AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Posted (9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4227 times:
Are some finally coming around to the realization that a mixed buy of say CH-71's and MV-22's is a better investment of taxpayer monies than throwing all your eggs in one tilt-rotor basket? Sure would help ease the pain for LM and the Owego plant with the cancellation of the VH-71.
Quote: But Gates let it be known recently he also plans to challenge the Marines to better justify some of their costly future weapons buying plans.
A number of defense analysts and insiders, including some former think tank officials who have received appointments in the new administration, have written studies suggesting the Marines need a mix of transport helicopters and V-22s. Modern helicopters could be bought for $20 million or less, compared to the roughly $80 million initial price tag of the V-22.
1 SASD209: The article made no mention at all of any "CH-71"....is that your idea or is there a source on that someplace to match the really big picture you als
2 AirRyan: Well what other traditional helos would they be talking about? UH-1Y's are too small and the CH-53K's will be too large, the Osprey is still medium l
3 RedFlyer: Why is a mixed buy better than a single-type buy? Isn't the MV-22 a better platform all the way around than a rotary wing aircraft for the Marines' c
4 SASD209: Oh, how about the AW139, or the S-92, or even the H-60, among others that I'm surely forgetting? If you have a choice, that's fine, but your original
5 StudeDave: For as long as the V-22 has taken to finally get to a point where it's actually hauling Marines around, I'd bet it's already in the history books!!!
6 XT6Wagon: Ok, compare that to the development of the conventional helicopter from toy to tool. New ways of doing things usualy takes a while to refine and poli
7 EBJ1248650: True enough. As the technology advances the challenges relative to applying it seem to grow ever larger. But then, nothing worth having comes cheap,
8 StudeDave: I'm talking about one program- all at tax payers' expense-- start to finish--- are you? Convince me the V-22 is a good bird~ AND that we're gettin' o
9 Keesje: I guess militairy commanders need raw lift with shrinking budgets. Maybe an opporunity for Sikorsky..
10 Dragon6172: I would not say all the way around. It is better at a lot of things than the forty year old helicopter it is replacing, but I am not sure how much of
11 RedFlyer: I don't think anyone would have a problem convincing you of the first part of your comment; however, only time will tell if the second part will ever
12 AirRyan: It's a great platform when it works, but it's expensive and try as it may it will never justify the disproportionate amount of time and money spent t
13 Dragon6172: I suppose it depends on what your mission is. The only advantage the Osprey gives you is speed over long distances. The short distance from the IP, t
14 RedFlyer: I believe it also offers advantages over a hot LZ in the form of faster insertions and extractions. It can fly in from a higher altitude, faster, and
15 Highlander0: Good luck to the H-71 - based on a fantastic and capable platform. I think it'd be a good platform for AFG, where the dust (as described to me) is lik
16 Flighty: Of course. But, one problem is they "need" many V-22 to offset the cost of research and development for that product. But, it makes no sense to depri
17 SASD209: I'm sorry, I must have missed the post that said the Marines were considering a RFP for a new medium-lift helicopter in this thread.....Other than yo
18 AirRyan: Yeah, and we need more B-2 and F-22's as well for the same reason, but that just isn't happening anymore. LTG Trautman specifically said that if the
19 Dragon6172: Flew with him several times when he was the CO of MAG 36 in Okinawa. Will be nice if they follow through and actually review whether a mix with helo'
20 RedFlyer: IMO, that's just a political statement intended to appease his bosses. After all, he can't really say, "F*** no, we want only V-22s!"
21 Curt22: They are familiar alright...familiar with the utter and complete failure the H-71 program has been for them. That said...it could be a great trash ha
22 LMP737: I think your projecting your own opinions onto the article. No where in it is there any mention of the USMC buying CH-71's. When you think about it w
23 AirRyan: The aircraft costs a lot more to operate than what has always been envisioned; the engines for example are not lasting as long as they had planned. I
24 Wassupsf: All right I want my two cents thrown in. I am not a former Marine, but I am a former soldier and helicopter guy. I have worked on very modern ( G450-5
25 JoeCanuck: The US was willing to eat the 7 billion it put into the comanche...and that was one nifty chopper, as far as I could tell. I doubt the V-22 is complet
26 Wassupsf: None, even though it is an all weather aircraft, most of the time the military won't let it fly with fair weather pilots.
27 Dragon6172: Actually he was a Huey pilot by trade, but as MAG CO you get to fly everything in your command. Funny story. 262 was sending some Phroggys to the Phi
28 RedFlyer: That's still a huge advantage. Speed has always been a rotary wing's Achilles heel. And speed has usually been the most effective tool in battle.
