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

RAF announces Puma Replacement plan

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

RAF announces Puma Replacement plan

Old 12th Nov 2023, 17:19
  #521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,320
Received 622 Likes on 270 Posts
I remember the Wessex performance very differently, pulling more than 2700 Tq in the hover at SL was unusual unless you had a lot of fuel on board so you were SSE more often than not.

I think the problem with the 145 has been lateral C of G and a relatively small door for winching. It needs to be able to fit two stretchered casualties which the 412 couldn't do and I'm not sure the 145 can either.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2023, 18:39
  #522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2023
Location: California
Posts: 46
Received 46 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I remember the Wessex performance very differently, pulling more than 2700 Tq in the hover at SL was unusual unless you had a lot of fuel on board so you were SSE more often than not.

I think the problem with the 145 has been lateral C of G and a relatively small door for winching. It needs to be able to fit two stretchered casualties which the 412 couldn't do and I'm not sure the 145 can either.
Crab, valid points all, but on a standard Akrotiri afternoon, +37c and barely a breeze, in full SAR role, we were very often committed. As soon as we went inland and stuck anywhere up to 8000ft DA into the mix, we were hovering at ‘3.2 alpha’. Our engineers would allow us 3.5 on the quiet if we didn’t do it for long 😉
Lucifer Morningstar is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2023, 19:57
  #523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,654
Received 68 Likes on 43 Posts
LM, and of course ,you understood that the ` engineers` were not authorised to allow you,either....
sycamore is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2023, 21:52
  #524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2023
Location: California
Posts: 46
Received 46 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by sycamore
LM, and of course ,you understood that the ` engineers` were not authorised to allow you,either....
Oh indeed we did😉! This was back in the day when people truly understood what the aircraft could do, and our engineers were not mere ‘box swappers’ - we had an utterly superb engineering team on 84, many ex NI 72Sqn, and they knew the aircraft inside-out. I would tell them what I thought I needed to get the job done, and they would ‘advise’ me. Were we exceeding aircraft published limits?, Oh you betcha, but in those days people with knowledge and experience made educated decisions to get the job done. I always ensured the entire crew was briefed and approved the plan, my rule was ‘one out, all out’.

The person breaking the rules and exceeding published limits was me. I signed for the aircraft and I held the responsibility as the Captain - but it worked every single time, and we never had an issue.I will stress that this was NEVER done for training, purely to get a life-saving Op accomplished.

In the military, on Ops we were paid to use our knowledge and judgment to get the task achieved. We did exactly that. When the system changed to rule driven automatons ruling the roost, I PVR’d. I decided that if I had to mindlessly follow rules and could not apply professional judgement to get the job done then I would do it in civvy street where I I could do that for 5 times the salary (I moved to North America)

Am I a dinosaur? Probably, and to many this may sound reckless - I get it. But we were complete professionals who truly understood our aircraft and knew what we could ask of it, in extremis, to save lives. I do not apologize for that.

Last edited by Lucifer Morningstar; 12th Nov 2023 at 22:19.
Lucifer Morningstar is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Lucifer Morningstar:
Old 13th Nov 2023, 06:35
  #525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,320
Received 622 Likes on 270 Posts
I was flying the only remaining airworthy Wessex last week and we were having a discussion about Tq limits - I remember being told by the old and bold in the 80s that Bristow used to operate it to 3.8 on a regular basis.

However, life saving ops are few and far between in Cyprus, especially inland at 8000' DA (most likely firebucketing) so using 3.2A was never a 'thing' we did - its why there was a fuel jettison system on the aircraft so you could match your weight to the situation.

Did I sit committed often? Not for training but a couple of interesting night cliff jobs required it (although I still had a tricky- no NVG in those days - flyaway option).

But deliberately overtorquing the aircraft? - no. I've seen 3.8 a couple of times in NI due to inexperience (both on my part and others) but only transients.

I concur with your sentiments re automatons blindly rule following but professionalism demands that only in absolute extremis should you put the crew at increased risk by exceeding limits on the aircraft. And it should be put U/S as soon as the rescue is complete, not waived by overkeen engineers.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2023, 07:40
  #526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,719
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw
All legacy airframes were once unproven, unbuilt and untested designs, so not sure your logic really holds up.
Maybe it’s the future unknown variables of the ‘time’ and ‘expense’ required to bring into service for a ‘broke’ Nation?
EESDL is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2023, 12:08
  #527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: A very long way North
Posts: 469
Received 15 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucifer Morningstar
Oh indeed we did😉! This was back in the day when people truly understood what the aircraft could do, and our engineers were not mere ‘box swappers’ - we had an utterly superb engineering team on 84, many ex NI 72Sqn, and they knew the aircraft inside-out. I would tell them what I thought I needed to get the job done, and they would ‘advise’ me. Were we exceeding aircraft published limits?, Oh you betcha, but in those days people with knowledge and experience made educated decisions to get the job done. I always ensured the entire crew was briefed and approved the plan, my rule was ‘one out, all out’.

