Merlin vs Mi-8MTV

[tomahawk6]

In my morning reading I ran across an article advocating that the UK hire Russian made Mi-8MTV or the Mi-26 instead of using the Merlin that costs $34,000 an hour to operate. It costs $2500 an hour for an Mi-8MTV complete with crew and it carries the same amount of troops/cargo as the Merlin. The larger Mi-26 costs $6000 an hour complete with crew. Both choopers are rugged and easy to maintain vs the Merlin. Sounds like a good short term solution for medium/heavy lift. For the cost of a Merlin you can operate 13 Mi-8's or 5 Mi-26's. Maybe this would be a short term solution for Canada or possibly just buy 13 Mi-8 and 5 Mi-26's.

 

[Loachman]

I'm with the "you-get-what-you-pay-for" crowd.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

T6-

You can go fly with them if you want to.  I wouldn't.

FWIW

 

[Good2Golf]

T6, that's the problem with advocates -- the Merlin cost is the per hour ammortization of all the costs associated with the aircraft (fuel, oil, salaries of crew, capital acquisition, weapon support plan, infrastructure, etc...) up to and including a little sliver of Whitehall, MoD HQ.  If you were to separate the O&M costs from the "sunk" costs (fixed costs that you would pay whether you fly a single hour or not), you would see a figure that is much lower for the Merlin and would in no way support being able to operate 5 Mi-26 Halo's for the same money.  Fiscally, the lobbyists like to compare apples with oranges and then say the orange is just as good as the apple. 

Cheers,
G2G

 

[Sf2]

Who's buying Merlins for Med/Heavy lift?  I hope we're not....

 

[tomahawk6]

It was directed at the UK use of the Merlin, its high cost to operate and the fact that MOD wont deploy the chopper in an environment where they might be at risk to being shotdown.

 

[Good2Golf]

T6, I think the MoD's concerns are that the Merlin, of course being optimized at sea level as a sub-hunter, is not particularly well-suited to hot-high conditions...it's very close to the edge of its manoeuvring envelope when you put it up in hot, dusty mountains.  It certainly is a nice machine at sea-level, though...

G2G

 

[childs56]

The argument that the Helicopter is close to it's operating envelope in Afganistan is the same as every other platform out there. They are all close to their envelopes. Even the mighty Chinook cannot carry as much as far as it would at sea level.

This one has been bugging me due to the fact that single Hueys are being used in Afganistan.

As for hiring out for Mi series helos for use, why not. Personally I would fly in one of those any day. At least they can handle the extreme enviroment. Plus they are easy to maintain whaihc is what is needed in todays battle fields. (that is what has always been needed on battle fields).

All helicopters are effected by high altitude, high heat and high humidity.

 

[Good2Golf]

The argument that the Helicopter is close to it's operating envelope in Afganistan is the same as every other platform out there. They are all close to their envelopes. Even the mighty Chinook cannot carry as much as far as it would at sea level.

This one has been bugging me due to the fact that single Hueys are being used in Afganistan.

As for hiring out for Mi series helos for use, why not. Personally I would fly in one of those any day. At least they can handle the extreme enviroment. Plus they are easy to maintain whaihc is what is needed in todays battle fields. (that is what has always been needed on battle fields).

All helicopters are effected by high altitude, high heat and high humidity.

Actually, CTD, it is not. 

1.  The Merlin is strained proportionately more above sea level than other helicopters in theatre.  The BERP 3 blades were optimized for SL performance and degrade noticeably as altitude increases.

2.  The Chinook operates very effectively, even at reduced gross weights, at increasing altitudes.  Even a fraction of 24,000lb payload is still a lot (compared to Merlin's 7,000-9,000lb sea-level payload.)

3.  Huey II's operated by DOS-INL in KB and KH are quite effective because two big blades are much more efficient in thin air than five (or more) smaller blades.  The T700 engine packs way more punch than the original T53, as well.  There is no lack of power or performance on the Hueys in that theatre.

4.  I would not fly the Mi-8 or even the Mi-17.  They are notoriously underpowered, amongst other things.  Maintenance is simplified, yes, but primarily at the cost of limited lifetime of the airframe since there is generally a large pool of Hip's still around to draw from.

5.  Re: effect of high alt/heat/humidity -- yes, so why operate a helicopter that is proportionately more affected?

my 2 ¢

G2G

 

[Rowshambow]

I was ummm lucky.... to fly in a Czech hip, while in Bosnia. It was pretty bare bones, not something I would want to do again! Definitely something I didn't feel safe in! So I couldn't imagine doing it all the time as a Royal marine or other type of infantry might.

