Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:50 pm

    It is your idea that .. all current aircraft used in siberia could be replaced with such aircraft too...
    not all, only those which r not as good in their specs for better results.
    Sounds like you think Russia can't afford a CVN and should have something like Mistral with Ka-52 and Chinookski...
    the UDKs will be like USS America LHA/LHD, a smaller carrier, compared to a CVN.
    ..it is the 21st C... Russia should aim higher, not lower.
    before running, 1 needs to learn how to walk. Their Tu-126 was the 1st large AWACS; soon they may make the 1st large tandem/tilt-rotor AWACS.
    Making their new AWACS platform a tandem helo or a tilt rotor is an unnecessary step backwards and likely not enough of an improvement over the Ka-31 they already have for the job.
    that's in ur judgement. If their EMALS &/arrestors fail, that will also be a step backward, as their E-2 like plane will be land based.
    But they are the all powerful US Navy, surely all cower before them and they wont hide from a fight... they can defeat two countries at a time in two different wars in two different places... we are told...
    after 9/11/2001 (wars in Iraq & Afghanistan), they don't say that anymore. Trump doesn't need another USS Yorktown/Indianapolis sinkings & a war with Iran the Pentagon & people don't want before the 2020 election.
    there are cargo ships to navigate around... they don't track their own CVNs using navigation satellites...
    they use sats for air navigation & communications.
    ..they might decide to return the favour... no western sub would be safe... which kinda pisses all over that numbers advantage you have going there... how stupid can you get?
    it's not a chess game- war has it's own logic or lack of it; in their mind, the USN subs r supposed to be the best in the world & they'll pull them in or move them out to more remote waters ahead of time.
    Of course... that explains why Desert Storm attacks were led by Japanese forces... they insisted on being in the front line... hell they might even sink their own SSK just to make the other SSKs pay attention during training...
    they gradually push the envelope on military force use, & increase the level of risk to get their public used to & accept it. There may eventually come a time when they'll be left alone facing China & Korea. The current alliance with the US & UK is abnormal- as different from Korea & China as they r, culturally they r even more different from the US & UK.
    The main problem is that they don't want that...
    If the VDV wants it, others will want them too. The V-22s r used by the USN/MC & the AF. Civilians also use other models.
    With new high speed helo technology why waste time replicating tilt rotor technology?
    there r different niches. How many species of birds, bats & flying insects can be found in a 12 month period in a given ecosystem?
    You claimed it was urgent, that makes speed important.
    if a jet powered cargo plane can't safely land, it's useless to send it there or to a spot some distance way to be met by a helo; better & easier to send a slower tilt/tandem-rotor that can deliver door to door & still save time.
    The VDV use Mils, the Russian naval infantry use Kamovs.
    true, but they can be interchangeable if need be.
    The FSB B/CGs use both:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Service_of_the_Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Helicopter
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Guard_(Russia)#Aircraft

    I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.
    So which is it? Egypt has sovereign control of its military equipment choices or the US has the say?
    50-50- they import arms just like India, from both US & Russia.
    Having airfields and aircraft is a GOOD thing, not a problem. Weather conditions seem to change to suit your scenario... if someone is having a heart attack and the weather closes in and there is no doctor they die. A tilt rotor wont fly in weather a helicopter wont fly in.
    "good $" r needed for good things. The Murphy's law states: "if it can go wrong, it will", & it happens more often than not. If an airfield is potholed, iced/snowed over or flooded, VTOLs, unlike planes, can still safely use it or land around it.
    Your opinion doesn't matter when there are no tandem helos or tilt rotor options... they don't need them.
    this isn't just my opinion: In general, the design of the aircraft resembles the design of the American military helicopter Boeing CH-47 Chinook, however, it rather refers to the exterior design, but in essence, in technical terms, both models are very different from each other.
    According to the data for 2015, the development of this aircraft is actively continuing, and the Ka-102 helicopter is viewed primarily as a civilian aircraft, allowing the transportation of 80 to 90 passengers at a maximum flight speed of 500 km / h, which is turn has no analogues in the world. In addition to performing the function of passenger transportation, the Ka-102 helicopter can also be actively used for the transportation of all kinds of cargoes, which is facilitated by a high payload, and it is possible that later the helicopter could also be adapted for military needs,..
    A fairly long fuselage of the aircraft provides the Ka-102 helicopter with good passenger capacity, and the improved aerodynamic shape of the fuselage also provides reduced drag during flight. The maximum take-off weight of the helicopter is 30 thousand kilograms, which in turn ensures the proper carrying capacity for this type of aircraft, which ensures its multipurpose use.
    The power plant of the Ka-102 helicopter, according to the proposed project of its creation, will consist of two gas turbine engines, however, the true power of each of them is currently not disclosed by Russian aircraft manufacturers. Among other things, it is also assumed that the maximum flight range of this helicopter may be about 1,100 kilometers, which in turn in most cases will be able to satisfy future customers.
    It is expected that the Ka-102 helicopter will be able to pass its first tests already in 2020, however, given the relatively high complexity of the project, this date can be postponed to a later date.
    Crew: 2 people;
    Capacity: 90 people (depending on the purpose);
    Helicopter length: 36.2 m.;
    The height of the helicopter: 5.3 m.;
    The diameter of the rotor: 18,2 m.;
    Weight of empty helicopter: 14600 kg.;
    Maximum take-off weight: 30,000 kg.;
    Cruising speed: 420 km \ h;
    Maximum airspeed: 500 km \ h;
    Maximum flight range: 1100 km.;
    Maximum height of flight: 4100 m.;
    Powerplant: at the development stage;
    Power: at the development stage.
    http://avia.pro/blog/ka-102


    They can use a supertanker to convert it to Ka-102 carrier. At 1/2 size, it's smaller variants, along with tilt-rotors, can be parked on UDK decks & leave the CH-47F in the dust.
    ..they are already investing in new helos with China and new high speed helos and when they are available tandem and tilt rotor aircraft wont offer any speed or range advantage they will just cost money and offer nothing useful.
    time will tell! The CH-53K wasn't meant to replace nor caused the cancellation of CH-47 & V-22.
    With no one developing them they wont get mature.
    they'll start developing them after the Ka-102 appears.
    which countries are buying enormous numbers of Chinooks and V-22s that are also operating Mi-26 and Mi-38 helicopters...
    not all 4 of them, but India has Mi-17/26s, Ka-27/31/226 & CH-47s; PRC has Mi-17/26s & Ka-27/31s, Peru has Mi-17/26s, Iran & Egypt have Mi-17s & CH-47s, SK has CH-47s & Ka-27s:
    https://www.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/05/26/rostec-talking-with-india-to-maintain-mi-17-and-mi-26-copters_597605
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-27#Operators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Operators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Operators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Operators
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_CH-47_Chinook_operators#_Egypt
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Air_Force#Current_inventory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Air_Force#Current_inventory
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Republic_of_Korea_Army#Aircraft
    I would wager large American helos cost more to operate than large Russian ones.
    even though, they'll deliver more as work horses- India isn't Pakistan or Bangladesh & can afford it.
    Their Navy will use then too. If Russia produced a CH-47- like helos, India would have procured them instead- so Russia they could potentially export them to India &/ others in the future.
    They already have helicopters better than American ones...
    it only proves my point!
    But surely if they want tandems or tilt rotors then they need to work with American companies rather than Russian ones...
    Trump won't allow it, what r u smoking? They could get a CH-47 from Iran & civ. tilt-rotor from abroad- no need to jump through the hoops! But it's better wait for Russia to come with better models before investing in them.
    The Mi-38 could probably already do that.
    to me, most probably not! 1 can't rely on "probably" in aviation!
    There are no plans to upgrade the An-12 or the An-24 or An-26,..
    true, but they been constantly upgrading them before.
    and the Mi-17 will be replaced with the Mi-38...
    they r still being upgraded:
    It turned out that it was too early to write off the honored veteran of the Mi-8: this car was subjected to numerous upgrades, and its latest modifications are quite consistent with the realities of the time. The Mi-8 received modern avionics, its payload increased to 4-5 tons, more powerful engines (for example, VK-2500), and the helicopter were brought into compliance with strict Western certification requirements. As a result, it turned out that modern versions of the Mi-8 have a better price / performance ratio than the Mi-38. It is possible that the Mi-8 is not as convenient for pilots and passengers as the Mi-38, but it is much cheaper, which is often much more important for customers.
    https://militaryarms.ru/vertolety/vertolet-mi-38/

    http://www.ato.ru/press-releases/izgotovlen-pervyy-opytnyy-fyuzelyazh-novogo-vertolyota-mi-171a2?sea=11917

    http://www.ato.ru/content/vertolety-rossii-validiruyut-mi-171a2-v-brazilii

    The new variant will replace some of the older Mi-8/17s.
    But that doesn't mean that better performing aircraft than the Mi-38s will be passed over by the VMF & other gov. entities. As they age &/ replaced by newer versions, civilians will be getting them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:39 am

    not all, only those which r not as good in their specs for better results.

    The current aircraft are fine.

    Tilt rotors offer the potential for higher speed flight, but not as much as a conventional aircraft does, so it is a waste of time and money.

    the UDKs will be like USS America LHA/LHD, a smaller carrier, compared to a CVN.

    See that is the problem... you seem to think a CVN is a US Nimitz class or Ford class carrier... there is no reason why the Kuznetsov could not be a CVN, and they have clearly decided they want a new carrier with more capacity than the Kuznetsov in the 70K ton weight range.

    They want helicopter carriers too but that is for a separate purpose.

    They have naval infantry and want ships to support their operations, but these carriers we are talking about are to support Russian naval surface groups... they are there to protect Russian ships in foreign waters from enemy air attack.

    before running, 1 needs to learn how to walk. Their Tu-126 was the 1st large AWACS; soon they may make the 1st large tandem/tilt-rotor AWACS.

    No, they wont. Otherwise there would be no point is developing catapult systems, which they are clearly doing.

    Nobody has tandem or tilt rotor AWACS aircraft, because no one wants to make an expensive aircraft shorter ranged and flaky.

    If their EMALS &/arrestors fail, that will also be a step backward, as their E-2 like plane will be land based.

    And what if their tilt rotors and tandems fail... rather more likely because they make something fairly straight forward and make it complex and dangerous.

    they use sats for air navigation & communications.

    The ships use the satellites for navigation and communication, the satellites can't locate the ships... that is not their function.

    it's not a chess game- war has it's own logic or lack of it; in their mind, the USN subs r supposed to be the best in the world & they'll pull them in or move them out to more remote waters ahead of time.

    Hahahahahahahahaha... so they have the best subs in the world... they keep saying... but you say they will take them away and hide them and trash the ocean around the Russian ships to try to sink the Russian subs... come on... and in a way that basically says weapons free... use nukes as you see fit... because Russia is seriously out numbered by the west and using nukes actually really suits their situation much better than it would the US.

    they gradually push the envelope on military force use, & increase the level of risk to get their public used to & accept it. There may eventually come a time when they'll be left alone facing China & Korea. The current alliance with the US & UK is abnormal- as different from Korea & China as they r, culturally they r even more different from the US & UK.

    It is not the Japanese public that are the problem... most of the countries of Asia would not like Japan taking a more militaristic turn... it would unite Asia together against Japan and any ally she might have... UK or US, both of which have terrible track records in the region... opium den anyone?

    If the VDV wants it, others will want them too.

    They are looking in to it, but that means nothing... a more conventional high speed helicopter design is rather more likely.

    there r different niches.

    A tilt rotor aircraft needs two rather big rotors to operate so the bare minimum footprint is that of a tandem helo... a coaxial high speed helicopter can have less than half that footprint and be just as fast...

    if a jet powered cargo plane can't safely land, it's useless to send it there or to a spot some distance way to be met by a helo; better & easier to send a slower tilt/tandem-rotor that can deliver door to door & still save time.

    Jet powered cargo planes can land in all sorts of different conditions.... Il-76s can land on grass strips when below 200 tons weight... which is most of the time.

    I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.

    Have never seen an Mi-8 or Mi-6 with naval equipment like that... are you sure it wasn't an Mi-14?

    50-50- they import arms just like India, from both US & Russia.

    So America doesn't have the final say, because if they did it would be no to Russian equipment.

    "good $" r needed for good things. The Murphy's law states: "if it can go wrong, it will", & it happens more often than not. If an airfield is potholed, iced/snowed over or flooded, VTOLs, unlike planes, can still safely use it or land around it.

    There are plenty of reasons for all sorts of aircraft to crash, but conventionally landing aircraft are safer than vertically landing ones.... whether it is wind shear, or vortex ring stall, or just vertically landing on ground that happens to be soft under one wheel...

    Conventional airstrips can carry more people on larger aircraft that can fly further and faster and is much more efficient and safer.

    Lighter aircraft can fly from there to smaller settlements and operate from rough air strips.

    According to the data for 2015, the development of this aircraft is actively continuing, and the Ka-102 helicopter is viewed primarily as a civilian aircraft, allowing the transportation of 80 to 90 passengers at a maximum flight speed of 500 km / h, which is turn has no analogues in the world.

    Incredibly slow for a conventional airliner and likely shorter range too... totally pointless.

    If you are moving 80-90 people then you are taking them from somewhere  that has a lot of people to somewhere that is going to have a lot of people so you might as well build a proper runway and do it much faster and more efficiently with a normal aircraft... like an Il-276.

    They can use a supertanker to convert it to Ka-102 carrier. At 1/2 size, it's smaller variants, along with tilt-rotors, can be parked on UDK decks & leave the CH-47F in the dust.

    Apart from top speed the Mi-26 already does leave it in the dust...

    they'll start developing them after the Ka-102 appears.

    Assuming it ever does.

    even though, they'll deliver more as work horses- India isn't Pakistan or Bangladesh & can afford it.
    Their Navy will use then too. If Russia produced a CH-47- like helos, India would have procured them instead- so Russia they could potentially export them to India &/ others in the future.

    Bullshit... India doesn't operate Chinooks because they are so wonderful... they operate them because they are American and they want to diversify their inventory... it doesn't matter than Russian planes are better than American ones or Russian helos are better too...

    it only proves my point!

    Why are you suggesting they copy US designs when their existing designs already do the job and are better...

    They could get a CH-47 from Iran & civ. tilt-rotor from abroad- no need to jump through the hoops! But it's better wait for Russia to come with better models before investing in them.

    They want to cooperate with Russia because Russia makes good helos. If they want new Chinook designs then they will have to develop them themselves.

    to me, most probably not! 1 can't rely on "probably" in aviation!

