F/Lynx all systems go at AW
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the various vigorous inputs
I feel that I have to summarise my postings for clarity;
Suppliers are only required to deliver what is requested by the contract and that is what is done. If the contract placed differs from the end users requirements, blame the specification writers not the suppliers (GND please take note)
I have never denied that with the current control system (ie GEM)Nr control at low tq is challenging (but please conceed that all posters here only have experience of that configuration), so as no one here has flown a Lynx with T800s fitted any comments on its Nr control are theoretical on both sides of the argument and no one will know until FLynx flies (or a T800 equipped Lynx pilot cares to comment)We are all entitled to our own views on the subject.
Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is.
Modern aircraft design rules placed on manufacturers mandate change to airframes that some users disagree with, but it's a non negotiable point.
I freely admit not knowing about the various undercarriage configurations and thats why I asked (terminology can be misleading so I requested clarification), the FLynx undercarriage may not be what the user wants but the point has been conceeded by WG13 that the design meets what was asked for. (see a pattern here?)
regarding the Mk9 undercarriage something rings a bell that the design evolved so that a Mk7 could be converted to a Mk9 without a substantial structural rebuild, therefore the loads had reacted through existing structure and that drove the geometry of the legs. If such constraints are placed on a design team we are back to Mr Scott again and there are few options available.
I think that summarises what I have been saying. It may make uneasy reading for some in the services but that's the reality of a cash strapped procurement environment.
DM
Suppliers are only required to deliver what is requested by the contract and that is what is done. If the contract placed differs from the end users requirements, blame the specification writers not the suppliers (GND please take note)
I have never denied that with the current control system (ie GEM)Nr control at low tq is challenging (but please conceed that all posters here only have experience of that configuration), so as no one here has flown a Lynx with T800s fitted any comments on its Nr control are theoretical on both sides of the argument and no one will know until FLynx flies (or a T800 equipped Lynx pilot cares to comment)We are all entitled to our own views on the subject.
Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is.
Modern aircraft design rules placed on manufacturers mandate change to airframes that some users disagree with, but it's a non negotiable point.
I freely admit not knowing about the various undercarriage configurations and thats why I asked (terminology can be misleading so I requested clarification), the FLynx undercarriage may not be what the user wants but the point has been conceeded by WG13 that the design meets what was asked for. (see a pattern here?)
regarding the Mk9 undercarriage something rings a bell that the design evolved so that a Mk7 could be converted to a Mk9 without a substantial structural rebuild, therefore the loads had reacted through existing structure and that drove the geometry of the legs. If such constraints are placed on a design team we are back to Mr Scott again and there are few options available.
I think that summarises what I have been saying. It may make uneasy reading for some in the services but that's the reality of a cash strapped procurement environment.
DM
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not know if you really do know the 'reality'. It is now blatantly obvious that you are more interested in either promotion within a useless company or trying to prove that you know best and the SME's are all lying.
Crab has politely, succinctly and truthfully tried to tell you that this piece of sh1t will have the same dangerous trends as the Mk1-9. We were conned into having the 800s on the 9's which will cost a fortune and take a year - should use the REME as they can change an engine in 12 hours or less; sorry you probably have a very good reason why you, sorry AW, have to take a year to mess this one up as well.
There are 'watchers' on this thread who do seem to know what they are talking about and I am 'told' that the Army will get the castoring wheel, a good and logical move - so you think they did that out of the goodness of their hearts or actually listened, unlikely as it seems and has been in the past.
If someone actually believes that it is the owners fault that the product doesn’t work might find that the owner is so fed-up with the product that they just keep putting in fault reports until the company get such bad press that they fix it - been done before and will be done again. God forbid that one of our friends comes to grief as there is so much documented evidence that this will not work or what we wanted then the nails will be driven home and the last AW stronghold will go the same way as the IoW, can’t wait.
If you think this is vitriolic and personal, it is nothing compared to some of the posts that will no doubt follow. You are very stubborn and obviously uninformed or not experienced enough to take on the real Lynx experts, good luck: I yield to the real experts.
