• 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

CH-53K ground tests

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Upper 160's in a clean, trucked SH-60F with new engines on a cooler day was doable. Probably because it had no wings, no FLIR, no extended pylons, no tanks, etc. Short of the ~14.9k-lb UH-60Ls at TPS, a trucked Foxtrot is the most fun I've had flying a -60.
 

TexasForever

Well-Known Member
pilot
Ch-53K was designed to cruise at 150KIAS. So the flight test failure at 1:20 was a bit of a surprise. They found the problem and are rectifying it
If you don't mind me asking (and if it's OK to share) what was the nature of the problem?
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
As a DH, we had a s$it-hot AD1 that could do magic with a head. Couple that with some 1.05 engines and in a Block .75 (with a FLIR on the side), we could get 140 at around 90% Tq. 150 was possible, but you had to nanny the collective for Tq limits.

In a MH-60R truck at sea level, 120 is feasible. 140 is probably a stretch. I remember doing an instrument hop from NZY to NJK, over the mountains and we were hitting the notable indications of initial blade stall at 120. That was a brand new bird from the factory. That bird always seemed to struggle at speed, but still, the R is packing a bit more in the waistline than we'd all prefer.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
If you don't mind me asking (and if it's OK to share) what was the nature of the problem?
I don't know the technical details but it had to do with airflow to engine inlets and it was an airframe vs engine assembly issue. Apparently th kind of issue that engineering test flights are designed to uncover.

Interesting I also learned the Army funded us to demo the GE-38 in the CH-47F and hopefully displace the T-55.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
As a DH, we had a s$it-hot AD1 that could do magic with a head...

um0ulfle7zifmvzptkvw.png
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
I don't know the technical details but it had to do with airflow to engine inlets and it was an airframe vs engine assembly issue. Apparently th kind of issue that engineering test flights are designed to uncover.

Interesting I also learned the Army funded us to demo the GE-38 in the CH-47F and hopefully displace the T-55.

Thanks for the info. A Chinook with those engines will be a monster. How much will the max gross weight go up? If I remember, Chinooks are somewhere north of 55,000 pounds.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Thanks for the info. A Chinook with those engines will be a monster. How much will the max gross weight go up? If I remember, Chinooks are somewhere north of 55,000 pounds.

I don't know if the gw would intact go up - or the idea is to gain better performance in hot/high conditions. The GE38 is a 7500 SHP motor - well above the T-55's. But Boeing and the Army would like nothing better than to dump the T-55 motors on the Chinook.

@Stearmann4 - if he can pull himself away from that boondoggle Lakota transition might give some insight :)
 

bert

Enjoying the real world
pilot
Contributor
Just upgrading the engines might not get you much performance gains unless there is already room for growth baked in to the rest of the dynamic components. That can mean the xmsns, heads, blades, etc.

It can get very expensive very quickly.
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
The CH-47F is a really nice design but has outdated CRAP Allison T55 engines. We are running a demo program to move the CH-47F to the superior GE-381B engines - same as what will power the CH-53K.

Now, the CH-53K is a tech marvel - full fly by wire and autopilot. NO outdated mechanical/hydraulic linkages from cockpit to flight controls. Simply fiber-optic cables. It's a true next gen aircraft in every respect. Will easily be able to compete with the CH-47F in lift. Also the CH-53K will cruise at 170 Kts. Chinook can't match that....
 

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
By the way, second CH-53K test article is flying and 120 Kts test milestone is finally complete. NAVAIR wants the program faster - guys at West Palm Flight Test are working their asses off.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Upper 160's in a clean, trucked SH-60F with new engines on a cooler day was doable. Probably because it had no wings, no FLIR, no extended pylons, no tanks, etc. Short of the ~14.9k-lb UH-60Ls at TPS, a trucked Foxtrot is the most fun I've had flying a -60.
Then 60A frankenhawks at HAATS are pretty sweet too. 12.5k with no gas, 701D engines! Hovering at 6500' IGE at 59% with 4 onboard. We never got up to speed because, well...we were at HAATS. 6500' is the lowest place we flew/landed. We spent most of the time between 9500' and 14,000'.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Now, the CH-53K is a tech marvel - full fly by wire and autopilot. NO outdated mechanical/hydraulic linkages from cockpit to flight controls. Simply fiber-optic cables.

I've been curious about the survivability of a setup like this. I can't speak to the -53, but part of the design of the original -60 was to take things from the Huey and do the opposite. One of them was to move the center broom closet and split it into two closets, making the mechanical flight linkages as far apart as possible should the aircraft receive battle damage. The logic being that hopefully only one side of the airframe will get hit, leaving controls working on the other side.

With just fiber cables, what happens if they get broken? Does the design route redundant fiber in more than one location?
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
The CH-47F is a really nice design but has outdated CRAP Allison T55 engines. We are running a demo program to move the CH-47F to the superior GE-381B engines - same as what will power the CH-53K.

Now, the CH-53K is a tech marvel - full fly by wire and autopilot. NO outdated mechanical/hydraulic linkages from cockpit to flight controls. Simply fiber-optic cables. It's a true next gen aircraft in every respect. Will easily be able to compete with the CH-47F in lift. Also the CH-53K will cruise at 170 Kts. Chinook can't match that....


Question is: how would a CH-53K match up against a Chinook with those massive GE engines - and a mixbox that could utilize that power? Also, what would the operating cost be?
 
Top