CH-53K King Stalion vs. CH-47F Chinook

[madrat]

Does anyone ever foresee a 4-6 main propeller arrangement in the future in some kind of electric hybrid helicopter? Chinook with sidewing electric mounts that rotate as forward drive props would give it a considerable power boost in forward flight. You could reduce main propeller length to mitigate flapping in forward flight. The reality is, even with one of your petrol powered motors down, the electrics give you a chance to set down in a better location than wherever a corkscrew landing would place you by sheer chance.

[sferrin]

I think the CH-47 platform in a USMC variant would do just about everything a CH-53K could do, for the most part.

Can it sling 36,000lbs? Can it equal published payload/range/altitude of the K?

"The CH-53K can carry a 12.200 kg/27,000 lb external load over 204 km /110 nautical miles in high/hot conditions (33°C/91.5°F at an altitude of 914m/3,000 feet), "

Given it is less prone to retreating blade stalls it can probably fly faster.

Is the CH-53 actually prone to blade stalls? It's designed cruise speed is 195 mph. What is the CH-47s? Hmmm. According to Boeing's own site the CH-47s TOP speed (302 km/h) is less than the K's cruise speed (315 km/h):

https://www.boeing.com/defense/ch-47-chinook/

With all the power dedicated to two main rotor systems instead of worrying about a tail rotor, it might just do better at higher altitudes.

The CH-53K has 22,500 shp on tap. The CH-47F has less than half that. A tail-rotor doesn't use that much power.

For the most part, the Marines got a good bird in the Kilo model Stallion. I hope other countries buy it so at least some amount of economy of scale can be realized.

Germany apparently wants 40-ish (assuming they pick it over the CH-47, which is probably likely given they already operate CH-53s.)

The next administration might push to chop defense spending.

If they're democrats it's a certainty. They want their Venezuelan socialist utopia you know.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

okay, first some helicopter misconceptions.

Two main discs turn SHP into Lift more efficiently than a single disc.

the slower the blade RPM the MORE likely a retreating blade stall is, the faster the blade RPM the MORE likely advancing blade Mach becomes an issue.

The Chinook/SeaKnight are capable of speeds that exceed their listed speed. The listed Max speed is the retreating blade stall limit. due to the twin rotors going in opposite directions, the Chinook will not fall out of the sky just because the center of lift moves off center-line for a given rotor disc. It will and torsion to the fuselage, but it will fly. I have seen them go well over "max speed" in Iraq.

I studied helo aerodynamics and control in college. My professor flew every USN helo prior to the SeaHawk.

[wrightwing]

okay, first some helicopter misconceptions.

Two main discs turn SHP into Lift more efficiently than a single disc.

the slower the blade RPM the MORE likely a retreating blade stall is, the faster the blade RPM the MORE likely advancing blade Mach becomes an issue.

The Chinook/SeaKnight are capable of speeds that exceed their listed speed. The listed Max speed is the retreating blade stall limit. due to the twin rotors going in opposite directions, the Chinook will not fall out of the sky just because the center of lift moves off center-line for a given rotor disc. It will and torsion to the fuselage, but it will fly. I have seen them go well over "max speed" in Iraq.

I studied helo aerodynamics and control in college. My professor flew every USN helo prior to the SeaHawk.

Just to reinforce your comments, the Chinook is the fastest helicopter currently in service, but the CH-53 can carry a larger payload/number of troops.