As I and others have stated, there's good reasons to go with Bell, but I really wish people would stop equating the -135 with the -145. The -135 is significantly less mx-intensive for it's TBO (for lack of a better term).
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
As I and others have stated, there's good reasons to go with Bell, but I really wish people would stop equating the -135 with the -145. The -135 is significantly less mx-intensive for it's TBO (for lack of a better term).
I certainly agree with your point that the 135 and 145 are not the same aircraft - instead, I should have specifically noted the negative traits that they share (no hot gas refuel capability, no ability to perform full touchdown autos, restricted slope landing envelope, higher MX/operational cost versus a single engine airframe for minimal appreciable gain, poor factory support, etc).
Some of my “rage against the machine” tone comes from two (civilian) friends who instruct up at Fort Rucker who decry the basic airmanship skills lost in the next generation of Army Aviators when the transition was made from the TH-67 to the LUH-72. I certainly cannot speak to that in specific, but both of them have repeatedly told me that they hope we go another route (ala Bell) for our Advanced trainer.
But will the 407 be any "better" in the piloting stuff? I don't have the Navy's req's memorized (and don't really care to go digging through it), but a lot of that is spelled out already, and if the Navy wants more automation management (either AFCS and/or glass cockpit management), they'll get that regardless of platform, as 407 has all of that, too.
Hot gas is an easy fix, or more accurately, pressure refueling is an easy fix. I can hot gas in the -135 now with gravity fuel just fine (and have done it). Interestingly, whenever I chat with HT IPs when I'm getting gas, they all say they've been told not to expect full-autos. And how much slope do you need for sloped landings? Is 12* not enough (-135 limit with a MMI)? That's on par with the -60.
The rest of the things you mention are all good arguments against the -135, as has been discussed before.
Edited because my Seahawk penguins are slowly falling off the iceberg.
Hot gas is an easy fix, or more accurately, pressure refueling is an easy fix. I can hot gas in the -135 now with gravity fuel just fine (and have done it). Interestingly, whenever I chat with HT IPs when I'm getting gas, they all say they've been told not to expect full-autos. And how much slope do you need for sloped landings? Is 12* not enough (-135 limit with a MMI)? That's on par with the -60.
The rest of the things you mention are all good arguments against the -135, as has been discussed before.
Edited because my Seahawk penguins are slowly falling off the iceberg.
Last edited:
The RFP describes exactly what the requirements are—the Navy wants either pressure hot refuel (like fleet aircraft) or closed-circuit hot refueling (what the 57 does now). Manufacturers who don’t have either of those will have to figure out how to put them in.
Breaking - Leonardo entry now DOD designated TH-73 and formally received FAA IFR certification this morning. Strong work by these guys.
https://www.verticalmag.com/press-r...-th-119-helicopter-obtains-ifr-certification/
https://www.verticalmag.com/press-r...-th-119-helicopter-obtains-ifr-certification/
The article is convoluted but I don't think the Leonardo system is officially designated the TH-73. I read it as saying that the program is now the TH-73 program. Therefore which ever platform is selected will go on to be the TH-73 in the same way that there were multiple contenders to become the MQ-25.
Want to expand on that idea? Or was the last 19 years (minus my VT IP time) of my life all a dream?
Gladly. Not to discount our collective years of flying helos in the low altitude system - but we get little operational benefit for flying like an airplane. We've seen progress but its been slow! Flying day VFR HAA in a twin engine IFR capable helo at 700/2 made no sense to me.
First - we need a low alt en-route structure with lower MEA's - kind of like RVSM for jets only in reverse and let ATC own separation services without having to fly at 5000'. ADS-B and WAAS makes it possible for finally a lower altitude enroute structure - but even without ADS-B, there were experiments in the BOS-NY-WASH corridor that were terrestrial based NAV that were popular, but got little support.
Second, more rapid development of COPTER PINS approaches to places like hospital helipads - something that doesnt take years to develop and are well coordinated. You've likely seen in your current job how slow it is to develop approaches and then get approved - same for ODP's from heliports.
Third - WX reporting by geographical segment (think MEF figures in a sectional quadrangle only for weather reporting). AWOS/ASOS sucks and is complex to deploy. Something that doesn't revolve around a runway. Its doable - sensors, connectivity and non terrestrial solutions exist (modeling).
Thats off the cuff - but to get more commercial productivity out of IFR capable helicopters, and cure the cancer of CFIT, especially for HAA - this is the kind of thing you need along with emergence of better technology in the cockpit to fly SPIFR in any helicopter, 1 or two motors.
Honest question, what's the difference between the two? I have flown both and I can't say I recognized a difference other than the pitifully slow rate the TH-57 had, but perhaps the system is in question instead of the limits of the aircraft (or is the system in place in order to afford the limits of the aircraft?)?
Thanks for elaborating. That was helpful and worth a good discussion. I can split the thread if needed.
Understandable, but depending on the program, you're never going to be able to go IFR for all the places you need to get to. IFR can have it's value overall, but it seems to provide significantly more value in mountainous terrain versus flat terrain with good roads. That said, no matter where the program is, being able to get that freeway or random farmer's field will always have value and more times than not, won't be solved by a PINS approach.
I suppose the FAA could generate 100's of let-down points, but even then, with how big our country is, I'm not sure you'd still be able to get close enough and still meet the spirit of 135.613. Yes, the numbers could change, but not by a lot before you're already at .609 minimums (and still maintaining a safety level that's better than the industry historic numbers).
Don't the GPS airways do this? Granted there could be more of them, but the GPS airways do have significantly lower MEAs. I'm not smart on what a "MVA" is for ADS-B. I'm sure it's lower than with an ASR, but there still has to be line-of-sight at some point, which is going to keep the overall MEA relatively high (greater than 1000' AGL).
Also, how do you get much lower and still maintain the safety margin of 1000'/2000' for terrain/obstacles? It seems the GPS airways try and makeup for this, but you can only get so low and still be a) effecient in routing and b) not hit a cliff. It seems like we're back to the same idea of needing more of them.
I certainly don't have my finger on the pulse of my company's Ops, but from the emails I see (and when I've asked PINS-specific questions), it seems like the hold up has more to do with the FAA then with building the approaches. Obviously that's an issue for everything that has to get a stamp of approval in a bureaucracy. But that's a whole other rant that isn't specific to helos.
I think there's also the matter of copyright that slows things down. If a company has their approach built by someone who intends to keep the rights to the approach, that person can hold the approach ransom down the road, which increases cost (and/or time). That has certainly happened.
I know my company has moved away from copyright PINS approaches.
Additional METARs would certainly be helpful, but again, costs money. I know it's a complaint we have at our base. Your "weather quadrant" idea is a good one, but isn't that what the GFA tool is supposed to be doing now? I do wonder if we're just not quite there on the technology front to make the data more helpful. I'll occasionally play around with the GFA tool on nights when I'm expecting weather (but have no TAF at my base), but I find it to be hit and miss. I think part of why I don't trust it is because it will sometimes give me forecast data that's drastically different than the TAF that covers the exact same spot.
Understandable, but depending on the program, you're never going to be able to go IFR for all the places you need to get to. IFR can have it's value overall, but it seems to provide significantly more value in mountainous terrain versus flat terrain with good roads. That said, no matter where the program is, being able to get that freeway or random farmer's field will always have value and more times than not, won't be solved by a PINS approach.
I suppose the FAA could generate 100's of let-down points, but even then, with how big our country is, I'm not sure you'd still be able to get close enough and still meet the spirit of 135.613. Yes, the numbers could change, but not by a lot before you're already at .609 minimums (and still maintaining a safety level that's better than the industry historic numbers).
Don't the GPS airways do this? Granted there could be more of them, but the GPS airways do have significantly lower MEAs. I'm not smart on what a "MVA" is for ADS-B. I'm sure it's lower than with an ASR, but there still has to be line-of-sight at some point, which is going to keep the overall MEA relatively high (greater than 1000' AGL).
Also, how do you get much lower and still maintain the safety margin of 1000'/2000' for terrain/obstacles? It seems the GPS airways try and makeup for this, but you can only get so low and still be a) effecient in routing and b) not hit a cliff. It seems like we're back to the same idea of needing more of them.
I certainly don't have my finger on the pulse of my company's Ops, but from the emails I see (and when I've asked PINS-specific questions), it seems like the hold up has more to do with the FAA then with building the approaches. Obviously that's an issue for everything that has to get a stamp of approval in a bureaucracy. But that's a whole other rant that isn't specific to helos.
I think there's also the matter of copyright that slows things down. If a company has their approach built by someone who intends to keep the rights to the approach, that person can hold the approach ransom down the road, which increases cost (and/or time). That has certainly happened.
I know my company has moved away from copyright PINS approaches.
Additional METARs would certainly be helpful, but again, costs money. I know it's a complaint we have at our base. Your "weather quadrant" idea is a good one, but isn't that what the GFA tool is supposed to be doing now? I do wonder if we're just not quite there on the technology front to make the data more helpful. I'll occasionally play around with the GFA tool on nights when I'm expecting weather (but have no TAF at my base), but I find it to be hit and miss. I think part of why I don't trust it is because it will sometimes give me forecast data that's drastically different than the TAF that covers the exact same spot.
Different receptacles, for one. Second, pressure runs at 50psi and CCR runs around 15. Both make hot refueling safer by reducing splashing and fuel vapors. Pressure requires a lot more venting and complexity, so is rarely used in smaller aircraft.
Interesting write up on the Leonardo journey for IFR certification:
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/how-leonardo-certified-its-th-119-helicopter-for-instrument-flight/
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/how-leonardo-certified-its-th-119-helicopter-for-instrument-flight/