• 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

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
#94
"The Marine Corps CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter program's cost has increased by 22 percent over the baseline estimate and the price is higher than the Air Force F-35 variant, according to House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee Ranking Member Niki Tsongas (D-MA). Tsongas said during a March 10 hearing the 22 percent cost growth equates to $122 million per copy. The F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing jet costs the taxpayer $94.6 million per copy in the Lot 10 buy. "
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
#95
You know there was a serious debate, 5 years ago - about switching Marine Heavy Lift to the CH-47F - which is a fully marinized aircraft, save for auto blade fold. It would have been less than half of the Kilo...
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
#96
You know there was a serious debate, 5 years ago - about switching Marine Heavy Lift to the CH-47F - which is a fully marinized aircraft, save for auto blade fold. It would have been less than half of the Kilo...
CH-47F with the new GE engines slated for the 53K - and both the combining gearbox and transmissions to handle the power - that would have been something I would take over the 53K.
 
#97
I think the power loss associated with a tandem rotor gets you into a diminishing returns scenario when you drive the weight up that high (but im no aerospace engineer) . I think the new tech and sizing of the CH-53K will far outpace anything a 47F could do. This is the right move rather than updating severely worn airframes. You can drive a humvee up the ramp and load full sized air force pallets into the K (straight from the C-5/C-17) and the avionics/electrical equipment have been completely redesigned based off of 50+ years of lessons learned from the maintenance and operational side. I'm excited to see the full potential this heavy lift assault support/transport helo has to offer. I just hope the good idea fairy doesn't appear and try to weaponize this thing, the true weapons are the dudes in the back and their gear being transported. I've also heard that the swashplate is milled from a single crystalline titanium block, that's just cool.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
#98
I think the power loss associated with a tandem rotor gets you into a diminishing returns scenario when you drive the weight up that high (but im no aerospace engineer) . I think the new tech and sizing of the CH-53K will far outpace anything a 47F could do. This is the right move rather than updating severely worn airframes. You can drive a humvee up the ramp and load full sized air force pallets into the K (straight from the C-5/C-17) and the avionics/electrical equipment have been completely redesigned based off of 50+ years of lessons learned from the maintenance and operational side. I'm excited to see the full potential this heavy lift assault support/transport helo has to offer. I just hope the good idea fairy doesn't appear and try to weaponize this thing, the true weapons are the dudes in the back and their gear being transported. I've also heard that the swashplate is milled from a single crystalline titanium block, that's just cool.
Good question - perhaps Ike or another one of the test pilots can answer it. The Boeing will have substantially lower disc loading compared to the big Sikorsky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_loading

Other factors to consider are the amount of power the tail rotor takes up in a CH-53 (25% ?) vs the extra weight and airflow over the fuselage in a CH-47. Not saying the Sikorsky is bad by any means - it is a great helicopter - but all things being equal, my money is on the tandem configuration over a single main rotor.

EDIT: Here is an older article where Boeing was discussing how big they could make the Chinook. It does seem to be whether or not you want the helicopter to be transportable inside a C-5.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-us-army-near-decision-on-ch-47-future-353105/
 
#99
but without being able to fit in a c-17 how would you get it to theatre... put it on a boat (kinda in the wrong service for that). Unless you seriously want to do an ocean crossing in a helicopter (sickens me to my core), I don't see the army taking that option. #TailrotorMafia. All things considered I like the -47. I think it's wrong to latch on to a single airframe to do a variety of missions, as those missions evolve and new missions are created it's best to have multiple options.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
You mean like this? :)

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-time-when-two-super-carriers-became-floating-army-h-1647968681





For the oil rigs down in South America, the petroleum companies will fly helicopters (in pairs) from the US all the way down to Brazil and Argentina. Not quite the same as flying across the Atlantic, much less the Pacific, but still impressive. Haven't done the math but I would not be surprised if you could go through Canada, Greenland and over to Europe. That said, I believe the Chinook has a substantially bigger footprint since the Sikorsky can fold and is thus less suited to USS Boat.
 

Griz882

Well-Known Member
pilot
The one thing that makes the -47 a winner is it's high altitude capability. I rode them in Afghanistan to altitudes (with a decent troop load) that I don't think the Seastud could handle mostly because it feeds about 19% of her power to the tail. Certainly the -53 tail rotor set up would not be good in certain conditions. I have ramped off a -47 with only the ramp touching the mountain and the rest of the bird holding a nice hover. Those two top rotors are quite amazing.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
but without being able to fit in a c-17 how would you get it to theatre... put it on a boat (kinda in the wrong service for that). Unless you seriously want to do an ocean crossing in a helicopter (sickens me to my core), I don't see the army taking that option. #TailrotorMafia. All things considered I like the -47. I think it's wrong to latch on to a single airframe to do a variety of missions, as those missions evolve and new missions are created it's best to have multiple options.
Most of the Army's aircraft come home by boat. As discussed in another thread awhile back, the Army deploys aircraft to theater and leaves them there for several rotations. They rarely deploy and redeploy the aircraft for a single rotation. Aircraft usually go there by C-17 and come back by ship. FWIW, in the Blackhawk ferry mission AWR it mentions the aircraft ESSS was designed to ferry the aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean. Its doable under optimum conditions. Can't say I would want to do it though.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator