Removal of doors and sensor mast

Will we be able to configure this in the load out selection?

As far as I know the doors will be removable but the mast won't be. The mast is quite integral to the d-model's operation and design and so I don't think it is optional.

Real world you could remove the MMS. The only time I ever saw the MMS removed was for transport on an aircraft or at flight school. Touch-down autos were done at flight school and taking off the MMS minimized the chances of aircraft damage. Once we moved past the "contact" phase we begin using the -58s that were MMS equipped.

I flew Kiowas with doors exactly six times. Once in theater because the AMC was having a bad week with pilots losing things out the door...he was told to take the doors off for the next flight. The other 5 times were the 5 days it required us to fly to the boneyard.

I ask as I’m reading a book now in which 2-7 CAV yanked theirs in Iraq 2003 to have better performance as they weren’t using hellfires. It would be very handy in high temps or High altitude.

I ask as I’m reading a book now in which 2-7 CAV yanked theirs in Iraq 2003 to have better performance as they weren’t using hellfires. It would be very handy in high temps or High altitude.

The PC KW is already modelled without doors

Removing the doors saves weight but Vne is reduced from 125 KIAS --> 110 KIAS.

I haven't seen PC's KW with doors fitted and IIRC PC said in a FAQ that it wouldn't be modelled with them.

G-Force, 04/12/2019

MMS off option would be cool.

 

Kiwi, 04/12/2019

Cool, but pointless

 

Polychop Sven, 04/12/2019

exactly, cool but pointless

[06:22]

so not happening. sorry to say

The MMS is crucial to the KW's recon role and AFAIK is rarely removed outside of a few specialised cases.

boxwyndus, 26/08/2020

In a slick (no weapons or MMS) at Ft. Rucker (training), it'd be no problem to achieve 120kts. But not in a mission aircraft.

 

boxwyndus, 27/03/2020

Now, in a "slick" (MMS removed, weapons removed, black boxes removed, etc) this thing was a PONY! At the schoolhouse, the training aircraft lacked all the mission equipment of a fully equipped "go to war" aircraft. Those aircraft could comfortably cruise at 115 knots no problem.

149 knots as in the infographic above? Never. I suspect they chose that number because it's the most extreme Vne (Speed- Never Exceed) at which point mechanical damage (retreating blade stall, vibration, etc) happens. It's a theoretical number <never> achieved in real life.

As far as I know the doors will be removable but the mast won't be. The mast is quite integral to the d-model's operation and design and so I don't think it is optional.

Exactly right. The MMS could easily be removed for transport, but it was an entirely different thing to fly without it.

The MMS payload featured some pretty gee-whiz vibration reducing systems. Removing the payload assembly had effects on the track and balance of the rotor system, and on the lifespan of the transmission mounts.

To fly with the MMS removed, the rotor system would have to be re-tracked and balanced. A big PITA, and time consuming.

Second, the TBO interval (time between overhaul) of the transmission mounts and crossbeams was radically shortened by flying without the MMS.

To my knowledge, no unit ever flew for extended periods after the first one, because of the giant maintenance implications afterwards.

Also, they were kind've dumb to remove them, as they lost the ability to shoot Hellfires. It was a cowboy decision, by an ill-informed commander.

<edit> The transition phase training aircraft at Ft. Rucker had special inspections, and special equipment installed to allow flight without the MMS.

They also had rubber-filled skid cross-tubes because of the constant touchdown autos and run-on landings training they used them for.

The MMS and black boxes were removed from those aircraft because they took such a beating, and because it wasn't required for that phase of training. The aircraft without MMS were only used in that phase of training.

I suggest Cowboys Over Iraq. I’ll also say we fielded them in 1-7 CAV and we planned to have the ability to yank them in the field if we deployed to Iraq in summer. The best recon tool is the cavalryman. The optics are nice but not used much while flying but once hovering. And given the weight issues in the desert the authors unit yanked theirs in favor of some performance gain. So there’s at least one CAV squadron that did it for part of a deployment. I’m fairly certain 3ID did it at one point as well because I’ve seen photos of their Kiowa without the mast. Maybe they had only fielded some KW next to Charlie’s though.

I suggest Cowboys Over Iraq. I’ll also say we fielded them in 1-7 CAV and we planned to have the ability to yank them in the field if we deployed to Iraq in summer. The best recon tool is the cavalryman. The optics are nice but not used much while flying but once hovering. And given the weight issues in the desert the authors unit yanked theirs in favor of some performance gain. So there’s at least one CAV squadron that did it for part of a deployment. I’m fairly certain 3ID did it at one point as well because I’ve seen photos of their Kiowa without the mast. Maybe they had only fielded some KW next to Charlie’s though.

Yup. A couple units tried it, very early, when no-one knew WTF they were doing and liberties were taken (e.g. removing the 5200lb weight restriction back to 5500lbs for a deployment, and removing the MMS). Both of which had serious second-order effects.

It wasn't done afterwards because it wasn't a good idea. (i.e. we flew those aircraft for the next 15 years at an OPTEMPO of around 90 hours/month, which wouldn't have been possible with f'ucked-up crossbeams and constant XMSN mount replacements at half their rated service life.

Second - removing the capability to see and sense at night, and to shoot the only precision weapon system available to 58D, is just...dumb.

Weight issues in the desert? I mean, Iraq is nearly at sea level. Sure it gets hot. So does Afghanistan. Kandahar is at 3800' MSL, J-Bad at 1800' MSL field elevation, and 4900' MSL field elevation at Bagram, etc. I flew in Iraq and Afghanistan just fine at all those locations with an MMS.

