Puma deck-landings on small ships?
Thread Starter
Puma deck-landings on small ships?
I was interested to see on CNN coverage of the USS John McCain collision that some injured survivors were being bought ashore with a Singapore Air Force Puma.
I thought Puma was considered too wobbly (for want of a better word) to land on small ships? Or are such restrictions waived in these circumstances?
Possibly it picked the injured up from somewhere else - but that seems an odd logistic.
I thought Puma was considered too wobbly (for want of a better word) to land on small ships? Or are such restrictions waived in these circumstances?
Possibly it picked the injured up from somewhere else - but that seems an odd logistic.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the USN appears to be making a habit of bending ships. I wonder if they are waving the 'due regard' flag a bit too hard.
10 US Navy sailors missing after destroyer collides with merchant ship - CNN
10 US Navy sailors missing after destroyer collides with merchant ship - CNN
Thread Starter
Interesting that the USN appears to be making a habit of bending ships. I wonder if they are waving the 'due regard' flag a bit too hard.
10 US Navy sailors missing after destroyer collides with merchant ship - CNN
10 US Navy sailors missing after destroyer collides with merchant ship - CNN
Seems like some went overboard rather than trapped below as in the Fitzgerald. Possibly from the flight deck, given that is most exposed to and near collision.
I thought Puma was considered too wobbly (for want of a better word) to land on small ships?
Thread Starter
I should have googled first - found this:
Super Puma landing on red deck | UPTIME
Still, as heights good suggests, they were probably winched up.
Super Puma landing on red deck | UPTIME
Still, as heights good suggests, they were probably winched up.
The Singapore Air Force use 332Ms. The have the single wheel undercarriage which is stressed for a 5 m/sec (980/ft./min) landing. As I know, apart from a visual inspection, there is no further action required up to 7 m/s.
The 330 Puma is a different ball game but I have landed the 330J on high deck working boats in the casevac roll across the deck with 8 degrees pitch and 12 degrees roll without frightening myself too much.
The Super Puma, in comparison, is a gentle lady even if you really thump it in, and I know, being a world authority on heavy landings, the two stage undercarriage turns a disaster into a, for the passengers, normal arrival.
Why the RAF didn't fit the single wheel undercarriage to the Puma Mk2 I will never understand.
Prima false economy.
The 330 Puma is a different ball game but I have landed the 330J on high deck working boats in the casevac roll across the deck with 8 degrees pitch and 12 degrees roll without frightening myself too much.
The Super Puma, in comparison, is a gentle lady even if you really thump it in, and I know, being a world authority on heavy landings, the two stage undercarriage turns a disaster into a, for the passengers, normal arrival.
Why the RAF didn't fit the single wheel undercarriage to the Puma Mk2 I will never understand.
Prima false economy.
Why the RAF didn't fit the single wheel undercarriage to the Puma Mk2 I will never understand.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
The French land Puma on carriers. The simple answer was that the RAF were not prepared to pay for the trials to release to service. We ended up having to winch to decks.
Nothing to do with aircraft limitation
Nothing to do with aircraft limitation
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
I str that the pitch limit for the Puma on board ship was only one or two degrees.... Was this because the seaborne trials hadn't been carried out, I wonder?
Some RAF Pumas were recalled to Fleetlands to be fitted with some modifications in '81/'82 and we were told to expect to go to the FI. Then it all went quiet again and we never went.
Some RAF Pumas were recalled to Fleetlands to be fitted with some modifications in '81/'82 and we were told to expect to go to the FI. Then it all went quiet again and we never went.
IIRC the pitch & roll limit for offshore operations were 5 degrees pitch & roll with 10 metres heave. The problem with being at the pitch/roll and heave limits was a 60 knot airstream getting under the disc at the top of the pitch/heave. You could only put on so much cyclic to counteract it tendency to get airborne.
To guard against this the procedure was to unload five of the rig pax and take on five homeward bound and so on. This kept the aircraft heavy and reasonably stable. In these conditions you would not plan to refuel offshore.
When we evacuated the Hermod it was fully afloat with a 55 knot wind and 35 metre heave. One had descend vertically between the crane Jibs to get on to the helipad. No problem for an empty Puma when the deck started rising but the poor old S61s were having heavy landings with full power on because they couldn't climb fast enough.
To guard against this the procedure was to unload five of the rig pax and take on five homeward bound and so on. This kept the aircraft heavy and reasonably stable. In these conditions you would not plan to refuel offshore.
When we evacuated the Hermod it was fully afloat with a 55 knot wind and 35 metre heave. One had descend vertically between the crane Jibs to get on to the helipad. No problem for an empty Puma when the deck started rising but the poor old S61s were having heavy landings with full power on because they couldn't climb fast enough.
