Most Under-Appreciate Helo

I deffinately have to stick with the H-43.  Not only did it do well with on base rescue, we used them for supporting local villages with civic projects such as transporting water systems.  They were used for night and day recon flights some distance from the base, Medevac flights, and whatever else they were needed for. 

The other choice would be the Air Force version of the Huey.  I think it was the "F" with a crane type winch mounted on the top of the ship.

OK, so how about the HC-21 (Workhorse/Shawnee/Flying Banana)?  It was a true pioneer in the medium-lift ans SAR categories, and the grand-daddy of the truly awesome Chinook.  Even more obscure, but maybe just as important from a historical perspective is the original flying banana (IIRC the Navy designation was HRP-2) also called the Rescurer.

Only Italieri has chosen to honor the type with a model kit (1/72 scale), and then only the HC-21 types that serve with the French and German armies.

Phil

FM does a CH-21 in 1/48th, heard it's not that great of a kit and Aurora did one in 1/48th also, built it about 30 years ago and currently packed away with most of my collection

didn't AURORA build one that they called the flying mule?

Yes, but that was a different helo, know in the Army as the H-25 and in the Navy as the HUP

Gendenke Wrote:

"Not be argumentitive, but "new build" Erickson birds are actually "conversions". Erickson takes an old A or B model airframe, and completely rebuilds them, modifing various components, and "converts" them to either an E or and F model, respectively. Some research will show that the serial numbers on the Erickson birds were late 1960's manufacture dates. Just my two cents, 'nuf said.

p.s. My employer (Erickson) actually has three of these such conversions in the hangar right now."

   I could have sworn hat the three A/C produced for  the Italian Forest service by Erickson were in fact  the first "Ground up "  Ships built by them  - or were they just  the first with  the new all Glass cockpits etc? You guys had to drag me outa that thing at Heli-Expo this year - Now there's a chopper I want to fly someday!!! (Tragically that exact Aircraft crashed on it's test flight upon being Delivered in Italy, Killing one of Ericksons pilots I believe - my condolences to all who new him..) Was an Official report ever completed for that?

    On a lighter  note, my vote for most underappreciated goes to the venerable, still in service, super fun to fly helicopter that trained millions (including me) to fly, Hughes 269 (reborn as the Schweizer 300C, CB CBi) Do not be fooled. this is THE ideal piston trainer often overshadowed by a company that shall remain un-named. Talk about under appreciated! - and whens somebody gonna make a 1/32nd kit of this thing! great topic. - J

Just wondering... Is Erickson hiring?

DrCemento wrote:

I could have sworn hat the three A/C produced for  the Italian Forest service by Erickson were in fact  the first "Ground up "  Ships built by them  - or were they just  the first with  the new all Glass cockpits etc? You guys had to drag me outa that thing at Heli-Expo this year - Now there's a chopper I want to fly someday!!! (Tragically that exact Aircraft crashed on it's test flight upon being Delivered in Italy, Killing one of Ericksons pilots I believe - my condolences to all who new him..) Was an Official report ever completed for that?     On a lighter  note, my vote for most underappreciated goes to the venerable, still in service, super fun to fly helicopter that trained millions (including me) to fly, Hughes 269 (reborn as the Schweizer 300C, CB CBi) Do not be fooled. this is THE ideal piston trainer often overshadowed by a company that shall remain un-named. Talk about under appreciated! - and whens somebody gonna make a 1/32nd kit of this thing! great topic. - J

 

You are correct in what you say, although the Itialian cranes are in fact conversions. The Heritage "Glass Cockpit" is a new upgrade. Glad to see you enjoyed the Expo.

As for the crash in Italy, the Italian equivalent to the American NTSB is conducting an investigation. Unfortunately, we haven't heard the official yet, I'm told these things take years sometimes.

Anyway, I'm just a grease monkey on these things, so I'm probably not allowed to say much more.

ridleusmc wrote:

Just wondering... Is Erickson hiring?

