Said to be using uprated engines, more than 1,200 KW.
Z-10 thread
- Thread starter Red Guard
- Start date
- Status
Said to be using uprated engines, more than 1,200 KW.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Helicopter technology has not stalled in the US, it's plateaued as an industry. The plateau happened in the seventies, when the conventional helicopter design locked in. As long as you follow that form you are enhairently locked for performance specs. This is why there is no surpassing.
Over the past decades the biggest shifts have been improvements in engines and integration of Fly by wire and computers.
The only new ideas for conventional helicopter design is the potential for electric elements to replace mechanical systems like rail rotors.
Where things shift is when you start looking at alternative rotorcraft like Compound coaxial and Tiltrotors. Those break the mold and drive a new level of speed and performance.
Actually US helicopters IMHO degraded during like 2 decades. Notice how they had to put the Chinook back in service because their current helicopters couldn't operate at high altitudes. Or how the V-22 Osprey was supposed to replace all naval helicopters, but then also because of performance in Afghanistan and other issues, the Navy had to fund the CH-53K upgrade among others. They even wanted to push the V-22 as a tanker at one point! But even the US Navy have seen that it's a bad idea by now. The "novel" ideas of compound coaxial and tiltrotors are old hat, at least as old as the 1950s. In some cases they weren't used because fly-by-wire did not exist back then. In other cases such projects were cancelled in the US for political reasons (like the Cheyenne).
The Apache, for example, cruises at a lower speed than the Chinook, and has less max speed than the Hokum. It has worse power to weight than both of those helicopters. It is more heavy and has less powerful engines. Heck the AH-1Z Viper beats the Apache in flight performance across the entire flight envelope with worse engines just because it's lighter.
If you compare helicopter upgrades like the AH-1Z Viper and the UH-1Y Venom to their supposed replacements, the AH-64 Apache and the S-60 SeaHawk, they have more or less the same performance. Sometimes even worse. Which is quite sad really.
Engine performance is an issue at high altitudes. That is why the US has had a program to replace the Blackhawk's engine for quite some time now.
The US also lost a large chunk of the commercial helicopter market because they basically sold the same models with little modifications for like 3 decades. In the meanwhile Eurocopter brought fly-by-wire to commercial helicopters and gained a lot of market share because of that. Too much money was invested by the US on the tilt-rotor project and too much was expected of it. In the end it does not meet several requirements for operation in austere environments. Nor does it have the payload capacity it was originally designed to have partly because of that. With a lot less money than what was spent on the tilt-rotor the helicopters could have had vast improvements in IR and acoustic stealth, high-altitude performance, and payload capacity, not to mention cruise speeds.
Modern turbine engine technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since 1973 when the General Electric T700 turbine was put into service.
The Apache, for example, cruises at a lower speed than the Chinook, and has less max speed than the Hokum. It has worse power to weight than both of those helicopters. It is more heavy and has less powerful engines. Heck the AH-1Z Viper beats the Apache in flight performance across the entire flight envelope with worse engines just because it's lighter.
If you compare helicopter upgrades like the AH-1Z Viper and the UH-1Y Venom to their supposed replacements, the AH-64 Apache and the S-60 SeaHawk, they have more or less the same performance. Sometimes even worse. Which is quite sad really.
Engine performance is an issue at high altitudes. That is why the US has had a program to replace the Blackhawk's engine for quite some time now.
The US also lost a large chunk of the commercial helicopter market because they basically sold the same models with little modifications for like 3 decades. In the meanwhile Eurocopter brought fly-by-wire to commercial helicopters and gained a lot of market share because of that. Too much money was invested by the US on the tilt-rotor project and too much was expected of it. In the end it does not meet several requirements for operation in austere environments. Nor does it have the payload capacity it was originally designed to have partly because of that. With a lot less money than what was spent on the tilt-rotor the helicopters could have had vast improvements in IR and acoustic stealth, high-altitude performance, and payload capacity, not to mention cruise speeds.
Modern turbine engine technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since 1973 when the General Electric T700 turbine was put into service.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Man I wish my laptop was still working because this level of counter point is hell on typing with a touchscreen.
Chinook never left production or service with the U.S. Army so I don't know where you pulled that out of.
Farther more Blackhawk and Apache have done well in Afganistan. The helicopters that were withdrawn from service were the OH53D which was a single engine chopper and did suffer.
Apache is a conventional configuration helicopter with tail rotor Chinnook and Hokum are not. The tail rotor configuration of helicopters like apache was designed to counter rotational forces with thrust in the opposed direction of that rotation created by torque. This however increased drag and draws pier from the engines. Coaxial choppers like the Ka52 generate twice the lift as there rotors are more efficient in doubling the downward thrust since these rotors rotate counter to each other they also eliminate any torque effect.