Crab has politely, succinctly and truthfully tried to tell you that this piece of sh1t will have the same dangerous trends as the Mk1-9. We were conned into having the 800s on the 9's which will cost a fortune and take a year - should use the REME as they can change an engine in 12 hours or less; sorry you probably have a very good reason why you, sorry AW, have to take a year to mess this one up as well.
There are 'watchers' on this thread who do seem to know what they are talking about and I am 'told' that the Army will get the castoring wheel, a good and logical move - so you think they did that out of the goodness of their hearts or actually listened, unlikely as it seems and has been in the past.
If someone actually believes that it is the owners fault that the product doesn’t work might find that the owner is so fed-up with the product that they just keep putting in fault reports until the company get such bad press that they fix it - been done before and will be done again. God forbid that one of our friends comes to grief as there is so much documented evidence that this will not work or what we wanted then the nails will be driven home and the last AW stronghold will go the same way as the IoW, can’t wait.
If you think this is vitriolic and personal, it is nothing compared to some of the posts that will no doubt follow. You are very stubborn and obviously uninformed or not experienced enough to take on the real Lynx experts, good luck: I yield to the real experts.
DM, I think I have to summarise your postings for clarity:
I believe I have illustrated how the specification writers can be forced into accepting change that the end user doesn't want, simply because the supplier can't (or won't) supply what was contracted. Any attempt at penalising the supplier is met with 'we can't afford to lose money or all those jobs in Yeovil will be at risk' and the politicians are rolled out to defend British industry.
There is meeting the contract and there is meeting the contract - when the first AH 64s were being delivered there was one serviceable Multi-Function Display (MFD) available but the contract stated that each aircraft had to be delivered complete and functional or penalties would be awarded.
AW flew each aircraft individually to MW where each one was inspected and confirmed to be complete - then they took the MFD out, drove it to Yeovil and installed it in the next AH64 for delivery. So the AAC got a hangar full of unuseable aircraft with no MFDs and AW got to keep their profit having failed to deliver the goods
T800s wil not change anything with regard to lively Nr on FLynx but you seem very unwilling to concede that point - there is no magic spell that can be cast but you keep wishing anyway.
Everyone understands the implications of modern airworthiness regulations but don't hide behind them to justify why the aircraft won't be able to do its job on the battlefield - if the cabin was bigger you could have crashworthy seats AND enough room for 8 troops!
The Mk 9 undercarriage could have been designed much better without compromising the aircraft structure - AW just used the cheapest and easiest option they could and were then surprised when it didn't work well.
I think this summarises what you have been saying - it might make uncomfortable reading for some in AW and the procurement business but that's the reality of a government supported industry that doesn't have to compete to stay in business.
I believe I have illustrated how the specification writers can be forced into accepting change that the end user doesn't want, simply because the supplier can't (or won't) supply what was contracted. Any attempt at penalising the supplier is met with 'we can't afford to lose money or all those jobs in Yeovil will be at risk' and the politicians are rolled out to defend British industry.
There is meeting the contract and there is meeting the contract - when the first AH 64s were being delivered there was one serviceable Multi-Function Display (MFD) available but the contract stated that each aircraft had to be delivered complete and functional or penalties would be awarded.
AW flew each aircraft individually to MW where each one was inspected and confirmed to be complete - then they took the MFD out, drove it to Yeovil and installed it in the next AH64 for delivery. So the AAC got a hangar full of unuseable aircraft with no MFDs and AW got to keep their profit having failed to deliver the goods
T800s wil not change anything with regard to lively Nr on FLynx but you seem very unwilling to concede that point - there is no magic spell that can be cast but you keep wishing anyway.
Everyone understands the implications of modern airworthiness regulations but don't hide behind them to justify why the aircraft won't be able to do its job on the battlefield - if the cabin was bigger you could have crashworthy seats AND enough room for 8 troops!
The Mk 9 undercarriage could have been designed much better without compromising the aircraft structure - AW just used the cheapest and easiest option they could and were then surprised when it didn't work well.
I think this summarises what you have been saying - it might make uncomfortable reading for some in AW and the procurement business but that's the reality of a government supported industry that doesn't have to compete to stay in business.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 60
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will probably regret this as this seems to have become quite a heated thread and I have only just glanced at the end. Feel I ought to chip in on something DM just said :
"Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is."
