Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:I wouldn't say the Coaxial design is much more complicated..
    that's why it would be more expensive to produce, test, & maintain.
    The US helicopter designs spent the money developing tandems and if they want high speed helicopter designs they will have to look at coaxial designs too and learn their problems and issues to get their benefits.
    as they r doing now. But for decades, they produced, used & exported a lot more tandems than the Soviet VMF & other entities had coaxials.
    what I don't understand is Russia wanting to waste money on tandem helicopter designs... the payoff just is not there.
    even if the US gets 100s of coaxial high speed helos, they won't ax the now fastest in the world CH-47Fs; Ka-102 designers r not that clueless or naive not to calculate the cost vs. benefit impact it will have on the mil. budget & the resulting probability of it going to production.
    V-22? The Russians don't use V-22s.
    but the US does, & they didn't have its predecessor. Also the Li-2s, IL-18/62/86s, Tu-144s, Mi-1/2/4/6/8s, Ka-28/32s, & Yak-24s were entirely new classes of planes & helos in the Aeroflot service: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisunov_Li-2#Variants

    https://www.amazon.com/Vintage-Soviet-Aeroflot-Helicopters-Airlines/dp/B074CFRWG9

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51NJ0M%2B%2BCbL.jpg

    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/v/40/5005/0

    A civilian variant for 30 passengers was the Yak-24A, produced from 1960 in small numbers for Aeroflot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-24

    https://www.aviationmegastore.com/img/prod/full/8/4/156360_0.jpg

    I agree, but they have rotary wing workhorses... they are Mi-8, Mi-17, Mi-24, Mi-35, Mi-26, and now Mi-38 and Ansat and Ka-226T all doing an excellent job.
    Do want them to be like the Ming China & Tokugawa Japan that thought they were superior to others, had everything they could possibly need & didn't have to learn anything from any non-Asians? The Mongols learned from & used others to hold most of Eurasia for ~300 years. Peter the Great himself went to Holland to learn shipbuilding, etc. German designers & engineers were taken to USSR in 1945 to help with submarine & rocket production. The US mil. intelligence tries to stay current on all foreign technology developments. Likewise, if the Russians see something useful, they won't pass on it, esp. now that India started to switch from their helos to the American models. So, time will tell!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:22 am

    that's why it would be more expensive to produce, test, & maintain.

    Not really... they have certain advantages... for instance the Soviet kamovs tended to be used by the navy on ships and at sea because the lack of a tail rotor made them vastly safer than conventional helicopter design.

    Helicopters are by definition expensive and require more maintenance than other platforms, coaxials a little more, but offering value for money.

    They are much more compact in design and operation, they rapidly accelerate to top speed and handle very much better than conventional helos because their lift is much better and their yaw control is much much easier.... all power goes into lifting the craft and none of it to a tail rotor to point it in any particular direction.

    as they r doing now. But for decades, they produced, used & exported a lot more tandems than the Soviet VMF & other entities had coaxials.

    More Hips have been made than any other type of helo on the planet and they are still making them.

    even if the US gets 100s of coaxial high speed helos, they won't ax the now fastest in the world CH-47Fs;

    Fastest in your head... the Lynx is faster than the Chinook.

    but the US does, & they didn't have its predecessor.

    Who cares?

    Not relevant to the Russian military.

    Also the Li-2s, IL-18/62/86s, Tu-144s, Mi-1/2/4/6/8s, Ka-28/32s, & Yak-24s were entirely new classes of planes & helos in the Aeroflot service:

    I notice you didn't mention the Ka-102, and with no contract or even specification or requirement for, you wont be mentioning it except like Canadians mention the Arrow and the Brits mention the TR-1 and the Blue Streak missile.

    Do want them to be like the Ming China & Tokugawa Japan that thought they were superior to others, had everything they could possibly need & didn't have to learn anything from any non-Asians?

    Do you want them to piss away money building shit just because Americans already did it?

    I have said repeatedly Russia has an excellent range of helicopters and aircraft and there simply is no point in developing a new tandem rotor helicopter just because the US has one, or a tilt rotor design aircraft just because the US has one.

    The US also has a real censored for a president... does Russia need one too?

    Likewise, if the Russians see something useful, they won't pass on it, esp. now that India started to switch from their helos to the American models. So, time will tell!

    Of course... if India are buying Chinooks then Russia needs to buy Chinooks... I guess Russia also needs to develop some INSAS rifles because India has some instead of buying Russian rifles... except that after a few decades of problems and issues that it is currently replacing with Russian and American ones... just as well they didn't buy straight away right... how long before India decides that Apaches are too expensive and that Chinooks are too expensive too and they want Russian equipment again...

    How long will India need to buy US support... I would suggest if they use their common sense in time it will be the US paying India for their support against China and Russia, but when that happens what will that do to the relationship between these countries... playing countries against each other sounds like a good and productive game, but if you take it too far you might find the countries that were trying to be friends are not interested in you any more... maybe they were using you... the US seems to have dropped Pakistan like a hot rock, but what lessons are there for India... and will they care.

    Either way not really a good reason to develop and produce a tandem rotor helicopter... the cost of which would be enormous for Russia as a new technology type that would need to be developed and matured over time and for what?

    So they can offer to sell 14 to India? 14 is not going to cover development costs, and what political influence would India be buying if it bought those?

    Better to replace the Orc engines in the Mi-26 to improve reliability and power and economy and continue to use it in Russia and overseas... when India takes off its sunglasses and realises it needs reliable and affordable aircraft it will turn back to Russia... of course the potential for US penetration of the military market is enormous because they are used to corruption and immoral officials, and of course media manipulation is a speciality... they US MIC thrive in the mud.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:25 pm

    More Hips have been made than any other type of helo on the planet and they are still making them.
    They suited their economic,etc. conditions & those of other 3rd world nations, just like the MiG-15/17/19/21/23/27s.
    Fastest in your head... the Lynx is faster than the Chinook.
    my mistake; by 9km/h, so at least for cargo helos it's true!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Lynx#Specifications_(Super_Lynx_Series_100)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)
    I notice you didn't mention the Ka-102, and with no contract or even specification or requirement for, ..
    it's time will come, if aviation history is any indication.
    Do you want them to piss away money building shit just because Americans already did it?
    copying CH-47s isn't worth it; they'll build a similar but in many ways different & more capable tandem helos.
    ..Russia has an excellent range of helicopters and aircraft and there simply is no point in developing a new tandem rotor helicopter just because the US has one,..
    Then perhaps those Kamov designers pushing it need to be fired! But I'm yet to hear about it!
    Of course... if India are buying Chinooks then Russia needs to buy Chinooks... how long before India decides that Apaches are too expensive and that Chinooks are too expensive too and they want Russian equipment again...
    the Ka-102 isn't going to be=CH-47F, just like the Mi-26 isn't=the CH-53K. India wants to wait till Russia is ready to sell something they like more than the US has to offer her. By ur logic, their $ could also revive the Mi-12, which can lift 25T, 40T max. & is more stable:
    http://www.airwar.ru/enc/ch/mi12.html
    https://topwar.ru/37750-v-12-mi-12-samyy-gruzopodemnyy-vertolet-v-mire.html
    So they can offer to sell 14 to India? 14 is not going to cover development costs, and what political influence would India be buying if it bought those?
    perhaps more & not only to India. U said many times that aircraft rarely carry max. loads- some of the Mi-26 operators & others that can't afford them r more likely to buy 15T helos, that'll surpass the CH-47Fs in range & speed, instead.
    Better to replace the Orc engines in the Mi-26 to improve reliability and power and economy and continue to use it in Russia and overseas...
    the Soviet VTA used many AN-22s but kept even more AN-12s. Following ur logic, they could've produced/modernized/upgraded more of the former, get rid of the latter, & never develop & produce in large #s the C-141-like IL-76s or the C-5/B-747F-like AN-124s, not to mention the AN-225!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:44 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:01 pm

    They suited their economic,etc. conditions & those of other 3rd world nations, just like the MiG-15/17/19/21/23/27s.

    Weren't expensive and did the job... the definition of a work horse.

    New tandem rotor Russian helo or new Russian tilt rotor aircraft are gimmicks looking for a purpose, and will never be made in very large numbers even if they were wanted in the first place.

    If Russia wanted a really big helicopter to carry lots of people it would be easier to convert the Mi-26 that to design and build a completely new aircraft type.

    my mistake; by 9km/h, so at least for cargo helos it's true!

    Yeah, the thing with speed is if it is so damn critical then use your brains... instead of spending billions making a slightly faster tandem rotor helo, you could use a helo to recover the cargo or injured and take them to the nearest air strip and put them on an aeroplane that is already designed and built and in service and fly them to where they need to go much faster than any type of existing helicopter.

    If it is a short distance the difference in speed will not be important... if speed is critical use a really big helo like an Mi-26 and put the hospital in the helicopter so it can cruise along at any speed and start treating the patient immediately.

    If it is a long way transfer to a fixed wing much much faster aircraft.

    Building a new tandem rotor helo right now would be a total waste of time and money when money is actually being spent making existing conventional helos faster anyway.

    Building a new ripoff of a Chinook now would be stupid if the new Russian Chinese 10-15 ton payload helicopter is better in absolutely every way... speed, range, altitude, payload.

    it's time will come, if aviation history is any indication.

    Why?

    copying CH-47s isn't worth it; they'll build a similar but in many ways different & more capable tandem helos.

    They are already building more capable helicopters... they just are not tandem rotor designs.

    Then perhaps those Kamov designers pushing it need to be fired! But I'm yet to hear about it!

    Every designer will push their idea as the best... otherwise no one would even look at their designs... the designers at Yak who worked on the Yak-41 probably think Russia should make a new and updated version of the F-35 VSTOL version too because VSTOL fighters is the area of the industry they work in and that means funds for development.

    Doesn't mean it would be good for Russia...

    A jack of all trades that is not particularly good at anything is not a good idea except from the perspective of accountants and then only in peace time...

    The army equivalent of the concept of the F-35 is pretty much for all NATO countries to adopt the M4 carbine... now some might be happy to do that, while others will object for various sound and unsound reasons... the thing is that there is no way in hell you could get all NATO countries to use the same rifle or pistol or machine gun or sniper rifle... why are they all thinking the F-35 could be that?

    And the answer is obviously that it isn't and wont.

    The only question is what sort of alternatives will there be and who has the balls to take those alternatives over the F-35... Turkey might not get the choice of the F-35 and could be interesting... will they look at Su-35s and Su-57s, or join France and Germany... but will European France and Germany be interested in non European Turkey joining their programme... happy for them to carry a burden when it comes to NATO and poking the bear, but I suspect they don't see them as equals or european... will be interesting... they could end up being the leader of the arab states... I would have to get out my old Battlefield games with British forces and EU forces and US forces and Russian forces and Arab forces...

    the Ka-102 isn't going to be=CH-47F, just like the Mi-26 isn't=the CH-53K. India wants to wait till Russia is ready to sell something they like more than the US has to offer her. By ur logic, their $ could also revive the Mi-12, which can lift 25T, 40T max. & is more stable:

    They don't buy helos because they carry more... they buy helos because they meet a requirement.

    The Mi-26 replaced the Mi-6 and Mi-10... that is a 20 ton capacity helo replacing 10-12 ton capacity helos... and one would have to say the reason was because the job the Mi-6 and Mi-10 were doing has changed from a 10 ton payload requirement to an 18-20 ton payload requirement... otherwise they would have made another 10-12 ton payload capacity helicopter to replace them.

    Look at the US... their tanks were 60-70 tons and it was only when they decided they needed to be able to air deliver them that they realised the C-141 and C-130 couldn't carry any tanks and that meant their airlift capacity was limited to C-5s... so the C-17 was born... not that it is very efficient to move tanks by aircraft like that... it took 6 months to prepare for the ground phase of Desert Storm because that is how long it took to organise and pack up and ship their armour to the region and organise all the logistics needed to support a large body of men in the region. To have done that by C-17 would have bankrupted them in fuel and wear and tear alone.

    Sometimes the new capabilities are not even used most of the time.

    perhaps more & not only to India. U said many times that aircraft rarely carry max. loads- some of the Mi-26 operators & others that can't afford them r more likely to buy 15T helos, that'll surpass the CH-47Fs in range & speed, instead.

    They are already developing a 15 ton payload helicopter with China... it will probably use the same PD-12 engines they will be fitting to the Mi-26 so operational costs will likely not be hugely different anyway.

