Army Spends Billions on Helicopters With Crucial Flaw: They Overheat

AP ^ | 09 Nov 2007 | AP

[goldstategop]

The newest $600 Hammmer Bump

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[A.A. Cunningham]

Additional comments on yesterday's thread:

AP IMPACT: New Army chopper overheats (among other problems)

and the one from August

Eurocopter chopper has serious problems, Pentagon testers say

[TLI]

cockpit temperatures in the UH-72A Lakota soared above 104, the point at which the Army says the communication, navigation and flight control systems can overheat and shut down.

Great. The damn thing would not even start up here in Texas. And that is sitting in the shade.

[TLI]

[Iwo Jima]

O.K., so we can't use them on the border.

And we sure can't use them in Iraq.

Or anywhere in the Middle East.

So just where can we use them?

Washington, D.C.?

[samtheman]

European-designed helicopters for homeland security

And there's a flaw?

[elephantlips]

Probably made by a Jimmy Carter owned company.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The Army, in its infinite penny pinching wisdom, chose not to equip the helicopters with air conditioning which is standard equipment on the commercial version of this aircraft. You must remember that this is the same outfit that was buying berets from a Chicomm company to save money.

[VOA]

During flight tests in Southern California in mild, 80-degree weather,
cockpit temperatures in the UH-72A Lakota soared above 104, the
point at which the Army says the communication, navigation
and flight control systems can overheat and shut down.

Reminds me of a "crazy" car dealer's commercials in Edmondton, AB
decades ago.
During one of his funny tirades, he with a compact car and yells
"People say you can't get air conditioning in a compact. That
just ain't so."
He picks up a baseball bat and bashes in the windshield.

I suspect that's not an option on the Lakota!

[VOA]

Dumb question here by a civilian non-aviator:

What’s the virtue of a triple tail on the Lakota?
More agile manuevering?

[Brad from Tennessee]

D.C. gets pretty hot in the summer.

We could try these birds in Alaska but they probably couldn’t take the extreme cold.

[17th Miss Regt]

I see another potential design flaw. If they are going to use these things to patrol our southern border, there is not enough room available for a 7.62 minigun system.

[TLI]

Probably. I do know that it should lower the airspeed at which they take over the yaw function. But at very low forward speeds they are not going to do much, it will be up to the tail rotor. In fact they might be detrimental in maneuvering at low speeds in cross-winds.

[VOA]

Thanks for the comment.
While I guess one plane (the Constellation?) benefited from a “triple tail”,
the triple tail on the Lakota sort of reminded me of the six-bolted
air cleaner on a friend’s old Fiat (128?).
Safe, secure, and totally a waste of time when servicing.

[A.A. Cunningham]

How many of the current border patrol helicopters are armed with a minigun?

[17th Miss Regt]

None. Pity.

[Michael Knight]

These things wouldnt happen if the military held its own more accountable for buying this crap. Instead, the guy in charge probably got a promotion and is doing some joint staff billet right now.

We had a tent the the Marines that always broke when we took them too the field. The design was just doodoo, but hey, it cost 1500 bucks and held 4 men. I asked the syscom guys about it at a meeting (I was a supO) and was told, well it was designed to be set up and taken down 29 times. I started laughing, I said the grunts displace! Thats the point, they dont just go camping, the constantly are on the move. They could do that in a couple of weeks! Whatever idiot wrote that spec did so so they could buy THAT tent and that is where the problems all start. I could have bought a truck load of tents from walmarts for 1500 bucks and just handed them out and never got any back and still come out cheaper.

[Red6]

This design has been around for about seven years. It is based on an older helicopter that has been around for 27 years. It fills the niche of the light transport very well with some of it’s features (enormous interior space for it’s weight and size and with rear access) and it does so at an incredible cost.

Invest our money not reinventing the wheel, but where we need the technology and budget to develop and procure systems that will make a difference, i.e. missile defense, FCS, F22, JSF, submarine upgrades, F18SH upgrades, etc. This machine will not see combat, it’s an economical taxi cab that is in initial procurement, operational hour and cost per pound per mile moved cheaper than the UH60 that currently fills these roles in the National Guard and Homeland Security. Think about this - we’re using a 4000HP with 13000 pound lift machine to move a VIP from point A to B. We need those UH60s in Iraq and Afghanistan where we are rapidly putting thousands of hours on airframes and we have them tied up in the US carrying a governor, a single sick dude with a paramedic. What alternatives do you suggest? A Bell 206L or 412?

Cost effective, available near immediately, low risk and highly capable (within its niche), this platform was a good buy. -IMHO

[Red6]

Yes-

The DoD flies around VIPs, does MEDEVAC, has it’s own internal administrative flights and other things to consider. This platform is to do the busy work for which you don’t need a more expensive, much more powerful UH-60, currently used to do a lot of these things. We are procuring 322, a relative (for our DoD) small number. Consider that UH-60 alone we bought over 2600, OH-58 over 2000, CH47 near 1000 plus CH53, CH46, etc. The DoD is buying a small number because this machine fills a small niche; the light small utility helicopter, not really intended for combat but things which especially the National Guard finds themselves doing often.