Chinese-European transport helo project

Re: China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Wasn't there a video of the WZ-10 chief designer saying it wasn't for export? So he couldn't be peddling it.

Re: China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

AssassinsMace said:

Wasn't there a video of the WZ-10 chief designer saying it wasn't for export? So he couldn't be peddling it.

Click to expand...

He said he would like it for export in the future, but right now it has not been approved. I assume they got to fill the government orders first.

Re: China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Deino said:

Sorry ??? If You want to compare the RCS of any type you need to take a model that "looks" like the thing You want to test ... as such, YES, it looks like a Blackhawk and the other like a NH-90 but that has nothing to do with that non-semse that both types are said to be under development in CHina, will fly in 2014 and go into production in 2017 ... this is completely stupid nonsense.

Deino

Click to expand...

Deino I never said it was a Copy or a Clone in fact I just finished a Rant in another Thread as too why China would not want too Clone. I just just commenting on the look not the features.
Food For thought.

Re: China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

Deino said:

Sorry ??? If You want to compare the RCS of any type you need to take a model that "looks" like the thing You want to test ... as such, YES, it looks like a Blackhawk and the other like a NH-90 but that has nothing to do with that non-semse that both types are said to be under development in CHina, will fly in 2014 and go into production in 2017 ... this is completely stupid nonsense.

Deino

Click to expand...

Ok clarified. Thanks! I do inquire whats the RCS for a chopper generally..and whether we'd really see LO choppers

Re: China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

airsuperiority said:

Ok clarified. Thanks! I do inquire whats the RCS for a chopper generally..and whether we'd really see LO choppers

Click to expand...

Re: China's transport, tanker & heavy lift aircraft

The 2 helicopter models in the CG does not seem to have RCS reduction measures. Probably it's just a matter of wrongly using a picture that's unrelated to the matter of discussion?


Ok, just read Deino's post.

"It was a RCS-calculation and comparison of - like we said - the NH-90 & Blackhawk "

So, it's nothing to do with LO helicopter either.

Not sure if this is fake.

Russians talk about china wanting to develop super-heavy helicopter with russia, with apparently twice the capacity of MI-26.



what do you think of it?

As I just said In Mig's thread on a new Wide body. in the US the JMR ultra is targeted at the 36 ton class. and the latest Russian BTR 90 came in heavier then the Mi26 could lift.

Now building and planing a 40 ton lifter is a whole different ball of wax. The only Chopper in this class that had ever been built before was the Russian Mi V12 it was mega sized, about the same length as a Boeing 737 the V12 was a Transverse rotor helicopter meaning it mounted it's engines on out riggers spanning like a set of wings think of a V22 except the nacelles don't move. It is also the only 4 engine helicopter I have ever heard of. Their have been rumors that the Russians were looking into a even heavier version with four rotors called the V16. which would have been a 44 ton lifter using six engines but it never went beyond paper.
Mi26 Halo by contrast is smaller and uses a conventional configuration and 2 engines.

Okay so why the lesson?
well If the Chinese and Russians are really planing on a 40 ton helicopter. The First thing they have to do is decide on configuration. Mi26 is a conventional chopper, the majority of helicopters use this configuration it was proven in the VS-300 back in the 1939. A single main rotor and a vertical tail rotor. it's a proven design but at this weight class it would be a monster. to give you an Idea the MI26's tail rotor is the exact same size and power rating as the American OH-6 Cayuse' Main Rotor that is 27 ft. 4 in. if we are scaling that up. Imagine A tail rotor that could be used to power a full Medium lift helicopter like a UH1. that's a big tail rotor almost 50 feet. the main rotor of the Mi26 is over a hundred feel in Diameter this would be even bigger.

another option would be multiple rotors. the advantages are that most generate more lift per rotor then a single large unit meaning you can go with smaller Diameters. even dare i say it drop to a existing rotor. they all eliminate there own torque meaning you can loose the tail dropping the length.

Tilt rotor of course there is the option of a tilt rotor but neither the Russians or Chinese have any experience in the configuration the same for Tilt wings. The mechanics of tilting are complex. add in No auto rotation if some thing goes wrong your guilding in.

a Transverse rotor helicopter. as I just said the Russians built the V12 this way. A chinese airshow recently showed a concept piece that combined this style with a inter-meshing rotors and pusher props. although awkward it shows they are interested. a Transverse rotor helicopter has no need for a tail rotor. as the two Rotors operating counter there twin's own torque

Tandem rotors like the Chinook and Sea knight have been looked for a Ultra class lifter by both Boeing and the Russians the Yak-60 was a alternative to the Mi V12. although never built. The PLA has never had a Tandem Rotor but the Russians have but years ago in the form of the Yak 24 Horse.

Coaxial Rotors are a Kamov specialty. both the Russians and the PLA have and use them in the form of the Helix family of Choppers used by the PLAN no need for a tail rotor in fact if you do mount a tail rotor you can mount it as a propulsion system for extra speed.

now in left field are farther alternatives in the form of multirotors these are options with rotors that can number form three to god knows what. but weight is a issue. realistically a quadcopter could do it. but neither the Russians or the Chinese have ever built one bigger then a toy, most quadcopter's are small drone.
Another option might be to try and create a Hybrid of configurations like a Coaxial quad tandem.
personally I think A tandem or coaxial would be the best option.
the next issues are engines. two would be to little even the largest modern engines are going to be strained three is a stretch but possible I thing 4+ perhaps 6 engines. depending on configuration the advantages being lots of emergency redundancy. disadvantage? lots of complexity.