Forum: Rotary Wing Aircraft

CH-53K joint-operated (joint is the future, folks) Army, Air Force, Marine CH-53K Heavy-lift rotar. Have mercy on us if we want a new $20 billion start from scratch R&D. Big No No

F-16.net Sponsor

So now we're comparing the safety between a brand new V-22 against aircraft that were at least between 25 years old to 35 years old? Sounds like a reach. Just like declaring the V-22 cleared for single engine operations in Afghanistan, which is one hogwash quote in a report that doesn't fly in reality. (Now you're trying to tell me the V-22 defies the laws of physics!) Who is ignorant and lying again? Seriously, you might want to stick to bringing up points that have actual merit. Keep warping reality, fellas. Someone might eventually believe you if you repeat it enough.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

madrat wrote:

So now we're comparing the safety between a brand new V-22 against aircraft that were at least between 25 years old to 35 years old? Sounds like a reach. Just like declaring the V-22 cleared for single engine operations in Afghanistan, which is one hogwash quote in a report that doesn't fly in reality. (Now you're trying to tell me the V-22 defies the laws of physics!) Who is ignorant and lying again? Seriously, you might want to stick to bringing up points that have actual merit. Keep warping reality, fellas. Someone might eventually believe you if you repeat it enough.

Uh huh. You go ahead and keep $%^#ing that chicken, dude. Rolling Eyes

madrat wrote:

So now we're comparing the safety between a brand new V-22 against aircraft that were at least between 25 years old to 35 years old? Sounds like a reach. Just like declaring the V-22 cleared for single engine operations in Afghanistan, which is one hogwash quote in a report that doesn't fly in reality. (Now you're trying to tell me the V-22 defies the laws of physics!) Who is ignorant and lying again? Seriously, you might want to stick to bringing up points that have actual merit. Keep warping reality, fellas. Someone might eventually believe you if you repeat it enough.

You ever flown anything Rotary Wing. You ever even sat in something Rotary Wing? No? Ok then STFU and Color.

When it was new the Phrog killed more people than the Osprey. Now its killing more people than the Osprey and its "Proven" technology.

Single Engine in a Helicopter in Afganistan is nearly impossible unless at Cruise flight and with suffecient altitude to get to Vrc/E and at a gross weight low enough that the operable engine can actually maintain flight. The Osprey has over 6000 shaft hp per engine.... Thats insane compaired to any helicopters. It will keep both props turning on one engine and provide the power to maintain rotor RPM. Neither the osprey nor a helicopter would be capable of a hovering landing on one engine. So that point is dead. Laws of physics indeed, a helicopter single engine does not have the hp required to maintain pitcy in the blades required for hovering flight without causing the rotor to droop and once that happens your Fucked. You have to maintain forward airspeed to allow the blades to operate above ETL and get the aircraft closer to its max Ve/rc range where it is most effecient. Hell Ive had to maintain 45 knots of Airspeed on the apprroach at near sea level in an unloaded 15K lbs Apache due to the heat of Alabama in the Summer, what the hell do you think it gonna happen when I throw 3K worth of boom on the wings and take it up 8K feet in pressure altitude.

Alabama is a lot closer to sea level than where they have to operate in Afghanistan, which is why I call bullshit on the one engine THEORY there. It doesn't happen. It won't happen.

What one engine theory? Ive already said a helicopter in Afganistan is pretty much screwed in a single engine profile. My aircrafts Vrc/E speed is right around 72 KTAS. Any slower or faster and I require more torque to maintain level flight. In Afganistan I dont have the power margian to do that unless Im flying almost empty. What part of that did you not seem to understand. Kiowa's cant even get to the Altitudes we operate at in Northern Astan. They dont have the Lift.

If I lose an engine at Cruise all I can do is jettison my ordinance or assume an immediate decent otherwise I will bleed off the rotor and fall like a god damn comet. So will any other Helicopter operating there today including all the ones the Osprey replaced. The Osprey doesnt fly cruise off its rotors it flies cruise off its wing, same as a C130 or any other fixed wing aircraft. He can lose an engine and maintain level flight. He has the HP we do not. Thats the same reason the Osprey can climb out at higher than 2K feet per minute while gaining forward airspeed. Its called power, and the Osprey has a metric **** ton of it.

So Like I said, since you obviously dont know dick about rotory winged flight or rotory winged theory STFU and Color.

Quote:

Just like declaring the V-22 cleared for single engine operations in Afghanistan, which is one hogwash quote in a report that doesn't fly in reality.

I don't expect a V-22 (or any helicopter with the exception of maybe the Chinook) to hover or transition on one engine, but I'd be willing to bet, at cruising speed, one engine is enough to get the aircraft out of harms way and to the ground safely even in Asscrackistan. The Osprey's wing has a drive shaft that goes through it allowing the nacelles to be cross coupled. Losing an engine is not the end of the world. That's why most of the US military helicopters have two of them, minus the OH-58D and the MH/AH-6.

Madrat,
When it comes to rotory-winged flight theory, you best listen to Lawman, he's a subject matter expert on it. Pilots have to be.

That's great he's a pilot, but that doesn't explain his irrational theory for vertical takeoff on one engine from the highlands of Afghanistan.

