Re: MAD about the Strikehawk

[Thomas Schoene]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote:
>
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>> The real issue is if you only have one aircraft to prosecute with.
>>> MADVEC is a decent way to release a weapon from the same vehicle
>>> while dipping sonar is not. Fly the cloverleaf and on the last
>>> inbound leg dump the fish. There is no equivalently accurate and
>>> convenient way
>>> for a dipping helo to deliver a torpedo.
>>
>> That seems logical. But I've seen a couple of shots of SH-60s
>> dropping torpedos with some sort of cable trailing vertically from
>> the fuselage
> :(clearly not a MAD tow). I can't think of anything it might be
> other than a
>> dipping sonar tether, but if someone can offer a better suggestion,
>> I'm all ears (metaphorically speaking).
>
> I can't imagine dropping a fish at the dip. The odds would seem to be
> significantly non-zero that you would hit your own sonar.
>
>> There are a couple of shots that show what I mean. (the cable is
>> very faint in the second one)
>
> Are you sure that isn't a MAD bird?

Pretty sure. The location is wrong, and these are supose to be Seahawk
Foxtrots, which never had MAD (for much the same reason the Romeo won't)

From the hang of the cable I
> would have said it wasn't one, either, but the apparent backward angle
> seems to indicate that the helo is moving forward, which you wouldn't
> typically do while at the dip.
<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/SH-60F_cable
5.jpg>

<http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/SH-60F_sonar
-cable4.jpg>

> The position doesn't look quite right for the MAD bird, though. They
> may have been at the dip and pulled it up to drop a fish. That would
> explain why there's some forward motion. Pull the sonar out of the
> water and start toward datum to drop a fish.

I thought they might be sideslipping to get some seperation between the
sonar head and the torpedo. It would be easier to do this if the head were
still in the water, with some extra drag to slow it down and keep it from
swinging like a pendulum. But the load on the cable could be scary, so
perhaps not.




>> I thought omni CASS was pretty old technology. Anyone know when it
>> was introduced?
>
> The P-3 had them earlier, but surface ships (who did the processing
> for helo-dropped buoys) didn't have gear that would handle it until
> SQR-17 was fielded (mid-70s). Even then, they were viewed as a lot
> more expensive than passive buoys so typically weren't carried. And
> of course nobody wanted to drop straight pingers unless they were
> trying to herd the contact in some direction.
>
> SH-2 predated all that by just a bit. :-)

Does it really? The LAMPS I contract was awarded in 1970, and the initial
batch of 20 SH-2Ds was completed in 1972. This site at least says active
buoys were part of the kit.

http://members.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/heloasw2.html

[Crossposted to rec.aviation.military.naval, where some AW types have been
known to hang out. Gordon?]
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Fred J. McCall]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>
:>> I thought omni CASS was pretty old technology. Anyone know when it
:>> was introduced?
:>
:> The P-3 had them earlier, but surface ships (who did the processing
:> for helo-dropped buoys) didn't have gear that would handle it until
:> SQR-17 was fielded (mid-70s). Even then, they were viewed as a lot
:> more expensive than passive buoys so typically weren't carried. And
:> of course nobody wanted to drop straight pingers unless they were
:> trying to herd the contact in some direction.
:>
:> SH-2 predated all that by just a bit. :-)
:
:Does it really? The LAMPS I contract was awarded in 1970, and the initial
:batch of 20 SH-2Ds was completed in 1972. This site at least says active
:buoys were part of the kit.

Active buoys, yes. CASS buoys, no. And nobody wanted to drop pure
pingers unless they were trying to herd the submarine away from them.
The SH-2 just didn't carry enough buoys to lay a big active field
(there were typically only a handful (fewer than 5) of pingers on
board), so an active buoy was only useful for final targeting.

