Puma MK2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cosford
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puma MK2
Hello everyone, I'm new on PPrune, based at Benson fixing pumas. (I'm not a journo) I was wondering if anyone knows whats happening with the puma upgrade as it's gone quiet at work while we keep the old ladies ticking along.
I've seen another thread about the NH90 for the SAS but that's not a rumour I've heard on the squadron, (assuming that would be a replacement for our pumas)
I've seen another thread about the NH90 for the SAS but that's not a rumour I've heard on the squadron, (assuming that would be a replacement for our pumas)
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Down Memory Lane
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome puma fixer, brace yourself.
With respect, if you are who you say you are, and are not being told anything at the very place you work, then the last place you will find out anything close to the truth is on these pages!
The NH90 thread is a red herring but then this is a rumour site after all.......
With respect, if you are who you say you are, and are not being told anything at the very place you work, then the last place you will find out anything close to the truth is on these pages!
The NH90 thread is a red herring but then this is a rumour site after all.......
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puma fixer, last weeks Jane's Defence Weekly has an article on PU2 which states that the 1st Puma Mk2 rolls out of France in Apr 11. All the rest are going to be roaded to Romania, modded upto mk2 standard with new engines, glass cockpit etc for the very small figure of £300M!
Not sure that is a good use of taxpayers money as every £ spent goes straight out of the UK into the French coffers, grrr.
Not sure that is a good use of taxpayers money as every £ spent goes straight out of the UK into the French coffers, grrr.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a total waste of money and not addressing the REAL problem..
It is my opinion that this mod programme has not gone far enough to improve the operational capabillity of the Puma. All this guff about having to have anticipators is frankly a 'red herring' in that many, many pilots over the Puma's lifetime have learned how to overcome that lack of technical finesse by operating the aircraft properly and within the necessary constraints. There have been very few incidents which have necessitated such a mod programme as this. The glass cockpit - well whoopeedoo!! - so the pilots are 'rocketed' into the 21st century - how operationally necessary was that? So far then we have spent £300m on these 'improvements' but haven't actually improved anything for the users.
So what then is missing from this great initiative? I'll tell you what.....the cabin volume for the Puma Mk II for crying out loud!! For years and years the crewman have been moaning about the lack of volume and troop carrying capacity in the cabin. In the early days we used all the 16 seats. We used to carry 16 troops with bergens (small ones) and there was no bloody space to move anywhere in the back. We 'sorted' that by reducing the number of troops in a 'standard load' to 12 plus bergens. We would then max out with Milans and we were back to 'square one' again. Oh! and don't forget the occasional use of a long range fuel tank. That's a reduction of another 2 troops! Now we're down to 10 troops!!
So frankly this whole 'dog's dinner' of a mod programme has not addressed properly 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!
The solution to all the bloody problems has been staring people in the face for years and that is the SUPER PUMA!!! It has everything the RAF needs to eradicate the handling problems; engines with anticipators, a glass cockpit and room in the back for 25 troops. But more importantly, it would have given the Puma Sqns a proper chance to give the user units a better service in the field by way of more cabin volume for more troops, bigger bergens and more weapons.
IMHO this £300M has been totally wasted and the naive team who allowed it through without consideration of the REAL problem should be ashamed to be part of this scam.
I bet that the team who put this together did not include an experienced crewman.
QED
End of rant
So what then is missing from this great initiative? I'll tell you what.....the cabin volume for the Puma Mk II for crying out loud!! For years and years the crewman have been moaning about the lack of volume and troop carrying capacity in the cabin. In the early days we used all the 16 seats. We used to carry 16 troops with bergens (small ones) and there was no bloody space to move anywhere in the back. We 'sorted' that by reducing the number of troops in a 'standard load' to 12 plus bergens. We would then max out with Milans and we were back to 'square one' again. Oh! and don't forget the occasional use of a long range fuel tank. That's a reduction of another 2 troops! Now we're down to 10 troops!!
So frankly this whole 'dog's dinner' of a mod programme has not addressed properly 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!
The solution to all the bloody problems has been staring people in the face for years and that is the SUPER PUMA!!! It has everything the RAF needs to eradicate the handling problems; engines with anticipators, a glass cockpit and room in the back for 25 troops. But more importantly, it would have given the Puma Sqns a proper chance to give the user units a better service in the field by way of more cabin volume for more troops, bigger bergens and more weapons.
IMHO this £300M has been totally wasted and the naive team who allowed it through without consideration of the REAL problem should be ashamed to be part of this scam.
I bet that the team who put this together did not include an experienced crewman.
QEDEnd of rant
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 23rd Feb 2011 at 05:43.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dundiggin'
OK . The upgrades are going to cost £300m .
What would be the cost to purchase and support the required number of Super Pumas ?
And how many of the Super Pumas would be enough ?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Carlisle
Age: 36
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dundiggin, I agree the Super Puma would be a far better airframe than the Puma. Spent a lot of time with the RNLAF and their AS532 where they exercise near where I used to live, astonished at the capacity in the cab, the seemingly lengthy string of fully kitted troops getting in and the room the door gunners still have to get about the cab. I'd definately have taken them over upgrading the current puma. They look more the part too IMO.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
philrigger....
Yes I do agree that the Super Puma would have been more expensive but we could have SAVED £300M for all the operational value that this unnecessary and ill thought out mod programme is worth!
However, I'm sure that the pro rata 'bangs per buck' for a Super Puma buy would have been impressive and very effective especially in the current theatres......... AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIG PLUS IN PUMA MORALE AND USER CONFIDENCE.
I say again this mod is both unnecessary and an almost complete waste of tax payer's money.
But there again WTF do I know I've only operated the Puma for 40 odd years.....
However, I'm sure that the pro rata 'bangs per buck' for a Super Puma buy would have been impressive and very effective especially in the current theatres......... AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BIG PLUS IN PUMA MORALE AND USER CONFIDENCE.
I say again this mod is both unnecessary and an almost complete waste of tax payer's money.
But there again WTF do I know I've only operated the Puma for 40 odd years.....
I have been holding off this thread but now I cannot resist. I last flew a 332L1 two years ago as commander two months before my 69th birthday. I last flew a 330E in August 1978 so I am totally out of date with military flying. However; 2000hrs on 330C, 1000hrs on 330J and 9250hrs on 332L & L1s qualifies my opinion on Pumas in general.
On previous threads on the Puma Mk 2 it has been difficult for an outsider to establish what is exactly going to be changed. We can start off with the engines because we know the Makila is going in. A far better engine as far as power and fuel consumption is concerned. It is far more choosy than the Turmo with respect to what goes in the front end but it is assumed that the RAF, expecting to go to sandy places will keep the air separators on the front so it does not make a lot of difference.
The Turmo has a steam era control system that, though primitive and agricultural, does the job very reliably though with drawbacks, such as, it cannot keep up with what is just about to happen. It also has a compressor design that harks back to the Me 262 that is good for chewing birds but not so good at keeping abreast of the situation. The Makila changes all that. It’s got a fan in front of the compressor to improve its efficiency and lots of electronic gizmos to make sure the mechanical bits obey the whip.
You can drop the engines in the same mountings. However some of the control systems are behind the power turbine. The Turmo was easy, a drive above the engine told the fuel control unit , by means of bob weights, how fast the turbine was going. Too fast or too slow the bob weights adjusted the fuel. A drive shaft breaks and the turbine goes faster so the fuel its reduced and you have just a single engine type failure. Not so the Makila. That is electronic so if a shaft breaks the overspeed protection system will shut down the engine. Logical really, because it is no use without a shaft. Unfortunately this equipment is after the turbine and the 330 gearbox is not designed for it. The 332 gearbox is and will fit on the same mountings but then you get to lots of other things that now do not fit..
