Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could A Giant New Tilt Rotor, Replace A CH 53?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9501 times:

A buddy of mine, who worked on the CH 53s in the USN, was telling me ever thing this giant could do, and how much it could lift, so I wonder, could a giant tilt rotor replace a CH 53E or future K?
The the Boeing/Bell V-22, was design to replace the smaller CH46, and I could not see it doing a CH 53 job. So I think an all new bigger design, who's rotor are based on the TP400 core, could work.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the thing to consider here is what would the deck footprint of such a machine be?

Seems to me it might be a tad unwieldy on a flight deck.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 5249 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9322 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
could a giant tilt rotor replace a CH 53E or future K?
Could it? Sure. Will one be developed to do so? No. (Or I highly doubt it.)

The CH-53's mission is very different from needing what a tilt rotor offers. The key element of a the MV-22 and the advantage of its tilt-rotor design is it's speed. It can get there fast and fly fast and high to avoid enemy fire, it is used for insertion needs and to go where speed is needed.

The CH-53 on the other hand is heavy-lift and not generally used for insertion needs. It's job is to pick up and move stuff. The need for speed isn't that important, the real need is heavy-duty lifting power. And the wing and tilt features just add weight that could be used for lifting capacity.

So while it could be done it wouldn't make any sense to do so.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9303 times:

They have shown artists conceptions of such a vehicle for years in popular science and what not, but the fact of the matter is that the V-22 has not even proven it can replace the H-46 as of yet, and with the new CH-53K it will likely be the US Army's heavy lift replacement for their own CH-47's. The V-22 is simply cost prohibitive as it is, there is no way a four engined tilt rotor will ever be economically viable. Doesn't mean Bell/Boeing won't still try to pass if off on the US taxpayer like they have the V-22, just no way it ever becomes fiscally prudent.

User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9140 times:

Since a few years now Boeing and Eurocopter are working together on a new heavy lift helicopter that will replace the CH 53 with the German Air Force (used to be flown by the Army) and likely with the US Forces. It will also be the very first heavy lift helicopter for France.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heavy-transport-helicopter-343011/

[Edited 2012-07-13 03:00:27]


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9044 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3):
the new CH-53K it will likely be the US Army's heavy lift replacement for their own CH-47's

I always found it strange that the two real heaviest lifters, the Mil 26 and the CH-53K are tail rotor helicopters. Everything you read about heli design says that the tail rotor is a parasitic lift robbing solution to torque reaction. The US already has a very mature platform in the CH-47 which puts 100% of available engine power into lift. One would have thaought that if the CH-47 got the makeover the CH-53 got it would have offerd even more capability.

How come its going to be replaced by the CH-53?


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8993 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 5):
How come its going to be replaced by the CH-53?

It won't for moving large amounts of troops. The new CH-53K is pretty clearly optimized for slung loads.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8879 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 6):
Quoting spudh (Reply 5):
How come its going to be replaced by the CH-53?

It won't for moving large amounts of troops. The new CH-53K is pretty clearly optimized for slung loads.

Also if you want any type of hot or high performance the CH-47 is the better option. I doubt we will ever see a CH-53K in US Army service.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3211 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8793 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Isn't Boeing still working on the 4 engine tilt wing .. granted it's not a high priority research project.

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 8707 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
Since a few years now Boeing and Eurocopter are working together on a new heavy lift helicopter that will replace the CH 53 with the German Air Force (used to be flown by the Army) and likely with the US Forces. It will also be the very first heavy lift helicopter for France.

Looks pretty much like a CH53, maybe the systems are totally different though? The design might be hard to do any better than it is?


User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1439 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 8582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 6):
It won't for moving large amounts of troops. The new CH-53K is pretty clearly optimized for slung loads.

If there is any helicopter optimized for slung loads, it would be the CH-54 Tarhe. Also known as the "Skycrane". It's also used to fight forest fires and Italy has several just for that purpose. It can also have a container bolted to it to accommodate cargo and personnel. They are also used in the logging industry. Also note that it was once part of the US Army's inventory.

Yes, it is an old design, but with today's technology and modern engines, this helicopter can do pretty much all that's needed. Just my opinion though.

Does anybody know if this helicopter is being considered or one of a similar design?