29 Wassupsf: I talked to a couple of sheetmetal Marines today and they told me that the one true advantage of the Osprey is that it won't corrode like the heli's w
30 Dragon6172: I would consider lift the achilles heel of helo's. In Iraq in the heat of the summer it was a weight issue. In Afghanistan at the high altitudes it i
31 LMP737: That's a hard argument to make since the H-71 is not in the inventory and the V-22 is. And when would the V-22 be "necessary"? Right now it's flying
32 AirRyan: The V-22 is the epitome of the Marine slogan "hurry up and wait" - the V-22 can out-run it's rotary-winged brethren, but what good is that unless the
33 JoeCanuck: How does the Chinook compare to the V-22? I saw a report that currently, most of the heavy lifting in high and hot Afghanistan is being done by the Ch
34 RedFlyer: There are always environmental operational issues with every aircraft. And I'm certainly not saying the V-22 is a panacea for combat ops. But if we'r
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 228 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (9 months 15 hours ago) and read 2924 times:
Geeze, airyan, given that mentality, none of our military hardware today would need to have been purchased, unless it had a top speed equivalent to a horse pulling a wagon.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, RR: 52 Reply 37, posted (8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 2698 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 36): What they need to kill is that lousy UH1Y and just order CH-60's.
The Hawk entered service 30 yrs ago and been produced in large numbers. Many UH-60M's are also be produced to replace older Hawks. Why was it not selected in recent US competitions? How does it compare to NH-90 / AgustaWestland AW101 ? Space, range, 2 engines, price, politics ?
The Knighthawk is a much more capable aircraft, and the Navy CH is very common with the US Army UH-60.
A larger CH-60 buy with the CH-53 and V-22 augmenting would be an awsome mix.
What advantage would the Marines get by killing the UH-1Y and ordering MH-60's? That would mean a whole lot of money flushed down the tubes. It would also mean USMC HMLA units deploying with helicopters with no commonality. The UH-1Y and AH-1Z have arounf 85% parts commonality. The MH-60 has little in common with the AH-1Z. So there would be little advantage for a Marine unit deployed on an LHD since USN SH-60 or MH-60 units don't deploy on them. Nor would it be an advantage for a unit deployed in the field.
StudeDave From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 270 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): So there would be little advantage for a Marine unit deployed on an LHD since USN SH-60 or MH-60 units don't deploy on them. Nor would it be an advantage for a unit deployed in the field.
Uhhhh- you might want to inform my many many friends who have indeed deployed on those boats that it never happened, and they were never there. I think they might disagree with you...
Just as I do as for the in field advantage. There are alot of H-60s in the World today. While they may be painted a different color-- they share alot of common parts. When you need something-- you'd be surprised where it might come from. On my last deployment we based a few of our birds on the beach in Iraq. We were able to get parts from the ARMY much faster then we could from our own ship. On one of my earlier deployments- we 'loaned' some stuff to our buddies from 'Down Under' when they couldn't get what they needed fast enough.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 40, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 34): Simple. You just coordinate other elements of the attack as needed. There are plenty of examples of military hardware that aren't matched with regards to speed or range, yet they are all deployed such that they bear down on a target in a coordinated fashion.
But if that was all there was to it the extra speed of the V-22 wouldn't really matter as you could just coordinate to compensate for it.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 34): There are always environmental operational issues with every aircraft. And I'm certainly not saying the V-22 is a panacea for combat ops. But if we're strictly talking about flying into or out of a battle area its relative speed and range - range also equals loiter time - will give it a decisive edge over a rotary wing. The underlying issue in this thread has been if the price is worth that advantage or if there should be a mix in the Marines' arsenal that would prove just as effective. I don't know the answer to that. I was just commenting that if I had to mount out to a FEBA I would take all the speed and range I could get my hands on.
If the V-22 were a better winch platform, it'd be a perfect SAR bird for the Navy and Coast Guard, as well as being a great aircraft for CSAR and other SPECOPS functions, but is it the platform of which you should comprise the bulk of your Marine Air Wing around? I think it's a great niche aircraft, but when everybody starts wearing the beret it loses it's "SPECOPS" mystique, if you follow my Army analogy.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 36): What they need to kill is that lousy UH1Y and just order CH-60's.
