upside down

Awesome. Stay safe over there. I've spoken to several 1-3 and C/3-3 (when they were still 1-229th) pilots while working on my Apaches book. You guys are the best.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Cobrahistorian Awesome. Stay safe over there. I've spoken to several 1-3 and C/3-3 (when they were still 1-229th) pilots while working on my Apaches book. You guys are the best.

Well, I work with some of the guys you talked to, because I'm an IP in C/3-3 now, Blue Max 20. I came in last summer. I've got a lot of pals in 3-3 also. Thanks for the sentiment. I can't wait to get back and do my my Revell 1/32 AH-1 and Imex 1/35 Longbow both in Blue Max colors.

Glider,

Zac Noble's a good buddy. Between him, Snakedriver here, and a few others, we're slowly but surely putting the Blue Max History together within the next few years. I've gotta get through flight school first, though! Say hey to Doc Jackson for me. He'll remember me as the kid that he and Zac took out and showed a good time around Ft. Hood.

I've got a few birds in Max colors right now, one AH-64A from the Afghanistan deployment and two AH-1G's from Vietnam, with a third building. If you need any Vietnam Max references, I've got a ton of photos (many from Snakedriver here) so lemme know.

Heads up on the IMEX Apache. Its really a crappy, poorly researched kit. I ended up scrapping mine, I was so disgusted with it. Had a better time converting a Revell 1/32 A model. I'm doing mine as 99-5136, which was the first Longbow I sat in at Ft. Hood. I've got some really great shots of 284 and 278, but I wanted to do a radar bird, so I went with 136. I also had the honor of putting the first Blue Max markings on the real 278, so she's got a special place in my heart!

Drop me an email off list if you get the chance at Cobrahistorian@yahoo.com or jonathan.a.bernstein@us.army.mil.

Take care and stay safe.

ooh the blue eagles are cool.
this thread is really coming along!

tricky tricky,,,,,,heh heh

Um, yeeeah. Okay.

I was scanning this in response another question and thought it would be of interest here. Note that the background is Long Island Sound about 1,800 feet below. At the moment the picture was taken, the CH-53A was half-way through a barrel roll, and while upside down was actually at 0.8 G, not -1 or even 0 G and strictly speaking, falling. (The trick to not losing any altitude between entry and recovery is to pitch up and "freeze" the pitch before starting the roll; in effect, the aircraft flies a ballistic arc and although you're falling when upside down, it's only for a second if you're rolling fast enough.)

I'm not into helis, but I saw one heli fly upside down and maintain it that way for three seconds on the military channel

Saw the whole clip on an IMAX screen, was an impresive site

Im thinking about dropping around 800 to get into nitro RC helis. Check out the links below for some amazing footage of people that really know what they are doing when it comes to RC heli flight, there are also some incresible clips of some real life disasters. check out the one about mid page... bah.. heres the direct link... helicopter does a touch and go at id say 70-100mph, lol

high speed touch and go
http://www.helihobby.com/videos/CrazyFlying.avi

heres the link for all the videos
http://www.helihobby.com/html/rc_helicopters_videos.html

here is my fav clip... bare with me as it is ~20mb, but the aerobatics are incredible
http://www.helihobby.com/videos/JasonKrause_3D_byCTSeaplane.wmv

cool sites! thank you!

In the summer of 2002, an OH-58 was flying NOE at JRTC Fort Polk, LA. He went into a bank to make a tight turn. He banked too hard and was near inverted. The bird went into the ground. No one survived.

wow, helos are so dangerous...

I believe the NH-90s are capable of doing a tight loop, but as has been mentioned, it's pretty difficult.
Cheers,
John

jinithith2
helicopters are not dangerous unless you have a crew trying to do stupid tricks, helicopters must be treated with respect

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandadjohn jinithith2 helicopters are not dangerous unless you have a crew trying to do stupid tricks, helicopters must be treated with respect

I meant the videos in the links, you know, the one where the helos crash during landings

The clip with the Super Pumas look liked they hit a wire of some sort...

Grandadjohn is correct...any flying machine must be treated with respect. Seen plenty of fixed wing aircraft crash as well.

