busdriver

The improved air transportability kit or whatever the hell Boeing calls it is a new trick just for the CSAR-X, so you can't compare Army build up time with what's going on now. Obviously the 92 and the 101 will be faster to fly after transport than the 47, but let's not obscure things by being dishonest. What makes you think you'll need an FCF? Do you really know what will be required to make the 47 good to go after airlift? The answer is no you don't. The details of each proposal is very close hold proprietary information. The article you linked was a piece of opinionated BS by a biased non-official entity. Look, I don't like the 47, but given the power and MX problems of the 101 and the max gross weight issues of the 92, I don't think the 47 is a bad choice at all. Bottom line, any one of the three would work, but let's get the decision made and start delivering aircraft.

The Army's experience with the 47 lacks the upgrades that Boeing designed specifically for the CSAR-X program. Incidentally, they'll be reaping the benefits in the future. So what does mission ready vs. flight ready mean? You're thinking black and white, mission ready means I take off and prosecute the mission, but flight ready means? What's missing? Is anything missing? That's the speculation part. No one has any idea what is missing if anything, and the answers are not releasable because the contract process is still in the works. Could this have been maneuvering? Sure, or it could be nothing, an administrative change that made the requirement less open to interpretation. I don't want to fly the 47 any more than you do, but buying an aircraft to be my personal sports car of the air isn't a good procurement strategy.

The article and the POGO's research are hardly new or much more than speculation. Ruling out the Chinook back in 02 was part of the analysis of alternatives, not the request for proposal.

It's going to be increasing hard to justify spending money on an asset that primarily sits alert for fighter guys. I suspect bringing the Army into discussions about CSAR-X has something to do with this.

Actually I can think of several LZ's that either I or friends have visited in the 60 that a 47 would never fit, nor would the 101. Does that mean I can't think of ways around that? Nope, I could have done those missions with the 47 just fine. The OGE hover numbers I provided were ISA standard day from the respective manufacturer's website at max gross weight (26,500 lbs in the case of the 92, 54,000 in the case of the 47). The data for the 47 was taken from the MH-47E which does have the 714 engines. With the fat tanks the 47 carries 2,068 gallons (14k lbs) of fuel at a burn rate of about 3k per hour, giving you an out and back of about 300 miles. That's all from Boeing's website, I have no idea where you get the 1000nm range from. In any event, the range numbers for the 47 and the 92 are about the same and the speeds comparable at cruise (about 140). I haven't talked about the 101 since it's hover performance is significantly worse (HOGE at MGW of ~3500ft) as flown in Europe, and I can't find numbers for one fitted with the VH-71 engines (same as 92). The problem with the 92 is it's size. There's only so much you can increase the gross weight of a given design without having longevity problems. How much will all the mission systems weigh? FLIR, Radar, DIRCM, EW Jammer, Probe, Armor, Guns w/ several thousand rounds of .50cal, MWS, Nav suite, etc. Add about 3000 pounds of team & equipment, now you've got how much available left over to pick people up? Now we bump up the range requirement for block 10, since space is limited you use external drop tanks, which hurts speeds and adds drag and ups the gross weight more. Is the 92 still viable after all that? I don't know, like I said I haven't seen the proposal numbers. But I know the 47 has plenty of space inside for aux tanks, and the power to carry plenty, and it already has all the electronics integrated for the 47G. I think ultimately the 101 and 92 would require a beefed up fuselage to handle the extra weight. The 92 since the max gross would have to go up a not insignificant amount, and the 101 because the fuselage was designed with less stringent crash ratings than the 92, I have no idea what the 47 is rated to. The 92's advantage is its size. It's small, same footprint as a 60M and two fit in a C-17 (only one 47/101 fit). It's burns less fuel (costs less) is more modern (maintenance friendly) and built with flaw tolerance in mind. It's faster on the approach and almost as fast enroute. It would be an easier transition for aircrew and maintainers since it's based on the 60. It's also the right size for the common vertical lift program (economies of scale). We would probably get more capability sooner with the 47 than the other two and would be less at risk of losing funding before we have the capability we need. I'm sure someone more experienced like Eeyore has a bigger/better picture of the ramifications of all this, so take my rambling as just that.

How does this qualify under "doing the right thing?" Recognizing that it happened? Do we need to pass a resolution recognizing the holocaust? This doesn't do anything. It's political hogwash. If they want to deny historical fact, let them. You don't debate holocaust deniers because it's pointless and gets you no where. This is stupid, and needlessly endangers American lives for no gain anywhere.

