I hope when you say Halo your not referring to the console game Halo -.-, the MI-26 would be more then sufficient, its got a bigger capacity and payload then the CH-47.
China should purchase CH-47 Chinook
- Thread starter 美國友邦
- Start date
True true, did mean the Mi-26, was just saying that there's quite a bit of extra development potential for the future too.
The Chinook and Mi-26 are two completely different helicopters. The Mi-26is a heavy weight helicopter, the size of a Hercules transport, and the Chinook is a mediun weight helicopter. The Mi-26 is a good weight lifter but no good in combat as it is too large and unwieldy to survive. China is not going to get Chinooks until the emabargo is lifted, and I cannot see that happening soon. It is a bitch to maintain and the Vietnam era ones would be corroded beyond repair in Vietnam and the Iranian ones just too bloody old and as mentioned earlier, spare parts let alone upgrade kits are not available.
Pointblank
Senior Member
China has in the past played around with the commercial version of the Chinook, the Boeing-Vertol Model 234, so they are somewhat familiar with the performance and maintainability of the aircraft.
My idea was to use Mi-26 parts for a new tandem helo design, not simply copy off the Chinook.
You haven't been in a Mi-26, because if you had, you would realise you can't turn it into a tandem helicopter as it is a completely different design philosophy. You could use the undercarriage perhaps but would be better off starting from a clean slate. Helicopters by their nature are far more difficult, when compared to fixed wing, to maintain. The bigger the helicopter, the bigger the maintenance requirement. Also could you imagine the amount of space on the ground required for a Mi-26 tandem helicopter and the amount of debris it would fling about as it landed. There is a practical size limits to helicopters for a reason.
The Mi-26 is a successor of the Mi-6, which has about the same lift capability as the CH-47 Chinook, so the Mi-26 has the same roles as that of the Mi-6 or CH-47. However, the Mi-26 is much heavier than its predecessor, and would be harder to control in battle environments, but it has been operated in such environments before. If China pursues to acquire a similar helicoptor as the CH-47 for military service, then it can probably further develop the Mi-6, but if China wants something more capable in heavy lifting, then the Mi-26 is the way to go.
I'd rather have modern avonics and engines than some soviet design from the early 1970s thank you very much. You can start with the HLH as the baseline but the reasons it was cancelled are still valid today.
Cheers
man overbored
Junior Member
At 202 kts Vne the Chinook is the fastest regular production helo extant. The CH47F will have 4600shp engines compared to 2200 of the original Chinook. We will soon see what this does to the helo's performance.
I have seen the Mi-26 at work in the central highlands of Papua New Guinea. At 5000 ft in a hot tropical environment it will struggle to lift 20 tons. It's hook is structurally limited to 18 tons. One afternoon along Lake Kutubu we sat and watched as a Halo tried to lift a Cat D-9 dozer weighing in right at 20 tons. After burning down to min fuel the crew succeeded in barely levitating the dozer, but they bent the cargo hook in the process. The outcome was an emergency since the helo had only fifteen minutes of fuel left and a dozer stuck under it. The cargo cables were cut so the helo could land. Zingers from Moscow followed. The crew wore hang dog looks for several days afterward. Before that day they were pretty cocky having the baddest toy in the region!
What you are missing comparing spec sheets of different helos is the carefree flying qualities of tandem rotor helos. I have lots of CH-46/BV-107II time and some quality BV-234 Civil Chinook time. Tandem rotor helos do not suffer from sidewinds as tail rotor helos do. I have flown the old Sea King and any cross wind during hover or landing tries to weathervane the helo. You are one busy puppy on the rudder pedals trying to maintain heading. A big Boeing is placid in the same conditions. There is no torque reaction to pulling power in Boeings, so they remain in balanced flight regardless of what you do with the collective. A CH-46 or Chinook will easily tolerate a 70 knot direct side wind. In fact in the Navy we would fly a 70 kt approach to the ship and turn the helo broadsides to our direction of flight right at the deck edge to stop our forward motion. This was called a sideflare, and allowed for very speedy pick ups or deliveries of external loads while conducting vertical replenishment. Tandem rotor helos, not wasting power on a tail rotor or fenestron, can accelerate like nothing you have ever experienced short of a jet. A Chinook will tolerate dumping the nose 40 degress while full power is applied and doing so it screams to 100 kts in a couple of seconds. Better than any fast car. They also do not loose control authority in thin air at high altitude. Sikorsky's and other conventional helos become sloppy to fly at high altitude. Tandem rotor helos do not.
Now, a very good helo the Chinese should consider is the Kamov Ka-32 Helix. The Russians also had these in New Guinea and from what we could see they are tough and capable. With 2200 shp engines they handily outlifted our BV-107's and they are at least as efficient, maybe moreso in a hover as the upper rotor head vortex fully cancels the vortex from the lower head. I was most impressed with the Kamov, but less so of the big Halo. That is a lot of helo for only 18 tons on the hook. Not an efficient design, but the gearbox is certainly innovative.
The only place operating the BV-234 is Columbia Helicopters in Oregon. They own the only examples ever built ( five airframes ) aside from two that crashed. Nobody else has any of these. Columbia also owns all the remaining dozen BV-107/KV-107 airframes. This is the only commercial operator of tandem rotor helicopters. Be careful, you will from time to time see one of these operated under another name, but it is owned by CHI and flow by their pilots. Their visibility belies their small numbers.
Last edited by a moderator: