Author Topic: M.H.I. (Read 12307 times)

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #75 on:** December 08, 2012, 04:50:11 PM »

Quote from: birdman on December 08, 2012, 04:17:50 PM

Why not just replace the 3 T64's with 3 AE1107's from an osprey, they are only 12" bigger in diameter, and you'd have more power than 4 T64's :)

As for loops/rolls, a coworker was a USMC test pilot and said he has personally looped an echo in a test. (I never validated his story, but he was not one to embellish...one of those 'quiet types')

...on purpose...

...The airframe was retired due to over stress.

...he thought he might have over stressed his sphincter

*grins and claps like an idiot while giggling*

And if we're changing out the engines that extensively.... just go with four of the AE1107's.

birdman · « **Reply #76 on:** December 08, 2012, 04:58:34 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on December 08, 2012, 04:50:11 PM

*grins and claps like an idiot while giggling*

And if we're changing out the engines that extensively.... just go with four of the AE1107's.

Now that's just crazy talk.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #77 on:** December 08, 2012, 06:41:59 PM »

Slowly writing some fanfic. There will be a C208 on floats with forward facing fifty's.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #78 on:** December 08, 2012, 06:48:36 PM »

Quote from: birdman on December 08, 2012, 04:58:34 PM

Now that's just crazy talk.

It's not crazy to want a helicopter with a GTO in excess of 120k lbs... stop cockblocking my inner mad scientist!

Regolith · « **Reply #79 on:** December 08, 2012, 07:09:36 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on December 08, 2012, 03:58:20 PM

ETA:
http://youtu.be/k_pAe8Gvua8

I really want to see what would happen if Sikorsky took the K model, added a fourth engine side by side with the rear/center engine and beefed up the rotor blades/spindle some more. Oh, and that's a humvee loaded internally by the way.

...is that a Chinook that it's carrying at 0:38s?

birdman · « **Reply #80 on:** December 08, 2012, 07:25:20 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on December 08, 2012, 06:48:36 PM

It's not crazy to want a helicopter with a GTO in excess of 120k lbs... stop cockblocking my inner mad scientist!

Totally doable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

lee n. field · « **Reply #81 on:** December 08, 2012, 07:36:44 PM »

Quote from: birdman on December 08, 2012, 07:25:20 PM

Totally doable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

Quote

On 19 August 2002, Chechen separatists hit an overloaded Mi-26 with a surface to air missile, causing it to crash-land in a minefield and killing 127 of the people on board.[9]

127 people on one helicopter. At least.

birdman · « **Reply #82 on:** December 08, 2012, 08:30:01 PM »

Quote from: lee n. field on December 08, 2012, 07:36:44 PM

127 people on one helicopter. At least.

Maybe some of them were hit by the crashing helicopter...standing in a minefield....wait. Nevermind.

Is it just me, or is being in a Russian helicopter...

That is overloaded....

And hit by a SAM....

And crashing into a minefield...

In Chechnya.

Pretty much the best "final destination" example of god pressing the 'smite' button?

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #83 on:** December 08, 2012, 09:05:09 PM »

Quote from: birdman on December 08, 2012, 08:30:01 PM

Maybe some of them were hit by the crashing helicopter...standing in a minefield....wait. Nevermind.

Is it just me, or is being in a Russian helicopter...

That is overloaded....

And hit by a SAM....

And crashing into a minefield...

In Chechnya.

Pretty much the best "final destination" example of god pressing the 'smite' button?

Juuuuuust barely edged out by being at ground zero of a Tunguska-like Event.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #84 on:** December 08, 2012, 10:41:32 PM »

Quote from: birdman on December 08, 2012, 08:30:01 PM

Maybe some of them were hit by the crashing helicopter...standing in a minefield....wait. Nevermind.

Is it just me, or is being in a Russian helicopter...

That is overloaded....

And hit by a SAM....

And crashing into a minefield...

In Chechnya.

Pretty much the best "final destination" example of god pressing the 'smite' button?

That almost sounds like the old Aggie joke about a plane crash in a College Station cemetery. They have counted 527 deaths so far and they are still finding bodies.

Fly320s · « **Reply #85 on:** December 09, 2012, 06:44:40 AM »

Quote from: Regolith on December 08, 2012, 07:09:36 PM

...is that a Chinook that it's carrying at 0:38s?

Yep. The 53 was designed to rescue/recover downed helicopters in Viet Nam.

Regolith · « **Reply #86 on:** December 09, 2012, 08:00:59 PM »

Quote from: Fly320s on December 09, 2012, 06:44:40 AM

Yep. The 53 was designed to rescue/recover downed helicopters in Viet Nam.

That's one big SOB. Chinooks used to overfly my apartment semi-regularly (until whoever was flying them apparently replaced them with V-22s), and I thought THOSE were big bastards....

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #87 on:** December 09, 2012, 08:40:05 PM »

Some of my favorite Super Stallion pics....

(I <3 Sikorsky!)

And yes, it can even lift itself...

Of course, as Birdman mentioned, the Soviet Mi-26. It's like a flying hotel....

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #88 on:** December 10, 2012, 01:05:35 AM »

Quote from: Regolith on December 09, 2012, 08:00:59 PM

That's one big SOB. Chinooks used to overfly my apartment semi-regularly (until whoever was flying them apparently replaced them with V-22s), and I thought THOSE were big bastards....

