Medium/Heavy Lift Helos

[Ex-Dragoon]

I was thinking today after watching one fly over Halifax, why don't we consider the MV22 Osprey? I realize it still is having teething problems but would it not fulfill our requirements at par with other previous discussed air frames?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Those teething problems have caused costs to skyrocket (unit cost +/- $70million, average cost $100+ million):

http://pma275.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&news_id=48&page=8

Very cool concept, though (I think DHC was working on something similar way back when).

 

[LordOsborne]

cost might be a factor for not considering it.. also, parts commonality would probably be pretty low compared to a medium-lift S-92 or EH-101

 

[karl28]

I like the new comerant / Eh-101 for Med lift chopper . I am not an expert just think that it would be easier maintenance wise to keep with one air frame . Like it was posted by LordOsborne .      But  I think that the MV-22 Osprey would make a could SAR replacement aircraft . The main reason it could perform all the task that an aircraft could  but land like an Hellicopter  bonus for picking up survivors .

 

[LordOsborne]

i'm not sure about the Osprey's cargo lifting capabilities though, and that's a big part of a utility helo's job. certainly you won't be able to go max speed while carrying freight underneath an Osprey, and that's a big selling point of tilt-rotors; the fact that they can fly faster and farther than a helo can.

 

[Infanteer]

How many Marines has that piece of garbage incinerated?

 

[mz589]

I went to the Boeing site to see what i could find out about the new F model Chinook, from the sound of it they are older D models that are being re-manufactured rather than new airframes froms scratch.

Can anyone confirm this?

EH-101 makes sense but can the government really get away politically with buying them?

 

[Good2Golf]

The 22 is primarily supposed to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight, leaving the UH-1Y for light util and ltimited recce, the AH-1Z for attack and close support and the CH-53D/E's.  LordOsborne raises a good point about speed and slung loads...270 knots to 60-80 knots is quite the loss of speed and increase in specific fuel consumption for mission accomplishment...that's why the Marines will still use the 53's for med/hvy lift.  22 will be mostly troops and equipmnet ofr quick reaction type forces over larger AORs (ares of responsibility).  For the Canadian point of view (well, actually my point of view   ) I think the place where Osprey might be the most useful is where it won't ever be used...SAR.  While it would come with limitations (not as fast not as great as range as fixed wing, and has some downwash issues in the hover) it would have been interesting to consider Ospreys in place of Cormorants and whatever FWSAR project replaces the Buffalo with.  I think for tactical use in support of land forces, the Canadian AOR's being generally smaller than US AORs would limit the reliance on the Osprey's unique combination of characteristics.

Infanteer, I have firends down at Quantico and at Patuxent river who will tell you that many of the problems with the Osprey is the F***ed-up control system.  Instead of having a dual power quadrant like the Harrier, or a convertible quadrant (fwd pylon, push forward/down = faster;  vertical pylon, pull back/up [like collective in helo] = more hover power) the BellBoeing designers followed the direction of the predominatly fast jet crowd in the Corps. (old A-4, F-4, A-7, F/A-18 guys) and modelled the throttle quadrant after fast air jets...forward/slightly downwards = increased power in all configurations.  Not a problem until you're a predonimantly jet guy flying the Osprey and you have a bit of a hard landing and unfortunately your seat harness isn't locked and you swing forward while your hand is still on the throttle quadrant and the stick gets pushed way forward, then the beast applies full power with essentially a full nose down command and the whole thing somersaults and lands upside down and busrts into flames killing all on board...  Human Factors 101 completely ignored.  Even though the investigation note the issue, the throttle quadrant is not being redesigned...jet guys won out, keeping the config they're more familiar with...sadly.  The design is absolutely counter intuitive...descending towards the ground, all good helo pilots know that pulling up on the collective will apply an upwards, decelerative force...not so on the Osprey...you actually have to push forwards/downwards .  Imagine driving a car is somebody switched the gas and brake pedal!?! ??? :

Alas...maybe the guys will get used to it...

Cheers,
Duey


p.s.  mz589 - that's old material.  The F-models are brand new, as are the G's (SOF model).  I heard both the US and the International Directors of Busniess Development confirm this to someone.

p.p.s.  Any of the boys here flown on UK HC.3 Merlins (Boznia, 'Stan).  I've heard some not too flattering feedback about both the Merlin and 53's in higher altitude operations.  Confirm?  Deny?  I know they were designed to operate at Sea Level from the outset...using something for other thatn an originally intended role is not always the best plan...remember the CF-104 "Widowmaker"?

