Private Eye story about Puma upgrade
"...In the early 70s Odiham engineering were doing the normal trick of using the components of an aircraft coming in for servicing to get the predecessor out. After doors popping and various panels, including the doghouse, coming loose they had a make and mend day. All the panels had their original XW No stencilled on the inside so they put every panel back on its original aircraft which solved the problem."
Hmmmm...
In the early 80's the "mix n match" system was generally back in use with no issues over interchangability. The Doghouse issue was proved to be over-use and mis-use by the "end-user" and door Catches and Latches revised to suit "more rigourous" usage.
Hmmmm...
In the early 80's the "mix n match" system was generally back in use with no issues over interchangability. The Doghouse issue was proved to be over-use and mis-use by the "end-user" and door Catches and Latches revised to suit "more rigourous" usage.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here & there
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private Eye story about Puma upgrade
What do you really know these UAE Puma's?? Aren't they suppose to have been upgraded to a really good fit?
In your quoted text below - do you really understand what these aircraft are capeable of doing over a Puma HC1 after this upgrade????? If so please explain!!! Problems with brown out landings with a high C of G etc.
Only curious as to what us tax payers might have to spend our limited money on.
Thanks Mr Fanstop
RAF Puma LEP
t43562 - The MoD doesn't (or shouldn’t ) do timid, so how about you Wiki this.
Suitability for Military Operations – Since Jan 2001, eleven RAF Puma helicopters have been involved in major incidents (Six of these in 2007 alone - Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008), with 3 A/C Cat 4 and 3 A/C Cat 5. (Source Hansard, so please, no cries of beadwindow)
As a result of its age, design (narrow undercarriage, high centre of gravity and a nose wheel tricycle gear), outdated crashworthiness limitations and flying and handling characteristics, you have to question the suitability of the design of the early Puma helicopter (SA. 330 models) in any modern hostile military theatre (particularly during brown-out landings) and future challenging roles and therefore the value of investing further (both from a financial and H&S perspective) in this aging platform.
Aircraft Vulnerability. A comparison of the SH accident records, at Annex C, supports a common belief that Puma is more vulnerable to crash damage (and to subsequent loss of life) than other types of BH involved in similar missions. A likely explanation for this may be the fact that, relative to other BH, Puma has a particularly high C of G. The resulting high crash moments generated by its gearbox and engines, coupled with a relatively short wheel base and tricycle undercarriage, makes for relatively poor crashworthiness compared with, for example, Chinook which has a low C of G and wheels on each corner. The propensity of Puma to turn over after a heavy landing is well known, and increases the vulnerability of crewman and passengers who are not properly restrained. We are aware of, and support, the work into crashworthy seats being carried out by MOD as part of the Puma HC2 Assessment phase.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 2.2.1
Crashworthiness.
Arguably, insufficient emphasis has been given in the MOD equipment programme to the replacement of the older BH such as Puma, Sea King and Lynx. For example, a feature of the Chinook accident record in theatre is that, by comparison to Puma, a greater robustness of design is translating into better survivability. An illustration of this is to consider the experience of recent Chinook incidents where, during desert/dust landings at night, aircraft have lost wheels but still survived (and in some cases even flown away). The difference with Puma is that these same conditions will be far more serious. While the relatively low crash tolerance of the Puma does not absolve crews, training staff or the JHC HQ from ensuring that the fragility of the aircraft is mitigated (and SOPs already do this), the fact remains that, given its characteristics, the aircraft is less ideal than some modern designs for operations in demanding theatres. The MOD has taken the view that Puma is still capable of carrying out its current XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXe. However, given the reliance of our soldiers on the helicopter force in both theatres (possibly for some time to come), we sense that the time has come for a reassessment by the JCG of their procurement priorities to reflect the need for more capable and survivable aircraft. We recommend the JCG examines the priority they accord to the procurement of BH, with emphasis on replacing legacy platforms.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 3.3
UAE Puma LEP Woes
The Plan - The UAE Air Force operated a fleet of around 25 IAR 330SM - Originally SA.330C and SA.330F Puma Helicopters (almost identical to the RAF’s Puma SA.330E fleet) that form part of the UAE Air Force Transport Wing and are based at Al Bateen Air Base.
In 2004, the UAE Air Force & Eurocopter Romania agreed a LEP package for the enhancement of 15 original UAE Air Force SA330 transport helicopters (to include Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft engines, a Collins avionics package including four-axis autopilot, and other special equipment – very similar to RAF LEP) and the acquisition of 10 New-Build SA330’s (the new designation for these post LEP Upgrade Puma’s is IAR 330SM) with the first two returned to service in April 2006.
