A Shuttle Carrier Helicopter

[CraigD]

Though it’s too late to be of use, the hue and cry around cutting down trees to widen the path for the Shuttle Endeavour from LAX to its exhibit site at the California Science got me thinking about alternative plans. My space age kid’s heart weeps at the agency that put men on the moon and brainstormed the safe return of Apollo 13 being reduced to involvement in a plan that put chainsaw to 400 fine trees and is highlighted by a feature spot in a Toyota Tundra truck commercial. Even an avowed space truck like the Shuttle doesn’t deserve such an ignoble final trip. Surely we could have done better.

 

So here’s my too-late-to-be-of-any-use plan: fly it there.

 

The shuttle orbiter, including engines, masses 78000 kg. The most common heavy-lift helicopter, the Boeing CH-47

has a fully fueled max payload of 10500 kg (up to 12,700 partially fueled). So, with the right rigging, 8 CH-47s should be able to pick up and set down an orbiter anyplace you can fit it’s 38 x 24 meter footprint.

 

Assuming a large frame hung from the copters, a smaller frame (not shown) mounted to the usual hardpoints under the orbiter and hung from the large frame overhead, I get this clipart and line sketch:

From a risk point of view, towing the orbiter through the streets at less than 1 MPH is certainly a safer plan than slinging it beneath 8 2-rotor helicopters. But the copter plan seems, to my fannish sensibilities, more the old NASA’s style.

[Guest Aemilius]

I see the Space Shuttle weighs about 165,000 pounds empty. Instead of eight Boeing CH-47 choppers the same job could have been done with just four

Russian Mi-26 choppers (they can each lift up to 44,000 pounds).

Edited October 13, 2012 by Aemilius

[CraigD]

I see the Space Shuttle weighs about 165,000 pounds empty. Instead of eight Boeing CH-47 choppers the same job could have been done with just four Russian Mi-26 choppers (they can each lift up to 44,000 pounds).

That would be a neater rig - another sketch, same scale:

[Guest Aemilius]

That looks more practical.

[blamski]

hasn't the chinook been plagued with reliability issues over the years? i remember there were a number of incidents and crashes with the Mk1 and Mk2 versions in the 80s and 90s. maybe the current version is better... i don't really know too much about military aviation.

 

anyway, flying one aircraft with a history of problems presents a small risk. flying 8 of them at once, all strapped together, must rack up the odds of a problem occurring enormously. then slinging an iconic and vastly expensive chunk of space hardware underneath the whole rig would probably be a step too far.

 

i'm massively opposed to the felling of 400 trees though. aren't the shuttle wings removable or anything...? or couldn't they lift it up onto its side? compared to the infrastructure involved in getting these things into space, surely some kind of crane/sling/cradle combination would be child's play.

[Chewbalka]

I am very familiar with this particular helicopter had a few rides in these particular ones on missions in Afghanistan. It is a very reliable helicopter except for two major issues. The first and most important issue is the cost to raise a chinook 4 feet off the ground for 10 seconds which rounds to 40000$ in just maintenance costs... This is canadian dollars mind you. The second issue is the age of the helicopter which is why it breaks down so often in heavy transport operations. I could easily see chinooks pulling this jobs with little to no issues. But the costs would be astronomical. So i am assuming here that the cost of killing off those trees was much more cost effective. I am not saying that it was the best idea, i disagree as much as anyone else on their decision.

[CraigD]

It is a very reliable helicopter except for two major issues. The first and most important issue is the cost to raise a chinook 4 feet off the ground for 10 seconds which rounds to 40000$ in just maintenance costs...

I don’t think this cost is accurate, Chewbalka. Do you have a source for it?

 

While I’ve not been able to find an authoritative document describing the operating cost of a CH-47, this 2006 industry magazine article states a calculated hourly cost for US military operation of US$6,793/hr, a reasonable cost for an aircraft of this size and power. Various source states that about 54 man-hours of maintenance are needed for each hour of operation, so assuming a hourly labor cost of $75, about $4,000/hr of this cost is maintenance work.

 

Chewbalka cost estimate (round 10 sec up to 1 min, it comes to about $2,500,000/hr) appears to be overstated by about a factor of 600.

