Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

New European Heavy Lift Helicopter

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

New European Heavy Lift Helicopter

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 26th Jun 2007, 09:41
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,835
Received 278 Likes on 113 Posts
Agreed!

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

Can it be operated to 'Western' military safety levels?
BEagle is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 06:27
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


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

Any news welcome.

YBB
Yellow & Blue Baron is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 08:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Angels 20 and climbing
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its still on, but Eurocopter and Boeing are now co-operating on the project, which means a tandem helo concept is now the preferred design.

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal
NorthernKestrel is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 09:16
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,080
Received 188 Likes on 72 Posts
Interesting that they are quoting a payload of near 15 tonnes. The cabin isn't really large enough to accommodate anything that hefty.

They could lift CVRT type armour externally, but with one hook any really useful items approaching that weight, such as laden ISO containers would be fairly unstable requiring low transit speeds.
minigundiplomat is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 09:53
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Welcome to the Super Chinook!

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

Boeing Vertol XCH-62 HLH



Boeing Vertol XCH-62 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by GreenKnight121; 6th Jan 2011 at 03:20.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 11:32
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Its still on, but Eurocopter and Boeing are now co-operating on the project, which means a tandem helo concept is now the preferred design.

Can anyone tell me in simple terms why twin rotors are preffered to a single one? Is it that Boeing have always used them "So There!" ?
bast0n is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 12:10
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Increased CofG range important advantage. Chinook has 3 external load hooks as opposed to one on a single main rotor hel.
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 13:45
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,197
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
...and you don't have all the drawbacks associated with a tail rotor.
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 14:09
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 359
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Currently the EDA is still assessing requirements. I’d suggest the HTH program is still little more than a pipedream, as funding approval (let alone a realistic ISD - 2020 at least) is still some way off, at which point the CH-53K will be in service and I daresay, the preferred solution for the HEER to replace their ageing CH-53’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by Hilife; 5th Jan 2011 at 14:39.
Hilife is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 14:23
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"CM. The CH-53K will also have single, dual and triple cargo hook capability. "

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

I'll stick to the tandem configuration for heavy lift, thanks. Just my opinion, of course...
nice castle is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 14:58
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,240
Received 426 Likes on 268 Posts
Why not buy the CH-53K?

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

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

Do you expect the winner in this design process to have a tail rotor, or not have one?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 15:18
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nice Castle

and a tail rotor which saps a bunch of power, and makes landing with a high nose up attitude having just decelerated quickly nice and dangerous.
Does a twin rotor not use any anti torque power? I would have thought that some power was used to keep it stable. As to dangerous landings with a tail rotor, it is all a matter of judgement...............
bast0n is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 15:35
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,042
Received 13 Likes on 5 Posts
Why not CH-53K?

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

How many -53Ks ordered? 130ish for the USMC and it's sliding right all the time. How many -47Fs? 500+ and counting for the US Army, RAF, Dutch, Italians, UAE, Canada, Australia etc etc. Like I said, horses for courses....
Evalu8ter is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 18:12
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I hope the Europeans come up with a competitor to the Russians and Americans as it will hopefully make them make the next step for future heavy lift.
How long have Chinook and Sea Stalion been around now? I know they have new everything but the basic designs are from the 60's
NURSE is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 20:44
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Part of the answer on single and twin rotors: Rotor tip velocity is limited by Mach on the advancing blade in forward flight, so as your rotor gets bigger its rpm is perforce less. More power + lower rpm = lots of torque, which combined with a wider ratio in the transmission is mechanically challenging - the weight of the transmission and shaft increases more than proportionally with the power.

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

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

The bigger you get, the bigger the advantages of multiple rotors - which is one reason why the -47 has lasted so long.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2011, 21:44
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 2,076
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
A programme of 15 (I think) CH53's going though Upgrade to G-1 status (I think) at Donnauwoerth now!

First one left a few weeks ago.
Rigga is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2011, 10:51
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What could have been !! Sigh!

Fairey Rotodyne was the future of aviation | Archive | The Engineer


Cheers
oldgrubber is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2011, 12:10
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 291
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Whatever is built or bought, lets hope that it is marinised as standard, inc auto blade fold, so that it can fit in to ships easily no matter which service operates it.
andyy is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2011, 15:43
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: At home
Posts: 1,232
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Is there any good reason why a Chinook doesn't have blade fold? I would have thought that there are users who would have wanted the capability.

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





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

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

Last edited by Mechta; 7th Jan 2011 at 15:55.
Mechta is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2011, 16:17
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,080
Received 188 Likes on 72 Posts
Is there any good reason why a Chinook doesn't have blade fold? I would have thought that there are users who would have wanted the capability.
As far as I am aware, the UK is the only nation to deploy Chinooks on carriers with any degree of regularity. The USMC operates CH53 (which, and I may be mistaken, have blade fold), and Sea Knights (No idea if they have blade fold). However, the average USMC carrier is designed to take 'proper sized' aircraft and it's deck/lifts/hanger decks are much larger.

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


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.