Absolutely correct but this is surely only part of the problem. Also of critical importance are the flying control mechanical characteristics used to control that Nr and the presentation of rotor speed cues to the pilot, be they visual, audio or by other means. You will never make a silk purse out of a sows ear and sometimes I wonder if it is worth the bother but there are often multiple solutions that can go into mitigating a particular problem.
"Rotor control when power off can only be controlled by aerodynamic means, but to change that means a change of blade characteristics, however in the case of FLynx the customer hasn't requested that to happen so for good or ill it is what it is."
Absolutely correct but this is surely only part of the problem. Also of critical importance are the flying control mechanical characteristics used to control that Nr and the presentation of rotor speed cues to the pilot, be they visual, audio or by other means. You will never make a silk purse out of a sows ear and sometimes I wonder if it is worth the bother but there are often multiple solutions that can go into mitigating a particular problem.
Originally Posted by Gnd
We were conned into having the 800s on the 9's which will cost a fortune and take a year - should use the REME as they can change an engine in 12 hours or less; sorry you probably have a very good reason why you, sorry AW, have to take a year to mess this one up as well.
I never knew that.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Boss, it was meant as a metaphor for a crap company that will take far too long, charge far too much and then blame us for asking for engines that work. I also stupidly presumed that someone would have considered the compatibility issue and deemed that it would be capable of changing the engines and so not take a year to put 2 in for first delivery end 09 (if I read the official mouthpiece for AW – the Government-correctly). I was just trying to infer that the REME, or any Military technician, would have empathy with the dilemma we have found ourselves in when the temp rises above 12 deg C and do their absolute best to help out and give us, the user, as good a service as they could. Not just count the pennies after they have put us over a barrel and shafted us.
I am so stupid- bad boy
I am so stupid- bad boy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm letting this one die
If people are not prepared to read what is written (I've never said that the rotor will behave power off any differently) when it opposes their blinkered views and when biased assumptions about future aircraft behaviour are made there is no point in continuing (no T800 lynx epxerts have posted here)
I hope that you keep yourself safe and well GND and I am sad that you think an improvement in the current Mk9 is seen as a 'con' job, you will never be happy it seems.
Merry Xmas to all, I'm off to continue living in the real world
DM
I hope that you keep yourself safe and well GND and I am sad that you think an improvement in the current Mk9 is seen as a 'con' job, you will never be happy it seems.
Merry Xmas to all, I'm off to continue living in the real world
DM
And as DM flounces off into the sunset, the high-pitched whine of the FLynx Nr overspeeding can be heard........ooooooooh it wasn't supposed to do that - are you sure you are flying it properly?Don't you know you have T800s now?
You can polish a turd as much as you like but it is still a turd when all is said and done and you can reasonably expect every turd to exhibit similar characteristics since they are made from the same materials by the same mechanism.
You can polish a turd as much as you like but it is still a turd when all is said and done and you can reasonably expect every turd to exhibit similar characteristics since they are made from the same materials by the same mechanism.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM, do not even presume to tell me when to or when not to be happy, if you get out of your nice little EH101 armchair that you seem to have been in for the past 15 years and come to my nice sunny, hot (well not so much at the moment) base and actually put yourself in the seat then try and tell me that I should be happy with a ‘polished version’- I will shut up. Until then I shall think of you as a cantankerous, self opinionated know all - who obviously doesn’t.
I thought someone "closely associated with" would abide by the AW dictate - don't post on here as you 'may' be quoted as 'selling the party line' - you have and I hope big brother is watching. I bet the Lynx fleet are and I don't see too many on your side.
I hope you have the same Christmas as me!!
I thought someone "closely associated with" would abide by the AW dictate - don't post on here as you 'may' be quoted as 'selling the party line' - you have and I hope big brother is watching. I bet the Lynx fleet are and I don't see too many on your side.
