![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are frequent references to the crashworthiness of the Hughes/MD 500
series versus the JetRanger/LongRanger/407 series, to the detriment of the latter. However, if you consult the statistical record, the risk of serious injury per 100,000 flying hours in the 500 series is several times higher than that in the Bells. Much of that difference is attributable to the forgiving qualities of the old teetering head rotor system, but the stats continue to favor Bell even in the newer models. One reason for this is the greater probability of rollover in the 500 series, and a related problem is the greater risk of fire. Jim "Helowriter" wrote in message oups.com... The fact that the Army seems determined to get rid of the OH-58D says something about its perceived survivability in the armed recon mission. The 407 is a different aircraft, and with the new engine will be pretty far from an OH-58D, but at heart it's still got the crashworthiness of a JetRanger. UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat is still coming. Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for ARH. HW |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |