• 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

That's flipping gay. We should get vertrep back! :p

OttoWrote8 said:
Misunderstanding due to the internets and my poor reading comprehension. I am aware that wlawr was a crewchief and I know he knows wtf he's talking about.

All cleared up now.

EDIT: As for the cracks, I am reading through a slideshow, as we speak, from the then-HSC-3 NATOPS program manager, which is where I was getting my claims from the cracks before. I just assumed it was a valid source. Perhaps a faulty assumption.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing your reading the "Chicken Little Brief". All that says is that the sideflare is a safe maneuver. Which it is. And it's a great maneuver for vertrep to keep a clear view of the area you're vertrepping to.

Like I said earlier, I don't think there was ever a conclusive reason for the FS 308 cracks. However, a lot of the evidence pointed to the repetitive loading/unloading of the airframe. The kind of cycles you see in the transfer of the weight of the airframe from the head to the gear or vice versa on landing or the loading/unloading from numerous vertrep loads.
 
Pags said:
I'm guessing your reading the "Chicken Little Brief". All that says is that the sideflare is a safe maneuver. Which it is. And it's a great maneuver for vertrep to keep a clear view of the area you're vertrepping to.

Like I said earlier, I don't think there was ever a conclusive reason for the FS 308 cracks. However, a lot of the evidence pointed to the repetitive loading/unloading of the airframe. The kind of cycles you see in the transfer of the weight of the airframe from the head to the gear or vice versa on landing or the loading/unloading from numerous vertrep loads.
Click to expand...

The physical airframe was never tested for VERTREP loads as the HC world normally performed them (yes, A's/L's etc have an extensive sling-load history with the Army, but that is a very different evolution).

I have waded a lot deeper into the engineering waters of this issue and the short version of my opinion is that while I agree that sideflares/buttonhooks/etc are not the root cause, it is hard to argue that they help any. Airframe fatigue for VERTREP birds will be a painful and expensive issue with these aircraft, while limitations on how much VERTREP the Sierra does (and how that is performed) is much cheaper and I really wouldn't be surprised to see limits make it into NATOPS/SOP.*

Not only are the Pumas fast enough and tremendously cheaper, they are paid for out of a different pot of money, don't count against end-strength, and what they do cost is much easier to control and ramp up or down as required.

File this under the same category as UAV's - it is going to continue so you may as well accept it.


* Note, I am NOT saying that sideflares, etc, are unsafe (though I don't do true, -46-style buttonhooks because I don't care for the vibrations). I still routinely do those and similar, oh-my-god-he-is-moving-in-more-than-one-axis-at-a-time maneuvers in both the S and R, I just think it would be really easy for the Big Navy to tell us to stop, especially considering HC being absorbed by HS will seriously dilute leadership's inclination to fight it if that ever came to pass, not to mention the large HSL contingent at PMA 299.
 
Quick History (As I know and taught):

The side flare...while fun (the most fun I've had in an A/C with my clothes on)...is not a necessary maneuver to vert rep in the 60.

The need to side flare came when the 46 was introduced into the logistics role, replacing the H-34. It was required due to the "T" and "T-Ball" line. These deck marking (for the uniformed) give a visual indicator of adequate rotor clearance from ship super structure and ANY rotor hub (tail or main) SHALL not cross the aforementioned lines.

With the H-34, the load was slung underneath the rotor head. As mentioned when the mighty Phrog came on the scene, the cargo hook was twelve or so feet aft of the main rotor head. Doing straight in picks or drops made that number of feet on the deck unusable for cargo. The side flare was used to bleed off speed and have complete use of the deck aft of the "T" or "T-ball" line.

As with the H-34, the 60 cargo hook in slightly aft of the main rotor negating the need for the side flare. It still bleeds speed like a champ and is CRAZY fun.

I'm not an engineer, so can't speak about the cracks intelligently. Just wanted to pass the information that I know to be true....