The person breaking the rules and exceeding published limits was me. I signed for the aircraft and I held the responsibility as the Captain - but it worked every single time, and we never had an issue.I will stress that this was NEVER done for training, purely to get a life-saving Op accomplished.

In the military, on Ops we were paid to use our knowledge and judgment to get the task achieved. We did exactly that. When the system changed to rule driven automatons ruling the roost, I PVR’d. I decided that if I had to mindlessly follow rules and could not apply professional judgement to get the job done then I would do it in civvy street where I I could do that for 5 times the salary (I moved to North America)

Am I a dinosaur? Probably, and to many this may sound reckless - I get it. But we were complete professionals who truly understood our aircraft and knew what we could ask of it, in extremis, to save lives. I do not apologize for that.
And I certainly don’t remember the LHS leaning over and pressing the torquemeter test button: “3000, 3000, 3000, all is good…..” flying away, releases test button “3100, 3000, all coming down nicely…”.
PlasticCabDriver is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2023, 13:26
  #528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,245
Received 330 Likes on 183 Posts
Originally Posted by sycamore
LM, and of course ,you understood that the ` engineers` were not authorised to allow you,either....
My hope is that the maintenance manuals had different limits to the Pilots' Notes, and they knew that no maintenance checks or actions were necessary. I've certainly see that with other types.
212man is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2023, 13:52
  #529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 248
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Blackhawk Lease $2M/year

The Malaysian 60A+ ‘out flies’ and ‘out lifts’ anything the U.K. is considering - and all for $2M each per year ;-)
https://www.janes.com/amp/lima-2023-...VI5VFp1cVMwPQ2
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2023, 06:06
  #530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 248
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
https://www.find-tender.service.gov....ard_contract-1

6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2023, 06:26
  #531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,245
Received 330 Likes on 183 Posts
Originally Posted by JulieAndrews
https://www.find-tender.service.gov....ard_contract-1

6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
The 140 million is excluding VAT!
212man is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2023, 11:33
  #532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 47
Posts: 150
Received 27 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by JulieAndrews
https://www.find-tender.service.gov....ard_contract-1

6 x 145 at over £23M each with only 3-years support - incredible use of tax payers money
Its the Brexit tax! 😉
casper64 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2023, 11:45
  #533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: N/A
Age: 47
Posts: 150
Received 27 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Lucifer Morningstar
Oh indeed we did😉!

Am I a dinosaur? Probably, and to many this may sound reckless - I get it. But we were complete professionals who truly understood our aircraft and knew what we could ask of it, in extremis, to save lives. I do not apologize for that.
Yes, I think that is reckless. You can fully understand your aircraft, but are you at the same time a load/stress/fatigue engineer? Did the manufacturer provide you with all the data to “know what you could ask of it”? Or were you just lucky you worked in a time where aircraft and their components by chance were over dimensioned? (Take a BO105 head that went from 1600kg initial design to 3700kg on a H145). If you would do the same with ANY modern aircraft, civil or military, the guy taking the aircraft after you might get killed. Lucky enough for this event exceedance monitoring has been introduced to warn the crew coming after “you”…
casper64 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 14th Nov 2023, 14:35
  #534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,245
Received 330 Likes on 183 Posts
Originally Posted by casper64
Its the Brexit tax! 😉
True. According the big red bus that was paraded around, it’s less than half a week of Brexit savings!
212man is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2023, 06:49
  #535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: GMT
Age: 53
Posts: 2,062
Received 180 Likes on 66 Posts
Originally Posted by casper64
Its the Brexit tax! 😉

Only if we feel obliged to keep buying crap from the eurotrash.
minigundiplomat is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by minigundiplomat:
Old 15th Nov 2023, 10:08
  #536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 359
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Don’t you see. It’s part of the ongoing sweetener, for not being selected as 'The Preferred Bidder’ for NMH.
Hilife is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2023, 14:59
  #537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 248
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
any idea on historical utilisation in Brunei and Akro? would it be more than 300-hrs /annum/airframe, for example?
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2023, 16:09
  #538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,245
Received 330 Likes on 183 Posts
Originally Posted by JulieAndrews
any idea on historical utilisation in Brunei and Akro? would it be more than 300-hrs /annum/airframe, for example?
must be in Brunei. They were always flying when I was there (2005-13)
212man is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2023, 20:06
  #539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,769
Received 2,763 Likes on 1,173 Posts
You would have thought If they were going to buy anything for Cyprus or Brunei, the obvious choice would have been one that was shortlisted for the replacement programme so they would get operational experience and be able to field test the type. And if it eventually was chosen you would have commonality.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2023, 20:18
  #540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 75
Posts: 10,813
Received 94 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
You would have thought If they were going to buy anything for Cyprus or Brunei, the obvious choice would have been one that was shortlisted for the replacement programme so they would get operational experience and be able to field test the type. And if it eventually was chosen you would have commonality.
Don't be silly, that's far too logical.
chevvron is offline  
The following users liked this post:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.