Chinook uses a tandom configuration that eliminates torque and gives it two main rotors. This is why they are both faster and more efficient in got and high. They are simply more effective at generating lift.
again Wrong. The V22 Osprey was only ever to replace 1 helicopter for the Marines and it did that the CH46 Sea Knight. The CH53K is a heavy lift chopper and was always in the cards for the Marines. The V22 was never intended to replace UH1 or AH1. On the navy side the V22 was never intended to replace Sea Hawks. It was looked into as a possible replacement for fixed wing aircraft and is aimed to replace the C2 Greyhound.
You have been misinformed.
And still are but the aim as a tanker is more as a rapid roll on kit for the Marines. The MQ25 is for CVN decks.
Wow... old school. The reasons often quoted are that the U.S. Army had made an agreement with the USAF not to operate at there levels of performance. This is bukiss the Cheyenne experienced a long list of problems and delays by the time it was ready to move to the next step the Cobra was online.
Tiltrotors really didn't work well enough to move beyond R&D machines until the late 80s. It's one thing to fly a demonstrator a whole other to move to combat deployments.
Modern Apache and Cobra models use the same engines performance differences between them are all but neglegable when you consider that Cobra sacrifices systems for range and speed. The long bow radars, secondary targeting systems colapsable landing gear, even the way the two are built is different as the two are designed for different needs. Apache emphasis is survivability. The landing gear is designed to absorb shock in a crash the armor is more around the cockpit. Where Cobra pushes more scouting and maritime survival.
Again Wrong. The AH1Z and UH1Y were not being replaced by AH64E or UH60, they are counterparts. The Marines chose not to by Seahawk the Navy chose to. The Marines are able to make there own choices on what they by. It's not one or of the other it's both.
Again Wrong. The Blackhawk has been suplimented due to mission demands by National guard yes.
Farther more there is en advanced engine replacement program in the works but the U.S. Army is running an eventual replacement but that's not because of the engines that's because the design is almost 40 years old. The aim of the replacement though it to have that flying 10-20 years from now making it 50-60 years old.
But simply adding new engines wouldn't solve the reasons for the replacement. That reason is every upgraded sensor or system adds more weight and subtracts capacity.
Again WRONG!! Eurocopter has been making the same helicopters since the seventies. American makers have built dozens of different designs being the same 3. And flyby wire has only in the last few years been added to Helicopters as a whole including Blackhawk.
More wrong. Two Tiltrotors have been indeveloupment until the V280 The V22 and Bell Agusta now Leonardo 609. It did take a lot of investment but MV22 have not just been deployed they have faced combat. And come out intact. They have been forward based and naval based and shined.
Along side that the US has had dozens of commercial helicopter programs, UH60M, AH64E, UH1Y, AH1Z, CH53K, CH47F, the aborted RAH66 and ARH70 and now Sikorsky on it's own the S97 Raider.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Sorry but wrong again
The limitations on speed of a conventional helicopter are more than just engines. The critical fact is that the conventional helicopter design with a single rotor head and tail rotor is fighting itself.
Every rotation of the main rotor causes Torque and torque can cause the chopper to drop from the sky or loose control. To counter it the common form is a tail rotor whether A conventional rotor an enclosed rotor or Notar, That creates drag which in turn slows the helicopter down. But it's not the only issue you also have retreating blade stall. As the blade goes forward it generates lift by pushing air out of the way. As it retreats it hits that void and stalls. This ribs it of power.
Oh god... my sides are splitting...
Yes you are right but then again, if you by a brand new Ford Mustang and take it home to rebuild your vintage Mustang you will find no parts in common. The same is true of the Modern T700 vs the first version. The T700 has been redesigned and modernized time and time again.
All and all your Google fu has failed.
It looks like you haven't read enough. The Blackhawk mostly operates in the lowlands in Afghanistan but not at the high-altitude areas. They basically need to use the Chinook to even operate there. Hence the program improvements planned to solve the Blackhawk's deficiencies not only in terms of engine power but also in terms of lift like changing the turbine blades. Yes, I know it's grown in weight since the initial version with systems upgrades, but that isn't the full story.
I know decently, well as much as a pundit can, about the differences between helicopter configurations. What I was trying to say is that there were still a lot of possibilities to improve performance, even given the helicopter mindset, without going the tilt-rotor route. Instead these avenues were simply ignored or discarded and no more money was spent on helicopter development. It was all sunk into the V-22 and tilt-rotors with the expectation that technology would replace all helicopters in use in the future.
