Westland Lynx (Merged threads) [Archive]

Grey Area

10th Mar 2001, 16:45

Re: Phase angle etc. Let me explain about the Lynx.

The rotor head is rigid in the flapping axis and dragging axis, but not the feathering axis; hence it is often called a semi-rigid head. For all intents and purposes we can treat it as rigid with respect to the aerodynamics of flapping.

When a cyclic pitch change is input by the pilot, the blades flap with respect to the control axis. The displacement of the blades is creates a bending moment on the rigid head, which in turn creates a restoring force that is a function of the displacement. This is a key point, as the restoring force is 180 deg out of phase with the DISPLACEMENT. The result of this restoring force is that the control input must be made later, i.e. phase lag is reduced below 90 degrees. See http://www.av8.org.uk/phaselag.htm for a graphical proof.

This brings a problem. While the restoring force is constant for a given displacement, the aerodynamic forces resulting from cyclic displacement will vary with density altitude, in effect the system phase lag will vary with density altitude. This is obviously a problem for the designer, who must settle on an average phase lag when choosing the rotor system rigging angle, hence any difference between the actual density altitude and the design altitude will induce a control cross couple.

Next up come all up mass. As the AUM changes so the total power required changes and thus the coning angle changes. This will affect the restoring force and thus in this case it follows that AUM will have an effect on phase lag.

Next up, blades. If you change the blade characteristics then the aerodynamic performance of the blades will change. This will change the relationship between the bending moment and aerodynamic moments. Once again, therefore, a change in blade performance will change the phase lag.

Now, take the lynx, first envisaged will an all up mass of around 4200Kg, now cleared to over 5200kg, that’s nearly a 20% change in max AUM, imagine the effect on phase lag. Next add new BERB tipped blades with different aerodynamic characteristics, imagine what happens to phase lag.

So, the Lynx was correctly rigged to operate with a less than 90 degree phase angle. Changes in the max AUM, blades and differences from the design density altitude will all induce a small cross couple. It is not a problem ASE in or out.

Next up, acceleration cross-couple. Despite the above, in a dynamic control environment, i.e. after a control input but before the system has found equilibrium the aerodynamic moments are greater than the bending moments, for all sorts of reasons, one being because of the effects of airframe inertial forces fed back to the head. In short, if a HIGH rate demand is made then the acceleration and inertial forces will be out of phase, hence a control cross-couple can be induced (imagine that in a rapid accelerative state the head reverts to a phase lag of close to 90 degrees instead of 72ish). This means that, because of the rigging angle is designed for normal control input rates, if the pilot makes rapid, large cyclic pitch inputs a large couple can be induced. For example in a wingover left a quick forward check on the cyclic can induce a rapid roll left. This is not a problem because this is not a normal flight regime and can be easily avoided by lower RATE control inputs. Lynx pilots are taught to apply gentle control inputs in normal operations, as long as you move the stick gently you can demand rapid manoeuvres with large cyclic displacements without encountering the effects of acceleration cross-couples.

GA

Lu Zuckerman

10th Mar 2001, 19:56

To: Grey Area

So that I can fully understand the problem can you please provide the following information.

When the pilot pushes forward cyclic which way does the swash plate tip?

What is the lead angle of the pitch horn in relation to the blade?

Here are a few examples so that you understand the questions.

On Bell single rotor helicopters the swash plate tips down over the nose in line with the longitudinal axis and the pitch horn leads the blade by 90-degrees. On other Bell single rotor helicopters the swashplate tips down towards the tail and the pitch horn trails the blade by 90-degrees.

On the Robinson the swashplate tips down over the nose in line with the longitudinal axis and the pitch horn leads the blade by 72-degrees.

On a Sikorsky helicopter the swashplate tips down 45-degrees ahead of the longitudinal axis and the pitch horn leads the blade by 45-degrees.

------------------
The Cat

have another coffee

10th Mar 2001, 22:23

Thanks Grey Area for opening this topic.

To Lu,
I wish I could send you a copy of a Lynx ACM. Swash plates in a Lynx?
The Lynx is equiped with a so called spider arm. It is connected to all the pp-rods and runs through the rotorhead to an area below the MRGB. Here all three control-servos are connected to the spiderarm. By either raising or lowering the spider arm a collective input is made. By moving the spider arm left-right or forward-aft (around 70 degrees offset) a cyclic input is made.
Simple eh?

All the problems started in my opinion when the composite rotorblades were introduced. There a gross handling difference between the old and new blades. Most probably caused by less flexibility in the new blades. This together with higher RRPMs and less coning angles changed the steering caracteristics a lot. Most noticable with ASE off. There we can agree. In no way, by my own experience, introduced this dangerous characteristics. It's just more unstabel to fly with the new blades.
The worst thing is the new blades introduced a massive rise in vibration levels. Also the new blades are very very sensitive to eg. salt or dirt, this makes the helicopter shake in as never experienced before.

[This message has been edited by have another coffee (edited 10 March 2001).]

Dave Jackson

10th Mar 2001, 23:51

The attached site has some wonderful closeup pictures of rotorheads. Three of them are of the Westland Lynx, which this thread is discussing
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html

"On Bell single rotor helicopters the swash plate tips down over the nose in line with the longitudinal axis and the pitch horn leads the blade by 90-degrees. On other Bell single rotor helicopters the swashplate tips down towards the tail and the pitch horn trails the blade by 90-degrees."

Lu; correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be correct to say that the swashplate tips down over the nose in both the above examples.

------------------
Project: UniCopter.com (http://www.synchrolite.com/UniCopter_Index.html)

Lu Zuckerman

11th Mar 2001, 01:27

To: Dave Jackson

"On Bell single rotor helicopters the swash plate tips down over the nose in line with the longitudinal axis and the pitch horn leads the blade by 90-degrees. On other Bell single rotor helicopters the swashplate tips down towards the tail and the pitch horn trails the blade by 90-degrees."

Lu; correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be correct to say that the swashplate tips down over the nose in both the above examples.

First of all thanks for the info on rotorheads the pictures are fantastic but it only shows the head and not the swashplate.

Regarding the tipping of the swashplates on different Bell helicopters, it has been a long time since I was around them but I believe the AH-1 series works the way I described in that the swashplate tips down towards the tail. These helicopters are weapons platforms and as such have controllable horizontal stabilizers to keep the nose from tucking. I don’t know for sure but I believe the kinematics of the controls for the tail plane dictated that the swash plate tip down towards the tail as the controls for the stabilizer are linked to the swashplate.

Dave, go to the rotorheads website and click on the rotorhead for the Super Cobra. The pitch horn is on the rear of the blade.

------------------
The Cat

Grey Area

11th Mar 2001, 01:48

Lu,

The info you request is mostly irrelevant. For a start as HAC has pointed out there is no swashplate on a lynx. Second, as the system has 4 blades the well documented problem you are alluding to with the Bell configuration cannot occur.

But, as already stated, the system is rigged to about 70 deg or so.

The Lynx is a weapons platform (and a very successful one), yet there is no link between the rotor head and tail plane. In fact the aircraft is cleared for flight with the horizontal stabiliser removed. Because of its rigid head, the Lynx control power is immense, the moment of the virtual flapping hinge is huge. Iif you get the opportunity to watch the Blue Eagles (UK Army Air Corps) Display Team of recent years, you will see a back flip (360 deg pitch backward) from the hover at 500’ or so. You can’t do that in a cobra!

[This message has been edited by Grey Area (edited 10 March 2001).]

Lu Zuckerman

11th Mar 2001, 04:49

To: Grey Area

With no swashplate as used on conventional helicopters how do you get input from the stationary servos via the push pull tubes to the rotating elements of the dynamic system? Is the so called spider arm in effect a swashplate?

Regarding your diagram, I find it difficult to understand for several reasons.

1) What is the significance of the numerical scale at the left of the diagram?
2) What is the difference between the desired input and the required input?
3) Does the dotted line indicate blade flapping as a result of pitch input?

Regarding the power (interlock) of a rigid rotor helicopter I saw it demonstrated by a Lockheed 286 when I was working on the Cheyenne. In fact on the Cheyenne the cyclic was locked out while the helicopter was on the ground. The interlock was so strong that the helicopter could be tipped over if the cyclic was moved.

On the Super Lynx rotorhead they have lead lag dampers. Did they incorporate the capability to lead and lag to minimize the stresses on the blades and the rotorhead?

------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 11 March 2001).]

Jiff

11th Mar 2001, 05:18

Grey Area,
The Lynx rotor head is considered to be of a semi rigid design, I don't think this is because the only axis of movement is in the pitch axis. If you look at the close up of the picture in Dave Jackson's link you can see a damper between the blade attachment point and the end of the flex arm. The damper runs parallel to a round titanium bar which is aprox 2"-3" in diameter and this bar is designed to flex in both the vertical axis and horizontal axis.

Jiff

Grey Area

11th Mar 2001, 16:45

Lu,

A quick explanation of the Lynx rotor head. At the centre you will note the star shaped rotor hub, this is where the flapping occurs. The long cylindrical structure (commonly referred to in the UK as the “dog bone”) is where lead/lag loads are handled, it does not absorb flapping loads. The dampers you refer to are fitted to all Lynx, except French Navy ones. Their role is simply to reduce stress on the head during rotor engagement./disengagement cycles, it has no role in flight and can be ignored for the purposes of this discussion.

The graph scale is arbitary. The dotted blue line labelled “blade displacement” indicates exactly that. The DESIRED INPUT is the force required to achieve the blade displacement, you will note it is exactly 90 deg in advance of the blade displacement (this fits both my flapping to equality argument and your precession argument). The restorative force causes a problem, as it will modify the forces resulting from cyclic input, therefore the cyclic forces must be applied such that when combined with the restorative force they will equal the DESIRED INPUT. The key point, therefore, is that the REQUIRED INPUT in combination with the RESTORATIVE FORCE must equal the DESIRED INPUT, and thus they must be applied less than 90 degrees in advance of the desired blade response.

GA

[This message has been edited by Grey Area (edited 11 March 2001).]

Flight Safety

11th Mar 2001, 20:27

It seems to me that if you change both the mass and flexibity of the rotor blades on the Lynx, you would also have to change the flexibility (to accommodate new displacement forces) and perhaps the resonance frequency of the flex arm to match the new rotor blades.

I would think both the flex arm and the rotor blades have to matched to other in terms of at least the flapping loads, to prevent both unwanted vibrations and unexpected behavior. In other words the flex arms need to be "tuned" to the rotor blades, or funny behavior will happen (which seems to be the case now).

------------------
Safe flying to you...

Grey Area

11th Mar 2001, 21:21

From my perspective there is no particular funny behavior. I am certainly not complaining about the Lynx, old or new. All of the charactoristics are known and explained, none are dangerous. True, there is an increase in vibration in the hover and at low speed, but that is a result of high energy vortices rolling off the tips and interacting with following blades. It is not ideal for roles requiring long periods of hover, but it's much better at speed. As always with helos there is a trade off!

Lu Zuckerman

12th Mar 2001, 02:45

To: Grey Area

After looking at the diagram I came to the conclusion that not all helicopters have a 90-degree precession angle. It is not that they weren’t designed to have a phase angle of 90-degrees it is that through a combination of design related problems in the dynamics and rotor blade systems the phase angle will vary. I have to believe that or, I will have to download my memory of the Cheyenne helicopter. It too was designed to have a 90-degree phase angle but the rotor system had a tendency to deviate from the 90-degree phase angle. Sometimes it was in excess of 90-degrees and sometimes it was less than 90-degrees. This was caused by a combination of things that included the design of the blades and the stiffness of the blades along with speed and gross weight.

The problem manifested itself in different ways. On some occasions the helicopter would not fly in the direction the cyclic was displaced and on two occasions the rotorblade divergence from the selected flight path was so extensive that the blades hit the fuselage.

It took two years to develop a fix that would eliminate the deviation from the selected flight path. They designed a system that compared the movement of the cyclic stick to the movement of the blades. If there was a deviation between input and response the system would send a signal to the servos via the autopilot and the servos would correct the pilots input to get the desired response at the rotor. This is very similar to the system used on the Lynx at least as it was described to me. The system used on the Cheyenne employed an Electro mechanical feedback loop and it was rife with single point failures that could cause the loss of the aircraft. The program was cancelled and two years later the Apache came on the scene.

Now, with that out of the way please tell me how the control inputs are made to the rotorhead from the fixed servos to the rotating rotorhead on the Lynx if there is no swashplate. Pictures would be appreciated.

------------------
The Cat

Grey Area

12th Mar 2001, 13:26

Lu,

Hurrah! That's the point I've been trying to get across for months! As an aside, if you think about it, a delta three rig will also apply an out of phase restoring force.

I'll try and put together a sketch of the Spider system.

I would add that whoever told you that the Lynx ASE actively compensates for phase lag was in error, it is a simple 2 channel ASE with Gyro, compass, radalt/baralt, control position and jack position inputs to the computer.

GA

[This message has been edited by Grey Area (edited 12 March 2001).]

Lu Zuckerman

12th Mar 2001, 18:51

To: Grey Area

As I had indicated previously the subject of cross couple came up in a Robinson thread. I mentioned that the Robinson Rotor is rigged with the blades disposed from the lateral and longitudinal axes by 18-degrees during rigging of the flight controls. And as such, with a 90-degree phase angle the blades would in my opinion dip down to the left of the longitudinal centerline if the cyclic were displaced forward from the rigged neutral position. An Army Lynx pilot indicated in his reply to the posting that the Lynx rotorhead is rigged with the blades disposed 15-degrees from the respective axes when rigging of the flight control takes place. He indicated that on the Lynx with the blades rigged in this way and with a 90-degree precession angle the Lynx blades would also dip down and to the left when the cyclic was displaced forward. He indicated that there was an electronic “Black Box” that detected the left roll and compensated for it by modifying the input to the servos. I had also indicated that I might get the terminology mixed up. Obviously I did. Incidentally, your description of the ASE used in the Lynx is very similar to the ASEs that I was familiar with.

I feel that the reason I fought your explanation was because of the description given by the Army Lynx pilot and my unwillingness to accept your description when you used the term cross couple. I understood it as a problem that manifested itself due to the way the helicopter is rigged. I still believe that to be true for the Robinson.

I anxiously await your drawing of the of the Spider arm.

If you have the capability you can send it to me via email.

------------------
The Cat

Lu Zuckerman

14th Mar 2001, 05:44

To: Dave Jackson

"The attached site has some wonderful closeup pictures of rotorheads. Three of them are of the Westland Lynx, which this thread is discussing".
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html

I logged onto the suggested website and yes the pictures are fantastic. While perusing the site I clicked on the BO-105 PAH rotorhead and found a slight problem. The lower end of the fixed link that connects the longitudinal control lever to the non-rotating swashplate has a cracked uniball bearing. Hopefully it was eventually replaced before anything bad happened. So much for the German Army mechanics.

------------------
The Cat

Dave Jackson

15th Mar 2001, 01:10

Lu;

The following web page has a sketch of the Westland Spider System, from one of Prouty's books.

http://www.synchrolite.com/A067.html

------------------
Project: UniCopter.com (http://www.synchrolite.com/UniCopter_Index.html)

Flight Safety

15th Mar 2001, 03:13

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the diagram above does not look like the Lynx rotor head in the following link.

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead/0789.html

The pitch link rods are below the rotor head, not above it as the spyder diagram shows.

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 14 March 2001).]

Lu Zuckerman

15th Mar 2001, 03:23

To: Dave Jackson

It seems that this post has been overtaken by events in that Flight Safety posted his while I was composing mine. (The quick Brown Fox…… ;).

I checked out the drawing created by Ray Prouty and after a bit I figured out how the system works. However there is a major difference between Proutys’ drawing and the actual Lynx rotorhead. On the pictures shown on http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html
The Lynx rotor head looks just like any other rotorhead with the pitch links coming from below and connected to what would be assumed to be a swashplate. Obviously if Westland still employs the spider system it does not look like ray Proutys’ drawing. If it is below the transmission like the Enstrom and the Cheyenne the spider must be driven by the transmission.

------------------
The Cat

Dave Jackson

15th Mar 2001, 08:38

Interesting.

Perhaps the mast has a large diameter and the four spider legs protrude out of the mast, below the rotor plane, through four holes. Just a guess.

The following is quoted from J. Gordon Leishman, and might be of some interest:-
"Raul Hafner introduced the "spider" cyclic-pitch control system to autogiros. This provided a means of increasing collective pitch and also tilting the rotor disk without tilting the rotor shaft with a control stick as in de la Cierva's direct control system. Hafner used this design in his third autogiro, the AR-3, which flew in 1935."

------------------
Project: UniCopter.com (http://www.synchrolite.com/UniCopter_Index.html)

[This message has been edited by Dave Jackson (edited 15 March 2001).]

