US Army evaluated SA341 March 1973
Thread Starter
US Army evaluated SA341 March 1973
Came across a timeline where in 1973, the US Army evaluated Fenestron technology n the then 2008 50 Years of Eurocopter USA book 'Above All'. Also saw this photo on FB, taken in March 1973 at Fort Rucker (?). It is an Aerospatiale SA341 Gazelle parked in front of the Army Aviation Test Board. It be interesting to see what the AAOTB thought, I would not have thought it as a potential OH-58 or -H-6 replacement at the time.
Cheers
Cheers
It looks like the US Army also tested the SA342 late in the 70's. I see Kaman mentioned in the test report. Kaman were undertaking a study into fan-in-fin technology at the time and perhaps this is part of their study. They proposed converting an OH-6A with an enlarged tailboom to test the technology. From the drawings I've seen of it, the tailboom would have contained the fan and torque was counteracted by a thruster can on the end of the boom (similar to NOTAR) as opposed to a Fenestron type anti-torque system.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a016921.pdf
500 Fan.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a016921.pdf
500 Fan.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/34/i...9740010575.pdf
The report doesn't mention the model of test helicopter but the data in Table 1 at page 9 is for a 341.
This is the 341 report cited in note 1 at page 10 of the 342 report:
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/34/i...9740010575.pdf
The report doesn't mention the model of test helicopter but the data in Table 1 at page 9 is for a 341.
https://ia800304.us.archive.org/34/i...9740010575.pdf
The report doesn't mention the model of test helicopter but the data in Table 1 at page 9 is for a 341.
500 Fan.
Last edited by 500 Fan; 14th Feb 2019 at 16:20. Reason: Spelling!
Would have been fantastic if Oz had of chosen the Gazelle over the Kiowa. Gazelle was a far more superior and versatile aircraft in the Scout role than the 206. Plus, much nicer to fly
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Autos in the Gazelle
You wouldn't want to do a lot of autos to touchdown in the Gazelle (I know, I know, Shawbury di a lot of em), and the overhead throttle made recovery from a screwed up auto very entertaining for the instructor.
Neat machine, but not for training ab-initio atudents.
Neat machine, but not for training ab-initio atudents.
In 1973 SA decided to install and test a fenestron on the S-67. Part of that preparation included a short evaluation of a Gazelle arranged thru a private owner. What was ironic was that we noticed the 341 was happy with any pedal position with 3 degrees of sideslip in forward flight, and voila, so was the S-67 version. We added a rudder to the design, but the original tail rotor was reinstalled after the fenestron test program and the whole subject became OBE.
Until Comanche came along, anyway.
If one looks into the SA Archives site and notices that max speed number for the 67, it was recorded with the fenestron. We simply were doing the full envelope and on the day, we needed a 200KIAS data point, which was the standard 67 number. It was a clear, cold windy day but at least was smoother above 3-4 thousand feet, and quite frankly, we were watching the main rotor for mach related instability ( arising from a prior experience with the S-61F, where the rotor went unstable at a free stream mach of 0.94 ). Anyhow at 200 KIAS the rotor was ok-fuzzy tip path but only n/rev vibration. Tip mach was 0.96 at this data point.
Until Comanche came along, anyway.
If one looks into the SA Archives site and notices that max speed number for the 67, it was recorded with the fenestron. We simply were doing the full envelope and on the day, we needed a 200KIAS data point, which was the standard 67 number. It was a clear, cold windy day but at least was smoother above 3-4 thousand feet, and quite frankly, we were watching the main rotor for mach related instability ( arising from a prior experience with the S-61F, where the rotor went unstable at a free stream mach of 0.94 ). Anyhow at 200 KIAS the rotor was ok-fuzzy tip path but only n/rev vibration. Tip mach was 0.96 at this data point.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 21st Feb 2019 at 13:54. Reason: Additional data
Not sure where that is coming from Shaun the British Army used it as an ab-initio helicopter for years with most AAC QHI's doing 6 EOLs an average day, 30 a week! yep there was a few frangible fairings cracked but all in all I would say no real problem.
