LCH and other Helicopters Discussion Thread

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 May 2010 11:38

Aditya G wrote:Note the thin windows - no way there is any armour on them:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 731857.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 798585.JPG

Perhaps not enough to withstand a 50 cal round, but should be adequate for regular small arms - 5.56 & 7.62. Also, most hits are likely to be on the belly and tail rather than the canopy unless its flying in a valley or flying low in a mountainous region.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 May 2010 12:06

Would the downwash from the main rotor also push the incoming bullets down?

The main rotor downwash is powerful enough to lift this 5.7 ton bird, why won't it affect the flight of a tumbling bullet at the very end of its flight?

bodhi · Post by **bodhi** » 24 May 2010 12:21

dont think the deviaion would be that much..which would also mean that the bullets aimed at the rotor blades will strike the canopy.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 24 May 2010 12:28

Shiv saab, you were right. the EO pod on the LCH is a dummy as of now..

pic from Shiv Aroor's blog

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 24 May 2010 14:51

Gagan wrote:Would the downwash from the main rotor also push the incoming bullets down?

The main rotor downwash is powerful enough to lift this 5.7 ton bird, why won't it affect the flight of a tumbling bullet at the very end of its flight?

I don't believe it would. While the rotor creates a pretty large lifting force, the pressure created under it is relatively low. That's why a man can stand under its rotors while it lifts off the ground, without buckling. And given the speed and flight time of the bullet, the deviation caused during that small period, is likely to be miniscule.

Manu · Post by **Manu** » 24 May 2010 15:01

Aditya G wrote:Note the thin windows - no way there is any armour on them:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 731857.JPG
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/S ... 798585.JPG

I said the same thing here...
Clicky

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 24 May 2010 15:19

I dont think any major downwash happens when the rotary blades rotate. Atleast not to an extent that will push the bullets away

gogna · Post by **gogna** » 24 May 2010 17:30

http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/05/s ... w-lch.html

Did anyone spot this little beaute

The LUH mock-up (top and below) displayed by HAL during the event.
Photos: Sanjay Simha

biswas · Post by **biswas** » 24 May 2010 17:37

gogna wrote:http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/05/s ... w-lch.html

Did anyone spot this little beaute
</snip>

This is the deemed replacement for the Chetak/al helis?

My oh my.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2010 17:42

Kartik wrote:Shiv saab, you were right. the EO pod on the LCH is a dummy as of now..

pic from Shiv Aroor's blog

Kartik - I just recalled that I think I have a beautiful video of an armed ALH doing some seriously fancy maneuvers from Aero India 2009. I bundled he footage with the AI DVD and forgot about it. I must upload it to YouTube. Clearly they have been testing the ALH with weapons integrated so as you pointed out I doubt if it will be such a big deal to put it on the LCH. I am guessing (just guessing) that the actual designator pod in the nose will be a Rafael "Toplite" because it looks exactly like the thing on the LCHs nose.

I enjoyed taking that video because I had a BR business pass that lloweed me to an area where I could see the display well and I was imagining that helo shooting the crap out of someone on the ground. Let me try and locate it...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2010 17:44

gogna wrote:http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/05/s ... w-lch.html

Did anyone spot this little beaute

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/S ... 10+747.jpg
The LUH mock-up (top and below) displayed by HAL during the event.
Photos: Sanjay Simha
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/S ... 10+757.jpg]

Aha. Hello sweetie pie!

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 24 May 2010 17:55

Light Utility Helicopter?

I thought that there was supposed to be the Light Observation Helicopter and that had a single engine and a fantail rotor.
So HAL doesn't plan to give a commission to Eurocoptor for the fantail, and instead use its own design.

Good going. We can expect this thing to fly in about two years time.

sum · Post by **sum** » 24 May 2010 18:25

gogna wrote:http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/05/s ... w-lch.html

Did anyone spot this little beaute

The LUH mock-up (top and below) displayed by HAL during the event.
Photos: Sanjay Simha

Unable to access the site!!!!

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 24 May 2010 18:28

EDITED

Yes it is LUH , it clearly written on its tail

, Design seems to be a Dhruv ripoff , may to keep the price low and also better export potential in civilian market

gogna · Post by **gogna** » 24 May 2010 18:35

sum wrote:
gogna wrote:http://tarmak007.blogspot.com/2010/05/s ... w-lch.html

Did anyone spot this little beaute

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/S ... 10+747.jpg[/img]
The LUH mock-up (top and below) displayed by HAL during the event.
Photos: Sanjay Simha
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5sP7XwykNSM/S ... 10+757.jpg[/img]
Unable to access the site!!!!

Hi-Res LUH First

Hi-Res LUH Second

neerajb · Post by **neerajb** » 24 May 2010 18:35

karan_mc wrote:EDITED

Yes it is LUH , it clearly written on its tail

Can't be a dhruv unless ALH is on dieting. Moreover why show a mockup of something already operational.

Cheers....

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 May 2010 18:45

good thing they put Dhruv on a diet -

cost and complexity of design will be low. having a single engine the gearbox will hopefully be clean and simple too.

but since it will be competing against a entrenched purchase of 200 bideshi LOH and their assorted dalals, it has
got to do things faster/smarter/cheaper like having common avionics/sensors/consumables/structures with Dhruv
to the max possible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2010 18:51

gogna wrote: Hi-Res LUH Second

This has got to be more than a mock up. Apart from the authentic looking rotors this baby has a thingummy on each side of the nose covered by a red, tailed cover. Those covers are not used on dummy sensors on mock up aircraft.

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 24 May 2010 18:53

Success will depend on how well the diet has gone. Looks like the temptation to re-invent the wheel has been avoided.

Jaeger · Post by **Jaeger** » 24 May 2010 19:37

shiv wrote:
gogna wrote: Hi-Res LUH Second
This has got to be more than a mock up. Apart from the authentic looking rotors this baby has a thingummy on each side of the nose covered by a red, tailed cover. Those covers are not used on dummy sensors on mock up aircraft.

400% mock up saar, please to note the point at which the main rotor meets the engine box cowling. Also engine 'intake' is just an extrusion, not an actual intake - you can tell on looking closely that there is no engine fitted. The other image also shows no exhaust. There are other, more ambiguous clues - but it's indubitably a mock up. A very good one though, and yes, the red thingummies definitely muddy the water.

However if the design has progressed to the stage where they can fabricate a highly realistic 1:1 mock up, then things are farther along than anyone thought

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 May 2010 20:07

OK here it is folks - fresh upload.. the armed ALH going through its paces. You can expect the LCH to be as agile if not more

From 1:08 watch it going backwards and nose down to shoot some Pakistaniyat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADdxH7oChXA

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 24 May 2010 20:08

gogna wrote: Hi-Res LUH Second

Compare LUH with the military Dhruv in the background. Very similar.

Dhanush · Post by **Dhanush** » 24 May 2010 21:33

For my layman eyes, the LOH is not looking much different compared to the ALH. Now, how is that possible? How can you convert a 6 tonne HC to a 3 tonne HC with just some cosmetic changes? This is where the Kufirs have confused the abdul in me!

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 24 May 2010 21:46

Dhanush wrote:For my layman eyes, the LOH is not looking much different compared to the ALH. Now, how is that possible? How can you convert a 6 tonne HC to a 3 tonne HC with just some cosmetic changes? This is where the Kufirs have confused the abdul in me!

I'll try to answer - you take one engine out and put the remainder into a composite airframe.

From Livefist:

Dhanush · Post by **Dhanush** » 24 May 2010 22:15

PratikDas wrote:
Dhanush wrote:For my layman eyes, the LOH is not looking much different compared to the ALH. Now, how is that possible? How can you convert a 6 tonne HC to a 3 tonne HC with just some cosmetic changes? This is where the Kufirs have confused the abdul in me!
I'll try to answer - you take one engine out and put the remainder into a composite airframe.

Doesn't the engine save only 200-300 Kgs? ALH already has to some extent composites and I am not sure if so much weight can be reduced just by using more composites. Otherwise, they would have done that rather than upgrading the engine for the ALH.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 24 May 2010 23:06

Dhanush wrote: Doesn't the engine save only 200-300 Kgs? ALH already has to some extent composites and I am not sure if so much weight can be reduced just by using more composites. Otherwise, they would have done that rather than upgrading the engine for the ALH.

ALH is much bulkier and wider than LCH. Just have a look at the image of the mock-up with ALH in the background.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 24 May 2010 23:16

Dhanush wrote: Doesn't the engine save only 200-300 Kgs? ALH already has to some extent composites and I am not sure if so much weight can be reduced just by using more composites. Otherwise, they would have done that rather than upgrading the engine for the ALH.

True... But its not like the LUH is the same size as the Dhruv, which would automatically reduce the weight... and then the loss of the engine and other related parts should easily bring it into the specified weight range...

Added later- Dhanushji beat me to it..

Bharadwaj · Post by **Bharadwaj** » 24 May 2010 23:33

75 kg payload at 6000m? Did the Dhruv not lift more at an even higher altitude last year?. i guess the big advantage will be purchase and operating costs...

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 24 May 2010 23:43

High Res.http://pib.nic.in/photo/2010/May/l2010052428652.jpg

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 24 May 2010 23:46

“At the same time, HAL must learn from its past mistakes and not repeat them,” he said in a pointed reference to the past differences between the IAF and HAL. Ashok Nayak, HAL chairman who also spoke said, IAF had booked 65 LCHs. “The army has also shown keen interest in buying a large number of these for the army aviation wing,”http://www.deccanherald.com/content/711 ... aiden.html

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 24 May 2010 23:53

In the high res pic above, i see the IAF marking on the LCH, if the IAF hasnt bought it how can it be marked as an IAF aircraft ? IIRC, the Tejas TD never had these markings(may be a wrong example since fighters ?? since fighters anyways do not have iaf written on them)