Grey Area

15th Mar 2001, 16:06

Correctly guessed. The central shaft of the spider runs up through the main gearbox and rotor shaft, the arms protrude through the shaft. If you look carefully at the pictures you might see the rubber "boot" that covers the spider arm as it passes through the shaft.

Flight Safety

15th Mar 2001, 19:31

Grey Area, I noticed those. It looks like there are 4 rubber boots protruding down from the shaft. Although you can't see it, it appears the boots might terminate at the bottom of the pitch link rods.

Lu Zuckerman

15th Mar 2001, 21:01

To: Grey Area

Now that we are all reading from the same sheet of paper I have several questions.

1) The attachment ears on the rotating ball joint connect with the longitudinal and lateral inputs. At what angle do these two attach points intersect?

2) Are the longitudinal and lateral inputs aligned with the respective axes of the helicopter? That is, is the longitudinal input aligned with the longitudinal axis and is the lateral input aligned with the lateral axis of the helicopter?

3) What is the maximum deviation of the rotating ball joint from its’ point of neutrality in any given direction when cyclic input is made?

4) From the Prouty diagram the rotating ball joint seem comparatively small. How big is it?

5) Is the rotating ball joint a high maintenance item? It would seem that if it fails you would lose all control of the helicopter. This has happened on Aerospatial helicopters when the swashplate bearings locked up with disastrous results.

6) The Prouty diagram shows the inputs to the rotating ball joints as control rods. Do the servos connect directly to the rotating ball joint or, are they rods as shown in the diagram?

7) In the picture of the Lynx rotorheads it seems that the pitch horns lead the blade by what appears to be 45-degrees. Is this correct?

Once I have the answers I will return with more questions. This should take up a lot of your spare time.

------------------
The Cat

Robin Hood

2nd Oct 2001, 23:31

Anyone seen the Lynx IPT roadshow yet?

I hear that it is something of a Westlands sales pitch. Apparently the Lynx IPT favours FLynx in preference to any other options - now there is a surprise! All the recent criticism must have thickened a few skins, so they just don't care about any accusation of bias.

Also an interesting interpretation of the user requirement to carry 8 troops with kit - if they won't fit; you just take 2 aircraft!

Make sure you get a seat when the circus comes to town so that you can ask some meaningful questions - like what will be the AUM, and how do they justify their claim of 7 maint hours per flying hour.

If it is a foregone conclusion that we get FLynx for political reasons then at least be honest about it.

Never believe everything a salesman tells you.

Jackonicko

3rd Oct 2001, 03:37

FLynx?

Is this Lynx LUH?

Explique moi, s'il vous plait?

Robin Hood

3rd Oct 2001, 22:06

Sorry, that wasn't very clear was it. I am referring to the Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH)which will replace Lynx from about 2006 onwards.
It could be made by Sikorski, Agusta Bell or ... Westlands.

pint to full

4th Oct 2001, 23:05

Robin Hood you must of sat in the same presentation as i did, best laugh i've had all year, they should start charging entrance fees to see it!

The concept of carring 8 troops with all their kit around the battlefield is great, using 2 aircraft to do the job isn't, in fact its what we do now.

I can't beleave in the year 2025 that future air Corps pilots will be flying with an aircraft that is no more capable than one built in 1989.

Don't miss the Lynx IPT roadshow, it will either make you very annoyed or put a smile on your face for the weekend.

Agusta-Westlands

6th Oct 2001, 01:45

We shall be interested to see responses to this thread as the feeling is a re-spray is the order of the day.

ChristopherRobin

6th Oct 2001, 20:49

and I bet you still can't get a stretcher into it. I mean don't get me wrong, the lynx is a great aircraft, but it just isn't what we need fo a battlefield helo.

Why can't those westlands murderers (you know who you are) just build blackhawk on licence? It worked with the apache, so what's the problem?

PurplePitot

6th Oct 2001, 21:40

Christopher - You could always get a stretcher into a Lynx, 2 in fact if you use the correct fit - You've just got to take the time to saw the carry handles off first.. :D

WindyMate72

8th Oct 2001, 20:18

Don't fret you Army types because no doubt it'll be RAF just like the AH64!! ;)

Helmut Visorcover

8th Oct 2001, 20:54

Correct me if I'm wrong, Windy. But the last time I saw a WAH, it had ARMY written on the tail.

Judging by your reply on the floppy thread it appears you have an inferiority complex with Lynx pilots. It's understandable, your only human. The SAM can prescribe you something, a home pregnancy test kit.

What use would an Apache have with an old Wessex loadie any way?
:rolleyes:

Desert Alligator

8th Oct 2001, 22:04

Nothing to do with the thread but very much aimed at Lynx drivers - still a few prints left of the attack on Platinum 2. If you want one just fill out the form on the 4 Reg website at www.4regimentaac.co.uk (http://www.4regimentaac.co.uk) - don't send any money yet, though. We'll be in touch when the prints get here (next 10 days).

By the way enjoyed the IPT Roadshow tremendously but couldn't possibly comment.
:p

staticdroop

9th Oct 2001, 17:10

Absolute frustration is all that roadshow/circus brought with it.
Every question posed was met with a tale of how nothing was certain but, FLUH is a capable aircraft and Blackhawk was a support helo and the RAF would get it?
Somebody somewhere tell us the truth. :confused:

Ray Jinardon

11th Oct 2001, 04:09

Capable? Like when 'they' said it’d carry eight troops with kit.

Q asked by a good friend of mine "have you increased the size of the cabin then?"

A. Err...no! But we looked into it.

Call me Mr Picky but that has always been a prob with the cab, space not power.

1975 Westlands press release: Lynx can carry nine fully equipped troops or eight TOW plus eight reloads and have an endurance of three hours. Prove me wrong, Yeovil! I can with over 2000 hours on type.

Sorry to shatter the illusion, that has never happened. (Well maybe but an endurance of 15 mins is ****** all use to anyone)

If 'they' had been honest by telling us that there is no wonger in the kitty for a new cab and they are just going to 'cut and shut' the existing version it might have been an easier pill to swallow. But they expected us to believe their total twoddle that they will be all new frames (using 30-year-old jigs and technology).

Don't get me wrong, the Lynx is a top PILOTS aircraft but shag all use in the designated role, utility heli. Describe what that means? An aircraft that will split 'S' on demand? Or an aircraft that will fully integrate and support the AH for it's proposed life span?

Can of worms now; I hate to admit it but that spams have been doing very well thank you very much with the Blackhawk/Apache team. Or is the word 'Blackhawk' a dirty word in Yeovil (whatever happened to their venture with Sikorsky on that one?) OK the Blackhawk isn’t exactly light but it would seem to be able to perform all our requirements now and in the future when our role changes yet again. Looking ahead isn’t a dirty word. C17 is in the inventory now don't you know. That's an answer to another Q by the brainwashed answer I was given that it had to fit in a C130. Total arse!

I heard alot of 'The existing Lynx was designed for Cold War scenario's, we need an aircraft that will fit into the current and future British Army role of utility across many theatres'. Sorry, unless you want an aircraft that taxi's the General and his merry men around and nothing else, then the current GTI version is all you need. But if you want an aircraft that is capable of REALLY carrying 8 troops with kit/has range and performance to complete a useful mission and is able to be upgraded at half life then the current resprayed model is not the one to go for. I'd rather slam my knob in a door!

Lynx 3, the Westlands private venture some years ago is half way to the answer. If the govn't really still wants to bail out the flagging company then they should invest in this kind of thing.

My belief though is that the majority of Westlands work is with export Navy Lynx not an Army platform, never has been. I'll not even mention the CMRB saga! We know where we stand then.

I shall repeat, does the British Army want an aircraft that can complement and support the AH and the Army in general or an aircraft that isn’t right even after 24 years of service?

Imagine a battle group consisting of Challenger II's and FV432's (resprayed) supporting each other, laughable isn’t it! The Gens would f*%k that off at the high port! This is what Westlands/Govn't is expecting us to take on board with WAH/BLUH.

Let’s take the faults of the current Lynx in today’s climate.

Battleworthiness: *****, a ******* farmer with a shotgun could take it out with all the vital systems in one nice convenient area (hyd x2, alt x2, gearbox, oh nearly forgot, control runs an all, all placed conviniently in an area the size of a 1/4 mil map, '57 will vouch for how safe that is). Engines and TRDS no 1, same as the last comment.

Crashworthiness: (Westlands answer, stick big springs in the armoured seat for f*%k sake!!). As crashworhty as a wet tea bag. CW HAS to be built into the design from day one, week one.

Serviceability: Dirty word in our world, even after 24 years it's worse than a Wessex! (Analogy; F1 car's are awesome but if after a year or two you don't bother to invest in its servicing, it will become a museum piece. Complex bit of kit with high performance requires lots and lots of time/effort to keep it at its peak).

Design: Nice.....For 1970...whatever. I don't care how many black boxes you stick in it, it's still crap for its role!
Gems even after 20 odd years, I still get fire sections trying to put me out on shut down when visiting aways. I've been banned from several German airfields due to 'enviromental issues'.

Role: LUH/Recce, The TI! Those who know, know where I'm coming from! I can fit me, pilot and a NAAFI break in the cab but fly for 2.5 though! Stick anyone useful in the back and it turns into me taking anyone to work more than two a shambles. Those who know me will know wher I'm coming from!

I could go on endlessly. But I won't.

Now I know that all of the above will be totally ignored, no matter what WE want or need because the company in question gets it's own way regardless. It sells us what they want to sell us not what we want or need. Politics.

To summarise. The Brit Army/Forces need an aircraft that can fulfil the role between WAH and Merlin, operated by the Army. The 'sold as told' version is so far short of those requirements, it's unbelievable (believable if you know the Westlands/Govnt relationship). Look in the short term and you will pay later. The cheapest option is not always the cheapest option in the long run. On the reverse side, we didn't need ALL Longbow, if we'd gone for 50%, we could have bought into an aviation package.......AH/LUH. But what the f*&k, I'm not on commission, so what do I know! Lynx...top cab for exercise 98 and 99 on auth but shag all use in the role we have today. But we've been told that’s what we're getting all be it with a body kit and ICE.

ol_ben, expect your views on this and I know I still have your smock, it's in the post! Call me on the usual.

Alfie...just another cat 5 for you!

CBR.....What do you care now! IR/Multi/Proc rated!

Murph....212's are an option!

Any probs, speak to my lawyer.

I know, I know, defence spending ain't what it was but if anything comes out of the current situation, a few more pounds (euros, what the f*%k is that all about!?) would be most useful.

Sorry for the long post but it needed to be said, you all thought it. (Probably!)
:confused:

Helmut Visorcover

11th Oct 2001, 04:37

http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi ?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001284 (http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=46&t=001284)

May I refer you to this link. or is it all complete B0lI0Cks!

I'd heard the MAUM would be increased to 55.. something or other. I'll buy that for a pound. Hang on, wouldn't the dry weight go up as well? Giving us exactly what as a usable? The same maybe? Or less listening to the crap spieled by the 'IPT'.

I'm happy with that, Wastelands. Sell us our own cabs that we already own! Sounds like top business practice.

Wastelands, a question; what DID you do to the Rotodyne once you took over Fairey? You know, that marvel of cutting edge technology in the '60's.

Sounds like a bunch of Swiss Tony's in shiny grey suits to me. 'Selling a helicopter is very much like making love to a beautiful woman, fine wines, Belgium chocolates.....'

Or 'B'...croc of 5h!te.

Elloquence and politness is the trademark of breeding, but the curse of being to the f u c k i n g point and making f u c k wits understand what the f u c k your trying to say! Rudeblerk lives.

[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: Helmut Visorcover ]

Jackonicko

11th Oct 2001, 16:44

Where's the fun in 'slamming your knob in a door?'

I've just tried it, and I'd rather have the `Lynx effect' thanks......

pint to full

12th Oct 2001, 00:14

Ray, good post.

As i recall Lynx were good for pulling the odd slit S over Bessbrook but recently things seem to drop off them when your doing a sight picture approach!

Just think if the Americans had gone the same way as us they would be looking at the super (OH 58D) Kiowa now instead of the Commanche, imagine designing a new helicopter from scatch to fill the role, must be barking.

Ramp Monkey

12th Oct 2001, 01:14

PLOP!
Who gives a fuc£ if it hasn't got a professionally trained aviator in the back then it ain't worth carrying troops in !
:cool: ;)

KentBrockman

12th Oct 2001, 01:30

And there was me thinking it was great to be a lynx pilot. Good job i didnt apply for conversion, id still be flying that piece of crap when im 55. Enjoy Lardies, its all yours.

RAMP, where are the professional aviators in the back? Dont forget to check your harness! Tail clear, closing door, swan around like im important and try to impress the pax. I guess i must be a professional aviator when im on a jet going on my hols, im in the back but i never closed the door, some BIRD did it. professional aviator HA HA HA HA :D

Robin Hood

19th Oct 2001, 23:13

Face it guys, whether you are Fish head, Pongo or Crab, we have to accept that the tax payer will only fund us for the cheapest airship that keeps UKPLC afloat.

Once you have accepted that, then the job is actually quite a breeze. You get to do an interesting and challenging job for the Queen's shilling; ocassionally risking life and limb to protect the Prime Minister's Ar**.

No different to civvy street, except that you get a decent pension at the end of it?

Sumo664

21st Oct 2001, 02:42

An interesting topic this one and on a subject that is very dear to my heart at the moment. What exactly are the 8 x BLUH in an Attack Helicopter Regt for?
My personal thoughts are something like:
1. Liaison - moving various members of the Sqns/BG/Bde around for O-groups etc.
2. Limited movement of men and materiel - vital spares, special tools, replacement crews, MPS, etc.
3. Recce - of FARPs, FOBs, etc
4. Airborne C2/Relay - probably a Sqn/BG Comd team in the back ideally with the same display as in the AH. Having seen a few 16 Bde exercises I believe that this will be a v important task.
5. CSAR - maybe?
As part of an Inf (Para!) BG also probably used to insert and extract patrols/platoons, Casevac, etc.
Also no doubt the country will want to maintain some light lift capability for SF and PSO type tasking.
Looking at all the above tasks its interesting to debate what type of helicopter might fit the bill, and what type of fits it might need. Whilst Blackhawk will no doubt do all of the above my personal feeling is that it is a bit OTT (and therefore too expensive!) Now I'm not a 'it must be Lynx' man either but I think that a Mk 9 Lynx does fit the profile I've detailed. Obviously with the caveat that they need to sort out the serviceability, stop them from randomly falling out of the sky, make it more crashworthy, etc.
I think the important thing though is that we actually decide what we want this ac to do rather than just blindly demanding whatever we think is the current sexiest aircraft available.
Tied in with that is the necessity to ensure that the aircraft has the right equipment and for my money the big debate is the need to have a sight. Or rather the fact that I believe it will be a complete waste of money/weight. None of the tasks I have outlined need a sight however we do need to be able to to talk to the AH and that means a data modem and ideally the full display too.
Looking forward to a few replies....

[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: Sumo664 ]

Helmut Visorcover

21st Oct 2001, 05:09

Sumo, if the answer was the Mk 9, all be it modified to the quite reasonable spec/tasks you outlined, I believe the money spent on trying to rehash a 30 year old flawed design would be far greater than starting from scratch/looking else where. The cost of renovating a 15th century cottage would be twice the cost of buying new!

I think the answer has already been given to us by way of the briefing/sales pitch from the Lynx team. "Your getting Lynx, 5h!t, bust". In fact, " Your getting the same Lynx we flogged you 25 years ago with a Carol Smilie makeover, 5h!t, bust".

Not entirely their (Wastlelands) fault. As was pointed out earlier, pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

How long ago was this idea of a replacement for Lynx put up? Prior to AH plan?

I firmly believe that it was on the cards a long time before but the rising cost of AH (that’s the way these programmes always go) has led to no coffers in the pot for a complete 'aviation' package. I.e.; Dedicated Attack platform and battlefield multi role heli. When I say multi role, I refer you to all that Sumo has mentioned. Not jack of all trades and master of none, such is the twin engined throb monster we have today and tomorrow. But an aircraft that can fill all future AAC jobs, less AH.

Lets break down the proposed role of the new BLUH. Sumo, I'll do it in your order.

1. Liaison- proposed can do this task- whoopee do!
2. Limited movement of men and material- very limited! Sure we don’t need Chinook like attributes, that’s what they are there for but I would suggest that the cabin space will always limit the user to 5 or 6 chaps kitted for no more than light ops. Now I'm not trying to step on SH feet but how would taking a warrior section, complete, sound. A lot more useful for a commander on the ground. Will the current Lynx/Future BLUH be able to carry a complete AH engine? It only just fits a current Gem in the back. Will it be able to replen the AH ammunition to a realistic level as opposed to a couple of 30mm and 4 AT natures? Or are we relying on outside agencies (RAF SH, not a dig but 'in unit' independence is the way ahead).
3. Recce. From my memory, no mention was made of the type of sighting system to be employed. In my experience, the current TI/Tow sight is as much use as t!ts on a fish! No secret there. There isn’t much scope to fit anything currently available as a retro fit to improve this situation.
4. Updated avionics. We all heard how 'they' are going to increase the MAUM with the new engines. Did nobody ask what the new dry weight will be with all the proposed goodies on board? So, a usable less than what we have already.
5. CSAR. The way ahead in my opinion. If your going to stick a piece of hardware further forward (AH), you must expect that crews are going to be a little bit further away than the range of SSM's Landrover for recovery should the poo hit the fan. The proposed cannot fill this role. In respect of;
a. Self defence; 1 or 2 x GPMG is not acceptable in an environment that has brought down an AH.
b. Survivability; 20 B+H dropped from 2' has more chance! As has been pointed out, this NEEDS to be designed in from day 1, week 1. Not blagged by making the hyd/alts a little bit tougher/wrapping them in kevlar and adding big springs in the seat!

The point of inserting a patrol has already been highlighted. How far do you want to take them and what kit are they going to have? If your talking four blokes with a NAAFI break then fine but if you need a pukker bunch of chaps with all the kit that is required to do a decent job than we're talking about an aircraft that needs at least 900kg spare for about 2 hours. With a very hasty bit of maths that concludes that the airframe has to be 3600Kg (300kg crew inc self defence door gunner, 600kg/100kg MLA fuel (looking at more efficient engines). This is based on the figure given of 5500kg MAUM. Any Lynx jocks know of a cab currently that has that as a dry weight? Pipe dream!
SF, not going there but we currently have Lynx-Chinook, nothing in between. Ol-benkenobi, you know where I'm coming from!

Do we need to look at inflight refuelling? or a capacity to fit retro long range tanks? No, I don’t mean a couple of ten gallon drums in lieu of the six man seat.

What do we want?

Food for thought if I may. Money no option on a car, what would you buy for max performance/load carrying/value for money? I'd go for a Renault Espace with a Ferrari engine built by Volkswagen. You surely wouldn't buy an Austin Allegro (with body kit) with a Ford engine built by Lada would you. Get used to it, that’s what’s going to happen!

If anything comes out of the latest shindig out East, the voting public might sway towards giving the MoD a couple more quid for defence of the Realm, but I very much doubt it, the deal is done.......Lynx GTi Mk II, I've already ordered my Steve/Tracy windscreen sticker!

P.S Westlands, prey tell us the story with regards to why you decided to design the tail rotor the wrong way round the first time. Know something every other heli manufacturer didn't?

Give a boy a mans job............

:o

Sumo664

21st Oct 2001, 16:10

Helmut
Thanks for your reply and I thought you made some valid points. I'm as aware as everyone else (are you listening in Yeovil!) of the limitations of Lynx in its various guises. What I was trying to do is to try and discuss what the roles of the BLUH will be not how crap Lynx will be at them!
In particular to address a few points you made:
1. Although you say whoppee do - actually an extremely important task and one likely to occupy a lot of the flying hours on exercise I think.
2. when you say a warrior section - do you mean as in 9 blokes to fit in an AFV? If so I guess u must be in 1 Regt!
Personally I think we should be getting away from the concept that BLUH will be delivering combat power around the battlefield. In my initial post you will note that I specifically didn't mention troops. I accept the point about fitting an AH engine aboard though. IMHO all AH major assemblies/special tools must be capable of being carried in the BLUH cabin.
The comcept of BLUH carrying around fuel/ammunition for the AH is another red herring. Lets remember that a FARP containing two AH arming and refuelling points needs 4 DROPs to just carry the ammo! Lots of SH is the only way to do that so a flown in FARP will be a major Bde op (BTW SH are now integral to 16 Bde so that removes that problem).
3. Agree with you on the current sight. Important to note that I'm not talking about recce in the sense of a tactical op requiring aviation fieldcraft, etc but as a fly ahead with FARP/FOB Comd, etc , check out a few locations, walk the ground, decide on its suitability, etc. Therefore there is no real requirement for a sight. Under no circumstances do I envisage BLUH being used as an AOP aircraft.
4. Almost certainly it wouldn't be possible to fit every aircraft with the IDM/MFD but hopefully every aircraft would have the loom, etc to allow the boxes to be swapped over (ideally a 10-15 min procedure!). This would alleviate the MAUM weight problem.
5. Important to remember that CSAR is a package starting with AWAC, CAP, CAS, AH for area protection and then at the end an aircraft that actually picks the bloke up. Self defence is important but BLUH isn't going to have to do it all by itself!
Agree with you on the need to improve surviveability/crashworthiness though.

As far as lifting in patrols go it is a task that BLUH will be doing but IMHO it is a secondary task to those outlined above. Ultimately BLUH exists to support the AH and therefore it is those tasks that it must be designed for. Whatever aircraft we have is never going to have enough weight/space to satisfy the Paras so we need to be aware of that. BLUH is not an SH and I don't think we should push it towards being one.

Sumo664

22nd Oct 2001, 04:07

Sorry to disagree with you bonk but there isn't any BLUH doctrine out there - try asking the SO2 LUH at JHC. I should know - I did.
The idea that there is some massive pool of doctrine and knowledge at Wallop, etc ready to support the AH/BLUH when it comes into service is just not correct I'm afraid. Lets not kid ourselves when the only paperwork that currently exists (that isn't marked under construction) is TD Note 36! BTW I think that is dated 1996... Of course if I'm wrong please feel free to direct me as to where it can be found.
You are right there is an SUR but as you yourself point out it was written some time ago. Well before the formation of 16 Bde, JHC, etc and all the lessons that have subsequently been learnt.
I don't know why you feel that these issues shouldn't be discussed in a professional manner - you never know someone in a position of influence might even read this!

Helmut Visorcover

22nd Oct 2001, 21:59

Specualtion through lack of information? A few chaps in shiny suits do not answer the questions.

This is Pprune after all. No dirty washing done here just the usual non clas questions/opinions aired.

Finals4TheOutsideWorld

24th Oct 2001, 00:49

SUMO664, how the devil are you? Your profile say's that you are from God's Country. The last time I saw you was as you left for a large coloured toilet (colout not named so as not to cause offence) have you escaped? Drop me a line when you get the chance. Ps If you can't work out who I am by my profile just mail anyway and all will be revealed. Like you, I can't be bothered changing my handle just because life has changed.

Vfrpilotpb

29th Oct 2001, 13:17

Good morning Rotorheads

Well we must be in the realms of super Battleships, we are told today that a RN Lynx in the Gulf was caught up an downed by being rammed up the arse end by the said ship, Can this be true , are our capital ships so fast, or was the pilot hovering to admire his handiwork with the Torp he had allegedly just launched?
Anybody anything else on this :D

Arkroyal

30th Oct 2001, 05:16

Try this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1624000/1624742.stm

:confused:

widgeon

30th Oct 2001, 15:39

must have been an irish kamikaze driving the ship.

Overshoot Kenobi

31st Oct 2001, 23:59

I'm going to add to this debate purely to put it back on top of the message board list, and because I like to talk and haven't done any recently.
This approach (whilst I've got your attention) reminds me of a book I read as a wee lad called "Grimble". The Grimble of the title was a young boy whose parents went on holiday to Brazil for a month without telling him; just leaving notes all over the house. One of these messages was written in green ink on a Garibaldi biscuit, and read: "Do not eat this biscuit as green ink is bad for you". I just thought I'd share that with you all.

Helmut Visorcover

1st Nov 2001, 00:19

I don't believe you haven't talked recently overshoot!!! :D

murphy

4th Nov 2001, 05:13

I believe he hasn't talked recently!! I can normally hear him HERE when he does!!!!

Future Lynx, Hmmmm, this debate is obviously dear to my heart, and I think both Helmut and Sumo put accross valid points, even if they are in different styles??

I just hope that someone in Charge IS listening to what we, the users who put ourselves in the front seat/line in these machines, both want and think!!!

Ray, you are right, it is an option. It's been doing the job for almost forty years in various guises, in fact the one I flew today has over 28000 hours and still works perfectly.(Thats over three lifespans of a Lynx). May not be the fastest, or the most modern, but it lifts lots, goeson for ever, and I wouldn't want to crash out here in anything else!!!(Especially a Suzuki swift!

Yours

Murph x x x

The Bonk

4th Nov 2001, 12:33

Murph,

Get your head out of your own egotistical bum, smell the coffee which will hopefully give you a reality check.

I am not a staff officer but you just naturally assume that they are blind to the needs of the operator.

What you think has already been done mate...that 'consultation' phase was conducted approximately 4 years ago (I know because I was actually in a crewroom when asked by a load of shiney arses that you happily slag off) Somehow, I feel as though they can't keep on returning to you to ask what your opinion is as the project would never go anywhere.

So to put it bluntly mate you can all try and shut the stable door but the proverbial horse has left town....fully informed and after consulting operators like you and me....but I am sure that if you want to turn back time or catch the horse then off you go. However, if you want to keep the process dynamic, then this forum and associated hot air will get diddley squit......so...courage of your convictions, put it all down on paper and pass it through your boss who I am sure will find the right desk for it to be considered (with the 1000 and 1 other external issues that realistically have to be considered as well as yours Murph).

Just a thought Murph? Its Sunday morning....what on earth am I doing...sad gimp!

Back to bed.....or get back on it...hmmmh...

murphee

5th Nov 2001, 03:01

That will be me told then!!!

Yours

Murph x x x :confused:

[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: murphee ]

MightyGem

5th Nov 2001, 06:57

Just seen it on VH-1, first time for a while. Anyone like to own up to being on the shoot and give the story? Where was it filmed by the way?
:D

Jeep

5th Nov 2001, 15:35

MG

Im pretty sure it was 671 Sqn. I seem to remember an engine failure with the first aircraft they sent down there and if memory serves me right it was Battersea power station. All those that were involved, feel free to correct me.

wobble-head

5th Nov 2001, 18:29

A mate of mine Al Doughty was in the shoot and it was Battersea power station. They only used one aircraft and the rest is video trickery. I seem to remember being told that the pop folk didn't take the warnings of downwash seriously and some kit got damaged.

MaxAOB

6th Nov 2001, 00:16

It was 2 aircraft and yes the downwash caused a right fracas, destroying I think it was about £20,000 of stuff!! There was quite a bit of smelly stuff flying afterwards within the MoD but fortunately we saw sense and it was put down as good PR. We don't do this sort of thing enough.
Hurrah :eek: :rolleyes: :cool: :) :(

MaxAOB

6th Nov 2001, 00:26

If anybody within HM Forces truly believes that we get the best kit for the job we do for the right reasons you probably also think that somebidy cares when you get shot in NI or at the moment sunnier climes. The people who make the real decisions on what we get couldn't give a rats ar** about what the ideal kit is. It's all about comprimise, poloitics and jobs in the regions or some other crap. The SO2's and above who do all the legwork do their best but they soon learn how the system really works. Sorry but I reckon it was decided ages ago in the halls of financial power that we will get Future Lynx whatever so put your energies into making sure that it is the best Future Lynx we can get. Either that or leave besides after 4000hrs in the Lynx it isn't that bad - is it??

Safe flying!

Regards to all
:confused: :p :) :cool: ;)

Ambler

6th Nov 2001, 00:42

I understand that Big John Davies was one of the pilots that flew for the Oasis video - I seem to remember him saying that Liam Gallagher needed a good slap!! What's new? His views on Blur were more favourable!

kbf1

6th Nov 2001, 02:56

Hasn't this been round the houses before....run a search on Oasis and that should turn it up

Cirrus wisp

6th Nov 2001, 07:41

Most of the Guys were 671. JD and Andy M did the first day and suffered a SEF. John E with Al and Andy M with Dave S did the second day. Andy M and Trapper T did the third day. The first two days were with the band and the third was a mop up day for extra shots. The location was just off the easterly runway of City airport at a disused gasworks. There were some issues over NOTAMs and clearances however, there were no formal complaints, and the job got done.

The Mistress

6th Nov 2001, 23:12

I believe it was Helmut who raised this matter before. The video gave him certain er ... feelings, after copious amounts of Asbach, no doubt, which required Mrs Visorcover (or suitable inflatable substitute) being in very close proximity ;)

MightyGem

6th Nov 2001, 23:22

Thanks for that guys. I'd sussed the 671 Sqn from the letters on the sliding door. I thought I saw three different ones...but I could be wrong. The old eyes aren't what they were you know.

Murphy

9th Nov 2001, 16:23

Sorry to drag this one to the top again, but I've just completed ITD 11!!Fantastic subject!!(Moral understanding for those not in the know)
During the course of the training we were shown an extract from "A few good men"(Demi in White uniform,Mmmm!!), the part where Jack is being grilled by Tom about whether he ordered the code red on the dead soldier. Which he admits in the end!!
This was followed by a long discussion by the Padre as to why this action would be in direct contravention of the contents of "Values and Standards of the British Army" a booklet that EVERY soldier has been issued with, as he was not carrying out his duty of offering the maximum protection from harm to his troops from avoidable, and known about, actions.
When asked if these Lectures are given to the whole of the Army, from the very top all the way down, the answer was "Of course".
My point therefore (See, there was a point after all) is, surely the people in high places have a duty of care to secure us the very best of kit to prevent the above happening.(Harm from preventable events, not Code Reds)and we know future Lynx isn't it!!

rigid_rotor

10th Nov 2001, 01:55

Dear AAC,

After spending the vast amonts of HM cash on the very capable WAH64, the AAC will get the battlefield support aircraft it can afford. Afford being the most pertinent word. Those of you living in the "AAC on the battlefied alone" world are living in the past. Get real, as previously stated, it would take a significant amount of SH to support a WAH64 FARP and a few Lynx (or their replacement) will not make much of a difference. Its so easy to say "we want blackhawk" "we want etc etc", most of which are I expect manufactured by our USA friends. I doubt if many of you have ever flown many of the competitors but are just very keen to slag off the UK product (and no, I do not work for Westlands). I dont see much evidence of the USA brethren slagging off their countries products but the Brits make a speciality of having a go at home produce. Call it replacement lynx, BLUH or whatever. Just remember it will part of something larger than just the AAC. You have spent a lot on the excellent WAH64. You must live with the consequences.

Jeep

10th Nov 2001, 02:26

Bring on the next lynx. Can't wait.

Pse don't let it leak. Let it have an intermitent window screen wipe and how about a clock that is NVG compatible even when NVG lighting is selected. Anything else would be very welcome.

ps. let it have the same AUM as the navy one too, instead of us having to diet.

ol_benkenobi

10th Nov 2001, 14:04

And can we please reduce the mandatory oil checks to 3 hours.

(Jeep, I think someones hacked your into your system. Clearly an untruth has been added as the last line of your post).

Detrimento Sumus

10th Nov 2001, 20:36

The shoot wreaked havoc with the flying programme on 671 at the time. In order to save flying hours for the task they ended up canecelling bits of the Lynx Conversion Course going through at the time. 671 ended up cancelling their mountain flying det (the best bit of the course) to satidfy the needs of Liam et al. In my view not really worth all the aggro as the song and said video are pants!!

Still waiting for my Llanbedr landaway - the one and only AAC approved task to incoporate a stay in a hotel. :D

Redbeard

11th Nov 2001, 13:29

oke guys

i wanna see this vid, where is it?

:rolleyes:

ChristopherRobin

11th Nov 2001, 17:22

Yep, and can they please put a feed from the heater in the cabin to the cockpit and get rid of the one-bar heater?

2's forward 1's back

17th Nov 2001, 01:36

I seem to recall the mountain flying was canned due to bad weather, I might be wrong. JD did have a SEF, DS took a replacement out to the set, only for JD to pull the old " I've got to get back to Wallop" card and left DS to fend for himself. My claim to fame is I had a sim slot that morning otherwise I'd have been on the vid near the buttie van with DS.

Steve Davies

19th Feb 2003, 19:54

Sorry to ask such a morbid question here, but I was recently sent a link to an internet site with some rather gruesome pictures on it and I wondered of anyone had some background?

I won't post the link itself, but the images essentially show an individual who has come into contact with the MR blades of a RN Lynx on the fantail of a ship.

I wanted to know if there is an official explanation for the incident? It strikes me that this chap must have had to have been remarkably unlucky to have fallen victim to rotorstrike like this.

Does anyone know the background?

RIP the poor chap

:(

Straight Up

19th Feb 2003, 21:48

Are sure it was an RN Lynx?

I saw a set of 5 (3 of them pretty horrible, very graphic) pictures recently that sound similar, only these were of a US Seahawk (H-60), could they be the same ones? The time in the bottom right of the picture was around 9:44am.

It could be that a gust of wind caused a blade to flap during shutdown/startup (without the droop stops in), and he was unfortunate enough to be under the disk.

It's one answer to the question "Why do people duck when going to/from helicopters" that people seem to ask me.

Somebody where I work didn't believe that the rotors could go that low at the front, then I showed her the great bit of video of the helo (CH-53?) chopping it's own refueling probe off while chasing the drogue.

Steve Davies

19th Feb 2003, 22:42

Straight up,

I believe that you are correct - it probably was an SH-60. To be honest, I don't really want to check as I don't have the stomach for it.

Assuming that it was a gust of wind, would it be SOP for anyone to be underneath them until they had come to a stop? I ask because common sense would say 'no', but I don't know if the tight confines of the ship's fantail means that some rules must be bent. Additionally, when I was doing my PPL(H), my IPs often exited the aircraft with the rotors running to leave me to shut down.

One thing is for sure, these images will certainly make me get down extra-low next time I approach a rotors-running heli.

sycamore

19th Feb 2003, 23:02

I think it may be a bit difficult to get really serious blade-sailing on a Lynx as it has a rigid -rotor and doesn`t have droop -stops( correct me if I`m wrong as its 30 yrs since I last flew one). Usually on landing on a ship, the engines/rotors would not be shut-down until the a/c is secured and the deck crew have cleared from the disc, and reverse on start-up.Only other way to hit someone would be to waggle the stick about- again a no-no.
There used to be a photo of a Whirlwind /S-55 starting/shutting-down on deck in heavy weather which showed a rotor blade touching the deck!!--- Some-one must have a photo?
Not something to be taken for granted/casually! :rolleyes:

oldpinger

20th Feb 2003, 01:33

It was a SH60 on an US Warship and blade sail is apparently a well known danger in that fraternity.

They are V graphic and come from an even worse web site, who obviously have no regard for the people involved or their families, the sort of sick F...s who get their kicks out of putting this stuff on the net rank along with those who go looking for small children in chatrooms :mad: :mad: :mad:

I got forwarded these by some 'friend':*

ps heard of seaking blades hitting the deck infront of the aircraft once:eek:

Heliport

20th Feb 2003, 06:50

Someone posted a link here a while back to a website which carried pictures of the tragedy.
I made the mistake of following the link which was to a perverts website, and showed close-ups of the blood, gore and bits of head spattered over the deck.
The pictures of what was left of the poor man, apparently stolen from official sources, were surrounded by cartoons of homosexuals doing what homosexuals do (allegedly) and 'homosexual lonely hearts' type ads inviting you to join them.
The site-owners proudly declared they were the best pics they'd ever got hold of!
I haven't been back to see if they've now beaten their own record.
Sick or what! :mad:

Steve Davies

20th Feb 2003, 08:15

Heliport/Oldpinger,

Yes it was quite vile and I certainly would not forward the link to any of my friends. I don't like the way in which these sites operate, but I am in two minds as to how to feel about them.

I certainly think that it is unforgivable to post images that have been 'borrowed' from official sources, but at the same time I am actually glad that I saw these particular pictures. I know that the vast majority of people will just be there to gawp and I feel for the familly of this chap (who probably have no power to do anything about it). But, as a PPL(H), it has really given me a healthy respect for properly ducking and maintaining proper clearance. The pictures made me feel nauseous and I know that each time I approach a rotors-running helicopter I'll see them in my mind again. They brought a few realities home to me... I'm just sorry it was at the expense of the diginity of someone who's no longer with us.

Sycamore,

Thanks for the info on ship-board Ops.

B Sousa

20th Feb 2003, 10:47

B Sousa, although I appreciate you are trying to help out ... the link posted is unacceptable to PPRuNe.

LordGrumpy

20th Feb 2003, 20:52

Any one who would put up a strange site link, needs an experiance of reality.
So keep Rotorheads.
Informative, truthfull and ban distasteful.

This is a calender job, sober after 2100hrs. Disgraceful. William Shakespeare is still relevant, how long will you be known?

Heliport

21st Feb 2003, 00:25

A link to these pictures has been deleted.
Links will not be permitted.
I know the arguments raised by some people on the last occasion that they are no worse than those used in military safety seminars etc etc.
The pictures have been improperly obtained from military sources and posted on websites run by and for sick perverts.
If anyone can show me a link to the pictures on a legitimate aviation safety site, I'll reconsider - but don't assume I'll necessarily change my mind.
As the regulars know, censorship is only very exceptionally necessary on this forum - because people use their own good sense. This is just such an exception and, subject to what I've said above, the decision is final.

Heliport

PedalStop

21st Feb 2003, 06:35

In my opinion, the use of such photos, even in safety lectures, is of dubious value, in poor taste, and harmful to the memory and loved ones of the victims. I fully support Heliport's actions. Please Rotorheads, lets work to keep the content in good public taste, informative and helpful.
PedalStop

Steve Davies

21st Feb 2003, 07:34

I would just like to point out that I started this thread with a legitimate question regarding safety. I deliberately did not link the site in order to avoid causing offence. I do hope that PPRUNE is not suggesting that asking a valid question like this is somehow 'distasteful'.

PPRuNe Radar

21st Feb 2003, 08:43

Steve Davies

All the Moderator comments have been talking about links :rolleyes:

If we'd found the topic distasteful then I don't think the thread would still be here.

Accidents can teach us all something, and help to improve Air Safety. Therefore raising an issue on that subject matter will always be welcomed. Our only problem is with links to dubious and distasteful sites.

Steve Davies

21st Feb 2003, 11:21

Good to hear, but there's no need to roll your eyes at me and spell my name wrong!

Name spelling now corrected, apologies.

And much appreciated it is too ;)

B Sousa

21st Feb 2003, 12:58

I guess its my turn for an answer as I just received an email from the Morals Officer who did not like the reference to the website.
As I mentioned to him, the question was asked and I just posted the site as an answer on where to look.. That does not mean I gave it my approval.
Its like treating children, if there is something YOU dont like them to see you just restrict their viewing. Its PPrune Forum and the Mods here have that opportunity to do so.
Unfortunatley I have worked many accident Investigations and none are nice. It appears some of you have never been exposed to such horrible events. Better for you, but it is reality no matter how shocking.
For those who dont like the site I would also tell them dont go there.
Its a distasteful site for sure and Im sure most of those who complain made sure they went through the complete list while viewing it.
I think that the mods should eliminate the whole thread thus ending the whole controversy.
Two Cents, End of Story........

Steve Davies

21st Feb 2003, 13:51

B Souza,

This thread has some value for anone who is or will be anywhere near a working helicopter at anytime in the future.

In the 5-short years that I have been a PPL(H) I have never once considered that a gust of wind could result in such a tragedy - I certainly don't think that deleting the entire thread is in anyone's interests.

Just my 0.02p and end of this thread for me too.

Dantruck

21st Feb 2003, 15:52

Time to knock some heads together, methinks!
Two points to make...
First...B Sousa. The original question was about information on the incident, not where to go to find the pictures. And aluding to prurient behaviour of fellow Pruners helps no-one. Mr Moderator was right to delete the link IMHO.
Second...Steve Davies. You should go demand your money back from whoever taught you to fly. The dangers of blade sail, teetering heads, sloping ground ops, etc, are well documented, as is the correct procedures for loading people rotors-running.
Anyway, the big issue here is helicopter safety, not misuse of the internet. That someone is dead is a bad thing. However, we have it in our power to make it just a little less bad if lessons can be learned, and re-occurance avoided. Steve D is right to seek further info. I too would welcome knowing what happened for future safety's sake.
Now...does anyone have any?

Lu Zuckerman

21st Feb 2003, 15:58

The link that Bert Sousa referenced was not the link to the subject photos. The link that Bert referenced is a collection of oddball stories taken from various newspapers and magazines. It had nothing to do with the gory photos of the poor man involved in the accident.

On another thread dealing with deck landings I posted the correct link. I recommended that the squeamish should not look at the photos. I also stated that the website was run by a bunch of perverts and that the person looking at the site should take that into consideration. I further stated that the pictures were from an official US Navy accident investigation and were obviously stolen and posted on the website. I further stated that when the US Navy JAG found this individual they would hang his ass out to dry (or, in similar words). The moderator removed the link.

:rolleyes:

Dantruck

21st Feb 2003, 16:28

Sorry Lu Zuckerman, but your assertions (first paragraph) are wholly wrong. I am in the unfortunate (professional) position of knowing that for sure.
Please check your facts before adding to a debate which, if you will allow, is trying to get at the factual background to a fatal incident.

Steve Davies

21st Feb 2003, 17:01

Dan,

If I could get my money back then I would, but that might be slightly unfair on my school ;)

Seriously though, of course I was taught about teetering-head, sloping-ground et al, but you'll notice that the SH-60 doesn't have a teetering head and that you would not deliberately land your helicopter on sloping ground when there was someone under the disc! That is why I asked what had happened.

What I was meaning to say was that I did not know that wind gusts would cause the disc to move to such an extent that it could strike someone who was presumably already ducking beneath it.

I should have worded my post differently, my bad.

Dantruck

21st Feb 2003, 17:26

Roger That
On the blade sail point, my understanding is that main blades are most dangerous when moving slowly, ie: at the beginning of the engine start procedure, and at the end of the shutdown. Main blades on all types get the bulk of their rigidity from centrifugal force, and are therefore less likely to sail out of the normal plane of rotation as rotational speed increases. Yes, people?
Maybe someone has seen written advice on this point in any civil/military handling or POH manuals?
For my part, it was always drummed into me during my early days about the dangers the main blades represent. The 'thumbs up/eye-contact-with-the-pilot' rule was perhaps the first lesson I learned.
Anyone else receive similar instruction?

Nick Lappos

21st Feb 2003, 17:32

For the record, during run up and coast down (especially coast down) the blades can go very far from the nominal path. This is true of teetering, articulated and some rigid rotors. As the rotor passes thru the first flapping frequency (usually about 35 to 40% Nr) the wind excites the upwind passing blade which sails upward, then crashes down when it is pointed into the wind. This is repeated for each blade as they pass by, with the tip path excursions getting larger and larger. On one European aircraft, several incidents of blades striking the deck have been experienc3d in winds of about 35 knots!

Rule of thumb, NEVER walk under a rotor when it is starting or shutting down.

Lu Zuckerman

21st Feb 2003, 17:46

To: Dantruck

I went on the website and found no reference to the Subject incident. Maybe I didn’t explore the site sufficiently and if the photos were referenced on the website I stand corrected. However when I posted the site the arguments/discussions didn’t last as long as this thread and it along with other comments on deck landings eventually disappeared from the first page.

I suggest that all of the participants on this thread recall the "Deck Landings" thread on this forum. Go to page two and scroll down untill everything turns blue.

:cool:

Flying Lawyer

21st Feb 2003, 18:01

In the most awful cases, I'm not convinced that actually seeing pictures of bits of body is any more effective in a safety education sense than reading/being told what happened.

Some of the worst photographs I've ever seen were of the remains of a young girl killed doing her first parachute jump on a weekend course - I represented her family. The poor girl drifted away from the LZ, was unable to steer back, and descended straight into the blades of a hovering helicopter. It doesn't take much imagination to work out what the photographs looked like, does it?
Is it really necessary to see the photographs of what remained of her to learn the safety lesson: Parachuting and turning blades are a potentially lethal combination - especially if novices are jumping?

Do we need to see the photographs of what remained of the child that poor father instinctively lifted when leaving a helicopter with the blades still turning in order to learn the safety lessons of that incident?

Doesn't this case fall into the same category?

Let's just get on with learning how such a thing could happen - and the importance of avoiding the potential danger.

EESDL

21st Feb 2003, 18:20

'A picture paints a thousand words'

All too often I've come across incidents where people (normally youngsters) have been bitten or surprised by 'real life'.

Can't imagine the photos surprised any one of us here......what would you think a decapitated body looked like?

More and more people, used to the 'wrap in cotton wool/ litigate if one forgot to use commonsense' culture, imagine death as portrayed by an actor in a Columbo movie - has fallen from a 20-storey building but is seen lying on the pavement with their limbs laid out in the fashion of the Isle of Man!

looked at some of the other links, quite horrific yet sad.

All I'm saying is - don't be so precious, we're all big boys and girls and, need it be said - never compromise safety (running late, do I really have to close down before letting the pax on, they've been on a chopper before, not fitted with a rotor brake, what could possible go wrong)?

Strange to think that the serviceman was caught considering you would have thought that he (I think the body was male) would have safety briefings up the ying-yang!

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Feb 2003, 08:28

The cause is clearly blade-sail, a phenomenon which has been known about for some time, but not well understood until reasonably recently. Much of the basic theory of why blade sail happens was cracked 10-20 years ago by Dr.Simon Newman, who has published several very deep papers on the subject and is also author of "Foundations of Helicopter flight". I had lunch with Simon (who taught me as an undergraduate and has become a friend and collaborator on various non helicopter safety projects) a few months ago and we got chatting about the subject in general. Apparently with the newer more rigid rotor systems such as on the Merlin he's finding the need to start getting involved again, not because these systems are prone to decapitation based incidents in the way that the Wessex and EH60 are/were, but because the same forces and mechanisms are putting huge fatiguing loads on the actual hub mechanism and it is starting to become a serious worry at the design offices of places like WHL. Thus ends my theoretical knowledge of blade sail, but that should be enough for anybody interested to look up SJN's published work on the subject.

Regarding the website, as a moderator from elsewhere, could I lend my support to the moderators here. The subject is utterly worthy of discussion, the discussion is not aided by morbid pictures of somebody who was in a highly unfortunate accident. I have worked on the investigation of 6 fatal accidents in my career, in none of which would sight of anything more detailed than the summary of a pathologists report have helped me in my work - for which I am deeply grateful.

G

Postscript, the following references are relevant...

Helicopter flight around as ship's superstructure
JOURNAL AEROSPACE ENGINEERING - IMechE, 2002, Vol. 216, Part G, pp.13-28. (Wakefield, Newman, Wilson)

The phenomenon of helicopter rotor blade sailing
Proc. Instn. Mech. Engnrs, 1999, Vol.213, Part.G, pp.347-363. (Newman)

The design, development and operation of the shipborne helicopter.
Transactions of The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 1999, Vol.141, Part.C, pp.192-210. (Newman)

The influence of blade flexibility on the sailing behaviour of helicopter rotors
Journal of Defence Science, 1996, Vol.1, No.4, pp.498-507. (Newman, Walker)

B Sousa

22nd Feb 2003, 10:31

Its over and done with. Even earned me a warning on my "Banning from PPrune Record." Thanks Danny. I do hope if Lu Zuckerman (with one N) posted a reference as he mentioned, he also got a warning.(Hello Mr Moderator)
Someone emailed me and reminded me that this is a British website and although you can observe a London Tabloid Picture of Lady Di doin the deed with whoever, thats news. Anything else is distasteful. Im going to have to remember in the future that Im on the other side of the pond. Reality is something that happens daily and people do their own choosing on where they visit on the internet. Computers here have delete buttons. My point is why did you go there in the first place knowing what you were about to see and why did you stay so long.

Genghis writes:"I have worked on the investigation of 6 fatal accidents in my career, in none of which would sight of anything more detailed than the summary of a pathologists report have helped me in my work - for which I am deeply grateful. "

Im glad to see that someone who works on Accident Investigations only has to shuffle the paperwork. You have been very lucky. Some of us have had the unfortunate responsibility to take the case from the scene to the courtroom. Even worse when they are your own troops.

Yes, its a no value site. Lets move on.......

SASless

22nd Feb 2003, 12:21

Whilst this storm is blowing.....I am in the midst of creating a crewmember/passenger training program for where I work. I looked at the pictures being referenced with a thought to maybe using some of them in the presentation. After some careful deliberation I elected not to use any of them. The audience I must play to, the political correctness that must be observed, and the possible adverse reaction some of the more sensitive of the audience might have to such graphic representations of the price of carelessness, made me leave them out.

Having been an investigator and police officer and a longtime helicopter pilot with combat experience, the sights of tragic ends of lives is nothing new nor really shocking anymore. These photographs are both repulsive and representative at the same time.

My opinion is guided by the reasons people view these kinds of pictures or video's....if used properly in an effort to prevent similar losses of life then I see some benefit to it. If just for mere idle curiosity, then I consider that less acceptable.

Violent death is a fact of life. The prevention of unnecessary loss of life is a worthy goal.

If I had an audience of only SWAT members, EMT's, Flight Nurses, Paramedics, or police officers and firemen.....I would probably use the pictures in the presentation. Passengers do not need to see things like this.

SASless

22nd Feb 2003, 14:03

Sousa....seems some still cannot grasp what you are saying....autopsy reports, accident reports, eye witness accounts, court transcripts, all fail to record the reality of the event as does recovering the remains of the unfortunate persons who die in crashes. Compound that with the trauma that comes from packing up the remains of those you are personally involved with makes it even worse.

Crash scenes can be overwhelming.....sights, smells, sounds, all remain with you for a very long time. Maybe that is why some of us are prone to speak out in support of strong safety programs that meet the "reality" test instead of merely sounding good on paper.

If we shock someone with a graphic picture or video and they learn something from it.....maybe that will prevent that person from finding their way into a similar photograph with them as the subject.

Genghis......maybe more engineers and pilots should be exposed to the real life results of bad engineering and flying techniques.

It is all well and good to read about it....and maybe attend a funeral, offer condolences, and have a cup of tea and chat about the dear departed. It is another thing to see up close the results of poor performance.

In high school drivers education classes, we all had to watch Signal 30 films....but until our class lost four members due to a 100+ mph crash....it did not sink in. The wrecked car was mandatory viewing .....and after a few days in the warm air....standing downwind was not very pleasant.

Lu Zuckerman

22nd Feb 2003, 14:54

To: Genghis the Engineer

Apparently with the newer more rigid rotor systems such as on the Merlin

The Merlin rotorhead is fully articulated by means of elastomeric bearings.

To: Flying Lawyer

I can appreciate what you are saying relative to what should be discussed on this website. However I belong to a legal association made up mainly of aviation accident lawyers and I fully believe that during litigation they would have no compunctions relative to making a point by showing gory pictures to the jury. Maybe not in England, but most certainly in the USA.

Several years ago the Ohio State Highway Patrol had a campaign whereby when they stopped someone for speeding they would give then a handout containing pictures far more gory than those on the disputed website.

:hmm:

Genghis the Engineer

22nd Feb 2003, 15:25

Re: Merlin, OK bad example - it's not my specialist area as I made clear, rest of the point remains valid.

Re: gory bits. We still live in a moderately dangerous world, most of us have had the misfortune to lose friends or family to accident or disease of some form (personally I've lost 5 colleagues to air accidents, in two cases I had met their families; I'm sure I'm not particularly unusual) . This tends to make most of us aware of the consequences of safety failure in any sphere. I fail to see why being directly exposed to the actual mess would make make us more or less professional than we should be already - possibly when trying to do a difficult technical job I think it's more likely to cloud the judgement. Additionally, I can't see why I as an Engineer and Pilot am likely to learn any more from a dead body than a pathologist could from a bent aeroplane. As specialists we work in our areas and then discuss the results to make sense of the big picture.

G

Heliport

24th Feb 2003, 00:37

To Lu and anyone else who's missed the point.
Whether or not the pictures are a valuable 'flight safety' tool is, I accept, a matterr of opinion. There have been good arguments both ways.
Links to these particular websites are NOT acceptable on PPRuNe. That is Danny's decision, and is final.

Seaking

24th Feb 2003, 06:32

Just thought i would throw in my pennies worth.

I do not believe there is any need to show such graphic pictures in public.These pictures have been the topic of discussion in my crew room for the past week or so.Some have viewed them and some haven't.I have not.The main point that has been made by the 'fors' is that it would be an education for potential HLOS and pax to see the results of not keeping one's head down.

I disagree,i believe it can only cause further concern and stress to our pax as they are not trained crewmen and even though they spend a lot of time riding around in the back they are generally not very comfortable with it.Good training with the emphasis on SAFETY should be sufficient as well as a proper grounding in heliborne ops,including crawliing in and out of the aircraft and physically pulling the blades down to demonstrate what can happen.And recurrent training.

And as we are aware even the most experienced crew/ground staff can and do have accidents.This is a fact,we are all capable of having an unfortunate incident through no fault of our own and i for one would not like think that my wife or child could end up seeing photographs of the kind being discussed here,freely available on the internet.It is at the least voyeuristic and at the worse pornographic to publicly display such things.
However if as part of a properly conducted safety course to those who need to study such things,they are presented,with permission from the family,etc then i can see a use for them.At the end of the day it appears that these pictures were probably obtained illeagally and if so then their use is wrong.I hope that whoever did take them is hung out to dry.

What of the family of this poor guy and what of his personal dignity ?

Refering to blade sailing i was shuting down yesterday(a bell) and had given the HLO a thumbs down,to signal that he was to stay away from the arcraft untill the blades had stopped.He stayed clear untill the last few revs and then decided that it was okay to walk forward even though we were giving him frantic hand signals from the cockpit to stay put !!! My little chat with him can not be published here !

Winnie

24th Feb 2003, 15:30

I was on the U.S. Naval Safety Centres Site the other day, and there is a comment on these pictures that they were actually stolen, and then reproduced on the net. However, they have a link to "Picture of the week" where they show some safety related issues some of you may be interested in, icluding the poor feller who managed to wrap his hair around the tail rotor driveshaft, while it was spinning (look for picture : Hairball)

www.safetycenter.navy.mil for anybody interested

Anyhow, Hope these are more of interest, and certainly not as gory as some of these others, and in the interest of safety.

May the poor sailor rest in peace.

B Sousa

24th Feb 2003, 18:23

Winnie Writes: Anyhow, Hope these are more of interest, and certainly not as gory as some of these others, and in the interest of safety.

The degree of gore of the posted website will no doubt determine the amount of complaints that will go to the Head of PPrune via the Moderators.........
Of course those who complain will have to view the site thoroughly.........in the interest of safety..
Good Luck.

Lu Zuckerman

25th Feb 2003, 03:33

The gore shown on the two CSI television programs makes the gore on the website pale by comparison and these two shows are the highest rated shows on television. I do not know if they are presented in the UK. See my post above.

Heliport

Dantruck

25th Feb 2003, 14:43

I have lodged a request with the US Navy to release details of the cause together with any safety recommendations that resulted from its investigation.
I'll post whatever feedback I get.
Dantruck

Lu Zuckerman

25th Feb 2003, 17:29

I do not believe that the accident was the result of “Tip sailing” during shut down or, start up.

I believe that the blades were traveling at a very high rate. I believe this because of the amount of damage to the effected blade. I will stand corrected but I do not believe you can see the other blade tips to determine if there were multiple strikes.

I believe it could have been caused by one of three or more reasons.

1) The ship rolled and the blades acting as a gyro the rotor displaced 90-degrees later resulting in the disc tilting downward.
2) The pilot tried to correct for the movement of the ship (Pitch and/or roll).
3) This is a no-no on board ship. The pilot did not turn the autopilot off which is a requirement for shipboard ops.

Or........

IMHO

:eek:

Heliport

5th Aug 2003, 15:00

Colorado
Crews from British helicopter builder Agusta Westland are testing the high-altitude capabilities of the Super Lynx 300 at the Fremont County Airport in preparation to sell the aircraft to military users in Malaysia, Thailand and South Africa.
"We are completing the high trials to give a full-flight envelope to our customers," said Dave Glover, a 35-year Agusta Westland employee who is overseeing the tests. "This is a prototype which we have sold to Malaysia, Thailand and hopefully South Africa for use as a utility aircraft on land and as a naval aircraft."

The helicopter must be tailor-made to fit customer needs, so it has been tested at 4,000 feet in Morocco last summer; and in the wintry climates of Sweden and the Arctic Circle, Glover said.
The crews brought the helicopter to Fremont County's airport recently for testing at higher altitude. They will go on to Leadville for the very-high altitude tests starting Aug. 10.

"This is high-density testing when the temperature is hot and the altitude is high," said pilot Mike Swales, who has been flying Lynx helicopters for 25 years, the past two testing the Super Lynx. "We are flying the helicopter at maximum weight at the limit of performance and it is performing how we want it to."
"It is performing exactly as we expected, but, of course, we had to prove it," Glover said.

During flights, high-tech equipment measures stresses and strains on the helicopter from the main rotor to the blades, preserving data on recorders so that it can be analyzed. The test flights are done sometimes at low speed and include complicated maneuvers so that the technical crew can see how it performs in winds from all directions, Glover said.

Mechanics David Hedditch, Paul Neale, Neil White, Ray Gunner, Gary Howells and Eric Burton make sure the helicopter stays in top-notch working order.

The high-performance chopper is the ballerina of helicopters -- able to fly sideways in fluid motions. The Super Lynx comes from a line that includes an earlier Lynx that shattered the 220-mph world speed record with a 249-mph mark in 1986, Glover said.

As many as 16 Agusta Westland employees are on the job in Colorado, although a change of crew will be coming shortly, Glover said. After testing in Leadville, the crew will move on to Phoenix before returning home to Britain Sept. 7.

Thud_and_Blunder

5th Aug 2003, 19:28

How hot-and-high is the countryside around Fremont County Airport? If the Lynx is to replace the 205 and 214B in Oman, it should be capable of USL tasks up at the top of Jebel Shams (9997 ft) on a summer's day, like they (used to) do.

Flying Lawyer

5th Aug 2003, 20:44

I don't think height's a problem in Colorado - one of the steps of the Denver City Hall is exactly one mile amsl. Fremont County must be about the same elevation and the nearby Rockies go up to 14,000'.
When we think of the Rockies we think of skiing but temp in the foothills in the summer is mid 80's / low 90's.

Rich Lee

5th Aug 2003, 23:23

Freemont County Airport

http://www.airnav.com/airport/1V6

Leadville

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLXV

CJ Eliassen

6th Aug 2003, 00:57

It was over 100 degree a few weeks ago here in Denver. That gives us a DA as high as 10,000 feet in some areas.

Thud_and_Blunder

6th Aug 2003, 14:39

Thanks for the answers. Jebel Shams is just about on the Tropic of Cancer, so in the Omani summer (55 deg C inland) the DA on top can be in excess of 14000 ft. Hope it all works!

moggie

7th Aug 2003, 15:44

"This is high-density testing when the temperature is hot and the altitude is high,"

..............should that not be "LOW" density????

As many as 16 Agusta Westland employees are on the job in Colorado

....now THAT is a company that looks after it people. It's a long time since I got "on the job" at employers expense!

John Eacott

7th Aug 2003, 18:17

Michael Swales: another stalwart graduate of 142HSP ;) Still a few of us around :cool:

Vfrpilotpb

24th Oct 2003, 15:27

Quite a few lucky people are the owners of some very nice and pristine Gazelles, you only needed to look down the line at Helitech to see just how good some are,

.. however when its active life is considered finished with the Military, will the Lynx ever finish up flying in private ownership?

NickLappos

24th Oct 2003, 16:56

VFR
The rules are pretty strict on how an un-certified aircraft can be operated by civilians. The ex-military Gazelles and Hueys that we see are all civil certified against a civil type certificate, the Lynx has no such coverage (at least I can find no reference to a civil version).

When a military aircraft is "civilized" it is sometimes modified to exactly fit its certified cousin, usually with some placards and small pieces of equipment that allows it to meet FAR. The FAA then deems it to be airworthy and issues a certificate for it.

Except for some limited warbird restricted category certificates, the purely military aircraft, such as Lynx, cannot be operated by civilians unless they are fully certified. Most military designs do not meet civil standards for handling, fatigue strength and safety of systems (a surprizing statement when most of the flying world sees military aircraft as somehow more rugged). Certification therefore means expensive redesign, and full qualification testing, a multi-million dollar investment.

One exception (that draws lots of flack on pprune) is when an aircraft is operated in the US by a public agency, which is generally exempt from FAR certification rules. A US State (like the US Federal Government) can actually "certify" an aircraft for its own use, so some ex-military aircraft are allowed into service as-is.

Here is a bit of background:

http://www2.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/awcertqa.htm

212man

24th Oct 2003, 18:45

I'm not an expert on these things, but clearly the rules must differ in the UK as we have Scouts, Jet Provosts and Hunters etc all flying around in civillian hands on G registrations. Permits to Fly I assume?

Genghis the Engineer

24th Oct 2003, 21:27

212 - you're quite right, but given Nick does business in the colonies it would be unreasonable to expect him to be fully conversant with aspects of UK air law that most brits struggle with.

The UK has a sub-ICAO document called a "Permit to Fly", which is used for anything where UK-CAA have been persuaded that the machine is basically safe, but is not (generally for the sort of reasons that Nick gives) eligible for issue of an ICAO compliant CofA.

Some of the Gazelles, and all of the Westland Scouts flying on the UK civil register are approved under permits to fly. The basic requirements to obtain one are:-

- An acceptable safety record in military service
- A new set of operating and maintenance procedures to reflect civil use.
- A review of the aircraft against any relevant civil regulations (instrument fit minima, compliance with Airworthiness Notices, harness standards, radio types, etc.)
- CAA approval of a civil maintenance organisation to look after it.

Once obtained, the aircraft will be limited to day-VMC flight, for private or (owner's) training use only and because it's a UK only document the aircraft would need individual overflight/landing permission from any other country if it were to leave our borders. There's also a bit of a debate at the moment about passenger carrying - the rules at present limit to minimum essential crew + 1, but there are voices trying hard to get this modified to something more sensible to perfectly safe larger aircraft.

There is supposed very shortly to be a new CAP coming out - CAP733, which will be covering the permit regs, but it seems to be caught in a logjam at Gatwick somewhere.

From my experience, I'd say that Lynx has a good chance of gaining a permit when it's retired, so long as it's not totally out of hours and doesn't develop a suddenly higher accident rate in it's last few years in service.

G

Droopy

24th Oct 2003, 22:08

"One careful lady owner"? :E

john du'pruyting

25th Oct 2003, 00:10

If BA can't afford to run Concorde, there is no way a private individual can afford to run a Lynx.....might make a good gate guardian though:cool:

Rich Lee

25th Oct 2003, 01:21

To Genghis the Engineer

The "colonies"? I thought that question was settled sometime in the late 1,700's? Perhaps you have us confused with Gibraltar or the Shetlands.

zalt

25th Oct 2003, 01:29

Three doubts:

1) Considering that passengers are specifically not permited in the Scots and Gazelles, will it really be that economic?

2) Q for Genghis - Isn't another factors if CAA regard it a 'complex' type? So far the ex-mil helicopters have all been singles I believe. Is the safety record all that impressive?

3) Aren't most of the airframes potentially going for rebuild to meet the BLUH requirement?

Letsby Avenue

25th Oct 2003, 03:07

Rich Lee - We're still pretty p****d with the French over that....:cool:

Autorotate

25th Oct 2003, 03:25

In regards to Warbirds in the UK things have changed recently because of some changes in CAA management.

Ray Hannah from the Old Flying Machine Company has had to ship the Corsair, Kittyhawk and I think the LA-9 back to Kiwiland because even though they have been giving them a permit to fly for the past ten years or so, the new CAA big wigs have decided that if they cant track the history of every single nut and bolt then they wont allow them to fly in the UK.

I heard that this came about because of the influx of Eastern Bloc YAK-52s and the like.

Droopy - In the case of Caroline Grace and her two seat Spitfire, the saying of one lady owner, is absolutely spot on :D

:E

Lu Zuckerman

25th Oct 2003, 04:06

To: Autorotate

the new CAA big wigs have decided that if they can't track the history of every single nut and bolt then they won't allow them to fly in the UK.

Hell, they (The CAA) couldn't even do this on a brand new 777. The only hardware that has traceability are those elements that have been determined to be reliability sensitive. As long as they use approved parts (common hardware made to mil specs (MS) or AN specs) or the British equivalent they should have no problems.

:E

Genghis the Engineer

25th Oct 2003, 04:18

The permit to fly rules are pretty much infinitely elastic, the more complex the type the greater hoops get invented for you to jump through. Two types that have failed (although they're still trying) are the Lightning and Vulcan. There (I've just checked) a Canberra, a Sea-Vixen, a B29 and a Gloster Meteor currently UK civil registered on permits. Okay, they're all fixed-wing, but in terms of overall complexity I think you'd struggle to argue that a Lynx was more complex or presented greater public risk than a Sea-Vixen. (For that matter, I think for reasons best known to themselves, BAC had a VC-10 on a permit on one point, and I know I've flown an Islander with a permit).

So, I'd worry about how many hoops CAA will make you jump through for your private Lynx Mk.9 rather than whether they'll permit it at-all. And as for economics - you'd struggle I suspect to make a Lynx cost anything like as much to run as your private Canberra, as well as being a little more useful.

G

N.B. I thought that King George just handed you over into Canadian control, which is why you're using a version of the Canadian dollar, or did I miss some legal detail there?

N.B.B. Why on earth have we got a B29 and not a Wellington, there's something wrong there ! Mind you, at-least we've had the sense not to try and keep a WG30 flying under any circumstances.

NickLappos

25th Oct 2003, 06:57

Genghis and 212man-
Thanks!
The value of pprune!! I learned something new and useful.

Of course, this is now a slight chink in the discussion "Why the FAA is better than the CAA" since the permit to fly is quite reasonable, unlike the FAA. Now that's a switch!

212man

25th Oct 2003, 07:08

Nick,
what about the old OH-58s and UH-1s (plus a Cobra or 2?) and the ex military fixed wing warbirds/jets? Don't they have 'experimental' on them? Is that not similar to the system we have?

