Tandem & Tilt-Rotor Aircraft development

Cyberspec wrote:Russia has begun to develop a tiltrotor according to the director of "Helicopters of Russia" Andrei Shibitov



http://alternathistory.livejournal.com/2473379.html

Berkut wrote:1; None of the Kamov's are tilt rotor. Tilt rotors and the Kamov design are completely different things.
2; The mock up is a movie one.

Berkut wrote:It was/is not a tilt rotor in any day, any decade or any century. Your examples are irrelevant.

Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.

victor1985 wrote:Well then are to the aircraft or helicopter as composition?

Militarov wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.

I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.

Militarov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.

I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.

Whoever downvoted this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gyrodynes enjoy.

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Titlrotors per definition are not helicopters but planes.

I wasnt refering to pure blood tiltrotors like V22 Osprey, but KA22 and similar designs, they are classified as gyrodynes, not sure what would be their "mother" category.

Whoever downvoted this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gyrodynes enjoy.

With my comment in your quote i guess you are addressing this to me, no i did not down vote you.

The other thing is autorotation does not occure on Tilt rotors, they fly by propelling themselfs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation

Autorotation is when air comes from the wrong side (upwards) and makes the rotor rotate, the Tiltrotor plane propells itself and maintains its alitude by propelling itself, using partially the wings as surface for lift and exponential less lift from its rotors the more speed it gains the less lift it needs from propellars. This is by definition a plane not a helicopter.

Werewolf wrote:I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.

Werewolf wrote:I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Werewolf wrote:I see tiltrotors of very limited use, they are quite big especially when considering their capacity and even more so the space they need to take off. They can not take off with full capacity loaded, but need a runway start, making their use as a tiltrotor (VTOL plane) limited in use, a Mi-26 can do better, hell a CH-53 does better then V-22 in capacity and usefullness.

Who knows, the U.S. experience in creating tiltrotors aren't necessarily indicative of how well a from scratch design Russian tiltrotor will perform. Remember when the U.S. created GPS guided shells, they became gold-plated white elephants, costing $50-80 thousand per shell, while also being delicate, and everyone assumed from their experience that it was the only standard and no one could develop a better design. But when the Russians developed GLONASS guided shells it only cost $2,000 per shell, easily 25-40x cheaper, with the additional benefit of the capability of retrofitting old shells.

Keep in mind the U.S. MIC's main purpose is to maximize profits, not efficiency. How else would you explain why so many high profile U.S. military aircraft are such high-maintenance hangar queens? Whether it be the Apache, the B-2 Spirit, the F-22A, V-22 Osprey, the F-35 II B....it isn't mere coincidence, it's a corrupt design practice to maximize profits!

It is your idea that .. all current aircraft used in siberia could be replaced with such aircraft too...

Sounds like you think Russia can't afford a CVN and should have something like Mistral with Ka-52 and Chinookski...

..it is the 21st C... Russia should aim higher, not lower.

Making their new AWACS platform a tandem helo or a tilt rotor is an unnecessary step backwards and likely not enough of an improvement over the Ka-31 they already have for the job.

But they are the all powerful US Navy, surely all cower before them and they wont hide from a fight... they can defeat two countries at a time in two different wars in two different places... we are told...

there are cargo ships to navigate around... they don't track their own CVNs using navigation satellites...

..they might decide to return the favour... no western sub would be safe... which kinda pisses all over that numbers advantage you have going there... how stupid can you get?

Of course... that explains why Desert Storm attacks were led by Japanese forces... they insisted on being in the front line... hell they might even sink their own SSK just to make the other SSKs pay attention during training...

The main problem is that they don't want that...

With new high speed helo technology why waste time replicating tilt rotor technology?

You claimed it was urgent, that makes speed important.

The VDV use Mils, the Russian naval infantry use Kamovs.

So which is it? Egypt has sovereign control of its military equipment choices or the US has the say?

Having airfields and aircraft is a GOOD thing, not a problem. Weather conditions seem to change to suit your scenario... if someone is having a heart attack and the weather closes in and there is no doctor they die. A tilt rotor wont fly in weather a helicopter wont fly in.

Your opinion doesn't matter when there are no tandem helos or tilt rotor options... they don't need them.

