The advent of the Kamen K-MAX dedicated cargo lifter, with an unmanned variant, seems to have covered the base for a robust, battlefield logistics helicopter. Despite its excellent performance, it does have a number of notable disadvantages. Namely, it cannot carry troops, it has a single engine, only one crewman can squeeze into its cockpit and all loads need to be carried externally. Given this, its role is somewhat limited. If an alternative were to be available it would be stipulated that these shortcomings should be addressed.
Enter the Kamov Ka-226 ‘Sergei’, the Russian alternative. Although it does not have the lift capacity of the K-MAX, approximately 3,000 lbs compared to 6,000 lbs, this miniature flying crane is smaller, lighter and has the distinct advantage of being able to re-configure its role by changing its main fuselage pod. The Kamov also has a greater range, almost double that of the Kamen product, in addition to being faster.
Ka-226
The Pods are also available for a wide range of differing roles such as Medevac, fire fighting, crop spraying and troop carrying to name but a few. The troop carrying pod can accommodate six, as well as an additional body in the cockpit. A helicopter such as the UH-60 Blackhawk requires a aircraft dedicated to the role, such as the UH-60Q and the S-70C Firehawk.
The Kamov can also carry two external 160 litre fuel tanks to extend its range. This ability has only been managed by one NATO aircraft, the older and significantly larger Sikorsky CH-54/S-64 Tarhe. The advantage that a flying crane offers over a traditional troop carrying helicopter is that it can ditch the parasitic weight of the troop compartment and increase its load carrying capability. The Sergei offers an additional advantage in that by using contra-rotating blades, power is not absorbed by the ‘parasitic’ anti-torque tail rotor.
Sikorsky Skycrane
In comparison the K-MAX’s single engine, the Ka-226 is fitted with two Rolls Royce Allison 250’s, a highly popular and reliable gas turbine, giving it a degree of commonality with Western aircraft. The Ka-226T variant has the more powerful Turbomeca Arrius 2G2, again a highly popular engine, giving the aircraft greater performance and an element of redundancy not offered by the K-MAX, something that should be considered for a battlefield role.
As a number of NATO countries still use the Mi-8 ‘Hip’, M-24 Hind and the MiG-29, operating an aircraft of Russian origin within the NATO inventory is not a great problem. Given the Ka-226’s mission flexibility it has the potential to be a great asset in a nation’s logistical support. Although the K-MAX has the distinct advantage of having an unmanned variant, it would not be too difficult to apply similar technology to the Kamov.
Given the advantages that are offered by the flying crane configuration, they could form the basis of a rotary fleet with the Ka-226T at the bottom end and a heavy lift variant based on the Sikorsky CH-53K at the other. A medium sized flying crane variant based on the NH-90 or the S-92 would not be beyond the realms of human ingenuity. Of course, flying cranes are not a panacea for the rotary world as dedicated roles such as attack helicopters and naval helicopters will still require a specialist aircraft. However, for ‘poorer’ nations, it would be cheaper and more effective to purchase a Kamov with a ‘maritime’ pod fitted with a radar and a dunking sonar than buying a high cost dedicated alternative such as the AW.159 Lynx Wildcat.
In these austere times, perhaps it is time to start looking at ‘swing-role’ helicopters that can fulfil a greater number of roles by using the flying crane as the core type, rather than trying to fulfil every role with a dedicated airframe.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
11 Comments
Richard, love it, does this mean we can have airborne containers now as well!
Joking aside, the concept is sound but I suspect the devil would be in the detail, connectivity, DAS, weight penalties etc.
Has to be worth a look though, if they can do it in the sixties why not now. The main benefit from this, like containerising say a GMLRS, is not the in the field rapid modular change capability, but the availability and maintenance issues.
i’m repeating myself here (just a one trick pony) but on a programme i watched an ex 64 pilot said all costs of the 64 ie R&D, build were recouped three times over by the ammount of downed cabs they recovered in ‘nam instead of blowing them up.
Morning folks,
Interesting piece. Helo commonality should indeed be based on the barebone basics, as in similar avionics, similar engines/transmission and similar rotor(s). And that spells modular “pick-up truck” Skycrane-variant.
Problem ofcourse is the divergence of missions and tasks. A Skycrane isn’t a nimble or fast helo, and that’s exactly what the army needs, while the navy just want a shipboard helo with good endurance that isn’t too heavy it will crash through the flightdeck.
A heavy lifter by definition wants large rotor blades or dual Helix rotors, which makes it too large for (frigate) shipboard use, plus it makes it very susceptible to wind gusts/bad weather which is standard during naval ops and arctic/mountain flights. The massive brown-out/white-out storm is also an issue, especially with sling-loads.
The choice between a modular Skycrane or instead a common family of helicopters has been chosen, and the latter won (Seaking, H-60, NH-90 NFH/TTH).
Still, technology is always moving forward, and indeed with containerisation it is perhaps time to take another serious look at it.
Cheers.
I’m not going to lie I read the title and came here expecting someone to be advocating a CH-53K+ with even more powerful engines and a modular bay aft to accommodate either the cabin or a 20′ container (simply in a cargo capacity rather than an aerial mission module, hence the requirement for more powerful engines to compensate for the 24000KG payload requirement.
I think the concept has some merit, like a lot of ideas that 20 years ago were shunted into a design cul de sac, with new materials and technology they sometimes become viable again and worthy of dusting off the old plans.
But this little Russian is not a “sky crane” or flying crane, it is not designed for that role as far as I can see. It is a “modular” helo for sure though, it appears to have been designed for different rear modules – crop spraying, passenger, cargo etc.
There is discussion on the other thread about Super Merlin – well how about CH64 style Merlin with no cabin ?
What the hell is wrong with the dude’s voice in the first movie? He sounds like a chinese/russian version of Homer Simpson.
Jed,
I used the term flying-crane due to its ‘skeletal’ construction and the fact that it can lift cargo in this mode. It was only a generalisation, but I can go with modular if that’s the accepted term.
Requiem,
I was advocating a ‘Flying Crane’ version of the CH-53K, although initially for the sake of commonality I would go with the same engines and transmission as the standard production aircraft.
To me its the concept that’s important not each individual aircraft type. Given the high drag contra-rotating rotor blades of the Kamov range, I’d prefer to see the low drag version demonstrated on the Sikorsky X2 with pusher-props to improve performance. I highlighted in a previous thread that current helicopter technology is hitting its upper limit so we’ve got to start think about some serious fundamental changes to our rotary designs despite the obvious advantages of a proven design.
I feel that a combination of contra-rotating rotors and pusher props, coupled with inter-changeable rear modules is definitely the future….
…hence the reason I probably keep repeating myself!
But realistically I can see this on the light, intermediate and medium aircraft, but a heavy one would probably be similar to the CH-53K or the Chinook.
Jed,
Forgot to add that I like the idea of a CH-64 style Merlin.
13th Spitfire,
Perhaps the voice of Troy McLure would’ve been more appropriate….
This is what I call a step in the right direction!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/14/354197/erickson-china-mull-over-restarting-s-64-heavylifter.html
problem with the flying crane configuration is that when the CH-53 came into service it was able to lift more than the CH-64.
on a number of occasions the CH-53 has demonstrated the ability to not only recover itself but every other helicopter in the western world.
to make it into a flying crane would be to limit its usefulness in a time of decreasing defense budgets.