Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

BWDenver

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BWDenver

  1. Ken, That's not entirely true. The US 500D is flown from the LH seat, at least the civil version that I flew in the Rockies doing exploration work for oil companies. The 206 BII & BIII was flown from the RH side. The position of the pilot has more to do with what is known as "Translating Tendency" of the helicopter roto system. With the TR under the tip path plane the helo tends to hang one side low. Western Helos hang LH side low as that's where the thrust of the TR shifts them. The European birds with blades that rotate in the opposite direction hover RH side low. So the placement of the pilot likely has more to do with weight and balance than custom. The 500D took a bit of getting use to as you rally hung lower than a Bell bird. All total I have about 3500 Hrs in helos. Most in UH-1's, OH-58's and CH-47"s. And on the civil side 500D and 206 BII & BIII. And a little AH-1G time. Fun bird, especially in a dive... And why do you board a fighter or an airliner form the LH side? Has more to do with how Knights got on horses - with their swords.... Bryan
  2. Mi-8AMTSH The long high aspect ratio metal blades droop quite a bit. I must admit this is the first time I've noticed the antennas strung to the horizontal stabilizers. Likely HF.
  3. The real thing... Not sure if the Mi wipers have a "park" position. Most birds I've flow do. Looks like HB came close to getting the windows right. Note the center window extends about 3" farther down than the L & R chin bubbles. It looks like the bird had two defog lines on the outboard side.
  4. Attached is a shot taken in the mid 90's at a Moscow air show. I didn't take the shot, and won't discuss who did. The bird is an Mi-8MTB-5/Mi-17M. Interesting study in upgraded armor and the adoption of the ramp sililar to the Chinooks I few.
  5. This looks like the Hip modified to run on Compressed Natural Gas. The turret looks like most graft on IR/FLIR turrets I've seen. Another interesting lump is the one forward of the roof hatch. - Bryan
  6. I doubt that is an OAT instrument. I have never flow a helicopter where the OAT is place on the instrument panel. Simple reason is it’s fairly useless in flight unless you going into the clouds and are worrying about icing. And AH/MH-6's are likely VFR only AC. In all the birds I’ve flown the OAT gage is placed at the top of the windscreen, or in the case of the CH-47, in the RH overhead window. You use it for validating your PPC (Performance Planning Card), and the HIT Check, after that you really don’t pay attention to it. Unless it’s to reinforce how hot and miserable you are like when I landed at Balad AF in Iraq and the OAT gage was stuck on 57C. I've never seen a military helo OAT gage in anything but C. So a temp of 89 would be a wee bit uncomfortable... What is missing from the instrument panel is an RMI, Radio Magnetic Indicator. There is probably a standby “Wet” compass on the top of the panel. My guess is your looking at digital readout heading display indicator. Where ever they are they are flying at 350 MSL, 250 AGL, and just cruising along with a 600 degree C TOT, they are not really “heavy”. Even if it was an OAT, at 30C/90F you would likely be seeing a higher TOT. 1996 and you're probably looking at an MH-6J My best guess... Bryan
  7. By any chance does anyone know who or where the shot of the 58D came from? -Bryan
  8. Thouth I'd post a few images of the FWD head out and folded out. CH-46E 156477 HMM-264 Newriver 5-12-93. Aft blades, Reb BL Left, Yellow is over the tunnel, BL R of the Green blade. Only have a BW of this bird. - Bryan
  9. For the most part the 47D started out as an A, B or C. And the F will be a rebuild of the D fuselage. The original A's were easier to tell as they put roof stringers lengthwise to stiffen the bird as the A had a "Oil Caning" structural problem. They also lacked the Aux tanks behind and in front of the main tank and there was only one filler point on each side. I think the 47B's also lacked the 6 tanks, and the 47C was the first bird to be produced with 6 tanks. But I could be wrong on that and the B 's got aux tanks later on. I only have about 4 hrs in a 47C when the our unit flew a 4 ship in last formation flight of 47C's to the Boeing factory for D conversion. I retired with 600 Hrs in the 47D. The C was a bit "looser" to fly than the D. If memory serves there was a slight difference between the B and C fuel filler points and the vents on the top of the sponsion. The blades evolved from metal to composite over the years. A "Baby C" had metal blades, a "Super C" had plastic. So you could make an F from an A, by first changing the pylons, blades and engines. Not to mention the cockpit. I don't think anyone but Aurora made a 47A with the original dual rear wheels. But as has been pointed out, it would be a lot easier starting with a D. Then all you would have to do is the glass cockpit, engine differences and various bites and pieces on the outside like RAW, radio antennas and Flare Pods. The biggest difference, for a modeler, between the 712 (C) and 714 (C & F) is going to be the exhaust stack. Along with the track for the particle separator in front of the engine. The Reserve unit I was in started to get the 47C with 714's in 2004. All my time was with the 712's. Bryan
  10. Having the bird squatted a bit makes it easier to look at the TR, along with doing the Daily and preflight. Along with shipping the bird in a C-130. I remember crawling up on the stinger on a UH-1, it was a real pain just to get a good look at the pieces parts. You had to grab the tail light and pull yourself up. When I was up there I would "thump" the vertical fin out of habit. When I was in Korea, I thumped one of the 377 Taegu Dustoff birds and heard a rattle back. After 2 Hrs of fooling with it, the CE pulled a fuel fitting out of the fin. Sobering to think what that would have done to the shaft... I still have the blue fitting some where... I still wonder how the heck it got there... - Bryan
  11. The attached shot was taken at Ft Eustis VA, when I was attending AMOC, Oct 80 - March 81. My track was the OH-58. I was the distinguished graduate of the OH-58 Maintenance Test Flight Class. I was also the ONLY one in the class... Had a lot of fun and learned a lot about the Kiowa. the UH-61 was sitting on the flight line at Felker AAF. And was still flying on occasion. Enjoy.. - Bryan
