If you were gonna buy a 1/48 Harrier, Which One Would it Be?

Yes - I noticed that the rotor is chopped in span from a standard Blackhawk, and I would think that the collective and cyclic schedules have also been altered. What it really needs is swept tip main rotor blades, but the placard on the windscreen was mentioned specifically to me.
Also from what I was told the thing doesn't need to pitch forward in order to fly forward because of the tail thrust...at least it doesn't need to pitch as much as a standard helo. I really like the concept, and I hope someone gets to do a fully engineered airframe employing it someday.
Reply to
Rufus
Loading thread data ...
e:
The obvious reference to then Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara ramming the F-111 down the throat of the U.S. Navy and Air Force was not lost on me ... okay.
I thought I was just pointing out that there was good and bad in the F-111 program.
McNamara's critics in the services and Congress labeled the F-111 a failure, but versions of the F-111 remained in Air Force service two decades after McNamara decided to produce them.
The mistakes learned from the F-111B program had a large impact on the later design of the F-14 by Grumman, which became an outstanding Navy aircraft.
The retirement of the F-14 has left a void that cannot be filled by the Super Hornet. That's where I think every ones beef is with the Navy JSF. The Air Force has it's hi/lo mix with the F-22/F-35 combination. And the Navy has ..... ? The F-35C and the Super Hornet ?
Go figure.
Chris
Reply to
CCBlack
The main point against this design is that Piasecki tried this concept in a almost identical form way back in the sixties and the military didn't want it. The other problem is that Piasecki has a total of 35 employees, which is going to mitigate heavily against it putting anything into mass production. There's a discussion of compound helicopters from one viewpoint here:
formatting link
know why the military didn't want them? It was all a plot! They were too fast for small minds! They neglect to mention that:
1.) The XV-1 didn't fly as fast as expected. 2.) It went through fuel like a SOB.
This statement is downright bizarre:
"However, as a liberal Democrat, the political "pork" of the northeast where Sikorsky, Bell, Piasecki and Vertol made complex powered helicopters strangled simpler helicopters that could indeed go faster at less costs and maintenance headaches. James McDonnell in Missouri offered many improved simpler helicopters only to have them rejected for military service by political forces. The legacy of this corruption is our troops have been damned to slow (under 150 mph), noisy helicopters easy to shoot down and cannot fly often to do maneuver air support (MAS) and far enough to do long-range Air-Mech-Strike 3D air-ground maneuver."
If that's the case, why wasn't the Piasecki Pathfinder put into production? And unless the new copter can do over Mach 1, it is going to have a hard time outrunning man-fired SAMs. This image is also fun:
formatting link
by upping the weight of the Cobra by adding the wings and ducted tail rotor, it well then carry sixteen Hellfire missiles and two rocket pods. I assume it's going to do some sort of rolling takeoff or be catapult launched. It also could use a tail wheel or skid under the ducted prop. :-D
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
That's funny...particularly since I've got a couple Whiskeys on my line...
I never thought Piesecki would mass produce an actual aircraft - I figure they just got a contract to demonstrate some technology, and the loan of a Blackhawk to do it. I'd have to assume that the resulting tech would be owned by DoD, and could be licensed to some other builder after an RFP and down-select.
Personally, I think any rotary winged aircraft is limited as far as combat survivability is concerned, but at least such aircraft have a proven combat record to stand on. The Speedhawk or a platform like it would almost certainly be less complex than an Osprey, and less complex is always better.
Reply to
Rufus
Unlike a tail rotor, that duct and prop is going to weigh a fair amount and that would make it smarter to start with a clean sheet of paper design with the main rotor further aft than try and modify a existing design. I wonder if they are compensating for the aft CG by directing some of the output of the duct downwards right from the moment of lift-off? That's not going to work if you suffer an engine failure if they are. Rather than auto-rotating in for a landing, the chopper is going to start falling tail-end first.
Pat
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
Agreed, and from the video it didn't quite look like they had all of the stability issues in hand during hover. I could think of a few ways to solve that problem. Starting with materials and structure. What I read in the trade mag was that parts of the Speedhawk tail system were constructed using A-7 rudders, so I'm sure it's not optimal. Even so, I'd think that this config would have to be handled more like a fixed wing airplane during an engine out...auto rotating to a hover probably wouldn't quite work.
One of my Harrier jocks that had formerly been a Cobra pilot once told me that he single biggest annoyance and limitation on a combat helo was the tail rotor, though. He said if you could get rid of the tail rotor on a Cobra you'd really have something...he was a big fan of NOTAR.
Reply to
Rufus
The other route is the Kamov coaxial rotors; that also cuts down blade length, handy when working in urban or forest environments. They've actually installed a ejection seat in the Black Shark. On activation a system severs all the rotor blades from their hubs and the pilot ejects as they all go flying outwards from the helicopter from the centrifugal force.
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
Heh...I met an Apache pilot on the ramp once and noticed that there was an ACES II seat in his helo and started laughing...then he mentioned the explosive bolts in the rotor head an I started laughing harder...
Yeah - the Kamov is a good example of what the Colonel was getting at. I always wondered what sort of G limitations it might have though - because of blade flexure. I'd think you could fly it into a region where it could be prone to "blade crash".
Reply to
Rufus
We actually looked into a weird-ass ejection seat for helicopters that shot the crew sideways out of the copter then fired upwards once they had cleared the rotor disc. The thing was going to know which way was actually up no matter in what attitude you ejected, which would be one hell of a wild ride if the the chopper was inverted when you punched out. :-D
It was possible to do that with a Hind IIRC, and have the blades hit the tail boom during violent maneuvers.
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
Someplace I've got some video of an ACES II seat test doing just that...they fire it inverted from a suspended F-16 or something and the seat rights itself and then shoots skyward. I think the test was conducted some tens of feet from the ground...it was impressive.
Have you seen that one of the US helo that clips it's refueling boom off with it's blades after pulling off the basket? A CH-53, I think. Yeah - you can do stuff like that.
Reply to
Rufus
I was always amazed to see a helicopter refueling from a fixed wing aircraft. That just plain didn't look right. Trying to prevent that happening to the Osprey while aerial refueling with the prop/rotors spinning right behind the refueling hose and drogue is supposed to be fun also.
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
CCBlack wrote
Ahh yes, that paragon of military information, Discovery channel...The Russkies watched it secretly during the Cold War, dontcha know, to save money on spy payments.
Don't believe everythig you see on TV, Grasshopper.
RobG (The Aussie one)
Reply to
RobG
Like porcupines screwing...very carefully. I was reading a report on the Osprey a couple of days back and that is one of the most challenging things the pilot has to learn how to do.
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
Especially on that "Wings" episode where they have the B-17 armed with the ten _50 mm_ machine guns. Christ, that would keep the Fw-190s away, wouldn't it? On the way home they could start picking off Tiger tanks on the ground. :-D
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
skies watched it secretly during the
Yeah ... your right. Stealthy F-22's are just a spoof. F-15's having a huge RCS ( radar cross section ) just from the engine intakes is a made up story. The F-15 USAF officers interviewed for the piece were lying ... etc etc.
Get real.
Chris
Reply to
CCBlack
There ain't much on network TV I'll believe anymore without doing some cross checking...or in the papers. I've seen so many retouched and composited photos in the papers of late that the AP has lost just about all credibility with me. If you've spent some time retouching photos yourself, or even just going over shots for detail it's pretty easy to spot.
Reply to
Rufus

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.