:http://members.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/heloasw2.html

The original receiver equipment for the sonobuoys on board ship (I
don't remember the name offhand) had only a wet paper display, so it
was a bit of a PITA to try to use with active buoys in any case.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Krztalizer]

>> Are you sure that isn't a MAD bird?
>
>Pretty sure. The location is wrong, and these are supose to be Seahawk
>Foxtrots, which never had MAD (for much the same reason the Romeo won't)
>
>From the hang of the cable I
>> would have said it wasn't one, either, but the apparent backward angle
>> seems to indicate that the helo is moving forward, which you wouldn't
>> typically do while at the dip.
><http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/SH-60F_cable
>5.jpg>
>
><http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/SH-60F_sonar
>-cable4.jpg>
>
>> The position doesn't look quite right for the MAD bird, though. They
>> may have been at the dip and pulled it up to drop a fish. That would
>> explain why there's some forward motion. Pull the sonar out of the
>> water and start toward datum to drop a fish.
>
>I thought they might be sideslipping to get some seperation between the
>sonar head and the torpedo. It would be easier to do this if the head were
>still in the water, with some extra drag to slow it down and keep it from
>swinging like a pendulum. But the load on the cable could be scary, so
>perhaps not.
>
>
>
>
>>> I thought omni CASS was pretty old technology. Anyone know when it
>>> was introduced?
>>
>> The P-3 had them earlier, but surface ships (who did the processing
>> for helo-dropped buoys) didn't have gear that would handle it until
>> SQR-17 was fielded (mid-70s). Even then, they were viewed as a lot
>> more expensive than passive buoys so typically weren't carried.

CASS and DICASS were generally saved for dedicated ASW missions against a known
target. For much of my career, we didn't even carry them. For frigate-based
ops, we usually had just SSQ-41s and 47s available, some from ancient
contracts. Three to five buoy patterns of LOFAR passive buoys for getting a
general track on the target, then one or two pingers to pin him to the wall
prior to dropping the torp. As for dropping them from a hover, that was not
the normal way, but we certainly did it on occasion. I used to have a photo of
an H-3 in a dip, dropping a Mk 46. Personally, I think it would be silly to do
it that way unless you were pinging on a target at close range and had him dead
to rights.

And
>> of course nobody wanted to drop straight pingers unless they were
>> trying to herd the contact in some direction.


Dropping active buoys is like playing RAP music on a boombox in your hunting
blind.
I forget the math, but counterdetection ranges for active sonar was multiples
of the range for the pinger itself. So if you didn't get the first active buoy
damn close to the target, all you accomplish is to cause him to melt away into
the depths. LOFAR was always the way to go, until the DIFAR upgrades came
along. Instead of drawing circles on a plotting board and using "comparitive
lofargram analysis" (cof), DIFAR could actually give you a fix. But, most
SH-2Fs didn't get that gear until the Mark I was already being replaced. The
last thing I accomplished in the Navy was to help convince them to purchase
Computing Devices (Ottawa, CA) UYS 503 acoustic processers for the SH-2G.
Magnificent sensor suite - should have given the mighty 'Sprite' another ten
years of active service, but by then, the Seahawk Mafia had taken over...

>> SH-2 predated all that by just a bit. :-)
>
>Does it really? The LAMPS I contract was awarded in 1970, and the initial
>batch of 20 SH-2Ds was completed in 1972. This site at least says active
>buoys were part of the kit.
>
>http://members.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/heloasw2.html

Bobby Wickes' site is sort of the repository for guys in my former field. He
and Devo do a great job and I keep meaning to forward a stack of photos to them
- a couple of friends and I run a companion SH-2F site called
"SeaspriteCentral.com", for those of you that are interested.

>[Crossposted to rec.aviation.military.naval, where some AW types have been
>known to hang out. Gordon?]

Right here - sorry, never saw the start of the thread, or the image that y'all
were discussing, so I was trying to catch up by lurking on the thread.

In the image, can you see if the arming wire on the torp has pulled out, or if
a parachute has been deployed?

Before I get into a torpedo thread, you should understand that I had terrible
luck with them myself - I'm nooo expert.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Henry J Cobb]

Krztalizer wrote:
>>[Crossposted to rec.aviation.military.naval, where some AW types have been
>>known to hang out. Gordon?]
>
> Right here - sorry, never saw the start of the thread, or the image that y'all
> were discussing, so I was trying to catch up by lurking on the thread.
>
> In the image, can you see if the arming wire on the torp has pulled out, or if
> a parachute has been deployed?
>
> Before I get into a torpedo thread, you should understand that I had terrible
> luck with them myself - I'm nooo expert.

