5 ms·

It's not that crazy if you consider that it was a part of the Soviet Union, where these helis were designed and produced at two different factories. Ka-26 is a

It's not that crazy if you consider that it was a part of the Soviet Union, where these helis were designed and produced at two different factories. Ka-26 is a fairly old and relatively simple helicopter with two radial engines, no complex turbomachinery. They probably did this with the old Soviet equipment and documentation, both either smuggled or maybe even bought legally. The experts from Buryatia or Bashkortostan who produced them back in the USSR might have also been involved in this. So my guess these are not "fake" helicopters but probably "real" Ka-26s, it was just an unlicensed production. Still impressive though.

na85 6y ago
The real issue (IMHO) is highlighted in the article: >All the helicopters were produced without the necessary permits and documents of origin for the parts and equipment used. In aerospace it's common to speak of certificates of conformance, which is a legal attestation from the manufacturer that the part is of genuine origin and complies with the specification from the aircraft's type design. The manufacturer is periodically audited/assessed for their quality control practices and parts are routinely tested to ensure they are airworthy. The issue here, as per the above quote, is that they were probably using bootleg parts from random Chinese suppliers, which might be no big deal but might also have not been heat treated properly, for example, in order to save manufacturing cost. If parts aren't compliant with the spec you can have structural failures in flight which is of course no bueno. So yes, these are probably "real" Kamovs in the sense that they're probably built from real Kamov blueprints, but what many people outside the industry don't realize is that aerospace design and manufacturing encompasses much more than the blueprint. The whole program from the drawing board to the assembly line to the in-service maintenance work has to be a cohesive whole in order to produce an airworthy product.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  In practice though, that’s only a real issue if the wrong people die in a crash as a result of non-compliant parts.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Depends on your jurisdiction. The FAA can be a real stickler about things having the right paperwork.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    Bullshit populist conspiracy drivel. Any plane or helicopter crash is big news and gets scrutinized quite extensively.
- heelix 6y ago
  My brother-in-law does fire/crop dusting with a turbine helicopter. My mentality of what an airplane annual should look like is profoundly different then what he considers 'normal maintenance' on what he uses for work. Every single part of one of those machines has a ridiculously short time to live. I've heard rumors that parts past their time to live would ship to less rigorous countries. Likely a bunch of EOL parts in the mix too.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  Aircraft parts also generally have tighter engineering margins (strength etc) than other engineered products because there's a huge need to keep weight to a minimum. If they're not built according to the design, as you say, no bueno.
  - LilBytes 6y ago
    I certainly wouldn't my helicopters Jesus nut [1] to be purchased and procured through Alibaba, for sure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut
  - buran77 6y ago
    > have tighter engineering margins But still have to cover very wide operational margins (they are overspecced) because many failures are catastrophic so they can't run on the edge of failing all the time.
latchkey 6y ago
More impressive are the people who'd ride in one of these.
- manquer 6y ago
  It is matter of availability and price for any customer , particularly a desperate one ( organized crime groups in war affected regions ?) FAA and certifications have improved safety a lot , most people however would still get on a unmodified 737 MAX if it was cheapest/only option available .
baybal2 6y ago
> no complex turbomachinery. The turbomachinery is by far more simpler than high performance piston engines. A car engine of 200kw only needs to give peak power for a few seconds of acceleration, and can be electronically safeguarded from outside of envelope operation. An avia engine of 200kw needs to be able to operate on its full rated power continuously, for longer continuous periods of operation, be many times as reliable as a car engine, be lighter than a car engine, be engineered to accommodate, and survive failures, and be engineered free of governor mechanisms of any kind that may fail on take off (engine governor having to deliver demanded performance even if it has to waste the engine)
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  When we’re in the realm of aircraft engines, I’d like to imagine continuous rated power isn’t also peak power? Is this not the case?
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I can’t speak to helicopters, but light aircraft engines tend to run at 80% of peak; peak is only used for takeoff and go around, to my knowledge. (Not a pilot)
  - dpe82 6y ago
    Depends on the aircraft and engine. Some (like my little Rotax 912ULS) has a peak power at which I can only operate at for 1 minute during takeoff. I typically cruise around 70% peak. I believe in Helicopters you're often running at 90%+ max rated power, but on an engine that's derated from its true maximum power.
    - slavak 6y ago
      Your Rotax is limited to 5 continuous min. at 5800 rpm, or a max continuous RPM of 5500. There's no setting at which you are limited to only 1 min.
      - 6y ago

