Jet vs Helo Pilots

Yes.
Just as it does for the crews of different types of aircraft.
To quote a rescued fisherman:, "When I saw the airplane (a C-130) I knew we were found. . .when I saw the helicopter, I knew we were saved."

Don

There is a definate "class" distinction, not separation. In the Marine Corps you can tell which aircraft a pilot flies by his haircut. However, when it comes time to execute, they all know where the focus is...support the Grunt on the deck. ALL Marine Pilots (and Officers) go through The Basic School (TBS) in Quantico, VA for 6 months before going to MOS school. This ties the Air-Ground bond together and holds it tight.

As a jet-pilot-in-training, I feel ok commenting on this...

so... the answer is "Yes and No"
A lot of non-jet guys think people in jetland are all egotistical a-holes (surprisingly, it's the prop guys moreso than the rotorheads). Some of it comes from people who selected jets having a big head about it, and some of it comes from bitterness in not being able to select jets out of primary. It's definately more pronounced in the Navy than in the Marine Corps - probably, because Marines who wanted jets and went helos realize that our helo mission doesn't suck..

There's always rivalry among aviation communities, but it's usually all in good fun. There are always a few clowns who think they are the be-all-end-all and let everyone know it, but it's not the norm. I have lots of friends who fly helicopters and we razz each other all the time, but like I said, in good fun. In the end, everyone realizes they're on the same team, and neither could do their job w/o the other.

It's amazing how fast juvenile rivalries disapate, once the air of a hostile environment is ingested. As Dragon so eloquently stated: "...they all know where the focus is...support the Grunt on the deck". The Jet Pilot's heart is racing.... "Support the Grunt".... the Helicopter Pilot's heart is racing.... "Support the Grunt". We looked at them with admiration, and they looked at us the same way... that's all that mattered.

A garage that used only socket wrenches would soon be out of business, regardless how much in love with them the owner is.

God bless America
Frank
-------------------

I remember when we gave some F-4 Jocks some stick time in our Hueys when we were at Phu Cat AFB and spent the night on our way to Pleiku to turn in some of our Hueys because we were "standing down" and the Unit "going home". Anyone over 6 months got to go back to the "World" but the rest of us got reasigned in country. Anyway, they couldn't keep the bird straight and level for long and the thing that amazed them the most was all the radio's we had. We had three different sets and they only had one! You would figure an F-4 would have all kinds of "commo". Anyway they had a great deal of respect for us we took them down low and "hauling butt" at a mere 100 kts. They said it was the first time they could actually see the branches and leaves in the trees. When they wizzed by at 500 + kts. it was all a green blur. They would have liked to take us up in the F-4s but they were in the process of "standing down" also and all the F-4's were being configured with 5 drop tanks for the long flight stateside the next week. They took care of us that night, I don't think any of us Army folks had to buy a beer.

QUOTE: Originally posted by luke Is there some sort of rivalry between helo and aircraft pilots? Back in the ol'days, there was great differences in submariners and all other surface fleet personel, not only in how they saw eachother, but also in the type of men they attracted to their ranks. Did or does anything like this happen for pilots of different craft

Can't speak for all of the services but in the Marine Corps I would say that there is a rivalry that stems from a helo pilot view that jet guys get bigger bonuses, newer machines, more money and nicer living condtions when the deploy. The jet pilot view is that helo pilots are smarter, better looking, and better endowed. That makes them jealeous.

Amen to that Supercobra!

Not to mention the fact that flying a helo takes skill and coordination, while flying an airplane takes little more than a stiff wind.



Shields up, waiting for incoming...

I had some neighbors who were Air Force pilots. They explained to me about some "hierarchy of cool" amoung pilots. Of course I don't know if they were just pulling my leg or not. The fighter jocks were at the top, followed by bomber pilots, airborne troops transporters, then followed by the cargo and support pilots. I know I missed a few categories and got some in the wrong order. This was at a backyard BBQ and the guys were C-141 pilots, I was telling them I had flown in a C-141 several times, but never landed in one.

My first recollection of any difference between helicopter pilots and our fixed wing brethren occurred in the early days of flight school. We helicopter students looked upon the fixed wing candidates with an envious eye. Most of them already had a well worn log book from civilian flying experiences, while the great majority of we aspiring rotary wing drivers were featherless in terms of our exposure to the "joys" of flight. The fixed wing candidates trained by themselves and, we suspected, received far less harrassment than we novice helo pilots.
Our envy experienced a strange metamorphosis that coincided with our first "hands on" encounter with Mr. Sikorsky's hellish beast. We despised them.
Convinced, we were, that those swaggerring savages were a part of the government conspiracy to kill us all. We had seen the T-41's taking off from Mineral Wells Airport; gracefully arcing into the vast Texas sky with nary a ripple in the flight path. While we helo students grappled with Lucifer's chariot,facing the terror of knowing that we had absolutely no idea of how to tame the snarling ogre. We had been assured that anyone with a modest dose of manual dexterity and a minimum of hand eye coordination could master the controls of a helicopter. They didn't mention that we would need six hands and eleven eyes!
In early 1971, Newsweek magazine published an article focusing on the Army helicopter pilots in Vietnam. The author summed up the difference between jet pilots and helicopter pilots with the following observation.(I paraphrase)..." while the fighter pilots effect a bit of a swagger and tend to be outgoing and gregarious, the helicopter pilots are an introverted, brooding lot.
They have an inner sense that even though nothing has gone wrong, it is about to."
If I can find the magazine I will add more later.

