I have been holding off this thread but now I cannot resist. I last flew a 332L1 two years ago as commander two months before my 69th birthday. I last flew a 330E in August 1978 so I am totally out of date with military flying. However; 2000hrs on 330C, 1000hrs on 330J and 9250hrs on 332L & L1s qualifies my opinion on Pumas in general.
On previous threads on the Puma Mk 2 it has been difficult for an outsider to establish what is exactly going to be changed. We can start off with the engines because we know the Makila is going in. A far better engine as far as power and fuel consumption is concerned. It is far more choosy than the Turmo with respect to what goes in the front end but it is assumed that the RAF, expecting to go to sandy places will keep the air separators on the front so it does not make a lot of difference.
The Turmo has a steam era control system that, though primitive and agricultural, does the job very reliably though with drawbacks, such as, it cannot keep up with what is just about to happen. It also has a compressor design that harks back to the Me 262 that is good for chewing birds but not so good at keeping abreast of the situation. The Makila changes all that. It’s got a fan in front of the compressor to improve its efficiency and lots of electronic gizmos to make sure the mechanical bits obey the whip.
You can drop the engines in the same mountings. However some of the control systems are behind the power turbine. The Turmo was easy, a drive above the engine told the fuel control unit , by means of bob weights, how fast the turbine was going. Too fast or too slow the bob weights adjusted the fuel. A drive shaft breaks and the turbine goes faster so the fuel its reduced and you have just a single engine type failure. Not so the Makila. That is electronic so if a shaft breaks the overspeed protection system will shut down the engine. Logical really, because it is no use without a shaft. Unfortunately this equipment is after the turbine and the 330 gearbox is not designed for it. The 332 gearbox is and will fit on the same mountings but then you get to lots of other things that now do not fit..
Like the Rotor Head.
Fitting a 332 gearbox and rotor system is no big deal. The 332C is of the same dimensions as a 330 so it can take it. Terminology like frequency adapters instead of drag dampers will fall into place quite easily but if you change one thing you transfer a problem to something else. In this case the pylon.
Two Makilas punching out 1800 horse power each tend to make a Puma twist a bit. Even in my time in the RAF formating behind another Puma as it lifted off and seeing how much the pylon leaned over was an education. Pumas have doubling plates on the boom/pylon joint. Super Pumas have trebling plates.
It is reasonably possible to make a Puma with Makilas and a 332 rotor system, after all a 332, a332L2 or a 225 is still basically a Puma. There may be bigger windows and airframe plugs that make it longer but there is a fair number of short 332Ls around. With this kit on you can now punch off at 8600 kgs instead of 7400 because the engines and rotor system can deliver the goods. The airframe may need to be tweaked to suit but that has been done before. The problem then comes when you want to land it. The Puma undercarriage is quite happy up to 7400kgs. Above that you need something a bit stronger; like the single wheel 332/332L1/225 u/c which, having been designed for cack handed French navy pilots, can accept a 900ft/min landing. Are the Puma Mk2s going to have this undercarriage? On a personal level I can assure you that I have made some horrendous arrivals on offshore decks without a murmur from this undercarriage.
There is the continuous comments about the cabin size which is justified. It is cramped and with the small windows of the 330 it is claustrophobic. Bigger windows are not too much of a problem, putting plugs in is.
The very first ‘Super Puma’ was a 1966 330A with a UH1 nose, Makilas and a plug in the back of the fuselage. The 332 eventually arrived with the ‘option’ of a forward plug. That was taken up and in all civil variants so that is the standard. The 225 has both the forward and the rear plug because it can lift them with bigger engines and better rotors.
A forward plug on the 332 gives you about 800mm and lots of problems.
Compared with the 330C the 332L is an absolute pig to throw about. The plug in the fuselage totally throws the lateral stability so it is always fighting a turn. In Singapore in 1970 when I knew I was going to fly Puma I discussed it with Roy Moxham, deputy chief pilot with Westlands and he described flying it as like flying a fighter. He was right and even later on the fully equipped dragmaster 330J it still flew like a fighter. If somebody is chasing me with lots of guns in his fuselage then I would rather be in a Puma.
Another problem with the plug is the C of G. I went through some Bristow weighing records some time ago and I was surprised to find that a 332L at zero fuel weight, ie empty, no crew, no fuel, had 46% of it weight on the nosewheel. That means that if the aircraft is loaded evenly, remembering that the crew is at the front, that at 8600kgs there is nearly 4 tonnes on the nosewheel, which is the same design as the Puma. Try landing on soft ground with that; even better if you roll on at ten knots.
I am a great believer in cockpit advances like digital presentations and 21st century navaids. It makes life so much easier so that you can actually concentrate on the job in hand. As I opened, I have no knowledge of present day military flying so I do not know how much of an improvement it would be operationally.
That’s my ten penny worth which some of you can discuss.
I flew professionally for forty eight years. In addition to my Puma variants I collected a 1000hrs on planks, 1500hrs on Whirlwinds and 2500hrs on the Sikorsky S76.
The Pumas and super Pumas were unique. Not once whilst flying them did I have a moment of concern.
I got my first bollocking when I was a cadet at South Cerney. My last was from a director of a Chinese helicopter company I was working for because i was teaching my Chinese co-pilot how to do very steep wingovers.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 2nd Mar 2011 at 10:21.