Project Lysander

[MIflyer]

From Avweb:

The Air Force's latest acquisition is probably the slowest in the fleet but that's the whole point. A CubCrafters XCub has been delivered to the Air Force Research Laboratory in Maryland where the aircraft, an updated version of an 83-year-old design, will be fitted with a state-of-the-art helmet and sensor system for "personnel recovery and other 'featherweight airlift' special missions," the Air Force said in a release earlier this week. The XCub will be the first aircraft outfitted with the Low Altitude Sensing Helmet System (LASH). It's part of a larger effort called Project Lysander to create a system for recovering people from isolated locations, sometimes in the heat of battle. Lysanders were high-wing piston aircraft used in the Second World War to insert and extract British spies behind enemy lines using fields and country roads for runways.

"The Air Force's CODE (Combat Operations in Denied Environment) program determined that these types of missions could not be executed effectively by the large aircraft that we have been using over the last 20 years in areas where we have air dominance," said Dr. Darrel G. Hoppers, who is heading up the project for the 711th Human Performance Wing. "Project Lysander was conceived as a method of rescuing isolated personnel in both heavily defended and undefended airspace." The XCub was chosen for its remarkable performance, notably its STOL capabilities and low-speed, low-altitude characteristics. The sensor package is designed to be quickly installed on any GA aircraft so the correct platform can be chosen for the circumstances. After the helmet system testing is done, the Air Force lab will hang on to the XCub for future projects.

 

[fastmongrel]

Isn't it remarkable how some ideas keep coming back.

A small, unobtrusive, quiet little STOL aircraft keeps on being useful no matter how often big military keeps on making it obsolete.

We have been told so many times that a helicopter can do the job but helos are noisy, have an infra red image like a lighthouse and are too useful for other duties.

 

[MIflyer]

In the words of Orville Wright, "Helicopters will never be as successful as airplanes because even the part of flying that is easy for an airplane is difficult for a helicopter."

 

[MIflyer]

You know when the USAF made its disastrous decision to replace the Cessna T-41 with the modified Slingsby T-3A Firefly so that aerobatics could be included in initial pilot training, some of us wondered, "What was wrong with the Stearman PT-17?"

 

[SaparotRob]

I appreciate the homage to the Lysander by an American project.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You know when the USAF made its disastrous decision to replace the Cessna T-41 with the modified Slingsby T-3A Firefly so that aerobatics could be included in initial pilot training, some of us wondered, "What was wrong with the Stearman PT-17?"

I got to the academy a few years after that happened. What was almost equally disastrous was the USAF purchasing Ximango motor gliders (TG-14) and having USAF Instructor Pilots jumping into a tail dragger (to instruct academy cadets) with no formal tail wheel training (after all if you can fly an F-16 you can fly a tail dragger, right?! ) After several runway departures and one gear up landing, the training group CO made the decision to "get these things off my airfield."

Where the concept in this article seems sounds why not use a light weight helicopter to do this mission?

 

[MIflyer]

When the USAF had that SAR chopper competition that appalled just about everyone when a version of the H-47 won, I got to think how I would have proposed it. I'd propose a copter about the size of a OH-58 and propose to use two or three or four of them, depending on the mission. All but one of the choppers on a mission would be RPV/autonomous. There would be a command copter and the others unmanned to actually pick up or deploy the personnel and provide fire support. I think we are at that point with technology now to enable that to occur. That way you would have a system that would fit into one or two C-17's and deploy rapidly and not have the problem of using an enormous chopper to do something that did not require it. With GPS you could have the unmanned copters meet you at the target area and go there by different routes. Maybe someone needing to be rescued would balk at getting into an unmanned SAR bird, but it sure would beat the alternative.

I found it interesting that the Army bought the UH-72 for "non-combat" use; I wonder how long it will be before those end up in combat, anyway.

 

[MIflyer]

I
We have been told so many times that a helicopter can do the job but helos are noisy, have an infra red image like a lighthouse and are too useful for other duties.

Ever check out the range of a helicopter? I was astounded to discover my Ercoupe had more range than any but the very biggest, or those with in flight refueling.