I hope you have the same Christmas as me!!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DM. I have a few hours with the T800 on Super Lynx (as well as a few thousand on various marks of current Lynx) and NR control is still as fruity at the lower power settings as it is with the Mk3, Mk7, Mk8 and Mk 9. Remember, the Super Lynx MAUM is 5330Kg so is only a little bit more than current Lynx but still quite a bit shy of the in-service MAUM of Sidrat. Unless you know different and have defied physics, using the same main rotor assembly and flying controls (and AFCS) and increasing the weight of the aircraft will not improve the NR control. You have all but admitted that it is a design flaw (of sticking highly aerodynamic blades on an already highly loaded disc).
I can tell you work for AWs marketing department.
I can tell you work for AWs marketing department.
Assuming that the answer had to be a Lynx or at least a Westland type (for all of the political/industrial/employment reasons) then what would you experts (and I mean that without a trace of sarcasm) have done differently?
Changed the rotor head and AFCS rather than the monolithic tailboom?
Lengthened the tailboom and increased the length of the MRBs?
Stretched the cabin (as on the Lynx 3 and civvy Lynx - the Type 606)?
Fitted an AW139 type nose gear?
Procured Super Lynx 300 for the RN for the SCMR part of the requirement, and an AW139 derivative for the Army's BLUH requirement?
Changed the rotor head and AFCS rather than the monolithic tailboom?
Lengthened the tailboom and increased the length of the MRBs?
Stretched the cabin (as on the Lynx 3 and civvy Lynx - the Type 606)?
Fitted an AW139 type nose gear?
Procured Super Lynx 300 for the RN for the SCMR part of the requirement, and an AW139 derivative for the Army's BLUH requirement?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no assumption that it had to be Lynx. It was pretty much a done deal as soon as Westland printed the glossy brochures for Sidrat all those years ago. 
Unfortunately, Lynx development is moving into a cul-de-sac and has very little realistic room for improvement or growth. Sure, you can strap on awesome engines and stick in a really nice avionics suite but as turds go, its as highly polished as it can be for future use. Thats the problem. We are rewriting role and requirement to fit that particular aircraft which in my mind is taking quite a large capability leap backwards. Its akin to trying to improve or 'future proof' an Austin Maxi.
This is where the problem lies. To improve Lynx, you actually need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Unfortunately, that costs a huge amount of money. If we had the money, we could go elsewhere (or at least away from Lynx) to get an aircraft that is designed to fit a requirement and/or a capability. As I've said, we have no money and are having to pretty much go with what we are being offered. It really is a choice of 'get Flynx or get bugger all'. Seeings how we have that wonderful choice, we have to make it fit. Or should I say, make us fit what Flynx can do. Its only role in the 'BRH' guise is ISTAR....and that was an after thought.
What could be done realistically to improve Lynx? Well, if we had the budget, it could do with being a bit bigger. The Lynx fuselage plug would go some way to meeting that. At least it would mean the future aircraft with crash worthy seats would have a similar troop lift capability as the current Lynx (with the advantage that it could do this in hot/high environments). This gives flexibility in a utility platform. The problem with high disc loading would unfortunately increase with the current MRH/blade configuration. One would need to redesign this to ensure the MRH/blades could keep up with the increase in mass.
The design of the monolithic tail boom is a factor of easier/cheaper manufacturing and maintenance as opposed to some wonderfully special handling artefact. Lengthening the tail boom and MR blades would unfortunately make the handling akin to sticking remoulds and coil springs on an F1 car.
The CMRBs (BERP) are the issue. They fly too well. Afterall, thats what Westland designed them to do (for naval aircraft). The sales speil went along the lines of;
Sell Point 1. The Composite Main Rotor Blades will allow a higher cruise speed.
Reality. In the TOW role, the Army Lynx had a max speed of 140 kts due to the TOW booms. The entire Lynx fleet had a limitation of 140kts (down to 120kts for a while) due to vibration issues and tail gearbox issues. A higher cruise speed was irrelevant.
Sell Point 2. The CMRB are all exactly the same therefore meaning that tracking and vib'ing the blades becomes a thing of the past. Maintenance is reduced as they all come out of a 'master mould'.
