Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

a4s4eva

Members
  • Content Count

    1,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by a4s4eva

  1. Hi Jon Yeah the Chinook is certainly an incredible design. IMHO it ranks as a classic along side the Huey. To me it looks like the USAF has gone with the conservative (nothing wrong with that) approach and taking a well proven helicopter that shouldn't offer to many surprises. (Unlike the RAF's Mk-3s). I guess they will have a lot of similar systems to the Armies MH-47Gs. Now that's a mean looking machine. As for the 101, It's a nice machine although I've heard they more expensive to operate than the CH-47. The CH-46 replacement is the MV-22. Now that is a machine that will IMHO revolutionise rotary wing operations, bother combat and civilian inn the next 10 years. Truely a quantum leap in capability for the USMC. I'm glad the USMC stuck with it. Merry Christmas
  2. Here's link to the main site Aussie Modeller Click on the discussion groups link on the left had side and then the readers models link Or here a link directly to the article RAN S-70B-2 build The RAN S-70B-2 differs significantly from the Sh-60B/F internally. The ASW suite, RADAR and TAc data systems are unique.It doesn't have the big Sonobuoy launcher but the small 6 shot one. It's mad is in the tail boom, not external It has some systems form the F model and some from the B model. From memory the airframes are basic F models. the dimensional inaccuracies are valid for all of SH-60B/F family based on the original seahawk Anyway, most of the pics are of my build, and I'm going from memory on bits, (although I do have access to some RAN publication's) which is on hold coz I'm away. I'll continue adding to the thread in the new year
  3. Hi Jon, I’m enjoying the discussion, nice way to spend a rainy summers day. As I see it there are 2 separate but related issues here 1. The EC-145 is better choice than the 412 for the LUH as specified by the US Army 2. The Army’s LUH concept is a crock and will fail sooner rather than later Most of my points are directed at issue 1. The concept of the LUH sounds fine in theory, whether it remains so in practice is debatable and I don’t have a strong view on that. Spec’s I’ve have are Ranges (max internal fuel) 412 659km EC1145 670km (with 2700kg gross weight, which is about 75% of MAUW) Cabin Volume 412 220 cubic ft EC-145 210 cubic ft Standard loads 412 2300 kg EC-145 1700Kg MAUW 412 5300kg EC-145 3500Kg So for a significantly smaller aircraft the EC-145 is quite capable Indeed it is, but really the Bell 412 is hardly a “Light Helicopterâ€. It’s significantly bigger and heavier than all the other contenders, and 1800 kg heavier than the EC-145. Not surprising considering the 412 is a 5-6 tonne helicopter whilst the 145 is a 3-4 tonne machine. Not sure why that’s relevant, but I’m an avionics tech, with about 20 yrs experience, last 12 on helicopters, both on the tools and doing logistics engineering work. Snipped Then the problem isn’t with the aircraft chosen. Neither the 412 nor the EC-145 as bid in this RFT were meant to be deployed. That’s the whole point of my argument. The best aircraft for the requirements specified by the US army was judged to be the EC-145. I happen to think they got it right, but really it doesn’t affect me at all, other than it’s interesting. All the competitors bid on the RFT released by the US army, to bid on what is not in the RFT can be fatal. In my experience the cost of maintenance per flight hour will fall with contract maintenance. Regardless of who won there would have been no army maintenance staff on any of the aircraft. Not sure that’s good or bad. I’ve seen the plusses and minuses of both in my time. I agree though $896 is good. For what it’s worth MD helicopters had the 412 at about $1300 and the 145 at about $900. Don’t see why that’s relevant considering the requirement was for a FAA certified COTS aircraft that is required it to retain the civil certification throughout it’s life. Good point Jon, but the opposing argument is that the Army should (isn’t it already) contract out all non core roles/repsonsibilties and concentrate all it’s energies on the combat arms. Going by this theory the roles of the LUH could be done by a civy company on a power by the hour contract. But that could be a whole new thread. :-) Now what about CSAR – X, another interesting competition with a surprise (to industry at least) winner. Any thoughts there
  4. Can't answer that The point of the LUH was for a Helicopter that won't be deployed. That's what every company put forward, none of the contenders had RWR Armour plating. 90% of these are for guard/Reserve units based in the US. the rest are going to units in Germany. Unless you expect them to take fire from US citizens they should be OK doing what they are ordered for. IF (and you're probably right, when ) they are deployed you'd like to think the Army will invest in these sort of things. But but the Army is buying the Bell 407 for ARH mission. It has all the bells and whistles for combat. Well most modern helicopters (and aircraft) are mode of composites, repair of composites is easier (generally) than ally. As for bulletproofness ;) well Kevllar is a composite Obviously the scenario above a bigger Helicopter is better, but then why not just buy EH-101,CH-53K,or CH-47's? That mission is but one of the multitude of missions the LUH is intended for. Many of these missions require a smaller, faster and cheaper to operate aircraft Interesting discussion though, from a technical point of view it wasn't a surprise that the EC145 won. Although I thought the NIH syndrome may have counted against it. MD helicopters pushed that barrow in their appeal against the decision. of course they neglected that fact that most of the EC-145's are being built in the US, and that the real money that will eb made is actually going to Sikorsky. IIRC they are the prime for logistical support for the aircraft over the next 10-20 yrs
  5. Anyone looking for a 1/72 Hase pigs, there are a couple (A F-111C and an FB-111) on ebay (Australia) at the moment. F-111C FB-111 The C's tend to go for a bit a premium here, I've seen one go for $200 AUD. There's been a few lately (I've sold off about 10). Average price seems to be about $70 AUD
  6. Can't comment on the Chooks. Why are the Chinooks not capable of operating safely in a high threat environment? And I agree that it's possible that the LUH could be deployed. But to be fair, the requirements for the LUH specified that it would not be operated in a threat exists. All the companies supplied basically the same type of aircraft . (Aircraft with a civill type certificate painted OD). The LUH concept as I see understand it is designed to release aircraft like the UH-60's, (which are significantly more expensive to operate) to carry out pure military roles they are designed for, and to let the cheaper LUH carry out those jobs (primarily in the US) that don't require an aircraft with the capability of a UH-60. Your issue as I see it is the concept of the LUH? Bang for buck it's significantly better IMHO. The airframe is much more advanced but has significantly less maintenance demands/issues. It has roughly the same internal capacity as a 412 but is significantly cheaper to operate. The 412 can carry more weight (from memory about 500kg) but it's also a 6 tonne helicopters, whereas the EC145 is only 4 tonne aircraft. Eurocopter pitch this helicopter as 412 replacement to a lot of operators
  7. Airframe technology wise it's light years ahead of the 412, things like the extensive use of composites, the rotor head etc. It can carry the load the 412 but has lower operating costs. For the 4 aircraft in the competition it was certainly offered the best capability for the cost. It's not (supposed) to be operated in areas where there's a threat. If the US Army wanted a helicopter to operate in areas where there is a threat then they should have specified that in the requirements.
  8. Why? If it does end up getting shot at then someone has cocked up.... Big time. It was certainly better than the 412 or MD90.
  9. a4s4eva

