nz enthusiast
New Member
You guys cant get it through your think skulls can you, the balckhawk carrys 10 fully equipped troops.
- Status
nz enthusiast, I have logged thousands of hours in the UH-60 as Pilot In Command, and I'm also a maintenance test pilot. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. Just curious, what limitation do you think imposes a limit of 10 pax?
If anyone here can come up with a weight and balance for a mission ready, 20 pax + 3 crew NH-90 taking off from a PA of 7500 feet that needs OGE hover power I would be happy to compare the performance of both ships in that configuration. If you can't supply me that info, it's impossible to even compare the merits of either aircraft aside from aesthetics and the propaganda you choose to believe.
If anyone here can come up with a weight and balance for a mission ready, 20 pax + 3 crew NH-90 taking off from a PA of 7500 feet that needs OGE hover power I would be happy to compare the performance of both ships in that configuration. If you can't supply me that info, it's impossible to even compare the merits of either aircraft aside from aesthetics and the propaganda you choose to believe.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
Well none of us are pilots so I doubt we'd have access to that sort of info, but oe thing I will note, is that the ADF is extremely familiar with Blackhawks, having been a Blackhawk operator for over 20 years has chosen the NH-90 over the UH-60M (and Merlin EH-101) in a direct competition.
Politics aside, it was the greater lift capability and greater performance of the NH-90 that allowed it to win the day or contract for that matter.
Btw, I saw an actual NH-90 and a CH-47D Chinook basically side by side at the Avalon airshow in March 05. There's not a great deal of difference in size between the 2. An S-70A9 Blackhawk was parked nearby too. It was plainly smaller than the NH-90.
Cheers.
Politics aside, it was the greater lift capability and greater performance of the NH-90 that allowed it to win the day or contract for that matter.
Btw, I saw an actual NH-90 and a CH-47D Chinook basically side by side at the Avalon airshow in March 05. There's not a great deal of difference in size between the 2. An S-70A9 Blackhawk was parked nearby too. It was plainly smaller than the NH-90.
Cheers.
Come on AD, being the selected winner does not make any piece of equipment "better" than the competition and this has been well documented for a long time irrespective of country.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the NH-90 is a bad ship. I'm simply pointing out some of the facts that so many seem intent on misrepresenting. Perceived value has much to do with design selection, as does politics, mission requirements etc. Aside from a more voluminous cargo compartment the NH-90 has nearly identical performance capabilities as the UH-60L. Cruise speed, lift capability etc. No matter how you slice it, both ships are within a couple of hundred pounds of empty weight and max gross weight. Maybe it has bigger lungs for those hot humid days, I honestly don't know. Without seeing performance planning charts it's really hard for me to concede that it's "better" than the Hawk, only that it's different and has a few differences that could be a real benefit in certain situations. To me that means it all depends on how you want to view it, and how you have to use it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the NH-90 is a bad ship. I'm simply pointing out some of the facts that so many seem intent on misrepresenting. Perceived value has much to do with design selection, as does politics, mission requirements etc. Aside from a more voluminous cargo compartment the NH-90 has nearly identical performance capabilities as the UH-60L. Cruise speed, lift capability etc. No matter how you slice it, both ships are within a couple of hundred pounds of empty weight and max gross weight. Maybe it has bigger lungs for those hot humid days, I honestly don't know. Without seeing performance planning charts it's really hard for me to concede that it's "better" than the Hawk, only that it's different and has a few differences that could be a real benefit in certain situations. To me that means it all depends on how you want to view it, and how you have to use it.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
It's a horses for courses situation in my opinion. Australia's Blackhawks have been absolutely superb during their service, so much so thatin fact the MRH-90's may end up supplementing them rather than replacing them...
The specwarries love the Blackhawk and have point blank refused to have it replaced by MRH-90. Now Australia will probably end up operating both types for many years to come...
