Now back from Heli-Expo, bags unpacked, laundry going, and bourbon and soda in hand I wanted to share a few thoughts related to TH-XX based on my observations and experiences the last few days. This is all anecdotal. No warranty implied. I'm drinking bourbon.
1. First interesting interaction was an opportunity to sit with a sharp young Army CW3 IP from Ft Rucker. We talked about the merits of full touchdown autos in primary training. She had experience teaching in both the TH-67 and now the UH-72. She said "you know what, we don't miss it at all - we realize the maneuver to touchdown has nothing to do with producing a quality aviator".
a. Army is introducing 90 and 180 autos in the UH-72 with power recovery to teach management of Nr
b. UH-72 is getting skid shoes and sliding / run on landings are now part of the primary syllabus.
c. Enough data exists to show that there is parity in cost per student event between TH-67 and UH-72. A lot of the cost savings being realized is from the lack of wear and tear experienced on the TH-67.
d. Fuel costs, the way the Army does accounting are a negligible difference between a single and dual engine trainer - the DoD pays less that $1 per gallon of JP-4/5/8
e. There are no single engine aircraft in the Army - and the goal of the current UH-72 syllabus is to produce pilots that, in addition to stick skills, can manage mission systems and employ an aircraft to an outcome - in flight school that's often getting to A - B in different wx conditions and VFR and IFR. Systems management is a big skill that the Lakota enables (FMS, AP, etc)
f. Students getting plenty of SAS off time to learn flying a more unstable aircraft.
2. Bell
a. Every Bell guy I talked to was incredibly confident that the competition won't even be close. The opinion voiced to me was that Navy would never let a foreign design train the future of Naval Aviation.
b. 407GXi IFR certification with a 3 axis AP and SAS is all but wrapped up. HYD/Boos off flying qualities is all thats left to certify with FAA.
c. There is a plan to pitch 429. But I don't think its in response to any risk in the 407GXi - but probably to counter Airbus proposal in case a 2 engine platform becomes a more valued requirement.
d. One Bell dude carried on that the Army section of the UH-72 had noting to do with its suitability as a trainer and was 100% politically driven. If Army had opened up a competition to replace the TH-67, Bell would have crushed it.
3. Leonardo
a. The 119 I sat in had nice ergonomics. Great visibility. Its also a big machine.
b. A demo pilot quoted 60 GPH in cruise and over 200 gallon capacity. Fuel burn close to the H135.
c. Leonardo hired a bunch of TPS grads/retired O-6's and they are betting on that influence.
d. The Genesys avionics/flight deck is a central part of the offering. Its impressive.
e. IFR certification is in final clean up phase and they expect FAA sign off in April.
f. Few - as in little recurring maintenance or inspections. Thats a big differentiation with the 119 - very little in the way of ongoing inspections or scheduled maint. Very much an "on condition" aircraft.
g. Leonardo had the best espresso at their display - illy coffee all around
4. Airbus
a. Could not find a single Airbus rep that was knowledgable of the TH-XX submission.
b. They are the Goliath - they are likely too busy taking over the industry to worry about a 100+ aircraft buy. I really could not find people who had an opinion on the H135 and its suitability as a trainer.
www.ainonline.com