Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/29/2001 5:49:34 AM EDT
Whats up with this? I saw on CNN the Army grounded the entire fleet of Apache choppers, seems they're falling apart. I'm slowly losing faith in out armed forces.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 6:15:52 AM EDT
I dont know much about them, but I hear they are a maintainence nightmare. I've heard for every hour they are in the air, they spend three in the shop.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 6:36:41 AM EDT
I heard on the NBC a.m. news that the tail rotor assembly would fall off unexplicably. That is pretty serious stuff in my opinion because without it, the bird would just spin around.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 6:39:24 AM EDT
I hope none of out nations foes watch the news, seems like a good time to try something.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 7:46:51 AM EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/06/28/apache.inspections/index.html CNN.com - Army grounds troubled Apache copters again - June 29, 2001 Army grounds troubled Apache copters again June 29, 2001 Posted: 9:54 AM EDT (1354 GMT) The AH-64 Apache attack helicopter entered service in 1984. It uses laser, infrared and other high-tech systems to find, track and attack targets. By Chris Plante and Tom Spain CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Army quietly grounded its entire fleet of Apache attack helicopters two weeks ago to check for faulty tail rotors, CNN has learned The decision to halt Apache flights followed the recent crash of an Israeli Apache helicopter in which the "tail rotor head assembly separated from the aircraft in flight," an Army document says. The Army issued a "safety of flight" message dated June 15 ordering all Apache flights to end until the tail rotor of each of the 742 U.S. helicopters is inspected. A U.S. Army official who asked that he not be identified told CNN that it is expected to take up to three months to complete the inspections and return the entire fleet to flight status. Each inspection takes more than four hours, officials said. The Army also established a "temporary life limit" for the tail rotors of 1,000 hours of flying time, according to the June 15 flight safety center document obtained by CNN. If the tail rotor has more than 1,000 flight hours the "aircraft is grounded until the blade is replaced or inspection procedures are implemented," the document said. The Apache helicopter has been pulled from flight status several times in recent years for a variety of mechanical problems. The deployment of Apache helicopters to Albania before the 1999 NATO military action against Yugoslavia became an embarrassing debacle for the Army when it took weeks to get 24 of the helicopters in place. The Army memo says replacement of a tail rotor would cost more than $41,000, which would amount to more than $30 million if all 742 required replacement. Until all inspections are completed, all Apaches are prohibited from flight except "when combat operations or matters of life and death in civil disasters or other emergencies are so urgent that they override the consequences of continued aircraft operation," the Army document says. © 2001 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. An AOL Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 8:00:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 8:19:14 AM EDT
The standard military response to any accident is to ground the fleet except durring combat operations. This kneejerk reaction is affordable in peace time due to the fact that the only thing going on is training. When the press gets ahold of this info (by the way incase you haven't noticed the press dosen't know shit) and tries to disseminate it to the public that also colectively dosen't know shit, we wind up with hysterical responses to nonevent problems.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 8:28:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By warlord: I heard on the NBC a.m. news that the tail rotor assembly would fall off unexplicably. That is pretty serious stuff in my opinion because without it, the bird would just spin around.
View Quote
Only would spin if you are going slow. If you have decent airspeed, the wind along the body will keep it pointed inthe right direction. The main problem then is that you have to find a real runway to land on because you will have to do a running landing like an airplane to keep your airspeed up until you get on the ground. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 8:48:06 AM EDT
not quite dude, this constitutes a loss of component which as you know will cause a gross out of CG condition. This may still be controlable in the AH-64 due to the rigid type rotor (thus allowing a much larger CG envelope) unlike the teetering type you fly under. Also in the Army's infinite wisdome they decided to decrease the vertical fin area to facilitate high speed sideward flight or increased tailrotor authority in high winds. This is all fine and dandy untill you have an antitorque failure, In the AH-64 at bucket speed (minimum power required airspeed app. 65 kts. if you were to jettison external stores at sea level)you would encounter about a 45 degree right nose offset and a large left roll due to fuselage drag and the weapons wing creating advers roll, add to this a large nose down attitude due to CG shift and you really have an E-ticket ride. this is assuming that the helo was in straigt and level flight and somewhere close to 65 kts and 1000 to 1500 feet AGL at the time of failure. Now that everyone is armed with a little knowledge remember that this only covers a tiny snapshot of a problem and doesn't apply to every helicopter or situation.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 8:58:02 AM EDT
Understand all that. Every aircraft is different. I was just trying to make the quick and dirty point for all those who think rotory wing will fall out of the sky at the smallest reason that they are in fact not really going to do that. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 9:16:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By anothergene: There goes our tax rebates! Should have went with a NOTAR system.