Not arguing there isn't a good performance gain shedding the 300lb system weight of the MMS.

But that gain isn't worth what you lose as a trade.

And I'll bet you a dollar we killed a hell of a lot more shitheads with Hellfires than all the millions of rounds of .50 cal, and hundreds of thousands of 2.75" rockets fired combined.

3ID killed a shit-ton of armored vehicles on their push north in '03. Which would not have been possible without Hellfire.

"The best recon tool is the cavalryman"? Won't argue that either. But I will debate that a cavalryman is a hell of a lot more effective when he knows how to employ his systems and doesn't subscribe to narrow-minded "Cowboy" mentality.

Found a lot of IEDs in roadbeds using the TIS, at night. Found a lot of IED emplacers using the TIS, from 4 kms away.

Bet you'd rather have an LRF/D able to locate a target grid at the push of a button, than guesstimate off a paper map.

Just because we tried it doesn't mean it was a good idea.

Wasn’t really saying it was a good idea necessarily, but I do know when we deployed elements of 1-7 and 1-227 (I think if memory serves) which was a Apache unit that we lost a lot of payload compared to Ft. Hood.

And honestly I’m good with a modification attempting to be better at what they are doing at the expense of service life. Service life isn’t worth much if you get yourself shot to beans.

But you sound as though you’ve got time in type, I respect that knowledge as mine is planning and ops and a whole different barrel for sure. I was making the point that it can be done and was in the field by units.

Thanks for the input. I’d still like to have seen it as an option. Not that I won’t grab the module based on that at all, I will and I’m excited about it.

Not so funny story, we had one go down in Bosnia (not sure I heard why) and while the crew was getting out of the aircraft the mast broke and one of them recalled they watched it come down and thought it would come through the glass but it didn’t. He told it with a nervous chuckle not Kong after the crash. We flew the hell out of them then at 74 average hours a month and the hand wringing then. Can’t imagine the 90 hour OPTEMPO you are talking about and the screeching from safety officers and contractors.

Wasn’t really saying it was a good idea necessarily, but I do know when we deployed elements of 1-7 and 1-227 (I think if memory serves) which was a Apache unit that we lost a lot of payload compared to Ft. Hood.

 

And honestly I’m good with a modification attempting to be better at what they are doing at the expense of service life. Service life isn’t worth much if you get yourself shot to beans.

 

But you sound as though you’ve got time in type, I respect that knowledge as mine is planning and ops and a whole different barrel for sure. I was making the point that it can be done and was in the field by units.

 

Thanks for the input. I’d still like to have seen it as an option. Not that I won’t grab the module based on that at all, I will and I’m excited about it.

 

Not so funny story, we had one go down in Bosnia (not sure I heard why) and while the crew was getting out of the aircraft the mast broke and one of them recalled they watched it come down and thought it would come through the glass but it didn’t. He told it with a nervous chuckle not Kong after the crash. We flew the hell out of them then at 74 average hours a month and the hand wringing then. Can’t imagine the 90 hour OPTEMPO you are talking about and the screeching from safety officers and contractors.

Paladin; you'll have to forgive a bit of salt and vinegar. I'm an old salt, constantly presenting the other side of the coin to the young'uns who think they've got the answer.

Thinking outside of the box definitely has it's place.

Bosnia? Sounds like you've been around back in the day too.

74 hours/month back before the WoT would've been outrageous figures.

But KW made it happen. Then 90+ hours/month for years afterwards. Great aircraft, and they certainly served us well. It's really too bad it was never modernized with contemporary electronics and optics.

I still gnash my teeth at possibilities.

Not to worry, I usually am the same way. I'm so salty you'd think I was in the Navy, so dont worry about it! No offense intended or recieved!

We used the heck out of those baby's right after fielding them over in Bosnia and they sure did us great work. I was really floored when they did away with them. Not sure what the cav units are using now, if anything. 1-7 cav was a really diverse organization back then.

Another funny one I threw a ratchet at a KW pilot one time because he came to a hover right over our hide and was throwing our crap everywhere with his wash. He was cracking up until I hit the bottom of his bird with our ratchet lol. I was so angry.

But having them running overhead was always comforting!

Door removal is must.

Why would you want to remove the Mast Mounted Sight?

Door removal is must.

Doors stay on for max Vne (version we get has doors removed).

Why would you want to remove the Mast Mounted Sight?

Reduced weight and drag = increased performance and less risk of damage when practicing auto-rotations.

It's a RL config for training.

That said the KW with it's "ball" is all I know, so it's a non-issue for me.

 

Not sure what the cav units are using now, if anything.

-64s and Gray Eagles are the replacements for the Cav Squadrons.

On 9/26/2020 at 11:10 AM, Ramsay said:

Doors stay on for max Vne (version we get has doors removed).

 

Reduced weight and drag = increased performance and less risk of damage when practicing auto-rotations.

 

It's a RL config for training.

 

That said the KW with it's "ball" is all I know, so it's a non-issue for me.

Yeah, I guess it could also be fun without the mast when just flying around for fun.

On 9/20/2020 at 10:11 PM, Paladin1cd said:

I ask as I’m reading a book now in which 2-7 CAV yanked theirs in Iraq 2003 to have better performance as they weren’t using hellfires. It would be very handy in high temps or High altitude.

Edit: NVM, didn't read down far enough.

No problem.