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 May 2010 23:54

This is how a downsized Dhruv should look like:

http://www.haf.gr/media/BK117_ps.jpg

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/bk117b2_kp.jpg

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 25 May 2010 00:51

suryag wrote:In the high res pic above, i see the IAF marking on the LCH, if the IAF hasnt bought it how can it be marked as an IAF aircraft ? IIRC, the Tejas TD never had these markings(may be a wrong example since fighters ?? since fighters anyways do not have iaf written on them)

TD1 did have roundels and the fin flash though. I'm guessing here but it probably doesn't hurt to paint it with the name of your customer on it!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2010 00:53

Shameek wrote:
suryag wrote:In the high res pic above, i see the IAF marking on the LCH, if the IAF hasnt bought it how can it be marked as an IAF aircraft ? IIRC, the Tejas TD never had these markings(may be a wrong example since fighters ?? since fighters anyways do not have iaf written on them)
TD1 did have roundels and the fin flash though. I'm guessing here but it probably doesn't hurt to paint it with the name of your customer on it!

A few posts above:

Ashok Nayak, HAL chairman who also spoke said, IAF had booked 65 LCHs

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 25 May 2010 01:15

Aditya G wrote:This is how a downsized Dhruv should look like:

http://www.haf.gr/media/BK117_ps.jpg

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/bk117b2_kp.jpg

AHA ... Back to the BK-177! Don't know, my friend, don't know ..

Am a little worried about the single engined-high altitude LUH. Considering that the intended range of the LUH (350 km) is lower than the BK-177 (541 km), is the single engined LUH a compromise for commonality with the Shakti engines?

gogna · Post by **gogna** » 25 May 2010 02:16

More from Shiv Aroor on LUH

HAL's Light Utility Helicopter Makes Its First Appearance

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 May 2010 02:55

Dhanush wrote: Doesn't the engine save only 200-300 Kgs? ALH already has to some extent composites and I am not sure if so much weight can be reduced just by using more composites. Otherwise, they would have done that rather than upgrading the engine for the ALH.

that is just the weight of the engine that you're quoting. Take into account the structure that suppports the engine, its cradle, those are most likely aluminium frames..other than that you have harnesses, all the piping, systems and their brackets, some fuel tanks and their associated motors, etc. that are there for the second engine that will be removed for a single engined helo. Plus the size is definitely smaller than the Dhruv. A closer inspection will reveal that its cabin is smaller as is the cockpit.

Nevertheless, HAL seems to prefer the roomier design, with a lot of internal volume. They have shown that as an advantage of the Dhruv design compared to other 5.5 ton class helos as well (refer to my earlier post where a HAL Dhruv youtube video showed this) so I guess this must be a useful factor. Time will tell if they stick to the empty weight quoted now or end up being overweight because they seem to have gone with a voluminous AW119 like cabin and not the sleeker but smaller Fennec like cabin. Minor (3-5%) excess weight is not a concern but it shouldn't be as heavy as the LCH (nearly 20%) was over original design intent. Maybe the case of the LCH was because quite a bit of engineering work was outsourced to private companies, and they'd have been conservative in their sizing of panels and part gauges, being relatively new at this. Advantage is that work gets done on time as HAL's resources can be better used as integrators and for high-level design. With adequate oversight and support, they could build up a base of private companies that can assist in all future defence programs.

Anyway, looking closely, the OML of the LUH is definitely different than that of the Dhruv. If one is not acquainted with the Dhruv well one might be confused but on closer inspection, it has its own distinct features. Its quite a good looking helo one must say.

Kartik · Post by **Kartik** » 25 May 2010 04:19

suryag wrote:In the high res pic above, i see the IAF marking on the LCH, if the IAF hasnt bought it how can it be marked as an IAF aircraft ? IIRC, the Tejas TD never had these markings(may be a wrong example since fighters ?? since fighters anyways do not have iaf written on them)

every prototype built in India has had IAF markings if they were the intended recipient at some later stage. LCA always had IAF markings from the TD stage itself. Just google for it or go look at youtube for the LCA first flight. If the aircraft is for military purposes, fin flash and roundels are carried.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 25 May 2010 05:48

Aditya G wrote:This is how a downsized Dhruv should look like:

Why? Would it worry you if it looked different? For example if HAL made the downsized Dhruv look like a Lambretta scooter - it should be fine no? Then we can say HAL has learned from the Italians? No?

karan_mc · Post by **karan_mc** » 25 May 2010 07:36

In latest Mock up it seems that HAL is sticking with Conventional Tail rotor instead of shrouded tail rotor which was first displayed in Aero India 2009 model. Aero India model of LUH had shrouded tail rotor which is also known as Fenestron or Fantail in aviation circle. Our Defence expert Rajesh Sharma told idrw.org that it might have been done to keep the construction cost lower and ducted fan tail rotor adds weight to helicopter , LUH is supposed to be a 3 ton helicopter powered by a single HAL/Turbomeca Shakti engine. The aircraft will have a range of up to 500km (270nm) and a 500kg (1,100lb) payload. LUH will be used in Higher Attitude region.

May be weight factor and additional production cost was the reason behind removing Fantail from LUH

http://idrw.org/?p=1777#more-1777