Like the Rotor Head.
Fitting a 332 gearbox and rotor system is no big deal. The 332C is of the same dimensions as a 330 so it can take it. Terminology like frequency adapters instead of drag dampers will fall into place quite easily but if you change one thing you transfer a problem to something else. In this case the pylon.
Two Makilas punching out 1800 horse power each tend to make a Puma twist a bit. Even in my time in the RAF formating behind another Puma as it lifted off and seeing how much the pylon leaned over was an education. Pumas have doubling plates on the boom/pylon joint. Super Pumas have trebling plates.
It is reasonably possible to make a Puma with Makilas and a 332 rotor system, after all a 332, a332L2 or a 225 is still basically a Puma. There may be bigger windows and airframe plugs that make it longer but there is a fair number of short 332Ls around. With this kit on you can now punch off at 8600 kgs instead of 7400 because the engines and rotor system can deliver the goods. The airframe may need to be tweaked to suit but that has been done before. The problem then comes when you want to land it. The Puma undercarriage is quite happy up to 7400kgs. Above that you need something a bit stronger; like the single wheel 332/332L1/225 u/c which, having been designed for cack handed French navy pilots, can accept a 900ft/min landing. Are the Puma Mk2s going to have this undercarriage? On a personal level I can assure you that I have made some horrendous arrivals on offshore decks without a murmur from this undercarriage.
There is the continuous comments about the cabin size which is justified. It is cramped and with the small windows of the 330 it is claustrophobic. Bigger windows are not too much of a problem, putting plugs in is.
The very first ‘Super Puma’ was a 1966 330A with a UH1 nose, Makilas and a plug in the back of the fuselage. The 332 eventually arrived with the ‘option’ of a forward plug. That was taken up and in all civil variants so that is the standard. The 225 has both the forward and the rear plug because it can lift them with bigger engines and better rotors.
A forward plug on the 332 gives you about 800mm and lots of problems.
Compared with the 330C the 332L is an absolute pig to throw about. The plug in the fuselage totally throws the lateral stability so it is always fighting a turn. In Singapore in 1970 when I knew I was going to fly Puma I discussed it with Roy Moxham, deputy chief pilot with Westlands and he described flying it as like flying a fighter. He was right and even later on the fully equipped dragmaster 330J it still flew like a fighter. If somebody is chasing me with lots of guns in his fuselage then I would rather be in a Puma.
Another problem with the plug is the C of G. I went through some Bristow weighing records some time ago and I was surprised to find that a 332L at zero fuel weight, ie empty, no crew, no fuel, had 46% of it weight on the nosewheel. That means that if the aircraft is loaded evenly, remembering that the crew is at the front, that at 8600kgs there is nearly 4 tonnes on the nosewheel, which is the same design as the Puma. Try landing on soft ground with that; even better if you roll on at ten knots.
I am a great believer in cockpit advances like digital presentations and 21st century navaids. It makes life so much easier so that you can actually concentrate on the job in hand. As I opened, I have no knowledge of present day military flying so I do not know how much of an improvement it would be operationally.
That’s my ten penny worth which some of you can discuss.
I flew professionally for forty eight years. In addition to my Puma variants I collected a 1000hrs on planks, 1500hrs on Whirlwinds and 2500hrs on the Sikorsky S76.
The Pumas and super Pumas were unique. Not once whilst flying them did I have a moment of concern.
I got my first bollocking when I was a cadet at South Cerney. My last was from a director of a Chinese helicopter company I was working for because i was teaching my Chinese co-pilot how to do very steep wingovers.
On previous threads on the Puma Mk 2 it has been difficult for an outsider to establish what is exactly going to be changed. We can start off with the engines because we know the Makila is going in. A far better engine as far as power and fuel consumption is concerned. It is far more choosy than the Turmo with respect to what goes in the front end but it is assumed that the RAF, expecting to go to sandy places will keep the air separators on the front so it does not make a lot of difference.