    And screw the CH-47F why are you so fixated with it?

    the Soviet VTA used many AN-22s but kept even more AN-12s.

    The Soviet VTA includes the Ukraine.... the Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. You could take 4 x 20 ton payloads and put them all inside one An-22 and it could probably carry that payload further than an An-12 could carry it, but the An-22 can't operate from the small airfields the An-12 could operate and nor could it take those four payloads in four different directions at once like four An-12s could.

    If you only have one payload to carry that is less than 20 tons then it makes little sense to use an An-22 to carry it unless at the destination there is a 60-80 ton payload to be brought back and there is no An-22 there already to bring it.

    Following ur logic, they could've produced/modernized/upgraded more of the former, get rid of the latter, & never develop & produce in large #s the C-141-like IL-76s or the C-5/B-747F-like AN-124s, not to mention the AN-225!

    Getting foreign aircraft out of Russian service makes sense. Operating only one type of aircraft doesn't make any sense either because different airfields have different aircraft capacities and different routes have different demands in terms of volume.

    Flying from one side of the country you might need to transfer enormous weights... so large weights and long distances makes bigger aircraft more valuable, but big aircraft are more expensive so you are never going to have thousands of them. Once you get across the country you will need to distribute to smaller centres that really don't need large volumes of material but they might need to be regularly moved which means smaller lighter cheaper aircraft can move smaller lighter payloads more often.

    You are talking about introducing a CH-47 type helicopter for Russian use, I am saying there is no value in developing such an aircraft because the aircraft they already have and already have planned make it redundant.

    I am not against redundancy... the Havoc and the Hokum are just different enough to make sense to have both... the Tu-330 and the Il-276 have different sizes and different specs.... the commonality with the Il-476 makes the Il-276 a good idea, but the larger internal size and 30 ton capacity for payloads also make the Tu-330 interesting too.

    Sometimes the Tu-330 will be the superior choice in a particular situation... maybe an 8 ton payload that doesn't fit inside the Il-276 because of its shape and inability to be broken down into smaller parts, that might fit into a Tu-330 is an example.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:56 pm

    New tandem rotor Russian helo or new Russian tilt rotor aircraft are gimmicks looking for a purpose, and will never be made in very large numbers even if they were wanted in the first place.
    like with all those CV/Ns, SSNs, SSBNs, stealth bombers, tandem/tilt rotors - the US had/s larger #s of them while the USSR/Russia has less or none.
    If Russia wanted a really big helicopter to carry lots of people it would be easier to convert the Mi-26..
    it already exists. but "if u build it, they'll come"- a new more capable Ka-102 may be exported to many others like the Flankers & later the Russian military,etc. will want them too.
    If it is a short distance the difference in speed will not be important...
    most populated areas with airstips East of the Urals r spread out very far from each other, so range is important.

    Building a new ripoff of a Chinook now would be stupid if the new Russian Chinese 10-15 ton payload helicopter is better in absolutely every way... speed, range, altitude, payload.
    even if it's going to be similar to the CH-53K, the Ka-102 could do the job better.
    They are already building more capable helicopters... they just are not tandem rotor designs.
    later, they may want even better helos!
    Every designer will push their idea as the best... otherwise no one would even look at their designs...
    true, but if there's no use for them as u insist, why waste time? their economists would have figured that out before that proposal was made.
    They don't buy helos because they carry more... they buy helos because they meet a requirement.
    then, the CH-47Fs met their needs, military & political, just like the C-17s, P-8s, & AH-64s.
    They are already developing a 15 ton payload helicopter with China...
    it may not become a workhorse, & in any case its success isn't guaranteed.

    ..different airfields have different aircraft capacities and different routes have different demands in terms of volume.
    Siberia & the RFE have subregions comparable in size to parts of China & India with different aircraft capacities/air routes between them. India is a subcontinent with all elevations, terrain & climatic zones- the RFE/NE & E. Siberia r similar; that's many types of aircraft r being used there for all range of tasks.
    ..there is no value in developing such an aircraft because the aircraft they already have and already have planned make it redundant. I am not against redundancy...
    then, there is a value in developing the Ka-102, if it can be more useful in their conditions. The Mi-2/4/6/8/17/24s were designed for the USSR & suited well many other users; it's safe to assume that their future helos will be as versatile.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:57 am

    like with all those CV/Ns, SSNs, SSBNs, stealth bombers, tandem/tilt rotors - the US had/s larger #s of them while the USSR/Russia has less or none.

    Russia has a completely differently sized navy and it will remain different from the US Navy because their goals and requirements are totally different... for Russia first is defence... but in 10-15 years time they will be looking to project power and influence to expand trade links and relations.

    Russia had Tandem rotor helicopters... they also had light tanks with two man crews... they don't now have either... soon they might have unmanned tanks, but there really is little reason to have tandem rotor helicopters.

    it already exists. but "if u build it, they'll come"- a new more capable Ka-102 may be exported to many others like the Flankers & later the Russian military,etc. will want them too.

    Are you referring to that stupid hollywood movie about a guy who built a sports ground in his corn field?

    Spending billions of dollars to develop an all new helicopter based on an all new design (for Kamov) using all new technology in case someone might want to buy it... that is totally irresponsible and stupid and childish and moronic.

    Not to mention tying up a lot of skilled designers and factory workers trying to make these things that no one has even said they wanted.

    most populated areas with airstips East of the Urals r spread out very far from each other, so range is important.

    If they have airstrips then helicopters are not important... use a plane... faster, quieter, much more range and payload potential, and much much cheaper.

    even if it's going to be similar to the CH-53K, the Ka-102 could do the job better.

    But China will be buying these helicopters as well as Russia... so even if the Ka-102 is slightly better it hasn't got a chance competing with something that already has sales in the bag.

    The MiG-AT was cheap and did the job of jet trainer... it was less sophisticated than the Yak-130 but it was also rather cheaper... it takes more than being good for the job.


    later, they may want even better helos!

    I doubt it... as I have said several times helos will never beat fixed wing aircraft over reasonable distances.... even tilt rotors are modifications of helicopters to be more like planes but they are not better than planes in any way except takeoff distance and even then they are not amazing.

    A coaxial design has all the twin main rotor advantages of a tandem including speed and lift and also yaw ability in flight, without the length requirements of a tandem that needs to centre the rotors far enough apart so they don't hit each other.

    true, but if there's no use for them as u insist, why waste time? their economists would have figured that out before that proposal was made.

    Drawing pictures and building models costs very little money... if they can find someone prepared to put money behind it they might have something... their problem is that there is already money behind the joint ChinaRussian helicopter that fills the precise niche that the Chinook represents in the US... which ruins any reason for Kamov to make Chinookski.

    then, the CH-47Fs met their needs, military & political, just like the C-17s, P-8s, & AH-64s.

    Russia doesn't have any of those aircraft in service and so the CH-47F clearly also does not meet any of their needs either.

    it may not become a workhorse, & in any case its success isn't guaranteed.

    Its chances of production are enormously higher than for the unsupported Ka-102.

    Siberia & the RFE have subregions comparable in size to parts of China & India with different aircraft capacities/air routes between them. India is a subcontinent with all elevations, terrain & climatic zones- the RFE/NE & E. Siberia r similar; that's many types of aircraft r being used there for all range of tasks.

    When managing a transport network you look a frequency and volume and growth potential... in Afghanistan a mountain top garrison of soldiers might need to be supplied four times a week... post, ammo, food, water, equipment... perhaps 1-2 tons per visit.

    Obviously no chance of a road or an airstrip of any size so you need to use a helo... at the altitude it was located an Mi-2 doesn't have the lift capacity to bring those sorts of payloads to that sort of height so it was the Mi-8 that they used... no where near its max capacity but taking stuff in and occasionally taking stuff out was what it did.

    If it was part of Russia and they would be there forever they might have built a road and perhaps put in a short airstrip nearby to make it easier and cheaper to support the base.

    In other places in Russia they would do that... invest in local infrastructure... build rail lines and roads and airfields because while it would be initially expensive, over time it will support local operations and population expansion.

    The opening of the northern sea route means breathing new life into a string of small ports along that coast... rail links from them heading south means goods from a gold mine or any other minerals could be sent by rail north to be put on a ship to go anywhere in the world. Food and resources could be sent from Murmansk to those arctic ports and delivered down into more remote regions via these train and road networks as well as airfields.

    Having amazing tilt rotor aircraft that can operate from helicopter pads or short 100m airstrips will reduce growth in the region because they could supply small communities but would mean larger airstrips and therefore larger aircraft could not operate there... so spending a lot of money on these new tandem rotor helos and tilt rotor aircraft, to try to save on infrastructure that would actually do more good in opening the area up is a bad thing.

    Build roads and runways and rail lines... not helipads.

    then, there is a value in developing the Ka-102, if it can be more useful in their conditions. The Mi-2/4/6/8/17/24s were designed for the USSR & suited well many other users; it's safe to assume that their future helos will be as versatile.

    Extremes are generally not so versatile... they are specialist vehicles for specific jobs only... it is simply not economic to use an An-124 for every transport job you get, equally the Mi-26 is for specific roles and jobs.

    The Ka-102 is huge and would also only be used for only a couple of very specific jobs... and because of its size and weight you wont be ordering thousands... therefore it really really has to be above and beyond much much better than the current alternative or any near future alternatives... otherwise you end up with a white elephant... a bit like the Ukraine with their An-225. A capable aircraft that is ideal for the job, but with no space programme the Ukraine has little use for it.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:26 pm

    If they have airstrips then helicopters are not important...
    not all of them have airstips. Also, there r smaller settlements around them that only helos can reach fast all year round.
    But China will be buying these helicopters as well as Russia.....there is already money behind the joint ChinaRussian helicopter that fills the precise niche that the Chinook represents in the US... which ruins any reason for Kamov to make Chinookski.
    time will tell!
    A coaxial design has all the twin main rotor advantages of a tandem including speed and lift and also yaw ability in flight, without the length requirements of a tandem that needs to centre the rotors far enough apart so they don't hit each other.
    This American project is a helo version of the F-35, & it may not be the best solution:

    Russia doesn't have any of those aircraft in service and so the CH-47F clearly also does not meet any of their needs either.
    they adopted the Aircobras, some captured German planes & copied the B-29; the Germans also used seized planes:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39_Airacobra#Soviet_Union
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captured_German_equipment_in_Soviet_use_on_the_Eastern_front#Captured_aircraft
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgeschwader_200
    The Ka-102 is huge and would also be used for only a couple of very specific jobs... and because of its size and weight you wont be ordering thousands...
    if built, there would be many versions of it, possibly of different sizes; the smaller variants could be ordered in bigger #s. What happened with the Yak-24 is no indication of the future- that was decades ago, & Russia can now produce everything aviation related & will gradually restore her sway in all the 14 former Soviet republics.
    Meanwhile, Turkey received the last batch of CH-47Fs, &
    the Indian gov. will soon get reimbursed for the CH-47Fs & AH-64Es, with $21B left over to pay for the 11 C-17s, etc.:
    https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/article/indias-rbi-to-transfer-us-24-billion-to-govt/
    On September 28, 2015, the Indian Ministry of Defense signed a package of contracts worth $3 billion for the purchase of 22 AH-64Es ..and 15 CH-47Fs(I) with the US government and Boeing Corporation. Contract options include 11 more AN-64Es and seven CH-47F(I)s..
    The Chinook has proven its ability to operate in the range of conditions that typify the Indian subcontinent, including delivering heavy payloads to high altitudes. ..
    According to Boeing, India ultimately will receive 15 CH-47F(I) Chinook transport helicopters.

    https://defence-blog.com/news/indian-air-force-inducts-ch-47fi-chinook-transport.html

    WASHINGTON, April 26, 2010 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on April 23 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to India of 10 Boeing C-17 GLOBEMASTER III aircraft and associated equipment, parts, and logistical support for an estimated cost of $5.8 billion. https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/india-c-17-globemaster-iii-aircraft


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:59 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:26 am

    not all of them have airstips. Also, there r smaller settlements around them that only helos can reach fast all year round.

    The most common aircraft in Siberia is the An-2 and it is not by accident they are developing an improved all Russian An-2.

    Helicopters are expensive in comparison...

    This American project is a helo version of the F-35, & it may not be the best solution:

    Yeah, that looks like a Blackhawk, so not much innovation there... there is nothing new... pusher propellers have been done, coaxial rotors have been done...

    Overall not a good reason for the Russians to proceed with the Ka-102.

    they adopted the Aircobras, some captured German planes & copied the B-29; the Germans also used seized planes:

    They were at war and needed aircraft... the Aircobra is not a bad plane, though it had a few problems of its own.

    With the aggressive West with its russophobia still afflicting its thought processes, the Soviets needed a strategic bomber type aircraft fast so the took the fastest route to getting one in to service by copying examples handed to them by the US... once they had time to develop their own they were dropped... it was an emergency measure only.

    Just the same as with the Sidewinder missile, soviet missiles of the time like the AA-1 were complex with bits all over the place... designing and making them was complicated. In comparison the Sidewinder was basic and simple and modular. It would take a while to modify their missile making design bureaus to take on the simple modular design paradyme so they copied the Sidewinder... but like the B-29 they didn't make it an exact copy... their Tu-4 had better engines than the American aircraft that were less prone to burst in to flames and they also fitted much more effective 20mm cannon for self defence instead of HMGs the Americans used.

    With the Sidewinder copy they used their own rocket motor and their own seeker, but adopted the gyros used on the Sidewinder and the basic layout.

    What happened with the Yak-24 is no indication of the future- that was decades ago, & Russia can now produce everything aviation related & will gradually restore her sway in all the 14 former Soviet republics.

    Now I know you are dreaming... Russia is better off without the Ukraine and the baltic states dragging her down... Russia needs partners and allies, not yesmen with their hands out who sit on their arses all day thinking all they have to do is keep saying yes so Russia will pay for a roof over their heads and food on their tables...

    Russia is not going to advance if it feels the need to remake everything it used to make... VSTOL fighters are a good example... it is a dead end technology only really useful if you want to half arse your navy. The only value of a VSTOL fighter is that it means you can save some money by having smaller aircraft carriers... but smaller aircraft carriers are less useful and less capable than bigger ones with better fighters... you save money but you get a much worse product... saving money on a carrier means nothing if when you actually have to use it it gets sunk because the enemy had better fighters than you did.

    If Argentina had MiG-23s with R-23 and R-24 missiles the British would have been in serious trouble... and in the early 1980s the MiG-23 was hardly state of the art, but it had a decent radar and BVR missiles as well as good speed and range.

    The sea harriers would have seriously struggled to defeat an enemy aircraft with BVR missiles... even a phantom would have been a serious threat as it could fly to Sparrow range... launch several attacks and then leave and the SHAR could do nothing.

    Small slow weak fragile fighters are never a good solution except when the only alternative is a helicopter and then they are possibly adequate... until they need to be used against a real fighter and then they are rubbish.

    the Indian gov. will soon get reimbursed for the CH-47Fs & AH-64Es, with $21B left over to pay for the 11 C-17s, etc.:

    Yeah, blah blah blah... Hips can also operate at high altitudes too but wouldn't cost 21 freaken billion dollars to do it... this has to be a joke.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:02 am

    The most common aircraft in Siberia is the An-2 and it is not by accident they are developing an improved all Russian An-2.
    Helicopters are expensive in comparison...
    but they can land & TO in lower visibility than any plane that could otherwise not find the runway or collide with something it can't see.
    Now I know you are dreaming... Russia is better off without the Ukraine...
    they started giving passports (over 25K so far) for a reason: soon those new citizens will need protection as Ukraine may start an offencive &/ disintegrates more as a result. If the East & South join Russia, their industrial & agricultural potential will help Crimea's economy & be very useful.
    Hips can also operate at high altitudes too but wouldn't cost 21 freaken billion dollars to do it...
    Not as high:
    Mi-17 Service ceiling: 6,000 m (19,690 ft)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17#Specifications_(Mil-17-1A2)

    Mi-38 Service ceiling: 5,900 m (19,400 ft) operational, 3,750 m (12,300 ft) hover  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)

    CH-47F Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6100 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    100-200m lower ceiling may mean a longer mission to avoid mountain tops, or its failure.
    For $21B, they could buy many 100s of Mi-17/26/28s & IL-476s, but their preferences lie elsewhere.
    The Russian gov., OTH, may just cut some budget allocations on other things &/ impose more taxes on Rosneft,etc. & the rich to pay for the Ka-102 &/ tilt-rotors, should they decide to get them no matter what. If India's military needs only 15 CH-47Fs, the Russian military may need only 30-40, if not less, of the Ka-102s. The rest will go to other users. There, the interests of the state security & well being r more important than those of the individuals. It has been like that at least since the Count Vladimir forced from above the Baptism of the Kievan Rus in 988, to bring her closer to more advanced Christian Europe.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:43 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:52 am

    but they can land & TO in lower visibility than any plane that could otherwise not find the runway or collide with something it can't see.

    Yeah, new invention called fire... a small puddle of petrol or a road flare or for a more permanent airfield you can even put in more permanent lights to mark the runway...

    they started giving passports (over 25K so far) for a reason:

    Not for them to stay in the Ukraine though. The Ukraine is a broken country and many want to leave... this was a gesture from the Russians... by the way Poland and many european countries have already offered citizenship too, so I wouldn't read too much in to it.

    If the East & South join Russia, their industrial & agricultural potential will help Crimea's economy & be very useful.

    If they want to break off as a block then that might be useful, but as far as Putin is concerned they need to sort this shit out themselves... if they think the Russian army is going to come in and save them they can think again.

    100-200m lower ceiling may mean a longer mission to avoid mountain tops, or its failure.

    Ah piss off... you would claim it doesn't matter if the numbers on wiki were not in your favour and to be honest I trust US figures and wiki figures like I trust the christian bible... (I don't).

    The Mi-38 during testing flew at altitudes of over 8,600m.

    The figures are also meaningless... in ground effect or out? With payload or without?

    For $21B, they could buy many 100s of Mi-17/26/28s & IL-476s, but their preferences lie elsewhere.

    With 21 billion US dollars they could give everyone who lives in Siberia and the Russian Far east their own Mi-8... do you have no concept of what billion means?

    The Russian gov., OTH, may just cut some budget allocations on other things &/ impose more taxes on Rosneft,etc. & the rich to pay for the Ka-102 &/ tilt-rotors, should they decide to get them no matter what. If India's military needs only 15 CH-47Fs, the Russian military may need only 30-40, if not less, of the Ka-102s.

    The Russian military don't need any Ka-102s... they would be way too expensive and too big to be of any use.

    They are niche designs there is no demand for.

    According to this website: http://avia-pro.net/blog/ka-102

    The specs for the Ka-102 are:

    Technical characteristics of the Ka-102.

    Crew: 2 person;
    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 takeoff weight: 30000 kg .;
    Cruising speed: 420 km \ h .;
    Maximum flight speed: 500 km \ h .;
    Maximum flight distance: 1100 km .;
    Maximum flight height: 4100 m .;
    Powerplant: at the development stage;
    Power: the development phase.
    Подробнее на: http://avia-pro.net/blog/ka-102

    So no powerplant, and a capacity of 90 people isn't that great... the Mi-26 can carry 105... the only interesting feature is the supposed cruise speed, but that is no better than many light transport planes that would be much much cheaper to operate.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:03 pm

    Yeah, new invention called fire... a small puddle of petrol or a road flare or for a more permanent airfield you can even put in more permanent lights to mark the runway...
    not in a downpour, dense fog or snowfall!
    Not for them to stay in the Ukraine though. The Ukraine is a broken country and many want to leave...
    those who could & wanted to leave r already in Russia. Now, most of these new citizens will stay in Donbass & may need/ask for protection, just like the ethnic Poles, Hungarians, & Romanians against forced Ukrainianization pushed by nationalists in Kiev.
    If they want to break off as a block then that might be useful, but as far as Putin is concerned they need to sort this shit out themselves...
    when it's ripe & there's no good alternative, it will happen, as with the 2 now ex-Georgian provinces much of whose population isn't even Slavic btw.
    ..I trust US figures and wiki figures like I trust the christian bible... (I don't). The Mi-38 during testing flew at altitudes of over 8,600m. The figures are also meaningless... in ground effect or out? With payload or without?
    testing is pushing the flight envelope to the limit, in the day to day ops those stunts get pilots killed or fired.
    Мi-171А2 Practical ceiling 6000 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 4000 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/mi-171a2/features.html

    Mi-26 Practical ceiling 4600 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 1520 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/mi-26t/features.html

    Ka-226
    Static ceiling in the zone of influence of the earth 4900 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 4100 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/ka-226t/features.html

    Mi-38  Cruising speed 280 - 290 km / h
    Range with a load of 3,000 kg 900 km
    Range with a cargo weight of 5,000 kg 420 km
    Range with additional fuel tanks and cargo weighing 2700kg 1200 km
    Practical ceiling 5 900 m
    Static ceiling hanging outside the zone of influence of the earth 3 750 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/mi-38/features.html

    The Russians verify all data before posting them & have no reason to lie about what the ​​CH-47 Chinook can do:
    - Maximum speed: 285 km/h
    - Cruising speed: 259 km/h
    - Combat radius: 935 km
    - Ferry range: 2333 km
    Practical ceiling - 3090 m
    - Static ceiling using the earth effect: 1675 m
    - Static ceiling without using the earth effect: 2985 m
    http://oruzhie.info/vertoleti/134-ch-47-chinuk

    The latest version of the helicopter - CH-47F ..is capable of transporting goods weighing up to 10.9 tons at a speed of up to 315 km/h for a range of up to 740 km. https://topwar.ru/158190-amerikanskij-vertolet-ch-47f-chinook-poluchit-bolee-moschnye-dvigateli.html

    Its capabilities leave the Mi-38 in the dust!
    With 21 billion US dollars they could give everyone who lives in Siberia and the Russian Far east their own Mi-8...
    Having those extra 21 billion US dollars, India should care more about her people & I'm sure they'll find better ways to spend them. Besides, their IL-76/8s have poor serviceability & there r not enough hangars:
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/indian-report-slams-il-76-availability-rate-439958/
    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201708021056099495-india-il-78-aircraft/   
    Cruising speed: 420 km \ h .;
       Maximum flight speed: 500 km \ h .;
       Maximum flight distance: 1100 km .;
       Maximum flight height: 4100 m .;
       Powerplant: at the development stage;
       http://avia-pro.net/blog/ka-102
    So no powerplant, and a capacity of 90 people isn't that great... the Mi-26 can carry 105... the only interesting feature is the supposed cruise speed, but that is no better than many light transport planes that would be much much cheaper to operate.
    In mil. use, the # of armed/wounded/rescued personnel is more important; 15 less passengers isn't an essential factor. If u compare these tentative data with the established data I posted above, it should fly higher than the CH-47 by 110m & faster than the CH-47F by 340 km/h! It's size will allow to carry more cargo/fuel over longer ranges, & with superior performance, it'll more than just fill the now empty Mi-6 niche:
    https://militaryarms.ru/voennaya-texnika/aviaciya/vertolet-mi-6/#h2_3



    Finaly, suitable engines will be found-if the CH-47Fs can have the CH-53K's engines, the Ka-102s can have the same/upgraded Mi-38's &/ shared with the future RF-PRC 15T payload helo engines, once they become available.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:27 am; edited 9 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13589
    Points : 14082
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  George1 on Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:24 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Yeah, new invention called fire... a small puddle of petrol or a road flare or for a more permanent airfield you can even put in more permanent lights to mark the runway...
    not in a downpour, dense fog or snowfall!
    Not for them to stay in the Ukraine though. The Ukraine is a broken country and many want to leave...
    those who could & wanted to leave r already in Russia. Now, most of these new citizens will stay in Donbass & may need/ask for protection, just like the ethnic Poles, Hungarians, & Romanians against forced Ukrainianization pushed by nationalists in Kiev.
    If they want to break off as a block then that might be useful, but as far as Putin is concerned they need to sort this shit out themselves...
    when it's ripe & there's no good alternative, it will happen, as with the 2 now ex-Georgian provinces much of whose population isn't even Slavic btw.
    ..I trust US figures and wiki figures like I trust the christian bible... (I don't). The Mi-38 during testing flew at altitudes of over 8,600m. The figures are also meaningless... in ground effect or out? With payload or without?
    testing is pushing the flight envelope to the limit, in the day to day ops those stunts get pilots killed or fired.
    Мi-171А2 Practical ceiling 6000 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 4000 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/mi-171a2/features.html

    Ka-102 is a civilian project

    Mi-26 Practical ceiling 4600 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 1520 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/mi-26t/features.html

    Ka-226
    Static ceiling in the zone of influence of the earth 4900 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 4100 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/ka-226t/features.html

    Mi-38  Cruising speed 280 - 290 km / h
    Range with a load of 3,000 kg 900 km
    Range with a cargo weight of 5,000 kg 420 km
    Range with additional fuel tanks and cargo weighing 2700kg 1200 km
    Practical ceiling 5 900 m
    Static ceiling hanging outside the zone of influence of the earth 3 750 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/mi-38/features.html

    The Russians verify all data before posting them & have no reason to lie about what the ​​CH-47 Chinook can do:
    - Maximum speed: 285 km/h
    - Cruising speed: 259 km/h
    - Combat radius: 935 km
    - Ferry range: 2333 km
    Practical ceiling - 3090 m
    - Static ceiling using the earth effect: 1675 m
    - Static ceiling without using the earth effect: 2985 m
    http://oruzhie.info/vertoleti/134-ch-47-chinuk

    The latest version of the helicopter - CH-47F ..is capable of transporting goods weighing up to 10.9 tons at a speed of up to 315 km/h for a range of up to 740 km. https://topwar.ru/158190-amerikanskij-vertolet-ch-47f-chinook-poluchit-bolee-moschnye-dvigateli.html

    Its capabilities leave the Mi-38 in the dust!
    With 21 billion US dollars they could give everyone who lives in Siberia and the Russian Far east their own Mi-8...
    Having those extra 21 billion US dollars, India should care more about her people & I'm sure they'll find better ways to spend them. Besides, their IL-76/8s have poor serviceability & there r not enough hangars:
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/indian-report-slams-il-76-availability-rate-439958/
    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201708021056099495-india-il-78-aircraft/   
    Cruising speed: 420 km \ h .;
       Maximum flight speed: 500 km \ h .;
       Maximum flight distance: 1100 km .;
       Maximum flight height: 4100 m .;
       Powerplant: at the development stage;
       http://avia-pro.net/blog/ka-102
    So no powerplant, and a capacity of 90 people isn't that great... the Mi-26 can carry 105... the only interesting feature is the supposed cruise speed, but that is no better than many light transport planes that would be much much cheaper to operate.
    In mil. use, the # of armed/wounded/rescued personnel is more important; 15 less passengers isn't an essential factor. If u compare these tentative data with the established data I posted above, it should fly higher than the CH-47 by 110m & faster than the CH-47F by 340 km/h! It's size will allow to carry more cargo/fuel over longer ranges, & with superior performance, it'll more than just fill the now empty Mi-6 niche:
    https://militaryarms.ru/voennaya-texnika/aviaciya/vertolet-mi-6/#h2_3



    Finaly, suitable engines will be found-if the CH-47Fs can have the CH-53K's engines, the Ka-102s can have the same/upgraded Mi-38's &/ shared with the future RF-PRC 15T payload helo engines, once they become available.

    Ka-102 is a civilian project


    Last edited by George1 on Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:35 am

    ur comments r missing!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:11 am

    not in a downpour, dense fog or snowfall!

    Your claim was that a tandem rotor helicopter can land in conditions that an An-2 cannot, which is fundamentally wrong.

    If an An-2 can't land then no helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft could land either... in fact many helicopters can't operate in high wind situations either.

    those who could & wanted to leave r already in Russia.

    Those who previously couldn't get Russian citizenship probably couldn't leave... now they can... the point is not to create a huge Russian occupation force in the Ukraine, the point is to help people who would normally be considered Russians 110 years ago leave the shit that is currently going on in their country instigated by the US and EU.

    Now, most of these new citizens will stay in Donbass & may need/ask for protection,

    Unless they want to vote to leave the ukraine they wont get any protection from Russia inside the Ukraine... there is a Russian film maker held in prison in the Ukraine for terrorism... they are not going to invade to save him either, though it looks like they might trade him for some real nazi.

    when it's ripe & there's no good alternative, it will happen, as with the 2 now ex-Georgian provinces much of whose population isn't even Slavic btw.

    It is not really related to the Georgian situation as South Ossetia and Abkhazia were never part of Georgia.

    Its capabilities leave the Mi-38 in the dust!

    Bullshit... the figures you give above prove it... practical ceiling for the Mi -38 is 5,900m, practical ceiling for the Chinook is 3090m that is a fucking enormous difference in ceiling in favour of the Mi-38.... didn't you just say 100-200m lower ceiling difference could be significant and make or break a mission... how about almost 3km altitude difference that is between just over 3km altitude and almost 6km altitude operational ceilings?

    The top speed for most model Chinooks is slower than the figure for Mi-38s it is only the latest F model Chinook that has a slightly faster top speed... and practical ceiling is practical ceiling... ie acceptable inside the envelop...

    Of you are going to suggest all Chinooks should be judged by the performance of the F model Chinook then how about we wait till the Mi-38 is fully in service and new engines are ready for it... I notice the numbers you give for the Ka-226...

    Ka-226
    Static ceiling in the zone of influence of the earth 4900 m
    Static ceiling outside the zone of influence of the earth 4100 m
    http://russianhelicopters.aero/ru/helicopters/civil/ka-226t/features.html

    Is the out of ground effect hover ceiling, and not the operational ceiling of 6,100m.... and that is with the French engines... they have a couple of alternative engine types including an 800hp Russian engine option that should boost operational ceiling by quite a bit more...

    But enough of this bullshit, you are a punch drunk fanboy for the Chinook model F helicopter and you think Russia needs to piss away a few billion and develop one of their own.

    Fine. Believe that all you want.

    I am telling you it probably wont happen because it is a rather ordinary looking thing that is not astoundingly more capable than anything the Russians already have or have planned.

    Ability to operate at high altitudes is not very impressive at all and existing Russian types match or exceed its performances.

    Why are you so fixated with tandem and tilt rotor designs?

    Having those extra 21 billion US dollars, India should care more about her people & I'm sure they'll find better ways to spend them.

    But that is the point... India really doesn't have a spare 21 billion dollars just lying around the place... they could be building schools and hospitals and roads and proper infrastructure like water and electricity supply to its people instead of buying the dubious friendship of a country like the US that freely admits it has no friends... it has interests.

    21 billion would pay for roads to be built up to all their high altitude locations so they can be supported cheaply by trucks and cars instead of at great risks with aircraft.

    Besides, their IL-76/8s have poor serviceability & there r not enough hangars:

    If they are going to piss away money on crap like expensive American helos then they complain about how much they pay for Russian products a fraction of the cost, I don't think it is worth looking at such sources for common sense... they complain that a 2.4 billion dollar upgrade of a Kiev class carrier which includes aircraft is them getting ripped off but 22 billion dollars for the aircraft that won the 10 billion dollar MRCA programme and they say nothing about the price more than doubling for a mere 120 odd fighter aircraft.

    I am glad they picked the Apache and Chinook... I look forward to their honest opinions about the price of operating these aircraft...

    In mil. use, the # of armed/wounded/rescued personnel is more important; 15 less passengers isn't an essential factor. If u compare these tentative data with the established data I posted above, it should fly higher than the CH-47 by 110m & faster than the CH-47F by 340 km/h! It's size will allow to carry more cargo/fuel over longer ranges, & with superior performance, it'll more than just fill the now empty Mi-6 niche:

    They don't use the Mi-26 for troop transport... it is just too big... you don't want more than about 20 troops on each helicopter because with the rear doors and two side doors it takes too long for more than 20 soldiers to get on or off anyway.

    They will definitely not use the Ka-102 for transporting troops either.

    They simply wont get the chance because it wont get built.

    Finaly, suitable engines will be found-if the CH-47Fs can have the CH-53K's engines, the Ka-102s can have the same/upgraded Mi-38's &/ shared with the future RF-PRC 15T payload helo engines, once they become available.

    Once the RF-PRC 15T helo has engines WTF do they need the Ka-102 for?

    Ka-102 is a civilian project

    An unfunded civilian project there is no money for.

    They will talk about military use in the hope to get funding to take it off the page and into a prototype, but the Military are already funding a replacement for the Ka-32, plus this new joint chinese russian aircraft and of course in the middle of introducing the Mi-38 to replace the Hip family so I really don't think they will be interested in a totally different aircraft like the Ka-102.

    They want to put the Mi-14 back in to production but hopefully they might produce a naval version of the Mi-38 to replace it instead perhaps.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:21 am

    Tsavo... did you even watch that video on the Ka-102 that you posted?

    It says the payload is 7 tons... even the Mi-38 could manage that...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:27 pm

    If an An-2 can't land then no helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft could land either...
    R u a pilot? Perhaps we have some here that can help us clarify this!
    Those who previously couldn't get Russian citizenship probably couldn't leave...
    they could, "temporarily", to work or visit relatives.
    Unless they want to vote to leave the ukraine they wont get any protection from Russia inside the Ukraine...
    The Donbass region, esp. D/LPR, isn't Ukraine anymore. It's not that big & Russia has no problem helping to defend it since 2014.
    It is not really related to the Georgian situation as South Ossetia and Abkhazia were never part of Georgia.
    administratively they were part of Georgian SSR.
    Of you are going to suggest all Chinooks should be judged by the performance of the F model Chinook then how about we wait till the Mi-38 is fully in service and new engines are ready for it...
    By the same token, with new engines, the Ka-102 will surpass the Mi-6, the CH-47F & the Mi-38. http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_mi6_en.php

    With only somewhat inferior performance, it may be a good substitute for many future tilt-rotors as well, saving them $Ms.
    I am telling you it probably wont happen because it is a rather ordinary looking thing that is not astoundingly more capable than anything the Russians already have or have planned.
    It's always good to have alternate projects. in case of some of them fail.
    Why are you so fixated with tandem and tilt rotor designs?
    they r revolutionary & their potential is still waiting to be fully realized.
    If they are going to piss away money on crap like expensive American helos..
    having a strong Indian lobby in Washington rubbing elbows with Israelis & Saudis + the USN 5th & 7th fleets in the Indo-Pacific & the bases on Diego Garcia, Guam & Singapore, paid for by the American & British taxpayers, not Indian, on their side or at least neutral, to offset & distract China, is well worth it, at least from the Indian perspective.
    ..22 billion dollars for the aircraft..
    they won't be spending that much on any aircraft!
    They don't use the Mi-26 for troop transport... it is just too big...
    Oh yes they do: https://sputniknews.com/military/201705121053563272-russia-shock-troops-new-designation/

    http://www.kiwimodeller.com/~kmodel/media/kunena/attachments/97/10534490_1098439923502311_6615524671232094350_n.jpg

    https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/7238245a/65f3751d/russia-chechnya-khankala-russian-federation-shutterstock-editorial-7238245a.jpg
    They will definitely not use the Ka-102 for transporting troops either. ..Ka-102 is a civilian project
    even if they safely rescue &/ transport young & mil. age males, most of them can be later put in uniforms or employed by their military &/ MIC/MChS in an emergency- so even as a helo in support roles, it has an added value for defense.
    The Soviets/Russians built/now building many things that others thought very hard or impossible, so when some1 says "never" in this context, I won't bet on it!
    Once the RF-PRC 15T helo has engines WTF do they need the Ka-102 for?
    They don't have the old Mi-6 workhorse flying anymore, & the future RF-PRC helo is is in a slightly different weight/size category.
    With its lift capacity of up to 15 tons, the aircraft will be smaller than the Russian super heavy Mi-26 and larger than the medium Mi-17. It can, therefore, satisfy China's demand for a helicopter of that size and capacity since no other helicopter can do that at this time.
    http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2019-04/10/content_9473073.htm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-LA9ojjZAY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOmlW8JobzY

    Russia has no big need for it as there will be enough Mi-26/38s, as both types r being modernized/procured.
    An unfunded civilian project there is no money for.
    It's been in development for 19 years; after the 1st prototype appears & the concept proves itself, orders will come; the RF gov. may provide funds to kick start it, as it did with many other projects.
    Turkey may soon order Su-35/57s, so hopefully those $ will be put to good use. https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/article/erdogan-ponders-alternatives-at-russian-air-show/

    They can always sell extra gold/platinum/diamonds to pay for things they otherwise don't have the $ for. Time will tell!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:01 pm; edited 6 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 31, 2019 3:12 pm

    R u a pilot? Perhaps we have some here that can help us clarify this!

    Actually I would think flight restrictions on helicopters would be much stricter in terms of visibility than for fixed wing aircraft.

    Can we agree however that Mi-8 helos and An-2 fixed wing aircraft already operate in the regions we are talking about in large numbers and any place that can't be reached because of a lack of a tilt rotor or tandem rotor helo can't exist because there are no Russian tandems and tilt rotors to reach them?

    The Donbass region, esp. D/LPR, isn't Ukraine anymore. It's not that big & Russia has no problem helping to defend it since 2014.

    Well I don't want to impose anything on them... they need to decide for themselves... the problem for them is that Russia has already accepted the coup in the Ukraine as being OK and the current government as being representative of the people of the Ukraine and I personally don't think it really is... it was put in power by the US and EU and remains in power through threats and violence, and its actions towards provinces that don't accept its legitimacy are quite frankly criminal... the people in the Donbass are not staging raids in neighbouring provinces or kidnapping children in schools like in Beslan or generally murdering people... they are defending themselves from air and artillery attacks from groups that claim to be their elected leaders from Kiev...

    administratively they were part of Georgian SSR.

    The Georgians admit that South Ossetians and Abkhazians are not Georgians... what really do lines on a map mean... I mean if Georgians can vote to leave the Soviet Union, then why can't South Ossetians and Abkhazians vote to leave Georgia... why is one vote accepted and the other not?

    It is like Bosnia... if the Bosnians can vote to not be part of Yugoslavia any more why can't Bosnian Serbs vote to not be part of Bosnia any more.

    If Albanians in Kosovo deserve to have their own country to free them from oppression from Serbs then why can't Serbs in Kosovo have their own country to free them from oppression of the Kosovo Albanians?

    Where do you draw the line... people on one side of the street demanding their own council, their own country, and the people on the other side of the street demanding their own too. 100 different countries every square mile...

    By the same token, with new engines, the Ka-102 will surpass the Mi-6, the CH-47F & the Mi-38.

    But what new engines... the only new Helicopter engines I know of that they are working on is the PD-12 engines to replace the Ukrainian engines in the Mi-26... slightly heavier, but more reliable and easier to maintain and more fuel efficient and more powerful... if the Ka-102 gets those then to be honest it would be a total waste of time and effort if it could only lift 7 tons when the Mi-26 with the same new engines can carry 20 tons and possibly more.


    With only somewhat inferior performance, it may be a good substitute for many future tilt-rotors as well, saving them $Ms.

    If its performance in inferior then why bother making it in the first place?

    The Kamov designer said he had a new design that could reach over 600km per hour which makes it faster than tilt rotors too.

    If that happens to be a tandem rotor design then that is fine, but I rather doubt it...

    It's always good to have alternate projects. in case of some of them fail.

    Running lots of fundamentally different programmes at the same time is expensive and increases risk... it makes more sense to concentrate on a few designs most likely to bring good enough results and focus on getting them right.

    It might be that in 10 or 20 years time a new propulsion idea or design might become much easier because of new technology or new materials.

    Forward Swept wings is a case in point... composite materials made it a viable concept, but other limitations have restricted its use so far.

    they r revolutionary & their potential is still waiting to be fully realized.

    They are only revolutionary in the sense they spin... conventional rotor designs and coaxial designs are also revolutionary and are getting the job done just fine.

    having a strong Indian lobby in Washington rubbing elbows with Israelis & Saudis + the USN 5th & 7th fleets in the Indo-Pacific & the bases on Diego Garcia, Guam & Singapore, paid for by the American & British taxpayers, not Indian, on their side or at least neutral, to offset & distract China, is well worth it, at least from the Indian perspective.

    Of course it does... the kickbacks alone are going to make some Indian politicians very wealthy men, but it does not mean that Russia needs to make these aircraft that India are buying... it just explains why they are prepared to spend so much money on so little helicopter.

    Oh yes they do:

    So clearly they have decided that their protection systems for helos is sophisticated enough to protect even their biggest and most vulnerable helos so now they can use Mi-26s as well as smaller types... which raises the question... why bother with a smaller helo like a Ka-102?

    even if they safely rescue &/ transport young & mil. age males, most of them can be later put in uniforms or employed by their military &/ MIC/MChS in an emergency- so even as a helo in support roles, it has an added value for defense.

    But as your links show, they are using Mi-26s for that role... why would they need Ka-102s?

    The Soviets/Russians built/now building many things that others thought very hard or impossible, so when some1 says "never" in this context, I won't bet on it!

    I am not suggesting they can't do it... I am asking why would they bother with the Mi-26 clearly able to do a better job and a new helo jointly developed with China smack dab right in the hotspot weight and size range as the Ka-102 about to be developed as well.

    They don't have the old Mi-6 workhorse flying anymore, & the future RF-PRC helo is is in a slightly different weight/size category.
    With its lift capacity of up to 15 tons, the aircraft will be smaller than the Russian super heavy Mi-26 and larger than the medium Mi-17. It can, therefore, satisfy China's demand for a helicopter of that size and capacity since no other helicopter can do that at this time.

    The new helo will fit perfectly between the Mi-38 and the Mi-26. The capacity of 15 tons of payload could make it rather flexible as it could use 5 tons of payload capacity to add extra fuel so it could be a 10 ton payload helo with long flight endurance and range for instance if needed...

    Russia has no big need for it as there will be enough Mi-26/38s, as both types r being modernized/procured.

    I am sure such an aircraft could be rather useful for missions which the lighter helos are a little too light and the heavier helo is too much... having something in between could be useful... a lot of the new lighter vehicles in the Typhoon range are 10-15 tons, and they could use a towed gun in the 10-12 ton weight range that could be carried around by a helicopter smaller than the Halo...

    If you think Russia has little need for a new helicopter in that weight range why do you think they need a Ka-102?

    It's been in development for 19 years; after the 1st prototype appears & the concept proves itself, orders will come; the RF gov. may provide funds to kick start it, as it did with many other projects.

    They would do better to invest in the other end of the spectrum with light helos being a weak point of the Russian helicopter range... something like a Mi-34 light helo would be rather more useful...

    Turkey may soon order Su-35/57s, so hopefully those $ will be put to good use. https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/08/article/erdogan-ponders-alternatives-at-russian-air-show/

    They can always sell extra gold/platinum/diamonds to pay for things they otherwise don't have the $ for. Time will tell!

    Turkey has a lot of very interesting military programmes and I think Russia would benefit from cooperating with Turkey in a lot of areas in military technology... the Turks had a rather nice attack helo model a while back but had a crappy 20mm cannon fitted to it... it could be an opportunity to fit it with a twin barrel 23mm cannon as fitted to the current model Hinds... it looks like an excellent gun to me.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:22 pm

    Can we agree however that Mi-8 helos and An-2 fixed wing aircraft already operate in the regions we are talking about in large numbers and any place that can't be reached because of a lack of a tilt rotor or tandem rotor helo can't exist because there are no Russian tandems and tilt rotors to reach them?
    Existing planes & helos can reach there but tilt/tandem rotors can do it safer/better under some conditions. Each CH-47 helicopter has two rotors and two motors, each having 4,800 horsepower. With a range that can increase to 1,100 kilometers with the help of the fuel tanks, the helicopters can fly safely even at conditions of zero visibility.
    https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/2018/08/27/us-delivers-new-chinook-helicopter-to-turkey-despite-f-35-problem
    I think Russia would benefit from cooperating with Turkey in a lot of areas in military technology.
    ..it does not mean that Russia needs to make these aircraft that India are buying... it just explains why they are prepared to spend so much money on so little helicopter.
    "Turkey now has 11 of the newest and most advanced heavy-lift rotary-wing aircraft available," the embassy said.
    https://www.dailysabah.com/defense/2019/08/02/last-four-ch-47-chinook-helicopters-arrive  

    Who is to say they or others, for that matter, won't buy any possible future Russian tandem helos? From the above, it follows that even if Russia has no use for them, they could make them for export 1st, just like the Su-30s that they also thought they didn't need/couldn't afford earlier; in time, gov. entities, incl. the military, & civilian companies will find them useful too.  
    if the Ka-102 gets those then to be honest it would be a total waste of time and effort if it could only lift 7 tons when the Mi-26 with the same new engines can carry 20 tons and possibly more.
    they could produce even larger size tandem helos later. The Mi-26 is a scaled up Mi-6, & the Ka-102 would be bigger than the CH-47F, except the height; & it could also be scaled up!
    The length of the helicopter 36.2 m
    Helicopter height 5.3 m
    Diameter of the main rotor 18.2 m
    The mass of an unmanned helicopter 14,600 kg
    Large take-off weight 30000 kg
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-102.htm

    Length: 98 ft 10 in[143] (30.1 m)
    Fuselage length: 52 ft (15.85 m)
    Fuselage width: 12 ft 5 in[143] (3.78 m)
    Rotor diameter: 60 ft  (18.3 m)
    Height: 18 ft 11 in (5.7 m)
    Empty weight: 24,578 lb (11,148 kg)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    http://www.nevadasurveyor.com/helos/index_files/erhyurwthrsftgd.jpg

    The Yak-60 was supposed to have: Fuselage length 44.6 m.
    Width 8.6 m. Height 11.6 m.
    Maximum load capacity 42 tons.
    The maximum takeoff weight 100 tons.
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/yak-60.htm

    https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2014-07/thumbs/1404346360_yk-60.jpg

    If its performance in inferior then why bother making it in the first place?
    they may be slower than tilt-rotors, but not by much; the best solution is to have the right mix of both types, just like in the Western militaries. When speed is less important than payload/range, tandems would be used; when speed is more important than payload/range, tilt-rotors will save the day.
    The Pacific spans 10 time zones between Japan & Chile; Russia had 11, but reduced them to 9 for political reasons:
    https://www.timeanddate.com/news/time/russia-reduces-time-zones.html

    If they r good for overwater ops & in Canada (she has 6 time zones), the 2nd largest nation by territory, then they'll be good for overland/overwater ops in the RF: https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/318/192/335.pdf
    https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zone/canada

    Running lots of fundamentally different programmes at the same time is expensive and increases risk...
    if they design a side-by side tandem Mi-12-like helo, only smaller, it won't be fundamentally different from its tilt-rotor variant(s). Having different design bureaus allows each to produce their own models & earn their living. Kamov coaxial type helos r versatile & been around for decades, but they r not proverbial Swiss Army Knifes- otherwise why still develop & use all those classic layout Mi-26/28/38s?
    They are only revolutionary in the sense they spin...
    but on tilt-rotors, they spin in horizontal & vertical axis, depending on the mode, with resulting capabilities of both helos & planes; on tandem rotor helos, all the power is used for lift & speed, saving fuel, increasing internal volume, speed, ceiling, & payload.
    ..they can use Mi-26s as well as smaller types... they are using Mi-26s for that role.....If you think Russia has little need for a new helicopter in that weight range why bother with ..do you think they need a smaller helo like a Ka-102?  
    They now don't have Mi-6s, so the Mi-26s r being used; a mil. variant of the Ka-102 could be larger, if need be. Also, 2 Ka-102s or 1 Ka-102+1 Mi-17 can be used, instead of 1 Mi-26 that's better suited for heavy cargo hauling & firefighting.
    ..a new helo jointly developed with China smack dab right in the hotspot weight and size range as the Ka-102..
    Russia has different size/conditions, it's not the Tibetan Plateau, deserts/steppes of Sinkiang/Inner Mongolia & tropical Yunnan/SC Sea islands. I doubt they'll use that helo, even with Russian engines in it, as China needs many of them & Russia is happy to get paid for its engine development that will also benefit their own projects, but not to invest in airframes production there.  
    They would do better to invest in the other end of the spectrum with light helos being a weak point of the Russian helicopter range...
    Corporate welfare can have Russian characteristics, just like Socialism can have "Chinese characteristics"- the state must support several design bureaus specializing in different size/types of aircraft.
    Look at nature: there r more species of beetles, other flying insects, birds, & bats than any non-flying life forms, each in its own ecological niche.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:06 am

    Existing planes & helos can reach there but tilt/tandem rotors can do it safer/better under some conditions.

    Even if they were slightly better it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars developing tandem rotor helos or tilt rotor aircraft that might be slightly better that is just fucking stupid... you could take those billions of dollars and use them to build better air strips and infrastructure in the Russian Arctic and Far East... in fact that is actually what they are doing.

    A few thousand dollars extra for each aircraft to fit an additional internal fuel tank to extend range or improve endurance and you don't need to bother with wasting time with shit ideas like tilt rotors and tandem helos.

    Each CH-47 helicopter has two rotors and two motors, each having 4,800 horsepower.

    Each Mi-26 already has a single main rotor and two 11,500hp engines and carries twice the payload the Chinook can manage.

    With a range that can increase to 1,100 kilometers with the help of the fuel tanks, the helicopters can fly safely even at conditions of zero visibility.

    Blind landing systems are expensive and can fail just like any other technology... they don't make aircraft all weather super things that can operate in any conditions anywhere... and they can be fitted to fixed wing aircraft and any type of helicopter...

    "Turkey now has 11 of the newest and most advanced heavy-lift rotary-wing aircraft available," the embassy said.

    Oh come on... are you a child... they probably just spent a small fortune... likely over 2 billion dollars on 11 helicopters... of course they are the best you can get... make no mistake it is the fucking US Embassy saying this... part of the same government that said Saddam was a threat to the world and had WMDs ready to launch in 45 minutes, and that Assad was a threat to the world and Iran is a threat to the world... so no one will notice what a threat to the world the US is.

    Who is to say they or others, for that matter, won't buy any possible future Russian tandem helos?

    Easier to say one way or the other when there are no Russian tandem rotor helos...

    From the above, it follows that even if Russia has no use for them, they could make them for export 1st, just like the Su-30s that they also thought they didn't need/couldn't afford earlier; in time, gov. entities, incl. the military, & civilian companies will find them useful too.

    The Su-30 is just an Su-27UB with a different name and they used a lot of them.... and no they didn't make the Su-30 for export, it just ended up being mostly for export.

    they could produce even larger size tandem helos later.

    If they don't make them now there is little point in making any later.

    The Mi-26 is a scaled up Mi-6, & the Ka-102 would be bigger than the CH-47F, except the height; & it could also be scaled up!

    The KA-102 would use PD-12 engines, meaning 12,000 hp engines and it is projected to have a payload of 7 tons which is less than Chinook carries now, compared with the Mi-26 which carries twice the payload of the Chinook... the numbers make these new tandems rather uninteresting to be honest and that ignores the risk involved.

    The Yak-60 was supposed to have:

    And it will have the same future as the Ka-102...

    Idea, never realised because no one wants to piss away that sort of money on the off chance it might be useful.

    The Pacific spans 10 time zones between Japan & Chile; Russia had 11, but reduced them to 9 for political reasons:

    The sun is the brightest star in the sky on Earth... any other stupid pointless facts you want to bring up?

    If you want to transfer something from one side of Russia to the other why would you even consider using a helicopter... unless you want to make the trip really really slow and really really expensive

    Last time I went deer shooting there were no roads in or out so we flew in on a helicopter, but we were able to take a jet boat back... the helicopter cost the three of use a thousand dollars for a 20 minute ride. The jet boat cost about 120 bucks for the three of us. Helicopters are very slow and very expensive ways of moving around... you shouldn't be making more helicopters, you should be making more airfields and rail lines and roads.

    they may be slower than tilt-rotors, but not by much; the best solution is to have the right mix of both types, just like in the Western militaries. When speed is less important than payload/range, tandems would be used; when speed is more important than payload/range, tilt-rotors will save the day.

    Do you even hear yourself when you speak?

    When speed is important use a fucking jet plane... which they already have.

    When speed is less important still use a fucking jet plane because they carry more and are faster and are also much much cheaper than any helicopter or tilt rotor that has not been invented or built yet... or even the ones in the US that are too expensive to use anyway.

    If a vertical landing or take off is required then use a helicopter over as short a distance as possible because they are expensive to run.

    if they design a side-by side tandem Mi-12-like helo, only smaller, it won't be fundamentally different from its tilt-rotor variant(s). Having different design bureaus allows each to produce their own models & earn their living.

    Russian helicopter design bureaus will survive better without being forced to dredge up ancient failed crap like the Mi-12 or the Yak tandems... they were failures then and would be again today.

    Kamov coaxial type helos r versatile & been around for decades, but they r not proverbial Swiss Army Knifes- otherwise why still develop & use all those classic layout Mi-26/28/38s?

    Each offers advantages and issues, having both types solves the problem... they don't need any extra solutions thank you very much...

    but on tilt-rotors, they spin in horizontal & vertical axis, depending on the mode, with resulting capabilities of both helos & planes; on tandem rotor helos, all the power is used for lift & speed, saving fuel, increasing internal volume, speed, ceiling, & payload.

    But tilt rotors don't have the performance of fixed wing aircraft at all which the Russians already have, and tandem rotor helos have no advantage over coaxial rotor helicopters which the Russians also already have...

    They now don't have Mi-6s, so the Mi-26s r being used; a mil. variant of the Ka-102 could be larger, if need be. Also, 2 Ka-102s or 1 Ka-102+1 Mi-17 can be used, instead of 1 Mi-26 that's better suited for heavy cargo hauling & firefighting.

    If smaller helicopters can do they job they could use 2 Mi-17s or 2 Mi-38s... why piss money away to develop something that is not even as good as an Mi-26?

    Russia has different size/conditions, it's not the Tibetan Plateau, deserts/steppes of Sinkiang/Inner Mongolia & tropical Yunnan/SC Sea islands. I doubt they'll use that helo, even with Russian engines in it, as China needs many of them & Russia is happy to get paid for its engine development that will also benefit their own projects, but not to invest in airframes production there.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA... WHAT!!!! You have been saying that Russia needs tilt rotor aircraft and tandem rotor helicopters like the Chinook for all its mountains and no you say it doesn't need that many helos for mountains like China does?

    Good, that means the ones they make with China can do anything they will need for tandem rotor or tilt rotor designs... problem solved thread closed?

    Corporate welfare can have Russian characteristics, just like Socialism can have "Chinese characteristics"- the state must support several design bureaus specializing in different size/types of aircraft.

    Bullshit, if there is a gap in the market then the market will drive for that gap to be filled. Clearly any need for an Mi-6 replacement has been filled by the Mi-26 which also services the market for 20 ton payload issues as well. For the government to step in and put money towards a weight class there is no demand for is to waste money and time and effort... the company that made this new design could have made something useful instead.

    Look at nature: there r more species of beetles, other flying insects, birds, & bats than any non-flying life forms, each in its own ecological niche.

    Yes, but designing and building helicopters is intelligent design... nature on the other hand is a cruel game of hit and miss with random changes via mutation and genetic mixtures... if nature was intelligent design then it wouldn't have taken four billion years to produce modern humans...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:33 am

    Even if they were slightly better it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars developing tandem rotor helos or tilt rotor aircraft that might be slightly better that is just fucking stupid...
    They'll spend a few $Ms at most- this isn't the US MIC!
    Each Mi-26 already has a single main rotor and two 11,500hp engines and carries twice the payload the Chinook can manage.
    yet the Indians, for whatever reason, bought 15 Chinooks & only 4 Mi-26s!
    Blind landing systems are expensive and can fail just like any other technology... they don't make aircraft all weather super things that can operate in any conditions anywhere...When speed is important use a fucking jet plane... which they already have.
    install extra back up avionics to allow for failures, just like on spacecraft. But, all that gear won't help on a plane that has no airstrip of any kind in remote areas to land on! It'll crash in the taiga/tundra/mountains w/o an adequate airstrip at its destination.
    of course they are the best you can get... make no mistake it is the fucking US Embassy saying this...
    in this case, they r not too far from the truth: those last helos r brand new, & Turkey would be negotiating instead about getting Russian helos if those were available any time soon; even if they had to pay for the breach of contract, $Ms would be saved! The Indians r not that stupid, but if we allow for a moment that they r, the Turks r not more stupid- their empire lasted longer than the Mauryan, British & the Mongol Empires: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire
    https://www.ancient.eu/Mauryan_Empire/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#%22First%22_British_Empire_(1583%E2%80%931783)
    https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
    Easier to say one way or the other when there are no Russian tandem rotor helos...
    not yet!
    no they didn't make the Su-30 for export, it just ended up being mostly for export.
    India got them before the VVS could afford them!
    If they don't make them now there is little point in making any later.
    better late than never!
    The KA-102 would use PD-12 engines, meaning 12,000 hp engines and it is projected to have a payload of 7 tons which is less than Chinook carries now,...
    The 1st IL-76 could carry only 28Ts; the IL-76MD/476 can now carry 52/60Ts:
    https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/il76/
    https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ilyushin-il-76md-90a-il-476-aircraft-russia/
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%BB-76#%D0%98%D0%BB-76%D0%9C%D0%94-90%D0%90

    The CH-46 led to the bigger & more capable CH-47F:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_CH-46_Sea_Knight#Specifications_(CH-46E)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#Specifications_(CH-47F)

    The Mi-10/26 followed the Mi-6. The Ka-102 follow ons will be no different in this context.
    And it will have the same future as the Ka-102...
    be careful, u may have to eat ur hat! I'm not a prophet, but many times I made correct predictions on this forum. Pl. remind me of any of ur correct prophetic predictions on anything.
    If you want to transfer something from one side of Russia to the other why would you even consider using a helicopter...
    even within those time zones in the Central/South Russia, W/E Siberia & RFN/E the distances r enormous. Why do u think their Mi-26 was designed for 800km range?
    Russian helicopter design bureaus will survive better without being forced to dredge up ancient failed crap like the Mi-12 or the Yak tandems... they were failures then and would be again today.
    on their own, they weren't failures. Other things got in the way. The Concorde & the Tu-144 r commercial failures but new SSTs r still being developed.
    Each offers advantages and issues, having both types solves the problem...
    more types can solve existing & new problems better, & sooner.
    But tilt rotors don't have the performance of fixed wing aircraft at all which the Russians already have, and tandem rotor helos have no advantage over coaxial rotor helicopters which the Russians also already have...
    in ur own words: Each offers advantages: fixed wing aircraft can't do VTOL; coaxial rotor helicopters r still stuck at the Ka-31/52 size, & it remains to be seen if they'll get any bigger & better in their specs!
    If smaller helicopters can do they job they could use 2 Mi-17s or  2 Mi-38s... why piss money away to develop something that is not even as good as an Mi-26?
    by the same token, 14 smaller CH-47Fs would be better than 7 Mi-26s in the Indian service! It's not a "0 sum game"- many other factors r at play here!
    You have been saying that Russia needs tilt rotor aircraft and tandem rotor helicopters like the Chinook for all its mountains and no you say it doesn't need that many helos for mountains like China does?
    helos' ability at crossing the mountains between points A & point B isn't the same as their ability to be based on the high Tibetan Plateau &/ in the wet & humid tropics.  
    For the government to step in and put money towards a weight class...
    the Indians just showed that the aviation market & MIC/defense don't mix well!
    ..there is no demand for..
    that's in ur judgement- I would wait till the relevant Russians say so! Even then, things can change, as they did many times before in aviation. Ex.: they didn't need many Pe-8s in 1941-45, but during the Cold War, strategic bombers were copied, designed & produced in large #s. Some were later modified for EW, ELINT, target designation, naval & civilian uses.
    nature on the other hand is a cruel game of hit and miss with random changes via mutation and genetic mixtures...
    insects & animals adapt to survive- those changes r not random. The giant pandas switched to bamboo from meat, Alaskan/Kamchatkan brown bears & the ancestors of the polar bears switched from berries/roots/red meat to mostly seafood. There r many other similar examples.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:26 am; edited 9 times in total (Reason for editing : add links, text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:31 am

    They'll spend a few $Ms at most- this isn't the US MIC!


    A tandem rotor helicopter offers no advantages over a coaxial rotor layout they have already mastered, and in the case of a tilt rotor a fixed wing aircraft will always be superior.

    yet the Indians, for whatever reason, bought 15 Chinooks & only 4 Mi-26s!

    The bribe was 3 billion dollars and they were given a gift of 14 helicopters to hide the bribe and pretend it was a purchase... don't bother reading anything else into that because there is nothing...

    install extra back up avionics to allow for failures, just like on spacecraft. But, all that gear won't help on a plane that has no airstrip of any kind in remote areas to land on! It'll crash in the taiga/tundra/mountains w/o an adequate airstrip at its destination.

    The place where they are landing will have people... that is why they will be landing... so those people can check the weather and the weather reports before the aircraft even takes off, but even if fog envelops at the last second blind landing systems for all aircraft should enable a landing if critical or an abort if not.

    Most remote places wont have enormous reserves of fuel locally so a fixed wing aircraft is more likely to be able to fly there an back without needing to refuel... unlike a large helo.

    in this case, they r not too far from the truth: those last helos r brand new, & Turkey would be negotiating instead about getting Russian helos if those were available any time soon;

    Why?

    Turkey also still wants its F-35s and we all know what a dog that aircraft is... they want it because they paid for it... I know totally irrational demanding things are delivered that are paid for...

    even if they had to pay for the breach of contract, $Ms would be saved! The Indians r not that stupid, but if we allow for a moment that they r, the Turks r not more stupid- their empire lasted longer than the Mauryan, British & the Mongol Empires:

    Don't take this personally, but in this situation the only person who shows any stupidity is you. The Indians are not buying Chinooks because they are worth 10 times more than a much larger more capable Russian helo, they are bribing the Americans with purchases to get their favour in situations regarding Pakistan. They don't even need to bribe the US regarding China because the US already wants to use India against China so it is more a case of the US bribing India with access to US favours rather than the other way around in that situation.

    Turkey is part of NATO and part of being in NATO is largely being directed by the US... like going in to Afghanistan or Iraq even when that has nothing to do with NATOs mandate... it also means cooperating on weapons including buying F-16s and F-35s and other shit they really don't need.

    Turkey isn't buying Chinooks because they are the best helos in the world, they are signed up to the blue team and to be a part of the blue team you have to only buy blue team gear... the real question you should be asking is not why they buy Chinooks, but why they bought Mi-17s for their Army... I mean it is the other teams stuff so you don't get anything of value beyond the platform itself... in fact you probably get a lot of stick from the US for buying from the Red team so it is not something you would do on a whim or just for fun... what you buy would have to actually be useful...

    India got them before the VVS could afford them!

    Wrong, the Su-30 is just a Su-27UB two seater trainer that is intended for the PVO as a two seat interceptor lead aircraft for a group of smaller aircraft with smaller radar. The PVO model was the Su-30M with an improved radar optimised for the role of interception... it was never intended for strike or ground attack roles.

    When selecting the aircraft they wanted the indians stipulated a two seat so that was what was offered because the Indians felt two crew could better handle all the complex things needing to be done on most missions of air intercept or light strike.

    better late than never!

    Not if it turns out to be a mistake or a waste of time and money.

    Russia doesn't have a bottomless pit of money and skilled engineers and designers that they can send away to waste time and money on things that are not going to result in anything useful or things that could possibly turn out useful.

    The 1st IL-76 could carry only 28Ts; the IL-76MD/476 can now carry 52/60Ts:

    The Il-76 filled a clear need and was a fully funded project... not a shot in the dark in case some user somewhere might need it.

    The Mi-10/26 followed the Mi-6. The Ka-102 follow ons will be no different in this context.

    Something has to be made, it has to exist before it can have follow on designs and changes.

    be careful, u may have to eat ur hat! I'm not a prophet, but many times I made correct predictions on this forum. Pl. remind me of any of ur correct prophetic predictions on anything.

    So what you are trying to say is that someone who has previously correctly guessed what happens in the future can therefore predict the future so anything they say can be trusted.

    How about we look on the Russian helicopters website... not the fan sites or the history sites but the company that makes Russian helicopters and see where the Ka-102 programme is on there...

    even within those time zones in the Central/South Russia, W/E Siberia & RFN/E the distances r enormous. Why do u think their Mi-26 was designed for 800km range?

    It will fly 800km... 400km from where it took off from with the payload... drop the payload off and pick up any return load and then fly back 400km... it is not going to cross the entire continent of Russia any time soon... it would need dozens of stops to do so and at those stops there would need to be fuel tanks ready for it to take on fuel. In comparison an Il-476 could fly across in one flight with a forty ton payload without needing to stop... it could air drop loads all the way on its journey if needed.

    on their own, they weren't failures. Other things got in the way.

    But that makes it worse... it means no matter how good the Ka-102 is... it will likely still be rather too expensive and not offer anything valuable over already existing solutions.

    more types can solve existing & new problems better, & sooner.

    Existing types are already at work getting the job done... new types cost money to design and build and will cost too much money to buy when they already have solutions.

    You sound like you think the problem is the Crimea and all they have at the moment are ferrys and aircraft and your solution of a bridge to bring cars and trains will make everything easier and cheaper... but the reality is that if the problem was the Crimea in the early 2000s you are suggesting a big heavy super ferry that can carry ten times more cars and trucks... but it is gas turbine powered and might not be successful... a tandem rotor ferry or a tilt rotor hovercraft sound like neat toys and they might operate over the English channel quite fine but it makes more sense for the Crimea to build a bridge and really open out the area properly to cheap quick transport.

    Roads, rail lines, airfields, and ports are what they need, not more expensive types of helicopters and crosses between helicopters and fixed wing aircraft...

    Fixed wing aircraft are not cheap but are cheaper and simpler and more practical than the alternatives you are suggesting.

    Where I went shooting there were two people living in a lodge as caretakers and it was on a walking track so on any given day their might be 2 or more people there... it is rough country that is all bush with tracks cut through it. In the 1930s they used to do a bit of logging so there are old rail lines there too but the metal tracks have been lifted up but the cut tracks through the bush and leveled the ground in a lot of places... it really would not have been easy... but they could have put in an airfield or two as well if they wanted to. There was sea access which was all the access they needed to take out wood and bring in supplies.

    in ur own words: Each offers advantages: fixed wing aircraft can't do VTOL; coaxial rotor helicopters r still stuck at the Ka-31/52 size, & it remains to be seen if they'll get any bigger & better in their specs!

    Most of the high speed helicopter designs I have seen are coaxials and are rather bigger than Ka-31s.

    by the same token, 14 smaller CH-47Fs would be better than 7 Mi-26s in the Indian service! It's not a "0 sum game"- many other factors r at play here!

    And what goes around comes around... if you take that 3 billion dollars those Chinooks cost and used 240million of it to buy 28 Mi-17s, then you have about 2.7 billion dollars you could use on almost anything.

    Spending money on US products really does not seem to be productive as the US is threatening India over its purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia and it will likely also complain if India buys Su-57s or even Su-35s, so it is clearly not money well spent... I suspect the only winner is the Indian official that negotiated the deal and got a 5% kickback, because 5% of 3 billion is a much larger bribe than 5% of 600 million or whatever they paid for their Mi-17s.

    helos' ability at crossing the mountains between points A & point B isn't the same as their ability to be based on the high Tibetan Plateau &/ in the wet & humid tropics.

    Why should Russia care about such things... their Mi-17s seem to be able to operate anywhere... and do. Their Mi-38 will likely continue that tradition.

    that's in ur judgement- I would wait till the relevant Russians say so!

    They have stated that they are developing a new helicopter to replace the Helix family, and they have also stated they are developing a new helicopter with a payload weight range of 10-15 tons with China... that is all they have said. Nothing to do with my judgement.

    Even then, things can change, as they did many times before in aviation. Ex.: they didn't need many Pe-8s in 1941-45, but during the Cold War, strategic bombers were copied, designed & produced in large #s.

    Rather unlikely that this is relevant. One US bomber was copied and then Soviet bombers were designed and made afterwards.

    Tandem helicopters and tilt rotors are not that revolutionary or important.

    insects & animals adapt to survive- those changes r not random.

    Not exactly... they can try to adapt, but could only adapt to rather small changes... a sudden drop or increase in temperature or rainfall or radiation or whatever and they usually just die out except the ones amongst the population better equipped to survive the change through mutation... you go from the weirdo that is all hairy to the only survivor amongst frozen hairless former neighbours.

    A river gets slightly warmer and there is an bloom of algae and all the fish die... they don't get time to adapt. In another river 10% of the fish love the taste of that algae and when 90% of the fish die out the remaining 10% eat and breed and fish numbers plummet and then explode... mother nature has a nasty sense of humour.

    The giant pandas switched to bamboo from meat, Alaskan/Kamchatkan brown bears & the ancestors of the polar bears switched from berries/roots/red meat to mostly seafood. There r many other similar examples.

    Hahaha... you make it sound like it was a lifestyle choice... an enormous number of giant pandas died and the few that survived are dying out because bamboo is not a great source of energy. When we destroy the oceans with plastic those bears had better be ready to either switch back to berrys or start hunting humans.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:24 am

    A tandem rotor helicopter offers no advantages over a coaxial rotor layout they have already mastered, and in the case of a tilt rotor a fixed wing aircraft will always be superior.
    even if true, Kamov better diversify & expand its line! The Russians r using a different logic.
    The bribe was 3 billion dollars and they were given a gift of 14 helicopters to hide the bribe and pretend it was a purchase...
    AH-64s were included there too:
    India inked a $2.2 billion contract with the U.S. government and Boeing for 22 AH-64Es and 15 CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift helicopters destined for service in the IAF in September 2015. The contract combines a direct commercial sale with Boeing and a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense.
    The 2015 contract stipulates that India can place a follow-on order for 11 additional AH-64Es and seven Chinooks at a fixed price that was agreed upon in 2013. ..
    The Indian Army’s Aviation Corps (AAC) is also in the process of procuring AH-64Es and intends to stand up three separate AH-64E squadrons with a total of up to 39 helicopters.

    https://thediplomat.com/2019/07/first-four-ah-64e-apache-attack-helicopters-arrive-in-india/

    IAF officials said the Apaches will initially supplement and later replace the service's ageing fleet of about 20 upgraded Mil Mi-25/35 combat helicopters, the first of which were inducted into service three decades ago. https://www.janes.com/article/90809/indian-air-force-commissions-eight-apache-attack-helicopters

    The parties noted with satisfaction the achievements in the field of joint design, development and production of high-tech military products and in this regard, positively evaluated the creation of a joint venture for the production of Ka-226T helicopters in India. http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/5137

    This was negotiated long before the CH-47F purchase, so clearly these types don't compete in India. Even if relevant Indian officials were bribed, they still had to justify it to the rest of their gov. OTH, they may set up their joint production with Boeing- earlier the LM offered that with its fighters IIRC.
    The place where they are landing will have people... that is why they will be landing...
    u r not getting it: many people there live too far away from any airstips.
    Turkey also still wants its F-35s and we all know what a dog that aircraft is...
    Israel must be very dumb to buy & use them, even if they didn't pay most of the price!
    Turkey is part of NATO and part of being in NATO is largely being directed by the US... like going in to Afghanistan or Iraq even when that has nothing to do with NATOs mandate... it also means cooperating on weapons including buying F-16s and F-35s and other shit they really don't need.
    it's ancient history now; they traded, raided, & fought with/against Russia for centuries. Now, to restore her great power status, Turkey who has no trust in the US/EU will de-facto, if not de-jure, divorce NATO & buy more Russian made arms until she can produce everything herself.
    the real question you should be asking is not why they buy Chinooks, but why they bought Mi-17s for their Army...
    India now also has both types, & they don't obstruct/compete with each other.
    Wrong, the Su-30 is just a Su-27UB two seater trainer that is intended for the PVO as a two seat interceptor lead aircraft
    It's a multi-mission fighter-bomber, & they got the $ for it,etc from India & PRC: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=698

    Not if it turns out to be a mistake or a waste of time and money.
    a civilian Ka-102 won't be a very costly mistake, if at all. Mil. versions will have commonality with it, thus not costing too much either.  
    Something has to be made, it has to exist before it can have follow on designs and changes.
    then, pl. regard the Ka-102 as the Yak-24 & CH-47 de-facto follow on.