Everytime I see video's of a crash, my heart skips a beat or two, lost some friends in crashes and other friends who still pay the price, had a couple of close calls myself, there is always the human cost. Ask Lt. Thoams Selfridge, the first man killed in an a/c crash

We lost a CH-53E in the mountains of Afghanistan during OEF. The pilots made it out but the two crewman in the back didn't. One of the pilots that was really beat up was my roommate.

Hey All,
You have forgotton that the Lockheed AH-56 with its rigid rotor ( and tech demonstor) Could do and was the first rotor wing to do a complete loop. Just
another reason why it should have been built instead of the Cobra!
Good Hunting,
G.W.

Instead of the Cobra???

Did I hear that right???

you heard it right! Because the Cheyenne is the coolest heli ever!

* shakes head, walks away....

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdxpress Hey All, You have forgotton that the Lockheed AH-56 with its rigid rotor ( and tech demonstor) Could do and was the first rotor wing to do a complete loop. Just another reason why it should have been built instead of the Cobra! Good Hunting, G.W.

Instead of? I was under the impression that the Cheyenne was intended as a follow on to the AH-1 for the Army, not as a competitor for that contract. AH-1 came before the AH-56 if my mental timeline is correct. (CH informed me my timeline was indeed wrong) You're right in that the Cheyenne was a flying tank built around a rigid rotor system intended to be more survivable against ground fire and be able to stay on station longer. Armament wasn't all that much different from the AH-1 at the time. Developmental problems aside, the Cheyenne probably could have done what it was intended to do. However the AH-1 was developed a LOT faster than the Cheyenne and the AH-56 may have been too advanced for it's time (kinda like the XB-35/YB-49)

Maybe Cobrahistorian can shed some light on the following; he seems to be somewhat knowing of these things ... Regarding a "flying tank" - if OEF/OIF have shown us, the original Army concept of using "flying tanks" seems to have given way to a throwback of sorts to the role the AH-1 provided in Vietnam. It think the Marines have always used their Cobras in this manner. (now that I think about it, the Marines have always had only one dedicated attack helicoptor - the AH-1 - and I'm not aware of any replacements on the horizon)

The Cheyenne never worked right and the cost was overrunning the budget when it was cancelled, The AH-1 was originally intended to be an interim gunship until the Cheyenne took it's place.
The flying tank image was developed for the battle against the Warsaw Pact on the plains of Europe that never came.
Now in Iraq we are having to go back to the leasons learned in SEA.
The AH-1 took the place on the HUEY gunships in both the Army and Marines and remains the only true gunship used by the Marines. No replacement is in the plans and congress has dictated that the next gunship must be for both the Army and the Marines.

Congress recently told the Marine Corps to buy brand new AH-1Zs and UH-1Ys. It's more cost effective than remanufacturing/converting AH-1Ws and UH-1Ns to the "Zulu and Yankee" models.

The replacement would be for the Cobra and the Apache

I guess the designers are still at the drawing board...

grandadjohn: you said you once sold R/C helos, have you ever flown them?

I only flew RC helo's on the sim, at a thousnad bucks to start, they were too expensive for my blood. As a comparasion, I think it's harder to fly a RC model then the real thing because you can't feel the movement of the a/c(only stick time I have in a real helo is what I could get off the pilots)

Hi all,
Seems I stirred the pot a little! The Cheyenne would have been the next (first true)
gun ship had not politics become involved. Remember WHO was president and where Bell was based. The developement costs where high and surely didn't help
but there were no problems that couldn't have beed solved in the long run we( the
taxpayers and pilots) would have been better off, because there would have been
no need for the '64 and its devolpement costs . Sorry CH I don't mean to hurt your
feelings, the Cobra was a good choice for a stopgap as it did share drivetrain with
the HUEY which did/would help supply but that was about all. The '56 had a lot
more growth potental then the Cobra was faster and could carry more.
Yes I am particial to the 56 as CB is to the Cobra. BUT LBJs from Texas, He's a big man of distinction................
Good Hunting
G.W.