For what it's worth...I would still rather do repeated 12 hour days of vert rep every day for a detachment (with or without the side flare), rather than "notional" tactics flights.....I'm just saying....

Be safe...
 
wlawr005 said:
When I was on the Arctic in 2008, we got to work with the Pumas on some of the other supply ships. Those guys are super fast at VERTREP, although not quite as accurate considering they only have mirrors and no crewman. My OIC knew a couple of the pilots because they were retired Phrog skippers, so they had a shit ton of hours and experience (making them super fast). They also don't give a shit about crew day, maintaining day/night/NVG DLQ currency, SAR training, gun shoots, flight hours or any of the other baggage associated with a traditional SAR DET.
Click to expand...

OK, but have they passed the PRT and had their annual sexual harassment training?
 
docpup said:
Quick History (As I know and taught):

The side flare...while fun (the most fun I've had in an A/C with my clothes on)...is not a necessary maneuver to vert rep in the 60.

The need to side flare came when the 46 was introduced into the logistics role, replacing the H-34. It was required due to the "T" and "T-Ball" line. These deck marking (for the uniformed) give a visual indicator of adequate rotor clearance from ship super structure and ANY rotor hub (tail or main) SHALL not cross the aforementioned lines.

With the H-34, the load was slung underneath the rotor head. As mentioned when the mighty Phrog came on the scene, the cargo hook was twelve or so feet aft of the main rotor head. Doing straight in picks or drops made that number of feet on the deck unusable for cargo. The side flare was used to bleed off speed and have complete use of the deck aft of the "T" or "T-ball" line.

As with the H-34, the 60 cargo hook in slightly aft of the main rotor negating the need for the side flare. It still bleeds speed like a champ and is CRAZY fun.

I'm not an engineer, so can't speak about the cracks intelligently. Just wanted to pass the information that I know to be true....

For what it's worth...I would still rather do repeated 12 hour days of vert rep every day for a detachment (with or without the side flare), rather than "notional" tactics flights.....I'm just saying....

Be safe...
Click to expand...

The other benefit of the sideflare is that it gives you better visibility of the deck/superstructure. A straight in approach leaves you looking at the ship's superstructure over the glareshield. A sideflare approach gives you a great view out those huge windows on the doors (I've had old phrog guys talk about vertrepping with the door off. It was apparently awesome).

Also, as you've mentioned, the sideflare slows you down very quickly, allowing you to keep speed up during the tranit between the two ships.

Edit: Another reason the 46 probably did the sideflare when the 34 didn't was that the 46 COULD sideflare. I'd really doubt that an H-34 would have the TR authority or power to sideflare. From talking to DH's at my old squadron that had flown the H-3, it was severely lacking in the TR department, and it was a much more advanced helo than the 34.
 
Whether or not the contract Vertrep is the future I think it's F'n stupid. Any '60 can vertrep. A decent crew in a 60 can out 'rep the Puma's. I've seen it done and done it a few times. The issue I really have is that with the new HSC/HSM plan there "should" be helos with almost every group of ships underway. Those helos should be doing the lifting. (Which does not require any special training or piloting skills.) Instead you have the Navy pilots, who are being paid anyway, sitting around while big Navy dumps money on some contract guys to do the same job. (Pays even more on weekends which seems to be when ships replenish...go figure) OBTW not every USNS ship carries a contract helo so you still have supply ships that can't vertrep themselves. Another colossal waste of resources...
 
Pags said:
Edit: Another reason the 46 probably did the sideflare when the 34 didn't was that the 46 COULD sideflare. I'd really doubt that an H-34 would have the TR authority or power to sideflare. From talking to DH's at my old squadron that had flown the H-3, it was severely lacking in the TR department, and it was a much more advanced helo than the 34.
Click to expand...

Never flew 46s, but I loved watching them do vertreps to the carrier. No way we (H-3s) could sideflare anywhere close to what they could do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top