The Turmo has a steam era control system that, though primitive and agricultural, does the job very reliably though with drawbacks, such as, it cannot keep up with what is just about to happen. It also has a compressor design that harks back to the Me 262 that is good for chewing birds but not so good at keeping abreast of the situation. The Makila changes all that. It’s got a fan in front of the compressor to improve its efficiency and lots of electronic gizmos to make sure the mechanical bits obey the whip.
You can drop the engines in the same mountings. However some of the control systems are behind the power turbine. The Turmo was easy, a drive above the engine told the fuel control unit , by means of bob weights, how fast the turbine was going. Too fast or too slow the bob weights adjusted the fuel. A drive shaft breaks and the turbine goes faster so the fuel its reduced and you have just a single engine type failure. Not so the Makila. That is electronic so if a shaft breaks the overspeed protection system will shut down the engine. Logical really, because it is no use without a shaft. Unfortunately this equipment is after the turbine and the 330 gearbox is not designed for it. The 332 gearbox is and will fit on the same mountings but then you get to lots of other things that now do not fit..
Like the Rotor Head.
Fitting a 332 gearbox and rotor system is no big deal. The 332C is of the same dimensions as a 330 so it can take it. Terminology like frequency adapters instead of drag dampers will fall into place quite easily but if you change one thing you transfer a problem to something else. In this case the pylon.
Two Makilas punching out 1800 horse power each tend to make a Puma twist a bit. Even in my time in the RAF formating behind another Puma as it lifted off and seeing how much the pylon leaned over was an education. Pumas have doubling plates on the boom/pylon joint. Super Pumas have trebling plates.
It is reasonably possible to make a Puma with Makilas and a 332 rotor system, after all a 332, a332L2 or a 225 is still basically a Puma. There may be bigger windows and airframe plugs that make it longer but there is a fair number of short 332Ls around. With this kit on you can now punch off at 8600 kgs instead of 7400 because the engines and rotor system can deliver the goods. The airframe may need to be tweaked to suit but that has been done before. The problem then comes when you want to land it. The Puma undercarriage is quite happy up to 7400kgs. Above that you need something a bit stronger; like the single wheel 332/332L1/225 u/c which, having been designed for cack handed French navy pilots, can accept a 900ft/min landing. Are the Puma Mk2s going to have this undercarriage? On a personal level I can assure you that I have made some horrendous arrivals on offshore decks without a murmur from this undercarriage.
There is the continuous comments about the cabin size which is justified. It is cramped and with the small windows of the 330 it is claustrophobic. Bigger windows are not too much of a problem, putting plugs in is.
The very first ‘Super Puma’ was a 1966 330A with a UH1 nose, Makilas and a plug in the back of the fuselage. The 332 eventually arrived with the ‘option’ of a forward plug. That was taken up and in all civil variants so that is the standard. The 225 has both the forward and the rear plug because it can lift them with bigger engines and better rotors.
A forward plug on the 332 gives you about 800mm and lots of problems.
Compared with the 330C the 332L is an absolute pig to throw about. The plug in the fuselage totally throws the lateral stability so it is always fighting a turn. In Singapore in 1970 when I knew I was going to fly Puma I discussed it with Roy Moxham, deputy chief pilot with Westlands and he described flying it as like flying a fighter. He was right and even later on the fully equipped dragmaster 330J it still flew like a fighter. If somebody is chasing me with lots of guns in his fuselage then I would rather be in a Puma.
Another problem with the plug is the C of G. I went through some Bristow weighing records some time ago and I was surprised to find that a 332L at zero fuel weight, ie empty, no crew, no fuel, had 46% of it weight on the nosewheel. That means that if the aircraft is loaded evenly, remembering that the crew is at the front, that at 8600kgs there is nearly 4 tonnes on the nosewheel, which is the same design as the Puma. Try landing on soft ground with that; even better if you roll on at ten knots.