Reality. It is impossible to manufacturer two components exactly the same especially when it comes to large rotable parts. No two blades are the same and due to no adjustment at workshop level (no tip washers, no trim tabs), it means that tuning the blades is nigh on impossible therefore ensuring the aircraft have more vibrations meaning all other components have shorter lives. (Dont worry chaps, the MRHVA ('Bonk') will 'cure' this) and gluing bits of rubber to the tips will helps the engineers tuning.
From what I'm led to believe, FLynx will have a bonk. Well, when asked, the AW bloke didn't know but said 'probably'. Super Lynx (T800s) currently wears a bonk.
Sell Point 3. The blades are more aerodynamic, lighter and agile than steel blades meaning the aircraft are more manoeuvrable and will give you a higher MAUM.
Reality. The above factors ensure the head flys away at the drop of a hat.....or to be precise, at the drop of a collective. This causes un-noticed rotor over speeds and contributed to over stressing of tie bars. Result= Large smoking hole 3kms outside Mendig in 1994. Tie bar failure.
Sell Point 4. Due to the shape of the tip paddles, the onset of tip transonic compressibility is increased meaning the advancing blade experiences a lower relative tip speed. Tip vortices are sent outwards and downwards therefore not disturbing the following blades air flow.
Reality. Who cares? 140kts is all we can do anyway. See point 1. The 'Cobble stone' effect has the boffins at Westland scratching their heads a bit. A rumbling effect of the aircraft when hover taxiing between 14-17 kts or if sat in the hover with the same speed of air over the disc. Plays havoc with the previously stable TOW or PID sights. More vibration.
Sell Point 5. All you Lynx boys will be wanting these blades. They are awesome.
Reality. Err, no we dont (Army). Plastic tipped blades are a bit of a nause if you are landing in a clearing. If you get so much as a twig touching the tip, it fecks off and makes the cab wobble like buggery. At least with the old steel blades, you could do a little bit of foliage trimming and fly the cab out of it without bits of the aircraft falling off. We dont actually want/need CMRBs thank you very much.
Westland - Tough. We dont make the steal blades any more so you're going to have to spend £40k a blade for them whether you like it or not. Do you lot not realise you're the R&D department for BERP/Merlin/Super Lynx?????
I like the idea of sticking an AW139 nose gear on it though. We could also stick AW139 main gear, AW139 doors, AW139 cockpit, AW139 fuselage and whilst we are at it, AW139 MRH, tail rotor and engines on it too. That would get my thumbs up.
To be honest, as has been said, the SCMR fits the FAAs needs to perfection. Unfortunately, to get the 'deal', commonality with the pongos cab was required and to that end, to enable the Navy to afford SCMR the AAC had to buy into the BRH too. Without one, the other couldn't happen. It just means that the AAC will have to make the massive compromise yet again for the next 30 years (if it lasts that long).
Unfortunately, Lynx development is moving into a cul-de-sac and has very little realistic room for improvement or growth. Sure, you can strap on awesome engines and stick in a really nice avionics suite but as turds go, its as highly polished as it can be for future use. Thats the problem. We are rewriting role and requirement to fit that particular aircraft which in my mind is taking quite a large capability leap backwards. Its akin to trying to improve or 'future proof' an Austin Maxi.
This is where the problem lies. To improve Lynx, you actually need to start with a clean sheet of paper. Unfortunately, that costs a huge amount of money. If we had the money, we could go elsewhere (or at least away from Lynx) to get an aircraft that is designed to fit a requirement and/or a capability. As I've said, we have no money and are having to pretty much go with what we are being offered. It really is a choice of 'get Flynx or get bugger all'. Seeings how we have that wonderful choice, we have to make it fit. Or should I say, make us fit what Flynx can do. Its only role in the 'BRH' guise is ISTAR....and that was an after thought.
What could be done realistically to improve Lynx? Well, if we had the budget, it could do with being a bit bigger. The Lynx fuselage plug would go some way to meeting that. At least it would mean the future aircraft with crash worthy seats would have a similar troop lift capability as the current Lynx (with the advantage that it could do this in hot/high environments). This gives flexibility in a utility platform. The problem with high disc loading would unfortunately increase with the current MRH/blade configuration. One would need to redesign this to ensure the MRH/blades could keep up with the increase in mass.