    Then why are you relying on the VDV possibly funding a tilt rotor design and Kamov possibly developing a tandem helo design?

    true, but they been constantly upgrading them before.

    To keep them operational... once the replacement is ready they are gone because they are worn out and need replacement.

    It is possible that the Mi-8 is not as convenient for pilots and passengers as the Mi-38, but it is much cheaper, which is often much more important for customers.
    https://militaryarms.ru/vertolety/vertolet-mi-38/

    Which is why a tandem or tilt rotor design doesn't have a chance because they will be much more expensive and much more difficult to support and operate because there are not plenty of support options and spare parts around...

    The new variant will replace some of the older Mi-8/17s.
    But that doesn't mean that better performing aircraft than the Mi-38s will be passed over by the VMF & other gov. entities. As they age &/ replaced by newer versions, civilians will be getting them.

    The older aircraft that will be replaced first will be worn out old hack likely used for spares for operational models.


    Last edited by GarryB on Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:48 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:04 am

    GarryB wrote:Tilt rotors offer the potential for higher speed flight, but not as much as a conventional aircraft does, so it is a waste of time and money.
    their future expeditionary forces could use them but won't need too many of them, & it'll be $ well spent!
    Nobody has tandem or tilt rotor AWACS aircraft, because no one wants to make an expensive aircraft shorter ranged and flaky.
    if they fail with EMALS, that could be an alternative.
    And what if their tilt rotors and tandems fail... rather more likely because they make something fairly straight forward and make it complex and dangerous.
    even after a few failures they'll fix them eventually. The old Mi-12 is more complicated than a tandem type layout & the Ka-22 was more complicated than the V-22 type:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22

    Why would/should they have huge problems with CH-47 & V-22 layouts?

    They are looking in to it, but that means nothing... a more conventional high speed helicopter design is rather more likely.
    they have the Mi-28s & the Ka-52s- why shouldn't they have both tilt-rotors & compound helos?
    A tilt rotor aircraft needs two rather big rotors to operate so the bare minimum footprint is that of a tandem helo... a coaxial high speed helicopter can have less than half that footprint and be just as fast...
    such a helo could be made even of the Mi-6/26 size; OTH, they could VTOL as tandem helos with their wing still over the fuselage or turned into that position in flight, with their engines permanently horizontal position like on the V-280.
    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft 45566952301_8e6a08d319_n

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9rnb0AXTVc

    Il-76s can land on grass strips when below 200 tons weight... which is most of the time.
    there may not be any clear grass/ dirt strips for dozens/100s of miles around.
    Have never seen an Mi-8 or Mi-6 with naval equipment like that... are you sure it wasn't an Mi-14?
    I'm sure, watched them with binoculars; they didn't have any MAD stings like on P-3s/IL-38s but their sensors were good enough for shallow water off Odessa.
    So America doesn't have the final say, because if they did it would be no to Russian equipment.
    they don't want to antagonize nuclear armed India while staring down China, NK, Iran & Russia.
    conventionally landing aircraft are safer than vertically landing ones....
    why not make tilt-rotors with adjustable diameter props so they could land like airplanes?
    Incredibly slow for a conventional airliner and likely shorter range too... totally pointless.
    irrelevant- they won't be flying from Moscow to Novosibirsk or from there to Khabarovsk, but on much shorter routes within the North, Siberia & the FE. Still faster than classic helos & with less stops for refueling while carrying more passengers & cargo.
    If you are moving 80-90 people then you are taking them from somewhere  that has a lot of people to somewhere that is going to have a lot of people so you might as well build a proper runway and do it much faster and more efficiently with a normal aircraft... like an Il-276.
    they fly them once in a few weeks/months to/from temporary work at construction, oil/gas wells, timber, mines, etc., so it's still more feasible than building an airport for the Il-276s.
    Apart from top speed the Mi-26 already does leave it in the dust...
    the Ka-102s will be lighter, more efficient & less costly to buy & operate.
    Assuming it ever does.
    I have no doubt it will.
    India doesn't operate Chinooks because they are so wonderful.. it doesn't matter than Russian planes are better than American ones or Russian helos are better too...
    Russia has no CH-47F counterpart, which can do the job of 2 Mi-17s.
    It's more efficient to use them than the more expensive & heavier Mi-26s when u need to haul 10T instead of 20T of cargo to/from the bases/mountain outposts; they have 741km range, only by 59km less vs. 800km on the Mi-26:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Specifications_(Mil-17-1A2)
    Why are you suggesting they copy US designs when their existing designs already do the job and are better...
    some jobs specifics change- that's why there r many variants of any given aircraft; some helos just can't  be used as well as others no matter how good they r. They won't copy designs- the Mi-4 wasn't a copy of the H-34:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-4
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_H-34
    If they want new Chinook designs then they will have to develop them themselves.
    not necessarily- to save $, they can co-develop them.
    Then why are you relying on the VDV possibly funding a tilt rotor design and Kamov possibly developing a tandem helo design?
    not only- Marines, MChS, & FSB can be seduced to support them too.
    To keep them operational... once the replacement is ready they are gone because they are worn out and need replacement.
    amen.
    Which is why a tandem or tilt rotor design doesn't have a change because they will be much more expensive and much more difficult to support and operate because there are not plenty of support options and spare parts around...
    with more development in Siberia, North & the FE, more helos will be needed; those that can perform 2x better will be thought after.
    The older aircraft that will be replaced first will be worn out old hack likely used for spares for operational models.
    their industry will produce enough new helos to make more older surplus helos available for civilian use. It's not the socialist post-war USSR where things were used a lot longer than they were designed for.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:51 pm; edited 6 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:43 am

    I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.

    BTW MAD would be useless for finding divers... it is designed to detect enormous metal objects like submarines. They would need disposable sonobouys or dipping sonars to find divers or just detect them visually... they could do the latter but the former two only the Mi-14 would carry.

    their future expeditionary forces could use them but won't need too many of them, & it'll be $ well spent!

    Yeah, see here is where you step out of reality... when you need a completely new thing you have never made before but you only need a couple your best option is to buy off the shelf from someone with operational experience. It is why Russia bought Mistrals... they wanted them in a hurry, they were probably only going to make 4 of them, but any new design any Russian design bureau might come up with is 3-5 years down the track and it is risky because although they know how to design and build ships you really don't know how a full sized ship will react or perform until you make one and test it... which is incredibly expensive and risky and it takes time too. The French had a ship that ticked their boxes with a few modifications and they agreed to sell it.

    Of course in the end it worked out perfectly... a Russian shipyard was taught to make half the ship, so new skills there, they got the complete design schematics for the ship, and most of the money paid was returned. Much of the onboard electronics was adapted to Russian systems and aircraft as well, so when Egypt ended up buying them they now have an export customer for those components and systems and aircraft too.

    Apart from being a waste of time it did not end up costing too much.

    Making tilt rotor design aircraft but only a few dozen is incredibly stupid and short sighted and will be very very expensive. The whole point of unifying the design of the F-35 into conventional land based, cat assisted carrier based and vertical take off was to avoid Harrier syndrome where the Marines had one unique type of aircraft different from everyone elses with different engines and systems etc etc. The stupid censored still managed to make it way more expensive than it needed to be, which is why europe are looking at their own new fighter to replace it... they haven't even got it in service yet and they are actively spending money on a replacement...

    if they fail with EMALS, that could be an alternative.

    What makes you so sure they will fail with EMALS?

    It is Physics... they love that shit... besides there are an enormous range of areas where technological progress in that area would be very useful... all electric drive... which they are also working on, magnets, plasma, superconductors...

    even after a few failures they'll fix them eventually

    It is funny you think they will fail at EMALS but wont have any problems with tilt rotors and tandem helicopters.

    I am suggesting they could master all three, but they have no reason to master tilt rotors or tandem helos because they already have superior helicopters and are working on improving flight speed which is the only advantage tilt rotor designs have and they can do that with coaxial designs.

    The old Mi-12 is more complicated than a tandem type layout & the Ka-22 was more complicated than the V-22 type:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22

    Why would/should they have huge problems with CH-47 & V-22 layouts?

    Why did they only make 2 Mi-12s?

    Perhaps they realised they would be total dogs in service... expensive to operate but not offering any capacity that alternative much cheaper much more efficient aircraft couldn't also provide.

    Why should they have problems with the CH-47 layout... the Yak design was not a good aircraft and was rapidly retired.

    Why doesn't the US use coaxial designs like Kamov... they are compact and powerful and have become reliable and useful... and the obvious reason up until now is that the gearbox needed for large 10 ton plus helos with coaxial rotors is heavy and complex and they couldn't manage it.

    Right now they are looking at coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... it should be amusing... and you can be your ass if they have not contacted Kamov they will have their spies buying Kamov helos to examine and test...

    they have the Mi-28s & the Ka-52s- why shouldn't they have both tilt-rotors & compound helos?

    Because the Mi-28s and Ka-52s already do the job...

    such a helo could be made even of the Mi-6/26 size; OTH, they could VTOL as tandem helos with their wing still over the fuselage or turned into that position in flight, with their engines permanently horizontal position like on the V-280.

    They still need a very large area to land.

    And there is no practical reason to have them that big.

    there may not be any clear grass/ dirt strips for dozens/100s of miles around.

    And their may be plenty. They already have helicopters to operate in rough areas. It is not worth spending billions of dollars to develop tilt rotor aircraft just because it might save one life in a very strange situation... that is just stupid.

    I'm sure, watched them with binoculars; they didn't have any MAD stings like on P-3s/IL-38s but their sensors were good enough for shallow water off Odessa.

    If they were looking for divers I would suggest the sensors they were using were binoculars... and most small light aircraft could be just as useful at that and probably much cheaper in terms of operational costs.

    they don't want to antagonize nuclear armed India while staring down China, NK, Iran & Russia.

    So why are they demanding India cancel its deal to buy S-400s and stop buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil?

    why not make tilt-rotors with adjustable diameter props so they could land like airplanes?

    It is the simplicity of the conventional aircraft and the length of runway they use that makes them safer... but not totally safe.

    Smaller diameter props would be like using jet engines on VTOL aircraft... it would need to land on paved surfaces because the more intense exhaust thrust would rip up the ground and throw dirt into the air like a dust storm which will rapidly ruin both visibility and your engines.

    irrelevant- they won't be flying from Moscow to Novosibirsk or from there to Khabarovsk, but on much shorter routes within the North, Siberia & the FE. Still faster than classic helos & with less stops for refueling while carrying more passengers & cargo.

    Except that that is not actually true is it?

    Tilt rotors really don't have amazing payload performance because they can only take off vertically and their flight speed is usually only a few hundred kms per hour faster than many helos...

    The shorter the route the less important are speed advantages, which is why over shorter distances smaller lighter aircraft are more useful... and Siberia is covered in places where you can land a light aircraft.

    they fly them once in a few weeks/months to/from temporary work at construction, oil/gas wells, timber, mines, etc., so it's still more feasible than building an airport for the Il-276s.

    Yeah, but with all those people working there they are obviously not living off the land so they will need a hell of a lot more transport that just taking in people and bringing them home... they will need 200 meals a day just for the people being transferred... so every couple of weeks or months means quite a few tons of food alone.

    It would be cheaper and easier to transfer people in smaller groups more often with smaller aircraft... three or four visits from an An-2 would be vastly cheaper and vastly more efficient... its 1,000hp engine would use vastly less fuel than the enormous engines of this proposed helo and it would likely fly faster and further too.

    the Ka-102s will be lighter, more efficient & less costly to buy & operate.

    Not better than aircraft already being used of a more conventional nature.

    Russia has no CH-47F counterpart, which can do the job of 2 Mi-17s.

    The west has no counterpart of the Mi-26 which can do the job of 2-3 of any western helicopters... I would say in its class but there are none.

    The fact that they don't have one suggests they don't need one.

    It's more efficient to use them than the more expensive & heavier Mi-26s when u need to haul 10T instead of 20T of cargo to/from the bases/mountain outposts; they have 741km range, only by 59km less vs. 800km on the Mi-26:

    And when Chinooks crash... who do they send to recover the body?

    Where is Americas answer to the Mi-17... a 3 ton capacity helo to operate in Afghanistan in a hot and high environment... the Black Hawk is too under powered and in many locations in Afghanistan can't even take off because it has zero payload capacity in those conditions... it can't even manage the weight of the aircrew at certain times of the day. To solve the problem they use the much bigger much more expensive Chinook to do the job of the Mi-17 and you claim that makes the Chinook superior... come on...

    Perhaps if the Black Hawk was a better helo they might not even need the Chinook so much.

    Clearly the Chinook is not great, the other helos they have are ordinary.

    some jobs specifics change- that's why there r many variants of any given aircraft; some helos just can't be used as well as others no matter how good they r. They won't copy designs- the Mi-4 wasn't a copy of the H-34:

    Hahahahaha... excellent example... the west would be jumping up and down about the Soviets copying an american helicopter design... except they don't because the dates prove it was the other way around so they don't mention it because it does not suit their agenda of suggesting Russia copies them.

    Sometimes the Soviets did copy, they aren't embarrassed... this is survival, not some game.

    not necessarily- to save $, they can co-develop them.

    Why would Russia spend money on an aircraft design they don't need?

    not only- Marines, MChS, & FSB can be seduced to support them too.

    There is already Mi-17 for cheap, and Mi-38 for later... they don't need another choice...

    with more development in Siberia, North & the FE, more helos will be needed; those that can perform 2x better will be thought after.

    Yeah, they already have plenty of aircraft design options to choose from that cover the spectrum of needs and choices... and you can't say tandems and tilt rotors that have not even been designed yet are going to be two times better... the new high speed helicopters might be twice as fast and can be applied to existing designs making them much more suitable than these unmade tilt rotor designs that might be 30 million dollars each and no one can afford.

    their industry will produce enough new helos to make more older surplus helos available for civilian use. It's not the socialist post-war USSR where things were used a lot longer than they were designed for.

