Slashdot Mirror

It's an unavoidable part of the learning process. When you build a machine that does something that's never been done before, there are always going to be unforeseen problems. That is how you learn that these problems exist and ways to overcome them. The scaredy-cats who would keep us mired in the stone age will rant about the risks and the dangers. But people with long-term vision will pull us along the path of technological advancement. The V-22 Osprey's safety record is actually better than the HH-52 Seaguard (most recognizable as the previous-gen Coast Guard rescue helicopter). Both were built in similar numbers (about 200 vs 175), and operated a similar number of years (about 25 vs 30).

The thing you have to keep in mind about the press is that most of them absolutely suck at math, science, and statistics. That's why they went into journalism instead of STEM. Analyses they make tend to be based more on emotion than on objective data. If they're faced with a choice between an enticing story vs boring numbers which contradict the story, they will run with the story and downplay the numbers.

It's an unavoidable part of the learning process. When you build a machine that does something that's never been done before, there are always going to be unforeseen problems. That is how you learn that these problems exist and ways to overcome them. The scaredy-cats who would keep us mired in the stone age will rant about the risks and the dangers. But people with long-term vision will pull us along the path of technological advancement. The V-22 Osprey's safety record is actually better than the HH-52 Seaguard (most recognizable as the previous-gen Coast Guard rescue helicopter). Both were built in similar numbers (about 200 vs 175), and operated a similar number of years (about 25 vs 30).

The thing you have to keep in mind about the press is that most of them absolutely suck at math, science, and statistics. That's why they went into journalism instead of STEM. Analyses they make tend to be based more on emotion than on objective data. If they're faced with a choice between an enticing story vs boring numbers which contradict the story, they will run with the story and downplay the numbers.

It's not that far-fetched to wonder if maybe we didn't steal, buy or reverse engineer some of that technology from the Russians, helicopters are in their DNA after all, and the Black Hawks are made by a company named Sikorsky...

Igor left Russia in 1917

Sikorsky, who fled from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917

. Sikorsky aircraft is no more Russian than McDonald's.

How fast is Apache, then?

309 km/h http://www.helis.com/70s/AH-64_Apache.php

They did - along with amphib ships and helo carriers. You can check this article for a decent list. Look at the paragraphs just to the left of the Chinook photo.

Actually I don't think it's much different of the beginnings of flight in the States and many other countries.

It particularly reminds me of the Argentine inventor Augusto Cicare, who learned aerodynamics and helicopter design by trial and error.

http://www.helis.com/timeline/cicare.php
http://www.cicare.com.ar/index.htm

In the first link there is a picture and movie of the SVH-3 trainer, which is a grounded helicopter that performs like a real one. Without any sophisticated virtual reality system heo made a exact physical representation of helicopter flight. And it's perfectly safe.

Sure this guy would find helpful to use high-tech methods of fabrication and inspection, but there is a lot of things you can do even with limited resources. Good luck to him.

Ever heard of ARPANet?

Yes. The peanuts spent on it is what the defense needed -- much like the highways system, as originally envisioned. Modern Internet is built by private enterprises.

Every city, every state voted as a community to build roads.

... with the federal government money... Every lawmaker adds this pork to legislation they sponsor and to their campaign promises: "I will fight in Washington for more money for our roads!"

I'm not talking about user-friendly. I'm talking about energy-efficient.

Do you realize, how much energy is spent on road building and maintaining? On detours? On bridges and tunnels? A trip from Brooklyn to midtown Manhattan can take from 25 minutes at night to 65 minutes during a day (without major traffic jams). Flying directly across the river would take 10-15 minutes. With today's 'copters running through 20-30 gallons per hour, that's 5-7 gallons -- more than a car trip itself, but less than the car trip, plus the road building. Not to mention the time saved.

The link, I gave above, shows the private R&D of just one little company, which in 1964 already had a decent home-made machine. If the market was not killed by the government-driven investment into cars and roads (complete with bailing out the struggling car-makers), we'd have my dream device long ago...

A helicopter would need the engine running to stay in the air. [...] any engine failure would be a life or death situation.

