we built Puma and modernized other ones (Caracal) for UK, never produced Super Puma, i hope it's not going to be aquired by the military...maybe it's for rescue and stuff...
NH90 is the way to go for transport, it would be a long term solution, Super Puma it's kinda outdated for the army, we already have 50 Pumas
i'm not aware about any EC725 deal or discussions, probably it was the UK story
NH90 still have large problems with quality of manufacturing, it's almost on the border of wide scandal. The EC725 for Romania was mentioned from some interview with EuroCopter men, the main topic was about new transport helo for Poland where EC725 is starting. He say that in near future Romania can join users club of EC725.
Probably more Pumas will go in to Romania forces, because what the competition you have? NH90 have problems and it's rather costly. You can go in to proven S70i Blackhawk from Mielec or AW149 that is also unproven. Logic dictates that even if Pumas are not top notch they are there, ready to build and service.
well, yea, you're right, to be more realistic, EC725 would be the better way to go, but not Super Puma blackhawk could also be taken into account for obvious reasons they didn't added ASW yet on the actual Pumas as planned, they added miniguns for the naval version recently..
Coaxial blades aren't that groundbreaking - it's integrating them with a pusher prop and messing with their airflow and lift equations of the rotor system. But I'd rather have a coaxial / compound helicopter than the huge mass of rotating nacelles / rotor system of a tilt rotor.
They maybe not that groundbreaking but mastering that tech take "western" world a couple more decades then Kamov factory. For every helo not from Kamov this is indeed groundbreaking tech.
It is not new to Sikorsky either: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-69.php
The SK team did not want the gigantic mast head the Kamov uses. It is a limiting structure for speed, and maneuverability with the conventional rotors Kamov uses. The X2 and S-97 have ridge rotors.
Oh no, the Sikorsky work on that design that for sure. But they meet a lo't of problems with controls etc. Still they did not move in to fully ready product beyond prototype phases. Kamov start to build fully successful counters in 50's in large numbers. They are still the unquestionable masters of that design. After the collapse of ZSRR lot's of data were sold to foreign buyers, I bet that Sirkorsky bu some of them and engineers in company loo at them with "Ohhhh.. this is how they did that" and integrate this knowledge in that design merging it with own ideas.
The mast is not that big as you can think, it's even the same size in both Kamov and Sikorsky design. It's pure mechanic thing, it just can't be smaller.
I think the chin is where their radar and sighting system will go. I dont think Sikorsky will mount a big radar on that counter-rotating mast like the Apache mounts it. Even in the picture you can see a little curved extension beneath the cockpit structure. I bet that curve is for radar aperture.
It certainly looks cool...
ReplyDeleteI just hope it ends up better than the V-22 or the RAH-66.
So they finally mastered counter rotating blades. It's look... good. But let's wait for full presentation with flying part.
ReplyDeleteRomania just signed with Airbus for production of Super Puma MK1...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thediplomat.ro/articol.php?id=5307 (this is old new, today they signed all the stuff)
They still build them? I was almost sure that Romania negotiate with Airbus production or buying of EC725.
Deletewe built Puma and modernized other ones (Caracal) for UK, never produced Super Puma, i hope it's not going to be aquired by the military...maybe it's for rescue and stuff...
DeleteNH90 is the way to go for transport, it would be a long term solution, Super Puma it's kinda outdated for the army, we already have 50 Pumas
i'm not aware about any EC725 deal or discussions, probably it was the UK story
NH90 still have large problems with quality of manufacturing, it's almost on the border of wide scandal. The EC725 for Romania was mentioned from some interview with EuroCopter men, the main topic was about new transport helo for Poland where EC725 is starting. He say that in near future Romania can join users club of EC725.
DeleteProbably more Pumas will go in to Romania forces, because what the competition you have? NH90 have problems and it's rather costly. You can go in to proven S70i Blackhawk from Mielec or AW149 that is also unproven. Logic dictates that even if Pumas are not top notch they are there, ready to build and service.
well, yea, you're right, to be more realistic, EC725 would be the better way to go, but not Super Puma
Deleteblackhawk could also be taken into account for obvious reasons
they didn't added ASW yet on the actual Pumas as planned, they added miniguns for the naval version recently..
Coaxial blades aren't that groundbreaking - it's integrating them with a pusher prop and messing with their airflow and lift equations of the rotor system. But I'd rather have a coaxial / compound helicopter than the huge mass of rotating nacelles / rotor system of a tilt rotor.
ReplyDeleteThey maybe not that groundbreaking but mastering that tech take "western" world a couple more decades then Kamov factory. For every helo not from Kamov this is indeed groundbreaking tech.
DeleteIt is not new to Sikorsky either:
Deletehttp://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/sik_s-69.php
The SK team did not want the gigantic mast head the Kamov uses. It is a limiting structure for speed, and maneuverability with the conventional rotors Kamov uses. The X2 and S-97 have ridge rotors.
Oh no, the Sikorsky work on that design that for sure. But they meet a lo't of problems with controls etc. Still they did not move in to fully ready product beyond prototype phases. Kamov start to build fully successful counters in 50's in large numbers. They are still the unquestionable masters of that design. After the collapse of ZSRR lot's of data were sold to foreign buyers, I bet that Sirkorsky bu some of them and engineers in company loo at them with "Ohhhh.. this is how they did that" and integrate this knowledge in that design merging it with own ideas.
DeleteThe mast is not that big as you can think, it's even the same size in both Kamov and Sikorsky design. It's pure mechanic thing, it just can't be smaller.
No chin mounted cannon?
ReplyDeleteI think the chin is where their radar and sighting system will go. I dont think Sikorsky will mount a big radar on that counter-rotating mast like the Apache mounts it. Even in the picture you can see a little curved extension beneath the cockpit structure. I bet that curve is for radar aperture.
Delete