  12. Any body know if Phrogger is still active?

     

    Bryan

  13. I now "remember" where I saw the pics of the UH-1H RC bird boom. It was here!. At that time I didn't know where my shots of the 218th AC ended up. I'll call a bit later this afternoon. Bryan
  14. Actually this is the Desert/Arctic scheme. The birds at White Sands also used this scheme, along with OH-58A's. Bryan
  15. Ah yes, but like a red head I once knew, lovely to look at but a hand full... The Hiller had a couple of issues going against it. One was price. The other was it's early SAS. During the flight test phase the SAS would kick off at random times. Without SAS the bird was, as reported in the flight test docs, "dangerous" in the hands of an inexperienced pilot in turbulence. It was simply not stable without the SAS. The 58 was a bit twitchy in turbulence, but no where near as dangerous. In retrospect there is no doubt now that Hughes "bought" the contract for the LOH. It was priced under the cost of materials for the OH-5A. Remember the engine and radios were GFE, Government Furnished Equipment, and not part of the cost from the manufacture. Hughes made up for it, in part, on spares, a lot of the major components were throw always on the OH-6A, while the OH-58 gear was overhaulable. Both birds used the same engine, but the fuselage of the 58 was heavier. The 58 was a heck of a lot quieter inside to fly than the OH-6. The 500 was the only bird I flew, out side of the 47, where I had to use both earplugs and a helmet. I think the 500 was even louder than the 47 in the cockpit. And for those OH-6 fans remember the "Hughes tail rotor stall"? Turn down wind at low speed and you got a stall, spin, crash sequence. Early on the "Old Hands" demanded to fly the OH-6 when they showed up in Viet Nam. Then the swashplates uniballs started having "issues" and the Old Hands, decided it was better to give the OH-6's to the "new guys" until they got them fixed... Bryan
  16. Actually, in the flight Test reports on the LCH, JOH-58C, and OH-58C+, the landing gear was referred to as "BHT two-position landing gear". MPLH referred to the aircraft, not nessasariuily the skids, although most people today refer to the gear a "MPLH". Bryan
  17. This is a bit strange, quoting myself under a different account! I finally found the negatives for the RC birds. I must confess I was more interested in the T-39 Sabraliner than in the bird I had flown in. The shot was taken at Robert Gary AAF, West Ft hood, summer of 1975. the 25 Gal tanks sat on two rings, that were just about a stall as the tool box next to them. The rings provided a protected area under the tanks to run the lines. the tanks were pressurized by bleed air off the engine. The firefighters were very carful in mixing the AFFF, Light Water, as it could make for a lethal situation if the tanks pressurized and blew an O ring. As did happen a few weeks after this picture was taken. The crew was able to get the bird on the ground, another unit was not so lucky and lost a bird an crew when the cabin filled with foam. Pressurizing the tanks was a little like playing Russian roulette... We had our Fire Pit training sight at RGAAF. We got our fuel from "contaminated stock" form the G4 for III Corps. Under training flight was always pulled the 22" Jump Doors. Hoist was on the other side, on final the CE would unlock the 22" door and the hoist would push it open. The unit that Floyd makes is a fairly close example of the rescue hoist we used. The negatives are some what worse for wear. the birds were painted in Gloss OD, and constantly waxed by the Fire Fighters and Medics. they would first clean off the tail booms with tooth brushes then was the birds. they were some of the cleanest UH-1's on Ft hood. If you look across the runway you'll see the 3/507th Lifesaver "Dustoff" bird parked in front of Base Ops. After we flew the 218th birds to Edwards I ended my stay at Ft Hood flying Dustoff. The 218th birds were based out of Hood AAF. Bryan
  18. This contraption was a "Hover Trainer". In flight school at Wolters you had about 8 - 9 Hrs to get to the point where you could hover without a risk of bending the TH-55A. The 55 was a short coupled overpowered hand full, that had a throttle rev limiter that was flat out nasty. It was not uncommon on approach for a noob to lower the collective without first retarding the throttle a tad, and the rev limiter would literally split the needs on you. You could tell when someone was having issues as they would be yawing all over the sky on the way down. They used it for people with no previous flight experience, which I had. Everyone in my class that got volunteered to train on it, were washed out. Bryan ala BW Falls Church...
  19. The shot above is the YAH-1Q 70-16055, the picture was taken at Ft Hood in 1975 during the OFCON tests. they weighed the AC before each flight, that's what the Crain was used for. I covered the tests in a UH-1H RC fitted with fire suppression gear, I think it was late spring of 1975 because everything is still green. It's armed with a 7.62 min and 40mm. In Dec of '75 we flew the birds out to Edwards, covered a high risk test for a chinook with a retractable cargo handling system. After the test we left the birds at Edwards. UH-1H 70-16295 & 16296 I have a shot of the Hook with the cargo handing gear extended down and a Milvan hooked underneath. There is a thread on 40 MM on this board, with more shots taken from the test. It was a flyoff as it were between the AH-1R and AH-1Q. Bryan
  20. I would be inclined to think that prior to folding the FE would "set" the blades. The system is a mechanical process and is set to fold to the rear and front, so you would have to position them in a certain way. Other wise you could end up with the blades folding 120 degrees to the fuselage. The Marines routinely folded the blades on the 46's even when they were ashore so as to keep them exercised and in good working order. With the hooks we had to position the blades so as to tie them down to the struts, or on occasion to the eyes in the parking ramp. But mostly to the front and rea struts. the FWD RH blade and front blade would be tied together, the rest to the struts, absent eyes in the parking ramp. I got real good a half hitches. In the winter we generally tied the blade to the bird as it was a pain to dig the ropes out of ice filled ramp points. When we put the ropes on the birds, you would always lag the blades. So you can see where they rubbed on the fuselage on the sides. Bryan
  21. Cobra AH-1G Night fire at Ft hood. We were on crash rescue standby while they were beating up the impact range with 40 mm and 2.75" rockets. Enjoy Bryan
  22. During the Clinton years we had issues with some of the gears in the aft transmissions of the CH-47D. The Army didn't have the money to let a contract to rebuild them. So we were restricted from flying in the clouds, over water or higher than above 2 minutes above the ground. In the mid 90-'s I managed the pubs for the unit. For about a 6 month period the Army cut off all publications change deliveries to USAR and ANG units. They never told anyone they were restricting deliveries, I noticed it when the number of changes drastically dropped off. My account was about 2400 titles. When I call the Pinpoint Distribution people they just said "Yeah we cut you off, we don't have the money to print and distribute all the pubs." It created a hell of a mess, and endangered lives. But that was the Clinton Administration and the Military. Bryan
  23. Most of the guys I flew with in C 227 had been in Viet Nam. I missed being sent by about 6 months. I had an idiot USAF flt Doc flunk me on my eyes, and it took 6 months to get that overturned. I started Basic during the '72 Christmas Bombing campaigns via Nixon. That was before any RAW warning gear in most Army AC, or at least the Helos. They encountered RADAR controlled guns on more than one occasion. In one case the pilot, Jim Carlozi, heard two beeps over the FM radio, he broke in a decnding right turn, and as he looked over his shoulder he saw several bursts of AA fire. He passed that story along to all the new pilots, just to let us know. A number of years later I was flying a CH-47D down to the Cherry Point NC on a coordination meeting for a follow-on GunEx and ASE Ex I was overseeing on the USMC ranges. We were cruising at about 3000 near Washington NC, and they lit up the SA-2 Fan Song Radar. It was the first time I'd seen the RAW gear light up with a "real" signal. It was impressive. The emitters were located on MCOLF Atlantic, a bit over 60 miles from our position. It was very impressive! Bryan
  24. It comes down to roles and missions. After spending 32 years on active duty and the reserves I have seen “a bit” of aviation history. I’ve also seen the Army screw up a one man procurement parade with the LHX. An aircraft is designed on the outset with a specific role and mission, at least initially. The AH-1G was built for the Viet Nam jungle war. A low to mid intensity conflict with little armor opposition. It was an anti-personal platform. And it did its job quite well. I'm not sure they knew what they were designing the AH-56 for. The AH-1G would do around 200, in a dive. The success of the AH-1 platform was it's still flying so long after it was "adapted" from a UH-1. You could almost call it the B-52 of the helicopter world. But the DoD and Army always had its eye on the two front war. All-out conflict in the East, with hoards of Russian tanks coming through the Fulda Gap. And a holding campaign in Korea, until the Russians could