User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:48:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The fact that the CV22 is self deployable is one of, if not, its biggest asset as a vertical lift aircraft. considering the responsiveness of TRANSCOM, thats an excellent point. The fact that MV22s come with multi-billion dollar ships, maybe not as relevent for the community we spent the most money on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:51:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And we have the ability to refuel in flight for other helicopters and for the VAST majority of missions the Osprey was bought for those capabilities are completely irrelevent. But we still spent 120 million per. plus the much lower availability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And this helicopter is just another version of an F35. More expensive for more expensive sake. we use the term game changer when we forgot what it means. the last game changer in the helicopter world was the turboshaft engine. we have been incrementally improving it ever sense. the osprey said improving the speed was a game changer. and, guess what, it didn't change shit. maybe raiding ability for some SOCOM units 1% of the time. You are downplaying the Osprey's capabilities. For starters it has a range at least four times that of other helicopters, enough that it can self deploy just about anywhere. It flies at C-130 speeds, for damn near C-130 distances. It has proven to be a lot more robust under fire than many had anticipated as well. It has amazing speed and range and we have put it to good use. And we have the ability to refuel in flight for other helicopters and for the VAST majority of missions the Osprey was bought for those capabilities are completely irrelevent. But we still spent 120 million per. plus the much lower availability. You can refuel an HH-60 or MH-47, but neither one is going to be crossing the atlantic at 150 knots for 18 hours and tanking 10 times. 
Back on topic, a Raider or larger cousin to one with an AR boom and aux tanks could self deploy with a stop in Lajes, or even transpac with stops at Hickam, Wake, Midway, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:55:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can refuel an HH-60 or MH-47, but neither one is going to be crossing the atlantic at 150 knots for 18 hours and tanking 10 times.
Back on topic, a Raider or larger cousin to one with an AR boom and aux tanks could self deploy with a stop in Lajes, or even transpac with stops at Hickam, Wake, Midway, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And this helicopter is just another version of an F35. More expensive for more expensive sake. we use the term game changer when we forgot what it means. the last game changer in the helicopter world was the turboshaft engine. we have been incrementally improving it ever sense. the osprey said improving the speed was a game changer. and, guess what, it didn't change shit. maybe raiding ability for some SOCOM units 1% of the time. You are downplaying the Osprey's capabilities. For starters it has a range at least four times that of other helicopters, enough that it can self deploy just about anywhere. It flies at C-130 speeds, for damn near C-130 distances. It has proven to be a lot more robust under fire than many had anticipated as well. It has amazing speed and range and we have put it to good use. And we have the ability to refuel in flight for other helicopters and for the VAST majority of missions the Osprey was bought for those capabilities are completely irrelevent. But we still spent 120 million per. plus the much lower availability. You can refuel an HH-60 or MH-47, but neither one is going to be crossing the atlantic at 150 knots for 18 hours and tanking 10 times.
Back on topic, a Raider or larger cousin to one with an AR boom and aux tanks could self deploy with a stop in Lajes, or even transpac with stops at Hickam, Wake, Midway, etc. And? An F22 can stand on its ass during an airshow. You are describing capabilities that, for 99% of missions, are completely irrelavent. Again, take these capabilities and tell me what changes in the past 70 years if only we had the capability? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:57:52 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And? An F22 can stand on its ass during an airshow. You are describing capabilities that, for 99% of missions, are completely irrelavent. Again, take these capabilities and tell me what changes in the past 70 years if only we had the capability? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And this helicopter is just another version of an F35. More expensive for more expensive sake. we use the term game changer when we forgot what it means. the last game changer in the helicopter world was the turboshaft engine. we have been incrementally improving it ever sense. the osprey said improving the speed was a game changer. and, guess what, it didn't change shit. maybe raiding ability for some SOCOM units 1% of the time. You are downplaying the Osprey's capabilities. For starters it has a range at least four times that of other helicopters, enough that it can self deploy just about anywhere. It flies at C-130 speeds, for damn near C-130 distances. It has proven to be a lot more robust under fire than many had anticipated as well. It has amazing speed and range and we have put it to good use. And we have the ability to refuel in flight for other helicopters and for the VAST majority of missions the Osprey was bought for those capabilities are completely irrelevent. But we still spent 120 million per. plus the much lower availability. You can refuel an HH-60 or MH-47, but neither one is going to be crossing the atlantic at 150 knots for 18 hours and tanking 10 times.
Back on topic, a Raider or larger cousin to one with an AR boom and aux tanks could self deploy with a stop in Lajes, or even transpac with stops at Hickam, Wake, Midway, etc. And? An F22 can stand on its ass during an airshow. You are describing capabilities that, for 99% of missions, are completely irrelavent. Again, take these capabilities and tell me what changes in the past 70 years if only we had the capability? How about the next 50 years? Africa is a big damn place, and the Osprey has the range to cover big chunks of it at any given time. Even in the relatively compact middle east, it's a long haul from country to country in the AOR and we are currently fighting a war in four widely scattered countries. Maybe you've noticed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:01:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Less reliant of FOBs when you need vertical lift capability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:05:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about the next 50 years? Africa is a big damn place, and the Osprey has the range to cover big chunks of it at any given time. Even in the relatively compact middle east, it's a long haul from country to country in the AOR and we are currently fighting a war in four widely scattered countries. Maybe you've noticed. to do what? fly around? you don't need rotary for that. So you can't describe a situation where it was needed, but lets blow 200 billion just in case. we won't unfuck the various situations that have caused us to lose the past 2 wars, so we will develop fantasy wars in the future we might fight. Hey. You are the ones repeating what every general officer says. They are the smart ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:07:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Less reliant of FOBs when you need vertical lift capability. to lift what? If your point is a smaller unit can cover a bigger footprint, you are moving backwards. the more expensive and more maintenance intensive the aircraft, the less availaable it is and the more reliant you are on ground vehicles we will have 200 amazing helicopters. and 100,000 troops in COPS every 10 klicks because you drive everywhere because the helicopters are too expensive to use for missions. we are there now with cheaper helicopters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:08:27 PM EDT
[#8]
cool!
why not just go ahead and call it Airwolf already? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:09:48 PM EDT
[#9]
No, my point is you dont have to have a FOB or FARP 25k from the objective to launch a hit. Less time for the enemy to react.
Its limited use shit. CH47s are not going anywhere for another 30 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:10:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Sylvan why are you so spun up over a privately funded technology demonstrator?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:12:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sylvan why are you so spun up over a privately funded technology demonstrator? Back on topic. You dont see Bell flying the V280 Valor right now. Sikorsky is putting their money where their mouth is. Pretty cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:15:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sylvan why are you so spun up over a privately funded technology demonstrator? because I remember where the osprey came from. More to the point, my fear is we buy something en masse because, "ooooooooh. its fancy." with the lies of a "game changing" technology that ends up being nothing but a regression in our overall warfighting capability. In vietnam we primarily took the fight to the enemy in helicopters. In iraq and afghanistan, we did it in armored cars little different than the same ones we used in WW2. Because instead of having simple and ubiquitous helicopters we continue to get more expensive and less available helicopters. nothing is too good for the pilots to fly. we completely forget what they are flying for. remember when CH-46s were as much a logistics capability as anything else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:18:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againI worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started. It got so bad internally we came up with a contest to save weight from anywhere since the continued revised requirements bloated the bird. Instead of a light attack/scout helicopter that could penetrate the most integrated air defense system in the world and go after high value targets the parade of generals tried to make her into a a hybrid Hind/apache. Guess what - it did not work. Comanche went to LRIP anyway - the first 6 production airframes were being built across the street from my office (only 4 were ever started). The Army cancelled Comanche a few months after that LRIP was signed and had to fork over something 2 billion in cancellation fees to Sikorsky and Boeing. Don't talk about what you have no idea of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:23:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againI worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started That had nothing to do with it. It was over engineered to the point that it would cost 10 times more than it should. So they scrapped the project |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:23:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
because I remember where the osprey came from. More to the point, my fear is we buy something en masse because, "ooooooooh. its fancy." with the lies of a "game changing" technology that ends up being nothing but a regression in our overall warfighting capability. In vietnam we primarily took the fight to the enemy in helicopters. In iraq and afghanistan, we did it in armored cars little different than the same ones we used in WW2. Because instead of having simple and ubiquitous helicopters we continue to get more expensive and less available helicopters. nothing is too good for the pilots to fly. we completely forget what they are flying for. remember when CH-46s were as much a logistics capability as anything else? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sylvan why are you so spun up over a privately funded technology demonstrator? because I remember where the osprey came from. More to the point, my fear is we buy something en masse because, "ooooooooh. its fancy." with the lies of a "game changing" technology that ends up being nothing but a regression in our overall warfighting capability. In vietnam we primarily took the fight to the enemy in helicopters. In iraq and afghanistan, we did it in armored cars little different than the same ones we used in WW2. Because instead of having simple and ubiquitous helicopters we continue to get more expensive and less available helicopters. nothing is too good for the pilots to fly. we completely forget what they are flying for. remember when CH-46s were as much a logistics capability as anything else? I get it. The DoD spends money on stupid shit all the time. However, it is rare for a defense contractor to pony up the kind of money required to pull off a project like this on its own and frankly it needs to be encouraged. I'm constantly frustrated by the number of good ideas at work that will never see the light of day because the right people don't see enough ROI. Even if it is a complete flop, something valuable will have been learned to be applied to the next project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:25:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That had nothing to do with it. It was over engineered to the point that it would cost 10 times more than it should. So they scrapped the project Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againI worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started That had nothing to do with it. It was over engineered to the point that it would cost 10 times more than it should. So they scrapped the project Completely and utterly false. The bird was cancelled because a) the threat it was designed for ceased to exist and b) the defense cuts hit hard and with the Iraq wars heating up the requirement for cargo helicopters greatly increased. They wanted to re-deploy the money into 60s and 47s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:26:35 PM EDT
[#17]
We dont forget who we are flying for.
Think flying a CH47 is fun? Its hot, deafening, uncomfortable, and often scary. However, when I have 31 customers in the back I have a reason. Plus it makes their life easy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:28:13 PM EDT
[#18]
They are ponying up because of the example of the Osprey, where DoD spent a fortune on an airframe that, for the purposes for which it was procured was actually a step backwards.
The marines were going to buy new -46s with more powerful engines. that would have been completed by the mid 90s at the latest. but Leman decides it wasn't cool enough. so we had 20 year fuck fest where we paid 5Xs more than we needed to with an airframe that can't do slingloads worth a fuck (better shit a KMAX) and has to be reserved for super important missions. now go drive around and get blown up. and apparantly everyone is cool with a situation where infantry get blown up, because, fuck simple and effective. we only do cool. and we lose. but at least we look cool when we fly out of leatherneck on ospreys before the taliban take it over. only people winning are the defense contractors. laughing all the way to the bank, with GOs just waiting to go work for them. how many former marine aviators working for Bell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:28:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Completely and utterly false. The bird was cancelled because a) the threat it was designed for ceased to exist and b) the defense cuts hit hard and with the Iraq wars heating up the requirement for cargo helicopters greatly increased. They wanted to re-deploy the money into 60s and 47s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againI worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started That had nothing to do with it. It was over engineered to the point that it would cost 10 times more than it should. So they scrapped the project Completely and utterly false. The bird was cancelled because a) the threat it was designed for ceased to exist and b) the defense cuts hit hard and with the Iraq wars heating up the requirement for cargo helicopters greatly increased. They wanted to re-deploy the money into 60s and 47s. Unfortunately I can't argue with you in the subject due to itar. Plain and simple, it cost too much to produce |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:28:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We dont forget who we are flying for. Think flying a CH47 is fun? Its hot, deafening, uncomfortable, and often scary. However, when I have 31 customers in the back I have a reason. Plus it makes their life easy. CW2s don't decide what airframes we buy, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:29:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CW2s don't decide what airframes we buy, either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We dont forget who we are flying for. Think flying a CH47 is fun? Its hot, deafening, uncomfortable, and often scary. However, when I have 31 customers in the back I have a reason. Plus it makes their life easy. CW2s don't decide what airframes we buy, either. Nope. Congress does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:32:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Completely and utterly false. The bird was cancelled because a) the threat it was designed for ceased to exist and b) the defense cuts hit hard and with the Iraq wars heating up the requirement for cargo helicopters greatly increased. They wanted to re-deploy the money into 60s and 47s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againI worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started That had nothing to do with it. It was over engineered to the point that it would cost 10 times more than it should. So they scrapped the project Completely and utterly false. The bird was cancelled because a) the threat it was designed for ceased to exist and b) the defense cuts hit hard and with the Iraq wars heating up the requirement for cargo helicopters greatly increased. They wanted to re-deploy the money into 60s and 47s. Scope creep was certainly a factor in the death of Comanche. Its been a long time but if I recall, it was up to 14 Hellfire missile, 2 less than Apache and the line between scout and attack helicopter was getting blurry. I had an opportunity to fly their mobile simulator when it was at Ft Bragg and it was amazing what that helicopter could do speed/maneuverability wise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:33:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Congress does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We dont forget who we are flying for. Think flying a CH47 is fun? Its hot, deafening, uncomfortable, and often scary. However, when I have 31 customers in the back I have a reason. Plus it makes their life easy. CW2s don't decide what airframes we buy, either. Nope. Congress does. so don't tempt them with foolishness. sikorsky isn't spending big scratch on this because they don't hope for a payback. this isnt a technology demonstrator. this is a concept car at the detroit motor show trying to get people to buy a future product that will be much more expensive and much less capable than promised. "game changer" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:38:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so don't tempt them with foolishness. sikorsky isn't spending big scratch on this because they don't hope for a payback. this isnt a technology demonstrator. this is a concept car at the detroit motor show trying to get people to buy a future product that will be much more expensive and much less capable than promised. "game changer" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We dont forget who we are flying for. Think flying a CH47 is fun? Its hot, deafening, uncomfortable, and often scary. However, when I have 31 customers in the back I have a reason. Plus it makes their life easy. CW2s don't decide what airframes we buy, either. Nope. Congress does. so don't tempt them with foolishness. sikorsky isn't spending big scratch on this because they don't hope for a payback. this isnt a technology demonstrator. this is a concept car at the detroit motor show trying to get people to buy a future product that will be much more expensive and much less capable than promised. "game changer" So how do we move forward? The DoD has proven they can't be trusted to know what they want/need. Industry can't be trusted to deliver something cheap/practical. Should we just dust off the tooling for the UH-1 and call it good? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:43:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Shit is expensive now. This aint the 90s.
The CH53K is going to be like 80 million each, at least. More than twice the cost of the CH47F. I frankly dont think we need to replace anything in our inventory now. The 60M and 60V work, the 64E works, and the 47F works. I dont see massive changes in AASLT operations anytime soon to warrant a new type of vertical lift. But that being said, innovation is the American way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:50:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shit is expensive now. This aint the 90s. The CH53K is going to be like 80 million each, at least. More than twice the cost of the CH47F. I frankly dont think we need to replace anything in our inventory now. The 60M and 60V work, the 64E works, and the 47F works. I dont see massive changes in AASLT operations anytime soon to warrant a new type of vertical lift. But that being said, innovation is the American way. Composites ain't cheap |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:59:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how do we move forward? The DoD has proven they can't be trusted to know what they want/need. Industry can't be trusted to deliver something cheap/practical. Should we just dust off the tooling for the UH-1 and call it good? You meet a need. UAVs and PGMs came from warfight requirements. The turboshaft made helicopters a viable warfighting technology. You develop a small scale technological improvement and see how that changes things. look at small arms. We had an intermediate cartridge semi auto in the 30s. Smokeless powder was a revolution. It took us decades to fully take advantage of it. hell, instead of figuring out how to make more expensive shit, why not move the otherway like computers and take existing satisfactory technology and make it cheaper? NVGs and Thermals are moving that way. Compare a PVS-5 to the latest ANVIS. and the costs, in real dollars, are cheaper. Every rifleman has a radio and NVGs. Unheard of 30 years ago. Could we develop a rotary wing capability cheaper than a Styrker (at 4 mil a pop 10 years ago?) Could we buy a CAS platform to operate in permissive platforms at 10 million? No. of course not. So we will use ospreys and F35s to take on boko haram. and guess what. we will fail again. so we will keep losing the wars, but we will keep spending a fortune doing it. brilliant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:09:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Back on topic. You dont see Bell flying the V280 Valor right now. Sikorsky is putting their money where their mouth is. Pretty cool. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sylvan why are you so spun up over a privately funded technology demonstrator? Back on topic. You dont see Bell flying the V280 Valor right now. Sikorsky is putting their money where their mouth is. Pretty cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:24:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Until you have less available due to higher cost and higher maintenance requirements. we abandon mass for exquisite technologies. Universal PGMs is a game changer. but we haven't changed the game by vastly reducing the number of aircraft we procure. we still seek a 1 for 1 exchange when you should have a 10-1 reduction in requirements. faster speed is a nice to have ability, it isn't a "game changer" maybe with A2A, which we essentially have stopped doing because the fastest jet isn't faster than a missile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, especially in Afghanistan. It's a big place and an hour transit each way vs, 30 or 40 minutes is a big damn difference. Until you have less available due to higher cost and higher maintenance requirements. we abandon mass for exquisite technologies. Universal PGMs is a game changer. but we haven't changed the game by vastly reducing the number of aircraft we procure. we still seek a 1 for 1 exchange when you should have a 10-1 reduction in requirements. faster speed is a nice to have ability, it isn't a "game changer" maybe with A2A, which we essentially have stopped doing because the fastest jet isn't faster than a missile. Cost isn't the limiting factor when you're only talking about monopoly money. Any thread dealing with procurement seems to forget that fact. If the political will and immediate necessity existed to buy more, we'd buy more. We're already not actually paying for the ones we're getting now. Which aircraft we're flying is largely irrelevant if you're talking about a serious conflict anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:45:45 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unfortunately I can't argue with you in the subject due to itar. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: another over priced over engineered Sikorsky flop. comanche all over againI worked Comanche and it was not a flop. If every fucking general who took over that program left it alone it would have been fine. I can tell horror stories but it boiled down to every new general wanted something added while maintaining schedule, cost and more importantly flight envelope. For what it was designed for that bird excelled- until all the add ons started That had nothing to do with it. It was over engineered to the point that it would cost 10 times more than it should. So they scrapped the project Completely and utterly false. The bird was cancelled because a) the threat it was designed for ceased to exist and b) the defense cuts hit hard and with the Iraq wars heating up the requirement for cargo helicopters greatly increased. They wanted to re-deploy the money into 60s and 47s. Unfortunately I can't argue with you in the subject due to itar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 6:35:59 AM EDT
[#31]
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:41:24 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hey, I was leaving out the boring details As for single engine, yea, I think that is funny too. Want to know the weirdest thing about the Raider by FAR? It has a centrally mounted collective. One collective. To share. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Eh, retreating blade stall in a conventional helicopter is a self correcting problem. The aircraft will pitch up and roll, slowing itself down. In straight and level flight that's, essentially, true. A pilot has to ignore the increasing vibrations and still try to make it fly faster to get past the point where blade flapping can't compensate for the dissymmetry of lift anymore. But that's not when retreating blade stall is a significant problem (unless the pilot is a retard). Start high speed, high load maneuvering and it can be a problem that is, most definitely NOT, self correcting. Hey, I was leaving out the boring details As for single engine, yea, I think that is funny too. Want to know the weirdest thing about the Raider by FAR? It has a centrally mounted collective. One collective. To share. How romantic! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:04:40 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML) We know what ITAR is. This is just the first time we've seen it used to avoid a conversation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:47:12 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We know what ITAR is. This is just the first time we've seen it used to avoid a conversation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML) We know what ITAR is. This is just the first time we've seen it used to avoid a conversation. Itar keeps me from engaging in technical conversation online, if you catch my drift |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:57:05 AM EDT
[#35]
There's technical and then there's generalized discussion that's available open source...but ok. Whatever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:25:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's nothing like the bird the thread is about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's nothing like the bird the thread is about. I think he meant the pusher prop |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:15:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's technical and then there's generalized discussion that's available open source...but ok. Whatever. your right. i don't really have much to say though. it will never make production past a few more test samples and a few military specials . id like it to, but its not realistic |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 9:37:35 AM EDT
[#38]
Video:
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