    LAU-117's

    Yes Dave 1/48 is what I'm after. I'll be interested in a few sets. I'll need some for my A-4K's as well. Can you let me know when they are available as I don't regularly visit the forums here. Do you have a web site? Cancel that, just found your board here Thanks
  10. a4s4eva

    LAU-117's

    HI all currently building Hasegawas F-16B. plan is to be a 2 Sqn RNZAF aircraft (what could have been) I want to give it a typical 2 Sqn training loadout, SO 1 CATM-9L, 1 TAGM-65G and 1 CATM-7 TO do this I need a single rail LAU 117. so my question is are there any aftermarket single rail LAU-117's out there?
  11. Red Roo Models down here is Aussie do a conversion for the OA-4M to the TA-4F, price is reasonable for what you get. http://www.redroomodels.com/conversions.php I have one in my To Do pile but I'd love a Hssegawa TA-4 (K in my case) to save me the hassle of re scribing the whole aircraft.
  12. Thanks to all. I' think I'll give the photoetch ago. As for the A-4, Have another 3 in the "to do" pile.
  13. Chris Thanks for the advice. I was going to ask about aftermarket stuff. My main question was should I get the Neomega Cockpit or just use a Photo etched set. I've never used a Photo etch cockpit , what advantages (except for price) does photo etch have over the resin Cockpit? Yeah I'll probably get the Model Alliance Gulf War Decal set (anyone have a used set for sale?)
  14. I really want to build a Op Granby GR-1 Jag but I can't find the kit anywhere I can get the GR 3 kit though and I know their are aftermarket decals (Model Alliance) which I would probably buy anyway. So could I build the GR1 from the GR 3? If so what are the major differences? And anyone have any opinions on this kit? Good , bad or indifferent, recessed or raised lines?. Thanks
  15. Hi Julien, Thanks for the Kind offer. But I've ordered the AMRAAM lines LGBS's so I'll let you offer it to someone who needs it. Thanks again To all the others who have replied so far thanks
  16. I thought I give the Airfix Buccaneer a go, I've read plenty that says it's a bit of a dog but I picked it and the Neomga Resin set up for a pretty good price. Unfortunately the aircraft they chose for the Desert Storm aircraft in the kit is probably the one with the most boring nose art. Now I've seen the Model Alliance Decal sheet and it looks nice, BUT man is it expensive, and there's no way I'm going to pay that, plus I only want to do one aircraft. Anyway to get to the point. Has any seen/heard of Modeldecals Gulf war Buccaneer sheets, Meteor Products have them at a resonable price. The part no's are MD109 and MD110. Even google hasn't been my friend when looking for these. Or does anyone have an unwanted/half complete Model Alliance sheet they wouldn't mind selling <_< Also has anyone seen a photo of a Buccaneer with LGBs. My references say they dropped around 48 weapons and these were carried on stations 2 and 3. They ditched the AIM-9 and Slipper tank(if thats what it's called) Thanks to anyone who can help
  17. How about this one ? TA-4J or TA-4F ? It is said that this one was from ex US Navy, retrofitted & upgraded in New Zealand before flown to Indonesia. IIRC these were J's
×
×
  • Create New...