The USMC supposedly did a formal study on this exact issue back when Bell dropped the ball on the H-1 upgrade program and was threatened with program termination. I say supposedly because I'd like to see the numbers behind how the Corps justified the UH-1Y free-rider to the AH-1Z upgrade; they can tweak the UH-1Y all they want but the fact is that it will never be as capable or reliable as what the Corps could have had in the MH-60S, and for less money.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): It would also mean USMC HMLA units deploying with helicopters with no commonality.
This has proven to be such a problem for the US Army and their AH-64 and OH-58's, hasn't it? This has always been a myth perpetuated by Bell and adopted by the Corps to get the program approved; with the Corps spending the bulk of their allowance on the V-22 for all these years they needed to maintain the facade of fiscal frugality if even just the perception of such, and this was the route they choose.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): The UH-1Y and AH-1Z have arounf 85% parts commonality.
85% parts commonality with 150 AH-1Z airframes or better yet, how about the MH-60S and 100% commonality with the few hundred USN examples being procured, not to mention a vast majority of commonality with the rest of the Navy H-60's not to mention the US's entire DOD - they've made nearly 2,500+ of these aircraft. The Marines had a lot more cost synergies with an H-60 platform than they ever will with the H-1 platform.
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): The MH-60 has little in common with the AH-1Z.
So does an OH-68 to an AH-64 and again, how has that hurt either mission with the USA?
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 38): So there would be little advantage for a Marine unit deployed on an LHD since USN SH-60 or MH-60 units don't deploy on them. Nor would it be an advantage for a unit deployed in the field.
Yeah, like the rest of the parts don't come from Navy supply lines as well. The advantages would be a better platform all around for the Corps, and let's face it, attack helo pilots shouldn't be swapping platforms and missions every other flight in the first place, so the save the commonality argument, it's just a gimmick to sell Bell to the Corps.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 41, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2580 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 40): But if that was all there was to it the extra speed of the V-22 wouldn't really matter as you could just coordinate to compensate for it.
Not really. It's speed advantage goes to the benefit (read survivability) of the grunts that are flying into or out of a hot LZ and has nothing to do with coordinating with the deployment or attack speed of other hardware.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 40): If the V-22 were a better winch platform, it'd be a perfect SAR bird for the Navy and Coast Guard, as well as being a great aircraft for CSAR and other SPECOPS functions, but is it the platform of which you should comprise the bulk of your Marine Air Wing around?
In theory, the V-22 would be the ideal CSAR platform - speed and range are critical to extricating downed fliers or other combat personnel. But CSAR ops are part-and-parcel of any attack order, which is to say they are not far behind front line attack elements. And no CSAR op is complete without close air support overhead ensuring their safety. (And maybe that's why it hasn't been ordered specifically for CSAR ops since the current CSAR operational environment can be met with conventional rotary wing aircraft.) But that is not to say there won't be instances where a rescue will be required deep into unfriendly territory with little or no cover overhead. The question then becomes is it worth the price tag for those few instances? And if you think about it, the USAF plans to operate V-22's for their Special Ops, which can be expected to extricate downed fliers or in conjunction with securing LZ's deep inside unfriendly territory. I'm also surprised the USCG hasn't jumped on board with an order, but that may yet happen one day.
My personal opinion is that, because of the V-22's troubled and costly past, there is a sense that it's not up to the task. No one can view the bird on its merits alone without viewing it against its troubled past. But I think its story is yet to be written and we may eventually see it in substantial numbers beyond the orders that have been placed thus far. And if not the V-22 itself then certainly a successor tilt-rotor aircraft.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28645 posts, RR: 70 Reply 42, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): because of the V-22's troubled and costly past, there is a sense that it's not up to the task. No one can view the bird on its merits alone without viewing it against its troubled past.
You know anytime somebody points out the V-22 history, I feel I have to point out that the B-17, B-29, F-14 and F-16 all had crashes during their development.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): In theory, the V-22 would be the ideal CSAR platform - speed and range are critical to extricating downed fliers or other combat personnel.
Over on the HH60 in Deadliest Catch thread I make mention of my absolute disgust that the USCG hasn't ordered the V-22. I know the USCG has had a history of being pretty conservative but people are dying because they aren't flying this aircraft.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, RR: 11 Reply 43, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): I'm also surprised the USCG hasn't jumped on board with an order, but that may yet happen one day.
From what I have heard it's not a great platform to winch off of on the aft ramp. That and I think it's too expensive and slightly too large for USCG ship board use, but then again the old H-3's we're no small aircraft, either. I think they prefer the BA609 instead for these reasons.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 41): My personal opinion is that, because of the V-22's troubled and costly past, there is a sense that it's not up to the task.