    Arctic conditions are tough on aircraft... most of the plastics used in modern cars shatter at minus 40 degrees... going from 30 degrees when people are in it to minus 50 degrees when they are not is hard on anything man made... these tilt rotor aircraft are going to really suffer if they ever get built... and when they do they will be 50 million or more each and no one will be able to afford them... except that the ones that can will more likely build proper airfields and rail connections.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:32 am

    GarryB wrote:They would need disposable sonobouys or dipping sonars to find divers or just detect them visually... they could do the latter but the former two only the Mi-14 would carry.
    If they were looking for divers I would suggest the sensors they were using were binoculars...
    then, they probably used optical sensors &/ water penetrating radar, if it existed. The water there wasn't always clear & I doubt binoculars would be of any help in that.
    What makes you so sure they will fail with EMALS?
    It is funny you think they will fail at EMALS but wont have any problems with tilt rotors and tandem helicopters.
    EMALS is based on different principles used up to date, while those aircraft use the same known principles of aerodynamics & testresults during their development phases.
    ..they have no reason to master tilt rotors or tandem helos because they already have superior helicopters and are working on improving flight speed which is the only advantage tilt rotor designs have and they can do that with coaxial designs.
    by the same token, the US is developing, as u wrote, coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... while already having tandem/tilt rotors. Does it mean they'll get rid of them in favor of coaxials? That's why Russia should develop tandem/tilt rotors to have a "complete tool box".
    Why did they only make 2 Mi-12s?
    ..the V-12's most important intended mission no longer existed, i.e. the rapid deployment of heavy strategic ballistic missiles. This also led to a reduction in Antonov An-22 production.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Operational_history
    Because the Mi-28s and Ka-52s already do the job...
    they r not suited for SAR, ASW, assault & transport jobs.
    They still need a very large area to land.
    And there is no practical reason to have them that big.
    not larger than fixed wings; they can airdrop supplies/people from low altitudes. Quad-rotors would be even bigger.
    It is not worth spending billions of dollars to develop tilt rotor aircraft just because it might save one life in a very strange situation... that is just stupid.
    tandem-rotor & smaller Mi-12 like helos could still do more than Mi-17/38s. Don't tell me they can cheaply use the Mi-26s as an air ambulance since it's already built.
    So why are they demanding India cancel its deal to buy S-400s and stop buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil?
    because they come from Anglo-Saxon background & used to demand obedience to see if they'll get it, if it suits their agenda.
    Smaller diameter props would be like using jet engines on VTOL aircraft...
    they could have their large helo rotors & reduce their diameter for plane-like landings enough to give them ground clearance, so they don't have to do VLs or shear their props in emergencies.
    Tilt rotors really don't have amazing payload performance because they can only take off vertically and their flight speed is usually only a few hundred kms per hour faster than many helos...
    they can also do rolling TOs; I meant tandem-rotors on those flights.
    ..over shorter distances smaller lighter aircraft are more useful...
    often they need to divert to other LZs to avoid bad weather/fires/floods/mil. & police activity, & pick up/drop other people/cargo- more fuel/internal volume means bigger size.
    Yeah, but with all those people working there they are obviously not living off the land so they will need a hell of a lot more transport that just taking in people and bringing them home... they will need 200 meals a day just for the people being transferred... so every couple of weeks or months means quite a few tons of food alone.
    they have huge storage places in the permafrost for food delivered by ships &/ trucks; no need for regular deliveries.
    Not better than aircraft already being used of a more conventional nature.
    it's like using An-22/124s to haul 40T instead of Il-76s. The Mi-26s will exhaust their resource faster, & that's why India is buying CH-47s. The Chinook has exceptional ability to deliver heavy payloads to high altitudes and is eminently suitable for operations in the high Himalayas. https://www.facebook.com/IndianAirForce/videos/ch-47f-i-chinook/1276509065836821/
    https://www.boeing.co.in/products-and-services/defense-space-and-security/boeing-defense-space-and-security-in-india/ch-47-chinook.page
    http://www.boeing.com/defense/chinook-block-ii/#/video/boeing-chinook-block-ii
    https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/interesting-facts-about-chinook-helicopter-1553519608-1
    The fact that they don't have one suggests they don't need one.
    that may be now true on land; but the VMF may have a another idea. Later, impressed with their performance, the Army/AF/FSB/MChS may want them.
    And when Chinooks crash... who do they send to recover the body?
    they don't crash in peacetime any more often than the Mi-8/17/26s.
    If some Mi-26s crash, what helo will recover them, in 1 piece?
    To solve the problem they use the much bigger much more expensive Chinook to do the job of the Mi-17 and you claim that makes the Chinook superior... come on...
    they procured some Mi-17s for the Afghan AF, but they don't operate them themselves there; the Chinooks r being used instead of the CH-53s that can't fly with cargo & armed people over the mountains.
    Perhaps if the Black Hawk was a better helo they might not even need the Chinook so much.
    the UH-60s r inferior to Mi-17s, just like the M-16/4 is inferior to the AK-47/AKM.
    Clearly the Chinook is not great, the other helos they have are ordinary.
    The CH-47F is great if compared with CH-53 & other Western large helos.
    Why would Russia spend money on an aircraft design they don't need? ..There is already Mi-17 for cheap, and Mi-38 for later... they don't need another choice...
    see the above reply.
    and you can't say tandems and tilt rotors that have not even been designed yet are going to be two times better...
    the Ka-102 already been mostly designed, with 1st flight possible in 2020. The future Mi-12 layout helo will be unified with a tilt-rotor variant, reducing costs.
    Arctic conditions are tough on aircraft... most of the plastics used in modern cars shatter at minus 40 degrees... these tilt rotor aircraft are going to really suffer if they ever get built... and when they do they will be 50 million or more each and no one will be able to afford them...
    they had their Tu-126/128s/95s & MiG-21/23/25/31s there for decades & know how to use titanium.etc on aircraft. Heated maintenance hangars will prolong their life- so don't worry of them wasting $ on those birds.
    Canada operates those & other helos in the Arctic & Antarctic:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhcO7MMk9dE

    https://www.canadianhelicopters.com/services/helicopter-operations/antarctic-operations/

    The Himalayas climate is similar to that of Alaska & the Arctic:
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/46594102@N05/39896632280/


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:44 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 336
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:17 pm

    For marine SAR assault and.transport jobs, they have the Ka-27 family and they are modernising them.

    In addition they are developing the minoga naval helicopter

    https://www.defenceweb.co.za/virtual-press-offices/rostec/russian-helicopters-complete-detail-design-for-ship-based-minoga-helicopter/

    In your opinion,  they should  discard the minoga project in favour of a foreign design (the same way they should licence build C130 or Y-9 or An-12 and trash the Il-276 project)?

    Edit

    And, btw, they are spending.a lot of money to restore former soviet airfields in the nord

    E.g

    https://aviation21.ru/rosaviaciya-vosstanovit-eshhyo-tri-aeroporta-v-yakutii/

    Furthermore as, somebody else was pointing out, even without airfields (or roads that go straight for a mile to be used as occasional anding strip), most Russian cargo planes are quite rugged, and could land also in unprepared airfields. As far as I.remember, in the russian artic they have quite a bit of flat land

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:19 pm

    then, they probably used optical sensors &/ water penetrating radar, if it existed. The water there wasn't always clear & I doubt binoculars would be of any help in that.

    I think you would be surprised how far underwater you can see with the naked eye from an aircraft flying low over water... certainly even Mi-14s didn't have water penetrating radar... the nose radar was to detect small boats and submarine snorkles and masts sticking up out of the water as well as buoys and the like.

    The P-3 orion has lots of windows for people with binoculars to assist in searches... the Mk. 1 Eyeball should not be underestimated.

    EMALS is based on different principles used up to date, while those aircraft use the same known principles of aerodynamics & testresults during their development phases.

    Unlike a blast of steam propelling aircraft, EMALS can use smart technology... during a launch it can detect if it is not giving enough force and compensate and vice versa to prevent a lot of problems and accidents they have with the steam powered system.

    Catapult systems likely would not work with the Ski Ramp so you would only have two cats launching aircraft... but that is OK because only their AWACS aircraft would require cat assistance anyway.

    by the same token, the US is developing, as u wrote, coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... while already having tandem/tilt rotors. Does it mean they'll get rid of them in favor of coaxials? That's why Russia should develop tandem/tilt rotors to have a "complete tool box".

    That sounds like a serious waste of money and time and energy. Why not develop Dolphins with lasers on their heads in case that is useful too?

    ..the V-12's most important intended mission no longer existed, i.e. the rapid deployment of heavy strategic ballistic missiles. This also led to a reduction in Antonov An-22 production.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Operational_history

    The V-12 had a max capacity of 40 tons which is nothing like the size they would need for an actual strategic ballistic missile system... that would barely manage an iskander system... but you would need at least ten aircraft to carry a unit with all their support and command vehicles... total waste.

    they r not suited for SAR, ASW, assault & transport jobs.

    Because there are related helicopter designs that share a lot of parts including engines for those roles... Hip, Helix, etc.

    not larger than fixed wings;

    An Su-33 is a fixed wing aircraft whose wing folds into a very small space...

    they can airdrop supplies/people from low altitudes.

    What is your fixation with air dropping supplies and people... do you own shares in a parachute company?

    tandem-rotor & smaller Mi-12 like helos could still do more than Mi-17/38s.

    AFAIK work in Russia to improve performance seems to be based around increasing flight speed with a pusher propeller... I can't see a Tandem rotor helo being faster than current helos.

    because they come from Anglo-Saxon background & used to demand obedience to see if they'll get it, if it suits their agenda.

    No, they are just censored who can't be trusted and I wont deal with them ever if I can help it.

    they could have their large helo rotors & reduce their diameter for plane-like landings enough to give them ground clearance, so they don't have to do VLs or shear their props in emergencies.

    This is the Russian Navy section, there is no point in suggesting ways to modify their tilt rotors to improve performance because they don't have any.

    they can also do rolling TOs; I meant tandem-rotors on those flights.

    Tandem rotor aircraft are no faster than conventional helos.

    often they need to divert to other LZs to avoid bad weather/fires/floods/mil. & police activity, & pick up/drop other people/cargo- more fuel/internal volume means bigger size.

    Bigger size means fewer safe landing options and easier target and more people dead when it crashes...

    they have huge storage places in the permafrost for food delivered by ships &/ trucks; no need for regular deliveries.

    If trucks and ships can deliver then regular delivery is not problem so they could easily build a decent runway...

    The Chinook has exceptional ability to deliver heavy payloads to high altitudes and is eminently suitable for operations in the high Himalayas.

    Yet when they crash in the much lower mountain ranges in Afghanistan they are unable to recover their own... Mi-26s are the only helicopter that can do the job of recovery in such situations...

    it's like using An-22/124s to haul 40T instead of Il-76s.

    Hey, welcome to the real world... sometimes that 40 tons is large and needs a much bigger aircraft to carry it because the problem is volume and not weight.

    If you are carrying steel armour plates you could probably fit them in an An-2, but need an An-22 or bigger aircraft to actually get airborne with that 80 ton payload.

    Equally some very light objects are huge... the VMT was needed to transport the fuel tanks of the Energyia space rocket... just weight wise a lot of different aircraft could have carried it, but because of its size it needed a VMT to move it because it could carry it on its back externally, which the An-22 and An-124 couldn't.

    they don't crash in peacetime any more often than the Mi-8/17/26s.
    If some Mi-26s crash, what helo will recover them, in 1 piece?

    Well the empty weight of the Mi-26 is less than 30 tons and in 1982 it lifted a 56 ton payload to 2,000m so I guess it could carry itself...

    Of course if you remove the main rotor the gearbox and the engines then it is only 14 tons and very very easy to carry...

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft 54b45910

    they procured some Mi-17s for the Afghan AF, but they don't operate them themselves there; the Chinooks r being used instead of the CH-53s that can't fly with cargo & armed people over the mountains.

    So not just the blackhawks but also super stallions are bloody useless there too... interesting.

    The CH-47F is great if compared with CH-53 & other Western large helos.

    A helo isn't great just because it does its job... the Chinook isn't great for working... those other helos are rubbish for not working.

    see the above reply.

    So you think they should spend a few billion on making helos like the Chinook because it is not a total failure as a helicopter like the other American helos are?

    The helos they already have get the job done, and the new technology they are working on can be applied to them to make them better. Spending money to develop a totally different type of helo is just pissing money away in the hope they might end up with a good product... there is no reason to make such a gamble.

    the Ka-102 already been mostly designed, with 1st flight possible in 2020.

    The Yak-44 has also been designed too... wont that instantly render any tilt rotor carrier design pointless?

    they had their Tu-126/128s/95s & MiG-21/23/25/31s there for decades & know how to use titanium.etc on aircraft. Heated maintenance hangars will prolong their life- so don't worry of them wasting $ on those birds.

    Titanium seats and control surfaces will tear the skin from your body when below about minus 15 degrees C and hardly make comfortable human friendly structures for people to operate aircraft with. Buttons and switches and even the curly plastic coated cable that connects the microphone to the plug in the control panel can't be made of titanium...

    I am not saying they can't operate there, I am saying not just any only construction material and design will do.

    When developing Ratnik personal combat gear systems they had to make sure it could all take the cold and wet and heat etc etc.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:08 pm

    In your opinion,  they should  discard the minoga project in favour of a foreign design (the same way they should licence build C130 or Y-9 or An-12 and trash the Il-276 project)?
    no, they shouldn't. According to the press office, the Minoga will have virtually the same weight and size as the Ka-27 helicopter.
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/july-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5382-russia-s-minoga-ka-27-replacement-ship-based-helicopter-to-be-transformable.html

    For AWACS & transport (COD) roles, bigger helos/tilt-rotors aircraft r needed if they r to be closer in performance with Yak-44/E-2s.
    GarryB wrote:That sounds like a serious waste of money and time and energy.
    for them, they'll have the all 3. In the long run, the benefits will outweigh the costs.
    The V-12 had a max capacity of 40 tons which is nothing like the size they would need for an actual strategic ballistic missile system... that would barely manage an iskander system... but you would need at least ten aircraft to carry a unit with all their support and command vehicles... total waste.
    they needed to carry a lot of fuel with them to deploy BMs, TELs, etc. to remote locations. Mi-6/10s would've carried the rest.
    do you own shares in a parachute company?
    no, & advertising is not allowed here. A mere mention regarding airdrops defeats ur argument!
    AFAIK work in Russia to improve performance seems to be based around increasing flight speed with a pusher propeller... I can't see a Tandem rotor helo being faster than current .. conventional helos.
    with extra 2 pulling props as depicted on the Ka-102 they will be, for added value.
    This is the Russian Navy section, there is no point in suggesting ways to modify their tilt rotors to improve performance because they don't have any.
    pl. move it to general topics.
    Naval aircraft, esp. tilt-rotors, must be versatile to land on short airstrips too.
    Bigger size means fewer safe landing options and easier target and more people dead when it crashes...
    they can find nearby clearings big enough for 2 wheels, if not 4.
    If trucks and ships can deliver then regular delivery is not problem so they could easily build a decent runway...
    only in summer for ships & winter for trucks; regular deliveries don't exist there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic#Transportation

    Yet when they crash in the much lower mountain ranges in Afghanistan they are unable to recover their own... Mi-26s are the only helicopter that can do the job of recovery in such situations...
    recoveries don't happen every week/month; for that they can use a few Mi-10/26s, which I didn't say r useless.
    Hey, welcome to the real world... sometimes that 40 tons is large and needs a much bigger aircraft to carry it because the problem is volume and not weight.
    most of the time they won't need to move outsize cargo.
    Well the empty weight of the Mi-26 is less than 30 tons and in 1982 it lifted a 56 ton payload to 2,000m so I guess it could carry itself...
    if they r used as workhorses there, more will crash. They'll save $ with smaller tandems in the long run.
    So not just the blackhawks but also super stallions are bloody useless there too... interesting.
    perhaps the CH-53K will be better at that. Afghanistan is a grave yard of empires, their tanks, APSs, & aircraft. Over time, when 1 pushes any equipment beyond its capabilities, he should expect more losses.
    A helo isn't great just because it does its job... the Chinook isn't great for working... those other helos are rubbish for not working.
    a glass that is 1/2 full=it's 1/2 empty.
    So you think they should spend a few billion on making helos like the Chinook because it is not a total failure as a helicopter like the other American helos are?
    as u said, they should aim high; their tandems will be on a much higher level than the Chinooks.
    Spending money to develop a totally different type of helo is just pissing money away in the hope they might end up with a good product... there is no reason to make such a gamble.
    it's not totally different; to me, it's like putting 2 helos together, leaving 1 cockpit, 1 larger/longer fuselage & eliminating the tail rotor.
    The Yak-44 has also been designed too... wont that instantly render any tilt rotor carrier design pointless?
    which 1 still needs to use CATOBAR on it? certainly not a tilt rotor!
    I am not saying they can't operate there, I am saying not just any only construction material and design will do. When developing Ratnik personal combat gear systems they had to make sure it could all take the cold and wet and heat etc etc.
    then, they'll have adequate materials for polar aviation. Yakutia is the coldest inhabited place on the planet:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic#Climate

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Avia#Fleet

    http://sputnikimages.com/hier_rubric/photo/55931.html

    https://www.eastrussia.ru/en/news/vertolety-rossii-pomogut-obnovit-vozdushnye-parki-yakutskikh-aviakompaniy/

    https://rostec.ru/en/news/russian-helicopters-tests-i-171-2-at-low-temperature/



    http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/c_136920871.htm


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:14 am; edited 6 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:40 am

    For AWACS & transport (COD) roles, bigger helos/tilt-rotors aircraft r needed if they r to be closer in performance with Yak-44/E-2s.

    There wont be AWACS or COD roles for naval helos in Russia.

    for them, they'll have the all 3. In the long run, the benefits will outweigh the costs.

    They don't have unlimited funding so pissing money away to make a tandem helicopter when they already have helicopters able to get the job done is a serious waste of time and money. Money is being invested in high speed helicopters, there is no need to waste any on tandems or tilt rotors too.

    they needed to carry a lot of fuel with them to deploy BMs, TELs, etc. to remote locations. Mi-6/10s would've carried the rest.


    Why?

    Why would they want to send BMs to remote locations to launch them... it makes absolutely no sense... their BMs are 500km range or less, or they are ICBMs which means moving them around by helos is pointless because you wont fly a helicopter within 500km of a strategic military target... certainly not one you couldn't just drive towards, and with ICBMs their range means their actual launch position is hardly critical... the missile will cover the ground to the target faster than any helo will. The An-124 would do a vastly better job transfering missiles from east to west or west to east or north to south or vice versa... faster and fewer stops and the entire unit at once.

    no, & advertising is not allowed here. A mere mention regarding airdrops defeats ur argument!

    Actually it destroys your argument... if you can air drop people or cargo then that eliminates the need to land vertically as with a tandem helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft... any plane can airdrop troops or cargo... without an air strip.

    with extra 2 pulling props as depicted on the Ka-102 they will be, for added value.

    But anything you can do to a tandem to make it faster you can do to any other helicopter and also make that faster...

    They could simply make a naval version of the Mi-26 with a much more compact structure, the same engines and folding main rotor and a pusher propeller and end up with a much more compact but still very capable helo suitable for operating on ships... and they wont need to bother finding out all the problems tandem rotor designs create and how to fix those problems...

    Naval aircraft, esp. tilt-rotors, must be versatile to land on short airstrips too.

    Most tilt rotor aircraft cannot take off fully conventionally because their rotors are too big to be in the horizontal position while on the ground. Using smaller blades concentrates the thrust to a smaller area like a more conventional aircraft but such propulsion methods are not so efficient for vectored thrust and a large set of blades blows high speed air over the wing aerofoil... a smaller set of blades less so.

    they can find nearby clearings big enough for 2 wheels, if not 4.

    The thing about rough air strips is that you need to prepare them... if you just see a flat open area and decide to land you run the risk of running into large sized rocks that can destroy the aircraft undercarriage on landing... ie emergency landing only... not just normal operation landing.

    A small settlement out in the middle of nowhere you go to a nearby open area and walk the full length and width of it looking for holes and rocks that might be a problem for a landing aircraft... you might even run a heavy vehicle over it a few times to flatten pieces and compress the ground down a bit to make it a more suitable runway... then you test some light aircraft and once it gets approval you start using it... you don't just land in random places that look flat from the air to routinely operate there unless the place is hip deep in snow and you have snow ski landing gear.

    only in summer for ships & winter for trucks; regular deliveries don't exist there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic#Transportation

    Except for the 89 airports and air fields there... https://www.alltravels.com/russia/sakha/airports

    In fact if you scroll down it lists 89 airfields and 74 destinations in the region... so 74 places to visit with 89 places to land a plane...

    if they r used as workhorses there, more will crash. They'll save $ with smaller tandems in the long run.

    Duh... the Mi-26 isn't their only helicopter... they already have Hips and will have Mi-38s and a range of even smaller aircraft for a variety of different jobs... for which they don't need tandems.

    a glass that is 1/2 full=it's 1/2 empty.

    No, it is a case that the Blackhawk glass is just useless in Afghanistan in most regions... it is trying to put out a fire with a shot glass of petrol.

    as u said, they should aim high; their tandems will be on a much higher level than the Chinooks.

    They already have Mi-26s in that position, and they are developing a new helicopter with China with a performance just above the Chinook AFAIK.

    They don't need a tandem design.

    it's not totally different; to me, it's like putting 2 helos together, leaving 1 cockpit, 1 larger/longer fuselage & eliminating the tail rotor.

    The power transmission on a tandem is much more complicated and expensive than on a conventional helo... why bother developing that when existing types already get the job done?

    which 1 still needs to use CATOBAR on it? certainly not a tilt rotor!

    There are no Russian tilt rotor aircraft and AFAIK no tilt rotor AWACS platforms.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:14 am

    GarryB wrote:There wont be AWACS or COD roles for naval helos in Russia.
    the Ka-31s will soldier on for many more years.
    If not tandems, big coaxial models may appear:
    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft 9k=
    They don't have unlimited funding so pissing money away to make a tandem helicopter when they already have helicopters able to get the job done is a serious waste of time and money.
    If Kamov wasn't sure of future gov. & export orders, it wouldn't bother with designing the Ka-102 & spend $ building a prototype. No1 wants to be closer to bankruptcy by wasting $.
    Why would they want to send BMs to remote locations to launch them... it makes absolutely no sense...
    That was decades ago when they didn't have many BM silos &/ used S/IRBMs that needed to be launched from remote sites.
    if you can air drop people or cargo then that eliminates the need to land vertically as with a tandem helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft... any plane can airdrop troops or cargo... without an air strip.
    helos/tilt-rotors can hover & drop them in 1 spot or spots at slower speeds & with fewer losses.
    But anything you can do to a tandem to make it faster you can do to any other helicopter and also make that faster...
    true, but if tandem helo can haul more load, it can trade off some speed for range & payload.
    They could simply make a naval version of the Mi-26 with a much more compact structure, the same engines and folding main rotor and a pusher propeller...
    & even make an amphibian variant. It's very strange they didn't think of this excellent idea! Perhaps the US will also make high speed CH-53K/47F variants so they don't need as many V-22s. Stay tuned!
    Most tilt rotor aircraft cannot take off fully conventionally because their rotors are too big to be in the horizontal position while on the ground.
    the future aircraft may be designed with tilt wings &/ additional smaller props to allow for CTO & Ls.
    you don't just land in random places that look flat from the air to routinely operate there unless the place is hip deep in snow and you have snow ski landing gear.
    if needed, they'll try to get info. from other pilots or locals for emergency vertical/short landings.
    Except for the 89 airports and air fields there...  https://www.alltravels.com/russia/sakha/airports
    How many of them can handle An-22s/124s & IL-76/96-400T/106s?
    Large & frequent  deliveries of supplies r not economical by air- that's why they r building a railroad to Yakutia.
    Duh... the Mi-26 isn't their only helicopter... they already have Hips and will have Mi-38s and a range of even smaller aircraft for a variety of different jobs... for which they don't need tandems. ..
    They already have Mi-26s in that position, and they are developing a new helicopter with China with a performance just above the Chinook AFAIK.
    India also has Mi-26s, Hips and will have Ka-226s, but there's still a big need for the CH-47s for some strange reason- not just to carry favor with the Americans.. That new helo may not be as good as the Ka-102; do u have a crystal ball to see its future? if not, it's 50-50.:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Indian_Air_Force
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Border_Security_Force

    Iran has better climate & is almost 2x smaller than Yakutia, but uses the older CH-47s, instead of buying 2nd hand/new Mi-8/17s:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Force#Current_inventory

    Japan, an island & mountain nation, has no CH-53; she also uses CH-47s:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force#Current_inventory

    Yakutia is only 1 region of Siberia; Russia is bigger than N. India, Iran, Japan, Alaska, & N. Canada  combined- there's plenty of work for many types of big helos & tilt-rotor aircraft.
    They don't need a tandem design.
    pl. tell it to Kamov so it can save $ & time.
    The power transmission on a tandem is much more complicated and expensive than on a conventional helo... why bother developing that when existing types already get the job done?
    Not much more than on a coaxial. Kamov has produced the Ka-60, a classic helo as well. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=694#overview
    There are no Russian tilt rotor aircraft and AFAIK no tilt rotor AWACS platforms.
    there r no CATOBAR CV/Ns either in the VMF yet. Why wait for EMALS on a CVN if tilt rotor aircraft could be developed & navalized to be used on UDKs & CVNs whether future EMALS works or not? It's not a 0 sum game. Military aviation history is full of examples of aircraft types that were pressed to service even if they turned out to be redundant.
    There r always risks of failures, but those who don't try anything don't make any mistakes; they also don't succeed in anything.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:37 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:02 am

    With over 950 Chinooks flown by 20 defense forces around the world, it is an advanced and versatile multi-role and multi-mission helicopter with a cruising speed of 291 km/h (maximum speed of 302 km/hour) and a standard mission range of 370.4 km (400 nautical miles) and almost double the range for the extended configuration.
    The new, more advanced Chinook currently built by Boeing features a full digital management system in the glass cockpit and has increased survivability capabilities such as radar and missile warning systems. The cockpit and cabin are also fitted with ballistic protection.
    While it is not a fly-by-wire system, the digital flight control system allows the pilots to program the aircraft to fly autonomously and maneuver the aircraft at the touch of a button, meter by meter, in whichever direction is needed. The company also plans to further improve the helicopter with new sensors to improve flight in degraded visual environments and more advanced engines.
    While the twin-engine, tandem rotor heavy-lift helicopter is used mainly for troop transport (able to carry between 35-75 soldiers), artillery placement and battlefield resupply, it can be configured in 20 different ways, such as to act as a medivac able to carry 24 litters for patient transfer, or for humanitarian purposes, fire fighting, disaster relief, special operations, assault operations, search and rescue and logistics.
    The Chinook can also carry two vehicles in addition to troops, if required. It also has three cargo hooks to carry and unload cargo in separate locations under the cabin of the helicopter. With a center hook, the crew is also able to remove the transported military vehicles during the flight at a low altitude.
    While it is a global workhorse, Boeing’s Chinook is up against Lockheed Martin Sikorsky’s CH-53K King Stallion, the same maker of the Yas’ur.
    One main issue bothering the IAF with the CH-53K, meanwhile, is the high cost, with an average unit purchase price of $87M. which can even increase across the helicopter’s life cycle, including nonrecurring costs.
    The current price tag of the Chinook sold to the American Marines, for comparison, is roughly $40M. each.
    The IAF plans to buy some 20 new heavy-lift helicopters – in other words, one squadron – to replace the current CH-53 Sea Stallion squadron at the Tel Nof Air Base, and with the lower cost of the Chinook can also afford to purchase several V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft built by Bell-Boeing.
    THE V-22 Osprey, which can take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes, is designed for sensitive, extensive missions.
    “Israel truly understands what the V-22 can do,” said Col. Matthew Kelly, V-22 joint program manager.
    “From the US perspective the V-22 has been a game changer across the spectrum of combat operations, with its unmatched range, speed and survivability, which are especially important for special operations missions,” he said. “We think Israel may benefit from those unique V-22 capabilities in much the same way the US services have.”
    Israel first expressed interest in Boeing’s V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft in 2012, and two years later the US Department of Defense notified Congress about its intention to sell six of them to Israel in a deal worth $1.13b. ..
    But four years later, Israel is once again considering purchasing the V-22, which is “the most in demand platform for the Department of Defense” due to its “speed, range and versatility,” Kelly said.
    Primarily used by the United States Marine Corps and the Air Force Special Operations Command since entering service in 2007, it has seen extensive action in Afghanistan and Iraq supporting long-range rapid reaction and crisis response missions.
    Officials from Israel’s defense establishment were given a fresh opportunity to assess the capabilities of the aircraft in early March during a joint exercise conducted with the US Marine Corps in southern Israel.
    According to Kelly, Israeli air attaché to the United States Brig.-Gen. Amir Keren also flew on the V-22 in mid-October and “was very impressed” with it.
    With a maximum cruising speed of 522 kilometers per hour and an extended range capability of 2,103 kilometers with no refueling, the V-22 would allow Israel to reach neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq or even Iran and Sudan.
    According to Steve Barlage, the senior manager for global sales, vertical lift division, with Israel’s requirements to replace the squadron the cost of the Chinook would allow for a force mix of both the heavy-lift helicopter and the tilt-rotor aircraft for maximum capabilities. “You can go twice as far, twice as fast,” he said.
    The multi-role combat aircraft uses tiltrotor technology, combining the vertical performance of helicopters (such as takeoff and landings) with the speed, altitude and range of fixed-wing planes, making them the ideal aircraft for special operation missions, as they don’t need runways.
    If purchased, Israel would be the second country outside the United States to deploy them after Japan, which bought four V-22 Ospreys in July of 2016.

    https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/A-look-at-the-future-aircraft-of-the-IAF-570355

    Russia too may have a direct CH-47 counterpart for le$$ than an Mi-26/38/CH-53 counterpart. The $ saved can pay for a V-22 counterpart.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:37 am

    UK extends Chinook mission to Mali
    "The UK's helicopters bring a unique logistical capability to the operation, allowing French ground forces to operate more effectively across the Sahel including in Niger and Burkina Faso. .." the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) said.
    https://www.janes.com/article/89770/uk-extends-chinook-mission-to-mali
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:17 am

    the Ka-31s will soldier on for many more years.
    If not tandems, big coaxial models may appear:

    First of all the Ka-31 is an AEW, not an AWACS... it is just a flying antenna that sends enormous volumes of data to a ship for processing which is turned into an air picture of the airspace around the helo, which is then turned into information and commands that are sent via the ship that processes the data to any aircraft or ships in the area.

    AWACS aircraft do their own processing and can command air and sea units.

    The Helix design is being replaced with a faster design which will presumably also replace the Ka-31, though for the role there would not be that much of an improvement with more speed.

    If Kamov wasn't sure of future gov. & export orders, it wouldn't bother with designing the Ka-102 & spend $ building a prototype. No1 wants to be closer to bankruptcy by wasting $.

    They wont stay in business by just sticking to what they have already developed... they need to look at what is out there and what is possible and try new things... even if it is a total failure they can learn useful things with development, but that is no reason to just build any old shape or design arrangement.

    That was decades ago when they didn't have many BM silos &/ used S/IRBMs that needed to be launched from remote sites.

    It would be easier to hide a group of truck mounted missiles in urban areas than out in the middle of no where...

    helos/tilt-rotors can hover & drop them in 1 spot or spots at slower speeds & with fewer losses.

    Clearly the idea was stupid and they didn't actually bother... and you couldn't drop them just anywhere... the side of a mountain or the middle of a lake and they wouldn't be able to move or launch a missile... such systems need solid level ground...

    Airfields have known fixed locations and are therefore much easier to launch ballistic or cruise missiles from... land the plane, drive out the weapon to the end of the runway which is a known fixed location and launch... you could programme the guidance system with the launch position while on the plane and once you decide where you are going to land, you will know the coordinates for the launch position.

    true, but if tandem helo can haul more load, it can trade off some speed for range & payload.

    But they don't... the Mi-26 carries more load than the Chinook by far.

    & even make an amphibian variant. It's very strange they didn't think of this excellent idea!

    Because they don't have any use for it.

    the future aircraft may be designed with tilt wings &/ additional smaller props to allow for CTO & Ls.

    The An-12 is already capable of conventional take offs and landings, and the Il-276 will also be able to do the same...

    if needed, they'll try to get info. from other pilots or locals for emergency vertical/short landings.

    If your job is to supply small settlements in the Arctic or Far East you don't do it like some cowboy that has a look when he gets there for some place to land... in an emergency situation you do it because you have to land, but you don't plan a delivery to a location and just hope you can find somewhere to put down when you get there... They will have a clearing prepared and it will likely have some sort of marking... perhaps flares or smoke with some sort of indication of ground level wind speed in a flattened area with all the big rocks removed and bumps and hills flattened out and the ground compacted at the very least for aircraft to land.

    The people in the settlement will have prepared the airstrip for specific aircraft... you might not get an An-124 in there... it might only be for an An-2, which means an An-12 probably couldn't operate there but a new model An-2 could.

    Large & frequent deliveries of supplies r not economical by air- that's why they r building a railroad to Yakutia.

    There will be a tipping point... as communities get bigger and there is growth then demand for supplies and equipment will expand and eventually it will become necessary to expand access... road and rail are the most efficient and effective in that region and they will open the area up in terms of access... just like roads and rail lines everywhere have.

    To be honest with the enormous distances involved and the very low temperatures... I would prefer to travel by train than by car... you would die of cold in Siberia long before you died of thirst in a desert... if your car engine stops working you might only survive a few hours at best...

    India also has Mi-26s, Hips and will have Ka-226s, but there's still a big need for the CH-47s for some strange reason- not just to carry favor with the Americans.. That new helo may not be as good as the Ka-102; do u have a crystal ball to see its future? if not, it's 50-50.:

    The Chinese and Russians seem to want a 10-15 ton capacity helo, which does put it in the same weight class as the CH-47, but I rather doubt it will be a tandem rotor design. The Russians use their Hips for troop transport but really big troop transports are not a safe way to move troops... too exposed and vulnerable.

    Smaller lighter transports with lots of entry/exit points is much better... in their experience.

    Iran has better climate & is almost 2x smaller than Yakutia, but uses the older CH-47s, instead of buying 2nd hand/new Mi-8/17s:

    They paid an enormous price getting those helicopters, why throw them away?


    Japan, an island & mountain nation, has no CH-53; she also uses CH-47s

    We are discussing why Russia should develop a Chinookski... Japan is Americas bitch, her having them is no reason for Russia to spend money to develop some.

    there's plenty of work for many types of big helos & tilt-rotor aircraft.

    And like Iran that already has aircraft to do the job, Russia already has helos to do the job and the replacements being made to improve performance are not tandem rotor helos or tilt rotor aircraft... which would be risky unknowns...

    pl. tell it to Kamov so it can save $ & time.

    They can test and experiment all they want... they might learn a few things about helicopter design that will be good for the company, but I rather doubt they will end up with anything actually in service in that line of development.

    Not much more than on a coaxial.

    Actually coaxial is much more complex and tricky, but it has already been developed and mastered and now they can make all sorts of different aircraft designs using that mastered technology.

    What you are suggesting is that they ignore all that they know and have learned and take a stab in a new direction in which they have no experience on the half chance they might end up with something useful, but not actually better than the designs they already have...

    Kamov has produced the Ka-60, a classic helo as well.

    Yes, they did... and how many have they sold?

    there r no CATOBAR CV/Ns either in the VMF yet.

    There are solid intentions to get some. They have a Conventional take off but arrested landing carrier (CTOL) right now, and had plans even in Soviet times for a larger cat assisted take off model with full AWACS capacity.

    Why wait for EMALS on a CVN if tilt rotor aircraft could be developed & navalized to be used on UDKs & CVNs whether future EMALS works or not?

    It would take 10 years to develop a fully operational tilt rotor design mature enough to operate from an aircraft carrier... perhaps more... why piss money away on something they don't need... they could use some of that development money to speed up EMALS development.

    Military aviation history is full of examples of aircraft types that were pressed to service even if they turned out to be redundant.

    Very true, but isn't it irresponsible to spend money on a tilt rotor design that might be slightly better than the helicopters of today, when you are also spending money on high speed helicopter designs that might render the difference unimportant and more importantly can be retrofitted to existing helos improving their performance at much lower costs, and also spending money on EMALS that would allow shipborne operation of more conventional aircraft that would be much more efficient than the most efficient tilt rotor too?

    There r always risks of failures, but those who don't try anything don't make any mistakes; they also don't succeed in anything.

    Even if tilt rotor designs succeeds the result will only be a slightly faster helicopter... high speed helicopter designs and EMALS offer vastly better returns... in practical performance as well as technology. See in the innovations thread the article about a magnetic system of refrigeration that replaces using compressed gases etc...

    Russia too may have a direct CH-47 counterpart for le$$ than an Mi-26/38/CH-53 counterpart. The $ saved can pay for a V-22 counterpart.

    The Mi-17 is half the weight and already better in many respects... 40 million dollars per aircraft.... where was that saving again?

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:25 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Helix design is being replaced with a faster design which will presumably also replace the Ka-31, though for the role there would not be that much of an improvement with more speed.
    The CH-47 is faster than the Ka-31 by 65/95 km/h:
    Maximum speed: 250 km/h (135 knots, 166 mph)
    Cruise speed: 205 km/h (110 knots, 126 mph)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Specifications_(Ka-31)

    Maximum speed: 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h)
    Cruise speed: 160 kt (184 mph, 296 km/h)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    The Ka-102 will have 500 km/h max & 420 km/h cruise speeds, or faster than the CH-47 by 185/124 km/h:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0-102#%D0%A2%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

    even if it is a total failure they can learn useful things with development, but that is no reason to just build any old shape or design arrangement.
    what useful things can they learn there that they can't learn doing anything else, if they were not going to build tandem rotor helos?
    It would be easier to hide a group of truck mounted missiles in urban areas than out in the middle of no where...
    They didn't want to endanger civilians & Siberia/RFE r closer to targets in the PRC & FE/Alaska for those S/MRBMs.
    ..you couldn't drop them just anywhere... the side of a mountain or the middle of a lake and they wouldn't be able to move or launch a missile... such systems need solid level ground...
    I wasn't writing about BMs being airdropped; there r many other loads of supplies that don't need solid level ground. The US done it in N. Iraq.
    the Mi-26 carries more load than the Chinook by far.
    True, but for the price of 1 they can have 2-3 tandem-rotor helos that r faster & easier to use, export & maintain. If 1 is lost/grounded, 1-2 still there to continue a mission; if 1 Mi-26 is lost/grounded, another must be sent in to continue a mission/recover the wreck.
    The An-12 is already capable of conventional take offs and landings, and the Il-276 will also be able to do the same...
    they'll still need longer strips. the Il-276 isn't An-72:
    Takeoff run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)
    Landing run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-276#Specifications

    The An-72 has STOL capabilities: its takeoff roll is 620 metres (2,030 ft) and its landing run is 420 metres (1,380 ft). This aircraft was designed to be used on unprepared surfaces: its robust undercarriage and high-flotation tyres allow operations on sand, grass, or other unpaved surfaces.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72#Operational_history
    The people in the settlement will have prepared the airstrip for specific aircraft... you might not get an An-124 in there... it might only be for an An-2, which means an An-12 probably couldn't operate there but a new model An-2 could.
    as mentioned, they may not be maintained for months/years & littered with junk. Helos can land on a pasture, thick ice, or in a forest clearing or even in a big backyard.
    if your car engine stops working you might only survive a few hours at best...
    not if u have some emergency food rations & burn tires & any dead wood for shelter/fuel that can be found nearby.  
    The Russians use their Hips for troop transport but really big troop transports are not a safe way to move troops... too exposed and vulnerable.
    Yes, a big helo=big target. The CH-47 is smaller than the CH-53; if Kamov produces its counterpart, they may want to have it.
    They paid an enormous price getting those helicopters, why throw them away?
    they r not new, still airworthy, being well maintained, & they didn't buy other types to augment them either.
    Japan is Americas bitch, her having them is no reason for Russia to spend money to develop some.
    the RFE has huge areas similar to Japanese archipelago- that alone is reason enough to have them. Other areas they r likely to operate in r similar to Alaska, Canada & Iran.
    ..Russia already has helos to do the job and the replacements being made to improve performance are not tandem rotor helos or tilt rotor aircraft... which would be risky unknowns...
    Those risks r worth taking if they r going to outperform them in some ways. The same with the IL-106 & the Slon they r developing that can outperform their An-22s, IL-476s & An-124s. A case in point:
    the A-400M is more capable than the C-130J but the US didn't bother to invest in such plane nor eager to buy it. They can print $ & spend them on more C-130Js, expensive C-17s & upgrading/reactivating the older C-130s & C-5s instead. But in the long run, they'll lose in maintenance & attrition costs. Russia will lose by not having An-70s.
    Yes, they did... and how many have they sold?
    It's needed in Russia more than abroad. Bigger tandems have more perspectives being exported.
    There are solid intentions to get some.
    it will take a long time before we/(I'll believe it when I) see them.
    It would take 10 years to develop a fully operational tilt rotor design mature enough to operate from an aircraft carrier... perhaps more... why piss money away on something they don't need..
    that can be done concurrently with the development of land-based versions. The USAF CV-22s can land & TO from ships, just like the Army AH-64s & MH-53J/CH-47s, as they r. https://www.flickr.com/photos/us-pacific-command/47148602221  https://fas.org/irp/eprint/trask.htm
    http://cimsec.org/armys-apaches-bring-fight-to-maritime-and-littoral-operations/21499

    https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-us-air-force-mh-53j-combat-search-and-rescue-helicopter-from-the-20th-special-817ead

    While U.S. Army Chinooks, as well as special operations MH-47s from the elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, do occasionally operate from ships, and examples around the world do so as well, it is typically for relatively short duration missions.
    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27884/usmcs-ch-53k-king-stallions-woes-have-put-it-in-a-duel-with-the-ch-47-chinook

    A Mexican Navy Mi-8 landed on a USN ship:
    http://www.airvectors.net/avmil8_2.html

    Military aviation history is full of examples of aircraft types that were pressed to service even if they turned out to be redundant.

    Very true, but isn't it irresponsible to spend money on a tilt rotor design that might be slightly better than the helicopters of today, when you are also spending money on high speed helicopter designs that might render the difference unimportant and more importantly can be retrofitted to existing helos improving their performance at much lower costs, and also spending money on EMALS that would allow shipborne operation of more conventional aircraft that would be much more efficient than the most efficient tilt rotor too?
    By all means, but IMO it would be wise to explore other alternatives. Even the USN could deploy a V-22 AWACS on its  LHA/LHD w/o depending on CVN-borne E-2s.

    Even if tilt rotor designs succeeds the result will only be a slightly faster helicopter...
    but with a lot longer range/combat radius. They'll also be able to cross the continents & oceans on their own, a very useful feature for Russia: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Image1260

    The Mi-17 is half the weight and already better in many respects... 40 million dollars per aircraft.... where was that saving again?
    How is it better than CH-47, not to mention the expected capabilities of the Ka-102?
    Capacity: 24 troops or 12 stretchers or 4,000 kg (8,820 lb) cargo internally /5,000 kg (11,023 lb) externally slung.
    Maximum speed: 280 km/h (151 knots, 174 mph)
    Cruise speed: 260 km/h
    Range: 800 km (431 nmi, 497 mi) (with main fuel tanks)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Specifications_(Mil-17-1A2)

    Capacity:
    33–55 troops or
    24 litters and 3 attendants or
    Payload: 24,000 lb (10,886 kg)

    Performance
    Maximum speed: 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h)
    Cruise speed: 160 kt (184 mph, 296 km/h)
    Range: 400 nmi (450 mi, 741 km)
    Combat radius: 200 nmi (230 mi, 370 km)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    The only deficient thing I found for the CH-47 was its 59 km lesser range. But they & their Russian counterparts can be given bigger fuel tanks &/ IRPs, allowing them to self-deploy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#/media/File:MH-47E_Chinook_lands_on_the_flight_deck_of_the_USS_Kearsarge.jpg

    It will be more expensive than single rotor helos but not as much as the US-made CH-47Fs. 1 can do the job of 2 faster & with a single aircrew.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:35 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 336
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:31 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    e]the Mi-26 carries more load than the Chinook by far.
    True, but for the price of 1 they can have 2-3 tandem-rotor helos that r faster & easier to use, export & maintain. If 1 is lost/grounded, 1-2 still there to continue a mission; if 1 Mi-26 is lost/grounded, another must be sent in to continue a mission/recover the wreck.

    So this should be a brand new tandem rotor helicopter with a 12 tons payload, but according to you it should cost 1/3 of a Mil Mi 26.
    How would that be possible?

    Anyway Russia announced developing a heavylift helicopter together with China which payload will be more than 12 but less than 15 tons.

    https://www.rt.com/business/453502-russia-china-heavy-helicopters/

    Since they mention the experience that Russia has with the bigger mi-26 as a reason for the partnership, we can expect this helicopter to be of the classical design.

    Why should then Russia develop two heavylift helicopter in the same market segment?

    The An-12 is already capable of conventional take offs and landings, and the Il-276 will also be able to do the same...
    they'll still need longer strips. the Il-276 isn't An-72:
    Takeoff run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)
    Landing run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-276#Specifications

    [i]The An-72 has STOL capabilities: its [u]takeoff roll is 620  

    while the data available for the an72-are known, those for the il-276 are still work in progress.

    I also believe that using wikipedia as a source is not encouraged in this forum.

    You also continue to insist on the An-70. Apart the interesting propfan engine, what had an-70 that the il 76 cannot do?  If I am not mistaken the advertised unprepared runway and short takeoff and landing performances of the An70-were only valid with limited payload and fuel carried in the tanks...

    limiting the payload and the fuel carried.to shorten the take off run is something something that you can do with any aircraft
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:01 am

    So this should be a brand new tandem rotor helicopter with a 12 tons payload, but according to you it should cost 1/3 of a Mil Mi 26. How would that be possible?
    the life cycle costs must also be included.
    Since they mention the experience that Russia has with the bigger mi-26 as a reason for the partnership, we can expect this helicopter to be of the classical design. Why should then Russia develop two heavylift helicopter in the same market segment?
    It will be a CH-53K counterpart, but exceeding it; a CH-47F counterpart is still needed for its unique capabilities. The segments it &/ heavier Ka-102 will occupy won't be the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53K)
    while the data available for the an72-are known, those for the il-276 are still work in progress.
    Being heavier, I doubt it'll have better STOL characteristics than the An-72. In any case, still not as good as helos & tilt-rotors. A quad-rotor aircraft could carry 20T or more & have the same/more range, esp. with an IRP.
    Apart the interesting propfan engine, what had an-70 that the il 76 cannot do?
    airdrops at slower speeds. With so many IL-76s, Russia still wanted 40 of them, IRC.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:21 am

    The CH-47 is faster than the Ka-31 by 65/95 km/h:
    Maximum speed: 250 km/h (135 knots, 166 mph)
    Cruise speed: 205 km/h (110 knots, 126 mph)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Specifications_(Ka-31)

    The high speed helicopter to replace the Helix family has been described as a 500km/h aircraft, so that will already be much faster than the Chinook.

    The Ka-102 will have 500 km/h max & 420 km/h cruise speeds, or faster than the CH-47 by 185/124 km/h:

    The Ka-102 is a totally different aircraft from either the Helix or Chinook and could not be practically used to replace either of them.

    what useful things can they learn there that they can't learn doing anything else, if they were not going to build tandem rotor helos?

    If I knew that then they wouldn't need to make any at all.

    They didn't want to endanger civilians & Siberia/RFE r closer to targets in the PRC & FE/Alaska for those S/MRBMs.

    What are you talking about? Civilians will already be in danger... that is called WWIII.

    True, but for the price of 1 they can have 2-3 tandem-rotor helos that r faster & easier to use, export & maintain

    Right now there are no tandem rotor Russian helicopters, and the chinook costs 40 million a pop... which is about twice what an Mi-26 costs BTW, so actually they can either spend a small fortune developing a new tandem rotor helo that they don't clearly need, or save their money and get twice as many Mi-26s as they could buy Chinooks and get an even better deal.

    If 1 is lost/grounded, 1-2 still there to continue a mission; if 1 Mi-26 is lost/grounded, another must be sent in to continue a mission/recover the wreck.

    If one Chinook is lost or grounded they can spend half the price of a chinook and recover it or do the mission better.

    For a fixed amount of money they can get twice as many Mi-26s as Chinooks.

    they'll still need longer strips. the Il-276 isn't An-72:
    Takeoff run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)
    Landing run: 1,050 metres (3,440 ft)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-276#Specifications

    If you checked the links below at the Ilyusion page you might have read this:

    According to regulatory documents, the APT is classified as a strategic-tactical medium military transport aircraft ensuring transportation of a wide variety of different cargo up to 20 tons for a distance of 2,000 km from unpaved and artificial airstrips. The design provides for operation from high-level aerodromes in any geographical and climatic conditions, in daytime and nighttime, in easy and adverse weather conditions.

    So unpaved airstrips and also hot and high aerodromes in all locations temperatures etc etc... sounds pretty darn good to me.

    The An-72 has STOL capabilities: its takeoff roll is 620 metres (2,030 ft) and its landing run is 420 metres (1,380 ft). This aircraft was designed to be used on unprepared surfaces: its robust undercarriage and high-flotation tyres allow operations on sand, grass, or other unpaved surfaces.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72#Operational_history

    It was also a pain in the ass to maintain because the engine location meant working on the engines out in the middle of nowhere was problematic.

    Helos can land on a pasture, thick ice, or in a forest clearing or even in a big backyard.

    And are slow and relatively short ranged and very expensive to operate... costing several thousands per hour...

    not if u have some emergency food rations & burn tires & any dead wood for shelter/fuel that can be found nearby.

    Your situation would be dire... especially at temperatures below minus 20 degrees... which are perfectly common in winter.

    Yes, a big helo=big target. The CH-47 is smaller than the CH-53; if Kamov produces its counterpart, they may want to have it.

    A Hip is already good enough for the job of moving up to 32 troops, the new Mi-38 could also be used... no need for a new target.

    the RFE has huge areas similar to Japanese archipelago- that alone is reason enough to have them. Other areas they r likely to operate in r similar to Alaska, Canada & Iran.

    They already operate there in Hips and An-2s and other aircraft, they don't need anything designed from scratch that is totally different and vastly more expensive.

    Those risks r worth taking if they r going to outperform them in some ways.

    But they aren't going to outperform them... no helo or tilt rotor will outperform a conventional aircraft, and their investment in new high speed helos makes tilt rotor designs redundant too.

    Tilt rotors are supposed to fill the gap between conventional helicopters and conventional aircraft... high speed helos also fill that gap.

    The same with the IL-106 & the Slon they r developing that can outperform their An-22s, IL-476s & An-124s.

    No. The Il-106 is a direct replacement for the An-22 which is obsolete and being totally withdrawn from service. The Slon is a potential aircraft to replace the An-124... but it is barely a paper plane at the moment. Il-106 is a fully developed aircraft from the 1990s.

    the A-400M is more capable than the C-130J but the US didn't bother to invest in such plane nor eager to buy it.

    Because an American alternative to the A-400M would divert sales from the C-17. The C-17 was designed to be too big to fail so they ended up with huge numbers of them even when they didn't ask for more they got funding for more.

    The Russians will probably start using the Il-476 more than the Il-276 but that is fine their unification in design will mean the Il-276 is much cheaper because it is basically a shrunk down Il-476.

    Russia will lose by not having An-70s.

    The only thing Russia will lose by not having An-70s is a slightly grumpy VDV, but propfan engines based on one of the new engines they are making can easily solve that issue.

    It's needed in Russia more than abroad. Bigger tandems have more perspectives being exported.

    Russia is not america... they don't have the budget to buy enormous numbers of systems to then shift them off cheaply as aide to allies.

    that can be done concurrently with the development of land-based versions.

    They need land based versions less than they need ship based ones.

    Which is not at all.

    Even the USN could deploy a V-22 AWACS on its LHA/LHD w/o depending on CVN-borne E-2s.

    Wouldn't they actually have to develop it first?

    but with a lot longer range/combat radius. They'll also be able to cross the continents & oceans on their own, a very useful feature for Russia:

    What are you talking about? If Russia had a CVN in the Atlantic ocean on the African coast WTF would they want to send a tilt rotor aircraft to the other side of Africa for? That is just ridiculous...

    It would make more sense to put a Topol truck on deck and launch an ICBM attack on the US from any direction...

    How is it better than CH-47,

    It is half the weight and does what the Russian military wants it to do.

    The Hip is the most produced helo in the world and still being produced.

    It will be more expensive than single rotor helos but not as much as the US-made CH-47Fs. 1 can do the job of 2 faster & with a single aircrew.

    Sorry, but you are wasting your time... the Chinook is not good enough to be worth copying.

    Why should then Russia develop two heavylift helicopter in the same market segment?

    More importantly of a totally different design to anything Mil has ever made and had in service before?

    the life cycle costs must also be included.

    The Mi-26 is a very big helo with very big powerful engines but there is no way in hell it can use 20 million dollars worth of fuel and parts in its operational lifespan... but then a rule of thumb for aircraft is that you double the aircraft price for full life costs... which means full life costs of the Mi-26 is about 40 million and the Chinook is therefore about 80 million so the Russian helo still comes out on top.

    [qutoe]It will be a CH-53K counterpart, but exceeding it; a CH-47F counterpart is still needed for its unique capabilities. The segments it &/ heavier Ka-102 will occupy won't be the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion#Specifications_(CH-53K)[/quote]

    Ignore US helicopters in this... the Russians have the Mi-17 with about a 5 ton capacity, they will soon have the Mi-38 in the 7-8 ton payload capacity range, and this development with China will be in a 12-15 ton payload capacity range and with the Mi-26 in the 20 ton payload capacity range.

    They will get the Minoga shortly in the 500km/h speed range perhaps with a 7-8 ton payload capacity... they don't need anything in a different weight range bracket... that is just silly.

    Jobs that the US uses the Chinook for the Russians will use this new Russian Chinese design for... they wont need anything else.

    Being heavier, I doubt it'll have better STOL characteristics than the An-72.

    Rough unpaved airstrips... in all weathers at all altitudes.

    In any case, still not as good as helos & tilt-rotors. A quad-rotor aircraft could carry 20T or more & have the same/more range, esp. with an IRP.

    Which one would that be exactly?

    Would it have a range of 2,000km and a flight speed of 800km/h?

    The V-44 had a payload of 11 tons and a top speed of 250Knts, but when the future combat vehicle was coming in at 27 tons it was all scrapped as impractical... the company that invented the super amazing V-22 couldn't scale it up, so why do you think the Russians would bother?

    airdrops at slower speeds. With so many IL-76s, Russia still wanted 40 of them, IRC.

    Four propfans on an Il-476 would get them the speeds they desired without the cost and problems of raising the dead.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Jul 11, 2019 10:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:The high speed helicopter to replace the Helix family has been described as a 500km/h aircraft, so that will already be much faster than the Chinook. ..The Ka-102 is a totally different aircraft from either the Helix or Chinook and could not be practically used to replace either of them.
    a smaller navalized variant of the Ka-102 will be lighter & may be even faster.
    If I knew that then they wouldn't need to make any at all.
    most likely they won't learn anything new & useful that can be applied on non-tandem/tilt-rotor helos.
    What are you talking about? Civilians will already be in danger... that is called WWIII.
    but to draw some US nukes away from cities their BMs had to be deployed in the taiga.
    And are slow and relatively short ranged and very expensive to operate... costing several thousands per hour...
    high speed variants won't be cheaper; larger tilt/tandem-rotors will have longer range & payload, so it's worth investing in them for the extra capabilities they'll bring.
    A Hip is already good enough for the job of moving up to 32 troops, the new Mi-38 could also be used... no need for a new target.
    IMO, for the same reason they developed the Mi-38 instead of just modernizing the Mi-17 family, new aircraft should be developed.
    ..they don't need anything designed from scratch that is totally different and vastly more expensive.
    The Kamov team thought otherwise. It may succeed in tandem design after failing with the Ka-22 hybrid.
    no helo or tilt rotor will outperform a conventional aircraft, and their investment in new high speed helos makes tilt rotor designs redundant too.
    a plane can bring more over greater distance but then diverted 100s of kms away/crash land where a tandem/tilt-rotor wouldn't. The loss of time, cargo, people & plane will negate any $ saved on not developing them.
    Tilt rotors are supposed to fill the gap between conventional helicopters and conventional aircraft... high speed helos also fill that gap.
    not completely- they may have the same speed, but less payload & perhaps range than the tilt-rotors.
    Il-106 is a fully developed aircraft from the 1990s.
    there's not even 1 prototype built yet, so it was "developed" on paper only.
    They need land based versions less than they need ship based ones.
    they need both, but a priority can be given to either 1. They saved a lot of $ & time by basing the Su-33s & MiG-29K/35s on Su-27s & MiG-29s. The same with military Mi-2/4/6/8/17/26s, Ka-27s, Tu-16/95s & their civilian counterparts. No need to reinvent the wheel. Tandem/tilt-rotors may/will have many military & civilian variants.
    Wouldn't they actually have to develop it first?
    after using E-2s, it won't take long, esp. since using V-22s for COD already.
    What are you talking about? If Russia had a CVN in the Atlantic ocean on the African coast WTF would they want to send a tilt rotor aircraft to the other side of Africa for?
    to get there before its CVN or some1 else does; there may be many missions it's best suited for, incl. within Russia's landmass & along her coastline & borders. they could fly across the Black Sea, Turkey or Iran & Iraq to Syria, Pakistan & India to land on a CVN/UDK in the Indian Ocean/Med. Sea. or from the RFE via NK/China to ships in the W. Pacific & to SE Asia-Vietnam, Philippines, & Indonesia. aslo between W. Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela.
    It is half the weight and does what the Russian military wants it to do.
    if each tandem helo can do what ~2 Hips r needed for, why not getting them? They replaced the Mi-6s with the Mi-26s for this very reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-6#Specifications_(Mi-6)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26#Specifications_(Mi-26)
    Sorry, but you are wasting your time... the Chinook is not good enough to be worth copying.
    only the layout will be copied; everything else will be different, & with better specs.
    More importantly of a totally different design to anything Mil has ever made and had in service before?
    Kamov isn't Mil & it never parroted it. If Mil designers want to stick to the same basic layouts as before, it's their decision to make & it won't affect Kamov's designs.
    Jobs that the US uses the Chinook for the Russians will use this new Russian Chinese design for... they wont need anything else.
    who said it will be 100% of what they expect it to be, & cost effective in the long run?
    so why do you think the Russians would bother?
    they could develop this concept:
    http://www.hexplane.com/About.html

    http://www.hexplane.com/TECHNOLOGY.html

    http://www.hexplane.com/JHL.html

    http://www.hexplane.com/Civilian.html

    Four propfans on an Il-476 would get them the speeds they desired without the cost and problems of raising the dead.
    Like the Y-20 variant, never built; their Y-30 project was also abandoned in favor of the An-70.
    Hell, it could be even cheaper to get the surplus A400Ms from 3rd countries & reverse engineer it or at least some of its parts.
    I know of no examples of a jet plane successfully re-engined with prop-fans. OTH, there r proposed 2/4 jet powered An-112KC/188: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Variants