 

[tyrodtom]

Ever check out the range of a helicopter? I was astounded to discover my Ercoupe had more range than any but the very biggest, or those with in flight refueling.

The OH-6a has a range of almost 400 miles, what does your Ercoupe have ?
And it's listed ferry range is over 1500 miles.

 

[MIflyer]

My Ercoupe has a still air range of about 460 miles before the air conditioning quits, at 75% power, about 104 mph. Some models have a a couple of gallons more fuel and a few have 30 gal of fuel and a range of well over 600 miles.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just retired as a maintenance planner, working with AS350B3s, Bell 407s and EC145s. The 407 had a range a little over 300 miles, the AS350B3 around 400, now the EC145 was able to fly over 500 miles providing it doesn't break along the way!

 

[MIflyer]

Just retired as a maintenance planner, working with AS350B3s, Bell 407s and EC145s. The 407 had a range a little over 300 miles, the AS350B3 around 400, now the EC145 was able to fly over 500 miles providing it doesn't break along the way!

For a while at Patrick AFB were considering how we would meet the DoD commitment to rescue Shuttle astronauts if they went down 500 miles off the coast. The rescue unit we had was going to deploy back to Homestead AFB when it was fixed after Hurricane Andrew. Turns out there was no way to do it without HH-3's or HH-53's with HC-130 tanker support.

And what are the maintenance per flight hours for those choppers, compared to a Cub?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For a while at Patrick AFB were considering how we would meet the DoD commitment to rescue Shuttle astronauts if they went down 500 miles off the coast. The rescue unit we had was going to deploy back to Homestead AFB when it was fixed after Hurricane Andrew. Turns out there was no way to do it without HH-3's or HH-53's with HC-130 tanker support.

And what are the maintenance per flight hours for those choppers, compared to a Cub?

I've worked on Cubs and AS350B3s and while I couldn't give you a flight hour comparison, I would guess you're looking at at least 10x more with the helicopters. The Super Cubs I worked on at the academy were pretty simple, the biggest expenses were engine and magneto overhauls, we went through brakes pretty quickly and completed 50, 100 and or course annual inspections regularly. At 2500 hours our cubs still looked new.

I think what the USAF is looking at on this project is the next generation of Top Cub made by Cubcrafters. Very similar to the classic supercub but some improvements like composite cowlings and a removal metal belly. I think they used a 210 HP engine. My last company at the academy was taking deliveries of a top cub with a constant speed prop when i got laid off.

On the AS350B3, there are 5 engine modules. Anytime you replace a module you're looking at least $100,000 not including the labor to change it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I may have mis-spoke. A module 5 may be about $40K

 

[SaparotRob]

As my only real contribution to national defense is paying taxes, I find Miflyer's post enlightening.
It's great to learn Mr. Piper's Cub is still at it.
Rosie the Rocketeer flies again!

 

[MIflyer]

The local Sheriff's Dept has some Vietnam era OH-58's and two UH-1H. They basically never stop rebuilding the OH-58's. They finish one and start on another. They stripped down a number of 58's for parts and have two UH-1H carcass they strip, too.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I did work with a Sheriff's dept in Ozark Al about 10 years ago. They had 2 surplus OH-58s and a Loach as well as a few fixed wing aircraft. They had a better air wing than some major metropolitan areas!

 

[tyrodtom]

Even though I was a chopper crew chief I realize rotary flight is the most inefficient way to fly.
Until you consider the ground prep you have to do for most fixed wing flight.
I'm talking about a cleared, close to level landing area.
But then there's all the extra maintenance, and checks you have to do on a chopper.

That 380 mile range of a OH-6 uses about 60 gallons of fuel, think how far a Ercoupe could go on 60 gallons.

 

[MIflyer]

At 4.5 GPH, yes, a long ways.

 

[swampyankee]

A fixed-wing aircraft made a nonstop, unrefueled transatlantic flight in 1919. The first nonstop, unrefuelled transatlantic flight with helicopters didn't happen until about 1980.