    So what you are trying to say is that someone who has previously correctly guessed what happens in the future can therefore predict the future so anything they say can be trusted.
    no, but it's more probable that this prediction will also come true!

    see where the Ka-102 programme is on there...
    a paper helo won't get much exposure; wait until a mockup & then a prototype appears.
    Roads, rail lines, airfields, and ports are what they need, not more expensive types of helicopters and crosses between helicopters and fixed wing aircraft...
    as I pointed out, that infrastructure takes a long time to build. U can take a train from Moscow to Vladivostok/Yakutsk or from Beijing to Lhasa/Kashgar, but huge areas to the side of those lines need helos to be reachable.
    https://www.tibettravel.org/tibet-train/beijing-to-lhasa-train.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashgar#Rail

    Most of the high speed helicopter designs I have seen are coaxials and are rather bigger than Ka-31s.
    any flying prototypes yet? Time will tell!
    if you take that 3 billion dollars those Chinooks cost and used 240million of it to buy 28 Mi-17s, then you have about 2.7 billion dollars you could use on almost anything.
    a few years ago, the richest man in the world was a Mexican; if he distributed all his wealth to every1 in Mexico below the poverty line, each would get ~$16K. But it's his choice to buy a business jet, another mansion, etc. or to give to charity. India has more poverty & strife, but has $Bs to spend on imported arms & cargo aircraft.
    Spending money on US products really does not seem to be productive as the US is threatening India over its purchase of S-400 missiles from Russia and it will likely also complain if India buys Su-57s or even Su-35s, so it is clearly not money well spent...
    those C-17s & CH-47Fs were available & they got them, while their relations with US r still good. Iran under the Shah also got everything he wanted; the new regime stopped Iraq aggression & still uses some of it. Her rival Pakistan has mostly American & PRC made arms. It would be stupid to rely only on Russian imports. So, they r following in Saudi Arabia footsteps & try to show China, Japan & the US that they r in quasi alliance with the West.
    Free cheese can be found only in a mouse trap!
     
    They have stated that they are developing a new helicopter to replace the Helix family, and they have also stated they are developing a new helicopter with a payload weight range of 10-15 tons with China... that is all they have said. Nothing to do with my judgement.
    and the Kamov people said that they r developing the Ka-102! Who knows if/when a new helicopter to replace the Helix family will be accepted, & will it kill the Ka-102 project with 100% certainty?

    Tandem helicopters and tilt rotors are not that revolutionary or important.
    well, if they were quite revolutionary & important to the US, as many independent experts think so, Russia isn't a special country in this context.

    Hahaha... you make it sound like it was a lifestyle choice... an enormous number of giant pandas died and the few that survived are dying out because bamboo is not a great source of energy.

    it could be both a survival situation & lifestyle choice for many species. Many ice age animals died out but many other species got smaller & survived. Isolated marsupials in Australia & Moa birds in NZ survived in large #s while S. América lost similar species after it drifted & joined to C. América with more advanced animals moving South. So it's not always random.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:56 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add a quote, text)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 11, 2019 8:12 pm

    This is what I'm talking about regarding the airstrips in Siberia:
    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/stories_from_the_life1/strashnyi-vzlet-samoleta-v-sibiri-5d78cf3280879d00c341f822
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21788
    Points : 22334
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 12, 2019 12:31 pm

    even if true, Kamov better diversify & expand its line! The Russians r using a different logic.

    Why?

    The future potential would be powerful electric motors with electric drive, where complex transmissions would not be needed and synchronised gearboxes would be a thing of the past.

    As shown by their example 600km/h plus model where free spinning coaxial rotors are used for take off and landing but normal flight is like a jet powered plane seems by far the best solution... who needs tandems then? Or tilt rotors?

    The Indian Army’s Aviation Corps (AAC) is also in the process of procuring AH-64Es and intends to stand up three separate AH-64E squadrons with a total of up to 39 helicopters.

    I am looking forward to when the Indians ask for a cheaper anti tank missile, because Hellfires are expensive, and the Ataka proves they really don't have to be.

    u r not getting it: many people there live too far away from any airstips.

    Don't you think they are a long way away from air strips for a reason? If their location is not worthy of building an airstrip, then they probably don't require enough supplies to make constant air access necessary. Occasional air access can be parachuted supplies or An-2 visits on open empty stretches of land or water.

    Israel must be very dumb to buy & use them, even if they didn't pay most of the price!

    Like any new toy they probably thought it was cool to start with, and the money they used to buy then probably came from US military aide so they probably haven't paid a cent of their own money for them... which likely eases the sting, but at the end of the day an F-15 or F16 can fly faster and further with a much heavier payload for a fraction of the operational costs of an F-35... they must be wondering what was the point... unless the point was to help NATO countries meet their 2% commitment by giving them aircraft that cost them 2% of their GDP to operate...

    it's ancient history now; they traded, raided, & fought with/against Russia for centuries. Now, to restore her great power status, Turkey who has no trust in the US/EU will de-facto, if not de-jure, divorce NATO & buy more Russian made arms until she can produce everything herself.

    The driving force is US stupidity from the top, and of course the fact that the EU has never considered Turkey to be European anyway.

    Personally I think an Su-35 and Su-57 with Turkish components and design input could be a rather improved platform and I think some countries in the EU might be a little jealous at having to buy F-35s for probably four times the price, but not four times the performance.

    India now also has both types, & they don't obstruct/compete with each other.

    I would suggest the Chinook is too expensive to operate everywhere and they just want to use it in a few specific roles.

    It's a multi-mission fighter-bomber, & they got the $ for it,etc from India & PRC:

    No... the designation is important here.

    Su-30 is an Su-27UB with minor changes. The Su-30M had an upgraded radar and systems to enable it to be used by the PVO as an airborne mini awacs to control groups of interceptors in places where ground based radar was patchy or stretched... neither aircraft was intended for the air to ground role and they could carry nothing but air to air guided missiles and dumb unguided rockets and bombs for use against ground targets.

    It was only the Su-30MKI and Su-30MKK etc where multi role air to ground capability was added. The Russian military had the Su-24 and Su-34 and they weren't interested in multirole aircraft because they didn't have any squadrons trained in different roles to use them.

    The MiG-29SMT failed to be bought in numbers by the Russian air force because the Russian Air Force were not interested in multi role aircraft.

    a civilian Ka-102 won't be a very costly mistake, if at all. Mil. versions will have commonality with it, thus not costing too much either.

    There is no civilian market for the Ka-102, so if they make any it will be a costly mistake. There is no military requirement, and even if there was the new Russian Chinese 10-15 ton payload helo is being developed and its development is being planned and paid for, which on its own kills any prospect for the Ka-102 anyway.

    then, pl. regard the Ka-102 as the Yak-24 & CH-47 de-facto follow on.

    No.

    The Soviet Buran shuttle was not a follow on from the US Space Shuttle, it had a fundamentally different design... the Soviet shuttle was a glider that was launched via a big rocket, while the US Shuttles were big super heavy aircraft with huge fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters to get it moving.

    The Buran was not a follow on to anything because they had not made one previously... the Ka-102 is not a follow on because Kamov are not Yakovlev or Boeing or whoever makes Chinooks.

    no, but it's more probable that this prediction will also come true!

    That is not how probability works.

    a paper helo won't get much exposure; wait until a mockup & then a prototype appears.

    That costs money... were there even any posters at MAKS 19? There is nothing on their website.

    as I pointed out, that infrastructure takes a long time to build. U can take a train from Moscow to Vladivostok/Yakutsk or from Beijing to Lhasa/Kashgar, but huge areas to the side of those lines need helos to be reachable.

    Or An-2s.

    any flying prototypes yet? Time will tell!

    They have a requirement and there is demand for faster helo designs... not slightly faster like a tandem rotor, but much faster...

    a few years ago, the richest man in the world was a Mexican; if he distributed all his wealth to every1 in Mexico below the poverty line, each would get ~$16K. But it's his choice to buy a business jet, another mansion, etc. or to give to charity. India has more poverty & strife, but has $Bs to spend on imported arms & cargo aircraft.

    Yeah, you are confusing a private person and what they do with money they earned, and the use of the money of Indian people by the Indian government that should be spent to benefit and improve the lives of the Indian people paying tax to fund the government budget.

    those C-17s & CH-47Fs were available & they got them, while their relations with US r still good. Iran under the Shah also got everything he wanted; the new regime stopped Iraq aggression & still uses some of it. Her rival Pakistan has mostly American & PRC made arms. It would be stupid to rely only on Russian imports.

    Stupid to rely only on Russian imports. Stupid why? I agree it would be stupid to rely on one source of weapons if those weapons were eye wateringly expensive, did not guarantee support at the level of the UNSC, and also if that source started to tell you who else you could or could not buy weapons from, or indeed had a government structure where over night someone could decide to impose sanctions on you to force you to do something you don't want to do... ie BLACKMAIL.

    But based on this information I would say for India it would be stupid to rely on the US as a source of military material, but relying on Russia has not caused problems in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future... they have a good record of selling their best stuff to India... at the time India was getting Su-30MKI fighters the Russian Air Force didn't have anything better than that in service. They leased SSNs... Charlie class and Gepard class to India... will the US lease a Seawolf to India? Now India is making AKs in India and Brahmos, and lots of other things with Russian support and when was the last time Russia imposed sanctions on India of any kind?

    So, they r following in Saudi Arabia footsteps & try to show China, Japan & the US that they r in quasi alliance with the West.
    Free cheese can be found only in a mouse trap!

    Funny you make the comment about the cheese because Saddam and Gaddafi and Assad were all turning west when they found out that the cheese was actually located within a large and complicated trap... only Assad managed to evade the trap and only just... and Libya and Syria and Iraq have all paid a heavy price for that foray towards the west.... many in the Trump administration probably thought... india is now buying Apaches and C-17s and P-8s and Chinooks... we own them and can now tell them to stop buying S-400 and to not bother looking at Su-35s or improved Su-30MKIs because we will be selling them F-16s...
    it is just a matter of telling them and they will obey...

    and the Kamov people said that they r developing the Ka-102! Who knows if/when a new helicopter to replace the Helix family will be accepted, & will it kill the Ka-102 project with 100% certainty?

    The Helix family equates to the sea based Hip family, so with a Mi-17/-38 new helicopter at sea as well, and a new 10-15 ton payload capacity helo presumably with both naval and land based models being made, then there is no gap for a huge number of Ka-102s... and if there is no requirement for a huge number there wont be any money for development because it is just not needed.

    well, if they were quite revolutionary & important to the US, as many independent experts think so, Russia isn't a special country in this context.

    Not special, just different. Light aircraft like the An-2 costs a fraction of any of the solutions you mention, and good enough in terms of speed and range and ability to operate from rough strips.

    it could be both a survival situation & lifestyle choice for many species.

    Bamboo is low in energy... they pretty much spend their entire lives eating and sleeping.

    Many ice age animals died out but many other species got smaller & survived. Isolated marsupials in Australia & Moa birds in NZ survived in large #s while S. América lost similar species after it drifted & joined to C. América with more advanced animals moving South. So it's not always random.

    The survival chances of the Moa became zero when the apex predator in the country became the human. They were an easy meal, and had no previous experience at being food for anything, so they didn't know to run away or defend themselves.

    This is what I'm talking about regarding the airstrips in Siberia:

    So they have a 1.6km runway for a small town... and the planes seem to operate from such airstrips well enough... what makes you think spending 500x more by supporting that town with helicopters and tilt rotors would improve things at all?

    Russia has a lot of aircraft that can operate from rough airstrips... their military does too, it makes more sense to develop transport aircraft that can operate in such conditions than to create new helicopter and tilt rotor types because they will be more expensive over time than the cost of flying in the materials and building a proper runway.

    Near where I live there is a rather steep hill on a motorway. There is a rail tunnel that already goes under the hill but in their wisdom it was decided to continue using the hill, so millions have been spent on making a two lane motorway over the hill. Over the decades it has been there I don't know how much it has cost in terms of having to grit the road every winter, or the fact that trucks have to burn fuel climbing slowly up and then burn more fuel using engine brakes all the way down the other side when an obvious solution of extending the rail tunnel could have solved the problems...

    You can spend billions of dollars developing tilt rotors and then millions more producing them and subsidising their cost so small communities in the far east can be connected and supplied, but it makes rather more sense building rail lines and runways and the odd road to connect some of these areas with much cheaper and more reliable transport means. Many isolated places it will be easier to build rail lines north to ports to connect them to the world and as they joint together then it becomes cheaper to visit and these places will grow and develop if there is something there worth staying for.

    If there isn't then who cares?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2772
    Points : 2770
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:20 pm

    There r 28K settlements w/o roads to reach them. An-2s & its successor still/will need airstrips, & not every location has it.
    Helos can help them to survive & enjoy life better; once the economy improves & it becomes feasible, some more roads could be built.

    Sponsored content

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 5 Empty Re: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:16 pm