Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[IKE]

I seriously hope the ability to perform full autos doesn't become an afterthought in selecting the right trainer.

Concur.

Call me crazy, but it seems like a multi engined/rigid rotor head and highly advanced intrument/autopilot trainer will just enable CNATRA in the decision to rob rotor-wing aviators of what most of my peer instructors and fleet aviators view as a critical skill set.

The AW-119 is a single-engine variant of the AW-109. According to the nexus of all unassailable truths (wikipedia), it costs $1.8M apop vs. $0.9-1.2M for the B-206. I think a rigid rotor head is more representative of what will be coming down the line (e.g., S-97 Raider) than a flapping head (and safer w.r.t. low-g manooves). Perhaps the case will be made that a certain portion of the fleet should skip the fancy IFR gagdets to reduce gross weight/cost and facilitate practice autos.

 

[SynixMan]

I'd argue an EC135 would be a better bet. UH-72 drivers I've talked to love it.

You can leverage it to the station SAR units as well. Much cheaper to operate and maintain that a -60S I'd imagine.

Edit: I don't think the full auto part is as important. Power recovery is all they're going to do in fleet birds.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Apologies for the late post - moving this thread from April 2015 to Jan 2016 - but it's still a very relevant thread.

I'm hearing rumors from folks that there will be some news in this space at Heli Expo Louisville in February. So lets hope its something positive. I think the UH-72 Lakota, EC-135,and Bell 407 even the AW119 would all be fine trainers. As I understand it the new Bell 505 JetRanger X is also very much in play - it uses the proven dynamic components of the Long Ranger 206-L4 along with a new composite fuselage with an open cabin and state of the art avionics. The HeliSAS certified on the Bell 206L4 is compatible with it as well - operating cost per flight hour well less than the 407, and minimal changes to the FTI and curriculum guide. The full auto profile of the '57 would be preserved.

Some other things seem to be happening with maintenance in the '57 fleet that is bringing this to a head - the FY 2016 budget proposal gives L3 roughly $600K to do overhaul on each TH-57 every 5 years. The actual costs of doing across al three models of TH-57 (TH-57B, TH-57C, and TH-57C-NVG) are closer to $1MM. So basically the Navy is buying the current fleet several times over anyways.

The crux of the issue is whether to do a buy (CNATRA owns the airframes) vs lease model (power by the hour).

It would seem doing the Advanced Helo syllabus in a medium twin with current avionics would pay off in spades at the FRS in that students would already be exposed to employing in something like a UH-72. The TH-57 is a severe step backwards from the T-6B. You want a Replacement Pilot entering the FRS who can think systems, Fly, and employ an aircraft in a tactical environment generally - day, night, unaided, NVG, - more than "get from point A-B on the airways" which is what the HT's still produce.

If the Army is going to do Ab Initio in the UH-72, surely our Student Naval Aviators can handle the move up from safely operating the T-6B solo to an airframe like the UH-72

The MoD (UK) does advanced training in the Bell 412 no problem. Todays simulators can be used to teach the full auto maneuvers with complete fidelity.

Looking forward to what the industry says next month!

 

[squorch2]

All great points, yet NAVAIR keeps finding other places to spend money...

 

[ChuckMK23]

All great points, yet NAVAIR keeps finding other places to spend money...

Roger.
At some point the bean counters will see the $1MM every 5 years to overhaul a single TH-57. Add that to the demands of the FRS' for Day ) replacement pilot competency (= reduced time in FRS) then you would think logic prevails

It will be fun to watch how this goes and what industry comes up with.

 

[squorch2]

AW's orange and white offering at Sea Air Space was very cool indeed.

 

[Gatordev]

I flew with a former Lakota pilot a few months ago and her opinion was they were way too "fragile" for primary helo training. Apparently it's very easy to hit an exceedance when landing/unloading the disc, not because anything is actually breaking, but because the transients the computer senses.

I'm sure there's Lakota guys on here that may be able to elaborate more knowledgably than I can.

 

[IKE]

I'm sure there's Lakota guys on here that may be able to elaborate more knowledgably than I can.

I have about 40 hours in the TPS Lakotas, but I already gave my $0.02 (thrice above).

I will add that I heard TPS staff flew to Rucker to brief the Army buyers on the school's experiences, and that the Army just ignored all of their concerns. My understanding is that the H-72 isn't a better option so much as the Army bought too many and needed to redirect some. Augusta Westland is/was suing, because the choice was, in effect, a no-compete program.

My understanding of the Navy's acquisition of the MH-60S is similar: the Army over-committed to Sikorsky, and when they tried to reduce their buy, someone in Capitol Hill insisted that some part of the DoD would buy those helos to keep the Sikorsky line churning. It just so happened we were shopping for a CH-46 replacement. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but why else would we have a [poorly] Marinized Blackhawk (actual program name) instead of a proper Seahawk derivative?