In 2006/2007, ten of the Post LEP IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the UAE Special Operation Command.
Reality - Within 2-years of receipt (2008), the 10 upgraded Spec OPS IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the Critical National Infrastructure Authority (CNIA) (Abu Dhabi Government Para Military Division tasked with the protection and security of critical infrastructures within Abu Dhabi). (Why?)
In late 2009, the UAE Government took the decision to donate all ten of the upgraded IAR 330SM Puma helicopters operated by the Critical National Infrastructure Authority CNIA (Ex Spec OPS) received in only 2008 to the Lebanese Air Force, with the first batch of 4 scheduled for delivery in February 2010 and the deliveries of the rest scheduled for delivery by mid-2010. (Why?)
The UAE Air Force is looking to sell or remove from service the remaining 10-15 Upgraded Puma helicopter. (Why?)
Why indeed?
Having taken delivery of 25 rebuild and re-furbished Puma SA330 helicopters from Eurocopter Romania, the UAE Air Force learnt the hard way that serviceability was incredibly poor and they were too hard to sustain after the LEP resulting in them being ‘Cost Prohibitive’ and as a result after only 3-years of post LEP service, a decision was taken to sell, giveaway or withdraw the Puma fleet from service and replace it with more reliable and less costly to maintain helicopters.
In your quoted text below - do you really understand what these aircraft are capeable of doing over a Puma HC1 after this upgrade????? If so please explain!!! Problems with brown out landings with a high C of G etc.
Only curious as to what us tax payers might have to spend our limited money on.
Thanks Mr Fanstop
RAF Puma LEP
t43562 - The MoD doesn't (or shouldn’t ) do timid, so how about you Wiki this.
Suitability for Military Operations – Since Jan 2001, eleven RAF Puma helicopters have been involved in major incidents (Six of these in 2007 alone - Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008), with 3 A/C Cat 4 and 3 A/C Cat 5. (Source Hansard, so please, no cries of beadwindow)
As a result of its age, design (narrow undercarriage, high centre of gravity and a nose wheel tricycle gear), outdated crashworthiness limitations and flying and handling characteristics, you have to question the suitability of the design of the early Puma helicopter (SA. 330 models) in any modern hostile military theatre (particularly during brown-out landings) and future challenging roles and therefore the value of investing further (both from a financial and H&S perspective) in this aging platform.
Aircraft Vulnerability. A comparison of the SH accident records, at Annex C, supports a common belief that Puma is more vulnerable to crash damage (and to subsequent loss of life) than other types of BH involved in similar missions. A likely explanation for this may be the fact that, relative to other BH, Puma has a particularly high C of G. The resulting high crash moments generated by its gearbox and engines, coupled with a relatively short wheel base and tricycle undercarriage, makes for relatively poor crashworthiness compared with, for example, Chinook which has a low C of G and wheels on each corner. The propensity of Puma to turn over after a heavy landing is well known, and increases the vulnerability of crewman and passengers who are not properly restrained. We are aware of, and support, the work into crashworthy seats being carried out by MOD as part of the Puma HC2 Assessment phase.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 2.2.1
Crashworthiness.
Arguably, insufficient emphasis has been given in the MOD equipment programme to the replacement of the older BH such as Puma, Sea King and Lynx. For example, a feature of the Chinook accident record in theatre is that, by comparison to Puma, a greater robustness of design is translating into better survivability. An illustration of this is to consider the experience of recent Chinook incidents where, during desert/dust landings at night, aircraft have lost wheels but still survived (and in some cases even flown away). The difference with Puma is that these same conditions will be far more serious. While the relatively low crash tolerance of the Puma does not absolve crews, training staff or the JHC HQ from ensuring that the fragility of the aircraft is mitigated (and SOPs already do this), the fact remains that, given its characteristics, the aircraft is less ideal than some modern designs for operations in demanding theatres. The MOD has taken the view that Puma is still capable of carrying out its current XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXe. However, given the reliance of our soldiers on the helicopter force in both theatres (possibly for some time to come), we sense that the time has come for a reassessment by the JCG of their procurement priorities to reflect the need for more capable and survivable aircraft. We recommend the JCG examines the priority they accord to the procurement of BH, with emphasis on replacing legacy platforms.
Source - Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force 2008 - Para 3.3
UAE Puma LEP Woes
The Plan - The UAE Air Force operated a fleet of around 25 IAR 330SM - Originally SA.330C and SA.330F Puma Helicopters (almost identical to the RAF’s Puma SA.330E fleet) that form part of the UAE Air Force Transport Wing and are based at Al Bateen Air Base.
