![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But then...what do you consider Vertical "Flight"? A V-22 Osprey or any
other tilt rotor ie. Bell or Kawasaki weren't developed for Vertical "Flight". They were developed to get to their approximate destinations at fixed wing speeds. In commercial applications this would allow for them to fly in a commercial traffic arrival pattern (as toward a major airport and then "break out" to transition to a heliport. In military applications they could get to a destination at fixed wing speeds and then transition in and out of a "LZ" pick up or deploy personnel or cargo. Comparing them to helicopters is apples and oranges. Point taken, John. OTOH, aren't you talking about some transition to vertical flight when they leave standard fixed wing patterns to land at a helipad or some out of the way LZ that a fixed wing could never hope to arrive at in one piece? Both of those scenarios will involve a transition to hover for landing and a vertical lift off to hover before the climb out and acceleration to fixed wing mode which is not unlike what helicopters do under normal circumstances anyway, with the exception of the fixed wing mode part, that is. :-) Fly Safe, Steve R. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Charles Gray wrote in
: The conceptual art for the gunship designs had them hovering to launch their ordanance, and one conception had the rotors interfering with the underwing gunpods in horizontal flight. So, I wonder if the intended use of the design was to use the horizontal flight as a dash and transit mode, and then quickly transition to Vertical hover to fire thier ordanance before dashing off somewhere else. The rotors wouldn't interfere with the guns in horizontal flight. The ability to fire through the propellor was invented in WWI. It's trivial to do it now. -- Regards, Stan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17 Dec 2003 05:35:42 GMT, Stan Gosnell me@work wrote:
Charles Gray wrote in : The conceptual art for the gunship designs had them hovering to launch their ordanance, and one conception had the rotors interfering with the underwing gunpods in horizontal flight. So, I wonder if the intended use of the design was to use the horizontal flight as a dash and transit mode, and then quickly transition to Vertical hover to fire thier ordanance before dashing off somewhere else. The rotors wouldn't interfere with the guns in horizontal flight. The ability to fire through the propellor was invented in WWI. It's trivial to do it now. Well the gun was an underslung turret much like the cobra-- the underwing hard points appeared to be either TOWS, or Hellfire missiles-- since the design was a mid-1970's, early 1980's, they might have been artist conceptions of hellfires, or one of the other ATGM's that never actually made it to service. If they're not wire guided, I could see dropping for a short distance before the moter engaged, thus clearing the roters, but for anything like unguilded 2.75 rockets or wire guided missiles, it wouldn't be so easy. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rhodesst wrote:
But then...what do you consider Vertical "Flight"? A V-22 Osprey or any other tilt rotor ie. Bell or Kawasaki weren't developed for Vertical "Flight". They were developed to get to their approximate destinations at fixed wing speeds. In commercial applications this would allow for them to fly in a commercial traffic arrival pattern (as toward a major airport and then "break out" to transition to a heliport. What stops an S-76 from doing this? John Roncallo In military applications they could get to a destination at fixed wing speeds and then transition in and out of a "LZ" pick up or deploy personnel or cargo. Comparing them to helicopters is apples and oranges. Point taken, John. OTOH, aren't you talking about some transition to vertical flight when they leave standard fixed wing patterns to land at a helipad or some out of the way LZ that a fixed wing could never hope to arrive at in one piece? Both of those scenarios will involve a transition to hover for landing and a vertical lift off to hover before the climb out and acceleration to fixed wing mode which is not unlike what helicopters do under normal circumstances anyway, with the exception of the fixed wing mode part, that is. :-) Fly Safe, Steve R. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What stops an S-76 or any other helicopter from doing this is that their
SLOW speed doesn't allow them to STACK UP with 747's et.al. in an approach pattern to ANY major airport. In other words they can't keep up with the big boys, so they can't play. Bob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob wrote:
What stops an S-76 or any other helicopter from doing this is that their SLOW speed doesn't allow them to STACK UP with 747's et.al. in an approach pattern to ANY major airport. In other words they can't keep up with the big boys, so they can't play. Bob I have flown into JFK and BOS in a fixed wing Piper Archer. It is not a helicopter but it is a lot slower than an S-76. J. Roncallo |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What stops an S-76 or any other helicopter from doing this is that their
SLOW speed doesn't allow them to STACK UP with 747's et.al. in an approach pattern to ANY major airport. In other words they can't keep up with the big boys, so they can't play. Bob Not hardly. On numerous occasions in the -76 I'm asked to slow during the approach because I'm gaining on the airliner in front of me. One of the nicest things you can hear from ATC. On the other hand, I can't take the 76 500 miles without refueling and getting above much of the weather like the tilt rotor will be able to do (someday). Jim |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Does the S76 have that long of range? I didn't think it was that high, or
is that with aux tanks? JC "JIM105" wrote in message ... What stops an S-76 or any other helicopter from doing this is that their SLOW speed doesn't allow them to STACK UP with 747's et.al. in an approach pattern to ANY major airport. In other words they can't keep up with the big boys, so they can't play. Bob Not hardly. On numerous occasions in the -76 I'm asked to slow during the approach because I'm gaining on the airliner in front of me. One of the nicest things you can hear from ATC. On the other hand, I can't take the 76 500 miles without refueling and getting above much of the weather like the tilt rotor will be able to do (someday). Jim |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Helimech" wrote in
news:yHRDb.570333$Tr4.1545717@attbi_s03: Does the S76 have that long of range? I didn't think it was that high, or is that with aux tanks? JC He said he can't go that far. A standard S76 can go about 350NM without refueling, with 30 minute reserve, topped off. And I agree with Jim, I can go as fast as the airliners on approach - they have to slow way down for an approach, I don't. Top speed is just slightly higher for a 777, though. :-D -- Regards, Stan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'm a flight Instructor & I can't even get a job at Taco Bell | Brad Zeigler | Piloting | 6 | November 18th 04 07:28 PM |
Bell 214B/B1 Helicopter Wanted | N. Brown | Owning | 0 | April 22nd 04 12:17 AM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Bell X-1 sonic boom. | Ed Majden | Military Aviation | 4 | December 2nd 03 05:20 AM |
Bell 47 Flying Club Atlantic City | John P. Kelly | Rotorcraft | 0 | July 23rd 03 12:48 AM |