The photos are from globalsecurity.org

See the second and third rows under SH-60F at
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-60-pics.htm

-HJC

[Krztalizer]

>
>See the second and third rows under SH-60F at
>http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-60-pics.htm
>
>-HJC

Now I get it, thanks, Henry. What you see there is the parachute being pulled
out, and yes, this is a hover drop and in at least one of the images, he has
his dipping sonar in the water. An arming wire comes out first, that's about
four feet long I guess, and that releases the parachute, which is what you see
coming out in these images. The pilot has a little left drift dialed in to
keep the torp clear of the sonar cable. That is one _long_ sonar cable (in
comparison to earlier designs) and its possible to have your dome down many
hundreds of feet deeper than the torpedo's search depth.

Bigger problem here is that if the torpedo goes rogue on you, its likely to try
and strike the helo while its hovering and unable to break its dip. Torpedos
have attempted to strike the drop helos, and I'd rather not be sitting still at
40', waiting to see if the Mk 46 is coming back at me or not.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Krztalizer]

>http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-60-pics.htm
>

In that website's H-2 page, they have a couple photos of birds I flew in. That
spiffy image towards the bottom of a helo's shadow within a rainbow is
obviously not an H-2 (its another SH-60).

That image of TF-22 brings back memories. It crashed, killing two. I had
gotten ~ 20 hours in it before it went down; notice the disco balls on the
upper spine, marking this as approximately the same time as Operation Preying
Mantis.

v/r
Gordon

[Guy Alcala]

Krztalizer wrote:

> >http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-60-pics.htm
> >
>
> In that website's H-2 page, they have a couple photos of birds I flew in. That
> spiffy image towards the bottom of a helo's shadow within a rainbow is
> obviously not an H-2 (its another SH-60).

<snip>

Are you sure? It appears to only have a stabilizer on the port side, and the stab
seems to small in any case to be an SH-60. It could just be the sun angle, but I
don't think so.

Guy

[Michael E. Fenyes]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Krztalizer wrote:
>
> > >http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-60-pics.htm
> > >
> >
> > In that website's H-2 page, they have a couple photos of birds I flew
in. That
> > spiffy image towards the bottom of a helo's shadow within a rainbow is
> > obviously not an H-2 (its another SH-60).
>
> <snip>
>
> Are you sure? It appears to only have a stabilizer on the port side, and
the stab
> seems to small in any case to be an SH-60. It could just be the sun
angle, but I
> don't think so.
>
> Guy
>

If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly,
a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.

Michael E. Fenyes
AW HSL-33 '83-'86

[Krztalizer]

>
>If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly,
>a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.
>

....and there is no smoke trail :1

>Michael E. Fenyes
>AW HSL-33 '83-'86 <---my former room mate and flying partner

v/r
Gordon


<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Peter Stickney]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >
> >If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly,
> >a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.
> >
>
> ...and there is no smoke trail :1

I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
make a shadow like that.

But then again, I may be passing Balloon Gas.
(I won't talk about the time I called a T-39 as
an F-104)

--
Pete Stickney

[Ogden Johnson III]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...

>> >If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly,
>> >a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.

>> ...and there is no smoke trail :1

>I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
>just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
>The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
>rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
>that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
>With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
>make a shadow like that.

OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Henry J Cobb]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote:
(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
>>>>If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear assembly,
>>>>a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.
>
>>>...and there is no smoke trail :1
>
>>I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
>>just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
>>The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
>>rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
>>that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
>>With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
>>make a shadow like that.
>
> OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
> picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
> confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
> H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
> original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.

Yeah, it's a different page on the same site.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-2-pics.htm

Follow the rainbow.

-HJC

[Krztalizer]

>> OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
>> picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
>> confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
>> H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
>> original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.
>
>Yeah, it's a different page on the same site.
>
>http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-2-pics.htm
>
>Follow the rainbow.

I think its a 60, and the other horizontal stab is just distorted, perhaps by
the exhaust plume that crosses the photo at the same level as the missing stab.
Look at the photo - taken from the starboard cargo door of an aircraft, look
at it and feel it. Its in a creep, just before entering a hover. Look down at
the shadow, the fixed landing gear. Where do I lay my 20..? :)

j/k of course; would be very interested to hear the details of the photograph's
subject.

v/r
Gordon

.....man, I've looked at that photo 50 times and if its really an SH-2F, I swear
I never saw THAT view out the door.

[Yofuri]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> > (Peter Stickney) wrote:
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> >>>>If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear
assembly,
> >>>>a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.
> >
> >>>...and there is no smoke trail :1
> >
> >>I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
> >>just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
> >>The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
> >>rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
> >>that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
> >>With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
> >>make a shadow like that.
> >
> > OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
> > picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
> > confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
> > H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
> > original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.
>
> Yeah, it's a different page on the same site.
>
> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-2-pics.htm
>
> Follow the rainbow.
>
> -HJC
>

It's definitely not an H-34 or derivative. There's not enough room in the
nose for an 1820-84 and clutch to be stuffed in, it has turbo nacelles on
top, and the tail wheel is too far forward.

Rick

[Dave in San Diego]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
om:

> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
>> >
>> >If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear
>> >assembly, a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way
>> >too long.
>> >
>>
>> ...and there is no smoke trail :1
>
> I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
> just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
> The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
> rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
> that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
> With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
> make a shadow like that.

Nope, not an H-34. The horiz stab is too close to the 90 deg gearbox for
that. The -34 stab is way down by the "el" in the boom.

See: http://www.fly-navy.de/helis/sh34_2.jpg

Dave in San Diego

--
-
"For once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes
turned skyward;
For there you have been, and there you long to return."
Leonardo da Vinci

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Yofuri" > wrote:

>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message

>> Ogden Johnson III wrote:

>> >>I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
>> >>just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
>> >>The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
>> >>rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
>> >>that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
>> >>With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
>> >>make a shadow like that.

>> > OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
>> > picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
>> > confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
>> > H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
>> > original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.

>> Yeah, it's a different page on the same site.
>>
>> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-2-pics.htm
>>
>> Follow the rainbow.

>It's definitely not an H-34 or derivative. There's not enough room in the
>nose for an 1820-84 and clutch to be stuffed in, it has turbo nacelles on
>top, and the tail wheel is too far forward.

Agree. [overlooked the rainbow reference in the first quote -
sigh] Maximizing that picture cleared it up. Memo to self -
don't try to make decisions about pictures of shadows complicated
by lousy resolution/smears/spray/whatever in certain portions.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Yofuri" > writes:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>> > (Peter Stickney) wrote:
>> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...
>> >>>>If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear
> assembly,
>> >>>>a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way too long.
>> >
>> >>>...and there is no smoke trail :1
>> >
>> >>I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
>> >>just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
>> >>The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
>> >>rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
>> >>that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
>> >>With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
>> >>make a shadow like that.
>> >
>> > OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
>> > picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
>> > confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
>> > H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
>> > original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.
>>
>> Yeah, it's a different page on the same site.
>>
>> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-2-pics.htm
>>
>> Follow the rainbow.
>>
>> -HJC
>>
>
> It's definitely not an H-34 or derivative. There's not enough room in the
> nose for an 1820-84 and clutch to be stuffed in, it has turbo nacelles on
> top, and the tail wheel is too far forward.

Taking a better look, (ANd hauling out my old H-34 model & squinting
at it from various angles, I'd have to say that you're right.
(Although the -34 had a humped back as well). The big giveaway is teh
horizontal stabilizer. On th H-34, it's symmetrical, shorter in span,
and low down on the tail rotor pylon.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Dave in San Diego > writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in
> om:
>
>> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>> >...
>>> >
>>> >If you look closely you can see the "V" formed by the landing gear
>>> >assembly, a signature H-60 look. Also, the fuselage looks just way
>>> >too long.
>>> >
>>>
>>> ...and there is no smoke trail :1
>>
>> I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
>> just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
>> The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
>> rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
>> that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
>> With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
>> make a shadow like that.
>
> Nope, not an H-34. The horiz stab is too close to the 90 deg gearbox for
> that. The -34 stab is way down by the "el" in the boom.
>
> See: http://www.fly-navy.de/helis/sh34_2.jpg

You're right guys. (I can't be perfect _all_ the time, dangit!)
I'd like to call it an Optical Illusion based on the low sun angle of
the shadow and the camera angle, but it was really a misfiring brain
circuit simewhere.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[rnf2]

On 07 Mar 2004 23:59:50 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:



>
>Bobby Wickes' site is sort of the repository for guys in my former field. He
>and Devo do a great job and I keep meaning to forward a stack of photos to them
>- a couple of friends and I run a companion SH-2F site called
>"SeaspriteCentral.com", for those of you that are interested.
>

is there a http:// or a www in front of the url? neither of which
can be found...

The RNZAF has 4 SH-2G's for the RNZN ANZAC frigates (MEKO 240's) which
are a quantum leap above the old Wessex Wasps... :)

[Krztalizer]

>>
>>Bobby Wickes' site is sort of the repository for guys in my former field.
>He
>>and Devo do a great job and I keep meaning to forward a stack of photos to
>them
>>- a couple of friends and I run a companion SH-2F site called
>>"SeaspriteCentral.com", for those of you that are interested.
>>
>
>is there a http:// or a www in front of the url? neither of which
>can be found...

oops - its SeaspriteCentral.org sorry for the mistake. For Bobby's website,
its this: http://www.users.cts.com/sd/b/bwickes/

>The RNZAF has 4 SH-2G's for the RNZN ANZAC frigates (MEKO 240's) which
>are a quantum leap above the old Wessex Wasps... :)

Well, like most people, I am a thoroughly biased bystander - I always loved the
SH-2, even though I was only vaguely aware of them at first. I hope the crews
have great success with their nimble little Seasprites. Charles Kaman did an
outstanding job with his unique blade flap controls and many other innovations
incorporated into his ASW helicopters. The SH-2G is a mature, capable system
for a small force's needs and my only regret about their Seasprites is that I
will never strap into one.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[Joe Osman]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> "Yofuri" > wrote:
>
> >"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
>
> >> Ogden Johnson III wrote:
>
> >> >>I just took a look at the picture, and y'now, I think that it
> >> >>just might be an old H-34/HUS/HSS-1. Really.
> >> >>The 4 bladed rotor, the stabilizer on one side of the tail
> >> >>rotor pylon, the V-shaped gear struts... In order to get
> >> >>that rainbow the sun's gotta be above & behind the helicopter.
> >> >>With that tall, thin fuselage, that sort of sun angle would
> >> >>make a shadow like that.
>
> >> > OK, I'm lost. *What* page - link please - has this confusing
> >> > picture on it? If it's "old H-34/HUS/HSS-1", I might be able to
> >> > confirm it, having racked up a *lot* of aircrew hours in Marine
> >> > H-34s. As it is, on the SH-60/SH-2 pages I looked at off the
> >> > original link, I saw nothing particularly H-34ish.
>
> >> Yeah, it's a different page on the same site.
> >>
> >> http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/sh-2-pics.htm
> >>
> >> Follow the rainbow.
>
> >It's definitely not an H-34 or derivative. There's not enough room in
the
> >nose for an 1820-84 and clutch to be stuffed in, it has turbo nacelles on
> >top, and the tail wheel is too far forward.
>
> Agree. [overlooked the rainbow reference in the first quote -
> sigh] Maximizing that picture cleared it up. Memo to self -
> don't try to make decisions about pictures of shadows complicated
> by lousy resolution/smears/spray/whatever in certain portions.
> --
> OJ III
> [Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

The phrase "Cut me a HUS" was still used in the USMC when I was in in the
early 1970s. It meant "Cut me some slack" by then. I doubt if any of the
young Marines that used it knew where it came from.

Joe




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----