Ahem! Chinook 's keep plodding along with one upgrade after another!

I bet there are still some 61's flogging away in the Sandbox.....alongside some 92's!

It isn't so much what you want but what you can afford!

Very true but a full load of troops and an USL is far from routine.

:)

Let's allow the hard working folks at Bell to first sort out their rotor head (etc) before we get ahead of ourselves. There is a thread over on Rotorheads regarding the 525 that may interest you.

Bell have not made any public statements relating to military use, and their website reflects that : http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/commercial/bell-525/

Many years ago, weren't Westland supposed to be tooled up to produce Blackhawks for the european market? I certainly remember a RR engined version in and out of Farnborough after the airshow one year which was supposed to be the 'European' development aircraft.

Yes, that literally was the question.

To which the answer is likely "no one knows yet, we will probably try extend out to see what happens with the US Future Vertical Lift program". We will probably therefore also be left speculating for the next decade.

Please do explain would you....I am dying to hear this explanation.

SASless. I think you will find this point is all about the different ways our crewmen operate to your cabin crew gunner/crewchief. In the Wessex/Puma/Chinook/Merlin our crewmen were and are responsible for the control and safe passage of underslung loads. The crewman monitors the hookup, transit and release, voice marshalling the aircraft for pickup and drop off to ensure the load is stable and positioned correctly. With the Blackhawk seats in the transverse position the crewman cannot see beneath the aircraft to carry out this task nor move around the cabin to reach the door and manage either troops and doors.

@Huge: are you suggesting that the US crew chiefs can't use a gunner's belt to monitor the load, or is it that with a full load of seated troops there isn't room to do it the old fashioned way -- slide the door open, lie on one's belly, and keep an eye on the load?


I have worked with Navy (and a few times Army) crewman who do precisely that. External loads is a place where the crew chief shines.

Can a Blackhawk carry much of an u/s load when full of troops and fuel? Can a Puma?

CG

I only flew in the WS70 for a short time but had to make a quick assessment of what I thought of the cabin. My opinion was that the transverse arrangements of the rear seats (WITHOUT troops or Bergens) appeared to leave very little/no space from the front of the seat and the rear of the load hatch on which to walk behind the load hatch in order to see vertically down onto the hook for pick up and drop off. With no troops in the seats the crewman could sit on the seat and 'work' the load from there (luxury!) but with troops and Bergens filling the rear seats you would have to stand straddled over the open hatch in order to 'work' the hook from above. Furthermore, when the doors are opened in order to see movement tendency on drop off or pickup, if you had a cabin full of kit and soldiers IMHO , there was a bloody good chance of losing something or someone out the door. ( I know they should be secure!) The crewman wears a 'gunner's belt' (monkey harness) at all times. The combination of troops (gun crew) not necessarily a cabin FULL of troops, and USL gun was a common load in my experience.

DD, that's about the only combo I can recall from the last century! Oh, and APFC and troops before Harry Wallet dropped it!:ok:

CG

In the millions of hours flown in the Black Hawk, has this ever happened? Genuine question.

DD That's exactly how I remembered it, Transverse seats are a nightmare for a crewman to carryout all that's required of him, which is why our helis always had a clear centre floor if we were doing USLs. In Ireland it was common place to carry troops and USLs at the same time but we were only covering short distances and had plenty of refuel sites to top up with in-between. If you have open doors there is always the possibility of loosing kit no matter what type you are flying on, a fact of life when you cant always secure everything before you get airborne!!

anyone like the look of this design?
 

https://youtu.be/-xvXTozuGn0

That video is about nine years old.
X2 has done its flights.
S-97 Raider (a bit bigger, armed scout sized bird) has had some test flights.
Defiant, a larger version, bigger than Blackhawk as I understand it, has not been completed for its first test flight. Though Valor (Bell V-280) is expected to get its first test flight this fall, Defiant is not going to be ready to do that. If they get Defiant off the ground then the real fun begins as the test program goes step by step: can it do what they hope it will do?
Those who know rotor heads tell me that as you scale up in size, you run into some serious design and performance issues with that dual, counter rotating rotor system. (Scaling problems among other things). We'll see if Sikorsky is able to solve those difficult problems or not.
If so, maybe it's in time to meet the 2025 window that appears to be the target.

I am unsure why we are talking about 'if and how' a Crewman can move about; it will only be about money and the logistics will have to fit around the cost. Bye-bye PU, Gz, Wc, Me and hello niche - whatever that is? It will be the cheapest option and for me the Bh is a strong military contender and the 159 a less safe bet due to its non-military credentials.

Karmov know more about contra-rotating rotors then anybody and they have never made a big one.

Fairly Rotordyne and a **** load of mini guns. Lots of guns.