could not believe the punishment their ultra reliable Chinooks were taking.
If I were still in the mil, looking at the recent safety record of the 225 family
Cougar deliveries are continuing with Kuwait just taking some. Clearly some operators are unfased by the gearbox issue. In many ways the gearbox issue is no different to other aircraft problems over the years. Other than bolt on specialist kit there is nothing special about the 330 except maybe the acc drive.
The civil 330J were built on the same line as the military aircraft. In fact from a civil perspective the EC 225 and the 332's are all variants of the 330. They are all on the same type certificate. In the end it depends on what you want it to do. Further up the thread it is suggested that the 330 is low in the queue for replacement.
A 225 would work as a direct 330 replacement. If you are looking for more bells and whistles then it will wait in the queue beyond the higher priorities. Nothing happens in the MOD in a hurry so I think that any window to do this will close and we will be looking at the next generation of logging aircraft.
The civil 330J were built on the same line as the military aircraft. In fact from a civil perspective the EC 225 and the 332's are all variants of the 330. They are all on the same type certificate. In the end it depends on what you want it to do. Further up the thread it is suggested that the 330 is low in the queue for replacement.
A 225 would work as a direct 330 replacement. If you are looking for more bells and whistles then it will wait in the queue beyond the higher priorities. Nothing happens in the MOD in a hurry so I think that any window to do this will close and we will be looking at the next generation of logging aircraft.
Last edited by ericferret; 29th May 2017 at 09:04.
By 2025 the oldest Pumas will be 54 years old and the RAF will be 107, so it will have been flying the same helicopters for more than half of its entire existence by then. 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 418 Likes
on
221 Posts
I think that you can forget any variation of the Puma; i.e. the 225. It's a 1966 concept with its fuselage designed to go into the back of a Transall or on a SNCF truck which is why it is so low and narrow.
Soldiers are now taller as anybody knows when you compare the height of sixth formers now to the sixties and they cannot run around a Puma sized cabin in the crouch position. By definition the cabin has to be taller and that will be the end of the Puma line.
The replacement will have a taller wider cabin, a much wider undercarriage preferably nosewheel so as to minimise the landing foorprint and a onboard situation update program that can be actioned during a sortie.
Fifteen hours/month flying plus thirty in the simulator seems about right. After a full career one might have enough hours to get a job.
Soldiers are now taller as anybody knows when you compare the height of sixth formers now to the sixties and they cannot run around a Puma sized cabin in the crouch position. By definition the cabin has to be taller and that will be the end of the Puma line.
The replacement will have a taller wider cabin, a much wider undercarriage preferably nosewheel so as to minimise the landing foorprint and a onboard situation update program that can be actioned during a sortie.
Fifteen hours/month flying plus thirty in the simulator seems about right. After a full career one might have enough hours to get a job.
So Puma replacement back of the queue and the new super helicopter at what cost.
Starting to sound like an off the peg solution long after I am dead.
Makes the Puma upgrade program look even more stupid as they will probably soldier on after 2025.
Well some of the Alouette 2 made 60 before retiring. So who knows what will happen.
Look at the B52 and that is a first line combat aircraft first flight 1952 heading for 70..
Starting to sound like an off the peg solution long after I am dead.
Makes the Puma upgrade program look even more stupid as they will probably soldier on after 2025.
Well some of the Alouette 2 made 60 before retiring. So who knows what will happen.
Look at the B52 and that is a first line combat aircraft first flight 1952 heading for 70..
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd,
Militarised 139 for Niche? Footprint is smaller than Pu, but bigger than Wc. Can take off in heat, very well proven design. Fast, reliable, tons of spares, tons of power, relatively recent design can actually take a whole section of army in 1 ac with kit. And cheap.
What do you think?
They'll never go for it!
Militarised 139 for Niche? Footprint is smaller than Pu, but bigger than Wc. Can take off in heat, very well proven design. Fast, reliable, tons of spares, tons of power, relatively recent design can actually take a whole section of army in 1 ac with kit. And cheap.
What do you think?
They'll never go for it!
I think the Puma replacement will be the complete opposite of 'niche', it will need to be fully multi-role to justify it's existence which imho means minimum 10 troops, EO/IR camera, min .50 cal weapon that can be stuffed in the back of a C17/A400 easily or self-deployable at speed (e.g. tilt rotor). Unfortunately pretty much anything out there at the moment is based on a 50 year old idea of how a helicopter should work, so hopefully we will see some innovation over the next decade that will give us some really interesting options.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a past forum about the refit of the Puma 1 to Puma 2 specification, I waxed lyrical about the 'idiocy' of not including an extra fuselage plug in that programme. However, despite the lack of the extra fuselage plug, the resulting Puma spec has produced a very impressive helicopter. I still reckon that if a fuselage plug was inserted at a time when Puma 2 needs to be 'replaced' (2025), plus a darn good refurbishing of course, it would be a cheap alternative to keep the wonderful Puma flying well past my 'sell by date'. 
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 30th May 2017 at 20:16.
The biggest mistake with the Puma 1/2 conversion, IMHO, was the omission of the single wheel undercarriage. Having flown both the 330 and the 332, 3,000/9,500 hrs. I am a world authority on heavy landings. The 332 is rated to 5 m/s (950 fpm) and the maintenance manual isn't worried until it exceeds 7.5 m/s.
Blackhawks? Would be my guess.
Hand me downs from the US Army would be best bang for the buck.
Hand me downs from the US Army would be best bang for the buck.