• 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

New helo trainer at Rucker?

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
It seems the Air Force guy I was talking to probably didn't know better. I asked about it just last week and he told be they had already bought it (Baylander). Given the modifications that were required to make Baylander able to land an Osprey, it makes sense that it is probably a different vessel. If what I heard was correct, even with the deck capable of physically landing a V-22, the certification process to make it legally able to count as a DLQ platform is still a long way from finished.
AF CV-22 folks seem to be busy getting DLQ's on Navy platforms...

 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I'm curious about what people think about the fleet applicability of a twin vs. the learnability of a single...plus the fact that no one will ever pay to do full autos in a twin.
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
I'm curious about what people think about the fleet applicability of a twin vs. the learnability of a single...plus the fact that no one will ever pay to do full autos in a twin.
If the H135 ends up as the selected airframe I think you will see full autos removed from the FAM syllabus or simply moved to the sim if the fidelity is there. I don’t think the contract award will live and die on full auto capability but Single pilot IFR in US national airspace is probably something the contract will live and die on - IMHO.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I'm curious about what people think about the fleet applicability of a twin vs. the learnability of a single...plus the fact that no one will ever pay to do full autos in a twin.
Relative to the various T700 (fleet) EPs you can encounter, the twin at the TRACOM would almost be the same as a single. Startup is as simple as flipping two extra switches (okay, 4 if you count the fuel pumps). The EPs mostly boil down to 2, a FADEC Fail, which results in a running landing, and an engine failure, which is way easier than a FADEC failure and also results in a running landing. That seems simpler than having to deal with the various failure modes of the T700.

That said, I can totally see going the single route for program cost.
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
Leonardo completed their first "production representative" TH-119 - all single pilot IFR, 3 Axis AP, etc. They already to go after the post TH-57 world. One of my former H2P's is on the program now (great guy btw, retired O-6, used to run the DOD CH-47 program office at Boeing).

I still think Airbus will win the program - but credit Leonardo for going all out and raising the bar. Bell and the 407GX are still lacking IFR certification and I wonder if they will ever get it.

 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Leonardo completed their first "production representative" TH-119 - all single pilot IFR, 3 Axis AP, etc. They already to go after the post TH-57 world. One of my former H2P's is on the program now (great guy btw, retired O-6, used to run the DOD CH-47 program office at Boeing).

I still think Airbus will win the program - but credit Leonardo for going all out and raising the bar. Bell and the 407GX are still lacking IFR certification and I wonder if they will ever get it.

Why do you think AB will win? The Army has been an abject failure with 145s.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Leonardo completed their first "production representative" TH-119 - all single pilot IFR, 3 Axis AP, etc. They already to go after the post TH-57 world. One of my former H2P's is on the program now (great guy btw, retired O-6, used to run the DOD CH-47 program office at Boeing).

I still think Airbus will win the program - but credit Leonardo for going all out and raising the bar. Bell and the 407GX are still lacking IFR certification and I wonder if they will ever get it.

Leonardo doesn’t have IFR cert either.
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
Why do you think AB will win? The Army has been an abject failure with 145s.
I'm not saying AB *should* win or that I neccesarily favor the platform (H135) - but AB has a certain inertia and the Army just acquired even *more* UH-72's for *primary training* - 50+ more airframes announced for procurement ASAP. So the UH-72 isn't going anywhere soon. Army is going to make the best of it. The UH-72 is still producing pilots going on to fly CH-47/UH-60/AH-64... yes?
 
Last edited:

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Pat McKernan - former Navy TPS grad says it is... I'm going off what said.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/pat-mckernan-5998229/
That just links to his profile. Did he write a post explaining his reasoning?

A test pilot working for Leonardo doesn’t necessarily have much more insight on the issue than anyone else working in the aviation business.

Not arguing with you; just genuinely curious. Airbus’s main advantage is that it’s already IFR certified. Its acquisition price and operating cost are both very high. Wondering what he/you believe the advantage is.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I'd have to believe this would be big news in our circles if the FAA did actually approve it. Claiming it is IFR Capable vs. getting the certificate from the FAA are different things. I assume your friend is claiming the former, not the latter.
The fact that their press release in October said “February 1” cert and their latest says “early 2019” indicate their schedule slipped.
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
We're all speculating and I don't have any special inside knowledge - just going after what Pat has said. You're right I do not know as fact if Part 27 certification was received by Leonardo for the TH-119. They did fly the aircraft for the first time on 20 DEC.

None of the aircraft candidates can do a student X for the price of a TH-57. Any modern helo will have a costs 2X or more per hour. I assume somebody way smarter than me has a vision of disrupting undergraduate helo training and bring revolutionary level benefit to the fleet that will first be felt at the FRS. Seems like with the right syllabus, sims, married with any of the three aircraft, we will see that.

If the idea wasn't to shake up the Yahtzee dice with respect to the product CNATRA produces, The Bell 505 would have been a contender, the Navy would bypass FAA Part 27 and operate as a military airframe without a civilian type certificate and call it done.
 
Last edited:

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
A new single (of high quality, I.e. not an AW product) will likely have operating costs LESS than a TH-57. Those bad boys are getting stupid hard to maintain.

No private company will pay to make an aircraft IFR if it can't sell that product to civilian customers--the Navy knows that. If it wanted an aircraft only it could use, then it would be stuck with the whole development bill, and very light civilian helos aren't built to be easily modified to IFR, in any case.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Relative to the various T700 (fleet) EPs you can encounter, the twin at the TRACOM would almost be the same as a single. Startup is as simple as flipping two extra switches (okay, 4 if you count the fuel pumps). The EPs mostly boil down to 2, a FADEC Fail, which results in a running landing, and an engine failure, which is way easier than a FADEC failure and also results in a running landing. That seems simpler than having to deal with the various failure modes of the T700.

That said, I can totally see going the single route for program cost.
The point of practicing autos to the deck in a trainer is that you can't do it in the fleet and it's occasionally still necessary--fuel contamination and tail rotor driveshaft failure.

I've heard people push twins because that's "what they'll fly in the fleet," but that always seems weird--it's not as if helos have asymmetric thrust. There's no such thing as "managing" two engines in a helicopter. What you're saying is proof of that point.
 
Top