First helicopter landing on Mt Everest

I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of this yet. IMHO, this isn't
getting nearly enough attention (here or in the media in general).

http://www.mounteverest.net/story/Fr...ay272005.shtml

"Peter Duniho" writes:

I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of this yet. IMHO, this isn't
getting nearly enough attention (here or in the media in general).

http://www.mounteverest.net/story/Fr...ay272005.shtml

Did it land, or didn't it? Apparently there is some controversy:

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=41844

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

"Chris Colohan" wrote in message
.. .
Did it land, or didn't it? Apparently there is some controversy:

Well, while acknowledging that there's certainly a question as to whether
the summit of Everest is even landable terrain, and as to whether the
helicopter did in fact support 100% of its weight on that terrain, it seems
to me that it's not being questioned as to whether the helicopter actually
made it to the summit, and that in fact is the real accomplishment.

Put "landing" in quotes if you like. It's still pretty impressive.

It would be interesting to know what the conditions were, after all gliders
have been over 49,000'

Mike
MU-2
Leaving for Everest 4/1/06

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chris Colohan" wrote in message
.. .
Did it land, or didn't it? Apparently there is some controversy:

Well, while acknowledging that there's certainly a question as to whether
the summit of Everest is even landable terrain, and as to whether the
helicopter did in fact support 100% of its weight on that terrain, it
seems to me that it's not being questioned as to whether the helicopter
actually made it to the summit, and that in fact is the real
accomplishment.

Put "landing" in quotes if you like. It's still pretty impressive.

Trouble is now climbers are going to expect a rescue capability that
practically doesn't exist in most summit weather.

It may not be possible to operate with two people aboard

Mike
MU-2

"nrp" wrote in message
oups.com...
Trouble is now climbers are going to expect a rescue capability that
practically doesn't exist in most summit weather.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
It would be interesting to know what the conditions were, after all
gliders have been over 49,000'

That's true. A wave could have gotten the helicopter above the summit, at
which point it could have simply glided there. However, I think it's
noteworthy that it did remain at the summit (whether it landed or hovered)
for a couple of minutes.

Besides, folks who pilot gliders over 49,000' are noteworthy too. That's
hardly a "walk in the park" accomplishment, even with good mountain wave
around!

Pete

Chris Colohan wrote in
:

"Peter Duniho" writes:

I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of this yet. IMHO, this
isn't getting nearly enough attention (here or in the media in
general).

http://www.mounteverest.net/story/Fr...persUtopiasumm
it-VIDEOMay272005.shtml

Did it land, or didn't it? Apparently there is some controversy:

http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=41844

Chris

Unless I misread the article, it seems that the issue is if
they had permission to land on the summit. Since they weren't
explicetly given permission to land on the summit, the attempt
doesn't count towards the record.

Kinda reminds me of the flap over the world land speed record.
Who broke mach 1 first? ThrustSST in 1997 or the Budweiser
rocket car in 1979? It's controversial to this day.

Well, I'm still damned impressed anyway, on both events.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

I was thinking more about ridge lift. I know that ridge lift has been used
to fly 152s over Mt Kilimanjaro 19,000+'

Mike
MU-2



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
It would be interesting to know what the conditions were, after all
gliders have been over 49,000'

That's true. A wave could have gotten the helicopter above the summit, at
which point it could have simply glided there. However, I think it's
noteworthy that it did remain at the summit (whether it landed or hovered)
for a couple of minutes.

Besides, folks who pilot gliders over 49,000' are noteworthy too. That's
hardly a "walk in the park" accomplishment, even with good mountain wave
around!

Pete

I don't think that wave lift is described as orthographic.

Wave is a gravity/compression phenomonon and ridge lift is just wind being
forced up hill.

Another distinction is that wave lift at mountaintop level is several miles
downwind of the mountain and ridge lift is upwind and immediately adjacent
to the lifting surface.

A great book on waves and soaring in them is Exploring the Monster which
chronicles the Sierra Wave Project in the 1950s.

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
I was thinking more about ridge lift. I know that ridge lift has been
used to fly 152s over Mt Kilimanjaro 19,000+'

Heh...I lump that in with wave. It's all orographic lifting, right?

I can see why some folks would prefer to not use the terms
interchangeably, or in a sub/superset relationship. I don't generally
make a distinction though; anywhere the wind is affected vertically by
topography, I refer to as "wave".

In any case, even if some meteorological phenomena was used (whatever one
might want to call it), it's still a pretty impressive demonstration.

Pete