"New" Air Force CSAR Helicopters

[phrogpilot73]

Was no one else capable of turning on their cell phone and just using a calculator?

Truth be told, it was a flight full of reserve LtCol's who were "SWAGGING" what we could do. I was fully prepared to pull pitch, even though my HAC wasn't in the seat, because I knew that I was the only one who knew the truth...

 

[phrogdriver]

Screw the cell phone. I never saw a phrog fuel calculation that couldn't be done in one's head, presuming your last name isn't Palin. Maybe a little scratchpad work on the back of the kneeboard card at most. Were you doing a CAS/TAS conversion and bringing the pain there, maybe figuring out the DA or something, or were you just doing time/distance/fuel?

 

[1rotorhead]

I'm a sixty guy but i've always liked the 46 and 47. Maybe you Phrog guys could answer this: What do you think about having an updated 46 as a csar helo? Little smaller than a 47 but bigger than a 60. Opinions?

 

[bert]

I'm a sixty guy but i've always liked the 46 and 47. Maybe you Phrog guys could answer this: What do you think about having an updated 46 as a csar helo? Little smaller than a 47 but bigger than a 60. Opinions?

Interesting if money were no object, but too expensive to even be considered. At this point, it would be a total re-design (like the 53K) in a shape of a phrog, with all the associated developmental costs.

 

[helolumpy]

I'm a sixty guy but i've always liked the 46 and 47. Maybe you Phrog guys could answer this: What do you think about having an updated 46 as a csar helo? Little smaller than a 47 but bigger than a 60. Opinions?

This problem was brought up during the "what helo will replace the 46" debate in the Navy.
The rights to the H-46 are now owned by Kawasaki industries, so we'd have to pay Kawasaki to build new H-46's.
http://www.khi.co.jp/aero/helicopter...copters_e.html

That was a show stopper for the US Navy. The DOD and Coast Guard have contracted for license-built foreign helos before, the US-101 and the H-65 but I would expect the big aerospace companies to push back if the military decided to go with a helicopter without a US license right now.

 

[bobbybrock]

I was in the northern part of Afghanistan last year flying medevac. The Air Force augmented the mission but had lots of limitations. Power should be a major consideration for the next air frame. The M models engines produce more power than a 701 C, but it really doesn't matter when you add weight to the air frame.
I was at a conference and the powers to be really didn't want to hear about the M's limitaions. The slick models M's we flew with seemed to do fine, but when the air force gets done with these air frames they'll be just under MGW. For those of you who have flown in OEF know that things get pretty sporty during the" 120 days of wind", not to mention the high temps and altitudes we deal with over there.
As mush as I love the 60, I think this is a poor choice.

 

[PhrogLoop]

I'm a sixty guy but i've always liked the 46 and 47. Maybe you Phrog guys could answer this: What do you think about having an updated 46 as a csar helo? Little smaller than a 47 but bigger than a 60. Opinions?

Don't get me wrong, I loved the Mighty Battle Phrog as much as the next bubba, but I agree that even if money and rights were no object a SuperPhrog wouldn't be the best choice. There really wasn't a lot of space in the aft pylon for 2 engines much bigger (read: more powerful) than the T-58s we rocked. Even the 47 has external pylons for their engines. Would that work in a SuperPhrog? Maybe. But even then, the new transmission and rotor system you'd need to truly operate high, hot, and heavy makes any new aircraft look conspicuously like a 47.

 

[Naval AV8R]

Any chance the Air Force would go with the CT7 that the 160th is going with for their MH-60M models. It's the commercial version of the 701 but puts out 2500 shaft horse power...as opposed to around 1800 to 2000 for the 701C - D - E range. (I know my numbers might be a little off, feel free to provide actual stats if you wish.) Bottom line, their engines won't be as power limited and would allow them to fly higher...not with the power margins of a 47 by any means but maybe allow them to be more effective than the current 60s in the OEF theater.

 

[RobLyman]

(701/701C/701D)
Contingency
na/1940/2000
Maximum
na/1890/1994
Intermediate
1543/1800/1902
Maximum Continuous
1251/1661/1760​

The transmission limits are another problem.​

 

[phrogdriver]

I'm a sixty guy but i've always liked the 46 and 47. Maybe you Phrog guys could answer this: What do you think about having an updated 46 as a csar helo? Little smaller than a 47 but bigger than a 60. Opinions?

There already are helos bigger than a 60 and smaller than a 47. The S-92 and EH-101 come to mind. The tandem rotor thing is a big plus for the 46, admitedly, but it wouldn't be worth starting the design and test process required to make a superphrog again, not to mention the cost of establishing a new production line.

The nostalgia thing can take you weird places sometimes. Everyone always thinks, "Aircraft X was great! We should update it and start building those again!" But, by the time you update it with the mechanical and electronic improvements you'd need for an aircraft to be viable today, you've just built a new aircraft.

 

[SynixMan]

What could've become of the H-92... CH-148

 

[Naval AV8R]

RobLyman,

With regard to the transmission limits, you'd have to watch those when pulling power at Sea Level, but in higher elevations the engines would be able to produce the power needed (by operating at a lower TGT producing the same amount of power or be able to operate at higher TGTs...not sure which one applies for the CT7). Either way the CT7 the SOAR is using for the MH-60Ms I believe is to give them a larger envelope (high-hot-heavy) to make it more of a player in places like Afghanistan...not sure what they'll do about the transmission limits though...probably put placards on the dash saying don't pull over X% TRQ.

Naval AV8R

 

[HokiePilot]

probably put placards on the dash saying don't pull over X% TRQ.

Naval AV8R

Sorry, but some fucking placard in the cockpit means absolutely nothing to me. I abide by the limits in NATOPS and that is it.

 

[busdriver]

We've already got a torque limitation even with 701C. Granted you'll never get that much power out of those engines high and hot, but the transmission limit wouldn't be a problem in an of itself if you put the CT7-8 engines into the M frame. The problem would be how much weight is added to the basic airframe in both fuel and avionics, resulting in a lower overall usable load prior to hitting max gross. On top of that once you add extra fuel in the form of aux tanks, you're eating what little cabin room a 60 has. If this ends up as something more than a combat loss replacement buy, then it's a band-aide fix that will still something later.

 

[Naval AV8R]

Sorry, but some fucking placard in the cockpit means absolutely nothing to me. I abide by the limits in NATOPS and that is it.

Hokie Pilot,

Good for you. Put yourself in for an award.

Anyway, the reference to the placard was that on the older army 60s, 60As I believe, had placards that specified how much torque they could pull for a given airspeed. My understanding is that the original H-60 transmissions were not able to take all the power the T-700s could put out...hence the upgraded transmissions that could handle more torque. Other H-60 drivers please chime in.

Budriver,

I don't think they are that much more weight, I believe the CT-7 has a slightly different hot section than the 401C and a FADEC. I agree that the H-60 isn't the best platform but it will "work"...I'd much rather see something like the S-92.