Sorry, I do not know how to post photos from the A.net database since I don't own them. There are lots of pictures of the CH-54 there if you care to look.

Thanks,

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2037 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 8574 times:

I'll do it for you. I was fascinated by that kind of helicopter when I got hold of my first aviation book.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Williams




Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlinefridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1439 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):

Thank you very much FlyingTurtle!   

F



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 8474 times:

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 11):

I'll do it for you. I was fascinated by that kind of helicopter when I got hold of my first aviation book.


These were literally flying through my neighborhood last week when the firestorm hit. I never want to see another one of those again.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8401 times:

The sky crane should be a perfect forward base supply asset? They can drop a container with ammo, and resources close to the battle? It might need an Apache for defence though, seeing how Apaches often follow CH47s when they pick up or leave off soldiers.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6728 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8366 times:

The problem with the Sky Crane is that it is old technology, it does not create new jobs - other than operators - it is not new and shiny, why use something that already exist when you can spend money to get something new that will advance the industry?
Programs today are not about producing products for consumers to use, its first priority is to advance the industry and its technology then perfect a product for consumer use.
Rant off  


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8340 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 15):

Yep,

Looks like the up-coming technology for vertical lift is the K-MAX and the A-160.

The K-MAX is already in Afghanistan and the A-160 shows great promise (I think they had some systems issue so they were not deployed in Afghanistan). Once the technology is proven. It's only a matter of time before they scale it up.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8184 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 14):
The sky crane should be a perfect forward base supply asset? They can drop a container with ammo, and resources close to the battle? It might need an Apache for defence though, seeing how Apaches often follow CH47s when they pick up or leave off soldiers.

Sure, if you have an unlimited number of deck spots to park the things. The reason the Marines like the CH-53 is that it works well on their ships and can do a number of things. A sky crane would take the same amount of deck space most likely but would only be able to do one mission.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 6 days ago) and read 8111 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 17):
A sky crane would take the same amount of deck space most likely but would only be able to do one mission.

you could, in theory design modules to mate to the cockpit/backbone that would allow the flexiblity, but its pretty much just easier to make a helicopter either be utility or attack in your initial design then go from there.

I'm somewhat suprised that Boeing didn't try to go simple and make a "super CH47" that would fill the new heavy lift needs while using as much of the current modern CH47 cockpit and systems. If they really want to go nuts, double the engine count, then make rotors (and transmissions) to match and enjoy topping out the heavy lift market while still offering atleast some commonality with existing fleets.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8042 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
I'm somewhat suprised that Boeing didn't try to go simple and make a "super CH47" that would fill the new heavy lift needs while using as much of the current modern CH47 cockpit and systems.

Didn't they try that back a few decades ago?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Norbert Grass




The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 873 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
you could, in theory design modules to mate to the cockpit/backbone that would allow the flexiblity, but its pretty much just easier to make a helicopter either be utility or attack in your initial design then go from there.

I figure this would work out about like LCS is working out. Whatever modules you had would probably be bolted on for the whole of a deployment and any changes would be made back at the depot. You would also have to find space aboard to store some pretty big chunks of metal if you wanted to swap modules out while at sea and space is at a huge premium on the big deck amphibs.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):

I'm somewhat suprised that Boeing didn't try to go simple and make a "super CH47" that would fill the new heavy lift needs while using as much of the current modern CH47 cockpit and systems

Good question. From a design standpoint, the Sky Crane is more suited to have it's guts taken out than would a twin rotor aircraft.

With sky crane, the load would be slung directly under the rotor, thus there is no need for a stiff frame design other than to support the cockpit and tail rotor.

With the CH-47, you have to beam the load between the two rotors. Thus you have to stiffen up your fuselage. So if you take out the fuselage "monocoque" (sp?) design, you'll have to replace it with something that may or may not be as efficient.

Funny, if you look at the two spec, you see that both the Sky Crane and the CH-47 have very similar capabilities. Although, wiki doesn't say if the CH-47 can handle a single sling load as well as the Sky Crane.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 300 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7989 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
With sky crane, the load would be slung directly under the rotor, thus there is no need for a stiff frame design other than to support the cockpit and tail rotor.