The design of the monolithic tail boom is a factor of easier/cheaper manufacturing and maintenance as opposed to some wonderfully special handling artefact. Lengthening the tail boom and MR blades would unfortunately make the handling akin to sticking remoulds and coil springs on an F1 car.
The CMRBs (BERP) are the issue. They fly too well. Afterall, thats what Westland designed them to do (for naval aircraft). The sales speil went along the lines of;
Sell Point 1. The Composite Main Rotor Blades will allow a higher cruise speed.
Reality. In the TOW role, the Army Lynx had a max speed of 140 kts due to the TOW booms. The entire Lynx fleet had a limitation of 140kts (down to 120kts for a while) due to vibration issues and tail gearbox issues. A higher cruise speed was irrelevant.
Sell Point 2. The CMRB are all exactly the same therefore meaning that tracking and vib'ing the blades becomes a thing of the past. Maintenance is reduced as they all come out of a 'master mould'.
Reality. It is impossible to manufacturer two components exactly the same especially when it comes to large rotable parts. No two blades are the same and due to no adjustment at workshop level (no tip washers, no trim tabs), it means that tuning the blades is nigh on impossible therefore ensuring the aircraft have more vibrations meaning all other components have shorter lives. (Dont worry chaps, the MRHVA ('Bonk') will 'cure' this) and gluing bits of rubber to the tips will helps the engineers tuning.
From what I'm led to believe, FLynx will have a bonk. Well, when asked, the AW bloke didn't know but said 'probably'. Super Lynx (T800s) currently wears a bonk.
Sell Point 3. The blades are more aerodynamic, lighter and agile than steel blades meaning the aircraft are more manoeuvrable and will give you a higher MAUM.
Reality. The above factors ensure the head flys away at the drop of a hat.....or to be precise, at the drop of a collective. This causes un-noticed rotor over speeds and contributed to over stressing of tie bars. Result= Large smoking hole 3kms outside Mendig in 1994. Tie bar failure.
Sell Point 4. Due to the shape of the tip paddles, the onset of tip transonic compressibility is increased meaning the advancing blade experiences a lower relative tip speed. Tip vortices are sent outwards and downwards therefore not disturbing the following blades air flow.
Reality. Who cares? 140kts is all we can do anyway. See point 1. The 'Cobble stone' effect has the boffins at Westland scratching their heads a bit. A rumbling effect of the aircraft when hover taxiing between 14-17 kts or if sat in the hover with the same speed of air over the disc. Plays havoc with the previously stable TOW or PID sights. More vibration.
Sell Point 5. All you Lynx boys will be wanting these blades. They are awesome.
Reality. Err, no we dont (Army). Plastic tipped blades are a bit of a nause if you are landing in a clearing. If you get so much as a twig touching the tip, it fecks off and makes the cab wobble like buggery. At least with the old steel blades, you could do a little bit of foliage trimming and fly the cab out of it without bits of the aircraft falling off. We dont actually want/need CMRBs thank you very much.
Westland - Tough. We dont make the steal blades any more so you're going to have to spend £40k a blade for them whether you like it or not. Do you lot not realise you're the R&D department for BERP/Merlin/Super Lynx?????
I like the idea of sticking an AW139 nose gear on it though. We could also stick AW139 main gear, AW139 doors, AW139 cockpit, AW139 fuselage and whilst we are at it, AW139 MRH, tail rotor and engines on it too. That would get my thumbs up.
To be honest, as has been said, the SCMR fits the FAAs needs to perfection. Unfortunately, to get the 'deal', commonality with the pongos cab was required and to that end, to enable the Navy to afford SCMR the AAC had to buy into the BRH too. Without one, the other couldn't happen. It just means that the AAC will have to make the massive compromise yet again for the next 30 years (if it lasts that long).
There was a political assumption/requirement that it had to be Westland - and I suspect that meant Lynx, exactly because of the need for a common platform for BRH/BLUH/SCMR/FRC Find etc.
I know that the AAC all had hard-ons for the Blackhawk, but if we ever got H-60s (or NH90s, or Super-Duper Puma/Cougars) you know as well as I do that they'd go to the crabs.
