• 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

NEWS Drop-in wonder engine?

RobLyman said:
Print parts at Depot or AIMD? Never! There is too much money to be lost by GE if parts can be made locally.

BTW, are 3D printers really capable of the precision required for turbine engine parts?
Click to expand...

Fuel nozzles in the CFM LEAP engines (A320, 737MAX) are 3D printed...
 
sevenhelmet said:
More efficiency and power is generally better for the mission, as long as the existing aircraft can handle the throughput (gearbox, shafts, rotor head, structure, etc.). Those factors all have to be evaluated prior to and during T&E.
Click to expand...

This - more power is great until you start tearing up the other dynamic components. I believe some Army 60s had this issue when they put in the 701D engines.
 
The problem came up when "they" started bolting up YT706s. The real ugly problem is when you run out of tailrotor effectiveness.
 
hscs said:
This - more power is great until you start tearing up the other dynamic components. I believe some Army 60s had this issue when they put in the 701D engines.
Click to expand...

Having all of that extra power at altitude is great. Decreasing air density affects the engines, not the transmission. Granted, you can't use all of that power at sea level (although it would help in a single engine situation) but it does allow better performance at high altitudes.
 
Randy Daytona said:
Having all of that extra power at altitude is great. Decreasing air density affects the engines, not the transmission. Granted, you can't use all of that power at sea level (although it would help in a single engine situation) but it does allow better performance at high altitudes.
Click to expand...

This. I'd love to have better engines in the Sierra for the overland/desert heat stuff. It'd be nice to not have to stress out about which bird Mx is giving you to vertrep with in the gulf. The guys in charge and jet guys don't always seem to understand that Pa goes down drastically when OAT/DA start going up the way they do in the desert.
 
Randy Daytona said:
Having all of that extra power at altitude is great. Decreasing air density affects the engines, not the transmission. Granted, you can't use all of that power at sea level (although it would help in a single engine situation) but it does allow better performance at high altitudes.
Click to expand...
Yes, but read what bus driver said in the previous post.

Dynamic components include more than just gearboxes - things like elastomeric were getting torn up.
 
High PA/DA is the main reason for the wide chord blades on the 60M. We would over-gross the aircraft before we ran out of power at sea level with our 701Ds. A typical PPCs in the summer here in Florida still gives us 120%+ max torque available each engine (higher w/ contingency power activated). However we can fill our external tanks only half full on our ESSS aircraft due to airframe GW restrictions.

Some special units already have the new engine. Yes, tail rotor effectiveness is an issue for them.
 
SynixMan said:
Or we could, ya know, not keep recycling a helicopter design from 1970 to save money.
Click to expand...
And instead do what? Get a new helo?

Then the 60 fleet would be in the pickle that USMC H-53s and F-18s are in...their budgets would be decreased as money would go to fund the new helo which would then get delayed and therefore require more funds leaving fleet assets even deeper in the hole.
 
hscs said:
Or the 1950s for USMC.......
Click to expand...

From everything I've read about the -53K, it shares very little with the older E models. Essentially a clean sheet design internally.

@Pags We've gone around on this before, so no need to rehash. Everything has constraints and the Navy bought all the helicopter they wanted to afford, nothing more.
 
SynixMan said:
From everything I've read about the -53K, it shares very little with the older E models. Essentially a clean sheet design internally.

@Pags We've gone around on this before, so no need to rehash. Everything has constraints and the Navy bought all the helicopter they wanted to afford, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Was talking about H-1s
 
The big improvement to engines that could actually be used in legacy airframes is better high/hot performance (read that as less/no degradation not an increase in max output) and better fuel economy. I would argue improving the latter by a significant amount would yield better results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top