NAVAIR announces TH-57D

[Flying Low]

So I confirmed the weight of the Delta will be higher then the Charlie. I don't have a hard number but I'm working on it. We are scheduled to get 24 a year over 5 years starting in 12-18 months. The Delta will replace both the Bravo and Charlie. Still no word on full autos in the Delta.

 

[ChuckMK23]

The '57/B206 has a much wider touchdown auto envelope than we give have played with. Pax river has confirmed this as well a number of times. Heck the Army operates the TH-67 at a higher weight and does full autos to concrete.

I personally had one of the few documented power failures in a Bravo in 1993 - I had 90 gallons plus two big students - DA well above 3000' - Fam 6 or 7. Simulated engine failure in the way to Pace OLF (Zig zag field I think if that's what you still call it). Engine settled to idle and would not respond to twist grip. Full auto no problem.

 

[Gatordev]

I'm guessing that what Flying Low is getting it has less to do w/ actual performance characteristics and more to do with "being safe." Kind of like how we can't go below 1000' (fixed-wing) but the T-45s can go down to 500' at a much higher speed.

 

[Flying Low]

My post was aimed at two things. One was I confirmed from the wing about the added weight (Which we already knew). The second was about full autos and whether or not they are going to let us take out a brand new Delta and do full autos in it or if they will say it cost to much and we don't want you guys tearing it up. I don't think the weight is an issue for full autos. Only cost is if you have a hard landing and break something. I wasn't trying to say that the issue with full autos was weight.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Simulated engine failure in the way to Pace OLF (Zig zag field I think if that's what you still call it).

It was called Zig Zag field when I went through HT's in 2000. That's where I got my first (of three) truck of shame rides... Back of my winging shirt says "Overtorque".

 

[SynixMan]

Thread resurrection! What the heck happened to this? Pushed to the right ala the T-6B?

 

[squorch2]

Here is the latest gouge - and by "latest" I mean "what I was told upon checkin almost 2 years ago."

The D will be here in the next 2-3 years. There is one prototype that is currently undergoing FAA certification in Andalusia.

... and nothing more ever since I got here - except to hear that there is a movement afoot to teach basic flight familiarization in the D sim before putting studs in the plane, a la the T-6B sims.

 

[MasterBates]

You mean like the LongRanger tranny so you can actually use all the power of the engine?

LongRanger Trans in a 206B is a great external/spray combo. And would be FAR CHEAPER than all the overtorque inspections/truck rides/damage.

 

[lowflier03]

You mean like the LongRanger tranny so you can actually use all the power of the engine?

LongRanger Trans in a 206B is a great external/spray combo. And would be FAR CHEAPER than all the overtorque inspections/truck rides/damage.

Here is the problem with that thought process. It makes sense. Do not attempt to apply common sense to any decision made by the military. I could say the same thing about numerous components in the -60 that we should have had in common with all the other services but due to shortsighted budget planning were left out to save a few bucks 10-15 years ago, but cost us more now.