Navy Takes Delivery of TH-72A

[ChuckMK23]

TPS took delivery of two TH-72A aircraft. These are basically off the shelf EC-145's , 8,000 LB class twin engine helicopter. Design evolution from BK-117. These aircraft are also being procured by the Army for the Light Util Helo role replacing UH-1's in the National Guard. The Army has had great success with the platform.

My guess is TPS wants to train students in something other than Sikorsky products.

I wonder if someone is eyeing this thing for some sort of advanced training role in the HT's? Might be nice to see an advanced helo pipeline with a dual engine/medium ship like this to get more tactical instruction before FRS.

Picture here: BU No. 168245

 

[Treetop Flyer]

How many are they planning on getting?

 

[ChuckMK23]

How many are they planning on getting?

NAVAIR has a contract for 5. My guess is they are all bound for TPS. Anyone know for sure?

 

[Naval AV8R]

I believe they are all headed to TPS. They are replacements for the TPS H-6s (MD-500) that were retired a few years ago. Don't think you'll see any of these in the advanced portion of helo training. Everything in advanced helos is headed the TH-57D route.

 

[phrogdriver]

No way the Nav will invest in a twin for training. Gas and maintenance alone would burn through the budget like it's cool. Plus, all the minor damage that occurs during training in TH-57s and is up the next day would become class B/Cs in a bird like that.

The Bell 206 and its variants are cheap, easily maintained, and will be around for a long time to come.

 

[HeyJoe]

TPS took delivery of two TH-72A aircraft. These are basically off the shelf EC-145's , 8,000 LB class twin engine helicopter. Design evolution from BK-117. These aircraft are also being procured by the Army for the Light Util Helo role replacing UH-1's in the National Guard. The Army has had great success with the platform.

My guess is TPS wants to train students in something other than Sikorsky products.

It has nothing to do with Sikorsky, it has to do with cost. AIR-4.10 did an Analysis of Options (AoO) for a cost affordable replacement for the TH-6Bs that served the syllabus so well. The EC-145 was the most cost-effective solution and it makes sense to have a helicopter similar to the UH-72A now in Army service (objective is 322) since the US Naval Test Pilot School also serves as primary Test Pilot School for the Army and maintains Army legacy platforms on its flightline.

 

[RobLyman]

... The Army has had great success with the platform.

I wouldn't quantify it as a "great success".

FYI: We got a couple of the TPS pilots down in J'ville to get time in our guard UH-72s.

 

[helolumpy]

Since the Jet Ranger is the most successful and safest (at least when I was going through the HT's) turbine powered helo in the world, I would find it remarkable if the Navy went away from it.

The next time the Navy needs a helo trainer, I would expect a "Joint" solution to be pushed down upon us, in much the same way the T-6 is now flying for the USAF, USN (USMC & USCG) as primary training platform.

Since the Army uses the Bell 206, I would think they'll be a common buy for a helo training aircraft.

 

[Naval AV8R]

I would say with exception of the Air Force there already is a "common aircraft" for initial RW training. The TH-57 and TH67 are common airframes...the avionics are different but that is due to differences in training. If I recall correctly, the Air Force uses UH-1's (not sure of the version) tought at Ft. Rucker for its initial helo training.

 

[Jim123]

I would say with exception of the Air Force there already is a "common aircraft" for initial RW training. The TH-57 and TH67 are common airframes...the avionics are different but that is due to differences in training. If I recall correctly, the Air Force uses UH-1's (not sure of the version) tought at Ft. Rucker for its initial helo training.

I'd say that by now it has evolved into something more like a coincidence than a "both of you will buy a"* common airframe. Both are independent training systems (flight syllabus, ground/classroom/simulator syllabus, maintenance). This is not necessarily wasted overhead since both schools are more than large enough to benefit from economy of scale. Granted, all of the services have definitely saved money over the past four decades as the Army and Navy take turns buying slightly different versions/upgrades/keep on using the Bell 206. Bell certainly hasn't complained.


*I can't remember if the original purchases had anything to do with McNamara, directly or indirectly.

 

[busdriver]

If I recall correctly, the Air Force uses UH-1's (not sure of the version) tought at Ft. Rucker for its initial helo training.

Yep, we're in the process of upgrading the UH-1H to the TH-1H (mostly the same, glass cockpit) if I remember correctly the AF got the airframes essentially for free as the Army retired the ole Huey.

 

[PropAddict]

TPS took delivery of two TH-72A aircraft.

They are like 8k lbs of raw sex, too.

First aircraft in Navy livery that I've ever sat in that still had that "new plane smell". The avionics are pretty tits, too, as it's a sexy civilian glass system.

The story I heard was that their Little Bird kept getting chips lights and had become more of a problem child than an asset. So they bought these, opting for the tail rotor instead of the standard fenestron and the 2-step skids to allow mounting of more test gear.

Inexplicably, they seem to be maintaining them to FAA standards (vice military), the only purpose I can think of would be to sell them on civvie street down the line. So maybe they plan on only running them for a few years?

 

[HeyJoe]

Inexplicably, they seem to be maintaining them to FAA standards (vice military), the only purpose I can think of would be to sell them on civvie street down the line. So maybe they plan on only running them for a few years?

Let me make it explicable then: It has nothing to do with eventual sale of platform, it has to do with developing a NATOPS and corresponding NAMP as there is no generic "military" standard that you can pull off the shelf. It has to be developed (partly by TPS grads for the NATOPS portion) and it costs a pretty penny to do so. Since most of the TPS platfroms are maintained by contractors, it is much more cost effective to adopt the commercial maintenance program approved by FAA for a essentially commercial platform. This was done for the C-40A transport and has been used for other aircraft that are in use in small numbers. Essentially, all you need is a GFR to review the pubs and operating concept and the ARC/ACC to approve it.

GFR = Government Flight Representative (you have one for each Type/Model/Series down to Wing Level)
ARC = Aircraft Reporting Custodian
ACC = Aircraft Controlling Custodian

The latter two figurely prominently in the Mishap Reporting Chain so they're in the loop on the front end of putting an aircraft into Naval Inventory (with a BUNO) or flown under cognizance of Naval Aviation Enterprise (cats and dogs that retain a FAA N number).

 

[RobLyman]

The civilian maintenance might have little or nothing to do with TPS. Our guard UH-72s require an A&P to sign off all maintenance. It is an FAA certified aircraft. This is one of the problems we are having...getting maintainers who have an A&P and that are not needed in other shops (like my QC shop). That and the fact it has a lubricated rotor head. Elastomeric? Hello? Anyone over in Europe heard of that concept?

I hear the bitches and gripes every morning in our production control meetings. For the most part they aren't doing too bad, but not a "great success."

 

[HeyJoe]

The civilian maintenance might have little or nothing to do with TPS. Our guard UH-72s require an A&P to sign off all maintenance. It is an FAA certified aircraft. This is one of the problems we are having...getting maintainers who have an A&P and that are not needed in other shops (like my QC shop).

There is always an apples and oranges mx mismatch when you try to equip a unit set up for military type maintenance with an aircraft that is set up for FAA type maintenance that presumes that an FAA certified A&P is overseeing the work. If you design your workforce around having A&P centric wrench turners, you actually get a lot of efficiencies as they can work across all the traditional service mx ratings and serve as a "crewchief" of sorts. This makes a lot of sense for small footprint operations and aircraft that aren't too complicated.