RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
Pretty sure that's the Cobra HMD.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
remember when helmets looked cool?
- Thread starter flaps
- Start date
And I thought JHMCS was big.
Looks like the Cobra dudes got the S65, while jets got the CLK63BS. Just sayin.....
It's the Optimized TopOwl helmet by Thales. Not just Cobras, Hueys use them as well.
It's beefy in the back because of magnetic tracking, so the helicopter knows where you are looking. It's beefy in the front because the sun visor goes over the display module.
The original one was a little sleeker, but it didn't work too well in the NVG NOE environment, this is the compromise that lets you use ANVS-9's.
Edit:
This is the original. All the virtual HUD stuff was displayed on the whole visor instead of a smaller display module.
It's beefy in the back because of magnetic tracking, so the helicopter knows where you are looking. It's beefy in the front because the sun visor goes over the display module.
The original one was a little sleeker, but it didn't work too well in the NVG NOE environment, this is the compromise that lets you use ANVS-9's.
Edit:
This is the original. All the virtual HUD stuff was displayed on the whole visor instead of a smaller display module.
cool. knowledges received.
Back when there were few rules on helmets, one AD squadron had them painted like pool balls with the ball associated with your seniority. i.e. the skipper's was solid yellow with a black circle with a white 1.
I thought one of the selling points of the new helmet was the built in NVG capability with a wider field of view than the ANAVS provided.
Yeah, and the NVG's projected on the screen worked great at altitude. The problem is that in NOE there is a delay as well as some weird elevation illusions. For example, guys walking out to the aircraft using it would have the impression they were much higher off the deck than they obviously were. There are also some issues with the tubes being offset, so, for example, if you are looking at an angle out of the canopy where one tube lines up with the canopy rails, the image can become distorted even though physically your eyes should be able to see out the windscreen just fine.
I haven't used the old one, so this is just what I have heard.
I haven't used the old one, so this is just what I have heard.
i'm sure there's a program for reporting system design problems (software/ hardware displays, etc.). i think on the f-14 it was called AWCAP or software problem reports. if you have these problems please don't limit discussions/complaints to the user level and don't assume the problems are being reported by someone else. the tech rep may or may not be the right guy. its gotta be reported to NAVAIR.
maybe everone knows about these things at one level but don't assume the guys who can fix it know about it. basically,reporting is the user's responsibility.
also, the squadron should have a document that lists existing design dificiencies. if you have the problem you can even submit amplifing data when you can.
when visiting squadrons as a grumman company rep, i was continually amazed about how ignorant the fleet guys were of these reporting sustems.
i specifically remember one time when visiting a ship in the med to brief the users on the (then new) TCS system around 1984. one young fella's input,
"when you get back to the factory can you have the mechanics move the master arm switch to the other side of the ACM panel?"
its a bit more complex than that but i did submit a report and the navy guys at pt mugu responded. they didn't move the switch but as i recall it was corrected in the d model
feedback, gents
maybe everone knows about these things at one level but don't assume the guys who can fix it know about it. basically,reporting is the user's responsibility.
also, the squadron should have a document that lists existing design dificiencies. if you have the problem you can even submit amplifing data when you can.
when visiting squadrons as a grumman company rep, i was continually amazed about how ignorant the fleet guys were of these reporting sustems.
i specifically remember one time when visiting a ship in the med to brief the users on the (then new) TCS system around 1984. one young fella's input,
"when you get back to the factory can you have the mechanics move the master arm switch to the other side of the ACM panel?"
its a bit more complex than that but i did submit a report and the navy guys at pt mugu responded. they didn't move the switch but as i recall it was corrected in the d model
feedback, gents
BigIron could probably talk to the official process a bit better than I can, but fleet guys need to hazrep/ptr their gripes to let NAVAIR know that there's stuff that needs fixing otherwise navair doesn't know there's an issue.
Lots of hazreps on a subject would probably also be discussed at sswgs/nargs/whatever your community calls its fix priotization meeting.