For a country like NZ however which has to replace an obsolete fleet, I think NH-90 is just about perfect. It's larger (if only slightly) than UH-60M and can carry more soldiers in crashworthy seats. It's nowhere near as expensive as a true "large" helo like Merlins or Chinooks, yet sits between them and Blackhawks in uplift capacity.
It is also reputedly cheaper to operate than Blackhawk's though I only have a politician's "sayso" on that...
The specwarries love the Blackhawk and have point blank refused to have it replaced by MRH-90. Now Australia will probably end up operating both types for many years to come...
For a country like NZ however which has to replace an obsolete fleet, I think NH-90 is just about perfect. It's larger (if only slightly) than UH-60M and can carry more soldiers in crashworthy seats. It's nowhere near as expensive as a true "large" helo like Merlins or Chinooks, yet sits between them and Blackhawks in uplift capacity.
It is also reputedly cheaper to operate than Blackhawk's though I only have a politician's "sayso" on that...
Ok Gremlin give me some answer:
Are you flying 701C? Cause I do so. Apaches. Of course a helicopter with more power have, under same condition, more power available (PPC). Which is what a helicopter pilot is looking for. Aren't you? So British Longbow, which have a more powerfull engine, they don't have better performance from US Army's Longbows? Moreover consider that this power is going to a more advance rotor system (Agusta made). You refered to Naval NH-90 which is at Mission GW 132kts at ISA+15degC (means 30degC), and not to the tactical version which is 140kts.
Advanced controls on blackhawks? What exactly do you mean? Well NH-90 is worlds first non-mechanical flight controls helicopter.
Ok, if you say 20, your the PC! I have in mind for 16 seat for troopers and 2 door-gunners plus pilots which is 20. But can you carry anything else? Of course NH-90 has the space to carry more equipment. Ok when you are carrying the General, you only need leather seats and coffee!
About tail rotor. Please check schematics. It's far back enough. It is not lower than tailboom, which i think it's stands 2m from the ground. Shaq may have a problem with that, but not the average troop!
By the way, when we get our NH-90 (in a few months) I'll be able to provide you with more "official" data.
Are you flying 701C? Cause I do so. Apaches. Of course a helicopter with more power have, under same condition, more power available (PPC). Which is what a helicopter pilot is looking for. Aren't you? So British Longbow, which have a more powerfull engine, they don't have better performance from US Army's Longbows? Moreover consider that this power is going to a more advance rotor system (Agusta made). You refered to Naval NH-90 which is at Mission GW 132kts at ISA+15degC (means 30degC), and not to the tactical version which is 140kts.
Advanced controls on blackhawks? What exactly do you mean? Well NH-90 is worlds first non-mechanical flight controls helicopter.
Ok, if you say 20, your the PC! I have in mind for 16 seat for troopers and 2 door-gunners plus pilots which is 20. But can you carry anything else? Of course NH-90 has the space to carry more equipment. Ok when you are carrying the General, you only need leather seats and coffee!
About tail rotor. Please check schematics. It's far back enough. It is not lower than tailboom, which i think it's stands 2m from the ground. Shaq may have a problem with that, but not the average troop!
By the way, when we get our NH-90 (in a few months) I'll be able to provide you with more "official" data.
Yes hot222 I am flying the Lima model.
Your missing the point regarding power. If you are comparing the same airframe with one having more power than the other, that's a no brainer. Comparing the horsepower of disimilar aircraft is a different matter and being a pilot you should know that much. As a pilot, how would you know the number of horsepower your utilizing? You don't, you can't and ultimately it doesn't matter. It's all a matter of what Mr. Torque sez, from the perspective of the dumb pilot sitting at the controls....unless your Apaches have a horsepower gauge! Just curious, but how exactly do you monitor your power in the Apache?
As for advanced controls, I was eluding to the the AFCS. The Blackhawk isn't just a direct input servo to push pull tube you know?
My 20 seat point was just that, a point. NH-90 claims to carry 20 (or is it 24?) troops. Is this a down rated number whereby they can actually carry more than that with less comfort/equipment? Is it really 30? All I was saying was that the UH-60L can positively be configured with 20 crash worthy seats, period. As I stated, it's moot anyway because most often you can not max gross your aircraft with an internal load.
By the way, the PPC you refer to earlier... are you referring to a performance planning card? Just remember they are guides, not bibles and since a pilots interpolation of the performance planning charts is open to....debate... the first thing you do in a mishap is throw your PPC in the post crash fire.
PS: When's the last time you flew on a perfect standard sea level day anyway?
Your missing the point regarding power. If you are comparing the same airframe with one having more power than the other, that's a no brainer. Comparing the horsepower of disimilar aircraft is a different matter and being a pilot you should know that much. As a pilot, how would you know the number of horsepower your utilizing? You don't, you can't and ultimately it doesn't matter. It's all a matter of what Mr. Torque sez, from the perspective of the dumb pilot sitting at the controls....unless your Apaches have a horsepower gauge! Just curious, but how exactly do you monitor your power in the Apache?
As for advanced controls, I was eluding to the the AFCS. The Blackhawk isn't just a direct input servo to push pull tube you know?
My 20 seat point was just that, a point. NH-90 claims to carry 20 (or is it 24?) troops. Is this a down rated number whereby they can actually carry more than that with less comfort/equipment? Is it really 30? All I was saying was that the UH-60L can positively be configured with 20 crash worthy seats, period. As I stated, it's moot anyway because most often you can not max gross your aircraft with an internal load.
By the way, the PPC you refer to earlier... are you referring to a performance planning card? Just remember they are guides, not bibles and since a pilots interpolation of the performance planning charts is open to....debate... the first thing you do in a mishap is throw your PPC in the post crash fire.
PS: When's the last time you flew on a perfect standard sea level day anyway?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
No, you sounded just like someone passionate about, and genuinely happy with his equipment. Something all too rare in my experience...Gremlin29 said:I agree with everything you've just said AD, hope I wasn't sounding pissy.
If you check at your students' engine handout, you should find about the horsepower staff. Of course they refered as shp (shaft horsepower). You've been at Ft. Rucker, haven't you?
NH-90 and Blackhawk are very close at their Max gross weight (NH-90 is about 1000lbs heavier, I think). So, of course you can compare them.
I'm sure that Blackhawk has the AFCS, which from what I can i understand is a flight augmentation system, but not a fly-by-wire. Like Apache's DASE.
About seats, I can say positivelly NH-90 in few months, when we get ours. I've different arrangements from that shown in nh-90 site. I've one (schematic) with 24+2 crew chiefs. Will see. But with 20seats, it has a lot of space free to carry more equipment. Also it's back door can be use for static line jumps.
Performance planning should the main consinderation for every aviator. When I was flying Heuys, I had an experience that It stacked in my mind. I flew a transportation mission in the middle of the summer. I had a general on-boardand his staff. I sent general's staff to an airport nearby cause i found out that i had no enough available power to take of from the spot. So everything went ok. Next week, something about the same happened to friend of mine. He gave no shit for performance planning. He crashed, thanks God, no injuries. Yes, PP is important. It's going to wake you up if you something wrong during planning. At the air, sure, it will be to late.
And as an aviation wisdom says: Learn from the other's mistakes. You'll not live enough to make all by yourself!
NH-90 and Blackhawk are very close at their Max gross weight (NH-90 is about 1000lbs heavier, I think). So, of course you can compare them.
I'm sure that Blackhawk has the AFCS, which from what I can i understand is a flight augmentation system, but not a fly-by-wire. Like Apache's DASE.
About seats, I can say positivelly NH-90 in few months, when we get ours. I've different arrangements from that shown in nh-90 site. I've one (schematic) with 24+2 crew chiefs. Will see. But with 20seats, it has a lot of space free to carry more equipment. Also it's back door can be use for static line jumps.
Performance planning should the main consinderation for every aviator. When I was flying Heuys, I had an experience that It stacked in my mind. I flew a transportation mission in the middle of the summer. I had a general on-boardand his staff. I sent general's staff to an airport nearby cause i found out that i had no enough available power to take of from the spot. So everything went ok. Next week, something about the same happened to friend of mine. He gave no shit for performance planning. He crashed, thanks God, no injuries. Yes, PP is important. It's going to wake you up if you something wrong during planning. At the air, sure, it will be to late.
And as an aviation wisdom says: Learn from the other's mistakes. You'll not live enough to make all by yourself!
Fort Rucker? I am intimately familiar with Fort Rucker having lived there for 2 years. If you've spent some time there we can chat about the base, or typical landmarks just outside the main gate. But you still haven't answered my question, which was: How do you monitor power? SHP ratings are informational only by the way, and as I said since the pilot has no clue whatsoever as to how much horsepower he's using at ANY given time, the information is for all practical purposes useless.
Earlier in this thread you said:
So you flew Hueys as well? My first AQC was in the UH-1H so I'm intimately familiar with that ship as well. Can you remember what instrument was used by the pilot to determine the amount of power being used? I wonder if you even know where the switches for force trim are, in the UH-1 of course.
Earlier in this thread you said:
And in the same paragraph:
Now you are saying that you are an Apache pilot and of course the Apache is fly by wire, but earlier you were saying the NH-90 is the first non-mechanical flight controls helicopter?
So you flew Hueys as well? My first AQC was in the UH-1H so I'm intimately familiar with that ship as well. Can you remember what instrument was used by the pilot to determine the amount of power being used? I wonder if you even know where the switches for force trim are, in the UH-1 of course.
Monitor the power? Torque percentage. Tell me, what means 100% of torque?
Apache of course has linkage between controls and servos. Digital Augementation and Stablilizaion Equipment (DASE) provides Stability, Control and Hover Augementation (SAS-CAS-HAS). Moreover in an event of linkage severange of blockage, pilots can severe the corresponting shear pin to engage BUCS (Back Up Control System, a DASE feature) This BUCS is all about fly-by-wire of the Apache. And of course, if something like this happened, LASAP!
UH-1s (H for me)
Yeap. Torquemeter. Limit 50 psi. Hehehe where the switches of force trim are? I'll answer that if you tell me, which 2 switch in the Heuy, if you turn them on, magnetic compass is unreliable?
But tell me please...what torque express?
About Rucker...from which entry you wanna start? Ozark, Daleville or Enterprise?
For more PM please.
Apache of course has linkage between controls and servos. Digital Augementation and Stablilizaion Equipment (DASE) provides Stability, Control and Hover Augementation (SAS-CAS-HAS). Moreover in an event of linkage severange of blockage, pilots can severe the corresponting shear pin to engage BUCS (Back Up Control System, a DASE feature) This BUCS is all about fly-by-wire of the Apache. And of course, if something like this happened, LASAP!
UH-1s (H for me)
Yeap. Torquemeter. Limit 50 psi. Hehehe where the switches of force trim are? I'll answer that if you tell me, which 2 switch in the Heuy, if you turn them on, magnetic compass is unreliable?
But tell me please...what torque express?
About Rucker...from which entry you wanna start? Ozark, Daleville or Enterprise?
For more PM please.
During a demostration-competition (2001), Blackhawk Vs Cougar Vs Mi-17 it was obvious that in terms of power-speed-cargo...everything Mi-17 topped any request of the evaluators. I remember that at hover (summer) at 3000 ft with 15 men on board the russian pilot pull collective and Mi-17 started a climbed until (about 6000 ft) ATC stopped him, cause extra clearence required! Both Cougar and Blackhawk were vey close to their limits (Cougar had wide margins of power) when russian guy was keep saying "no problem sir" at any request. Blackhawk had analog gauges when Cougar has a full glass-cockpit. Mi-17 had the "russian-type" gauges, which no one could understand.
