Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: Rotorcraft Recognition Challenge: Name that variant!


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 1, 2012
RE: Rotorcraft Recognition Challenge: Name that variant!
Permalink  
 


Not an AB 206 and not an OH-58...

__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Fluttercopter,

  Yet a bit more info.  The first OH-58D's had the same windows as the OH-58A and were used in the unarmed scout role.  They were used in Desert Storm, in fact.  It wasn't till the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior upgrades that the OH-58D got the solid cabin doors.

Here's a visual lineage of the OH-58.

OH-58A:

Mischelo20068.jpg

 

OH-58C (note faired over tail rotor drive shaft):

OH-58%252004-10-80-1.jpg

 

OH-58D combat scout from desert Storm:

 

Desert%2520Shield0003.jpg

 

OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Ft. Rucker last year:

DSC_0118.JPG

 

and just for completeness a TH-67A Creek from Cairns AAF.  These are used to train new US ARmy helo pilots and are affectionately known as "flying creamsicles"

DSC_0571.JPG

 

 



__________________


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Told you that one would be easy... But in all fairness, rotorwash ought to be prevented from answering any Bell-related questions, it's all way too easy for him!!!


__________________

Stéphane



Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

fluttercopter wrote:

BTW, Stingray canm I have a sig like that too? It's genious. biggrin


 

Oh puurleeeease, folks. This is a rotorcraft forum, for God's sake. Let's keep it this way! True, it's Stingray's site, and if he wants it to turn into a brony paradise, who am I to complain? Still, I think these sigs are not only unnecessary, they are terribly narcissistic, childish and self-indulgent. If this is the way the forum goes, I'm afraid SRF may soon lose a lot of credibility from the outside folks who come to it for reference!



__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 152
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Stingray wrote:

And yes, you may use a similar sig. Just, make it original (for YOUR findings) and not a copy of mine. I don't want people thinking you're a sock-puppet of me.


 

Thanks and I know, unless we learn the same thing at the same time. hmm



-- Edited by fluttercopter on Thursday 1st of March 2012 08:52:01 PM

__________________

Dear Princess Celestia,

Today I learned that nopony kicks ass without tanker gas. Nopony!

Your faithful student,
Fluttercopter



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Stargazer2006 wrote:

Told you that one would be easy... But in all fairness, rotorwash ought to be prevented from answering any Bell-related questions, it's all way too easy for him!!!


 Fair enough.  I'll eschew any further Bell questions.  to reciprocate with an easy one, here's mine.

  Ray

9150.jpg

 



__________________


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Too easy for the Sikorsky buff in me. Pass!

__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 3

Status: Offline
Posts: 296
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Stargazer2006 wrote:
fluttercopter wrote:

BTW, Stingray canm I have a sig like that too? It's genious. biggrin


 

Oh puurleeeease, folks. This is a rotorcraft forum, for God's sake. Let's keep it this way! True, it's Stingray's site, and if he wants it to turn into a brony paradise, who am I to complain? Still, I think these sigs are not only unnecessary, they are terribly narcissistic, childish and self-indulgent. If this is the way the forum goes, I'm afraid SRF may soon lose a lot of credibility from the outside folks who come to it for reference!


 

It's only a sig, Stargazer. I'm not even in to the pony stuff, but I think your comment is a little mean towards other members who want to express themselves. Be thankful they're not flooding the forum with posts on that stuff.

 

BTW, the current challenge is the Sikorsky S-60 Skycrane.



__________________

Vince Johnson - A merciless enemy but a powerful ally.

                           dragonfire1.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

You're up, Vince.

   Ray



__________________


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 3528
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

JOH-58C LCH (Light Combat Helicopter) kit. The gun is an M197, the same one used on the Cobra. How can I forget this one? This made my day back when you first posted about it! biggrin



Attachments
__________________

lllll   As of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3   lllll



Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 3528
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Okay.



Attachments
__________________

lllll   As of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3   lllll



Veteran Member - Level 3

Status: Offline
Posts: 296
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

smile



Attachments
__________________

Vince Johnson - A merciless enemy but a powerful ally.

                           dragonfire1.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 219
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

I'm with Stephane. Lets keep the brony stuff at a brony site where it belongs, this is a forum for rotorcraft. I mean no offense to Stingray, but the references are really getting annoying.



__________________


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 160
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

I have to agree with Vince : it's just a sig, no less, no more, and a sig on a forum is supposed to match what the person likes n'stuff.
Just keep in mind that because you don't like that stuff means that no one should like it.
Like they say, "Il faut de tout pour faire un monde".

__________________


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Your pic depicts the Texas Helicopter M79 Hornet, based on a Bell 47.

Incidentally, I almost picked that one yesterday for my challenge before turning to the Creek!!!

1091535?AWSAccessKeyId=1XXJBWHKN0QBQS6TGPG2&Expires=1331769600&Signature=bj%2FTIIgzzWDaJg662GBgMS2LHRA%3D



__________________

Stéphane



Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Italian Dragon wrote:

I have to agree with Vince : it's just a sig, no less, no more, and a sig on a forum is supposed to match what the person likes n'stuff.
Just keep in mind that because you don't like that stuff means that no one should like it.
Like they say, "Il faut de tout pour faire un monde".


I'll have to disagree with you guys.

If you want to see a picture that matches "what people like and stuff", there's something called an avatar for that.

A signature that takes up three times the space of the message's contents alone is not only annoying to the eye, but bothersome when you look for info quickly in a page.

As hanneton says, let's keep brony stuff in brony forums. I am myself a great fan of Renault cars, a great fan of Frank Sinatra, a great fan of jazz music and a great fan of vintage pin-up art, among others, I am a webmaster for several other sites covering many different subjects... but if I want to speak of any of these, I have other forums and websites with lots of people only too happy to indulge.

I want to share with people here on the subject of rotorcraft, and rotorcraft alone. There is a lot of knowledge here and many quality contributions, but if SRF gets too crowded with this kind of nonsense, I'll step out, pure and simple.



__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 3

Status: Offline
Posts: 296
Date: Mar 1, 2012
Permalink  
 

Stargazer2006 wrote:

Your pic depicts the Texas Helicopter M79 Hornet, based on a Bell 47.

Incidentally, I almost picked that one yesterday for my challenge before turning to the Creek!!!

1091535?AWSAccessKeyId=1XXJBWHKN0QBQS6TGPG2&Expires=1331769600&Signature=bj%2FTIIgzzWDaJg662GBgMS2LHRA%3D


 

You're up, Steph!!!!! smile



__________________

Vince Johnson - A merciless enemy but a powerful ally.

                           dragonfire1.gif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

OK, I'll bite.  That looks to be an AH-64A doing a drop test with a M261 19 shots 2.75 inch FFAR rocket pod.  So I guess it would be a JAH-64A since it is a dedicated test vehicle.  That just seems too easy.  I'm missing something, right?

   Ray



-- Edited by rotorwash on Friday 2nd of March 2012 06:19:37 AM

__________________


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Okay, here's one that didn't really get a separate designation, but I want some specifics. Let it also be said that some data about this particular airframe varies greatly according to sources.

 

NOTE: I have removed the registration in the photo to make identification a little bit more tricky...



Attachments
__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

OOH, not a Bell so I can play.

That is the second prototype for the commercial version of the BV-107-II sold to New York Airways/Pan Am. It is often referred to as "Tab 2." Once development was complete for the NYA birds, Boeing kept it around for further development tests, including this tandem wing project from 1965-1967. The idea behind this was to to try and reduce upper control loads and enhance performance. Each wing had some ground adjustment capability to improve the angle of attack and get better performance. They found that the right wing had to have a higher angle of attack than the left wing because of the disrupted airflow on the right side of the aircraft. In addition to the wings, the forward pylon was reduced in size and improved in airflow. In this picture, it is also sporting the 450 gallon (US) stub wing tanks used on the CH-113/CH-113A sold to Canada. This aircraft was also used to develop the aft pylon change used on the CH-46D. In 1970 this aircraft was sold to the Swedish Navy as a Hkp4B (04-064) to replace one they had lost in a crash. It was just recently retired and is now on display in the Flygvapenmuseum in Linköping.

I'm guessing that's enough info.  i'd love to take credit for it, but a fellow ARCer posted it a while back after I put up the pic and just copied here.

  Ray



__________________


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Ray, you did it again!

Allow me to add some information on that bird.

---------------------------------------------------------

Boeing Vertol Model: 107-II (some have it as BV-107-II-2, others as BV-107-II-2b)
One source claims it was constructed as a V-107-IIA-SM-4 by Kawasaki Heavy Industries and then sent to Boeing Co., Morton, PA
Number of seats: 20
Number of engines: 2
Construction number: 11 (or 10, depending on the sources, but 11 is likely the correct one)

Registration type: Corporation
Registration date: 3 May 1962
Registration number: N6679D
Owner: Boeing Co., Morton, PA 16881
First flight: 11 May 1962
Retained by Boeing for certification testing

Some sources claim N6679D was then painted in USAF titles for suitability trials with USAF Texas Towers in June-July '62. However, these sources also describe it as the BV-107-II prototype (c/n 10) so it is unlikely that it was N6679D, which is said elsewhere to have been the second prototype. However, during Dec 1962, Boeing also sent a pre-delivery New York Airways BV-107/II-2 to Otis AFB for suitability trials, and this could very well be N6679D (it sported a registration in N667_D with one figure unidentified).