 

[Strike]

Duey,

I'd have to disagree with the Osprey being used for SAR in the same context as the Cormorant.  Remember the photos posted on the CFPLT site with the EH-101 that had to make an impromptu landing in a snow storm?  Imagine the Osprey pulling that off.  Add in the refueling factor on the oil rigs that the EH-101 can get away with.  Sure, the Osprey can get to a site faster which may ultimately mean shorter time en-route, but it's still a consideration.  Maybe having the Osprey replace the Buff or Twin Otter up north to augment our SAR helo capability?

I had a chance to see the bird in Shearwater when they were doing icing trials (seems everyone goes there for that).  Quite a big machine.  It sure would be fun to fly.  Too bad the power system follows the fixed-wing methodology.  They have to ruin everything don't they.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

(Salty)

 

[Good2Golf]

Strike (Salty   ),

By my earlier statements, I meant that the SAR-role would have been the best fit for the Osprey's employment in the CF, as opposed to support in a tactical theatre the size of one that Canada normally operates within.   Maybe a good fit for Northern Ops like you mentioned, including 18's FOLs in Iqualuit and Kujuacq(sp?).

I agree about the Cormorant thing...in fact, I would actually take it one step further and say that the "Maple Hook" (CH-47SD) would have been a better SAR machine than even the 101...dual hoisting stations, absolutely rock solid in winds from any direction, operates easily in light icing, AAR option, SAR Techs could bring all the stuff with them they wanted (well, not the Argos and air-droppable BV206 perhaps   ;D )

Cheers,
Duey

 

[ArmyAviator]

Good day to all.  After months of observing as a guest decided to get involved.  Besides I couldn't let Duey give all the answers and I wanted to add my 2 cents in as a Tac Hel driver. 

I have to agree and disagree with Duey.  I disagree on the usefullness of the MV22 for 1 Wing.  I Think given our domestic AO and some of the overseas mission that we did or should have supported the Army on the 22 would have been an excellent platform.  It has it all.  Speed, range, lift, versatility, etc.  However the costs drive it out of the cost range of being able to purchase a usefull number.  The CH53 and more so the 47F and G can do everything that the V22 can with sacrificing speed and range for a part of the operational profile.  And we can buy two or three of the helicopters for the cost of one 22.  It's nice to dream though

I look forward to participating more often in this forum.

(Duey, we got to tell SamM about this spellcheck option TOJK)

 

[Cloud Cover]

Welcome ArmyAviator!! Look forward to your posts!!

I must say the AF is building up quite a contingent here!!! [as the Navy guys look down at the deck ... :]

 

[Sam69]

(Duey, we got to tell SamM about this spellcheck option TOJK)

Comment noted... 

To keep things on topic: I sat in the MV-22 a couple of years ago and the thing that truly struck me was the incredible complexity of the machine; it makes a typical helo look like a wind up toy. And, as I sat in the aft cabin and looked up at the maze of 5000PSI hydraulic lines snaking through the roof of the cabin, it struck me that this is not a machine that is likely to be particularly ballistically tolerant. I would hate to be riding in that thing if a round pierced one of the hyd lines above my head. I remember a USN story from a few years back where a tech went up top on an SH-3H to check out "smoke" coming from the rotor head (#1 running, head disengaged). When he waved his hand through the smoke the 3000PSI hydraulic fluid, which was escaping from a pinhole and creating the "mist," neatly removed several of his fingers like a laser beam. Now imagine 5000 PSI... 

Oh, and if you are wondering why they use 5000 PSI (I wondered), one of the engineers explained to me that to achieve the desired power from their hydraulic actuators they had two choices: 1) increase the size of the actuator (and weight) or 2) increase the pressure. Option 2 was the no brainer when they were already struggling to make weight.

The control setup that Duey alluded to was quite interesting. When asked who adapted to the machine quicker, helo bubbas or jet guys, the test pilot was unequivocal: Harrier pilots. Apparently they grasp the concept of vectored thrust in a more comprehensive manner than the helo or FW guys do. He said his scariest flights were with helo guys who thought they could transition to fwd flight by pushing the stick forward and pulling the power back (up to a helo guy). At least the FW guys were pushing forward on the go fast lever.

