Is MDHI going to make it?

I have to agree with "Helowriter" on the 500 being the better for the
ARH. Ask anyone in special forces. They refuse to give up their's. And
they have been offered anything they want. With the C47 and canted
tail, the 500's have all the power and then some.

And manueverbility, a 500 will do circles inside a 407. And going into
confined area's is a 500 specialty.

As far as survivability, the roll cage design of the 500 makes it the
best. Do a little research with the numbers at the NTSB site and you
will find out that if you have to crash, you want to do it in a 500.
One example was an engine failure were they did an auto to a ridge
line, then the helicopter after landing rolled down the hill. The
pilot and passenger walked away from it.

Bart, not sure what the slop limits are on the 407, but I have done
lots of 10+ degree slop landings in a 500 with no problems.


On Thu, 5 May 2005 07:22:45 -0400, "B4RT" wrote:


"Helowriter" wrote in message
I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good
one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat
helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407.

HW


I don't think so. I only have a little time in them, but the 407 is a beast
compared
to MDs Ive flown . They also seem more survivable from my limited
perspective.
The MD's auto like a brick and have such a high CG that uneven terrain
almost
ensures a roll over. OTOH We landed on a rock in Donner Pass in a 500 at
about
13,000ft once and I was super impressed with its ability to function well
that high.

Bart

I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

Have fun,

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

The program is for armed recon, not assault aircraft, correct?

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

I'd say the nimble characteristics of the MD500/530 would be an advantage
for the RECON bird.

Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Take care,

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Okay...I think of RECON as the Marines "Force Recon".

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Blackhawks?

Matt,

Blackhawks? Not likely. For the same reasons the Army uses Humvees
instead of APCs to ferry soldiers. It would be great if all US
soldiers could have the protection of an APC all the time. But because
of logistics and cost it is just not practical.

The Army learned a tough lesson in Iraq by not having enough Humvees
with adequate armor early on. This forced soldiers to develop
improvised armor from what ever steel plate they could scavange.

They won't make the same mistake with the ARH.

CTR

The other consideration with respect to the reconnaisance role is that the
McDonnell-Douglas designed mast-mounted sensor ball is, ironically,
incompatible witht the MD500 series but compatible with the OH-58D/407 rotor
system. It's a great asset in both the reconnaissance and "armed" modes.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

The program is for armed recon, not assault aircraft, correct?

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

I'd say the nimble characteristics of the MD500/530 would be an advantage
for the RECON bird.

Jim,

The mast-mounted sensor ball will be going away on the ARH. In its
place both the Little Bird and 407 propose mounting sensors on the nose
and belly. The mast-mount sensor ball was designed to site tanks and
other targets by poking above trees and other available cover in
Europe. This however leaves a blind spot directly below the aircraft.
For "Urban Warefare" what is directly below you appears to be more
important than ever before. Also the ball sensor made transport in the
C130s more time consuming on the Kiowas because it had to be removed.

Take care,

CTR

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

"Helowriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

I agree; in a conflict with a more sophisticated enemy (than were up against
now), the present day UAV's would be far too vulnerable.

Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for
ARH.

Why?