busdriver

The article above makes it sound like the Paves got em. Good job guys.

Gotta agree on C-Springs being one of the safest cities I've ever been in, only Salt Lake seemed more mundane. I've wandered the bad parts of Baltimore, DC, Albuquerque, etc on more than one drunken occasion and C-Springs can't hold a candle to any of them. Even the "bad" parts of C-Springs seem tame compared to the normal parts of Albuquerque, let alone Baltimore.

Fighting fair is for suckers. If we can slaughter the enemy without any risk to ourselves than all the better. Killing is killing end of story. The idea that guys doing air to air are somehow abiding by some old idea of chivalry is stupid. Plain and simple, the objective is to kill the enemy while reducing your risk to as close to zero as possible. If you can kill the enemy with no risk to yourself, you win. Go home have a beer and enjoy life.

I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

I've never seen the Blues perform, but the rumor I've heard is that their performance is generally more exciting for someone who isn't a pilot. That said, I have seen the T-Clones perform, and the precision in flying they show is very impressive from a pilot perspective.

Why would you need a crew chief? Because a crew chief can legally fix shit on the aircraft. So while the whole crew is actually doing the work, the crew chief is signing off on the work, meaning you can break in BFE and still get out of town in a reasonable amount of time. I can think of a whole slew of scenarios that having a flying crew chief on board would be good, and I fly a helo. Our problem is space and weight but for a heavy guy, what's one extra dude on board?

The ring is just a symbol of a shared experience, just like an A&M, Citadel, or Va Tech grad, that's it. It's no different than if you ran into a dude wearing an ROTC tee shirt from your school. As to your apparent hatred for the academies, get over it. No one in the AF gives a crap where you graduated from, grow up. As far as more USAFA grads in senior leadership.... As a tax payer, you're spending a lot of extra money on grads. If there is literally zero difference in the product, you should be calling to shut down the academy. But if the academy's purpose to produce career officers (it's not an official purpose, and they're not doing a very good job at it anyways) then you should be seeing a higher percentage of grads the higher you go up, not because of favoritism, but because grads are in it for the long haul. I am in no way saying a grad is a better officer than anyone else, since that would be patently false. What I'm saying is if we as tax payers are going to pay for this place, we should be getting something out of it, maybe improved retention is enough, maybe not since I haven't run any numbers.

The point of Flying Through Midnight wasn't to tell you a "true" story. Think Tim O'Brien and "How to Tell a True War Story" the point is to make you feel the way he felt as he was going through his war. Long Tien (if that's the place) was a forward operating location for Raven FACs and AF Rescue, so of course it's not like no one else went there. But from those guy's stories a normal AF type would look at the civilian dressed "locals" with suspicion. But if you've been deployed, you can't read his stories about going to the BX and reading labels on cans, or watching bubbles in six pack rings burst without laughing. I loved his remark about the acolytes of the church of the Air Force. I probably would not have liked it as much as I did had I not read a lot of Tim O'Brien in college and got used to the "fictional true story."

I've deployed three times in the past two years, not counting TDY and conus work. I still agree, the new guys should be champing at the bit to get into the fight.

With a build up requirement of 3 hours, rapid offload isn't realistic anyways. The problems in the past of not being in theater early enough didn't have anything to do with how long it took to fold and unfold the aircraft.

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