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:31 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 336
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:48 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Four propfans on an Il-476 would get them the speeds they desired without the cost and problems of raising the dead.
    Like the Y-20 variant, never built; their Y-30 project that was also abandoned in favor of the An-70.
    Hell, it could be even cheaper to get the surplus A400Ms from the 3rd countries & reverse engineer it or at least some of its parts.
    I know of no examples of a jet plane successfully re-engined with prop-fans. OTH, there r proposed 2/4 jet powered An-112KC/188: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Variants
    Of.course you know no example of re-engining an aircraft with propfan. There are no  propfan currently in production

    Now.you are.even speaking.of copying.the failure.that is.the A400M...

    It looks like you want to.propose every aircraft or helicopter, as long.it.is a foreign product  Very Happy

    I agree only on the fact that the il-106 of 90s  was only a preliminary study.  From what I heard the new il-106 will be bigger than the 90s project (same cargo hold size of the An-124) with more  powerful engines (24 tons each, same thrust of the D-18-T). Basically it will be a sort of modernised An-124 (probably with some.esthetic differences) with the Ilyushin name to.avoid problem.with country 404.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:36 am

    There are no propfan currently in production
    Right, only 16 D-27 were built.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_D-27#cite_note-fi-3

    The Ukrainian Antonov An-70 and the ..Airbus A400M cruise at up to Mach 0.72, about as fast as the jet-powered C-17 airlifter, but slower than commercial jets. But, the A400Ms do use large-diameter propellers, not prop-fans.
    https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/the-short-happy-life-of-the-prop-fan-7856180/#GE2fj1LwbpFJhFVC.99
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-70#Specifications_(An-70)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propfan#1990s%E2%80%93current

    Now.you are.even speaking.of copying.the failure.that is.the A400M...
    The An-70 is more of failure at this point, since re-engined variants r being proposed. At least the A-400M is being produced, used & exported:
    https://theaviationist.com/2019/07/09/german-a400m-atlas-deployed-for-the-first-time-as-tanker-to-support-of-air-war-on-daesh/

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/10/raf-nato-row-totally-unacceptable-engine-problems-keep-26bn/

    If no prop-fans r being produced, there will be no IL-276s with them.
    Why invest $Ms into unproven tech.? At least all those CH-47s & V-22s r flying, so that tech. been proven in the West. As noted, the Yak-24 was flying in the USSR even before the Mi-6 appeared. If Kamov can build more complex coaxial helos, its Ka-102 won't have many &/ insurmountable developmental problems.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 336
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:03 am

    I mentioned prop fan as you said it was the important characteristic of the An-70. Otherwise they can simply do a turboprop. Even simpler.

    As a stopgap, during the development work, they could even use the NK-12 (that is currently in production for the Tu-95 modernisation) for some trials and derate it while they wait for the modern engine to be ready (turboprop derived from the turboshaft engine to replace the ukrainian engine on the Mi-26).
    The good thing is that this turboprop engine will be a derivative of the PD-14, the same engine that will be the default powerplant for the Il-276
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:13 am

    a smaller navalized variant of the Ka-102 will be lighter & may be even faster.

    There is no guarantee the Ka-102 will go ahead, so it is rather premature to talk about naval variants of it... especially when Kamov are already working on an upgraded Helix that is capable of much higher speed... I would think if they make any naval equivalents of Chinook it will be a variant of Minoga, which most likely will be a coaxial design with a pusher propulsion system.

    most likely they won't learn anything new & useful that can be applied on non-tandem/tilt-rotor helos.

    We don't know that for sure, but I rather doubt they will invest a large amount of money to find out.

    but to draw some US nukes away from cities their BMs had to be deployed in the taiga.

    By definition US Nukes can't be aimed at mobile targets because they will never know exactly where they are at any one time to target them.

    Mobile missiles would actually free up more missiles to be targeted at civilians...

    high speed variants won't be cheaper;

    High speed variants will enable greater distances to be covered... if they are too expensive they can buy a small amount for when speed is most important and just use the normal helos the rest of the time.

    Odds are their higher speed capacity will make them more useful but they could probably fly faster than current types without flying at top speed and work out actually cheaper than current models because the engine run time would be shorter for a given trip.

    (ie a Hip costing 3,000 dollars an hour to run, but a +hip with higher speed rotors and pusher motor might cost 4,000 dollars an hour to run, but is three times faster so a 2 hour journey in the Hip costing 6,000 dollars, might only take 40 minutes in the +hip, which means the flight costs more per hour but the entire trip is rather cheaper because it is quicker... a 40 minute trip costing just over 2,600 dollars instead of 6K... sounds like a great deal to me.)

    larger tilt/tandem-rotors will have longer range & payload, so it's worth investing in them for the extra capabilities they'll bring.

    Really big tandem rotor helicopters and tilt rotor aircraft would be enormously expensive and don't currently exist.

    They would also have a payload capacity that makes them redundant... if you need such a big capacity and are not using the Mi-26 then you really need an Il-476.

    IMO, for the same reason they developed the Mi-38 instead of just modernizing the Mi-17 family, new aircraft should be developed.

    Mi-38 is a new aircraft.

    The Kamov team thought otherwise. It may succeed in tandem design after failing with the Ka-22 hybrid.

    They are putting forward designs and plans... that is their job... whether anything actually gets built is another matter.

    a plane can bring more over greater distance but then diverted 100s of kms away/crash land where a tandem/tilt-rotor wouldn't. The loss of time, cargo, people & plane will negate any $ saved on not developing them.

    How often do you think conventional transport aircraft in Russia end up 100s of kms off course and have to land in an open field?

    It would be very rare and really not worth developing a new type of helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft to use instead... the cost in higher flight costs, and lower flight speeds and lower flight ranges, and lower payloads would mean such a "solution" would work out vastly more expensive than the original problem.

    not completely- they may have the same speed, but less payload & perhaps range than the tilt-rotors.

    What evidence do you have of that... you are talking about tilt rotors that don't exist... the only one that does... the V-22 is rather ordinary... it is twice the price of a super stallion that can carry more payloads and larger sized payloads...

    there's not even 1 prototype built yet, so it was "developed" on paper only.

    It was killed by western interests in the 1990s... the engine would be rather efficient even today...

    The same with military Mi-2/4/6/8/17/26s, Ka-27s,

    Naval and Army helos are not related and not interchangable... the naval fighters MiG-33 and Su-33 are directly based on land based MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft so money was saved, but land based Mils are not used at sea and sea based Kamovs are not used on land... the only exceptions are the Ka-31 for land based AEW, and there are only a dozen of so of them, and the Ka-52K which will be a navalised army attack helo... everything else was designed for one or the other.

    There are no naval Mi-2/4/6/8/17/26... the only naval Mil is the Mi-14, and the Army doesn't use Ka-27s except for the Ka-31 radar aircraft.

    Tandem/tilt-rotors may/will have many military & civilian variants.

    Cheaper and easier to just continue using existing types.

    to get there before its CVN or some1 else does; there may be many missions it's best suited for, incl. within Russia's landmass & along her coastline & borders. they could fly across the Black Sea, Turkey or Iran & Iraq to Syria, Pakistan & India to land on a CVN/UDK in the Indian Ocean/Med. Sea. or from the RFE via NK/China to ships in the W. Pacific & to SE Asia-Vietnam, Philippines, & Indonesia. aslo between W. Africa, Cuba, Nicaragua & Venezuela.

    Don't understand what you are talking about???

    if each tandem helo can do what ~2 Hips r needed for, why not getting them?

    Because they clearly don't have 10 ton payloads they have to move, so having 2 x 4 ton payload helicopters is more versatile and useful.

    They replaced the Mi-6s with the Mi-26s for this very reason:

    Because the 12 ton payload capacity of the Mi-6 meant it couldn't carry BTR-80 range vehicles or BMD range vehicles which are in the 14-18 ton weight range.

    Countries don't just buy helos because they like them or they look cool, they normally have jobs they want them to do which means they need to be able to carry certain weights over certain distances at certain speeds.

    It is not about... ooh I can buy one Mi-26 and it can do the work of two Mi-6s so that will save money when I operate only half as many Mi-26s as I had Mi-6s.

    Kamov isn't Mil & it never parroted it.

    Kamov developed the conventional Ka-60/62/64 with a conventional main rotor and tail rotor arrangement.... it wanted an aircraft below the Mi-8 in weight class and size and decided because it wasn't going to be a heavy lifter than a coaxial design would be too complicated and heavy for the requirements.

    Equally when looking at high speed helo designs Mil is looking at coaxial rotor design as well as pusher propulsion systems too.

    who said it will be 100% of what they expect it to be, & cost effective in the long run?

    Because both Russia and China will want it to be cost effective, and China will pay half the development costs.

    they could develop this concept:

    Engines are expensive to buy and operate and maintain... why do you think putting 6 engines on an aircraft will make it better?

    Like the Y-20 variant, never built; their Y-30 project was also abandoned in favor of the An-70.

    An-70 is not an option.

    Hell, it could be even cheaper to get the surplus A400Ms from 3rd countries & reverse engineer it or at least some of its parts.

    A-400M is inferior to the An-70, why copy that crap? Even second hand it would cost more than a brand new An-124...

    Why reverse engineer either... there is nothing worth copying and nothing worth learning... the Il-476 already has much better performance than either of those two types, for the purposes of the VDV a lower speed model with propfan engines is cheap and simple... they could have it for the price of developing a prop fan variant of the engines the Il-476 will be using.

    I know of no examples of a jet plane successfully re-engined with prop-fans.

    Not often that jets revert to props, but in this case the unique requirements of the customer make it make sense.

    If no prop-fans r being produced, there will be no IL-276s with them.

    There are no plans that I know of for the Il-276 to use propfans, that was merely my own speculation in the case that the VDV pay for propfans for the Il-476 to get a more suitable airdrop aircraft for their needs... once the engines are converted to propfans it would be trivial to adapt them for the Il-276 for rough strip operations if needed.

    I have not seen anything official about that idea and rather doubt most customers of the Il-276 would want to follow through on that idea as most of the time it will operate from normal and rough airfields anyway.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 336
    Points : 336
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:01 pm

    In addion, concerning the study projects of kamov bureau I will repeat my answer to you in the il-112 thread.

    the job of future programs departments of engineering firms is to create concepts and preliminary designs of promising and or interesting ideas. Of those, only a small parts will be developed to a prototype, and even less to a final product.

    Sometimes a concept could be also parked for years, waiting for proper conditions (e.g. the existence of an initial (potential) customer for the product and/or the need of some associated required technologies to mature to an acceptable level) and then later "resuscitated


    In addition, sometimes particular studies are done to compare performances and characteristics of different engine or aircraft architectures, and to be able to justify that staying with the "baseline" architecture is still the better compromise.

    If the alternative offers some advantages in comparison to the "baseline" architecture, they still need to evaluate when the new technology or architecture can be ready, and develop a sort technology and manufacturing readiness strategy.