While not completely disappointing in Iraq while operating out of pristine airfield conditions, it's not like the deployment has proven the V-22, either. Personally, I like the V-22 and have logged a couple hours in the level-D sim and know full well how valuable it's speed can be, but from a former maintainers perspective I also think that the V-22 might be better wielded in smaller and more specific numbers than en masse as is currently planned.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 42): You know anytime somebody points out the V-22 history, I feel I have to point out that the B-17, B-29, F-14 and F-16 all had crashes during their development.
Except the big difference was that the V-22 was trying to pioneer an all new flight envelope in tilt-rotor technology.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 30 Reply 44, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2478 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): From what I have heard it's not a great platform to winch off of on the aft ramp.
Not that I doubt what you're saying, but I would be interested in learning why it wouldn't be a good platform for winching off of.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): and slightly too large for USCG ship board use,
Notwithstanding the fact that it wouldn't be the largest vertical lift aircraft in use, most CG ops are not ship launched anyway.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): I think they prefer the BA609 instead
It might be better from a cost standpoint since they could obviously field several for the price of one V-22 (assuming the price for the BA609 comes in at the expected ~$15 million). But if the V-22 is not good for winching ops, how would the BA609 be different since its configuration would be the same?
Nevertheless, I think tilt-rotor, regardless of the aircraft type, is ideal for the USCG. So I hope they will embrace the technology eventually.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): it's not like the deployment has proven the V-22, either.
Well, it's on its way to Afghanistan, so I guess we'll see it in a more versatile and challenging environment. We'll have to revisit this issue in another year to see if it's been up to snuff.
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 43): Except the big difference was that the V-22 was trying to pioneer an all new flight envelope in tilt-rotor technology.
This statement reflects a common misconception. With the exception of one VRS accident caused by the pilot violating the recommended flight envelope, all V-22 accidents have been completely unrelated to unique tiltrotor technologies. The V-22 pioneered advanced composites, 5,000 PSI hydraulics and Fly-by-Wire technologies 20 years ago. These were the immature technologies that caused most of the V-22 problems. These technologies are now mature and incorporated into commercial aircraft like the AB3880 and Boeing 787.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 47, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 46): Why would you hoist off the rear ramp when you have a perfectly good front door available?
Where the hell are you going to mount the hoist for crew door winching? You forget that in airplane mode the blades are 6 inches from that door. Hardly enough room to keep an external hoist mounted. I suppose you could come up with some system that stowed it inside the already cramped cabin. More unneccessary complexity.
Highlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 129 posts, RR: 0 Reply 48, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2298 times:
One MASSIVE problem with the V-22 is the downwash.
Small diameter blades/props+jet efflux when the turboprop engines point vertical= quite a problem.
Now- I think the V-22 is an awesome bit of kit. But it can't do everything. Talking to a UK Chinook pilot today, who has had a fair few hours in helicopters of various types, and we came to talk about the Blackhawk and he said he'd happily swap the Chinook for the Blackhawk.
The Huey and Chinook fly similar he said- like they were carved out of stone!
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28645 posts, RR: 70 Reply 49, posted (8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 47): Where the hell are you going to mount the hoist for crew door winching?
If they can figure out how to get a hoist on the HH-65, they can get one on a V-22...Wasn't the USAF developing a combat rescue version of this aircraft, I am sure that problem is being worked on.
Besides, why wouldn't you be hanging out the front door in forward flight anyway...isn't it interlocked?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 49): If they can figure out how to get a hoist on the HH-65, they can get one on a V-22.
I am not sure why you picked this comparison. There is all sorts of room on an H-65 to mount the hoist, and there is no clearance issue with the blades. There is no where to mount an external hoist for the crew door on an Osprey.
You would have to mount the hoist inside the aircraft, and have some sort of boom that could be extended out and above the door when you went to helicopter mode and were ready to hoist. Another option is to use a series of pulleys to redirect the cargo winch cable to an extendable boom (guessing, I do not remember where the cargo winch is mounted in the cabin). We had this option in H-46s, but never used it because it was just as easy to run the cargo winch through a pulley and hoist from the hell hole or off the ramp.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 49): If they can figure out how to get a hoist on the HH-65, they can get one on a V-22...Wasn't the USAF developing a combat rescue version of this aircraft, I am sure that problem is being worked on.
Besides, why wouldn't you be hanging out the front door in forward flight anyway...isn't it interlocked?
- No, USAF wasn't developing a "Rescue" version of V-22, BA was thinking of offering the V-22 for the (PRV) CSAR-X program, but decided not to bid this acft, mostly due to cost per unit.
