Post WWII, this has always been the case.
During the Korean war, the USAF lost approx. 2,714 aircraft, only 34 of those lost in combat.
-
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
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
During the Korean war, the USAF lost approx. 2,714 aircraft, only 34 of those lost in combat.
I think Vietnam may be the exception, at least for helos. Though I also wonder if those numbers might be skewed because I think they called any bird lost in Injun Territory a combat loss. Plus we were basically utilizing helos like they were disposable.
Combat loss =/= Shootdown.
By the way the doctrinal understanding went/goes, a combat loss is a non training event which the condition and environment dictates. So if you’re doing a dust landing to perform a medevac and the aircraft rolls over, it still counts even though no enemy could have been part of the equation.
Conversely we have had non combat losses in combat zones such as an aircraft that suffered damage conducting roll on landings for progression and F’ing it away.
Which would then result in losing a HUGE swath of applicants.
Of course my comment was not serious, but I do get tired of the "we'll save money" reasoning.
It never holds water in one way or another.
I could save a ton of money buying 2-kids worth of food for my 4 kids...
I don't see the problem.
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
If I win the lottery, this may happen...
So, you spent $ 156 million on an air plane. It's a 747, right?
2 generators - 1 is powered by the engine, 1 powered by the transmission.
1 battery
There is no AUX BAT
If there's a malfunction of the pertinent electrical system/electrical buses, all your screens go black, including the ESIS.
Its also possible to turn off PDF/MFD/ESIS accidentally with the space balls helmet hitting the switch directly next to our heads. Easy enough to flip back on, but its poor design as it takes the system a little bit to come back on entirely.
Last edited:
It’s almost like people don’t need to fly benign helicopter or airplane operations in a helmet and so the manufacturers make them that way….
Also the HGU-84/P was in common use when the TH-73 was in design/requirements. Now displaced by the lighter, more protective, less injurious HGU-56/P. Its a slightly larger shell so the interference with an overhead panel makes sense.
Gotcha. Thanks.
I don't bump my head on the HOR BAT (old-school battery-powered gyro) switch, but I did have it switched off by the bird that went by my head. Both avionics switches are right next to it, so it was lucky the bird didn't decide to click off those switches too, as that would have been a lot more sporty.
Eh, does it? Plenty of operators have been using the Koala before the Navy, and many of them use the SPH-5, which isn't petite. I'm guessing it is more along the lines of what Lawman is saying...it just wasn't an original design priority.
You can scan and print airframe panels.
If you want to scan and reproduce any powertrain component in a rotorcraft, you're really just into playing a very elaborate game of Russian roulette.
Visit the gearbox plant of any OEM. The metallurgical processes are upwards of 20 steps of forging, quenching, coating, etc. to get the right properties. Advanced milling techniques can cut that a little, but it's way harder than just grinding steel into the right gear shapes.
I don’t disagree. “Printing” is too casual a word, but reengineering old parts is quite common. There are warbirds out there flying on engine parts milled from laser scanned originals. I know that isn’t quite as complex as a helicopter MRGB, but a time could come where reviving old airframes, rapidly, may be necessary. Again, I am not advocating this as “the way,” just a contingency to keep in mind.