Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:14 am

    GarryB wrote:To get rotor blade clearance between rotor sets it would need to be too big to be useful...
    they could be synchronized so they don't hit each other, or the fuselage on some variants could be big enough to begin with.
    What silos? Train would be rather more efficient.
    they also set up a MRBM base in Chukotka to target Alaska, Hawaii & US W. coast, probably with just TELs- trains likely won't be able to get there even in 10 years from now, unless the Russians & Chinese send Ks of workers & $Bs to build it from Yakutsk.
    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?
    yes; future high speed helos may also fall behind in some specs.
    They are developing a Helix replacement already, that is a different programme.
    good, & I hope it'll succeed!
    So maybe it is the USN that needs a new helicopter perhaps?
    no, they use "jointness"- working with other mil. branches to augment each other's capabilities. They have the V-22s, CH-46/53s & don't need CH-47s as much. Russia doesn't have any tilt/tandem rotor aircraft yet; but it's not=she won't need them at all.
    They also built Yak-44s and Yak-141s...
    The Yak-44 was only as a mock-up. The Ka-102 may become "too big to fail" & they'll make sure it will be accepted.
    Not anywhere, that is bullshit.... they will need a small area of level firm ground.
    it can be flattened with "daisy cutter"-like bombs, like the US used in Vietnam to clear jungle, enemy, & other obstacles. If need be, IL-76/An-22/72/124s can drop bulldozers, portable airfield steel plates & personnel to set up a small helo pads or an airfield.
    So if they are clearly happy with hips then why piss away money on a hip replacement?
    shore based helos don't need to be fully navalized; ship based must be if they r to be there for a long time. Hips r not the best choice for it, & once new better suited helos appear, they may be replaced by them.
    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.
    Perhaps Kamov economists (every design bureau has them) r wrong & should be fired! I suspect their contacts in the military told them to develop something like the Ka-102 before they even started!
    Ships are vastly more efficient for that sort of thing, and they can transport fuel at the same time...
    COD missions bring emergency supplies, mail & move personnel within hours, while ships will take days/weeks to reach their operating areas.
    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...
    CH-46s can land more marines/SF than Ka-29s:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_CH-46_Sea_Knight#Specifications_(CH-46E)

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0-29#%D0%9B%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BD%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

    You mean Sikorsky is going to upgrade their inferior range by copying Kamovs rotor design?
    no, it will develop it's own design of the coaxial rotor concept. It goes both ways: Kamov built classic layout helo & will build a tandem helo, while Sikorsky is testing a coaxial high speed helo. Why shouldn't the Russians design a V-22-like  aircraft?
    Actually at the design stage, yes it is...
    it may remain at that stage.
    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.
    it's being chartered worldwide- no other cargo plane can do its job.
    Lack of suitable engines...
    true; also the B-36 had 6 turning (props)& 4 burning (jet) engines; it had a lot longer range than the B-29.
    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's not in production; the US won't sell any from its AF fleet, at least in the near future.  
    ..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.
    new lighter & stronger materials & extra/more reliable engines/transmission will take care of it.
    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 could have a tandem mode before spreading its wings & turning rotors for airplane mode of flight.
    so burns lots of fuel and enormous footprint, not to mention risky and horribly expensive to buy and operate...
    the Mi-26 also has enormous footprint; they can use IRPs; no need to buy many of them.
    If they need a VTOL aircraft with a payload of 10 tons they have the Mi-6,..
    FYI, it's been retired.
    if they need one with a payload of 12-15 tons they are developing one with the Chinese now...
    would u bet ur life on it coming on time, on budget, & with right specs?
    There is no need for a tandem helicopter design or a tilt rotor design for the Russian military.
    will it stay that way for the next 20-30 years? the world isn't frozen in time & the russian military stopped training "to fight the last war".
    They might not even bother with the Il-276 with propfan engines...
    in an ideal world, they could probably buy C-390 from Brazil instead & still save time & $. The IL-276 problems could be bigger than they now have with the IL-112, for all I know. The proposed Tu-330 also had commonality with the Tu-204 but it never got built; they may return to it later, should the IL-276 project fail or won't be enough.
    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.
    that may be so, but time will tell if u right!
    So, I can agree to disagree with u at this point.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:27 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:00 pm

    they could be synchronized so they don't hit each other, or the fuselage on some variants could be big enough to begin with.

    But that is the point... you don't just bung two sets of main rotors and two engines on there and expect it to work... you need a mechanism to make sure the blades do not contact each other and then you need to work out how to design the blades to allow full manouvering... on a coaxial design it is easy... each set of main rotors has enormous momentum so speeding up one set or slowing down the other allows yaw control at a much greater range of speeds in any direction than the tiny tail rotor on a conventional helicopter allows... the Ka-52 can point its nose in any direction it likes traveling at up to 100km/h in any direction including going backwards... that is why the gun doesn't need to be in a standard turret... it can swing side to side in most flying modes...

    With a tandem with intermeshing blades you can't speed one blade up or slow down the other and even if you did the yaw effect would be seriously muted by the long arm of the effect of the body of the aircraft.

    All these problems need to be sorted out... so there really needs to be a serious reason to bother and you really have not impressed me with your examples and reasons because existing coaxial designs already have the main advantages of a tandem rotor needed for naval use... that is the efficiency of two main rotors and lack of that dangerous tail rotor swinging round on deck...

    they also set up a MRBM base in Chukotka to target Alaska, Hawaii & US W. coast, probably with just TELs- trains likely won't be able to get there even in 10 years from now, unless the Russians & Chinese send Ks of workers & $Bs to build it from Yakutsk.

    There is a port there...

    yes; future high speed helos may also fall behind in some specs.

    They don't need tandem helos or tiltrotors as their specs are below currently available options let alone future developments.

    good, & I hope it'll succeed!

    There is no reason they wouldn't succeed. Modern composite materials will make it lighter and stronger and new more powerful, more fuel efficient engines, as well as new blade designs should make it rather better.

    no, they use "jointness"- working with other mil. branches to augment each other's capabilities. They have the V-22s, CH-46/53s & don't need CH-47s as much. Russia doesn't have any tilt/tandem rotor aircraft yet; but it's not=she won't need them at all.

    The Russian navy uses Helix helos at the moment... the new replacement designs will offer better performance but will be able to operate from the same platforms which means its external size wont be that different... I very much doubt a tilt rotor or tandem rotor design is possible let alone desired.

    The Yak-44 was only as a mock-up. The Ka-102 may become "too big to fail" & they'll make sure it will be accepted.

    A full sized detailed mockup they put on the carrier to make sure it would fit... it was enough to make them cancel the alternative aircraft... the An-71...

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Antono10

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 20121210

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Image10

    it can be flattened with "daisy cutter"-like bombs, like the US used in Vietnam to clear jungle, enemy, & other obstacles.

    Yeah, they used those to clear areas in dense jungle... not really a problem in the far east and far north... the trees are 10mm high.

    I am talking about the ground... you are talking about really big really heavy aircraft just landing any old where, and I am saying a patch of soft ground and those things will roll and then you will need to offload everything and get an Mi-26 to come and rescue it.

    If need be, IL-76/An-22/72/124s can drop bulldozers, portable airfield steel plates & personnel to set up a small helo pads or an airfield.

    If that is the solution just land Il-76s during the winter on snow with the equipment needed to create a proper full sized airfield that you could use all year round...

    shore based helos don't need to be fully navalized; ship based must be if they r to be there for a long time. Hips r not the best choice for it, & once new better suited helos appear, they may be replaced by them.

    The new Minoga design includes an assault troop transport to replace the Ka-29, but for it to operate from the same ships as the Helix it definitely wont be a tandem or tilt rotor aircraft.

    Perhaps Kamov economists (every design bureau has them) r wrong & should be fired!

    Developing brand new design technology costs money... it is not the fault of the economists or accountants...

    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know building a brand new type of aircraft... tandem or tiltrotor... is going to need new engines and new transmissions... both aircraft need engines to power both rotor systems via drive shaft so if one engine fails the other can still power both lifting rotors.

    That costs money.

    All your avionics needs to be redone because your new design will need new autopilots and new systems to operate these completely different aircraft... all because you say it might be better... it is not the economists that need to be fired...

    COD missions bring emergency supplies, mail & move personnel within hours, while ships will take days/weeks to reach their operating areas.

    So keep backup supplies with the supply ships... and who sends mail any more... that is all electronic... and you don't need a tilt rotor or a tandem rotor to transfer people... a Ka-226 could do that for goodness sake...

    CH-46s can land more marines/SF than Ka-29s:

    And how many rocket pods does it carry to make sure the landing zone is clear of enemy?

    The more troops an aircraft carries the longer it sits on the ground vulnerable... having an enormous number per aircraft is not actually a good thing.

    It goes both ways: Kamov built classic layout helo & will build a tandem helo, while Sikorsky is testing a coaxial high speed helo.

    Kamov hasn't made a conventional helo before, but has several autogyros which are basically a conventional helo with the tail rotor replaced with a pusher propeller... not a big deal because conventional helos are much simpler to design than coaxial.

    Why shouldn't the Russians design a V-22-like aircraft?

    Because it is the F-35 of the transport world... seems like a good idea that will fill a useful niche, but turns out to be unreliable, and very very expensive for what it is.

    The V-22s payload is half that of the Mi-8... an An-2 has better performance...

    it may remain at that stage.

    It is at the design stage because the customer wants it, not because it is something the makers think someone might find useful.

    One is the start of a process that leads to serial production, the other is speculation with a hope so someone funding development and production... they are not the same.

    it's being chartered worldwide- no other cargo plane can do its job.

    I would seriously doubt you would have any problems booking it for a job because there are so few jobs you would need to use it for that it probably has quite a bit of free time most of the time.

    The An-225 didn't replace the An-124, it replaced a converted bomber the VM-T for carrying large outsized loads externally for the space industry... things like space shuttles and large fuel tanks for enormous rockets... how many customers do you think they get for that aircraft?

    I would say bugger all because if the An-124 can carry it it would be much cheaper because there are a lot more of them available and they only have four big fuel guzzling engines instead of six.

    true; also the B-36 had 6 turning (props)& 4 burning (jet) engines; it had a lot longer range than the B-29.

    That only existed because at the time jet engines were not reliable and very high fuel consumption so to get any decent range they needed props too.

    A bit like adding a jet engine to a propeller engined fighter to boost speed but using a prop engine because it was more reliable and much more efficient most of the time.

    it's not in production; the US won't sell any from its AF fleet, at least in the near future.

    No private company that has to earn a real living could afford to spend 500 million dollars on one transport plane... only countries with US dollars in military aide that have to spend on US equipment would buy that stuff.

    new lighter & stronger materials & extra/more reliable engines/transmission will take care of it.

    Lighter stronger materials is always good for a helo, but over time that stress is going to lead to issues... the bigger you go and the more powerful the engines and the larger the rotors...

    it could have a tandem mode before spreading its wings & turning rotors for airplane mode of flight.

    Yeah, the thing about weight bearing structures like wings in flight... when you get folding ones like on carrier based aircraft you really can't put them under pressure.... ie flying, with them having their wings in any way folded, because that puts enormous stress on them and if they are not unfolded and properly solidly attached to the aircraft with serious bolts and things it wont work as an aircraft.

    Folded bits need to be deployed before even considering any takeoff...

    Variable sweep you can shift them around inflight all you want but folding blades or folding wings... no... because when folded they will contribute nothing to lift or propulsion... and wings and blades... that is all they are there for.

    the Mi-26 also has enormous footprint; they can use IRPs; no need to buy many of them.

    Nothing like the 50m wide 2km long footprint the alternative requires (C-130)...

    FYI, it's been retired.

    Which shows you how much they needed it really doesn't it?

    would u bet ur life on it coming on time, on budget, & with right specs?

    Does it matter if it is a little late and costs a little more? And if it doesn't meet their own requirements then I don't think they would bother in the first place... like the Il-112 they wont put it into serial production till it does what they want it to do.

    will it stay that way for the next 20-30 years? the world isn't frozen in time & the russian military stopped training "to fight the last war".

    Well actually the one thing that might change things is electric drive engines... if you put powerful electric motors in a tandem... they are rather compact and efficient and don't generate a lot of heat and you would not need to worry about gears and transmissions... and perhaps have four for a V44 tilt rotor design, it might turn those concepts into something more practical... but those same motors in coaxial and conventional aircraft and again you don't need those tandems and tilt rotors again...

    in an ideal world, they could probably buy C-390 from Brazil instead & still save time & $.

    Ideal for whom? The US would just impose sanctions on Brazil and their current right wing nazi leader would stop the sale anyway... so no thanks... the Il-276 is already a better solution as it is standardised with the Il-476 family too.

    The IL-276 problems could be bigger than they now have with the IL-112, for all I know.

    The reason they are scaling down an existing design is because it is known and proven... doing it this way reduces problems rather than increases them.

    With bonus features like standardise height and width to larger aircraft and of course replicating the cockpit and systems generally including engines, all of which are very good cost and time saving features.

    The proposed Tu-330 also had commonality with the Tu-204 but it never got built; they may return to it later, should the IL-276 project fail or won't be enough.

    They already know they will need a lot of Il-476s, so it makes sense to shrink its design down for the smaller design.

    So, I can agree to disagree with u at this point.

    Possibly the only likely solution.

    BTW no comment about Yakovlevs flying SAM site?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:27 pm

    GarryB wrote: existing coaxial designs already have the main advantages of a tandem rotor needed for naval use... that is the efficiency of two main rotors and lack of that dangerous tail rotor swinging round on deck...
    a coaxial helo with 10-15-20T payload will need to be 2-3-4 x wider than a Ka-27 or tandem CH-46/7, defeating the purpose of "small footprint". OTH, a coaxial tandem hybrid could have smaller diameter main rotors & rotor clearance that don't need synchronization.
    I very much doubt a tilt rotor or tandem rotor design is possible let alone desired.
    they have good brains & can come up with original solutions surpassing current Western models.

    I am talking about the ground...
    their attack helos flattened mountain fortifications in Afghanistan; the ground doesn't need to be perfectly flat for VTOls.