Hilico

25th Oct 2003, 18:11

YOY didn't Westland proceed with the proposed P600, a civvie version of the Lynx that I saw pictured in John Fay's book? Mind you, I suspect that if they had we would eventually see the same situation as with the Gazelle - the CofA versions costing twice as much as the Permit aircraft for what feels like the same thing.

Genghis the Engineer

25th Oct 2003, 18:16

There's a big difference between the UK Permit system, and the US Experimental system. Whilst both are sub-ICAO and national-only, how they are treated are quite different.

Under the UK system, the applicant is "invited" to discuss with CAA (or for smaller aircraft PFA or BMAA) the level of rigour which is appropriate to that aircraft - so at one end of the scale the older "type-accepted" microlights are pretty much left completely alone once approved and simply need an annual inspection and check-flight, whilst at the other end of the scale your privately owned Hawker Hunter or Gazellicopter, whilst still on a permit is subject to an approved maintenance organisation, pilot training and currency requirements, and so on. There is also a system of "MPD" or Mandatory Permit Directives allowing CAA a degree of control over anything that worries them (which usually seems to involve parts for Spitfires whenever I glance at the MPD book).

Under the US "Experimental" system, the applicant has to provide a basic summary of the size, shape and limitations to the FAA, and is then largely left to their own devices. The only real control FAA has is to ground an aircraft that severely troubles them, and there is no mandatory independent safety assessment.

You can debate endlessly which is the better system (and many do) - personally I do prefer the UK approach so long as it's administered in an enlightened and pragmatic manner. But then again, I live on a small crowded island where it's quite hard to kill yourself in a flying machine without it having some impact on somebody else - not so in the US where it's relatively easy to minimise 3rd party risk.

Probably the most contentious issue in the UK concerning permits is the lack of permission for some types - warbirds in particular - to fly night or IMC, which is prohibited. There's a sound argument that, say, a Hunter is far safer at FL150 or in an airway having punched up in IMC than mucking about low-level in marginal visibility amongst lots of light aircraft flying at half it's speed. I think we'll win that argument with CAA eventually, but it's taking a long time to even keep the blighters at the negotiating table.

G

NickLappos

25th Oct 2003, 20:06

Genghis,
I agree with your input and add that the US system depends on the signature of the MIDO (Manufacturing Inspection District Office) inspector who is assigned to you. He is empowered with the ability to approve or not, and his guidelines are nearly nil, so it is really based on whim. Furthermore, he is personally responsible with the outcome of his decision, so that there is little incentive to approve, and lots of reason why a career civil servant would say NO.

The crash of an F-86 into an ice cream parlor a few decades back propelled a major reduction in restricted certificates, and those spectacular crashes of the water bombers last year did not help.

Genghis the Engineer

26th Oct 2003, 06:07

One thing that troubles me about the FAA approach is not so much the variation in working standards of the MIDO (we know here that your relationship with your DLS - CAA Design Liaison Surveyor, can make or break a project, or even a company) is that all they are really checking is build/maintenance quality.

In my mind, airworthiness is a much more complex problem than that, and unless some kind of design and operating procedures review takes place in addition to that, there's a serious flaw in the system.

G

Crashondeck

27th Oct 2003, 02:03

If I'm not mistaken the Westland 30 was the Civvy Lynx. Sold a few to the Indians or the Pakistanis but they never used them (cost/availability of spares?). There's one at the helicopter museum in Weston Super Mare. In fact didnt Westland have a 30 for their own corporate use?

Autorotate

27th Oct 2003, 02:44

Wasnt the WG30 much bigger than the Lynx ?

:E

Genghis the Engineer

27th Oct 2003, 03:12

Externally yes, but the basic powertrain and associated engineering were all based upon the Lynx.

Mind you, the Lynx design was supposed to be based upon the Wessex, which I think lasted for about 3 government-induced design iterations before going completely out of the window and forcing Westlands to effectively design a totally new helicopter.

G

PANews

27th Oct 2003, 06:35

Westland were worried about the 'pile' of 30's lying unloved in India so they have bought out the airframes and the type certificate [?] to ensure that no-one can operate them. They all came to a dealer in he UK about a year ago.

I think there is a technical problem with later operation of the Lynx. As I understand it the airframe is lifed and that life cannot be extended.

The current type remanufacturing activity is along those lines ... throw away the tin box and build in the removable parts on a new manufacture box.

I may stand to be corrected on that but it is along those lines.

publicenemynumberone

16th May 2004, 18:00

:confused: Heared rumours off a British Lynx over London loosing 300 feet during a main servo valve seizure in roll.
Was it the new actuators or the old servos??
:hmm: Also heard that it was the left seater that switch off the appropiate hyd. system???

:confused: Any rumors .....

potcivvy

16th May 2004, 19:37

It was the old pre-mod 793 servos which have since been replaced in this specific aircraft! And yes it was the left hand seat that flipped the hyd 1 switch as the handling pilot had the vulcan death grip on the collective at the time! Thank heavens it was at 1000' and not low level.

Basil

16th May 2004, 21:11

As a planky I dunno what you APT guys are talking about but it sounds like a new underwear day.
TF it worked out OK.

Bill O'Average

16th May 2004, 23:11

Was this recent???

Yep, TF all is well except for the obvious underpant exchange.

Max_Chat

17th May 2004, 04:06

It would seem that the landing light switch was avoided. Wel done LHS.

potcivvy

17th May 2004, 07:49

this happened a few months ago and an incident signal was circulated as you would expect. Lets hope that the new actuators don't play up like this set did eh?

publicenemynumberone

17th May 2004, 17:22

:uhoh: A change off underwear would be in order!!

:ok: Nice job of the LHS!!

Did the cyclic actualy move in the direction off the main servo valve seizure in roll?

As fare as I know this is one off the first seizures that the crew actualy lived to tell the story, well done!!!

:ok:

potcivvy

18th May 2004, 13:03

Yes the cyclic did ramp over to the right and the RHS was fighting it for all his life! One flick of the switch and it came back gradually, not an instantaneous affair.

publicenemynumberone

18th May 2004, 19:09

Thanks for the info!!!

PONTCIVVY is it possible to get a copy off the incedent report??

I am always looking for information from the real world to check if the simulation world is doing it correct!! :rolleyes:

Sandy Hutton

19th May 2004, 15:17

Probably a bit late in the day to investigate failure trends now on the Lucas Servo. DARA Almondbank were/are the 4th line service unit and have ALL the overhaul/repair records, going back to serial No1, in their very dusty archive.:O

MightyGem

19th May 2004, 19:41

PE No1, I think, if my memory is correct, that this is the first ever servo valve seizure. Of course, I could be wrong.

publicenemynumberone

20th May 2004, 16:56

:rolleyes:
Just for information there are nations outside GB who is going to fly LYNX for some years to come ie with the old servo!!
:mad: This malfunction being one off the rear ones we should try to gain the most off it:mad:

potcivvy

20th May 2004, 18:59

The incident signal was circulated around the Lynx fleet within British forces, I am afraid that I don't have one to hand but it does not really shed much more light on the matter.

Lynx at 1000' over the Lee valley waiting to enter the heli lanes and initiating a right hand turn to orbit whilst waiting for clearnace from Thames Radar. LHS was minding his own business lokoing at the maps for the next lane. When he noticed that the AOB was exceeding 40 degrees or so he looked towards the RHS as if to say 'cut that out!', or words to that effect! It was then that the RHS declared a hydraulics malfunction and LHS immediately de-selected the Hyd 1. Recovery was not an instantaneous jerk but a gradual one. Height loss was 300', AOB was in excess of 70 degrees and it had turned through 180 degrees.
Urgency declared and recovered to nearby Stapleford due to built up areas and nature of terrain.
The cyclic was continuing to ramp over to the right and the RHS insists that there was absolutely nothing that he could do about it, despite his best efforts!
The investigation was delayed for a few months as it went straight to Fairoaks for a mod. Cause was not identified although the servos were replaced with Faireys.

All good stuff. There is one thing you can guarantee with the widow maker, it will keep you on your toes!

AllTrimDoubt

22nd May 2004, 04:27

Was this Army or Navy? (Either way, well done lads!)

potcivvy

22nd May 2004, 07:19

Army Mk9 Lynx, ZG884 now residing at Dishforth.

AllTrimDoubt

22nd May 2004, 07:49

Many thanks - flew the RN version for many years. Having had it well and truly upside down at numerous shows the thought of such a failure makes one think!

MightyGem

28th May 2004, 02:52

The new servos are all very well. You can "break" through the restriction and regain control. However, you have no idea which is the faulty hydraulic system, and the same thing can happen again at any time. :eek:

invertron

1st Dec 2004, 18:40

Do you think the decision on the futurwe of military aviation will be down to how many votes (http://www.westgaz.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=164284&command=displayContent&sourceNode=164267&contentPK=11287137&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=westlands&formname=sidebarsearch) it will depend on?

KENNYR

1st Dec 2004, 21:15

The choice of helicopter should be based on the suitability of the chosen helicopter for the role required and NOT on the fact that a manufacturer will lose business and employees. Politics suck!

Oggin Aviator

1st Dec 2004, 22:04

Seems they feel the Government owes it to them to place the order with them :mad:

Perhaps if they developed and produced something decent instead of relying on Government handouts they would get orders from overseas.

Procure the best kit for the job - after all we are about addressing a capability gap - if that happens to be the Future Lynx then good for them, if not, tough. We should not have to subsidise the economy or parliament seats to the detriment of capability.

Just my personal opinion.

But hey, guess what will happen?

... what always does :mad:

A10 Thundybox

2nd Dec 2004, 05:38

Agreed, It is with jaded certainty I believe BLUH will end up as FLynx, The same old Air Frame produced more cheaply, erm, efficiently, with a few new bits bolted into it -Army style which may or may not improve on a capable but aged formula.

option 2? bring the warstock scouts back lets all save a few quid hell they have rested long enough probably good as new by now.

Option 3? Well absolutely do not go for anything new that we haven't tested in battle ourselves, that would be progress and could cost jobs, erm lives.

Same old same old keep serving it up.

Small chink of light; might wastelands license build BlackHawk for Lizzie?

naa, stop getting carried away Thundy.

KENNYR

2nd Dec 2004, 08:28

A10, now you're talking my language.......bring back the Scout. I'm sure that with some upgrades the venerable old girl would last another 50 years or so. It really gets up my nose when the government places orders for equipment with Westlands just to bail them out, without consulting the people who will be the end-users.

I remember at Wallop, many years ago, when a team arrived from Westlands to ask us to list exactly what we wanted in a helicopter. We all said the usual "ergonomic seats", "glass dashboards", "side controllers", etc. etc.. What happened.............absolutely nothing!!

I hope that the replacement for the Lynx is not another Lynx.

flygunz

2nd Dec 2004, 08:53

Kenny

As far as helicopter procurement and politics is concerned nothings changed since you wisely left these shores, but it's good to see that you still have a grasp on reality from way over there!

Merry Christmas you old Scout dog and remember, no underpants!

Gunz

Tourist

2nd Dec 2004, 09:11

You are aware that BLUH has been binned along with Scummer aren't you. I thought that was common knowledge!

Mikehegland

2nd Dec 2004, 11:29

Sorry to burst ya bubble. BLUH and SCMR have not been binned. They are both still on track only with different names. Due to cost cutting they have now become F.Lynx - the project is still the same....same money, same team, same peiople, same plan to replace the Lynx (with another Lynx?) but whatever replaces the Lynx the project is still there.

Tourist

2nd Dec 2004, 15:57

Westlands may still be working on them, but I heard COCHF say they were definately binned recently, and he should know, what with 847 being one of the planned recipients.

zedder

2nd Dec 2004, 16:43

The Bell Eagle Eye UAV being bought by the US Coast Guard as part of their Deepwater Programme should do the job nicely!

http://www.uscg.mil/deepwater/system.htm

KENNYR

2nd Dec 2004, 17:33

Flygunz, I now have my feet firmly planted back in the uk. Living in Andover again. Couldnt stand the 6 month winters any more.

VP959

2nd Dec 2004, 19:46

SCMR has not been binned.

BLUH may change to become BRH (Battlefield Recce Helicopter) but the requirement has not been binned.

Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx (any Mk, inc SL 300). Future Lynx carries almost a tonne more payload than any current Lynx, has new primary structure, new engines, new tail rotor, new avionics, new sensors, new comms, new nav kit, new glass cockpit etc etc. It does use the existing BERP III MRB and existing (but uprated) gearbox though..........

Either BRH or SCMR MAY be met by Future Lynx (or may not).

PS: I don't work for a certain West Country rotorcraft manufacturer either......................

helidriver

2nd Dec 2004, 20:24

From what i have learned this week the requirement for a new "utility" aircraft for the AAC is confirmed as the FLYNX. I think the main issue that contributors should consider is that Apache Longbow is awesome for generic war fighting however there is now more requirement for an aircraft to operate in Operations Other than War. This is more likely to be an asset with better surveillance capability i.e. better recordable IR and day camera video downlink, 360 degree azimuth. I don't believe the FLYNX delivers this requirement though I understand it's FLYNX or nothing.

The whole issue is disapointing though predictable.:{

VP959

2nd Dec 2004, 20:31

"From what i have learned this week the requirement for a new "utility" aircraft for the AAC is confirmed as the FLYNX"

Not yet it isn't.

The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. The situation at present is that the requirement that was BLUH until a few months ago has been effectively changed to BRH; essentially the "utility" requirement has been removed.

Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement.

Bill O'Average

2nd Dec 2004, 21:37

Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx (any Mk, inc SL 300). Future Lynx carries almost a tonne more payload than any current Lynx, has new primary structure, new engines, new tail rotor, new avionics, new sensors, new comms, new nav kit, new glass cockpit etc etc. It does use the existing BERP III MRB and existing (but uprated) gearbox though..........

Still isn’t what’s required though. The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker.

Cabin is still the same size, although due to new style crashable pax seating, will carry less blokes in the back. The engines are more powerful and with that, thirstier. Due to the dimensions being the same as the old version, similar sized fuel tanks mean it actually has a reduced range.

Crash worthy. It's hard to make a 30 year old design compatible with all the latest and future requirements for a battlefield heli. A bit like trying to make a Ford Anglia pass the Euro ENCAP test.

Will it actually be able to talk to the rest of the future battlefield with Bowman?

The bottom line is that there is no money for procurement of a Gucci accessory to AH. (Due to the purchase of said AH). A 'cut and shut' Lynx is the order of the day. We should at least consider ourselves lucky that they will at least have zero hours and have plastic seat covers. God forbid we extend Lynx even further beyond 2010.

On the plus side, the glass cockpit is nice and the optics will actually be rather good. I feel that we will still get the '1.3L' version as opposed to the '2.6GLX'.

Totally agree with the sentiment regarding

I think the main issue that contributors should consider is that Apache Longbow is awesome for generic war fighting however there is now more requirement for an aircraft to operate in Operations Other than War.

At present, we do about 1% of killing tanks/suppressing the enemy/deep strike type ops. The remaining 99% is taken up with what would be considered by 673 Sqn as niff naff and trivia by 'legacy' aircraft. That would also be true of the near and middle future too. I would think that a decent investment should go into that sphere. A slightly better insurance policy than 67 cold war assets with a sqn emblem not dissimilar to a chavs first tattoo!
http://www.funtoos.com/d/afull/black_panther_claws_tattoo.jpg

VP959

2nd Dec 2004, 21:53

"The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker."

Not true in any way, shape or form. The requirements for BLUH and SCMR, and more recently BRH, were not drawn up in collusion with any manufacturer, even the one in the West Country. In fact, the BLUH requirement was drawn up precisely because a re-engined current Lynx couldn't meet the requirement in the first place (the LLEP and subsequently the LLUH programme).

The BRH requirement does not include carrying pax, other than maybe a couple in the back. The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC.

The Future Lynx airframe is a new design, not a 30 year old one. You may have noticed that it's a different shape, with new crashworthy structure making use of monolithic machined panels, rather than thousands of rivets. The internal volume is the same, true, which is a restriction if it's needed to carry more than 6 + a DG in the back in crashworthy seats, with kit.

BOWMAN is an essential requirement for BRH (as it was for BLUH). IDM is essential as well, to talk to WAH64. If Future Lynx is chosen, then it will have BOWMAN and IDM capability.

Current Lynx OSDs are 2012 for the 3, 7 and 9; 2014 for the 8, BTW, not 2010.

Bill O'Average

2nd Dec 2004, 22:37

"The requirement has been written/amended in close partnership with the UK's Best Helicopter maker."

Ok, a tad simplistic but when the requirement was written, a fiscal limit was placed that err shall we say sort of limited it to a short list of one or two.