- Yes, there is an interlock system that prevents opening the personnel door with the rotors in the "fixed wing" mode. Hoisting would be done in the VTOL mode where the door/step can be opened so no threat there.
- The downwash stories have been "blown" out of proportion (excuse the pun)...sure there is a ton of downwash, but the door mounted hoist was such a complete failure the downwash never got to become an issue.
- There was an attempt made to develop a door hoist system, but it was pitiful...BA and the vendor (Breeze) could not come up with an effective system with enough cable in the space and structural limitations of this location of the acft so the ramp configuration was examined and seems to be working fine...but yes...I think it's a very WEIRD perspective to be hoisting from.
Curt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1813 times:
Quoting Wassupsf (Reply 24): The aircraft has almost no cargo capacity other than troops, it is all composite ( which is nice in the civilian world but in Iraq or Afghanistan getting repair materials is not as easy.),
The acft wasn't designed to be a 'cargo hauler' in the sense that Chinooks were and that's why it doesn't have a significant cargo capacity...There should be no problem getting spares or composite repair kits/tooling anywhere, because the Govt has to BUY and field this stuff for all units and all units carry their own spares/tools with them when they deploy.
That said, it's true that if you are the only Tilt-Rotor unit in town you can't go next door and borrow a cup of composite repair goop from an H-60 or H-47 unit!
Don't get me wrong...I love Big Windy, and think the USAF made a fine choice in selecting this for a CSAR platform but there is room in the world for Tilt Rotors too!
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3191 posts, RR: 2 Reply 54, posted (8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 52): - Yes, there is an interlock system that prevents opening the personnel door with the rotors in the "fixed wing" mode. Hoisting would be done in the VTOL mode where the door/step can be opened so no threat there.
Which means one would be a dangling target when a quick escape is needed and couldn't take advantage of the fast, full forward rotor position.
Quoting Curt22 (Reply 52): - There was an attempt made to develop a door hoist system, but it was pitiful...BA and the vendor (Breeze) could not come up with an effective system with enough cable in the space and structural limitations of this location of the acft
CTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 55, posted (8 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 54): Which means one would be a dangling target when a quick escape is needed and couldn't take advantage of the fast, full forward rotor position.
Is repelling from an aircraft flying at 275kts even possible? Maybe in a James Bond movie.
Even without the rotors tilted forward enough to block the side door a V-22 can fly at +100 kts. This is still probably faster than a sane person would wish to repel from an aircraft.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 56, posted (8 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
Quoting CTR (Reply 55): Even without the rotors tilted forward enough to block the side door a V-22 can fly at +100 kts. This is still probably faster than a sane person would wish to repel from an aircraft.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 28645 posts, RR: 70 Reply 58, posted (8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1354 times:
Quoting CTR (Reply 55): Is repelling from an aircraft flying at 275kts even possible? Maybe in a James Bond movie.
I don't know about going downhill, but they did it in both Airport 75 and Cliffhanger.
Going up to the airplane, do a search for Fulton Recover System. They did use that in Thunderball.
Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 56): Quoting CTR (Reply 55):
Even without the rotors tilted forward enough to block the side door a V-22 can fly at +100 kts. This is still probably faster than a sane person would wish to repel from an aircraft.
We were limited to 60-80 knots when SPIE rigging.
That's the point, you aren't going to be winching with rotors in forward flight anyway, and the USCG doesn't take a lot of ground fire from the fishermen they are pulling out of the drink, so a quick departure doesn't mean that much.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Dragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 946 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 58): That's the point, you aren't going to be winching with rotors in forward flight anyway, and the USCG doesn't take a lot of ground fire from the fishermen they are pulling out of the drink, so a quick departure doesn't mean that much.
I was replying to the question of whether 100 knots would be too much to be hanging from a rope/cable. I certainly would not have winched in forward flight, and we never trained for it.
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 57): Is it the same limit when winching up injured personnel back into the aircraft, and getting out of the extraction zone with hostile fire?
I was refering to the limits for SPIE. During hoisting through the crew door, the limit was somewhere in the area of 100 knots if you had the door locked open and the winch forward. That limit applies to the structure that the hoist is mounted to and the door is mounted too. It does not imply that you can actually operate the hoist at those speeds. Chances are pretty good you would not hoist at that speed, because you would have a difficult time getting the person in the plane. You could let the person hang from the cable until you cleared the area I suppose, but that is not something we trained for and would have to be a decision made on the fly.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2322 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10190 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 129 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 3191 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
