46Driver
"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
Greetings from European Command. I am over here working on staff (this place is so top heavy we have both a 1 star and a 2 star on this deck alone...). At any rate, I was researching a paper for the Naval War College concerning the Piasecki Compound Helo. Turns out to my chagrin that some of the test pilots on the www.pprune.org board have flown them, know them, and say they will not work efficiently. (That's a shame - the AH-56 Cheyenne was one mean looking bird. www.helis.com/60s/h_h56.php They also go on to further state that Blackhawks (not to mention Chinooks and 53E's) carry more cargo at 10,000 feet than the MV-22. The biggest surprise was that they claim the 53E and Chinook (maybe even the H-60) have greater ranger than the MV-22 when the payload is used for fuel. I find this hard to believe but those are some seriously smart bubbas. I was hoping some of you fleet guys with access to NATOPS could compare the numbers.
If anyone wants to see the actual responses, go to www.pprune.org , go into the rotorhead section, and then the thread on compound helos. And if anyone is interested in debating politics, go into the JetBlast section: beware, a lot of people there dislike America in general and despise Bush in particular.
Thanks.
PS: There are also some cool photos of H-3's with wings and turbojets.
If anyone wants to see the actual responses, go to www.pprune.org , go into the rotorhead section, and then the thread on compound helos. And if anyone is interested in debating politics, go into the JetBlast section: beware, a lot of people there dislike America in general and despise Bush in particular.
Thanks.
PS: There are also some cool photos of H-3's with wings and turbojets.
