NAVAIR announces TH-57D

[ChuckMK23]

on 30 MAR NAVAIR formally announced contract award to L3 Communications for the upgrade of 128 TH-57B and TH-57C helos to the TH-57D common standard.

The upgrade will include:

• Common digital cockpits centered around 2 MFD's
• Full NVG integration
• Collective shaker for TOT and Torque limit warning
• Airbags for cockpit and cabin
• SIMULA energy absorbing/stroking crew seats

Conversion of airframes is set to begin in 2008

 

[BigIron]

This is going to cost a fortune. Do you know how many years this is spread over, or perhaps a link to an article?

 

[dodge]

collective shakers for torque/tot...is that normal for fleet aircraft or something new?

i somehow still envision studs learning on glass cockpit, winging, then flying the bravo.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Conversion of all airframes to be compete by FY 2012

Low rate initial production (LRIP) through 2010 - with full production 2010-2012

Chuck

 

[ChuckMK23]

collective shakers for torque/tot...is that normal for fleet aircraft or something new?

i somehow still envision studs learning on glass cockpit, winging, then flying the bravo.

Over torques and over-temps are the number one maint expense on the TH-57. Navair has been trying to get this upgrade in for years (well since the 90's anyway).

My guess is this upgrade alone would pay for itself in a year or two.

No other aircraft is as torque limited as the TH-57/BH206. Definitely not representative of medium/heavy aircraft you will see in the fleet. But it's performance as a trainer is incredible. The Army selected - in large part - their NTH based on the wild success of the Navy program over decades.

I'm glad to see the upgrades and going to one common airframe - studs in the future won't have the B to C conversion worries. I'm guessing no more trans-fams!

Overdue in my book but this looks like a well thought out upgrade.

 

[Flying Low]

I have seen the parts of the new cockpit setup. It looks very nice. Up till Jan of this year I was working in TW5 OPS so I hear a lot about this.

 

[Gatordev]

I'd be curious to know how much all that new gee-whiz stuff weighs compared to a C. Adding all the magic to the C greatly reduced capability (other than instrument flying), so if all they have is one airframe, it makes me wonder exactly how small and light that tin can will have to be for Rocks 'n Blocks.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I'd be curious to know how much all that new gee-whiz stuff weighs compared to a C. Adding all the magic to the C greatly reduced capability (other than instrument flying), so if all they have is one airframe, it makes me wonder exactly how small and light that tin can will have to be for Rocks 'n Blocks.

Solid state gyros and LCD panels have been TSO in General Aviation for years. You can get the full capability of the TH-57C in the weight of the B no problem.
I would guess there is nothing gee wiz about it - using stuff that is probably commercially available and L3 doing the integration that any good completion center would do (e.g. Keystone)

 

[Gatordev]

Solid state gyros and LCD panels have been TSO in General Aviation for years. You can get the full capability of the TH-57C in the weight of the B no problem.
I would guess there is nothing gee wiz about it - using stuff that is probably commercially available and L3 doing the integration that any good completion center would do (e.g. Keystone)

I hear you, but I think you have a greater faith in the system than I do. So why is the -60R so much heavier? A rhetorical question, but you get the idea.

 

[bert]

So why is the -60R so much heavier?

Slight threadjack: The R with a full bag of gas is up to 22k with no buoys, no RHEP, and no weapons.

 

[Gatordev]

Slight threadjack: The R with a full bag of gas is up to 22k with no buoys, no RHEP, and no weapons.

RHEP? Now that's just crazy. Don't they know it's on the wrong side???

But that still brings about my question. Why is it so much heavier? Does it carry more fuel? It has THE latest in technology (no really, Sikorsky told me so), and according to Chuck, this stuff is much lighter and smaller than the legacy gear. So it MUST be lighter! Smiles in effect.

I honestly am curious on why it's heavier.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I hear you, but I think you have a greater faith in the system than I do. So why is the -60R so much heavier? A rhetorical question, but you get the idea.

Good question - I believe it's the difference between MILSPEC and FAA certified. Look at the original TH-57C platform. Back in the late 70's there was no way military avionics could have met the weight and performance requirements that the mission required. SFENA proposed a complete soup to nuts FAR Part 23 platform and they integrated the whole thing with off the shelf TSO avionics. This was the FIRST FAA Single Pilot IFR installation for a BH 206B. My guess is same approach for the TH-57D. Look at a Cirrus, or a new pproduction Cessna piston single and the weight of the avionics package with dual MFD's, autopilot, solid state (no moving parts) gyros, comm/GPS/VOR/ILS all on one box... you get the picture.

None of this stuff would meet Mil spec though for operational combat aircraft for MTBF, or acceleration forces, salinity, humidity, repair, removal, etc.

That's my thoughts at least

 

[bert]

I am not much of a SAC fan myself, but I don't think you can blame them for the R's weight issues. And Lockheed only stuck on what they were paid to stick on.

So short answer is requirements creep, longer answer is the whole Helo Master Plan vision-thingy and the list of things we (and our SWO brethren) wanted the R to be able to do. So if you ask why it is so heavy, the answer is "because we asked for it to be."

Look on the bright side: if you think the R is overpacked and overweight, check out the AMCM Sierras....

 

[hscs]

AMCM Sierras.....Ha, that plan is really being executed....CVW 60S pilots will never tow.

And it is the 60B guys that helped LMSI screw up the cockpit...not to throw any stones.

 

[bert]

If you ever play with Link-16 you will appreciate the cockpit a little more. It takes that type of interaction to appreciate its good points.

While by far not the best cockpit out there, it is such a step up from some of our legacy airframes that you have to like it for that, if not for a whole lot else. A lot of the functionality just isn't that useful to a Sierra guy, and the lack of a decent digital map is such a negative point it can be hard to look past it.