Some Pics from Army Flight Test...

[ScottF]

Here's a picture of the Boeing 360 (with a picture of Frank Duke inset) which first flew around 1987. As an all composite technology demonstrator, the Boeing funded helicopter was the brainchild and pet project of Ken Grina, Vice President of Engineering for Boeing Vertol. This was the only aircraft I did not want to fly in. I helped put it together and refused to sign off on the log more than a few times. The lack of funds and adequate time to get things done resulted in cutting too many corners, IMO. For instance, the forward pylon clamshell doors were hinged in the back of the pylon, not the front. So, any latch failure would cause the doors to rip off and potentially hit the rotor.

The person in the left seat is Ron Mecklin (only one with the non-white helmet). Ron called me in Japan (where I had been "promoted" off the program) right after the forward latch failed and the clamshell door impacted the rotor.

Here's another:

Here's a picture of Ron Mecklin (second from the left with the blue ball cap)

Edited December 3, 2011 by ScottF

[Tailspin Turtle]

At least one influential Marine LtCol was sure that the Boeing 360 was the replacement for the CH-46 until he flew the XV-15...

[Phrogger]

After kinda highjacking this thread with some non-Army 107 talk (granted, some was ON topic, too), I thought I'd throw some UH-2 pics in the thread. I've seen at least two of these in other threads, but figured they ought to be in here too.

In one of the old H-2 threads someone stated they didn't know what happened to these when the Army was done... according to Helis.com, they went back to the Navy and served as UH-2A's

Edited December 7, 2011 by Phrogger

[rotorwash]

Scott and Paul,

Thanks for the additions to the thread. Always great to see new stuff. I thought you guys might like some Hooks. Let me know if you want more.

Ray

YCH-1B 59-4983. Made first flight in September of 1961:

YCH-1B 59-4985 doing climatic testing:

Dueling CH models:

Boeing model 347 fly by wire aircraft:

I think this photos really shows the lengthened fuselage of the 347:

[r0t0rdr1ver]

Awesome 347 shots!!!!

[rotorwash]

Awesome 347 shots!!!!

Glad you like them, but I think these will make you even happier.

Ray

Finally, my vote for one of the best Chinook pics ever:

Edited December 11, 2011 by rotorwash

[Albert Moore]

Holy moly, a four bladed 'Hook with wings! That would make for a really cool conversion. Were the fuselage dimensions for the 347 the same as a standard Chinook is was it bigger?

Cheers,

Alby

[r0t0rdr1ver]

Glad you like them, but I think these will make you even happier.

Ray

Please don't stop......

[Phrogger]

Holy moly, a four bladed 'Hook with wings! That would make for a really cool conversion. Were the fuselage dimensions for the 347 the same as a standard Chinook is was it bigger?

Cheers,

Alby

It started life as a CH-47A (65-07992), but during the 347 conversion, got a 110" plug added amidships, retractable landing gear, 4-bladed rotors that are 30" longer than a D-model and a 30" taller aft pylon.

The 347 is on display at the US Army Aviation Museum in Ft. Rucker. More details here:

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/A_Models/65-07992/65-07992.html

Edited December 10, 2011 by Phrogger

[Phrogger]

Another case of Army/Navy teamwork on a compound helo... the NH-3A/S-61F.

This bird started life as Navy HSS-2 (SH-3A), BuNo 148033.

[Tank]

Finally, my vote for one of the best Chinook pics ever:

I agree but the shot is backwards. Look at the 347.

[rotorwash]

Another case of Army/Navy teamwork on a compound helo... the NH-3A/S-61F.

I'll see your NH-3A/S-61F and raise you a S-61 with a test rotorprop. This feature was to be incorporated into the S-66, Sikorsky's entry for the AAFSS competition.

Ray

[rotorwash]

I agree but the shot is backwards. Look at the 347.

Good catch. I just fixed in it in original post. Thanks.

Ray

[Phrogger]

I'll see your NH-3A/S-61F and raise you a S-61 with a test rotorprop. This feature was to be incorporated into the S-66, Sikorsky's entry for the AAFSS competition.

Ray

Nice pics of the rotorprop... but it's not Army flight test. Same reason I didn't include Sikorsky's original Blackhawk, the S-67.

But if you wanna include wannabe's, that' cool with me. :)

Not sure if this pic is real because its the only one I've seen with the fan-in-fin design... any info on this?

[rotorwash]

If they appear in the US Army Aviation Museum's archives, I'm considering them fair game. Maybe Matt, the original creator of this thread, might have other ideas though. Here's a few more of the UH-2A.

Ray

Edited December 12, 2011 by rotorwash

[Loach Driver]

Good eye, Austin. I think that was one of the tested, but not fielded, FLIR turrets. Here's a couple of better shots of it. I know Matt or Jon or somebody will have the skinny on it.

Ray

Can anyone put an approximate date on when the Pre-Production Apache Prototypes were flying in this configuration with the T-Tail and Martin Marietta sight? Would it have been late 1979 or 1980?

As well as the T-Tail and standard-production tail configurations that are well known, there was also a third configuration that was test-flown on AV-05. This featured no horizontal aerodynamic surface and the vertical tail-fin was removed directly above the point where the tail rotor system attaches to the fin. I have a picture of this helicopter in an old Koku Fan book published in 1981 and it is pictured with AV-04 and AV-06 which have standard low-wing tails. Thanks.

LD.

[Phrogger]

Figured I'd bump this thread with a few more pics of N6679D in its tandem wing config.

Sorry, don't know who the guys are, it's an archive photo someone else gave me and they didn't know either. I'm guessing it's the flight test ground crew assigned to this project.

[rotorwash]

It's time to resurrect this thread I think. Here are a couple of helos that would be easily buildable in 1/72 and I think would look great displayed together. These are all from April of 1982 and show an OH-58A and an AH-1F used for IR paint tests. I'm sure that after Desert Storm started, the Army wished they had gone with this color instead of the butt ugly CARC green. Or was this color perhaps not as effective? Hopefully matt or one of our other resident flight test experts will be along with an answer.

Ray

[EDWMatt]

Thanks for bringing the thread back, Ray!

As some have noticed, I've been absent from the board for some time. 2012 turned out to be a not so great year. First, I became ill, which put me out from work for almost two weeks. For those that know me, that is quite unusual! This was followed shortly by the sudden and unexpected passing of my wife. As one might expect, this threw me for quite a loop, and I lost interest in many things, including modeling.

Gradually, I've recovered, and have started building again (I have two helo projects in work, which I hope to show to you soon).

While going through things following my wife's passing, I came across some more photos from my flight test days, which I will begin sharing. And no doubt Ray will have some new and exciting things for us as well!

Those are some interesting shots, Ray. I had heard of the IR paint tests, but had not seen photos. Agree it looks better than green CARC. Interesting to see the blades and hub on the Cobra painted in some of the shots.

Wonder what that blivet is on the side of the 58? Also interesting to see IR stacks on an A-model 58. Not sure I've ever seen that before. The IR stacks were interesting in that they degraded the longitudinal stability of the 58 in high-power climbs, to the point that the aircraft was dynamically unstable and would diverge if not corrected.

[Litvyak]

What a great thread - glad it was resurrected, as it let me discover it. So many things I'd never even heard about!

The 347 rather reminds me of the Bristol Belvedere.

[EDWMatt]

Okay, there seems to be a lot of interest in Blackhawks on the board lately, so lets start with some Blackhawk pics...

JUH-60A 82-23748 conducting testing with the 'ferry configuration' of the ESSS. This configuration consisted to two 450-gallon fuel tanks on the inboard positions and the standard 230-gallon Fibertek tanks on the outboard. The 450-gal tanks were surplus F-105 tanks! Not sure how often (if ever) this configuration was used in the field, but we occasionally used it on ferry flight, especially to Duluth, MN for icing work. The helo is flying over the San Joaquin Valley, so this was likely a sea level test flight from Bakersfield Meadows Field, which was our sea level test site. Date is about 1985. 748 was a '6th Year Buy" A-model (the Army doesn't use block numbers, so modified versions of the Blackhawk were referred to by the year of the contract) and is currently still operated as a test aircraft by ARL/NASA as "NASA 748" I had initially mis-identified this picture to Ray as being of JUH-60A 77-22716, the fifth production Blackhawk and a long-time test aircraft at Edwards, but I realized the early Blackhawks lacked the 'fixed provisions' (or mounts) for the ESSS. The fixed provisions were added, I believe, on '3rd year buy' aircraft.

Here's how we used to calibrate the test aircraft's airspeed system in the pre-GPS days - with a pacer aircraft. Pacer is JT-28B Bu. No. 138327, one of three T-28's operated by AEFA. These were some of the last T-28's in US military service, and were replaced by T-34C's. 327 is now in the McClullen AFB Museum in Sacramento. That is likely me in the rear seat of the T-28, as I was the pitot-statics engineer for AEFA, and was responsible for maintaing the airspeed calibration equipment, and performed most pacer work. The installation of external stores on an aircraft affects the static pressure field, which affects airspeed indications in the cockpit, so a calibration needed to be performed to document the error for inclusion in the flight manual. At that time, there were three primary methods to perform a calibration. One was to fly along a measured ground speed course at each airspeed and time the amount of time it took to cover the length of the course. This gave very accurate results, (and was the method I used to calibrate the pacer aircraft), but was very time consuming. As errors in an airspeed system are almost always on the static pressure side, comparison to an independent static source outside of the flow field of the aircraft would document the error. On fixed-wing aircraft, this is often done with a 'trailing cone' device, typically attached to the vertical fin, that trailed 50 or so feet behind the aircraft. On helicopters, a device that recorded both total and static pressure was trailed below and behind the helicopter, typically at a distance of 100 ft. The device was streamlined and stabilized, and resembled a small bomb, so was referred to as a 'trailing bomb'. It gave good results, but the airspeed range it could be used in was often limited , and launch and recovery was critical so as not to damage the device. The device was sensitive, so when we needed to transport it to a site, say for a test on a contractor's aircraft, it had to be hand-carried through the airport. Even pre-911, you can imagine how intersting that might be! The third method was to use a pacer aircraft. The pacer had an independent, sensitive calibrated airspeed system (in the case of the T-28, two systems). The pacer was flown in close formation with the test aircraft and the indications from the pacer and test systems compared. This was the most efficient (often the whole airspeed range could be covered in a single flight), but also the least accurate, although a good, experience pacer crew (pilot and test engineer) could achieve and accuracy of 1/4 of a knot.

GPS has rendered all these methods pretty much obsolete. Now, a triangular or open rectangle pattern (to account for winds) can be flown and all the necessary data gathered with no other equipment necessary (although the old methods are still used from time to time).

Another shot of 748 and 327 over the Mojave Desert landscape. This shows the relative position of the pacer and test aircraft. The pacer needs to remain clear of the test aircraft flowlield, but close enough that any relative motion between the test aircraft and the pacer can be readily discerned, as the pacer and test aircraft must be motionless with respect to each other. Also, the vertical position of the static pressure source of the pacer and the test aircraft must be as close a possible to the same vertical position. You can also see the larger 450-gal tanks inboard on the ESSS in this view.

[Loach Driver]

Matt, it is great to have you back.

Sincere condolences on the passing of your wife. There are no words that I can say that will offer any comfort for an event like this. God bless.

LD.

[thatguy96]

Condolences indeed, and thanks for then taking to time to share more of these great photos with us.

[11bee]

Matt,

Condolences on your wife, very sorry to hear that. Hope you are getting through everything ok.

On a helo note, anyone know what those rectangular fairings were on both the tan-colored -58 and Cobra? The Cobra seems to have one just under the cockpit and a second grafted on the front of the dog house.

[rotorwash]

Matt,

Great to see you back in the forums. I was truly sad to hear about your wife. I hope you know how much we appreciate having you around here.

Regarding the boxes on the fuselage of the OH-58 and the AH-1F, could they house cameras perhaps?

Ray