• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Do you have to scrub the tailboom and clean the windows at end of shift like we did?

Not every shift, and our boom is black, but after a week, the registration numbers (white) and the VOR/VHF antennas are not pretty. And that's only with a handful of hours a week. I can't imagine a TH-XX will make it to a 7-day or 14-day without a wash, given how much they fly. I know programs with white tails are really frustrated.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
Not every shift, and our boom is black, but after a week, the registration numbers (white) and the VOR/VHF antennas are not pretty. And that's only with a handful of hours a week. I can't imagine a TH-XX will make it to a 7-day or 14-day without a wash, given how much they fly. I know programs with white tails are really frustrated.
I used to like tracing happy faces in the soot on the TH-57 tails. The engine ran pretty clean but the tail would still get dirty when it was getting close to wash day.



Unrelated "wash day" gif:

gkHnWv8.gif
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
We had white tail booms on both the BK-117 and BO-105 - end of shift SOP (unless it was freezing) for pilots was a tail boom wash with a bucket of water and Carbon-X, a wash brush on a stick and a hose. Fun times.
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I don't ever remember seeing it on the floor.
Saw it towed in day before opening. I didnt see where they put it. I left after arrival day. Could only support recovery of our Cobra and display set up, then home.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Now back from Heli-Expo, bags unpacked, laundry going, and bourbon and soda in hand I wanted to share a few thoughts related to TH-XX based on my observations and experiences the last few days. This is all anecdotal. No warranty implied. I'm drinking bourbon.

1. First interesting interaction was an opportunity to sit with a sharp young Army CW3 IP from Ft Rucker. We talked about the merits of full touchdown autos in primary training. She had experience teaching in both the TH-67 and now the UH-72. She said "you know what, we don't miss it at all - we realize the maneuver to touchdown has nothing to do with producing a quality aviator".

a. Army is introducing 90 and 180 autos in the UH-72 with power recovery to teach management of Nr
b. UH-72 is getting skid shoes and sliding / run on landings are now part of the primary syllabus.
c. Enough data exists to show that there is parity in cost per student event between TH-67 and UH-72. A lot of the cost savings being realized is from the lack of wear and tear experienced on the TH-67.
d. Fuel costs, the way the Army does accounting are a negligible difference between a single and dual engine trainer - the DoD pays less that $1 per gallon of JP-4/5/8
e. There are no single engine aircraft in the Army - and the goal of the current UH-72 syllabus is to produce pilots that, in addition to stick skills, can manage mission systems and employ an aircraft to an outcome - in flight school that's often getting to A - B in different wx conditions and VFR and IFR. Systems management is a big skill that the Lakota enables (FMS, AP, etc)
f. Students getting plenty of SAS off time to learn flying a more unstable aircraft.

2. Bell
a. Every Bell guy I talked to was incredibly confident that the competition won't even be close. The opinion voiced to me was that Navy would never let a foreign design train the future of Naval Aviation.
b. 407GXi IFR certification with a 3 axis AP and SAS is all but wrapped up. HYD/Boos off flying qualities is all thats left to certify with FAA.
c. There is a plan to pitch 429. But I don't think its in response to any risk in the 407GXi - but probably to counter Airbus proposal in case a 2 engine platform becomes a more valued requirement.
d. One Bell dude carried on that the Army section of the UH-72 had noting to do with its suitability as a trainer and was 100% politically driven. If Army had opened up a competition to replace the TH-67, Bell would have crushed it.

3. Leonardo
a. The 119 I sat in had nice ergonomics. Great visibility. Its also a big machine.
b. A demo pilot quoted 60 GPH in cruise and over 200 gallon capacity. Fuel burn close to the H135.
c. Leonardo hired a bunch of TPS grads/retired O-6's and they are betting on that influence.
d. The Genesys avionics/flight deck is a central part of the offering. Its impressive.
e. IFR certification is in final clean up phase and they expect FAA sign off in April.
f. Few - as in little recurring maintenance or inspections. Thats a big differentiation with the 119 - very little in the way of ongoing inspections or scheduled maint. Very much an "on condition" aircraft.
g. Leonardo had the best espresso at their display - illy coffee all around :)

4. Airbus
a. Could not find a single Airbus rep that was knowledgable of the TH-XX submission.
b. They are the Goliath - they are likely too busy taking over the industry to worry about a 100+ aircraft buy. I really could not find people who had an opinion on the H135 and its suitability as a trainer.
 