 

The second issue is the age of the helicopter which is why it breaks down so often in heavy transport operations.

Like most aircraft, civilian and military, it’s true that many of the US militaries’ CH-47 are 20+ years old. However, the CH-47 is still being produced by Boeing, so many of them are fairly young. In particular, none of the CH-47F I used for specs above were made before 2001, and at least 48 US Army ones were made in 2008 or later. (per its wikipedia article).

 

Let’s finishing the rough details of the cost accounting of our proposed Shuttle Carrier Helicopter:

 

According to this 2008 article, a new CH-47H (the latest general-purpose military model) cost $35,000,000. Given a designed service life of 10,000 hrs (from this USDOD report, for an early D model, which the H model is designed to exceed), their total depreciation cost is thus $3,500/hr.

 

Adding all this to the operation costs detailed above, the total hourly cost of acquiring and operating a CH-47 is about $10,000 hr.

 

Many sources give an operating cost of a civilian 747 (from which NASA built its 2 iconic Shuttle Carrier Aircraft) of around $30,000/hr.

 

So the proposed 8 x CH-47 SCH would have a cost of comparable magnitude (about $80,000 vs. about $30,000) to the SCA.

 

Of course, the thread’s consensus is that we don’t want to use those wimpy little domestic Chinooks, but rather 4 of those mighty paragons of ex-Soviet engineering, the much sleeker and sexier, and more powerful single-rotor Mil Mi-26 (which have been used to haul off broken down CH-47s).

I can’t begin to guess at the cost, financial and/or political (though there are at least some civilian-owned Mi-26s, I’m not sure any organization but an ex-Soviet military could get 4 of them together on short notice) cost of using them, but as Russia did loan 4 to the World Skydiving Team for 3 weeks in 1996, it would seem that a similar fleet of charitable suck-uppery is not beyond the realm of possibility, and perhaps even could have been a PR coup for proponents of space togetherness of former space race opponent Russia and the US.

 

If we’re going to dream, we might as well dream big, and grab the chance to mention the spectacular, prototyped-only Mil V-12

Built and flown 1967-1974, this largest-ever helicopter is essentially 2 chopped-down Mi-6s (predecessors of the Mi-26) attached via stubby wings to a big cargo plane fuselage. It set a world record in 1969, lifting 44,205 kg (over half the mass of the Orbiter) 2,255 m.

 

Imagine upgrading doubling to 4 and upgrading to the Mi-26’s the rotors and engines of a design like this to produce, rather than a frame slung from 4 separate birds, a single great beast capable of handling loads as big as the Shuttle. Who knows what other uses it might be good for?

Edited October 14, 2012 by CraigD
Corected arithmatic error, replaced "factor of 6000" with "factor of 600"

[Chewbalka]

K first off i have some news for you.

 

If a canadian helicopter raises off the ground and lands one god damn second afterwards its getting taken apart for maintenance checks so your factor of 6000 times is a big wade of bull crap.

 

Second. I am not an american i am a canadian the chinooks i flew around in were over 30 years of age

 

Third the information provided to me on the maintance cost was a direct word of mouth from the men who worked on them when we had our chinooks in the early 1990's Call me crazy but i would take the word of a soldier over yours any day.

 

Fourth "their total depreciation cost is thus $3,500/hr." direct quote from your quote apparently. I would appreciate a page number in regards to this number i have read through the document a few times now with no luck on finding a dollar sign anywhere in relation to your suggested amount. As a matter of fact the only $ sign i found was this on page 11

 

Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA); Stress on Equipment, September 2007. This study found that between 2003 and 2006, approximately $100B was spent for increased O&M expenditures, but a conclusion could not be made to relate these expenditures directly to GWOT OPTEMPO.

 

Fifth this leaves the fact that you are stating that if a helicopter flies for 10000 hours then it depriciates in value by 3,500$? Where did you get this information from you cant tell me that you just divide the cost by the hours and this is truth? can you? if you want to play quote i would like to see an actual deprecation of military helicopters.

