British Airways, via its British Airways Helicopters subsidiary, was planning to operate a much bigger fleet of them (for roles in addition to offshore oil industry support) than they ultimately procured, as I understand it though.
 
I don’t know if this is the best place for this technical question about heavy helicopters with tandem rotors.

The CH-46 and CH-47 are powered by two turboshaft engines, mounted on each side of the helicopter’s rear pylon and connected to the rotors by drive shafts.

I was wondering if another tandem configuration would make sense from a technical point of view:
  1. Turboshafts engines mounted on each pylon (rear and front) connected by a differential.
  2. Turboshafts engines mounted on the center of the fuselage, with power output distributed by drive shafts toward each pylon (rear and front).
 
I don’t know if this is the best place for this technical question about heavy helicopters with tandem rotors.

The CH-46 and CH-47 are powered by two turboshaft engines, mounted on each side of the helicopter’s rear pylon and connected to the rotors by drive shafts.

I was wondering if another tandem configuration would make sense from a technical point of view:
  1. Turboshafts engines mounted on each pylon (rear and front) connected by a differential.
  2. Turboshafts engines mounted on the center of the fuselage, with power output distributed by drive shafts toward each pylon (rear and front).
I would think that with modern technology any of your proposals could be made to work. Which of them provided the lightest and least expensive means to provide power would be most likely to overcome the known method.
 
I don’t know if this is the best place for this technical question about heavy helicopters with tandem rotors.

The CH-46 and CH-47 are powered by two turboshaft engines, mounted on each side of the helicopter’s rear pylon and connected to the rotors by drive shafts.

I was wondering if another tandem configuration would make sense from a technical point of view:
  1. Turboshafts engines mounted on each pylon (rear and front) connected by a differential.
  2. Turboshafts engines mounted on the center of the fuselage, with power output distributed by drive shafts toward each pylon (rear and front).
As I understand the setup, the CH-47** is basically option 2. The engines have a combining gearbox that sends power to each pylon.

You do not want a differential because the two rotors need to intermesh so must spin at the same RPM. Also, the power going to each pylon needs to be equal, for counter-torque purposes.

** I think the CH46 is the same setup.
 
CH-47C with two XM204 howitzers. Unfortunately the drawing quality is poor.
 

Attachments

  • 9.png
    9.png
    136.6 KB · Views: 34
  • 10.png
    10.png
    220.9 KB · Views: 28
  • 11.png
    11.png
    258.6 KB · Views: 16
  • 12.png
    12.png
    140.3 KB · Views: 13
  • 13.png
    13.png
    221.9 KB · Views: 14
  • 14.png
    14.png
    136.3 KB · Views: 21
  • 8.png
    8.png
    125.7 KB · Views: 30
  • 7.png
    7.png
    142.9 KB · Views: 43
  • 6.png
    6.png
    85.7 KB · Views: 47
  • 5.png
    5.png
    116.6 KB · Views: 38
  • 4.png
    4.png
    275.2 KB · Views: 14
  • 3.png
    3.png
    286.2 KB · Views: 10
  • 2.png
    2.png
    219.2 KB · Views: 13
  • 1.png
    1.png
    97.3 KB · Views: 33
  • 15.png
    15.png
    64.8 KB · Views: 22
 
So does the nomenclature change to BCH-47F or CBH-47F?

But seriously every CH-47F flying around lobbing launched effects is a CH-47F not delivering supplies.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom