Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    They don't need a tandem design.

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

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

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

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

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

    GarryB wrote:There wont be AWACS or COD roles for naval helos in Russia.
    the Ka-31s will soldier on for many more years.
    If not tandems, big coaxial models may appear:
    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 2 9k=
    They don't have unlimited funding so pissing money away to make a tandem helicopter when they already have helicopters able to get the job done is a serious waste of time and money.
    If Kamov wasn't sure of future gov. & export orders, it wouldn't bother with designing the Ka-102 & spend $ building a prototype. No1 wants to be closer to bankruptcy by wasting $.
    Why would they want to send BMs to remote locations to launch them... it makes absolutely no sense...
    That was decades ago when they didn't have many BM silos &/ used S/IRBMs that needed to be launched from remote sites.
    if you can air drop people or cargo then that eliminates the need to land vertically as with a tandem helicopter or tilt rotor aircraft... any plane can airdrop troops or cargo... without an air strip.
    helos/tilt-rotors can hover & drop them in 1 spot or spots at slower speeds & with fewer losses.
    But anything you can do to a tandem to make it faster you can do to any other helicopter and also make that faster...
    true, but if tandem helo can haul more load, it can trade off some speed for range & payload.
    They could simply make a naval version of the Mi-26 with a much more compact structure, the same engines and folding main rotor and a pusher propeller...
    & even make an amphibian variant. It's very strange they didn't think of this excellent idea! Perhaps the US will also make high speed CH-53K/47F variants so they don't need as many V-22s. Stay tuned!
    Most tilt rotor aircraft cannot take off fully conventionally because their rotors are too big to be in the horizontal position while on the ground.
    the future aircraft may be designed with tilt wings &/ additional smaller props to allow for CTO & Ls.
    you don't just land in random places that look flat from the air to routinely operate there unless the place is hip deep in snow and you have snow ski landing gear.
    if needed, they'll try to get info. from other pilots or locals for emergency vertical/short landings.
    Except for the 89 airports and air fields there...  https://www.alltravels.com/russia/sakha/airports
    How many of them can handle An-22s/124s & IL-76/96-400T/106s?
    Large & frequent  deliveries of supplies r not economical by air- that's why they r building a railroad to Yakutia.
    Duh... the Mi-26 isn't their only helicopter... they already have Hips and will have Mi-38s and a range of even smaller aircraft for a variety of different jobs... for which they don't need tandems. ..
    They already have Mi-26s in that position, and they are developing a new helicopter with China with a performance just above the Chinook AFAIK.
    India also has Mi-26s, Hips and will have Ka-226s, but there's still a big need for the CH-47s for some strange reason- not just to carry favor with the Americans.. That new helo may not be as good as the Ka-102; do u have a crystal ball to see its future? if not, it's 50-50.:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Indian_Air_Force
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Indian_military_aircraft#Border_Security_Force

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Because they don't have any use for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    Not much more than on a coaxial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Even if tilt rotor designs succeeds the result will only be a slightly faster helicopter...
    but with a lot longer range/combat radius. They'll also be able to cross the continents & oceans on their own, a very useful feature for Russia: Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 2 Image1260

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 477
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2015-12-30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Russia will lose by not having An-70s.

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

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

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

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

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

    Which is not at all.

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

    Wouldn't they actually have to develop it first?

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

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

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

    How is it better than CH-47,

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

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

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

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

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

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

    the life cycle costs must also be included.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Which one would that be exactly?

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 477
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2015-12-30

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 477
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2015-12-30

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    high speed variants won't be cheaper;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mi-38 is a new aircraft.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheaper and easier to just continue using existing types.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Kamov isn't Mil & it never parroted it.

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

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

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

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

    they could develop this concept:

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

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

    An-70 is not an option.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 477
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2015-12-30

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What silos?

    Train would be rather more efficient.

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

    Worth it because it would be cool?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Based on what evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

    wanting something isn't = it shall happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    GET REAL BUDDY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just for you:

    The VVP-6...

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 2 20190510
    http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/yak_vvp-6.php
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