There may have been a window of opportunity for the Corps to get a 139-sized machine, but no bigger than that.
But in the event the AAC was forced to take a Lynx (and the AW139/149 would have been better?)
Should it have been a T800 powered aircraft with metal blades? How easy would it have been to reduce the disc loading? Would a longer boom/longer fuselage, bigger main rotor really have been so very disastrous? Why?
Would you want an optimised wheeled gear, or do you really drool for skids?
What could be done to sort out this disc-loading related NR problem?
Go easy on me, I'm a rusty fixed wing PPL, so the intricacies of RW handling are a black art.....
But I am a generally friendly, pro-Defence journo who is struggling to understand this.
I know that the AAC all had hard-ons for the Blackhawk, but if we ever got H-60s (or NH90s, or Super-Duper Puma/Cougars) you know as well as I do that they'd go to the crabs.
There may have been a window of opportunity for the Corps to get a 139-sized machine, but no bigger than that.
But in the event the AAC was forced to take a Lynx (and the AW139/149 would have been better?)
Should it have been a T800 powered aircraft with metal blades? How easy would it have been to reduce the disc loading? Would a longer boom/longer fuselage, bigger main rotor really have been so very disastrous? Why?
Would you want an optimised wheeled gear, or do you really drool for skids?
What could be done to sort out this disc-loading related NR problem?
Go easy on me, I'm a rusty fixed wing PPL, so the intricacies of RW handling are a black art.....
But I am a generally friendly, pro-Defence journo who is struggling to understand this.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wg13 dummy for IPT!!
Seems like we could do with those forthright, and absolutely spot on points of view further up the chain, where someone would listen...oh and maybe a few years ago, so some thing could have been done. Like you said WG, sorry for the drivers that will be sat on the end of the O Groups like a spare prick at a wedding, saying "sorry boss can't do that (but i can do a back flip!)", and watching the crabs roll their eyes....again. Thank god we have Apache, just to stop us looking completely untaskable. Just a thought, instead of lengthening, why not widen the cabin, a la 412, blackhawk etc..
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko.
The Nr thing is just a rabbithole.
Yes the lynx has a lively Nr, and the FLynx will be worse but it is not a real issue in the big scheme of things. It won't be any worse than some others that we have had over the years.
If I had to pick things to improve, it would not be on the list.
Cockpit visibility, wet hardpoints, bigger in every way, flotkit that occasionally works, engines that don't feel the need to share everything "hey, he's on fire, why don't I try that" etc would be.
The Nr thing is just a rabbithole.
Yes the lynx has a lively Nr, and the FLynx will be worse but it is not a real issue in the big scheme of things. It won't be any worse than some others that we have had over the years.
If I had to pick things to improve, it would not be on the list.
Cockpit visibility, wet hardpoints, bigger in every way, flotkit that occasionally works, engines that don't feel the need to share everything "hey, he's on fire, why don't I try that" etc would be.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack and penny pincher. The problem is anything that is done to adjust the fuselage or dimensions of the Lynx package is going to cost a huge amount. The whole idea of going with the Lynx yet again was because we were told we had bugger all money so whatever we got needed to use as many components from current Lynx. The first few prototypes of FLynx will be new(ish) builds but the remainder of the production versions will use most of the bits from our current cabs when we hand them back to AW. At this stage of the game if we decided that we wanted to increase the volume of the cabin, it would make Typhoon look like a bargain. Just look at how much it is going to cost us to have a castoring nose wheel fitted! Fiddling with the MRH or doing anything that requires a massive redesign is a no go.
Penny, you've hit the nail on the head regarding how the crews are going to be quite embarrassed due to their shiny new cabs not being able to do bugger all.
Jack. The current Lynx design is as far as it can go. There really isn't much more that can be done to it without a massive redesign. There just isn't any growth left. The WG30 demonstrated that it was a step too far for the head, blades and transmission. They had a bit of a tendency of falling out of the sky. As I've said, Lynx has proved itself to be a very capable naval platform and long may it reign. Its just pants as a utility solution. And remember, that was what was required - a battlefield utility helicopter. When it was seen that FLynx had less utility than a plastic flick knife its role was hurridly changed to the nebulous 'ISTAR' and with that a complete rewrite of the AACs core roles. 0-1 to the crabs.