I am a great believer in cockpit advances like digital presentations and 21st century navaids. It makes life so much easier so that you can actually concentrate on the job in hand. As I opened, I have no knowledge of present day military flying so I do not know how much of an improvement it would be operationally.
That’s my ten penny worth which some of you can discuss.
I flew professionally for forty eight years. In addition to my Puma variants I collected a 1000hrs on planks, 1500hrs on Whirlwinds and 2500hrs on the Sikorsky S76.
The Pumas and super Pumas were unique. Not once whilst flying them did I have a moment of concern.
I got my first bollocking when I was a cadet at South Cerney. My last was from a director of a Chinese helicopter company I was working for because i was teaching my Chinese co-pilot how to do very steep wingovers.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 2nd Mar 2011 at 10:21.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fareastdriver....
Congratulations on a fabulously detailed contribution - thanks. Such illustrious flying experience is welcomed esp as you agree with the main thrust of my post regarding the lack of volume in the 330 cabin (which adds credence to my post IMHO!). I assume therefore that you are saying that the current military modification to the Mk I is the only acceptable mod as the adding of plugs would lead to other problems?
In that case fair enough for the limited mod to the MkI, but I consider that although second hand Super Pumas would be more expensive they would have been a quantum leap in capacity and although dearer the £300M wasted on the MkI would have gone a long way to re-equiping with Super Pumas.
I would be interested if anyone has any knowledge of the costs of second hand Super Pumas...?.
In that case fair enough for the limited mod to the MkI, but I consider that although second hand Super Pumas would be more expensive they would have been a quantum leap in capacity and although dearer the £300M wasted on the MkI would have gone a long way to re-equiping with Super Pumas.
I would be interested if anyone has any knowledge of the costs of second hand Super Pumas...?.
The other questions to ask is whether the RAF wanted the extra capacity. It would be a much more expensive (and riskier) modification to bring the capacity closer to what is already provided by the green Merlins.
You don't need a bigger aircraft with room for 16 troops with Bergens if a lot of your work is inserting sections of 10 or less men!
You don't need a bigger aircraft with room for 16 troops with Bergens if a lot of your work is inserting sections of 10 or less men!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....or doing the Dauphans work for them with a few extra boots on board; and an option to use abseil or fast rope. Especially as the Olympics in Munich many years ago set a precident for military or at least paramilitary needs.
FWIW though, in the knowledge that aside from the relatively recent attrition replacement buy, every Puma from tranche one and two had, at some time been Cat IV damaged. Furthermore, a lifetime of service without HUMS and the infamous 'Crewmans heavy' MAUW mean that most if not all have been operated overweight at some stage. There are creases on airframes to be seen which a smart coat of paint cannot hide.
The Puma is a decade overdue replacement. There is a need for a medium sized support helicopter to fit between Lynx and Merlin, and Blackhawk, Super Puma or NH90 should have been purchased in small numbers (A sqns worth) several years ago when we still had some savings in the bank. The quick fix for a seemless transition was always Super Puma, but NH90 would have got my vote being tomorrows technology rather then in-built-vintage.
FWIW though, in the knowledge that aside from the relatively recent attrition replacement buy, every Puma from tranche one and two had, at some time been Cat IV damaged. Furthermore, a lifetime of service without HUMS and the infamous 'Crewmans heavy' MAUW mean that most if not all have been operated overweight at some stage. There are creases on airframes to be seen which a smart coat of paint cannot hide.
The Puma is a decade overdue replacement. There is a need for a medium sized support helicopter to fit between Lynx and Merlin, and Blackhawk, Super Puma or NH90 should have been purchased in small numbers (A sqns worth) several years ago when we still had some savings in the bank. The quick fix for a seemless transition was always Super Puma, but NH90 would have got my vote being tomorrows technology rather then in-built-vintage.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The Puma is a decade overdue replacement.