Not quite as straight forward as that, you're right that the frame would not need to be stressed for bending and of course lifting is simplfied as the CoG does not change when loaded. But the frame of the Skycrane has to be strong enough to resist the torsional force of the tail rotor which is going to be proportional to the lifting force but acting at a long lever arm so will need to be stonger than might first appear. A Mil Mi-26 has a tail rotor not far off the main rotor of a Hughes MD500

Also a modern take on the CH-47 would in all likelihood have a composite monocoque construction. A large diameter tube like the the CH-47 would be exceptionally strong in bending from rotor to rotor without having to pay much of a weight penalty for that strength.

Its an interesting discussion.

I have some old books in which the CH-54 is depicted dropping off modular containers such as field hospitals and troop carriers in a quick release system. I assume it was chosen as the tandem setup did not lend itself so easily to straddling loads as can be seen in Spacepopes photo.

Like I said earlier its interesting that both the Russians and the US developed tail rotor types as their heavy lifters despite both having extensive experience in Tandems/Mesh/contra rotation types.

The russians played with the Mil V-12 twin concept but it never went beyond the prototype stage and developed the Mi 26 instead. The US had ealry versions of the Ch-47 outlifting early versions of the CH-53 but the K model is now the US champ. There must be some technical reason that they both went this way, I just haven't come across it yet.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7951 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 22):
A large diameter tube like the the CH-47 would be exceptionally strong in bending from rotor to rotor without having to pay much of a weight penalty for that strength.

Which is why they would not need to carve out the CH-47 in the way they did the Sky Crane.

This brings us back to the OP question. Could a V-22 tilt rotor replace a CH-53 for heavy lift?

The answer may be "not". You may not be able to "efficiently" get enough cross section in the wing to support the moment arm between the engines and the sling load.

bt

[Edited 2012-07-16 10:50:53]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7905 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 22):
Also a modern take on the CH-47 would in all likelihood have a composite monocoque construction. A large diameter tube like the the CH-47 would be exceptionally strong in bending from rotor to rotor without having to pay much of a weight penalty for that strength.

I think that's one of the reasons the XCH-62 was shaped like it was. That "thin" tube fuselage between the rotors actually was large enough to seat 12 troops to go along with.

CH-54s also were able to carry M121 and BLU-82 bombs on a cradle (instead of as a slung load) and were used operationally as bombers for clearing LZs in Vietnam, for a while.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7916 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 20):
I figure this would work out about like LCS is working out. Whatever modules you had would probably be bolted on for the whole of a deployment and any changes would be made back at the depot. You would also have to find space aboard to store some pretty big chunks of metal if you wanted to swap modules out while at sea and space is at a huge premium on the big deck amphibs.

yup, and then you lose capablity in the extra wieght and problems with the fuselage/mission container interface. Better to just modify the hell out of a utility helicopter unless you want an attack helicopter then you start with a dedicated attack helicopter.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7652 times:

[quote=Spacepope,reply=19]Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
I'm somewhat suprised that Boeing didn't try to go simple and make a "super CH47" that would fill the new heavy lift needs while using as much of the current modern CH47 cockpit and systems.

Didn't they try that back a few decades ago?




            , That thing like awful! That has to be one of the ugliest helicopters, that I have ever seen.        


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could A Giant New Tilt Rotor, Replace A CH 53?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Navy CH-53 Ditches In Gulf: Two Dead posted Thu Jan 27 2005 01:34:51 by DL021
CH-53 Down In Iraq posted Thu Aug 12 2004 17:33:09 by Spacepope
Could 767 Replace All 135 Types In US Service? posted Mon Feb 19 2007 21:57:50 by AviationAddict
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba
New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5? posted Tue Aug 31 2004 18:44:04 by N328KF
Expect A New Boeing X-48C Blended-wing Body To Fly posted Sat Jul 7 2012 14:01:49 by AF351
What Plane Is Likely To Replace The KC-10? posted Sun Jun 10 2012 08:02:02 by 747400sp
Charles & Camilla To New Brunswick posted Mon May 21 2012 07:04:38 by ghYHZ
New Restrictions For F-22 posted Tue May 15 2012 14:29:18 by moose135
Norway To Replace Crashed Hercules posted Tue May 15 2012 09:34:43 by Mortyman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format