    If that is the solution just land Il-76s during the winter on snow with the equipment needed to create a proper full sized airfield that you could use all year round...
    if it could find a clear place big enough & w/o snow covered rocks, fallen trees & stumps.
    Developing brand new design technology costs money... it is not the fault of the economists or accountants...
    they took all that to account & still think their Ka-102 & other aircraft described in the paper I posted r feasible.
    So keep backup supplies with the supply ships... and who sends mail any more... that is all electronic... and you don't need a tilt rotor or a tandem rotor to transfer people... a Ka-226 could do that for goodness sake...
    some things run out faster & u can't stock up on everything u may need; parcels can't be sent via email; a Ka-226 has Max. speed: 250 km/h (155 mph)
    Cruising speed: 220 km/h (137 mph)
    Range: 600 km (373 miles)
    , less than a future tilt/tandem rotor would have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-226#Specifications_(Ka-226T)
    And how many rocket pods does it carry to make sure the landing zone is clear of enemy?
    they use Cobra attack helos for that.
    Which shows you how much they needed it really doesn't it?
    they won't need them but do need the Mi-26s that can do the job of 2 Mi-6s for le$$.
    BTW no comment about Yakovlevs flying SAM site?
    it could be a fake project falsely attributed to Yakovlev; I have no idea how it would work in the real world.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 14, 2019 10:00 am

    a coaxial helo with 10-15-20T payload will need to be 2-3-4 x wider than a Ka-27 or tandem CH-46/7, defeating the purpose of "small footprint".

    Listen to what you are claiming... a helicopter with tandem main rotors stacked on top of each other occupying the same volume of space in a coaxial rotor design is going to take up more room than a tandem rotor helicopter with those two main rotors separated on separate parts of the helicopter spaced so the blades don't touch...

    Do you not understand how stupid that sounds?

    If you take the main rotor off the tail of the Chinook and put it directly above the front rotor and shift the front two main rotors to the centre of the Chinook helo then you end up with a much smaller footprint... footprint is not the folded size inside the hangar... it is the area the helicopter occupies with its rotors running so that it can take off... a coaxial design has half the main rotor disk area of a tandem just because of its design.

    OTH, a coaxial tandem hybrid could have smaller diameter main rotors & rotor clearance that don't need synchronization.

    OTH, a coaxial tandem hybrid could have smaller diameter main rotors & rotor clearance that don't need synchronization.[/quote]

    You still end up with two sets of main rotors separated by enough space to stop them clashing so main rotor times two plus a couple of metres extra gap to prevent clashes... compared with one set of main rotors and nothing to clash with...

    they have good brains & can come up with original solutions surpassing current Western models.

    All they lack is a reason to adopt tilt rotor aircraft or tandem rotor helicopters...

    their attack helos flattened mountain fortifications in Afghanistan; the ground doesn't need to be perfectly flat for VTOls.

    How many operational tandem or tilt rotor attack aircraft are there in Afghanistan at the moment?

    if it could find a clear place big enough & w/o snow covered rocks, fallen trees & stumps.

    Shouldn't be hard in the biggest country on the planet... would be like trying to find a flat bit of ground in Australia....

    they took all that to account & still think their Ka-102 & other aircraft described in the paper I posted r feasible.

    Now all they need is a customer with a specific problem where the Kh-102 is the best solution to spend a small fortune to put it in to production... I wont hold my breath.

    some things run out faster & u can't stock up on everything u may need; parcels can't be sent via email; a Ka-226 has Max. speed: 250 km/h (155 mph)
    Cruising speed: 220 km/h (137 mph)
    Range: 600 km (373 miles), less than a future tilt/tandem rotor would have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-226#Specifications_(Ka-226T)


    Of course... all post comes out of Moscow on Ka-32s and Ka-226s... I mean that is the primary purpose of helos on board Russian ships is to transport cookies to sailors at sea...

    they use Cobra attack helos for that.

    So it isn't even armed... what sort of POS is this helicopter you think is so damn perfect?

    they won't need them but do need the Mi-26s that can do the job of 2 Mi-6s for le$$.

    So WTF are you telling me they need a new tandem helicopter like a Chinook that carries about the same 12 ton payload as an Mi-6 and costs ten times more?

    If the Mi-26 can do the job of 2 Mi-6 aircraft then it can also do the job of 2-3 Chinooks too. And It is cheaper as well...

    it could be a fake project falsely attributed to Yakovlev; I have no idea how it would work in the real world.

    Not fake at all, it was a serious programme to create a mobile long range SAM system... I am sure you would be arguing for it too if you knew it better... it could fly forward with Army units and provide air defence for ground based units... it is the funky early cold war equivalent of the S-300V vehicle family... not as mobile, but mobile enough and not as eye wateringly expensive as a rotary wing option...


    You know... like suggesting now that the Russians need tandem helicopters no faster or better performing that existing or planned aircraft, or tiltrotor aircraft that are currently faster than current rotary wing alternatives but not necessarily faster than near future high speed helo designs that will be much much cheaper.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:12 am

    GarryB wrote:
    a coaxial helo with 10-15-20T payload will need to be 2-3-4 x wider than a Ka-27 or tandem CH-46/7, defeating the purpose of "small footprint".
    Listen to what you are claiming... a helicopter with tandem main rotors stacked on top of each other occupying the same volume of space in a coaxial rotor design is going to take up more room than a tandem rotor helicopter with those two main rotors separated on separate parts of the helicopter spaced so the blades don't touch...
    I meant that if a big coaxial 10-15-20T payload helo appears with just 2 main rotors 1 above the other, it will need to be a lot bigger, with fuselage larger & wider than CH-46/57 & even the CH-53:
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka-102-image02.jpg|||Ka-102
    You still end up with two sets of main rotors separated by enough space to stop them clashing so main rotor times two plus a couple of metres extra gap to prevent clashes...
    they'll be on different levels, just like on CH-46/57- the front rotors lower than those in the back; so they won't need to much extra space between the front & the back rotors.
    All they lack is a reason to adopt tilt rotor aircraft or tandem rotor helicopters...
    at least the VDV is looking into it; the Marines, VMF, FSB & MChS may follow.

    How many operational tandem or tilt rotor attack aircraft are there in Afghanistan at the moment?
    I'm sure there r at least a few. Check online which US squadrons/units r deployed & ask the Pentagon.
    Shouldn't be hard in the biggest country on the planet...
    Siberia & many parts of C./N. Russia is covered with the biggest forest on the planet- from the Baltic to the Bering sea. it's like finding a big clearing in the Amazon Jungle or tropical N. Australia. Even in a place with all trees burned years ago, the ground may be full of boulders, potholes, logs & stumps.
    Now all they need is a customer with a specific problem where the Ka-102 is the best solution to spend a small fortune to put it in to production...
    there'll be many problems for different customers the Ka-102 is worth producing for.
    Of course... all post comes out of Moscow on Ka-32s and Ka-226s... I mean that is the primary purpose of helos on board Russian ships is to transport cookies to sailors at sea...
    I was on a CV, & even with email being used, regular mail is a big thing for morale.
    So it isn't even armed... what sort of POS is this helicopter you think is so damn perfect?
    they'll be armed, but not as heavily as non-transport helos.
    So WTF are you telling me they need a new tandem helicopter like a Chinook that carries about the same 12 ton payload as an Mi-6 and costs ten times more? If the Mi-26 can do the job of 2 Mi-6 aircraft then it can also do the job of 2-3 Chinooks too. And It is cheaper as well...
    many other militaries have CH-47s & CH-53s/Frelons/Merlins/Pumas/S-92s
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101#Specifications_(Merlin_HM1)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-92
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_SA_321_Super_Frelon#Operators

    The CH-53s & their Western competitors can't do the job of the CH-57s. Using the Mi-26 to do all its missions + what a smaller helo can do is destructive & uneconomical. It's like using An-124 & IL-476s to haul cargo that IL-76/276/An-12 normally would. That's why they r developing a 15T helo with China; however, it too may need help from a tandem-rotor helo, just like the CH-53.
    ..suggesting now that the Russians need tandem helicopters no faster or better performing that existing or planned aircraft, or tiltrotor aircraft that are currently faster than current rotary wing alternatives but not necessarily faster than near future high speed helo designs that will be much much cheaper.
    we/they'll find out if those new designs r going to be faster or better performing after their prototypes r built & tested. Aviation, even with computer aided design, is still a process of trial & error.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:13 am

    GarryB wrote:
    a coaxial helo with 10-15-20T payload will need to be 2-3-4 x wider than a Ka-27 or tandem CH-46/7, defeating the purpose of "small footprint".
    Listen to what you are claiming... a helicopter with tandem main rotors stacked on top of each other occupying the same volume of space in a coaxial rotor design is going to take up more room than a tandem rotor helicopter with those two main rotors separated on separate parts of the helicopter spaced so the blades don't touch...
    I meant that if a big coaxial 10-15-20T payload helo appears with just 2 main rotors 1 above the other, it will need to be a lot bigger, with fuselage larger & wider than CH-46/47 & even the CH-53.
    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 40755-f3ab3b4b7a74d7c1800e4c269dee17a9
    You still end up with two sets of main rotors separated by enough space to stop them clashing so main rotor times two plus a couple of metres extra gap to prevent clashes...
    they'll be on different levels, just like on CH-46/47- the front rotors lower than those in the back; so they won't need to much extra space between the front & the back rotors.
    All they lack is a reason to adopt tilt rotor aircraft or tandem rotor helicopters...
    at least the VDV is looking into it; the Marines, VMF, FSB & MChS may follow.

    How many operational tandem or tilt rotor attack aircraft are there in Afghanistan at the moment?
    I'm sure there r at least a few. Check online which US squadrons/units r deployed & ask the Pentagon.
    Shouldn't be hard in the biggest country on the planet...
    Siberia & many parts of C./N. Russia is covered with the biggest forest on the planet- from the Baltic to the Bering sea. it's like finding a big clearing in the Amazon Jungle or tropical N. Australia. Even in a place with all trees burned years ago, the ground may be full of boulders, potholes, logs & stumps.
    Now all they need is a customer with a specific problem where the Ka-102 is the best solution to spend a small fortune to put it in to production...
    there'll be many problems for different customers the Ka-102 is worth producing for.
    Of course... all post comes out of Moscow on Ka-32s and Ka-226s... I mean that is the primary purpose of helos on board Russian ships is to transport cookies to sailors at sea...
    I was on a CV, & even with email being used, regular mail is a big thing for morale.
    So it isn't even armed... what sort of POS is this helicopter you think is so damn perfect?
    they'll be armed, but not as heavily as non-transport helos.
    So WTF are you telling me they need a new tandem helicopter like a Chinook that carries about the same 12 ton payload as an Mi-6 and costs ten times more? If the Mi-26 can do the job of 2 Mi-6 aircraft then it can also do the job of 2-3 Chinooks too. And It is cheaper as well...
    many other militaries have CH-47s & CH-53s/Frelons/Merlins/Pumas/NH90s/S-92s
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW101#Specifications_(Merlin_HM1)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_AS332_Super_Puma#Specifications_(AS332_L1)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC225_Super_Puma#Specifications_(EC_225)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC725#Specifications_(EC725_Caracal)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHIndustries_NH90#Specifications
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-92
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_SA_321_Super_Frelon#Operators

    The CH-53s & their Western competitors can't do the job of the CH-57s. Using the Mi-26 to do all its missions + what a smaller helo can do is destructive & uneconomical. It's like using An-124 & IL-476s to haul cargo that IL-76/276/An-12 normally would. That's why they r developing a 15T helo with China; however, it too may need help from a tandem-rotor helo, just like the CH-53.
    ..suggesting now that the Russians need tandem helicopters no faster or better performing that existing or planned aircraft, or tiltrotor aircraft that are currently faster than current rotary wing alternatives but not necessarily faster than near future high speed helo designs that will be much much cheaper.
    we/they'll find out if those new designs r going to be faster or better performing after their prototypes r built & tested. Aviation, even with computer aided design, is still a process of trial & error.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:06 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Sun Jul 14, 2019 12:26 pm

    Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here.

    What do you think about this post from an indian blogger?

    http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-chinook-is-efficient-and-mi-26-is.html?m=1


    He claims that the mi-26 is too expensive to operate for lower payload (it.can make sense), as a bigger aircraft with part load will always be more expensive to operate than a smaller.aircraft (while still maintaining a considerable advantage in range).

    And in addition, he says that the advantage of the mi-26 are only at sea level or low altitude, comparing the capabilities of the 2 helicopters with a mission up to 20000 feet (6100 m). From the info found online, this is above the service ceiling of the mi-26, so it is not a fair comparison. In addition, it is above the level of sustainable life, so, it would not be to drop people, but only to overtake a mountain.

    If I am not mistaken, in Afghanistan they had the opposite problem, where the mi-17 had better hot & high performance than the black hawk...

    Anyway, maybe the next upgrade of the mi-26 will have more use of.lightweight materials and better hot & high performance
    archangelski
    archangelski

    Posts : 586
    Points : 605
    Join date : 2015-04-25

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  archangelski on Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:42 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here.

    What do you think about this post from an indian blogger?

    http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-chinook-is-efficient-and-mi-26-is.html?m=1


    He claims that the mi-26 is too expensive to operate for lower payload (it.can make sense), as a bigger aircraft with part load will always be more expensive to operate than a smaller.aircraft (while still maintaining a considerable advantage in range).

    And in addition, he says that the advantage of the mi-26 are only at sea level or low altitude, comparing the capabilities of the 2 helicopters with a mission up to 20000 feet (6100 m). From the info found online, this is above the service ceiling of the mi-26, so it is not a fair comparison. In addition, it is above the level of sustainable life, so, it would not be to drop people, but only to overtake a mountain.

    If I am not mistaken, in Afghanistan they had the opposite problem, where the mi-17 had better hot & high performance than the black hawk...