There was talk of a Puma HC1 replacement in high places when I did my first tour on them.
In the late 1970s.
We wanted Blackhawk. They almost gave us WG-30s.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Finchampstead
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well chaps thanks for all that commentary but the fact remains that the MkI's have often been used overweight which probably justifies the case for new engines but if the frames have been bending then this also would require beefed up frames to be included in the mod programme - has this been included? I have operated overweight many times (not proud of it) just 'operational exigencies' - and I have operated in situations where cabin volume was operationally restricting so how one can justify a certain 'requirement' as being the raison d'etre for purchasing for 'that' specific requirement when I think we all know that in the heat of Ops tasking the 'requirement' is often more than that which is advertised. To that end service 'operational requirements' should surely have a built-in operational flex which, in my experience, would have been more than adequately satisfied with a Super Puma-type cabin volume. Instead of which we have now done the good thing with engines etc but the cabin size remains an unnecessary and embarrassing limiting factor!! It's bloody mad and a waste of money!
I flew in the WG70 (I think it was WG70 and not WG30) ie the Westlands built Blackhawk and trained the Westland engineers in the art of USLs. Now if you think the Puma MkI cabin was small you want to try this one!! It would have to be crewed (in the back) by pygmies; the cabin was much smaller than the Puma MkI and was never a practical option at any time. But if I am to read this aright and be a little cynical then providing the engines had anticipators and a glass cockpit then the job was a good'ne!!
I'm glad to be a civvy and not have to endure this crap any more...but those that have to endure it don't be conned into thinking this is a good idea - it is in part but as usual the 'happy clappy' IPT (?) who put this together didn't give a toss for the crewman/user's lot but just their own ticks in the 'I must be part of an aircraft modification' box in order to gain promotion.
That may be a bit harsh but that's how it looks............
And still you get to piss off the user because there is not enough space FFS!
AP
I am firmly of the opinion that over the years, the deficiencies of the Puma/Wessex cabin volumes has driven the reduction in size of the stick numbers used operationally. That may sound obvious, but I have seen the Army frustration and then the inevitable compromise which then became 'the norm' ie 10. Perhaps eventually the army was happy with the reduced size - it would be good to hear their point of view......please?
I flew in the WG70 (I think it was WG70 and not WG30) ie the Westlands built Blackhawk and trained the Westland engineers in the art of USLs. Now if you think the Puma MkI cabin was small you want to try this one!! It would have to be crewed (in the back) by pygmies; the cabin was much smaller than the Puma MkI and was never a practical option at any time. But if I am to read this aright and be a little cynical then providing the engines had anticipators and a glass cockpit then the job was a good'ne!!
I'm glad to be a civvy and not have to endure this crap any more...but those that have to endure it don't be conned into thinking this is a good idea - it is in part but as usual the 'happy clappy' IPT (?) who put this together didn't give a toss for the crewman/user's lot but just their own ticks in the 'I must be part of an aircraft modification' box in order to gain promotion.
That may be a bit harsh but that's how it looks............
And still you get to piss off the user because there is not enough space FFS!
AP
I am firmly of the opinion that over the years, the deficiencies of the Puma/Wessex cabin volumes has driven the reduction in size of the stick numbers used operationally. That may sound obvious, but I have seen the Army frustration and then the inevitable compromise which then became 'the norm' ie 10. Perhaps eventually the army was happy with the reduced size - it would be good to hear their point of view......please?
Last edited by Dundiggin'; 26th Feb 2011 at 18:22.
second hand Super Pumas
It had a Korean registration. They stripped the armchairs out but the seat rails could only accept twelve seats that came from a crashed Bristow Tiger. In this fit the aircraft was based offshore with a Chinese crew doing inter field shuttles. Came the day when the company told me it was my turn to go offshore with it.
'I haven't got a Korean licence or a validation from Seoul so I can't fly it.' I didn't mention that the Chinese crews didn't either.
'Mayo wente, (no problem) we will get it a Chinese registration.'
