Puma MK2
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the root operational problem of the Puma Mk I ergo there is not enough cabin volume to do the best job. There may be extra engine power but no extra cabin volume to utilise it!
Dundiggin - I am not sure where you are getting your ideas from but presently and for the past 5 years the puma has weighted out WAY before it has bulked out. You are quite incorrect in thinking a bigger cabin will help things.
I can only assume you are not in the loop with regard to current and previous Puma ops.
HG
Dundiggin - I am not sure where you are getting your ideas from but presently and for the past 5 years the puma has weighted out WAY before it has bulked out. You are quite incorrect in thinking a bigger cabin will help things.
I can only assume you are not in the loop with regard to current and previous Puma ops.
HG
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I can only assume you are not in the loop with regard to current and previous Puma ops."
You didnt want to say that
....because he does know quite a bit about the Puma
....a few thousand more hours then you do.
You didnt want to say that
....because he does know quite a bit about the Puma
....a few thousand more hours then you do.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how many hours do I have just out of curiosity 
Hours only count for so much, there are instructors at Shawbury that dont have a clue about what is happening in the RAF and they have 10,000+ hrs. My point still stands, the Puma weights out before it bulks out.
HG
Hours only count for so much, there are instructors at Shawbury that dont have a clue about what is happening in the RAF and they have 10,000+ hrs. My point still stands, the Puma weights out before it bulks out.
HG
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigermate & HG......
Tiger Mate - thanks for the backing matey! But I don't want this to develop into a p@ssing contest with HG. What I do know is that on the operational occasions when 'weight wasn't necessarily an issue' 
- volume certainly was and I don't give a tuppeny toss about 'how many' or 'how often'. When operational effectiveness/success was an issue and we were prepared to throw the rule book out of the window in order to achieve the task we threw the 'weight issue' out as much as we possibly dared but could do nothing with the 'volume' issue. Not a happy state to be in and only shere providence prevented disasters occurring on more than one occasion. So when the 'sh@ts' in the fan', a bigger cabin could have prevented the Puma crews from baring their arses for the big one! (so to speak!).
So to re-iterate my point; spending money on this relatively unnecessary modification would have been better spent by including an increase in cabin volume to make the whole effort more operationally effective.
But I don't want this to develop into a p@ssing contest with HG. What I do know is that on the operational occasions when 'weight wasn't necessarily an issue' - volume certainly was and I don't give a tuppeny toss about 'how many' or 'how often'. When operational effectiveness/success was an issue and we were prepared to throw the rule book out of the window in order to achieve the task we threw the 'weight issue' out as much as we possibly dared but could do nothing with the 'volume' issue. Not a happy state to be in and only shere providence prevented disasters occurring on more than one occasion. So when the 'sh@ts' in the fan', a bigger cabin could have prevented the Puma crews from baring their arses for the big one! (so to speak!).So to re-iterate my point; spending money on this relatively unnecessary modification would have been better spent by including an increase in cabin volume to make the whole effort more operationally effective.
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 1st Mar 2011 at 19:40.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dundiggin, I think you miss the point again. There was a square root of f*ck all chance of an increase in cabin volume ever happening, even if not a penny of the £300m was spent on new engines/glass cockpits/comms etc. Even if somebody with the right amount of authority had said "hang on chaps, we've done the sums again and we don't actually need to do the whole anticipators thing anymore, why don't we spend the £300m on an increase in cabin volume, that would really improve the effectiveness of Puma ops", they would have been shown the door very quickly because an increase in cabin volume would be a pure capability enhancement, and that was utterly verboten. If the £300m was not spent on the Puma 2 programme, it would have been spent on another outreach group for Upper Voltan Transexual Pygmies and most definitely not on putting fuselage plugs in.
As I said before, boffins with Tefal heads said that the safety analyses concluded that operation of Puma without anticipator was unsafe past 2012. To stag her on for another 10 years meant finding a way to put anticipators on. The Makila modification was the cheapest (and I underline that very deliberately) way of doing that, everything else (glass cockpits etc) is simply part of that mod, as it would have been more expensive to to do it any other way.
Of course we would all prefer Super Pumas/Blackhawks etc, but it was never going to happen, so enjoy the Puma 2 as its as good as you're going to get.
As I said before, boffins with Tefal heads said that the safety analyses concluded that operation of Puma without anticipator was unsafe past 2012. To stag her on for another 10 years meant finding a way to put anticipators on. The Makila modification was the cheapest (and I underline that very deliberately) way of doing that, everything else (glass cockpits etc) is simply part of that mod, as it would have been more expensive to to do it any other way.
Of course we would all prefer Super Pumas/Blackhawks etc, but it was never going to happen, so enjoy the Puma 2 as its as good as you're going to get.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afghanistan is one of the most, if not the most hostile of aviation environments on the planet - fact. Puma 1 would have been able to carry a fraction of the 16/12/10/whatever troop capacity in high summer and therefore not be an asset to Op HERRICK and hence highly vulnerable to getting cut completely.
Puma 2 may still struggle to bulk out before it hits MAUW in Afghanistan but nevertheless should still get close to max-capacity on most occasions. As such that represents a useful asset. It may not be the gold-plated Rolls Royce solution but it still counts as a capability upgrade in my books, if not exactly the best value for money.
Puma 2 may still struggle to bulk out before it hits MAUW in Afghanistan but nevertheless should still get close to max-capacity on most occasions. As such that represents a useful asset. It may not be the gold-plated Rolls Royce solution but it still counts as a capability upgrade in my books, if not exactly the best value for money.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
boffins with Tefal heads said that the safety analyses concluded that operation of Puma without anticipator was unsafe past 2012.
Glad I got my three tours in before it becomes unsafe.
(But the Boscombe Down Appraisal I read in 1979 did say it should never enter squadron service until it was fitted with them).
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So before then it's OK?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Afghanistan is one of the most, if not the most hostile of aviation environments on the planet - fact. Puma 1 would have been able to carry a fraction of the 16/12/10/whatever troop capacity in high summer and therefore not be an asset to Op HERRICK."
Lynx anyone?
HG
p.s. I'm half joking
Lynx anyone?
HG
p.s. I'm half joking
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
Maybe we should have bought the "Westland Wardrobe"?
One bark for yes....
'This is all academic anyway boys and girls as the whole project is about to get binned. Shame, but a post SDSR reality'
Of course, someone from Odiham knowing the intimate details of a Puma programme!
Of course, someone from Odiham knowing the intimate details of a Puma programme!