• 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

SynixMan

HKG Based Artificial Excrement Pilot
pilot
Contributor
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?

This is Sikorsky's bread and butter, so it'd have to be redundant. I believe the -60M has a "fly by wire tail" to eliminate the cable linkages and prove the concept. Maybe @RobLyman has some insight as to how it works. Google failed me in finding a system description.
 

RobLyman

- hawk Pilot
pilot
None
Our 60Ms don't have fly by wire. There is one at WPB that is fly by wire main and tail rotor controls. They also had a composite tail boom on it. I think it's the same aircraft. There are so many cool true franken-hawks there it is hard to remember which ones had which features. The fly by wire 60M had redundant "wires" that I believe went up the sides where the broom closets would be. The collective and cyclic each had a sort of box on the floor that they mounted to. There was another box on the hydraulic deck that fed into the traditional flight controls. It's been awhile since I've seen it, but I remember the hydraulics bay looking remarkably unchanged.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
So what are the advantages and disadvantages of the CH-53 vs the CH-47? I know the rotor footprint is bigger for the 47 and that matters to the Marines on ships but what else differentiates them?
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
So what are the advantages and disadvantages of the CH-53 vs the CH-47? I know the rotor footprint is bigger for the 47 and that matters to the Marines on ships but what else differentiates them?

Good question. The Sikorsky is substantially bigger and stronger at sea level (CH-53K will have a max gross of around of 88K, the CH-47 somewhere around 50K-54K). Think of the Boeing as a Heavy and the Sikorsky as a Super Heavy. If I had to guess, at altitude the Boeing closes the performance gap due to its twin rotor design (i.e., not wasting 25% of its power on a tail rotor). The Sikorsky takes up less space on the ship because it can fold its tail and blades - big difference. That said, my understanding is that the operating cost of the Chinook is substantially less. There are a few guys here who have flown one or the other so I hope they will chime in.

The Boeing has a big advantage is that most of the Western world uses the Chinook - only Japan uses the MH-53E although a number of countries use the older twin engine CH-53's (which performance wise are near the Boeing.)

That said, I have read reports that Boeing can build the CH-47 much bigger - up to around 75,000 lbs. The defining characteristic is do you want it transportable by a C-17? The new engines for the Sikorsky would be a great match for the Boeing - just upgrade the transmission and heads (perhaps a 4 bladed head and a fuselage plug for more room.) Here is an example - the experimental Boeing 347 from the early 1970's. Notice the 4 bladed heads, rotor blades are 30 inches longer, the aft pylon is raised and there is a fuselage plug to make it longer. (no word if they will keep the rotatable wings...).

bvertol_347.jpg


bvertol_347_1.jpg


8-2.jpg
 

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Is that an Army P2V behind it? Who knew the army flew those!

Edit: The Neptune was also utilized by the US Army's 1st Radio Research Company (Aviation), call sign "Crazy Cat", based at Cam Ranh Bay in South Vietnam, as an electronic "ferret" aircraft intercepting low-powered tactical voice and morse code radio signals.[9] The US Army operated the P-2 from 1967[9] until 1972, flying 42,500 hours with no accidents.

From Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This was something I was never clear on, but aren't flight test articles and prototypes still the property of the manufacturer (as opposed to the USG)? So wouldn't they have to have N-registration numbers?
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
This was something I was never clear on, but aren't flight test articles and prototypes still the property of the manufacturer (as opposed to the USG)? So wouldn't they have to have N-registration numbers?
Nope, they're public aircraft since they're bought and operated with government money. Would be a different story if it was in an in-house development like Sikorsky's X2.
 
Top