20 April 1964: Crashed in Asheville, North Carolina, on a certification test flight (reason for loss of rotor efficiency unknown). Damage was described as "substantial."
Repaired and extensively modified with four stub wings, reduced forward rotor pylon, taller rear rotor pylon, circa 1965-67 to the configuration shown in the photos.

Later modified again by Boeing into BV-107-II-15
U.S. Registration Cancel Date: 5 Feb 1970
Del to Swedish Marinen in 1970
Designation: HKP 4B
Swedish registration: 04064 (Y-64)
27 Jan 2003: minor accident, repaired
Last known operator: Swedish Armed Forces Helicopter Wing
05 Dec 2007: Last flight at Berga-Linköping
Current location: Flygvapnet ("Air Force") Museum, Malmen Airport (ESCF), Linköping, since 2010

Ray, if you seen any inconsistency, feel free to say so!!



Attachments
__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Well as I said, the info is from a fellow rotorhead, but since he worked with that aircraft, I'm assuming he's got his facts straight.  Looks like you have thought a lot more about this bird than I have so I'll defer to you on this one.

 

Here's my next one.  I want the proper US Army designation for this bird.  Anything else you can give is good too.  ID on the gun would be a bonus.  There is info on the web on this mod, if you know where to find it.

   Ray

 

Mystery%25203.jpg

 

 

mystery%25204.jpg

 

 



__________________


Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Doh!  Way too easy I see.  Oh well, on to you, Travis.

  Ray



__________________


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 3528
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

You're correct. I should've known how easy that would be!



__________________

lllll   As of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3   lllll



Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 3528
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Model 500P, early 'Quiet One' used by Air America?



__________________

lllll   As of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3   lllll



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Travis,

  The bird I posted was an NOH-6P, but i looked up the desiganations again and 500P was also used for that aircraft so I apologize, you had it figured out a while back.  Good job!  Keys to ID are combination of high skids, 5 main rotor blades, old style V-tail, 4tail rotor blades and the antenna beneath the taillboom.  This was what the CIA did with the Quiet One after ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) ceased funding the project.  On to you.

   Ray



-- Edited by rotorwash on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 04:03:17 AM

__________________


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 3528
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Okay then, no prob. Can you tell me what the antenna is for? Some Japanese OH-6Ds carry the exact same kind.

My challenge coming up in a minute.



__________________

lllll   As of 2019 I have transitioned; My name is now Rei. Please don't deadname or misgender me, thank you. <3   lllll



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Stargazer2006 wrote:

Ah, too easy! That's the Conroy HeliGuppy, a projected derivative of the Sikorsky S-64.

As for the NOH-6P, Ray, I almost said that but I had a different bird under that designation so I prefered to keep my answer to myself. See attachment:


 That is the same airframe I believe after the TSU and FLIR was added.  Both images were taken by Hugh Mills and both are indicated by him to be NOH-6Ps.  

   Ray

 

Here's you another pic of the NOH-6P in that configuration in flight.  This pic was originallly published in a 1985 Army Aviation Digest.

NOH-6P.jpg

 



-- Edited by rotorwash on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 04:32:06 AM

__________________


Former Deputy Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 881
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Okay, that's a Vertol design developed with NASA for the U.S. Army, only as a scaled-down wind-tunnel model, and presumably with the purpose of studying the aerodynamics of tilt-wing designs and their advantages over other VTOL configurations.

I'm attaching another pic of it.

 

But hey, Ray!? Isn't this supposed to be the topic on variants? What is this one a variant of?!



-- Edited by Stargazer2006 on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 05:25:38 AM

Attachments
__________________

Stéphane



Veteran Member - Level 2

Status: Offline
Posts: 238
Date: Mar 2, 2012
Permalink  
 

Stargazer2006 wrote:

Okay, that's a Vertol design developed with NASA for the U.S. Army, only as a scaled-down wind-tunnel model, and presumably with the purpose of studying the aerodynamics of tilt-wing designs and their advantages over other VTOL configurations.

I'm attaching another pic of it.

 

But hey, Ray!? Isn't this supposed to be the topic on variants? What is this one a variant of?!



-- Edited by Stargazer2006 on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 05:25:38 AM


 You guys seem to play fast and loose with topic titles so I figured it would be OK.  I'll be sure to find an obscure Huey variant next time!  Looks like you're up.  The model was to study both VTOL and STOL principles.

    Ray



-- Edited by rotorwash on Saturday 3rd of March 2012 05:35:06 AM

__________________
«First  <  14 5 6 7 813  >  Last»  | Page of 13  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard