Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

USAF Chooses AW-139 To Replace UH-1H

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

USAF Chooses AW-139 To Replace UH-1H

Old 28th Sep 2018, 18:17
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 50
Posts: 1,507
Did I hear that correctly that a 5 blade rotor has a beter redundancy than a 2 bladed rotor?

SLB
Self loading bear is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2018, 18:27
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 903
Originally Posted by Self loading bear View Post
Did I hear that correctly that a 5 blade rotor has a beter redundancy than a 2 bladed rotor?
SLB
Why not, it does have three extra blades after all, they are finally learning from Gillette!
Sorry, cannot stop laughing
tottigol is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2018, 21:00
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,606
I know some OH-6A'S flew with half the blades gone from the rotor head....it was a dire emergency but it worked.

If it were a OH-58A....the crews would have not survived.
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2018, 04:27
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: nj
Posts: 7
Good evening PPRUNErs! this is my first ever post on this forum. I served in the Army 96-2000 and am an aviation enthusiast. I like helicopters, looking at them and thinking about them. Kudos to Boeing and Leonardo for the work on the game-changing/new-class-creating (Super Medium) AW139! Yeah I was hoping the Bell (I love Hueys and UH-1s, Bell 412 etc) would have placed the UH-1Y into the game, but it wasn't to be. The advantage of the Aw139 over the competition (the two companies offering UH-60 types) that I see is that the 139 has a portion of the fuselage dedicated to storage, the UH-60 does not. Supplies can be stowed and not take up seating space. The AW139 is a game changer for sure. Of course, Bell did have a super medium four decades ago - the Bell 214ST - which has a similar layout (size, seating, detached cargo compartment) but ended production and never revisited that airframe size again... until now, the Bell 525. However the Bell 525 is about 10 years late to the super medium/Oil & Gas game!
Go Boeing and Leo for their success.
Copter Appreciator00 is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2019, 16:48
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,162
MH-139A Grey Wolf

Welcome MH-139 Grey Wolf the latest USAF helo.




chopper2004 is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2019, 22:57
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: yyz
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by tottigol View Post
SAS, you are making a mess of several different programs jumbled together.
1) Westland alone was involved in the S-70 program.
2) The Canadian Cormorant has been an expensive yet successful program
3) We all know why the costs escalated in the original VH-71 program, and it was not because of the manufacturer.
4) The 139 does not have CG issues more than any other helicopter in commercial service today.
5) Boeing is the prime contractor in the MH-139 program.
#2 that must be why we bought the VH71 for spare parts. Considering how much we paid, for extended in service support........
rigpiggy is offline  
Old 20th Dec 2019, 01:41
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 397
Way back, when the US Army started taking deliveries of their (then) new Blackhawks, there was a saying that went something like this, "When the last Blackhawk is flown to the US Army Aviation Museum, the crew will jump into a Huey to fly home." I wonder what they're saying about the AW139 / MH-139?
Saint Jack is offline  
Old 22nd Dec 2019, 17:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 968
St Jack,
As we in the RAF said re the Wessex when the 'Plastic Pig' (Puma) was introduced. Guess what? The Wessex has been gone 15+ years and the Puma has at least another 5 (probably 10) to do. As aviators we are rabidly loyal to our steeds, and suspicious of the new as, firstly, it might not work, and, more pertinently, it has the tendency to partially reset the experience pyramid. I flew with several ex-Wessex guys who really struggled flying the CH-47; they just could not adapt to the speed, power and avionics the aircraft had. The UH-1 family is still a nice aircraft to tool around in, but nothing like a UH-60 (I have a passing acquaintance flying both). However, when you don't anticipate putting a machine into a complex threat environment, the sheer economies of a civil based design start to look really appealing. The civil world put cost above everything else (as long as the design meets the FAR/EASA CS) and the -139 I would imagine, over time, is significantly cheaper to fly than a reheated UH-60. I went to the AW line in Philly this year and, to be frank, was very encouraged by all I spoke to. VH-71 is an unfair comparison, brought down by ludicrous LM project 'management' and political expediency, whereas the Cormorant 'had' to be different enough for a normal EH101 to justify the political U-Turn that saw it purchased.
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 04:19
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 783
And the amazing thing is that the enemy won't even notice the difference with the new MH139. Very stealth.


industry insider is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 06:20
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 253
I think the MH-139 will be a pretty good replacement for the UH-1N (212), this requirement is a hash and trash role , you don't need a 60 with all its ballistic tolerance and built like a brick shithouse airframe, the USAF have the HH-60M's for the war zones which need all the bells and whistles and a strong airframe, I would not take a MH-139 to Afghanistan and operate it like a HH-60 it would be dead in 3 months, simply not rugged enough, the 139 is a good airframe just not the most rugged I have worked on .
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.
Blackhawk9 is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 07:26
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,697
Evalu8ter - the Wessex didn't have the luxury of a mid-life update as the Puma has and even after the update the 'Plastic Pig' Mk2 has plenty of problems with serviceability -look how long it took to come on line.

Adapting to new avionics is just a matter of training - I'm ex-Wessex/Lynx/Sea King but the transition to 139 was very straightforward.

However, I completely agree the 139 is not a battlefield helicopter - it is far too precious with it's electrics/avionics even if it has a sh*t ton of power available.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 11:47
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,606
All this ignores the USMC's latest version of their UH-1N....that has already been used in combat operations, would have a common parts supply chain in existence, an established training program etc.

That the USAF would also then have a fleet of Combat capable aircraft defending the Nation's primary Nuclear Deterrent should be a factor that trumps pure cost issues.


SASless is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 23:32
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tax-land.
Posts: 903
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
All this ignores the USMC's latest version of their UH-1N....that has already been used in combat operations, would have a common parts supply chain in existence, an established training program etc.

That the USAF would also then have a fleet of Combat capable aircraft defending the Nation's primary Nuclear Deterrent should be a factor that trumps pure cost issues.

Sorry SAS, the UH-1Y was an expedient to attempt unit cost dilution for the AH-1Z by using the same powertrain on a hybrid UH-1N.
At a (implied) cost of 26.2 millions a pop is (was in 2014 dollars already) as much as 30% more expensive than a 139 after Boeing adds the "customer specific equipment", and there just is not any performance margin to justify that additional cost, matter of fact the UH-1Y does not even come close to the 139 when it comes to payload/range/speed performance combinations or OEI performance for what it matters.
If anything, the Semper Fi guys should have received H-60s, already available as a navalized aircraft in the MH-60S.
tottigol is offline  
Old 23rd Dec 2019, 23:58
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 4th dimension.....
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Evalu8ter - the Wessex didn't have the luxury of a mid-life update as the Puma has and even after the update the 'Plastic Pig' Mk2 has plenty of problems with serviceability -look how long it took to come on line.

Adapting to new avionics is just a matter of training - I'm ex-Wessex/Lynx/Sea King but the transition to 139 was very straightforward.

However, I completely agree the 139 is not a battlefield helicopter - it is far too precious with it's electrics/avionics even if it has a sh*t ton of power available.
Not to go off on a total tangent but re Puma Mk2 cost as a comparison when you consider mid life upgrades. Wasnít it sold as an upgrade securing U.K. jobs, yet initially at least the work was conducted in Romania? Also at £20 million per airframe, at least what has been quoted, you could have bought the new H215 as the Spanish Air Force have done for SAR. More capability and longevity than any MLU.

Also given the RAF previously reverse engineered a South African Oryx from Makila back to Turmo power yet have now done the opposite why didnít they also upgrade the sponsons to the larger type given more grunt? Seems a waste and a half. Where has that £20m gone apart from avionics and engines?
Northernstar is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 08:35
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 58
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Northernstar View Post


Not to go off on a total tangent but re Puma Mk2 cost as a comparison when you consider mid life upgrades. Wasnít it sold as an upgrade securing U.K. jobs, yet initially at least the work was conducted in Romania? Also at £20 million per airframe, at least what has been quoted, you could have bought the new H215 as the Spanish Air Force have done for SAR. More capability and longevity than any MLU.

Also given the RAF previously reverse engineered a South African Oryx from Makila back to Turmo power yet have now done the opposite why didnít they also upgrade the sponsons to the larger type given more grunt? Seems a waste and a half. Where has that £20m gone apart from avionics and engines?
How long before the 'Grey Wolf' becomes known as the 'Plastic Pig' too!?
As for the RAF/MOD's ex SAAF/SDF aquisitions, they were just redundant (french built) Turmo engined SA330's, not the, still currently in service,Makila engined Oryx 'licence' version.
The RAF HC.2 does seem to have been excessively expensive though.
BTC8183 is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 14:31
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Atlantic Ocean
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by Blackhawk9 View Post
I think the MH-139 will be a pretty good replacement for the UH-1N (212), this requirement is a hash and trash role , you don't need a 60 with all its ballistic tolerance and built like a brick shithouse airframe, the USAF have the HH-60M's for the war zones which need all the bells and whistles and a strong airframe, I would not take a MH-139 to Afghanistan and operate it like a HH-60 it would be dead in 3 months, simply not rugged enough, the 139 is a good airframe just not the most rugged I have worked on .
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.

I know it's off topic, but your post made me think on other civilian/military helicopters, such as some of the now Airbus types. What is your toughts about the military version of the 225, 332, 365, 145, 135, 125...?
Jimmy. is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 14:35
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,615
Originally Posted by Jimmy. View Post
I know it's off topic, but your post made me think on other civilian/military helicopters, such as some of the now Airbus types. What is your toughts about the military version of the 225, 332, 365, 145, 135, 125...?
My first thought is that the 225, 332 and 365 are actually civilian versions of a military type!
212man is offline  
Old 24th Dec 2019, 15:18
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by rigpiggy View Post
#2 that must be why we bought the VH71 for spare parts. Considering how much we paid, for extended in service support........
Canada didn't buy the VH71. They were basically a gift and the fuselages are a much later model, which Canada can use in their upcoming mid life update. It was the deal of the century for Canada. Unlike that Cyclone thing.
noooby is offline  
Old 25th Dec 2019, 05:09
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by Jimmy. View Post
I know it's off topic, but your post made me think on other civilian/military helicopters, such as some of the now Airbus types. What is your toughts about the military version of the 225, 332, 365, 145, 135, 125...?
I admit I am bias, I generally don't like Eurotrash , but 332's are a great all round aircraft having been on them in UN ops doing mil support work (and offshore for years), never liked the 225 or 365 , 145's (117's) are good utility machines and the 125 (350's) , bit delicate for mill work but good general workhorse.
Blackhawk9 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.