 

Lastly in my country soliders would rather fly around in anything at all but never a russian made helicopter its disgraceful and insulting to say its weak. and the dumbest thing you said in your response was that a mi-26 can carry a chinook... A chinook can carry a chinook! Wake up! the chinooks were tasked out and since that crappy piece of **** mi-26 which is the ultimate lead can of bolts which has a hell of a time staying in the air was the only thing left to go get it. It was not sent there because its some super chopper. I can guarantee you in this hypothetical situation if you were to make the mistake if using a mi-26 it would crash and burn at the first gusty wind. There are only two no more then two things the russians made that were ever any good and i assure you its not that bucket of bolts you praise so much. They are the Antonov and the Hind. Everything else sounds great on paper until you take it out for a spin. Then you learn the hard way.

 

Oh if you want some referances as to why i chose the Antonov and the Hind.

 

Here it is.

 

Life experience. If thats not enough for you then the next time you work with the russians on military operations you can fill me in on what you think.

[CraigD]

K first off i have some news for you.

First off, peace, fellow North American! I didn’t intend to impugn your experiences in the Canadian military, or cast aspersions on the good name of Boeing, their CH-47 series of helicopters, or the military and civilian personnel who ride in, operate, or maintain them.

 

If a canadian helicopter raises off the ground and lands one god damn second afterwards its getting taken apart for maintenance checks …

Personally, I’ve only worked in civilian aviation, but gather from various documents, such as this 1999-2002 US Army technical manual, that military operation and maintenance procedures are similar to the civilian ones with which I’m familiar. US Army CH-47s, for example, are not “taken apart” after every flight. Except in situation that prohibit it, such as in-field combat operations or shortages of personnel, like all Army aircraft, they should be visually inspected at least once per day, or every 10 hours of flight time. As with civilian operation, Inspection and service that involves disassembly occur on rotating schedules, not after every flight.

 

… so your factor of 6000 times is a big wade of bull crap.

Bullshit is when someone makes up a claim and attempts to present it as something they know with familiarity and authority. I made my claim, and backed it with links to supporting sources, in order to show that your claim

the cost to raise a chinook 4 feet off the ground for 10 seconds which rounds to 40000$ in just maintenance costs

is badly overstated. I asked you to attempt to find a reference to back up your claim because I thought, in attempting to do this, you’d realize you’d made a large error.

 

I made an “extra zero” arithmetic mistake calculating that your estimate was overstated by a factor of 6000. I should have calculated, rounding up your your “10 seconds” to 1 minute, that it’s overstated by a factor of 600. That’s from your $40,000/60 sec = $2,400,000/hr vs. my calculations of a total cost operate cost of $10,000/hour, of which about $4,000/hr is maintenance cost, so 2,400,000 / 4,000 = 600. If I’d kept your $40,000/10 sec, the overstatement would be a factor of 3600.

 

I’ve corrected this mistake in my previous post.

 

The point of my exercise in cost accounting was to challenge you claim that

the costs [of operating 8 CH-47s] would be astronomical.

By my calculations, the cost might be high by the standards of most private citizens – assuming a total of 100 aircraft-hours operation (most of it round trip time from ), about $1,000,000 – but not what I think a reasonable person would call “astronomical”. Militaries and civilian companies operate CH-47s all the time – if doing so was astronomically expensive, this wouldn’t be possible.

 

Third the information provided to me on the maintance cost was a direct word of mouth from the men who worked on them when we had our chinooks in the early 1990's Call me crazy but i would take the word of a soldier over yours any day.

I’m not asking you to take my word for anything. I’m asking (telling, if I’ve got to be all moderator-ly) you to find links or reference to back up you claims. This requirement is hypography’s rule #1. Anecdotes – what you recall hearing a soldier, or anyone else say – aren’t acceptable here, in large part because tolerating them tolerates bullshit.

 

If you try finding online documentation to support you claim, or just follow the links I used to back up my estimates, I think you’ll change your mind to agree with my estimates. If you’re in contact with folk who actually work on or handle the cost admin on CH-47s, invite them to hypography and this thread, and I expect they’ll agree, too.

 

Fourth "their total depreciation cost is thus $3,500/hr." direct quote from your quote apparently. I would appreciate a page number in regards to this number i have read through the document a few times now with no luck on finding a dollar sign anywhere in relation to your suggested amount. As a matter of fact the only $ sign i found was this on page 11

Sorry for the confusion.

 

According to many sources, including its wikipedia article, the 2008 cost of an all-new CH-47 is about $35,000,000 (another source, here, give a 2012 cost of an all-new CH-47F as $26,380,000). According to page 26 of this US Defense Department study, the one I think you were reading, “the CH-47D aircraft has a design service life of 10,000 flight hours”. Dividing 35,000,000 by 10,000 gave me a total, straight-line depreciation cost of $3,500/flight hour.

 

Fifth this leaves the fact that you are stating that if a helicopter flies for 10000 hours then it depriciates in value by 3,500$? Where did you get this information from you cant tell me that you just divide the cost by the hours and this is truth? can you?

Yes, I just divided cost by useful life, the simplest kind of depreciation calculation, straight-line, but not inappropriate in my tenuously arguable expert opinion (I took an accelerated college course in accounting in the 1980s, when I was on a software development for an enterprise accounting computer system, on the questionable advice that it would allow me to better “communicate with accountants”) for estimating the lease price of an aircraft.

 

if you want to play quote i would like to see an actual deprecation of military helicopters.

As militaries don’t pay taxes or issue financial statements of assets to their owners or shareholders, I doubt such documents exist. If you’re set on seeing some, you might have luck with Columbia Helicopters, who claim to be the only operators of commercial models of the CH-47.

 

I’ve been tempted to see if they’d give me a mock quote on this thread’s “Shuttle Transport Helicopter”, but have resisted out of a sense of not wanting to waste business people’s time on a recreational website subject. Perhaps I’m too shy – the worst they can do is tell me to stop wasting their time, and they might get some amusement from the idea.

 

Lastly in my country soliders would rather fly around in anything at all but never a russian made helicopter its disgraceful and insulting to say its weak. and the dumbest thing you said in your response was that a mi-26 can carry a chinook

In 2002 in Afghanistan, a Mi-26 variant, a Mi-27TC, did recover two damaged US Army CH-47s, after US brass concluded it was the only operational helicopter that could. The Mi-27TC was leased from a Toronto company, Skylink Aviation, via connections with a Russian civilian company, a couple of the few civilian operators of Mi-26s or variants.

 

... A chinook can carry a chinook!

True - a CH-47 masses about 10,200 kg empty, and can lift over 12,000, vs the Mi-26’s 20,000 and but only at a pressure altitude near sea level. The CH-47s damaged in operation Anaconda were at around 3,000 m, the one near Khandahar, about 1,200 m, too high for a lift by another CH-47 or anything else in a NATO military’s livery.

 

This Smithsonian Air & Space magazine article has a good account of the two Mi-26 CH-47 lifts, and the history, strengths, and faults of the Mi-26, and some interesting speculation about its future acceptance (or not) as a heavy lift helicopter in America.

 

Interestingly, the Army paid about $350,000 for each of the lifts in Afghanistan, which included a round-trip from Tajikistan as far as Kandahar, concindentally about the same distance as the nearest CH-47 Army National Guard CH-47 base from LA. So, assuming (perhaps unrealistically) about the same cost in the US, we can estimate that our 4 x Mi-26 lift of Endeavor from LAX to its museum exhibit would cost about $1,400,000.

 

Wake up! the chinooks were tasked out and since that crappy piece of **** mi-26 which is the ultimate lead can of bolts which has a hell of a time staying in the air was the only thing left to go get it. It was not sent there because its some super chopper.

The Army officers quoted in the article above disagree.

 

I can guarantee you in this hypothetical situation if you were to make the mistake if using a mi-26 it would crash and burn at the first gusty wind.

According to it’s ASN data, there’ve been a total of 27 crashes of Mi-27 and variants, 18 of them with fatalities, 24 irreparable. Of these, 7 are attributed to mechanical failure, 4 enemy fire, 3 unknown, and the rest to weather and/or pilot error The CH-47’s ASN data lists 172 crashes, 161 irreparable.

 

From these data, we can calculate that about 8% of the 316 Mi-26 ever made have been totally lost in accidents, vs. 13% of the roughly 1,200 CH-47s ever made.