 

[childs56]

Put all the politics aside and look at the equipment at hand.
The new mighty EH101/Merlin etc cannot operate well unless near sea level.
Hipp Mi series helo can operate decently in all terrain.
Chinook can operate well in all terrain.
Single Huey, old engines and newer engines can operate in all types of terrain,
Bell 412 Cdn stly limited operations for high alititude terrain.
Seaking decent platform used through out the world in various types of terrein with great sucess.
Any helicopter that is used in military service can be depolyed any where in the world. And operate any where in the world.

If a three bladed rotor causes less lift then a 2 bladed rotor then I am dumbfounded as to why. to me that would mean that a 5 bladed rotor would be less lift then a 3 bladed rotor.
when you talk about size of a rotor you also need to take into consideration of all the blades, to me three blades that provide more lift at sea level will also make more lift at high altitude high heat.

When I fixed small airpanes the be all end all was a three bladed Beaver plane with a three bladed prop instead of a two bladed. More thrust, better in high heat and better at altitude.
Going back to helos the same theorys apply and are found.

To me comming from a fairly decent aviation background, where asking alot of questions from various operators of equipment on the civie side of things, three blades was better then two of you had the power, as five blades were better then three.

If what you are saying is true about the Merlin is designed to run optmuim AT SL  then the same can be said about all Helos, because that is where they all have the best lift coeeficients.

Yes the mighty Chinook can lift a heavty load, but it to has to make sacrifices once it operates at high altitudes and high heat humididty. Every Helo does as does every vehicle.

What I have seen from the Canadian Miltiary is a line of excuses of why we cannot deploy different Air Assets over seas. When other countrys are using similar assests in similar terrain and similar usages then why can't we?
Yes we may have to modify our Platforms to work, it has been a few years since we have known this, the main obstacle in deploying our assests is the people who never fought, the people who only ever prepared for the Cold War, people who have other interests at heart and those who are afraid of change.

I have heard on this site and others on why Canada cannot deploy our 412s, F18s and Auroras. eveyr bit  leads me to beleive that the Airforce is reluctant to try something new to make it work. To many old generation who are stuck in their ways.

As for the HIP if it is flying over seas and being used effectivly then we should be ashamed that we own multimillion dollar platforms that can only operate in limited aspects, under ideal conditions.

I am finished my rant, maybe i made sense but more then likly not. This is how I feel and will continue to feel.

Talk to the operators from around the world, no one peice of equipment is perfect for everything. But every peiece of equipment can be made to work decently.

 

[Loachman]

A rotor is not a propellor. It is a wing. Wing designs are optimised for different applications - you won't see a glider wing on a supersonic fighter.

The number of blades by itself is not significant, it's the design of the blade, and that's optimised for the intended purpose of the helicopter.

No helicopter will function as well in less-dense air (hot/high) as it will function in more dense air (cold/low) but the degree of difference will vary with the blade design.

No helicopter presently in our inventory is suited to the Afghan theatre. Yes, we could send Griffons there, but for what purpose? It would be a pretty expensive method of transporting three or four lightly-equipped troops at a time, and possibly only between sunset and sunrise.

Griffon and Twin/Single Huey are not the same aircraft, other than the basic box that hangs from the rotor. It's that bit on top that makes the difference. Better rotor and more powerfull engines - as per the US UH1Y programme - would give it real capability.

The only Canadian Tac Hel presence in Afghanistan is our part of the Sperwer operation. I doubt that there's a single Tac Hel guy there who wouldn't much rather be flying or fixing a helicopter rather than a big model aeroplane. Lack of a suitable helicopter prevents that.

Most of us would happily fly a Russian helicopter once, to satisfy curiosity and/or for bragging rights, but not too many would want to do so for a career. It's not performance, but quality, reliability, and risk.

 

[childs56]

"rotor is not a propellor. It is a wing. Wing designs are optimised for different applications"

last time I checked a Conventional airplane propeller was a airfoil (wing) as is a rotor blade is a airfoil (wing). Both designed to provide lift/thrust or simply put it push air forwards, backwards downwards or upwards.
The whole idea of going to a three bladed rotor is to provide more lift with more power.