..they are already investing in new helos with China and new high speed helos and when they are available tandem and tilt rotor aircraft wont offer any speed or range advantage they will just cost money and offer nothing useful.

With no one developing them they wont get mature.

which countries are buying enormous numbers of Chinooks and V-22s that are also operating Mi-26 and Mi-38 helicopters...

I would wager large American helos cost more to operate than large Russian ones.

They already have helicopters better than American ones...

But surely if they want tandems or tilt rotors then they need to work with American companies rather than Russian ones...

The Mi-38 could probably already do that.

There are no plans to upgrade the An-12 or the An-24 or An-26,..

and the Mi-17 will be replaced with the Mi-38...

not all, only those which r not as good in their specs for better results.

the UDKs will be like USS America LHA/LHD, a smaller carrier, compared to a CVN.

before running, 1 needs to learn how to walk. Their Tu-126 was the 1st large AWACS; soon they may make the 1st large tandem/tilt-rotor AWACS.

If their EMALS &/arrestors fail, that will also be a step backward, as their E-2 like plane will be land based.

they use sats for air navigation & communications.

it's not a chess game- war has it's own logic or lack of it; in their mind, the USN subs r supposed to be the best in the world & they'll pull them in or move them out to more remote waters ahead of time.

they gradually push the envelope on military force use, & increase the level of risk to get their public used to & accept it. There may eventually come a time when they'll be left alone facing China & Korea. The current alliance with the US & UK is abnormal- as different from Korea & China as they r, culturally they r even more different from the US & UK.

If the VDV wants it, others will want them too.

there r different niches.

if a jet powered cargo plane can't safely land, it's useless to send it there or to a spot some distance way to be met by a helo; better & easier to send a slower tilt/tandem-rotor that can deliver door to door & still save time.

I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.

50-50- they import arms just like India, from both US & Russia.

"good $" r needed for good things. The Murphy's law states: "if it can go wrong, it will", & it happens more often than not. If an airfield is potholed, iced/snowed over or flooded, VTOLs, unlike planes, can still safely use it or land around it.

According to the data for 2015, the development of this aircraft is actively continuing, and the Ka-102 helicopter is viewed primarily as a civilian aircraft, allowing the transportation of 80 to 90 passengers at a maximum flight speed of 500 km / h, which is turn has no analogues in the world.

They can use a supertanker to convert it to Ka-102 carrier. At 1/2 size, it's smaller variants, along with tilt-rotors, can be parked on UDK decks & leave the CH-47F in the dust.

they'll start developing them after the Ka-102 appears.

even though, they'll deliver more as work horses- India isn't Pakistan or Bangladesh & can afford it.
Their Navy will use then too. If Russia produced a CH-47- like helos, India would have procured them instead- so Russia they could potentially export them to India &/ others in the future.

it only proves my point!

They could get a CH-47 from Iran & civ. tilt-rotor from abroad- no need to jump through the hoops! But it's better wait for Russia to come with better models before investing in them.

to me, most probably not! 1 can't rely on "probably" in aviation!

true, but they been constantly upgrading them before.

It is possible that the Mi-8 is not as convenient for pilots and passengers as the Mi-38, but it is much cheaper, which is often much more important for customers.
https://militaryarms.ru/vertolety/vertolet-mi-38/

The new variant will replace some of the older Mi-8/17s.
But that doesn't mean that better performing aircraft than the Mi-38s will be passed over by the VMF & other gov. entities. As they age &/ replaced by newer versions, civilians will be getting them.

GarryB wrote:Tilt rotors offer the potential for higher speed flight, but not as much as a conventional aircraft does, so it is a waste of time and money.

Nobody has tandem or tilt rotor AWACS aircraft, because no one wants to make an expensive aircraft shorter ranged and flaky.

And what if their tilt rotors and tandems fail... rather more likely because they make something fairly straight forward and make it complex and dangerous.

They are looking in to it, but that means nothing... a more conventional high speed helicopter design is rather more likely.

A tilt rotor aircraft needs two rather big rotors to operate so the bare minimum footprint is that of a tandem helo... a coaxial high speed helicopter can have less than half that footprint and be just as fast...

Il-76s can land on grass strips when below 200 tons weight... which is most of the time.

