Helicopter thread
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
For whatever reason, I have developed an infatuation with helicopters recently. Post helicopters (doesn't matter what type). Argue about which is best. (Ospreys too, I don't care if they're technically not helicopters) Discuss them so that I can absorb your knowledge.
>Primer question: AH-64E, yes or no?
>>29914267
>>Primer question: AH-64E
You had me at yes
NAVALISED
>>29914765
Step away you fat black bitch.
>>29914765
How do you "Navalize" a helicopter?
Moreover, why haven't the Marines been using Apaches?
Didn't wanna save the pic, here's an IDF Apache firing a missile.
http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.697157.1452672070!/image/1412475583.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_609x343/1412475583.jpg
>>29914926
Widening the landing gear, and harden it. Build components out of non-corrosive parts.
>>29914267
I have quite a few photo of the Rooivalk and other South African Helicopters that I shoot while at the Feb military week in Port Elizabeth.
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipML9sZduANWrZrYxqbF6TdDRH1A6J_HDcm8zO5mLvclUaW7NRpwGnzwTG6-2ISihg?key=YUxBRlBiUGVOOHZoTUhueDNpSE4wMldTUVZtNVVR
>>29914267
Apachebro here, threads off to a good start.
>>29916113
Are Apache's not NBC sealed?
>>29916133
The short answer is not totally.
>>29914267
So if the CH-53 can travel further than the Osprey, and carry more than the Osprey, then what purpose does the Osprey even serve?
>>29916157
Osprey is faster and has a 50% longer range.
>>29916194
V-22 combat radius: 390 nm
CH-53 combat radius: 460 nm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion#Specifications_.28CH-53K.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey
>>29916290
Um, no.
Range
V-22B: 879 nmi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey
CH-53E: 540 nmi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53E_Super_Stallion
>>29916290
You quoted the CH-53's range as its combat radius, even though it says its combat radius a few lines down.
(110 nmi)
>>29916194
God I love my country
>>29914926
Money,just like everything else in the Corps as it pertains to having shitty hand me down Army gear. They just don't get the same funding. Also has to do with the fact that the Cobra and also the Huey are already certified for being exposed to saltwater for long periods of time, whereas the UH-60 and AH-64 have not.
>>29916762
>uh60 hasn't been near saltwater for an extended period of time
Uh the navy uses them....
>>29916652
If you love it because of the shitefest that is the eurotigre then your love is misplaced my son.
>>29916762
Everything the Marines use costs more to operate than the Army
>>29916194
>>29916458
Thats flying at high altitude with zero load
You put the osprey with a load, flying at low altitude(its not pressurized), and the advantages start to disappear
I love the AH-1W, although they are getting quite old, they are pretty simple to work on, at least on the powerplant and drivetrain side of things. They swashplate throws a shit ton of grease, and they tend to leak a lot more than the UH-1Y. Pretty soon the Z will be the norm for the Marine Corps though, and we will never hear the Wop-Wop again :(.
hind memes?
>>29914926
From what I've seen, naval aircraft usually have the ability to have their main rotors folded or otherwise stowed to take up less room on the ship. When the Army landed Apaches on the flight deck, it usually confused the Sailors, because they couldn't be folded, they couldn't find the mooring points for chaining, etc. As a result, the Apaches took up a shitton of deckspace and the main rotors were flopping pretty hard in the wind.
It was pretty funny to watch the Navy try to figure out that shit.
>>29914267
>>Primer question: AH-64E, yes or no?
yes
>>29914843
Bump.