na85 6y ago

The real issue (IMHO) is highlighted in the article: >All the helicopters were produced without the necessary permits and documents of origin for the parts and equipment used. In aerospace it's common to speak of certificates of conformance, which is a legal attestation from the manufacturer that the part is of genuine origin and complies with the specification from the aircraft's type design. The manufacturer is periodically audited/assessed for their quality control practices and parts are routinely tested to ensure they are airworthy. The issue here, as per the above quote, is that they were probably using bootleg parts from random Chinese suppliers, which might be no big deal but might also have not been heat treated properly, for example, in order to save manufacturing cost. If parts aren't compliant with the spec you can have structural failures in flight which is of course no bueno. So yes, these are probably "real" Kamovs in the sense that they're probably built from real Kamov blueprints, but what many people outside the industry don't realize is that aerospace design and manufacturing encompasses much more than the blueprint. The whole program from the drawing board to the assembly line to the in-service maintenance work has to be a cohesive whole in order to produce an airworthy product.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
In practice though, that’s only a real issue if the wrong people die in a crash as a result of non-compliant parts.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Depends on your jurisdiction. The FAA can be a real stickler about things having the right paperwork.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  Bullshit populist conspiracy drivel. Any plane or helicopter crash is big news and gets scrutinized quite extensively.
heelix 6y ago
My brother-in-law does fire/crop dusting with a turbine helicopter. My mentality of what an airplane annual should look like is profoundly different then what he considers 'normal maintenance' on what he uses for work. Every single part of one of those machines has a ridiculously short time to live. I've heard rumors that parts past their time to live would ship to less rigorous countries. Likely a bunch of EOL parts in the mix too.
cameldrv 6y ago
Aircraft parts also generally have tighter engineering margins (strength etc) than other engineered products because there's a huge need to keep weight to a minimum. If they're not built according to the design, as you say, no bueno.
- LilBytes 6y ago
  I certainly wouldn't my helicopters Jesus nut [1] to be purchased and procured through Alibaba, for sure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut
- buran77 6y ago
  > have tighter engineering margins But still have to cover very wide operational margins (they are overspecced) because many failures are catastrophic so they can't run on the edge of failing all the time.

latchkey 6y ago

More impressive are the people who'd ride in one of these.

manquer 6y ago
It is matter of availability and price for any customer , particularly a desperate one ( organized crime groups in war affected regions ?) FAA and certifications have improved safety a lot , most people however would still get on a unmodified 737 MAX if it was cheapest/only option available .

baybal2 6y ago

> no complex turbomachinery. The turbomachinery is by far more simpler than high performance piston engines. A car engine of 200kw only needs to give peak power for a few seconds of acceleration, and can be electronically safeguarded from outside of envelope operation. An avia engine of 200kw needs to be able to operate on its full rated power continuously, for longer continuous periods of operation, be many times as reliable as a car engine, be lighter than a car engine, be engineered to accommodate, and survive failures, and be engineered free of governor mechanisms of any kind that may fail on take off (engine governor having to deliver demanded performance even if it has to waste the engine)

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
When we’re in the realm of aircraft engines, I’d like to imagine continuous rated power isn’t also peak power? Is this not the case?
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I can’t speak to helicopters, but light aircraft engines tend to run at 80% of peak; peak is only used for takeoff and go around, to my knowledge. (Not a pilot)
- dpe82 6y ago
  Depends on the aircraft and engine. Some (like my little Rotax 912ULS) has a peak power at which I can only operate at for 1 minute during takeoff. I typically cruise around 70% peak. I believe in Helicopters you're often running at 90%+ max rated power, but on an engine that's derated from its true maximum power.
  - slavak 6y ago
    Your Rotax is limited to 5 continuous min. at 5800 rpm, or a max continuous RPM of 5500. There's no setting at which you are limited to only 1 min.
    - 6y ago