 

While you can’t draw detailed safety conclusions from just this data, it suggests to me that Mi-26s and CH-47s are similar in safety and reliability.

 

The Smithsonian article I linked to above offers a credible description of the reliability and maintenance of the Mi-27 and ex-USSR helicopters, a consensus seeming to be that Russian helicopters require more frequent replacement of parts, and that the getting these parts difficult and time-consuming compared to US-made parts, but that heavy-lift Helicopters made in both countries are reliable and safe.

[Chewbalka]

Quotes1. Various source states that about 54 man-hours of maintenance are needed for each hour of operation, so assuming a hourly labor cost of $75, about $4,000/hr of this cost is maintenance work.

 

Quote2. like all Army aircraft, they should be visually inspected at least once per day, or every 10 hours of flight time. As with civilian operation, Inspection and service that involves disassembly occur on rotating schedules, not after every flight.

 

Sounds a little hypocritical.

 

Quote3. what you recall hearing a soldier, or anyone else say – aren’t acceptable here, in large part because tolerating them tolerates bullshit

 

Quote4. Yes, I just divided cost by useful life, the simplest kind of depreciation calculation, straight-line, but not inappropriate in my tenuously arguable expert opinion.

 

Its unacceptable for everyone but you.

 

Quote5 from link http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/milman.html

It ended three weeks later with eight U.S. and several hundred enemy soldiers killed, and two damaged Special Forces Boeing MH-47E Chinook helicopters stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at 8,500 and 10,300 feet.

 

Quote6. The CH-47s damaged in operation Anaconda were at around 3,000 m, the one near Khandahar, about 1,200 m, too high for a lift by another CH-47 or anything else in a NATO military’s livery.

 

Conversion errors here. 8500ft equal 2590.8

Its odd how many rules you can break i can understand the other round ups and downs you did on mass and weight for the chinook they are close but 409.2 m off is a noticeable difference

 

Quote7. In 2002 in Afghanistan, a Mi-26 variant, a Mi-27TC, did recover two damaged US Army CH-47s, after US brass concluded it was the only operational helicopter that could. The Mi-27TC was leased from a Toronto company, Skylink Aviation, via connections with a Russian civilian company, a couple of the few civilian operators of Mi-26s or variants.

 

This is in reference of my quote8. Lastly in my country soldiers would rather fly around in anything at all but never a russian made helicopter its disgraceful and insulting to say its weak. and the dumbest thing you said in your response was that a mi-26 can carry a chinook

 

Last i checked civilians are not soldiers reference http://verticalmag.com/news/articles/a-critical-link.html

a civilian company, SkyLink Aviation, has made valuable contributions to the same cause. Flying Mil Mi-8MTV and Kamov Ka-32 helicopters, SkyLink works closely with the Air Wing and other NATO partners to provide non-combat-related logistical support to forward operating bases across Afghanistan.

 

Quote9. According to it’s ASN data, there’ve been a total of 27 crashes of Mi-27 and variants, 18 of them with fatalities, 24 irreparable. Of these, 7 are attributed to mechanical failure, 4 enemy fire, 3 unknown, and the rest to weather and/or pilot error The CH-47’s ASN data lists 172 crashes, 161 irreparable.

 

From these data, we can calculate that about 8% of the 316 Mi-26 ever made have been totally lost in accidents, vs. 13% of the roughly 1,200 CH-47s ever made.

 

I would suggest you redo your math on this one your making the mi-26 better then they are here let me help you

 

Mi-26: 24 irreparable crashes divide by total built 316 = 13.17%

Ch-47: 161 irreparable crashes divide by total built 1200 = 7.5%

 

Does not sound so good now...

 

Every single Russian Military owned mi-26 i have seen that were flown during military exercises made me very happy that i was not in them.

But that means nothing because its a life experience with no internet link... I am just so glad this is a hypothetical scenario... Otherwise an amazing piece of history might not be around if you were in charge.