 

[SynixMan]

My understanding of the Navy's acquisition of the MH-60S is similar: the Army over-committed to Sikorsky, and when they tried to reduce their buy, someone in Capitol Hill insisted that some part of the DoD would buy those helos to keep the Sikorsky line churning. It just so happened we were shopping for a CH-46 replacement. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but why else would we have a [poorly] Marinized Blackhawk (actual program name) instead of a proper Seahawk derivative?

From the guys at Sikorsky when I picked up a bird, so secondhand, but my understanding was there were base Airframes (like just the metal skeleton) built for UH-60L variants the Army exercised out of and Sikorsky had them sitting. Navy had a quick need to replace the -46s, already had the LM common cockpit avionics in the works for the Romeo, so we let Sikorsky build it, slapped on the Bravo rotor head with auto-fold, and painted it gray. How the -46 got so long in the tooth before we decided we needed an immediate replacement is beyond me. The Sierra is not a great replacement for the -46 or the -60H, but it's what we've got!

The Navy's birds (R and S, although the last S came off the line last year) are built on a different assembly line than the Army's (albeit in the same facility). Not sure how much commonality across services there actual ended up being. I've been broken down on an Air Force -60G base and needed a relay panel, fire bottles and CADs, and the -G model parts are completely different.

 

[jtmedli]

So you think that doing a full down auto in a 3.5k lbs helicopter is comparable at all to doing one in a +16k lbs helo with completely different rotor systems? Full autos were a good learning tool, but most Marine and Navy aircraft don't even do power-recovery or full autos anymore and typically only in the sim.

It may be vastly different in a fleet bird, but I still think that doing full autos when you're learning is beneficial. Not to mention it's just fun!!

 

[Randy Daytona]

It may be vastly different in a fleet bird, but I still think that doing full autos when you're learning is beneficial. Not to mention it's just fun!!

They may be fun, but the cost / benefit is not worth it in my opinion. Power recovery autos in the training command (perhaps with a follow on cut gun...) as well as full autos in a Level D sim would be sufficient. The part of the upgrade from the TH-57 to the new trainer that I do not hear anyone mentioning is the plan for new simulators that go along with the new training helicopter.

As a follow on, I think there is great potential for whatever training helicopter is adopted, a "littlebird variant" for LCS ships would be an interesting match. There are a number of places I would rather have 4 407 gunships rather than 1 H-60. No reason pilots can not be current in more than 1 aircraft at a time - ask any reservist here....

http://defensetech.org/2014/05/06/northstar-outfits-bell-helo-with-guns-sensors/

 

[Pags]

All great points, yet NAVAIR keeps finding other places to spend money...

NAVAIR doesn't say what the money gets spent on. (Unless training aircraft are funded under one PE, which I doubt). OPNAV says where the money gets spent.

 

[hscs]

From the guys at Sikorsky when I picked up a bird, so secondhand, but my understanding was there were base Airframes (like just the metal skeleton) built for UH-60L variants the Army exercised out of and Sikorsky had them sitting. Navy had a quick need to replace the -46s, already had the LM common cockpit avionics in the works for the Romeo, so we let Sikorsky build it, slapped on the Bravo rotor head with auto-fold, and painted it gray. How the -46 got so long in the tooth before we decided we needed an immediate replacement is beyond me. The Sierra is not a great replacement for the -46 or the -60H, but it's what we've got!

The Navy's birds (R and S, although the last S came off the line last year) are built on a different assembly line than the Army's (albeit in the same facility). Not sure how much commonality across services there actual ended up being. I've been broken down on an Air Force -60G base and needed a relay panel, fire bottles and CADs, and the -G model parts are completely different.

- Not sure what the 60H does better in comparison to the 60S, except for software and GAU17s (which can be changed)

- As for the -46 - only advantage that I can see vs. -60S is the ability to load pallets internally with rotors still spinning

- I think that making a decisive call to transition and exercise and option on airframes that DOD already budgeted for was pretty smart - where we got into trouble was the addition of 200lbs to the rotor head and understanding how that would affect the structure.

- from what I have seen - parts are fairly common - USN directives to track hours is more of what won't let you use some parts (we track hours on many parts that USAF / USA do not)

 

[Gatordev]

As a follow on, I think there is great potential for whatever training helicopter is adopted, a "littlebird variant" for LCS ships would be an interesting match.

They already have it and it's called the MQ-8C. Basically a -407 with an armed helo kit, sensors, and a butt-ton of gas.

 

[squorch2]

Also currently deployed on LCS-3.