I can say though...that every friend of mine who originally wanted jets, but went helos said that their first time they flew the TH-57, it was the most fun kind of flying they've done. Helo pilots can essentially fly anything; we fixed wing guys don't trust helicopters very much, let alone know how to fly them - that's why the rotorheads call themselves 'unrestricted naval aviators.'

Jet guys, well, we just do things faster, better, and sexier. ;)

QUOTE: Originally posted by snakedriver In early 1971, Newsweek magazine published an article focusing on the Army helicopter pilots in Vietnam. The author summed up the difference between jet pilots and helicopter pilots with the following observation.(I paraphrase)..." while the fighter pilots effect a bit of a swagger and tend to be outgoing and gregarious, the helicopter pilots are an introverted, brooding lot. They have an inner sense that even though nothing has gone wrong, it is about to." If I can find the magazine I will add more later.

Sounds suspiciously like Harry Reasoner's commentary. Wonder which came first:
Why Helicopter Pilots are Different!
Harry Reasoner, February 16, 1971

"The thing is, helicopters are different from planes. An airplane by it's nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces and controls working in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying; immediately and disastrously. There is no such thing as a gliding helicopter.

This is why being a helicopter pilot is so different from being an airplane pilot, and why in generality, airplane pilots are open, clear-eyed, buoyant extroverts and helicopter pilots are brooding introspective anticipators of trouble. They know if something bad has not happened it is about to."

Helicopters do so glide. Except it's called autorotation and it looks an awful lot like a plummet, particularly into the wind. The tricky part is making a smooth, as opposed to abrupt, stop at the bottom.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tailspinturtle Helicopters do so glide. Except it's called autorotation and it looks an awful lot like a plummet, particularly into the wind. The tricky part is making a smooth, as opposed to abrupt, stop at the bottom.

Although I just quoted Mr. Reasoner I do have to agree with him that helicopters don't glide. I know what an autorotation is. I have done many and instructed many others how to do them. While the rotors do continue turning and provide lift if you are quick to react, if the rotors stop turning you don't glide you fall from the sky. In a plane if the prop stops you can still glide to the ground. If you are flying straight and level in a plane and you loose an engine you can just sit there for a few seconds (or few minutes) and all you've lost is some altitude. Do that in a helo (don't take action immediately) and you loose your life. I would say the tricky part is getting the colllective down in the first few seconds - hence the need to anticapte. I think that is the point of the commentary I qouted. In my opinion the bottom of an auto is fairly simple and probably much more forgiving than the end of a glide in a plane. In a helicopter you can at least do a zero airspeed landing in a small area (assuming there is one close by). Simplelist of all in an emerency would be the jet pilot approach, eject and hope your plane doesn't continue flying by itself for miles (has been know to happen on more than one occasion).

Supercobra,
I believe you are absolutely correct in identifying the source of my fumble-fisted citation of the difference between we rotary wing types and our "faster",
"sexier???" associates in the fast movers. I have yet to locate the article, but seem to recall the cover being a photo of a "pink team" refueling prior to returning Laos to continue its scout mission.
I can say , without hesitation, the AH-1G did not glide in the traditional sense. Inertia and its slim frontal profile allowed it to keep boring through the atmosphere for a modest distance, but it came out of the sky like an anvil. The
"Huey" had that nice big flat belly to help decelerate in the flare, but the Cobra just wanted to fall right through. The rotor disc was about all we had to use as an aerodynamic brake. I remember the termination of an autorotation in the Cobra to be fast and noisy. Late in my tour in RVN the new IP's were teaching us to "fly it" to the ground using the collective and slight right hand turns to build up any lost rotor RPM. In combat, the altitudes we operated at gave little chance to select a clear landing spot. For the most part we tried to zero the airspeed just above the trees and pull pitch all the way to the ground. We were fortunate if we had enough altitude to turn it into the wind. Fortunately, in our unit, most of the engine failures occurred during take-off so the resulting controlled crashes were into relatively clear areas. My only engine failure occurred at a hover. The landing was textbook perfect! My front-seater thought I was just goofing around.
Two motors like the Marines had might have saved a bunch of Army Snake pilots.