The Sea Knight had the same configuration as the Chinook. It even preceded it. Supposed to be replaced with the V-22. There were plans to make different sized versions of the tilt-rotor concept to replace most helicopters in use. If not all of them. Smaller and larger versions. Existing helicopter systems were either put on life support or left to rot.
That only started to change once the V-22's issues became apparent to all and when Afghanistan showed the limitations on the latest helicopter designs (namely the Blackhawk and the Apache). Even before that the Apache was one time considered for dismissal from service after an initially disastrous performance at the last War on Iraq. A lot of helicopters were turned into swiss cheese by heavy ground fire. The Apache actually had worse combat performance than the Marines's Viper derivative helicopters in that stage of the campaign.
I'll quote the Wikipedia page on Airbus Helicopters:
Same Eurocopter models since the seventies? Really? What would you call the Tiger, the NH-90, the Colibri, or the H175?
Sure, helicopters have issues increasing speed after a certain velocity. The answer to that problem is even older than the helicopter itself. Ever heard of the autogyro? You don't need a tilt-rotor. That's why a pusher system like the Cheyenne IMHO had much better prospects than the tilt-rotor. The tilt-rotor design has major issues in case of engine failure when it's conducting vertical flight. It's even more dangerous than an helicopter.
I know decently, well as much as a pundit can, about the differences between helicopter configurations. What I was trying to say is that there were still a lot of possibilities to improve performance, even given the helicopter mindset, without going the tilt-rotor route. Instead these avenues were simply ignored or discarded and no more money was spent on helicopter development. It was all sunk into the V-22 and tilt-rotors with the expectation that technology would replace all helicopters in use in the future.
The Sea Knight had the same configuration as the Chinook. It even preceded it. Supposed to be replaced with the V-22. There were plans to make different sized versions of the tilt-rotor concept to replace most helicopters in use. If not all of them. Smaller and larger versions. Existing helicopter systems were either put on life support or left to rot.
That only started to change once the V-22's issues became apparent to all and when Afghanistan showed the limitations on the latest helicopter designs (namely the Blackhawk and the Apache). Even before that the Apache was one time considered for dismissal from service after an initially disastrous performance at the last War on Iraq. A lot of helicopters were turned into swiss cheese by heavy ground fire. The Apache actually had worse combat performance than the Marines's Viper derivative helicopters in that stage of the campaign.
I'll quote the Wikipedia page on Airbus Helicopters:
"Airbus Helicopters and its predecessor companies have established a wide range of helicopter firsts, including the first production turboshaft-powered helicopter (the Aérospatiale Alouette II of 1955); the introduction of the Fenestron shrouded tail rotor (on the Gazelle of 1968); the first helicopter certified for full flight in icing conditions (the AS332 Super Puma, in 1984); the first production helicopter with a Fly-by-wire control system (the NHIndustries NH90, first flown in full FBW mode in 2003); the first helicopter to use a Fly-by-light primary control system (an EC135 testbed, first flown in 2003); and the first ever landing of a helicopter on Mt. Everest (achieved by an AS350 B3 in 2005)."
Same Eurocopter models since the seventies? Really? What would you call the Tiger, the NH-90, the Colibri, or the H175?
Sure, helicopters have issues increasing speed after a certain velocity. The answer to that problem is even older than the helicopter itself. Ever heard of the autogyro? You don't need a tilt-rotor. That's why a pusher system like the Cheyenne IMHO had much better prospects than the tilt-rotor. The tilt-rotor design has major issues in case of engine failure when it's conducting vertical flight. It's even more dangerous than an helicopter.
by78
General
President Xi inspects what appears to be an improved Z-10...
Note the new external armor modules mounted just before the cockpit, between the pilot and the gunner seats, and on the engine enclosure:
A closer look at the added armor modules around the cockpit:
President Xi is testing out the new Helmet-Mounted Display:
Finally, a closer look at an evolved gun+turret assembly. The turret enclosure has been shortened, exposing more of the gun barrel. The muzzle brake appears to be different as well. Also note the cylinder dangling at the base of the turret; I wonder what it could be, perhaps the rotor that drives the ammo belt?
Note the new external armor modules mounted just before the cockpit, between the pilot and the gunner seats, and on the engine enclosure:
A closer look at the added armor modules around the cockpit:
President Xi is testing out the new Helmet-Mounted Display:
Finally, a closer look at an evolved gun+turret assembly. The turret enclosure has been shortened, exposing more of the gun barrel. The muzzle brake appears to be different as well. Also note the cylinder dangling at the base of the turret; I wonder what it could be, perhaps the rotor that drives the ammo belt?
Last edited:
- Status