Tandem Mi-26?

"PDR" wrote in message
m...
With all the interest in tactical VTOL and airmobility, has anyone
seriously considered a Chinook type tandem using Mi-26 rotor/engine
combos (or similar scale western versions) at each end?

Should be able to achieve at least 40,000 kg lift over 350-400km. With
a large cabin, medium armour (bradleys, stryker etc.) could be carried
at upwards of 250knots (less retreating tip problems)

Dynamics, stability and control issues should be a lot easier than
with a tiltrotor setup. All in a package maybe 5-8 years to delivery.

And it would be HUGE. Hard to maneuver, needs a bigger LZ than current
designs, and with its size and cost you'd only build a few. And lets not
even talk about the amount of ground fire a big honking target like that
would get. There's a reason why we haven't built combat helicopters on the
scale you suggest.

In article , Ragnar wrote:

"PDR" wrote in message
m...
With all the interest in tactical VTOL and airmobility, has anyone
seriously considered a Chinook type tandem using Mi-26 rotor/engine
combos (or similar scale western versions) at each end?

Should be able to achieve at least 40,000 kg lift over 350-400km. With
a large cabin, medium armour (bradleys, stryker etc.) could be carried
at upwards of 250knots (less retreating tip problems)

Dynamics, stability and control issues should be a lot easier than
with a tiltrotor setup. All in a package maybe 5-8 years to delivery.

And it would be HUGE. Hard to maneuver, needs a bigger LZ than current
designs,

A good deal less than a fixed-wing aircraft, though.

"Fe" wrote in message
...
In article , Ragnar wrote:

"PDR" wrote in message
m...
With all the interest in tactical VTOL and airmobility, has anyone
seriously considered a Chinook type tandem using Mi-26 rotor/engine
combos (or similar scale western versions) at each end?

Should be able to achieve at least 40,000 kg lift over 350-400km. With
a large cabin, medium armour (bradleys, stryker etc.) could be carried
at upwards of 250knots (less retreating tip problems)

Dynamics, stability and control issues should be a lot easier than
with a tiltrotor setup. All in a package maybe 5-8 years to delivery.

And it would be HUGE. Hard to maneuver, needs a bigger LZ than current
designs,

A good deal less than a fixed-wing aircraft, though.

Ever see an Mi-26? Longer fuselage length than a C-130, and the rotors go
108 feet tip to tip.

"Ragnar" wrote in message ...
"Fe" wrote in message
...
In article , Ragnar wrote:

"PDR" wrote in message
m...
With all the interest in tactical VTOL and airmobility, has anyone
seriously considered a Chinook type tandem using Mi-26 rotor/engine
combos (or similar scale western versions) at each end?

Should be able to achieve at least 40,000 kg lift over 350-400km. With
a large cabin, medium armour (bradleys, stryker etc.) could be carried
at upwards of 250knots (less retreating tip problems)

Dynamics, stability and control issues should be a lot easier than
with a tiltrotor setup. All in a package maybe 5-8 years to delivery.

And it would be HUGE. Hard to maneuver, needs a bigger LZ than current
designs,

A good deal less than a fixed-wing aircraft, though.

Ever see an Mi-26? Longer fuselage length than a C-130, and the rotors go
108 feet tip to tip.

But have you ever seen Mi-26 lands? Know how much space it needs to
land? Compare that with the landing run required for a hercules
carrying, say a 15ton payload.

"Ragnar" wrote in message ...
"Fe" wrote in message
...
In article , Ragnar wrote:

"PDR" wrote in message
m...
With all the interest in tactical VTOL and airmobility, has anyone
seriously considered a Chinook type tandem using Mi-26 rotor/engine
combos (or similar scale western versions) at each end?

Should be able to achieve at least 40,000 kg lift over 350-400km. With
a large cabin, medium armour (bradleys, stryker etc.) could be carried
at upwards of 250knots (less retreating tip problems)

Dynamics, stability and control issues should be a lot easier than
with a tiltrotor setup. All in a package maybe 5-8 years to delivery.

And it would be HUGE. Hard to maneuver, needs a bigger LZ than current
designs,

A good deal less than a fixed-wing aircraft, though.

Ever see an Mi-26? Longer fuselage length than a C-130, and the rotors go
108 feet tip to tip.

I think he meant the LZ size, but point taken that Mi-26 is already
pretty big (yes I have seen one - insane).

But I don't know about the cost issues - esp. if considered next to
other airmech type proposals (eg the V-22 USMC projections -claimed-
to be $70-80m each+ development cost in the billions or ATT on the
drawing board).

Although about twice as big as a Mi-26, these birds would be putting
down wherever Mi-26s are currently thinking of putting down, probably
not hot LZs. ie These things would not be inserting troops under
fire, but moving armour or cavalry units to key forward locations as
needed.

It would provide tactical airmobility to *armour*, something that is
not possible right now.

PDR

ISTR some sort of proposal in either a Jane's ATWA/C or maybe a Mil
history type of book of a huge helo using 2 sets of Mi-26
engines/transmissions/rotors. Maybe along the lines of the old V-12(?)
that used Mi-6 engines & rotors.