Have never seen an Mi-8 or Mi-6 with naval equipment like that... are you sure it wasn't an Mi-14?

So America doesn't have the final say, because if they did it would be no to Russian equipment.

conventionally landing aircraft are safer than vertically landing ones....

Incredibly slow for a conventional airliner and likely shorter range too... totally pointless.

If you are moving 80-90 people then you are taking them from somewhere  that has a lot of people to somewhere that is going to have a lot of people so you might as well build a proper runway and do it much faster and more efficiently with a normal aircraft... like an Il-276.

Apart from top speed the Mi-26 already does leave it in the dust...

Assuming it ever does.

India doesn't operate Chinooks because they are so wonderful.. it doesn't matter than Russian planes are better than American ones or Russian helos are better too...

Why are you suggesting they copy US designs when their existing designs already do the job and are better...

If they want new Chinook designs then they will have to develop them themselves.

Then why are you relying on the VDV possibly funding a tilt rotor design and Kamov possibly developing a tandem helo design?

To keep them operational... once the replacement is ready they are gone because they are worn out and need replacement.

Which is why a tandem or tilt rotor design doesn't have a change because they will be much more expensive and much more difficult to support and operate because there are not plenty of support options and spare parts around...

The older aircraft that will be replaced first will be worn out old hack likely used for spares for operational models.

I grew up on the Black Sea coast & remember them flying Mi-6/8s along the coast every day in 20-30 min intervals searching for NATO divers with their MAD sensors.

their future expeditionary forces could use them but won't need too many of them, & it'll be $ well spent!

if they fail with EMALS, that could be an alternative.

even after a few failures they'll fix them eventually

The old Mi-12 is more complicated than a tandem type layout & the Ka-22 was more complicated than the V-22 type:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-22

Why would/should they have huge problems with CH-47 & V-22 layouts?

they have the Mi-28s & the Ka-52s- why shouldn't they have both tilt-rotors & compound helos?

such a helo could be made even of the Mi-6/26 size; OTH, they could VTOL as tandem helos with their wing still over the fuselage or turned into that position in flight, with their engines permanently horizontal position like on the V-280.

there may not be any clear grass/ dirt strips for dozens/100s of miles around.

I'm sure, watched them with binoculars; they didn't have any MAD stings like on P-3s/IL-38s but their sensors were good enough for shallow water off Odessa.

they don't want to antagonize nuclear armed India while staring down China, NK, Iran & Russia.

why not make tilt-rotors with adjustable diameter props so they could land like airplanes?

irrelevant- they won't be flying from Moscow to Novosibirsk or from there to Khabarovsk, but on much shorter routes within the North, Siberia & the FE. Still faster than classic helos & with less stops for refueling while carrying more passengers & cargo.

they fly them once in a few weeks/months to/from temporary work at construction, oil/gas wells, timber, mines, etc., so it's still more feasible than building an airport for the Il-276s.

the Ka-102s will be lighter, more efficient & less costly to buy & operate.

Russia has no CH-47F counterpart, which can do the job of 2 Mi-17s.

It's more efficient to use them than the more expensive & heavier Mi-26s when u need to haul 10T instead of 20T of cargo to/from the bases/mountain outposts; they have 741km range, only by 59km less vs. 800km on the Mi-26:

some jobs specifics change- that's why there r many variants of any given aircraft; some helos just can't be used as well as others no matter how good they r. They won't copy designs- the Mi-4 wasn't a copy of the H-34:

not necessarily- to save $, they can co-develop them.

not only- Marines, MChS, & FSB can be seduced to support them too.

with more development in Siberia, North & the FE, more helos will be needed; those that can perform 2x better will be thought after.

their industry will produce enough new helos to make more older surplus helos available for civilian use. It's not the socialist post-war USSR where things were used a lot longer than they were designed for.

GarryB wrote:They would need disposable sonobouys or dipping sonars to find divers or just detect them visually... they could do the latter but the former two only the Mi-14 would carry.
If they were looking for divers I would suggest the sensors they were using were binoculars...

What makes you so sure they will fail with EMALS?
It is funny you think they will fail at EMALS but wont have any problems with tilt rotors and tandem helicopters.

..they have no reason to master tilt rotors or tandem helos because they already have superior helicopters and are working on improving flight speed which is the only advantage tilt rotor designs have and they can do that with coaxial designs.

Why did they only make 2 Mi-12s?

Because the Mi-28s and Ka-52s already do the job...

They still need a very large area to land.
And there is no practical reason to have them that big.

It is not worth spending billions of dollars to develop tilt rotor aircraft just because it might save one life in a very strange situation... that is just stupid.

So why are they demanding India cancel its deal to buy S-400s and stop buying Iranian and Venezuelan oil?

Smaller diameter props would be like using jet engines on VTOL aircraft...

Tilt rotors really don't have amazing payload performance because they can only take off vertically and their flight speed is usually only a few hundred kms per hour faster than many helos...

..over shorter distances smaller lighter aircraft are more useful...

Yeah, but with all those people working there they are obviously not living off the land so they will need a hell of a lot more transport that just taking in people and bringing them home... they will need 200 meals a day just for the people being transferred... so every couple of weeks or months means quite a few tons of food alone.

Not better than aircraft already being used of a more conventional nature.

The fact that they don't have one suggests they don't need one.

And when Chinooks crash... who do they send to recover the body?

To solve the problem they use the much bigger much more expensive Chinook to do the job of the Mi-17 and you claim that makes the Chinook superior... come on...

Perhaps if the Black Hawk was a better helo they might not even need the Chinook so much.

Clearly the Chinook is not great, the other helos they have are ordinary.

Why would Russia spend money on an aircraft design they don't need? ..There is already Mi-17 for cheap, and Mi-38 for later... they don't need another choice...

and you can't say tandems and tilt rotors that have not even been designed yet are going to be two times better...

Arctic conditions are tough on aircraft... most of the plastics used in modern cars shatter at minus 40 degrees... these tilt rotor aircraft are going to really suffer if they ever get built... and when they do they will be 50 million or more each and no one will be able to afford them...

then, they probably used optical sensors &/ water penetrating radar, if it existed. The water there wasn't always clear & I doubt binoculars would be of any help in that.

EMALS is based on different principles used up to date, while those aircraft use the same known principles of aerodynamics & testresults during their development phases.

by the same token, the US is developing, as u wrote, coaxial rotor design for their high speed helos... while already having tandem/tilt rotors. Does it mean they'll get rid of them in favor of coaxials? That's why Russia should develop tandem/tilt rotors to have a "complete tool box".

..the V-12's most important intended mission no longer existed, i.e. the rapid deployment of heavy strategic ballistic missiles. This also led to a reduction in Antonov An-22 production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12#Operational_history

they r not suited for SAR, ASW, assault & transport jobs.

not larger than fixed wings;

they can airdrop supplies/people from low altitudes.

tandem-rotor & smaller Mi-12 like helos could still do more than Mi-17/38s.

because they come from Anglo-Saxon background & used to demand obedience to see if they'll get it, if it suits their agenda.

they could have their large helo rotors & reduce their diameter for plane-like landings enough to give them ground clearance, so they don't have to do VLs or shear their props in emergencies.

they can also do rolling TOs; I meant tandem-rotors on those flights.

often they need to divert to other LZs to avoid bad weather/fires/floods/mil. & police activity, & pick up/drop other people/cargo- more fuel/internal volume means bigger size.

they have huge storage places in the permafrost for food delivered by ships &/ trucks; no need for regular deliveries.

The Chinook has exceptional ability to deliver heavy payloads to high altitudes and is eminently suitable for operations in the high Himalayas.

it's like using An-22/124s to haul 40T instead of Il-76s.

they don't crash in peacetime any more often than the Mi-8/17/26s.
If some Mi-26s crash, what helo will recover them, in 1 piece?

they procured some Mi-17s for the Afghan AF, but they don't operate them themselves there; the Chinooks r being used instead of the CH-53s that can't fly with cargo & armed people over the mountains.

The CH-47F is great if compared with CH-53 & other Western large helos.

see the above reply.

the Ka-102 already been mostly designed, with 1st flight possible in 2020.

they had their Tu-126/128s/95s & MiG-21/23/25/31s there for decades & know how to use titanium.etc on aircraft. Heated maintenance hangars will prolong their life- so don't worry of them wasting $ on those birds.