Yes I agree with you in the fact that rotors are designed for specific application. At the same time you have options of different rotor systems to meet you your needs. You can configure a Airweapons platform to suit a varuey of needs by changing engines, trannys and rotor systems. Yes those chages are out there, they take time and money but they are there.

I have been in and out of the aviation industry since I was 11 years old, I have fixed things from Cessnas 150 up to F18's I have watched and talked to a varity of Pilots, military and civilian. Most were miltary and now fly civie. I have seen Sky hooks performing work as I have seen Chinooks, 412s, Jet Rangers, Kamovs and the list goes on.
I still remember when in the fires of BC the civie fire fighting pilots asking why the Canadian military's 412 wouldnt put baskets underneath and help to put the fires out. To which they were told they were not allowed and did not have to power to. They laughed. Then they thought how pathetic it was. 

Send the 412's over there, Send the Labs down to Boeing to get modified and then send them over. Re blade the EH101's and send them over there. Wait that would be a change from the norm and we cannot do that.

I have seen all to often the experts state why we cannot fly over seas, Then I have sene the people who wonder why we can't. Those who wonder why we can't need to realize that at the end of the day we can and we would if we had different people in different positions.

No more excuses the Army has a saying "get er done" and they get it done. 

 

[Zoomie]

I have seen all to often the experts state why we cannot fly over seas, Then I have sene the people who wonder why we can't.

I imagine that the "experts" probably have their reasons and don't deign to share them with the unwashed masses of the world.

It is all very simple to just say "Send the helo's and CF-188s to Afghanistan, get 'er done boys!"  Realistically, there are people who get paid to make these calls and they have their reasons for the current assets deployed overseas.  I suggest that you run for office and become the Defence Minister, then you too can make decisions on behalf of the CF.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

CTD-

There are probably a half dozen good reasons why Sea Kings (for instance) are not operating in Afghanistan in support of our troops.  Some of those reasons involve the laws of aerodynamics (which are difficult to revoke), some are practical, some are pure politics (and if you think politics don't matter sometimes, you do not inhabit the real world).

I can assure you it is not a matter of "not wanting" to help out our Army brethern, it's more a case of "if we do Afghanistan, how much irreparable damage will we do to ourselves" (yeah- we are that fragile right now)?

 

[cameron]

This thread brings up a question i've long been asking myself, and I hope someone on army.ca can give me a convincing answer.  If we can deploy Leopard tanks to A'stan (a move which i applauded very loudly on this site), then why can't we deploy CF18's?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Why should we?  Is there a demonstrable shortage of Fast Air intheatre?  You do realize that air assets are pooled and do not exclusively support one nation: they go where they are needed most...

 

[MrWhyt]

Send the Labs down to Boeing to get modified and then send them over.

What Labs? Weren't they all retired ~2 years ago? What is the current state of any airframes we have left? What mods do you propose? are these mods flying on any other Labs/Sea knights or will we have to pay for the developement and testing? How many Lab crews/maintainers do we have left in the CF? What are the chances these modified Labs enter service before the Chinooks?

Re blade the EH101's and send them over there.

Re-Blade them with what blades? Are these blades flying on any other EH101s or will we have to pay for the developement and testing? The Cormorants are flying SAR missions here, what aircraft will we replace them with if we send them overseas?

 

[Zoomie]

There are no Labs left in the CF.

 

[childs56]

Pretty much if you want a airframe to do a job and there is nothing off he shelf to use then yes we would have to develop it. But being one of the worlds leader in Aerospace Engineering it should be little to no problem deploying certain assests.
My argument here is not to deploy the Seakings, But to deploy the 412 mounted with a set of rocket pods and a couple of chains guns or so.
As for the Labs what wasnt sent to the Museums were sold off to a company down in the US that rebuilds them and then use them aroudn the world for medium lift.

If the Airforce didnt have such an excuse for not deploying assests then maybe they would be have gotten some better ones in the past. If you deploy with a Platform and it fails to do the job then it really acellerates the promotion of the requiremnts for a new one.
The Army has done this along with the Navy.

Still to many Dinosours left in 1 CAD untill they leave things will not change.
Good luck, three years ago or so people laughed at me when I mentioned we were buying Chinooks and Globemasters. They mentioned man power and training issues as the major reasons why we wouldnt get them. These same people now say what a great idea that is and we can make it work.

Make it all work. the Army and Navy have to.

Enough on this
Lets buy some Super Cobras and UH1Y's and be done with it.