And don't get me started on the CH-47s...  ;D

Sam

 

[Brock]

The only choice the Chinook "Wokka Power".  The Chinook is the ultimate medium lift helicopter.  Yes, the CH-53E is slightly bigger and slighlty more capable, but it is a maintenance nightmare and is supposedly a very tricky helicopter to fly.  The CH-47 is less expensive to procure, support, and fly.  The CH-47F is the US Army's newest standard variant, but not such a good buy as it would have to be modified to Canadian requirements anyway and is not quite as advanced/capable as the "Super D Chinook" or CH-47SD, already sold to Singapore.  The CH-47SD incorporates all the capabilities of the "F"model and more.  It is designed to be easily customizable where the "F" is designed for US Army specific needs.  In addition, the CH-47SD incorporates external long range fuel tanks as standard, thus negating the need for internal long range fuel tanks for self-deployments.  These are taken from the US Army's MH-47E/MH-47G model.
ANother positive for the Chinook is that they could be assembled in Arnprior if desired as Boeing has or at least did have a plant there.

We used to own the older and more maintenane intensive CH-47 "C" model, but we got rid of them under the guise of being "too expensive to maintain" rather than admitted we flew them way more than anyone else and needed like 24 of them rather than 8 we had so of course they were expensive to maintain and overworked.  The Dutch military had no problem with them a bought our 7 remaining Chinook's upgraded them to "D+" standard very similar to the "F" model Chinooks coming online for the US Army.  Then they bought 6 more new model Chinooks to the same standard.  For mass troop lift and cargo operations they are the way to go.  Just look at our experience in Afghanistan.

 

[Good2Golf]

Brock, you're correct about the F / SD models...but also note that the F is no longer a remanufactured D. 

Once the US Army beefed up the numbers of overall 47's, Boeing's business case between rebuild D's and build brand new F's swung over to full new production.  There is apparently a "value added"/economy version of the CH-47 called CHAPS (can't recall the acronym off the top of my head) which is essentially a reconditioned D-model (now that F's are brand new, there will be many D airframes now available for reman / rebuild).  The airframe will not be considered Zero-time, but much of the running gear and the avionics will be new.  Lots and lots of options out there to choose from...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey

 

[X-Rigger]

I quickly browsed the thread and didn't see any discussion on the H-92 as a new medium lift helo possibility.  We're already getting a bunch to replace the SeaThing, so the notion of commonality would tend to point to that as a strong contender for a medium lift helo as well.  And I believe it's classed as such, so why couldn't this work for us instead of the Chinook?  I'm not ignoring the merits of the Chinook, just trying to be realistic.  Any thoughts?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Isn't the CH47 a Heavy Lift Helo? From my understanding the Air Firce is going the heavy lift route vice medium lift hence the probable lack of discussion on the H92.

 

[George Wallace]

I am positive the CH47 falls into the Heavy Lift catagory, as does the CH53.

 

[Good2Golf]

Gents, the DPS was precisely worded as "medium/heavy lift" so as not to limit any options analysis on whether an augmented CH148 fleet (H-92 - medium) or a CH147A (new CH/MH-47) or a CH153 (guess at what a CH-53E/X would be designated) or whatever helo is considered to best meet the stated operational requirement is eventually determined...all choices should still theoretically support the DPS initiatives.  

George/Ex-Dragoon, a CH47 is defined as "Heavy" both by NATO (11 tonnes+) and ICAO/FAA Part 29 (> 12,500lbs).   There is still some debate as to what is medium and what is heavy...US Army still calls the Chinook "Medium Lift" but folks generally acknowledge that anything that can put 20,000+ lbs on the hook is definitely a "heavy" lifter!  

Years ago, I and the RAF CH47 exchange officer set an unofficial CF-lift record of ~26,500-27,000 lbs with the CH147.   We said unofficial since, due to a miscalculation by the folks at Mountainview, the CF101 we tried lifting was significantly heavier than the 19,800 lbs they advertised.   We were actually 5,000 lbs over max all-up wt (i.e. ~55,000 vice 50,000 max gross for a C+ model).   We got the 101 up in the air (using the "clean and jerk" method on the thrust lever, a.k.a. collective in Boeing-speak) but we weren't happy with the limited excess power left over to stop at the other end (AMDU/ATESS in Trenton) and decided to put it back down.   Incidentally this was the same Voodoo (CF101010) that was dropped by my compatriots three days later in the Bay of Quinte due to another configuration error of the drogue chute and departure of the load from controlled parameters during flight.    *splash*

From a pure process (and putting aside my own personal opinion on the BHH   ) there is no logical reason why the S-92 should not be considered as one of the potential options to the "big honking helicopter" that Gen Hillier oftern refers to.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Appreciate the clarification Duey. Always good to have someone in the know per se.