Not quite. The CH47 Chinook is flown by the Army.
The smaller twin rotor CH46 sea knight (or more commonly "frog") is what's being replaced with MV22's in the Marine Corps inventory.
Quickest way to tell the difference between a 47 and 46 is the 47 has four landing wheel assemblies. 46 is tricycle gear.

Regolith · « **Reply #89 on:** December 10, 2012, 01:20:08 AM »

Quote from: Jamisjockey on December 10, 2012, 01:05:35 AM

Not quite. The CH47 Chinook is flown by the Army.
The smaller twin rotor CH46 sea knight (or more commonly "frog") is what's being replaced with MV22's in the Marine Corps inventory.
Quickest way to tell the difference between a 47 and 46 is the 47 has four landing wheel assemblies. 46 is tricycle gear.

Could be. All I know is that every once a while, maybe once every few months at most, there'd be an over flight of twin rotor helicopters. Then there were a couple overflights of Ospreys and I didn't see the twin rotors again, though I moved not long after that.

Can't imagine where the hell they'd be coming from or going, though; there are no Marine or Navy bases anywhere near where my apartment was (in La Grande, OR). I had always assumed they were National Guard.

birdman · « **Reply #90 on:** December 10, 2012, 06:47:11 AM »

Quote from: Jamisjockey on December 10, 2012, 01:05:35 AM

Not quite. The CH47 Chinook is flown by the Army.
The smaller twin rotor CH46 sea knight (or more commonly "frog") is what's being replaced with MV22's in the Marine Corps inventory.
Quickest way to tell the difference between a 47 and 46 is the 47 has four landing wheel assemblies. 46 is tricycle gear.

And the Airforce is getting CV-22, for AFSOC. Since AFSOC and SF (160th) both have used MH-47 (IIRC), you could have seen either.

Even quicker way to tell the difference between 46 and 47, in the 46, the sponsons are only at the back, in the 47, they go nearly the whole length of the fuselage.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #91 on:** December 10, 2012, 09:48:14 AM »

Quote from: Regolith on December 10, 2012, 01:20:08 AM

Could be. All I know is that every once a while, maybe once every few months at most, there'd be an over flight of twin rotor helicopters. Then there were a couple overflights of Ospreys and I didn't see the twin rotors again, though I moved not long after that.

Can't imagine where the hell they'd be coming from or going, though; there are no Marine or Navy bases anywhere near where my apartment was (in La Grande, OR). I had always assumed they were National Guard.

You are somewhere along a route they like to take on cross country flights then. Im on a fairly popular one and get to see helis reguarly..,ive seen every helicopter type in the US inventory and a V-22 (back in 07). Even had the 160th ask to use our airfield for training.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #92 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:02:13 AM »

I wonder how far he is from Whidbey.

http://cnic.navy.mil/Whidbey/index.htm

Regolith · « **Reply #93 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:16:43 AM »

Quote from: Jamisjockey on December 10, 2012, 11:02:13 AM

I wonder how far he is from Whidbey.

http://cnic.navy.mil/Whidbey/index.htm

According to Google Maps, 361 miles and some change. Not as far as I thought, but not exactly close either.

Boomhauer · « **Reply #94 on:** December 10, 2012, 11:40:58 AM »

Speaking of Russian helicopters...no way in hell I'd fly in one. No way.

Phantom Warrior · « **Reply #95 on:** December 10, 2012, 12:09:21 PM »

Quote from: birdman on December 10, 2012, 06:47:11 AM

And the Airforce is getting CV-22, for AFSOC. Since AFSOC and SF (160th) both have used MH-47 (IIRC), you could have seen either.

Do you mean SOAR?

160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

JonnyB · « **Reply #96 on:** December 10, 2012, 03:14:29 PM »

Since this thread is about as derailed as it can get...

Son 2 was in Iraq in 2006& 2007 (16 month deployment). They were stationed at Fallujah, with the Marines, even though he was MnANG. The ride of the day was typically a CH-53 Sea Stallion. Matt *hated* riding in them! The Marines generally took out the windows, so when they were flying, the hold was hammered with turbine exhaust, dust and rotor blast.

The things leaked hydraulic oil inside, were noisy as hell and not particularly fast. They also needed to wait around for an armed escort.

When they were able to use a Blackhawk, it was a whole 'nuther story. Quiet (relatively, for a rotor-wing), fast, not noisy or stinky or windy inside. No oil leaks, either.

No waiting for an armed escort, either, since the Blackhawk *was* the armed escort.

jb

ps: when flying over Baghdad, his though was: "This place was a shithole *before* we bombed it flat!" 'Course, he said the same of Louisiana and Katrina...

birdman · « **Reply #97 on:** December 10, 2012, 08:13:13 PM »

Quote from: Phantom Warrior on December 10, 2012, 12:09:21 PM

Do you mean SOAR?

160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment

I used SF as a monicker for all of USASOC, of which the 160th is a part. Or to quote a friend in that organization "I have more airframes than the USAF" :)

As for which is faster, the rated maximum (NOT the Vdne) of the 53 is faster than a blackhawk, 170 vs 159 kts.
I don't know what the Vdne of the 53E is, but its faster than one might expect. When unladen, it can haul....ill ask around on the speed.

Also, 3 gun positions vs 2, and the ability to carry a metric butt load more ammo and other gear There is a reason why the pave low (true, not a 3-engined echo, but same root airframe) existed...and it wasn't because the MH-60 wasn't available

News:

Author Topic: M.H.I. (Read 12307 times)