    GarryB wrote:To get rotor blade clearance between rotor sets it would need to be too big to be useful...
    they could be synchronized so they don't hit each other, or the fuselage on some variants could be big enough to begin with.
    What silos? Train would be rather more efficient.
    they also set up a MRBM base in Chukotka to target Alaska, Hawaii & US W. coast, probably with just TELs- trains likely won't be able to get there even in 10 years from now, unless the Russians & Chinese send Ks of workers & $Bs to build it from Yakutsk.
    Or worth it because there is a specific use for them that they need to get done but can't because they currently lack the right sort of helicopter to get the job done?
    yes; future high speed helos may also fall behind in some specs.
    They are developing a Helix replacement already, that is a different programme.
    good, & I hope it'll succeed!
    So maybe it is the USN that needs a new helicopter perhaps?
    no, they use "jointness"- working with other mil. branches to augment each other's capabilities. They have the V-22s, CH-46/53s & don't need CH-47s as much. Russia doesn't have any tilt/tandem rotor aircraft yet; but it's not=she won't need them at all.
    They also built Yak-44s and Yak-141s...
    The Yak-44 was only as a mock-up. The Ka-102 may become "too big to fail" & they'll make sure it will be accepted.
    Not anywhere, that is bullshit.... they will need a small area of level firm ground.
    it can be flattened with "daisy cutter"-like bombs, like the US used in Vietnam to clear jungle, enemy, & other obstacles. If need be, IL-76/An-22/72/124s can drop bulldozers, portable airfield steel plates & personnel to set up a small helo pads or an airfield.
    So if they are clearly happy with hips then why piss away money on a hip replacement?
    shore based helos don't need to be fully navalized; ship based must be if they r to be there for a long time. Hips r not the best choice for it, & once new better suited helos appear, they may be replaced by them.
    You are not getting it... these aircraft you are proposing will cost millions and millions of dollars... you can't just develop a new type of aircraft because it might be useful for some things.
    Perhaps Kamov economists (every design bureau has them) r wrong & should be fired! I suspect their contacts in the military told them to develop something like the Ka-102 before they even started!
    Ships are vastly more efficient for that sort of thing, and they can transport fuel at the same time...
    COD missions bring emergency supplies, mail & move personnel within hours, while ships will take days/weeks to reach their operating areas.
    The US uses a tandem rotor helicopter... big fucking deal. Russia uses coaxial rotor helicopters that are a fraction of the size yet can manage payloads of 50% for a purchase price about 20% that fit on even some of their corvettes...
    CH-46s can land more marines/SF than Ka-29s:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_CH-46_Sea_Knight#Specifications_(CH-46E)

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0-29#%D0%9B%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8

    You mean Sikorsky is going to upgrade their inferior range by copying Kamovs rotor design?
    no, it will develop it's own design of the coaxial rotor concept. It goes both ways: Kamov built classic layout helo & will build a tandem helo, while Sikorsky is testing a coaxial high speed helo. Why shouldn't the Russians design a V-22-like  aircraft?
    Actually at the design stage, yes it is...
    it may remain at that stage.
    it is more expensive to operate, yet the extra weight capacity it can carry would rarely be needed most of the time.... a white elephant.
    it's being chartered worldwide- no other cargo plane can do its job.
    Lack of suitable engines...
    true; also the B-36 had 6 turning (props)& 4 burning (jet) engines; it had a lot longer range than the B-29.
    not many civilian operators want to shell out half a billion per aircraft to buy C-17s that the US can tell them can't be used for certain jobs due to current sanctions...
    it's not in production; the US won't sell any from its AF fleet, at least in the near future.  
    ..flexure of the aircraft structure because of the torque from the two main rotors trying to snap the structure in two by bending each end, and of course the problems of power transmission so the engines can keep powering both rotor blades even if one engine fails.
    new lighter & stronger materials & extra/more reliable engines/transmission will take care of it.
    A tilt rotor is even more of a pain in the ass because it needs to be balanced on the lift of two main rotors...
    it could have a tandem mode before spreading its wings & turning rotors for airplane mode of flight.
    so burns lots of fuel and enormous footprint, not to mention risky and horribly expensive to buy and operate...
    the Mi-26 also has enormous footprint; they can use IRPs; no need to buy many of them.
    If they need a VTOL aircraft with a payload of 10 tons they have the Mi-6,..
    FYI, it's been retired.
    if they need one with a payload of 12-15 tons they are developing one with the Chinese now...
    would u bet ur life on it coming on time, on budget, & with right specs?
    There is no need for a tandem helicopter design or a tilt rotor design for the Russian military.
    will it stay that way for the next 20-30 years? the world isn't frozen in time & the russian military stopped training "to fight the last war".
    They might not even bother with the Il-276 with propfan engines...
    in an ideal world, they could probably buy C-390 from Brazil instead & still save time & $. The IL-276 problems could be bigger than they now have with the IL-112, for all I know. The proposed Tu-330 also had commonality with the Tu-204 but it never got built; they may return to it later, should the IL-276 project fail or won't be enough.
    Russia can already get the capacity from existing conventional types, and they are working on getting higher speed from new high speed types, which makes the tilt rotor design less desirable and more risky.
    that may be so, but time will tell if u right!
    So, I can agree to disagree with u at this point.


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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There is a port there...

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

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

    good, & I hope it'll succeed!

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

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

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

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

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

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 2 Antono10

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 2 20121210

    Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development - Page 2 Image10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That costs money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    it may remain at that stage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FYI, it's been retired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Possibly the only likely solution.

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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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

    Posts : 21733
    Points : 22279
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

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

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

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

    Do you not understand how stupid that sounds?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    they use Cobra attack helos for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 2735
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

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

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

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

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

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


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

    Posts : 477
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2015-12-30

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:17 pm