Always hiring! Check out the website under employment:

http://www.ericksonaircrane.com/employment.asp

I agree salbando. Just because you mentioned the TH55. Which, I'm happy to say, is still being built as the Schweizer 300C/ CBi. (I build up the engines for them.) Thanks for the nod! ( even if it wasn't intentional)  :-) 

I don't remember when the first MAST Medevac Units were Chartered but it was probably in the early 70's.  MAST stand for Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic.  It allowed the Military to work with the civilian agencies in the community in the Aerial Medevac arena.  I'm proud to say I was a member of the 872nd Med Det. the Cajun Medevac out of New Iberia, La. and we became the 2nd Army Resever Unit to be Chartered as a MAST Unit in the summer of 1979.  I believe the first was a Unit out of Tomball, Tx. north of Houston.  Flew our first MAST Mission out of Ft. Smith Arkansas during Summer Camp.  Just had to set the "record" straight on the MAST!  

I think the HH-3 has been ignored way too long!  We need a 1/48 Jolly Green to go with all the other great 1/48 kits coming out this year!

Clear Left!

Mel

Mel

Think it was around 71 or 72, remember when it started in Colorado by an active Army unit out of Ft.Carson. Mast was an attempt to improv the Army's image after the Vietman War and also to apply the knowledge learn bt Medivac mission during the war. Was mainly used in Co for civilian traffic accidents

The role of the medevac Mast mission has become a different animal from state to state. Most of the lower 48 states will use the military medevac for "special" situations only. While others use them almost exclusive. The Hawaii National Guard has the most active National Guard Medevac unit in the nation. They are used on a regular basis for both civilian and support of the infantry units on the Island.Alaska due to its unique terrain and conditions is used often as well. Most SAR missions are performed by PJ's however. Salem Oregons 1042 AA also responds to civilian calls in special situations. Here in Washington our medevac is used in situations where a hoist is needed. The civilian providers seem to have cut a deal with the local political figures to make sure this doesnt change. From the military point of view its valuable training. From the state point of view its a added expense to keep a crew and helicopter ready to fly year round. Why do that when the state can take a "cut" from the private carrier?

Roger that, Pharoah

The military took a big cut as far as SAR goes when the government agreed with the civilians that we were cutting into their business. So military SAR took a back seat to those who would do it, at a great fee of course. Or when the weather was nice and it was before 4PM, after that let the military guys earn their pay.
Of course there aren't many civilian SAR operations in the Aleutians or Bering sea, and not many would jump at the chance for a "cruise" on the back of a 378 getting tossed around in "mild Alaskan" weather.


Don

Not to mention the number of fatal crashes from undertrained civilian crews flying in conditions they shouldn't be in

dkmacin wrote:

The military took a big cut as far as SAR goes when the government agreed with the civilians that we were cutting into their business. So military SAR took a back seat to those who would do it, at a great fee of course. Or when the weather was nice and it was before 4PM, after that let the military guys earn their pay. Of course there aren't many civilian SAR operations in the Aleutians or Bering sea, and not many would jump at the chance for a "cruise" on the back of a 378 getting tossed around in "mild Alaskan" weather. Don

 

I would guess it is the same law (1933 Commerce act? IIRC) that is used to keep the military from flying helicopter and tanker missions on fires unless all contract aircraft are being employed already.

Personally I don't see the distinction between LA County Fire Department taking work away from private buisness or the federal government doing so but obviously the politicians in their infinate wisdom do.  

While many of the private contarctors do good work, many refuse to pass on a call they are not really qualified for, particularly when you get into mountainous areas, most civilian medivac ships are optimised for lower elevations and have little extra power left over when coming up into the mountains but that doesn't seem to stop them from trying anyway.

Its too bad because the military SAR are generally better equipped, and trained (rappel qualified, canopy penetrators, night vision etc), and fly more capable helo's better suited to high altitude flight. As a bonus it provides good training opportunities for the crews, saves the tax payer and patient money and provides the military with a good public image.  

CH-37!!! how many models do you see around?

leadfooterm535i wrote:

CH-37!!! how many models do you see around?

One. Check this thread. 

Agree with Sh-2 and HH-43. What about the Mi-8 family?.

Ok, I'm probably going to receive a ton of flak for this, but I'm gonna say the H-16 [YH-16] Transporter.  Although the project failed, you can CLEARLY see it was the design inspiration for the CH-47, which is one of my all-time favorite helos.  I've actually got an old H-16 kit somewhere in my stash, and I was surprised when I put it next to a CH-47 how similar they were.