The aircraft was on the ramp being turned round after arrival. Within five minutes a couple of enginers went out with a role of black sticky tape and covered the Korean reg witha new number.
TIC (This is China) I thought, so off I went and flew it. When I brought it back after a week they towed it into the hangar and sprayed a completely different set of numbers on.
I had to digress a bit. A second hand Super Puma will have something like 15 to 20 thousand hours on it which it probably more than the RAF's Pumas.
Most of them would have been used offshore, or even worse, logging.
There is a popular misconception among miltary helicopter pilots, I used to be the same, that offshore helicopters have it easy compared to the rough and tumble of a military one. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. An offshore helicopter spends almost all of its time taking off at MAUW and then spending hours in high speed cruise, landing on a deck, reloading to MAUW and high speed cruising back again. When the BV234 was introduced on the North Sea the factory engineers were horrified with the punishment the aircraft was taking. It was never resolved and it was one of the reasons it came off the North Sea.
Bristow Helicopters will not accept a factory reconditioned gearbox that has been used on a logging 332. End of story. I, personally would not touch one with a bargepole. They come very cheap.
On a personal note a query. Whilst I was on 33 Sqn I used to bleat about things that I felt would improve life. One thing happened after I left that interest me.
The standard 330 was fitted with five fuel tanks. The 330C, the RAF one, had the fifth tank removed and was replaced with the Decca receiver. When the Decca was replaced by a little box called GPS did the RAF fit No 5 tank? It was worth another 300 kgs of fuel. The 330J I flew had six tanks, one replaced the load pole hole and that had about 1500kgs of fuel on board. I was always strapped for fuel on a 330C so I wonder if somebody saw sense.
Sorry about the ramblings but we are discussing my favourite aircraft.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 27th Feb 2011 at 08:47. Reason: Confused between lbs and kgs
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I start this with the caveat that I had but a peripheral role in this, and a several years ago to boot, but here goes.
Dundiggin, clearly you share the same frustration as many, including me, with lack of progress that doing this sort of work to the venerable old Puma provides. The fact that there even is a Puma 2 programme is down to one, and only one reason - money, or more accurately, the lack of it. However, you appear to have fallen into the same trap that many have fallen into when discussing this project:
The Puma 2 programme is not, and never was, a programme designed to "improve the operational capabillity of the Puma". The word "upgrade" was a dirty word for this project, anything that even remotely looked like upgrade for upgrades sake would have been ruthlessly scrutinised out. Bigger cabin? Upgrade, funding denied. Sponsons? Upgrade, funding denied. Uprated transmission? Upgrade, funding denied, etc etc etc. The Puma 2 programme is a Life Extension Programme and nothing more. The brief was roughly as follows:
"We cannot keep flying the Puma as it is past its current OSD of 2012, but we cannot afford to lose the even the small amount of capability that the Puma brings. Find a way to maintain the capability until we can afford to buy a replacement. Oh, by the way, don't even think about anything new, there isn't any money."
Far cleverer people than I crunched lots of numbers and came to the conclusion that stagging on the Puma past its then OSD of 2012 without doing something about the anticipator problem would not demonstrate ALARP. Anticipators are not retro-fittable to the Turmo engines, so a new engine had to be sought. EC had already done the work of fitting Makila engines to early Pumas, and had JAR 29 accreditation for doing so. This was therefore a proven and already flying mod. Qinetiq could read across a lot of the JAR 29 approval work to the Puma 2 programme, reducing the amount of certification work they needed to do, keeping the cost down. The fact that the Makilas are more powerful, more fuel efficient and are far better hot and high is irrelevant, although very welcome; they were chosen for no other reason than that was the cheapest way to get anticipators onto the Puma.