The requirements for BLUH and SCMR, and more recently BRH, were not drawn up in collusion with any manufacturer, even the one in the West Country.

We shall not mention the fact that the requirement didn’t go to open tender due to a certain Somerset company stating that the cost of opening it to competition in the normal sense would double the list price. Cornered market would not be an expression I would use but there you go.

The Future Lynx airframe is a new design. You may have noticed that it's a different shape, with new crashworthy structure making use of monolithic machined panels, rather than thousands of rivets.

The tail and nose, maybe. And, most would consider adding a big seat with springs in the bottom not exactly in the same arena as 'cutting edge crash worthy'.

The internal volume is the same, true, which is a restriction if it's needed to carry more than 6 + a DG in the back in crashworthy seats, with kit.

The current version can barely do that. The new version requires that the DG has his own 'space'. To give him his own space, with CW seating for pax, plus basic kit, you would be hard pushed to fit a few burly chaps in. This reduces capability. Any more than 5-6 kitted blokes would require SH to ferry them to a loc.
This is not an 'undermine SHF' episode, more of a 'lets buy a cab that doesn’t require a Merlin to ferry a team of 6+ around'.

BOWMAN is an essential requirement for BRH (as it was for BLUH). IDM is essential as well, to talk to WAH64. If Future Lynx is chosen, then it will have BOWMAN and IDM capability.

Wow, a revolution! Would have been nice for AH but you can’t have everything.

Comms to all is a basic requirement, not a major selling point!

I know its akin to walking into a certain religions house of prayer with a pork pie but....a certain product of a certain US company (I shall use the pseudonym Dark, off white bird of prey, answering to the name of SH60) would fit the bill without stepping on the SH toes. Dare I say, the colonials across the pond seem to use it rather effectively with their antiquated version of the AH.

Current Lynx OSDs are 2012 for the 3, 7 and 9; 2014 for the 8, BTW, not 2010

You say that in an almost smug kind of way. One hopes we don’t have too many more three line whip occasions where the Ginger marching suit, boots crunchy and full medals parades are required for chaps who couldn’t attend the BOI before 2012.

VP, I take it you work across the road from the NAAFI at EGVP, failing that, a couple of miles West of a certain Wiltshire Cathedral city? I know you have a busy time ahead but a bit of 'out the box' bollox would be nice! Not all the staff will get an executive position at Yeovil you know.

MaroonMan4

3rd Dec 2004, 07:38

Lets get real world here! There is simply not enough AH to go round. The whole Defence community have seen a significant reduction in their AAvn capability - only 5 years ago each Div had its own AAC Regt, now all of the AAvn assets (less 1 Regt LBH and 847 NAS (soon to be chopped)) are all in 16 Air Asslt Bde.

Lets have a look at the 16 Air Asslt Bde Forecast Of Events and Operational Plot and it does not take the maths of GOC 1, 3 Div and 3 Cdo Bde to realise that he will only see AH every blue moon or on transition to Ops (e.g. NRF).

I also agree that in the current Grand Strategic environment, Peace Keeping/Peace Support/COIN and Peace Enforcement are the forecast for the future. Therefore flexibility (utility, Find and Strike) will be a requirement from CXommanders, rather than the Cold War procured firepower/technology of Apache.

Top Tip:

1. Dont rely on Apache coming anywhere near you (trg and Ops) unless in a 16 Air Asslt Bde package.
2. Those involved with BRH/FRH please DEC ALM sort your branding/marketing out - it does have an effect on morale for those of us waiting for this capability as it appears that the confusion in name is signifying confusion on your desks!).
3. Arm the aircraft, provide with sensors, allow it to Find, Fix Strike and that good doctrinal blah.....if not then there are not enough AH and some high readiness Formations (e.g. 3 Cdo Bde) will be wanting when the other high readiness Bde (16 Air Asslt Bde) owns the AH and fights any Chopping across.
4.Don't forget the limited movt of men and material. You want Eagle Patrols around Camp Dogwood. You can do all of your tactical Effects Based Operations with one aircraft (Sect Level supported with aircraft Sensors and Firepower).

Lets embrace BRH/FRH, but lets not think that just because we have AH it will solve everything. Lets look at the world today - which frontline JHC Capability isn't really required? AH is certainly not essential to anything that UK Plc is doing anywhere in the world - Lynx is, but with minimal investment, it could do so much more...I think the procurement boys call it a 'quick win'.

And what has 673 Sqn got to do with this - aren't they just a 'sticks and poles' trg Sqn based at Wallop or are they the OCU/OEU?

cobaltfrog

3rd Dec 2004, 17:36

Maroon Man4

I hate to shatter your illusions BUT!

No decision has been made to chop 847, well at least not when I was talking to Comd JHC last week!!

VP959

3rd Dec 2004, 20:32

B o'A:
"We shall not mention the fact that the requirement didn’t go to open tender due to a certain Somerset company stating that the cost of opening it to competition in the normal sense would double the list price. Cornered market would not be an expression I would use but there you go."

VP:
The reason it didn't go to competition, was simple, and not at all as you say. Reusing the rotables (refurbished) from the existing Lynx saved about £1M per cab.

B o'A:
"The tail and nose, maybe. And, most would consider adding a big seat with springs in the bottom not exactly in the same arena as 'cutting edge crash worthy'."

VP:

Again, not true. The whole structure is new, nose to tail. apart from the rotables virtually the only other bits from the existing Lynx are the windscreens and cabin doors and afew sundry odds and ends. The bathtub structure had to be newly designed to meet the crashworthiness requirements and take the loads from stroking seats. The lift frames had to be redesigned to take the MAUM from 5330kg to 6250kg. The engine deck had to be redesigned to take the GTS800 engines. The panel and interseat console had to be redesigned to take the big displays, new CDNUs, controllers etc, etc.

I wasn't making BOWMAN etc a "selling point" at all, just correcting an earlier post that assumed it wouldn't have it. The same applies to the comment about OSDs. I wasn't trying to be smug, just stating what the OSDs have been set at for years now.

Tourist

4th Dec 2004, 10:41

What is one of the major drawbacks of present lynx?
Endurance.
And what is planned for F Lynx to fix that problem>
Sod all.
The Westlands people havn't even considered the possibility of carrying droptanks a la Blackhawk

Mikehegland

4th Dec 2004, 10:45

One of the major drawbacks is endurance????
Don't think it is fella. Whereabouts in the CCD does it mention endurance? It doesn't
Engine performance is the major constraint but there is no mention at all of endurance. Besides, 3 hours is plenty for me and if you want something to go longer than 3 hours then get a Merlin.

Tourist

4th Dec 2004, 11:33

Don't often see Mk 7 Lynx go 3 hours.
Ask 847 if they would like to have double the endurance. Yes would be the very definate answer. 847 Lynx boys asked that very question of the Westlands team when they came to Yeovs on a sell Bluh visit. Even just the capability for longer range self deploying would be nice, hence droptanks. What with all the extra lifting capacity it should have with uprated wigets etc it seems criminal not to use it.

VP959

4th Dec 2004, 18:28

JunglyAEO.

Your post makes it abundantly clear that you haven't even glanced at the BLUH/SCMR/BRH URDs.........................

Out of interest, how many Future Lynx dissenters on here have actually read the URDs? Not many, I suspect, otherwise they wouldn't spout such utter tosh.

The procurers and manufacturers can only go on what the powers that be state as requirements. They sweat their n*ts off trying (against immense political hassle) to deliver this. I do wish some of you guys would do some research and find out exactly what your lords and masters have asked for before having a pop at those trying their level best to serve you. The Somerset firm have got their faults, but I know that their engineers try extremely hard to deliver the right bits of kit.

For example, clearly few know what the RoA of BRH is, judging from the comments about endurance. This has nothing to do with Future Lynx capability as it happens, because the BRH requirement is effectively up for grabs by several other light helos. I believe that cabs like Kiowa Warrior, MELB and EC635 are in the running for this, but don't quote me.

I think it must be a British thing, always wanting to rubbish any new bit of kit. In fact, I can't recall a single bit of kit procured over the last 30 years that hasn't been comprhensively slated, yet despite that we still seem to be amongst the most effective and capable fighting forces in the world.......................

Jackonicko

4th Dec 2004, 20:12

There's also the fact that whenever we buy British we are the launch customer, and we are buying a relatively immature system. Every time we've bought similarly new and immature kit from the USA it has been equally troubled (or sometimes even more troubled). Look at C-130J, Chinook HC3, etc.

I'd love to know more about BRH, but in view of his past record when it comes to reading the runes in a calm and unbiased manner, I'd listen very hard to VP, he seems very far from being some Wasteland stooge.

Mikehegland

4th Dec 2004, 20:32

TOURIST - Despite what the guys on 847 say, there is not a requirement to "double" the endurance. The endurance of the Lynx (any mark) is not a constraint and therefore there is not a requirement to double it.

p.s. The Mk3 can go well over 3 hrs and believe me you don't wanna try it.

Jungly AEO - Well said mate. The procurement of military hardware in this country has got nothing to do with requirement. A requirement is just a tool for the bean counters to ensure the pennies are not wasted. So, no matter what the requirement is, we will get an aircraft from Wastelands whether we like it or not. Because at the end of the day it is not the armed forces that counts it is votes.

As an aside, a source in the IPT tells me that Wastelands don't actually build the Lynx. They sub contract 85% out to local companies. There are 75 Local companies that build the Lynx (and consequently F.Lynx) and without this contract they will all go under. Therefore, the decision will be political as you so rightly stated.

VP959

4th Dec 2004, 21:34

Mikehegland,

Trust me, your "source in the IPT" is mistaken. About 70% by value of Future Lynx is supplied by other companies, but few are local to the West Country and many are overseas.

The same would be true of a product from Eurocopter, Sikorsky, Boeing etc. All aircraft manufacture in this day and age ends up being by a conglomerate of suppliers, the key to success is in making sure the one that primes the whole shooting match is competent. I've no doubt that if we returned to the era when aircraft could be manufactured in their entirety by one company things would run more smoothly. Unfortunately the complexity and variety of kit in a modern platform makes this impractical.

BTW, I'm no great supporter of the West Country supplier in any way shape or form. I do happen to know (from independent evidence) that they aren't any worse than any of the other suppliers though (not that that is saying much).

Tourist

4th Dec 2004, 22:41

What a load of b@llocks!
There was no competition with required specs! They came later!
The MOD had their head so far up their @rse that they hadn't even noticed that they would be soon requiring a replacement for the lynx, and Westlands cleverly presented them with a Fait Acompli that was Bluh and Scummer. Smart procurement my @rse.
And what is this about no requirement for extra range?
Who should the requirements come from if not the operators?!

http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/WTF.gif

Mikehegland

4th Dec 2004, 23:44

The operators don't write the requirement...

what you need to do mate is nip over to the IPT and see whats going on over there. It'll open yr eyes a tadge I'll tell ya. Last year we invited 50 of them over the road to have a look around a Lynx and all that was because they had never seen one...Honest to god....thats true...they had never seen one..!

And besides, who mentioned range...I missed that point...where is range mentioned.?

ralphmalph

5th Dec 2004, 01:03

what we need is a secure aircraft that can lift the boys wherever they may be?. not a cab that will depend uopn the weak boys in the system?

VP959

5th Dec 2004, 09:52

Ah........ All now becomes clear! The people you invited over, Mikekegland, were the DLO chaps and chapesses that buy the spares and provide support to the existing aircraft, not the DPA team that buy the new kit.

BTW, the operators (as Customer 2) do help write the requirement, together with the Customer 1 bods and and much crystal ball gazing from the OA people.

The procurers don't write the requirement, neither do the suppliers (although they certainly try hard to influence it to suit their pet products).

Bismark

5th Dec 2004, 15:16

Lots being said in this thread by some real insiders (some good stuff, some not). TheRN Lynx remains far and away the best small ship helo in the world (way better than the Seahawk or Sprite). It is fast off the deck (ie reactive), has a good sensor and weapon fit (albeit all need updating) and is still the only battle proven navy helo. Of course the greatest capability in the aircraft is the Observer - a capability the Navy must retain unlike the c**bs who seem hell bent on getting rid of them.

From my armchair of retirement there is only one a/c to replace the Lynx - the Lynx. Endurance isn't everything it is the whole package that counts. As for the pongoes BRH should be Scummer should be Lynx.

SilsoeSid

5th Dec 2004, 15:57

VP959 I think it must be a British thing, always wanting to rubbish any new bit of kit. In fact, I can't recall a single bit of kit procured over the last 30 years that hasn't been comprhensively slated,
Mmmm, really? Ok, so not properly procured per say etc, but if heads were allowed out of the sand a few years ago, the topic of conversation would be completely different.

I for one would be quite happy for the Lynx replacement to be made by a certain westcountry helicopter manufacturer as long as the product was right.

The Lynx as a recce heli must also raise a few questions, but in the meantime lets see the quality of product the 'makers in the south' come up with.

In an ideal world, things may have been different.......;

http://ivsb2.free.fr/avions/westland-blackhawk.jpg

VP959

5th Dec 2004, 16:40

SS,

Pray tell me why you'd want something that big, heavy, old and expensive to meet the BRH requirement? Current candidates are cabs like MELB, Kiowa Warrior, EC635 etc, which are one heck of a lot cheaper than UH60.

I know it's battle damage tolerant and modestly capable as a lifter, but we don't need all of the armament capability (we have WAH to do that) and according to the current requirement (from Cust 2 BTW) we don't need to shift more than a couple of guys around the battlefield with it either.

Things being what they are, with money for new kit dwindling fast, I somehow doubt that UH60 is a realistic proposition for BRH.

As I recall, AW only made one under licence and sold it to the middle east somewhere. Since then AW have let the licence lapse and probably aren't on such close terms with Sikorsky either.

SilsoeSid

5th Dec 2004, 18:17

VP, to go back to what you have been saying;

" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."

"Should one of the BRH contenders offer some lift capability, then that's a bonus, but it isn't in the requirement."

"The decision won't be made for a short while yet, although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement. "
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

"I know it's (the Blackhawk) battle damage tolerant and modestly capable as a lifter, but we don't need all of the armament capability (we have WAH to do that) and according to the current requirement (from Cust 2 BTW) we don't need to shift more than a couple of guys around the battlefield with it either."

You seem to be going around in circles VP 'me old China', by your own assumptions and as for knowing what the DAAvn is pushing for, I'm surprised that you continue.

Maybe you do have the WAH, 'to do that', if you can get hold of them and after all that's all it does. How about putting drop tanks or mixing ordanance on the mission pylons for the extra endurance required for long strike missions with the 60?

As for the 'according to current requirements...no need to shift more than a couple of guys', yea right. HELLO VP ARE YOU THERE?
Then again, we will always have the good old US of A to help us out, if we were ever to get into such shananagans, wouldn't we? :rolleyes:

As for the "Future Lynx is NOT the same airframe as existing Lynx" statement, just who started calling it the Future Lynx?
If that IS the case, shouldn't we be calling it by a different name.?
You may be trying to pull the wool over our eyes, but traditionally one would have to knit something out of it first. ;) ;)

"Pray tell me why you'd want something that big, heavy, old and expensive to meet the BRH requirement?"

Your examples are MELB, Kiowa Warrior, EC635 etc.

Why not a few R44s :p Small, light, new-ish, inexpensive and quiet. After all, you just want a BRH don't you?

VP959

5th Dec 2004, 19:02

SS,

For what it's worth I've had nowt to do with the setting of the requirements for any of the new kit. I do know those that have though, and have to assume that they know what they are doing when reaching the best, affordable, compromise. Currently that compromise is to trade the old BLUH requirement to BRH, which is a light recce helo to support WAH and ground forces. Rather unsurprisingly our friends over the pond are doing something similar, trading the cancelled RAH-66 programme for a lightweight ARH, which will be something like Kiowa or MELB I suspect.

You can choose not to believe me if you wish, it's entirely your choice. You may well be right about what's actually needed, rather than what your old corps 1* tells me is needed. After all as a passed-over sergeant I've no doubt that your knowledge, expertise and judgement is considerably greater.

SilsoeSid

5th Dec 2004, 19:22

"You may well be right about what's actually needed, rather than what your old corps 1* tells me is needed. "

And who better to know what is needed more than the old !*, Eh VP! After all there are no others with fingers on so many pulses are there. Or was that fingers in pies with retirement in mind? (sound familiar!!) :ooh:

If you don't mind me once more repeating 2 quotes from you with your resources/contacts;

" The utility/lift elements that were in BLUH have been dropped from the requirement as part of FRC."

"...........although I know that DAAvn is still pushing the "utility" requirement.

It doesn't seem to me that the old 1* knows what he wants....does he!!!!