 

Now to refresh from the start the only reference in which i was able to find in relation to maintenance costs for the ch-47. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/on-the-verge-canadas-47b-program-for-mediumheavy-transport-helicopters-02390/

 

Unfortunatly i have been unable to locate more info. Its almost as though it never happend, as well as i have not seen those maintainers i spoke to for quite a few years now... Our hercs were already around 17 to 13 years of age and the government felt they were too costly to maintain... Heres a reference for taking on strength http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/CF_CH147.html as you can see this also backs my over thirty years old statment mentioned earlier while in Afghanistan.

 

Now its your turn to retaliate craigd

Edited October 15, 2012 by Chewbalka

[Chewbalka]

Oh one more thing, another calculation error.

 

Empty weight of the shuttle is 165000 pounds

4 x Mi-26 carrying capacity equals 44000 lbs each times this by four equals 176000 lbs

The structural framing that would be needed to lift the shuttle like in your first drawing will be much heavier then the 11000 or really close making the transportation a high risk.

I noticed you did not put it in your second diagram probably because you were just rushing or something.

This basically means for safety reasons two more Mi26 will have to be added to the transport of the shuttle.

The framing alone foe this operation would be a sight to see. It would have not only have to bare the weight but as well be able to withstand up and down forces to prevent the helicopters from going all crazy in mid flight. Including a ton of structural reinforcement to prevent the framing from bending during flight from the weight. This would not be a light frame.

[Chewbalka]

Well i guess your not taking the bait huh craigd.... Oh well. If i am correct craigd had decided that if he slung load a shuttle with four helicopters he could clear the trees thus saving them. For those who are not familiar with sling loading, this is done by suspending cables to an object too large or heavy to be placed in a helicopter. (too large is self explanatory but to heavy even if it fits in the door can puncture the floor of the helicopter) The problem with sling loading is you are only capable of a single helicopter lifting the piece which is not allowed to be larger then the helicopter meaning the surface area of the cargo is not allowed to exceed the surface area of the helicopter. As well the sling load cable is to be proportionally suspended directly below the helicopter. If craigd got his way and he was in charge and no one caught on.... He would have created the worlds largest upside down Newtonian Cradle. Except the metal balls would be replaced with Mi26 helicopters... The poor shuttle would have been riddled with helicopter parts as well as body parts from the recently deceased pilots. There is no physical way that four helicopters can sync there skills perfectly while carrying a single object. Especially the Mi26 its unstable flight patteren. At least with the dual rotor chinooks that issue with the massive framing would have been much less of a problem. Now heres a bit of a self history i spent 8 years in the infantry and 5 years in an air move squadron. I am hel-ops qualified which means i sling load for a living now i deal with all cargo that is transported by air. Whether its a shoe box or a tank. But my life experience means nothing at all it only counts if your name is craigd... And just so everyone here is aware i am not letting this go if you have not noticed yet lol. I believe that you should lead others by self example, and you craigd as an administrator have failed as an authority figure. I will be paying extra attention to everything you write and i will be that annoying pain in the butt that points out your and i quote "tenuously arguable expert opinion" to ensure that as an administrator you succeed.

 

PS theres a most certain probability that the maintainers exaggerated the cost i was only carrying this on because of your extreme arrogance, especially when i saw that hysterical second figure you had posted, i told the guys at work we had a great laugh at your expense! Even though those maintainers exaggerated the costs they would have not let you murder 20 people stemming from your straight forward blatant stupidity. Leave it too the experts its just safer for everyone else if your not involved. And to be honest with you i don't care if this post gets me kicked off of the forum. At least everyone here that reads it will know the truth.

[blamski]

why so much anger, chewbalka? any reason this couldn't have been a civilised conversation?

[Chewbalka]

Lol this is me being civilized. But visual seeing someone spout rules that he is above? Which he is not, requires more attention. Otherwise left alone will only increase the amount of authoritative abuse. How many others have just allowed them to be bullied by this? How many feel less of themselves because of it? Its sad is it not?

[blamski]

all i could see was craigD politely pointing out some simple forum rules - which seeing as he's admin he's kind of obliged to do - and stating his point of view regarding the topic. if you think that qualifies as bullying i think you are maybe a little over sensitive.

 

anyway, its not my argument. i'll keep my nose out.

[Chewbalka]

It has nothing to do with the him stating rules. Its him breaking the rules... I thought i had made it clear... My fault hopefully this one was clear enough...