The engines on the 60, 92 and the 101 are derivatives of the original T700 engine on the Blackhawk and the Apache. The 92/101's engines (CT7-8A) produce 2520shp each versus 1940shp in the Pavehawk (T700-701C).

The rotors turning length of a 47 is 99 ft, trying to claim that the 101 is comparable since it's rotor diameter is 2 feet larger is disingenuous at best. At max gross weight and standard day, the OGE hover ceiling of a 47 is 5500ft, the 92 is 6700ft. I'll admit this is a bit misleading, since the 47 would be operating at a smaller percentage of it's max gross on any given mission. The 47 only gains a range advantage by loading up with internal aux tanks. I'm not saying I dislike the 47, but it's not a silver bullet. I don't really know what the right answer is, as I'm not privy to the proposals. (above numbers are from manufacturer websites)

How badly does this hurt our image with the general populace of Turkey? My understanding of the country is limited, but I've been told that the military plays a fairly large part in keeping the government there secular. Does this move add to the credibility of the portion of Turkish society that wants to pull away from the west? A theocratic Turkey would not be a good thing. I don't think basing is as much of a concern as overflight rights.

What's the rational for the T-Tail? I seem to remember the T-Tail has a tendency to cause a dutch roll, necessitating the wing anhedral. Am I remembering this right?

347th rescue group (60's and 130's) 23rd fighter group (A10's)

Short answer, don't worry about learning about form to get a leg up, just study hard in UPT. But, if you don't grab at the opportunity to fly some form in a T-28 you're a sad excuse for an aviation enthusiast. And I also hate you.

Sandy is not SOF support, nor really CAS.

I would prefer to see them on the airshow circuit, teaching people in a very real way about our history. But if that's out of the question, then sure blow em up.

Udvar-Hazy is awesome. I think I spent 20 straight minutes ogling the SR-71. The civilian aircraft section is also really cool, there's an example of one of Burt Rutan's early designs on display as well as Hiller's first helicopter design that he built and ground tested in his parent's driveway as a teenager. https://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircr...hiller_xh44.htm

The scariest moments of my flying career thus far have had nothing to do with getting shot at, and everything to do with flying in shitty visibility and limited power situations in Afghanistan. I know a bit about some of Rainman's experience in Iraq and from what I've been told, the vis was just as shitty plus they were getting shot at by some nasty stuff. I still think crappy vis and low illum is scarier than the enemy. I guess the difference from my perspective is that when the WX is ass, you have plenty of time to think about it. When you get shot at, you just react and in the end the engagement only gets scary when you have time to look back on it and think(assuming you live). Rainman, does this jive with your experience?

Here's some AF heritage for ya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_tay_raid

While I have no doubt that a modern Ducati is a mechanically sound machine, for the price you pay you can't touch the SV. A naked SV650 costs less than a ~600 monster has more power and will cost less in service costs. The deference only gets more pronounced when you start talking liter type displacement.

EDIT: I'm an idiot and shouldn't post after a couple beers.

The SV is a perfect first road bike for someone with dirt experience. It's quick but not super fast, it handles great (very light feel) and always gives you a grin. Once you put a pipe on it the sound is to die for. I like to think of the SV series as the thinking man's Ducati.

Whenever we talk about a pilot who has been killed in a flying accident, we should all keep one thing in mind. He called upon the sum of all his knowledge and made a judgment. He believed in it so strongly that he knowingly bet his life on it. That his judgment was faulty is a tragedy, not stupidity. Every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who ever spoke to him had an opportunity to influence his judgment, so a little bit of all of us goes with every pilot we lose. EDIT: I didn't come up with this, I don't know who said it, but I'd read it before. It's cheesy but appropriate when people start arm chair quarterbacking, which is probably what's going to start up soon.

Rainman, your problem is you aren't thinking outside the box. The V-22 can fly high enough that the bad guys will be more likely to see and target one of the dozens of helos stuck flying around low. So in some ways it can overfly the threats out there, as long as there's plenty of suckers willing or forced to fly lower to decoy for them.

The PFPS thread is born again. I bought an eTrex Legend Cx, which has a USB type connector, but I'm having problems getting it to talk to PFPS and the Handheld AWE program? Anyone got any ideas? I tried all the COM port settings with no luck.

I have it on my own rumint that most of the US AF fighter pilot culture is "borrowed" from the RAF vintage WW2. That being said, I can honestly say that I giggle like a retarded school girl when the fighter types say container instead of box, so who's to say who is more immature?

With all of the above being said, why dont' you think being a pilot is for you?