Interesting article. The TH67 may be on the chopping block....

[SBuzzkill]

Nevermind.

Edited December 12, 2013 by SBuzzkill

[aeroscout]

I don't buy that Bell is losing money on the TH-67/57 or any of it's variants. Spare parts is where all manufacturers make the most money, as they are the highest profit margin products. There is money in accessories, but they don't have the built in demand that the spare parts do.

[Ardo09203]

If they want cheaper aircraft, scrapping what is already paid for is not the answer. Scrapping the creek because Bell is not making money on it isn't the answer either. If Bell will not supply the service, someone will.

 

With money being what money is today, tight, If they go to a new trainer, the focus should be to a simpler cheaper helicopter, not a more complex expensive one. Believe me, I think they look dorky as all he'll, but if the Army wants a better, cheaper trainer, go with an R44. Maintenance would drop, and the mission as it is now could be 95% completed minus the turbine experience. Keep a small portion of 58s around for the turbine transition and BWS. Looks like big Army is getting rid of the Kiowa, so there should be plenty.

 

Fixed wing first makes sense in other branches because the vast majority of their pilots end up in fixed wing, they Army is the opposite, IMO starting in fixed would be dollars not well spent (even though I would enjoy it).

 

Or an R66

[Wally]

"The Army, in looking around the globe at other first-world countries with large militaries, has learned that German forces were very pleased with their Eurocopter EC-135s." Okay... so???

 

I have to admit that I am an old dude, one of those trained under the implied obsolescent and irrelevent Vietnam era paradigm, for an entirely diffferent Army and mission. The Army I see now is magnitudes different and very professional.

But... I do see one issue in younger pilots: autorotational landings. Perhaps my field of observation is too narrow, but there have been recent failed forced landings that appear to absolutely blown by pilot technique.

Actuaries be damned, until the Army puts ejection seats into helos, autorotations must be an absolutely mastered skill, as importat as a survivable hover. It's especially dumfounding that combat aviators are not "crash and banging" their deployment airframes. The more complex the airframe, the more, uh-"stuff" that you have that could fail, and will, not to mention being shot at. In the real world, failures come in myriad variety, never similar to the best training scenario, tens of times more "other failures" that put me on the dirt than ever engine failures. Your ace in the hole as a helicopter pilot is the autorotation. When you need it, you have a second or so to start a survivable auto before you're just another terrified passenger enroute to the crash, and then you have the rest of your life (potentially) to complete it. Airframes can be replaced more quickly than people. One wants intrepid aviators who know where the line of survival is and willing to not only approach it but risk crossing it, when derring do is appropriate- perhaps even twice.

 

Lakotas are more similar to modern military airframes than any 206 or variant. The TH67 is too easy to auto and not particularly crashworthy if you mess it up. It's better than nothing, the Army will never autorotate a Lakota training fleet enough to develop the instinct and knowledge necessary to get that pilot back after the disaster that nobody anticipated.

[Ardo09203]

If the army is in such a hurry to scrap the TH67 because Bell wont service it, would this be the same reason they are trying to scrap the Kiowa? What do you think the chances are of the Army scraping to 206 air frame, implementing the Lakota as a trainer, then deciding to use it in an AAS role once they realize the 64 can't as effectively fill that role as the Kiowa?

[SBuzzkill]

They'd bring the Kiowa back before they'd try to use the Lakota.

[akscott60]

According to an intruments IP I know, the Lakota suggestion made it into powerpoint and everything at Rucker. So its not just a rumor of whispering. Someone is trying to sell it.

[ShaneWey]

From what I've heard/read the Lakotas are non-deployable and they overheat easily.

[2ndGen]

Just to touch up my previous post, I have learned from someone far more knowledgeable than myself that the Robinson helos are fairly fragile and probably wouldn't 'hold up' over time with us hell raisers at the controls.

[apacheguy]

From what I've heard/read the Lakotas are non-deployable and they overheat easily.

Non-deployable to combat, true for now.

 

Overheat easily, not under normal conditions.

 

I had 17 Lakotas at my last company command, good aircraft for certain missions. I'm not sure I'd want the Army using them for primary training. They'd be great for instruments but since they have twin GNS430 and 3 channel autopilots they pretty much fly for you which isn't great for learning the basics.

 

The Lakota is just too expensive to use as a trainer at Cairns, I seriously doubt idea is anything other than a ploy to get more budget money for army aviation.

[Lindsey]

Why does everything have to be new? I'm an iron sights type of girl. Knobs and dials > glass.

[hoosier]

They have/had a glass cockpit IFR 67 at cairns. If they replace the 206 I wonder if they will strip down the new aircraft and have it in ford hall for us to climb on during systems.

[vani58]

Glass cockpit 67?? How recently did you go through instruments?

[t.o.n.y]

They have one on the field, though I don't think it is ever used. Peeked inside one day, is nice

[aeroscout]

Why does everything have to be new? I'm an iron sights type of girl. Knobs and dials > glass.

All glass does seem to be overkill in small aircraft.

[SBuzzkill]

I'll take MFDs over steam gauges any day.

[aeroscout]

I'll take MFDs over steam gauges any day.

In a piper cub ?

[akscott60]

Having flown both for a long time, I appreciated learning on the basic six. Instruments as well. You develop a proper scanning technique. That being said, MFDs present more information in less space, with less weight, more accuracy, and its easier to read. But its not for a beginner IMHO.

 

Glass cockpits in a C172 is stupid. A G430, at most, is all you need. And that is if you want to fly GPS approaches.

 

We do have these cool things called sectionals.....

Edited December 23, 2013 by akscott60

[Joe_P148]

What do you mean by less weight? I was under the impression glass cockpit configurations add more weight. Can you explain?

[Jester2138]

What do you mean by less weight? I was under the impression glass cockpit configurations add more weight. Can you explain?

Solid state electronics used in glass cockpits are more reliable and weigh less because they do away with the multitude of moving mechanical parts found in steam gauges, which are made of gyroscopes, delicate flywheels, gimbals, seals and motors. A simple LCD screen is far simpler.

[jmatt]

The weight is one major factor that makes glass cockpits really valuable in a small aircraft. The full glass cockpit can save up to as much as 50 lbs and in something with a useful load of 700 lbs, that's a big difference.

[Joe_P148]

Good to know, I've never flown a glass cockpit. Also, I know that the UH60 M is about a thousand pounds more than the 60L. Again I plead ignorance on this because I know nothing about the M model.

[hoosier]

vani58 I was there back in the spring/summer of this year. There was only one and it was tied down in front of the maintenance hangar. I never heard of any students flying it.