    Normally that means many years would be still needed before the new project could be commercialized, while a new product with improved existing architecture will take much less.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2504
    Points : 2500
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:There is no guarantee the Ka-102 will go ahead, so it is rather premature to talk about naval variants of it... especially when Kamov are already working on an upgraded Helix that is capable of much higher speed... I would think if they make any naval equivalents of Chinook it will be a variant of Minoga, which most likely will be a coaxial design with a pusher propulsion system.
    They could even make a high speed coaxial tandem-rotor helo with smaller diameter rotors, & it will have cruise speed close to a tilt-rotor & possibly a higher payload.
    By definition US Nukes can't be aimed at mobile targets because they will never know exactly where they are at any one time to target them.
    they were to bring BM to silos in Urals & Altai mountains as well.
    Really big tandem rotor helicopters and tilt rotor aircraft would be enormously expensive and don't currently exist.
    IMO, those even slightly exceeding Mi-12/26/38 specs will be worth it.
    They would also have a payload capacity that makes them redundant... if you need such a big capacity and are not using the Mi-26 then you really need an Il-476.
    they can use extra payload capacity to carry more fuel/water/fire retardant/supplies/vehicles/boats/recovered gear/aircraft over greater distances &/ for longer loitering time as in the ASW/SAR/SOF/EW/tanker ops.
    Mi-38 is a new aircraft.
    even if they make it in many variants to replace the Mi-14/17s, that still leaves the need for naval helos like CH-46. If the USN had a better tandem helo, they wouldn't be training with, & using their Army CH-47s as much on/of their ships.
    They are putting forward designs and plans... that is their job... whether anything actually gets built is another matter.
    the 1st flight in planned for 2020 or so, so it's clear a prototype will be built.
    How often do you think conventional transport aircraft in Russia end up 100s of kms off course and have to land in an open field?
    bad weather/conditions happen in the North, Siberia & the FE, not to mention the Urals, C. Asia, & C./W. Russia often enough; the climate already changed for the worse.
    What evidence do you have of that... you are talking about tilt rotors that don't exist... the only one that does... the V-22 is rather ordinary... it is twice the price of a super stallion that can carry more payloads and larger sized payloads...
    if they produce a similar aircraft with IRPs, 2-3 of them can do a job of 1 An-12/72 or IL-112/276 & land anywhere, be it a large ship, roof, beach, steppe/desert, jungle/forest clearing, or top of a hill/mountain.
    Naval and Army helos are not related and not interchangeable...
    as mentioned, the USSR Border Guards used Mi-8s/17s, not any Mi-14s, to patrol the coastlines over water for years, & the navalized AH-64s now serve in the RN.
    Cheaper and easier to just continue using existing types.
    but they may do some jobs better, so it's worth it IMO.
    Don't understand what you are talking about???
    They can move supplies & people directly to/from ships w/o the need for planes & long strips.
    Because they clearly don't have 10 ton payloads they have to move, so having 2 x 4 ton payload helicopters is more versatile and useful.
    still a tandem helo is more capable than a similar size helo with only 1 main rotor, so it may be worth 1.5-2 of them.
    Countries don't just buy helos because they like them or they look cool, they normally have jobs they want them to do which means they need to be able to carry certain weights over certain distances at certain speeds.
    fine, but there'll be more demanding jobs for them in the future in Eurasia as the 2 biggest powers there r building up their militaries & have many civilian mega projects. Their existing fleet may not be enough.
    Kamov developed the conventional Ka-60/62/64 with a conventional main rotor and tail rotor arrangement....
    yes, & it looks like a modern Western small helo, different than anything Mil produced so far.
    Equally when looking at high speed helo designs Mil is looking at coaxial rotor design as well as pusher propulsion systems too.
    so is Sikorsky in the US. Good luck to them both!
    Because both Russia and China will want it to be cost effective, and China will pay half the development costs.
    wanting something isn't = it shall happen. Antonov wanted a C-130 equivalent, but its An-12 came out inferior in internal volume, speed & range.
    Engines are expensive to buy and operate and maintain... why do you think putting 6 engines on an aircraft will make it better?
    I think the site explains it; a B-52 is better than a B-47, IL-18 is better than IL-14, IL-62 is better than Tu-134, an An-12 is better than an An-8 & the An-225 is better than the An-124.
    A-400M is inferior to the An-70, why copy that crap? Even second hand it would cost more than a brand new An-124...
    If they can't get the An-70 & need extra airlift capability as their remaining An-12s & some older IL-76 will be retiring soon. There's no new An-124, & the cost of producing, maintaining, upgrading & using it instead of brand ne surplus A400M (ther'll be 13[!] of them, as some countries opted out) may be equal/more.
    ..the Il-476 already has much better performance than either of those two types,..
    with more planes, they'll have less wear & tear, increasing their life span & decreasing maintenance/attrition costs. Civilians may also use them, helping the economy, earning $ & paying taxes.
    Not often that jets revert to props, but in this case the unique requirements of the customer make it make sense.
    It may be worth more to develop tandem/tilt-rotor aircraft than a special IL-276 variant.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:46 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21095
    Points : 21643
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:01 am

    Sometimes a concept could be also parked for years, waiting for proper conditions (e.g. the existence of an initial (potential) customer for the product and/or the need of some associated required technologies to mature to an acceptable level) and then later "resuscitated

    The problem here is that tandem rotor design and tilt rotor design aircraft are fundamentally different from any kind of aircraft they currently have in service and production, so any suggestion to put them in to production need to clearly and definitively prove beyond doubt that it is worth the expense.

    Right now there is no reason to believe any type of tandem or tilt rotor aircraft could substantially exceed the performance of a naval AWACS aircraft based on the Yak-44 design... in fact it is quite certain they will be substantially inferior in many ways.

    For other roles they are already developing a high speed coaxial helicopter design with the speed of the tilt rotor... now lets be clear the purpose of the tilt rotor is vertical take off with speed double or even triple that of a similar conventional helicopter.

    The design they are working on has a speed of 500km/h which is pretty much as fast as a tilt rotor is going to be so why bother going to the effort and expense of making tandem rotor helicopter designs or tilt rotor aircraft designs if the speed requirement is already to be achieved with a design they are more familiar with and can be applied to existing types already in service?

    In addition, sometimes particular studies are done to compare performances and characteristics of different engine or aircraft architectures, and to be able to justify that staying with the "baseline" architecture is still the better compromise.

    Indeed, the best way to ensure your equipment is superior is to compare it with the alternative... the R-27 missile family competed against what was effectively a modification of the Sparrow AAM. It won by the way, though the Soviet Sparrow was actually rather superior to the US Sparrow and had different wing shapes, which was largely hidden with black paint most of the time... most western magazines depict the missile as having the same triangular wings as the Sparrow but they were actually a completely different shape but black paint with white triangular outlines fooled the westerners...

    If the alternative offers some advantages in comparison to the "baseline" architecture, they still need to evaluate when the new technology or architecture can be ready, and develop a sort technology and manufacturing readiness strategy.

    They can also spy on experience the enemy has had with the technology... some areas of superiority are not relevant... and some important features might be kept from the media...  for instance hiding problems like poor maintainability, or high operational costs, systems not actually working properly.... etc etc.

    Normally that means many years would be still needed before the new project could be commercialized, while a new product with improved existing architecture will take much less.

    Indeed... something that is only slightly better but will be ten times more expensive and will take 5 years to get into service... there are other things you can spend money on.

    Now if the Russians didn't have coaxial rotor helos then a tandem helicopter would be brilliant... tail rotors on decks are incredibly dangerous, but the have coaxial designs and they work just fine.

    Note this stuff about having a bigger internal area with a tandem design is rubbish... the internal space on an Mi-6 is just fine, and the Mi-26 is even better.

    They could even make a high speed coaxial tandem-rotor helo with smaller diameter rotors, & it will have cruise speed close to a tilt-rotor & possibly a higher payload.

    To get rotor blade clearance between rotor sets it would need to be too big to be useful...

    they were to bring BM to silos in Urals & Altai mountains as well.

    What silos?

    Train would be rather more efficient.

    IMO, those even slightly exceeding Mi-12/26/38 specs will be worth it.

    Worth it because it would be cool?

    Or worth it because there is a specific use for them that they need to get done but can't because they currently lack the right sort of helicopter to get the job done?

    even if they make it in many variants to replace the Mi-14/17s, that still leaves the need for naval helos like CH-46.

    They are developing a Helix replacement already, that is a different programme.

    If the USN had a better tandem helo, they wouldn't be training with, & using their Army CH-47s as much on/of their ships.

    So maybe it is the USN that needs a new helicopter perhaps?

    the 1st flight in planned for 2020 or so, so it's clear a prototype will be built.

    They also built Yak-44s and Yak-141s...

    if they produce a similar aircraft with IRPs, 2-3 of them can do a job of 1 An-12/72 or IL-112/276 & land anywhere

    Not anywhere, that is bullshit.... they will need a small area of level firm ground.

    They used to claim the Harrier could land anywhere and that turned out to be bullshit...

    Also two might do the job of a bigger aircraft... for 100 times more cost.

    as mentioned, the USSR Border Guards used Mi-8s/17s, not any Mi-14s, to patrol the coastlines over water for years, & the navalized AH-64s now serve in the RN.

    So if they are clearly happy with hips then why piss away money on a hip replacement?  (old fogie humour there...)

    but they may do some jobs better, so it's worth it IMO.

    You are not getting it... these aircraft you are proposing will cost millions and millions of dollars... you can't just develop a new type of aircraft because it might be useful for some things. International airliners are not all required to be fully amphibious just in case there is an emergency and they have to be able to land... or be diverted to save someone who has fallen off a yacht and needs to be rescued...

    They can move supplies & people directly to/from ships w/o the need for planes & long strips.

    Ships are vastly more efficient for that sort of thing, and they can transport fuel at the same time...

    still a tandem helo is more capable than a similar size helo with only 1 main rotor, so it may be worth 1.5-2 of them.

    Based on what evidence?

    The US uses a tandem rotor helicopter... big fucking deal. Russia uses coaxial rotor helicopters that are a fraction of the size yet can manage payloads of 50% for a purchase price about 20% that fit on even some of their corvettes...

    yes, & it looks like a modern Western small helo, different than anything Mil produced so far.

    We going to cheapen this discussion to that level are we?

    so is Sikorsky in the US. Good luck to them both!

    You mean Sikorsky is going to upgrade their inferior range by copying Kamovs rotor design?  ... see above.

    wanting something isn't = it shall happen.

    Actually at the design stage, yes it is...

    That is the whole point of designing it yourself rather than modifying an existing type.

    Antonov wanted a C-130 equivalent, but its An-12 came out inferior in internal volume, speed & range.

    Antonov was given specs and requirement levels to meet. The C-130 was designed to do jobs for the US military and was not intended to handle or carry Soviet equipment. The An-12 didn't need to be a C-130, just like the C-130 didn't need to be the An-12.

    the An-225 is better than the An-124.

    Wrong wrong wrong.  The An-225 never entered mass production because it is a one trick pony... most customers world wide would have trouble filling it or using its full potential... and all the while it burns more fuel than the An-124 every km it flies... it is more expensive to operate, yet the extra weight capacity it can carry would rarely be needed most of the time.... a white elephant.

    I think the site explains it; a B-52 is better than a B-47

    Lack of suitable engines... the easiest way to improve a Boeing 747 is to replace its four engines with two bigger more powerful more fuel efficient engines. The way to make it worse is to replace the four engines with 8 smaller less powerful ones...

    [qutoe]If they can't get the An-70 & need extra airlift capability as their remaining An-12s & some older IL-76 will be retiring soon. [/quote]

    They don't use An-12s AFAIK for much (VDV), they basically usually use Il-76s. The new Il-476s will be just as good as the Il-76s were, in fact they will probably be able to carry more vehicles in the newer aircraft.

    There's no new An-124, & the cost of producing, maintaining, upgrading & using it instead of brand ne surplus A400M (ther'll be 13[!] of them, as some countries opted out) may be equal/more.

    They have production facilities to make An-124s if they want, they just don't need any more, but the main reason they wont buy A-400Ms is the same they are not currently producing more An-124s... the engine is foreign and would be enormous expensive and a serious pain in the ass to keep running.

    Il-476s would be superior in every way than an A-400M and likely rather cheaper to buy and operate too.

    Once they are in full mass production propfan versions might be considered... or maybe not, but it is certainly by a vast margin the best option if the alternatives are An-70 resurrections or A-400M revivals... hey maybe they should order 500 of them from France and then at the last minute cancel the deal because of the undemocratic way the French government is treating the yellow shirts and demand their money back in full...

    with more planes, they'll have less wear & tear, increasing their life span & decreasing maintenance/attrition costs. Civilians may also use them, helping the economy, earning $ & paying taxes.

    All the more reason to add orders for the Il-476 and produce rather more of them... I am sure civilian orders will be significant too as there are a lot of Il-76s out there doing a great job that need upgrades and replacements... not many civilian operators want to shell out half a billion per aircraft to buy C-17s that the US can tell them can't be used for certain jobs due to current sanctions...

    It may be worth more to develop tandem/tilt-rotor aircraft than a special IL-276 variant.

    OK... lets break down why this is a very stupid and naieve thing to say.

    The Il-276 is a scaled down Il-476... it is a programme that is going forward... there is no question this aircraft will be made... there is a clear solid requirement for it.

    Now you are trying to suggest that designing a propfan engine from a turbofan engine and putting it on some spare Il-276s they can produce over and above the ones they are producing to replace the An-12s in service might be too hard and instead they should invent tandem helicopter technology or tilt rotor helicopter technology from scratch... presumably also needing brand new engines designed especially for them too?

    GET REAL BUDDY.

    Tandem rotor designed helos are complicated designs that have a lot of problems and issues... not the least of which synchronising two sets of main rotors so they don't collide in flight... flexure of the aircraft structure because of the torque from the two main rotors trying to snap the structure in two by bending each end, and of course the problems of power transmission so the engines can keep powering both rotor blades even if one engine fails.
    A tilt rotor is even more of a pain in the ass because it needs to be balanced on the lift of two main rotors... it is like riding a bike... except when you fall off everybody dies.
    Both aircraft types would be enormously expensive to develop... and for what?

    There is no ready captive market.... you could spend billions developing them as Kamov and Yakovlev comes in a puts propfan engines on an Il-276 and for a fraction of the price you could sell your product (at a loss) they can take the contract for 12-15 ton payload light transport.

    The customer gets to choose between an enormously expensive very slow tandem rotor helicopter that any conventional transport aircraft could run rings around so it wont even get considered... so scrap that. They could also choose a tilt rotor aircraft that is also slow and risk and short ranged and to carry a 10-15 ton payload we are talking about a V-44 rather than a V-22, so burns lots of fuel and enormous footprint, not to mention risky and horribly expensive to buy and operate... or they can have an aircraft design that has its internal cross section unified with the standard C-130 and C-141 equivalents in the Russian military... its avionics are all brand new and state of the art and unified with other aircraft already in service... and much much cheaper.

    If they need a VTOL aircraft with a payload of 10 tons they have the Mi-6, if they need one with a payload of 20 tons they have one with the Mi-26, if they need one with a payload of 12-15 tons they are developing one with the Chinese now...

    There is no need for a tandem helicopter design or a tilt rotor design for the Russian military.

    They might not even bother with the Il-276 with propfan engines... just with standard engines it should be able to operate from rough airstrips... the only aircraft they need to fly slower to improve performance at paradropping is the Il-476, which with propfans and extra high lift devices on its wings could easily do the job the An-70 was supposed to do... much cheaper, and retaining commonality with existing Russian aircraft types.

    Russia can already get the capacity from existing conventional types, and they are working on getting higher speed from new high speed types, which makes the tilt rotor design less desirable and more risky.

    Just for you:

    The VVP-6...

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft 20190510
    http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/yak_vvp-6.php

    Sponsored content

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:56 am