-
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
Top 10 Worst Aircraft Ever...
- Thread starter Mumbles
- Start date
Still experimental, but I'm surprised nobody thought of this first:
FROM THE WEBSITE:
One of the most unusual aircraft ever to fly from Lakehurst was the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat.
The Heli-stat had been built under a 1980 U.S. Navy contract for the Forest Service to demonstrate economic & ecological potential of heavy vertical air lifters in harvesting timber & other natural resources in difficult-to-get-to terrain. The demonstration vehicle utilized a Navy ZPG-2W aerostat (with a 1-million cubic-foot envelope) and 4 surplus Sikorsky H-34J helicopters.
Inflating the aerostat envelope with helium to its length of 343 feet
made the Heli-Stat the largest aircraft in the world (longer than the span of the Hughes flying boat).
The first free hovering flight of the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat was made at Lakehurst on April 26, 1986.
On July 1, 1986 the Helistat had just completed a test flight successfully & landed at Lakehurst.
A power loss was noted on the #3 helicopter & the test was terminated & the mooring mast called for.
Prior to re-mooring a wind shift caused an uncommanded left turn which the pilot could not counteract with the flight controls.
With a tailwind, no wheel brakes or ground steering a takeoff was attempted.
The 4 main landing gear which had no shimmy dampers started to shimmy.
The 4 helicopters started to react to the shimmy with ground resonance.
As the Helistat finally lifted off, the 4 individual helicopters broke off & fell to the ground.
One pilot was killed, 3 received serious injuries, one received minor injuries. and the Helistat was destroyed.
The power loss on the #3 helicopter was traced to a missing throttle linkage correlation pin.
FROM THE WEBSITE:
One of the most unusual aircraft ever to fly from Lakehurst was the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat.
The Heli-stat had been built under a 1980 U.S. Navy contract for the Forest Service to demonstrate economic & ecological potential of heavy vertical air lifters in harvesting timber & other natural resources in difficult-to-get-to terrain. The demonstration vehicle utilized a Navy ZPG-2W aerostat (with a 1-million cubic-foot envelope) and 4 surplus Sikorsky H-34J helicopters.
Inflating the aerostat envelope with helium to its length of 343 feet
made the Heli-Stat the largest aircraft in the world (longer than the span of the Hughes flying boat).
The first free hovering flight of the Piasecki PA-97 Heli-stat was made at Lakehurst on April 26, 1986.
On July 1, 1986 the Helistat had just completed a test flight successfully & landed at Lakehurst.
A power loss was noted on the #3 helicopter & the test was terminated & the mooring mast called for.
Prior to re-mooring a wind shift caused an uncommanded left turn which the pilot could not counteract with the flight controls.
With a tailwind, no wheel brakes or ground steering a takeoff was attempted.
The 4 main landing gear which had no shimmy dampers started to shimmy.
The 4 helicopters started to react to the shimmy with ground resonance.
As the Helistat finally lifted off, the 4 individual helicopters broke off & fell to the ground.
One pilot was killed, 3 received serious injuries, one received minor injuries. and the Helistat was destroyed.
The power loss on the #3 helicopter was traced to a missing throttle linkage correlation pin.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I don't fly the devil's whirly bird, but I don't see your argument. It's already made a successful combat deployment, is in the middle of it's second, and is an amazingly capable aircraft. Stop buying into the negative hype.Hmm, dare I say:
The variable wing allows for an aircraft that can loiter for an extremely long period of time, and when it is time to commence an attack on a ground target, the wings go into retard mode, allowing for acceleration to an acceptable attack speed.
I think the verdict is still out, having just been fielded after its lengthy gestation period, hype or not.
It's lengthy gestation period was a direct result of Congressional buffoonery. Had they let NAVAIR run the program and funded it as requested it would have been out there on schedule.
I certainly do not consider it a failure but it's not a raging success yet. Time will tell.
Some of the things you pointed out are a bit disingenuous. The V-22 is not a CH-53 equivalent, missions are a bit different (assault transport vs heavy-lift). The O2 is not much of a factor, don't have it in helos either.
Cheney's attempt to cancel it and the difficult testing period it had were very large factors. Congressional buffonery was just a part of it.
That is exactly what I was trying to say.
You are taking into account the development costs for a radically new aircraft. I am not won over by it, yet, but you are stacking the deck against it.
And in comparison to the CH-53, it is a lot faster. One thing it has going for it.
You're talking out of your ass. Quit while you're ahead. The Super Hornet isn't making the CH-53 obsolete either, because it was designed for a different mission, just like the Osprey.