    Anyway, maybe the next upgrade of the mi-26 will have more use of.lightweight materials and better hot & high performance

    Unfair comparison, or how to compare apples and pears...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:00 pm

    The Indians don't want to repeat the mistake they made acquiring so many super expensive C-17s instead of more IL-76s & C-130Js.
    Their Mi-26s when being used as now will be taking $ away needed for other things.
    There's a reason China & Russia r working on a smaller 15T payload helo- they & C. Asia they border on too have many high mountain ranges for helos to fly over, where the Mi-26s wouldn't even be able to carry 20Ts & enough fuel to reach its destination. Less work for them at those altitudes, longer they'll last. The Indians can use them to supply their CVs & naval outposts.
    The Chinook is cost effective. A tandem rotor design has significant other advantages over a single rotor design in the high mountains, especially on ridges. The economical fuel consumption of the Chinook versus the Mi-26 helps it get closer to the latter in terms of payload capacities.
    http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.com/2015/04/why-chinook-is-efficient-and-mi-26-is.html?m=1

    The Ka-102 will have 6 bladed rotors vs. 3 bladed rotors on the CH-47F; it'll be even more powerful & faster, & its specs will be similar & in payload better than tilt-rotor specs.
    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSxALJfGISBhd2hockH_lwvnJ96B56snx38LJGrQVg7Q5dKA9E
    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Ch47f
    Even though the CH-47F is still in production, Boeing is already looking for a future enhancements. It is planned that between 2020 and 2025 helicopters will be fitted with more powerful engines, new rotor blades derived from the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche, will have a strengthened airframe and will be capable to carry more payload. The planned future versions are nominally referred as CH-47G and CH-47H. These helicopters are planned to remain operational with the US Army beyond 2060, or over 100 years after the type first entered service. http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/ch47f.htm
    An even bigger variant of Ka-102 & compound Mi-450 with increased payload r also possible: https://dspace-erf.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11881/3487/3-A-paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    A naval tandem-rotor helo won't be used only above the water &/ near the shore.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:35 am; edited 8 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, link)
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13418
    Points : 13905
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  George1 on Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:47 am

    Ka-102 looks basically a civilian project
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:29 pm

    I meant that if a big coaxial 10-15-20T payload helo appears with just 2 main rotors 1 above the other, it will need to be a lot bigger, with fuselage larger & wider than CH-46/57 & even the CH-53.

    No it wont.

    If you made the Mi-26 with the same engines and two sets of main rotors slightly smaller than the existing rotors it could be rather smaller than either of those two american helicopters because the payload requirement is smaller than for the Mi-26.

    The size of the fuselage is largely irrelevant for the payload capacity of a helo... you could design the helo to carry slung loads and make the cabin almost nonexistent... just crew and fuel... no need even for a tail really... a jet engine thrust booster to increase forward speed would be fine.

    they'll be on different levels, just like on CH-46/57- the front rotors lower than those in the back; so they won't need to much extra space between the front & the back rotors.

    Even if the blades of the two rotor sets are 10 centimetres apart that means two side by side sets of main rotors... so compared with a helo with the same sized rotors one on top of the other it will be twice as long taking up twice the area.

    Coaxial rotor helos can have short tails that don't even extend beyond the main rotor because unlike a conventional helo which needs a long momentum arm to increase the force of that tiny little tail rotor a coaxial rotor helo uses main blade momentum to turn...

    at least the VDV is looking into it; the Marines, VMF, FSB & MChS may follow.

    And so they should look at all options, but at the end of the day they will almost certainly end up with a coaxial helicopter with a few pusher propeller or pusher jet engine designs... that is high speed helo designs because they wont need a whole new design to be invented and have all potential creases ironed out...

    Siberia & many parts of C./N. Russia is covered with the biggest forest on the planet- from the Baltic to the Bering sea. it's like finding a big clearing in the Amazon Jungle or tropical N. Australia. Even in a place with all trees burned years ago, the ground may be full of boulders, potholes, logs & stumps.

    Just saw an episode of Russia from Above.... a very entertaining and beautiful video, and it shows the air traffic in various regions... over asia and europe it is busy but over the far east of Russia and the arctic it is not except aircraft going across to other destinations. It mentions there that most travel is by air and every mine has an airstrip they are really not busy because of the cost of commercial airlines not really making much money commercially.... having 40 million dollar Tandem helos or 100 million dollar tilt rotors is not going to change that... in fact it will make air travel less desirable.

    Like I keep saying they already have air connectivity... mostly Mi-8s and An-2s over the shorter routes and larger aircraft for the bigger settlements and ports... tandem rotor helos don't offer any real advantages and neither do tilt rotors.

    The best way to improve the situation is actually rail lines because rail travel is cheaper and easier and would open up the region the way the rail lines in the US opened up the country too.

    And with the transport routes between Asia and europe they have every reason to expand their rail network and make it faster and more efficient.

    there'll be many problems for different customers the Ka-102 is worth producing for.

    The problem for the Ka-102 is that there will be a lot of much cheaper solutions around...

    I was on a CV, & even with email being used, regular mail is a big thing for morale.

    That might be true but they don't need to develop a new class of 12 ton payload helicopter just to send mail to the very few Russian sailors who get to sail outside of Russian waters for any period of time.

    Especially when their new carriers will have EMALS cats and therefore also large COD fixed wing aircraft with much better flight performance than any helo or tiltrotor.

    they'll be armed, but not as heavily as non-transport helos.

    You mean not as well as current Russian equivalent troop transport helos... Ka-29 at sea and Mi-8/-17 carry rocket pods and machine guns and anti tank missiles as standard...

    The CH-53s & their Western competitors can't do the job of the CH-57s. Using the Mi-26 to do all its missions + what a smaller helo can do is destructive & uneconomical. It's like using An-124 & IL-476s to haul cargo that IL-76/276/An-12 normally would. That's why they r developing a 15T helo with China; however, it too may need help from a tandem-rotor helo, just like the CH-53.

    When the only tool you have is a hammer treat every problem like it is a nail...

    A 10-12 ton capacity helo is not big enough to carry their vehicles, but carries twice as much as the helos they currently use. The fact that they are developing a 10-15 ton payload helicopter with China doesn't mean they are going to mass produce it and put it into service in their navy or army.

    They might decide now that they are developing new Russian engines for the Mi-26 that they will make a lot more of them... using Il-476s to haul cargo is only overkill if there is only 30 tons... if they wait until there is 50 tons to move then they would be perfect... and with the Mi-26 at least they could move vehicles or towed weapons and their trucks and crews and some ammo.

    we/they'll find out if those new designs r going to be faster or better performing after their prototypes r built & tested.

    The purpose of designing high speed helos is to get helicopters that are faster than todays helos... it is not rocket science here... there is no reason to expect the new helos to not be faster than current models.

    In comparison a conventional tandem helo wont be much faster than a conventional helo... one of the fastest conventional helicopters around is the Lynx with a conventional layout.

    I meant that if a big coaxial 10-15-20T payload helo appears with just 2 main rotors 1 above the other, it will need to be a lot bigger, with fuselage larger & wider than CH-46/47 & even the CH-53.

    Look at that picture... that helicopter is designed around making one main rotor centred a distance away from the other main rotor so the blades don't clash.

    Take both main rotor blades off that helo and put them one on top of each other in the centre of gravity of that helo and you could shorten the helo design by 5-6m without effecting the internal volume of space because in that design the rear 5-6 metres is just empty tail area.

    If you need internal volume you could make the cabin twice as wide... and one metre deeper.

    they'll be on different levels, just like on CH-46/47- the front rotors lower than those in the back; so they won't need to much extra space between the front & the back rotors.

