Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Griz882]

If Iran can do it, surely the US Army can revive 500+ Kiowa Warriors...

Army Aviation boosts fleet with domestically refurbished helicopters

TEHRAN – In a ceremony at the Fourth Combat Aviation Base in Esfahan on Monday, Iran’s Army (Artesh) Aviation Unit integrated 10 refurbished helicopters into its fleet while celebrating the production of its 1000th indigenized aircraft part.

www.tehrantimes.com

It shouldn’t be hard to disassemble, say, a MRGB to scan the components, tolerances and such to reproduce them. Thinking about it, it would make our own mothballed air fleet much more valuable. It is easier to recreate an old part than to create an entirely new aircraft.

 

[Lawman]

From the article...
“The brilliance of the COCO model is that it’s not my thing to worry about,” Maj. Gen. Gill said. “Now all I say is, ‘I want 1,350 pilots at the end of the year; you figure out how."

OK, I'm just an old Jar Head who retired from Army Aviation, but WHAT THE...!?!?!?
Is this really the Army's senior leadership's mentality?
Not my problem, it's all on the contractor?
I'm at a loss for words to express my disappointment in Gill.

View attachment 42741

Flight training CANNOT be the sole consuming topic for the number of things the GOSC has to deal with and USAACE has to be beholden to. That was what Francis tried to do to himself micromanaging it, and a lot of our current problems came from that sort of high up from atop the mountain edicts of what flight school should ____.

That’s what the Col and rest of the staff at 1st AV Bde are supposed to be dealing with.

It shouldn’t be hard to disassemble, say, a MRGB to scan the components, tolerances and such to reproduce them. Thinking about it, it would make our own mothballed air fleet much more valuable. It is easier to recreate an old part than to create an entirely new aircraft.

the problem with all things is at Huntsville.

They are fully willing to admit that 3D printing of a lot of components can and should be done, they just aren’t willing to put their name to a TBO for any part produced by not a manufacturer.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

That’s what the Col and rest of the staff at 1st AV Bde are supposed to be dealing with.

Then let me paraphrase what he really meant...

“The brilliance of of being a Mag. Gen. is that it’s not my thing to worry about anything, that’s what the Col and rest of the staff at 1st AV Bde are supposed to be dealing with.”

So what IS he worrying about? His next star?

He clearly stated he didn't have to worry because of the COCO model, meaning leave it to the contractor?

I still believe Gill could have phrased what he was attempting to say much better, because I don't see it in the article presented here.

 

[Griz882]

They are fully willing to admit that 3D printing of a lot of components can and should be done, they just aren’t willing to put their name to a TBO for any part produced by not a manufacturer.

I totally agree…I was thinking more along the line of a national emergency.

 

[Flash]

If Iran can do it, surely the US Army can revive 500+ Kiowa Warriors...

Army Aviation boosts fleet with domestically refurbished helicopters

TEHRAN – In a ceremony at the Fourth Combat Aviation Base in Esfahan on Monday, Iran’s Army (Artesh) Aviation Unit integrated 10 refurbished helicopters into its fleet while celebrating the production of its 1000th indigenized aircraft part.

www.tehrantimes.com

Even I know that is a horrible idea, and I know next to nothing about helos.

 

[phrogdriver]

It shouldn’t be hard to disassemble, say, a MRGB to scan the components, tolerances and such to reproduce them. Thinking about it, it would make our own mothballed air fleet much more valuable. It is easier to recreate an old part than to create an entirely new aircraft.

That’s actually incredibly hard to do, especially for gearboxes. You can’t see the metallurgy with a scan.

The material processes for gear manufacturing are incredibly complex and the consequences of screwing it up are deadly.

You really need the technical data package from the OEM to have a chance of duplicating it successfully.

There’s a reason MOSA is a thing on the avionics side and tech data rights are a huge subject of every contract negotiation with USG.

Obsolescence is a HUGE problem even for an operational airframe, much less one out of service for a while.

 

[Griz882]

That’s actually incredibly hard to do, especially for gearboxes. You can’t see the metallurgy with a scan.

The material processes for gear manufacturing are incredibly complex and the consequences of screwing it up are deadly.

You really need the technical data package from the OEM to have a chance of duplicating it successfully.

There’s a reason MOSA is a thing on the avionics side and tech data rights are a huge subject of every contract negotiation with USG.

Obsolescence is a HUGE problem even for an operational airframe, much less one out of service for a while.

Again, I don’t disagree with the rules, manufacturing process, or FAA regulations…I am simply saying it can be done in an emergency. I certainly wouldn’t 3D print parts for myself, but I can see the utility as an expedient.

 

[phrogdriver]

Again, I don’t disagree with the rules, manufacturing process, or FAA regulations…I am simply saying it can be done in an emergency. I certainly wouldn’t 3D print parts for myself, but I can see the utility as an expedient.

Expedient for what?

You don’t replace individual gears in a gearbox unless you’re overhauling it, which is a weeks long endeavor.

Or unless you’re Iran and your pilots are eager to see their 72 virgins.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

You really need the technical data package from the OEM to have a chance of duplicating it successfully.

OEM has always been an issue.
In the mid-80's we were able to keep a CH-46 squadron at 98%+ OR when the rest of the fleet was around 75-85%.
This was because our CO had worked with a JSDF Squadron flying KV-107's and was able to get KV bolts, ILO BV bolts.
The difference between the KV (Kawasaki Vertol) and BV (Boeing Vertol) bolts was the K or B stamped on the end.
So maybe making a new part may not always make sense, but knowing who makes an identical OEM authorized part may increase part availability.

 

[Griz882]

Expedient for what?

You don’t replace individual gears in a gearbox unless you’re overhauling it, which is a weeks long endeavor.

Or unless you’re Iran and your pilots are eager to see their 72 virgins.

To replace parts that are no longer produced to service aircraft that are still usable airframes.

 

[ChuckMK23]

So we agree there are no silver-bullets. THE Army will procure a new aircraft with our flawed and dysfunctional procurement system. The new aircraft will probably be seen inevitably as a failure after introduction and will take effort to fix. And of course will generate a thread of its own.

 

[wink]

knowing who makes an identical OEM authorized part may increase part availability.

Little wind generator (think rat) on my 1946 Luscombe aiplane turned out to be a Mercury outboard motor generator. Trip down to the marine supply shop saved me good bit of money.

 

[Griz882]

So we agree there are no silver-bullets. THE Army will procure a new aircraft with our flawed and dysfunctional procurement system. The new aircraft will probably be seen inevitably as a failure after introduction and will take effort to fix. And of course will generate a thread of its own.

Apparently they aren’t even going to procure the aircraft….just contract out the training.

I might be missing a step here, but, as I see it once contracted “Spacely Sprockets” will train “x” number of helicopter pilots per year to FAA ppl/IFR level using whatever machine they want. Upon completion said soldiers will then move to a tactical trainer that may, or may not, be the Lakota. Upon completion of the tactical phase they will be winged and sent to their platform.

Or….the army will simply plop an FAA rated rotary wing fellows into a tactical cockpit at the school house kind of like an FRS.

 

[Roger_Waveoff]

Part of this problem is Flight School Next has to solve for the existing problem(s) but also be future proof, and in the end we’re trying to adopt a single model that can train across existing MDS and that weird tilty thing that nothing at Novosel is prepared for. It’s not just the flying stuff either. DOTD has not looked at any of the expansion of things like academics for aero theory etc that will be necessary. That’s all a problem for the next guy.

The easy button on that is the first 10 guys were supposed to go to the V-22 course and a couple even stay and instruct in a Marine unit, but HRC just will not let us identify 10 special people for special treatment.

Hot take, potentially, but I really don't think the Army needs anything special in their next trainer to prepare MV-75 pilots. The Air Force has gone back and forth multiple times over the last 20-ish years whether CV-22 slots drop to TH-1 or T-1 students. They do just fine with beefing up the syllabus at the FRS with additional sims geared toward either rotary-wing aerodynamics or high-speed instrument flying.

At the risk of spoiling a good deal, while I loved the T-44 going through flight school, I wouldn't consider it particularly essential to my development as a tiltrotor pilot. Add a top-off syllabus to the T-6 to where Instruments culminates in an actual instrument rating and you do some TACFORM and LAT to an L-hour and we'd have been fine.

Tiltrotor aerodynamics are also not covered in depth until MV-22 ground school, and I'd argue the value is far more in understanding the quirks of the V-22 as opposed to anything generically tiltrotor. What I mean by that is the specific FCS control laws when you're in CONV mode and not pure VTOL or Airplane. Or the relationship between our small rotors, hurricane-force downwash, and why it's so hard to actually put a V-22 in vortex ring state. Besides that, flying a good approach to a CAL, pinnacle, or mountainous zone has all the same principles as doing it in a pure helicopter. To the extent that we shamelessly teach HAATS material in our mountain area landing syllabus. Up at altitude...it's an airplane with a single thrust control lever. The T-6 is an airplane with a single power control lever. Ya feel me?

That said, if the Army wants to bring me on as a contractor to teach all this stuff to new MV-75 pilots for $200K a year, sign me the F up.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I did not realize that Marines were doing COPT-R. Here is a CNATRA Public Affairs pic of a young Marine soloing - as in SOLE OCCUPENT OF THE AIRCRAFT (as god intended). Notice no helmets or gloves just headsets.

Also note from tyclic, this is a straight civilian Bell 206B3.