Not necessarily, actually. Even in todays helicopters engine failure does not always lead to "hard landing". We will have the personal flying apparata some day, and people flying them will wonder, how we ever drove on the ground -- with all the cost of the roadways, and the high fatalities of car-to-car and car-to-pedestrian collisions.

I'm not sure, how exactly the safety problems will be addressed in the future, but I can foresee the emergency chutes for the whole cabin, catapult seats (you can catapult even from a plane on the ground now), and compressed helium to instantly inflate a big balloon and slow down the fall. All of these technologies are too bulky and pricey today, but so were the airbags and radars just a few years ago (radars are now available in cars with the "adaptive cruise control").

Actally, every helicopter pilot is taught how to land if their engine fails. As long as the helicopter is 100 feet off the ground or going faster than 30 mph, even with catastrophic engine failure, it can still land. It is called autorotation

But what do we do when the current supply runs out? Fitting ordinance which is no longer manufactured when we do not have the means to manufacture it ourselves seems pointless.

I looked into the torpedo thing. It looks to me like Australia is buying US MK48 ADCAP torpedos. That is the standard US sub torpedo. If that is what is being bought, that will be around for a very loooooong time.

the forty year old sea sprite helicopters are being delivered in a year or two.

Found them. It is a helicoper that was originally designed almost 50 years ago, but has been regularly updated. It looks like they are still being made. The US Navy still uses them. New Zealand bought some too, and they seem to think they will be a powerful addition to their fleet. I don't think that I would we sweating that one too much either..

lot has been written as to why the M1 tank is not suitable with small mobile forces

For a small, mobile force, the real question isn't Leopard or M1. The real question is: tank or something else. Tanks are heavy, including the Leopard, and that is the real killer when it comes to mobility, especially by air. The M1 and all of its contemporaries (Leopard 2, Challenger, Le Clerc) are all too heavy to move by anything but the largest aircraft. The Leopard 1 is only marginally better. If small and mobile is what is needed, then it is time get get something like the AMX-10RC. I don't think that will happen though.

For what its worth, the Australian Army wants a force that is capable of combined arms operations, which is reasonable. That generally means you want to have tanks available. If you are going to have tanks, they better be good ones given the increasing lethality of hand held anti-tank weapons. If you don't have good tanks, all you get is human torches jumping out of a brewed up tank.

Today, the Leopard is extremely vulnerable compared to the M1 in terms of armor protection. The M1 can hit and kill a target at a considerably longer range. You are much better off with M1s than Leopard 1s if you are going to have tanks. If you aren't going to have tanks, I will let you break it to the men in 1st Armoured Regiment.

Cheers.

One last thing. I'm not sure where you are getting your defense related information from, but as far as I can see from the quick looks that I took, your sources are not serving you well.

Andorion:
FYI, how autorotation works:

http://www.helis.com/howflies/autorot.php (with videos.)

~Berj

Wow! Thanks!

"The tricky part" is managing to keep it in the air at all.

It is way, WAY easier to make an automated flixed-wing airplane, which is why most commercial airliners ARE automated (can take off, fly to their destination, and land unaided), and have been for years.

Helicopters are a vastly more complicated technology, which is why even the US Army, which has the best and most advanced helicopters in the world, continues to suffer repeated fatalities from training accidents and normal operations.

It is a truism in the helicopter industry that "they don't fly...they're so ugly that the earth itself repels them."

Spend some time here How They Fly before you next post :-)

The blimps you suggest are actually a great idea. But I was really hoping that some of the advertisement money might be channeled into development of auto-flight systems. Nothing gets technology done better than profitable use. =)

Having said that, you might be interested to know the Discovery Channel featured a group who built an R/C helicopter that not only flies itself, but also lands itself onto a target through on-board optics. Granted the computer was still ground-based, but if there's a real use for ever increasing CPU speeds this might be one of them.

A bigger budgeted attempt at the same was done by Bell and the US Navy with the Eagle Eye. The demonstration craft was able to autoland successfully 10 out of 10 times, far exceeding the requirement of 10 out of 30.

Just because backyard enthusiasts haven't been able to do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

It's a wonder they were able to destroy the Baldwin's compound with such ease. ;-)

Next