    Rotor blades flex in operation... having the rear main rotor slightly higher than the front set is nothing to so with preventing blade collisions... there is a lift shadow with a tandem rotor layout and raising the rear set of blades moves them up into less turbulent airflows to allow them to keep their efficiency.

    He claims that the mi-26 is too expensive to operate for lower payload (it.can make sense), as a bigger aircraft with part load will always be more expensive to operate than a smaller.aircraft (while still maintaining a considerable advantage in range).

    That could apply to anything, I am sure the Chinook is terribly inefficient carrying around loads you could carry in a Ka-226... the point is that if you want a heavy lift helicopter... what is the max payload you need to shift.... you could say the Chinook can cope but then why not use Mi-26s half as often as you use the Chinooks and fill it up with two Chinook loads?

    Having a large payload capacity margin is useful when operating from hot and high airstrips where engine power and performance can be seriously compromised.

    The Mi-8 and Mi-17 worked well throughout Afghanistan, but there were places there where a Blackhawk couldn't take off even with a zero payload loadout... in other words even the crew was too much weight to take off...

    And in addition, he says that the advantage of the mi-26 are only at sea level or low altitude, comparing the capabilities of the 2 helicopters with a mission up to 20000 feet (6100 m). From the info found online, this is above the service ceiling of the mi-26, so it is not a fair comparison. In addition, it is above the level of sustainable life, so, it would not be to drop people, but only to overtake a mountain.

    A restriction for most helos...

    Anyway, maybe the next upgrade of the mi-26 will have more use of.lightweight materials and better hot & high performance

    Why?

    The Indian purchase of the Chinook was political... they wanted to buy American influence and favour... just like the bought the Rafale fighter to buy the same French favour and influence...

    The Mi-26 costs 25 million... the Chinook costs 40 million... as a general rule of thumb operational costs for aircraft are generally the original cost again over the life of the aircraft... so 50 million for the Russian helo and 80 million for the American one with half the payload capacity.

    Certainly you need to buy to fit what you want to do... if they try using a 20 ton capacity vehicle for a 12 ton capacity job then it wont be economic... of course that is just a question of planning... have half the trips with almost double payloads and the solution is pretty clear, plus when you need the extra capacity it is available... but this purchase really wasn't about which helo is best...

    The Indians don't want to repeat the mistake they made acquiring so many super expensive C-17s instead of more IL-76s & C-130Js.

    Yeah, but they are... the new C-130s are expensive now too, and the Chinook costs rather more than the Mi-26s they rejected.

    It was really about bad timing to be honest... when the Russians have new engines in production for their Mi-26s they will likely start making rather more for themselves and others, and Il-476 probably wont meet the needs of domestic demand for a few years yet, and obviously this new Russian/Chinese helo wont be flying for quite some time so like the C-17, the Chinook is their only choice unless they want to go super expensive with european helos... ouch...

    The Chinook is cost effective. A tandem rotor design has significant other advantages over a single rotor design in the high mountains, especially on ridges. The economical fuel consumption of the Chinook versus the Mi-26 helps it get closer to the latter in terms of payload capacities.

    Oh, please... Kamovs coaxial designs have been getting all the advantages of twin main rotor designs for decades too... they just don't need a piece of crap Chinook ripoff.

    Their new highspeed designs will be coaxial designs to tandem concepts are pointless and redundant.


    The Ka-102 will have 6 bladed rotors vs. 3 bladed rotors on the CH-47F; it'll be even more powerful & faster, & its specs will be similar & in payload better than tilt-rotor specs. An even bigger variant with increased payload is also possible. A naval tandem-rotor helo won't be used only above the water & near the shore.

    Mi-26s have 8 bladed main rotors and the most powerful engines fitted to operational helos... and a Chinook equivalent tandem wont fit on any Russian ships...

    Ka-102 looks basically a civilian project

    It is wishful thinking is what it is... there is no military requirement for such an aircraft AFAIK.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:If you need internal volume you could make the cabin twice as wide... and one metre deeper.
    that size won't be liked by the VMF, as they may need to be maintained & take more space in the hangar bay.  
    you could say the Chinook can cope but then why not use Mi-26s half as often as you use the Chinooks and fill it up with two Chinook loads?
    only in peace time, but waiting for more cargo/people to haul isn't an option when supporting forces on the ground. This helicopter, even though massive and capable, after the end of cold war has little use, it is more attractive to heavy lift companies around the world than the armed forces it was initially designed to serve. It is actually an equivalent of large fixed strategic airlifters like the C-5 in the world of helicopters and is an overkill for tactical operations which are commonly undertaken by helicopter units in armed forces. A Soviet design for a Soviet need, isnt very well suited for others around the world. ..This helicopter is proof that good designs never die, it has been in continuous production for over 50 years, right from 1962, to this date with several countries ordering Chinooks to replace existing ones or to add new tactical lift capability. This helicopter is also used for spec ops by the US armed forces, the variant MH-47 is specifically designed for it, while the latest variant ie CH-47F is being produced for usual tactical role. https://battle-machines.org/2015/06/05/mi-26-vs-ch-47/
    Their Mi-26s can be retired/sold or used more efficiently at lower elevations, saving $. They may loose some $ on the CH-47s but will gain time.
    Mi-26s have 8 bladed main rotors and the most powerful engines fitted to operational helos... and a Chinook equivalent tandem wont fit on any Russian ships...
    but landing the giant Mi-26s on current & even future ships isn't safe/practical, & even the smaller Mi-6/10s never done that; a few well armed Chinook-like helos can fit on the Adm. K & future UDKs/CVNs with room to spare. And they won't take as much space as those fat coaxial cargo helos u propose.
    It is wishful thinking is what it is... there is no military requirement for such an aircraft AFAIK.
    they may alter/modify & adopt it to their requirements. The USN had to exercise with/use help from the CH-47s many times. Being the largest continental power, it'll make even more sense to use large tandem-rotor helos over both land & water. They would be ideal to fly between the Black, Caspian, Okhotsk, & Bering Seas directly over the high Caucasus & Chukotka/Kamchatka mountains, moving Marines, SOFs, boats, vehicles & supplies.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:11 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:54 am

    that size won't be liked by the VMF, as they may need to be maintained & take more space in the hangar bay.

    My point is that they can make the cabin any size they please and they don't have to make it a tandem helo rotor arrangement to do so.

    You claim the tandem helo has the advantage of larger cabin space... I say the problem with the tandem rotor design helo means they can't make it with a smaller cabin size to fit on smaller ships or fit more helicopters on ships.

    Coaxial rotor helos have all the advantages of two main rotors but with different problems whose solutions Kamov have already arrived at.

    only in peace time, but waiting for more cargo/people to haul isn't an option when supporting forces on the ground.

    No different in war time... who cares about cost efficiency in war time... when you are firing off million dollar missiles every few seconds flying a really big helo when you only need a moderately big helo is not that big a deal... Mi-26s are expensive to operate but Chinooks are not free... they are probably more expensive per kilo of payload anyway...

    This helicopter, even though massive and capable, after the end of cold war has little use, it is more attractive to heavy lift companies around the world than the armed forces it was initially designed to serve.

    So why are they buying more and developing new Russian engines for them if they are of no use... the cold war never ended... there was a pause during the 1990s, but now that Russia is becoming strong again it is back on.

    It is actually an equivalent of large fixed strategic airlifters like the C-5 in the world of helicopters and is an overkill for tactical operations which are commonly undertaken by helicopter units in armed forces.

    But planes like the An-124 are useful in isolated regions like the Arctic and Far East where if you need something you have to take it with you...

    A Soviet design for a Soviet need, isnt very well suited for others around the world. .

    There seems to be rather good demand for Mi-26 and An-124 and even Il-76 aircraft around the world... the only aircraft that fits your description would be the An-225 which was designed and built to shift enormous external loads for the space industry... it is currently owned by the Ukraine which does not have a space industry.

    Of course an enlarged Il-96 for internal carriage of rockets, as well as brand new much more powerful engines for the An-124 should actually solve that problem as well...

    In the near future need for an An-225 like aircraft will increase as rocket production expands and new larger rockets are designed and built but by then as I said Il-96 variants and An-124 upgrades with rather more powerful engines should solve those problems nicely... plus of course upgrades of tunnels and rail links to the far east should also resolve the problems too.

    This helicopter is proof that good designs never die, it has been in continuous production for over 50 years, right from 1962,

    Yeah, the Makarov pistol has been an excellent service pistol for the last 60 years (50 years would be 1970s), so I guess the US should design and make a copy of the Makarov... it is small and light and cheap and reliable and makes the same 9mm hole in the target any other 9mm weapon makes without the excessive complication of other western pistols... yeah man... America should copy the Makarov pistol.

    but landing the giant Mi-26s on current & even future ships isn't safe/practical, & even the smaller Mi-6/10s never done that; a few well armed Chinook-like helos can fit on the Adm. K & future UDKs/CVNs with room to spare. And they won't take as much space as those fat coaxial cargo helos u propose.

    The obvious problem here is that the Russian Navy has no requirement for such helos in the first place.

    An Mi-38 sized Ka-226T might be a good idea, but they don't need a chinook or super stallion... The new Minoga replacement helo design will be fine and most likely a coaxial design with pusher engines.

    They would be ideal to fly between the Black, Caspian, Okhotsk, & Bering Seas directly over the high Caucasus & Chukotka/Kamchatka mountains, moving Marines, SOFs, boats, vehicles & supplies.

    Il-276 and Il-476 would do a much better job... much faster, much bigger capacity and range, and much much cheaper... not to mention safer at much higher altitudes in much more comfort.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:30 am

    GarryB wrote:I say the problem with the tandem rotor design helo means they can't make it with a smaller cabin size to fit on smaller ships or fit more helicopters on ships.
    don't they plan to have bigger ships that carry aircraft? if so, they'll be capable of handling a few of them.
    No different in war time...
    I beg to differ: the CH-47s can fly faster & longer over the mountains between refuelings.
    So why are they buying more and developing new Russian engines for them if they are of no use...
    to replace & modernize the older 1s, as there's nothing else yet. Kamov was given  a task to develop a smaller less costly helo; the result is Ka-102.
    But planes like the An-124 are useful in isolated regions like the Arctic and Far East where if you need something you have to take it with you...
    yes, once in a while they fly there.
    There seems to be rather good demand for Mi-26...
    After India, others may want CH-47Fs or 2nd hand CH-47s, even if they never operated them before.
    yeah man... America should copy the Makarov pistol.
    they already copied Tu-126 revolving radome, but the powerful US gun lobby won't allow a licenced production of foreign firearms. The USSR copied many American vehicles & aircraft before; in the case of the Ka-102, only the tandem layout is being copied revived as an improved Yak-24 concept.
    The obvious problem here is that the Russian Navy has no requirement for such helos in the first place.
    did the VMF spokesman personally & officially tell u or any1 else that? Even if true, that may change soon.
    Il-276 and Il-476 would do a much better job... much faster, much bigger capacity and range, and much much cheaper... not to mention safer at much higher altitudes in much more comfort.
    but they won't be landing directly on ships or very short strips.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:51 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    did the VMF spokesman personally & officially tell u or any1 else that? Even if true, that may change soon.
    Il-276 and Il-476 would do a much better job... much faster, much bigger capacity and range, and much much cheaper... not to mention safer at much higher altitudes in much more comfort.
     but they won't be landing directly on ships or very short strips.

    No, but an aircraft like the yak-44 or its derivative will.

    Considering it is also quite a bit larger then the american greyhound, we could expect a larger payload, if they make a cargo version. I believe it would be rational to expect something between 8 and 12 tons of payload, but with better speed, range and max operational altitude than a convertiplane or a helo.[/quote]
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:08 pm

    don't they plan to have bigger ships that carry aircraft? if so, they'll be capable of handling a few of them.

    They are planning some CVNs but not to carry transport helos... to carry fighter aircraft and AWACS aircraft.

    There are plans for significantly sized helicopter carriers, but AFAIK no plans for tandem rotor helicopters... otherwise why bother with the Minoga replacement for the Ka-27 family... which will include a replacement for the Ka-29 assault helo.

    I beg to differ: the CH-47s can fly faster & longer over the mountains between refuelings.

    A Mi-26 could carry the same weight as the CH-47 and use the extra 8 tons payload capacity to carry some extra fuel and easily out range the CH-47.

    But mainly there are no mountains at sea so I doubt the Russian Navy will give a crap.

    Mi-17s and Mi-38s are excellent helos for mountain regions... they are excellent for the job, so we are not accepting CVs at this time thank you.

    BTW Kamov also designed the Ka-34 and Ka-35 which were similarly ambitious projects that never went anywhere either... do you actually have any official information from Kamov that there is any real money being spent on the Ka-102?

    to replace & modernize the older 1s, as there's nothing else yet. Kamov was given a task to develop a smaller less costly helo; the result is Ka-102.

    Now that Russia and China are developing a 12-15 ton payload helo I really don't see a use for the Ka-102... the Russian Chinese programme is rather more likely to get funding...

    After India, others may want CH-47Fs or 2nd hand CH-47s, even if they never operated them before.

    So you keep saying, but not every country can afford a 40 million dollar helo...

    they already copied Tu-126 revolving radome, but the powerful US gun lobby won't allow a licenced production of foreign firearms.

    You might want to have a word to the USSOCM because they are putting out tenders for US manufacturers to make AKs and Utes and PKMs... without licences of course...

    in the case of the Ka-102, only the tandem layout is being copied revived as an improved Yak-24 concept.

    Odds are it will come to nothing like the original Yak design.

    did the VMF spokesman personally & officially tell u or any1 else that? Even if true, that may change soon.

    Well it has a rather low priority, but they are developing and introducing the Minoga replacement for the Helix... which really would not make sense if they were going to develop a whole new range of rather bigger helicopters...

    but they won't be landing directly on ships or very short strips.

    Why would they want to... they can drop loads via parachute if need be.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:But mainly there are no mountains at sea so I doubt the Russian Navy will give a crap.
    to save time & $,
    they may want to fly directly over islands/peninsulas/mainland that surround their seas or cross country, from 1 fleet area to the other. Having it own organic transport capability is always better than to rely on other services.
    do you actually have any official information from Kamov that there is any real money being spent on the Ka-102?
    the 1st flight planned for next year or later isn't cheap, it requires big investments!
    Now that Russia and China are developing a 12-15 ton payload helo I really don't see a use for the Ka-102...
    they'll be for different tasks. The Ka-102 is for passenger/cargo civ. service that may be modified, its size reduced, & adopted for mil. or law enforcement uses, just like many civilian transport planes were around the world since before WWII. The Minoga project isn't necessarily detrimental to it. The Ka-25/27s didn't prevent the Mi-8 based Mi-14s from being used by the Soviet VMF. Btw, there's even a 24-seat civilian transport helicopter variant:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-14#Variants
    Why would they want to... they can drop loads via parachute if need be.
    not in bad/freezing weather &/ during ongoing ops that forbid retrieving of their cargo.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Jul 16, 2019 11:55 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:24 am

    to save time & $,
    they may want to fly directly over islands/peninsulas/mainland that surround their seas or cross country, from 1 fleet area to the other. Having it own organic transport capability is always better than to rely on other services.

    I don't understand what you mean... they will have a Yak-44 type aircraft on board for inflight refuelling and AWACS... the inflight refuelling model could be configured to also perform transport tasks when needed and would be much much faster and longer ranged than a Tandem helo or a tiltrotor aircraft...

    the 1st flight planned for next year or later isn't cheap, it requires big investments!

    There is no mention of the aircraft on the Russian helicopters website...

    http://www.russianhelicopters.aero/en/

    they'll be for different tasks. The Ka-102 is for passenger/cargo civ. service that may be modified, its size reduced, & adopted for mil. or law enforcement uses, just like many civilian transport planes were around the world since before WWII. The Minoga project isn't necessarily detrimental to it. The Ka-25/27s didn't prevent the Mi-8 based Mi-14s from being used by the Soviet VMF. Btw, there's even a 24-seat civilian transport helicopter variant:

    The Minoga is not getting enormous attention or enormous funding but seems to be going ahead... they at least talk about it occasionally... have not heard anything about Ka-102 except from you and some fan art.

    They are putting the Mi-14 back in to production... which makes me think another replacement is on the way... they might add some high speed helo features to the new Mi-14s to make them faster, but I doubt it to start off with.

    not in bad/freezing weather &/ during ongoing ops that forbid retrieving of their cargo.

    When the weather is too bad to parachute loads in, then tandem helos and tilt rotors are hardly going to be flying let alone landing and taking off.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:30 am

    Russian narrated video on US tandem-rotors:


    If they can produce a helo with a different layout & better specs for the military, I would love to see it!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:33 am

    They are developing one with the Chinese in the 12-15 ton payload capacity range... isnt' the Chinook a 12 ton payload aircraft?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:36 pm

    But will it have longer range & be able to fly as high & fast while carrying that load? Time will tell!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:06 am

    It will have the performance they want from it.

    System design is not an internet fanboy oneupper game... they don't design the tank guns on Russian tanks to be bigger than HATO tanks, they design the guns to defeat the known and expected protection of "enemy tanks", equally, they don't design their armour protection to be better than foreign tanks, they design it to protect their vehicles from specific angles based on the performance of the entire range of enemy weapons... not just tank guns.

    The new helicopter the Russians are developing with the Chinese will have specific requirements and performance capabilities that it will need to reach and exceed before they accept the design into service.

    Things like what it can carry, where, and how far and how fast are all going to be part of the mix for the design they choose... just as those same parameters were likely used when developing the Chinook design too, except the what that was being carried was US stuff.

    Russian light vehicles will be different weights, and the distances they want to cover might be totally different.

    The Soviets were happy with their helicopters in Afghanistan, so they might not bother demanding high altitude capacity, but then China might want those sort of features for some of its more mountainous regions.

    So the features the new helo might have might exceed what the Russians want, but I doubt they will be unhappy about that, unless that leads to design features that work against what they want... I am sure they will work it out.

    The joint programme of the MTA didn't work out because India wanted different engines and other features added or changed that didn't suit Russia... in the end the Indians withdrew from the programme and so Russia will build its Il-276 the way they want it made with the features they want... because of this it will end up with more commonality and standardisation with the Il-476 which suits Russia much better.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:11 am

    BTW regarding the performance of the Mi-26 in hot and high conditions:

    Compared to the Ukrainian D-136, the Russian engine will ensure the expansion of the helicopter's basing conditions due to the large capacity to maintain power in high-altitude and hot climate conditions and the possibility of boosting the capacity to 14,000 liters. from. It is expected that the Mi-26 remotorization will increase the flight range with a payload and reduce operating costs due to improved technical characteristics and lower maintenance costs. Despite the greater weight of the PD-12V compared to the D-136, the new engine will be more economical than the Ukrainian equivalent.

    From:

    Post 51

    The PD-12V is a new Russian engine developed from the PD-14 and will likely be the engine used in the joint Russian Chinese helicopter design.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2599
    Points : 2597
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:59 am

    The Indians could order those PD-12Vs + more Mi-26s, but chose to order the CH-47Fs instead. I wouldn't say they did it for political reasons only. After all, they can't develop a joint 15T helo with Russia due to different req's or China for political reasons, nor build their own in that class. OTH, if the Mi-26 was ideal for them in all respects, the Chinese wouldn't be developing a smaller helo. So, the Mi-26 isn't going to be a mass produced/workhorse helo for both of them. From that angle, they saved on new developmental, procurement & their Mi-26s' operational costs by ordering the CH-47Fs that r more flexible.
    I hope the new RF-PRC helo will be up to their expectations!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21441
    Points : 21991
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:42 am

    The Indians could order those PD-12Vs + more Mi-26s, but chose to order the CH-47Fs instead. I wouldn't say they did it for political reasons only.

    ??? I would say it was pretty obvious why they bought Chinooks... the PD-12Vs wont be ready till 2025...

    After all, they can't develop a joint 15T helo with Russia due to different req's or China for political reasons, nor build their own in that class.

    They didn't develop the Chinook with anyone either?

    OTH, if the Mi-26 was ideal for them in all respects, the Chinese wouldn't be developing a smaller helo.

    The Chinese operate Mi-26s both in the military and civilian use and like them, but they also have the money and the interest to develop another helo in a different payload class and size and weight.

    From that angle, they saved on new developmental, procurement & their Mi-26s' operational costs by ordering the CH-47Fs that r more flexible.

    They are in a hurry, so right now it makes sense and in ten years time they will have the inferior aircraft.

    It was the same with the purchase of the Apache and the C-17 transport... they do the job and are experienced and available, whereas the Mi-28NM was not available and the Il-476 is also not available... in 5 years time when both are mature and in full scale production they will be rather better performing than either US model but also rather cheaper... and probably an option to produce them in India...

    But they want them now.

    I hope the new RF-PRC helo will be up to their expectations!

    If it isn't it wont go in to production... they will have a redesign and fix it and then put it into production...

    This isn't the US where production of the C-17 or F-35 will go ahead because it is too big to fail...

    Sponsored content

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft - Page 2 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:06 am