All pilots who flew all these aircrafts came out with that order:
1. Mil Mi-17
2. Cougar
3. Blackhawk.
I also except you Gremlin I manage to made mad Blackhawk's test pilot, when i told him that's like a big Huey....
Finally that competition cancelled and we bought NH-90s. My experience from Rucker is that no one really in US Army Aviation respects Blackhawks except from their pilots. Sorry, but I think you know that. Although I believe is a workhorse , may they had missed few spots to make it legend, as Huey...
All pilots who flew all these aircrafts came out with that order:
1. Mil Mi-17
2. Cougar
3. Blackhawk.
I also except you Gremlin I manage to made mad Blackhawk's test pilot, when i told him that's like a big Huey....
Finally that competition cancelled and we bought NH-90s. My experience from Rucker is that no one really in US Army Aviation respects Blackhawks except from their pilots. Sorry, but I think you know that. Although I believe is a workhorse , may they had missed few spots to make it legend, as Huey...
That depends on the aircraft.
There's actually 3, the seachlight and pitot heat are two of them, do you remember what the 3rd is?
The torquemeter! Jeepers that was like pulling teeth! This instrument measures the torgue between the engine and transmission and is the sole means a pilot has of determining the amount of power being utilized....which is why I was confused that you would continue to argue over horsepower ratings.
Well I don't know too many pilots that are qualified to fly the UH-60 who are flying something different. I know hundreds of US Army pilots that are flying other types (including the Apache) that don't feel that way at all.
Ok you may be right. Landing light as well is the 3rd.
About Blackhawk reputation in US Army, you may have heard something like "Crash hawks"!
:cop But let finish with that. Return to the subject.
RNZAF made a great move to purchase NH-90s. It's an investement for the next 30 years.
About Blackhawk reputation in US Army, you may have heard something like "Crash hawks"!
:cop But let finish with that. Return to the subject.
RNZAF made a great move to purchase NH-90s. It's an investement for the next 30 years.
Okay fair enough. For the record, are you an Apache pilot and if so, for what country?
Also for the record, the Crash Hawk / Lawn Dart nicknames are ancient and stem from an improperly installed cyclic slew switch. The problem solved and corrected, the UH-60 has logged millions of hours TT and 100's of thousands of hours in combat. The most flown and safest AC in the Army inventory so the nick is just that, a nick....despite what all the non-rated posers have to say.
Also for the record, the Crash Hawk / Lawn Dart nicknames are ancient and stem from an improperly installed cyclic slew switch. The problem solved and corrected, the UH-60 has logged millions of hours TT and 100's of thousands of hours in combat. The most flown and safest AC in the Army inventory so the nick is just that, a nick....despite what all the non-rated posers have to say.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #38
Or the Netherlands...
Nice helicopter but... when natural disaster strikes in the Pacific, a C-130 with a UH-1 inside is often sent to help with inter island transport, what will happen with the UH-1's are replaced with the larger NH-90's. I prosume the UH-60 was designed low slung to be carried around in the C-130, perhaps we should have gone down this route for this reason, no doubt the NH-90 was choosen as it was also choosen by the ADF and we tend to follow their purchases. The MRV seems the most viable transport option, if it is not deployed elsewhere or laid up for maintainance. While as a medium transport I like the NH-90, with hindsight the UH-60 may be proved to be the better option. Another problem is they have to serve a large area, from the Burnham camp near Christchurch, to the SAS base in Auckland. A larger force of older tech and prosumarably cheaper UH-60's may be preferable to a lesser force of NH-90's, if we can only afford 8 and 2 are in for maintanance, a couple deployed overseas, that leaves very little here to carry out their transport, rescue and other roles. But then the NH-90 is marine compatible as supplied for use on the MRV, any UH-60 would need to be likewise, which increases the cost and lowers the numbers affordable, back to square 1.
- Status