View Quote
There goes our tax rebates! yea! iam laughing at this one.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 10:40:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2001 10:38:36 AM EDT by hound]
Excuse me.....helicopters don't fly, they beat the air into submission. A helicopter is not an aircraft, it is a noisy gathering of loose parts traveling in the same direction....in the case of a Blackhawk...mostly down. Funny stuff out of the way, after growing up as a cropduster hanger rat and years of Simulations, I finally got the Apache Longbow Sim...and helicopters are the way to go.....ya can't find me because I am behind a TREE..hahhahhahha
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 11:01:28 AM EDT
I would much rather (most of the time) loose an engine in a helicopter than a fixed wing. Much safer. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 1:22:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 1:30:41 PM EDT
I saw an A10 do a simulated tank kill at an air show when I was about 10 years old. I became a big fan on the 30mm on the nose and the design of the plane. I was angered when I heard they were getting rid of it.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 2:28:06 PM EDT
That's why the Army should be allowed tactical aircraft...... The A-10 wouldn't have been called Wart-Hog it would have been called Thumper or Silent Thunder if the Army was the ones flyin' 'em, they could understand why a grunt would want to be able to call up Thumper for a little help.....instead the Air Force want swoopy fast planes that are good at going fast, forget actually hitting a moving hardened target on the ground........
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 4:47:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 5:30:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aviator: Only would spin if you are going slow. If you have decent airspeed, the wind along the body will keep it pointed inthe right direction. The main problem then is that you have to find a real runway to land on because you will have to do a running landing like an airplane to keep your airspeed up until you get on the ground.
View Quote
Thanks for the correction. All my knowledge about heliocopter, I learned thru the tv show Airwolf.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 6:12:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ConnYankee: Whats up with this? I saw on CNN the Army grounded the entire fleet of Apache choppers, seems they're falling apart. I'm slowly losing faith in out armed forces.
View Quote
I've never worked on the Apache but while in active duty I worked on the F-15E. There's no reason to lose faith in our armed forces just because the ground the fleet. This happens at least once every two years on the F15 for something or other. What happens is somebody finds something that "might" cause a problem or kill the aircrew so the entire fleet is grounded and inspected. Once again the press is making a bigger deal out of this then they should be.
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 6:25:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NO-AR-:(: That's why the Army should be allowed tactical aircraft...... The A-10 wouldn't have been called Wart-Hog it would have been called Thumper or Silent Thunder if the Army was the ones flyin' 'em, they could understand why a grunt would want to be able to call up Thumper for a little help
View Quote
Actually, maybe nicknamed Thumper, but as an Army Attack aircraft, it would be named after an indian Tribe. Aviator [img]www.dredgeearthfirst.com/aviator.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 6/29/2001 10:34:16 PM EDT
Chief Big Tomahwk? sound like a good nickname?? The Army is restricted by law from having combat fixed wing aircraft. The can have fixed wing recon, cargo, or rotary wing attack. Before Desert Storm Stormin' Norman had to "MAKE" the Air Force bring A-10's into that theater of operations, they wanted all fast swoopy planes that would look good on CNN.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 3:34:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NO-AR-:(: Chief Big Tomahwk? sound like a good nickname?? The Army is restricted by law from having combat fixed wing aircraft. The can have fixed wing recon, cargo, or rotary wing attack. Before Desert Storm Stormin' Norman had to "MAKE" the Air Force bring A-10's into that theater of operations, they wanted all fast swoopy planes that would look good on CNN.
View Quote
Perhaps it's time to get that law changed, then (IIRC it dates from the late 40s or early 50s.) Does anyone have, or know where to find, concrete proof that the USAF is getting rid of its A10s? If so, I'm going to write my Senators and Representatives and suggest that they draft legislation to repeal this law and transfer any "unwanted" A10s to the army, along with training army pilots and groundcrew.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:43:14 AM EDT
It was the Key West Agreements that happened around 1947 that placed limits on Army Attack aviation. I always found it funny that army attack aviation was used to attack deep targets, instead of providing close support of troops in contact and the Air Force was supposed to provide CAS.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 4:46:10 AM EDT
The Air Force had a plan for a while to reduce its A-10 fleet and convert all the remaining ones into O/A-10s. However that has been shelved, the Air Force Liaison Officer at the school of fires has said they are pulling a lot of them out of storage to reconstitute much of the fleet.
Link Posted: 6/30/2001 5:01:30 AM EDT
Glad that none of the faulty ones were in the group that flew over the top of where I work at the other day. The are impressive as shit to see flying in formation. The only other thing that really impressed me were the A10s that used to fly at tree top level where I used to do some hunting.
Top Top