No one has had the balls to actually prescribe what 'light utility' means and how important it is. It just means that Merlin and Chinook will take up the slack to fill that role. Of course, we have hundreds of them just knocking around spare dont we?
Penny, you've hit the nail on the head regarding how the crews are going to be quite embarrassed due to their shiny new cabs not being able to do bugger all.
Jack. The current Lynx design is as far as it can go. There really isn't much more that can be done to it without a massive redesign. There just isn't any growth left. The WG30 demonstrated that it was a step too far for the head, blades and transmission. They had a bit of a tendency of falling out of the sky. As I've said, Lynx has proved itself to be a very capable naval platform and long may it reign. Its just pants as a utility solution. And remember, that was what was required - a battlefield utility helicopter. When it was seen that FLynx had less utility than a plastic flick knife its role was hurridly changed to the nebulous 'ISTAR' and with that a complete rewrite of the AACs core roles. 0-1 to the crabs.
No one has had the balls to actually prescribe what 'light utility' means and how important it is. It just means that Merlin and Chinook will take up the slack to fill that role. Of course, we have hundreds of them just knocking around spare dont we?
You speak with such obvious authority that I can't resist asking:
"Would the AW149 (which I understand to be a militarised AW139 in essence) be a better bet for the AAC?"
If that's a stupid question, I'm sorry. But please humour me!
And (right or wrong) surely in the UK context, for the Corps, Light Utility means anything that requires a small, light helicopter. A single Milan team, a few AH reloads, a small squad of soldiers or a dog team - all of the kind of things that a Lynx could do, but way less than a Puma load.
Pre-Lynx, remember, the AAC was in Scouts and Beavers!
"Would the AW149 (which I understand to be a militarised AW139 in essence) be a better bet for the AAC?"
If that's a stupid question, I'm sorry. But please humour me!
And (right or wrong) surely in the UK context, for the Corps, Light Utility means anything that requires a small, light helicopter. A single Milan team, a few AH reloads, a small squad of soldiers or a dog team - all of the kind of things that a Lynx could do, but way less than a Puma load.
Pre-Lynx, remember, the AAC was in Scouts and Beavers!
Last edited by Jackonicko; 30th Dec 2008 at 13:49.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally believe that something akin to the AW149 would give the Armed Forces more flexibility for little extra outlay. Not only that, it has plenty of future growth. Something FLynx doesn't have. And it wouldn't tread on the SH toes either. The AW139/149 would fit quite nicely below Makila Pumas in role terms plus give the battlefield a useful utility platform.
Sad thing is we won’t learn anything from this saga and I’ll bet interoperability didn’t feature anywhere in the Flynx presentations a few years back.
When the MoD finally decides to replace the Sea King and Puma fleet – and please let’s not waste already inadequate MoD funding on any end-of-life upgrades – I suspect that the likes of Eurocopter, NH Industries, Sikorsky and other will refrain from entering any competition as the eventual winner will almost certainly be any AW militarised (that’s a civil helicopter painted green for effect) product from Vergiate – sorry, I meant the West Country.
If Flynx is the best on offer, then let the whole shop go to the wall and let’s promote export offsets in successful UK businesses in return for a capable and proven platform for current and future demanding operations instead of just delaying the inevitable for those in the West Country.
Proud to be British as I am, some things in life are far more important that job security and votes.
When the MoD finally decides to replace the Sea King and Puma fleet – and please let’s not waste already inadequate MoD funding on any end-of-life upgrades – I suspect that the likes of Eurocopter, NH Industries, Sikorsky and other will refrain from entering any competition as the eventual winner will almost certainly be any AW militarised (that’s a civil helicopter painted green for effect) product from Vergiate – sorry, I meant the West Country.
If Flynx is the best on offer, then let the whole shop go to the wall and let’s promote export offsets in successful UK businesses in return for a capable and proven platform for current and future demanding operations instead of just delaying the inevitable for those in the West Country.
Proud to be British as I am, some things in life are far more important that job security and votes.