In 2004, the UAE Air Force & Eurocopter Romania agreed a LEP package for the enhancement of 15 original UAE Air Force SA330 transport helicopters (to include Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft engines, a Collins avionics package including four-axis autopilot, and other special equipment – very similar to RAF LEP) and the acquisition of 10 New-Build SA330’s (the new designation for these post LEP Upgrade Puma’s is IAR 330SM) with the first two returned to service in April 2006.
In 2006/2007, ten of the Post LEP IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the UAE Special Operation Command.
Reality - Within 2-years of receipt (2008), the 10 upgraded Spec OPS IAR 330SM Puma helicopters were handed over to the Critical National Infrastructure Authority (CNIA) (Abu Dhabi Government Para Military Division tasked with the protection and security of critical infrastructures within Abu Dhabi). (Why?)
In late 2009, the UAE Government took the decision to donate all ten of the upgraded IAR 330SM Puma helicopters operated by the Critical National Infrastructure Authority CNIA (Ex Spec OPS) received in only 2008 to the Lebanese Air Force, with the first batch of 4 scheduled for delivery in February 2010 and the deliveries of the rest scheduled for delivery by mid-2010. (Why?)
The UAE Air Force is looking to sell or remove from service the remaining 10-15 Upgraded Puma helicopter. (Why?)
Why indeed?
Having taken delivery of 25 rebuild and re-furbished Puma SA330 helicopters from Eurocopter Romania, the UAE Air Force learnt the hard way that serviceability was incredibly poor and they were too hard to sustain after the LEP resulting in them being ‘Cost Prohibitive’ and as a result after only 3-years of post LEP service, a decision was taken to sell, giveaway or withdraw the Puma fleet from service and replace it with more reliable and less costly to maintain helicopters.
how much of a difference would it make that these are Westland - built examples? And presumably most are from the last (attrition) batch from the 1980's that were knocked up at Weston-super-Mare, several years after the main production run at Yeovil. There were lots of comments at the time at Yeovil was that they were significantly different in body parts, though no-one ever seemed to publicly say how
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Here & there
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hilife seems quiet
After such a big post all seems to have gone quite. Where is this information based on?
Curious as a taxpayer on the funding of these upgrades to the quality of return.
Not a Jurno by the way.
Thanks Mr F.
Curious as a taxpayer on the funding of these upgrades to the quality of return.
Not a Jurno by the way.
Thanks Mr F.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Puma will never last in RAF service, far too delicate.
P.s. anyone here going to the 40th reunion?
P.p.s. look at the date on this article: 1984 | 1036 | Flight Archive
P.s. anyone here going to the 40th reunion?
P.p.s. look at the date on this article: 1984 | 1036 | Flight Archive
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hervey Bay, QLD, Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Fanstop,
I think you are totally wrong about the UAE IAR-330SM's. They left the SOC, because just as they came into service, uncle Sam took over the SOC joint, even replaced the crews with gringo's. Everything non-US had to go. Also, uncle Sam in return gave them a stack of UH-60L and M's to replace the IAR-330SM's.
You still want to talk about operating costs?
I think you are totally wrong about the UAE IAR-330SM's. They left the SOC, because just as they came into service, uncle Sam took over the SOC joint, even replaced the crews with gringo's. Everything non-US had to go. Also, uncle Sam in return gave them a stack of UH-60L and M's to replace the IAR-330SM's.
You still want to talk about operating costs?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HobbyCAD... this thread was last posted in over a year ago (until you posted).
Mr. Fanstop's only two posts on PPRuNe were 25th Jun 2011, 14:18 and 28 June 2011, 13:46... and he was last on the board:
Mr. Fanstop's only two posts on PPRuNe were 25th Jun 2011, 14:18 and 28 June 2011, 13:46... and he was last on the board:
- Last Activity: 8th Oct 2011 09:32
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 12th Jul 2012 at 20:15.
Well that pretty much matches what Flightglobal were reporting a couple of days ago.
On the face of it a fairly substantial package of changes to stitch together and make work - though I see it's meant to lead to the upgraded Puma being able to carry "...twice the payload over three times the range than its predecessor even in the most demanding of environmental conditions". Quite a striking statistic if true.
On the face of it a fairly substantial package of changes to stitch together and make work - though I see it's meant to lead to the upgraded Puma being able to carry "...twice the payload over three times the range than its predecessor even in the most demanding of environmental conditions". Quite a striking statistic if true.