be sorted out. To some degree it was built on wishful thinking, as the Russians were going to incinerate the WARSAW Pac and turn it into a radioactive wasteland. Late in Viet Nam we were introduced to the SA-7, and it was a nasty surprise. The ‘73 war hammered home an even more unpleasant realization. Altitude will kill you, in Viet Nam it was your friend, initially. The AH-56 was a creature of medium level flight and contour flying at speed. In 1974 the Army decided NOE was the thing. In C 227th in ’74 we as a unit deployed into the waist lands of Texas and qualified on NOE. Altitude kills, speed kills. The AH-64 was envisioned for the tree tops, carrying 16 Hellfire missiles with scouts, and facing divisions of just good enough Russian tanks. When the threat evaporated, they reordered the AH-64, with other combat loads. And put Hellfire’s on OH-58D’s. An aircraft the Apache mafia really hated. When we crossed the Iraqi border we dropped down to 50 feet or below and accelerated as fast as the Chinooks would go. And now the current crop of MANPADS have incredibly low engagement envelopes. Look at page 5. https://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/non-proliferation-disarmament-arms-control/conventional-weapons-missiles/Documents/MANPADS_countering_terrorist_threat.pdf The problem with speed is you can’t fly at 200Kts and 50 feet - for long. 150 Kts in the western Iraqi desert is one thing, in Korea or Iran, it’s a lot different. Speed is not necessarily the answer. Get to 150’ to 200’ and 200 Kts and you get missiles, lots of missiles. The USMC has a distinctly different mission than the Army. Their air assets are padlocked to support the ground Marines. That’s one of the reasons they are so effective, and they don’t have to rely on the USAF… Bryan
  25. While being "technically correct" its still not quite accurate. Interesting you missed a couple of fairly critical dates. In April of 69 the Army told Lockheed to fix the technical issues or they were going to kill the program. And about a month later they gave up. The production contract for the Cheyenne was cancelled on 19 May 1969. Done finished, not happening. R&D continued in the hopes of "fixing" the various problems, but likely the primary reason was developing new technologies and use it as a testbed for follow-on platforms. So in reality the program was killed in 69, and the 56 was on life support and they pulled the plug in August of '72. So your timing is a bit off. When Carter killed the B-1A it was for all practical purposes dead, until Reagan resurrected it. There was no champion for the 56. In 1972 we did not need a 200 Kt attack helicopter that would spend most of its time hovering in the trees. But in reality, the 56 had lots of problems, and in a briefing I got in 73 while in flight school at Rucker, a primary reason they killed it, was it was simply too complex for the wrench turners to keep flying. That’s one of the reasons they went to LRU, Line Replicable Units, in the later aircraft. Another problem they had was the front seat gunner. He sat on a rotating platform, and would rotate as the bird overflew the target. So lets see, head down, in a turn, pulling G's, spinning... Yeah the gunners would throw up because their inner ears just played hell with the proprioceptive organs, AKA Seat OF the pants. Plays a big part in vertigo. I was shooting an ILS approach going into Austin one night and as soon as I punched into the clouds at 3000' I thought I was on my side. One of the only times I got vertigo while flying. It was all I could do to keep the bird upright until I broke out at 400'. Another big issue was the rigid rotor, and the vibrations that took place, destroying 2 aircraft, on in flight one in a wind tunnel. The Apache mafia were the LTC's to Generals that backed the "Advance Attack Helicopter" platform, later the AH-64 to replace the AH-1 Series gunships. They had tested Hellfire’s on the AH-1 in addition to 30 mm's studies but they simply did not want the AH-1 to "compete" with the AH-64. Like the General that was the program manager of the AH-64, that briefed us in Taegu, he was adamant that the AH-64 would ONLY carry Hellfire’s, and no other Army platform would EVER mount them. How did that work out? Like in USAF the "Fighter Mafia" is always trying to kill the A-10, or any thing that can't go M1. In reality, the 56 was too much. Too complex, too expensive, too heavy. A 195 Knot cruse speed would have been nice, at least they could have kept up with the CH-47D's that showed up later. Lord knows we would always walk away from our "escorts" in Iraq. But again, you don't need a 200 Kt platform when you're going to spend most of your time hovering in the trees in a fire line against a division of tanks. And OK, you have a 200 Kt attack platform, and a 90 Kt scout? How is that going to work? Bryan
×
×
  • Create New...