• 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

number9 said:
220nm to 500nm is a huge increase.. from what? Batteries?
Click to expand...
Electric hybrid drive.

It’s a similar effort to the ground fleet like what is being models for the power pack of the M1E1. So you use a high power output combustion driven engine (which given altitude envelope turbine makes sense) producing a high torque converted to voltage power plant delivering to a hybrid electric drive train. Effectively it is turning each engine into an advanced power generation unit (APG?) vs a direct drive method.

FVL looked at similar tech in the Raider which had a DC drive motor for its tail section vs a direct drive with all the parasitic loss of efficiency and loss of power in changes of control input.
 
Lawman said:
So you use a high power output combustion driven engine (which given altitude envelope turbine makes sense) producing a high torque converted to voltage power plant delivering to a hybrid electric drive train. Effectively it is turning each engine into an advanced power generation unit (APG?) vs a direct drive method.
Click to expand...

Any idea how/where the laws of thermodynamics fits in there? Honest question and not meant to be snark. I'm wondering how you're now able to make the same amount of "power" (basically Tq) from the direct drive while burning less gas, given you still have some sort of energy loss between the turbine and the drive system.

I guess you lose the accessory gear box for the power generator? It seems like you now have to make room for two power sources...or does the drive system replace the main transmission?

It's an interesting puzzle. There's already not much room in the Romeo's turtle back with the extra hydraulic pump sitting there. I'm curious how fleshed out the design is, specifically for the Seahawks.
 
Gatordev said:
Any idea how/where the laws of thermodynamics fits in there? Honest question and not meant to be snark. I'm wondering how you're now able to make the same amount of "power" (basically Tq) from the direct drive while burning less gas, given you still have some sort of energy loss between the turbine and the drive system.

I guess you lose the accessory gear box for the power generator? It seems like you now have to make room for two power sources...or does the drive system replace the main transmission?

It's an interesting puzzle. There's already not much room in the Romeo's turtle back with the extra hydraulic pump sitting there. I'm curious how fleshed out the design is, specifically for the Seahawks.
Click to expand...

I get what you’re saying…the energy required to move a helicopter X distance at a given speed should be the same. I think the benefit comes from using the electric and the turbine in regions where they are each more efficient. Turbines like to run at a high continuous speed. If you can keep the turbine running at the same optimum speed as much as possible, while the electric smooths demand, you’ll get the most efficiency out of the system.
 
Last edited:
phrogdriver said:
I think the benefit comes from using the electric and the turbine in regions where they are each more efficient.
Click to expand...
That should definitely be an incremental improvement, but 220 -> 500 is like revolutionary. There has to be some more fuel fitting in there somewhere. JMO.
 
taxi1 said:
That should definitely be an incremental improvement, but 220 -> 500 is like revolutionary. There has to be some more fuel fitting in there somewhere. JMO.
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect that any H-60 can fly a lot more that 220nm on a full bag, unless you’re literally hover taxiing that far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IKE
ChuckMK23 said:
Pretty big deal in AF land. Former HC-6 shipmate and a number of former Navy TPS grads has significant roles in the development of the MH-139...

The schoolhouse FTU (aka FRS) is at Maxwell AFB and They are taking delivery of airframes at a good pace.... soon, some GS-13 CIV IP roles will appear on USAJOBS.gov when the hiring freeze finally gets lifted.

Click to expand...
I hate to break it…nearly everyone thinks the 139 is a colossal turd, in both civilian and military configuration.
 
Navy MH-60x guys - I spent some time debriefing myself on my experience in the Sierra sim and then I downloaded a current copy of the Sierra NATOPS manual (available on dtic.mil) ... after reading a bit and rerunning my sim experience in my head I had a epiphany or two.

Check my understanding please.

The AFCS, while having a Heading Hold function, does not have a traditional HDG select function - where you can command a heading change heading bug and the aircraft will fly a standard rate turn to that new heading. Same for Altitude modes - there seemed to be only an ALT hold mode but no altitude preselect window and command a climb or descent with a VS mode (or Flight Level Change mode).