Where the hell did I ever say Vertical Takeoff single engine from Afghanistan like altitudes? Nobody can do that. I said single engine capability at altitude, meaning loss of an engine at Cruise flight and the capability to maintain flight in that profile. Any fool that tries any other landing but a Roll On while single engine deserves to have his PC orders pulled.

Single Engine vertical takeoff... Yeah thats how most people end up overtorquing an aircraft. Typically right after some kind of power lever munipulation like doing an SEF OGE or while reseting after an ECU/DECU lockout and the pilot on the controls tries to bring the aircraft to a hover before the power level is back to fly. Poor crew coordination, congrats now you guys get to shut it down and go pee and bleed. I might just barely be able to do it with a 1.0 ETF on a 701D Bird, with a light fuel load (say 1500lbs or less) and relatively low temp at sea level. And by barely I mean I can get to a 5-10 foot hover in no way will I get OGE.

madrat,

Imagine you're a MARSOC Marine that had just been shot through the femoral artery. You're far away from the main FOBs, outposts, and FARPS. A Navy Corpsman has just clamped the artery off with some forceps and says if you don't get to a trauma surgeon soon, you'll die. Basically, you gotta be flown to a CASH lickedy-split! At that point your life depends on the speed at which you can get to the doctors. Which aircraft would you want to come get you?

A: CH-46E - cruising at 145kts
B: UH-60 - cruising at 160kts
C: CH-47 - cruising at 170kts
D: MV-22 - cruising at 300kts

Quote:

CH-53K joint-operated (joint is the future, folks) Army, Air Force, Marine CH-53K Heavy-lift rotar. Have mercy on us if we want a new $20 billion start from scratch R&D.

This makes me ask the question of which aircraft is more powerful. The CH-53K or the CH-47F. The Stallion has three big, powerful turbo shafts, but has to devote power to a tail rotor. The CH-47F, only has two comparable engines, but all its power goes to lift. I think the CH-47F would be faster because it doesn't have to worry as much about retreating blade stall. Even though the Army operates a fine bunch of Sikorsky products, I don't see it operating the CH-53K, for it seems a redundant to operate Stallions and Chinooks. The USAF/USMC joint operation is more likely.

Why would the USAF and USMC do joint operations? They have completely difference uses.

As for the CH-47 vs CH-53, it comes down to some fundamental differences in how the Marines and Army operate. The Marines need a big helicopter to carry their equipment ashore and a smaller one to transport marines to the battlefield. The Chinook can't lift what the Super Stallion can, but its also used for troop transport far more often.

As for speed, maximum is the same, but the stallion cruises 20 knots faster and has a greater range.

Quote:

Why would the USAF and USMC do joint operations? They have completely difference uses.

Where the hell have you been? That's what the whole entire military does these days. Especially the USAF and USMC. Marines rely heavily on USAF assets, especially their SOSs. Ask yourself why the USAF and USMC operate the V-22 Osprey. Joint-Ops has been the new standard in training ever since the botched rescue attempt in Iran. It's a necessity.

Quote:

As for speed, maximum is the same, but the stallion cruises 20 knots faster and has a greater range.

The only way you're really gonna know is getting your hands on the operators manual. My money is on the Chinook since it doesn't have to worry about retreating blade stalls like a 53 would.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

madrat wrote:

But people continue to die disproportionately to using the V-22 than the helicopters it was meant to replace.

I think you're wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. I thought the facts were on the contrary. I thought the crash and casualty rates amongst helicopters was much higher than the V-22.

I don't think though the V-22 was really meant to replace any particular aircraft. Perhaps our difference of opinion is that you are assuming that the V-22 is supposed to replace the C-130. I think the V-22 fills a niche that no other aircraft has been capable of filling. I think the V-22 fills a niche between the C-130 and helicopters.

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

Article from FlightGlobal.com here.

The rotors on the artist conceptions of the fixed wing aircraft are too large to do a conventional landing; which I think could be a disadvantage because it commits the aircraft to being a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft; I think this also tends to reduce payload capacity and safety. Though I'd imagine in an emergency you could probably sacrifice the rotor blades and do a conventional landing; however the rotor blades under such circumstances could be a threat to the occupants.

discofishing wrote:

Quote:

Why would the USAF and USMC do joint operations? They have completely difference uses.

Where the hell have you been? That's what the whole entire military does these days. Especially the USAF and USMC. Marines rely heavily on USAF assets, especially their SOSs. Ask yourself why the USAF and USMC operate the V-22 Osprey. Joint-Ops has been the new standard in training ever since the botched rescue attempt in Iran. It's a necessity.

Using the same equipment doesn't mean joint ops or joint missions. The air force's MH-53s (which are now retired in favor of the cv-22s) and ospreys are assigned to air force special ops. Their primary mission is insertion of PJs behind enemy lines to rescue downed pilots. Their secondary mission is support of other united within the SOCOM community. It was selected for this mission because of its speed. What the CV-22s will not be doing is transporting marine rifleman to the battlefield.

Forum: Rotary Wing Aircraft

"Super Tilt Rotor" for Army battlefield heavy lift