Wrt the glass cockpit, it simply comes with the engines! It is all part of the same overall EC modification programme. EC had not done any work with Makilas and the RAF standard cockpit fit, so to try and integrate the Makila engines with the steam driven Mk1 would have hugely increased the cost, bespoke design work would need to be done, and Qinetiq would probably have had to start from scratch (remember the Chinook Mk3?). Please believe me when I say that if it could have been done more cheaply without the glass cockpit element, it would have!
Fareastdriver, certainly when I was close to it, the intention was to put the 5th tank back in, it wasn't going to cost any extra.
Unfortunately, the £300m would not have gone a long way to re-equipping with Super Pumas. £300m is the lot, there is no more for the £300m to go towards. The reduction in funds for RW programmes from £6bn, to £3bn, to £1.5bn made sure of that. The numbers being thrown about during my small involvement were a lot bigger (of the order of £700m), and that still was nowhere near enough to replace the Puma with something else. Other threads have made the comparison the £300m would buy you 20 Blackhawks, or 15 Cougars etc, and I’m sure it would. However, how much of the £300m quoted is upfront cost, and how much is through-life? If it costs £300m to buy 15 Cougars, but then another £500m to support them through the next 10 years, but the £300m for the Puma 2 is all of the cost involved, then you are not really comparing like with like (I don’t know the answer to this by the way, merely asking the question).
I agree, completely. Unfortunately, financial reality has to be lived with. There was no money for Super Pumas, and there will be no money for Super Pumas.
PS:
Me too!
Dundiggin, clearly you share the same frustration as many, including me, with lack of progress that doing this sort of work to the venerable old Puma provides. The fact that there even is a Puma 2 programme is down to one, and only one reason - money, or more accurately, the lack of it. However, you appear to have fallen into the same trap that many have fallen into when discussing this project:
It is my opinion that this mod programme has not gone far enough to improve the operational capabillity of the Puma.
"We cannot keep flying the Puma as it is past its current OSD of 2012, but we cannot afford to lose the even the small amount of capability that the Puma brings. Find a way to maintain the capability until we can afford to buy a replacement. Oh, by the way, don't even think about anything new, there isn't any money."
Far cleverer people than I crunched lots of numbers and came to the conclusion that stagging on the Puma past its then OSD of 2012 without doing something about the anticipator problem would not demonstrate ALARP. Anticipators are not retro-fittable to the Turmo engines, so a new engine had to be sought. EC had already done the work of fitting Makila engines to early Pumas, and had JAR 29 accreditation for doing so. This was therefore a proven and already flying mod. Qinetiq could read across a lot of the JAR 29 approval work to the Puma 2 programme, reducing the amount of certification work they needed to do, keeping the cost down. The fact that the Makilas are more powerful, more fuel efficient and are far better hot and high is irrelevant, although very welcome; they were chosen for no other reason than that was the cheapest way to get anticipators onto the Puma.
Wrt the glass cockpit, it simply comes with the engines! It is all part of the same overall EC modification programme. EC had not done any work with Makilas and the RAF standard cockpit fit, so to try and integrate the Makila engines with the steam driven Mk1 would have hugely increased the cost, bespoke design work would need to be done, and Qinetiq would probably have had to start from scratch (remember the Chinook Mk3?). Please believe me when I say that if it could have been done more cheaply without the glass cockpit element, it would have!
Fareastdriver, certainly when I was close to it, the intention was to put the 5th tank back in, it wasn't going to cost any extra.
I consider that although second hand Super Pumas would be more expensive they would have been a quantum leap in capacity and although dearer the £300M wasted on the MkI would have gone a long way to re-equiping with Super Pumas.
The solution to all the bloody problems has been staring people in the face for years and that is the SUPER PUMA!!! It has everything the RAF needs to eradicate the handling problems; engines with anticipators, a glass cockpit and room in the back for 25 troops. But more importantly, it would have given the Puma Sqns a proper chance to give the user units a better service in the field by way of more cabin volume for more troops, bigger bergens and more weapons.
PS:
I'm glad to be a civvy and not have to endure this crap any more.