"as a passed-over sergeant I've no doubt that your knowledge, expertise and judgement is considerably greater"

At one stage perhaps it was VP, perhaps it was. But for now, I just hope that the country gets the correct kit to make my country a safer place!!! :ok:

ATB,
SS

p.s. Same arguments back in July.
p.p.s. (edit) With your limited experience hands on, so to speak, at what rank does someones opinion count VP?

Tourist

6th Dec 2004, 07:39

Just went off and checked my facts.
Lynx AH Mk 7 has a max endurance of 2:10.
On Telic, this meant that the crews had to go home practically as soon as they got a hand over in place.
A MAJOR limitation.
Perhaps the people making the requirements should actually speak to the current operators, then we might get a piece of kit we like.
Oh no, that would never work would it. Nobody likes the new bagger cab do they.?

vortexadminman

7th Dec 2004, 12:26

How about a good old fashioned truck = A huey!!

Grey Area

8th Dec 2004, 22:22

Tourist

Have you considered the possibility that the AH were being tasked beyond their stated capability. Let's face it the endurance of a Lynx is hardly a national secret.

BTW As far as I am aware it was WHL who started using the phrase Future Lynx whilst the MOD stuck with BLUH and SCMR for some time.

PS. I previewed the SH60 and would rather fly a Lynx in the SCMR role. It's great for ASW from an Arleigh Burke though.....

the funky munky

8th Dec 2004, 22:54

VP does seem to be very well informed. Am I right in thinking there is a Lynx P in your title or have you been moved to main building recently?
Rant on.
Bearing in mind what happened today and previously this year I can't help but think that the DECs need to pull their collective fingers out and buy something to replace the shagged out Lynx.
These operators strap the Lynx to their backs every day knowing that the cab could fall out of the sky at any time. Don't get me wrong the Lynx is a great small ship flight A/C but we should have procured somehing back when LLUH was on the table.
If its built at Wastelands then jobs are secured good arguement but WHL have the license to build lots of lovely cabs more suitable for the Army than FLynx.
FLynx is a WHL propaganda exercise, it doesn't and never will meet either BLUH/SCMR or the BRH URD. A lot of work has been carried out by the DPA and WHL to change the FLynx but its the best thing WHL make for the job.
If they had bothered to develop something suitable in the first place rather than trying to prop up their dodgy arms deals then we might have got somewhere.
Expect to see a couple of dozen very expensive FLynx sat in a storage hanger in 10 years time being polished by WHL IOS experts, whilst the current legacy A/C is still soldiering on.
Rant off.

VP959

9th Dec 2004, 16:16

Not anywhere near as close to the "centre" as you suspect, Funky Monkey, just a reasonably well-connected person associated with a certain well-known establishment on a flatt-ish bit of central southern England...............

I agree about the political bits re: a certain indigenous rotorcraft manufacturer though. Buying from them just to keep them in business is wholly wrong, unless they actually deliver the best bit of kit for the price.

What's the betting that any future purchase decision will be driven by politicians, rather than all those hard-working bods who have spent a couple of years trying to evaluate the best option?

From what I've seen, procurement doesn't fail because the procurers get it wrong, it nearly always fails because the decisions get skewed by high level political influence, leaving the procurers with impossible programmes to run.

[email protected]

9th Dec 2004, 19:03

So what does the AAC actually need? It's got it's AH anti tank capability but needs RAF SH to support it as the Lynx has a pitiful USL or internal freight capability.

It also needs recce helicopters which do not need to be as big or thirsty as the Lynx. So leave the SH stuff to RAF SH and buy more Chinooks and procure a light, fast BRH for the recce.

The only problem is that other than war-fighting and exercises the AAC would not be deployed as their kit would be too specialised. By continuing with a Lynx replacement philosophy DAAVn are able to maintain the size and strength of the AAC and continue to have their non-AH crews as jack-of-all-trades and master of none. The Lynx will never be an SH machine although it's shedloads of fun to fly.

Having seen the SABRSAR circus have meetings, steering groups and roadshows, only to go round in circles as the goalpost kept moving and eventually evolve into SARH which will doubtless turn the same tricks without ever making any decisions, I am holding out little hope for something useful coming out of BLUH, FLYNX etc.

hotzenplotz

8th Mar 2005, 23:52

The Sea Lynx seems to have adjustable rear wheels. I understand that on a ship without much space, the helicopter has to be turned into the wind.

-How does this work?

- Are the rear wheels adjusted with hydraulic pressure, or are they just "unlocked" and go into the desired position trough a pedal-turn?

- How doed a landing on a Fregatte work? They have a landing hook ...

Any help is highly appreciated

Thanks in advance ...

Hotzenplotz

Shawn Coyle

9th Mar 2005, 15:23

The Lynx wheels are normally angled so the helicopter can rotate about the harpoon, which locks into the landing grid. The nosewheel has only two positions (fore/aft or left right for castoring).
To move the helicopter fore/aft the mainenance folks unlock the aft wheels and rotate them to the straight ahead position. This is not the normal position.
Unless this has all changed, of course. I last flew the Navy Lynx in 1982...

hotzenplotz

10th Mar 2005, 23:05

Thanks for helping me.

Fregate environments are not well known outside the Navy. Its an interesting topic and I enjoy learning about it.

Regards ...

Hotz

Paul McKeksdown

11th Mar 2005, 07:58

Shawn,

Yep, no changes, apart from the fact that like most naval helos it's got fatter.

Hotzenplotz, the harpoon is engaged into a metal grid placed at the centre of the deck after the aircraft has landed. It is not the same as the Canadian bear trap system which effectively 'winches' the aircraft onto the deck. If the sea state is particularly rough the Lynx has the ability to push through to negative blade bitch allowing it to hold itself on deck. Been needed a couple of times too. The Harpoon is quite effective as demonstrated during the Falklands war after 'Antrim' (I believe, but not 100% sure) was hit and rolled over the Lynx was still found attached by the harpoon inverted underwater.

The castoring on deck is not used all that much as it is preferable for the ship to manoeuvre into wind prior to launching. However if the sea room is restrictive or the ship has to remain on course with a trong side wind the aircraft has the option to rotate into wind.

On the RN Lynx the wheels have only the two positions which are set by the ground crew. Fore/aft in order to pull it out onto the deck and then 45degrees approx to enable castoring and a braking effect if a running landing is required (shags the tyres though!). I believe, but again am not 100% sure, that the french lynx has the ability to turn the wheels from the cockpit.

Like Shawn, haven't flown the beast for many a year but it was fantastic to fly and had many a problem free flying hour!

Gainesy

11th Mar 2005, 10:34

Good job description for the security woman that frisks pax.:)

Paul McKeksdown

11th Mar 2005, 14:24

Doh!!! new spellung woz puur! Mrs McK slipped in there as well!

suppose if you ever needed it in flight it would be a bitch:p

Ian Corrigible

24th Mar 2005, 14:25

(Mods - this can probably be merged with the other 4 or 5 threads on the subject...)

Partnering arrangement between MoD and Agusta Westland
Ministry of Defence news release (059/2005) issued by the Government News Network on 24 March 2005

The Ministry of Defence has today announced that it intends to develop a long-term partnering and business transformation arrangement with Agusta Westland, which has been outlined in a 'Heads of Agreement'. The MoD has also indicated that Agusta Westland's Future Lynx is its preferred option for meeting the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack elements of the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirement. These decisions are subject to continuing negotiations with the company and, in the case of Future Lynx, to agreeing acceptable contract conditions and prices.

The MoD and Agusta Westland have committed to work toward a partnering and business transformation agreement that builds on the new integrated operational support arrangements agreed for the Sea King fleet. This support will be further developed to optimise more aspects of managing and sustaining the current and future helicopter fleets.

The Future Lynx decision builds on previous extensive assessment and de-risking work, as well as analysis conducted into future rotorcraft requirements. Competition remains the cornerstone of MoD procurement policy. This applies to the Future Rotorcraft Capability requirements as elsewhere, in particular for the Land Lift (Medium) element.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said:

"I am pleased to announce both our decision to work together with Agusta Westland toward a long-term partnering arrangement, and our decision that Future Lynx is our preferred option for the Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack requirement.

"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. This is a key first milestone for the Future Rotorcraft Capability programme, and is part of the commitment we made in last year's supplement to the Defence White Paper to invest some £3 billion in our helicopter fleet over the next 10 years.

2. Exact aircraft numbers for the Future Lynx, delivery schedule and In-Service Date will all be set at the time of the main procurement decision.

3. A final "Main Gate" procurement decision is expected later this year.

I/C

pr00ne

24th Mar 2005, 14:26

Land find?

What's that then?

Oggin Aviator

24th Mar 2005, 14:48

"This is excellent news for Agusta Westland, for the highly skilled staff at its Yeovil plant, and for the British defence industry, including Smiths Industries at Cheltenham, Thales at Raynes Park and Taunton, GD(UK) in St Leonards-on-Sea and South Dorset Engineering Ltd in Weymouth.

.... oh, and BTW, please vote for us in May"

Toxteth O'Grady

24th Mar 2005, 14:50

So for Maritime (Surface) Attack we're buying an enhanced, limited endurance, pea-shooter that can't even find its own mother. Great call!! That'll not be at all political, then. :rolleyes:

:cool:

TOG

dmanton300

24th Mar 2005, 14:53

Let the cynical sniping begin. First person to use the term "Wastelands" in a gratuitous swing at the announcement wins. .. errr. . nothing, actually.

Si Clik

24th Mar 2005, 16:52

Land Find and Maritime (Surface) Attack

I have seen a few documents on this and to be quite frank do not recognise the terms above. I personally though the original BLUH requirement was for an aircraft to transport small numbers of troops around the battlefield. The SCMR mission defined here also looks a little limited.

Both together would seem to indicate a retrenchment from the original defintion for these linked but originally separate projects.

Anyone in the know care to comment?

:hmm:

Jimlad

24th Mar 2005, 23:56

Hi guys, is FLYNX a new build aircraft or a refurbed Mk8? Anyone want to take a guess on numbers, the rolling brief from about 2 years ago was talking 40 frames, so I guess we're looking at about 25 now?

engineer(retard)

25th Mar 2005, 08:00

SiClik/Pr00ne

Jungly AEO has got it about right, this is how FRC views the battlespace capability breakdown for rotary wing.

I'm more cynical as regards the announcement. The BLUH contract was supposed to have been signed at Farnboro last year. The spin in the notes is nonsense, the commitment to Lynx replacement was made a long time ago and has not been delivered. This is recycling old news, another procurement delay has been shown as a triumph of recent investment. I think that this is the easiest bit of FRC out of the way, wait until the medium lift competition - Merlin or NH90 what would you rather fly?

HEDP

25th Mar 2005, 10:05

Ah well, a winner for Westlands and Defence Industry however a carefull ommission of the words a good thing for the Services. Yet again Westlands announce significant redundancies during the decision making period and the politicians fall over themselves to award them contracts that do not necesarily benefit the end user.

Lynx:- Too small to 'lift' anything of use on the battlefield. Difficult to see how availability/serviceability would be increased or surely the technology would have been incorporated in existing Lynx to improve it's reputation! Range limited, no cabin space etc. etc.

I'd love to see a costing to balance against a further purchase of non radar equipped Apaches for the Army! We already have the best find aircraft on the rotary battlefield but not necesarily sufficient numbers of weapons delivery platforms. Buy more 64D's, increase weapons platforms and use existing ones with radar in the find function as well.

IMHO

Grey Area

25th Mar 2005, 11:49

I believe this is good news for the Lynx operators. We all know that the airframe and engines are getting tired and a replacement needs to be procured yesterday. That fact that the airframe will be Lynx development is not that surprising given the project risk reduction that the SCMR/BLUH project output can give.

If you want to replace a Lynx with similar but modernised size/capability then there are not that many choices and let's face it in the current climate any thought improved capability is fantasy. We are not going to see a larger, bigger hitting, technologically stunning replacement.

The irritation of the MOD handling of SCMR/BLUH and the unnecessary design restrictions placed on AWHL are ancient history, let’s get on and deal with what we are getting.

HEDP: There are many ways that the Lynx can be improved with a rebuild - new engines, redesigned structure, and modern design - but what you ain't getting on the battle field is a Blackhawk! The capability required by FRC is Land (Find) we are lucky we aren't getting a Kiowa Warrior. As far as you comments on Apache are concerned, bear in mind that it is an excellent attack mission system in an ageing airframe design - the fcs is frankly poor by modern standards (yes I have flown it) as is the PNVS hence DNVG trials. It is too big for recce and the optics are in the wrong place. Now if Land(Find) doesn't have a mast mounted sight then we have a problem....

Bismark

25th Mar 2005, 13:01

The trouble with Apache for Land Find is that you would not use it for small scale ops (in the same way that you would not use a Challenger on the ground). Apache is a weapon system for medium/large scale ops.

Seems to me the announcement yesterday is good news for the maritime boys. F Lynx/SCMR will follow on from the Mk 8 as the best (bar none) small ship find/attack helo in the world - coupled with the best find/attack aircrew in the world (the Observer). What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.

Does anyone know anything about the NH90 in the TTH role? Is it any good, how much has it flown, is it in service with anyone yet? Has any real war-fighting nation bought it?

timex

25th Mar 2005, 15:58

.What the Army/RMs need is SCMR ie a radar fitted find a/c with a light attack capability. You will then be able to have one of those Heineken moments - gets to places others can't.

So that will be Cobra then? Why a Radar, thats what REDRAT (SK mk 6) does and does very well.

Guess we'll end up doing the R&D for Westlands again then, and in 20 yrs time we'll get a competent aircraft just in time for us to retire it

The trouble with Apache for Land Find is that you would not use it for small scale ops (in the same way that you would not use a Challenger on the ground). Apache is a weapon system for medium/large scale

Thats great news for the Royal Marines then. NO AH support on Ops.

Oggin Aviator

25th Mar 2005, 16:05

Redrat is a Mk 7 not a Mk 6 and there arent enough of them to do this role solely without detriment to other tasking. Check with Bag Man for details.

Bismark

25th Mar 2005, 17:44

Timex,

Thats great news for the Royal Marines then. NO AH support on Ops.

You miss the point. It does not matter who will use AH it is not a small scale weapon system.

VP959

25th Mar 2005, 17:46

For what it's worth, here is some info on FLynx:

It will have a MAUM at OSD of 6250kg, as against the current Lynx MAUM of 5330kg. It'll be structurally cleared to 6250kg at ISD, but needs BERPIV blades to get there (it'll operate at about 6100kg MAUM at ISD). Overall, the basic mass empty remains close to that for the current aircraft, so the improvement in useful load is quite significant.

The airframe is virtually all new, with extensive use of monolithic machined panels to reduce parts count, reduce mass and reduce time and cost of repair. The tail cone alone has a parts count reduction of close on two orders of magnitude over the current riveted structure. The airframe has been designed to improve maintainability, by trying to fix most of the irritating "features" in the current airframe. This data was gathered from maintainers at the front line during the Assessment Phase.
The engines are new, LHTEC CTS 800Ns, with a very healthy power increase over the ageing Gems. As a consequence, hot and high performance will be massively improved over the current Lynx.

The MRGB will be a refurbished and uprated current Lynx box, with new conformal gears and a new top cover, to improve reliability and increase torque capacity. Additional reduction gearboxes are fitted at the front of the engines to reduce the rpm into the MRGB.

Nr is increased, as a consequence of the carefree handling provided by the FADEC control. This ensures very much more accurate Nr measurement and display, so allows a safe higher Nr. This significantly improves the disc performance and in addtion reduces pilot workload.

The tail rotor and hub is new, to allow sufficient yaw authority with the much increased main rotor power input and higher MAUM.

Fuel capacity will be increased by the fitment of external drop tanks for long range missions. This is made possible by the significant increase in useful load. Current predicted endurance with drop tanks is over 3 hours at 120kts.

The cockpit has four 10" x 8" AMLCD displays, digital map, integrated threat warning displays, switchable PFDs etc, and all the modern widgets you might expect. Front seat entry and egress is improved by increasing the size of the front doors. Cockpit safety has been improved by massively strengthening the floor area, fitting stroking seats and addressing the known issue of the front cockpit section breaking just in front of the front lift frame on impact.

The rear cabin stays pretty much exactly as the current Lynx, with the addition of stroking, energy absorbing seats and four/five point harnesses for passengers. Again, the floor has been strengthened to improve crashworthiness.

It's not all good news though. Much of the systems integration that would have reduced operator workload has had to be reduced, to save money. Other legacy systems have also had to be re-used, for the same reason. The health and safety requirements which have forced the fitment of stroking seats have effectively reduced usable cabin volume in peactime use (it was not viable to stretch the airframe).

I'm no lover of politically induced decision making, and know that four years ago the BLUH procurement team recomended going to competition for this requirement. Their professional view was over ridden by the politicians then and has just been over ridden by them again. Nevertheless, FLynx is a highly capable aircraft, that retains all of the best attributes of Lynx and removes many of the worst.