Mil-26Man

From Jane's https://www.janes.com/article/86028/...ining-helo-rfp

USN looking for 130 training helicopters to replace TH-57B/C. Contenders Airbus H135, Bell 407GXi/429, and Leonardo TH-119 (AW119 derivative).

tottigol

Having trained on the TH-57A (its last training sortie as a student graduate Naval Aviator), B and C models, I would define the 57 as venerable, not just ageing.
Looking at the contestants, I do believe the 119 is the best platform for the job, however I understand that the RFP is not to be limited to the airframes themselves but rather to a "turnkey" training package including simulators at a minimum.
It will all be decided in DC.
Let's see which contestant can carry the biggest suitcase.

SansAnhedral

I do realize the US Army already made this mind-boggling decision....but why in the world would you field a twin as a primary rotary initial training platform?

Spunk

Ask the Germans
They started with the EC135 to find out it didn't autorotate that well without falling apart. So they started to train the autorotational part on their old BO105s. And guess what they ended up using nowadays:

The good, old reliable JetRanger

Robbo Jock

Sans, I think the British mil have made the same decision. As I understand it, the idea is that the pilots will never touch a single-engine helicopter in their career, so start them as you mean them to go on.

Ascend Charlie

The think-tanks come and go. In the late 60s the Oz military decided that the old method of starting on the piston Winjeel and then finishing on the Vampire should be replaced with all-through jet training on the Macchi. It was tried, but they found it was an expensive way to be weeding out the duds, so they went back to Winjeel / Macchi and later CT4 / Macchi. Now it will be 2 types of PC9 and PC12 I think.

For rotary it was all Huey, then it became Squirrel / Huey, then Squirrel / Kiowa / Blackhawk and now it will be all twin via the EC135 route. Again, they think that pilots will always be on twins, so why not go all the way. Wait a while, and perhaps a single for basic will creep back in.

tottigol

Again, the bigger suitcase shall win.

CTR

jellycopter

And how well is that decision working out then........?

500e

So what do the Germans do different to the Australians

casper64

Is full autorotation training to the ground still really necessary or is an autorotation with a powerrecovery at the end nowadays sufficient. It really depends on who you talk to.
We don't spend hours and hours flying with the standby Compass and stopwatch anymore either. You get it shown once or twice, do it yourself once or twice and that's it.
In the last say… 30 years how many western, twin engine, military helicopters have been comming down from the sky which required an autorotation to bring the Aircraft safely on the ground and if so.. how many managed to do this without actually damaging the Aircraft?

Maybe time is more well spend teaching other basic Aircraft handling (unusual attitudes for example) AND proper management (AVIATE FIRST) of the cockpits full with Goodies like AFCS, SBAS Navigation, Synthetic Vision, EVS, HTAWS, FMS etc. etc.

GoodGrief

Turbine helicopters are the worst choice for basic training anyway. There are basics every pilot should master you only learn in a piston.
The Polish Airforce does it right, they will train on R44s now.

Flying Bull

GoodGrief

I'd like to see you flying a 407 without governor amongst other things.

Hughes500

I think Good Grief is saying There is nothing like actually being power limited rather than you only have 73psi to leave this confined area when you know you can go to over 80 psi for example

GoodGrief

In a piston I can teach you:
- hearing high rotor rpm
- feel high rotor rpm vibration
- proper recovery

-same 3 items for low rotor rpm

- overpitching in flight and recovery
- proper collective / throttle correlation in all phases of flight
- differences of said correlation during a running landing
- effects of higher G-load on rotor rpm

-right stuck pedal landing without ground run using throttle

And of course what Hughes500 said.
We can do all that for $500 an hour, no need to teach hovering at 3k of tax money per hour.

I probably missed one or two items. Feel free to chime in.

I boldly state that you have much more control over an old Schweitzer than you have over that fancy EC155 of yours.

Thax

I think some posters have failed to understand the value (literally and figuratively) of simulation. The Royal New Zealand Air Force conducts basic and advanced helicopter training on the AW109LUH (twin engine, glass cockpit), for pilots and loadmasters going on to fly the AW109LUH, NH90 or SH-2 Seasprite operationally. The effective use of a full motion simulator allows all the things GoodGrief mentions to be trained to a high standard (and without risk). Some 50% of all basic training is conducted synthetically. Of note, however, since none of the operational types have piston engines or manual throttles (they are all FADEC), training in collective/throttle correlation is somewhat redundant. Similarly, because of the nature of FADEC systems, none of the aircraft allows the manual use of throttle to control direction with a seized or failed tail rotor - the simulator allows appropriate recovery techniques to be trained and conducted safely and realistically. Finally, the direct operating cost of the simulator is less than the dry lease cost of an R44 in NZ. Thus the cost of teaching hovering is very reasonable (and as a measure of the efficacy of good simulation, every RNZAF helicopter pilot trainee receives some 6 hours of simulator training before their first aircraft flight and every student over the past six years has been able to start, taxi, take-off, hover and land the aircraft to a rudimentary but safe standard on their first attempt).
By its considered calculation, the RNZAF could not conduct their rotary training cheaper if the R44 was used for basic training before transitioning to the AW109 for advanced training. The R44 would only save some 15-20 hours off the AW109 course and the cost of ownership (or lease) and operation of a second fleet would be considerably more than the single type system.

casper64

Not true:
- hearing high rotor rpm
- feel high rotor rpm vibration
- proper recovery
Same 3 for low rotor RPM

These things you can perfectly train in any modern Twin with a training mode H135/H145 for example, but I am sure other types like B429 have something similar. But you train them with a much higher safety level, as you cannot go below below a certain critical rotor RPM for example without the training mode automatically recovering RPM.

- overpitching in flight and recovery
Is a non event in a modern military helicopter… most can go to -0,5G and still be controllable…. not teetering types in the mlitary inventories of the modern western militaries.

- proper collective / throttle correlation in all phases of flight
Is a non event in modern military helicopters… they are generally controlled by (dual channel) FADECs (no throttles at all) or digital engine control units. In case of the latter one can still train with the throttles, for example in a H135, Bell 429 or A109.

- differences of said correlation during a running landing
As stated above, sort of a non event OR trainable in the single channel types that still have twistgrips or throttles.

- effects of higher G-load on rotor rpm
Can be trained perfectly on all Twins is exaclty the same.

-right stuck pedal landing without ground run using throttle
The types that have throttles, such as H135, A109, B429 etc, this can be trained as well.

We can do all that for $500 an hour, no need to teach hovering at 3k of tax money per hour.
That is really the only valid argument, however for that extra money you have the added safety of a Twin, more representative training as all operational types are Twins, ability to Twin emergency training such as OEI landings and the ability to perfom IFR training, advanced mission training as well.

I boldly state that you have much more control over an old Schweitzer than you have over that fancy EC155 of yours
Might be true, but this control you have in a Schweitzer is not required in a EC155 or any advanced or as you call "fancy" military type. As such control is only relevant if these pilots will fly these basic Aircraft in the future, which they won't. (at least not within their militaries)

Flying Bull

chopper2004