The AH-1Z and UH-1Y share common tail boom, engines, rotor system, drive train, avionics architecture, software, controls and displays for over 84 percent identical components. This should drive down maintenance while improving reliability for a cost savings of more than $3B over the 30 year program," said Mike Blake, Bell's executive vice president for Programs.

I must be missing something in the translation- One of you smart Bubbas want to educate me on how commonality drives down maintenance and improves reliability? Would think engineering, not commonality, would improve reliability thus decreasing maintenance requirements.

Commonality

Agree with your conclusion. Commonality should only improve availabilty of spares!! SF PM

I must respectfully disagree. Commonality does reduce costs!
Having common parts and systems requires less manpower to do the same maintenance. Different systems requires more people to learn different things thus adding costs. Just like a Huey guy can't effectively work on a 46 or a 53.
Having the same engines and rotors reduces manpower and you don't have to stock a gizlion parts. Inventory is money sitting on a shelf and manpower is money sitting on their @$$.
Respectfully
Jardo Opocensky
Former Huey worker Bee

Jardo,
I'm making an assumption that the article is complete and not taken out of context, but I think the quote is mixing apples and origins. Cost savings due to commonality and as you said "less inventory" makes sense, however I'm not aware of any personnel reductions in the squadron or at the MALS with the fielding of the Y & Z.
Could the commonality reduce training requirements that contribute to the $3B over 30 years? probably, but the quote says "drives down maintenance while improving readiness." Nice buzz words, but I don't buy into commonality improving readiness. Engineering improves readiness, technically proficient maintainers improve readiness, an adequate supply system improves readiness, and aviators who take a perfectly good acft out of the chalks and returns it in the same condition improves readiness.
And with my respects
Slick
one time Huey snuffy
one time Huey MaintO.

Most respectfully--I will always defer to the AMO---it's chocks as opposed to chalk ie Cliffs of Dover. "Pull chocks" "write with chalk on the blackboard". I just couldn't let that one get by my friend. Sorry Slick! 😀

Having two almost mirror image aircraft will improve supply, logistics, the burden on IMA, paper pushing, etc. It will have zero affect on reliability.

As far as the snuffy's working on them, I would hope it would have little to nil effect. Just as an FYI. When I was stationed at NAS Los Alamitos, the MARTD had OV-10's, A-4B's, CH-34's and CH-46's. 210 and 220 (one shop)were expected and in fact worked on all of these aircraft and very often helped out the raggies with same. There was a lot of grumbling and many folks weren't as proficient on one aircraft as opposed to another, but the job got done and we kept the planes flying.

I hope the genius in engineering who placed the #2 engine oil pressure xmtr on the UH-1N found a more convenient/accessible location for it for the Z's and Y's.

Just think of the cannibalization opportunities!

Best regards,

TC

Nice catch Tom. Just wanting to see if you were awake.