The AFCS does not have a NAV or a traditional APR capability - astonishing to me that the aircraft has an ILS, but there is no ability to be in HDG mode, arm an approach mode and have the AFCS intercept a course or localizer or TACAN final - or intercept and capture an ILS glidepath.

Both of these are a little mind boggling to me - that there is little "hands off" capability - meaning the aircraft is designed in such a way that the pilot flying has to physically manipulate the flight controls to do any maneuvering.

The auto approach to hover seems to be the only "hands off" capability.

Also I saw that the aircraft database had some fixes for the US National Airspace System - it was not comprehensive - and the hybrid inertial/gyro/gps had no approach capability - only very basic enroute capabilities.

I'm curious if there is a potential to add capabilities like I described via software updates.

Thank you!

EDIT - apologies if these q's are naive. This is all for my own intellectual curiosity. Also I imagine the Replacement Pilot mindset will be shift after training in the TH-73 with a true modern SPIFR capability and a modern fully capable AP. Thanks again guys!
 
Last edited:
phrogdriver said:
I hate to break it…nearly everyone thinks the 139 is a colossal turd, in both civilian and military configuration.
Click to expand...
No, I get it - but the capability upgrade from N model Huey is significant. This was "the best, most cost effective" answer industry could deliver to AF requirement.
 
ChuckMK23 said:
Navy MH-60x guys - I spent some time debriefing myself on my experience in the Sierra sim and then I downloaded a current copy of the Sierra NATOPS manual (available on dtic.mil) ... after reading a bit and rerunning my sim experience in my head I had a epiphany or two.

Check my understanding please.

The AFCS, while having a Heading Hold function, does not have a traditional HDG select function - where you can command a heading change heading bug and the aircraft will fly a standard rate turn to that new heading. Same for Altitude modes - there seemed to be only an ALT hold mode but no altitude preselect window and command a climb or descent with a VS mode (or Flight Level Change mode).

The AFCS does not have a NAV or a traditional APR capability - astonishing to me that the aircraft has an ILS, but there is no ability to be in HDG mode, arm an approach mode and have the AFCS intercept a course or localizer or TACAN final - or intercept and capture an ILS glidepath.

Both of these are a little mind boggling to me - that there is little "hands off" capability - meaning the aircraft is designed in such a way that the pilot flying has to physically manipulate the flight controls to do any maneuvering.

The auto approach to hover seems to be the only "hands off" capability.

Also I saw that the aircraft database had some fixes for the US National Airspace System - it was not comprehensive - and the hybrid inertial/gyro/gps had no approach capability - only very basic enroute capabilities.

I'm curious if there is a potential to add capabilities like I described via software updates.

Thank you!

EDIT - apologies if these q's are naive. This is all for my own intellectual curiosity. Also I imagine the Replacement Pilot mindset will be shift after training in the TH-73 with a true modern SPIFR capability and a modern fully capable AP. Thanks again guys!
Click to expand...
I'm going to avoid discussion I know to be CUI or close.

Let's just say that the SH-60B was born in the early 1980s, the 60F added dipping sonar, and the modern Seahawks (R/S) have essentially a copy-n-paste of the original AFCS. There have been some hardware/obsolescence upgrades, but no major functional changes.

AFAIK, it was a great system 40 years ago. We gained a lot of cost efficiencies by not resdesigning with Romeo & Sierra, which I lovingly call Seahawk 1.5...we can only hope there will be money and appetite for more hands-free in the inevitable Seahawk 2.0
 
Last edited:
IKE said:
USAFTPS doesn't do rotary-wing. Most USAF rotary and USA pilots come through USNTPS.
Click to expand...
Exactly - my point was there were a number of gold wing single anchor dudes (employed by Leonardo) who were on MH-139 development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IKE
phrogdriver said:
I strongly suspect that any H-60 can fly a lot more that 220nm on a full bag, unless you’re literally hover taxiing that far.
Click to expand...
Concur with all of this. My guess is someone used the S main bag fuel numbers to come up with 220nm and found ways to add more gas. At the end of the day, the bang in the engine has to turn the turbines which turns the drivetrain. Even if you go electric, you still need to mount generators on engines which will save a little IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top