OH-58D

[Jim Burt]

The thread called "Is MDHI going to make it?" drifted into a comparison of
the MD 500 and OH-58D aircraft. What follows is a discussion of the latter:

All the US Army OH-58Ds were rebuilt (OK, very, very extensively rebuilt and
modified) OH-58As. The rebuild process took the aircraft down to the
frames, replaced most of the sheet metal and a lot of the composites, built
new cowlings, fuel storage, rear compartments, tail booms, and all new
dynamic components, as well as completely replacing all the instrumentation,
avionics, and powerplants. But they started out as OH-58As. The only "new"
from the skids up OH-58D helicopters were built under contract to Taiwan.

Jim

[CTR]

Jim Burt is correct.

The last "remanufactured" OH-58Ds left Bell about 7 years ago. Most of
the remanufactured Kiowas left Bell about 15 to 20 years ago. Unlike
Bell H-1s and Cobras which can be with remanufactured over and over
(and over), light helicopters like the OH-58 are not as robust. If
they were, they would be as heavy as a H-1.

Take care,

CTR

[Chuck Kemp @ send no stinking spam]

Okay Boeing is on record of now having the design rites to the OH6, with
that said, very little is known what they plan to produce for the project
other than a modified version of the MELB. This could be a major design
change to accommodate all of the extra's and oh yea, it has to carry some
troops in the back too. Are they going to carry them outside like they do
now with the MELB?

Also, the rollover design that everyone crows about in the event of a crash,
was predicated on the design of the OH6, which didn't have outboard weapons
pylons and the such. Doesn't the ARH have to have the capability to shoot
stingers, hellfires and rockets? I don't think the MELB currently does this
either but the OH58D does. No doubt the MELB can be made to do so, but its
another area for redesign...

Food for thought:

1. No one in the market has a product support department that compares to
Bell. It seems that Boeing will have to build up a MELB support department
as I am sure they don't have many to handle such a large quantity sell. I
would think they don't have that many in support for SOF MELB's.

2. With the Bell's ARH being modified from an existing commercial aircraft
(407X) and since these aircraft are to be kept similar, it would seem that
the supportability for these aircraft would be more extensive as
logistically the Army could purchase many parts from a local CSF nearest to
them.

Chuck


"Jim Burt" > wrote in message
...
> The thread called "Is MDHI going to make it?" drifted into a comparison of
> the MD 500 and OH-58D aircraft. What follows is a discussion of the
latter:
>
> All the US Army OH-58Ds were rebuilt (OK, very, very extensively rebuilt
and
> modified) OH-58As. The rebuild process took the aircraft down to the
> frames, replaced most of the sheet metal and a lot of the composites,
built
> new cowlings, fuel storage, rear compartments, tail booms, and all new
> dynamic components, as well as completely replacing all the
instrumentation,
> avionics, and powerplants. But they started out as OH-58As. The only
"new"
> from the skids up OH-58D helicopters were built under contract to Taiwan.
>
> Jim
>
>

[[email protected]]

Chuck Kemp @ send no stinking spam wrote:
[stuff snipped]
>
> Also, the rollover design that everyone crows about in the event of a
crash,
> was predicated on the design of the OH6, which didn't have outboard
weapons
> pylons and the such. Doesn't the ARH have to have the capability to
shoot
> stingers, hellfires and rockets? I don't think the MELB currently
does this
> either but the OH58D does. No doubt the MELB can be made to do so,
but its
> another area for redesign...
>

The current AH-6J and M have the capability of shooting Hellfires and
standard 2.75 inch rockets. They tested Stingers on them but AFAIK
they've never been used operationally. The Little Bird fleet was
standardized with wiring for Hellfires several years ago. There's an
onboard lasing system for designation or they can be designated by
somebody else.

> Food for thought:

[more stuff snipped]
>
> 2. With the Bell's ARH being modified from an existing commercial
aircraft
> (407X) and since these aircraft are to be kept similar, it would seem
that
> the supportability for these aircraft would be more extensive as
> logistically the Army could purchase many parts from a local CSF
nearest to
> them.
>

Except the Army doesn't usually get its spare parts that way.

John Hairell )

[Chuck Kemp @ send no stinking spam]

Chuck wrote:
2. With the Bell's ARH being modified from an existing commercial
> aircraft (407X) and since these aircraft are to be kept similar, it would
seem
> that the supportability for these aircraft would be more extensive as
> logistically the Army could purchase many parts from a local CSF
> nearest to them.
> >
>
John Hairell ) replied:
> Except the Army doesn't usually get its spare parts that way

Chuck says:
Times are a changing, they are on record of saying just that....

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Chuck Kemp @ send no stinking spam wrote:
> [stuff snipped]
> >
> > Also, the rollover design that everyone crows about in the event of a
> crash,
> > was predicated on the design of the OH6, which didn't have outboard
> weapons
> > pylons and the such. Doesn't the ARH have to have the capability to
> shoot
> > stingers, hellfires and rockets? I don't think the MELB currently
> does this
> > either but the OH58D does. No doubt the MELB can be made to do so,
> but its
> > another area for redesign...
> >
>
> The current AH-6J and M have the capability of shooting Hellfires and
> standard 2.75 inch rockets. They tested Stingers on them but AFAIK
> they've never been used operationally. The Little Bird fleet was
> standardized with wiring for Hellfires several years ago. There's an
> onboard lasing system for designation or they can be designated by
> somebody else.
>
> > Food for thought:
>
> [more stuff snipped]
> >
> > 2. With the Bell's ARH being modified from an existing commercial
> aircraft
> > (407X) and since these aircraft are to be kept similar, it would seem
> that
> > the supportability for these aircraft would be more extensive as
> > logistically the Army could purchase many parts from a local CSF
> nearest to
> > them.
> >
>
> Except the Army doesn't usually get its spare parts that way.
>
> John Hairell )
>