Last edited:

croakerfish

Well-Known Member
pilot
Now back from Heli-Expo, bags unpacked, laundry going, and bourbon and soda in hand I wanted to share a few thoughts related to TH-XX based on my observations and experiences the last few days. This is all anecdotal. No warranty implied. I'm drinking bourbon.

1. First interesting interaction was an opportunity to sit with a sharp young Army CW3 IP from Ft Rucker. We talked about the merits of full touchdown autos in primary training. She had experience teaching in both the TH-67 and now the UH-72. She said "you know what, we don't miss it at all - we realize the maneuver to touchdown has nothing to do with producing a quality aviator".

a. Army is introducing 90 and 180 autos in the UH-72 with power recovery to teach management of Nr
b. UH-72 is getting skid shoes and sliding / run on landings are now part of the primary syllabus.
c. Enough data exists to show that there is parity in cost per student event between TH-67 and UH-72. A lot of the cost savings being realized is from the lack of wear and tear experienced on the TH-67.
d. Fuel costs, the way the Army does accounting are a negligible difference between a single and dual engine trainer - the DoD pays less that $1 per gallon of JP-4/5/8
e. There are no single engine aircraft in the Army - and the goal of the current UH-72 syllabus is to produce pilots that, in addition to stick skills, can manage mission systems and employ an aircraft to an outcome - in flight school that's often getting to A - B in different wx conditions and VFR and IFR. Systems management is a big skill that the Lakota enables (FMS, AP, etc)
f. Students getting plenty of SAS off time to learn flying a more unstable aircraft.

2. Bell
a. Every Bell guy I talked to was incredibly confident that the competition won't even be close. The opinion voiced to me was that Navy would never let a foreign design train the future of Naval Aviation.
b. 407GXi IFR certification with a 3 axis AP and SAS is all but wrapped up. HYD/Boos off flying qualities is all thats left to certify with FAA.
c. There is a plan to pitch 429. But I don't think its in response to any risk in the 407GXi - but probably to counter Airbus proposal in case a 2 engine platform becomes a more valued requirement.
d. One Bell dude carried on that the Army section of the UH-72 had noting to do with its suitability as a trainer and was 100% politically driven. If Army had opened up a competition to replace the TH-67, Bell would have crushed it.

3. Leonardo
a. The 119 I sat in had nice ergonomics. Great visibility. Its also a big machine.
b. A demo pilot quoted 60 GPH in cruise and over 200 gallon capacity. Fuel burn close to the H135.
c. Leonardo hired a bunch of TPS grads/retired O-6's and they are betting on that influence.
d. The Genesys avionics/flight deck is a central part of the offering. Its impressive.
e. IFR certification is in final clean up phase and they expect FAA sign off in April.
f. Few - as in little recurring maintenance or inspections. Thats a big differentiation with the 119 - very little in the way of ongoing inspections or scheduled maint. Very much an "on condition" aircraft.
g. Leonardo had the best espresso at their display - illy coffee all around :)

4. Airbus
a. Could not find a single Airbus rep that was knowledgable of the TH-XX submission.
b. They are the Goliath - they are likely too busy taking over the industry to worry about a 100+ aircraft buy. I really could not find people who had an opinion on the H135 and its suitability as a trainer.

So does the Bell not have coupled hover if it's only a 3-axis autopilot? That was in the RFP.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
2. Bell
...
d. One Bell dude carried on that the Army section of the UH-72 had noting to do with its suitability as a trainer and was 100% politically driven. If Army had opened up a competition to replace the TH-67, Bell would have crushed it.

3. Leonardo
c. Leonardo hired a bunch of TPS grads/retired O-6's and they are betting on that influence.
2.d. FACT.
3.e. Unsure if it's true, but when I was at HX, I asked if any of us TPS nerds would get to test TH-XX and was told CNATRA was allowed to buy whatever it wanted...no NAVAIR involvement required. If so, lame and a mistake.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
c. Enough data exists to show that there is parity in cost per student event between TH-67 and UH-72. A lot of the cost savings being realized is from the lack of wear and tear experienced on the TH-67.
d. Fuel costs, the way the Army does accounting are a negligible difference between a single and dual engine trainer - the DoD pays less that $1 per gallon of JP-4/5/8

The 72 costs double a 67. https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2019/2019_b_c.pdf
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Keeping the -67 isn't an option. So why does it matter its relative cost to the options in play?
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
And I would argue same for us - keeping the TH-57 isn’t an option nor the syllabus and outcomes it produces. No matter the awardee, a new way of doing helo advanced is coming....
 
Top